Comprehensive coverage

A country haunted by demons XNUMX - Justice prevailed - Gabi Avital was fired

The Director General of the Ministry of Education informed Dr. Gabi Avital of his dismissal from the position of Chief Scientist of the Ministry. As recalled, in several media interviews, Avital denied global warming and the theory of evolution

The ice sculpture of the polar bear that WWF placed in the central square in Copenhagen before it melted
The ice sculpture of the polar bear that WWF placed in the central square in Copenhagen before it melted

The Director General of the Ministry of Education, Dr. Shimshon Shoshani, informed the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Education, Dr. Gabi Avital, of the termination of his position yesterday (Monday). Dr. Avital, a member of the Faculty of Aeronautics Engineering at the Technion, was appointed to the position in December 2009 and was employed as part of a trial period.

The announcement of the CEO of the Ministry was made at the discretion of the Minister of Education and after the CEO held two meetings with Avital during the last month.

In February 2010, Haaretz newspaper revealed For the first time, Avital's dark views on scientific issues that are not disputed among scientists, but he is not ready to accept them. He demanded that the textbooks be changed so that they reflect different opinions: "If they continue to write in the textbooks that the Earth is warming due to carbon dioxide emissions - I will insist that this is not the case." He also said, "If the textbooks explicitly state that man is descended from the ape - I would like the students to be exposed to other views and confront them. There are many people who do not think that the theory of evolution is true." Haaretz stated that by virtue of his position, Avital influences the actions of the Ministry of Education and the schools regarding the quality of the environment. Following several articles he wrote on global warming, activists in green organizations called for his resignation.
In an interview that Avital gave to Maariv newspaper Before the holidays, he again questioned the theory of evolution and said that "God created man, there is no other way". He also said that if the theory of evolution is correct, then "the main question is where are all the fossils that are supposed to represent the intermediate vertebrae in this development?" The biologists say they will be found, but for now there are none. Second, if it's so good to be human, why are there still monkeys?” he asked. He later added ". Darwin was a great scientist, but his teachings were taken in very dangerous directions. The development plan needs to be taught about its advantages, but also its disadvantages. Also the flaws. This is not the theory of evolution, it is the hypothesis of evolution in general".

The facts and evidence are also unequivocal regarding the warming of the earth as a result of human activity. And what Avital said about it: "Nonsense. There is no evidence of a correlation between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. On the contrary, in Al Gore's film we see how the increase in temperature preceded the increase in carbon dioxide. Beyond that, the significant temperature increase occurred between 1940-1905, when most of the temperature records were recorded."

In an article published in the religious-national weekly "Bassheva", Avital wrote: "In recent years, the 'Green Cross Campaign' has been taking place around the world, as part of a deeper movement, and it can definitely be called a green religion. What motivates the greens and their diverse supporters to embark on a campaign of intimidation that the end of the world is right at our doorstep? Why do the green organizations pressure governments to switch to alternative energy that is not available and must be very expensive? These wishes cannot be avoided. The answers may surprise and perhaps disappoint. However, as soon as science is mobilized into politics, that is, into ideology, it is necessary to find out what the scientific basis of the green organizations is. And for those who know a little about the details, it reminds me of something from the religion of evolution."

It's just a shame that Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who was quick to disavow the words of the chief scientist, did not take this step after his first statement. Avital is not just an official who is supposed to warm a chair, but a person who needs to see to it that scientific knowledge is given in the textbooks. I am no longer talking about his views on political matters which is really a matter of personal taste, but the textbooks should be free not only of politics but also of plain lies.

One should only regret that in a country that is supposed to be an enlightened western country, it is possible to graduate with 5 units in biology without taking even one course in evolution, depending on the choice of the school. In the lower grades, they are taught that the animals adapt to their environment, but do not explain how this miracle happened. "It's a difficult subject to study," explained one of my daughter's elementary school teachers. A puzzling answer, relative to the fact that any person who is not brainwashed can understand evolution in five minutes. The brainwashed invent things that did not exist and were not created such as random evolution (while only one phase of it is random and other phases greatly moderate the randomness) or "inextricable complexity".

By the way, as for the environment, unlike evolution, it is an important part of the Israeli curriculum. For example, this week I am supposed to participate, together with my daughter's class (XNUMXth grade) in an event to honor the start of a large recycling project in the neighborhood.

As for global warming, it is interesting that Bittel finds itself alongside capitalists who are apprentices of Ian Rand who believe that the industry should not take responsibility for its actions, and in fact prefer to bury their heads in the sand and claim that there is no warming, the main thing is not to pay the price (A fresh example). They just don't know that preventing action now will be much more expensive, and will also cause irreversible damage to species that will become extinct and people that will have to leave their homes due to hunger, diseases, etc. that will result from the droughts that will multiply and the desert that will spread. As long as it's not themselves, what does it matter. The main thing is not to switch to clean energy.

These statements have already been compared to the argument that it is necessary to show both sides in the debate as to whether the earth is round or flat. The objections to the theory of evolution do not come from among the scientists involved in the field, and the proportion of climate deniers among the relevant scientists is also small, despite the enormous temptation, as Greenpeace recently discovered, Take research grants from oil companies. Although not the majority determines, and one refutation of a theory in an experiment can turn a scientific opinion on it, but as it seems now, the deniers do not have strong arguments, they are helped by external factors such as the sun or cosmic radiation, and in some cases ignore facts, for example that the sun has not warmed since years The XNUMXs, the period when the graph of the sun's warming and cooling became disconnected from those of the Earth."

Haunted country XNUMX - answer regarding Avital - science is not a program as you requested

the deniers

115 תגובות

  1. Cheers, Dr. Avital, I identify with your views and your values. We are Jews who believe that God created man, not that part of my family is on safari.
    you're absolutely right!!!

  2. Max Power:
    If commenter 111 does not know that in science there are no proofs then he is not just a one but just a zero

  3. To commenter 111 just one, you really are just one, maybe apply the laws of scientific proof to the delusional stories in the Bible, the New Testament and the Koran.

  4. My mother must say that even today, as throughout history, people confuse belief with knowledge. All the smart scientists who are sure that the whole of science knows that there was and is a winning rod. Lavoloitsa probably wants to believe it, and when I say believe, I say it with emphasis, because as far as I know, even Drouin did not fully meet the conditions he was placed to prove His theory, and when I say theory, I mean a concept that says a belief that is based on facts but cannot be unequivocally proven, because proof is a dead end that cannot be provoked, and from the point of view that I know that all kinds of proofs have been proven in the past, it turned out that they are simply cases, details, I suggest to all scientists to open their eyes and their heads and not be a herd This is the real difference between a scientist and a mere charlatan who thinks he knows everything. There are things we don't know and aren't sure about and we don't know everything, so don't pretend to know everything

  5. To all the 'creationists' and those who refuse the warming/cooling: yes gentlemen of the 'wise' - the warming
    It causes the melting of the glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, Siberia, and in part of Antarctica and the amount of water increases in the surface of the seas which causes a change in the composition of salinity and a cooling of the upper water layer of the conveyor currents from the equator to the northern regions of Europe (the "Gulf Stream")! This is how the connection between warming and cooling, predicted in Europe this winter, was created. And for some (unfortunately small...) of the above commenters: remember the Flemish Bruegel paintings from the 16th century! (The Little Ice Age in Europe - about 100 years...)
    I recommend reading the articles of Dr. A. Rosenthal about it!!

