Says Prof. Yoel Rak, an expert on human anatomy and evolution at Tel Aviv University, about the positions of the chief scientist at the Ministry of Education according to which evolution is a religion. "We are getting defeated". added
"Formally, all we do as scientists is desperate attempts to disprove this theory and the more we are defeated in this task, the more we respect the theory. Call it a religion? I don't understand how he calls himself a scientist or how he crowns himself with a title. scientist. The man apparently does not understand what is a scientific theory and what is a religion and confuses these two things." This is what Prof. Yoel Rek, who was accepted as a member of the National Academy of Sciences about a year ago, is a professor of human anatomy and evolution and teaches at the Sackler Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University. He is one of the most prominent and leading researchers in the field of the study of the beginning of man and is considered the authoritative bar in Israel in this field, but his status and publication span the world.
In the last twenty years, the professor has only been involved in fieldwork in the Ash region in northern Ethiopia and in the Neanderthal sites in Israel: Nahal Amud Caves, Pigeon Cave and Kabara Cave. The fossils he helped to find help reconstruct the story of human evolution and sketch the complicated geometry of the tree of development of the entire family.
His initial reaction on Dr. Avital's words published this morning in Haaretz newspaper, was: "Terrible and terrible".
"I just don't understand how a person who calls himself a scientist can talk like that about evolution in such a blatant way. If there is a debate about the weather and cooling or warming, although even in this area the consensus is becoming established, his claims about evolution are simply complete nonsense. It is a proven fact as far as scientific facts can be proven. To call evolution a religion is simply a joke." Prof. Rek says.
What do textbooks look like today?
"The truth is that a principle so important and comprehensive as a scientific phenomenon, it is almost totally ignored in the textbooks. You can talk to the old people about complicated problems in mathematics and even about physics. The problem begins to hurt those people when there is such a clear conflict between what is written in the Bible and what they were educated and what the facts say. There is no place more prominent and distinct than this than, for example, the matter of the origin of man.
"Even Wallace, Darwin's partner, actually agreed that evolution really affected the entire animal world, but he didn't agree to include man there. Even all the assumptions that are trying to give us that maybe in your book it is a metaphor, all kinds of tricks of all kinds will not help a believing person. Such a person will in no way cross the line and agree with Darwin that the appearance of man in the universe is by chance and without any intention and without any purpose. This is something that even the previous Pope (John Paul II) who agreed to make great concessions to us regarding evolution, I am not comfortable with his position because I knew that if I asked him if he knew that man was created without a purpose and without a purpose, only then would I be able to determine that he agrees with evolution."
How does the scientific community agree with this deficiency in the textbooks?
Prof. Rek: "We have an organization called Bashar, I try to spread the Torah as much as possible, I lecture in many places, I have never refused lectures for biology or high school teachers or events like that. Politically, I think a lot of us raised our hands.
Like a historian would argue with a holocaust denier
As for debates with clerics, I think that the general political situation is such that we are getting defeated. We grumble on Fridays. That is clear. As a child, I received a much better education in science and biology than today." The big dilemma is whether to confront such people. It was said that me and the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education will be called to a TV show, it's like the historian arguing with a Holocaust denier. You give the denier a platform, you feel humiliated and ashamed in general in this position and he, as far as he is concerned, achieves a great achievement by raising his claims to the same level."
It should be noted that we requested the response of the Ministry of Education but have not yet received it, it was published in one of the following articles in the series starting with this letter following these anti-scientific statements.
It turns out that the topic first came up on a blog called The Black Butterfly Effect
93 תגובות
"Such a person will in no way cross the line and agree with Darwin that the appearance of man in the universe is accidental and without any intention and without any purpose."
This is exactly the religious claim, thanks for the illustration.
Intention and purpose are not scientific matters, they are metaphysical matters. Science cannot claim something that has no intention and purpose.
"Case" on the other hand is a word with several meanings, can be interpreted as a statistical case, then it is really a scientific concept, and can be interpreted as a result that happened without a deliberate intention, then the concept is not scientific but philosophical.
Joel only you know?
Joel, are you the only one who is smart?
Joel, only you are perfect?
Only Joel will blow our minds.
Only Yoel locks his head.
Only Yoel is really exalted.
Joel, please, Joel, just stop and downplay the idle gossips.
Yoel please Yoel just to disconnect from his patrons who own the wallet.
Joel please Joel just to leave us and just disappear like dust.
"In Ethiopia he found a bone and it confuses our minds to this very day, because his whole identity was built from this bone" or in other words, take away the Ethiopian bone and you are left with "only" (or in full spelling - "empty")
Did you read today's interview in Maariv's Mosafshat with the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education? - the one who rejects evolution and the opinion that warming is affected by human actions. The best part is that he says that scientists receive financial support to help interested parties, but he takes the same view that scientists are supported.
My father already responded to his words from about five months ago - in the above article and Assaf also responded
https://www.hayadan.org.il/return-to-inquisition-2202102
Maybe you should send a response article to the opinion section in Ma'ariv and thus also do PR for Iden.
Eran,
There is a much more important difference between religion and science:
Religion says: we already know the absolute unchangeable truth, and there is no need to try to check our truth against reality - it is true and that's it.
Science is much more modest, it does not pretend to know the truth, but strives to know it. It is constantly changing according to reality and new discoveries and understandings.
He does not close his eyes in the face of contradictions as religion does with great talent.
In the test of the results - religion did not contribute anything to the understanding of the world around us, and it is only thanks to science that we advance and deepen human knowledge.
