Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change

Just like gravity.

Human Evolution is a Theory. It has not ever, and i'd be willing to wager, it never will, BE A PROVEN FACT.

Read and learn:

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. Nat Geo.

Anyone that thinks it is "just a theory" is woefully uneducated about science.

Actually, god isn't a theory. There's no evidence for any god. There's no testability nor any falsifiability to the claims of any god. No empirical evidence, nor has independently repeatable experimentation yielded support for such claims.

Any claims for gods fall beneath hypothesis, and are actually technically classified as superstition.

Reidh, evolution is a scientific theory. That means that it does have proof. It's only a scientific theory if it has the ability to be tested, and has been tested, repeatedly to validate all claims. It also means that it makes predictions, which have also been validated, repeatedly. It must be supported by a great deal of evidentiary support.

Specifically proving humans evolved, yes, there is proof. There's the fusion of chromosome number 2, showing that humans evolved directly and exclusively from earlier primates. There's the fossil record as well. There's the huge amount of endogenous retroviral and borneviral sequences which are ONLY consistent with evolution and not at all consistent with any form of creationism.

This is not about the status quo on religion. The fact is that this man has proved himself inadequate to hold a scientific job, based on his inability to apply the scientific method. Just as a surgeon who believes that cancer is the result of green fairies would be fired too.

But, ultimately, what's more unsettling? That a ministry of education's chief scientist can hold such anti-scientific views? Or that a ministry of education would even think to employ someone as its chief scientist with a track record for making such statements?

That's the question.

The facts of evolution have been questioned many times over the last 150 years or so. The result has been modification of the theory. Think punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, and other things that make the term "Darwinisn" antiquated.

Where did you get the idea that evolution claims to be perfect truth, whatever that is?

Every theory, discovery, statement, etc. in science is perpetually tentative. Any new and credible evidence would warrant change in what is believed. That is the beauty of science.

Your application of the word faith to the world of science is disingenuous and wrong. It's called equivocating.

Faith is belief w/o empirical proof. That's what religion is.

Science is based on empirical evidence. That's not faith.

I suspect you know all this but use the term to give a poke in the eye to the damnable evolutionists.

Advocate, prove that religion is not man-made.

The man was dismissed because, as an advocate for both education and science, his obligation is to evaluate the merits of items for inclusion / exclusion for a curriculum based on empirical evidence.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for creationism nor any claims competing with evolution.

If you allow fantasy-based thinking for which there is no evidence (in fact, for which there is science supporting the contrary) simply because it's your selected religion/world-view/ideology OVER the science for which there is evidence, independently tested and testable -- then you've proven that you are incompetent for that role.

Would you allow someone to be a juror if they say "I will listen to the evidence, but I know that all women are guilty anyway because my book said Eve ate the apple, so even if the evidence says she didn't do it, then the evidence is wrong" then is that person a good candidate for a juror?

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for creationism nor any claims competing with evolution.

Not true. The evidence is creation itself. All of it. You pick up specks here and there and collect them into a little pile and call it your "overwhelming evidence for evolution" and while doing so you seem oblivious to the contrary. If creation was a crime, the earth is the most crime ridden crime scene in all of creation. In fact, if you were an investigator, you would be able to see all the corroborative evidence that more than suggests a deliberate and well executed crime. As it is, you seem to take the role of an attorney trying to throw your little pile of dust in the air to distract and confuse the jury so the criminal won't be convicted.

Advocate, employing the argument from ignorance, are we?

The evidence for the universe is creation itself? Which part of the universe, precisely? The Earth? We see planets forming all the time via natural means, ones that we do understand, like gravity, polarity, nuclear forces and so on. Which parts of the Earth itself defy explanation via natural means? Humans are poorly evolved constructs on a great many levels, the Earth isn't a perfect system either, but we can see absolute reasons why the imperfections (from a "perfect design") do exist.

What you provide was an argument saying "I don't know how else everything could have gotten this way" when you don't mention any items in your everything -- none. Then you accuse others of trying to muddy the waters with actual science and facts and stuff.

Which aspect of the Earth is inexcplicable, from scientific explanation?

You make claims, but supply no specifics.

Now, as per my claims, I mention specifics, like the fusion event of chromosome number 2, the fossil records, endogenous retroviruses and so on.

