Comprehensive coverage

About creationism and the common people

Roi Cezana's lecture at the "Threats to Science and Reason" evening of the Hidan site, held in Hamada, 2/11/2011

Roy Cezana. Photo: Avi Blizovsky
Roy Cezana. Photo: Avi Blizovsky

I studied at Reali Hebrew in Haifa.

I don't know what other schools are like, but Harieli is a private school that emphasizes competitiveness and excellence. This is a school where the children decide at an early age - completely by themselves, and without too much push from the teachers - that one is going to be a cardiologist, another will be a lawyer specializing in real estate, and another will be an outstanding musician and spend most of his time abroad. And in each third, everyone receives the certificates and compares with each other to see who is closest to realizing the dream.

I was a little different. It's hard for me to say that I had a definite dream that I studied for. I think the common definition for me was 'the simple'. Well, let's go. Believe it or not, but life as a simple person is much more interesting than that of a smart person. Smart people always know they are smart, and worse - they know that everyone expects them to always be smart. The smart people hesitate before raising their hand in class and asking a clarifying question. It is very difficult for the wise to speak in public, because they know that everyone expects them to say only words of wisdom. And if they didn't know how to answer a question from the audience? Then they will no longer be wise. And in the most difficult cases, the sages stop asking the questions even deep in their hearts. Ordinary people don't have this problem. We can ask everything we want, with the clear knowledge that in the best case we will learn something new, and in the worst case that everyone already knows the answer - our situation will not be different from what it is today.

I've grown a lot since school, if not in height then in age, and I'd like to think I'm still a simple person, which is why I still allow myself to ask stupid questions. One such question came to my mind when I entered the science site for the first time. The first article I read was about the spread of the creationism movement, and about the fact that more and more people stop believing in evolution. This was an article written out of real heartache. And all the time I was reading, one question kept popping into my head:

So what?

And I really ask: so what? What will happen if people believe in creationism and not evolution? Has the denial of evolution ever hurt anyone? Made someone sick or injured? A quick check on the web reveals that the only person who has died because of belief in creationism is Rudy Boa, a creationist who at the age of 28 went on a trip to Australia, went into a bar and started arguing with people about creationism versus evolution. One of the believers in evolution got angry, and Rudy Boa violently returned his soul to the Creator a few minutes later. Every death is tragic, but as mentioned, I found only one such case, which means that belief in creation kills fewer people than asteroid impacts.

So what is really the great harm of creationism? Who cares about the content that you and I believe in?

And the answer is that it does not bother anyone, as long as it is clear to everyone that it is only faith, and not science.

To explain to you what I mean, I want to tell you where creationism as we know it came from. The term creationism was coined only towards the end of the 19th century. Apparently, this is a paradox: after all, until that time the vast majority of people, including the greatest scientists, were duplicitous creationists. They believed in what is written in the Bible about the creation of the world and in the church dogmas that stated that the age of the world is only 6,000 years, plus or minus a few hundred years.

So what happened at the end of the 19th century that caused the term 'creativity' to come into vogue? At that time, the theory of evolution was put forward, and began to receive beautiful confirmations from other types of science. Humans began to understand that the age of the world is closer to a few billion years than to thousands of years and that all animals can be traced back to one ancestor... and that man cannot be treated as more than an 'elevated' animal. Smarter, more creative and more able than any other animal to express his thoughts and feelings, but still part of the natural world.

The theory of evolution continued and received more and more proofs from the different types of science: from geology, physics and astronomy which made it clear to us that there was more than enough time on the face of the earth for the evolution of living things; from chemistry, which helped us understand the structure of DNA and decipher the way in which it stores the information that dictates the shape of the organism - and the way in which it undergoes mutations; Even mathematics provided complicated models that described the way in which the population is affected by natural selection. Evolution gradually became a stronger, more stable and more established theory. The Christian biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky already said that "nothing in biology makes sense without the light shed on it by evolution".

What else? As evolution became more established, the creationist movement became a more defiant and vocal counter movement. And worse, if in the beginning it was known as a religious tendency and nothing else, then today it tries to present itself under the guise of 'intelligent design', and pretend to be science in its own right.

And this is a real problem. Science requires detailed and serious explanations for every process in nature, and requires us to provide such explanations before supporting a particular theory. The theory of evolution provides such explanations. Many times they are partial, fragmented and followed by questions for which we still do not have an answer. And that's perfectly fine. No one expects us to be able to chart the entire evolutionary development of the horse over the past millions of years. It is enough for us to have discovered a number of representative fossils to understand that there was indeed such a development, from a dog-like creature to the horse of today, or from an animal that looks like a large otter to the blue whale. And if they still ask us how we are sure, we will also add evidence from the DNA trees. 

But if you ask the creationists how they explain the existence of such fossils, they will explain to you that God put them in the ground to test us. Why? Because that's how God wanted it.

That's it.

I already told you that I am a simple person, and as such I like to ask questions. And the trouble is that at the heart of creationism is the assumption that no more questions need to be asked. That what was - God - is also what will be. That what he wants, is what will be. You can separate the creationists into different groups, more extreme and less extreme, and this will still be their final answer to the question of evolution. There are even enlightened creationists who accept the fact of evolution - but claim that there is a divine intention behind it. Well, we will ask them: what is this intention? Increase the complexity of living things? But we know that fish that undergo an evolution that adapts them to life in caves, lose their eyes. bring about the creation of man? So why were the Neanderthals and all other human-like species created? Creationists have no other answer to these questions except, in the end, "because that's how God willed it."

This is not a satisfactory answer for me, and it cannot be satisfactory for anyone who continues to ask questions. And that is why today's pseudo-scientific creationism, the one that tries to claim that it is just as reliable as science, is so dangerous. It tries to replace the scientific explanations, which answer so many questions, with only one answer:

how? God did.

Why? God knows.

Some? One of our Gods.

Creationism replaces the human knowledge accumulated through the labor of many generations, in one word. A word that is used by the teachers in the religious schools and sometimes also the secular ones, and that the simple children accept it reluctantly, because they are not taught that more complex answers can be given. Then, when the simple children realize that this answer - God - is all they will get, they adopt it for themselves and it becomes for them the source of wisdom. And they become wise in their own eyes, and abandon the questions. And when these children grow up, they will no longer dare to ask questions and wonder beyond the answer they already have in their hands.

Because they know that as long as they have God, they are wise.

65 תגובות

  1. "Unfortunately, we all know that many of the answers given to them are only good guesses. "

    It is inconceivable that this wonderful code was created without intention. "

    Two sentences hold my opinion that you didn't really try to be interested and deepen, but only to close your ears.
    Look, I've already discussed these issues with quite a few creationists, I've never talked to them about the existence of God, my only argument is that it is possible to explain a variety of processes and phenomena that seem infinitely complex without the intervention of God, within the framework of the laws of mathematics and physics, which in general are tools based on the laws that exist in the world .
    I prefer to go with the interpretation that a rainbow is a refraction of light hitting water drops, rather than a covenant between man and God (which you would think is true if it weren't for people who have tested the phenomenon themselves) and it is clear to me that it is still a covenant and that it has nothing to do with how the phenomenon really occurs.