"Gravity explains the motion of the stars in the universe, but it cannot explain who set them in motion in the first place. God governs all these things and knows what he will do or what he can do." (Isaac Newton)
"I think the idea of a personal God is childish. You can call me an agnostic, but I do not share the fighting spirit of the atheists, whose enthusiasm stems mainly from the painful act of releasing the shackles of the religious preaching they received in their youth." (Albert Einstein)
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more significant than the fact that a drunk person is happier than a sober person. (George Bernard Shaw)
Faith does not dislodge mountains, but places them in places where there are no mountains at all. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
The true knowledge of God is that man recognizes that he is unable to know God. (Rambom)
Those who have culture, art and science also have religion. Those who do not have culture, art and science have only religion.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Where is God? Where they let him enter. - Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzek
Dear Sirs, you are neither the first nor the last to deal with the problem of God, but in the end - God will forgive me, this is his role - everything is repentance!!! Just be human.
-
Maybe not everyone will agree with me, by the way I agree with the claims in the article
And the explanations are complicated and I won't repeat things that have already been said
but
A fundamental difference between religion and science, beyond the root of the word which also indicates the abysmal difference
Religion answers the "why?" questions, science answers the "how?" questions. In the world, questions of why they are lacking have any practical meaning, for example - even if we know why we have two hands, it will not help us improve their performance, or prevent diseases that impair their function.
Science is a completely different business, science tries to check how things work, how!, what causes what causes why.... Science always occupies a small part of the chain, makes an assumption on an experimental basis and confirms the continuation on an experimental basis
There is no experiment that will confirm God 1-0, there is an experiment that will say - evolution - 1-0, as long as the experiment agrees with the theory there is no problem in drawing practical conclusions about that theory - like evolution for example.
Therefore
Science and religion should not be placed on the same level, these are completely separate things
Or - advice to anyone who wants to invent a new religion - do not combine it with science (theories of creation have been shattered for a long time), it changes, while religion does not.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1152752.html
Chest:
There was nothing in your words that required the understanding of the reader and they only testified to a misunderstanding of their writer
Reverse evolution:
I have already given the answer to your words.
An ant is not made up of a dinosaur, a bacterium is not made up of a man and neither is a cockroach, but both the bacteria and the cockroaches will last long after man.
By the way - a stone is even less sophisticated than both the bacteria and the cockroach and it was here before them and will survive after them.
Evolution - as I said - is something that takes place in a necessary manner (from mathematical considerations) as soon as there is an entity that reproduces itself (consciously or unconsciously) with the probability of small changes and using limited resources.
Therefore - from the moment such a being was created - evolution is guaranteed to take place and it will never turn out the most complex/sophisticated but the one with the highest survival capacity.
A bat or a rat or a cave fish with eyes that don't work properly are less sophisticated/complex than their sighted ancestors but they survived because they were better suited to the habitat they were moved to.
Reverse evolution has occurred in nature many times and it doesn't matter how many times you claim the opposite.
You yourself expressed the fear that the person will destroy himself.
Regardless of the reward you want to give him for it - how does that fit with that will that supposedly controls everything? What is psychic? Does he not understand that he brought the person to such a situation?
Man will not betray the world because the world is not someone that can be betrayed.
If man disappears - the world will continue without even knowing about it.
The same goes for the other animals, as mentioned - most of them have already disappeared and among them are much more sophisticated forms of life than those that exist today.
"Once you stop looking at the world as complex, it will seem simpler to you" - a quote from some Russian writer.
Michael
From your answer in number 79
It turns out she didn't understand...
Thank you for the patience Michael.
Indeed, Professor Yoel just caught me and with him the pardon.
Refinement in our case = complexity. Every description I know of the development is from simple to complex systems. It is true that if I have to give a grade to a product, then a product that gives the same product/effects with fewer ingredients without sacrificing efficiency [usually fewer parts = more resistance to faults] will receive a higher grade. For this matter, refinement is sophistication, but that is not what I meant by the comment. And again to the point - the scale of development as I have learned places man as the pinnacle of the perfection of complex systems and he is the only one as far as I understand who has awareness and that the unplanned existence starts from the level of the individual and continues in local tribal groups up to the level of the nation. In all the systems that the dinosaurs had, they were less complex, less adapted to the environment and less survivable than the current world of biology. This is despite the fact that some of them were bigger. I still think that placing man as the top of the pyramid is correct even after neutralizing the natural bias of pride.
And since we have come this far, the picture of the world in which I live is of a continuous line of perfection. Even if I accept your description, Michael, in your response #81, the formation, the survival instinct, is a mystery. While the most likely solution in the equation of a physical world that constantly works for the entropy/erosion of complexity is the disintegration or dissolution of the complex.
I identify all of the above not with 'personality' but with desire. Yes, the world that has been perfected behind us seems goal-oriented even though it [the goal] has disappeared from us.
If we betray the world in the form of the extinction of perfection and harmony [in the end there are signs that the thinking person is also talented enough to destroy himself] because in this way we will be the ultimate candidates for the reverse evolution award.
Reverse evolution:
First of all - what needs to happen in order for you to write the professor Yoel only in his correct title and name and you will not call him Dr Yoel got up?
Nature is not a continuum of perfection. What is perfection anyway? There are bacteria in nature that are much less "sophisticated" than us and they will survive even after us. What in a dinosaur is less sophisticated than Benmela? There is no refinement as a direction if the word refinement is defined at all. What does happen is that in the beginning there is the culture of species and from a certain stage onwards there is a gradual replacement of species by others.
When you look at a specific creature - there are also developments in the opposite direction (reverse evolution) such as the loss of the ability to see in certain animals (having nothing to do with humans) or the loss of the ability to fly in others.
Evolution is a law of nature in which there is no need for will.
In fact, this is a phenomenon whose roots can be proven mathematically, and therefore it is also used in artificial environments such as computers. We build an artificial environment and make sure that the ability to survive in it is combined with some benefit for us and let the system run by itself.
Now - don't start telling me that we are tying survival to the artificial environment we have created, this is exactly the desire you are talking about because in nature there is no one who has this desire - here survival is conditional on obtaining food and the other elements necessary for survival and reproduction and it is not connected to anyone's goal.
