The British scientist and author Richard Dawkins does not differentiate between creationists of different religions in his harsh criticism of their influence on the education system. This time the target is the students in the Muslim religious schools, for whom he claims the Koran always wins in any debate with science
Muslim religious schools in Britain fill children's heads with alien rubbish, when they teach them that creationism is true, said Richard Dawkins, the scientist from the University of Oxford who is also known as the author of books on the fight against creationism, including the book "Is there a God?" In an interview with the Education Supplement of the London Times. This despite a decision by the British Department of Education that creationism should not be taught as scientific truth.
Prof. Dawkins told the Department of Education that it is part of the curriculum in all religious schools, but especially the Muslim schools worry him, because they teach that the world is 6,000 years old, states the BBC website.
According to the Daily Telegraph (as quoted in the news on the Daily Mail website) he described his impressions of Muslim schools he visited in Leicester. "Every person I have met believes that if there is a discrepancy between the Koran and science, the Koran wins"
"This is extremely despicable. These are now British children who fill their heads with foreign garbage." He said, explaining that the influence of the religious schools continues even when the students reach the university. "Oftentimes, my fellow lecturers at universities come across undergraduate students walking out of class when they talk about evolution. Almost always these are Muslims" said Prof. Dawkins.
The chairman of a secular Muslim group in the UK, Muslims4UK, Anayat Bungalwala said that it is important that religious groups study evolution fairly. "I don't believe that students studying today receive a good service in the way that the religious leaders are currently taking.
Whereas Sheikh Ibrahim Morga of the Supreme Muslim Council in Britain told the BBC that "religious schools were created to establish the belief that religion is our teacher of how to behave in life and creationism is part of the curriculum of our faith."
Richard Dawkins explains what evolution is on Al Jazeera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248
Richard Dawkins meets a Jew who converted to Islam
84 תגובות
Naor, you just took out the words I came to write about you!
Only instead of Judaism I would replace it with: Teva and a few other small corrections.
enlightened,
Who spoke about Judaism? What is the connection? When I say that you are using the word "logic" incorrectly, I mean, among other things, inserting gender into non-gender and irrelevant speech - just like the one you just demonstrated.
jubilee
The complete lack of understanding is yours. You are in a society that does not know Judaism at all. The society you live in controls your thoughts and it seems that you have no free choice. I was privileged to live in a traditional society that allowed me to look everywhere without any coercion. I did not come into the world with prejudices as is customary in ultra-orthodox society and even more so in secular society. I have no doubt that in the not too distant future our time will be taught in history classes with a great deal of ridicule because of people like you who still believe in the 21st century that the world developed without any intention at all. It is simply unbelievable how much you have been fed and how much you continue to feed others. The word logic has only one explanation and it is common sense without deviating after emotion (your prejudices).
enlightened,
The only fact I find here is your complete lack of understanding. Unfortunately, you are in a large and "good" company that uses the word "logic" incorrectly.
Dawkins is the best proof that evolution is nothing but a religion. Intelligent design is not a disprovable science. The intelligent design is a fact. Because logic does not tolerate the creation of one living cell without intention.
It is interesting that the insights about evolution appeared exactly at the historical point where we began to take exclusive control from it. I don't know if that means anything, because this is the time when thousands of other scientific insights appeared, but still.
I read it but I don't have the possibility to see the interview, maybe someone can tell me if Prof. Uman specifies exactly which mitzvah I need to keep in order for my Zionism to be passed on to the next generation? If I didn't follow all the Zionist rules, you won't pass, or is it based on percentages? If I keep, let's say, 80% of the mitzvot (only the logical and nice mitzvots like lighting candles and "thou shalt not murder", but not the nonsense of milk and meat and not lighting a fire on Saturday, etc.) so my children will have 80% marks?
I would not expect such irresponsibility from an economics professor, please immediately publish a table with the score each mitzva receives so that I can know exactly how much Zionism I am passing on and how many generations it will take until my descendants lose Zionism completely, have mercy.