  6. Probably both the believers and the non-believers do not understand that the religious books were a way to represent a people without a country
    All the "discoveries" and "science" and "laws" and "history" of the Jews were coded in books
    By the best "Jewish scientists and historians".

    Of course, as of today, some of the hypotheses / theories encoded in religious books are no longer so correct
    And it was necessary to change/replace them, but since the religious books are also the history books
    So it is difficult for the Jews to erase the historical hypotheses / theories
    which were previously codified in books, and they are still preserved as written by the stream of conservatives.

  7. Why specifically Torah lessons, why not New Testament lessons, the Koran, the holy books of the Buddhists, or any other religion? And why not study Greek mythology in depth, it is much more interesting according to Yigal Fattal's stories.
    If the religion at its core (any religion) does not even stand on chicken's knees and does not pass a first grade exam in the most basic sciences (have you ever tried to understand the cosmology of the Tanach?), what does it matter how long you study it?
    I happened to learn, and so did Michael, so what, this further proves to us that we know that this is nonsense.

  8. The link they added to my previous response is the fruit of the website owner who enjoys twisting the words of the commenters here.
    I didn't understand what the link was trying to prove other than your ignorance. I already wrote to you: learn Torah in real Torah lessons and don't bring me newspaper clippings from Haaretz newspaper.
    Parable What is it similar to? For a XNUMXth grade boy who hears that a scientist won a Nobel Prize for a genetic breakthrough and to prove how ridiculous it is, he waves a DNA diagram and says: It's basically a drawing.
    In order to understand something deeply, even just to understand it, you have to study it deeply and not read it in some newspaper...

  9. Check yourself: are you a hypocrite?

    How do you respond to the following news: The supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education was fired due to heretical statements in the Torah of Israel, in the interview the professor claimed: The Bible is not a reliable source and that I do not agree with the claim that God created the world, I want my children to be exposed to other views.

    Angry, aren't you? What a fanatical, gagging country...
    Just as (unfortunately) such a person can teach the Bible, so can a person who does not believe in science.

    Another thing - Shimon's claim that religion is petrified.
    Once the world was barbaric and primitive and the Jewish religion was innovative and revolutionary, it founded something new in the world - morality.
    And today the world has progressed, but it remains barbaric and primitive. See the entry Nazi Germany - the record of progress and science!
    You say - who do you call progressive? For those who manage to develop innovative medicines and pass the sound barrier or for those who judge justly, fight for the weak, bring values ​​of true and non-utilitarian morality to the world? Which of them would you like to live next to?
    And please - let's judge Judaism and not the religious.
    Anyone who doesn't believe me is invited to sit down and study the subject in depth in real Torah lessons and get back to me. You can say whatever you want, but the last thing in the world you can say is that Judaism is primitive. The world is not yet beginning to discover morality.

    As evidence: The morality of Judaism - Judge for yourself

  10. Once the Jewish religion was innovative and revolutionary. The belief in one God who does not have a body and does not have the image of a body. The years and the hardships and the hardships of the home front have turned Orthodox Judaism into a petrified and puzzling religion. The accumulated scientific knowledge contradicts the naive belief. Science presents a doctor to treat the disease and not a rabbinic blessing and sorcerers and clouded.
    The site here presents scientific positions. What are you looking for here? Who needs your vanity and care.

  11. Oriya, let's put it simply. I am not subject to the broadcasting authority or the second authority and I am not obliged to balance. If someone attacks science, be it a religious maniac, a charlatan who practices alternative medicine, an astrologer, they will all get the same treatment from me.
    With Avital, the problem was that he influences my children's education, which is not among the improved anyway, and Ren is allowed to criticize him, especially when he expresses his dark opinions under the guise of a scientist. You believe that pluralism prevents giving equal expression to all opinions, including lies, I call what you do New Age.

  12. Why don't you publish my response? Perhaps because the following quote is too difficult for you: "What I believe after slowly and patiently reading all the commenters so far, is that with the exception of "Malka Elia" all the naysayers, who react with sarcasm and derogatory epithets, are precisely the ones who shove science down their throats and a clearly unethical style on their tongues. "?
    Or maybe because you don't like it: "Everything has value. And you have to learn the value of everything in order to place everything in its value. And how to combine all the opinions in such a situation that each one will make up for the deficiency in her company, even where they seem to disagree with each other...?

  13. Again the same aggressive wording and it's a shame.
    This section belongs to the main purpose of the site if I understand it correctly. To encourage thought and engagement in what is more than the superficial in the mainstream. I did not come to prove it from the actual discussion and even clarified it in parentheses.
    However, I do not think that the opinion of the philosopher rabbi Yosef Kellner (I wish he was "my rabbi") is in the same division as your opinion and the opinion of the above writers.
    If you concluded that my opinion is as your interpretation of Gabi Avital's worldview. You're wrong. And I believe, without going into depth, that there is also a mistake in your interpretation of his worldview.
    We must be careful not to bring the darkness of the Middle Ages upon ourselves in the name of a fanatical war on archaic views. Now that he's fired, there's no justification for bashing him like that. The goal has already been achieved, hasn't it?

  14. An amazing piece about pluralism and fanaticism, really worth investing in and understanding:
    "The weak patience, which weakens life, is among private manifestations of the spirit that are not marketed in the void of generality. And the malicious zeal comes from rudeness, which leads to think that private manifestations of spirit stand in the virtue of supreme generalization; Because they are only private revelations, they cannot revive all the shades of the spirit that are outside their scope, and in their trouble, the more revelations that cannot include them only diminish the spread of life and diminish the image of the manifestations of the spirit. But the supreme generalization gives precisely by its spaciousness and certainty the subtle quality of the precision of uniqueness, which brings the fine jealousy that gives birth to the genius of the spirit, which removes from its path every laxity of private pettiness, every doubt and every sharing, "The Lord alone will rest and there is no stranger with His people". Beliefs and opinions, Orot, Rabbi Kook).

  15. El Emmanuel c
    A quick search for Willie Soon
    He points out that 2 of his articles on climate were published in the scientific press related to the subject
    After publishing one of them in the newspaper (Climate Research, 2003) three of the editors resigned in protest of the publication
    If I understood correctly, he attributes climate change to solar activity, so the year 2010 should have been particularly cold, but in fact it is a good candidate for the warmest year in history

    In Mikra Wiley Yadino received funds from the oil industry
    And even more so his doctorate was in aerospace engineering
    Which reminds me of your comment about engineers

  16. Regarding degrees, Zvi Yanai, as far as I know, has no academic degree, but it would have been much more suitable to be a chief scientist. In fact, Yanai's comparison to Avital may not be in place, therefore Yanai is suitable to be chief scientist in any ministry at any point.
    Whereas Mr. Avital who bothers to mention everywhere that he is a doctor and his relationship to science is the opposite is not suitable for any position that has anything to do with science or education.

    In the first post about Avital
    I gave the example of Ilya Leibovitch who is indeed a professor but does not bother to point it out (in fact he is careful not to point it out) when he writes about subjects that are not in his scientific field and even in the book he wrote that deals with his field of expertise "At the Edge of the Sky: An Introduction to Astronomy" OP should make an effort to Find where it says he is a professor.

