Comprehensive coverage

A country haunted by demons 40: XNUMX% of Americans believe in creation according to Genesis

This is according to a survey conducted by the Gallup company. However, the proportion of those who accept evolution without intervention has increased from 9% to 16% in the last thirty years. who is to blame? Humanist websites claim that the education system and the media have succumbed to religious pressure and also the atheist etiquette that does not operate a repeat-the-question system

Frantisek Koepka, Anthropoids. 1902
Frantisek Koepka, Anthropoids. 1902, public domain

Four out of ten Americans believe that the world was created more or less as it is described in the Book of Genesis, by God in its current state less than ten thousand years ago. 38% believe that God guided the development of man over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while only 16%, although this is almost a doubling over 30 years from 9% in 1982, accept evolution as it is, that is, the development of man over millions of years without God's intervention. This is according to a survey conducted by the Gallup company among the American public.

The proportion of the population who believe in the pure creationist version of a universe that is several thousand years old has dropped from 47% in a survey conducted in 1993 to 40% today. No significant change was recorded in the proportion of believers in theistic evolution, which holds that man developed under God's guidance.

The survey also shows that the proportion of believers in the religious version decreases as the level of education increases, those who are less educated are more inclined to the creationist version, university graduates are more likely to hold to both evolutionary versions. Americans who go to church are more likely to accept the versions where God has a part, not surprisingly. Still, the extreme creationist version is trusted by 60% among those who come to church at least once a week, but the distribution is not uniform in different religious groups. Only a quarter of those who had never visited church chose the creationist version. By the way, those who support Republicans are more likely to visit church and therefore also believe in creationism.
The survey also shows that most Americans believe in God, and that 85% of them have some religious identity.

Therefore it is not surprising that 80% of all Americans believe that God is involved either in the direct creation of man as told in the Book of Genesis or in guiding the process of evolution, but the figure we initially reported that four out of ten Americans accept the simplest version surprises scientists. Although there was some drift towards the secular in comparison between the 40s and today, it is still a huge proportion of believers in creation as a whole. This relative stability is surprising because Americans change their minds on almost every issue and usually have a political view. Arguments and conflicts regarding the interpretation that should be included in the textbooks continue for many decades. With XNUMX% of Americans holding anti-evolutionary beliefs about human origins, these debates are likely to continue.

The survey was conducted by telephone on December 10 to 12, 2010, and 1,019 adults over the age of 18 living in the continental US participated in the sample by random dialing. The results are correct with 95% certainty and the margin of error of the sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

אתר Although Secular Humanism does not refer to the latest survey, but to the emerging trend from the surveys in the field, which, as we have seen, is still stable. "Public opinion polls in the US show that Americans are very religious people. One of the most cited measures of this religiosity is the high proportion of Americans who believe in God or a universal spirit. "The persistence of the religious worldview in America shows the strength of the fundamentalist movement that succeeds in getting its messages across in public schools, mass media and other social institutions. A factor that indicates the success of this movement is the low level of literacy regarding human evolution in American society compared to other developed countries. And perhaps this movement may represent the suffering of the religious minorities whose values ​​and way of life are threatened by the secularization of society and the constant growth in the scientific worldview. The persistence of religious worldviews in America may be the result of the quiet vortex that surrounds expressions of agnosticism and atheism in a civilized society.

If we translate this into Israel's terms, in the face of a well-financed and well-oiled movement of converts there are only a handful working to bring back the ultra-Orthodox with a question, and this handful is drowning in the sea of ​​shtreimels and kapotots. What's more, we don't learn the evolutionary worldview at all - that is, the scientific truth in biology classes, only if you took a certain point in matriculation, which is not even mandatory. Will you build a developed country in biotechnology? Even in the mass media, science has no representation, with the exception of individual programs (the laboratory for example). It is more important for the youth to know what color Ninet dyed her hair than to teach science.

While those who answer the question have to trust that those who address them will have some education, whose number among the ultra-orthodox public is low anyway, those who reject the answer appeal to the masses for whom education is a distant thing, and supposedly provide them with the scientific explanation and its refutation, but the explanation they provide is a scarecrow of science, and that is what they Destroying with vanity here, and not the real science. But this is hidden from the eyes of the listeners who believe that the wise rabbi knows more than Einstein how much 2 plus 2 is.

More of the topic in Hayadan:

142 תגובות

  1. Sindrage:
    Tol Cora from your eyes!
    The country is on the way to becoming a theocracy.
    You are in favor of pluralism but you ignore that religion is not pluralistic and when it can it imposes its lifestyles on others.
    Pluralism also needs to defend itself against anti-pluralist forces.

    In addition to this - in most of the discussions here - the negative atmosphere is created and compounded by religious people.
    They are mainly the ones who move the discussion from the factual channel to the emotional channel and personal attacks.

    It is not wise to address a "symmetrical" request to two parties when one party is almost always the attacker and the other party attacks only as a defensive measure.

    You remind me of Europe's attitude towards Israel.

  2. "There is no war on religion here, there is a war on stupidity that tries in the name of religion to perpetuate a lie."
    This is exactly what bothers me - the war...
    There should be discussion, clarification, conversation. With so much "anti" and anger and contempt on both sides, there is no mutual fertilization. (By the way, here especially disdain on the part of the materialists, and it is not clear why this issue becomes so "emotional" for them.
    Despite being a materialist, I never tried to ask anyone back - why is it good? A man by his faith shall live).
    Maybe actually when the emotions are turbulent, the arguments are sharper...? Still, I don't think so.

  3. On the subject of religion there is no one to talk to, religious people accept what is written as language throughout history and do not have it
    The desire to understand and think about other options.

    A person by nature investigates and wants to understand the world, but the rabbis and clerics eliminated curiosity and intentions
    The study is only for one track, the study of religion.

  4. For those who did not understand what confused Avi Cohen, below is the exact quote:
    A In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. XNUMX And the earth was in confusion and darkness, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

    That is, nonsense is written there, as in most of the Torah, and he concludes from this that these are nonsense that we did not intend to write.

    In the Torah it is written how He created and all kinds of people try to throw sand in their eyes and claim that what is written in the Torah (like the two verses above) is not written in it.

  5. A cursory reading of the verses of Genesis led the writer to attack them, when looking closely [-even easily] in the second verse one can understand that there is no desire here to describe how the world was created, not even the creation of something from nothing.

    Otherwise, how will the wind explain the creation of water and perhaps also the dust of the earth before the creation of light?

    In my opinion, he may have read somewhere that this is a religious concept and based on that he threw it on the Bible, therefore throwing the baby out with the whole bath.

    In any case, this is not written in the Torah, and it deals with who created and not how he created.

  6. Michael, I think that 135 meant the rise of intelligence in a relatively short period of time of a few thousand years, while the Beh has only the beginnings.
    For infinite diversity in infinite combinations (there is nothing like Spock):
    I also closely follow AE on the history channel
    Last Thursday they came out with the Randlesham incident (30th anniversary of the incident) and the Feniston binary code and compared it to Moses and Noah and others.
    As usual, everything there is conjecture and mythology, but it is interesting and stimulates the imagination.
    The code supposedly 'translated' by Nick Ciske claims that aliens advance science and the human race and there are also coordinates to an island west of the coast of short, good bedtime entertainment.

  7. IDIC
    I love your conciliatory spirit but there is only one truth and the only way to discover it is through science.
    Among other things, science shows us that no intervention was necessary for man to develop and vice versa - that it is highly improbable that there was an intervention.
    It is also not true that reason is the exclusive property of man.
    It is true - man is more intelligent (at least by the measures he himself sets - which makes the "competition" unfair) but the way to the same intelligence can be found in many animals.

    The basics of empathy and morality can also be found in animals:

  8. It was fascinating to read this discussion. He really illustrates the two poles in Israeli society and how these gaps only deepened and only become more painful for both sides when the minority has power in power.
    What I have to contribute is only live and let live
    The dilemma is whether to continue deepening the so-called gap in the discussion - the answer is definitely yes, only that there is no need for arguments or even emotions. And this conflict should not be called a war.
    There is truth somewhere in Amzat.
    My truth is that science today is reinventing itself all the time (see Membrane Universe and other theories that make the big bang just another phase (in our understanding) within the multiverse to dark matter and dark energy) - science today is more dynamic than ever in its short history. And if we're really just starting to get bored
    In TRUE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE So forbid us to be pretentious and condescending.
    Every man of science (in his soul/or in his education and actions) deserves to read and have his own true opinion about the Tanach (and the external books to the same extent!)
    Every religious person (in his own soul) deserves to acknowledge the wonders of science and where they have led us (to the reality we call civilization today)
    (I recommend viewing a wonderful program called Into the Wormhole by Morgan Freeman, which will enter a second season in 2011)

    If I read the creation story I conclude that God created order in an existing world. that in his experiment (which had to be genetic) in heaven, man was created - and from him
    Consciousness and knowledge began (so it cannot be ruled out that there were hunters and gatherers all over the world and there was equally natural evolution. The creation of the world is evolutionary and man (who lived in the head of the eye long before Methuselah) the rational is an unnatural cosmic intervention of a higher being - whose hand may be found in everything (see entry ancient astronomer) Here. (As a true Jew, I believe in a one-to-one story - I don't want any interpretation by any Sage.)
    Where do I have a conflict with any of you? We are all talking about the same thing and our problem is not at all about the truth or even about an interpretation of the truth
    Rather, it is a result of self-defense that comes from education / environment or from an attack that comes from a great fear (and certainly not justified) that the ignorance has only increased (not sure because in absolute and not relative numbers we do not lack rational and analytical people - should science be public domain or fashion? Loooo)
    Just as a larger macro system like the US somehow always manages to balance itself in the never-ending battle between Democrats and Republicans (when the extremists are between abysses) - so we too will find the truth somewhere in the middle. (TBOBW JPL)

    The science site is a great site - in fact, there is no serious and better science site today (give me an alternative). The more awareness he has, the more he may confront ignorance and prejudice.
    Back to the basics - the world as usual. I believe in my Genesis and God. And for that every other believing person will bless me.

    (Ignorant and uneducated people of the land)

  9. Avi:
    It is clear to you that you do not need to worry about the matter and that I never respond to anyone personally unless they have done so before.
    Shavi Segev: You are welcome to find a counterexample to my words, and if you don't find one - apologize for your words.

  10. After all, you have a country haunted by demons:

    All of you must have heard about the unfortunate and tragic death of the legendary soccer player Avi Cohen. The man who was really above his level would have signed an Eddie card (for organ donation). As fate would have it, what happened happened, but his organs were not donated. Guess why? Of course, God's agents, with horrible but not surprising cynicism took control of the poor family and convinced them that if there was a glimmer of a miracle that my father would wake up then his organs should not be donated. All this despite the fact that it was already known that almost all of his brain had finally stopped functioning. But who are these qualified doctors and experts and who needs a diagnosis at all when you have Rabbi Rentgen, as he is called, who sees morals and kidneys (and also functions of the brain, heart, spleen, liver, etc.). Probably, in the end what every trainee Rupa knows happened - my father's brain died for good and with it his heart and the rest of his organs. Even his last wish was not given to him - to donate his organs and save other people's lives.
    It is worth noting that there are quite a few rabbis who do allow organ donation, but there are still among us so many heartless, closed-minded religious agents who, in their religious stupidity, sentence death (yes death!) to people whose lives could have been saved.
    And this whole story reminds me of an episode in "House": House and Wilson are called to the house of someone whose brother has just died to convince her to allow donating his heart to a patient who desperately needs it, but she refuses because according to her religion it is forbidden to donate organs. After they finally manage to convince her to allow a donation, House gets a call that it's been too long and the heart is no longer suitable for a transplant. "Well done" says House, "religion killed another person".

  11. my father

    It would have been appropriate for her to call on both sides to stop arguing.