To the honorable Michael Rothschild.
The view of Dr. Yoel Kam, which is presented as a binding interpretation of the belief in the theory of evolution, is clearly explained in the article. Yoel believes that I - it has been proven that the world [mainly biological] consists of a system of connections. II - From this it follows that this system was created historically by way of cause and possibility/cause and effect whose creative power is survival/natural selection III - As we know the animal system cannot plan itself in advance and therefore we must conclude that everything is random.
And although the chronological historical scale of the formation of species from each other as described by evolution seems to me to be the correct solution for describing the formation of biological diversity, I do not agree with the conclusion of the nan, regarding the randomness.
Your words regarding the "scratching" indicate exactly the difficulty. I mean that despite the inherent randomness and despite the easiest solution to an existential predicament is annihilation, nature is nevertheless an endless continuum of refinement. Yes, there is no reverse evolution [apart from man-made, the creation that breaks the tie] and the result is 4 or 16 billion-0. We are constantly being perfected, constantly developing. In all immodesty I think that the very fact that we are communicating right now is a peak of perfection [even if we would do it face to face without the mediation of the computer, the fruit of human development].
And hence I assume that the phenomenon of life must have a variable of "will" without which there would be no progress. I am sorry for my inability to understand this element and its origin, but I cannot ignore its existence. Annie is obliged to all the interpretations that the religious people assumed from a similar view of the universe, but the nonsense that many of them spoke is not a reason to give up the parameter of desire as a necessity to explain the system.
At least for me, the desire that gave birth to existence is the opposite of coincidence.
So you claim.
What do I care.
And these little gods have left hands and almost all their palm creatures are extinct.
And they make creature A mutations designed to help it fight creature B and creature B mutations that will help it fight back.
In short - stupid gods.
Michael,
You play her "little brain"…
If you didn't understand,
I argue that there are many degrees of "God",
And those who do the intentional mutations are "God" of a slightly higher rank "than the scientists in the cloning laboratories (here on Earth) who are also considered a low rank of "God"...
Hope you understand...
Of course, Chazi!
He is not interested in us as human beings, but he does bother to do the mutation in the DNA of a poor bacterium that will become extinct in a year!
He also does the mutations in humans without being interested in them and their results.
Tell me - what is the difference between this and complete randomness?
And tell me more - when a person detonates a nuclear bomb and the radiation from it creates mutations in animals - are these mutations also made by God?
And what about the mutations we intentionally cause in genetic engineering? Are they also carried out by him?
Reverse evolution:
Please stop plastering.
You wrote "the firm assertion that it points to randomness" and talked about evolution, so please - don't suddenly get caught up in a completely different topic.
There is randomness in nature and this is not a result of the theory of evolution. Are you an unbeliever in quantum theory? Do you disbelieve in its influence on evolution?
When Joel only said that man appeared by chance and without any purpose - he meant that man's existence has no purpose - this is also the context of the word chance. When someone crosses the road and is killed by accident - it does not mean that he was killed for no reason, but that he was killed without a purpose.
There is nothing factual on which you disagree with Yoel, only all your claims stem from your misinterpretation of the intent of his words - a misinterpretation which, as mentioned - seems to me to be intentional.
Response to Michael 57
Sarcasm won't help...
As I rule out the possibility of "random evolution"
This is how I deny the religion of "One God",
And I claim that in a universe billions of light years in size,
The great God doesn't mess with humans on earth at all...
Michael, I don't remember which article it was. I'm rummaging through the archives here and in the meantime I haven't found it.
thanks for your help
To dear Michael Rothschild.
The sentence I quoted says, "The emergence of man is by chance..." and case has the same meaning as random, even though the word random has an Aramaic origin and a root, 'happened', from which the word case-Hebrew is derived.
I'll keep my lack of understanding of the concept of scalding to my clothes.
My aim is to say that the existence of evolution as a process does not point to randomness but to a method. This means that the dynamics revealed to my eyes of a world that is constantly being perfected, includes diversity and complexity. Together with the biological world within it there is an endless process of evolution=development=desire to exist. All of these that, in terms of the biological world, constitute a sequence of hundreds of millions of years with 0 mistakes, and I mean to say that the progress bar of refinement and complexity has not stopped and brought us this far. All of this presents us with a challenge in the form of the equation desire = possessor of desire.
And in short, even if I do not know how to connect the desires to a "purpose" and even if the owner of the desire disappears, this does not diminish my admiration for the Christian nor my diagnosis that evolution was preceded/impelled by desire.
An addition to the links that Michael presented in response #70. A nice article from PLoS Biology about selection and evolution of robots
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000292
In the puppet:
In my opinion, the political way is the only way that will help in the end.
This society - in fact their way of life and their beliefs - prove that logic is neutralized in them and therefore logical reasoning will not work.
Here on the website we are fighting a collective war for the opinion of the babies who were captured, but let's not delude ourselves that we can achieve a significant change in this way - even if it is carried out on prime time television.
The strengthening of the black forces is mainly based on natural multiplication (and another one that we finance).
Slowing down this natural reproduction (through cutting funding - both child allowances and unemployment payments) will help a little, but even it - if it comes - will come too late (because most of the sane ones didn't wake up in time).
The only way in which, in my opinion, anything can still be saved is through the enactment of a constitution that separates religion and state.
In this way - even if we do not overcome the demographic problem - a situation will arise in which the ultra-Orthodox will have to stop sucking the hand of the state and start sharing in the burden of its defense and economy.
That way at least we won't fall a ripe village into the hands of the Palestinians.
The demographic problem may or may not be resolved in the end, but its results will be much less devastating (and it is a fact that the USA - thanks to the separation of religion from the state - manages to maintain its sanity despite its religious majority).