  17. Emmanuel C.
    I went back through the comments and saw that you did not understand the issue of statistically significant warming.
    Means there are: hot years, there are cold years, there is El Nino and there is La Niña, there is the cycle of about 11 years of solar activity and other things, these are fluctuating phenomena on the order of a decade, there is no possibility of reaching a trend according to the accepted criteria when it comes to a period of 15 years or less . But the trend is still clear and we see that the world continues to heat up.

    At Climate Gate all that was revealed was that scientists are not always nice in personal correspondence.
    In the appendix to the case it becomes clear that they did not always bother to send everyone who asked for all the information they were supposed to send according to the freedom of information laws, in their defense they claimed that if they had answered all the requests, some of which clearly had their origin in an organized harassment campaign, they would not have done anything else.

    For all pluralists, in my opinion, a person like Avital who claims that all scientists are liars and greedy and the greens are bad and haters of Israel has no pluralist defense and should be dismissed regardless of what he thinks about climate change and evolution

    And speaking of pluralism, it should also be applied to vaccine and AIDS deniers as I wrote in the post.

    And maybe also be tolerant of all the deniers on the list and here Michael Schermer sees a connection in the wine between climate deniers and holocaust deniers

  18. To 94: Belief doesn't change anything, as we know. It is a human illusion and nothing else. A higher power is the human invention as it is said: "In the beginning man created God in his own image and in his likeness created he him, etc.
    There is no man descended from the monkey unless you are A. Yitzchak and then you are sure of it.
    The "monkey" and man trace their origin from a common ancestor who was already extinct long, much more than 6000 years ago, so it is as if the world was created by the delusion of the believers.

  19. A compromise can be reached.
    There are people who were created by a higher power
    And there are those who derive them from the monkey.
    Depends on what you believe.

  20. Mizpatel:
    Does the entire scientific establishment disagree with you?
    Doesn't this raise even a hint of doubt in you?

  21. To Mordechai, you are wrong. Global warming should not be taught in schools. First of all, what will you learn? Is there global warming or is it man-made? Regarding the first option, if there are enough facts, it can be taught, but I don't understand why, there are much more important and useful things to teach. Regarding the fact that the warming is man-made, this is really not proven and will probably never be proven because it is probably not true. Why teach a subject that is not particularly important and whose authenticity casts doubt in science classes instead of other things? Note that evolution and global warming are being talked about here in the same context, as if these theories have the same level of certainty, while this is not the case. Evolution is a very important theory, and even if I think it has problems and holes and a lack of self-control, we see its effects in the entire animal world. Regarding humanity's responsibility in determining the Earth's climate, there is no evidence of the same level of strength. It is simply an old and tested political method of taking an issue, bringing it to the top of the agenda and thereby gaining political power to fulfill an extreme agenda. Had it not been for the issue of global warming, Al Gore would have been a failed presidential candidate, not a Nobel laureate and a billionaire.

    Regarding Doctor Avital, this is a serious man. He received his doctorate from a respected academic institute as well as probably his achievements in the missile industry. I'm secular and I don't agree with his beliefs, even though I think he said a lot of truth in the interview, but he doesn't deserve to exempt a person due to an interview with a newspaper.

  22. To all those who call the dismissal of Gabi Avital gagging:
    No one has a problem with Avital's personal opinions. For my part, let him believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
    As chief scientist at the Ministry of Education, he is responsible for the field of science education.
    As part of science education, scientific theories must be taught. Not religious beliefs. What to do, creationism is not a scientific theory. It can be taught as part of the religion or philosophy class, not as part of the science classes. According to you, the subject goes beyond the field that a chief scientist of the Ministry of Education should deal with in the framework of his position and/or in public interviews.
    Also with regard to global warming, the subject must be studied scientifically as part of science classes. Naturally, within the framework of high schools, it is not possible to delve too deeply, and one must mainly focus on one theory - the one most accepted in the scientific community. At the university it is possible to expand more even with conflicting opinions. What to do, even when teaching geometry in high schools they concentrate on the Euclidean one, and the delving into the non-Euclidean geometries is left for higher studies.

  23. Read her deeds.
    Many years ago, on my first day at the university, the lecturer opened the school year with a story about a student who used to come to the faculty riding a donkey. After four years, not surprisingly, both the student and his brother received a BA certificate. Later I realized that the lecturer told us his life story, as he was a perfect donkey.
    My contention is that relying on a person's title as logical validity for the claim he made is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, the honorable Rabbi also held a significant state position, and until his much "wisdom" was revealed, he influenced through it the shaping of the face of education in the country.
    An opposite example is the example of Mr. Zvi Yanai, a broad-minded person who does not flaunt his title, but gives us, in his own way, the vast knowledge he carries.
    It is fitting that substantial state positions should be accompanied by talent and abilities and not just political vitamin P.

  24. The amount of sea ice has also increased.

    You will hear the data from the field from several studies from different sources - different from the satellite data that only NASA has control over and "processes" the data.

    The ice grows in the sea and on land except for West Antarctica where there is great volcanic activity.

    The scientific issue is already closed - there has been no warming for 15 years.

    The FDH increased and the warming did not - that is, there is no connection between the two.

    Everything else is marketing and an attempt to dress up the little citizen and his money.

    And the correlation they are trying to make that anyone who does not buy the nonsense of global warming is anti-Earth and so on - this is extremely vile propaganda

    So far

  25. A scientific article should be able to read. The factor you brought up - the amount of ground ice that melted is only one of the factors. If you decide to become a climate scientist you will study all the studies and not cherry pick data that you find interesting, what about the sea glaciers? The page I directed you to includes both 2008 and 2009, and it has an unequivocal insight that the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking and its shrinkage is distinct..
    And as for politics, I didn't understand? After all, this is a scientific issue. All the times that politicians interfered with science it ended badly, see the example of Lysenko. The scientists should determine what the truth is and the politicians should follow it. If there are politicians who are friends of the tycoons who do not like taxes for the sake of taxes, they will prepare any justified participation in the cost of the pollution they cause as a prohibited tax. The ones who are wrong here are the corrupt politicians, not the green politicians.

    my father

  26. And here's another one

    Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987-2007. The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days lpar;km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days (Figure 1a). Melt extent (ME, the extent of the area subject to melting) in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers. The 2008 updated melting index and melt extent trends over the whole continent, as derived from a linear regression approach, are -164,487 km2 × days per year (MI) and -11,506 square kilometers per year (ME), respectively.

  27. I repeat and emphasize.

    Climategate proved that the publications in the journals were distorted.

    The head of the research institute tells you that there is no warming - on what is he basing it on children's books?

    Regarding Antarctica, my claim was tested in two studies from the field and not a populist television broadcast:

    The same goes for the North Pole.

    Whoever lied is the Hammisite camp - therefore he is a stumbling block whose data should be taken with a grain of salt.

    It doesn't bother the oil companies one way or the other - the one who will pay the tax is the consumer.
    And in general - BP for example is the largest solar panel company in the world.

    The climate debate is clearly not scientific but rather political

  28. Good thing they kicked him out, too bad it wasn't sooner!

    Evolution is one of the strongest theories in terms of findings
    And all this talk about the "missing link" or "intermediate stages" is just sad
    And he is a Jewish copy from Christianity!

