Until now, teachers have had to use code names such as evolution over time.
The practice in Florida is to use code words such as "development over time". The addition of the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" stems from a compromise proposal by one of the council members who called for a compromise, and not a standard that was originally proposed to the council. The possibility of adding the words "scientific theory" was raised just last week. The vote was passed by a narrow majority of 4-3, after over an hour of public discussion and additional council discussions.
Before the vote began, council member Roberto Martinez joked that the proposal to add the term scientific theory "evolved rapidly over the last seven days." And more seriously he said that the change was intended to soften people who oppose the amendment. He said it hadn't been tested as thoroughly as the original proposal to start talking about evolution without any reservations. "This option is the least good." added
Not everyone is happy with the result. Terry Campbell, director of an association calling itself the "Tampa Community Affairs Council" objected and argued that the current scientific standards (which ignore evolution) could have been left.
The conservatives interpret this decision as a limitation that allows evolution to be taught as a scientific theory but not as a fact (they of course ignore that in science - a scientific theory is the closest description that can be given to the facts, until it is disproved).
A panel of 68 experts, most of whom are scientists and science teachers, detailed to the members of the council the standards that describe evolution based on a "concept that unifies all of biology." The standard says that evolution is supported by a wide range of scientific evidence. In a series of public hearings, some of the leaders of religious communities and parents opposed to evolution presented their opposition to evolution being an accepted standard. The compromise language approved yesterday defines where the term "scientific theory of evolution" is used and turns it into a theory rather than a proven truth.
Probably the next step will be to pass a law in the US Congress that cancels gravity or at least gives it the dubious status of a theory...
99 תגובות
Another note on the difference between religion and science:
The time scale of evolution is about 10 to the 8th to 9th power.
In contrast, the time scale of religious consciousness is at most 10 to the 4th power.
That is, what seems "victorious" in the eyes of the "religious person" is based on a period of time that is about a hundredth of a thousandth of the evolutionary time interval.
Additionally
We have to remember that the average time of the history of God is in sg of 10 to the power of 9 years. This means that the perspective of evolution is extremely broad even in relation to age as a human being.
Ori,
Evolution can certainly be disproved, just as it can also be confirmed in certain cases. Many fossils have already been found that confirm the evolution of horses, for example, from a tiny ancestor. Other fossils show the chain of evolution of the whale from a four-legged animal, or the evolution of mollusk species over millions of years. Even fossils representing transitional stages between man and his 'ape' ancestor have already been discovered.
How can evolution be disproved?
simple. All you have to do is find a skeleton of a large mammal - for example, an elephant - next to a skeleton of a dinosaur. Whoever discovers this will gain worldwide fame as the person who turned evolution upside down.
Other evidence may be the discovery of a human tribal bonfire from a million years ago, with dinosaur bones next to it. and so on and so on.
So far no real evidence of this kind has been discovered. In some creationist websites you can see claims that dinosaur skeletons were discovered with human footprints next to them, but these claims did not stand up to a careful test of the evidence. In other words, they were a deliberate forgery, or an error in the dating of the footprint.
Molecular biology also provides many proofs for evolution, with the help of similarities and differences in DNA that serve as a kind of 'clock' showing how long ago certain species diverged from each other.
Last point:
You may be referring to the claim of the great scientific philosopher Karl Popper that evolution is not science because it cannot be disproved. This claim was made in the thirties of the 20th century, and Popper changed his mind soon after, when the theory of evolution was explained to him and the various proofs found were demonstrated to him. He admitted that evolution is science above all else, based on factual evidence and can be refuted.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
Laurie, you are confusing irrefutable and not disproved. Evidently the haters of evolution designed millions of experiments to disprove evolution and it overcame them all.
Like any theory, you can try to attack it scientifically and check whether the alternative theory will give a better result. Until now, after 149 years, it still hasn't happened.
The evolutionary theory is indeed a theory, but certainly not a "scientific theory" since it does not meet the basic criteria for accepting a theory as a scientific theory - that it can be refuted in principle...
Since it cannot be disproved - not by experiment, not by observation and not by tapping, it can and should be said that in any case it is not a "scientific theory".
These Americans are funny who replace distortion with distortion.
borrowed:
Your starting point, as well as your plan for the future, is that what was will be and if people nowadays have a tendency towards certain things (like, perhaps, national differentiation) then this tendency is expected and must remain in the future as well.
This is just as true as the tendency of people to die before reaching the age of fifty a few hundred years ago.
The human race has a chance to improve and this chance will increase the more it can free itself from its superstitious beliefs.
I allow myself to be optimistic (and also see the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a phenomenon that is consistent with my opinion that unions created by force are disintegrating) but I do not build anything on this optimism. The interesting thing is that my goal is such that the path to it - even if it will never end - improves the condition of the human race.
borrowed,
I don't know what attack you were referring to - if you felt attacked, it wasn't me who made you feel that way.
'Multiculturalism' is not necessarily nationalism and the individual can express himself by belonging to groups other than national differentiation, on the contrary, a group that is not national can allow a more powerful expression for a person, since belonging is not on an arbitrary basis but on a matter-of-fact basis and it also does not prevent belonging to groups Various.
The Jewish vision of the end times speaks of the supremacy of the Jews and a common denominator among all nations which is their recognition of this supremacy.
I did not claim and still do not claim that one religion is better than another. Most religions, and especially the majority of believers, demand that their religion is supreme and the best of all and usually try to attract believers from other religions to them (with the possible exception of the Druze religion). Such conduct can only lead to rivalry, and thus all religions demonstrate their opposition to a true unification of nations.
I am not implying, but saying openly and explicitly that she understood that Judaism is very ancient and, being such, is relevant to past periods whose distance from our times is measured in thousands of years and is no longer suitable for today. In the meantime, buried under the mountains of superstitions, amulets, evil, revenge and other additions derived from human nature.
Whoever testifies to himself that he is knowledgeable about a subject, is thus testifying to his ignorance, because the more a person deepens his understanding, the more he will realize how much we do not understand.
Indeed, I am in very good company.
In addition, I prefer the greeting "Shalom" and "Goodbye" to "Bye"...
No benefit grows from a mere attack.
I was not talking about a future vision but about a pattern of human behavior that in the past liberalism denied (J.S. Mill's 'On Liberty' speaks entirely of the individual; although he also encourages freedom of association but for functional purposes), and today, rather, liberalism He is the one who pushes for 'multiculturalism', that is, for the recognition of the need for man to express himself also through his belonging to a distinct national group, and this is how we also see it in many events that we become aware of.
The Jewish vision of the end times does not speak of the blurring of the national identity of any people, but of finding a common denominator superior to it, which is the requirement of God.
What other religion, precisely on its Day of Judgment (Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur), does not emphasize in its call to God its desire to highlight its uniqueness and strengthen it, but rather its ambition to correct the entire world by uniting all nations around the same supreme common denominator.
Therefore, Yigal, if you tried to imply that Judaism has no understanding, you only implied that you do not have enough knowledge of Judaism. Not bad; you are in good company
Bye.
