The Ministry of Education in response to the request from the website: "The subject of evolution is studied as part of extended biology studies (Unit 5). Also, the Pedagogical Secretariat is currently examining the expansion of the topic to additional age groups"

269 תגובות

1. another one,
   You've said that opinion and fact have the same status so many times, it's really puzzling that you deny it. I thought you had already internalized your mistake and that's why you stopped arguing with me about it, but I understand that this is not the case.
   You can repeat as much as you like that learning the facts can be propaganda but that is not the case. Studying facts is not propaganda in any form, even if there is an ulterior motive, as long as one does not take the facts and make false claims about the facts or draw false conclusions from them. In addition, I referred to your claim of demagoguery (which is true) and wrote that of course one should not ignore the silent testimony or hide doubts, etc. I've written this so many times that I'm really surprised you don't get it. You continue to claim that studying facts can be propaganda and I explain to you that your very claim proves that you do not differentiate between opinion and fact and for proof I brought the definition for the word propaganda from Eben Shoshan, from where the definition was written on Wikipedia and you denied it (!) and in fact admitted that you use a different definition for the word, that is You invented Hebrew for yourself in which there really is no difference between opinion and fact and this is the way you justify yourself. I showed you that the definition does not contain the word fact but only the word opinion and you responded by saying that you took a course, as if that's why I should surrender and thank you that you exist.
   A fact is not an opinion and the concept of propaganda is not relevant to it. For some reason, you don't get it.

   I will add and say that the stated goal of the education system is to change worldviews because if this were not the case, there would be no need to study. The whole idea of ​​an education system, any education system, is to fight ignorance and this will happen, first and foremost, by conveying the facts to the children accompanied by a critical discussion that will provoke questions arising from the natural curiosity that children have. The fact is not interested in public opinion. I explained to you that I am not interested in what a group of religious people want to be taught in the schools, because it is a disaster for the education system and Israel: about half of the students in grades XNUMX-XNUMX are forced to study material that will make them poor when they become adults because of the political pressure of the religious. This is a disaster of the first order for them and for us and we have already explained it to you, but this is a secondary point to the point of my words: studying facts cannot, by definition, be propaganda, even if there is a hidden agenda that is not reflected in the study itself. By the way, if the facts themselves scare the religious so much, then what we are all doing, those who proactively prevent the study and we who agree to this (especially you) is: abusing the helpless.

   If we talked about facts then, in the context of schools, one should not be careful in using the word fact. In this context, evolution is a fact just as quantum mechanics is a fact. We are talking about the schools where they teach only the basic facts: fossils, dating, splitting of species, changes observed in bacteria, genetics, etc. (what will be decided by the professionals whose opinion at this point is overridden by political power and people of your kind). Nothing here is speculative. If there is a researcher who claims that the chimpanzee is the ancestor of man, and he has interesting claims, the teacher can mention this, if he gets into the thick of the matter of the ancestor, but in any case, science does not contradict the idea of ​​the ancestor, so this is, for us, the fact that should be told to the children. Just for the sake of comparison, we all know that Newtonian mechanics is not correct in the extremes, but that does not prevent us from teaching it to all secular Israeli students as a fact and that is perfectly fine, because it is correct enough in the context in which it is applied. Evolution in this respect is even more "factual" than Newtonian mechanics.

   I conclude, according to the second part of your answer, that you are so ignorant of what the young students (lower grades) learn in the Torah that it is amazing that you dare to make claims about the studies. You also cringe and roll your eyes when you think that the children are being told about the envelope, that is, about the origins of the Torah book. That's not what they learn. You will understand, most of the students in the shrinking secular education system (I'm not even talking about the state-religious or ultra-Orthodox education, of course. The situation there is terrible from this point of view), in the second grade, hold a ceremony to receive a Torah scroll, in a synagogue (!). They are dressed in white, sitting there excited, while the mothers are separated from the fathers, and receive lectures about God and the importance of prayer. The Torah book, the content itself of course, is given a special status. The students learn about creation and hear the word God so many times during their years of study that they are sure that God exists and that he created the world and that he is our father and mother and nowhere do they learn that the Torah was written at such and such a time, by different authors and this is the reason why there are several stories of creation , several versions about the "Ten Commandments" and that there is not a single shred of evidence that any of the Torah stories ever took place. Ask any parent with children in lower grades what exactly they learn and what the children think about God or in short, learn the facts (that you are so afraid of) before you argue.

   I would like, at least for comparison, to hold a science book acceptance ceremony for them at the Weizmann Institute, because that is what a country that desires life does and I find it poetic and ironic that on the day Joseph died, the Higgs theorists received a Nobel Prize.

2. What are you talking about?
   What is generic about what I said?
   You misinterpret what I write, and then use it to attack my arguments.

   At no point did I say that fact and opinion have the same status, (although, in science, one should be very careful with the word, 'fact')

   So I'll repeat that again:

   If teaching Torah in a school with the aim of bringing children closer to religion is a form of indoctrination or propaganda.
   So teaching some science in order to keep them away from religion is also. very simple.

   It doesn't matter if the content is facts, stories, opinions, or lies. What matters is the goal.
   At no point in the definition of indoctrination or propaganda or propaganda, is it necessary that the content be only an opinion, a fabrication or a lie.
   All that is needed is that the goal be to bring a certain opinion or a certain worldview - to spread in the target audience.

   Just like secularists would not want to pay with their tax money for lessons aimed at bringing their children closer to religion.
   Religious people would not want to pay for classes whose purpose is to distance them from religion.

   That is why evolution studies at a young age, which are promoted by atheist groups, look bad from their point of view - because from their point of view (rightly or wrongly) it is an attempt at indoctrination or atheist propaganda.
   indeed,
   If someone's goal is to promote evolution studies, to young ages, to all children of Israel, with the aim of keeping them away from religion. So he is no different in this respect from anyone who wants to promote Torah and Bible studies with the aim of bringing them closer to religion.
   ------
   Now the thing with 'facts', the facts in the theory of evolution are the findings, which is fossils and observations of living things.
   The Torah itself is a good scientific model that explains the discoveries well and can give good predictions in some cases.
   This model, as good as it is, is not exactly a 'fact' - because it can always be improved.
   And also because there are substantial debates on some of the issues within it.
   A debate (which may have been settled by now) is about the relationship between humans and chimpanzees. - Most of what I've seen says that most researchers are quite convinced that chimpanzees and humans originate from a common ancestor - but I was in a lecture by at least one researcher who explained that there are also indications - from genetic research among other things - that show that the ancestor may have been the chimpanzee itself.
   The reality is that in the end, your only 'facts' are that one scientist thinks this way, another scientist thinks that way, this fossil was discovered there, this observation of bacteria was made here, genetic research confirmed this theory, etc...
   This is what is called in simple language, 'information', or 'information' and this is what is conveyed in any form of communication, such as studying.

   What are the facts in the Bible profession?
   That such a book exists, that it has existed for more than a thousand years. which is part of the religious literature in Judaism.
   And where laws, songs, Jewish mythology and some ancient history are written together, most of which is difficult to verify with other findings.
   The fact here - is that the book does exist - and indeed all these things are written in it. And as long as the teacher does not say that everything that is written did happen - and only teaches what is written - as much as is written there. So he teaches 'facts'.

3. exactly

4. ??

5. There's nothing like a generic phrase that doesn't mean much to end an argument

6. More competition, and more choice can greatly improve the education system.

7. another one
   There is no difference………
   If the state decides what is worthy of a voucher - then what have we changed? Even today there is a certain freedom for parents, and not so little freedom....

8. There is a difference between education and brainwashing.
   I also prefer to give the responsibility for a person's actions before him - and then see how his environment slaughtered him.
   I'm talking about education of information - and not indoctrination of opinions.

   And if anything it strengthens my claim - in your two examples the one who brainwashed the young people was the government and not a private business.

   - Even with the voucher system, the state will decide what is worthy of a voucher and what is considered education and what is not.
   I just want parents to have more choice - both in terms of the subjects studied and in terms of the school itself
   In my opinion, everyone will have a better education this way.

9. another one

   I said that the country is in a terrible state, in my opinion. And the main reason for this may be the poor level of education in Israel. All, for example, the entire social protest... timeout is too precious for them...

   Regarding food - no, you don't eat what you want. You eat what is available in the shops. And what is available is only what the state approves as fit to eat.

   And now the dumbest sentence I heard today... "But education is something that has no effect on others." It's so dumb it's not even wrong :). Do you really think the German people were fundamentally evil? Do you think the Arabs hate us because of genes? What's happening to you ???

10. Miracles
    you wrote:
    "And again... there is knowledge that is mandatory. Without it there is no country."
    If our education system, which is not too good, has not summarized this knowledge long ago - and there is still a country, then this knowledge is probably not really mandatory.
    Anyway, people decide for themselves what they eat right? They don't need a food ministry to tell them what to eat.
    They also decide what they study in higher education - they are not obligated in 3-4 years of degree studies as part of the compulsory education law.

    Taxes are part of the duty of every citizen - not a right - so it is probably something that has no choice.
    The road belongs to all of us, so the state will determine the rules of conduct.
    Even when you build something, you affect the neighbors to a certain level - so here too there is room for certain limitations.
    But education is something that has no effect on others. And in my opinion, if we introduce some competition and private initiative into the industry - we will get a significant improvement for everyone.

11. another one
    You asked me what is important. This is my opinion. I never claimed that the education system in Israel is good. on the contrary.

    Why can't everyone pay taxes as they see fit? And why doesn't everyone drive on the road as they please? And everyone will build as they please?

    I suggest you read the American Declaration of Independence to understand why there is a government.

12. So today in a country that according to all evidence still exists,
    Literacy is indeed taught (roughly) - in an elementary school.
    They teach "citizenship" - which is the gibberish on duty that the official on duty eight chose for political reasons.
    They don't teach basic statistics - at least I didn't and I did five units.
    They don't teach basic economics - it's half of a choice average.
    They teach much more than basic calculus.
    -----------------
    In general there is a lot of history and everyone has misconceptions about what should be taught and what should not be taught - so in my opinion it is better that everyone can decide for themselves - in any case there is internet and notebooks for those who are interested - and those who are not interested - they will not listen in class either.

    Literacy is learned in elementary school - and I don't think there is a place to privatize elementary school - at least not in the foreseeable future.

    Statistics and economics as mentioned are not really taught and it is more likely that they will be taught in a private rather than public system at the moment.

    Students learn basic calculus from first grade.

    You forgot - English - it's quite important to teach it.

    – ————————–
    By and large, I believe that in a privatized system (with vouchers) the majority will learn more things, more important and better. at a lower price. This is the nature of the free market - it is more efficient than the government.

13. another one
    the history Read and write. citizenship. Basic statistics. Basic economics. Basic account.

14. Miracles - what would you consider a profession that everyone or the majority must know or the country will be destroyed?

15. Nissim did not write that the debate is stupid...

16. another one,
    I addressed all of your arguments on this topic and refuted them one by one (another). I have demonstrated to you how you are using the word propaganda incorrectly in this context (and which, puzzlingly, you refuse to accept Ibn Shushan's definition of the word). I demonstrated to you that because you claim opinion and fact have the same status (from your own words!) you reach wrong conclusions and I asked you to admit your mistake. I understand that your mistake stems not from a writer's mistake but from a worldview and when you are required to change worldviews it is difficult but try and you have done a whole course on the subject and you still haven't realized that learning the truth itself is not propaganda unless you wrap the truth in opinions(!), which I never asked him to do In the classrooms, Darshani says. Go to your lecturer and ask him whether studying facts without hiding silent testimony, without hiding the doubts, etc. can be propaganda and we'll see what he says. Not everything is gray. Sorry.

    I do not enter into the debate of the privatization of the education system and by and large, I support Nissim's opinion.

17. I will repeat the response because there is a page jump:

    Miracles
    There are indeed things that the majority need to learn otherwise we will all be in trouble.
    But just so we can be sure what we're talking about - are these specific things you're talking about?

18. Studying evolution is not propaganda, if it is taught from a purely scientific angle
    And without introducing a biblical context that contradicts it or the opinions of religious people

19. You're right about that, I don't know how I got them confused.

    You can hope until tomorrow, but you refuse to accept or even address my arguments so I stop this debate.

20. another one,
    You were wrong again: Yosef wrote that the debate is stupid and not miracles (maybe Nissim wrote it somewhere but not on this page). In any case, studying evolution is not propaganda and I hope you will not use this argument because it is not true

21. Shmulik.
    Nissim is right, this discussion is quite stupid.
    So I will stop him. And who is Yosef?

    Miracles
    There are indeed things that the majority need to learn otherwise we will all be in trouble.
    But just so we can be sure what we're talking about - are these specific things you're talking about?

22. Yosef,
    I am trying to explain to another that to claim that studying facts (and thereby evolution) cannot be called propaganda. This is important, because in our crazy country, it makes sense to compel children to study Torah from the second grade, but to teach only a few students the principles of the theory of evolution, and when such a proposal comes up, people rally against it, beyond the immediate suspects and the eyeballs who declare that the study of evolution is all propaganda . This should be opposed

23. another one
    And again... there is knowledge that is mandatory. Without it there is no country.

24. another another
    I have shown you that this setting is made of lily stone (check it out for yourself). Because of this, all websites cite this definition. It is clear that the definition contradicts your definition, completely and that is why you bothered to tell that Wikipedia's definition does not oblige you

25. Stupid debate: what is propaganda?
    What is the bottom line here and where does it lead?

26. I did a whole course on propaganda and psychological warfare.
    if it's worth anything.
    Wikipedia is not an authority for anything and in any case it does not contradict me.

27. another one,
    But you are certainly no better authority than Wikipedia and the debate, at no point, was whether evolution is true and certainly what they will be taught in schools are the most basic facts.
    Since you keep trying to hit the wall, here are more definitions for the word propaganda, from other websites:
    Wiktionary: http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%94
    A form of communication in which some political opinion is disseminated intended to sway public opinion.
    Evolution is not a political opinion. is a fact.

    Morfix and Bilon use the same definition from Wikipedia and Bilon uses the definition of a lily stone, so the definition written in Wikipedia is from a Shushan stone, a higher authority than you for the interpretation of the Hebrew language.

    Here is the definition of propaganda from Wiktionary: http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94
    "Aggressive and widespread dissemination of any opinion with the aim of swaying public opinion."
    Evolution is not an opinion but a fact.

    Well, are you willing to admit you were wrong?

28. Shmulik
    First of all - information is simply the content that passes through communication. Information can certainly be incorrect, or unrealistic information - this information is a very general term.
    Second thing - surprisingly I don't use Wikipedia's definition to define propaganda, what to do, the language is not defined by Wikipedia.

    As I explained facts can be a means of propaganda just like opinions, fictions, or lies.
    Propaganda is simply a form of communication in which one party tries to convince many other people of some ideological or political position. Just as an advertisement is a form of communication in which one party tries to get many people to buy some product or service, an advertisement - which is very similar to propaganda - can use facts to convey its message.

29. another one,
    So don't answer or admit you were wrong.
    You wrote that facts are information and opinions are also information and this is simply not true and this is what I am trying to explain to you over and over again. You wrote here your definition of propaganda and I showed you that it is not correct. This is a fact. That you continue to insist that your definition is correct demonstrates why opinion is not fact and does not have the same status.

    The facts have a different status because they do not depend on anything and they are not propaganda in themselves and I explained to you that even if there is a motivation to keep people away from religion (and there is not, in Israel there is the opposite motivation) but all they do is just teach the facts, it is not propaganda either because nothing is said Nothing that is not true, nothing was hidden and silent testimony was not ignored.
    Hence, studying evolution cannot be atheistic propaganda. do you agree with me

30. And it is in the clear interest of the poor to have as many businesses as possible that can employ them.
    My method should improve education for everyone!
    The rich currently get a good education anyway. They have private education even now.
    I want private education for everyone! It will make it better for everyone! More effective, more educational, and more flexible to the demands of the parents.

31. another one
    Sometimes you are so young ….. It is in the clear interest of the rich that the poor will also be well. The problem of Islam in the world stems precisely from this misunderstanding. One of the ways to fix the problem, and perhaps the best, is to improve education for the poor. Your method is very bad.

    In relation to psychometrics, the problem is not only the money, even though it is by definition theft with a license. There are more successful, more just and cheaper methods. This is another sign of the deterioration of the country...

32. Shmulik
    The discussion has already moved to other places and you continue to insist here on this debate.
    If you have something more to say, try not to repeat what you have already said.
    This is my response:

    Facts are information, opinions are information, lies are information, measurements are measurements, fake stories - this is also information.
    'Information' is what passes in any form of communication between a person to a person, a person to a group of people, a person to a machine, a machine to a person or a machine to a machine. Propaganda is a form of communication whose purpose is to convince a large number of people of an opinion or worldview. The information conveyed in propaganda does not have to be false.
    What differentiates propaganda from just passing on information is the motivation of this communication - that is, if you pass on information to a wide population with the aim of influencing their world view or their opinion - then it is propaganda.
    It doesn't matter what you do say or what you don't say, it doesn't matter if it's facts, opinions, stories, or lies. What distinguishes propaganda from propaganda is the goal of the information distributor. that's it.

33. another one,
    I don't care to go back to the base again and again and say that you are wrong again and again and in this case, I am right.
    From end to beginning:
    You are wrong and I explained to you why the example of "Ben Yair" does not represent our eyes and it is because he ignores the silent testimony, meaning he only tells part of the truth, but this is not the case regarding evolution. Science does not tell only part of the truth but the whole truth and only the truth. Science rests on the ethos of transparency, reproducibility of results, peer review, etc.