    And please don't claim what is acceptable and what is not, personally I prefer to hear what is acceptable from a person who has studied the subject for 40 years, and also his answer can always be taken with a limited guarantee (the degree of guarantee depends on the articles, and other theories, etc.).

  2. "At most you were able to understand like a drop from the sea the laws of nature that the Creator enacted"

    A drop from the sea? Maybe..
    However, a person can afford to sit back and be proud of what he has managed to understand so far, this is a reason for celebration.

    Are you claiming that an intelligent designer is responsible for the creation of the universe, and is the one who created the very mechanisms that man is trying to understand? Maybe!
    The question is how did this planner come about? Isn't this an obvious question?
    Science cannot rule out the existence of God, it can account for the plausibility of an intelligent planner, but certainly not rule it out completely.
    In any case, whether he was an intelligent planner or not, it is my right to try to understand and delve deeper into those mechanisms he created, not only are they interesting, they contribute to my personal life, technology and medicine and so on..
    The problem arises that people who did it discovered serious contradictions with the Tanakh..
    As the species develop in an evolutionary way, and were not created as they are.

    I don't understand why God creates species and then exterminates them, but I don't get into such questions, God's ways are hidden, aren't they?

  3. melody.
    I open any encyclopedia I want without any hindrance. Usually the Hebrew or the accessible Wikipedia.

    The DNA mechanism is conclusive proof of the reality of a planner. It is a complex system of the genetic code. It includes the instructions necessary to build the cell components. It is inconceivable that this wonderful code was created without intention. Science just discovered this code. Science knows how to explain and analyze its components. But science does not deny the fact that this code is designed like any other code in the world. If simple codes were designed by a planner then such a complex code of all life histories depends on it all the more!

    All your questions about bacteria and whales and skulls are absolutely fascinating and interesting to me. But unfortunately, we all know that many of the answers given to them are only good guesses. We have no clear knowledge of what happened during the creation of that whale. As one who is clear that there is a guiding hand in creation, I will give you my own opinion that the Creator of the world was present for bacteria to develop resistance against antibiotics. why? To signal to you that everything is in his hands and not yours. Just an opinion. On the monkey skull, a legend tells you that it is an extinct species like many extinct species.

    You have to understand. Explanations that science gives to phenomena in nature have nothing to do with denying the Creator. At most you got to understand like a drop from the sea the laws of nature that the Creator enacted. Or sometimes you gave an explanation that many years later turned out to be wrong.

    I looked at all the so-called proofs that atheists claim to show that there is a contradiction between reality and theology. I discovered a great ignorance of atheists that only strengthened my reliance on the Tanakh. That's how it is when you see that the atheist weapon is terribly weak. For example the verse Even my hand founded the earth and my right hand nurtured the heavens. The atheists wanted to prove from this that the Bible believes that the earth has foundations. Anyone with a brain understands that the Bible is speaking metaphorically and it is not about foundations at all. And the evidence that everyone agrees that God has no hands and neither right nor left. After all, it is an explicit Bible, and to whom shall I compare it? Or because the person will not see me and live. And in particular, there is an explicit verse in Job that says explicitly that the earth has no foundations, as it is said, the earth hangs on its reins. Do you understand? The country depends on nothing. And in general the Bible is full of metaphors and those atheists make a serious salad that every child in a religious school understands that their claims are really childish.

    You will know that most of the world is not with the atheists for one major reason. Atheists think that in the explanations that scientists give to the laws of nature or phenomena, then you have denied the Creator or, in the worst case, you do not need his reality. However, most of the world believes that these nice explanations only strengthen and reveal the wisdom of the planner.

  4. And Naor, when did the fact that the earth is round become a fact?
    From time immemorial because it was stated in your book (and I am not going into detail about the period in which it was written)?
    Since Aristotle calculated the circumference of the earth?
    Since we flew into space and then saw the earth?

  5. enlightened
    You write: "Evolution is not accepted by most of the world as it is against logic."

    Can you elaborate?

  6. If you have a question then you open an encyclopedia?
    I would appreciate it if you could open your encyclopedia to the entry "Adam" and share with me what was said there.
    In addition, I would be happy if you could look at the entry: "Rainbow" and explain to me a little about the phenomenon.

    And I disagree with you that there is zero chance at all, if you read a little and tried to understand, you would learn that through a mechanism like DNA and the whole issue of genes, this is indeed possible.
    And by the way, by understanding this system, they were able to overcome the problem that arose when bacteria developed resistance to antibiotics.
    Can you explain to me why a whale has the remains of legs?
    Can you explain to me what the skulls of these monkeys are that were found here in a cave near the Sea of ​​Galilee and do not fit the name contemporary monkey?
    Can you explain to me why a certain type of fish has remnants of eyes even though they are blind and spend their lives in a dark cave?
    Can you explain about the creation of new dogs and how this is possible?

    There are many other phenomena that require an explanation, where should I find explanations for these phenomena?

    And yes, there are contradictions in your book, Michael Rothschild presented here a list of things that are written in your book and do not correspond to reality, I prefer not to go into it.. If you want, I will still try to find his response.

  7. Avi. As you think I wrote nonsense, so I also think about your comment. Your behavior does not show openness but fanaticism.

    Grace. That people don't fall off the ball is a fact. Common sense does not argue with facts. To state that evolution is unintentional is not a fact and can be argued with. incidentally. The Jews knew that the world was round more than 2000 years ago, as this appears in the Mishnah (Tractise Avoda Zerah) and the Midrash (in Midbar Parashat Neshua) about Alexander the Great.

    Richard Dawkins believes that in the span of billions of years, evolution can be explained without involving God. without requiring any guiding hand. I and all the religious and many of the secular and the majority of the world disagree on him because this is a zero chance if at all.
    I definitely believe like Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham in his book God Plays with Dice.

    Stop thinking you have more curiosity than me and people like me. This is misplaced arrogance. And arrogance never has a place.

    The Bible is not a book that should provide me with information about nature. When I have a question I open books like an encyclopedia. incidentally. I understand from your words that you found some contradiction between the Bible and the reality in nature. Please share this with me as I am not aware of this.

  8. enlightened
    Against logic?
    Can you define for me what logic is?
    I promise you that if you had come to me 5000 years ago and told me that the world is round, I would have thought you were an irrational lunatic (if the world is round then how come we don't fall?).