Michael and Shaul,
It is extremely difficult to predict what will be the fate of unions and divisions of various kinds because they are based on human beings and it is impossible to predict their behavior (although the ideas of Harry Seldon-Isaac Asimov are beautiful, good and even seem correct) and the proof of this is the unexpected disintegration of the USSR.
Michael, I think that your desire (which you also declare to be based on an idea) is worthy of all appreciation, but it seems to me that before trying to unite people one should (perhaps) try and instill in them intelligence (that is, eliminate superstitions - including religions that are not like the one of Prof. the late Leibovitch, meaning that they are not between a person and his wife only - and Merein Shishin others) otherwise all attempts at union will come to naught.
borrowed:
Unfortunately, I was not gifted with the prophetic ability that you boast of and from which you delegate to those scholars that you quote.
In my opinion, your claims and their claims regarding separatism are superficial and do not take into account the real causes of unification and division. I mentioned this briefly when I said that unions formed by force break up and other unions (based on cooperation) are formed.
I also have no doubt that if my prediction is not fulfilled voluntarily it will be fulfilled when the human race destroys itself.
I am also aware that you are just arguing because even the apocalyptic vision you believe in predicts the same thing.
Anyway, these are things from the field of prophecy and I have no interest in dealing with them.
The story of the Tower of Babel beautifully describes the fact that artificial separation between humans creates many problems.
He of course blames God for this crime of dividing the people (only because the God he describes cares more about himself than the people and is afraid that if they cooperate they will surpass him) and therefore it is only natural that I act in the opposite direction and try to unite the people so that they reach the same level that you are trying to prevent them from reach her
A small addition:
Please, express yourself gently on topics where your knowledge still needs improvement. If you mentioned the European Union, then this is one of the examples of the justification(!!!) of the theory I brought. Note that in recent years the unification trend in Europe has weakened greatly, compared to the strengthening of the separatist elements. Just a year ago, I heard from an important political science lecturer that one of the successful examples of the unification of nations is Belgium (and this is because of the separation (!!!) that exists there with clear borders between the Flemish and the Walloons), and now it's been half a year that Belgium is being undermined.
Bye
To Michael
Of course, from the bottom of my heart I apologize for the association. This is the way of the internet, that you correspond with people in simulated intimacy without knowing the full context in which things can be received. sorry again.
As a matter of fact: I'm sure you understood my words in the meaning I intended: it is well-known and famous that of the ten humor cabins that have gone down to the world, the haikus have not taken a single log (see quite a few jokes about this in the joke and sharpening book of Alter Asher Abba Droyanov).
An argument linking the nature of the regime to the naivety of the citizens. It simply does not stand the test of reality or the academic test. Who is a greater dictator than Stalin, and who is more creative in political jokes than the Soviet Union. Nasser's regime was also not known for its tolerance and XNUMX the creativity of the political joke in Egypt to this day is for nothing.
On the contrary, the research claims the opposite: precisely where the citizen's normal avenues of expression are blocked, he finds an outlet in humorous creativity.
For more: the introduction and prefaces to the book 'You made us laugh' Penalistic jokes. By (Prof.) Yitzhak Gal-Nor (former State Service Commissioner) and Steven Lux. You spent with an employee. 1989-XNUMX.
Bye
borrowed:
I suppose that you may not have thought that much when you wrote your previous comment and did not intend to create the association that it created for me following the fact that my ancestors (exactly! my grandparents on my father's side) were murdered by the Nazis in the concentration camps.
You probably only meant to claim that people like Einstein, Freud, and many other contemporary creators of science and culture were "soaps". This is of course nonsense of the first order.
"Soapiness", in the sense you refer to it, is often the result of the regime under which you live.
The residents of the Muslim countries, for example, demonstrate a considerable "soapyness" that stems from the terror of the government.
This is a situation that often characterizes the citizens of a totalitarian state and therefore, obviously, we do not describe the Hittite Oriya as "soap".
When Josiah ordered his people to smash all the statues, to start worshiping the God described in the book he "found" in the Temple and to teach their children that what is written in the book are the words of a living God - they simply did it because they knew what would happen to them if they didn't do it.
borrowed:
I don't know why you claim that I ignore the differences in knowledge between now and 3000 years ago.
I am fully aware of them.
What I think you are ignoring is that this knowledge (of 3000 years ago) is what guides today's religious people who even claim that it is knowledge that originates from none other than some almighty god.
Your "sting" is one of the most tasteless things I've ever come across. It probably reflects reality and I guess that makes you happy.
The recognition that you claim has been there for a long time obviously does not exist and it also stands in contrast to the trends that characterize today's reality of which the European Union is an example.
Unions formed by force dissolve but other unions are formed voluntarily.
Enlightened human beings receive everything they need to feel a sense of belonging from their belonging to the human race.
I don't know if my utopia will ever be realized, but I have no doubt that such a utopia - contrary to the vision of the religions - if it is realized - will also improve the chances of the human race to survive and develop.
To the honorable Michael,
I don't have the strength to start a whole discussion, I would just like to emphasize a point that for some reason you keep ignoring in your words: our knowledge is, of course, infinitely more than the scientific knowledge that dominated the world 300 years ago and certainly 3000 years ago.
But, of course, one should not conclude from this that we are smarter; That is, if today we are cynical enough (and cynicism, as you know, is not a trait I lack...), and skeptics enough to suspect improper motives of greedy people, etc., etc., there is no reason to think that our ancestors 3000 years ago were 'soap' (and for The sting I must add: maybe your ancestors - in light of your origin - were big 'soaps', my ancestors certainly weren't).
Another point: Einstein's ambition for a world government can only arise if you also call for the blurring of distinct national identities. Please check the social and political sciences and law and you will see that while in the past they really thought so; There has long been recognition in the academic and legal world of man's need for a national identity that will distinguish him from the rest of humanity (in professional language: in the past, human rights were the rights of the individual, and today the rights of the nation are also recognized; either in themselves, or as a way for the individual to realize his personality). In a world where there is recognition of the human need for a nation, a world government will not be established either. Chutmza: When power is concentrated in one factor, corruption also rises with it. As an American statesman said it: a little power a little corruption; A lot of power, a lot of corruption.
good week
What's new:
To your question: Yes! And it is a fact that today's religions try to bite into this law and exclude the feet of the rest of the flesh whose religion is not Jewish.
If they only wanted to encourage her, they could have allowed anyone to come, but why would you say sensible things?
I assume that anyone who tries to convince you is a missionary in your eyes, so I don't consider this title at all derogatory when you are the one who gives it.
That you have nothing more to say is true.
Too bad you didn't notice it before you started talking.
Michael
I do not understand.
You mean that the Israeli government took the definition of who is Jewish from the Nazis?
Or maybe the definition is intended for the needs of immigrating to Israel (you should think about it....).
I'm glad she decided to become a missionary ("And I'd better fix what needs fixing here even if it requires fixing the world view of people like you.").
good
I think we have concluded things, I have nothing more to say on this subject.
