In the coming week, a proposal will be made in the Council of Europe in Brussels to protect the studies of evolution
Next week, the Council of Europe, the main body for human rights on the continent, in which 47 countries are members, will discuss the proposal to protect the studies of evolution, and to leave the positions of creationism and intelligent design out of science lessons in schools.
This unusual step probably stems from the concerns of European politicians, who are facing religiously based attacks on the theory of evolution. The main attackers, Christian and Islamic faith groups, were inspired by the trend in America, which has been facing such attacks for years.
In a report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), it is stated that the roots of the attacks against evolution are "forms of religious extremism", and that this is a dangerous attack on scientific knowledge.
As we know, creationism teaches that God created the world, and all the creatures in it, exactly as described in the Bible. Surveys conducted in the United States show that half of the population agrees with this theory, while most Europeans support the theory of evolution.
15 תגובות
The complete answer, which appears to be evolution, the Torah has no explanation, is fundamentally flawed and shows that what you learned about the Torah is more or less what children are taught up to the age of majority
The secret theory clearly talks about evolution within the species, that is, about minor changes that occur within the species itself in order to adapt, and it also explains the issue of "similar" animals such as monkeys and humans
So I don't have a problem if what you claim is about science because I'm sure you've researched it and tested it enough to be sure of it, the only problem I have is the fact that you pretend to understand what the Torah says about something without taking enough time to research it like you researched the science
We urgently need to publish the theory of evolution, not in scientific writings, but to have it written more simply and convincingly.
The creationists say things like "everyone can see that evolution doesn't exist" and that's how they convince people that evolution contradicts reality.
In my opinion, if there are short articles that explain to the common man why scientists are convinced with certainty that evolution took place and how everyone can see evidence of evolution all around them, it will be as clear to everyone as the earth revolves around the sun.
To David,
The philosopher who came up with the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
And the idea itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
I have not read the article itself, but the idea in my opinion is very beautiful and can be used today as a symbol of various mystical beliefs.
No. Ben-Ner
I actually claimed that the genetic homologous comparison (and also the anatomical comparison) are decisive evidence for the correctness of the theory of evolution. But we are not dealing with observations as you suggest.
Unlike religious teachings, evolution according to Darwin can be disproved and is therefore indeed a scientific doctrine. Given unlimited conditions of time and monitoring means, if you prove that the species do not change over time - you will disprove natural selection. One small contradiction is enough to disprove the entire Torah. Moreover, if any adaptation of a particular species, which you observe in nature, cannot be adequately explained by natural selection, you can argue against its truth.
This is the reason why, in my opinion, it is so strong and has faced countless claims and blows over the years. (The last sentence is subjective, I know).
Although the theory of evolution is built on axioms from which it can be concluded that it operates according to circular logic. Nevertheless, evolution is a realistic scientific theory, which can be put to all the tests of science: measurable evidence and observations, the duty of proof, the principle of refutation, etc.
Even if it is not possible to implement all of them.
Why don't I think that evolution can be reconciled with religion in one submission? Natural selection works on random mutations (selection itself is not random!) and therefore divine intention (or intelligent planning) are not consistent with the assumptions of the theory.
A second and less important point is the settlement of the motif of time (thousands of years versus billions of years) and the laws of the Torah contradict this. Of course, the religious laws must not be contradicted or refuted! Additional sub-points include the creation story etc.
In any case, these points already depend on the religious teachings. And another religion, dynamic and which welcomes criticism, can find an answer to them. Nevertheless, the essential contradiction is the problem of "intention" as I mentioned.
I would love to know where to read about the "Russell teacup" mentioned here by some commenters
Every year during book week, I search with candles for five or six books on scientific topics such as astrophysics, mathematics, evolution, etc.
Every year I am amazed anew by the increasing amount of bullshit literature (crystals, chakras, shiatsu, reincarnation and such nonsense).
I thought to Tommy that with the entry into the new millennium and the accelerated progress of all sciences, there would be a drift from the delusional to the rational and the weakening of fanatical religiosity. Looks like I was wrong and it's a shame...
to apostate
You try to "defend" the theory of evolution by claiming that it has observational support and that is very nice. I am sure that most people in the western world, myself included, who were educated on the ideas of modern science, feel, intuitively, that evolution is "correct", that is, evolution describes in a "true" way the development of life and the development of species.
On the other hand, I point out, in my previous response below, dated 25-06-2007, a basic logical fallacy (!!) in the formulation of the theory of evolution. I will try to explain in a vigorous shorthand: 1] The basic requirement of any scientific theory, which can be tested experimentally. That is, to prove its incorrectness. 2] The theory of evolution is formulated by a sentence with "circular" logic and therefore, by definition, cannot be expanded.
(Kfir: Point No. 3 for the definition of evolution, in your response below dated 26-06-2007 corresponds, more or less, to the definition of evolution in my previous response dated 25-06-2007)
The (embarrassing) conclusions from the above are: 1] The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory but a theory that cannot be proved and therefore does not need proof.
2] The theory of evolution does not contradict the "religious Torah" and therefore the two teachings; evolution and religion, can be born in one subordination, that is, they can be sister.
And finally a note: I believe that the religious establishment will be able to "swallow" the theory of evolution more easily, if a way is found, within the theory of evolution itself, to separate the discussion of the "human" issue from the discussion of the "animal and plant" issue; And maybe even completely "cleanse" evolution of the homologous aspects. After all, you also claim that all the evidence that confirms evolution is not from the homologous field.