    Global warming is there! - Her reasons... I personally am not sure, but I give
    For the real scientists to arrive at the correct answer, any "war" on the subject is stupid.

    I would like to see science as an island of sanity that does not interfere with beliefs and religious wars
    Stupidity, and does not cooperate with ideologies and so on...
    Science is not a reflection of any ideology or is just an orderly way of understanding
    The reality around us and the legality behind it! And he is the pinnacle of human creation!
    He is simply a miracle!…
    : )

    Good Day

  29. I cannot deny material published in peer-reviewed journals, unfortunately the BBC is not such a journal.
    And as for the data, I can write until tomorrow that the poles have not shrunk, but you could see for yourself last week in National Geographic about a trip in a place where until two years ago there was ice even in the summer and turned into seasonal ice. The fact that the people of the oil companies try to remove responsibility from the person and especially from themselves, does not mean that there should not be enough responsible people in the world.

    And about the South Pole. Your claim has been checked and found to be incorrect

  30. According to the CRIO data (which they tried to hide before Climategate) there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

    He states that there is a cooling (without statistical significance) starting in 2002

    And see what a miracle, at both poles, the north and the south, the ice not only did not shrink, or remained the same - it grew.

    It seems you are the one in denial right now.

  31. Emanuel, in the absence of proof of non-warming, you are looking for quotes, just like the evolution deniers who quote scientists or religious people in general who look for God in Einstein.

  32. When there is no longer a serious argument, we turn to rudeness.

    Prof. Jones stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 in the BBC News.

    A legitimate question for his American colleague - what is her opinion on the statement, whether it is true or not.

    so simple.

    And if you say you don't understand it - that's a lie
    And this is the second time.

  33. Emmanuel (75):
    I will ask you a simple yes/no question in the hope that you will understand the hint about the exercise done in the text you point to:
    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Skeptic (77):
    You ask a question that for some reason you think is rhetorical, but the answer you are convinced you will give is the opposite of the answer you really give.
    If God was revealed - I would be convinced of his existence.
    Now you are welcome to see if there is anything left of your response.

    While writing the response to the skeptic, I saw that R.H. gave a similar answer.
    We really haven't talked.

  34. The skeptic,
    This is exactly your mistake. As scientists the truth is forced upon us regardless of our desires or our loves. You can come up with a great, elegant and surprising theory, but if a little experiment comes along and inevitably disproves it, you'll abandon it if you're a real scientist.
    On the other hand, religious people, even if let's say Jesus came down from heaven and said that Christianity was indeed right, I don't believe that someone who is anxious will convert his religion and likewise if the Messiah comes and claims that Christianity was completely wrong.

  35. For Michael and his supporters:
    If God himself would come out of the clouds, shower us with a sea of ​​blondes, fart clouds of fire that could be seen from one end of the world to the other and finally declare with a mighty belch 'I am God and my teachings are true'. Would you believe him?
    Or does he explain the phenomenon as a type of gas that was released and displaced humanity?

    To all believers:
    If the same guy as above were to say that you are a bunch of idiots and instead of not turning on a light on Shabbat or just not tearing toilet paper you would start enjoying life. Would you believe him?
    I know not because Maimonides already closed this corner and said that even in that case he had to stone the same guy.

    In short, my father, your (worthy) efforts to introduce intelligence into the heads of the people are unfortunately - probably - lost in advance.

  36. Listen, I don't know what you want. Gabi Avital is - he is the proof that evolution is wrong

    A fact after a million years of evolution - there has been no development in his ability to logically deduce or think scientifically, on the other hand, now he can no longer climb trees.

  37. my father.

    There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. This is a fact.

    Let me tell you who does not deserve to be called a scientist:
    A person who avoids giving a simple answer to a question cannot be called a scientist but a politician.

    Look how Rosh Noa avoids (twice!) answering a simple and direct question -

    "Do you agree with the statement of Prof. Jones, head of the C.R.U. from England - that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995"

    Dr. Son shows how the data in the field show that there is no connection between the increase in temperature and FDH.

    There are no good and bad here - there is the scientific data.

  38. I didn't understand, he is for or against warming, and enough with the nonsense that warming stopped at the end of the nineties, in the nineties not all the years were warm, while in the first decade of the 15s all the years were among the XNUMX warmest years in history, so when you check decade by decade there is a definite increase in temperature the average
    It is clear that a year here and a year there can be cold (relatively), but this still does not change the general trend. Anyone who tries to use raw data to mislead does not deserve to be called a scientist.

  39. to Eyal Morg

    Dr. Willie Sohn from the Harvard-Semisonian talks about the deniers of the Fed (what fun it is to call the other side names)
    And the lack of connection between the Fed and warming (which undoubtedly existed until about the end of the 90s, there is no debate about that)

  40. Moshe:
    Logic incarnate!
    As long as there are hungry children, the Ministry of Education should employ a chief "scientist" who is not a scientist.
    By the way, what are you doing against this hunger besides calling others you don't know what they are doing in the field "garbage"?

  41. Seventy scavengers, do you care about education, pay attention

    School principal: My students have nothing to eat
    Anyone who denies the fact that there are hungry children in Israel should listen to these things: A school principal in the center of the country says that his students have nothing to eat. He has to ask non-profit organizations for 150 sandwiches every day, and the demand is higher. When this is the reality, who can even learn? One monologue by one manager

  42. for their creation

    If Gallant decides in another year and a half that he is a pacifist and rejects any use of weapons and force
    Do you think it would be appropriate to let him continue to serve as Chief of Staff?

    Remember that pacifism is a belief and it is forbidden to discriminate against people based on their belief

  43. What's beautiful, Aryeh, is that you saw fit to defend Avital and attack the entire scientific establishment, even though you yourself say that you have not read Avital's words at all.
    What do I say and what will I say?!
    Seriousness in its worst embodiment!

  44. lion:
    The right of religion to determine its role?
    Suppose. Who exactly is religion? are you? Who are you to determine the role of religion?
    By the way - I assume it is clear to you that your opinion on the role of religion differs from Avital's because Avital uses religion as a scientific argument.
    I make all the necessary distinctions between Jewish nonsense and Christian nonsense.
    The Jewish nonsense also tries to silence science and Avital's words are conclusive proof of this.
    Am I speaking badly?
    To me, what is not beautiful are lies and demagogic distortions of facts and I only respond "not beautiful" to such things.
    Banning someone is nice?
    And yet this is the accepted practice towards thieves.

  45. Arie, once again you are wrong and misleading at best, and just lying at worst.
    In contrast to relativity and quanta, who know that they are not correct as they are (do not get along with each other),
    Regarding evolution there is no dispute at all. All the scientists (who work in the field) agree on the subject.

  46. dear creation,

    It has long been clear to any reasonable person that we live in a country that lacks freedom of expression such as the one you are asking for - and especially in everything related to academia - a large number of times my exam grade (and that of many other students) was damaged just because the lecturer did not accept my unacceptable opinions on many and varied physics questions And instead of confronting these positions in a serious, considered and respectful manner - he chose to simply casually dismiss: "error in the calculation of the integral - 5 points".
    That's probably how it is -
    Scientists always think that they understand more than a simple person in the field they have been engaged in for 30 years...