Rotem:
If you vote on the article it will be possible to give you a more detailed answer.
In general, I assume according to your words that this is the adoption of the mathematical principle discovered in evolution to solve a technological problem.
You can find a description of this idea, for example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
There are many examples.
One of the interesting ones is an automatic scientist developed at Cornell University:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/eureqa
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
Another example is software that plays chess:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
Reverse evolution:
If you check in the dictionary you will see that aimless is not interpreted there as random.
so professor Yoel only (who are not Dr. Kam) did not talk about randomness.
What to do that this is the Hebrew language and the words in it have meaning?
And in terms of content - do you rebel against the claim that things have no purpose?
A purpose is a goal and to set a goal there needs to be someone to set it and strive for it.
Who is that someone, in your opinion, and in what ways does he work to achieve the goal?
Regarding your claim about the phrase "everything gets messed up" - were you really unable to link it with the rest of the sentence that explains it?
It also does not belong to optimism because optimism talks about the future of existing things and in my words I was talking about the past of a non-existent being.
In short - it seems to me that you tend to bend the meaning of words and in fact it is not even clear to me what you are trying to achieve by doing so.
To dear Michael Rothschild
As mentioned in your response #41, I checked again both myself and my reading skills. Below are excerpts from Dr. Kam's words in the article, "Such a person will not cross the line and agree with Darwin that the appearance of man in the universe is accidental and without any purpose." If your words are aimed at the linguistic difference, according to which random is an Aramaic root and case is a Hebrew root, you are right. But it is not by chance that the meaning [and not just the phonetics] is the same, so my essential argument is correct. And since, as mentioned, our only goal is the truth, let us confess it.
I also saw your comment #57 and I was surprised. I only know you through this keyboard, but you appear to me to be an optimistic being who is connected to a pleasant world. So when you're away from me, "everything is falling apart" why nothing good came out? You're stupid AKP for letting a moment of nonsense by a committee of fools cloud your spirit there is also satisfaction.
And for all the flamers - everything is connected, this is a fact that is agreed upon by everyone [today - once upon a time the tendency of the religious was that the connection was only behind the scenes. And now it is agreed that it is visible to examine from the simple germs to man] Everything is complex and requires investigation, this is also agreed. The investigation of biology constantly adds amazing and fascinating surprises to us and sometimes also useful, this is a fact. So let's enjoy the process and continue the work. And not to forget Purim is coming up. A pleasant day and enjoyable research for all.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ucsb-researchers-discover-the-dawn-of-animal-vision-2310072/
This is a link that Michael Rothschild pasted in response #26
Liair-
Are you willing to link me to the simplest visual system? I am confident that it is also quite complex. And homology is not evidence of common origin. Just as wheels on a car and an airplane are not evidence of their common origin.
You said - "The inextricable complexity is not a problem at all, on the contrary, it actually makes it possible to add another small piece of evidence to the thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence for the correctness of evolution" - in my opinion, this is not accurate. Evolutionists work day and night to disprove this claim. If you find a light system based on receptors only, This will be strong evidence for your words.
To Bio 58 and the other followers of Bihi,
The carotenoids, the basic pigment of vision is found from bacteria and algae to mammals and humans. In this space there are many structures of light sensing and vision, and contrary to what Bio suggests in 58, it is about all levels of discrimination, from light sensing, through structures of photoreceptors, photoreceptor surfaces, depressions, vesicles, (without lenses), protrusions to complex eyes (insects) and "eyes" camera" in mammals and other animals. And not so long ago it was also discovered that the regulatory genes for the eyes in flies and mammals and everything in between, are the same.
And the microcosm, which probably used to be bioinformatics,
The inextricable complexity is not a problem at all, on the contrary, it makes it possible to add another small piece of evidence to the thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence for the correctness of evolution.
The clock and the other tools that man builds have an inextricable complexity in them, since they were built in the "in order" method, meaning purposefully, in order to be used for a specific use. That's why when you take out a part of them they don't work.
In contrast, the living organisms were created by processes "because", that is, changing systems of coincidences operated at different times and caused the materials of the world to connect to biological molecules, and these connected because of the changing conditions to living beings, without any purpose.
You can chop down a tree to the ground and it will come back and grow, you can send a boy to war and he will come back with 4 limbs amputated and live many more years and give birth.
You can remove genes from bacteria and they will live and divide, and you can replace them with genes and they will live differently depending on the changing conditions.
Living beings are not inextricable complexities like a clock, since they were created and developed in countless building processes of molecule upon molecule, organ by organ, by organ, each time changing due to changing conditions. Because of the way the organisms are formed, a certain damage to them does not prevent their continued existence and functioning.
The fact that bacteria, viruses and yeast contain genes and proteins found in mammals even though the complexity of the mammal is enormous compared to the complexity of the bacteria.
The same principles of eye development are true for all molecules and all organs of organisms, even if today it is not always possible to show how exactly the formation process was.
The evolutionophobes attack the points that have not yet been clarified and ignore the countless processes that are well explained.
And it wouldn't hurt to add a comment about the "there is no chance" theory.
Anyone who wonders how biological molecules could have been created, better relax,
and ask himself if there is a chance that much simpler structures will be formed, for example a hydrogen atom. There is a chance? Has anyone ever seen such a formation? And the other atoms of the elements? Much simpler than biological molecules.
There is no chance that they will be formed, unless the necessary and sufficient conditions for their formation are met. It happened, the physical theories explain these issues well. And that's exactly what happened with biological molecules. When the necessary conditions were created, they were created, just like the hydrogen atom, against all the sophisticated calculations of the evolutionophobes.
I read here in one of the articles about the theory of evolution, following it/its influence/right, we built mathematical models, which allowed us to send satellites, into geosynchronous orbit, etc. Is there an explanation for laymen how exactly it goes?