    Regarding the definition, you are wrong again. You brought a definition for the word propaganda and I showed you that your definition is incorrect. It's that simple.
    Here is your definition again: "Propaganda is the distribution of information, false or not false - with the aim of promoting some agenda"
    Here is the real definition again: "Propaganda (sometimes the foreign term propaganda is used) is a form of communication, in which a calculated distribution of political ideas is made among a wide public, with the aim of influencing their behavior or attitudes"

    The only way the two definitions can come together is if "political ideas" = "information" and this is exactly your claim and here is exactly your fallacy: for you the facts are actually just a political idea and therefore the facts have no different status than just an opinion. That's why you're wrong and that's why your accusation that studying evolution is atheistic propaganda is ridiculous.

34. Father, my response is quite short, why isn't it received? Could it be that I used the word "warm" there that prevents automatic zone?

    Shmulik,
    As I explained before, you can use facts in propaganda, and you don't have to give conclusions later.
    And that means that the correctness of the details in the propaganda does not change whether it is really propaganda or not.
    But I won't convince you of that, and there's no point in continuing the argument.

35. Shmulik, if you repeat the same wrong mistake several times, you will no longer be right.
    Propaganda can use facts to convince people of the views it is trying to convey.
    Let's say if Michael Ben-Ir of Otzma Israel were to run broadcasts in which he only reports on crimes committed by infiltrators/refugees from Africa - he blasts announcements about it and much more. - When each of the cases described there are real - it would still be propaganda, right?
    So factual or not factual is not relevant at all to determine if something is propaganda or not.

36. another one,
    Aren't you tired of making mistakes? You wrote: "Propaganda is the distribution of information, false or not false - with the aim of promoting some agenda"
    This is not true. Here is the definition of propaganda again, from Wikipedia:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94
    Propaganda (sometimes the foreign term propaganda is used) is a form of communication, in which a calculated distribution of political ideas is made among a wide public, with the aim of influencing their behavior or attitudes.

    What is not written in the definition? The word "facts" is not written in the definition and as everyone can read and see, your definition of the word propaganda is incorrect. You are not speaking "Hebrew" (because propaganda is not in Hebrew) when you write this word.
    In addition, this further strengthens my opinion of you: with you, facts and opinions are given the same status, and this is exactly what I wrote, and that is what your argument is based on, and therefore it is wrong.
    Do you agree with me?

37. Indeed, vouchers for children are better than a general allowance.
    But I think forcing equality is often a bad idea.
    Parents who want to invest money in their children's education - this is blessed. Not something to be avoided. That's how it is in a free country - some have more than others. They eat better, get better medical care, live in bigger houses, and they get a better education. History proves that any attempt to force Shavin both fails and makes the lives of the majority miserable.

    As I said, the state's vouchers will not be free money - they will only be given to schools that meet certain conditions - that is, they will study a number of core subjects and the like. Schools that deviate from the core at a certain level will not be eligible for a voucher or part of it, and those that deviate by a lot - will not be considered for education and the parent will be considered a neglectful parent.
    That is, for example, ultra-Orthodox who send their child to religious studies without core subjects will not receive the voucher - but do not consider neglectful parents, parents who do not send their child to school at all or send him to a completely delusional school - will be in trouble with the welfare authorities. – for example.

    Just as the state does not feed children for their parents in large dining rooms 3 meals a day - but will still punish parents who do not feed their children enough or too much - the same will be with education.

    -
    post Scriptum
    The problem with the psychometric test is that it is a test that receives a score in relation to the other test takers, and it is not by me but by very specific abilities and skills that can be honed with the help of studies to a certain level - therefore this industry is problematic for the poor.

38. another one
    You only strengthen my argument, that your solution will not improve equality. Those who have money will study better. It's like this idiotic thing called psychometrics: those who have more money have more chances.
    The only way I see is to define a minimum threshold of knowledge and learning, which everyone is obliged to learn. You didn't answer me at all on this issue, and I don't think you have the opportunity to answer - in a democratic country there are issues that everyone must know.
    It can be done better, and your idea is interesting. I would use it instead of child benefit. A family receives vouchers to purchase things for children, such as medicine, clothes, toys, and also education. Nowadays - it seems to me that most of this money goes on cigarettes...

39. Another one and two - calm down.

40. You want to deny people a choice and for the government to get an absolute monopoly on it.
    For the state to have absolute control over what children learn during the day.
    And that's because some will have a less good education than others.

    This is socialist or communist thinking.
    Why do you claim that you are not like that?

41. Another one below is a quote from your words:
    "B
    Are you a communist by any chance?"
    In the face of such a question there is no room left for serious discussion.
    One can only ask:
    another one
    Are you a troll?

42. I talked about the voucher system, where a parent receives a voucher from the state, he chooses a school that meets the requirements in the voucher-worthy law, and then the state pays for the studies at this school - the difference is that there is competition here.

    Why do you call private studies "pirates"? Even today they are completely legal.

    The reality is that even today the state doesn't teach any of these things, they don't teach skepticism, they certainly don't teach "love of country" (and as a right-winger I tell you that I wouldn't want them to teach something like that in school, people have to understand such things on their own).
    There is no reason to assume that they will learn less things in private schools - and there is a good reason to assume that they will learn more things in private schools (there will be competition, a bad school will not receive a dose because it will not have many customers).

    Even today, those who have money can send their children to a private school. Or do you want to ban that too?

43. another one
    What I'm claiming is that even with your method, those who have money will be able to finance private (ie: pirated) education. This education is not "recognized" (although in your method it is not clear to me what recognition in studies means), but it will definitely give an advantage in entering good schools.
    True, it still exists today. What I am saying is that your method does not solve any problem. but on the contrary. It will "produce" citizens without basic knowledge that the state needs. Like for example, the knowledge of how to be a skeptic, when not to believe what you are told - advertisements, politicians, charlatans, religious people (I already said it....). Like the love of the country (without it the country will fall apart even faster).

44. ב
    Are you a communist by any chance?

45. This is one example of many.
    Answer:
    Yes.

46. ב
    This is not an example
    Question - are you in favor of banning private study by law?
    Close all private schools and ban private teachers?

47. http://hakeshet.tripod.com/education.htm

48. ב
    Why? Do you have an example of what you are talking about?

49. Competition is not a bad thing in itself. (Jealousy of writers breeds wisdom).
    Competition instead of education is a very bad thing.

50. Let's say that they really teach "competition" in private schools and not in public schools. (I really don't understand why you state this)
    Why is competition bad?

51. "What is taught in public schools that will not be taught in a private school?"

    The question is the opposite:
    What is taught in private schools that will not be taught in a public school?
    And the answer is:
    competition.
    Throughout human history, private schools have taught competition.
    They taught people to compete with each other and try to beat each other.

52. B, you intervene out of context in the middle of an argument.
    Nissim talked about "pirate education" that would help rich people enroll their children in good schools.
    I mentioned that such "pirate" education already exists in the sense of private lessons and I mentioned that parents are allowed to enroll their children in private lessons.
    You interpreted it as "they can register" and decided to point out that some don't have the money for it. But that's not the point.

53. Then?

54. So? Many parents have money.

55. Because they don't have enough money.

56. ב
    What do you mean no? Why not?

57. "Why today parents can't hire a private tutor to improve their child's chances?"

    No !

58. Of course, changes will be gradual.

    Even now the ultra-orthodox learn what they want, to me it seems a bit uninteresting to teach another population something against their will.
    If the financial support for them decreases, they will have no choice and they will have to look for more professions that can be hired well - in any case, there are enough ultra-Orthodox in high-tech as well.
    Poor areas get bad education anyway and rich send their kids to private education if they want anyway too.
    Think of it this way - in food we have a free market right? No one finances mass dining rooms where the entire population goes and eats what the "Ministry of Food" dictates to them and food is a very important thing, more important than education.

    There are enough ways to help the poor - vouchers, additional welfare support. Allow scholarship holders to give tutoring, personal commitment of wealthier children in higher grades. and so…

    What is pirate education? Or the institution is recognized and will receive a voucher - it is not recognized and then it is actually like a class or a private teacher.
    What day parents can't hire a private tutor to improve their child's chances?

59. another one
    The problem is what they will learn. The problem is not the silent majority. The problem is the ultra-orthodox, for example, who even today for the most part do not contribute to the state. Their education is extremely poor - the evidence is that they are unable to understand the need for military service. And let's not talk about issues such as the treatment of foreigners, the preservation of the environment, democracy, the treatment of women and so on and so forth.
    That alone completely invalidates your idea.

    There is another problem. You will give each person the same amount for education. What will happen is that inevitably people will line up for the good schools. These schools will choose those with the highest chance of success. Therefore - there will be difficult entrance exams for these schools. The result will be - those who have money, will organize pirate education to improve their children's chances.
    Again... the method will hurt the weak.

    What needs to be done, in order to be practical, and not just an anarchist, is to propose gradual changes in the existing system.
    see you….

60. I'm taking biology in high school and I'm very interested in the subject, but my teacher told me that they don't study the subject at school.
    I think it's really brainwashing. Digging for 11 years about the Bible and the creationist approach is perfectly fine, but about evolution? Nada

61. Miracles
    The one who will determine what is important and what is not will be the parent of each child who will send him to study a certain major in a certain school.

    The training of a teacher will be determined by the institution that employs him - who will be interested in having a full occupancy of clients and attracting the best clients he can.
    Indeed the existing method is not good enough and I believe that what I propose will significantly improve it.
    It is not clear to me how this will destroy the country. What is taught in public schools that will not be taught in a private school, which is so critical that the country will be destroyed so quickly?
    What has been proven over and over again?

62. another one
    It is not me who determines what is important and what is not. And neither are you. Who will determine who will learn? What is the training of a teacher? the country? - but then we return to the original problem.

    The existing method is not good enough and needs to be improved. But what you propose will destroy the country, in my opinion, in a very few years. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a gamble that I, as a person who cares about the future, am not willing to take. You are a man of principles, and it seems to me that you do not understand the damage it does. This has been proven over and over and over again.

63. Indeed, it is important to teach values ​​- and indeed there may be reason to worry that without coercion from the state these values ​​will not be taught, the problem is that these values ​​include Bible studies in the current form, and also include compromises with the religious at all kinds of levels and a desire not to provoke an uncomfortable public debate about evolution.
    It's exactly your method that gives you what you don't want. With the method I propose, many more will be able to study evolution, because real schools will attract many children of parents who want their child to be an engineer or a doctor.

    That's exactly it. When you let someone else decide everything - he will also decide things you don't like. Then they will learn Hebrew literature and Tanach with a secular view and Torah without a Tzatsif view, and science and biology but not evolution unless the teacher and principal really want it and think it will pass quietly as elective studies. Because that's ultimately what they decided. These are the "values" they decided were important to learn and the subjects they decided were important to teach.

64. MouthHole
    You will be surprised, but you are right, all these professions are not important in the sense that for the overwhelming majority of the population - they will not be relevant during life. This does not mean that they should not be taught - but it also does not mean that they must be taught.
    Our national poet is important on a value level - but then according to this logic also the studies of literature which is part of the historical common denominator of our nation - the Bible is part of this literature.
    And what you learn there is usually not used later in life - so it is also objectively not "important" and the fact is that there are probably many among the respondents here who would prefer to give up completely or reduce it, for the sake of their professions - which also happen to be not "important" in an objective way.
    Teaching children Russian in school will probably give most of them more use in life (in this country) than teaching them literature.
    Teaching them to drive will give them much more benefit - but they should do this in their free time and at the expense of their parents. Learning about the differences between real medicine - and complementary medicine - this too can be objectively beneficial to many people - and this is also not taught. The reality is that you are in your sarcasm - you are exactly on point - most of what is taught in schools - is replaceable, you can give it a different weight and not even teach it. And if it's a bunch of officials and politicians, they decide for everyone what is and what is not. instead of parents and their children deciding.

65. another one
    No, I think you are wrong. You can despise politicians as much as you want, but most of them are not stupid. Some of them have impressive achievements and are recognized based on these achievements. Therefore, as much as I do not tolerate the politics in Israel, it is still better than anarchy.
    I don't want to see schools for things like homeopathy, reiki, chiropractic and religion. These are things that a graduate can learn, after he has enough understanding to differentiate between charlatans and facts. Note - I wrote religion and not Judaism. I have no problem learning the history, philosophy and customs of Judaism, or Islam, or any other religion. This is important for Israel's identity. I do object to stories being taught as facts.

    The state has constraints, and the citizens of the state are obligated to certain things, such as obeying the law, taking care of children and military conscription. Therefore, it is mandatory to have a system that teaches these values. Without it - Israel will not exist much longer. Without it, there would be terrible extremism here.
    on my body

66. Someone else's logic is correct-
    Most technologists will not use the history of the Greek people, why study?
    Most of them will not use Bialik's songs either - throw the material in the trash.
    and geography? Who needs to know about precipitation heights? Why does it help? Danny Rupp announces the forecast...

    Another one - you are a special one. Please think about what you write, please believe in yourself,
    It is allowed to make a mistake. It happens to everyone. The hard thing is to admit it (and the hardest thing is to admit it to yourself) - so for a few days and check your opinions. Then come back with the conclusions (if you feel like it)

67. 'Evolution' is only knowledge, only 'information'. Propaganda is the distribution of information, false or not false, with the aim of promoting some agenda.
    Therefore, if the motivation is to promote atheism - then everything that is learned as part of this will be part of propaganda. Whether it's studying the Big Bang in the second grade, studying evolution in the fourth grade, or studying the writings of Dawkins in the seventh grade.
    If we study big bang in physics studies in the XNUMXth grade, evolution studies in biology in the XNUMXth grade. And his writings in Dawkins in an appropriate elective - so it will not be part of propaganda.

    Most of those who graduate from high school will not use the knowledge of the theory of evolution in life. Why do you think this is important?

68. another one,
    I already wrote no. Even if there is a hidden goal but it is not expressed in class but only the facts, it is not propaganda and in addition you again sin by comparing facts to stories and therefore it will not be like promoting religiosity because religiosity has no foundation.
    But as mentioned, it doesn't even come to that because all that is being asked here is to stop the pressure from the religious parties so that it is possible to teach evolution at one level or another and no one claimed that evolution should be taught for hidden reasons. Evolution is important enough anyway.
    In light of everything I have explained, do you agree with me that claiming that the study of evolution is atheistic propaganda is a mistake?

69. If the majority of the population consists of "Ahablit" then it is better for them to destroy only their children and not everyone's children - because they are the majority and that means their public representatives will want to please them with an "Ahablit" education program.

    The liberal assumption goes like this, if most of us are not smart enough to make the right decisions - then often politicians and officials appointed by politicians will not be smart enough to make the right decision - and even if they are - they will want to please the people and choose the wrong decision anyway.

    Schools profit from customers. Some will brand themselves as schools for excellence - and some will let everyone register, some will have programs for learning disorders and some will not.
    With the voucher system, parents can only buy a service from schools (which meet some minimal conditions).
    If they are willing to teach the child in their home - the child will pass tests - and they will receive part of the money, as money. Z

70. another one
    Scrunch his face - the idea seems good to me. Increasing the amount for the poor is an excellent idea, provided of course that it only goes to the educational institution and not to the parents...
    But - I see some problems. The Raushona is the love of the land. Laugh for a few minutes... I'll wait quietly. Ok, let's continue.
    To be a good citizen (to want to do a meaningful service, to vote for the good of the country and for your own good, to support national efforts such as the polio vaccine, not to pollute, and so on) you need a certain knowledge. Without requiring this knowledge - the state will be in trouble.
    Another problem - as I say over and over again, most people are lovable. Look at it this way: there will be those who make good choices, their children will be successful, and so on. And there will be those who will not choose well, and their children will be exposed. Therefore, as you said - we will get radicalization.
    Another problem - populist education. "Good" schools will be those that know how to advertise themselves. They will tell how much their graduates earn, and of course they will "forget" those who failed.
    And here is another problem. Which school will accept those who are weak? I don't see at all that there will be good schools for weak students, or attention problems for example.

    Therefore - I prefer that a system of experts manage this whole thing.

71. another one
    Scrunch his face - the idea seems good to me. Increasing the amount for the poor is an excellent idea, provided of course that it only goes to the educational institution and not to the parents...
    But - I see some problems. The Raushona is the love of the land. Laugh for a few minutes... I'll wait quietly. Ok, let's continue.
    To be a good citizen (to want to do a meaningful service, to vote for the good of the country and for your own good, to support national efforts such as the polio vaccine, not to pollute, and so on) you need a certain knowledge. Without requiring this knowledge - the state will be in trouble.
    Another problem - as I say over and over again, most people are lovable. Look at it this way: there will be those who make good choices, their children will be successful, and so on. And there will be those who will not choose well, and their children will be exposed. Therefore, as you said - we will get radicalization.
    Another problem - populist education. "Good" schools will be these

72. another one
    That is - the discussion is not about evolution studies but about the freedom of choice of a curriculum. The idea of ​​going back to school is interesting...let me think about it for a few hours 🙂

73. So even if the stated goal is to promote secularism and atheism
    Wouldn't it still be like Bible studies to promote religiosity?

74. another one,
    In general, no. On the other hand, in general, Torah studies are propaganda, certainly in lower grades, so children lack the ability to criticize.

75. Are you claiming that evolution studies can never be part of atheist propaganda?

76. another one,
    The only problem that the article brings up is that political power prevents learning facts and on the other hand political power forces children to learn made-up stories, starting from the second grade and it still seems reasonable to you. It's ludicrous and it again invites the end of Yeats's poem:
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity
    In any case, if there will be a certain teacher who decides to take the facts and form unfounded opinions from them (then he is a bad teacher) is completely irrelevant to the general discussion.
    On a general level, do you agree with me that the claim that the study of evolution is atheistic propaganda is a false claim?

77. Why can't the state finance it? The state spends an average of X shekels on each student, so instead of paying it to the education system, give a voucher that can only be spent on studies - to each student.
    Allow more support for poor families.

    Equality is not everything in the world, you know, freedom of choice is also important.

    Besides, there is no equality in the current system where students have to learn things they are not good at, in a method that does not suit them, to be considered a bad student, not to achieve matriculation - and still waste 10 or even 12 years of studying in the system. (Depends on where, now in many places the compulsory education law is until XNUMX)
    Imagine that they forced you to study a degree that you don't like and it's quite difficult for you to come out with an average of 67 at the end.
    It's a colossal waste of your time and the state's money. And it is also unfair and certainly not egalitarian.