(regardless of and maybe with)
Did you read it today?
Prof. Oman: Secular Zionism has no future
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4132861,00.html
RAM:
All the available studies indicate that evolution works.
Certainly, various events affect her significantly.
For example - the extinction of the dinosaurs tends to be attributed to the results of the fall of a large asteroid on Earth.
We know the story about the types of moths that natural selection caused them to turn black when the factories of the beginning of the industrial age blackened their living area.
A little less known is the effect that continental migration had on eel customs.
There are eels that migrate for reproductive purposes between Africa and America.
In fact, we have here "fossilized" evidence in the behavior of the fact that South America and Africa were once very close to each other.
And yet, to return to the original question. Are there studies on the limits of evolution? About the cases where natural selection falls behind due to external events stronger than it? For example a nuclear explosion. or global warming. Is there any research that quantifies the effect of such events on natural selection?
Michael, yes, definitely an agenda, we agree. I think the agenda is money and power, and not true faith in God. Yuval, the idea is the same idea that moved us this summer, to take to the streets, to demand a social budget, a more democratic system of government than the existing one, not to give up until we win, and so on.
A person:
There is a difference between tolerance and ignoring.
I am not making claims that this or that person believes in vain beliefs, but I think that setting him up for his mistake is a useful thing anyway.
I certainly have no reason to flatter him and tell him that his mistakes are right and precisely the truth is wrong.
RAM:
The source of creationism is not the recognition of the achievements of contemporary science.
Creationism exists even before these achievements were achieved and in fact its initial version is the version of religion and the vast majority of people who identify themselves as creationists are actually religious people who think that the use of the word in phrases like "intelligent creation" will allow them to create a false representation of knowledge that is scientifically based.
After all, what requires an explanation - regarding the creationists - is not why they think that intelligent creation is possible (because as mentioned - the scientific community itself thinks it is possible - otherwise it would not have tried to do this), but that despite all the confirmations for the theory that claims that evolution took place here (and not intelligent creation) - they We continue to believe that intelligent creation took place here.
Such a situation is not the result of rational thought: it is the result of an agenda.
To Michael Rothschild:
Make no mistake, I am completely on your side and I am an atheist.
I don't rely on these scriptures at all, but I do give them a certain historical respect, simply because I sometimes prefer the tolerant approach to the dismissive one. Even if it is nonsense in the juice.
I'll give you an example: I think Scientology is complete nonsense. But when I encountered Scientologists in Berlin who tried to read me using their device, instead of grinning in their faces I preferred to politely answer that I am not interested.
I believe that everyone has the right to believe what they want, as long as:
1. He does not claim that this is the absolute truth.
2. He does not force his faith on me.
3. There is support for his positions, and if not he is willing to listen to other opinions on the subject.
I share the aversion to the Jewish and Muslim religious world (and the Christian in some places) because they fulfill the above three rules. Which is a shame, because once upon a time the great scientists were clergymen.
ram
Right. So maybe you have ideas?
OK. So we have scientific evidence for the existence of evolution, and evidence from the science of our time that intelligence can create life, and improve existing life. From these data it seems quite clear to me why there are quite a few people who believe that creationism also created us.
The problem is, of course, that the various religious establishments use creationism to strengthen themselves, among other things at the expense of the broader scientific evidence. The struggle against them, such as the current social struggle, is therefore a struggle against those with power and capital, who wish to preserve the status quo. no more than that. This is not about heresy in science, or heresy in God. Just a (Sisyphean?) struggle against narrow interests.
A fascinating discussion - I recommend to all of you my new book "The Return of Korah" a Jewish fantasy about the plots of the lost tribe of Korah in our day.
Look for the book in bookstores - Korah's return.
I've run out of ideas too 🙁 If I were religious, I'd pray for a miracle 🙂
jubilee:
I have no other ideas because it takes two to tango.
As soon as there are communities that prefer to preserve themselves in ignorance - any attempt to overcome ignorance will lead to resistance and if the attempt is strong the resistance could be violent.