This is an argument I like to use in my arguments with believers, but I don't know exactly what it means...
You have to confront them. With Amnon Yitzhak and everyone! If I had the courage I would invite that "rabbi" to an open televised confrontation.
We need a scientist with a sharpened desk who is well versed not only in evolution but also in Judaism and history, but one who knows how to formulate complex ideas (nothing to do is science) in a simple and sharp way, maybe even demagogic, otherwise we will continue to lose the fight.
Today there is also a tendency among the secular to be lenient towards religion, when if you confront them it is almost always on the political and not the ideological level. The religious are felt on the ground everywhere at intersections in the media and also in the education system. I know many secularists who doubt evolution even though they have no problem with physics, chemistry or any other science.
You sometimes get the feeling that religion is the accepted opinion and a kind of consensus that should not be disputed - it should be disputed and confronted as much as possible! And not to always look for "unity" and "closeness of hearts" which is a code name for why you don't put on a tefillin?
For Microcosm (60):
I attest to myself as one of those who "don't even come close to understanding the nitty-gritty of the problem of inextricable complexity."
Would you be willing to explain the problem to me and my brain? In particular, I would be interested in knowing when a complex becomes a non-discharge.
microcosm:
Read again.
Maybe in the end you will understand.
probably not.
Regardless of whether you agree with Avital's words or not, the fact that species of beech have evolved from other species is not in doubt, what is more, there are empirical signs of this even today.
But what the Darwinists are trying to do is to appropriate evolution, that is, to sell along with the split of the species the speculative idea that the whole process is based on random mutations. never happened and never existed. There is no organ that has been proven to have arisen as a result of random mutations, so proving the existence of evolution is not proof of the most fundamental basis of Darwinian theory.
Prof. Bihi, as well as Dr. Lee Saftner and others, do not rule out the split of the species, but raise very serious doubts about the theory of randomness. As suggested by Mr. Rothschild, the readers are invited to read the response of the followers of evolution who try to refute the problem of inextricable complexity, and to prove that the intellectual level of the "refutations" is a kindergarten level. The examples given there (such as the bridge and the shark's immune system) are simply an insult to intelligence. It clearly seems that the followers of the Darwinist theory do not even come close to understanding the inextricable complexity problem, what's more, their rude insults to Prof. Behe raise the suspicion that they certainly feel they have reason to be threatened.
There is no doubt that the world of religion has recently achieved tremendous success in its terrible and magnificent mitzvah war against secularism and science. Not only has the theory of religion been defeating the theory of evolution that confronts it for about 175 years, but only recently has it been proven that the widespread and slandered secular disease known as homosexuality, well, this disease, does not exist at all among the believers of the religion because it protects its believers in the face of trouble Homosexuality (mercifully).
Liair-
You said "but a great abundance of living beings that have different degrees of development of the sensory-light-vision system indicate that even at primary levels of development each molecule and each developmental stage has a function that is beneficial to creation" - not accurate in my opinion. What they discovered is that there is a relatively primitive light-dark sensory system. However, the problem is that even at the minimal level of sensing light and darkness, several components are required - a light receptor, an optic nerve and a light and dark decoding mechanism. And it turns out that my claim (and Bihi's claim) is absolutely correct.
Chest:
How is it that everything goes wrong for her - near this target - and most of the species that ever directed their formation became extinct?
And how was this directed hand created - in your opinion?
By the way - is it a right hand or a left hand (according to the fact that everything breaks down - maybe these are actually two left hands?)
Dr. Avital from the Ministry of Education is absolutely right!!!
In our synagogue we pray every Saturday morning for evolution and...
Prophetess - Darwin.
You can upgrade him, Dr. Avital, and appoint him the chief scientist of...
Ministry of Religions.
Lisa:
You said that we should discuss "what are the standards by which we weigh the study material".
I agree with this and I presented my yardstick that in the field of science is - as a principle - apart from explicit teaching of the philosophy of science - demonstrating this philosophy by teaching science in a way that upholds its conclusions.
You said that it should be required (before the correctness of the theory being taught) that the study supports the "development of ways of thinking, enrichment of problem-solving ability, exposure to new concepts, etc....".
I assume that when you talked about "developing ways of thinking" you meant developing ways of thinking and not developing unfounded beliefs.
I assume that when you talked about the ability to solve problems, you meant the ability to solve problems and not the ability to cover up problems.
I assume that when you talked about exposure to new concepts, you meant new concepts that mean something and not concepts that no one is willing to define (like the Creator) because their very definition exposes them to criticism.
Therefore - meeting your criteria will quite satisfy me as well.
But evolution has no competitor that meets these criteria.
There is no doubt that evolution is true.
which is not true,
that evolution happened "by itself" in a random way,
And not by deliberate reason...
To Mr. Roschild (52):
Please tell me what are my criteria?
Lisa:
You still haven't addressed my proposal regarding the "scientific" theories that compete with evolution.
In my responses I explained exactly why these theories do not meet your own criteria.
To Mr. Roschild (50):
I would be happy to respond to any suggestion (if my responses were not tracked, this would make it much easier for me to respond).
Well, my argument is that when it comes to considering what to teach in school, the correctness of a theory is not the only criterion by which the thing should be considered. Note that I am not claiming that there is no criterion according to which the matter should be considered, but that the considerations are different.
In your offer:
"Alternative mathematics in which one plus one equals three and at the same time they will learn an infinite number of alternative mathematics of their types (when they are classified according to the results they give to the various calculation exercises) and also additional mathematics in which they will explain why the number of these mathematics is not infinite."
It must be considered if it meets the standards you set for including the theory in the study material.
Well to sum up:
My argument is that we should discuss "what are the criteria by which we consider the study material" (where the main argument is that the correctness of a theory is not one of the main criteria)
Lisa:
Why don't you consider my suggestion that they teach all the proofs for creationism and only one percent of the proofs for evolution?