  47. The Middle Ages.
    The chief scientist of the Ministry of Education was fired due to his legitimate opinions and differences from the prevailing opinion in other circles.
    Everything else-evolution\creationism\warming is not relevant.
    If you thought you were in a country where there is freedom of speech, think again.

  48. I forgot something -
    Religion has the right to determine its role, just as science has the right to determine its own
    Good Day

  49. First of all, I'm glad that my response sparked a substantive discussion, unlike some responses that are full of heated arguments and not to the point.
    Lail - the fact that there is no overlap is not a reason for disqualification, but according to quite a few researchers there is and there are many overlaps (for example in the described chronology). I really don't want to divert the discussion to proofs and contradictions as to whether the description of the act of Genesis supports science or not, because I don't understand it enough nor am I complete with all the opinions, those who are attracted to the matter are invited to read the book "Bereshit Bara" by Prof. Natan Aviezer.
    Unlike the electron, the theory of relativity and other half-proven theories (or mostly, in the case of the theory of relativity) the theory of evolution can be (theoretically) proven. By the way, even prominent evolutionists will testify that the hidden is more than the known in this field.
    I haven't read Avital's quotes, but if his dismissal is a direct result of his opinions, in my view it is very serious.
    Lahud - I have already commented on the difference between relativity and evolution (and by the way Einstein, unlike Newton, was not a great believer...)
    Michael - your style is not very nice, but just one point - make the distinction between the dismissive and silencing Christian religion (whose methods have apparently been adopted by the Haskalah institutions in Israel) and the Jewish religion which since the 19th century has been trying to deal with the questions and not silence them (I'm not talking about Amnon will laugh of all kinds)

  50. Michael R. - There is no and I had no argument with your approach. The response was written in jest. Unfortunately, I'm tired of "fighting" the pantheons because it's hard to discuss if people just talk and don't listen. A man will live by his faith and if the situation deteriorates, my family and I will leave this demon-haunted country, without any qualms. If you have followed my responses throughout the discussions on the site, you know that in my opinion, money and political power are what dictate the intellectual "fashion", the knowledge and reading by heart and above all the education for knowledge that have become so popular... like Yes, the hateful comments here are a direct continuation of the comments on other websites, which serve one purpose: creating a conflict between the various currents in the country. There are those who benefit from it.
    In our world, it is possible to replace a person's liver, transplant a new heart, launch satellites, enlarge the chest, stretch the skin of the face - but it is not possible to do TYP.

  51. to Aria:
    A. Maybe enough with this nonsense that "evolution is just a theory".
    Relativity is also just a theory.
    Quantum mechanics is also just a theory.
    And classical mechanics is just a theory.
    You simply do not understand the scientific terminology of the word theory.
    Regarding the "missing link" - Ill Morgue took the words out of my mouth.
    Someone once wrote in one of the talkbacks that basically nothing except a film shot of billions of years, will convince those who have previously decided not to open their minds to new ideas.
    B. The attempt to present the legitimacy of religion with sentences like "Einstein also believed in God" or "Newton also believed in God" is simply nonsense.
    What's beautiful about science is that it doesn't matter who says it, but what he says.
    Even a XNUMXth grade student can make scientific discoveries and their correctness will not be questioned just because he is in the XNUMXth grade. All that is needed is for the theories to stand the test of reality.
    On the other hand, Einstein was also sure that quantum mechanics was wrong. Why? So. It didn't suit him.
    so what? Has anyone among the researchers of quantum mechanics noticed that "this does not suit Einstein"?
    No. Exactly for the reason that it doesn't matter who says the things but only if they are true.
    Even great scientists like Newton and Einstein can make mistakes. Until the existence of God/creation is proven, there is no point in teaching it in school just because someone (no matter how great in Torah/science) said so.

  52. By the way, Arya, who are you to determine the roles of science and religion?
    What is certain is that religion appropriates for itself many more roles than you gave it and the roles you claim to be its roles it does very poorly.

  53. Aria (48):
    There is and is a contradiction between religion and science and the issue has been explained thousands of times and we are tired of repeating things.
    It is no coincidence that all the harassment to science comes from the religious side.
    I am not only talking about cases like Galileo Galilei but also about cases like Avital who does not participate at all in the scientific debate about warming but explains to us that there is no warming because God promised.
    He also tells us that he will expose the students of evolution to other views (and there are no other scientific views).
    He also ignores that all the students are exposed in the second grade to the lie of creationism and finish this grade believing nonsense while only some are later exposed to evolution.
    In short - he is not a scientist. He opposes science. You are like that too.

    Of course, the religious people's fear of science has a reason because science is built on critical thinking - one that cannot accept the existence of a Creator who does not know that the hare does not raise rumen and that the Euphrates and the Tigris do not come from a common source.

    To say that all this was just simple when the requirement is another is just a stupid evasion exercise. what? God didn't know how to express himself?
    Also to say that these are parables is an evil attempt to cover up that religion is a set of laws whose authority is drawn from the fact that they were supposedly enacted by God and the story about history and nature (which collides head-on with science at many points) is intended to show - by demonstrating knowledge (alek!) that God did indeed create the the world. As soon as it is claimed that it is a parable and that the Torah is not a book of history - all that remains of it is a book full of clearly immoral laws, which are claimed to have been enacted by God and there is no proof of its existence.

  54. Research: Belief in God prolongs life
    Throughout history, religion was seen as a refuge for the sick and those seeking relief - but now a new study proves that there is a basis for the claim. Scientists have found that the death rate of liver transplant recipients who believe in God, no matter what religion, is 3 times lower than their fellow atheists
    News 2 | Published 06/10/10 13:39

  55. Daniel from response 40:
    If you follow what is going on here you probably know that I am the first to claim that religion is the main obstacle to science.
    On the other hand, the rabbis tend to lie in every response and it is convenient for me to point out their lie, even when it would serve me if it were true.

  56. So that you understand what text the idiot from response 38 was basing himself on, I will quote a few lines from it:

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion;

    I'll leave it to you to decide if this is an idiot or a liar.

  57. You did not get to the bottom of Dr. Avital's opinion, he meant that Darwin's Torah should be taught alongside the stories of the book of Genesis in the ultra-Orthodox yeshiva of Satmar Viznitz.

  58. If they introduce the theory of evolution into the curriculum, then what is the real harm in devoting 30 seconds to studying creationism
    After all, all the theory says is: evolution is nonsense and God created man and all animals

  59. skeptic,

    First read my words properly,

    In the commentary I wrote that "in scientific subjects facts must be taught as well as the scientific theories that govern the kippa"
    That is,
    If there are a number of central theories it is worth pointing them out - if so, it is important to narrow down to the main theories because the number of esoteric theories is only slightly less than the number of existing scientists (and in fact it is likely to be larger because even non-scientists develop such theories from time to time).
    In this context, I mentioned in detail that, for example, on the issue of global warming, it is appropriate to say that its existence is not certain while emphasizing that most of those dealing with the issue believe that it is indeed caused by the fault of man (and yet it is worth mentioning other possibilities as well - nothing bad will happen with a high school student knowing what cycles are Milankovitch).