    And just so you know, evolution is indeed a field in which our logic "works", unlike quantum mechanics for example.
    I recommend you read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

    The problem with people like you is that the subject simply does not interest them, you have no instinct for inquiry and your self-thinking is suppressed.
    As soon as you would start asking some questions about nature, you would realize that the dog does not provide you with the answers.
    And what would you do? Trying to study nature and answer the questions yourself or forget about the question you asked and move on to other pursuits?

    Have you ever asked yourself a question about nature?
    If so, I'd love for you to share..

  9. Enlightened, we heard, we understood, you turn belief into fact. You spoke your mind in two articles about evolution. If you keep shelling you risk getting blocked. Nonsense that is said a hundred times does not become the truth, it only causes annoyance.

  10. Evolution is not accepted by most of the world as it is against logic. Intelligent design is not science, it is a fact! Common sense does not tolerate the possibility of life without a purpose. The scientists who ignore the planner can continue to ignore him and that is their problem. But they should not be surprised because most of the world also ignores them. You know we try to be thinking people. Titles of any kind do not impress most of the world.

  11. withering:
    I will continue your response to Eyal,
    If religion does not provide morality, where does morality come from?
    If morality is universal, why do questions of ethics arise? How can they be solved?
    Where does humanism derive its legitimacy from?
    Religion may not be the answer to all these questions, but is there another factor on which morality can be based?

  12. Siko,
    I started to write you a response that got longer and longer to answer all your questions, but after reading your response to the end it became clear what you really wanted to say here. It is evident that your understanding of evolution is not only close to zero but is even negative because you use distortions that have nothing to do with evolution. The only reason you use them is probably because you bought them from places that claim to "explain" evolution when not only do they not understand the subject (which in itself indicates a very poor moral level) they also do it out of a predetermined agenda that requires them to distort reality To the point of actual lies.
    In light of your incorrect references to evolution that the scent of their origin carries far away, I recommend that you ask your questions without determining in the same breath what evolution says or does not say.
    What you wrote at the end of your comment makes it clear that you are not at all interested in hearing what science has to say on the subject. All in all, you wanted to tell us about your religious belief that you just dropped from your memory for a moment some clearly immoral things that that religion commands and which your religious friends warmly embrace, and this despite the fact that these things are completely contrary to our natural ability to distinguish between good and bad. If the only reason you know that murder is immoral is because it is written in the Torah, if you believe that it is necessary to murder people because of their different sexual orientation (which is of course contrary to the general commandment do not kill which should have turned on a red light for you) then I am sorry that you are proud of such morality and I pity Those weak ones who, in the name of that morality, harm their bodies and souls.
    If the Torah spoke in a language that people could understand, there would be no need for all the strings of interpretations that often include a word and its opposite, depending on the interpretation. But I really don't expect someone who holds the morality of the religion to understand on his own the magnitude of the absurdity that emerges from what you wrote at the end of your comment.

    Il Morg,
    I disagree with you, religion does not provide morality but only specifies how a person should live his life (in a way that is sometimes moral and sometimes clearly not). The only reason you can take from the Torah the moral things in it is because you know from the beginning to differentiate between the moral and immoral things included in it.

  13. To the skeptic: the article you present accepts evolution as a basic fact
    Jacob: Are you Jacob the climate denier talkbackist?

    Siko: The main message from biology, of which evolution is one of the pillars, is: versatility and variation are important for any ecosystem or animal species, when biological variation decreases, the species' chances of extinction increase.

    Therefore the message is that all elements of society and all human races are important. In any case, it is clear that the strongest does not survive, there is no doubt that the T rex was stronger than all the mammals at the end of the Mesozoic...

    In fact, the theory of evolution also explains phenomena of altruism when applied not only to individuals but to groups. A group whose members help each other more is more likely to survive than a group whose members are all sociopaths. Therefore the survival of altruistic individuals will be higher. And that's also what Drouin said for the first time.
    Regarding the Torah, if you try to use it as a geology or biology book, the results are pathetic. An attempt to show that the world has only existed for a few thousand years will encounter countless contradictory evidence. That is why it is better to leave the Torah and the Torah in the PF in the relevant context, morals and how a person should live his life. If they ask me in what frame of mind I should go to work I will quote the thorn of the earth (a tree bears fruit instead of a fruit tree bears fruit) and if they ask me about the relationship between gorillas, chimpanzees, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Hobbits, and the human race today, any reasonable explanation will include evolution

  14. to camila
    You mentioned morality. Is there even a place for morality in the world of evolution?
    After all, the strong survive and man to man and wolf.
    How do you explain the phenomenon that is contrary to the basis of evolution that exists in humans of morality, social justice, equality, kindness, mercy.
    All the above terms are foreign and far from the world of evolution. In evolution there is only benefit, egoism and rapacity towards the weak.
    The Nazis tried to apply the theory of evolution to humans and led to a global catastrophe.
    You are right that a whole world of humane values ​​is ingrained in us from the day we are born, but this is the proof that there is a fundamental contradiction between evolution and what is inside our soul.
    Evolution did not cultivate humane feelings but feelings that we humans call animal.
    Of course you could say that the very fact that these kinds of feelings survived the long process shows that humane feelings have an advantage.
    There are two problems with this claim 1. There is actually nothing wrong with doing something inhumane.
    2. If at a certain moment you will have a certain profit from doing a novel act, you will choose what will give you the immediate profit.
    To sum up, religion about its creation gives man the solid foundation for a humanistic, honest, true world of grace, justice and charity.
    And it should be remembered that on top of the layer of the written Torah there is a layer of oral Torah (we have interpreted and more in-depth explanations of what is written)
    And also that the Torah speaks in a language that humans understand and it refers to humans about 3500 years ago!!

    An example of this is also how we say that the sun rose or set when in fact the sun did not move at all


    Good night

  15. R.H.Y.,

    As you wrote, some of the things that are written in the Bible or expressed by the Sages do agree well with the humanistic (moral) view, but it is required of the person who reads the Bible or the words of the Sages to know from the beginning to distinguish between good and bad, between moral and non-moral, Otherwise he would not know how to distinguish between those things that are in line with humanism and those things that are clearly immoral and represent dark concepts of racism, xenophobia, deviance, contemptuous treatment of women, violence and much more. Therefore, I do not understand why you recommend to the person in front of you to go to sources that are so bad that they will only confuse those who are unable to distinguish between good and bad, and it is clear that those who do know this do not need those sources since this knowledge is already in their possession.