I give precise pieces of evidence, and the entirety of science concurs with it. Absolutely every discipline of science gives and yields lines of evidence that converge on PRECISELY one conclusion, and sorry, it's not creationism.

Well worded argument, counselor. Atheists hold a monopoly within the scientific community and are in fact sworn to always assume a natural explanation for everything no matter what. There is no reflection or consideration of the evidence of design having been employed. So it is disingenuous at best to act as if science had even considered the evidence of creation. You act as if you witnessed the event yourself. I know otherwise and am not swayed by your confidence. Lego blocks have enough evidence of engineering to settle all arguments. How much more a single living cell? You even go so far as to say that humans are poorly evolved constructs. Who has convinced you of such things? How can you loose your awe for the majesty of life? I truly fear for the future of our world if we convince ourselves that we are merely biological misfits with no purpose or real intrinsic value. Life is precious and ought to be treated as such. You see, I will not quote you results of scientific lab experiments to support a theory, but I will engage you in the arena of common sense and philosophic reason. "It just happened" is not an adequate explanation but it is an accurate summery of the position of Science. A position that apparently you have totally invested your heart and mind to. I appreciate your attention to detail, but I fear that you cannot see the pattern of the design because you are looking too closely at the stitches.

There is no reflection or consideration of the evidence of design having been employed.

"Design" is inherently a non-scientific concept because it is not falsifiable. The entire scientific method relies on falsifiability. If you can't disprove a theory then it's not science. Creationism or "design theory" or whatever the hell you want to call it is not falsifiable, so it can never be science. You can argue all you want about whether you believe it's true, but the fact is there is no way for us to ever put it to the test.

Lego blocks have enough evidence of engineering to settle all arguments.

Do lego blocks contain mechanisms for self-replication which are based solely on chemical reactions using organic compounds which exist naturally? No? Then stop using stupid comparisons.

How can you loose your awe for the majesty of life?

Now you're just attacking a straw man. No one said anything close to this. You're turning this into a question of morality, but it's not a question of morality. It's a question of fact. Life either evolved naturally or it didn't, but the answer to that question has nothing to do with whether life has value. If you attempt to use anything other than the evidence to decide which to believe in then you're being irrational.

Advocate, employing the genetic fallacy now...

Atheists did not occupy the majority of science when the theories and primary findings supporting evolution and cosmogenesis and nucleosynthesis were discovered.

Evidence of design, you mention it again. Provide some, it's eluded science and philosophy for millenia, but I'd be very happy to evaluate any such claims (especially since there'd be an absolute nobel prize in it).

Humans, poor design? Ok, let's see, piloerector muscles, human-cranium to maternal hip ratios, the blind spot, the fact that the retina is backwards (making it more prone to pathologies, less sensitive to light, etc...), human sinus, xyphoid, humans cannot produce/synthesize vitamin C (other animals do), breathing is not triggered by low oxygen or need for oxygen, but rather high CO2 margins, too many teeth for too small a mouth, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, etc...

Sorry, I do know a great deal about life. From the molecular level upwards. Not every form of life, of course, especially botany (which I've hugely ignored).

Do lego blocks contain mechanisms for self-replication which are based solely on chemical reactions using organic compounds which exist naturally? No? Then stop using stupid comparisons.

I'm serious, that is actually funny. You make my point for me and don't realize it. let me ask you this simple question; forget legos, which is more complex....inanimate objects or animate objects?

We've had spontaneously generated, from base chemicals, self-replicating molecules. It is merely chemistry.

Which is more complex, inanimate or animate? Depends, I think Jupiter is more complex, and it's just a planet.

which is more complex....inanimate objects or animate objects?

That question is meaningless with a quantifiable measure of "complexity". That's something Behe and Dembski have never actually been able to provide.

Of course if I did grant the premise of the question then I would have a followup: which is more complex, evolution working through purely natural mechanisms that are well understood, or some magical "god"?

We've had spontaneously generated, from base chemicals, self-replicating molecules. It is merely chemistry.

Those "base chemicals" you speak of were filled with self replicating molecules. Not truly spontaneous. There has never been a successful reenactment of the origin of a single living cell.

Depends, I think Jupiter is more complex, and it's just a planet.

