Reader comments
Darwin, Marx and Freud: Architects of a secular new belief
45 comments | Read story
Pardon Me But | 8:43 a.m. June 7, 2009
Unlike your Mormon "prophets, seers and revelators," Darwin, Marx and
Freud could at least provide factual evidence to back up their theories.
SFC RET DENNIS | 9:40 a.m. June 7, 2009
I got news for all of you, after Retiring from the Army in 96 I went back
to school and learned that Darwin had faked his research and on his death bead
Darwin admitted to faking his research. I know some of you won't believe,
oh well that life. As far as science is concerned scientists are trying to
unravel the science of God and trying to understand the science of God, well
won't happen in this life time.
I wonder how you will fill when our mortal life is over and you find out there is a God and how scientists have truly misunderstood the science of God.
I wonder how you will fill when our mortal life is over and you find out there is a God and how scientists have truly misunderstood the science of God.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 9:56 a.m. June 7, 2009
"I went back to school and learned that Darwin had faked his research and
on his death bead Darwin admitted to faking his research."
Only scientist would question this because more proof of evolution has been discovered seen Darwin died. In fact, the science of genetics proves Darwin was correct.
Only scientist would question this because more proof of evolution has been discovered seen Darwin died. In fact, the science of genetics proves Darwin was correct.
Darwinism | 10:25 a.m. June 7, 2009
The response of CS Lewis on Evolution,"I think we probaly differ about the
meaning of creation. I take it to mean "to cause to be,without pre-existing
material,to cause the form and matter of something pre-conceived in the
Causer's thought which,after creation,other than the Cause." Darwin
was influenced by (neo-Platonic)thought,CS Lewis by the Bible.
Timj | 10:26 a.m. June 7, 2009
I can't figure out whether SFC RET is writing satirical, or whether he is
serious.
What if Newton had faked his research (yet still gotten the same results)? I can assure you that physics would be much like it is today. And just like physicists don't rely solely on Newton to do their thing, biologists don't rely solely on Darwin. Yes, he was probably the most important biologist to ever live, yet the science he came up has been verified countless times by thousands of other scientists throughout the world. Science understands evolution better now than Darwin did then, and science continues to improve its understanding of science.
To those who believe evolution is a philosophy, and not a science, I remind you of the words of JRR Tolkien. "The wise speak only of what they know."
What if Newton had faked his research (yet still gotten the same results)? I can assure you that physics would be much like it is today. And just like physicists don't rely solely on Newton to do their thing, biologists don't rely solely on Darwin. Yes, he was probably the most important biologist to ever live, yet the science he came up has been verified countless times by thousands of other scientists throughout the world. Science understands evolution better now than Darwin did then, and science continues to improve its understanding of science.
To those who believe evolution is a philosophy, and not a science, I remind you of the words of JRR Tolkien. "The wise speak only of what they know."
True | 10:39 a.m. June 7, 2009
Apes still haven't evolved.
Timj | 10:41 a.m. June 7, 2009
Darwinism,
As a member of the LDS church, I strongly disagree that CS Lewis's ideas on creation, "to cause to be, without pre-existing material," was influenced by the Bible. In any case, it's certainly not what the LDS church teaches.
As a member of the LDS church, I strongly disagree that CS Lewis's ideas on creation, "to cause to be, without pre-existing material," was influenced by the Bible. In any case, it's certainly not what the LDS church teaches.
RE: Timj | 11:22 a.m. June 7, 2009
D&C 20:17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven,Who is
Infinite and Eternal,from everlating to everlasting the same Unchangeable
God,the framer of heaven and earth,and all things which are in them."
Joseph teaches God is unchanging,(not progressing)or evolving.
Joseph teaches God is unchanging,(not progressing)or evolving.
theories of iconoclasts | 11:34 a.m. June 7, 2009
I don't mind theories--what I DO MIND (make that abhor) is when a theory is
CONSTANTLY STATED as FACT.
Everybody knows when an idea is presented as an absolute fact long enough and often enough that it eventually becomes to be believed AS IF it WERE a fact.