What's new:
Enough with the nonsense.
I assume that even you know who was defined as a Jew by the Nazis and that included complete assimilators as well, but why would you let the facts confuse you when you have a goal that justifies all means?
Note that when people formulated the Law of Return they were not yet confused like some of today's religious businessmen and people like you and formulated it more or less symmetrically to the Nuremberg Laws.
In fact, it is almost exactly the same law, only that while the Nuremberg Laws stated that a person is perishable under certain conditions, the Law of Return states that under the exact same conditions he will receive Israeli citizenship.
Baside that:
http://mp3music.co.il/lyrics/468.html
There is no reason for me to move to another place that must have its own problems and I better fix what needs fixing here even if it requires fixing the world view of people like you.
Michael,
If so then what is the problem
Why should you become a Jew ("Judaism killed many Jews to survive")
You are terrified of anti-Semitism ("and to survive I must escape from the clutches of anti-Semitism")
Declare that you are irreligious and in the worst case you will become a semblance of Christianity and then you will leave the most barbaric environment in the world
For example, you could move to Scandinavia where there are no wars and most people are secular and didn't even know you were Jewish (God forbid).
Roy:
Freedom and truth sites currently do not have a specific link to the ad. What is there is a collection of rebuttals to the arguments of the ultra-Orthodox regarding the "scientific nature of the Torah".
You can find a lot of material under the headings "contras" and "articles" on the Daat Emet website as well as on the Freedom website, For example here
Michael,
Do you have a link to the story about the ad on the Freedom and Truth website?
Regarding the above:
You can find rebuttals to all the claims in the above ad on the freedom and truth websites
Avi:
I sent you a copy of the announcement but then I thought it would be better for the announcement to entertain everyone so I uploaded the scanned file to a Google document and the result is here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgz8mg3w_259f2vvvhgp
What's new:
Your words are a distortion of history that is common in our places. Everyone knows the facts but somehow the agents of religion have managed to paint the facts in incredible false colors.
Indeed, Judaism has survived for thousands of years - longer than any other monotheistic religion (well - it's not surprising - it was the first and no monotheistic religion has ever died out - but that's not the point I want to emphasize).
What else? Judaism survived at the expense of its people! Judaism survived and the Jews died! The number of descendants of those who were not Jewish two thousand years ago exceeds the number of descendants of those who were Jewish.
You may have come across a term coined by Dawkins to describe the process of the evolution of ideas.
He defined the concept of "meme" as a "conceptual" equivalent of the biological term "gene".
He argued (which goes without saying, but it's still good for someone to say) that, like genes, memes also live and reproduce in the world as a function of their ability to survive. Just as the environment of nature is the environment to which the genes adapt themselves, the environment of man's thought - for all the good and bad in it - serves as the environment in which memes develop.
One of the important features for the survival of a meme is the protection against changing itself.
The meme of Judaism includes, therefore, terms such as "death for the sanctification of Hashem", "we will do and obey", "you shall have no other gods before me" and more - all terms whose purpose is self-preservation. But whose self-preservation? of the meme! Not of the believer in him!
That's why all the reasoning you gave is bullshit.
Judaism killed many Jews in order to survive and I do not intend to become another of its victims.
I explained what the role of the State of Israel is in my view (protecting the Jews from anti-Semitism (which by the way is a "religion" that he discovered almost as old as Judaism)) but you ignore what I said and keep asking what ties me to the state.
Anti-Semitism still exists because retards still exist all over the world and therefore - even if the location of the country is not the one I would choose - it is better for me to be a part of it. In my private utopia there are no countries in today's sense and the state of Israel does not exist either, but I live in the real world and until my utopia comes true I have to survive (I have talked with others about compromises so this is one of the compromises I make) and in order to survive I have to escape the clutches of anti-Semitism. It is interesting to note that my utopia is the one Einstein also fantasized about after World War II when he preached a world government (and the Beatles also wrote the song Imagine about it)
Michael, I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the ad.
Friends:
I see that my fitness training makes me miss the more pleasant parts of the discussion.
The truth is that today it is not really surprising because the ultra-Orthodox are on strike and we will surely see them again on Mochash.
Regarding the academic ivory tower - it's really hard to believe how many academics find life inside it comfortable and safe enough and don't bother to act against the processes that are gradually eroding its foundations.
An interesting story from recent times is related to the awareness "duel" between the organization "Hadevrot" and the organization Da'at Emet.
On 18/2/08 the Havrot organization published an ad on the front page of the Haaretz newspaper under the title "The Faculty of Torah Sciences" and in it a typical selection of their usual lies about all kinds of facts about the world that they claim were known to the authors of the Torah and the Sages long before they became known to science.
I repeat - this is a collection of claims that are all (but all!) false and it is really easy to prove their falsehood, but this company has no shame.
So far it's their usual lies but at this point the interesting part begins.
The next day "Deat Emet" published a counter ad that its software is not really important to our case.
What is more interesting are the responses received in good faith to this ad.
One of them was from Professor Yoram Yom Tov who was quoted in the warning notice as if he supported the fabricated findings in it (he wrote on his own initiative and not as a result of Da'at Emet).
Yoram Yom Tov wrote - and I quote: "In the ad published in Haaretz (attached) that is full of errors, my name is also mentioned as if I approve of the nonsense written in it. Well, not only are errors being published, but scientists are also being recruited without their knowledge."
It turns out, then, that these liars simply don't sweat anything.
Not only are they trying to rewrite history - they are also rewriting the present!
However, Professor Yom Tov was unwilling to act to publicly denounce those who bore his name in vain.
His approach - like the approach of many in the ivory tower - is that the correct policy is a policy of ignoring. This, in my opinion, is a mistake that could cost us all dearly. It is possible and right to ignore a troll when he is alone but not when he is part of a huge and numerous herd.
At the end of the day (as is commonly said today), the existence and budgets of research and higher education institutions in the future probably depend, to a certain extent, on these time-consuming activities.
Igal,
In the end, it's all an equation of time and money. Most scientists have neither time nor money to waste. All these activities result from the volunteerism of people who want to contribute their time to the advancement of science, but time is a precious commodity, especially for young researchers. Every minute they don't invest in research hurts their career.
As for advertising... it is difficult to find money for good advertising, when an ad in the city mouse costs 5000 NIS or more.
If so, these activities should be advertised more, to the general public (both on the science website...) and in places seen by scientists who will be able to express support and participate.
Again, a week, a good week... 🙂
It seems I am destined to agree with your words.
The Science site is starting to hold evening activities dedicated to various science topics (the first activity this year happened last week). The same goes for Hamda'a in Tel Aviv, who hold scientific debates and scientific lectures and receive an audience of over 200 people at each lecture.
Anochi and my friends also organize scientific activities for the general public, such as the 'Science on the Edge' show, which was held at the last Icon Festival, and was invited to perform at the Weizmann Institute in about a month.
If any of the readers who is also a man of science (or of course, a woman of science) is interested in participating in these activities or organizing a new activity, he is invited to contact the website owners. Of course, media people who are interested in contributing their experience or their broadcasting time to science are also welcome to apply.