    Macal also robs you of management resources and harms the development of the site

  12. Dos Reformi, please, the debate with Michael is not leading anywhere and it is already starting to be a debate on a personal background and not business.
    Stop the argument please because you are taking my administrative resources and thereby harming the development of the site.

  13. And just for general education:
    Until this moment, I referred to "Lamitral" because that is the name you mentioned.
    No, that was the name of the scientist you meant.
    When I opened the list you linked to, I saw the name Georges Lemaitre that you probably meant (there is no "l" in the name).

    By the way, I did not find anywhere a reference to his position on evolution.

  14. And by the way, Dos Reformi, if you want to refer honestly (I'm not sure you want to - but just in case) to the conversation between me and "just an Israeli" you are welcome to read comment 7 where this conversation started.

  15. Reform Dos:
    Response 121 does explain why many people do not see a contradiction between science and faith and it fits exactly into the definition of the things I defined as compromise - both on science and on religion.
    The theory of evolution you believe in is not the theory of evolution accepted in science and the religion you believe in is not the one described in the Holy Scriptures.
    This exactly fits with the explanation I repeat and give here (including in this discussion) many times.
    Of course, the fact that someone does not see something does not mean that this something does not exist, but only that he does not see it.
    I don't know why you find it appropriate to talk about the degree of interest of the source of the Euphrates and the Tigris.
    This issue only came up in connection with the question of whether the Torah was written by a being who knows everything and whether the fact is of interest to you or not - it contradicts this claim. To me, it is similar to a police investigator who hears that the person he suspects of committing a murder was not even there at the time and says that mathematics is much more interesting to him than the whereabouts of that person at the time.

    Your words regarding statistics are a lie.
    I repeat that I am sure you know that evolution that is not based on random mutations and natural selection is not the evolution that scientists believe in but you continue to treat these two theories as if they were the same.
    You may call the way the ultra-Orthodox interpret the Torah "childish" and sacrifice them on the altar of slander, but what is clear is that what is written in the holy books is similar to what I say they say and different from what you say they say.

    You brought up the statistics in response to statements that did not concern statistics but the essences.
    Since it was a response to what I said I don't know why you brought it up for discussion: nothing that doesn't refer to what I said can contradict any claim from my claims.
    That's why - in our discussion - you brought up the subject of statistics.

    It may be that you want them to attach peppered commentators to the texts you write because perhaps, similar to God or the Sage according to your faith - you too do not know how to write what you really want to say, but escaping from the discussion between us to a broader picture that includes the article still does not make the The statistics for the matter I brought up so that nothing you say in this matter changes the conclusion.

    And in your talk about the statistics, as mentioned, you are not presenting a different statistical analysis, but presenting different (and false) interpretations of the terms that the statistics examined.

    I am not celebrating a difference of a word or at all. The reality is you keep lying.

    A mere Israeli based his words on a lie that is systematically spread by religious people even though it is hidden every time it is presented to someone who knows the facts.
    It's a trending lie and an Israeli just lied when he used it.
    The answer regarding Lamitrelle is different and it belongs to people's ability to live with contradictions and claim that they don't see them - among other things through the compromises I talked about.

    Of the two of us - you are the only one who turns (and turns again and again) to the path of personal insults.
    In the debate between us, I allowed myself at most to refer to the act you did (like a false statement), but only you allow yourself to refer to a person's body in a sweeping manner and turn to the personal sphere like "a petty and pathetic commenter who turns to the personal sphere at every opportunity."

    So far you have not given any example of something that warrants any apology, but you are, of course, welcome to deepen your research about me (a topic that turns out to be of great interest to you - certainly more than the Euphrates and the Tigris) and who knows - maybe you will even be able to find some evidence to hang on to.

    By the way - the use you made of the term "cry of the robbed Cossack" is of course not relevant because I did not make any cry and all in all I was responding to your personal attack (as usual).
    The personal attacks of those with interests of different genders have long ceased to excite me to the point of crying out.

  16. Response 121 points out why I and many others see no contradiction between science and faith.
    Since there is no scientific experiment that can undermine my faith (as well as the faith of many of my Orthodox friends) I find no point in continuing to discuss the issue with you. Personally, I find the size of the teeth of Homo sapiens or the words of Jeremiah to be infinitely more interesting than a discussion of the origin of the Euphrates and the Tigris.

    Regarding the argument that I lied about the statistics, this example indicates more than anything what type of commenter you are.
    In response 114 you state:
    "By the way, if you have already brought up the statistics for discussion..." and continues and uploads data from the article.
    In response 118 I state
    "If you have already uploaded statistics then:"
    and continues to upload data from the article.
    The only difference in our responses is that I didn't mention the word discussion because it was clear to me (as it should be to any reasonable person, especially an "elite" like you) that we are talking about the statistics in the article. Moreover, I did not attack you that the data is incorrect, but presented a different analysis of the data from the article. But instead of referring to the analysis, you preferred to celebrate the difference of a word and call me a liar. In your response, you have proven exactly who you are - a petty and pathetic commenter who turns to the personal sphere at every opportunity.
    accidental? Definately not. In response (62), a mere Israeli points out that his argument that there is no conflict between science and religion is supported by the fact that Darwin was a man of faith. Darwin's example is incorrect as my father pointed out (Darwin was an agnostic). But the argument that some of the great scientists were religious (see George Lamitrelle's entry) is certainly true. For you, the mistake in the example was enough to call him by your favorite adjective, a liar.
    So here is a news flash for you "Just an Israeli" is not a liar but wrong in example. If he had been aware of his mistake, he would surely have chosen another, correct example. Again in your petty comment you resorted to hurling personal insults and another religious commenter disappeared from the site. If you want to start apologizing "just an Israeli" is a good starting point.

    And finally - I comment on the website because it gives me pleasure. On the other hand, the discussions with you make me slightly nauseous. If you had responded from the line (like your ghost friend) I would have chosen to ignore you. But your comments reflect on the site and in a very negative way.
    I am sorry that my father does not understand the damage you are causing to his life's work but of course this is his site and he has the right to manage it as he wishes. As I said, I decided not to participate in discussions about evolution and I return to this decision.
    Happy new year

  17. And one more thing, Dos Reformi, just so you can enjoy:

  18. And by the way, reformist DOS:
    Is the substantive discussion over?
    What happened, for example, to the lie of statistics?

  19. Reform Dos:
    I write many thousands of comments here.
    I don't usually do what you claim, and even if you find five cases in which I stumbled (and I find it hard to believe that you will) this will not be proof of a behavior but of stumbling.
    Besides - ask yourself first how did I know that these commenters are religious?
    I have already explained that raising religious arguments in a scientific discussion is a form of violence.
    I did not come to the conclusion that they are religious just like that.

    But know what?
    I'm willing to try and see what you come up with.
    I have no problem apologizing if I offended someone and I won't even discount it by you apologizing for the blatant lie that tries to present five out of thousands of comments as proof of the practice.

    As for a ghost - I think you didn't understand what I said (but it's already quite common, isn't it?).
    I did not take responsibility for all his comments.

  20. Since I have a few more seconds:

    In response 118 you state:
    "As for a ghost - let me tell you that despite the contemptuous attitude you show towards him - I see him as a wonderful example that a person can learn and change".

    True to your words, the above commenter did publish the following response (#85):
    "Respondent 82
    And what about creatures like you, creatures with brains in their ass?
    This fact disproves your intelligent designer theory."
    And they have already said: Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are.

    Regarding the figure of half of believers accepting evolution, it is of course accurate for any reasonable person. These people (of which I am one) accept the fact that life was created over millions of years. Some read and are interested in evolution. Any evolutionary discovery whatsoever will not contradict their belief. If you oblige them to learn from morning to night about the theory of evolution and its wonders, they will learn and continue to believe. They are the people who do not see any contradiction between science and religion and are the absolute majority of the non-Orthodox educated believers. These are the people (such as a mere Israeli, Shlomo, Shaval, Y, Shanir Harel, and the writer of these lines) that you do not understand from the troubles of your world because they are faithful to their faith and faithful to religion alike. Unlike you, they do not interpret the Bible at its childish level or as interpreted by Amnon Yitzchak. I suggest you re-read Shanir Harel's response and understand their inner world.

    And I say for the last time - the science site can be a great site that brings people from all walks of life closer to science. He can make a decisive contribution in the fight against conversion based on pseudo-scientific arguments. The religious war that the site (headed by the home responder) started does not contribute to the matter and adds gratuitous hatred.
    As I mentioned before, I decided not to respond to discussions about evolution for obvious reasons. I have already broken my decision five times (which is at least once too many). So I am very happy to get back into the dossy side of my life

  21. Doss (118):

    Subtract from the cases you are talking about the cases in which Michael's response was preceded by a disparaging/blatant/false response from someone who is identified with the religion. From reading hundreds of Michael's comments and no less important than hundreds of "religious" comments that preceded them, I know that as a rule Michael does not attack without a good reason. Since I am not familiar with all of Michael's responses, I do not know if it is not possible to find a response or two (or even five) in which Michael's aggression is unjustified but rather stems from, for example, a lack of understanding on the part of the other side, but the important thing is that even if they exist somewhere (I In any case, I have not come across even one of these) they are the exception that proves the rule. If you want to say that those seemingly unjustified attacks stem from stigma or religious hatred, then it is a bit difficult to explain the cases in which he answers patiently even when it is clearly religious.
    I wouldn't be surprised if Michael is not an angel whose actions are all good and therefore it is likely that he is not without mistakes, but unlike the overwhelming majority of the commenters here, his words are based on a strong and well-founded rationale, and his attacks are generally a response to previous attacks by the other side. When someone presents a system of arguments that relies on ignorance or broken logic or simply on lies, I'm glad that there is someone who can reveal the true face of that ignorant/stupid/crook respectively and point out the deficiencies through facts (for example bringing internal contradictions in that person's words). There should be more people like him, we will all benefit from it, just as everyone, secular and religious, benefits every day from science. It's a shame that some of the latter find it appropriate to spit into the well from which they drink, a well that not only satisfies the natural curiosity, brings comfort and quality of life but also saves lives (without distinction if you are Arab or Dos).
    If you want to improve this site then you should start taking action against all those commenters who display ignorance, logical fallacies and lies. If you reveal them as Michael reveals them we will all benefit and you too (unless you belong to the same type of commenters of course...).

  22. Statistics from a survey always make me smile and remind me of an episode from the show "Yes Mr. Minister"
    In which Sir Humphreys demonstrates to the personal secretary (I forgot his name) 2 short surveys on conscription, which of course
    Their results are completely opposite.
    tearing up!! 🙂

  23. Your cry of a robbed Cossack is completely ridiculous.
    Since I don't have time to spoil you for nothing, I offer the following deal:
    You claim that you do not belittle and slander religious commentators. I'm ready to go over past arguments and bring up (at least) five cases where you do this.
    I am willing to appoint an external arbitrator (for example, your friend's father) who will determine whether I succeeded in my task.
    If I do not succeed, I am ready to apologize to you and promise not to comment on the site for the whole of 2011
    If I succeed, then you won't respond on the site for three months and that's how the site ended up being rented

    My only condition is that the discussion will be public and my father will not use his authority to block me
    Are you ready for a deal?

  24. Won't the twists stop?
    If I have already uploaded statistics?
    So that's it, no. I didn't put up the stats.
    In addition - I did not try to use statistics to create a false representation.
    I don't know how you get to 50% after 40% believe in creation and another 38% believe in development guided by God which is not (I repeat, for those who didn't understand: no!) the scientific theory of evolution in which there is no guidance but random mutations and natural selection.
    I'm sure you know what science claims about evolution, so it's hard for me to link your strange interpretation of statistics to an innocent mistake.
    This is exactly the kind of compromise I mentioned in my previous comments.
    Compromise on religious belief: "Okay, not creation as described in Genesis but development over millions of years"
    Compromise on science: "Okay, not random mutations and natural selection but God-directed development".