No. Ben-Ner
Natural selection according to Darwin is based on three assumptions: 1) there are differences between individuals (hereinafter referred to as genetic mutations that occur from time to time) 2) the individuals multiply (that is, they give continued generations) 3) there is natural selection (the changing conditions of the environment - and the environment includes competition between different species and within the same species.) Any system that meets these conditions will undergo evolution.
It is scientifically testable. The limitation as I said is the very long period of time required for an experiment / observation. Many experiments were carried out in the evolution of bacteria and proved that they underwent far-reaching changes, but bacteria do not undergo sexual reproduction, therefore the reality test is apparently insufficient.
and to your question. How do you define Torah? According to the dictionary, a theory is a scientific theory, and therefore there is no difference in terminology.
Torah is also defined as a set of principles in a certain scientific field or even according to memetic logic as a set of axioms.
The "theory" of evolution includes a number of ironclad assumptions as I mentioned. The answer to these assumptions can easily be given in nature, so there is no need to assume that these axioms fall on us from the sky (forgive me for the sting).
My vague conclusion is that evolution is both doctrine and theory.
The doctrine of evolution underlies all life sciences and all modern biological thinking relies on it, whether we believe in it or not. (Scientists wearing caps also use the term "homology").
I treat it as a solid fact (in evidence, from continuous fossils to genetic homology in every tested trait) and to this day they have not been able to contradict it. But that's my opinion, because I have to agree that evolution in action is hard to follow.
Hope I was of help, Kafir.
PS: I wrote earlier that any system that meets these assumptions undergoes evolution. In other words, culture also responds to these conditions. And here a certain cultural custom or a set of customs is passed on to subsequent generations, undergo changes and also struggle with others and therefore undergo selection.
to "Russell's Teacup"
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of change from sex to sex as part of active observation, due to the limitation of generation time in sexual reproduction. This is because since the theory of evolution was published (or rather, good tools for evolutionary research were developed) not enough time has passed to qualitatively track a change from one species to another.
There are indeed countless examples of changes that have taken place within a species over the years (such as the famous example of the English moth that changed its color from white to black to camouflage itself following the industrial revolution).
On the other hand, look around you, there are many supports for the theory of evolution. See, circular species. For example, seagulls in the northern hemisphere. Small genetic and phenotypic changes can be observed when moving in one direction around the Arctic Circle. Each race of seagull in a certain geographical location is capable of interbreeding with its neighbor. Nevertheless, races that are geographically distant from each other are unable to interbreed and are therefore already defined as a different species. In a certain area where the starting point and the ending point of the circle are, you can find two neighboring species of seagulls that are completely different from each other!
I can give many more examples…
Leosu - that was the title in the original news, but I'll think of something.
Abby, I want to protest this misleading title. Please change the title of the article here and on the main page to something informative and accurate, such as the title of the article in the address bar.
Darwin's theory is not scientifically correct! It does not stand up to any serious scientific test!
The proof: Genesis chapter one
The roots of evolution are not precisely in Darwin, the roots are deep in ancient idolaters, and with all the beauty of the idea of evolution, there is no proof of change from species to species, despite all the gossip about change within the species, no evidence can be brought.
The answer to this is amazing in pashto. The theory of evolution cannot be slapped!! Evolution is based on a sentence that is so logically solid, that an observational experiment is not needed in order to formulate it as follows: "In changing environmental conditions (!) only the species whose characteristics will match the "new" conditions will survive. Species whose characteristics will not match the "new" conditions will become extinct. ". As mentioned, this is a sentence with a "circular" logic and as such cannot be expanded upon!
This is exactly the "painful" point for the "clergymen" because the religious faith also claims to be based on a "circular" logic that "cannot be resolved" as follows: "The laws of religion are divine (ie: given by God), God is victorious, therefore the laws of religion They are victorious" and as a result of this: "The person who believes in the laws of religion, holds the eternal truth and justice, which cannot be broken" and as a result of this "he who does not believe in the laws of religion, his (other) belief is a lie and a sin...."
From a logical point of view, religion can be born in one subordination with evolution through the following conjunctive sentence:
"God created evolution" or in other words: two "circular" theories that cannot be flowered, cannot flower one the other and therefore both are true and therefore there must be a "joint sentence" expressing at least the logical "lack of contradictions" between them.
In a framed article it can be said that evolution has a "moral" advantage
Most significant according to the religious faith being "objective", while the religious faith is "pretending" to be "objective" and pretends to be "divine" while everything (and more precisely almost everything, including most of the "believers in religion") know that it is nothing but fruit The creation of man; and presented to everyone as "divine" for "marketing" reasons.
Why then will the religious establishment fight evolution with such fury??
In my opinion, two main reasons (although there may be other reasons). One: the rigid, conservative nature of the establishment and the religious worldview, which stem from the fundamental concept that "the laws of religion are complete and perfect" and therefore should not be changed. The second: the sense of existential threat that religious people feel, in relation to their religious faith, whenever a "truth" is revealed that is "not written in the Torah".
History shows that religion, if it is an object of life, will be forced to recognize, sooner or later, the validity of the "theory of evolution"
And to finish my question has no solution: is evolution "Torah" or "theory"?
Does democracy and public opinion determine the correctness of one theory over another? Doubting the theory of evolution is tantamount to doubting the fact that God orbits the sun. Russell's teacup idea occupies a prominent place in today's mysticism. Are we entering a dark age in which alternative medicine will replace conventional medicine? An age in which idolatry will break into our lives under the cloak of such aesthetic teachings And others? What I'm trying to say is that we don't need to look at what's happening in fanatical religious regimes. It's enough to look at what's happening in our surroundings - in the cultures of apparent progress.