78. You will come back one more time
    The state will not be able to finance such a system, because as soon as it starts to finance such a strange thing, it will immediately create a pressure press on the one hand, and an ineffective distribution of resources on the other.

    Think what will happen in the ultra-orthodox sector when they don't get a divorce from the state. In general - rich parents will be able to afford their children a better education. And for the poor - there will be an extremely poor level of education.

    Higher studies are not education!!! And if you think there is equality there, we probably don't live in the same galaxy.

    You have to understand something. The average person has an IQ of 100. Half of people have less than that. And what you want is to keep the edges away. In the higher classes at school there is already a choice. And the result is that you make decisions about your life when you are a spoiled child.

79. Yes, I want everyone to have maximum choice, if parents cannot choose what their children will learn - why should they - through democracy - be responsible for what everyone learns?
    Politicians will want to please these parents - and therefore they will learn not what is necessarily true -= but what fits their political agenda. A religious party would like more studies in religion. A national party will want more mushroom studies - a left-wing party will want us to learn from its angle, etc...
    Instead of everyone sending their children to learn what they want - everyone argues about what to teach everyone.
    I am in favor of a free market for ideas, and for this we need to promote the choice in education - by partially or fully privatizing the system (at least high schools) possibly by a voucher system.
    Competition between schools will lead to their improvement. And the fact that they will raise money will encourage students to invest (if not everything is paid by the voucher at least).
    Don't know why it would be extreme. After all, we all study higher studies by choice, don't we? Why can't it be started earlier, in high school or middle school?

80. another one
    Let's take as a definition an advanced degree in the relevant field. If you look at this group, in the case of AGW, you will find very few who say that the world is cooling at all, or who claim that we should be in a warming period anyway. Now - check the group of deniers - and see what has happened in the field...

    In the context of education two things. The first is that the parents you want to entrust the education to are the ones who elected the politicians. There is no such thing as "them" and "us". The politicians are parents on the one hand and elected by the public on the other. I definitely think a lot of them are a bit dumb, but so are a lot of the parents….
    The second is that I look at myself. Let's just say I'm an average person. I don't think I understand enough to determine the content of my children's education. My children are very different from me in many areas. As I trust the health system and the security system, I must also trust the education system. I do not mean this or that politician, but the education system as an institution. If I oppose her actions - either they are wrong or I am wrong. If a lot of people oppose the actions of the system, then the system will be replaced in the upcoming elections, this is the meaning of democracy.

    I told you - free market means extremism. Is this really what you want??

81. First of all, it is not clear to me how one really understands this matter, this is a category that you can judge - if from your point of view, everyone who is a skeptic does not understand the matter, then even if Nir Shabib Yabor and responds here, you will judge him as one who does not understand.
    Second thing,
    You have some kind of assumption that politicians and bureaucrats appointed by politicians know better what everyone's children should learn - the subject of this article only reinforces that they actually don't even in your opinion.
    In my opinion, the education system should be a free market. Parents will see that whoever learns the more useful things will advance further in life and will send their children to learn it.

82. another one
    I've explained to you before, and you refuse to listen. The Ministry of Education has a very important role and that is to give everyone an equal opportunity. It was enough to see Amnon Levy's program on the "sectarian demon" to understand what will happen when every parent has the authority to know what their children will learn.
    If we want a better country, we, as a people, have to take responsibility. That's why they choose a government... blah blah blah.

    The stories of the Tanakh are taught as facts. Maybe not the talking snake, but the stories of the 3 patriarchs, the Exodus, the early kings and prophets? It comes to the point that I have heard "scientific" explanations for crossing the Red Sea - even though the Israelites were probably not slaves in Egypt...

    Another one - knowledge is the basis of skepticism! The order is critical - first you will know, then you can question what you hear. The problem is that for many (including some of the commenters here...) it's the other way around. A good example is AGW - I have yet to hear a single commenter who doubts that there is AGW, who really understands the matter....

83. It depends on how you teach it, who you teach it and why you teach it.
    From the wording I showed in the article here - yes there is a problem. Those who see evolution as a counterweight to Bible studies are actually using it as a form of propaganda - which is not necessarily a negative thing for themselves by the way - but don't expect that everyone will want to pay for it in taxes.
    Evolution studies in extended biology studies on the other hand - or as a subject in high school biology studies - are not.

    As I already mentioned, the Bible is not taught as facts. Students are not told that what is written is what happened. (They don't say it didn't happen either) - The reality is that Tanach studies in a secular way are one of the most secular studies that can be taught in a high school.

    In any case, the best solution to all these problems is the privatization of the education system, beyond the voucher system as a start. Let each parent send their child to learn what they see fit, from some broad framework of possibilities.

84. another one,
    Probably yes, because he ignores the silent testimony and does not tell what percentage of their crimes in the population, etc. It is impossible to compare this to evolution versus the Torah because the first is facts and the second is stories, therefore it is forbidden to create a kind of horror balance like: I taught 5 hours of evolution, now I have to teach 20 hours of Bible just as you would never dream of balancing astronomy lessons with astrology lessons.
    It is impossible to call the study of evolution, atheistic propaganda. do you agree with me

85. So if we say, Mashayu would publish on his news channel many reports about crimes committed by members of minorities, and give them emphasis - it wouldn't be propaganda if he didn't say at the end - 'that's why these people are bad'?

86. another one,
    This is not what you explained, you asked if atheism is a fact, not whether the atheist view is a fact (please debate) and your conclusion does not derive from any statement that preceded it and what is more, what you tried to explain was actually wrong. I explained to you that the mere study of the facts cannot be considered propaganda even if there is a hidden motivation that the very study will change worldviews (which is what we hope the study will do, by the way). The study will become propaganda if and only if the facts are served by opinions or ideas that are not facts. For example, if the teacher says at the end of an evolution lesson: "Therefore children, there is no God" this sentence will be propaganda but not everything that preceded this sentence. Since we know that this is not the case, it is impossible to read a priori the study of evolution as atheistic propaganda. do you agree with me

87. For those who are still unclear:
    Anyone who says something to someone says it to influence them in some way.
    Therefore, any statement can be considered propaganda.
    The only question is whether the propaganda spreads real information or not.
    The way of science is known: information that does not pass the test of observation is dismissed as wrong.
    The way of religion is also known: when there is an observation that contradicts the claims of religion - the observation is the one that is dismissed as wrong.
    Everything revolves around the question of whether we trust our senses more or less than we trust writings written thousands of years ago based on the understanding that existed at that time.
    By the way: Of course, if we don't trust our senses, we can't trust the scriptures either, because who will tell us that what we read is what is written?
    But contradictions never deterred the preachers.

88. I explained that those who want to promote evolution studies out of a desire to promote secularism or atheism are actually promoting a type of indoctrination. Because he wants to influence what the children think and bypass the will of their parents.
    You said facts are never indoctrination.
    I asked if the atheist view - speaks of a fact.
    You said no.
    Therefore, anyone who wants to teach evolution, or history, or physics, or anything else - not for the pedagogical purposes of their subject - but for the specific purpose of reducing the religiosity of the children - is actually engaging in a type of propaganda.

89. Miracles,
    Of course I agree with you. Obviously there is some generalization information here but as a rule, it is absolutely true. The religious (all over the world) are panicking about the progress of science. In Nigeria Islamists murdered students in their sleep because they dared to study "Western science", in the US teachers are afraid to teach evolution because of the pressure of Christian movements such as the Discovery Institute and in Israel we know very well what the situation is and what the religious are prevented from teaching and unfortunately, even secularists such as another one, back them up By putting science and the Torah in the same position.

    another one,
    Atheism is a poor definition that doesn't really mean much and I don't know what you mean by saying that. If atheism is the denial of the existence of God, then it is a mistake because it is impossible to deny the existence of God, hence I do not know what "atheism is a fact" means. Maybe there are people who define themselves as atheists. Talk to them. Anyway, I don't define myself through something I don't believe in. I don't "believe" in freaks. Does that make me an alfriconist? There are endless things that I don't "believe" in and I put the word believe in quotes because it actually has nothing to do with faith. Bring evidence of something you claim exists, we'll talk. Until then, leave me alone but don't define me by negating concepts that you have never provided evidence for. You can be an antitheist which basically means I hope there is no God. You can register me as such.

    The important issue is that the truth itself is not propaganda or indoctrination, and no teacher would end a lesson in biology with a sentence like: "therefore children do not have God". If a history teacher tells the children that there is not a single shred of evidence for any of the stories of the Torah (not the Bible, for the stories of the Torah), this will not be indoctrination either because it is the truth and it is not that we did not try to search. After we conquered Sinai, Ben-Gurion sent archaeologists to try to find a trace of the Exodus, but nothing was found, and what is so beautiful is that despite the obvious interest in lying, inventing and fabricating evidence, the position of the archeology departments/schools in Israel has not changed. Well done to them.

90. You will get curious people if you learn everything scientific correctly. It is not about what you teach but about who teaches and how.
    Knowledge is not the enemy of religion. Doubt is the enemy of religion.
    The scientific method should be taught.
    Not all religious people oppose evolution studies.

91. Shmulik
    You wrote "What I hope will come out of the study is what you always hope will come out of any educational process: curious, critical and open people".
    This is exactly why the religious oppose the study of evolution. I claim that knowledge is the enemy of religion. See the entry "The first sin"...

92. Shmulik, are you claiming that atheism is a fact?

93. one another and all,
    I refer you to what I wrote, did I write it?
    The truth is not propaganda, but not necessarily all propaganda is completely false, rather propaganda is the dissemination of opinions and the truth is not an opinion. Here the gray becomes black (I don't intend to go into the question of refuting theories, etc. It is clear that what will be taught in schools are the solid facts and not speculative elements). Propaganda is what can be done with the truth and the truth can indeed serve lies if it is used improperly such as the race theory of Nazism which drew its "authority" from the theory of evolution but this says nothing and a half about studying the facts themselves, about which, it can never be said that they are Propaganda even if the facts are not to your liking and even contrary to your worldview

94. "Malice is to see such a massacre and to say that because they are Muslim it does not interest me. Like the stupid saying of the Rebbe of Lubibich, 'I love every Jew'. And what about the 99.99% of the world who are not Jewish? Aren't they human? Shame on you.”

    The unnecessary killing hurts, but I tried to make it clear that we cannot change the situation.
    From what the rabbi said can we conclude that he hates Gentiles?
    But also that he is trying to increase the pool of observant Jews
    Everyone looks at their side … 🙂

95. Are you claiming that propaganda and indoctrination are always lies?

96. another one,
    Wrong, use the term propaganda incorrectly and inappropriately, on purpose, to explain that everything is essentially gray and if it were true, it would prove your point. I strongly oppose it. I showed you the definition of the word propaganda and truth does not come in there, unless "abstinence is a sex position" and if so, you eliminated the term propaganda.

    What does emerge from the discussion with you is that you are flirting with trying to avoid what you said at the same time as trying to justify what you said, and this shows me that your opinion is actually not coherent. The evidence is that you now wrote that studying evolution is indoctrination, and this is nonsense, because, even if I have a goal to dissuade all Israeli students from becoming religious, then studying facts would not be indoctrination, just as teaching Copernicus and Galileo Galilei about the nose and throat of the church is not indoctrination, and to explain to you You are also wrong here, here is the definition of indoctrination:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
    "Indoctrination is a process of instilling opinions, attitudes, ideas, beliefs or a worldview (see doctrine), usually religious or political opinions"
    Note what does not appear in the definition: the word "facts". Since and as I have already written to you, all I ask is that the subject be studied while making it completely clear that the teacher should not say at the end of the lesson: "Therefore children, there is no God" and therefore the study is not indoctrination or propaganda.

    The counterargument is that the fact that if we withhold basic knowledge from children, knowledge that may prevent them from basing their lives on lies, combined with spending many hours in Torah classes (which is really indoctrination) we are actually committing child abuse (obviously there are levels, I don't think it's like beating children A day until Zov blood, but still abuse). What I hope will come out of the study is what is always hoped to come out of any educational process: curious, critical and open people, and there is nothing between that and propaganda or indoctrination.

97. Truth is not a political idea, but a political idea can be promoted with the help of truth.
    Propaganda can be one hundred percent true. It will still be propaganda.

98. another one,
    Again, not true and for the umpteenth time I will bring the definition of the word propaganda from Wikipedia
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94
    "Propaganda (sometimes the foreign term propaganda is used) is a form of communication, in which a calculated distribution of political ideas is made among a wide public, with the aim of influencing their behavior or attitudes."

    The truth is not a political idea and if you say it is, then it's just like calling for the avoidance of sex position (the comparison was taken from Bill Maher's music video) which is ridiculous and empties the concept of propaganda from its content. Also, in principle and categorically, truth is not indoctrination. Never.

    In addition, biology is learned very, very early in the education system, so it is puzzling to me why evolution is not taught at one level or another as well (I am not here to turn everyone into gold, in the XNUMXth grade, Raabek) but that is already another topic that I have stopped trying to convince you of its importance. I am only explaining why your way of thinking is very dangerous.

99. Shmulik, I believe you conveyed my point, I refined what I meant in relation to what I defined as propaganda, if it is possible to interpret what I said before in a different way, then it is your choice.
    Propaganda is the presentation of information that is false or not false, factual or not factual, scientific or non-scientific, to promote an ideological agenda or another personal agenda.
    If you teach any subject in order to promote some agenda - then this is indoctrination - evolution is clearly a subject in biology. As such, it should be taught as part of biology classes. And nowhere else.
    It should be taught when the appropriate background for it is learned. After you have already learned how heredity works. At least.
    The goal of the theory of evolution is to explain a phenomenon in nature which is the biological diversity that exists, and how it was created from other living creatures that were here hundreds of millions of years ago.
    If the goal you are planning for evolution is instead to kill the god of the gap then it is a different consideration, a consideration of trying to spread an atheistic ideology. And yes - it is definitely a form of propaganda - and it will not necessarily be viewed favorably by a considerable part of the public who pay the taxes for it and send their children to it (the traditional public).
    In general, it is not worth the fight in terms of the system because it is unnecessary political damage to the Minister of Education and the MPs in the committees.
    This is exactly the problem, in public education. And that is why the system needs to be privatized.

    Not everything is gray in the world, but not everything is black and white either.
    I hope you agree with this statement at least.

100. another one,
     Not only that writing that this is the opinion of the religious is evasion, but you continue not to understand that there is no such thing as a world view when it comes to facts and there are not two sides to the same story because evolution is a science based on evidence and facts and the Torah is not such that you cannot compare and say that both sides need to be taught because there is no Two sides at all. Hence, the use of language, when referring to evolution versus the stories of the Torah, must be different. Since the Torah is just a story, and its study comes with the clear goal of subjugating the students to a certain world view, and therefore the study of the Torah is one big propaganda, the word propaganda is correct here, but evolution (the basic principles) will necessarily be taught exactly the way it is here, in Greece, Japan or even in the countries Guaranteed because they have no choice, because these are facts that do not depend on cases (again, I am talking about the basic principles, let's say in the introductory courses) just as Newton will learn in exactly the same way all over the world.

     From the level of your arguments, I come to the conclusion that with you everything is gray and depends on your worldview and you do not separate facts from stories and draw an equal conclusion between form and evolution but what can you do, they are not equal and if an apple falls on your head, it is a fact and not a worldview and to teach that apples fall is not propaganda of Anti-graviton tomato growers. This is not a matter of world view but facts and as you wouldn't dream these days to say that studying Newton is atheistic propaganda why do you allow yourself to write that studying evolution is atheistic propaganda??? Facts are not a matter for democracy or a worldview or an issue for elections.

     Do you agree with me that your use of the word propaganda was inappropriate and done on purpose to convince us that, in fact, everything is grey?

101. Evil is seeing such a massacre and saying that because they are Muslims it doesn't interest me. Like the stupid saying of the Rebbe of Lubibich, 'I love every Jew'. And what about the 99.99% of the world who are not Jewish? Aren't they human? be ashamed

102. Tam, the problem is not what they educate their children but what they educate the children our

103. another one,
     So you are the spokesman for the religious now? Chutsamza, your answer does not fit with the fact that you tried to defend your use of the word propaganda which is completely inappropriate here. do you agree with me

104. Another one - quite clear.

     As a general rule, the smell of a public system until the most logical solution is to privatize it is a method of the Ministry of Finance, and you can see its application in many public companies and government offices - destroying and destroying until the public shouts save it and suddenly the most logical thing is to privatize (see what is happening with the health system for example, not only education) .

     But precisely in the field of education, because the office swelled and filled with hot and empty air beyond any logical proportion
     (the second largest budget), with supervisors, curricula that do not say what to teach but how to teach and lots and lots of bureaucrats who waste the budget on "planning the studies" instead of carrying them out (let's say hiring teachers from a variety of fields, without a teaching certificate and without plaster... only people who are talented in their field and local management Every school with the cooperation of the parents will take care of this) and the empowerment of proper administrators - in this case there really is no choice, only privatization and closing the Ministry of Education (!) is a real necessity.

     Think what they will do with all the money that goes to the layers of fat and management if they just take it and give it to the school management directly... you know what a revolution that would make??? A simple calculation of the distribution of the budget in the number of schools may shock the readers (absolute shock).

     We are not naive and it is clear that a certain level of regulation is needed (always), but now the system is dying and our children are suffering, entire generations that are being lost.

105. Tham
     Therefore, the office should be dismantled, and the system privatized.

106. Everything that needs to be said about the Ministry of Education includes the description "ridiculous" in the sentence.

     The formation of the earth is a story. Neither the religious description nor the scientific description are certain of what really happened (is happening? Will it happen?). As a scientist I am allowed to believe that the scientific model and its theories, including the big bang and the theory of evolution, are more accurate and to choose it, and a religious person is allowed to believe that the biblical story is the true truth.