    The things I said about the aggression and disdain I said from a deep knowledge of my words, so your attempt to throw sand in my eyes by sending me to read my words does not work.

    And as for a ghost - let me tell you that despite the contemptuous attitude you show towards him - I see him as a wonderful example that a person can learn and change.
    Believe me or not - but in the beginning the conflict between us was more extreme than between me and you.
    Does that mean you have a chance too?
    We'll see.

  25. If you have already uploaded statistics then:
    40% of Americans believe in creation according to Genesis
    38% believe that man evolved from simpler life forms with divine guidance
    That means half of the believers accept evolution.

    Regarding the denials of the contemptuous treatment of religious commentators, I suggest you read some of the discussions in which you take part.

    In closing, allow me to congratulate you for gathering such quality fans as R.H. Rafai.M

  26. Dos

    Just so you know, the religious who don't deny science are also religious who don't really believe in God.
    They just won't admit it.


    Don't know where you got these powers to fight them anywhere and anytime,
    But you are just a strong person.
    I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this, but in the past year I've learned a lot thanks to you.

  27. By the way, if you have already brought up the statistics for discussion, it is interesting to present this sentence you wrote " The idea that most believers see science as contrary to their faith has no hold on reality. Even in the "devotional" United States, only half of the believers do not accept evolution."in front of this sentence" while only 16%, although this is almost a doubling over 30 years from 9% in 1982, accept evolution as it is” written in the article.

  28. Your "surprise" stems from self-deception.
    I don't usually attack someone who doesn't look down on others and doesn't lie to them.
    I become aggressive when I encounter lies or disrespect - towards me, towards scientists in general, or towards other commenters who have not sinned.
    The aggression of the religiously motivated comments on this site is constant and structured. The very fact that a person tries to abolish science for religious reasons only leaves in his hands aggression, disdain and flattery as a means of persuasion.
    Those who bring religion into the discussions here are almost exclusively religious. Otherwise, they would simply not talk about the subject, just as there is no talking about cooking here. In fact, the very introduction of religion into the discussion of a scientific topic deserves the title of aggression.

    The fact that religious people "base their religious belief on the holy books" does not contradict anything from what I said, even if at the same time they "base their scientific belief on scientific theories".
    All I said is that it is only possible by compromising on religion - as it is defined in the Holy Scriptures or on science as confirmed by experiment.
    I also explained how this compromise is achieved.
    I don't remember talking anywhere about the distribution of religious types and their beliefs.
    But there is nothing. You are always welcome to attack what I did not say if you find nothing to attack in what I said.

    I have never thought even one thought about Maimonides.
    I have more interesting topics to think about.
    I'm just quoting his own - as I said - in the thought that there are those who might find it puzzling.
    I never brought these quotes just like that, but always as a response to someone else bringing religious morality into the discussion.

  29. Tov Mechal in a nutshell:
    I'm really "surprised" that you link the ugly tone to the other side. I suggest you look at your comments and see if they are suitable for the home commenter of a scientific website.

    The idea that most believers see science as contrary to their faith has no hold on reality. Even in the "devotional" United States, only half of the believers do not accept evolution. In Israel, the ultra-orthodox population numbers less than a quarter of all believers (and even less than that among all world Jewry). I assume that the absolute majority of the educated layer of non-Orthodox believers does not see a problem with evolution, the Big Bang, or the common origin of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Contrary to your argument many of these people base their faith on the Holy Scriptures.

    And to end your "wonderful" musings about Maimonides and morality in Judaism. The question of morality and Judaism is an important question that deserves an in-depth discussion. At the same time, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. From these arguments comes a deep tone of disdain for the morality of the Jewish religion. This disdain contributes to the removal of believing surfers from the site regardless of their attitude to science. Since the site is unique in the Israeli landscape, this also drives them away from science, a fact that contradicts the stated purpose of the site. Moreover, the arguments themselves are so shallow that the impression one gets is of an anti-religious site and not a scientific site.

  30. charming:
    You speak in such a way "without saying anything" that it's really ridiculous (that's how the word is written in Hebrew. It's also absolute)

  31. Of course, science and faith go together.
    The question is "faith in what?"
    Not only do science and faith go together, but a person has no possibility of living without any faith.
    For example - the belief in the correctness of the laws of logic is built into us so strongly that we are unable to even imagine the possibility that they would not be correct.
    The belief that the input of our senses represents something from the real world is also very strong (perhaps not to the same extent, but still - the property of the vast majority of us).

    The question is what beliefs are adopted beyond that.

    The religious belief - as formulated in the holy books is much more than that.
    too much.

    Any settlement of this science and faith is necessarily achieved by compromising on one of the two.

    Professor Sompolinski , for example, did not give up his belief in logic and the input of the senses, and therefore he gives up what he himself defines as "two of the traditional basic concepts of religious belief" and as a result, of course, also the belief in all things that are based on these beliefs (he who does not believe in God who intervenes in what is happening in the world Nor does he believe, for example, in the story of creation, the flood, the tower of Babel, the burning bush and so on.)

    Zamir Cohen, on the other hand, gives up science.

    Of course, there are all kinds of intermediate levels and this is where various interpretations come in (such as "a rabbit is not a rabbit" or "the stories of the Torah are parables" and the like) that sacrifice a bit of logic and a bit of faith in the Jewish religion as defined in the holy books - everything according to personal taste and nothing with absolute consistency.

    As for the ugly debates surrounding evolution - it goes without saying that these stem completely from the fact that at least some of the religious are not at all prepared to compromise between religious belief and science (yes, and of course also from the fact that those who adopt the scientific method are unwilling or even unable to accept claims that contradict reality) .

    And if the musings have already been mentioned in the Torah of Morals in Judaism and in Rambam's Mishnah, then so that everyone knows what it is about (that is, not the musings but the original material on which "from the roofs"), I will point to some of them HERE

    Personally, I would not teach it in any philosophy class (I would close the theology classes).

    Regarding "religious people who 'love' science" - I don't think there is any point in doing anything to make him feel welcome here if the first sentence he bothered to write here is this: "The "enlightenment" of some of the science-seeking enlightened people here worries me a lot, you are dark, primitive people who don't Able to realize that they have no ownership of either science or what a person chooses according to his mind to accept and not accept."

  32. Basically, I decided not to comment on discussions on the topic of evolution due to the ugly tone accompanying them. But in the face of such wonderful musings as Tiktalik (#72) I must re-evaluate my belief system which actually combined science and faith.
    And anyway, little me, but what will all those scientists say who also managed to combine science and faith, for example:
    Among them George Lamitrelle - the first to conceive the idea of ​​the Big Bang...

    Beyond that, the "miraculous" reflections on the issue of morality in Judaism and the teachings of Maimonides deserve to be studied in every philosophy and theology class. It behooves the editor of the site to know how to separate the (legitimate) fight against converts with pseudo-scientific arguments from the ugly religious war going on on the site. The science website was supposed to be the home of all science seekers regardless of their faith (including science loving Jews). It's a shame that the editor is not more careful that these people feel welcome when they come.

  33. Let's face it, whether you are religious or secular,
    God is your last problem in life right now.

    For most people who wear the kippa, this discussion is not really important.
    They were born religious, their friends are religious, their family and community are religious.
    And that is completely enough to wear a kippa and not bother with the "essential" questions.
    There are other reasons to wear a kippah beyond "Am I sure sure sure sure God exists?"

    Of course, in the eyes of the militant atheists among us (including me in my stupidity), the example of a religious person is some fanatic who does not come out of a dark basement and leans forward all day while searching for series of letters in the Bible,
    And he comes out once a year to release a message that he denies any scientific progress that has been made since the last time he came out of the basement, and that if we don't keep the Sabbath we will single-handedly destroy the Jewish people.

  34. Oh, how stupid and rude of a person of real wisdom, who opens his mouth about people whose morals he does not deserve.

  35. Since Copernicus, religion has done everything in its power to eradicate independent science and tried to destroy every idea that exudes heresy.
    Today science no longer remains a debtor, it fights back (yes, back), it is strengthened and supported by a growing number of atheists and findings that take Elod out of the equation. By now the representatives of the religion are starting to fear, and out of their fear they are using all kinds of tactics.
    1. The rapprochement: religion is a victim of a secular attack through science, and it is not nice to belittle the beliefs of others.
    2. Spin: The Tanach is not a historical scientific book, it is a behavior guide (which, among other things, explains that a woman comes from a man's side), and it is not days, it is ages, and when it says rabbit, it is generally meant for a gerbil.
    3. Pseudo-science: there is a 3858 to the power of 127 chance for a protein to come out in the shape of a Star of David by chance.
    4. Digging: All this science talk hurts my religious feelings, so I'll go into my ghetto here and come out when Christ comes.
    And so on.

  36. There are two articles in the latest news that may make us look with compassion and love at the religious in particular and at us as a society in general, see the article by Yair Lapid in 7 Days page 25. See the article about the ultra-Orthodox and their problems on page 26.
    For me, it allowed us to look at us as a society that wants to justify only itself instead of trying to accept the other and his opinions, we do this out of fear of losing the feelings that we have treasured in us since childhood, so Yair Lapid wrote something very special and true that will give us a ringing slap in the face. I hope we open the door after the ringing.

  37. The education system today mainly focuses on keeping people in the country and in humanitarian professions.
    This year they added a new subject called "Heritage of Israel" which is another three hours a week.
    Every year people complain and wonder why our level in math is so low relative to the world, but every year another subject is added at the expense of math.
    And also that the professions repeat themselves! In history, you learn about the history of the Jewish people mainly, in your book...well, you study the Bible (and it's not such a critical book! In one of the lessons, my teacher finished with the sentence "God was angry with the Israelites who practiced magic, so he drove them out of the land" Magic? Really? (Yishel Culture) We learn about what the "Torah greats" people said and what they thought about the world and the Jewish people in general, in the XNUMXth century, they try to introduce the land to us through our feet, literature, we only study literature that originates in Israel, usually old.

    So it's no wonder that the science subjects are dropping in level, the first priority is to introduce national pride into our values, and "Jewish values"

  38. to Schnir Harel I enjoyed reading your high-quality and reasoned comment.
    But you clearly ignore the fact that you do not represent
    In your belief, the situation of the majority of the public who believe in Israel.
    The majority of the believing public is a public bathed in racist superstitions and suffering from dangerous burns. The representatives of this public are sent to the Knesset to interfere with proper administration and education, for various reasons.
    Therefore, an article about evolution is also a legitimate secular tool for confronting the general ignorance.
    No need to be overwhelmed.

  39. By the way, Shinir Harel:
    If you want another example of the church's failures, you are welcome to watch the discussion that developed here:

    You can see here the stubborn war that people wage against evolution for religious reasons.
    You will see examples here both from Israel and abroad.
    If you read the discussion you will also understand on behalf of whom I used the phrase church failures.

  40. I don't know how related it is, but now an article is being published (in another place of course) in which it is claimed that the origin of man is not from Africa as it was accepted until now but from.... Rosh Ha-Ein !!
    And no, he wasn't Yemeni as everyone imagines him with wigs and dancing with tin.. seriously the period you used to accept as 200 thousand years ago changes to 400 thousand years ago and all this from the findings from the magic cave near Rosh Ha'Ain which was discovered only in 2000 when they tried to pave a bypass road and it is Discovered!
    I'm interested to know how much this discovery makes a difference, it's one
    Second, who sees this as an excellent business opportunity because it will bring millions of tourists from around the world and wants to invest in the place...for example, a nice boutique hotel with a scientific library and a lecture hall and more!