Newton's physics - despite the fact that in certain orders of magnitude it no longer gives accurate predictions and therefore there are correct physical theories from it - is an example of a rational procedure of scientific research and drawing conclusions.
Creationism, extraterrestrialism, and other shameful things are not like that.
I have already presented my position on this issue many times.
In my opinion - if there is a subject that should be studied in schools before any other scientific subject - it is the philosophy of science.
Without understanding the scientific procedure - the only procedure that humans have to investigate reality - people leave school without knowing the meaning of the word "to know" and without understanding that there is an abysmal difference between evolution and creationism and as a result they demand to give them an equal platform.
Since I don't pray to the god of the site, it seems that my comments have started to be tracked.
I can only regret it and withdraw from the discussion.
And on that occasion it is desirable that they also learn alternative mathematics in which one plus one equals three and at the same time learn an infinite number of alternative mathematics of their types (when they are classified according to the results they give to the various calculation exercises) and additional mathematics in which they explain why the number of these mathematics is not infinite.
As I mentioned before, when high school physics is taught, Newton's laws of motion are taught.
These laws are wrong. There are now theories that describe the movement of particles more precisely.
When you teach theory, you don't do it just because the theory is correct, but because of the added value - developing ways of thinking, enriching the ability to solve problems, exposure to new concepts, etc...
In fact, the correctness of a theory (whatever the definition of this correctness is) should be a minimal consideration in deciding what to teach students in schools.
Lisa:
Indeed, the law of evolution is no different.
It is necessary to give a hundred lessons on evolution in order to bring about one percent of the confirmations for this Torah and one free lesson on creationism in which they will bring כל The confirmations for this Torah.
If this is the chief scientist, it is better to close the country and drown in the sea.
To Mr. Roschild (41):
"You want them to study it (the New Testament) in the right context and not as the truth."
You are absolutely right. The law of evolution is no different.
Show me one religion in the world that doesn't claim to be the only truly contagious one.
Show me one religion in the world that doesn't claim that all the others "carry the car".
to his heart,
Your evolutionophobia stems (besides religiosity) from a lack of study of good sources, and reliance on sources of the type of Professor Bihi.
Your response 38 shows that you have learned nothing real about evolution. A claim of the same kind is common in connection with the eye. Allegedly until there was no complete eye there was no value to its parts. But a great abundance of living creatures that have different degrees of development of the sensory-light-visual system indicate that even at primary levels of development each molecule and each developmental stage has a function that is beneficial to the creature. It was the same with the development of the circulatory system.
Reverse evolution:
Before you offer points for thought I offer you a point to read.
Where did you find the word "randomness" in the words of Yoel Rak?
You set yourself a goal - to define him as a priest of some religion - and then you came up with the reasons for it.
freedom:
Indeed - this is how religions are defined. Therefore, you would also define someone who screams when he sees his car being stolen or even when he is murdered as religious.
I explained - and you make sure to ignore the things - that when an honest/rational person sees that they are lying - it upsets him because his "religion" is adherence to the truth.
I understand that you do not share this religion.
Bio:
Tell me: are you a broken turntable? Do you only write and not read?
Lisa:
This avoidance is really bothersome.
You are playing with words when you say you want them to learn the New Testament.
You want them to teach it in the right context and not as the truth.
Do you want the description of the Holocaust to be presented as one of the interpretations of what happened and at the same time - as another legitimate interpretation - the denial of the Holocaust to be presented?
Lemiso(39):
I really like your proposal. I was very interested in studying the New Testament, the Koran and the Buddhist scriptures at school.
Such a curriculum illuminates each of the religions in a completely different light. You can learn a lot about human nature from these stories which once, before the development of science, were an explanation for natural phenomena that today science understands better.
LIZA, I wonder: would you like to see the state education system in Israel teach, in addition to the Bible, the New Testament, the Koran and the Buddhist scriptures as alternative options?
"Them" molecule synthesis system had to appear simultaneously, and not gradually. Otherwise we would get a biologically meaningless molecule.
Regarding the experiment - a laboratory experiment should be offered. Does anyone have any suggestions?
The most important thing: All the best to Prof. the researchers in the fields of science, including evolution and everything that has been studied, without them science would not have reached where it has reached and the loss is all ours.
The debate here demonstrates why the theory of evolution is treated as a religion.
People take it personally and use their personal interpretation to attack those who disagree.
This is how religions work.
If only the theory was logically structured like mathematics. No one would argue that the authenticity of the claims could be proven or contradicted. But it is a vague collection of interpretations very far from comparing it with an exact science like physics or mathematics.
The worst for professors who have studied for decades and in the end it will turn out that they are not at all sure that evolution is true. I just said it based on Prof.'s words only that it was mentioned in the title...
Precisely because I agree with the statement/perception that the image of the world/universe as far as it is accessible in front of us is an evolutionary world picture. This is precisely why I am appalled by Prof. Yoel Rak's reaction. I did not find a connection between the clear statements regarding evolution being a winning theory with a huge amplitude of expressions in biology, the cape, and the fossil remains. There is no good interpretation. But what is the connection between these and the firm assertion that it points to randomness. Such ideological determinations alienate many from the world of science and mark its priests [the priests of science] as self-interested religious priests. In the end, the priests of all kinds, including Yoel, only make a living from the profession. In contrast to them, Mr. Gabi Avital, his scientific profession up to the Ministry of Education turned scientific theories into practices that yielded products [for his employers at Elbit], therefore he sounds trustworthy. On the other hand, Yoel just sounds like he's in a hurry to justify his publications before turning off the faucet of the public's research grants.
There will probably be those who will see these things as an insult. So please find a reasonable motive for stating that the existence of evolution proves arbitrariness.