I don't blame you for dodging my point all together. To give me an honest answer would be to concede.

Of course if I did grant the premise of the question then I would have a followup: which is more complex, evolution working through purely natural mechanisms that are well understood, or some magical "god"?

Another dodge move. Here you turn logic upside down. You seem to suggest that a more difficult, lengthy, improbable and complex explanation for something is more preferable than the more plausible, obvious and simple explanation. I am offering you the inverse to that. Simply this; the more complex the system the more obvious it's deliberate creation.

I'll ask the same question leaving you less wiggle room. Which is more complex....a brick or a bird?( Please answer me using either the word "brick" or "bird".)

You seem to suggest that a more difficult, lengthy, improbable and complex explanation for something is more preferable than the more simple, plausible, obvious and simple explanation.

I would love to know how you are measuring the difficulty, probability, and complexity of "god did it". Or, for that matter, how you are measuring any of those for evolutionary theory, which you have shown already to not even have the slightest understanding of.

I am offering you the inverse to that. Simply this; the more complex the system the more obvious it's deliberate creation.

And just how complex do you think God has to be?

Which is more complex....a brick or a bird?( Please answer me using either the word "brick" or "bird".)

I will answer that as soon as you give an actual explanation for how to even measure complexity.

I should warn you though, .......answering me honestly might get you fired.

I will answer that as soon as you give an actual explanation for how to even measure complexity.

So typical. Well for one thing you certainly don't need "Behe and Dembski " to figure this out. Just take off your pocket protector for a second and think for yourself. Which is more complex? Just one or the other. "Brick" or "Bird"?

Those "base chemicals" you speak of were filled with self replicating molecules. Not truly spontaneous.

False.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Do you think naturally occurring cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde, inorganic phosphate, and water self replicate?

---

Here is a great primer on Abiogenesis with very informative videos if you are interested.

Exploring Life's Origins - I highly suggest the "building a proto cell" / "fatty acid" segment if you are only going to check out one part.

You can repeat your question like a child all you want, but I can't answer a question that has no meaning.

You are welcome to answer the question to, Mark.

By the way, do you notice that it takes a research team full of very highly intelligent scientists to come together and organize, design and produce a plan to deliberately create a conducive environment for a living cell? Boy! They sure showed us that intelligent design had nothing to do with it.

You can repeat your question like a child all you want, but I can't answer a question that has no meaning.

No. You won't answer the question precisely because it's full of meaning. Not deceptive but simply honest and true meaning. Meaning that you have been turning a blind eye to for far too long.

If you can't answer that question then how can you honestly consider yourself a legitimate man of facts? A three year old can answer that question. It seems we aren't really accepting reality after all, are we? Just avoiding it and pretending it's not there. Forgive me if I don't respect your denial of an honest and pragmatic debate. It seems there's an unyielding pride in the way.

Mark this place for yourself. This is where you found the ultimate limit to your argument and discovered there's more to reality than you thought. Your unwillingness to answer is actually an answer all in itself.

Advocate, you are moving your own goalposts, you ask what's more complex, a bird or a brick. How many chemicals in a bird? How many in a brick?

What's more complex to you? A virus, or a polar lunar regolith?

True, we've never put chemicals into a system and had a cell form. According to our understanding that has nothing to do with evolution, so again, you move the goal-posts from evolution to abiogenesis.

But even, as per abiogenesis, the cell was not the first self-replicating structure, nor even the first life-form. It's okay though, because you have to use the cell as the example, because it's far more advanced, 11 steps in on the ladder, beyond protobionts even.

Still, it's an argument from ignorance, because we have clear and abundant evidence for each stage of the chemical origin of life at a natural and mechanistic process.

What we have absolutely NO evidence for is any contrary supernatural effectors.

Which is more complex? Just one or the other. "Brick" or "Bird"?

Ok, I'll go for it. Bird.

Because bricks and brick walls arise naturally from basic geology! (yes, I'm serious)

Would that be called Ageogenesis? Why, that's like finding a pocketwatch not made by man that self assembled! Amazing!

---

Feel free to now continue your creationist lecture bereft of fact or evidence other than vague feel good look at the world around you stuff.

As always, if you do have actual evidence, please share it. People are willing to look and discuss it. Also, you will become famous.