    I don't know what your scientific training is and this is also a relevant omission, but you must understand that the issues are very complex and it is not always possible to point to the "central ratio" of each theory. Many times the debate is quantitative and not about the principles of action themselves (for example, some of the arguments against man's influence on global warming
    It is believed that the greenhouse effect is smaller than most scientists assume) - there is not always a "ratio" - science is a quantitative thing and since the calculations are complicated and complex, they cannot really be done in the framework of a high school.
    Therefore, BIS cannot pretend to present a complete scientific picture and certainly not leave the decision in the hands of the students (as suggested by the followers of postmodernism and the casting of doubt) - and therefore, there is no choice but to spread a partial picture of the situation that includes only central and relatively accepted theories and indicate in the students' ears which of the things is Theory (global warming) and what not (the existence of atoms).

  60. Aryeh has no contradiction between religion and science, but there is also not too much overlap, therefore there is no reason to teach creationism in biology classes. Although, like everything in science, the theory of evolution is just a theory, just like the theory that there are electrons, no one has seen an electron, therefore it is a theory or a ghost according to Pirsig. The position of the evolution is equivalent to the position of the electron.

    Regarding Avital who claims that the Greens hate Israel and the scientists lie and falsify studies while being completely ignorant of climate change, evolution and probably Judaism as well, there is no need to show tolerance or academic freedom towards him, his place is not in the academy or in any educational setting
    For a selection of Avital's quotes
    In a post that served as a source for an article in Israel
    And an annotated interview with Avital, my comments which demonstrate that the man simply does not understand and does not know and likely does not want to know what he is talking about and therefore spews nonsense in bunches

    And yes, there are a lot of "missing links", but since every two links have room for another link, there will always be a "missing link"

  61. We are back to the days when the boys fired a man for his opinions, it's a good thing they didn't put him in jail
    What did your ministry of education teach us now that what you don't want doesn't exist?!
    What to do when there is a scientist who is not afraid and speaks his mind

  62. There is no contradiction between religion and science. The role of science is to give the answer to the question "how", while the role of faith is to give the answer to the question "why".
    It is very sad that precisely scientists who are supposed to engrave academic freedom on their flag, engage in a witch hunt as is being conducted against Gabi Avital. He never claimed that the method of creation should be studied only, but alongside the theory of evolution.
    Father, let me remind you of two points:
    A. The theory of evolution is still a theory - the "missing link" has never been found (I personally believe in it, but I doubt it will ever be proven, so it is no better than other theories - except for the fact that you can attack religion as you probably like).
    B. There are quite a number of scientists who believe in God (Albert Einstein, for example, believed in God but not in religion, Israel Omen, etc.).
    And to conclude: I personally do not identify with Dr. Avital's views, but the certainty regarding the alternative does not allow me to consider them "dark".

  63. By the way, if it is indeed related to a person or if it is at all a cyclical phenomenon, I don't really understand enough in the field to know. But in any case, don't you prefer clean air in Tel Aviv?

  64. For cold climates:
    on the contrary. Your claim is reminiscent of Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak's claim that if there is evolution, then how come we didn't all evolve into the exact same creature? Why are humans different from each other? (which is exactly the opposite of what evolution claims)
    You obviously don't really know what global warming is.
    The effect of global warming is that the weather is becoming more extreme.
    It is extremely hot in the summer and extremely cold in the winter. And it will only get worse.
    By the way, this is exactly what the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was made about

  65. Cold climate - does this mean that there will be European weather here? Snows? Anxious about skiing and snowboarding?

  66. Next winter is going to be very cold
    Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way
    October 2010
    After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.
    Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
    The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.

  67. "Jew" - Gabi Avital believes that the world was created in six days and one Sabbath and dismisses the birth of Jesus to a virgin mother... we all have our superstitions -

    The comments here are supposedly against science and in favor of Gabi Avital, and this is a contradiction that probably annoyed any reasonable person, since if he is against the spirit of science and the scientific method, he is (perhaps, a little) not suitable for the position of "chief scientist". Like duh..! In short, the monkey jumped on you...

  68. To "Yehudi" and Michael R. - I don't know if someone was executed for claiming that the earth is round, but he must have received a slap on the cheek or two... what a strange idea... the earth is round, like..

  69. To the deer from response 30. You preach monolithic and narrow-minded education in schools.
    In your opinion, when there are several opinions on a subject, only the accepted opinion should be presented to the student and the other opinions should be ignored (and your reasoning: the student
    He cannot decide, therefore, God forbid we confuse him by presenting several opinions
    different from each other).

    So, FYI, the student does not have to decide between conflicting opinions at all,
    He only needs to know that there are conflicting opinions and to understand the main rationale
    of a dissenting opinion.

    really odd ? After all, one of the basics of science is
    "Question every convention, check it again and again." So you propose to neuter the study of science by omitting this important principle, a very religious fanatical education.

    And as a tribute to your words, I end by quoting a passage from the poem
    "One more brick in the wall" by Pink Floyd written about people with opinions
    like yours.

    We don't need no education
    We dont need no thought control
    No dark sarcasm in the classroom
    Teachers leave them kids alone
    Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
    All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
    All in all you're just another brick in the wall

    On YOUTUBE you can find suitable music and presentation for the song.

  70. There are many people here who shove science down their throats but their words reveal a fact
    Surprising: they have great difficulties in understanding what is read (and this implies that they may have difficulties in understanding science, since understanding what is read is a prerequisite for this). People who have difficulty understanding - they are usually narrow-minded, defensive
    Passionately about what they do understand and passionately rejecting another opinion, a kind of intellectual fortification.

    For example:
    For example, Mr. Michael Rothschild fails to distinguish between two different arguments,
    The argument "there is global warming" to the argument "global warming (that maybe there is)"
    It has no origin in the actions of human hands."

    For those who didn't catch Gabi Avital's argument.
    The main point of Avital's criticism is the claim that the warming
    It is the result of the actions of man's hands (he does not tend to enter into the question of whether there is
    global warming in the last decades or not).

    The quote from Wikipedia that Michael Rothschild brings is that there is no consensus
    We expanded on the fact that the warming is man-made.
    In the same introduction it was claimed (mainly) that there is probably global warming,
    But there is no widespread agreement on everything that originates from human actions.

    I know that Mr. Rothschild, as usual, will flood here with long answers -
    After all, this is his method (to flood his opponents with words until they are exhausted in the debate).

  71. And another thing, charming, he doesn't come from the street, but he is clearly anti-scientist.
    A person who explains that there is no warming because of God's promise (and not because of this or that scientific consideration) is a person who has no idea what science is

  72. There is no global warming due to human activity. There is not a single serious researcher in the world who supports this. All this nonsense serves idlers who are added every year in all kinds of conferences in the world at the expense of taxpayers. Dr. Avital fell victim to the communist leftist doctrine that prevails in Israeli "academy". Al-Gour is nothing more than an international crook who has just contributed another contribution to the devaluation of the Nobel Peace Prizes. Everyone who criticizes and curses Dr. Avital, lest they forget that he is a leading scientist in the field of aeronautics and did not just come from the street

  73. Supplement to Emanuel C's comment. The continuation of the BBC interview with Phil Jones

    E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
    I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

  74. Emanuel III paid attention to the sentence
    Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer" periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
    Aiming that because of the changes from year to year, the chance of getting a result with 95% certainty is small, there is warming, but due to the shortness of time, there is no 95% certainty, which is considered what is desired, but a little less.
    "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. "When it comes to less than 7 years, the tendency is not statistically significant. It is very likely that when we add 2010 and maybe 2011 to the calculation, the tendency will reverse. That's why climate scientists like to compare periods of at least 30 years and then the small effect of the solar cycles (about 11 years) is also eliminated. Phil Jones is a scientist who tries to be as precise as possible to take a passage from his words to claim something that is contrary to his opinion is suitable for a lawyer but takes us away from understanding the issue of climate change.
    Ill the Black Butterfly Effect A blog on climate change and energy and the source of Avital's trouble

  75. to Eyal Morg

    Is the head of the S.R.I.U. reliable?