     You are allowed to choose and in any case we only bring beliefs to the table - and it is everyone's right to choose as they wish.

     What to do if so? Only cowards don't present all the options, describe the options to the children and let everyone choose what suits them (what's more, you can live with the 2 models at the same time... if you believe it's possible).

     And also - turn the descriptions into fascinating, interesting, intriguing stories, ones that arouse the interest glands in the youth and involve them, that way there will be more young people who will want to join the scientific world to look for answers!

     Instead, they tell us about the 5-8 or XNUMX-XNUMX plan... Pathetic.

107. But this is our world, God, it's not under our control.
     Now children are being slaughtered in Syria and in Africa, this is not a question of caring and don't blame the Jews
     In the end it is the Christians and the Muslims who slaughtered us throughout history.

108. You don't care that millions of people are killed, and that others will have a holocaust? As the son of a holocaust survivor, I don't want even one person to die an unnecessary death because someone else decided they didn't need them.

109. Bless you, this is exactly a vision of the end times,
     There will be a war of Gog and Magog and the Christians will fight the Muslims (World War III)
     May God have mercy on his people and they won't die much in this war (fingers crossed)
     After that, a messiah will arise among the people of Israel in the form of Adam, a descendant of David, and he and he will reign over the whole world, because the world will want him as a leader.

110. Really not on the road to any redemption but on the road to destruction. If there is a Halacha state here, we will all be lost, and a second holocaust will occur because those who want to eliminate us will rush to take advantage of our weakness. The people of Israel are not really alive, one thousandth of the world's population is called to be saved with difficulty. Our only strength is the economic and security power in Israel. As soon as this disappears because everyone will go to study Torah (talking to the wall), and not science, there will be no one to hold the country and we will disappear.

111. Shmulik
     First of all, I have already clarified that this is considered propaganda mainly for religious people.
     Secondly, I clarified that for me it depends on the motivation of those who want to promote it.
     In the article here, for example, it says:
     "For the sake of balance, the scientific approach to the development of the universe must be taught, beginning with the Big Bang and ending with the development of life on Earth (evolution), beginning with the same school year in which the stories of creation are taught. Otherwise, we establish in the minds of our tender children a concept that opposes the later study of scientific knowledge"
     - This is exactly where the motivation is framed, - the person who wrote this perceives Tanakh studies as propaganda for religion - and wants to balance it with his own content.
     What is important to teach in science is the idea of ​​doubt, doubt everything, not some one scientific truth intended to replace another non-scientific truth. Science - and the knowledge it provides is not a set of unquestionable facts, it is precisely the questioning of everything, René Descartes' Cogito Argo Sum, etc.
     You will teach them evolution at the level of XNUMXnd grade, or XNUMXth grade and they will later read an article of their creation on the Internet and think that evolution is not the truth - because you did not teach them science, you taught them knowledge that science achieved.
     ———–
     What you need to understand is that teachers do not teach for free - they teach for a fee, this salary comes at the expense of tax payers - and that means they, the tax payers have the right to determine how much time each subject will receive - through the democratic system.
     Bible studies in the secular system are not intended to make the children religious - this becomes much clearer in high school where they teach some secular studies about the Bible, about the contradictions within the Bible, etc.
     The purpose of this, among other things, is to teach the sources that are the common denominator of the Jewish people.
     The goal of studying biology is to understand the world we live in, like physics, chemistry, - and it is important in itself - but these are huge fields and it is impossible to teach all the subjects within it within the limited time frame and limited resources.
     They decided that evolution - for political and professional reasons - would only be taught as an elective subject.
     Want to change it? Legitimate, but if your motivation is not biological pedagogy - and is from a secular atheistic worldview, then you are not much different than those who don't want it taught.

112. Sorry but,
     I did not understand what this protest has to do with the topic of the debate on the origin of species?
     If anything, then this boat is on its way to redemption, the nation of Israel has lived and existed for thousands of years despite all the wars and anti-Semitism

113. If you and I are in the same boat, the boat is already on its way to sinking. You are pulling us towards ignorance and ignorance worse than that of the third world, and if that is not enough, you are also stealing our children in a process called by the dirty name "repentance".

114. Miracles,
     You will have to send me to the sources, so here is a reference for some of the things I wrote:
     Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland's book Darwin's Enigma:

     I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

     So we will call it: transitional fossil instead of transitional species - explains the ear?
     I am currently neglecting the matter of poultry, so that we can focus the discussion on one area, but you are welcome to check that kiwis have small wings under their hairs..

115. Evolution is a somewhat problematic word if it is used for the purpose of contradicting and denying God out of the desire to prove that the Jews are idiots who hold old beliefs and are irrelevant to the secular academic intelligence of the 121 and especially in Israel and it is no wonder that the proposal was submitted by the representatives of ignorance from "freedom"
     In the book "Zahar" which was written about 1800 years ago, the following is written, only that the words are for honest people and not for cowards who want to deny, read very carefully!:
     And in the Sefra, Rabbi HaManuna Saba Frish Yatir and in the book of Rav HaManuna Saba explained more, and said: "Every settlement rolls around like a ball, because every settlement on earth rolls/spins like a ball. There are people in the lower part of the earth and there are people in the upper part of it. And every inon in Brayn is a change in his vision, and all those creatures that are different in their appearance, he is a change in the day, like every place and place, because of the change of the air that is in every place and place, and he lives in his existence like other sons of Nesha and stand in their existence and live like other people Considers as the first opinion that seven countries - mentioned in the Holy Zohar, are 7 climates, and the sages of the south disagree about it, and Rabbi Shimon was from the inhabitants of the south, and he considered the same as them. Nahir for Alin is dark for Alin, there is a place in the settlement of Shi'at that shines for those on this side of the globe, a shadow for those on the other side of the globe for Alin Yamma and Alin Lilia, for those it is day and for those it is night, and with Ether Dcholia Yamma, and there is a place in the settlement that is all day, and I will not forget her Lilia Bar in a day Hada Zaira and there is no night in it for only one scant hour. ….” And Raza Da will be handed over to Marihon Dakhmta, and this secret will be handed over to those who have the wisdom of the Torah and not to the factions of different domains, and not to the dividers of the domains and the borders of the land, who are the owners of the contents regarding Daihu Raza Amika Dauriita. As it is a deep secret in the Torah.
     The issue of evolution must be understood in the article.
     And there is much more to add except that hatred and ignorance, pride and stupidity cause many of us to go to war against the truth. Incitement associations set up websites in Israel and around the world against the Jewish people
     And this is why it is said, "Let your destroyers and your destroyers depart from you." For a long time, they only forget in their wickedness that they are together with us in the same boat just like in the Holocaust.

116. B,
     Nothing in an intelligent designer is impossible and that is precisely the problem with calling it a scientific theory. A smart planner is god of the gaps

117. another one,
     Here is the scandalous thing you wrote again: "In any case, there are many religious people in this country and maybe they don't want their tax money to go to atheistic propaganda just like all the seculars and atheists don't want their tax money to go to religious propaganda. The ideal situation is that there is neither this nor that and the Bible is studied as part of the national heritage."
     You are comparing evolution, which, as Nissim wrote in the forum, is an existing fact (if you accept the science) to made-up stories that do not have a single proof of their truth. Then you also write that the ideal situation is: "that there is neither this nor that". Do you understand why your worldview, which states that evolution is just a story just like the Torah is outrageously outrageous and wrong?
     I showed you that the professional staff at the Ministry of Education would like to teach the subject and it was blocked politically, I showed you that your use of the word propaganda is wrong and your whole worldview on this subject is wrong.
     You agree?

118. It's time

119. ב
     No, it's not impossible

120. for miracles:
     Let's assume (assumption only, not belief) that there is a planner and he knows the evolutionary process and uses it for his needs.
     Is this thing impossible?

121. Water blowing
     You did not answer me

122. OK, maybe the planner added "unknown statistics" elements to his planning, great, I'm going to take a nap, respect the water, good luck with the new program and the rest of the way

123. Water blowing
     I am talking about the "calculation power" of the process.... a random process can find solutions that a planned process cannot solve.

124. I don't know what they taught you but, there are things like convenience, touch screen, portability, price, reliability, and you can't
     Put "calculation power" at the top of the pyramid, because elements of supply and demand still enter here
     But I'm not sure I understood what you mean this time?

125. Water blowing
     I got you. Definitely. But there are 2 points here:

     1) In terms of "calculation power" a completely random process is better than any planned process. This is a result that is reached in computer science.

     2) Because of this, one needs a very good reason to assume that there is an intelligent planner. Why add another factor, when everything can be explained without any planner?

126. The point that by and large the evolution of species can be routed, planned by an "intelligent planner" is all

127. Water blowing
     A computer virus doesn't reproduce 🙂 But leave it, what's your point?

128. Dear Nissim, you can already remove your hat to the people,
     They designed "computer viruses" which is a tiny but multiplying part of the computers themselves,
     In addition, I meant "small, tiny" in quotation marks in connection with the improvement, but it doesn't matter that you start getting caught in "mistakes" when you say - never

129. Water blowing
     Nothing has ever been designed that has multiplied … so this is probably not a small improvement ….

130. Listen, explain to me, it's a small improvement in planning, to reproduce

131. Water blowing
     The computers do not multiply. You can argue that their design is evolving. This is a valid argument, and was put forward at the time by Dawkins and developed further by Susan Blackmore and Chava Yablonsky.

     But - what does it have to do with it?

132. Shmulik
     Maybe enough?
     I've already said, if your motivation is not pedagogical, realistic, theoretical - but ideological - it's propaganda.
     If you want to teach it as biological science - then this is not propaganda.
     And it is clear that this is about you, the education system is not an entity that has an opinion=- it is many teachers with different opinions.
     What changes is your motivation as someone who wants to change.

133. Because from Zion will come Torah
     My problem is with the concept of "transitional varieties". This concept has 2 meanings. One is the meaning of many creationists - they are looking for transitional breeds between, let's say, a cat and a dog (by the way, I heard this from a respected person). I hope you agree that this is bullshit.
     The second meaning is also problematic. There is no such thing as a "pass breed". The reason is that it means that there are species that are not transitional species….. We have found a lot of fossils, but this is a minuscule minority of the species that existed. Darwin did not say "this is a weak point of my argument". And he also explained why, and this is the explanation I gave.

     And that's exactly your mistake. There are no "transition varieties" and "whole varieties". But - I will go with you and give you an example that shows you are wrong. There is a species of seagull living in the UK that can mate and breed with a species of seagull living in the US. The American variety can interbreed with a variety that lives in Eastern Siberia. This breed can breed with another breed that lives in central Siberia, and it in turn can breed with another breed that lives in western Siberia, and this breed can breed with another breed that lives in Britain. But - the two varieties that live in Britain cannot interbreed. I mean - they are different species.
     And there you go transition varieties 🙂

     And there is another important point. The "tree of life" of evolution is very branched and very sparse. Therefore - note - almost every fossil we find is not an ancestor of today's animal species. That's why all the talk of "transitional varieties" is a bit puzzling. What we do see is the structure of the tree of life. What do you mean? If you take any 2 species alive today - you can find species in the past that have features of both species. But of course you won't actually find the ancestor.

     Regarding the birds - the kiwi is not from the ostrich family, but that is not the point. So you are saying that these birds evolved from other birds that flew?

134. another one,
     It is not about me, but the education system and the motivation of the education system is to burn ignorance and teach, therefore your sentence, that studying evolution is atheistic propaganda is wrong at best and evil and vile at worst. It is forbidden to use the word propaganda in this context. do you agree with me

135. Since Darwin, molecular biology has been discovered and amazingly it has not contradicted evolution but serves as an important tool for its research.

136. Once again miracles and once again in honor of computers.
     Computers are built and have a natural choice of supply and demand even though it was designed by man and man consumed it financially

137. Nisim, you wrote:
     "Darwin said that the severe lack of fossils can be considered the biggest objection to his description but (!!!!!) the reason for this is simple - the minority of fossils" -
     So he did indeed say that, why did I claim that you wrote: "Again - don't quote Darwin before you read him yourself. That's not what he said"
     Darwin did expect that in the next 100-200 years after him, some of the missing vertebrae would be found, if not most of them, but the fact is that nothing was found, today in the 20th century, even though technology is advancing, only fossils of complete species have been found.
     Think for yourself how it is possible that they found fossils of many types of species and did not find their intermediate stages, they were supposed to find hundreds of thousands if not millions of remains for such fossils and the significant remains they found is Archeopteryx which is used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds, but this possibility was also ruled out by Scientists.
     Regarding the questions you asked, both the ostrich and the kiwi are from the ostrich family and they don't fly because they grounded themselves after the dinosaurs were extinct and they don't need wings, but the kiwi has wings, they are just degenerate (check!)

138. Water blowing.
     I will try to explain the difference. You need 4 conditions for evolution: culture, variation, selection and heredity. The difference is in the choice. Let's take the dog for example. The dog was developed from the gray wolf. Let's assume that dog domestication began 50000 years ago (we know it's between 33 and 100 years ago). From that moment there were two tracks. One route is the route that led to the gray wolf that exists today. In this route there was natural selection - an advantage for those who reproduced more. In the second route, all (about 300) breeds of dogs that exist today were created.
     In the domestication of the domestic dog there is artificial selection - and better species are not always created. Many dog ​​breeds have serious health problems. This is true even for more "natural" species such as the German Shepherd (who has severe waist problems).
     The wolf that evolved through natural selection is much stronger and much healthier. The reason is that those who had long hair, breathing problems (like a pug) or were too short did not breed.

     what am i trying to say that natural selection is better, without any help from an outside party with an interest. I gave only one example, and there are many more. Beyond that - what I'm saying can be shown mathematically, but I'm not sure you'll understand the answer...

139. Miracles,
     Build a model or a human being, and introduce improvements based on the old, something like a desktop computer, a laptop and a touch screen computer - there is progress and the good and efficient survives, and from my point of view it is difficult for me to clarify that playing with time sees plants with intelligence or animals that are kept in a balance of control by Whoever directs it and divides it into parallel worlds, and it is even more difficult for me to prove to you that I heard animals talking, and this is a kind of reinforcement for an intelligent planner who leaves us humans in this parallel world above, and all of this is erased from your sight (for your benefit) and gives you the illusion of total control over your evolutionary destiny .
     Sincerely, although you may not understand the answer

140. Because from Zion will come Torah

     I did read the origin of the species. It's installed on my phone (and so is yours...). This is a wonderful book written with great modesty.

     Darwin did not arrive at his idea from an examination of fossils. At the time there were far fewer fossils than today, and there was almost no dating ability like there is today. Darwin said that the severe lack of fossils can be considered the biggest objection to his description but (!!!!!) the reason for this is simple - the scarcity of fossils. Pay attention - this is the most dangerous thing for the theory, but it's not dangerous either. Today we know many, many more fossils, and they all confirm the theory. I don't see a problem here.

     I asked you simple questions. And again there is no answer. Ask me anything back, I promise to answer 🙂

141. Miracles,
     It's hard to have a discussion when there are trust issues,
     I sent you a Darwin quote and you don't believe it
     What should I refer to the books now?
     What does it matter, what will I answer you anyway, you will deny everything
     How do you even have a discussion with you, when you cling to your teachings on the foundations of the altar?
     From a brief review of your posts, I noticed that you mostly tend to argue and even harsh in your language
     And it doesn't match my character, after all I came to show other sides of the coin.

142. another one
     You know very well that I know this (and as a matter of fact - you are very right)
     I know how to prove that given certain conditions - there is evolution. These conditions have confirmation, and therefore evolution is correct. Add to that - the findings can be explained by evolution. And add to that - the findings cannot (as of today) be explained without evolution. That's why I asked about the birds... (And I would be happy for questions about evolution).

143. Water blowing
     I have no idea what you are trying to say. What does it mean "someone evolutionary designed"?

144. Because from Zion will come Torah
     Again - don't quote Darwin before reading him yourself. That's not what he said. By the way, Darwin had very serious mistakes in his theory. But it has nothing to do with the correctness of evolution.

     Kiwi has no trace of wings. Is there a reason you are not answering my questions? Because I have more 🙂

145. Miracles - there is no such thing as scientific proof, there is scientific confirmation. Proof is only in mathematics.

146. The honorable and respected Mr. Nissim
     The fact that evolution has a reason still does not mean that someone planned the species evolutionarily and they reproduced according to success.
     But the argument is equally true for both options. And if you happen to see the intervention of a "foreign" factor in returning time, you can immediately link it to evolutionary planning.
     Sincerely

147. The reason is that Darwin indeed said that the lack of such species is "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, who heads one of the largest museums in America, claims that the situation regarding the issue of missing links or transitional forms "has not changed much" and that "we even have a smaller number of examples of evolution than at the time of Darwin.
     By the way, the kiwi (the one that is common in New Zealand?) has wings but they are degenerate....

148. Because from Zion will come Torah
     The reason is that you haven't read Darwin, because that's not what he said.
     And the fact is that there is a continuous transition from certain dinosaur species to ancient bird species. As I said, between every 2 fossils there is always a third fossil missing…..
     Beyond that, we see evolution happening before our eyes. Even at the macro level, although the deniers will say otherwise.

     And a few questions for you (out of many many that I have....) - Why does an ostrich have wings? Why don't kiwis have wings? And why does a kakapo have wings? Evolution knows how to answer these questions. I would love to hear your answers.

149. Evolution, it's just a name/term,
     I'm talking about the origin of species, not empirical science
     Darwin pointed out, and rightly so, that if his theory was correct, there should be a very large number of "transitional species" that would be found as fossils. If, for example, the front limbs developed into the wings of birds, why don't we find a series of fossils showing these stages - half limb - half wing, or part scaly - part feathery - one makes way for the next?

150. Because from Zion will come Torah
     Evolution is scientifically proven. You have the right not to accept the science, but if you accept the science you must accept evolution.
     There are no "missing links". This is an invention of Ahbels. Between every two fossils there will always be a third fossil, so the more fossils you find, the more "missing links" there are.

