In connection with the firing of top scientist of Israel by the Ministry of Education of Israel, amongst other things, for his daring to speak against Evolution, it is a known fact that my father in law of blessed memory, Professor Hasofer, has written a research paper disproving Evolution, at the request of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and till today no one has been able to refute it. Being that Prof. Hasofer was at the cutting edge of science and personally researched Evolution for years at the top Uni's of Australia, most scientific circles, having nothing to refute, have simply given up on evolution as impossible! Evolution is only believed today more as a "religion" than science by people, some also powerful, who insist therefore it continue to be taught in schools, who are desperately afraid to accept that the theory of Evolution is dead, as the consequences are to frightening to them! they simply wish to continue to believe they came from apes, thereby giving them free leash to do as the please, with no need to be "accountable to a creator Those who wish to read his research paper can request it by going to: http://www.borhatorah.org/home/oldcontents/oldcontents.html B'Or Ha'Torah Volume 3 Winter-Spring 1983 And ask for this article: Prof. Avraham Hasofer, "A Statistician Looks a Neo-Darwinism" yours faithfully, Daniel Kaye, Sydney, Australia

The main problem with people of faith and Evolution is that people of faith do not understand Evolution, they either do not want to or are just ignorant. Hopefully, in time, education and the scientific method will prevail. Christians stoned philosophers calling them witches in the dark ages, it seems like we're still living in the dark ages. Glad Obama is for Science, Thank which ever God(s) you like for that fact.

Yes I'm agree, but the remaining questions are still to what extent humanity affect it and on which scale, and most of it, which is the cause and which is the consquence... Especially knowing that the worst greenhouse gasse is water vapor, and to such an extent that all the CO2 is nothing beside !

Obama? What the hell kind of comment is "Glad Obama is for Science." Remember the mantra - Obama and change, Obama and change, Obama and change, Obama and..........

If evolution is so well understood and believed, why is it that the establishment is so afraid and unwilling to allow others to question it? Science and schools are supposed to be all about questioning and debate but on this subject it is never allowed. They are afraid of people like Dr. Avital because they are not really so sure as you would like to think.

If there is no freedom to doubt in science,what is it else, than fundamentalisme?

The attaque is the best way of defense.

No scientist would ever tell anyone not to question evolution, or any other scientific theory. If anyone has a scientific theory which can better explain the development of all species on earth, they are welcome to present it. At this point in time there is no alternate theory and creationism is 'garbage science' with no basis in reality. There can be no debate between a scientific theory on one hand and magical creators on the other.

to demonstrate that nothing will stand in the way of legitimate scientific debate

Albert Einstein is good enough for you? He believed that the world was made by a Creator.

There can be debate on anything if it is allowed. In this case it often is not being allowed.

blash and others have things confused and would do well to read a book on the issue. The name change from global warming to climate change was made to address the confusion ignorant people have over the issue. Global warming is still accurate because the average temperatures around the world are rising. Because of this, freak weather, like record snowfalls, are occurring as weather systems are being affected. However, even though New York might see record lows or snowfalls, that doesn't change the fact that around the world, the temperature is rising. To make things less confusing for people like blash, and to reflect its affects on weather patterns as well as temperatures, the term global warming was replaced by climate change. It is not evidence of a conspiracy or that global warming was a lie. The name change was made precisely because ignorant people couldn't understand how a warming world could lead to more snowfall in certain areas. Any introductory book on climate change/global warming can explain it; it isn't complicated. That scientific studies or sources can be used to refute scientific theories like evolution doesn't mean anything either. There is a group near here, headed by scientists, that is hosting a panel to discuss "scientific evidence" of a geo-centric universe (ie the sun revolves around the Earth). Please tell me you don't believe in that! The man should have been fired; he clearly doesn't understand the basics of some of the most important scientific issues of the last 150 years!

Michael, I don't think anyone is afraid of what climate change/evolution-deniers have to say. The latter are ignorant and show this fact whenever they make their ill-conceived arguments. What people are afraid of is having junk-scientists in charge of science and learning. It's like having a Peruvian shaman as the head of the Mayo Clinic!

Sorry, last comment was for Eaglebeak, not Michael.

If we don't like the message, we shoot the messenger? Avital sounds like the kind of teacher schools should be fighting over to hire, NOT FIRE! But then, truth is neither readily available nor much sought after these days. The folks who fired him, don't deserve him. That doesn't help the students though.

Former Evolutionist, Scientist Professor Walter Veith debunks Evolution in youtube.

He got fired for incompetence. I don't think 'beliefs' in the traditional sense was a part of it.