For 30 try to look directly at the sun for 5 minutes - obviously you will fail - if you want you can conclude that there is
Things at a higher level than our abilities to follow and understand, beyond our comprehension!?
So he said. There is evidence for the gradual development of all the systems that creationists claim are inextricable. We are the product of 4 billion years of evolution, of which 600 million years as multicellular organisms. From the trillions and trillions of animals that changed in each species until we reached man, a huge number of mechanisms could be created that gradually evolved.
Bio:
If you read what is written in the links I provided on the subject, you will see that it was resolved a long time ago.
I assume, however, that this is of no interest to you and no rational solution will exempt us from irrational responses.
Michael Beehee believes, as far as I know, in common descent (if I'm not mistaken, he wrote this in his book "Darwin's Black Box"). But he claims that certain systems in the body cannot be the product of a gradual process, since several proteins are required for their functioning. Synthesis of the "hem" molecule, for example, is carried out by 8 different proteins, and if 2-3 of them are missing, the "hem" molecule will not be produced, which will cause the death of the organism. Hence, 5-6 proteins critical to its production must have appeared at the same time. Seems zero, especially in light of this scientific research -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
I would be happy if someone could enlighten me and solve this serious problem.
And in addition, regarding the experiment - is there a controlled experiment in the laboratory, capable of refuting the theory of evolution? I would love to hear about one...
Year:
I guess you understand what I mean, but I want to reiterate:
The rational people adhere to truth as a value and not as a claim.
Their claims change as they learn.
The religious cling to the claim and present it (misrepresentation) as if it were the truth.
What Michael 23 says about devotion to the truth of the rational is the most interesting statement. Because as you remember, the religious in all religions also claim that the one truth was revealed to them and there is no other. The perception of truth is probably anchored in the depths of the human soul.
gift,
To strengthen your words, please add: donkey, cow monkey..
Indeed, a response to the matter
Some data for those who tried to imply about experiments in evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/#comment-54992
https://www.hayadan.org.il/men-speed-evolution20202083/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231164743.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ucsb-researchers-discover-the-dawn-of-animal-vision-2310072/
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/#comment-54921
And this is something especially interesting because it is a religious site:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p15.htm
Ami,
Religion claims to know the absolute truth, and it is untestable and unverifiable.
Religion does not renew itself and does not change - maximum - the interpretation of that holy book changes
Science is much more modest, it claims a process of constant exploration of the truth, with constant testing, confirmations and refutations, constant changes, and we never pretend to know the whole truth.
This is not a problem at all, on the contrary - it is the great advantage (and also the great difference) compared to religion.
There is no analogy between religion and science, these are two complete opposites.
At 20, don't be a dinosaur who knows everything - there are nonsense from which you can gain intelligence - and if you knew everything, you would be alive
Live forever!
Those who have not heard of Michael Behey are invited to read about his nonsense here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe
And here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
To find everything that is said about him on the second site, use the Search option at the bottom and enter the word Behe
Ami:
Religion is indeed a set of rules, but it refers to rules of behavior.
Evolution is not a religion just as mechanics, gravitation or electromagnetism, which are also made up of laws, are not religions.
Rational people get excited when someone tries to put lies on the same level as the truth.
In this sense, rational people are indeed similar to religious people, but their religion - the law of behavior that guides them is adherence to the truth.
And it must be emphasized: adherence to truth is not necessarily adherence to this or that theory, but to truth for its own sake.
Whoever adheres to the truth - even if until a minute ago he believed that theory X represented it in a certain field, then if it is proven that theory Y is more true than X, he will change his belief without hesitation.
Or. Have you heard of Professor Michael Behe by any chance?
The term religion or non-religion is a bit arbitrary and the point actually tends to be that evolution is indeed religion = law. It is a very accepted scientific discipline that takes on characteristics that remind us of familiar religions. For example, the respected professor here whose resolute opposition is so emotional as if it were the sanctity of God at the very least. Or the almost uncompromising suppression of everything that is anti-evolutionary in the academic circles of the world - this is also a type of fanatical behavior, isn't it?
In science, they try to ask a question and do a test to answer it. All this under the laws of science. It is a closed system that takes into account uncompromising truths in the physical-chemical-biological world. The problem is that all those truths are fleeting thoughts of generations of scientists who are constantly sharpening and replacing theories with other - better ones. What this means is that today's theories are likely to be incorrect in the future. And that means that apparently this emotionality that sanctifies the holy of holies - evolution - and the great prophet Darwin, is something human that is significant on a historical scale, but not on a geological scale or in a way that is related to the one and only absolute truth.
Of course, if all this is true about science, then it is easy and material about the old-fashioned and funny religion that tries to come up with some book with some god (or a bunch of gods like the Father, the Son and the Spirit plus these angels and these saints...)
There is a similarity between this law and this religion. In my opinion, we should look at the big picture in the right proportions and acknowledge the fact that we still don't know. Scientific modesty is, for example, a (rare) quality that does not exist in a religion where there is no modesty - religion knows beyond any doubt and without compromise that there is a God. There is no doubt at all. In science there should be doubt. Skepticism is always where Newton becomes quantum and creation becomes primordial soup.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Lisa,
Since there is no possibility to punctuate, I guess you didn't understand what I wrote.
I wrote "if we learn" from the language of "teaching" in schools, and not from the language of study and research.
I hope that is clear now.
I guess you won't claim that all the wrong theories from the past - from Aristotle to the present day - should be taught in schools.
If we do this, there is no chance of reaching today's advanced theories, and there is no chance of progress.
See also Michael's response which explains the difference well.
gift:
What is this nonsense? revolt? Injustice? You seem to be completely confused.
The theory of evolution is a branch of science whose sole purpose is to understand the development of life in the most objective way. She has no other agenda, she is not subordinate to any rabbi, priest or politician.
It has nothing to do with any religion, and the difference between religion and science is huge - you should learn about it.