     In general - even without a fossilized nose - evolution is still true.

151. The theory of evolution is the only scientific model I have heard of that explains the biological diversity in life forms that exist today - and in fossils.
     It is not clear to me what refutation you are talking about - but evolution is not my field.
     But evolution is something very big and you can't simply disprove the whole thing, there are claims that man evolved from the chimpanzee and there are claims that he evolved from an ancient ancestor of man Tuchel the chimpanzee. The more accepted opinion as far as I understand is that there is an ancestor, but I saw a lecture in which the lecturer explained why in his opinion (based on genetic research among other things) he thinks that a chimpanzee is an ancestor - maybe his theory has since been disproved - or his.
     Regardless, evolution is an observed phenomenon in nature, not just a scientific model.
     If you claim that evolution has been "debunked" you have to say which specific theory. Because refuting 'evolution' is like refuting the theory of mechanics.

152. another one
     I don't mean the empirical observational part but the hypothetical part, like the missing links that are still being searched for and faked

153. Because from Zion will come Torah
     Evolution has not been scientifically disproven.

154. What changes is the motivation of the one who initiates.
     If your motivation is to promote atheism - then this is atheistic propaganda.
     If your motivation is to teach a polished that is important for biology - then this is not atheistic propaganda.

     By the way, there are many gray things in reality. Not everything is black and white.

155. It is not clear why evolution should be studied, if it has been scientifically disproved.

156. another one,
     "In a free country..." This is a nonsensical claim like no other and is another part of the puzzle you created for yourself in which reality is gray and there is no black and white. So no, telling the truth is not propaganda as long as you don't make moral preaching or assertions unrelated to the facts out of it. If the teacher teaches evolution and does not make the (wrong) claim that evolution contradicts the existence of God, he is not making propaganda and no teacher I know should do that and no demagogic trick/coloring of reality/demolition of Hebrew will help you.
     Do you agree that you were wrong when you wrote this claim?

157. You really think most parents hate their kids so much that they wouldn't belt them out and purposely feed them bad food.
     By the way - if you could, would you impose a strict diet on all the children?

158. Extreme welfare - I mean what you're suggesting will push the edges. Parents need to learn what to feed their children. There are at least 3 reasons for this. The first is that we know today (we ... science) what to feed children to increase their chances of survival. The mortality rate in tribes in the world is shocking, even today. The second is that our food is quite on the face... The third is that today we are aware of all kinds of problems of certain children that require a certain diet. In the past these children simply died.

     Parents of their own initiative will not use seat belts and will not know how to vaccinate their children. Do you really think otherwise???

159. Parents more or less feed the children what they decide is right,
     Only in extreme cases of starvation, or alternatively overfeeding, does the state intervene.
     And while there are public schools, parents can, if they have the money, send their child to a private school.
     I don't see how giving someone a choice would hurt them. I have never heard this term "extreme welfare" either. What exactly does that mean?

160. ב
     Oh, we will accept your approach. What you want will cause serious harm to the weak, and extreme welfare to those who have. In the next step you will allow parents to beat their children, feed them as they wish, not send a mother to school and so on.
     You must be against the law that requires a safety seat in the car - right?

     I don't think you thought it through...

161. There is no doubt that it is the parents who have to decide for the child. despite their lack of knowledge.

162. It's not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of responsibility.
     The era of patronizing medicine is gone, doctors have to explain to their patients what the medicine does, what the possible side effects are, and the patients can read the literature themselves and decide for themselves. This also applies to parents.

     If the Ministry of Health wants people to get vaccinated and they want it - that means it has to explain, not force.
     Currently there is a very large majority for warehouses - so there is no need for drastic measures.

     I mention again the case of the head lice in which they decided to do - it was enough to force treatment which later turned out (probably) to be very harmful in some cases and the state enacted a law of compensation for the victims.

     That is, the medical clerkship can make a mistake, it can be biased according to the opinion of the person who heads it - and in theory it can also be biased by various stakeholders - such as owners of pharmaceutical companies and the like. This means that there is a place for public discussion, yes part of the role of the Ministry of Health is information. If the truth is on his side then the majority of the population will accept it in most cases.
     If you happen to be in the library of the filmed lectures at the Technion, in the medical ethics course in the last lecture if I remember correctly, there is a lecture by a student on the matter of compulsory or non-compulsory vaccinations.

163. another one
     How exactly does an average parent know better than a body responsible for health? From reading talkbacks? don't be ridiculous

164. may=> may

165. A free country, I'm allowed to call anything whatever I want...
     As I said.
     The fact that something is true and factual does not necessarily make it not propaganda.
     If a party is formed (eg Otzma for Israel) - and runs a campaign against the infiltrators/migrant workers/refugees from Africa. In which she will broadcast details of all the crimes in which those people were involved - it will be 100 percent facts, and it will still be 100 percent propaganda.
     On this part at least - do you agree?

     If your motivation, when you want to reduce Bible studies and teach evolution in lower grades, is to promote secular thinking - this is indeed a form of propaganda.

166. another one,
     I don't really care what you want. If you want something, start a party and try. You may not call studying the facts of evolution propaganda. Do you agree that you were wrong when you wrote that?

167. In some cases, parental permission is needed for the child to enlist in the war. Right
     But usually, it's out of their control. 18 years old is no longer a minor and can do whatever he wants (after he is released from the army, that is.)
     In general, it is unfortunate that there are parents who deny their children an important vaccine, but the alternative is not better.
     Would you like officials and politicians to decide which vaccine to give to children without anyone having objections?
     This is actually about buying something from a private agency, it is an opening for slaughter, unsafe or unnecessary vaccines can be given here, the last polio vaccine - indeed there was a good reason to give it - but the information about it was not distributed properly.
     The era of patronizing medicine is over, and unless there is an emergency like an epidemic - it is better that the ones responsible for the children's health be their parents and not the state - by and large, they know better.
     A notorious case in Israel of treatment that was rather forced on the parents was the treatment of ringworm which, as mentioned, had serious consequences for the health of some patients - (at least that's how it seems).
     In other words, there is no reason why an official should know better than the parent what is good for his child - in most cases at least.

     I'm not against compulsory education, parents must feed their child - but there is no compulsory free food law that provides dining rooms for all children, right?
     A parent who cannot provide an adequate education for his children will receive help, and a parent who will not intentionally provide an education for his children will eventually have his child taken away just as they would if he starved them.

168. another one
     You make puns …. The reason parents don't decide about recruitment has nothing to do with possession. There are situations where the state requires the parents' permission to recruit the child. regardless of age. Therefore - your argument is incorrect.
     Beyond that - I understand that you are also against compulsory education?

     And regarding vaccines - you are right, and it is a shame that it is so. I don't think there are cases of parents who understand the issue, who don't vaccinate their children. Obviously you can be a maniac and not vaccinate your child, because the whole environment is vaccinated. But you will be a real maniac... and it becomes clear from the polio story that there are many maniacs in Israel.

169. Here you will find the BBC 2 channel which includes science programmes
     http://goip.co.il/tv.html
     It is between the Bloomberg channel and the RT channel
     And if you have interruptions, it means that something from above is limiting your bandwidth on purpose.

170. Shmulik
     I don't know how you call evolution "one of the greatest achievements of science ever." –
     I mean, I'm not sure what the criteria are for this definition.
     What Newton did I think is more important in the history of science.
     And I'm not sure that those who don't expand physics learn it.

     Shmulik, Leon
     If you didn't understand, I am in favor of privatizing the education system (when the poor will receive financial help).
     I don't want a committee of experts and politicians to determine for anyone what is important and what is not important for him to learn. Just like I don't want a committee to decide for someone what to eat and what not to eat, where to live and where not to, and where to work and where not to.
     Freedom of choice. I am for freedom of choice. I want more than that for parents and students.
     I don't want to force religious parents to send their child to a school that doesn't teach religious studies at all, at the expense of their taxes and their child's time.
     And I don't want to send a secular child to a school that will teach him religious studies against his will and the will of his parents, at the expense of his time and his parents' taxes.
     What's so bad about freedom of choice?
     -
     Miracles.
     Parents do not decide if their children enlist in the army because their children are already out of their custody at this point.
     It is their children's decision whether to enlist or go against the system and evade.
     And yes, parents decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, the very large majority of parents in this country do vaccinate their children. But there is a small percentage of parents who do not vaccinate their children for fear of real or imagined side effects.

171. Miracles, if possible I will give some examples from the world of time reversals, so that your response will be more acceptable to me.
     For example, there are XNUMX meter running competitions - the runner next to you gives you a push and you feel it in the next world physically.
     For example, in the military field there are documents such as the Harpaz document (which was civilian) that come to correct the future after returning time. And there is also me who tried to profit from it both business and socially and even to participate in reviving certain people.
     Respectfully blowing water

172. Miracles with your permission I will continue, you used harsh words, if possible I will explain the example with harsh words even though I have nothing against you, on the contrary, I appreciate you very much.
     I'll give you an example about your beautiful poor people - those who deal with it can replace your grandfather with someone else and the color of your poor people will change, the person who will be replaced, will act like a monkey in time reversals in the track of "your grandfather" will do the same things and your father too. It is a difficult thing for me to see the human intelligence behaving like monkeys in time reversals, but I also saw this about myself after time reversals, they tried to explain to me why the intelligences involved in time reversals other than humans do not talk to us, and one of the answers is that we, animals, are monkeys for them
     With respect, no offense intended, blowing water

173. Nissim, you give arguments and are enthusiastic, it's nice, but
     It should be taken into account, that in my opinion, from a scientific point of view, there are time reversals, and therefore a "Creator" can, even if he is not developed from us, go back and intervene in what is happening, whether it is to add millions of years back in time, or whether it is to fix your beautiful poor,
     Not a big story, just scientifically time reversals, and there is a parallel world that is not even visible to you and it is as if it does not exist for you
     Respectfully blowing water

174. another one
     What galaxy do you live in? It is not true to say that there is X number of hours that science is taught. There are X study hours in total, of which a very small number are assigned to study science. Increasing X is very simple - those parents you respect so much, demand to increase the number of school days, and rightly so. We solved X's problem….

     You say one of the dumbest things I've heard here - let the parents determine the curriculum. Israel has a republican government. In this method, a people chooses a government according to the platform offered by each party. One of the reasons for this is that most people have no idea about almost anything - not in health, not in security and not in education. Maybe parents can decide whether their children will serve in the army? And maybe we can let them decide which vaccines should be given to the children?

     You wrote "The same hand that decides for you that evolution is important to study, can later decide that it is important to study religion instead. That's what's dangerous about it" - it's a shame you didn't notice that it already happened...

     Later you write like a 5-year-old child and I'm afraid you won't understand, even if I try to explain to you slowly... I gave you several arguments why it is so important to teach evolution, and you did not respond. I also gave a simple way to teach it starting from kindergarten age, and you didn't pay attention to that either.

     Another one - you are not stupid. The problem is that most people are a bit stupid... look at how many people oppose vaccines, deny global warming and vote for all sorts of crazy parties.

     You must think of the good of the whole, and not the good of each individual. It has long been proven not to work….

175. Shmulik,

     Apparently the education system fails itself if it produces people with mental confusion and limited vision. If there was a leader with vision and vision of building a quality education system, we could be in a different place. As they once said, if you will, it is not a fairy tale.

176. Leon, you are right. This is one of the funniest sentences I've ever heard in my life.
     In English I would say: I've lived to hear it because really in my life I never thought that anyone, with a clear mind, would think that our children don't deserve knowledge, because he didn't have it.
     Stunning

177. another one,
     This is called diminishing marginal productivity. Even so they learn what you said but they don't learn one of the greatest achievements of science ever.
     Anyway, I hope you understand why saying this is propaganda is at best a mistake and at worst, malicious

178. another one

     As soon as you said the following sentence: "Why would I demand to provide such an advantage to the next generation" -

     There's nothing to talk about with you, don't mess with our brains.

179. Why should I turn to a rabbi?
     what do you think i am
     You do not know me. But I'm really not religious. I am completely secular.
     It may not be comfortable for you to think that there are secularists who do not agree with you on this issue, but this is the reality.

180. another one,

     The next time I go to the doctor, maybe consider contacting a rabbi or praying instead. Or read the following article and take another look:

     http://www.danielpipes.org/366/islam-and-islamism-faith-and-ideology

181. It makes no sense to fund other things as well.
     Why should I finance my competitors in the market? I was not taught advanced science, or nice things like that, why would I be required to provide such an advantage to the next generation? What has this generation done for me?
     I emphasize - the ideal situation is that everyone chooses for their children what they will learn (and when they are old enough, they choose for themselves.
     You should not be interested in what children who are not yours are taught. It doesn't affect you if they study evolution, physics, the Bible, or Hindu mythology.
     The reason why seculars are taught the Bible in schools is not to make them religious - anyone who really listens in these classes will understand. Mandatory Bible studies in high school are about the most secular thing taught there. The motivation for this is national. Those who belong to the Jewish people will know a little about the sources that unite our people.
     But this is also a compulsion that I would give up - a voucher system or full privatization - will lead us to a much better place.
     There are enough ultra-Orthodox in the country who, after barely learning anything outside of religion, completed everything they lacked in a year or two and enrolled in real academic studies.
     Because the reality is that what changes in studies is not so much what you study, but how you study. As long as you learn something. As long as you exercise your head, you can study Homer's poetry 6 hours a day for a year - and it's not that old.
     To learn math and English - these are things that are relatively difficult to complete later. especially English.
     But the rest? Not everyone needs to study evolution, not everyone is going to mess with it, and who wants to mess with it? The information is available.
     Don't want to finance an education system that teaches the Bible? legitimate.
     But consider that there are enough religious people who would not want to finance an education system that does not teach the Bible. And certainly not an education system that teaches "problematic" science to those who shouldn't be concerned with it.
     And they have a right to choose just like you do.
     The solution is that no one will finance anyone's education system except for their own children.
     This is as fair as it can be.

182. Sign up:

     The hours of studying the Bible should be reduced to a few hours a year within the studies of ancient history and mythologies, and when there is time available, science studies should be added, including physics, chemistry, biology and also evolution.
     Those who want to study the Bible in an extended manner will do so separately. It is impossible to become a modern and competitive society in the world economy while the quality time and money of the majority of the population is wasted on studying ancient mythology. Separate religion from the state. There is no sense in the funding of mythology studies by the secular majority. What is not clear?

183. Do you think that adding a few hours a year to studying evolution will make a difference?
     Isn't it better to try to push for another hour of science?
     Maybe computers? or math? Why don't we raise the study of mathematics, or the study of English?
     There is a lot to improve in the English of many Israelis, why don't we make an effort for it?
     Programming can be taught already in lower grades.
     There are so many things that can be done, why do you want one of the things that will give you the most resistance? And not too much benefit in return?

     Do you really think that critical scientific thinking needs evolution studies?

184. another one,
     This is what I said, in your reality learning made-up stories from second grade to high school graduation is more important than learning facts that can actually help graduates become doctors/researchers/scientists and become people who contribute to themselves and society is delusional, but even more delusional is your claim that studying evolution is atheistic propaganda.
     The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
     The best lack all conviction, while the worst
     Are full of passionate intensity

185. Michael Rothschild
     Do you call me a liar?

     Miracles - the reason for not studying evolution is simple, there are X hours in which science is taught in schools - and the Ministry of Education prefers to teach other things. It could be that it is easy to teach other material, it could be that other material is more important - and it could certainly be that there is a political element here of not upsetting the religious and ultra-Orthodox.
     This is the direct result of a public education system that is run from above.
     This is why the system needs to be privatized little by little - so that each parent can decide what their child will learn. (And when he is big enough - the child will also be able to choose).
     It is not the role of the state to decide what is important to know and what is not important to know.
     The same hand that decides for you that evolution is important to study, can later decide that it is important to study religion instead. That's what's dangerous about it.
     Your problem is that for some reason it is important to you what children who are not related to you learn. Why is it important to you what religious children learn? What does it help you that others study the theory of evolution? And let's not say they study another scientific subject? What is the difference between this knowledge and other knowledge?

     Do you think this is some kind of magic bullet against religion? This is an illusion - there are enough religious people who can certainly combine this Torah with their religious worldview. The others won't buy it even if you explain it to them in school.
     If your goal is to fight religion, then forcing evolution studies on religious children will get you nowhere.

     If the point of all this is to show that the religious influence the lives of all of us - then you may indeed be right - if what Einat Wilf says is true - but this is not something new.

     The fact that there is no separation between religion and state here is nothing new.

     In my opinion, teaching evolution in schools as a compulsory subject, will not have too much effect.

186. another one
     I have given many reasons to study evolution. I am still waiting for one reason not to study, because I am trying to understand how one of the most important facts in the world man is not important……
     I know that knowledge is the enemy of religion, and this is not a reason not to teach - but exactly the opposite!!!! If increasing knowledge decreases the power of religion, then we will all only benefit from it.

187. Shmulik and Nisim:
     I apologize for not joining your argument with another one.
     Every time I read his comments and come across the dishonesty (intellectual and in general) in which I just get angry and leave the page.
     It is clear to me that when someone responds dishonestly there is no chance of convincing him

188. Shmulik
     Reveal protocols, that would be interesting.
     , a few words from a clerk, it's not entirely clear, it could be that the sensitivity part is just taking a ride or...misleading.
     It's really interesting, but it doesn't really matter.
     It goes without saying that a public education system will be managed according to such unrelated matters - that is exactly what is worst about it. That they will not always learn according to the considerations you find relevant and important.
     That's why I support as much choice as possible, so that a handful of ultra-Orthodox can't force the children of secular people what to study and vice versa.

     It shouldn't be your business what a religious or ultra-Orthodox child learns. And it is none of the business of an orthodox or religious person what a secular child learns.

     Miracles - I know doctors and they know what evolution is - they just didn't have to learn it at any stage - I know because I asked. I have a doctor in the family.