Definitely a nice week.
Roy.
Sorry, I forgot to add my name to the previous comment.
I am not an expert in issues related to public opinion and public image issues (and perhaps this is the place to call such an expert to participate in the discussion), but it seems to me that the establishment of an appropriate body to promote the issue, perhaps under the auspices of the Ministry of Science, with the help of websites such as "Hidan" and certainly with the help and auspices of the universities (which have an interest extensive, even economic, in raising the issue in the sciences and raising their profile in the public), all of these can create a kind of lobby for the issue. If broadcasting stations (television and radio) knew that the public was interested in science, they would not stop broadcasting channels dealing with these topics, but would only add to them. In addition, exposing the truth behind superstitions, religion and the like in discussions on the Internet, in lectures to the general public and in the media will be able to balance the terrible drift in public understanding.
The burden and responsibility is, in my opinion, placed on the public of scientists with official recognition, who, according to them, have authority by virtue of being such. I think that to a large extent, the difficult situation in which the subjects of science find themselves (including the financial support from the state and the public support for the universities) is derived from the seclusion of the scientific community in the academic ivory tower and their avoidance of proactively going out to the general public and popularizing science (including in the media).
Have a nice week.
Igal,
Again, I agree with your words - education and the media do do injustice to scientific subjects. And again I ask in your opinion - what is the practical solution? If you are not ready to compromise, what is your suggestion to improve the situation?
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Although the discussion has already moved away from the point I am referring to, I would like to respond to the words of Roy and Michael regarding the compromise:
There is truth in your words that compromise is preferable in most cases to a war of attrition. On the other hand, it is not possible to call compromise the cases where the compromise is unilateral. Education and the media in Israel have been doing a great injustice to scientific subjects for a long time. Septem was right in implying that many of the teachers who are supposed to teach science are plastering their craft, probably out of professional shallowness. I don't know what the situation is with the television programs that I gave up watching a long time ago because of their superficiality, but the state radio programs have been going from strength to strength in recent years and the number of broadcasts dealing with religion, astrology, etc. is steadily increasing.
Given all of this, it seems to me that there are not too many choices but to stand uncompromisingly at least on giving proper status to scientific education.
What's new,
What keeps Americans in the US? Even there almost a quarter of the population comes from immigrants.
You don't have to be Jewish to be united, and you don't have to be Jewish to love our amazing country.
Michael,
The Jews endured for thousands of years against the decrees of the Inquisition and Islam, was their suffering a return (they could have converted their religion from one lie to another, why suffer?)
What holds the Jews in Israel who came from different countries if I'm not mistaken the Jewish religion these if you oppose a Jewish state
Otherwise what is common to all.
Would you rather live in Uganda where the neighbors are more enlightened or in another country?
I don't understand what binds you to the State of Israel, the commonality between Jews from different denominations and from different countries of origin is the Jewish religion.
Michael,
Thank you very much for your words, I warmly accepted.
What's new:
When a book claims that the world was created in six days, it claims that the world was created in six days. Every time someone (honest) writes something that he doesn't mean literally then he writes that he doesn't mean it literally.
Therefore - from the fact that there is no mention in the Torah that it does not say what the author wanted to say - it must be concluded that she does mean you that everything written in it is true.
The fact that we are talking about interpretations of the Torah at all stems from the fact that every reasonable person already sees that it simply contains so many errors that there is simply no choice - if you want to continue believing you have to invent all kinds of ways to self-deceive.
The fact that a thousand preceded the house does not mean that a thousand is the basis for the house and indeed, in the case of the Torah and science, the Torah preceded science but was by no means a basis for it. On the contrary - it followed the progress of science by planting superstitions in people's minds. These superstitions were seen as sufficient answers to questions answered by science today and prevented any research until the moment when it was already clear that they did not reflect reality and even when that moment came they continued to delay - whether by institutions like the Inquisition or by parties like Shas.
Say it's humans, but as I've said many times - drugs are also harmless as long as humans don't use them.
Herzl wanted to establish the Jewish state to protect the Jews from anti-Semitism.
He was a sane person and did not attach importance to the exact geographical location. Therefore he also agreed to establish the country in Uganda.
The influence of religion was indeed the one that prevented any solution that is not in Israel, but this is not an advantage of religion but a limitation of it (a limitation that also limited us and forced us to live in one of the most barbaric neighborhoods in the world).
I do choose what seems to me from the religion and from everything else and I do not prefer anything over another just because it is part of the religion. This is what I wrote in my previous response.
The fact that I adopt certain things that the religion also adopts does not indicate that I accept the religion's position on these issues because religion is not a consideration for me at all.
Therefore, in general, it can be said that even though I embrace many things that religion also embraces, I completely reject religion as a whole because it is false and because of the damage it causes both to people's ability to understand reality, to their desire to try to do so, and to their ability to live with each other without killing one another.
Michael,
"You do claim that the Torah is not a book that describes reality, but the Torah claims that it actually does this?"
The Torah claims nothing!
People who interpret the Torah claim according to their worldview
What lies do you mean (I don't mean the interpretation people give).
In the interpretation I give to the Torah, I see it as literature, folklore, history, and also a book of laws. Not everything written there is acceptable to me.
I would like to remind you that the Ten Commandments are a foundation stone for the history of the Jewish people. The Ten Commandments are the basis of Western culture from which modern scientific thinking later developed.
You live in Israel because of the Zionism founded by Herzl, but why did Herzl bring Zionism?
From the verse Go-go from your country and your homeland and your father's house to the land that I will show you (Genesis chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX)
Obviously you don't have to believe these are God's words but this is our folklore.
In conclusion
You look at the lion as a whole in black or white and I think there are many colors in it.
You can choose from the list what you like but disqualify it
In the end it seems excessive to me.
September:
As someone who devotes a lot of time even on this site - to the defense of science - I feel the need to cool your enthusiasm for it a little. Not to cancel it completely but to cool it down a little so that you can become a real and impartial scientist.
The theory of relativity has not been proven!
In general, it is impossible to prove a scientific theory mathematically.
In science - always - the last arbiter is the experiment (and not a specific experiment, but any experiment!).
A theory can be elegant and mathematically consistent and still not describe reality as it is.
All we can do without question is to disprove a theory by experiment and the more experiments we do and the theory is not disproven, the more confident we are that the theory is indeed true, but we cannot reach one hundred percent certainty.
Mathematics serves us, in the context of scientific theories, to improve our predictions - both for practical needs (of using the theory) and for experimental needs - defining predictions that if the theory is not realized, it will be disproved.
The theory of relativity has so far passed all these tests with flying colors, so we tend to believe that it reflects reality at least partially.
Why partially? Because there are still things that really don't work out - especially when trying to deal with extremely tiny sizes - those that quantum theory deals with.
You have to agree, therefore, and reconcile with the fact that in science, all we can create are "only theories" but these "only theories" are much more reliable and grounded than those "absolute truths" (which are actually nothing but a transparent lie) provided by religions.