Legislation in a democratic manner cannot be effective in any case.
The slope is very slippery. Keeping the option of dealing with ignorant countries on the military level Necessarily Bring within a finite time for the outbreak of war. Dealing with ignorant communities within a country (for example with Muslims in Scandinavia) could easily lead to bloodshed such as the one we read about in the news not long ago.
Does your feverish mind have no ideas for other ways?
jubilee:
I only know what I can do and I have no confidence that the goal will be achieved.
As long as we are talking about ignorant countries - all that can be done is to deal with them on the military level in case they threaten.
As for those who cause confusion in society - the enactment of constitutions is necessary that will allow democracy to defend itself against anti-democratic trends and this includes, naturally, the separation of religion and state.
How to achieve this is a difficult question because where there are two Jews there are three opinions and where there are Christians each has two lives that he can submit alternately.
RAM:
But it is clear that there are all kinds of things besides evolution.
It is so clear that there is no point in telling this to anyone!
After all, scientists today are even engaged in the creation of new types of animals through genetic engineering and even in the synthetic creation of life through chemical means.
Do you really believe that there is anyone who thinks that reason has no effect on life?
How exactly do you "continue to fight ignorance" when the ignorant multiply at a much greater rate than the educated?
This is not just an Israeli problem. This is a worldwide problem.
RAM,
I think we see things eye to eye.
It is certainly not impossible, and we have been aware of this for thousands of years, that the products of one type of evolution will develop lines of evolution of other types. But this ability, to develop a different kind of evolution, is the product of natural selection according to Darwin and his successors.
Eyal:
Further according to Yuval:
And especially in (conventional) medicine, with all that it involves, such as hygiene in hospitals that lowered mortality, especially that of mothers and newborns, antibiotics, sanitation, identification of hereditary predisposition to diseases and adherence to a healthy lifestyle.
jubilee:
Continue to fight ignorance.
Of course, the most effective way is through the education system, but since it is also partially controlled by agents of Berat, the matter is not simple at all.
Yuval, yes, I understand about technology, and perhaps also social developments and a more equitable distribution of resources (just a guess, nothing more). The point that brought me to the current question is that the increase in life expectancy is one of the most dramatic changes one can think of, and at least on the surface it is not related to a process of natural selection, but to the process of shaping reality, and life, done by intelligent beings (us).
That is, according to what I see, evolution is a process of natural selection unless there is an external force, like us, that drives processes in an accelerated and more focused way.
Both processes can of course operate simultaneously. or not.
And please spare the natsos regarding the lovers of God and the like. The last thing I personally want to introduce into my world view is the nonsense that is pushed on us by the religious establishment. I'm just curious about this question.
ram
This is a story from a different evolution. The increase in life expectancy can be attributed, among other things, to the accelerated technological development.
A question that is not directly related to the article but interests me. How does evolution explain the rapid acceleration of life expectancy in the last two hundred years? Is it even supposed to explain this situation, or is it a figure outside the scope of the theory's explanation?
OK. I was convinced. But what do we do?
jubilee:
come on!
Your words are simply not true.
The monkeys are not scientists, and the humans didn't become scientists either until recently (and this is only true for a minority of them).
Both monkeys and birds have superstitions.
Their minds are limited in their flexibility and therefore their vanity beliefs are simpler but they exist and develop in exactly the same situations in which humans develop vanity beliefs.
If you read Dawkins' book Unweaving the rainbow you will see many examples of this.
Lies and deception also exist in the living world.
It is clear that with us - as creatures whose function is based mainly on learning and as those who use many powerful languages - the deception becomes simpler and with it the introduction of vain beliefs.
But language can also be used to instill correct beliefs and the reason why this does not happen lies not in the student but in the teacher.
A person (https://www.hayadan.org.il/dakins-call-creationism-in-islamic-schoole-alien-rubbidh-2110117/#comment-311347):
It is written in the Torah that Moses went up to Mount Sinai and received the Ten Commandments from God. Is it part of metaphysics or history?