  41. Shinir Harel:
    You represent a tiny minority among the religious.
    Your definition of God is completely different from the scriptures' definition of him and is polarly different from the religious masses' perception of his essence.
    It is also interesting how so many people derive their opposition to science from religion - and there is no need to be dumbfounded: this opposition is expressed in many scientific articles on this site and in almost all the articles on evolution. I repeat: this is an objection that originates from religious understanding of religion.
    Of course, it is also not difficult to see that beyond opposition to science, religion creates among many of its believers feelings of grandeur that allow them to talk about the full cart versus the empty cart, to describe state education like that "science-loving religious" as "education spoiled by the secular education system (knives, drugs, teachers who are afraid of the students, etc...certainly difficult problems)", to evade military service and the burden of livelihood, to impose their lifestyles on others and the list goes on.

    So it's true: there are also some who are similar to you andSompolinsky But your rational behavior does not stem from religion but from renouncing some of its commandments and beliefs.

    Unfortunately, religion is the enemy of science (and it is easy to understand this, since the source of authority for religious laws - Laws, some of which really outrage anyone who has a soul among them, and therefore they need authority - He is a completely different God from the one you describe - the ignorant, jealous, vengeful and vengeful God described in the Torah).

    I wonder what you think about the attitude of some religious people who in the name of religion preach not only against science but against the very presentation of the questions, such as Rabbi Kirschenbaum's approach Have you ever told him that you don't think it's better to be a cat? Would you even dare Oz to do this without fearing the blows you would receive from his fans?

    As I mentioned in previous comments ( - the public's attitude towards science in general and the theory of evolution in particular - is interesting information and unfortunately (but nevertheless factually) this attitude is largely determined by religious indoctrination and its changes are prevented, among other things, by the religious education system, as well as by people like Doctor Avital who infiltrated the state education system.

    These are all objective facts that are relevant to the topic of the article, a topic that, as mentioned, is of interest to every science lover.

  42. Avi Blizovsky

    Kudos to you for managing an interesting and highly anticipated site.
    This is a unique site in Israel, and it's a shame.

    I am an infant scientist, and for everything I am ready to have a scientific explanation only.

    I have also studied in yeshiva for many years, God is my answer to the question "why is there something", as well as to the question "what is the purpose of life".

    This website had a "personal opinion column" (that's the proper name) that dealt with the question "why is there something" and reached a logical concept close to what I believe. Even modern heretical books reach a logical concept close to the one I believe in.

    This is the classic Jewish approach (among the educated class), and we all know Maimonides and Leibovitch. They are anchored in the ancient sources, in their opinion (and in my opinion).
    I will not accept a religious answer to a scientific question. When I saw in "A Brief History of Time" that Hawking says that, for him, "God" is a legitimate explanation for the origin of the burst of energy that asymmetrically created the Big Bang - I was disappointed. As a rational person, I knew that this was a myopic assertion and that one day we would have a theory that also meets this stage. Indeed, God willing, Hawking did not give up and he is trying to formulate a theory that would include the beginning of the big bang.

    So far I have introduced myself.

    What I wanted to say is that mixing your personal opinion while wearing the guise of a scientific article - impairs the quality of the site. You posted an opinion here, not science, and it has nothing to do with evolution.

    I tell you: Judaism establishes an empirical position only in historical matters, not in matters of the natural sciences. That is: we believe that there were historical occurrences of miracles, the giving of the Torah and providence. Discussions about these matters are indeed scientifically appropriate and belong in the history section. If you think there is historical evidence that points in one direction or another - any intelligent person would be happy to hear it. In historical matters there is no absolute proof without a time machine.

    A rhetorical political attack on religion and a call to repeat the question, in the middle of an article about evolution, is an abuse of your power as the editor of the site. If this is your private website, it is your right, but know that the flaw in quality does not escape the eyes of the educated reader.
    This makes me uncomfortable, not at all because of the level of the arguments, but because I wanted to read science, and "I was poked", pardon the expression.

    There are many places designated for religious debates.

    For this article I accuse you of exploiting science for metaphysical claims, just as it is customary to accuse religious people sometimes.
    We agree on the scientific aspect - without any difference, and your opinion that there is no God who is the source of the reality of the possible world and the purpose and meaning of human life - is not related to evolution at all.

    Preach repetition in a question in the middle of a biology essay?!
    Sorry. It's like burning Galileo's writings because of faith.

    I sign again with the blessing of God's will on the blessed work you are doing on this site in regards to scientific updates, and I hope that it (or another site) will be allocated a designated place for metaphysical philosophies, as long as they are planted in an article in biology.

  43. Shlomo:
    Your hope is dashed.
    I have three children.
    The eldest is a lawyer (despite the fact that she excelled in high school in an enhanced track in the sciences) and the two sons born after her are computer scientists and mathematicians.
    The older of the two was a member of his school's math team when they won the national championship in the subject.
    He also won second place in the Physics Olympiad in Israel and was among the members of the team that represented the State of Israel abroad. He served in the army in a celebrated intelligence unit and at the same time completed his master's studies with high honors and currently works at Google.
    The little one recently started his military service after, like his brother, he won every possible scholarship and award during his studies in the academic reserve.
    They asked many questions in their childhood and their great success throughout the years of their lives expressed the quality of the answers (and the genes) they received.

    Religious loves science:
    Your apology is rejected.
    Your tone is not alone in the battle. It emerges from the false content of almost all of your words.

  44. Shabbat Shalom by the way.
    I apologize if my virtual tone sounds a little aggressive, this is the first time I've commented on this site, which I usually enjoy reading, I'm not just coming here to bash. It's just that this article really didn't make sense to me, and neither did some of the comments.

  45. Not that it will help, but - irrelevance. I asked how it helps to count amino acids and look for connections between species that doubt there doubt not there to one of the greatest medical breakthroughs known to mankind since time immemorial, as you say. All in all, we are trying to extract what is present from what is desired, without any intention to advance medicine, just to fold our hands with a false assumption and say "we found "It proves" without thinking about the possibility that the other side of the same religious coin, who will examine the exact same findings, will say "I found" "It proves"... (After all, that's what the whole debate here is about, evolution, isn't it? Evolution...not that they don't accept science)

    You know very well, if you have ever bothered to research the subject, that we have universities and colleges, that high schools study science, etc... Your cry "learn science" is a mockery of Rish, we are already learning. We are interested in science, before the culture that growth has adopted takes root there. At the end of the Age of Enlightenment when Jews assimilated they decided to throw away the cross to adopt Spinoza and call themselves the weight of the Age of Enlightenment, the Enlightenment movement. Religious Jews have always been interested in science and there have always been scientists who were religious Jews, this is not a new field. Instead of thinking about our education, think about how to fix the broken education in the secular education system (knives, drugs, teachers who are afraid of the students, etc...certainly difficult problems)

    The truth is that I know of several breakthroughs that have helped humanity as a result of studying Jewish sources, for example that a hot shower prevents necrosis, etc. 🙂

  46. Not that it will help but at least you deserve one answer.
    If you haven't figured it out yet, DNA research has led in recent decades to some of the greatest medical breakthroughs that humanity has ever known. I am not aware of any breakthrough that has helped humanity as a result of studying the Gemara.

    No one here claims ownership of the science. But we all (including you) use it.

    And I repeat, neither you nor I were born knowledgeable, some in Torah and some in science.
    At least give your sons the right to choose where and from whom to acquire their knowledge. That's the least you owe them.
    Shabbat Shalom

  47. In Israel the situation is worse. An absolute majority of the population rejects the theory of evolution and believes only in the stories of the cloths written in the Torah.
    The Ministry of Humanist Education, unlike the US, does not teach the theory of evolution in schools.

  48. You both completely missed my point. Don't expect religious people you want to investigate the topics that interest you and "give science a chance", if you are the representatives of science.
    For your claims:
    Yehondav, it's not for nothing that I chose the word love, to emphasize a point of principle, science is not only interesting to atheists like you, but also to religious people like me, and just as there are secularists who are the last thing that interests them is science, but the color of Ninet's hair as my father wittily commented, so there are also religious people That science is not the most interesting to them, and that is equally legitimate.
    You undoubtedly do not know Rambam's Mishnah as you think, and see it according to the critical mistake you are making, Rambam's idea of ​​knowing the reality of God is completely different from what you described, in gentle words, see the very beginning of his book of science in this regard Maimonides based the knowledge that there must be a first being who invented all that exists, a philosophical solution that was PERFECTLY SOUND at the time, only that today there is a solution that is based on quite a bit of physical evidence. The big bang proves that the universe began, it is impossible that there was nothing before, therefore there was always something, the question is what? If something has always been then it will always be, after all if it didn't start why would it stop? After we have ascertained this chronological anchor that is based on a physical fact, simply complete according to the same philosophical rational logic that the Rambam showed, you have something that always was (first commandment) and always will be, there is no necessity that there was anything other than it for the very creation of the world, just one thing is enough was so that the world could ever come into being, the alternative to nothing, therefore there was nothing to limit it (and there is no reason for there to have been another thing from time immemorial), and this also shows that it is a unique thing of its kind...and if there is nothing that can limit it, then it can do as much as he likes.
    Note, proof that is based on a physical event which is also a chronological anchor for our matter that there is something that has always been and always will be, one, unlimited, and omnipotent!
    This, my friend, is exactly the Rambam's definition of God. A rational solution that goes against what is desired by your ratio.

    "If you like, such a reaction is an evolutionary remnant of the ancient man who defended the "honor" of his tribe with touching growls, because a rational expression to express his situation had not yet been developed."

    By the way of philosophy, the naturalism you present cuts the branch on which it sits... bottom line, you treat philosophy as just another temporary language until biology shows the real reason why humans think the way they do, including your supposedly logical ratio.
    Have a nice day, please try not to treat the words in a logocentric way.

    Jonathan - What is the benefit to humanity of checking the order of the amino acids in FOXP2 between animals and humans? To say that because humans have two more amino acids than chimpanzees, humans diverged from chimpanzees, but on the other hand to ignore the three amino acids more than the mouse, on which broken thinking will prove that the apes diverged from the mouse?

    Biology has MERIT in some areas, and terrible stupidity in other areas. But nevertheless you demand that the religious public study it because that is what interests you, so why would I not demand the same respect towards the Jewish sources which are the texts that have had the most influence on the world, that interest us?
    (Don't take this as a direct attack, it's more of a humorous comparison between your approach to religion and the approach of a religious person who "knows" a little about the subject to some of the things that in your eyes are the bread and butter of your culture)

    Some of the technological developments you speak of are the work of Jewish religious scientists...stop thinking you have ownership of science, you don't. Without the Christian Newton you would be stuck with Kepler and without Einstein we would be stuck with Newton, you know, and without a religious Jew like Jacob Beckenstein you would still believe that black holes have no temperature. Etc. etc' . In short, it is a total human effort of many people from all kinds of cultures seeking knowledge.
    "Could you build a computer from the knowledge of Gemara or Torah?"
    It is easy to talk in retrospect, if the exile had not stopped the pace of progress of a people who knew it as a lightning rod then two thousand years ago, who knows how the Jewish people in their country would have developed.

  49. Good morning everyone
    "Religious loves science" What do you want from my father?
    The article that sparked this discussion is a factual article. My father gives his interpretation of the facts. This is his right and maybe even his duty as an editor.
    Most of the comments are not my father's. They belong to people who seek science and really don't care what is on the Gemara page.
    Some of them even patiently tried to give explanations to the not so intelligent questions.
    So you too are invited (quietly and patiently) to explain what benefit humanity will gain from studying the Gemara.
    As a result, will they discover any scientific breakthroughs that will lead to the development of new technologies? No!
    Therefore, learning Torah is an egoistic thing that teaches the learner himself (and his senders) and does not contribute anything to humanity and progress.
    And for you to understand better (and anyone who thinks like you) I suggest a second time, every time you need to go anywhere you turn to a rabbi, maybe he has a sublime way to lead you from one place to another, if you have the flu or a toothache don't take medicine, talk to the rabbi. He will find a solution in the Gemara.
    How do you not understand that even the computer you are using right now and all the amazing technology that surrounds it are the result of research and development. Could you build a computer from the knowledge of Gemara or Torah?