And all the while, it really is just a theory/idea/supposition/guess/hope. (Richard Dawkin--and all other smooth-tongued iconoclasts of his ilk--are sure hoping that there is no God to answer to. He doesn't KNOW there is no God, but he and ALL others who have something to answer for sure hope there isn't.)
Everybody knows when an idea is presented as an absolute fact long enough and often enough that it eventually becomes to be believed AS IF it WERE a fact.
And all the while, it really is just a theory/idea/supposition/guess/hope. (Richard Dawkin--and all other smooth-tongued iconoclasts of his ilk--are sure hoping that there is no God to answer to. He doesn't KNOW there is no God, but he and ALL others who have something to answer for sure hope there isn't.)
To: theories of iconoclasts | 12:02 p.m. June 7, 2009
RE: "what I DO MIND (make that abhor) is when a theory is CONSTANTLY STATED
as FACT."
Yet somehow you don't object to the supernatural fairy tale nonsense that has absolutely no basis in fact?
Yet somehow you don't object to the supernatural fairy tale nonsense that has absolutely no basis in fact?
BYU prof | 3:16 p.m. June 7, 2009
Whatever counts as a fact in science, evolution--as it has come to be
understood, but still within the framework provided by Darwin--is a fact. There
is a lot we don't know about a lot of things, but evolution is the only
reasonable explanation for the data we find--LOTS of data over a long period of
time. That makes it a fact.
Jim F | 3:25 p.m. June 7, 2009
Joe Cannon didn't argue for putting God into science. He argued: (1) that
we have been forced to choose between the vertical story of the world and the
horizontal, and we have chosen the second; (2) that the second means "the
abandonment of the belief in permanent principles and ultimate truths that
govern man's behavior"; and (3) that secularists (NOT science) need to
replace the religious account of creation with the some other story.
The main point that Cannon argues for is that if the secularists succeed in replacing the religious story of creation with the scientific one, we have no grounds for ethics and morality. That's arguable, but reasonable. If you disagree with Cannon, then at least disagree with what he says and give your reasons.
There is room for both stories (a more-or-less Wittgensteinian view). The problem comes in confusing what each does and how each functions and then insisting on choosing one over the other.
The main point that Cannon argues for is that if the secularists succeed in replacing the religious story of creation with the scientific one, we have no grounds for ethics and morality. That's arguable, but reasonable. If you disagree with Cannon, then at least disagree with what he says and give your reasons.
There is room for both stories (a more-or-less Wittgensteinian view). The problem comes in confusing what each does and how each functions and then insisting on choosing one over the other.
Compromise | 3:41 p.m. June 7, 2009
Joseph Smith taught creation by evolution(progression). Theistic
evolution,Brillant.
Timj | 3:51 p.m. June 7, 2009
If Cannon is saying that replacing the religious story of creation with the
scientific one means we have no grounds for ethics and morality (and by that, he
means the literal understanding of Genesis 1 with the science of evolution),
then he definitely needs to learn a bit more about science, as well as
secularism.
Plenty of secular people have a high level of ethics and morality. Most of Europe is very secular, and yet they do a better job of taking care of their poor than we do in the US. That doesn't mean that secularism does better than religion. It does mean that we that profess a belief in God have some repenting to do.
Plenty of secular people have a high level of ethics and morality. Most of Europe is very secular, and yet they do a better job of taking care of their poor than we do in the US. That doesn't mean that secularism does better than religion. It does mean that we that profess a belief in God have some repenting to do.
Darwin debates | 4:12 p.m. June 7, 2009
The greatest creationist who debated Darwinist was DR. A.E. Wilder Smith with 4
Doctorites in science. He debated evolutionists across the world and demolished
there arguments. About 20 years ago he challenged Carl Sagan to a debate at the
University of California Irvine on several ocassions: Sagan backed down. Few if
any famous atheist would debate him. Then he would take questions from the
audience a kindly dismantle their arguments,and in most cases these were college
professors.
SFC RET DENNIS | 4:27 p.m. June 7, 2009
Anonymous | 9:56 a.m. June 7, 2009 sorry but it don't prove we came
from apes.