What's new:
You do claim that the Torah is not a book that describes reality, but the Torah claims that it actually does this?
Who should I believe?
Of course I believe you because the Torah really doesn't describe reality and it's really not hard to see that, but tell me, how do you manage to believe in a book that claims that what it says about itself is not true?
My life is much simpler.
When someone lies to me I don't believe them. point. If after he lied to me he tells me that I should behave in a certain way, then the decision whether to behave that way or not - will not stem from his statement but from other considerations that I will make because I have no reason to build my life on the claims of a liar.
The Jewish religion, of course, includes much more than the Torah, and in its other components (the Bible and the Torah above) it is easy to find contradictions - both internal contradictions and contradictions in the face of reality in nature.
Therefore, in my opinion, religion does not get along with anything. Not only does it not get along with science, but it doesn't even get along with itself and certainly not with other religions. The whole difference between its believers and its believers is in the religion of the family they were born into (that is, the brainwashing they were subjected to).
Now, when such a religion comes and commands its believers to behave in such a way that anyone who is not brainwashed understands that it is immoral and even dangerous to humanity, it is already becoming a real danger that must be fought as much as possible.
What annoys me the most is the phrase "it's just a theory" which has taken root in the public.
After all, in everyday life theory is equivalent to the concept of hypothesis in the scientific world, but in a scientific context the term "theory" does not determine the correctness of anything at all. In a scientific context, the term "theory" is a concept that describes a comprehensive system of explanations for a phenomenon or several phenomena in nature.
For example, there will be the Theory of Relativity, which is generally a mathematical proof. There is no question about it.
It makes me so angry that the idea that if something is a theory, then it has not been proven, is simply an incorrect application of everyday language to the scientific world.
Even my biology teacher, who is supposed to teach high school students about evolution, didn't bother to explain to the XNUMXth biology class (where I study) what a scientific theory is, before she started explaining the theory of evolution. Even worse, when a student said, "It's just a theory," she Said "right", she legitimizes this intellectual degradation.
All I can do is be ashamed, really. I'm at a loss.
There is no connection between the Torah and science
Genesis is not a book of physics, biology, chemistry...
Anyone who makes a connection between the Tanakh and science despises and belittles the value of the Torah.
It is known that some religious people fight the theory of evolution
Because it contradicts the creation of the world according to the Book of Genesis
But the creation of the world according to Genesis is not scientific at all
It can be defined as a mystical literary spiritual creation.
The Torah and evolution are two parallel paths.
Therefore, a religious person could live a whole life with both the Torah and science, including the theory of evolution.
Igal,
Intransigence exists only in the idyll, regardless of the parties involved in the dispute.
You seem to believe in total non-compromise with religion. Could you tell me what you think should have been done in Florida, in this case?
Thanks,
Roy.
I just came across another proof of our improving situation.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
Yigal:
I am completely with you on the goals and if there is any disagreement at all, it is only on tactics.
I repeat that overall this is an achievement and the situation before the compromise was worse.
Sometimes you are in a situation where you have to compromise because otherwise you won't achieve anything.
If you compromise, you can in the future reopen the discussion from an improved starting point.
By the way, if you really want to contribute to change the issue in our country as well, you should contact "Deat Emet" or "Freedom" (if you haven't done so yet).
http://www.daatemet.org.il
http://www.hofesh.org.il
Roy, Michael,
There is truth in your words when it comes to compromises related to other areas of life, where the other party also compromises and takes some step in your direction.
Please find me the body (or the person) for whom religion is a candle to his feet who will be willing to compromise on his religion.
If the religions didn't want to force other people to behave like them or transfer people (and children!) to "their side", none of us would have a problem.
And please, when you say 'Shabbat Shalom', also remember those who said 'Shalom Shabbat', perhaps also because of some of the people whose religion is their art.
Hello, not only on Saturday
now I get it. Thanks.
Yigal -
Although I am indeed a scientist, I am also a realist. You cannot convince people when you come to them in advance with an attitude of 'you are wrong, I am right'. You must start from some compromise point, and from there show why you are actually right. This is essentially what the scientists and teachers in Florida did, and I am full of appreciation for their achievement. They managed to establish the study of evolution in schools, under the title 'scientific theory'. In the end, evolution is indeed a scientific theory. I leave it to the teachers to explain that a scientific theory is a proven and tested thing, similar to the theory of gravity and relativity.
It seems to me that the change is positive and in the right way. It is gradual, but it is expected and allowed.
Shabbat Shalom (already for the fourth time today),
Roy.
Roy:
It seems to me that when you wrote your last comment, you were thinking of a different response than the one Yigal meant.
I also initially fell into the same trap because your first response which - as Yigal pointed out - is the first on the list - is so short that it is skipped over without noticing.
In my opinion, Yigal was referring to the response in which you wrote: "Well, at least this" and not to the response regarding the gays.
If I understand Yigal's intention correctly, he claims that your response is too forgiving.
I, by the way, am not sure about this because in my opinion progress can only be achieved in stages that humans can digest and there is no denying that what is described in the article is indeed progress in the right direction. Maybe not the end of the road but still progress.
This is, of course, beyond the fact that your words probably won't really affect the legislation in Florida and they clearly indicate that you would like more to be achieved so that their influence here (in our country) is in the right direction.
Shalom Yigal,
I don't really understand what you are complaining about. I do not agree with the opinion of the Torah or Saul that homosexuals should be punished, nor did I express such an agreement here.
Beyond that, when I use the concepts of religion to argue with the 'believers', with the aim of facilitating the discussion and making it more understandable for both sides, there is no legitimacy here for one side or the other.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
To Roy's first response (at the beginning of the list):
This response is a bit disappointing, especially from a person whose occupation is science (as I imagine?). I don't think that we should fight to the bone in anything that doesn't suit us, however, the said issue is really problematic, and here I also need Michael's reference to protect the minds of our children.
Some (minority) of the ideas spread by the religions are positive (helping others, tolerance towards the weak) and if they were not wrapped in ideas that in the best case do not harm others and in other cases kill people (jihad wars and live bombs, destroying others "by the sword", crusade wars etc.), after all, it was possible to state them as harmless. However, the missionaries and the spread of religion cause any agreement to compromise with them in areas that concern us personally (such as the education of our children) to become a slippery slope that we don't know (and actually we all know) where it will lead.
In one of his articles, Richard Dawkins showed how living viruses, computer viruses and religions use similar methods (not to mention that there may be other areas of similarity...) to reproduce and spread themselves: living viruses use the reproduction mechanisms of cells (DNA replication if I'm not mistaken) and enslave them For their own culture and propagation. Like them, computer viruses use the computers' email creation and distribution mechanisms to "breed" and spread themselves, and similarly, religions use the soft and innocent minds of children (and other innocents) to multiply and spread their ideas (Dawkins' famous "memes").
In short, in my opinion one should stand guard and not agree to turn ideas that belong to the fields of mysticism, witchcraft, superstitions and all others, visible or hidden, in the entire range between creationism and its derivatives and belief in amulets, etc., to be considered ideas that deserve to be taught in the field of general public education.