     Most doctors are not engaged in research, so it is not so necessary for them to study evolution.
     ---
     Shmulik
     When I was in second grade,
     We studied 'Torah' a special book for children in capital letters with pictures, I think the language was also a bit simplified - I don't remember. It may be different now.

189. another one,
     Do you think the PM will go against her office and the minister on this issue, reveal protocols and lose her job? In a dream at night and that's why her answer is relatively weak.

     Avi,
     Do you think there is a possibility of trying to reveal the minutes of the discussions in which it was decided that the subject would not be taught in Israel?

190. another one,
     I have a foundation. The article says this and another article on the site says that the person who said it was from the biology major. What do you not understand here???????? Here, from another article from the science website:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/only-515-pupils-in-israel-examin-in-bagrut-in-evolution-040212/
     "...due to the sensitivity of the subject among certain groups, the in-depth study of evolution will only be taught as an optional subject.
     "I'm sorry that studying biology is not compulsory for all students." Summarizes Mendelovich."
     Now tell me, how do you think the yeshiva in which it was determined that evolution will only be taught to 515 students? Did people sit there and politely decide to drop the subject because they are nice? Do you think that's how such meetings are conducted for them? In a dream at night and in general, since when do you not teach science in order to spare public feelings????? We are lucky that it is already allowed to teach that God revolves around the sun. If I had had this discussion with you 500 years ago in Europe, you would have banned me from teaching this fact and executed me. Soon by the way, you will have that power again.

     Hey, we've reached the end of the discussion. I will continue to ask you to read the article and use your intellect and you will not do so but will be dumbfounded, roll your eyes, invent new meanings for words in Hebrew and we will continue over and over again until you give in and I have news for you: children do study the Bible, already in the second grade and at this age They are very smart, with a tremendous memory and a mind ready to absorb new information and they come with a lot of questions that are very difficult to answer especially because you remember that in Israel, they might be hated if they say that God is just a story.

     The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
     The best lack all conviction, while the worst
     Are full of passionate intensity

191. Shmulik, small children don't learn Tanach - at least when I was a child in elementary school - we didn't learn Tanach but from a simplified source - so your last argument doesn't stand up to reality.
     It is absolutely possible to teach whatever you want to children - it's just not necessarily clear what their effect will be.
     And what does studying or not studying Torah/Bible have to do with studying or not studying evolution? There's really no connection.
     Unless you admit that it is, for you, a struggle against the character of the state.
     That is, you want the country to be more secular than it is, and that you think that studying evolution in second grade is what will do it - so I'll save you the trouble - it's not, the secular education system doesn't have the ability to influence the opinions of the students there too much.
     If your motivation is as a basis for biology - then this is a matter for experts. And the experts decided that it's not that important. - The fact that it's an elective = it exists - teachers in Israel can choose it - do you really think that all schools don't teach it because there's pressure on them from above? - Do you have a basis for this claim??? Or maybe there is simply no educational infrastructure to teach it properly. Because religious people won't learn it, it becomes a topic not worth writing books about. And that in mixed classes teachers might prefer not to teach. - So what will you do? Force religious children to learn evolution? Haredic children? Why is it so important to you what children who are not yours will learn?

192. another one
     A doctor doesn't know evolution? what are you saying??? You are just so ignorant that you embarrass yourself 🙂
     You'll just be embarrassed ………ask your doctor why you have back pain. Ask why we have fangs. Ask why our hair ends. Ask what antibodies are. Ask about the appendix. Ask about the effectiveness of antibiotics over time. Ask about flu shots.

     If I were you, I would ask my father to delete your comment...quickly, before someone else reads it 🙂

     On the other hand …. You are smarter than safkan…..he claims that it is generally the students who do not want to study evolution …. He loves you more, and it's hard 🙂

193. An upside-down world exists here, which produces an illusory discussion. Instead of the one who defends himself being the one who teaches who wants to teach stories, without a shred of evidence (cruel stories that include rape and incest to children) as the core of our existence, those with the evidence find themselves persecuted and people in the forum discussing scientific matters roll their eyes and teach defenses about the studies of the made-up stories. delusional

     So you said and you continue to be wrong. If the truth, without interpretation regarding things that the truth does not say, is propaganda, then you abolished the term propaganda, but for us, Hebrew speakers, the word propaganda has a clear meaning and you used this term in a trending way.
     I have already explained to you what my motivation is for teaching evolution, but I am not really relevant to the story. The story is that the religious managed to bring the education system to its knees. This fact was given to you by the Ministry of Education, while you continue to tell us all that it's fine, only because you've gotten used to the crazy reality we live in and it's really sad.
     The continuation of this fruitless debate and the fervor with which you defend the study of made-up stories but are willing to give up with a sleepy shrug the study of evolution reminds me of Yeats's poem: The Second Coming. especially the first stanza: http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html
     Turning and turning in the widening gyre
     The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
     Things fell apart; the center cannot hold;
     Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
     The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
     The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
     The best lack all conviction, while the worst
     Are full of passionate intensity.

     By the way, what is the interpretation of the question of how to teach evolution to children? If children are able to handle the very difficult (and beautiful) Hebrew of the Torah, if the children are able to handle the story of the creation of the world, if the children can handle the story of the Akedah, they will also be able to handle the studies of evolution. No one is asking them to be Gold or Dawkins in first grade, but let them know the facts, initially, in the spirit of what Nissim said his wife passes on to the children. What are you so afraid of? What do you resent so much against it?
     Why am I actually asking? Again I will receive from you the fur answers of children who do not study, the Bible is not studied as facts and everything is wrong. Everything you write is wrong. Aren't you tired of being wrong?

194. I was once a child, I remember what they teach. I remember what I thought.
     Bible studies did not make me religious.
     Later, in high school, the Tanakh is taught from a clear secular angle, they talk about the slaps, the structure, the conventions.
     All this - this is more or less the most secular thing that is taught in school.

     As I have already said - facts can be used as propaganda, even without the teacher quickly summarizing what the students need to understand - if your motivation for studying evolution is indeed as a counterweight to Torah/Bible studies - then your motivation is propaganda.

     The truth is not hidden. Everyone can teach their children what they want. The world is full of truths that are not taught in school, they are not taught about the difference between alternative medicine and real medicine, they are not taught too much about the modern history of the country and many other important things.

195. another one,
     Not true. Just not true. You involve a different species. The facts are not propaganda and no one should be swayed by what a group, no matter how loud, will shout. The facts could have been used as propaganda if the teacher had said "...therefore students, you must not believe in God" but of course that is not what is happening. Definately not. What is happening is that the religious are so unsure of themselves that they will create a situation where almost all of Israel's students are not exposed to these facts and on the other hand, all of Israel's students are washed away, starting from grade XNUMX (!) in his book studies there is not a single evidence missing but they learn it, especially in the lower grades As something more than just a story. I again risk assuming that you do not have children, and therefore you did not have discussions with your children after Bible lessons.
     This situation where fiction is taught as truth and the truth is hidden, due to political pressure and against the opinion of experts, is delusional.

196. You can repeat this saying, "the truth is not propaganda" - but it is simply not true.
     Propaganda is not only lies, it is also the nature of presenting reality.
     Anyone who presents reality - even if he uses facts - in a trending way with the aim of promoting some kind of worldview - is propaganda.
     That you understand that a person can be a doctor without studying evolution, most doctors as far as I know have probably not studied it, and still people don't die - scientific thinking can be promoted in other forms as well, studying mechanics, electricity, optics, studying chemistry and studying biology, science is much more Evolution studies soup. Evolution is an explanatory science, and as such it is relatively problematic because it is impossible to give observations to some of it, (you can expect that such and such a fossil will be found and that it will have such and such genetic features - but this is much less powerful than an experiment done in a laboratory, which can be reproduced and quantified) -
     It is impossible to make a laboratory in evolution, and this may have political consequences, in other words, evolution is not worth the effort.

197. Safkan,
     The education system does not come to serve what the students want to learn, but what is worthwhile and necessary. You don't think it's necessary, you're welcome, I think it is necessary. Write it down in front of you.
     In addition, it's not nonsense, the MPMR said so herself. Why are you arguing with facts???

     another one,
     We grind water, especially you. You answer irrelevant things. Truth is not propaganda so your original argument is wrong and outrageous.

198. Leon

     No one wants to silence the study of evolution. This is just an agenda that is spread on this site. The students themselves do not want to learn evolution. The Academy of Biology considers the subject of evolution a subject that is a shame to waste time on (therefore, in most biology courses for biologists at the Academy, the study of evolution is vague and not included in mandatory courses). The problem with the study of evolution is that it is a non-practical subject, this subject does not really help any applied study in biology.

     Advanced biology students in high school have the option to choose to study evolution or study alternate subjects. Of their own free will, they prefer to study alternative subjects in biology, subjects that are not philosophical subjects but subjects with practical value. High school students who see studying biology as a path to a profession in life have no interest in wasting their time studying evolution in depth, therefore this subject is not popular in high school (nor in academia).

     Likewise for life science students at the academy, as if they want to pursue their careers in practical fields. Most of them don't study evolution, because it really doesn't interest them, they are satisfied with learning the subject by rote and that's all.

     The claim that the study of evolution in high school is prevented because of religious coercion is nonsense that is spread on this site. This site has an anti-religion agenda and mobilizes the topic of evolution as a weapon against religious people. Find a statement here and a statement there about someone in the Ministry of Education who said such and such and on this they hang in their proof of the supposed coercion of not studying in high school.

     Write in front of you:
     Biology students mostly refuse to learn about evolution because for them it is a waste of time. As for those who do not study biology - the subject is not interesting at all, just as they are not interested in biology at all. Even the academy, which is not subject to any religious political dictates, relegates the subject of evolution to non-mandatory side courses.

     Those who passionately preach evolution studies are those who do not study biology. And especially those who want to clash with religion.

199. Those who look reality in the eyes know that the human race is in a constant struggle for its existence, including the people of Israel who are struggling for their existence against hostile countries and elements. The people with a head on their shoulders have determined for a long time that those who manage to survive are the strongest (and not just by brute force of course) and those who understand and know the reality. That is why it is extremely important to educate the young generation (and it is better to start this at a young age) in the spirit of the scientific method, not to rely on miracles and legends, these are only based on the power of knowledge and rational thinking which form the basis for the continued development of technologies critical to the survival and prosperity of society as a whole. The lie lies in the belief that God or another imaginary entity cares for a particular population or the human race, it is an idea that distorts reality like a destructive virus that damages and weakens the mind of the victim and prevents him from recognizing the dangerous situation around him.

200. Censorship=/= no funding, anyone who wants to can publish a children's book or a website that explains about evolution.
     A little more difficult, but it is still possible to make a TV and radio show on the subject (it would have been much easier if everything had been specified properly).

201. Those who push the issue of atheism against religion here forget that the purpose of science is to present the facts and verify theories that describe reality. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory based on many discoveries of nature observers.

202. The nature of reality does not depend on whether people believe in it or deny it due to ignorance or blind faith. There is a huge collection that points to the correctness of the idea of ​​the theory of evolution and denying it is like gagging and impoverishing the existing knowledge. Those who want to prevent the spread of knowledge are similar to those who silenced Copernicus and Galileo, if you haven't forgotten their sad story. You can't hide the truth, it always comes out stronger than the lie.

203. Shmulik
     Propaganda does not have to be false to be propaganda.
     If an anti-Semitic newspaper publishes all day only crimes that Jews have committed all over the world, it will be anti-Semitic propaganda even if there is not a single lie because propaganda is not only what they say, but also what emphasis they put where, and what they repeat and what they don't.

     If your motivation for studying evolution is indeed biological pedagogy - then it is indeed a legitimate reason.

     If your reason is to try to preach atheism - then indeed it is a kind of problem just like if someone wanted to teach in a school in order to "strengthen" the students.

     From the point of view of the religious in the country, this is a violation of the status quo, what to do if the country is democratic and this means that the public resources - and this includes the education system - are managed democratically. And that means that sometimes you won't get everything you want.

     I personally have no problem with evolution studies, it really doesn't bother me that they teach it, but I am against coercion, and I believe that parents are allowed to determine up to a certain level what their children will learn and what they won't. , also because it's their tax money.

     I am in favor of multiple elections, I am in favor of moving to the voucher system and privatization of the education system.
     Those who want their children to learn evolution and science - will send their children to a school that teaches that, and those who want them to learn heritage and the Bible - should send them to a school that mainly teaches that.

204. another one
     If you say that education for love of knowledge, logic and scientific skepticism is atheism - then yes, that's what I want. Which of these 3 points do you object to?

205. another one,
     You are also wrong when you say children don't listen. Children listen very well, especially at young ages and that is why the religious like to catch children when they are young. You can insert any nonsense, especially if the children are busy all day memorizing their nonsense

206. another one,
     You keep rolling your eyes. Here is the definition of the term: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94
     Propaganda (sometimes the foreign term propaganda is used) is a form of communication, in which a calculated distribution of political ideas is made among a wide public, with the aim of influencing their behavior or attitudes
     The facts are not a political idea and the truth is not a political idea and that is why I am outraged by the use of the word propaganda. You of course know this, and in order to minimize your mistake, you try to roll your eyes and downplay the strength of your argument, but when you used this word, which has extremely negative connotations (totalitarianism, brainwashing, etc.) you did it to put us down, that is, those who think there is To teach evolution to the poor level of the religious (only those who don't want evolution studies to take place. Not all of them, of course), who use political power, to bend and trample the professional ranks, but just as Bill Maher explained in his great clip, we are not two equal sides. The Torah belongs on the shelf with Zeus and the Kraken, while evolution sits next to relativity, quantum mechanics and any science based on empirical findings.
     Beyond that, I already explained together with a few others why the subject should be taught in earlier grades and Nissim explained how even in kindergarten it is possible but you are free not to be convinced. You are not allowed to use the Hebrew term in a wrong way, on purpose, and expect us to pass it by in silence.

207. Propaganda does not have to be a lie to be propaganda.
     If you want to teach the subject as a basis for advanced biology - then it would be enough if it was a mandatory subject for those who expand biology.
     You want to teach it as a counterweight to Tanach studies - at least that's what I understand from your words. legitimate. your opinion
     Want to teach secular and traditional children the subject briefly in sixth grade? It is absolutely possible, yes, there may be some resistance - but I doubt if your agenda will gain anything from it, children, in the secular system at least not that much listen to their teacher. Whoever chooses not to believe, will not believe, and it will be from home. The State of Israel is not a totalitarian state - knowledge is available to the majority of the population, a few mouse clicks on the computer. Or a few clicks on a smartphone.
     Only ultra-Orthodox children may find it difficult to get access to information. - In this case, but even so, you have nothing to do, it's hard to push a much more neutral science onto the syllabus, so you want to try to teach them a tasty topic like evolution? It's not worth the effort. Orthodox and religious people are very good at convincing themselves that they are right, they will give the answers you want in the test - but it will not change what they believe.

     Now why do they teach the Bible in this country? This is because we are Jews, we are mostly descendants of immigrants who came here on a national or religious background which is based to a significant extent on our origins - the Tanakh among them. That is why it is quite important to teach about this element that has an important part in the definition of our nation - even outside the religious angle.

     And again I'll make it clear, if you want to teach evolution because it's an important part of biology, then teach it to biology majors - the others don't need it.
     But if you want to teach it to everyone, at the youngest age you can - then it looks like you want to educate for atheism - which, to do is politically impossible at the moment. As you understand a fairly large portion of the taxpayers in this country do not want their money to be used for a cause they do not believe in. They also don't want their children to learn by force what they don't want them to learn, this is what is called in simple language, democracy.

208. another one,
     don't you read Because of political pressure, the political echelon in the ministry decided, against the nose and anger of the professional echelon, that Israeli students would not learn evolution in order not to offend the religious. If anything, as someone pointed out, the Bible should have been studied as part of 5 units of history or something like that and not a subject that accompanies all Israeli students from the XNUMXnd grade onwards. The current situation is delusional and stupid at international levels and we deserve any deterioration in the international indices of Israeli students. we deserve.

     In any case, you are trying to deviate from what you wrote and it is your claim (which I have heard from other people who correspond with religion in a sympathetic way, in one way or another) that the truth (in this case the truth is the science of evolution, but cosmology is also sometimes included in this category) is atheistic propaganda. In your first post, you didn't write that the religious see it as atheistic propaganda (and I also answered that), but that it is propaganda, that is, you think that studying science is propaganda and the truth is in the eyes of the beholder, and there is no black and white, but everything is gray. You have lost touch with reality if you think so.

209. Leon
     You are right, in my opinion, that evolution does not explain the beginning of life. But - evolution certainly explains the internal complexity of living beings. We do not know how each mechanism developed in living things, but we are sure that each mechanism developed through evolution.

     It should be noted that evolution is a mechanism, not a path. I mean that the process of evolution itself does not explain the extinction of the dinosaurs (it happened because of a certain event), but it does explain how those species that survived developed.

210. While we talk about what our children will learn in schools, they now stay outside and learn the "important" things on the street or from television and in quite a few cases run around with us in the workplace.

     After all, it is clear to anyone with an education the importance of the theory of evolution as one of the great ideas of humanity which explains the development of life forms in space and time. Of course, this theory neither explains nor pretends to explain how the first life on earth was created, nor does it explain the internal complexity of living things, but these areas are a focus for multidisciplinary research. Life is a very complex phenomenon and the theory of evolution is only part of the description of this phenomenon, like classical mechanics is part of physics.

     Regarding other subjects such as physics, chemistry and also astronomy and space exploration - it was very desirable that they become mandatory professions, which are cornerstones in understanding the world and provide a broad basis for modern education.

     But the most important thing of all is to give children a longing for knowledge, develop their curiosity for the wonders of the world, bathe them in scientific discoveries and encourage them to learn and think independently.

211. Another one, wouldn't it occur to you to teach English and skip the letter stage?
     So why is it possible in biology, because there is a violent group that forces its lies on the rest of the public?