    When you talk about religion in your words, I assume you mean the Jewish religion (what current in the Jewish religion by the way?) but note that when you make it clear that the religion is all based on faith and not on knowledge of proven facts, a difficult problem arises, because what happens when people's beliefs are different Are they incompatible with each other? Is everyone equally right because they believe in a certain reality with complete faith? After all, it's completely absurd, and what about crazy people who imagine they have an imaginary friend telling them what to do? Do they also perceive reality correctly just because they believe it wholeheartedly? And if you don't accept the problematic approach of every faith being equally good, and reality shows us that every religion claims that the truth is found only in it, then it cannot be that the faith alone is sufficient to testify to its relevance to some truth. You were indeed right when you wrote that the occupation of the religious person is to fulfill what is required of him, it is unfortunate when he does it blindly, in the vast majority of cases because he was imprisoned when he was a baby, it is outrageous when he tries to spread and apply his superstitious beliefs to others in his environment. In this last matter, it does not matter if it is a religious Jew, Christian or Muslim, all of them eventually degrade man to a poor form of existence and it does not matter that each representative of these also has some pearls with which he thinks he can make all the rest disappear. If a person chooses to remain ignorant and rely in his life on vain beliefs, that is his full right, to be clear, I have no problem with that (even if I strongly do not recommend it), but to claim that these vain beliefs say something true about the world is nonsense, and in all cases If it can be checked, it turns out that it is nonsense, and in things that cannot be checked, there is no reason to assume that the situation will be different here. And in any case, the very right of a person to hold some evil religion does not give him the right to spread that belief, either by means of plagiarism or even by actual violence and it is a shame that many religious people do not understand this yet.

  16. R.H.Y.:
    Your accusations against science are not true and I wonder if the mistake is due to ignorance or an agenda.
    Those who teach science do not pretend to teach truth. He teaches the best understandings Lennon has today.
    When things are presented in this way - there is no lie in them because these are really the best understandings he has given us today.
    It may also be that some of these understandings are true and will never be disproved or replaced - but the scientist does not know this and therefore does not claim this.
    It is different in relation to religion.
    She claims to teach truth.
    She claims to do this - not only when it is not known whether her words are true or not: she does this even when it is known that they are a lie!
    You can't even compare the things.
    Of course, what is even more troubling than the false claims that the religion teaches as truth, is the horrible morality it teaches, and the fact that you are willing to accept the humanist morality on its face is indeed blessed - but not at all typical (and certainly not typical of the public messengers of the religious and ultra-Orthodox public).
    I have no intention of allowing you personally to be used as a fig leaf for the depraved behavior of entire communities who interpret the religious laws as they are and drive their "full" wagon and run over everyone who walks in the street.

  17. Michael Rothschild:
    You claim that a person who tries to teach others things he does not know is immoral. So, theoretically, science is also immoral! After all, everything we know from science we know inductively, which will never be absolutely certain for us. I know in advance that you will argue that there is no comparison between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge (if indeed it can be called knowledge), since scientific knowledge is at least based on rational tools, while religious knowledge is mainly based on faith.
    The point is for Zeril to understand that religion is not based on knowledge, it is based on faith!
    The religious teacher who stands and tells his religious students about the creation of the world, does so from his inner belief in the correctness of things and from the inner belief of his students. Because of this, not every examination of religion through scientific eyes - rationality will necessarily lead to the same result - religion is a fiction. All religions are based on metaphysics, and therefore a scientific examination of them will make us see them as delusional at best.
    But the religious person does not seek to test his religion with scientific tools - he is based on his inner faith and that is why he continues and maintains his religion. For you this is intellectual dishonesty, as you completely exclude the idea of ​​faith from a scientific worldview. From the point of view of the religious person, there is no dishonesty here since he truly believes in the correctness of the religion.
    Because of this, I think that the gap between the religious view and the scientific view is an unbridgeable gap - science advocates a rational and empirical observation of the world and only it, while the religious view advocates an irrational belief in the existence of the metaphysical. These are two completely opposite approaches in terms of looking at the world, and Wallach is guilty of holding one of them, it is certainly difficult to see the other as possible. Religion indeed advocates to a certain extent (and even to a large extent) the turning off of logic - in listening to the voice of the emotion of faith. All your words express the view that the voice of reason is the only legitimate voice that can be heard, a view that again, when you look at it from the logical point of view, surely only it is legitimate!
    Saying this again, I completely understand why you are unwilling to accept this belief and why you get angry when they try to force it on you. I do not advocate the concept that religion should impose itself on man, and certainly not on the man who does not want it. I also believe that religious educational institutions should teach science without fear, and from education for the concept that a person can see the physical world in a logical light and still believe, on the metaphysical level. Religion should not do this from a place of education for ignorance but from a place of education for knowledge and education. There are broad religious communities where the education is indeed like this (and I ask you in all sincerity, don't exclude me. Check the curricula in the religious schools and you might be surprised). But I think you should also try and respect the position that seems completely contrary to your inner logic. Such is life in a democracy and I really hope that here too there is some kind of democratic discussion culture
    The last Camilla:
    All your words are based on a paragraph I wrote after the words "nonetheless", because as I said, I do not claim that the Bible is a book of morals with moral standards that are relevant today, although in the old days it can undoubtedly be said that these standards were even slightly higher than what is accepted. Nowadays the moral standards are higher, or at least considered higher (even if they are not in practice), and therefore it is difficult to demand a number created in an ancient period to comply with them.
    However, I believe that the religious person is also a modern person (also in the context of my words to Michael) and must take into account the moral standards of today and act according to them. There may certainly be a contradiction between religion and morality, but from experience I think it is possible to argue that this contradiction is not even essential. In any case of a conflict between religion and morality or humanism if you wish, one of the parties can find a certain compromise (in most cases it is religion). The fact that certain religious people reproach her, does not make her entirely unworthy, and certainly the attempt to hang moral acts on her mainly harms her.
    By all means, I meant that a secular person (who does not observe the mitzvot of the Torah) is allowed to take from the Torah ideas that reflect human dignity, such as "prove yourself, prove your fellow man", "you shall not go slandering among your people" or "everyone who whitewashes his friend's face in public is as if his blood was drunk" (which is of course the saying of a sage that I bring for the idea), which fit nicely with the humanistic concept, and we can all produce quite a bit if we pay a little more attention to them.

  18. R.H.Y.,
    You wrote in your response to M.R.: "However, I think that both you and I can learn a thing or two from her regarding moral human behavior, especially regarding human dignity"

    Yes indeed, as long as you are not a woman, a homosexual or a "heathen".
    And including people who need a pocket guide to tell them that it is immoral to lie, steal and even murder, they by definition cannot be moral, at the most it would be possible to say of them (if they obey orders as they say) that they are good at following orders, and then of course the obvious question arises: if these people They don't know how to distinguish between good and bad (because those who do know this don't need to be told) but they follow orders blindly, what will happen when the "representative" of God on duty announces a new commandment (halachic ruling) that, for example, allows the blood of certain people? What will he do with a mindless person who obediently follows orders and who cannot recognize that the order to kill the homosexual is not only immoral in the eyes of any sane person, but it is even immoral in light of what is written most clearly in that pocket guide to morality that his God gave him?

    Re-examining the sentence you wrote, I repeat myself, you are right, indeed a thing or two can be learned about moral human behavior, and that is that the Bible is very flawed and unfortunately there are many religious people even today who use the same notebook as a continuous justification for their immorality.