    Let's get a more detailed explanation of why the warming stop is

    Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

    Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked e-mails.

    The BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones

    Q - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    Q - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    no. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

  76. In his words, Mr. Avital expressed a position according to which school students should be exposed to a wide variety of scientific positions and they will make the choice of who is right and who is not. Things in this spirit were also expressed by Maayan and other writers here.

    I think that these things do not correctly reflect the role of the education system.
    It is true that one should doubt and it is true that it is important to examine assumptions and theories with a critical eye - if so, dragging the doubting of scientific theories into the realms of the school is an intellectual disgrace because it is simply impossible.

    Evolution, or global warming are both scientific theories based on a wide range of experimental and theoretical evidence that cannot be fully familiarized with in school (and in most cases not in undergraduate academic studies) and therefore, school students cannot really decide which is the correct one Understands different theories they will learn.
    Calculating the likelihood of the formation of life, or the extent of the influence of cloudiness in North America on the thickness of the ice in Greenland, is not a trivial matter and presenting things as if the students will be presented with all the evidence and they will choose what is right and completely wrong.

    In scientific subjects, facts must be taught as well as the scientific theories that govern the kippah.
    As of today, there is no doubt among scientists that there is no theory that can replace evolution.
    As for global warming, the picture is less clear, and it is indeed possible to present the positions that state that these are natural processes - if so, since the students do not have the appropriate tools to decide on the issue, it is important to emphasize to them that most of those dealing with the issue believe that humans have a major influence on the warming of the Earth.

    As for the existence or non-existence of God, his intervention in the daily life of man as well as in historical and scientific processes - this is none of the business of scientists (any more than it is the business of any other person). Therefore, it is not appropriate to engage in this under the definition of scientific studies in school. It is possible to deal with this in school in philosophy classes (if there is such a thing), but leave science free from philosophical discussions of this kind that will not be decided even when the sun no longer exists.

  77. for a Jew,
    The Catholic Church executed because of theories that did not conform to religious dogma
    And dragged the world into a dark period of about 900 years(+-) and that's exactly what this website is fighting for, so I didn't understand who exactly your words are aimed at?

  78. Jewish:
    I assume that Ehud meant you in his question.
    I was thinking the same question too.
    Please give us an example of a man who was executed for claiming that the earth is round.
    If you don't have such an example, then you are carrying on the tradition of those who have already passed here in that the truth is not an important value in your eyes and to sell the lie of religion it is permissible to resort to other lies as well.

    It is also not true that there are many non-religious scientists who make such idiotic claims about evolution.
    Maybe there are a few of them - but many? This is just another lie!

  79. It is likely that most of the commenters did not read Avital's words, although they will not lack much from the intellectual point of view, but for those who are interested, a wide selection of Avital's quotes
    In a post that served as a source for an article in Israel
    And an annotated interview with Avital, my comments which demonstrate that the man simply does not understand and does not know and likely does not want to know what he is talking about and therefore spews nonsense in bunches
    And for dessert, about the connection between wine, climate denial, AIDS, vaccines... and the Holocaust by Michael Shermer, whose writings have been published in science

    And regarding the idea that the warming stopped in the early 2000s if you take into account that the hottest year so far was 2005 and probably 2010 will replace it? It remains only to assume that the dailymail is not a reliable source and the writer is not good at reading comprehension
    The report states that the warming was not gradual and a large part of it occurred in the years 1910-1940 as well as 1975-2000 no word on stopping the warming
    and "The decade 2000-2009
    was, globally, around 0.15C warmer than the decade 1990-1999″

  80. Fountain:
    In the framework of science, there are no other beliefs in the areas where evolution is concerned, and therefore Avital's words on the subject do not refer to other scientific approaches but to religious beliefs.
    Even when he talks about global warming, he does not join the legitimate debate that exists on the subject among scientists. Instead, he bases his words on divine promises.
    Therefore, there is no sense in his continued employment as chief scientist of the Ministry of Education.
    The funny thing is that his demand to expose students to other faiths is being met anyway, and at a much higher level than people are usually aware of.
    After all, all Israeli students finish second grade convinced that God created the world as it is written in the Torah, which they are not taught as theory but as truth.
    Then, when they have already been brainwashed, they are tasked with freeing themselves from this nonsense.
    Some succeed in this but many remain brainwashed forever.
    Most of them also do not study evolution at any time during their studies.
    By the way, what would you say about a requirement to teach evolution in Torah classes? Is it legit or is there a danger that it will spoil the brainwashing?

    Queen Elia:
    Don't you know that science has nothing to do with politics?
    Do you think the earth will decide not to warm up for political reasons?
    Do you think evolution will stop for political reasons?
    There was a time in the Soviet Union when the teaching of genetics was banned because it was not compatible with communism.
    The damage this ban caused was truly enormous.
    Lysenko's name is etched in the mind for a lifetime.
    Avital's luck that he was fired now before he caused Israel and himself similar damage.

    If you can read, then read what I have written to others in this discussion.
    And in relation to the question of whether evolution, or science in general, can be a religion - you simply show that you do not understand the words "science" and "religion".
    You are welcome to learn Hebrew on this subject here:

    The truth is that the theory of evolution is not science in general because it is merely a scientific theory (as well as the theory of relativity and the quantum theory) but even in scientific theories there are no laws of behavior as long as the arguments I presented regarding science are also valid regarding scientific theories.

  81. To mention that in ancient times those who claimed that the earth is round were executed. There are many non-religious scientists who claim that the whole theory of evolution is nonsense and nothing else.

  82. Audi Ariel:
    Are you a postmodernist or do you not know the facts?
    Avital is not a scientist at all. In fact, he is an apostate in the scientific method and his words testify to about a thousand witnesses.
    Do you think that a person who says there is no warming because God will see to it that it is good (that is, decides what the facts are not according to the measurements but according to the Torah) or comes out as a buffer against evolution even though it has no scientific alternative (and promises to expose the students to competing views that do not exist) deserves to function as a scientist The head of the Ministry of Education?
    Fortunately for us, the entire academic establishment does not agree with you and now it turned out that the government also got the message.

    It is easy to see that your head is in the right place, but it is advisable to emphasize that in terms of facts we have a very serious record of human development.
    These companies are simply not willing to settle for anything less than a video that commemorates all the births that have taken place - starting from the common ancestor of us and chimpanzees up to this moment.
    Their claims are more or less equivalent to the claim that the members of the Zuchmir family were created separately from the rest of humanity, and that this happened 500 years ago, since we have no fossil record of the members of the Zuchmir family for their generations from more than 500 years ago.