Timj | 10:26 a.m. June 7, 2009 sorry to tell you but I was telling the truth, I learned this in college back in 1998.
The question is this, if we came from apes then why are their apes on the world today. It doesnt jive with reality. Now you may say I am not in reality, well that your right, however you nor anyone on this world will convince me we come from apes and that there is no God, there have been too many things that have happened in my life that points the a just and loving God.
Timj | 10:26 a.m. June 7, 2009 sorry to tell you but I was telling the truth, I learned this in college back in 1998.
The question is this, if we came from apes then why are their apes on the world today. It doesnt jive with reality. Now you may say I am not in reality, well that your right, however you nor anyone on this world will convince me we come from apes and that there is no God, there have been too many things that have happened in my life that points the a just and loving God.
RE: Timj | 4:49 p.m. June 7, 2009
The way scince does evolution is NO way for sceence to do science,
Make up stories of how it could have happened, and how it POSSIBLY could have happened , may have, might have happend,
then claim that is what did happen,
While genetics may show how it POSSIBLY COULD HAVE have happend,
it does NOT show what DID happen.
WE do NO know if any of the old fossils even have anyhting to do woiht modern man.
all that MUST be assumed in so the called theory,
it's all built on assumptions, suppostion, made-up stories, it is a house of cards if there ever was one.
and anything that doesn't "fit" MUST become a branch that dhas died out, how convenient!
BAD SCIENCE all around,
a case where the theory drives the interpretation of very circumstantial evidence,
and all eveidence unchaging life is completely ignored,
from crocadiles and sharks to pteradons that live unchanged for 150 million years, the coelcanths unchanged in over 60 to 70 million years. to many ohter creatures unchanged but perhaps in size.
genetic similaroty simply mean we have similar features, any relatiohship MUST be assumed.
Yep, evolution is BAD science, and_more_like_dogma
Make up stories of how it could have happened, and how it POSSIBLY could have happened , may have, might have happend,
then claim that is what did happen,
While genetics may show how it POSSIBLY COULD HAVE have happend,
it does NOT show what DID happen.
WE do NO know if any of the old fossils even have anyhting to do woiht modern man.
all that MUST be assumed in so the called theory,
it's all built on assumptions, suppostion, made-up stories, it is a house of cards if there ever was one.
and anything that doesn't "fit" MUST become a branch that dhas died out, how convenient!
BAD SCIENCE all around,
a case where the theory drives the interpretation of very circumstantial evidence,
and all eveidence unchaging life is completely ignored,
from crocadiles and sharks to pteradons that live unchanged for 150 million years, the coelcanths unchanged in over 60 to 70 million years. to many ohter creatures unchanged but perhaps in size.
genetic similaroty simply mean we have similar features, any relatiohship MUST be assumed.
Yep, evolution is BAD science, and_more_like_dogma
Joe Cannon | 4:53 p.m. June 7, 2009
To Jim F. Thank you for helping to clarify by writing more clearly than I
have.
To Timj. You, and a number of commenters on our opinion page thread, seem to think that if one rejects a materialist explanation of human origins that one must automatically embrace a "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1. I am not sure what you mean by literal, but I don't believe that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days. I don't think that Latter-day Saints believe or teach that.
However, I do believe that God was the First Cause of creation and that, in fact, He did create the heavens and the earth and the life that is on the earth. Scripture doesn't pretend to explain mechanisms.
To Timj. You, and a number of commenters on our opinion page thread, seem to think that if one rejects a materialist explanation of human origins that one must automatically embrace a "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1. I am not sure what you mean by literal, but I don't believe that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days. I don't think that Latter-day Saints believe or teach that.
However, I do believe that God was the First Cause of creation and that, in fact, He did create the heavens and the earth and the life that is on the earth. Scripture doesn't pretend to explain mechanisms.
c almond | 5:16 p.m. June 7, 2009
re: Darwin Debates
Wikipedia says this about Wilder-Smith.