    Someone wrote that this site "popularizes" science. Right! and better this way. Making science a popular thing is right, it's good and it's the way to spread the knowledge.
    So I suggest that you "religiously love science" and all your friends use the information contained in this website and similar ones and expand your knowledge, that of your friends and your family. If only out of respect for the technologies you use every day.

    You should know and remember, no one is born with any knowledge, all your knowledge, mine and everyone else's is acquired knowledge.
    What makes us what we are is where and how we acquired our knowledge. What is the purpose of acquiring knowledge? And especially who is the seller...
    I hope that at least you will give your children the right to choose where to acquire their knowledge.

    Shabbat Shalom to all

  50. to "religious who loves science"
    Your description "loving" already indicates your essence.
    And this is exactly the root of the matter.
    Ratios and emotional feelings don't always go hand in hand.
    The Rambam whose religious feelings did not shock the vast rational he was gifted with and tried to bridge the gap between "loving" God (as a commandment in "Shema Yisrael") and knowing God. (that the commandments serve as steps to knowledge.)
    "Love" as a bridge to "knowledge".
    And hence your emotional response is clear to the "love of science" which is said to be a bridge to "knowledge of science" and it is not in this case.
    The fierceness of your heart, in your defense of the honor of ultra-Orthodox, is evidenced by about a thousand witnesses that your love clouds your knowledge.
    This is what sometimes happens to me in arguments with religious people, that "I offend their honor or the honor of the place"

    If you like, such a reaction is an evolutionary remnant of the ancient man who defended the "honor" of his tribe with touching growls, because a rational expression to express his situation had not yet been developed.

    Seeing the yoke through the ratio is like removing comfortable sunglasses in the heart of a scorching desert, it's hard, painful, but the truth.

    Happy Shabbat Shalom

    Israel Yehondav.

  51. The "enlightenment" of some of the science-seeking enlightened ones here worries me a lot, you are dark, primitive people who are unable to realize that they have no ownership either of science or of what a person chooses according to his intellect to accept and not accept.
    The complete contempt for the ultra-Orthodox in the article reflects this well, even though the average ultra-Orthodox learns more in a day than any of the defenders of science here learns in a week, and the chances are that one of the defenders of science reads this line and automatically thinks to himself "Learning more, but nonsense" without knowing where on the Gemara page Rashi is located and where are the additions.
    There are many people who accept the creation as described in Genesis, also well-known scientists in Israel.
    Pay attention to what is said in this delusional article, an insinuation that an atheistic examination is needed?

  52. Respondent 82

    And what about creatures like you, creatures with brains in their ass?

    This fact disproves your intelligent designer theory.

  53. Shlomo:
    You don't really understand much about biology, but you also didn't try to understand what the discussion is about.
    My father brought the examples as a reference to a certain question and not as an answer to nonsense that you suddenly decided to start talking about.
    Not everything you imagine has ever been developed.
    There are actually animals whose sensory organs are special variations of the legs (tentacles).
    If you think that intelligent design is correct - please explain the ostrich wings and the eyes of the rat and the fish of the deep.
    It is more suitable for a stupid planner than an intelligent planner.
    Of course, all the evolutionary connections between animals do not fit the idea of ​​an intelligent planner either. Why did all the intermediate forms need to be created? Why are there any extinct animals? what? Is he an idiot - this intelligent one?

  54. Father, I admit that I do not understand biology very well, but it seems to me that the intermediate forms can also be explained according to the theory of intelligent design. (Just don't send me to the spaghetti monster. She only convinces the already convinced)

    And what about creatures with eyes in their shoulders or ears in their thighs. They should have survived at least a few million before they disappeared. According to the intelligent design it is possible to understand why billions of such strange creatures have not been found.

  55. tall:
    The one who came to the conclusion that religious beliefs are not true is far from the truth?
    lets see!
    At minute 6:15 he says "So I say first of all what my religious belief does not include. It does not include two of the traditional basic concepts of religious belief:
    A. God as a supernatural agent who intervenes in the course of affairs in nature and changes its course - the traditional concept of private providence.
    And the second traditional view is that man is a little god who, in his decisions and in his freedom, changes the course of events in history.
    And these two basic traditional concepts are deprived of a foundation! And a man of science and a man of thought who thinks about things and sees how science deciphers those so-called mysterious things of the self and of free will cannot combine, reconcile traditional religious belief of this kind with his scientific worldview"

    So tell me now what religious belief remains after this statement?
    Does he believe in the creation story?
    No! This story requires a supernatural God who intervenes in the course of affairs in nature.
    Does he believe in the story of the flood?
    No, because God has a role there too.
    Does he believe in the status of Mount Sinai?
    Does he believe in the burning year?
    Does he believe in the pillar of fire? In the column of smoke? Halfway through the Red Sea? By extracting water from the rock?
    No, no, no, no.
    So it is really far from the truth and the distance from the truth is zero.

    I forgive you for not going to the link I provided but I can say I watched it.

    I claim that people do not have different standards for morality.
    There are different standards for what they have been trained to call moral by their religions and their society - but not for the basic morality instilled in them during evolution.
    Of course there are exceptions, but we call those mentally ill.
    The fact is that when people try to convince me of the nonsense that claims that morality is a religious invention, they always bring the law "thou shalt not murder" as an example and will never bring as an example the law "kill the homosexual"
    For some reason they know of themselves that the first example will convince and the second will not and they know this because they are basing themselves on what they feel in their souls inside - what evolution has instilled in them.

    As for your question 5 - indeed you find lots and lots and lots of intermediate forms and note that it is not really simple.
    You claim to be a descendant of Abraham. Can you show me the skeletons of all the people on the way from him to you?

  56. Tamir, when you are in New York, please go to the Museum of Natural History, and look for the display of the evolution of horses. This is of course only one example, but museums are full of series of intermediate forms.

  57. Michael,
    I'm glad you consider my comments,

    To say that "Professor Sompolinki came to the conclusion that religious beliefs are incorrect." It is twisting things, because it is far from the truth.

    And regarding morality in the secular/religious world:
    It is true that this is from my personal judgment, as far as I am aware of the morality and rules of conduct in Judaism (let's treat them as they are in theory), good and bad, and at the same time aware of what is happening around me in the secular world - and according to my standards! only my! I came to the conclusions I came to.

    Forgive me for not going to the link you provided, I have no energy or interest in it, I will refer but to what you said:
    I don't know exactly what the UN's criteria are, as far as I'm concerned, Nazi Germany could just as well have done this measure...

    The rules of morality for the secular person, at least, is a personal thing - of course... a person who finds it appropriate to do things that in your eyes - are wrong, so he probably has other standards, since they justify doing what he did. Morality is indeed personal.

    Finally, I would appreciate it if someone would respond to the question I raised at the beginning of the discussion, in response #5. This is a question that denies evolution raised in YNET, I find it intriguing, and if anyone knows the answer, or has a tip, I would love to hear it, it is also will be able to return this discussion to the topic of evolution 🙂


  58. He asks:
    This is a lecture worth listening to in its entirety, but the interesting part for our immediate purpose is in the question and answer part - which starts at the 58th minute.
    Sam Harris quotes there from the UN Development Report the simple fact that the countries with the highest level of morality are the most secular countries.

  59. Tamir=asks:
    And what exactly is happening in the secular world that you say the morality of religion is better?
    And from what do you infer the imperfection of the moral laws of the religion if not from your personal judgment which is actually the only moral judgment we have and which is the basis of the morality of rational people (probably not religious)?
    If you watch this link:
    At the end you will find information that shows that the highest moral index is that of the most secular countries.

  60. Indeed, the reformers, for example, support evolution and do not see the achievements of science as any contradiction - and if there are any - they take what science states.
    But our problem is with the ultra-Orthodox, who accept the age of the universe as the book of Genesis and offensively demand that this is what our children will learn, in addition, they also make sure to teach them against the will of the parents in the kollels and yeshivas they open in secular neighborhoods.

  61. Obviously, no one is perfect - I did not say that Jewish morality is perfect. Relative to what is happening in the secular world, it is better, but someone once said, everything is relative... okay.

    In any case, I still think that there must not (emphasis on the word must) be a contradiction between religion and science - first of all, as a fact, you can watch the video that Michael brought.

    But being religious is a big word.. Beyond the fact that there are many religions in the world, even Judaism itself is divided into all kinds of currents...

    In the end, there are certainly those who deny evolution... and there are those who agree that it exists.
    If you think there is an attack, you are welcome to attack back, I am not coming with claims for an attack, nor did I come with claims before, but I just wanted to emphasize a point - that the debate going on here is much more than defending evolution.

    Thanks for the quick response,

  62. Children, please stop fighting!
    Perhaps religion encourages ignorance, but it is not the source of ignorance, but rather an education system that fails to convey basic knowledge to children. The debates should be how to get the education system to teach science from kindergarten, and not leave it to the universities.
    The situation in Israel is similar to the situation of a sinking ship, and you argue on board about the direction of the voyage. By the time you decide it will be too late anyway.

  63. To a mere Israeli: Aren't you tired of this cheesy claim that science and religion can live together and that there is no connection between religious belief and science?! Let's see - according to religion, God created all living things (exactly how long ago?) when the creatures were created as an unchanging template. Whereas according to evolution, the formation of life is the result of a very long process where all creatures on earth are the result of incessant change. A formation without an intentional entity but one that occurs spontaneously. Now you tell me - don't you see the collision?! And the theory of the formation of the universe, is that not enough collision for you? According to religion, God created everything with his mouth, while science puts forward the big bang theory which is just a spontaneous creation devoid of any intentional factor and light years (and generation years...) away from the religious version devoid of the slightest proof. Do you want more collisions? Don't worry you can find plenty more.
    Sometimes I just get tired of all these arguments with religious people. The supporters of science bring them innumerable proofs and proofs and things of logic and they reply with arguments that always always arise from emotion and have nothing to do with knowledge.

  64. To Tamir, there is a major attack that the religious launched back in the 19th century, shortly after the publication of Darwin's book (Rev. Wilburforce), the easiest way to win a fight in which you know you have no advantage in terms of the truth, is to demand the offensive from the opponent to tie his hands behind his back , in our case you demand that the science website not publish articles that reveal the existence of the struggle and answer the attackers. You call it an assault, but even a lie repeated a million times will not become the truth.
    You have already been proven more than once that there is a contradiction between science and religion, and the fact that you do not see it is because you hide your eyes with your hands and think that you are not seen.
    And as for your claims about Jewish morality - is it moral to separate men and women on the bus? Demanding billions for idlers is moral? What morality exactly are you talking about?

  65. He asks:
    Professor Sompolinki concluded that religious beliefs are incorrect.
    Do you conclude that there is no contradiction?
    There is a contradiction and that is why Sompolinski abandoned religious beliefs.

    As for morality - he doesn't really talk about it, but maybe you can explain to me how it can be explained This morality

  66. Michael provided an excellent link. Listen to the words of the religious researcher as many times as necessary - until you understand. Religion contains a lot in it - it's morals, it's culture, it's rules of conduct, it's faith, and it's possible to combine scientific knowledge with religion - it's a fact.

    Once again I say - my father fought against religion, for all the wrong reasons.
    More than he tries to defend evolution - he tries to fight religion.

    And in general, I now understand that my father hates religion. But in the bottom line, from the Jewish religion at least - many good things come that are not in the secular public. Did I say morality?!

    These topics are very philosophical, very interesting questions arise:
    In fact, in the absence of belief in the Creator of the world, there is nothing special and purposeful that moves the world - and this has many consequences that I concluded a long time ago. Morality is entirely an invention of the Jews as the Nazi ideology says - evolution does not mean killing Jews - but in general why not? Resources that are used by a person who is not me, I can destroy that person, more me…. I can because I am stronger.. the stronger wins...