Ok, your turn, Brick or Bird: What one has ancestors that have been evolving and becoming more complex for the last 3.8 billion years?

Bird.

I'll pass on sharing evidence that you refuse to look at due to religious reasons.

I've been away from the computer for a few days. Glad to see some responses.

Advocate, you are moving your own goalposts,

I see why you would say that, but you must understand that the whole of evolution is based upon a naturalistic world view that won't accept any notion that life was actually designed by something intelligently. They moved the goal posts to a spot where it would be convenient for their idea. But realitywould require them to have to first adequately and comprehensively explain the origins of life based upon their view in order for them to truly have credibility. They have put the cart before the horse and said that neither the cart or the horse were designed. They have declared themselves credible but refuse to address the obvious flaw in their theory. The only reason why there's so much resistance to addressing the origin of life is because it's impossible to explain without intelligent design. I'm simply moving the goal posts to where it makes the game honest and fair.

What we have absolutely NO evidence for is any contrary supernatural effectors.

Again, that is like declaring ,"bloodstains, gun powder, finger prints, motive, and DNA are not acceptable forms of evidence" and then saying, "So where's your evidence?" . I am submitting to you the argument that complex systems require an engineer. The living cell is far too complicated to have made itself. The teamwork of cells is far too complicated for them to have figured it out themselves. In replication, the transfer of data is far too complicated for them to have figured it out themselves. Time added to the equation would not usher in intelligent adjustments and considerations. No where in reality do things actively engineer themselves out of nothing. What you call evolution is actually adaptation and is itself a profound testament to the ingeniousness of it's design. The evidence for an engineer is functioning complex systems. The more complex the system the more obvious the engineering. Especially in the immeasurable advanced levels of living creatures.

Ok, I'll go for it. Bird.

Thank you Mark. First let me clarify something, nature does not build bricks. Your walls that you refer to are not made of bricks. They are symetrical and form similar to crystals but they are not bricks upon bricks.

With that said, I hope you can agree with me that a brick is something that is made by someone. If you were to find one on the ground you would not assume that it was formed naturally. Likewise, if you were to find bricks set upon bricks and held together with mortar you would not consider that naturally formed but you would know that it was built by someone. The reason why is because we have an ability to determine deliberate manipulation of materials based upon it's complexities and probabilities. A brick alone has enough complexity to belong in the category of designed and created.

Now you were kind enough to acknowledge that a bird is far more complex than a simple brick. Let's consider that for a moment. Just one of the living cells within a bird contain perhaps over a million times more complexity than a brick (that's being conservative). Then consider the collective number of those cells and how they are organized into specific functions of living organs all working in unisen within a living, breathing, thinking, feeling and flying creature. You would have to multiply it's complexity to Trillions times Trillions more complex than all the brick walls in the world combined (also conservative).

Considering the levels of complexity we are dealing with, how can anyone seriously even hesitate to accept, at the very least, the idea that life is and was Created. Then we can apply what you have learned about life's ability to adapt to it's environment within the context of Creation. It is the most likely explanation and does not at all hinder any honest Scientific research or quest for knowledge.

The truth of the matter is evolution is simply an alternative to "religion". It was thought up with that objective in mind. It can only serve that purpose so long as it resists the concept of Creation. It's not intellectually honest and will never be so long as it holds to an "undesigned" world view. My guess is that is what attracted you to the theory in the first place. It creates an illusion of self-actualized scientific proof that there is no "God". That in itself has had irrepairable consequences on society. The United States of America was and should be a nation that acknowledges that there is most certainly a "Creator". That should be the very foundation upon which we pursue all of our endeavors including our Science.

How much more should that be true for the Nation of Israel.

Sorry but this story is from Israel.

What is more likely:

Corporations such as Exxon funding a few corrupt "scientists" with a degrees in unrelated fields to say global warming isn't happening so they can exploit the environment for short term profits.

Every climatologist on the planet saying global warming is happening, but they are all controlled by the secret super intelligent mastermind Al Gore for the secret plan to... Um... Raise taxes? In multiple unrelated countries? Control people in every nation to raise taxes in the US?

Pick one.

Considering there is hard evidence for the first, and Al Gore masterminding anything but putting his socks on is unlikely, I'll go with the first.