Lisa,
There is complete agreement among all biologists regarding the period of evolution. Today I will find one doctor of biology who denies evolution. Doctor of Biology - I emphasize. forward. Ready to take on the challenge? The Internet and Google are at your disposal. If you manage to meet the challenge, and I highly doubt you will, I want you to find me a doctor of biology who denies evolution and is also secular. If the theory is indeed controversial (and it is not) there is no reason why it should not have secular opponents.
Are you willing to be taught in school that there is an opinion that says that the Earth is the center of the universe? Before you answer yes, as I'm sure you will, consider what the consequences of giving this wrong/false opinion an equal platform for satellite engineering. Still agree?
Postmodernism does a great injustice to science and society as a whole by blurring the lines between truth and falsehood. He contributed nothing to humanity, only sabotaged and gave pluralism a bad name. What's worse than all of this, is that his supporters don't bother to provide a single piece of evidence for their justification, and in fact deny the idea of proof. This is a proven recipe for human suffering that will be caused by the deterioration of science and technology, not to mention primitive and dangerous ideas like Avital's, who himself stated that he was intentionally harming the KDA.
There is a huge difference between studying the mistakes of the past in a historical context and placing them as equal competitors against what is known today.
All in all, we are not talking about independent researchers who knew how to choose for themselves what is right and what is wrong, but children who believe their teachers.
For 16 read Rabbi Kapah's book on evolution-
Is anyone willing to expand on the experiments that the article talks about? I mean the experiment in which they try to disprove evolution, as the title implies.
The theory of evolution is a rebellion against the injustice of existence - and I reinforce number 8 that evolution is a type of religion!
Lenaam (13):
I think you can learn a lot from past mistakes.
The academic world even continues to study and investigate "all the wrong theories from the time of Aristotle to the present day".
"How do we move forward?" This is exactly how we will move forward
Liza
If we study all the wrong theories from the time of Aristotle to the present day, how will we progress?
Shouldn't you think twice about your answer (10)??
Those who are to blame for the terror of the earth are not religious.
After all, they are babies who were born.
The ones who are really to blame are the postmodernists who seek to give an equal platform to truth and lies.
On this it is said: whoever did not vote "light” pointed “dark”
L - 9:
Definitely!
to 7 with reference to the sentence: "Even if there was an absolute consensus on the theory of evolution,
There is nothing wrong with presenting alternatives and understanding their weaknesses. This will only open up thinking
Critical science."
According to this logic, it is possible to teach against the theory of relativity and Newton's laws,
The theory of "the ether", Ptolemy's star tracks and many other teachings and laws
which turned out to be invalid, not to mention the structure of the universe according to the ancient Hindus
...
Do you seem reasonable?
A theory becomes a religion under two mutually dependent conditions.
1. First condition: that it has no practical application for most users. The students of the theory cannot practice logical sentences as they practice mathematics or physics. Because it is not possible to prove an unassailable logical chain in reality like in the exact sciences. The theory is not a clear logical collection of theorems and laws.
Therefore, it is not possible to do thought experiments that will lead to clear directions. The predictions of most evolutionary claims will be vague because they provoke constant debate between different opinions and interpretations.
2. Second condition: supporters and opponents naturally arise because it is a wide field for debates because it is not possible to prove her claims in a sharp and decisive way.
Thus the theory becomes a matter that depends on partisanship and the human ego more than the truth contained in its claims.
As soon as these claims are used to contradict each other on a personal basis, it becomes a matter of faith and can be called religion from this point of view.
1. When reading the Ha'aretz article, the following quote from the chief scientist's words is presented:
"There are those for whom evolution is a religion and they are not ready to hear anything else"
I certainly agree with the statement and it does not contradict the respect I have for evolution.
Professor Yoel Rak:
"The man probably does not understand what is a scientific theory and what is a religion and confuses these two things"
It may be so, but it certainly does not follow from the statements in this introduction.
2. Another quote from the chief scientist:
"If the textbooks explicitly state that man descended from apes - I would like the students to be exposed to other views and face them. There are many people who do not think that the theory of evolution is true"
I don't see anything wrong with this statement either. Is there anything wrong with students dealing with questions like these? On the contrary, critical thinking should be encouraged and not the destruction of the educational material.
Even if there was a complete consensus on the theory of evolution, there is nothing wrong with presenting alternatives and understanding their weaknesses. This will only open critical scientific thinking.
Regarding the statement that there are people who do not think that the theory of evolution is true - this is a fact.
In short, blaming the scientist is completely unnecessary. The theory of evolution does not need the support of one scientist or another.
To finish you will have:
It has been said that there is a theory that is accepted without reservation in the entire scientific community (but really, really all of it).
What is the right way to teach the theory?
Tel Aviv University is more corrupt than the government, there is such great corruption there that even
President Zvi Galil resigned because he did not agree to take part in the corruption of the people on the board.
Just like Eitan said, the decision did not come from below, from the teachers who would probably agree with every word in this article. The problem is their political bosses, who are currently in coalition with Shas (not that it would have helped if they were in coalition with the other parties, because there is a small minority of parties that really oppose religious coercion.)
Perhaps also "the theory of flow and aerodynamics" is his field of expertise
of the chief "scientist" of the Ministry of Education is a subject of debate
Public among the laity - and why not actually? I think it is simple
charlatan.
What can the Ministry of Education say? It is a political appointment, and as such he is supposed to serve the interests of the minister who appointed him.
Agree with every word, except now
All hypocrites (many of whom are religious) will say
that he bears the name of the Holocaust in vain (as if
that the holocaust is a type of God).
The one who carries something in vain is the appointing office
itself the "Ministry of Education".
I would definitely like to hear the response of the Ministry of Education.
If there is anyone in the Ministry of Education who does not agree at least 95% with what is said here, we are in deep trouble.