    Now it's clear that I threw a lot of nonsense here, and it's impossible to discuss all of this on one foot.
    These are big questions…

    What I am trying to say, among other things, is that even if man invented the religion - everything is an invention and a lie - even then!!! It's still not wrong.

    Why does my father have trouble understanding this? There is nothing wrong or allowed my father. nothing! …. Sure and sure when you are not religious.

  67. I assume that response 68's contribution to the discussion is as valuable as that of response 66 and I suggest deleting both.

  68. Father - where did you get the things you claim I said?

    I argued that if the science is not proven, should ridiculous arguments be given the benefit of the doubt? when did i say that

    I argued that religion should be taught in religion classes, and science should be taught in science classes. Those who mix, as you do, cause us all serious harm.

    By the way, for what practical need is the theory of evolution proven?

    Good night friends. I guess you have the last word - it's your website.

  69. It is true that scientific theories are not proven, but reasonable assumptions that have not been hidden are proof for any practical need. It is true that there is also a chance that you will start flying because of a property of quantum mechanics, but the chance of this happening in practice is extremely slim, so it can be said about the theory of gravity that it is proven for every practical need.
    So is evolution.
    Your claim that if the science is not proven, we should also give rebuttable religious arguments the benefit of the doubt is a false claim. God
    Your demand not to defend against a religious attack on science with the force of an atomic attack, even in a small island article, is insolent.

  70. Michael:
    I read your explanations about the clergy's opposition to evolution, and I must say that they are nonsense.
    Darwin himself was, as you know, a man of faith, so the nonsense you said doesn't even require a confrontation.

  71. Michael:
    True, it's hard to know, we are curious and complicated creatures... I guess you are too.

    I no longer remember what I said about the rabbit, but if I have to summarize my non-cynical opinions then it goes like this:
    A. There is no contradiction between science and religion, nor can there be. but different ontological levels.
    B. A scientific theory is never proven. There are scientific theories that have become the core of our understanding of the world, but in the philosophical sense, and even in the sense of the pure scientific method, they are not proven. This includes the existence of the electron as well as the evolution.

    What should I have learned from what Chaim Sompolinski says?

  72. The religion that tries to explain science is wrong. The science that tries to explain religion is wrong.

    Faith is not science. Faith does not need proof, on the contrary. A serious scientist should not see people's beliefs as a scientific or logical basis for the existence or non-existence of things. For example, most of the world believes in God - this does not mean that this is proof of his existence. The stupidity of believers does not make scientists smarter or more just.

    Therefore, a scientist who deals with the beliefs of people of faith excludes himself from the field of science.
    To the extent that many deal with science...

    Take a small child and tell him stories and beliefs, you'll see that very quickly he believes it... it's proof of something - absolutely not.

  73. I'm planning to buy a floating globe, and put ants on it, I'm not sure about the light source yet. The same goes for the amount of burrows and food sources. There is already a dropper.

    In any case - I still haven't been properly answered to my question from response 4.

    I am in favor of "just an Israeli" because everything he has said so far is simply true. My father attacks Detz and does not defend evolution. He also does not deny this assault. Those who do not have a problem with this, will continue to read news in "Hidan" and those who cannot tolerate this can not come here anymore. But then my father will have the upper hand when it comes to imposing his views on the crowd.

    good day everybody.

  74. I also read your responses to my father and I must say they are nonsense.
    Religion's opposition to evolution has existed since the theory of evolution was formulated and that is because the religious people are smart enough to notice the contradiction and did not have to wait until my father was born and established the science website to notice it.

  75. In short - just an Israeli - you never know when you mean what you say and when you don't.
    Did you mean what you said when you claimed that the collection of delusional claims about the creation of the world or the flood or the rabbit etc. does not contradict science or was that also a cynical mockery?
    You are welcome to prove what happens to a religious person who adopts the conclusions of science honestly:

  76. Why does Amnon Yitzchak deny evolution? Have you ever thought about it? Why doesn't he deny Maxwell's equations?

    He does it because you brought him there. What he wants is for people to believe. They can go on to become scientists or horse traders.

    Now you stand in the way, explaining that science has already proven that religion is a collection of nonsense. Explaining why you are wrong is complicated, and certainly beyond the understanding of his listeners, and perhaps also of Amnon Yitzchak himself. So he simply tells them that evolution is questionable.

    The same nonsense you did, positing science as contradicting religion, he also did but the opposite. Now the two idiots are arguing with each other instead of doing something useful. . .

  77. Now I don't have a pan, but I have "friends". Maybe you'll just accept that religious people have an independent mind? I know you don't believe it, and it would be a good start if you thought about it again. Maybe you are brainwashed by Nature?

    I am not attacking Nature. He is not my opponent. I don't even support the denial of evolution in the sense you mean.

    I attack your campaign to convince us all that we cannot believe in religion because it contradicts science.

  78. Whoever denies such a solid science as evolution, cannot claim that there is no struggle, he started it.
    The easiest way to win a fight (for example in the sport of wrestling) is to start hitting the opponent and when he hits back demand that he tie his hands behind his back.

  79. Michael Rothschild:
    The talkback with the news and the bad and the good was a cynical mockery. The talkback with the value of science was already a serious reference.

    My opinion is that there is no connection between religious belief and scientific theory and it is possible to accept both as countless educated religious people do.

    I think that the science site's campaign to present science and religion as mutually exclusive is at best a grave mistake, and at worst the externalization of hatred.

    You are allowed to think that religion is nonsense, and I am allowed to think that it is not. You are allowed to think that science contradicts religion, and I am allowed to think that this is nonsense that stems from a misunderstanding of science and religion.

    But you must not surf to a "haunted country" even as a paraphrase. Actually you are allowed but it's stupid.

  80. Ok, so you are brainwashing not one pan but an entire education system. So what?
    Again, suggest to your friends to attack Nature that I referred you to their article earlier. If they come out with a statement that they stop fighting against evolution deniers, I will follow them too.

  81. For my pan? Would it surprise you if I told you that I am religious from a religious family?

    Instead of answering, or even saying "I don't agree, I think you're wrong", you prefer to label me as a repentant and assume that someone put things in my mouth.

    This reference brings people like me to the conclusion from which I started, and the same denial, that there is hatred here.

  82. Just an Israeli:
    In response 7 you wrote:
    ” The bad news is that Blizovsky and Rothschild believe in evolution without compromise.
    The good news is that the vast majority of the population does not believe this."

    In response 42 you wrote:
    "Evolution is a valuable scientific instrument"

    Would you mind explaining?
    Why does it bother you that we believe in a valuable scientific device and why are you happy that the vast majority believe in nonsense?
    And don't misinterpret my words by repeating the "no compromise" lie.
    Of course I don't compromise in the face of nonsense, but if you show me the flying spaghetti monster and prove to me that it did not develop through evolution, I will believe you. I promise!

  83. Is there no connection between evolution and faith? This is your personal opinion.
    Science's hatred of the religious? I am? Maybe their rabbis forcefully distort science to suit their needs?
    And besides, Channel 2's requirements to balance each article between different opinions do not apply to me. Enough of the stage I give people like you in talkbacks. I believe you are doing your pan a disservice. Go to him and tell him that you couldn't get the science site to change its mind and become an anti-science site.

  84. I am now concentrating on knowledge. Others will take care of others.

    Are you trying to advance scientific understanding or prevent conversion? Of course you will say that you are fighting religion because religion is fighting science.

    I tell you that religion does not fight science but people like you who try to bring science as proof of the falsity of religion. The moment you used evolution as a tool to deny religion you committed two sins:
    1. Sin against scientific truth. There is no connection between evolution and faith.
    2. Sin to scientific progress. You hate science about the religious.

    It must not have gone unnoticed by you that there are thousands of religious scientists who get along in their religious communities without any friction, and I have yet to hear of any of them being treated negatively. And that includes both biologists who do evolution and physicists who do astrophysics.

    If you do not treat religion as an enemy, but at most as a friend, you will find that in the matter of spreading science and knowledge you are allies. Religion is not "seeking the soul of truth" as you say.

  85. If you think it's just the science website, you're wrong, articles accepting the delegitimization of evolution on religious grounds also appear in Science and Nature. Not to mention, of course, popular science magazines, and if you search, you will see that many of those that appear on the science website originate from magazines within the framework of the collaboration, for example Galileo, Odyssey (just last week), Scientific American - all of them are respected magazines.
    What you are trying to do with your alleged criticism that now has its sting out of the bag - Even one article is too many - It is to silence the other side so that he cannot defend himself, and thus the religious scholars can continue to repent without encountering any kind of criticism. You managed it well in the mass media - there is no trace of evolution on Channel 2. But you were unable to silence the scientific media and there are films like this on Channel 8 and National Geographic, and there are articles of this type on websites that provide science news in Israel and around the world. Go to any scientific website and you will find articles like this.

    I don't think it's necessary to consider considerations like you wrote in the last paragraph. The truth must defend itself against those who seek its life without asking for forgiveness from anyone. As I made clear, I do not believe in postmodernism, and unlike countless religious sites where there is no chance of even a single comment in favor of evolution being included, a scientific site is allowed to express an unequivocal position against an unbridled attack that manifests itself in the rejection of science by huge percentages of the population. In the end this renunciation will bring upon us new Middle Ages.

    By the way, the name is taken as a paraphrase of Carl Sagan's last book, A Demon Haunted World, and if he wasn't afraid, I shouldn't be either.

    Read in this file the article DARWIN AND CULTURE and you will understand that the filtering of the information about evolution that you caused by your opposition, is the source of today's troubles.

  86. I'm not saying you don't bring enough articles regardless of religion. I claim that you bring too many articles that link science with opposition to religion. Even one is too many.

    I argue that the mere positing of science as an alternative to religion, apart from the fact that it is nonsense, causes religious people to oppose science. It is unnecessary. Why are you doing that? Let the believers believe, and get busy explaining the scientific achievements.

    When you say to a religious person who is not knowledgeable in science: "You are haunted by demons! Abandon your religion and come hear about my science!” What you will get is a refusal to hear about this science. What do you get out of it?

  87. You claim that I don't bring enough articles that describe evolution as science regardless of religion. Have you read all 1004 articles in my knowledge? Evolution and nature?, all 692 articles on my subjects Genetics, all 463 articles in the field the brain and all 682 articles in medical matters In addition to the brain?
    After all, even when you bring up an article like this, you shout in the comments that there is an anti-religious hint.Is it because the development of animals was 550 million years ago?)

  88. There is and is a war in religion.
    You want to advance the understanding of evolution to advance a deep understanding of the world. It is beautiful and worthy. Bless you for that.
    But what you are actually doing is trying to undermine belief in religion, even though it has nothing to do with science.
    Evolution is no more about theology than gravitation. The very presentation of evolution as an alternative to religion is a misunderstanding of religion or science or both. It's just like presenting gravity as an alternative to religion or string theory or the immune system.
    The people who "don't believe" in evolution do so because of people like you who force them to choose between their religious faith and evolution. If they promoted the understanding of scientific theory regardless of religious belief, we would all benefit.

  89. There is no war on religion here, there is a war on stupidity that tries in the name of religion to perpetuate a lie.
    Worse, this lie has more supporters than the truth because of the sloppiness of the sites that should protect science and not go against religion, see the answer of the humanist site I brought.

  90. Dear Michael Rothschild,
    Evolution is a valuable scientific tool. Science itself is an even more valuable thing. I myself deal with it most of the time.
    The stupidity and shallowness of this site, which is why I enjoy mocking it, is that the site tries to confront science with religion. This is stupidity.
    This site missed the war on ignorance because of its war on religion. No progress grows out of this but hatred.

  91. My son, you will find out very quickly that without evolution it is impossible to run a science news site. And if in the face of the scientific establishment that embraces evolution because it is the most comprehensive explanation, you bring me a shallow creationist who cites examples of the best fools of Protestant Christianity, then you probably have no real way to have a discussion.