Can a person come and say, why are scientific ideas yes and religious ideas are not? Well, the difference is clear to everyone: science is subject to constant review and improvement and is the property of the public - anyone interested in it can learn parts of it (because no one can learn everything) and engage in it as he pleases (today this is called 'transparency') and it is not the property of individuals with a virtue that God, Allah, Buddha, the Holy Trinity or any other invention blessed them with special virtues.
And a few more words to the shepherd: accepting the concepts of religion (such as accepting the concept of religious sin, punishment from heaven or collective punishment from heaven) in order to confront those who believe in them only gives them legitimacy for their affairs.
borrowed:
I agree with your words about the police and it doesn't change anything.
Society needs to be protected from people like him and probably not the greatest philosophers will go to arrest criminals.
On the other hand - the great ones of the religious community are revealed in their nakedness (when they wear the new king's clothes of their nakedness) whenever it comes to actions that the Torah has established as transgressions without a trace of charity.
To Michael,
The police officers who proudly posed for pictures after the capture of Bnei Sela were not proud of having caught a man who violated the autonomy of certain women (that is, rape, in the vernacular), but because they felt that they represented an entire people who sent them to catch the neighborhood pest (have you ever seen a police officer who catches a criminal from a crime family and takes a picture of him abusing at him??). That is, it was not the consequences of his actions that brought upon him what the barbaric public did to him, but rather his mental tendencies in their own right. Paganism and barbarism in its embodiment.
to roy,
In a perfect society where everyone deep down also identifies with its values (and this is where the main difference from the societies you tried to allude to), society has the right to say to so-and-so - as long as he is a single individual in an entire society; Not like the situation today where we are not one company but a mixture of companies - that in his actions he harms her and if certain things are not comfortable for him, let him be respected and go somewhere else. This is the only situation in which the punishment system of the Torah is supposed to operate, and even then there are so many restraints that I have already listed.
Expansion is needed, of course, regarding the worldwide reference to the criminal law in general, and its functions, and the right of society to impose its values on the individual, and many other diverse issues. Perhaps the Bible can be written on the head of a pin, but the value system of the Torah cannot be presented on one leg.
Bye..
Both Michael and I are now busy preparing for Shabbat; So without a vow we will continue on another occasion.
Shabbat Shalom
to ask:
I mistakenly directed my previous answer to Yehuda. It is of course intended for you
borrowed,
It must be assumed that in the perfect society according to the Torah, the punishments will also be according to their severity before God. In other words, if everyone is righteous except for one homosexual, then he will attract the curse of God on society as a whole. It is clear that such an exception, which is harmful to society as a whole, must be stopped.
That is, in this perfect society the people will be judged for their sins in front of a human court, which will judge according to the extent of the damage they have done to the Torah or God.
In other words, in this perfect society homosexuality would be considered a serious crime. Belief in other religions will also be tantamount to a crime against God, the Torah and society. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists - all these will be judged for their faith and removed from us.
Do I really need to point out what period in 20th century history your perfect society is becoming more and more like?
Yehuda:
Indeed we all have an inner morality that is a product of evolution.
It is this morality that needs to be controlled and it conditions intolerance by the fact that a person causes harm to others.
This is the difference between a homosexual and a stoner
To Michael,
With regard to gays who cannot change, the situation is extremely complicated, but not only in Judaism, but in every moral theory.
What would you say to a person who has fallen in love with a married woman to the point that he cannot change and if she does not divorce her husband for his sake he may deteriorate into anything possible? Will you put up with his inclination or call him to restrain himself?
By the way, we all abhor the actions of Bnei Sela, but no one can dispute that he is a person with a real mental deviation that cannot change. Have you seen any tolerance in society towards him?? I found that society in Israel showed a pagan, disgusting and repulsive attitude towards him (like tribal societies that used to persecute witches). A much more primitive and disgusting attitude than you imagine the Torah's attitude to homosexuality.
Bye
The discussion is not in relation to the criminal law but in the attribution of heavenly events to earthly actions. For that matter, why would I find a difference between gays and thieves?
Regarding the criminal law, of course gays should not be punished, but this requires an extensive and in-depth conversation. I already wrote a small part of the things during one of the quarrels with Michael; I don't remember which page.
Bye
borrowed:
And here you also prove that when it comes to the religious commandments that come from the Torah - you cannot prove any flexibility even though today it is clear that at least a large part of homosexuals cannot change at all because it is nature (or God?) that condemned them to be like that.
The problem here is that you are still equating the 'sin' of homosexuality (which you admit does not hurt anyone in the physical world) with other sins such as stealing, adultery and lying.
We incarcerate thieves in prisons, require libelists to compensate their victims, and sometimes impose unilateral divorces and compensation agreements following adultery.
Your words imply, therefore, that homosexuals should also be punished, either by imprisonment or fines.
I may not have explained myself properly.
Her past husbands harm society not only in the direct sense (in this sense, of course, homosexuals do not harm anyone), but also in an indirect sense - causing punishment from heaven.
Certainly such a thing exists, but only in a perfect society can the heavenly punishment be imposed on a specific offender; Today, unfortunately, to the same extent that the gays can be blamed for the earthquake or the eruption of a volcano or a drought, it is possible - and better - for everyone to blame themselves, and each society will blame it on its own sins (which are no less serious than the sins of the gays).
Bye and Shabbat Shalom
borrowed,
There is no doubt that exceptions and pests in this kind of society will be thieves, liars, extortionists who traffic in women (or men) and so on.
At the same time, such exceptions are harmful in all societies, and not only in the perfect society whose entire life is based on the Torah. To compare the thieves to homosexuals you must prove that homosexuals harm the public in some way.
I would love to hear how you prove such an injury.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
I mean that in a perfect society whose entire life is completely based on the Torah both at the level of the individual and at the level of the whole, any deviation from the norms of the Torah causes harm to everyone; An exception to this matter would be any thief, liar, extortionist, trafficker in women, husband who beats, wife who beats, slanderer and anything else that comes to your mind. To this list should also be added Torah students who throw themselves on the public and thereby desecrate heaven there, as well as homosexuals.
Unfortunately, we all - even in a society that claims to be ultra-Orthodox - live far from the norms that the Holy Torah dictates to us. Therefore, blaming the gays when we know the truth that we too - all of us - are not perfect, is really ridiculous.
Bye.
borrowed,
I'm not sure I understood what you meant in the last comment. Do you agree with Benizri's words that the gays contribute to some of the troubles we experience?
Michael, I did not mean that your words lowered the level of the discussion, but that they opened an opening for (further) lowering of the discussion.
Benizri's words are ridiculous not in relation to their content but in relation to their use: there are so many sick people in our society, when in every public there are sick people who set it apart, and there are sick people imported from other publics, and precisely the gays, of all the criminals walking around the streets - quite a few of them, of course, wear kippa Color and type - exactly the gays are the root of all the problems????
borrowed:
And yet Benizri can say his words of vanity and blasphemy while relying on the "Holy Torah". That's what he said and I'm just quoting.