It is written that the individual and the Tigris come from a common source. What does it belong to? Is there something metaphysical about it?
And what about raising the rabbit's immigration?
And what about the people who lived hundreds of years?
And what about the age when Sarah gave birth to Isaac?
And what about the flood?
And what about crossing the Red Sea and drowning the Egyptians in it?
And what about the sun in Gibeon Dom?
And what about 40 years in the desert?
And what about eating manna during that period?
And what about the land that swallowed Korah and his committee?
It is desirable that you give some clear criterion that the common people can use to distinguish between mysticism and history.
point
Assuming that religion is anchored in vain belief, where did we go wrong and why?
Yuval, religion begins with man's attempt to understand the world.
Humanity is sick. She is infected with a parasite whose signs are a strong tendency towards vain beliefs. This tendency may not be eradicated, because it is rooted in our genetic code, but we can try to treat its symptoms.
In my opinion, if we want to make a nice positive contribution to humanity, we must get involved in the treatment of this disease and maybe we will also succeed in eradicating it.
Thank you Yigal.
Your hypothesis is very acceptable to me.
In my response that has not yet been approved for publication, I present something similar:
"...phenomena of suggestion. We are mesmerized, we are influenced. Humans can deceive their friends, and they do it day and night. From history we know that a single person can drag an entire nation to destruction. Most people prefer the lie to the truth, and I'm looking to understand how this benefits the human race."
Yuval, it seems that you have raised an interesting point: the accepted explanations, which say that religious belief, including belief in gods, continues to exist as a result of children's absolute trust in adults and especially in their parents are not satisfactory since this claim does not explain the priority that faith has over logical explanations and its formation in the first place. In my opinion this priority is rooted in the evolutionary history of man who originated from social animals with a strong social hierarchy. The need for the existence of an alpha male in the "tribe" on the one hand and the desire to live in equality with members of their own kind created the need for something superior for everyone, and hence the short path to connecting man's soaring imagination with man's "creation" of God (of his kind).
Michael! Come on! really!
I went back and reached the monkeys. I found them preoccupied with survival and culture. I found that they work very efficiently and some of them even know how to use the tools successfully. They learn lessons and apply them. On their scale they are eminently scientific. I did not find vain beliefs there.
With us, on the other hand, I see phenomena of suggestion. We are mesmerized, we are influenced. Humans can deceive their friends, and they do it day and night. From history we know that a single person can drag an entire nation to destruction. Most people prefer the lie to the truth, and I seek to understand how this benefits the human race.
Forgiveness is no longer a matter of annoyance, but of frustration.
Quite a few of my debates with people on the subject ended with the fact that belief is simply comfortable for them, it's what they grew up with, and in the end no matter how hard I try to know and understand I will reach the decisive point (from their point of view) where I have to explain how the universe was created which is impossible so it's a pity for us the time.
And another claim I heard from a friend of mine, that even the most reasonable person in the world (meaning follows the path of the scientific method) who does not believe in a thing, in extreme moments of death will raise his head up and pray.
So yes, it's annoying that they don't appreciate what science has achieved so far, and there are so many things to explore and learn, even if it's just how the big bang was created.
And man is not a robot and there is a psychological aspect, but it's like talking to a wall.
In conclusion, these are people who are not thirsty for knowledge, and are not curious, that simply do not interest them.
I'm just interested in clarifying a point about the Bible as a history book that I brought up earlier: I don't think that the story of creation, the flood, God's revelation to Abraham, etc., etc., are history. No matter how they spin it, all the metaphysical passages in the Bible are fundamentally false. I was talking about the history of the Jewish people as a historical book. Please do not take my words out of context.
Regarding the discussion about the need for a divine being: it is much more convenient for the innocent humans to believe that they are doing things for a certain supreme purpose, and this is where the supreme being comes into the picture. In addition, religion is a very effective tool in the hands of the great religious priests in order to fool the masses who behave as a herd. Apparently at some point the clergy simply lost control of this manipulation themselves.