  92. Asks

    First of all, the amount of animals on earth is not infinite.
    The amount is final, only the figure is not known precisely (I heard there are about 10 million) because the amount is so high that you cannot count them all. (But, for this reason (that we don't know how many animals there are) it can be argued that the amount can be infinite, but the probability - that the amount is infinite - is minimal).
    Hence - there is also a finite amount of the remains, of all animals, in nature.
    Because man does not have the ability to count all the animals that exist in nature, even more so, man will not have the possibility (say in the next hundred years) to find and count and sort all the remains (which constitute the intermediate stages) of all the animals that lived on the earth in almost 4 billion years the last ones

  93. Maybe we should start a propaganda site that will expose the truth about the science site -> using a scientific stage to promote dark materialistic worldviews. And when in front of smart scientists all you have to offer is Amnon Yitzhak, your situation is bad.

  94. Hello everyone.

    Blizovsky, I browse through your comments and I'm stolen!, really...

    About once every 3 months you bring here an article with a loud headline whose entire being is anti-Abrahamic propaganda.

    I'm not familiar with the psychology behind your hatred of infinity and I don't know why the hell you fill a scientific publication website with such propaganda?...

    It is true that there is no limit to the number of articles on the site, but damn it, the level of seriousness of your site decreases when you use your platform as editor-in-chief to provoke provocations and initiate wars that the scientific platform does not allow at all.

    If you want to argue with "religious" so much (I include all the groups you oppose under this term with great anger), I am sure that Amnon Yitzchak would be happy to have sex with you again.

  95. I will tell you the truth, if it is proven 100 percent to all of humanity that there is no God, I think we will die here of boredom, we will die of hopelessness, we will die of lack of purpose, we will have nothing to strive for because we will start to feel like light bulbs that are about to burn and be thrown in the trash, as long as they find Sam Life is for eternal life. At some point we will ask to be cut off because we are tired of living too much as an electric light bulb.
    It is better not to know the truth about the existence of any god until we find some solution
    to answer the reasons I have given.
    What do you think ?

  96. Shlomo:
    This is not my mistake but your misunderstanding.
    I agree with you that religion is primarily rules of behavior - that is - an answer to the question of how one should behave - and I have written about this extensively elsewhere.
    That's why I wrote in my response about "religious beliefs" and not about "religious laws".

    The religious beliefs were fabricated so that people would believe that there is truth in the story about the imaginary friend who gave the religious laws.

    The religious beliefs include the far-fetched story of creation, the claim that the rabbit lives, the claim that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source, the story that Noah built an ark that housed a pair of all the animals (including food for forty days and forty nights) - an ark that apparently had to be large From Tel Aviv, the story that during the flood, such an amount of water fell on the earth that the highest mountains were flooded (which was more than three times the amount of water on the earth) and then all this water disappeared as if it were not there, the hallucinatory story of the Tower of Babel - and on and on and on.

    These are beliefs that have nothing and a half to do with behavior and have everything to do with science.
    Science, of course, contradicts them all.

    As for the rules of conduct of the religion, you are welcome to try to explain this

  97. If everyone used common sense there would be less conflict in the world. Evolution would also have become a consensus. After all, everyone has known for a long time that God is dead. And yet the living creatures in the world continue to evolve from generation to generation. Of course it's not because someone died, but because evolution is a natural process. A fundamental process that results from the properties of matter and the laws of the universe, which began together with the formation of life. And the formation of life is another natural process that occurs as a result of the properties of matter and the laws of the universe.
    So it's enough to rely on corpses!

  98. I want to ask the guys here who believe in God - what do you want to say?
    What does belief in God contribute to your understanding of the world?
    It helps you understand what you are, and who are you? (And don't tell me yes, because I'd rather not know anything,
    than to believe that someone somewhere in the past created the father of my ancestors called Adam, from dust)
    Let me tell you what faith is, and religion in general.
    Imagine a world where there is no law and no organized states, and people live in it as they see fit.
    This situation is not good, and is not desirable. What to do?
    They invent a figure, called God (which, by the way, is in the plural because it had to attract the whole crowd of idol believers,
    and therefore there cannot be one), and this "God" knows exactly which are the bad things you do, and which are the good,
    And you are informed that this God exists and that if you do something bad, he will punish you in the "life after death".
    If you do good things, on the other hand, he will reward you in "life after death".
    Hey! Amazingly! We found a way to make ignorant and mindless people behave properly!
    After all, who wants to spend their "eternal life" in the "afterlife" in hell? We will do good deeds!
    And besides that, what does religion give to the world?
    Wars? Hate? racism?
    All human beings, including you who are reading this, and including me (yes, I admit, me too),
    They want to believe with all their hearts that there is someone who is watching over them, that there is a higher purpose for their lives, that they are special.
    Scary to think we are alone.
    But seriously. How the hell can a sane person believe that? how??
    I'll confess, although I don't believe in religions, it's hard to say what the force that created the universe is. (not life! the universe)
    Yes, sometimes even the big bang sounds like an ethereal and too abstract theory,
    So I guess you could think there might be something beyond all of this.
    But here it ends, no intelligent planning, no hell, no soul and no plaster. Hals.

  99. Sorry I didn't understand you, I'm changing my mind and starting to believe in God who is not an alien.

  100. Religion has some kind of mind control over its believers,
    It is not because of the book, but because the religious institutions work in an efficient and concentrated way.
    They already have centuries of knowledge in mental manipulation. They have a deadly mind virus that destroys a person's Bios at a young age.

    In religion every question gets an answer.
    And all the credit always goes to God.
    As a firm believer you cannot lose - your Master always wins.
    Even if the biggest heretic and persecutor of the Jews invents the next internet, it is clear that God in heaven 'made' him invent it.
    But if something bad happened, like a father who raped his children, or a mother who murdered her children,
    Such things God does not 'cause'. no no no. No way?!
    Things like this happen because there are many secular people who do not observe Shabbat Rahmana Lezlan.

    The saddest thing for me is a child, new to the world, who begins to ask his parents questions,
    While his mind asks for food for the mind, all he gets is peanuts. And so it repeats until the brain gets rid of hunger.
    By the age of 10 he learns to be a zombie who leans forward in the morning prayer and reads things he has no idea what they are talking about.

  101. Look
    No one expels the believers in God from here or anywhere else
    But you can't "mix" things that don't fit.
    According to the law of conservation of energy (if someone wants to argue if it is true, then this is really not the place for them) there is no place at all for creation, since according to this basic physical law, all energy has always been in one form or another. Starting with the big bang (and possibly even before you) it just changes form from energy to matter and back through all the forms of energy and matter that we know or don't know.

    You need to understand and internalize: believing is a choice of everyone who chooses not to know.
    This is the easy and available way to deal with lack of knowledge.
    No one should be blamed or anyone's faith belittled since not everyone has the conditions and the ability to learn or know, therefore those who believe in the Holy Spirit the easy way, through faith.
    They just forget to ask themselves (ah.. I forgot, it's not allowed to ask) who created God... when and how?

    I choose to believe that such widespread ignorance can be changed through education and awareness.
    Science and information nowadays is available to anyone. (This site is a good example of this)
    Need to create the requirement. This is the role of the state (every state seeks science and peace) but the intervention and support of the enlightened public is required.

    And those who feel a certain arrogance will forgive me.
    I do think that choosing the path of faith and studying God's teachings (one way or another) deepens ignorance, while studying science advances humanity. And if there are Torah sages here who think I'm wrong, out of respect they will stop using cars, airplanes, electricity, medicines, etc. All the products of science and not any kind of creation...

  102. I didn't say anything to Jose in the stars that you describe. Alien bacteria are also aliens, but they do not reach divine status, in fact even an evolved alien would not be God, because it evolved evolutionarily just like us. And moreover you distort my words, because I wrote that they did not reach us.

    And pending confirmation, when there are no crazy people in the world who will take the nickname God and write with this nickname 'I created you', I will release the word from its blockage.

  103. I hear from your words that there is a developed intelligence of our own in the universe, I will start to believe that really some developed alien (God) created us and would send his soldiers (angels) to check how we behave on earth, along the way he gave us an instruction book (Torah) on how to behave on earth which is Build for us in some developed laboratory somewhere in some space jump...
    Well, I'm starting to believe in God and his teachings

  104. This lovable site banishes anyone who fondly writes the word God. This only indicates narrow-mindedness. Big bang was here, creation was and so was evolution. Mix, stir, and sip from the fountain of knowledge. Short-tempered and prejudiced scientists will not banish the darkness that stems from ignorance here.

  105. I lecture to anyone who is willing to listen, and if you listen to the lecture you will see that I did not say that they found aliens, but that they found the possibility of existence. I do not rule out the existence of aliens, I just believe that the chance that intelligent beings met the people of Earth and drove them crazy is slim due to the dimensions of space.

  106. Michael, just correcting a tiny mistake:
    The holy books do not come to explain how 'the world behaves' but how to 'behave in the world'.

    There is indeed a contradiction between science and Judaism, at the level you know.
    But Judaism is learned in yeshiva, and out of humility. Not on the science site, and out of pride.

  107. Father, what about you and the association for the study of human beings? I saw you on YouTube lecturing people, do you believe in aliens or did you come to deny their existence?

  108. I have no doubt that there is indeed evolution but the beginning is only known based on a bold interpretation. A big bang was here, an incredible creation was there, and there is a possibility that both can live in peace if only the scientists learn to respect the possibility of the existence of sublime knowledge and tools for understanding it that are not revealed except in a state of clarity of the tool and that is man. Brain research lags behind the progress of artificial intelligence. This intelligence can reflect the mind necessary for a scientist. Even scientists make mistakes sometimes and the tools of understanding should be polished, and they are the thinking that is capable of striking a fixed point, and the acceptance of the sublime as a non-quantifiable possibility. At least not at this stage of B'Tselem creators who are not polished and clear enough. The war between the positions is nothing but a waste of energy and digging into the familiar. You should keep an open mind and combine drawing conclusions from data with uninhibited thinking. The giver of the most successful inspiration is God himself. There is no doubt in my mind that Einstein, Bialik, Shakespeare and Alterman were divinely inspired, and at least one of them was a scientist. They were certainly not averse to thinking without fixation.

  109. to Muti My fix?
    Have you ever entered Science, Nature? And if so, do you ever find a scientific article or article against evolution? If you find one and see that it was not mentioned on the scientist's website, let me know.

  110. The real problem is that people are not at all interested in knowing how the world was created, whether there is a God or no God is not what bothers them, so why all the fighting over who is right in science or religion, because at the end of the day the common man just wants to live his life in peace and be left to his own devices, The scientists will continue to research because they like it, the religious people will continue to believe because it gives them the strength to continue living, the simple people who are the great majority just want to be good and that's the whole point.
    There is no need to fight, live each one in his own way and have a happy life.

  111. I fully support the article, the handful of activists should be encouraged to bring back the ultra-Orthodox in the question. By the way, those who are interested in changing the "Free Israel" movement that I came across on Facebook, strongly recommend joining.

  112. I wanted to add a comment, but when I started writing about: the embodiment of stupidity, about the prevailing ignorance,
    About the accounting with the "Creator of the Universe", about blind faith...
    I saw that the reaction would be sharp and stinging and therefore ... I gave up.

  113. It turns out that some people have not yet understood this - so I will explain:
    Science is studied at the university. Not on the science site.
    The role that the science website has taken on is the popularization of science and in this matter - nothing will help - science-obsessed religious people like "Stom Israeli" attack any information on evolution and anyone who explains to people that the evidence for its existence is very numerous while the evidence for the existence of a creator is nil and the evidence for the existence of The Gods of Israel are actually negative.
    Anyone who wants the discussions here not to drift in such directions is, therefore, naive or religious.
    The innocent want this because they do not understand how the religious believers work.
    Some religious people want this because they know what a bad name other religious people who participate in these discussions give religion.
    It should be understood that discussions about the war between religion and science will continue as long as religious people think they can find the truth about the world's behavior within their holy books.