  19. R.H.Y.:
    A person who tries to teach others things he does not know is not a moral person.
    Therefore, to me, the expression you use "to teach the status of man before God" indicates an immoral role that the religious take upon themselves.
    Humanity has one way to discover new knowledge and that way is the way of science.
    When someone tries to teach someone else, he must know what he is teaching and since the Torah is not a book of science it does not contain knowledge either.
    You claim that it is a divine revelation but you actually don't know it and in fact, you have to make a lot of concessions on logic yourself to get along with this strange claim (and your quibbles testify to this as a thousand witnesses. The words of God are alive - but in fact they are not - only the words of living mediators who can be wrong - so How do we know what God said and what the mediators got wrong? We don't know! But we declare anyway! A total lack of intellectual honesty)
    You are not the only one and in general, belief in the Torah requires turning off logic, at least in those areas in which it expresses its opinion.
    Do you think it's just a coincidence that all the opposition to science comes from religious circles?
    And what about all those delusional people who combine opposition to science, without any shame, even with the claim that all the discoveries of science are already written in the Torah (I wonder when science will discover that the rabbit does in fact give birth and that the Euphrates and the Tigris actually come from a common source)?

    In general - the whole story you are trying to sell about the way the Torah came to us is hidden by what is written in the book of XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX.

    It turns out that all the believers who exist today believe - not because of the Sixty-Five who were claimed to have seen the Mount Sinai stand (and most impressed by the stand cast a golden calf for themselves), but from someone who found some book during the renovation work of the Temple (a book that was apparently nothing more than a governmental trick by Josiah).

  20. Michael Rothschild:
    I wonder how you came to the conclusion that I have delusions of grandeur. This may have something to do with the thesis I am putting forward, which is probably not attractive to you. Well, I will leave it to the reader, whose eyes are in his head, to judge whether I am indeed suffering from delusions of grandeur.
    for my business. You claim that you brought different sources to show, as you say, "that both the Torah and the rest contain nonsense." But that's exactly the point. The religious person does not relate to the words of the sages about the windpipe of the cow as he relates to the words of the Torah about creation in six days. According to the Torah, it gives more importance, because it embodies truth (which is essentially metaphysical, something that a person like you, coming from a naturalistic worldview, cannot accept). If I can fabricate for you the nonsense of the "Torah as a parable" surely I can deal with the claims you make about the words of the Sages, which do not reflect the words of a living God, but simply the scientific perception that prevails in their attack and nothing more.
    I doubt if you understood my words. I argued that the Torah reflects, according to the religious person, a truth that should not be reflected in a physical way, and when it is interpreted in the physical sense, it contains errors and contradictions. No one asks himself if God knows that the rabbit does not rummage or if he does not know, simply because for him the combination "God's knowledge" has no meaning. His occupation is in fulfilling what is required of him, in our case kosher laws, and not in trying to philosophically understand the essence of God (at least not in the halachic context). It is possible that the kosher laws are partly wrong, but this does not indicate a lack of divinity in the Torah, but rather that those people who received the same Torah and interpreted it, interpreted it as the way of mankind, according to the environment in which they lived. This is actually the "price" of the transfer (pay attention to this term, I don't use it for nothing) that humans do from a metaphysical thing to a physical thing.
    Indeed, the Torah is not a science book, because as the late Leibovitch said, "Shekinah did not descend on Mount Sinai to fulfill the function of a physics teacher" (this is not the exact quote). It is also not a particularly good history book, since although not everything that appears in it is historically fiction, most of it is probably not historically correct. And it is also not a very relevant moral book for today, since in an age where the values ​​of humanism dominate, the moral transcendence of the Torah over the values ​​of its time also seems irrelevant (nevertheless, I think that both you and I can learn a thing or two from it concerning moral human behavior, especially in the matter of human dignity ).
    The Torah is a religious book! (You probably think this statement makes your job easier. You are wrong, as it is more complex than any statement I would make about the Torah).
    The phrase "teach faith" is really incorrect. The phrase I should have used is "teach man's position before God", which is more ambiguous than faith. If you knew, even a little, the religious society, you would certainly know that in the schools where the students are taught to use logic no less than in the state schools (see the article on Israel's Thinking Lessons) and I hope that the hint is enough.

  21. R.H.Y.:
    Why does presenting claims that are not the same indicate a misunderstanding of the religion?
    Maybe it was designed precisely to deal with the nonsense you said?
    I deliberately gave examples of different kinds so that you wouldn't make up your usual story that the Torah is a parable and to understand it you have to read the rest and I showed that both the Torah and the rest have nonsense.
    The Torah is not a history book, it is not a science book and it is not a Torah of morality that is truly moral.
    This is my claim - not yours.
    But on this thing which is actually nothing - you base all your beliefs and all your bigotry madness.
    The Torah - according to your belief - is the words of God, but it doesn't bother you that the God who created the whole world does not know that the rabbit he created does not live (and even bases kosher laws on this!).
    The phrase "teach faith" is really funny! What is it exactly? How do you teach someone to believe? By coaxing him to turn off logic?

  22. Oh, I understand, now that the Bible is wrong is actually to show that everyone is wrong, what a masterly use of example, since even the most holy book is wrong!
    Everything is fine now, thanks.

    It's interesting that you noted that this is not your field of interest, I've been noticing lately that you have something to say about almost every scientific field, look at the rabbis' lectures.
    It's a shame that not everyone thinks like you about the Tanach.

  23. Oh, I understand, now that the Bible is wrong is actually to show that everyone is wrong, what a masterly use of example, since even the most holy book is wrong!
    Everything is fine now, thanks.

  24. Michael Rothschild:
    Your words indicate your lack of understanding of religion (which seems strange to me considering that I think you once claimed that you came from a religious home).
    I'll start by saying that you put in one line three claims that are completely different in terms of their status and importance:
    The Torah's claim that the rabbit ruminates can be biologically nonsense, but the Torah is not a biology book and its purpose is not to teach you biology but to teach you religion and faith. The Torah is allowed to err in this area, since the structure of the rabbit is not its area of ​​concern, but kashrut is its area of ​​concern. The same, of course, regarding the six days of creation.
    The sage's words regarding the rabbit's trachea are of course not on the same level as the words of the Torah, and the religious person could easily accept the possibility that they were wrong, since they are not the words of a living God. Even the Torah and certainly the Sages are allowed to make mistakes, certainly when others are dealing with matters that are not their field of business. This does not contradict the divinity of the Torah since the Torah was given to men and spoke in the language of men, and as in the way of men, it too errs.
    I can only wonder why a person chooses the simplistic version of the faith, when he is aware that there is also a deeper and more complex version. I guess this is due to the needs of the attack.