212. Shmulik, the "experts" determined that it should not be taught, funny right?

213. Of course, the exaggeration is even more evident when he insists that this work on the eyes should also be done on the children of the seculars.

214. The funny thing is that the vast majority of taxes are paid by secular people but another thinks it is moral for the ultra-Orthodox to determine that using this money to teach theology is better than using it to teach evolution

215. another one,
     As I wrote, I will leave it to the experts to determine the how, but the simple answer is exactly as any other child is taught and I again risk assuming that you do not have children because when you wrote that parents can teach children "a little" you exaggerated, but before we move forward, you need to understand that the system wants to teach evolution (ie the experts think it is necessary) and they are restrained by the religious and also to accept what you wrote, that the truth is atheistic propaganda, is fundamentally wrong. As long as we don't agree on that, what is there to talk about?

216. Shmulik, the problem with democracy is that the government doesn't always do what you want.
     Secular children can easily access this information if it interests them, parents can easily teach their children in many different ways.
     Why do you think this should be the role of the education system?
     How would you teach religious children, against the will of their parents evolution?
     What positive effect would you think you would get?
     Go donate money to free science classes in elementary schools - where they will learn evolution, the big bang, critical thinking and anything else you want, I'm sure you'll find a framework to do it.

217. Miracles, wonderful!

     another one,

     Listen, I seriously suggest you see an eye doctor. The eye roll you perform may leave you blind forever and not just momentarily.

     How many times can I tell you that I don't care what they think? Using political power they hide the issue and it is written in the article itself! you don't read??? here:

     "In response to MK Dr. Einat Wilf's query from the previous Knesset, the Ministry of Education explained that the reason for not including the subject of evolution in the compulsory education is the "sensitivity of the subject among a certain group", and this at a time when the religious view on the subject has long been included in the compulsory education, without any considerations "Sensitivity", as if it is the domain of religious groups only."

     I mean, and it's really unfortunate that you don't pick it up on your own or you're just dumbfounded and then it's really annoying because it means you're not honest, there's nothing to do with the experts but political power, deus ex machina, which, contrary to the opinion of the experts, has put the field out of their reach the children's. how do i know This is what it says: the Ministry of Education wanted, while the interest groups forced the Ministry to give up the idea and leave the profession only for a little while. "The Ministry of Education wanted" this means that the experts recommended (contrary to what you wrote) and the interest groups are the religious ones. Don't you understand by yourself how wrong this is?

     Don't you understand by yourself that the truth is not propaganda and if a group opposes imparting the truth to their children for reasons of maintaining power (or maybe for any reason) it is child abuse and the power should be confiscated from this group?

     Covering his crimes will not work. Thanks and leaves, Yeruham

218. another one
     I would add several topics to what my father suggested. My wife is a kindergarten teacher and she teaches evolution to 4 and 5 year old children. Turns out they're not as stupid as you think. One of the things that can be taught is the amazing resemblance between the different species. They show a skeleton of a man and a monkey (also other species). Ask the children why there is so much imagination. They are shown marine mammals and fish - they ask why the skeleton of marine mammals is similar to the skeleton of land mammals, and on the other hand there is a formal resemblance to fish.
     That is, they are taught to draw conclusions from what they see in the world today.
     After that - you can give the plane of time - in the past there were different mammals, hominids, and before that dinosaurs (children's favorites). That is, they are taught to deduce from history.
     They are taught a little about heredity - the color of a child's eyes compared to the color of his parents' eyes (of course, beware of children with brown eyes when both parents have blue eyes....).

     This is how you build curiosity and a love of knowledge. And this is exactly what the religious oppose...

219. What grade would you teach this in?

220. First of all we start with the secular schools, after all the ultra-Orthodox not only take care of themselves but also take care that our children are ignorant so that they become easy prey for converts in their youth and young adulthood.

     And secondly, for the secularists, I would explain, even if it is simplistic, that every living being strives to pass on its qualities to the next generation. Those whose traits happen to be superior in their habitat and manage to survive for the entire time it takes until they reach maturity, pass the traits on to the next generation. A person who is eaten by a creature of another species, or dies because he was not successful in competing for food with his own species, or because of a natural disaster, or the environment has changed and no longer suits his traits - will not pass his traits on to the next generation. Since the genetic information is not copied exactly as it is but changes slightly, each generation has a variety of traits, some of which are passed on to the next generation and some of which are not. Usually the traits that help survive are the ones that get passed on.

221. How would you teach evolution in a religious school? What grade would you start in? How would you present it?

222. Another one - it's really not complicated biological science. The evolutionary principle is one of the easiest to explain. Unlike you, I don't think truth is relative.

223. Shmulik
     The infection of the disease in Africa calls for many reasons, the reluctance of the Catholic Church to complete if the appropriate protective measures are perhaps only one of these factors.
     As I said a devout Catholic society should be quite resistant to STDs.
     -
     Your experts have decided that evolution should be taught a little and only as an elective for biology majors. funny right?
     They are probably not the right experts.
     -
     You won't tell me what I justified and what I didn't, I told you what the religious feel and what to do. They also have the right to express an opinion and they also vote for the Knesset, pay taxes and serve in the army. If someone wants to learn complicated biological science for 7-year-old children, then yes - it's quite atheistic propaganda for them - if your motivation is not to establish biological science for them but to give them the opportunity to develop a different world view than what they were taught at home - then what does it look like? Do you think an average 7-year-old can understand the subject properly? Do you think he will believe the teacher if he comes from a religious home?
     You fight windmills.

     The reality is that almost anyone who wants to teach their children about evolution, can do it, almost every child who wants to learn about evolution, can do it. (Internet, books, the information is currently more accessible to people than ever before)
     What you want is to push it by force. Then you are surprised that the religious oppose.

     But okay, describe to me how you would teach, children in a religious state school, XNUMXth grade, evolution.

224. another one,
     Because despite the unrealistic, ridiculous and scandalous demand of the church for what you said, the number of people infected with AIDS in Africa is only increasing and increasing because they are not using their tremendous power, for good.

     I do not agree with you about the maximum choice, etc. In the public education system, the one that is funded by all of us, you have to learn what will best prepare the children for a shared modern life and you cannot allow one to choose what he wants (again, in the public system. Choice of majors in advanced classes certainly but some basis must be shared) And it is absolutely clear that science, and a lot must be included there and certainly also literature, expression, history, art, etc. When and to what extent you should start studying evolution, I'll leave it to the experts to determine (I actually appreciate them, unlike you) but don't try to obscure what you said by dragging the discussion into philosophical realms: you justified the demand of the religious to ban evolution studies on the grounds that evolution is atheistic propaganda and that delusional The truth is not propaganda in any form. Now, if you get stupid and say that you are only describing what the religious say, I tell you that I also answered you: I don't care if a small group, no matter how vocal, demands to be taught that the very study is against their interests. This is the same group that for years, in a horribly cynical way, forced us to go to dark hour so early in the year. Bad for the aforementioned group? That the group will leave the country for another place.

225. another one
     So what you are proposing is to preserve the status quo in lower class families (leave me out of "political correctness" for now..)? You suggest that those whose parents are uneducated raise such children.

     And beyond the fact that you said something that is shocking, you said completely ridiculous things about the Catholic Church. There is no doubt that the church is directly to blame for stopping science for something like 1000 years. Maybe not here...

     You must understand that the enemy of religion is knowledge, starting with the story of the Tree of Knowledge, and ending with the lack of core studies in Israel today. Those who don't understand this... probably just lack knowledge

226. I am personally in favor of maximum freedom of choice for a parent to choose for his child what to study.
     The state cannot deny anyone's children to learn, in their own time, from their books or from the Internet, or from their parents - whatever they or their parents want.
     There is no such thing as a 'right to study evolution', and there is no such obligation as 'paying for evolution studies' or 'sending your children to study evolution'. What to do - there are other priorities.
     —
     Regarding Africa, when did I say that the situation there is wonderful?

227. another one,
     Indeed, the situation in Africa is wonderful.
     I'm glad you agree with me that no private person determines or will determine. The religious are a group of private individuals who determined for us, for the entire State of Israel, that only a miserable minority of students will learn evolution, this by exercising political power.
     Thank you for agreeing with me

228. I don't think truth is propaganda, but I don't decide, the country is democratic, so not only I and not only you can determine what will be taught. There is meaning in what is taught and what is not taught. There is a meaning to why there is an emphasis and why there is no emphasis, teaching costs money, the money comes from taxes, and you and no other private person have the right to determine for religious people that their children will learn at the expense of the taxes they also pay.
     Secondly, the Catholic Church is indeed opposed to contraceptives. But she also opposes sex outside of marriage. She also - if I remember correctly - opposes a wedding after a divorce - this pretty much limits the ability of this virus to spread in this way in a population of devout Catholics, don't you think?

229. another one,
     You really asked if there is any basis for the claim that the Catholic Church is guilty of the death of millions because of the assimilation of ignorance and the suppression of science? Are you serious? Why roll your eyes? Only at the present time millions in Africa are dying of AIDS because of the assertion that condoms are equivalent to abortion and abortion is worse than AIDS. Beyond that I'm not going to argue this point.

     I risk assuming that you don't have children according to your answer, but you have no idea how certain the young ones (still in kindergarten, by the way) are sure that God created everything because that's what they hear from the teacher/kindergarten teacher/older siblings/holiday songs, therefore your claim that you too were taught Satan" You are not a book of facts, which you mutter like a mantra, is not true. The absolute majority of the people are sure that we have a right to the land, because of the Torah, this despite the fact that there is no evidence that anything from the Torah ever existed.

     I have already explained why evolution should be taught in schools. Maybe not in the first grade, but certainly not only for students of five units in biology, as an elective. You may agree or disagree, but you may not compare studies of facts and claim that they are atheistic propaganda, to studies of stories as facts. Just so you know, the religious also prevent their bodies from studying mathematics. Is mathematics also atheistic propaganda? what nonsense The truth is that they are afraid to put their faith to the test, because their faith, in their opinion(!) is hidden by the facts and they probably don't believe enough to put it to the test. Again, I don't care what nonsense the religious will spew or what they think should or shouldn't be taught, because no group, no matter how vocal, should be given the ability to dictate what will be taught.
     The difference between us: I think the truth is not propaganda and you are

230. What is this talk about denial vs. really believing? what is that supposed to mean? What is this syntax? You can believe as much as you want that the sun revolves around the Earth and it will not affect anyone either the sun or the Earth or the GPS planners who make money thanks to their invention and thereby guarantee the future of their children and the determination that the sun revolves around the Earth of the Catholic Church (one of many) buried Europe in hundreds of years during the period known as the Middle Ages and not just a negligible amount of scientists died because of the Church but a large number of millions died because of these handcuffs that the Church handcuffed the population of Europe. You really don't know that?
     + + +
     Do you think the progress of science has stopped because of the Catholic Church? Do you have any basis for this claim?
     —
     It amazes me that you try not to understand. I love literature and it is clear to me that it is obligatory to teach literature, but the stories in literature are not taught as a factual description of reality, that is, no child studies the books of Sherlock Holmes and I am sure there was such a man in London, on the other hand, the Torah is taught as the true history of the Jewish people, including the far-fetched story of creation, even though There is no evidence that any of the Torah stories ever took place, but that is not the reason why I responded either.
     + + +
     I was not taught the Bible as a fact either.

231. What is this talk about denial vs. really believing? what is that supposed to mean? What is this syntax? You can believe as much as you want that the sun revolves around the Earth and it will not affect anyone either the sun or the Earth or the GPS planners who make money thanks to their invention and thereby guarantee the future of their children and the determination that the sun revolves around the Earth of the Catholic Church (one of many) buried Europe in hundreds of years during the period known as the Middle Ages and not just a negligible amount of scientists died because of the Church but a large number of millions died because of these handcuffs that the Church handcuffed the population of Europe. You really don't know that?
     + + +
     Do you think the progress of science has stopped because of the Catholic Church? Do you have any basis for this claim?
     —
     It amazes me that you try not to understand. I love literature and it is clear to me that it is obligatory to teach literature, but the stories in literature are not taught as a factual description of reality, that is, no child studies the books of Sherlock Holmes and I am sure there was such a man in London, on the other hand, the Torah is taught as the true history of the Jewish people, including the far-fetched story of creation, even though There is no evidence that any of the Torah stories ever took place, but that is not the reason why I responded either.
     + + +
     I was not taught the Bible as a fact either.
     —
     I don't know if you have children, but already in first grade they learn about nature and they don't stop learning about nature, but, if you don't tell them the explanation for the great diversity of species, if you don't explain to them why the daughter resembles her mother, if You don't explain to them why bacteria develop resistance and what is the thread that connects all these facts and on the other hand pollutes them with an understanding of God who created man already in the second grade (!) You are sinning against the truth and producing burned people. Should evolution be taught in first grade? Maybe there is no point and I believe that when it is worthwhile and when it should be left to the experts (which you don't like) to determine but in Israel, parties that are not experts (!) but political (!), interfere in the professional decisions and this is already crazy and from here it is already clear why only students of 5 biology units can study evolution . Therefore, should a minority of students be exposed to evolution only in the XNUMXth grade, obviously not.
     + + +
     The information is also available outside the education system - anyone can quite easily teach their children about evolution, there is internet, there are books - why should the public education system force everyone's children to learn it? And why should everyone pay for it?
     —
     I responded that you make an equal decision between studies of facts, facts that terrify the religious because they undermine their faith (and their faith is so poor and shaky that they are not ready to put it to the test) and made-up stories, which include incest, extermination of nations, rapes and what not. Teaching facts and truth is not demagogy, it is not preaching and it is not "atheist propaganda" as you wrote, which is the most delusional thing you wrote.
     + + +
     I said that this is how religious people see evolution studies (in a different response). But there is definitely such a thing as "atheist propaganda" and this is partly the promotion of science studies not according to its applicability in later life but according to its ability to turn students into atheists. Which at least some of the people commenting here relate to evolution.
     Let people develop their own beliefs - their parents will always have more influence, if you think you can just go into a state religious system and force them to learn other things - stop studying the Bible and religion and try to force them to study secular studies - then you are living in a movie - It will not happen.

     And as I already wrote - there are many facts in the world and only a limited number of study hours per day, why specifically evolution and not, for example, economics? Why evolution and not health studies? Why evolution and not a little more history? What is so important about evolution for those who do not study biology?

232. In the State of Israel we agreed that the state has the duty to educate our child and whoever determines what he will learn should do so according to the expectation of what will maximize our child's future happiness and wealth, or in short, what will prepare our child in the best way for the future and what will prepare our child in the best way for the future is science studies alongside studies Expressionist literature and the like and just so you know, those who do this are professional committees of experts, and when it comes to the scientific fields also of scientists (whom you seem to dislike). It's funny you don't know that. delusional
     + + +
     'Science studies' is quite general don't you think? Why not physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.? Why exactly evolution? I personally would prefer that they learn about the difference between real medicine and "alternative" medicine. You also forgot to study English or it is in "something like that". It is very good that you are not the Minister of Education otherwise everyone would be learning evolution instead of English....
     - You know that I have two bachelor's degrees from the Technion, right? And I'm now starting a master's degree as well. - Don't pretend to think I'm against science. And I am also completely secular.
     —

     Do you think that voting in the Knesset has anything to teach? Do you think there are democratic elections to determine whether 2+2 = 4? Say, are you serious? Are you serious that you use the "democratic" argument to protect religious people by denying their children critical information for their future (and here I'm not just talking about evolution).
     + + +
     The committees and the key people are ultimately appointed by the minister, the minister cannot determine what is fact and what is not - but he can certainly determine what will learn more and what will learn less - by appointing the right people. This will determine how many hours each subject will receive and so on.
     It is a fact that the subject so dear to your heart - evolution - is taught only as an elective subject for biology majors - and not as a compulsory subject in elementary school. It is also a fact that the Bible is taught, and you, I understand, oppose it.
     Links from Israel are problematic - you can't read without paying.

233. Shmulik

     another one,
     If you want to argue about whether the state has a right, fine, but that's your poor evasion because you know very well that we agreed to it because otherwise the children will have no chance in life to be more than cleaners or criminals.
     + + +
     Should the state feed us? Determine what we will eat - otherwise we will all be very fat and die young?
     Does the state determine what parents will feed their children? no she is not. So why is it so critical that she determine what to study for them? You don't need to study evolution to become a doctor. Not even a doctor of medicine.
     —
     I do not claim that I have a birthright to determine, but the majority of the world, including Israel, has come to the conclusion that it is worthwhile for the state itself to determine for children what they will learn (because children also have rights that are not derived from their parents), how they will learn, under which international criteria they will be taught, transparently, when the truth is A candle to his feet, and not to let any public, no matter how vocal, dictate what will be learned in order to ensure the future of the country and to ensure the well-being of the individual himself.
     + + +
     The country is democratic - it is run by elected officials, some of these elected officials do not agree with you on your priorities. They have a different opinion than you about what should be taught. What can be done if there are enough publics who are not only loud, they are also big - and they have just as much right as your public to determine what will be taught - because guess what? It is also their children who learn it - and it is also their tax money that finances it. Democracy is not just the will of the majority - and I'm not entirely sure you're the majority here anyway.
     —
     Go to any third world country and see what happens when there is no compulsory education law.
     + + +
     Third world countries don't look the way they do because of a lack of a compulsory education law - I'm also pretty sure that many of them have such a law.

234. another one
     From many years of investigation and thought. Why exactly do you disagree?

235. point
     My intention is that we are not in control... that there is no free choice exactly.

236. Well, this whole evolution thing is complete bullshit. The universe was created five thousand or so years ago, the sun, the moon and the stars revolve around the earth, and inside the computer's processor there is a miniature book of Psalms...
     The whole purpose of "science" is to incite people from the right path.

237. Miracles

     "You wrote, "The theory of evolution is not the pinnacle of science. This is another theory among hundreds of equally important theories." The theory of evolution is one of the 3 summits of science. The first is the Copernican revolution - the Earth is not in the center. The reason is the Darwinist revolution - man is not at the center. And the third is the Freudian revolution - the human soul is not at the center. Again, a basic education would have helped you here……”

     Where did you get it from?