The people:
It is clear that the guide of the universe is wrong in his guidance and the formation of faith and religion is nothing but a byproduct of other qualities that really contribute to survival (like the fact that children believe their parents who are usually more experienced and therefore believing their words increases survival, and like the attempt to attribute a reason to everything and believe that if you can't find a physical reason then you can To have someone who caused the same thing - an attempt that usually yields a correct answer, and so on.)
Regarding the inverse correlation between intelligence and education and faith - I brought many links here even before Dawkins wrote his book.
Here are some:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
jubilee:
Don't you really know?
At their parents'!
If you go back far enough you will also reach monkeys who certainly knew nothing about science.
Somewhere along the way you will find - in the age before science - the period when religions were founded and in an earlier period you will find the birth period of the various vanity beliefs - all this - when the scientific option did not exist at all.
"The problem is with the parents who know the lack of religion and don't know enough about science"
And where did the problem arise for the parents?
to the guide of the universe,
If my memory serves me correctly, in one of Dawkins' books (I believe there is a God), he actually published statistics that among Nobel Prize winners there is a much smaller percentage than the rest of the population of religious people and also among biologists.
Again, I'm not sure I remember, but I'm curious where you got that data from.
Father, why is there no option to edit a message on the website?
No problem identifying by the author's name and IP.
Yuval and R.H.:
I have already written a great deal on this website about the evolutionary origins of belief in God and those of religion (these are two completely different things, when religion sometimes makes use of vain beliefs to give effect to its laws) so I will not go back and expand here.
I will add just one diagnosis in relation to a specific issue that came up here:
Why is it easier to make children believe the nonsense of religion than the claims of science?
I think the reason is different from those you mentioned.
The problem is with the parents who know the futility of religion and don't know enough about science.
The children simply believe what the adults tell them and they would believe the claims of science as easily as they believe the claims of religion.
The question is only what they are exposed to in childhood = the age of faith.
Even in school in our holy land, every child learns the story of the creation of the Torah as if it were true - and this even in schools that do not belong to the religious/Orthodox sector.
Few are exposed to the theory of evolution and that only at a much later age.
In the 19th century, people believed that as education expanded, the influence of religion would decrease. The more educated people become, the fewer there will be who believe in God. The communists also tried to get people out of their heads, sometimes by shooting the priest in the head.
Today we know that almost regardless of the level of education, about 30% of the people who are given freedom will believe in God or some higher power.
(When of course closed religious communities like Bnei Brak or the Amish "force" people to believe.)
This leads me to assume, or to hope, that in the future it will be discovered that the belief in a higher power was some kind of development with a certain survival advantage, and it is genetic.
for life:
We will wander to life!
Cheers, cheers!
In the Torah it is also written that the hare chews the cud and that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source.
R. H.,
I am afraid that I have opened a Pandora's box, and thank you for your willingness to try to close it.
It is possible to make it difficult and ask why we are afraid of death if it is our lot anyway, and find Darwinist explanations that allow for this as well.
The fear of death can be soothed through the belief that death is not an end but a transition to another form of life (for example, death is a type of sleep during which the dreams are nothing but life in the next world). And since the life of man, who is a rational creature, is managed by a factor over which man has no control, it is easy to throw human-type intelligence onto this factor.
But this kind of assumption cannot be put to the test of refutation and it is not tenable, because man lives only once and cannot return from death and report what happens in the next world. It is not scientific and in this sense it is not rational. Most people prefer the irrational to the rational. This phenomenon exists not only in questions of religion, and my question is what is the Darwinian factor that leads to this.
I base my assumption, according to which it is easier to instill in a child a belief in nonsense than scientific knowledge, on the difficulties children encounter in understanding math operations compared to the love they have for practical stories. When the child grows up and becomes a boy and a man, there is a great chance that he will already continue in the same direction he entered as a child.