  25. Uzi Yaari:
    What is "faith should not be combined with science".
    Science is not allowed to check the structure and behavior of the rabbit and say that the Torah's claim that it lives is nonsense?
    Science is not allowed to investigate the formation of the universe and discover that the religion's claim about the six days of creation is nonsense?
    Is it forbidden for science to study the anatomy of a cow and discover that the Sage's claim as if her trachea splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, is Abel's claim?
    there's nothing to do!
    Science investigates reality and often its findings conflict with false claims that appear in the Holy Scriptures.
    He doesn't investigate things because of religion but only to discover the reality and if a reality is discovered that contradicts someone's beliefs - that is no reason not to investigate it.
    What else? Every time something like this happens - the believers of the Torah vanity immediately rise up and mix their religion with science.

  26. skeptic:
    Your words are not an expression of skepticism but of dishonesty.
    The new link you brought supports evolution and you are trying to create a presentation as if it refutes it (after all, last time you brought the first link as "proof" that the theory of evolution is wrong).
    What I answered you then is that it does not disprove the theory of evolution but at most the tree structure of human development.
    The lecture you pointed to in the second link shows that even this conclusion is not warranted by the findings.

  27. Uzi, with all due respect, those who mix faith with science are all the religious people who try to sell creationism under the guise of intelligent design as science. If they didn't do this there wouldn't really be a problem and there would be no need to argue.
    The people you mentioned were engaged in fields where evolution has no touch, especially craftsman.

  28. Lagli Weistein,

    I agree with every word you wrote (and I'm not "Mr" but a 'simple' person according to the definition 🙂 )…..

    Zvi Yanai has an excellent writing talent, but as you mentioned, by virtue of being self-taught, he was never exposed to both sides of the coin, but chose for himself what to learn and what to be exposed to.
    This is the big problem of autodidacts. They are not experts in a certain field, but experts in presenting a certain and very narrow line, provided that it corresponds to their private opinion, or the way they chose at random.

    Autodidacts are not exposed to a variety of existing opinions and do not recognize the true scientific method, in which information should be examined objectively and not subjectively. Therefore, they learn only what is convenient for them and filter out what is not convenient for them and does not fall on the same scale with their private opinion.

    Zvi Yanai in this case reminds me of others, who express a firm opinion in areas where they understand nothing or half of anything, or take advantage of their position in order to present a false image, in which they are perceived by the public as experts in various fields. Therefore, I demand from those who present an argument - to present the research information on which they base their arguments. It is easy to advance arguments by making statements and not by research. I have come across this phenomenon many times and these days I am busy preparing to write an article on the subject, which presents and exposes the baseless arguments of senior academics, on subjects they do not understand and/or are completely ignorant of.

  29. Why do you have to constantly mix faith with science? The two things should not meet because they are on two different levels.
    So all the great scientists who won Nobel Prizes (and who didn't) who were and are religious people, are they idiots? Was Professor Isaiah Leibovitz a jerk? Was the Rambam a jerk? Is Israel an idiot? Stop dividing tags according to the size of the dome on the head. By the way, a very interesting book by a rabbi who is also a doctor (in physics, I think) was published recently, in which he presents a very interesting and well-reasoned thesis that evolution requires belief in one form or another of creation. It is highly recommended to read and even if you do not agree with what is written, it opens your mind to a different and refreshing point of view on the whole matter.

  30. Asaf, when you say "evolution is a fact" do you mean:

    a) The claim that species can vary slightly
    b) The claim that species can change until a completely new creature is obtained

    The first claim is indeed factual. It is enough to look at people and see that there is a difference between one and the other. The second claim is only theoretical, and is accompanied by the belief that a lot of A means B.

    From a logical point of view, claim B can be contradicted or confirmed - given a car that replicates and changes (has a mechanism for introducing changes and making dna) is it possible to gradually reach an airplane? If not, then it is not possible to get from creature A to creature B. If so, it is necessary to demonstrate how.

    Either way, please don't fall into the trap.

  31. xianghua,

    Really only you were missing here. The coffee is a new thing, but you forgot to mention the fish that is more like people than fish.

  32. Hello Michael and friends,
    Some time ago I presented this article

    You answered me that it does not disprove evolution but only sheds additional light on the evolution of man (the tree of development is a little different from what we thought in the past).

    Well I found this video
    And here he says something completely different.

    So which one of you is right?

  33. Asaf:
    Chinguo is a well-known troll and should not be taken too seriously.
    If you try to argue with him, you will find that he himself will never address your words, but will only take advantage of the very fact that you answered to continue trolling.

    In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the phrase "theory of evolution" which means - exactly as you said - the Torah that explains the process of evolution.
    The disqualification of the expression is equivalent to the disqualification of the expression "quantum theory".
    After all, quanta are also a fact, but this is not a reason to reject the phrase "quantum theory"

  34. to xianghu
    Evolution is a fact or if you will a process, like the fact that the ball is round,
    Like the fact that there is gravity, like the fact that the sun is a star and around it there are satellites - planets,
    Like the fact that water freezes into ice and mercury is a metal despite its appearance as a liquid,
    They are all facts and there are attempts to explain all the facts with assumptions and theories,
    So are the theories that try to explain the process called evolution,
    A process that by virtue of its existence is a fact.
    Many of my truths "sin" when they say "the theory of evolution" because one must say the Torah or the theory
    which explain the process we call evolution,
    The theory that explains the existence of the fact

  35. Camilla, evolution is not a scientific fact but a theory. In order for evolution to be considered possible, it must provide an empirical explanation of how a coffee-making mechanism (a human) could be created through a natural process.

    If you repeat a claim like "evolution is a fact" many times, it doesn't suddenly make it true.

  36. Oh Iran, you are like that in DLD 🙂

    There is no need to believe in evolution, evolution is a scientific fact. Belief is required when you don't know anything, in science the basic unit of belief is called for example an axiom (in mathematics) or a postulate (in physics). In general, facts must be recognized and accepted.

    A scientific theory or theory is a model that comes to describe and explain a variety of known phenomena and facts. By definition, a scientific theory cannot be proven, therefore the strength of a theory is measured mainly by the degree of confirmation it receives (from other facts that are added over time and the ability to predict results using the same model). In this respect, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution (which is based on the fact of the process of evolution) are equal in terms of their truth, although in my opinion the theory of evolution has received many more and much more impressive confirmations than other theories/theories.

    There is no meaning in saying that by and large you believe in evolution (the Torah) because it is the best explanation as of this moment for a wide variety of phenomena related to the living world, including the question of the variety of species, the similarity they present and the question of their origin. Of course, if you manage to provide a better alternative explanation, the entire scientific world will cheer you on. As of this moment, no such explanation has been offered, therefore if you believe in evolution only "in general" then you are exactly the type of people Assaf was talking about - that is, in DLD. You are of course welcome to try to show us that you are not in DLD after all and offer a serious alternative, one that can give at least as good an explanation to the questions that the theory of evolution has already provided an explanation for. If you find it too difficult for you, you are welcome to start asking questions from those who know the subject a little better than you, in this way you will increase the chances that you will really learn something and save yourself and us the unpleasantness of exposing your ignorance in public.