238. Nissim, regarding the Freudian revolution, it seems to me that it is more in the direction of the claim that the instincts control the life of the soul and not the consciousness.

239. another one,
     If you want to argue about whether the state has a right, fine, but that's your poor evasion because you know very well that we agreed to it because otherwise the children will have no chance in life to be more than cleaners or criminals. I do not claim that I have a birthright to determine, but the majority of the world, including Israel, has come to the conclusion that it is worthwhile for the state itself to determine for children what they will learn (because children also have rights that are not derived from their parents), how they will learn, under which international criteria they will be taught, transparently, when the truth is A candle to his feet, and not to let any public, no matter how vocal, dictate what will be learned in order to ensure the future of the country and to ensure the well-being of the individual himself. Go to any third world country and see what happens when there is no compulsory education law. In the State of Israel we agreed that the state has the duty to educate our child and whoever determines what he will learn should do so according to the expectation of what will maximize our child's future happiness and wealth, or in short, what will prepare our child in the best way for the future and what will prepare our child in the best way for the future is science studies alongside studies Expressionist literature and the like and just so you know, those who do this are professional committees of experts, and when it comes to the scientific fields also of scientists (whom you seem to dislike). It's funny you don't know that. delusional Do you think that voting in the Knesset has anything to teach? Do you think there are democratic elections to determine whether 2+2 = 4? Say, are you serious? Are you serious that you use the "democratic" argument to protect religious people by denying their children critical information for their future (and here I'm not just talking about evolution)
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/.premium-1.2119866
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/.premium-1.2112737

     What is this talk about denial vs. really believing? what is that supposed to mean? What is this syntax? You can believe as much as you want that the sun revolves around the Earth and it will not affect anyone either the sun or the Earth or the GPS planners who make money thanks to their invention and thereby guarantee the future of their children and the determination that the sun revolves around the Earth of the Catholic Church (one of many) buried Europe in hundreds of years during the period known as the Middle Ages and not just a negligible amount of scientists died because of the Church but a large number of millions died because of these handcuffs that the Church handcuffed the population of Europe. You really don't know that?

     It amazes me that you try not to understand. I love literature and it is clear to me that it is obligatory to teach literature, but the stories in literature are not taught as a factual description of reality, that is, no child studies the books of Sherlock Holmes and I am sure there was such a man in London, on the other hand, the Torah is taught as the true history of the Jewish people, including the far-fetched story of creation, even though There is no evidence that any of the Torah stories ever took place, but that is not the reason why I responded either.

     I don't know if you have children, but already in first grade they learn about nature and they don't stop learning about nature, but, if you don't tell them the explanation for the great diversity of species, if you don't explain to them why the daughter resembles her mother, if You don't explain to them why bacteria develop resistance and what is the thread that connects all these facts and on the other hand pollutes them with an understanding of God who created man already in the second grade (!) You are sinning against the truth and producing burned people. Should evolution be taught in first grade? Maybe there is no point and I believe that when it is worthwhile and when it should be left to the experts (which you don't like) to determine but in Israel, parties that are not experts (!) but political (!), interfere in the professional decisions and this is already crazy and from here it is already clear why only students of 5 biology units can study evolution . Therefore, should a minority of students be exposed to evolution only in the XNUMXth grade, obviously not.

     I responded that you make an equal decision between studies of facts, facts that terrify the religious because they undermine their faith (and their faith is so poor and shaky that they are not ready to put it to the test) and made-up stories, which include incest, extermination of nations, rapes and what not. Teaching facts and truth is not demagogy, it is not preaching and it is not "atheist propaganda" as you wrote, which is the most delusional thing you wrote.

240. safkan
     You wrote "Biology does not rely on the theory of evolution but on other theories" - a famous biologist (Dobzhansky) said 40 years ago that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. If you had a proper basic education (the subject of the article here) you would understand what nonsense you said.

     You wrote, "The theory of evolution is not the pinnacle of science. This is another theory among hundreds of equally important theories." The theory of evolution is one of the 3 summits of science. The first is the Copernican revolution - the Earth is not in the center. The reason is the Darwinist revolution - man is not at the center. And the third is the Freudian revolution - the human soul is not at the center. Again, a basic education would have helped you here……

     You wrote "The theory of genetics and genetic engineering (including animal and plant domestication) - are not based on evolution but on direct empirical findings". True, but it doesn't belong :). But (!!!) evolution is based (in part) on the theory of genetics.
     Evolution is based on 4 conditions: reproduction, variation, competition and inheritance. What fulfills the last condition is genetics.

     safkan – you are the best proof that evolution should be taught from a young age. You are an intelligent person, but sometimes write such nonsense……if you think that contradicting evolution will do nothing for science then you are in serious trouble.

     Don't get mad at me... you have a tendency to get angry when your words are taken.

241. Unfortunately, even the science site is not aware of the severity of the problem!! The concept of evolution does not belong only to life, there are also other evolutions for example evolutions in the development of stars, evolution in art in literature and theater, in the theater and even evolution of theories as he wrote here on the website of your faithful servant. Evolution is development while changing the environment. For example, the knowledge about the structure of the changing universe makes us look for a new theory to explain it. Preventing studies of evolution causes damage to all subjects of science. The situation must be changed quickly because we will lose the scientific advantage we have over our neighbors
     Happy holiday
     Yehuda

242. I hope that most parents have the option to send their children
     for science circles. And it is always possible through experimenting.

243. If you read Darwin's book, you will see that evolution is also based on empirical findings - both from the Galapagos Islands and from Darwin's own hybridization experiments. From the Humphrey findings he arrived at the inevitable theory. In domesticating plants and animals, we use the same methods that nature created and the (partial) ability to transfer traits through genetics to cause the creation of new species. And how these teachings are based on evolution. Anyone who claims otherwise is probably speaking out of religious brainwashing.

244. Chaim P

     Nothing came of this letter. will be filed in a binder and soon forgotten. And so it is appropriate. It is better that the students of Israel learn really important subjects, that they do not suffer from anti-religious indoctrination disguised as science.

     The theory of evolution is not the pinnacle of science. This is another theory among hundreds of equally important theories. If tomorrow the whole theory of evolution is proven to be complete nonsense - nothing will happen to science. Biology does not rely on the theory of evolution but on other theories, which are based on direct empirical findings (will remain valid even if the theory of evolution is proven to be nonsense).

     The theory of genetics and genetic engineering (including animal and plant domestication) - are not based on evolution but on direct empirical findings. Those who claim that these theories are based on evolution reveal in their claims that they actually do not know what the theory of Darwinian evolution claims. They also find that they do not understand what logic is, confusing cause and effect. The empirical theories I mentioned are not based on the theory of evolution but are used as confirmation for the theory of evolution, they are true whether evolution is true or not.

245. Shmulik
     + + +
     another one,
     You miss the point: once we agreed that the state has the right to decide what the children will learn and at what age, no one should care what a group of people, with a clear interest, will say or think, especially when it comes to facts.
     —
     First of all, it is not clear to me why we agreed that the state has the power to decide what the children will learn and at what age.
     Secondly, this is a democratic country and the people who decide its policy are the people and not a committee of scientists.
     + + +
     It's like allowing vegetarians to remove from textbooks the fact that the human race used to eat meat (there's no need to go into the exact details of whether we only ate meat, you know what I mean) or like it's possible for Christian believers from 500 years ago to deny that God revolves around the sun...oops , that's exactly what happened and we saw how it ended.
     —
     how did it end In the end they realized that they were wrong. I imagine that the percentage of scientists that they burned is negligible among all the infidels that they burned... - besides this is not a denial, the one who really believes in something - and claims that it is that - he does not deny, a denier is someone who lies and says that something he knows to be true - is not true.
     + + +
     You draw an equal line between learning facts and learning made-up stories, which is ridiculous and demagogic.
     —
     Literature is also made-up stories - should we stop teaching literature? Besides, the Bible has an important influence on the formation of the Jewish people, so it is important to learn at least a little - what is there, right? Whoever becomes a scientist or engineer will study science all his life - but will only study the Bible in school.
     + + +
     I am not asking the religious to learn made-up stories but science based on empirical facts, just like everyone else, actually not like everyone else, because almost no one in Israel studies evolution. We know how it will end: we will deteriorate even more in the international indices and create generations of burnt and stupid people.
     —
     It is not clear to me where you think you have the right to take the parents' children and teach them what you think is important. Why do you think that evolution studies is what will change the approach to science in this country? We have enough people studying engineering, there really isn't a shortage. Why do you think that studying evolution in the fourth grade is what will change anything?

246. Yavorech initiates a referral to the Ministry of Education.
     This should be done frequently in different contexts to encourage the study of science and mathematics, and evolution in particular. (Evolution has important philosophical implications, which is why it is considered by many to be the pinnacle of science).
     If we don't do this - we will abandon the arena to the ultra-Orthodox whose hand stirs the pot every day, all day, to narrow the legs of the study of science in general and evolution in particular.

247. That's really not the reason
     I was always told "don't consider evil what you can attribute to stupidity".
     And they also told me "in any large enough group of people, the majority are idiots".
     Our government is a big enough group……

248. Miracles. Regarding the tracking, I hope you are updated about what is happening on the Internet...
     Regarding the paranoia. There is no other explanation why it seems that the education system is trying to turn out robot students who do not think.

249. point
     You really need to take care of your paranoia. Know that we are following you and we won't let you talk like that freely...

250. anonymous
     You're just a liar. I know the fossils "that are not in the right layer" very well. Whoever made this up is a liar. I have no other word.

251. another one,
     You miss the point: once we agreed that the state has the right to decide what the children will learn and at what age, no one should care what a group of people, with a clear interest, will say or think, especially when it comes to facts. It's like allowing vegetarians to remove from textbooks the fact that the human race used to eat meat (there's no need to go into the exact details of whether we only ate meat, you know what I mean) or like it's possible for Christian believers from 500 years ago to deny that God revolves around the sun...oops , that's exactly what happened and we saw how it ended.
     You draw an equal line between learning facts and learning made-up stories, which is ridiculous and demagogic. I am not asking the religious to learn made-up stories but science based on empirical facts, just like everyone else, actually not like everyone else, because almost no one in Israel studies evolution. We know how it will end: we will deteriorate even more in the international indices and create generations of burnt and stupid people.

252. are completely right.
     If you are already brainwashing the children, then let it be in a variety of subjects.

253. And how it can be disproved, the fossils are only a small part of the picture, today we have progressed and there are methods such as DNA. No rabbit was discovered before single-celled life was created, and even if there was a rabbit, they would have found ways to check its true age and understand how it got to the layer (for example, earthquakes, rockslides, etc.)
     From people who claim that an imaginary friend with a long beard took a magic wand and decided to create a world because he was bored I would suggest looking in the mirror, their theory is even more problematic - and that's putting it mildly.

254. Evolution does not exactly meet the definition of science (verifiable or disprovable. The fact that fossils have been found out of place, which should disprove the theory, but the supporters of evolution simply categorize these fossils as "anomalies" and that's it). Those who think otherwise are welcome to look here:

     http://creation.com/

     Those who read some of the articles will expect surprises that they were not told about.

255. Shmulik
     "another one,
     Mostly less."
     -
     You want to argue about an interpretation of my words?
     + + +
     "Do you agree with me that the comparison you made between evolution and religious studies is out of place?"
     —
     From the point of view of religious people, evolution studies can be considered atheistic propaganda - not for me - but also what to do they also pay taxes. And there is a certain problem in forcing someone's children to learn something they don't want them to learn. Just as an atheist does not want his child to be taught religious studies (in a religious context), a religious person does not want his child to be taught studies that for him preach atheism.
     The children are not the property of the State of Israel which can decide for their parents how they should be educated.
     Science should be taught correctly or better not taught at all. The reality is that there is nothing atheistic about evolution or the big bang theory, there are enough religious people who dabble in these fields. I personally am not an educationist and it is not clear to me why this or that subject is more important for student learning, I am not clear why evolution is such an important subject that should be taught to every student, and the same with the Big Bang, we live in an era of the Internet that is available on almost any smartphone that is available for each student. (or on the computer) - any student who wants to can read about it on the Internet as much as he wants.

256. another one,
     Mostly less.

     Do you agree with me that the comparison you made between evolution and religious studies is out of place?

257. We always talk about "the sensitivity of the issue in a certain group", and somehow it is always the sensitivity of that group only. Also on the topic of the ban on public transportation on Shabbat, which forces many to sit under curfew on their few free days during the work week (and certainly those who live in the periphery), also on the topic of the possibility of getting married outside of a religion that you may not believe in, and even if you try to circumvent this, the divorce will already go to the rabbis again.

     Religion is a matter of faith, that is - a choice. If so, it is our right as humans not to choose it. It's a shame that the state and its institutions don't think so.

258. The entire education system needs to be changed.
     If you already teach religion, you need to teach their origins, the differences between religions, and the development of religions throughout history.
     Astronomy and evolution should also be taught in lower grades.

259. The Ministry of Education is lying, my little brother finished eighth grade last year and started ninth grade this year. In XNUMXth grade geography lessons, he learned nothing about the big bang, the structure of the universe and its components. He learned about the solar system in XNUMXth grade. And this year he has no geography lessons.

260. Shmulik - this is more or less what I wrote.

261. another one,
     Speaking of which, evolution is a fact, since we see it in action in bacteria and natural selection is the theory

262. Miracles
     + + + + + + + + +
     another one
     You are completely delusional….evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
     -
     That's pretty much what I said.
     + + +
     Anyone who does not accept evolution is simply stupid. Evolution is not a "theory", but a scientific fact, just like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
     -
     Not exactly, there is an observation of fossils and animals that indicates evolution and there is a scientific model (theory) that explains why this is so.
     The fossils are the facts, the model is the theory. Like falling stones are the facts and Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory.
     + + +
     I wrote in the previous comment why it is worth learning about evolution. I also think there are excellent reasons to teach the stories of the Bible. And there is no contradiction between them!!!! Provided, of course, that you understand that much of the Bible is stories……..
     —
     My response was not to you, it was general to anyone who thinks that evolution studies will somehow help fight "religiosity" in the country.
     —

263. Don't be naive.
     The reason they don't teach evolution or philosophy or anything else thought provoking is because the last thing the government wants is for people to start thinking. If everyone realizes that everything is just survival and power struggles then it will not be good for the government.

     The school is a breeding ground for creatures that will work well and not ask questions. Not about taxes not about inflation. Not on banks. And not about inequality. Just let them work.

     Whoever thinks it has to do with religion is simply proving that he went to school. I mean, he doesn't think.

264. I am totally with miracles here.
     I don't really care what religious people want to be taught because since when do they teach material according to what people want to be taught??? Since when did the question of the correctness of scientific theories become a democracy??? (correctness of theories in the simple sense of the word, I don't want to get into the question of whether theories can be proven). The point is that the state has a duty to my citizens to educate them for a better economic and cultural future and not to perpetuate ignorance! This means teaching according to the facts known to science and according to everything we know, evolution happened and is happening and the Torah did not. There is not a single archaeological evidence of the correctness of the Torah stories (not the Bible, the Torah) so why teach the Torah with such crazy piety? The reason is, of course, due to coalitional pressures that enslave religious people in the education system to warp children's minds and introduce them to nonsense in the form of Torah stories, some of which are beautiful and some of which are terrible, and all of which tell us that we have to bow down to a heavenly dictator, and without him there is no explanation for our existence, and the reason that religious people do not want them to learn evolution is that, of course, it does not agree with Their belief, but the goal of education is to shape the mind according to the facts and not the other way around, so I don't really care why the religious, cynically, don't want the subject of evolution to be taught. On the contrary, it is outrageous.

     Evolution should be studied at lower age levels because these are the facts and these facts are the ones that allow children to understand why nature is so complex without involving forces outside of nature.

     Every time someone makes an equal decision between science and the Torah, or thinks that atheism is a form of religion, I bring up Bill Maher's masterful passage. Enjoy:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_25w9CE73ak

265. another one
     You are completely delusional….evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Anyone who does not accept evolution is simply stupid. Evolution is not a "theory", but a scientific fact, just like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
     I wrote in the previous comment why it is worth learning about evolution. I also think there are excellent reasons to teach the stories of the Bible. And there is no contradiction between them!!!! Provided, of course, that you understand that much of the Bible is stories……..

266. If I were to go back to the days of Bitzfer (age 23), I would refuse to study Tanach, I don't care if I have a full matriculation or not, a student should not learn about God in school. Yes, you can learn about the history of the Jewish people and add it to the history subject.
     But the subject of the Tanach is a ridiculous subject that must be kicked out of the status of a compulsory subject for matriculation.

267. Religious studies are not exactly something that a religious person will do, if as a child your parents eat on Yom Kippur, travel on Shabbat, eat chametz on Pesach, and a cheeseburger when you feel like it, then it doesn't really matter if there are a few hours for Bible study at school - in addition to that - In high school, the Bible is taught in a secular way - which breaks down the Bible into its form of writing, emphasizes the contradictions in it, and more. There is nothing religious about it. Regarding science, there is nothing more "atheistic" in evolution than the big bang. The reality is that if evolution is taught incorrectly - then everything becomes a straw man argument for creationists anyway. In any case, there are many religious people in this country and maybe they don't want their tax money to go to atheistic propaganda just like all the seculars and atheists don't want their tax money to go to religious propaganda. The ideal situation is that there is neither this nor that and the Bible is studied as part of the national heritage.

268. Evolution can, and should, be taught from a young age. Understanding evolution contributes in many areas, such as: drawing conclusions from observations, simple logic, curiosity, understanding the whole of the living world and basic understanding in areas such as nutrition and medicine.

     The most important thing you learn is that the questions should be "what makes it this way" and not "for what purpose is it this way".

269. I suggest removing religious studies from schools altogether, religious studies can be taught in history for 5 units.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.