R.H., see here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viizQikRpps&feature=related
jubilee,
In my opinion, religions were created out of fear. First the indisputable fact that only man probably understood and that is that one day we will die. The second thing from incomprehensible phenomena, suddenly comes a storm that destroys the village, suddenly there are 7 years of drought, suddenly comes a conqueror. All of these led to belief in higher powers that run the world. It is very difficult to accept that everything is casual and there is no meaning behind the things.
Since this thinking is fundamentally irrational, questions like you raise "who created the Creator" are not relevant. However, note that other cultures, for example Greek mythology and others definitely explain the origin of the Creator.
I do not agree with you that "the process of acquiring knowledge of the Holy Scriptures for a child (for example, as the priests of Anat did for King Josiah) is much easier and faster than learning sciences". I don't think that a religious boy who grows up and continues to study in a yeshiva works less hard or invests less than a student, so that's not the reason.
point!
point.
Yuval, Freud talked about father replacement.
There are several psychological explanations for this.
A question for Dawkins or any other ordinary Darwinist:
How can one explain with Darwinist tools the fact that the majority of humanity prefers the belief in an intelligent creator?
In other words: as Dawkins pointed out, the belief in an intelligent creator does not actually give any explanation but only diverts the question from "Who created the world?" To "Who created the Creator?". Why do most people prefer this logically flawed argument? What are the processes of natural selection that lead to the creation of such a large mass of irrationality?
I believe that most of humanity is driven by urges to obtain immediate profits. The process of acquiring knowledge of the Holy Scriptures for a child (for example, as the priests of Anat did for King Josiah) is much easier and faster than learning sciences. I would love to hear other opinions (Darwinist only, please. I will not address others).
Sorry - found
Cheers, I noticed chapter XNUMX in Genesis. Light was created before the sun.
In my opinion, the exact translation for the spirit of things should be: alien garbage, aliens' garbage, or aliens' nonsense.
In my opinion Dawkins, not for nothing, chose the term alien.
Dawkins is known as a strong opponent of religious influences on society, especially of extreme Islam as it is
has been active in recent years and here he attributes to extreme Islam in Britain a danger similar to an alien influence
on British society.
I think he is also right.
We in Israel are also in the middle of similar dangers from the ultra-Orthodox groups.
But while in Britain the influences are from external (alien) groups, here the danger is from internal groups,
As it is said - your destroyers and your destroyers will come out of you - in the inner meaning of the verse!
You mean the ignorant reader who doesn't try to hold on to his beliefs to the best of his ability.
The Bible is full of fantastic gibberish.
The commenters here should refer to the facts.
Islam is a jumble of unrelated nonsense. I read the Koran thoroughly. It contains a number of basic things. 1. Preaching to murder. 2. Most of it is a jumble of nonsense. He mixes Moses with King Solomon and with Jesus, the Messiah of the Christians. 3. It has a very large amount of leftover verses from the Bible.
4. The Koran is not a history book like the Bible. 5. Obligation to observe what is written in it. Whether it was or not, your judgment is decisive.
On the other hand, pay close attention to chapter 6 in Genesis. It is divided into XNUMX periods (days) which correspond to today's scientific history. There was no Rolex watch at the time, so each day was actually measured in millions of years.
For example, Ed (fog-the earth is cooling), grass (plants and photosynthesis), large crocodiles (dinosaurs) and last of course is man. Even later, logic rules.
In Prussia, the Tanakh is a book of history and in order to preserve it, they turned it into a religious book. It is a fact that it succeeded.
Therefore, to the ignorant reader, things look unscientific.
The equation that most strongly determines the laws is the "nightmare" of democracy (the tyranny of the majority, etc.), in a democratic system there should also be laws that protect minorities. After this has been said - the difference between Mr. Point and those ultra-Orthodox is that he sees the laws as something subjective and open to change (pragmatic) while they are fanatical, and believe in a fixed system of laws (which is not really fixed, but they believe it is fixed and that's the emphasis) given to them (given to them) ?) by God, they don't accept your right to influence the system of laws, it was given by God and is perfect (I'm talking about the fanatics among them).