    Indeed it is surprising that ignorant people like you read the science site.
    See my response to Audi Ariel. After all, it was not solved from the position of the chief rabbi, but from the position of the chief scientist.
    His path to the position of chief rabbi (a completely unnecessary position) is still open.

    For others:
    I have to leave for other things right now, but I will read and respond to your comments later.

  83. A government official in such an important position should be worthy of the position and not try to instill ignorance in the younger generation.

  84. The freedom to express any opinion is indeed a basic right in a democratic society but...
    Not everyone has the freedom to be the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education.
    The chief scientist is required to use scientific methods.
    With all due respect to Gabi Avital's right to a private opinion, as chief scientist
    He must justify his scientific opinion with means and objective evidence and not rely on it
    on his prior opinion as scientific evidence and not to give his opinion scientific validity just because it is
    Has a doctorate degree. Unfortunately that's what he did in the press interviews I read.
    His dismissal is justified and late.
    And another profound thought about the scientific training at the Technion.
    If such a scientist comes from this institution, then... something very fundamental is missing in the curriculum.
    Something that will transform the scientist from a technological technician to one with substantial scientific thought and understanding
    (Yes, there is such a thing).

  85. for the back 10: I hope that not all BSD writers above on the right suffer from a mental disorder!…

    Recommend for back.' See the movie 'Monkey Trial' (the version with Spencer Tracy!). Hope the brace

    My thinking will loosen up a bit... and in general, belief in the Creator of the world should not contradict metoda-


  86. What exactly is the debate here?
    Creationism is not a scientific theory, it did not begin as such and failed to become such (2005, DOVER).

  87. I strongly identify with Maayan from comment 8, indeed a plurality of opinions (correct and otherwise) is the basis of science, democracy and many other aspects of our lives. As long as he does not rule out other teachings/theories and their study, he has the right to express his opinion on the need to expand exposure to a variety of ideas.
    What I would expect from him is to fight for the same principle of exposure to a variety of opinions in the religious and ultra-Orthodox sector as well.
    In any case, protecting the earth is a necessity whether we are responsible for the warming or not, no damage is caused by protecting the environment.

  88. The best news I've heard in a long time.
    Our country has gotten a little better since he was fired.

  89. I don't understand how you can even finish elementary school without learning about evolution

  90. to the stag,

    If you present an alternative theory to the theory of evolution, no one will attack you. But this theory has to meet clear scientific criteria. Creationism does not meet such criteria, and therefore cannot be a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

  91. A science that is not open to opinions that deviate from the consensus becomes a religion.
    And in our science we can say:
    There is no explanation for the changes other than evolution and Darwin is a prophet.

  92. Malka... your answer justifies his dismissal.
    If because of you he was elected then it is good that he was fired.

    People like you who threaten... should be denounced by society.
    Go stare at some wall... because you probably can't do more complex actions than that.

  93. In the workshop

    To the Minister of Education Gideon Sa'ar.

    Shame and shame. Do you forget who appointed you? Remember, I am a Likud member. When the day comes, we will reckon with you. Gabi is the most talented person, there is no need for him if you don't worry about coming back, we will remember you and send you...

  94. I remind everyone that science is not "faith", you cannot teach evolution and creationism together - because evolution is a science with theories, observations, experiments, findings and proofs and creationism is a collection of "facts" that are not related to anything scientific, creationism can be taught in mythology or religion classes , but you cannot teach the 2 things together - because they are not the same thing.
    It's like announcing that they will learn about Newton's theory of gravity with the principles of force from Star Wars - and that the students will choose what they think is more correct....

  95. A person responsible for education, or for that matter, for science and research in the education system should be a multidisciplinary and broad-minded person.
    Unfortunately, I did not hear Gabi Avital's statements in real time, but based on the quotes given in the article, the man did not rule out the study of the theory of evolution, but only claimed that more approaches should be taught.
    As someone who "believes" in science and denies creationism, I would like my children to also understand and "believe" in this. But I would also like them to have access to other beliefs, to have the ability to make an informed choice. In the end, if you don't give the option to get to know other opinions, theories and beliefs, then it's still brainwashing. As far as I know, this is also the way in the western world. I know a German teacher of biology and religion (she herself is secular). She teaches her students both the theory of evolution and the basics of the various Western religions. In this way, when a student chooses to believe in God or recognize science as the basis of our existence, the choice will be truly free and out of thought, not out of coercion.
    Regarding the matter of global warming, it is a shame that he expressed himself blatantly and denied the prevailing approach of warming as a result of human activity (here he lost my support due to the above reasons), but there is a scientific approach that is gaining momentum regarding the effects of storms on the sun, on global warming "A, as well as the simplest explanation that since the beginning of the Earth it has been heating and cooling in a more or less constant cycle, and we humans have not been here long enough to experience and measure the same climate and temperature movements.
    Since I do not deal with science, but gather my information from websites and articles such as this, I cannot really present convincing and scientific arguments, but this is also the reason why I do not outright deny the claims regarding global warming. Regardless, I believe that we must do more to preserve the environment and reduce human influence.

  96. It will be scary to express an opinion or have a debate on a scientific topic in this country...
    In dark times, those who expressed an opinion that did not conform to the "trend" of the "school" were put to the gallows

    If the person is dismissed for this silly argument, then it is correct to claim that every religious person actually believes in "superstitions" and not in "science" and therefore is not worthy of carrying an educational or representative role in teaching (whether at school or in the academy) 

  97. As if his dismissal will put a drop of new sense into the ignorant students who fill the classrooms.
    The entire Ministry of Education is being clumsy.

  98. Some time ago I saw a comic piece about how a "believer in creation" constantly repeats the same nonsense about the lack of fossils and no matter how much logic and science the evolutionary professor tells him he repeats his own ..that's how people are.

    Monkeys and humans split from another source.. Today's monkeys are not our ancestors at all... and no matter how many times this fact is repeated, they always try to use it as the well-known excuse "so if there are monkeys, how come we were created from them"

    The warming of the earth is calling as well as its is a fact...the question is who is the (ridiculous) or the sun.

    By the way fossils.. we may not have a perfect record of the human race but we do have a perfect record of other species.. especially whales how they moved from the land to the sea.. a process of millions of years.

    Good thing he fired him... there is belief in religion and taking certain things as metaphors like the creation 6000 years ago... and there is fanaticism.

  99. "I no longer talk about his views on political matters, which is really a matter of personal taste,"
    Oops, and here you are already talking about his political views……
    It is likely that I am actually on your side of the fence, but this outburst proves in my opinion that your motives are not pure. The enormous "noise" that accompanies the man Dava in the left-wing newspaper is not pleasant either.
    Evolution probably was, God probably doesn't exist, but wickedness and narrow-mindedness and puritanism also exist.
    What a shame.

  100. Emanuel
    It is better to read the publication itself and not what the Daily Mail wrote, because what is really written there is this:

    When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15oC warmer than the decade 1990-1999.
    (Page 5)

  101. I have to post the same comment here as well

    Maybe it's a new publication that you haven't read yet.

    The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
    the 1980s and 90s have come to a halt in the last 10 years.

    There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century
    for a given temperature increase.

    Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe.

    Therefore, the dormancy of the sun and the cooling of the earth after 1980 - indeed continue to show a correlation.

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.