    Therefore, articles that describe the public's attitude to science cannot be blamed as if they were accusations in these debates. And such debates were and will be because there is a contradiction between religious beliefs and the truth and science is constantly concerned with uncovering the truth and therefore - in uncovering this contradiction.

    On the other hand - articles of this type are of interest to those who are interested in science because the public's attitude towards science predicts the budgets that will be allocated for its further development.

  114. Guy, have you checked the frequency of the appearance of such news compared to the frequency of articles related to space, or biotechnology? In my estimation and correct me if I'm wrong, even one article that comes to emphasize this important issue like the hatred of evolution, which causes enormous damage to science, will be too much for you.

  115. For a change, I largely agree with the content of the article, but I have 2 questions:

    1. Is the article my father's or Roy Tsanza's (a similar article was published today in YNET with Roy's signature) ???

    2. Is there no scorn and disdain for religious scientists? The article does not show an attempt to explain why the creationists are wrong and why people of faith do not accept the theory of evolution, but rather an attempt to attack the religious establishment. Because this was unnecessary in my opinion and it would have been desirable to focus on the points that support evolution and an explanation that does not come from the direction of confrontation - which also has many sides and of course not everything is black and white. After all, scientists also know how to behave sometimes (too close) like members of a religious cult, especially when they are required to research controversial topics that are not accepted by the mainstream.

    And a note - in my opinion Roy Tsenza fell into the trap of using the term "belief in evolution"... the use of the term "believer in evolution" especially in Hebrew, brings up a connotation of religious rather than logical/scientific belief...

    Hanan Sabat

  116. What can be learned from the American survey is that the education system established by the central government, the states and local authorities, as well as the propaganda marketed in a large part of the mainstream media, works on the margins. Fact: in a little less than thirty years, another 7% were added to those who believe, despite the unfortunate paucity of evidence, in evolution according to Darwin's group and distortion. It is possible that the percentage of believers in the religion of science will gradually increase and it is possible that the idea has already exhausted its capacity and the current rate will maintain stability and even decrease, but in any case this is a rather marginal phenomenon. And I suggest that no one should be moved that people who have had more years of education are more inclined than others to this Darwinian idea. The more educated also tended throughout history and until now tend to adopt a compromising policy towards especially murderous dictators or to ignore their danger and agree with them (such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah or Khaled Mashal, and even worse than them), and the educated today also cooperate Without further reflection with regimes that bring life on our globe closer to horrific disasters. So years of education do not indicate a beacon of wisdom and do not constitute an insurance certificate against difficult achievements.

  117. The key word is: "believers". Everything you can't see with your eyes, you have to believe. No one sees evolution with the eyes, and no one saw the creation with the eyes. Whether evolution is the truth, or creation, or something else entirely (who knows what other theories the future holds?), one can only believe in one of the methods. A request to accept as absolute truth something that is not visible to the eye is an obvious mistake of the person who requests it. The scientists understand this for those who believe in creation, and the latter for the former, but no one understands this for themselves...

  118. ravine! Really fed up!! Maybe it's time to take action and set up a website that will give a real answer, in the form of quality and balanced articles? Maybe only then will the management realize that they have to get out of the fixation they are in?

  119. Not that it changes anything but...

    The rabbis are shooting themselves in the foot.
    The opposition of religious people (all religions) to progress and science is clear and stems from the fact that the more science advances, the more and more the religious beliefs based on nothing but a few historical ideas, one-sided and narrow-minded education, mass intimidation and lots and lots of money are breached... This opposition to progress and science has existed since dawn The human culture.
    "And yet move, move" said this immortal - said in the sixteenth century by Galileo Galilei on the steps of the church court. Evolution is not the end. Unfortunately, even nowadays, the students in the religious schools of all religions learn about history (every religion and its history) and religion much more than about the facts of life and the laws of physics and science.

    Unfortunately, it is easy for rabbis and believers to forget that the meaning of the word "faith" = "ignorance". They suppress the fact that "I believe" literally means "I don't know". It is clear that it is not possible to believe and know something at the same time and it is even more clear that if you know you will not have to believe at all.

    In the case of the Jews, aligning and actually partnering with extreme Islam directly harms the most important interest for Jews today, which is the completion of the establishment of the State of Israel and the end of the conflict with the Palestinians and the Arabs.

    The essence of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in the establishment of the State of Israel. However, most of the major Arab countries long ago accepted the reality and accepted the State of Israel as a fact. Not happily but in peace and some even in peace.
    The Palestinians, i.e. Arabs who were residents of the state before its establishment, claim rights to the state. There is and has never been a Palestinian people, but the terrorist organization that has become a part of it has become a kind of governmental authority, they try and succeed in creating a people out of nothing.
    The argument and basis for this organization is mainly the right of return to Israel, but they receive the power and support from radical Islamic organizations that exist and exist solely thanks to oil money.
    Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. and recently Turkey also continue to fuel the conflict and give massive support to the Palestinians. Each of the bodies is for its own reasons, but most of them are trying to find their place and compete for control and power in the Muslim world. An excellent example is Turkey, which has recently drifted more and more into the extreme Islamic current and uses shamelessly and remorselessly the wretched Palestinians who are happy to sell their souls to another party that pursues power and control in exchange for some world attention.

    Science is capable of completely changing the global geopolitical map and the centers of power in the world and thereby stopping the supply of fuel to the Muslim fire spreading out of control.

    In recent years, scientists and researchers have been trying to find alternatives to energy based on oil and gas. The source of power of the Muslim world.
    Solar, electric, atomic, hydrogen, agriculture-based energy and more such as these types of alternative energy. No, not the greenhouse effect and air pollution are the main reasons for this development race, but rather a clear understanding that if an alternative energy to oil is found/developed, the Arab countries will lose their greatness and return to being factions, goat herders and nomads as they were before the industrial revolution.
    Of course, the countries with large oil reserves (the vast majority are Muslim Arab countries) do everything they can to prevent progress in the research and development of alternative energies and invest many millions in this. But the weapon of religion, the weapon of Islam is the main weapon in this struggle. In this battlefield stand on one side the science, research and development and on the other side stand the religious priests, the sheikhs, the ayatollahs and the like who pull their people and sheep from their pasture into the darkness of the religion which prevents and forbids any independent thinking. It is not for nothing that the priests of extreme Islam call the peoples of the West and the USA in particular "the great Satan". The message to their believers is clear "Satan" = "Enemy of God"

    The leaders of the religious opinion in Judaism in Israel and in the world, with a narrow and primitive view unfortunately align themselves, cooperate and stand beside the ayatollahs and imams from the Muslim world in this struggle of darkness against light. Science versus the darkness of religion. In doing so, we actually strengthen our enemies in their struggle for progress and allow them to gain more and more strength.

    This state can be changed.
    The secular public, which is actually a majority in the developed countries and in the Western world, can and should express its opinion strongly, oppose and prevent extreme religious education that leads and perpetuates ignorance and primitiveness.
    This trend should start with the leaders. The vast majority are secular. But unfortunately they also sell their souls to the religious communities in exchange for votes at the ballot box of course.
    The secular public has a key role in this matter. This public also needs to abandon the partisan and petty tradition and stand as one man and strongly behind leaders who will follow this path, strengthen them and give them the strong back they need to bring about change.

    Secular leaders of secular countries should lead to a comprehensive behavioral and educational change, which will emphasize the benefits of scientific education and highlight the risk inherent in extreme religious education.
    These leaders can start by omitting the phrase "by the help of God" which they add to every speech as lip service to the religious public. It is possible to continue to stop bowing down to primitive religious leaders, yes even if they control and determine the opinion of this or that religious movement. And of course reducing the bloated and senseless budgets in ultra-Orthodox religious education and directing them to research and development. Because we have seen here that in the end the products of this primitive religious education (from both sides) work together against the interests of the State of Israel and the other developed countries that suffer from terrorism which ultimately relies and is supported by this education.

    Science is over forever.

  120. The survey proves that evolution wins not by knock outs but by points, 100 years ago 99 percent of Americans thought that the world existed for 6000 years and man was created by God who created a doll out of mud and put a puff on it and the doll came to life.

  121. Aren't you tired of these types of articles? Father, try to bring science articles and not public opinion polls and gossip.
    You repeat yourself over and over again... the content of the article is not interesting, the reactions are expected from all sides.
    The consideration here is rating? get down to the masses?

  122. The bad news is that Blizovsky and Rothschild believe in evolution without compromise.
    The good news is that the vast majority of the population does not believe this.
    Let them take out their frustration in headlines that try to upset like "a country haunted by demons".
    If you take into account that "the state" is simply an organization of the citizens. And the citizens are to one degree or another religious, it turns out that the one who is persecuting the state is Avi Blizovsky, and he is probably the devils.

  123. A little modesty will not hurt.
    Anyone who claims that the truth is in his pocket should be categorically dismissed.
    Science does not claim this, all it claims is that until proven otherwise it is the closest thing to the truth.
    Those looking for a simple and quick solution to their curiosity will surely fail.

  124. I'm sure that evolution exists in nature, I'm not sure that everything started from nothing, I don't believe in Judaism, but I do believe that there is something sublime between us.

    If you try to think logically about how it all started, you can very quickly lose your sanity. big bang? What is ahead of him? From before it at all - the concept of time only started with the big bang... so wait, where did it come from?... In short, let's at least admit that science doesn't really know and won't know how to answer these questions either.

    I have a serious and innocent question:
    Evolution is very, very gradual... it's not like one day you're a dinosaur and suddenly your offspring is a bird...
    So why don't you find skeletons of lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of intermediate stages,
    of lots and lots and lots of living creatures...

    A monkey and a man filled in.. looks similar.. but let's talk for a second about a lot of living creatures that are not similar to each other.. show me the full puzzle that contains all the intermediate stages - well of course not all of them.. but show me a lot - at least in the eye I will be able to notice that they are related... where are they? Where are all the intermediate stages of the infinite species of animals on this planet…

  125. The problem is that education does not have a strong and united lobby like religions (sects), therefore religions will dominate the world.
    And rightly so, we have nothing to preach about.. What shall we preach about?! that there is no next world, snakes don't talk, there is no omnipotent/omniscient God, Baba-Buba has no line to him, thirty notes in a pile of stones doesn't really help and other nonsense that the world should have eradicated a long time ago... the problem is that no one will be interested in buying the truth.. because for them it is ugly and therefore they prefer not to recognize it. It is much nicer to think that there is someone who looks at them, appreciates them for their good deeds and accumulates flight points for them to upgrade to business in the next world.
    The most important thing is that all believers (including the rabbis) take medicine when they are sick... but guys... life and death are in God's hands, right?! The most fun is living in hypocrisy and not recognizing it..

  126. It is sad that even nowadays we, as the gold of science, after countless practical results, science still has to fight for its existence and its place. This war is actually being waged in schools. As long as there is no strong emphasis on mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology from the first grade, education in our country will continue to be as it is today, education for ignorance, prejudices and narrow-mindedness. The problem is that the rest of the world does not make such fatal mistakes, neither the developed western countries nor the developing eastern countries. Everyone understands that in the present it is possible to succeed only with a scientific/technological advantage. Our enemies don't stand still either. Technological advantage is a victory in the war before the first bullet is even fired.
    The State of Israel must take itself into its own hands. We don't have the option of just being a failed state, we simply won't be.

  127. There is an interesting recursion here.
    Response number 1 embodies within itself the proof that the claim it is trying to make is not true.

  128. A trending and flat article! The whole point is just to dismiss and mock. As if this is the religion of the "uneducated" and in contrast, the theory of evolution according to the spirit of this site is that of the educated and enlightened person. No person who really knows science believes in it at such a level as on this site they sanctify it and believe in it with blind faith. It's amazing to see how twisted the mind can be.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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