That is, you are required if they control to obey their laws while they are not required to obey your/the country's laws.
By the way, this also embodies their potential for violence in my opinion - which laws do you think will enforce the most violence and determination, "holy" laws given by God or relative laws enacted by humans and open to changes and circumstances?
What is right? Each group looks after its own interests. The mafia had its laws, and the state had its laws. A law is a law. That's how it's always been. Just because someone is a majority does not make them more right. Only for more powerful (he also needs sophisticated weapons to be powerful).
The mafia also has no police to protect their laws.
I finally understood why the mafia is violent.
nothing to say. They are right.
really? You should have seen who the police sided with.
Regarding ultra-Orthodox violence, I think it's unfair to compare.
The secularists have someone who will carry out the violent actions for them (the police).
The ultra-orthodox have no police to protect their laws.
For Michal,
Everything is fine and dandy regarding psychological tendency etc...,
But it is important to remember that in science there is actually a willingness to accept new paradigms if they are confirmed, even if in the beginning there is overwhelming opposition, then science progresses from this (and the postmoderns will forgive me for using the word advanced), see the value of the whole neutrino story and the enthusiasm with which it was received (even if cautiously, which probably proved itself).
per person,
The Bible is not subjective history stories, it is stories of mythological peoples...
There is nothing historical about the creation of the world in 7 days or Elijah's ascension to heaven (for that matter).
This does not make it without "historical" value, you just have to remember that what is described in it is not what happened (and not even what the people of the time thought happened), it is more what the people of the time when the Bible was written or edited (and not the time it is narrated) wanted to write that happened .
Regarding letting children choose, it's good and beautiful, but not in a vacuum, you need (in my humble opinion) to raise them as inquisitive and curious people so that they can make a truly informed choice whether or what to believe, otherwise to my friend it's just fear of "killing their tooth fairy".
I personally have no problem with other people's beliefs. If they are willing to believe all the mumbo jumbo of all kinds, then good luck to them. But to brainwash children at a young age that creationism is the absolute truth? I can't stand this anymore.
If humans weren't so anal, they would let children grow up with a neutral head, instead of deciding for them what they should think. I, personally, look at the books of the Bible as subjective history books and nothing more. But I will never tell my children that. that they will believe what they choose to believe.
Father - I'm sorry to hear that. I really meant the macro. You know, hijacking planes and blowing up buses..
Tzviran, I myself witnessed the violence of Haredim, including in my neighborhood Ramat Aviv C.
A collection of nonsense and steams of people who expelled them from the university when they started believing in creationism, it lacks only one thing - some kind of examination of whether creationism is indeed science. This is what Dawkins parodied http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3ttj6JFBU
xianghua
I didn't make it. Do you have a link or can you summarize it?
The people - as a kind of natural selection, most people who read the article on the current website will not really be upset. This is because it is a site that addresses a certain intellectual level. Such a level that rises on the same scale as open-mindedness and atheism.
The people who don't read this article here (we'll call them "the common people") are the ones who would be upset if it were and they would read it.
My father - the difference between Muslim fanatics and Jewish fanatics is the more violent attitude of the Muslims. The religious Jews of the world (fanatic or not) do enough nonsense even without being violent. Their power is peer pressure. Examples: circumcision, establishment of educational institutions that teach ignorance to children and establishment of yeshivas for religious students (instead of doing national/military service), degrading treatment of women, xenophobia, etc. These are just examples I pulled out now. I hope the message was clear anyway.
Luke - those rabbis completely distort science as they please in order to silence criticism and push their garbage in an apparently (!) more "scientific" way.
Michal - the fact that there are still holes in our understanding of the world through science does not mean that we must immediately flee to belief in creationism. At least the scientific side does recognize its weakness and also tries to understand every day that passes a little more of the way the world works. So we still don't know what dark matter is. This is not a reason to reduce the value of science and compare it to legends of tribes from thousands of years ago. Science has at least resulted in there being a discussion about what dark matter is. Without the scientists, you would still be sure that a solar eclipse is because God is angry, the sun is the one that rises and sets around the earth (which is flat after all), the flu is a terminal disease, the world has existed for several thousand years and the only animals in the world are a pigeon, a donkey, an aton and a sheep Created for us to eat them..