This, as mentioned, is just one representative example from the last time.
To the cool commenter:
I haven't checked which comments you are referring to but I assume I know of them.
In my opinion, they were completely justified, but in any case, your response is not a response to my question addressed to Legal, who referred to this discussion.
Even in those comments, by the way, I did not lower the level because below the level of the comments I responded to, it is simply not possible to go down.
Rounding corners is never at the level of the scriptures nor at the level of execution or at the level of interpretation of the scriptures; No matter how much you try to delay the period when the Torah was written, you will not be able to deny the fact that for thousands of years the Torah has said that an injured person cannot be satisfied with prayer but must see a doctor; If you want, call it an appeal to technology.
The reluctance of parts of the ultra-Orthodox minority to receive vaccinations does not stem from religious motives, but only from their group closure and the fact that once someone spread the word that by receiving vaccinations there is a chance of getting autism (there were several cases of an alleged connection, which were disproved in research only in recent years, but you explain it to people)...
post Scriptum. Allegedly, if we examine things a little, there is a feeling in the public, that to an extent that is not eliminated, it can be said, and only apparently and without any commitment, that there is any relationship that reaches a certain degree of plausibility, between law studies with extra honors and reading comprehension...
"Michael
20-02-2008 | 23:47
Uncle:
I tried to write something stupider than your words and I failed.
The closest I've come is $&)%&*(%*&%%&^%&U##"
"Michael
21-02-2008 | 19:17
Yigal c.
I agree with everything you said except for the insinuation that something in my words lowered the level of discussion"
Michael, still I agree with you about everything you said about religion. Religion doesn't change, people and attitudes do (and this is at best, in a case like "Bnei Brak" and the ultra-Orthodox, even the people don't change)
Yigal c.
I agree with everything you said except for the insinuation that something in my words lowered the level of discussion
The words Torah and theory have synonymous meanings, although each also has meanings that do not belong to the other concept (Torah = Israel's doctrine, theory = theoretical explanation). However, the subtle difference in the absoluteness of the status that each of them has tips the scales in favor of the definition 'theory' for scientific explanations that are always subject to testing and possibilities for improvement.
To Michael:
It's a shame to lower the level of discussion, even if only to answer people who have no basic understanding of what is being read and nothing.
Also, the ability of people to bend religion mainly stems from the "rounding of the corners" in which most people use their codes of conduct, and this evidence - there are infinite levels of observance of the mitzvot by religious people...
No. Ben-Ner:
Most people who hold a religious belief take advantage of technology and science to one degree or another, if it does not contradict their faith, but in most cases ignorance pushes them to avoid using useful scientific innovations (such as a measles vaccine for children in the ultra-orthodox community in Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh) or to continue using religious rituals and symbols in places that have been proven to be harmful (Like transferring diseases by touching a mezuzah and kissing it...).
No. Ben Nar and ask:
The fact that people have no choice but to update and bend religion as a result of the progress of science and society is a result of a positive feature of humans and not of religion.
This feature does not always help because what is written remains written.
It is not difficult to prove this even in recent days with the new method developed by Benizri for predicting earthquakes.
Religion does not change and the fact that people sometimes find loopholes in it that allow them to deceive themselves as if they still follow it but maintain a certain degree of normality is only possible as a result of the fact that there are things that no one foresaw in the days when the holy books were written.
No. Ben Ner
It is already written in the Torah that an injured person should consult a doctor (whose knowledge changes in every generation). The claim that Judaism has been updated is denied; On the contrary, in areas where the Torah is neutral from the beginning it encourages man to do as much as possible to advance himself (Sages attribute to Noah the invention of the first plow. The historical truth is not interesting; the important point is that the Sages saw technological inventions that advance humanity in a positive light). If there is a point that science emphasizes, it is the ability to appeal to conventions and authorities, and the Sages attributed this quality to Abraham our father.
There is also much to be said about freedom in the sources of Judaism and I have already written on this website how tolerant the Torah is to criminals, much more than is customary nowadays.
Bye
The one who thinks that religion is permanent and absolute is wrong. The religion is conservative, but there are also changes and transformations.
A historical retrospective shows that the main factor causing changes in religious concepts (and here it is mainly referring to Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism) and society is....science.
The power of science in its inherent objectivity (although not necessarily all scientists are objective). Science does not "reprove" and does not "pay respect" to old and respected teachings. One experiment is enough to overturn a wrong theory.
And if any technological device operates based on a new scientific discovery, then the religious wisdom has no choice but to update. For example :
Most religious families will not give up antibiotics to cure their children of an illness. It turns out that prayers are not enough
And anyway the healing power of the prayers increased with the use of antibiotics.
It is amazing how much more rigid Islam is to scientific ideas (freedom of thought, freedom of expression, intellectual equality between the sexes, and tolerance) and perceives science and uses it almost exclusively from its technical side.
Uncle:
The only conservation law you prove is your own conservation law in your situation.
Since you are incapable of any reasonable discussion I will end my conversation with you at this point.
Yehuda:
Schrödinger's cat was introduced by Schrödinger as a joke and became folklore. The belief that it is in superposition is simply ridiculous and almost no one holds it.
This does not mean that quantum theory is really understood. On the contrary - there was someone who said that whoever claims to understand her proves his lack of understanding. It's really hard for us to intuitively interpret the conclusions that arise from it and it's hard for anyone - not just Einstein, and no one claims otherwise. The attempts to create a better theory that would unite quantum theory with gravitation stem, among other things, from the discomfort of this misunderstanding.
All this does not justify claims in Alma such as the claim that the laws of gravity are not valid in these or other places.
To Michael
Indeed, the question will really remain as to how the Creator was created and if he was created by evolution. So in this case too, evolution is the cause. I am happy, because I am truly a follower of evolution and it seemed to me that there was a contradiction here.
And as for your first comment, does it follow that I look down on scientists? No, no!
I also agree that the attitude on which we have been educated all our lives about gravity in the entire universe lies already within our beings, deep, deep, and if a person comes and says that there is no gravity (almost) in distances, then at best they look at him as a strange person. And really, I'm not comfortable with it.
But regarding the logic of scientists, I have a hard time understanding how they get along with the logic of certain conclusions in the theory of relativity and quantum theory and things such as the story of Schrödinger's cat, or, that a particle can be found in two different places at the same time? Even Einstein had a hard time with it.
I am not ready to agree that there is another logic in the quantum micro systems. I think the logic is uniform for all micro systems as well as the macro.
And if it doesn't seem to be the case, then you have to keep looking for a (logical) solution
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
According to the best laws of conservation, there is no need to invest energy to move a certain state to the state it is in anyway.
Uncle:
I tried to write something stupider than your words and I failed.
The closest I've come is $&)%&*(%*&%%&^%&U##
Michael
Your preaching to those suspected of dark adolescence earns you a ministry as a preacher at the gate of the Church of Scientific Enlightenment. You only have to establish an inquisition to investigate and displace suspects in the sin of skepticism.