Sorry, pal. Evidence created by individuals who are paid, ideologically driven, or otherwise beholden to the theory in question isn't evidence. Naturalistic abiogenesis can't happen, macroevolution would require thousands of steps that are each statistically impossible, and in case you haven't noticed, mutations don't create new information, they only destroy or corrupt info that is already there.

From Ben Stein. Watch it.

I'd really like you to cite these supposed "refutations", and actually, for that matter, provide the definition of both evolution and a scientific theory. (I tend to want to get those definitions out of the way quickly because creationist claims tend to be a bit, erm, repetitive to say the least. Unlike evolution, creationism lacks hundreds of thousands of different peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals supporting it.)

Seriously, that movie was nothing but lies, and twisted distortion of facts. Expelled exposed goes through and gives you everything in context, which exposes Stein pretty badly. An interesting irony, PZ Myers was invited to the opening, and took a guest. The producers of the film picked him out of the lineup and kicked PZ out, but let his family and guest go inside... PZ Myers was expelled from Expelled, but interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins, his guest, wasn't. Ah, Ben Stein's irony is delicious.

Oh, oh, one more comment, cause it's two of my favorite canards! I'm not going to comment on abiogenesis, because that's another realm entirely and I don't have a chemistry background so I can't approach it... but "macroevolution would require thousands of steps that are each statistically impossible", that I can address. It's the typical comment made by creationists who have never actually taken a course in statistics. For example, the probability that a particular rock outside my building made of, say, 10^26 molecules (which isn't unreasonable, it'd be a fairly small rock) is made with the exact specific arrangement is 1 in 10^26!. That ! means factorial, not double punctuation. Then you have to consider all of the possible locations it could be, even in a square centimeter, and you're getting even more astronomically unlikely because then you'll start dealing with how many planck's lengths squared are in a centimeter squared... (hint, it's not all that far from the number of atoms in the universe). THAT, under a naive interpretation of statistics, is statistically impossible. But yet, the rock is there. Why? Because the rock could have been anywhere else, it just needed SOME specific combination in SOME location... there was no mandate that humans evolved, we just happened to. But evolution isn't entirely random either, that misses the second component "natural selection", where organisms that are more able to reproduce generally dominate the population... and organisms that can't reproduce go extinct, with their DNA line dying out. It's a very powerful trial and error algorithm, which takes it out of the realm of pure statistics, much to the chagrin of creationists. Not that creationists really worry about real statistics anyway. And regarding "new information", I have just this to say... "gene duplication and mutations on duplicated genes". The arguments are so trivial it's comical, seriously, have you guys ever even skimmed a middle school biology textbook, let alone high school or college?

I remember when i was in elementary school my father told me if you want to win an argument you have to be able to answer the legitimate questions from those who disagree with you. if, for whatever reason you refuse to do so, or you cannot, you will by definition lose the argument because your position has holes in it! by simply firing a renowned scientist for his views it shows there are people out there who cannot, or do not want to, answer his questions. even if he is wrong, by simply doing away with him your theory isn't proven correct, you are proven incapable of conducting a scientific argument. all he said was that he wants people, thinkers, to grapple with opposing views. he never said those views should be held by anyone, just to be thought about. i dare say that people who study philosophy in university learn about many different trains of thought, not just there own and they grapple with the opposing philosophy's questions on their own system. so, why not do the same here, why hide under the "i am the bureaucracy and you are not so i can fire you if you disagree with me" rock? that to me is the real stone age!

Read Natan Slifkin's "The Challenge of Creation." It is a challenging book. Or maybe you would just call him a heretic. That would be easy. "Polly want a cracker?"

So info that was already there, after change, is of course new info...

He obviously wasn't wearing a black hat and praying every morning. And in anyway, evolution is a peer reviews scientific theory, not some idea someone said. If you can produce something similar, be my guest. All I see from creationists has no scientific basis, tests, peer reviews etc. It is just empty talk based on legends

Recommend not citing Kent - he has some significant and glaring skeletons in his closet. But he is right about evolution being a necessary component of Communist ideology though. If an explanation of human origins science is correct, then it can only be strengthened by attacks, even by opponents, as the attacks fail to discredit it. The fact that evolutionists (unlike Creatonists/IDers who welcome criticism and debate) want to silence opponents rather than crush them in reasoned debates/discussion is evidence to any open minded person that they lack real confidence in their own position. If they were right, why could they not just embarrass this guy out of town? Regardless of whether his religious beliefs are accurate or not, he at least proved his ability to function rationally and professionally by the position he was able to attain. Clearly his sin (per the high priests of secular humanism) was in failure to go along with the view most popular in intellectually elitist (not elite) circles.