  37. Eran,

    Where does the determination and confidence with which you express yourself come from? Who told you that a work of sex was not demonstrated?
    You get a creation of mutations + selection that result in a variation of a hand or a leg as you say, right? So now imagine what you said happening 1000 times and a million times. Do you think the offspring will remain the same species as its ancestor?

    Regarding what you said - "I am still waiting for the simple evolution in the world of the human body to a composite food that it has been eating for almost 10000 years (wheat, etc.)."
    So as you know:
    1) Until 40 years ago, evolution was not by order (precisely because it is random and not planned!) but today we can do what you suggest in BH.
    2) For ethical and moral reasons, genetic experiments to improve humans are prohibited, so you will have to keep waiting.

  38. R.H

    Evolution has a theory that it is mutations + selection

    A mutation can explain a variation of a hand, maybe a different leg or eye....but a completely different species???? A completely different functioning sex that is even better?? ... it has not yet been proven or demonstrated ... until it happens ... even the evolution in which I broadly believe cannot be considered as anything more than a theory.\

    I'm still waiting for the world's simplest evolution of the human body to composite food that it has been eating for almost 10000 years (wheat, etc.)

  39. If we add to the words of Rothschild and Assaf, then there are many who have lost their minds to their religion. The E in "deat" means the eye-the sense organ that sees. The religious believer uproots God from the "religion" and remains with the "religion" as he walks around blind and is forced to face reality as a drunkard in the dark. That's exactly why they say "blind faith". By faith I mean accepting claims as truth and fact without any support of evidence or any scientific substantiation and anchoring. I believe that.... as a claim about reality without a reference only from faith this is stupidity.
    That is why Isaiah Leibovitz, who was wise and understood the immanent stupidity in religion, made intellectual loops and eights so that he could continue to hold on to the Jewish religion and remained almost alone in his view without having the opportunity to create broad or significant support for his path. This is how the people remain divided between the believers of their kinds and types and the rest....
    And Lahanan: creationism must indeed be refuted by presenting facts and scientific information against the claims of vanity and lies, but it is indeed possible to divide the population into two - roughly and with many exceptions, of course. There is a light side and there is a dark side. Certainly so. The dark ones insist on maintaining lifestyles, behavior as well as views in accordance with what was determined by people who lived about two thousand years ago and this with the piety and meticulousness that they have from the mentally disturbed. Even worse, their faith leads them to self-deception with the absurd argument that the lifestyles they obsessively follow were determined and dictated by "God" that imaginary creature that exists with certainty only between the two ears of the true believer. And when you put this "God" into the equation, you get extremism, fanaticism and in general a variety of disorders that can be seen in the reality of life. I will add and emphasize that it is clear to me that "not all of them". Indeed, not everyone who is afflicted with the faith virus necessarily reveals the severe symptoms, but he is infected and suspected and the burden of proof is on him. In other words, many believers and religious people remained human despite their faith and religion and not because of it.

  40. Mr. Sabat,
    Some of your words about Zvi Yanai are true, so I would expect them not to construct a lecture in the style of his articles...
    Although Zvi Yanai has an unusual writing talent.
    And who did Zvi Yanai mean when he said "the common man"? Maybe for himself?

  41. The very fact that creationism is made entirely of a mixture of inventions, half-truths and nonsense, still does not give anyone the right to classify humanity into "simple people" and "smart" people.

    Wisdom does not depend on institutionalized cultural capital, such as diplomas and academic degrees, but depends on cultural capital in general.

    In my lifetime I had the privilege of knowing many people who had very high academic degrees and at the same time, were completely ignorant of subjects they did not know, but used their position more than once to promote their personal opinions and beliefs, with the help of hiding behind their academic degrees. Recently we have seen several examples of Nobel laureates using their status to promote political agendas from both the right and the left.

    Zvi Yanai is a classic example of an autodidact, who knows a lot but remains completely ignorant in many other areas. What always amazes me is that Mr. Yanai allows himself to express himself arrogantly and presumptuously in areas in which he does not understand at all, under the guise of knowledge and wisdom... sometimes silence is better, so as not to reveal the ignorance.

    There are religious professors (like the late Isaiah Leibovich and others) whose very personal religious belief does not make them less wise or ignorant and idiots - as some try to present. These are people who know how to separate religion and belief, from scientific research and science.

    Often, I find the opposite situation - where scientists turn science itself into a religion and behave like a religious sect for everything.

    I suggest that instead of attacking the religious and spreading vague slanderous statements, try to focus on the issue itself and not focus on the religious and believers in general.

    The refutation of the arguments of creationism is done by presenting the facts in front of the false and imaginary information and not by trying to present the population as a collection consisting of smart people and the opposite of stupid and ignorant people, when the distinction is clear - a professor is always smart, honest, a genius and that the truth is all his and in front of him - the ordinary citizen , the ignorant, the evil and the dark, whose world is full of demons and spirits.

    We are no longer in the Middle Ages and the time has come for those who sit in the academic ivory tower, or who think that they are all in the world of supreme wisdom (like Mr. Yanai) and the absolute truth is all theirs, to start taking a beam from their eyes....

  42. Asaf:
    Align power!
    I will memorize the phrase "having an opinion without an opinion" because it seems concise and accurate to me.
    I will do so even though I'm afraid most of the people creating the problem are not able to understand it at all.

  43. The collection of comments from opinionated people without opinion reinforces the problem presented by Roy,
    So are the various polls,
    These also point to the ignorance and stupidity
    that take over every good part of our surroundings.

  44. to anonymous,
    "In general, it is impossible to know what happened, if there was a creation of the world 6000 years ago or millions of years ago, it's all theories"
    You are wrong in a big way and I would be happy to explain if you would just make it clear to me how you came to this conclusion?

  45. It can be seen in another way. Every action has a reaction.

    About 20 years ago Fukuyama wrote "The End of History" which predicted, following the fall of the communist bloc, the world becoming more democratic and liberal.

    Wrote - then wrote. In reality, fundamentalism washes over large parts of the world, and it is enough to see what is happening in Israel.

    Creationists are indeed religious in disguise. Religion is probably an internal need of a certain percentage of the population, and it will not matter what the other side, the secular, writes or says. The balance between the two sides will be maintained.

    And finally - a story.

    One day a flying saucer from the star Vega lands in Rabin square. Little green people, wearing helmets, come out of it.

    Yair Lapid goes to interview the leader of the extraterrestrials, who declares his desire for peace with the people of Earth.

    "Say," asks Yair, "everyone in Vega is that small?"

    "Yes" answers the outsider. "The tallest are 80 centimeters".