R.H., did you get to watch the movie expelled? Those who watched it cannot remain indifferent.
As for Dawkins, come on.
He became the Amnon Isaac of atheism
Returns in the question masses with the same methods, apparently there is no other way
Container,
You are contradicting yourself!
On the one hand you claim that science is a fixed religion with blind faith and on the other hand you describe how more facts are constantly being discovered that create more problems.
Who do you think discovers, thinks, tries to find new theories and new attempts to resolve the contradictions?
Do you think there is one physicist in the world who is comfortable with having two theories that contradict each other? Do you know how many theorists and experimenters are racking their brains to solve this? Do you know how much money the Zern accelerator cost that was created just to solve physics questions? So how can you talk about "fixation" and "blind faith". If there is a sector that is really open to new ideas and is the least fixed of all, it is the scientists. I'm a little tired of hearing this thesis day and night that scientists are fixated on evolution, the big bang, etc. It's just one big piece of nonsense.
Science is also a religion no less than official religions.
Because it is clear that the blind faith in paradigms rooted in different sciences is very similar to beliefs in religions.
Humans tend to adopt inclusive concepts and paradigms according to which they can interpret reality in its various manifestations.
For example, the theory of relativity in its two parts has become an unquestionable concept.
This is despite the fact that for many years there has been no way to combine it with quantum physics.
And in addition, after it is now agreed that there is dark matter that no one knows how it behaves and what it is composed of.
Recently it became clear that the apparent mass that dark matter contains does not tend to concentrate in the nuclei of galaxies but rather
to scatter especially this has been tested in dwarf galaxies.
Apart from that, astrophysicists agree on the existence of dark energy. No one has a clue how to adjust it
to the existing paradigms.
A little over a century ago there was a similar situation, they thought that the physical models covered the entire field of knowledge
Except for a very small number of problems.
Apparently, this situation is going to repeat itself in the coming years.
Precisely in Judaism there are rabbis who support evolution over creationism and even these are central rabbis
to accumulate,
I hope you are wrong and that not so many would resent it...
I thought I knew English... now I realize I know mostly American. It's a problem to change the title (because of Google).
To my father Blizovsky
There is a mistake in the translation of the word rubbish. Although the direct literal translation is "garbage",
But in the context of the English-British language it means "nonsense", similar to the American "bullshit".
to accumulate
I, as well as many other good people, will not be offended even if you replace the word "Muslims" with the words:
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Druids, Baha'is, Rastafarians,
Worshipers of stars and zodiacs or worshipers of the Satanic cult.
In the field of religion versus evolution, they are all the same rubbish, and this time I mean its literal meaning.
Indeed, he also does not like that the Jews teach creationism and he even discussed the issue with an important rabbi from the Jewish community, but still the fanatical Jews are a serious problem for us, but the fanatical Muslims are a serious problem for the whole world.
What's funny about this whole story is that surely everyone who reads this news here will say "That's right, he's right." The Muslims teach rubbish". The thing is, if we change the news in one word (and it will still remain completely true), a lot of people will be upset.
"Dawkins calls creationism taught in Jewish religious schools: foreign garbage"
Creationism by Muslims or Jews - either way it's garbage. Anyone who argues against Muslims but is in favor of Jewish "supremacy" is a hypocrite.
No he's crazy, they're crazy...
Blood in his head. what is crazy
Dawkins always said the obvious and became famous for it...
There are almost no new roofs... He argues with idiots and then apparently his opinions (which are true without a shadow of a doubt) sound smart...
Why is he so famous? From the age of 9 I thought like him... and he didn't change anything for me (I'm not talking about the meme, of course, but about his opinions that published him so much...)