To Judah in connection with the intelligent creation.
No one claims that it is not possible to create intelligently (that is - none of the scientists claim this because some of the religious actually do claim this). Actually there are two independent claims:
One is that if we were created intelligently then we still need to explain how our creator was created and therefore we are back to the starting point and apparently - if we ever want to have a closed explanation - we will have to talk about some kind of creator who was created without an intelligent creator but by an irrational process like evolution.
The second is that even if intelligent creation is possible, all the evidence we find in nature indicates that we were not created intelligently but by evolution. This is a claim that even if it turns out to be wrong (which is highly unlikely) it will not diminish the validity of the first claim in the slightest.
Yehuda:
We know that in your opinion the very fact of being a scientist defeats logic and therefore no scientist is capable of reaching such self-evident conclusions that you draw without any substantiation
Uncle:
You should read the things you are responding to so that you don't just respond to comments that respond to your private delusions instead of what was said.
I do not find it appropriate to repeat what I said. You are welcome to roll the page back a little, read again, and answer my words and not the ramblings you attribute to me.
You said four things!!!! (Is this a subtle response?)
You have three things
A. Regarding the sentence at the end of the article: "Probably the next step will be to pass a law in the US Congress that abolishes gravity or at least gives it the dubious status of a theory...". End quote. Well, I have no problem with this sentence and I just don't understand why you need the US Congress to come to such a logical conclusion about gravitation (at least at intergalactic distances).
B. Regarding evolution, we, the Darwinist believers, should not forget an important fact, that evolutionary development will eventually make us a technologically developed being, and hence, one that can create beings whose God we will actually be. That is…. Creationism is a logical continuation of evolution and Darwinism!!!
C. The book Michael recommends sounds interesting to me and I will look for it.
D. (Even though I said three things) Please respond gently.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To my father Blizovsky,
I just hope that at least in your bedroom you pray from the depths of your heart that the topic of evolution will continue to be on the agenda for new mornings.
Otherwise, what will you pour out the fire and brimstone on? About Olmert?
Bye.
my father
I absolutely agree with you. Except for the use of the word "truth". In my humble opinion, anyone who uses the definition of infidels in relation to individuals or groups that deny the "truth" according to the definition, belongs to this group of isms. Nowadays, the range of belonging to this group is very wide. There is no need for special extremism for that.
Kuprimism?
Those who apostatize are those fundamentalists (Christians in this case) who truly apostate and try to impose their religious beliefs on nature.
Michael:
At the head of your words is the word justice. A few sentences later you claim that you personally believe in the same justice. Is this a coincidence? Is therefore your selfish righteousness an absolute true fact or just your private belief. The second assumption seems better to me. So why does it occur to you in the name of justice of your faith to impose it on others in the name of persecuting others. Is this not a contradiction or a manipulative use of a sense of persecution to persecute others. And where did you get from my words in your ruling that I denied you the "choice" in my previous words? Everyone is invited to look and investigate if there is any hint or hint of denying your sacred right to choose.
But things return to the trite claims used by all dark ideologies. who use the claim of self-defense against those who undermine the rights of the innocent public. Those devils as skins who try to wreak havoc on the souls of the rightful children whose names you use. And there have already been things from the past: all the isms such as Nazism, Communism, Primism, etc.
Uncle:
What I said I said rightly.
I equated your claim to a remarkably similar claim.
I read what you said.
A person may do what he wants and even believe, as the religious do, in facts that nature contradicts but:
1. I believe that I must expose their lies to save children from falling into the web of ignorance they weave
2. One of their beliefs (the one behind their attempts to turn the country into a Halacha state where the Halacha governs not only the believers but also those who do not believe and the one behind the modesty observances) is that they should impose their way of life on me. You do say that I am allowed to choose, but you represent a current that does not intend to leave the choice to me at all
Michael
That's what you said!
Whereas I said that faith is an inseparable part of every person without exception, even you. It's almost a law of human nature.
Everyone has the power to choose what they want to believe. And according to this he prefers to give his personal interpretation to his various observations and experiences. Including the things said in this forum by any and all. However, it does not allow him (and as I think you mentioned it) to force someone else to join his faith with him.
Hanan:
The "scientists" to whom your claim is directed do not exist and the simple truth expressed by A. Ben Ner has always been a Ben Ner candle at their feet.
I actually come with complaints to the religious people as I complain about anyone who tries to impose his will on me (his or some idol's) and brainwash my children with lies that I even doubt if he himself believes in them (but if he believes he should leave it as his problem and not to burden others or harm them).
I also complain about anyone who tries to send me to war without enlisting himself and anyone who raises my money to support his unwillingness to use birth control.
Uncle:
It's like saying that those who work and those who rob do exactly the same thing because they both just want to make money.
Each theory attempts to create a single point of view on the interpretation of a collection of factual observations. So that a meaning is obtained that imposes connections and order in a seemingly random collection of facts. The beliefs that have been an integral part of man since his existence are based precisely on this simple logic. That is, there must be order and meaning behind the puzzle of random existence.
Nicely said A. Ben-Ner
It is desirable that science remain in its field and religion/faith remain in their field. Religion should not be involved in science, just as some scientists turn science into religion.
It would also be better if scientists, who are so confident in the knowledge they have gained and the absoluteness of its content, start thinking of scientific theories as theories or approximations and not as absolute truths or "teachings".
Absolutes exist only on paper - reality is more complex and humanity is in its infancy in terms of understanding the complexity of the universe.
Therefore, before we point fingers at the religious people (and I do not blame them and I do not make demands, since everything there originates in pure faith), it is advisable that we examine all the scientists, who treat the information in their possession as absolute truth and sometimes give up research, since they feel mature enough to make statements about based on their feelings. This situation is followed by mental fixation, going "with the flow", fear of raising criticisms, complete refusal to examine findings contrary to the information they know, etc.
The "theory of evolution" (natural selection) is the proper and preferable name to the term "theory of evolution". The term "Torah" is from the field of religion and belief and means "truth
absolute that cannot be contradicted or changed". The term
"Theory", on the other hand, is from the world of science and means "a description of the known facts so far". The basic premise of scientific theory is that advanced research will discover new observations and ideas that may change the theory to one degree or another. Therefore, as long as we are dealing with evolution in science and research In its current form it is a theory and not a doctrine.
D.A. In spite of the foreign origin of the word "theory" its similarity, phonetic and meaningful, to the word "theor" is amazing, and perhaps its origin is actually in Hebrew??? To Avshalom Kor the solutions (solutions or solutions?)
On this occasion, maybe they can also enact a law that will set a more rational value for pie?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
I liked the last sentence 🙂
In relation to the last sentence in the article (which is less optimistic than the article itself, which on the whole reports positive progress although not yet at the end of the road literally) I suggest you read Kohut's book "White Book".
It is about a person who is tired of obeying all kinds of laws all the time and he decided to choose a "victim" law and break it.
The law he chose is the law of attraction (gravitation).
An entertaining book
Well, at least that.