    "And are they all so green?" Researcher Yair.

    "Not so much" answers the outsider, "we just caught color on the way from the sun".

    "And everyone has these hats on?" Maksha Yair.

    "No," the alien answers, "only for the religious among us."

    To teach you rehabilitation as usual.

  46. Science deals with fossils, skeletons, etc. Otherwise, in theory, without the need to test the hypotheses in the field, any nonsense can be considered true.

  47. The scientists' attacks on the creationists are ridiculous. It is true that science has revealed a lot to us about the world, but the scientists hold no less delusional paradigms, and they are not exactly the epitome of logic. The big bang, for example, is a creationist theory, and the theory of relativity contains logical contradictions from here to the edge of the galaxy.

    Students are educated on the knees of faith in scientists from previous generations. Challenging or questioning the accepted paradigm is dangerous and leads to ostracism, just like in the religious community.

  48. It is absolutely impossible to know what happened, if there was a world creation 6000 years ago or millions of years ago, it's all theories, there are those who believe in evolution, there are in the Torah, there are Scientologists whose beliefs are really amusing to hear and like them there are many more theories..., most people don't simply ask what and why, they are satisfied with life The simple ones because it's less painful mentally, the mind multiplies with worries, and I testify to that.
    The agenda in Israel is not for research, it's a shame, and if you want science to be at the top again, you have to "inform" the population about its existence!
    Recently, to my great regret, I learned that most high schools prepare for a theoretical matriculation only... It seems that the trend of scientific and technological education is declining...

  49. The intelligence of creation - or intelligence as evolution?
    Can any of you give an explanation of how the thought (understanding) developed?
    Without messing with fossils, skeletons and other scraps!

  50. Eran,

    Evolution has an excellent answer to the questions you raised, it is called mutations + selection.

  51. The big problem is, in my opinion, that there is a separation here between two completely different methods of thinking

    Creationism as its name does not ask questions

    Evolution only asks questions all the time and doubts.

    While creationism has never been proven, evolution can be demonstrated on a living being at the level of the virus...the simplest example of this is the AIDS virus that has adapted or the virus we all know from the matter what vaccine is invented for the flu, every year several new strains are created in an amazing way.

    The problem of evolution..the problem that creationism "seemingly solved" is why is all this happening??

    It's okay, there is a whale that creates a landmass for its name..but what starts it all....what made a monkey suddenly become a human??? What caused the creation of more complex unicellular forms??
    Our creation of course says that it is divine power

    Evolution to this day has no sufficient reason...perhaps it will never have such an answer either.

  52. The biggest danger is the takeover of the public discourse by those who don't ask and don't want to know.
    The funniest thing is that the guest rooms have televisions, computers and more. Just "don't forget to mention"
    Hypocrisy in her name.
    The lecture was excellent

  53. Such a joint producer is also a great Shlomiel, why should he produce ostriches with wings that do not know how to fly. Ovulation explains it well - that they could fly but with their weight, it was not worthwhile and therefore they lost the ability to fly. Your planner can only explain everything in words because that's how God wanted it. This is not an answer and it suppresses any scientific thought. This is the biggest danger of your taking over the public discourse.

  54. I would conclude by saying: there is no direct or real harm to its owners in the amount of "creationists", but there is a very worrying symbol/sign in the phenomenon regarding the culture or the society in which we live.

  55. anonymous,

    It is true that similarity can point to a common manufacturer. However, in contrast to cars, in biological creatures there is a mechanism of replication, mutations and selection, and in short, evolution. So there is no reason to assume a manufacturer.
    In addition do you claim in light of what you say that there are multiple producers according to the similitude in the animal world? Bird producer and fish producer?

  56. Avi, first of all, DNA sequence comparisons are at the limit of only 300 thousand years. So it is not really possible to extract dna from fossils of the ancient leviathan or the evolution of the horse. Which limits the whole thing to modern fossils only.

    Regarding the similarity between the organisms: cars of the same manufacturer are sometimes very similar. So similarity can indicate a common manufacturer.

  57. Besides the series of fossils there are also DNA tests and many types of tests that allow us to know about relationships between different species of animals, why did God have to create the chimpanzee so that it is genetically 96% similar to Red?
    And besides, creationism and intelligent design were the same, the whole idea was to compare the idea to a seemingly scientific idea in order to introduce it into science classes in schools.
    And besides, the division for the young earth is not between creationists and believers in intelligent design, but within the lateral movement.

  58. where the debate about intelligent planning. It must be understood that intelligent planning does not advocate a young world, it is creationism. Intelligent design only claims that certain systems in nature were not created gradually but all at once.

    Regarding the evolution of the horse and the leviathan-

    The dog-like creature at the bottom of the evolutionary tree is not necessarily related to the horse family. It is apparently a completely different creature. But even if it is a horse, it is still an example of evolution at the species level. Even today there are horses of different sizes. This does not prove that they evolved from each other. In addition, some of those horses lived side by side at the same time.

    As for the Leviathan, the matter is completely different. Fossils show that it only takes a few million years to convert a terrestrial creature into a real leviathan. First is the incredible rate of mutations, which mathematical models disprove. Second, rank can also be found in beautifully designed objects. For example: if we find a car in a low layer, a car with wings in a medium layer and an airplane in the upper layer, it is not claimed that they developed from each other but were designed at different times. And this conclusion is valid even if they were replicated and made of DNA.

  59. Roi's lecture was in the style of Zvi Yanai's famous articles from Thoughts of the XNUMXs: "Einstein and the Simple Man on Time" and "The Time Plight of the Simple Man". Zvi Yanai writes: "Thoughts" reviews in this issue the main points of Einstein's theory of special relativity and raises some of the questions that its conclusions raise in the heart of the common man. Long conversations we had with well-known Israeli physicists will not settle the questions."
    But in Roy's lecture there is confusion between the sages and the common man. If you read Zvi Yanai's articles then "the common man is far from convinced, the explanation sounds to his ears as proof from an unproven proof". But even the wise can answer the exact same definition if a professor explains something to them. There is no contradiction between being smart and being a simple person. With Zvi Yanai there is a simple man and there is a learned man (the professor), who explains the theory of relativity to the simple man and does not convince him of many strange things. And that is the correct distinction.
    A religious person can also be wise and can also be a simple person. The difference between him and the secular is that he believes in God as the answer to every question and therefore he tends to be a creator.

  60. Let's assume for a moment that this article does explain well why many people do not accept evolution, but it is unable to explain why they do accept intelligent design. Who said it was "either this - or this"?

    How can one develop a scientific theory on the way of negation?

  61. As long as it's not creationist academic studies at university, and as long as biologists don't start to stop studying evolution, what do you care. That the child raised by stupid parents will grow up stupid. If he finds it appropriate to learn and understand, he will already do so.

    All this resistance doesn't add up to much. In any case, those who don't want to hear don't hear.

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.