"Wilder-Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews (President of the Biblical Creation Society) debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith in the Oxford Union's Huxley Memorial Debate in 1986. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has made the audio of the debate available."
I find it hard to believe that if the things you have said are true, then The Richard Dawkins foundation would make the audio of the debate available.
Wikipedia says this about Wilder-Smith.
"Wilder-Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews (President of the Biblical Creation Society) debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith in the Oxford Union's Huxley Memorial Debate in 1986. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has made the audio of the debate available."
I find it hard to believe that if the things you have said are true, then The Richard Dawkins foundation would make the audio of the debate available.
house of cards | 5:18 p.m. June 7, 2009
"it's all built on assumptions, suppostion, made-up stories, it is a
house of cards if there ever was one."
But doesn't Creationism do the same thing... Say
"This is what Happened" without any *absolute* Fact to back them up???
Creationism is based off of assumptions, suppositions, and made up stories... just as much as evolution is... And just like Evolution does, Creationism goes around calling it fact
But doesn't Creationism do the same thing... Say
"This is what Happened" without any *absolute* Fact to back them up???
Creationism is based off of assumptions, suppositions, and made up stories... just as much as evolution is... And just like Evolution does, Creationism goes around calling it fact
SLCSKP | 5:19 p.m. June 7, 2009
I notice that Mr Cannon is only too happy to lay the blame for our cultural
shift to a more secular worldview, without saying what SHOULD have happened.
Would we all be better off if Darwin hadn't been born, or does Mr Cannon
(and SFC DENNIS) realize that Alfred Wallace was postulating the same theories
at the same time (and Darwin, in fact, was happy to share credit)? Evolution as
a viable theory doesn't collapse whether Darwin never existed or allegedly
faked his evidence. Additional discoveries since Darwin died have only upheld
and clarified his theories.
And does Mr Cannon consider the possibility that collective disillusionment with Christianity is equally to blame? For some of us, religion's dogged adherence to ideas that are obviously not true (earth-centered universe, divine right of kings), morally repugnant (conquest, slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, Counter-Reformation), coupled with its own history of continued corruption and internal discord, have robbed religion in general of any moral credibility with which to lecture the rest of us on our bad behavior.
And does Mr Cannon consider the possibility that collective disillusionment with Christianity is equally to blame? For some of us, religion's dogged adherence to ideas that are obviously not true (earth-centered universe, divine right of kings), morally repugnant (conquest, slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, Counter-Reformation), coupled with its own history of continued corruption and internal discord, have robbed religion in general of any moral credibility with which to lecture the rest of us on our bad behavior.
Ancient wisdom | 5:21 p.m. June 7, 2009
Ethics and morals do not come from religion, as the behavior of all the
religions amply have proven over the centuries.
By studying the ancient sages and philosophers, for example, we see that there were ethics & morality before monotheism.
Ethics and morality are innate, though they need to be cultivated. This can be, and is, done by people without religion.
As Timj pointed out, secular European societies are a good example of religion-free ethics and morality.
By studying the ancient sages and philosophers, for example, we see that there were ethics & morality before monotheism.
Ethics and morality are innate, though they need to be cultivated. This can be, and is, done by people without religion.
As Timj pointed out, secular European societies are a good example of religion-free ethics and morality.
basic understanding | 5:26 p.m. June 7, 2009
Human didn't evolve from apes *rolls eyes* Human and apes evolved from the
same common ancestor...
If youre goin argue against a theory... it might help to have a basic understanding of that theory.
If youre goin argue against a theory... it might help to have a basic understanding of that theory.
SLCSKP | 5:53 p.m. June 7, 2009
@4:49pm
Interesting that you should compare bad science to a house of cards, and then to religion.
The primary difference between them is that bad science is subject to peer review, testing, and revision. If you don't agree with a theory, then you are welcome to introduce your own compelling ideas, and back them up with experiments and evidence. With science, we all learn through conflict and disagreement.
With religion, conflict and competing ideas are neither solicited nor tolerated. If you disagree with the proclamations of your leaders, then you are perfectly free to get lost, and take your heretical ideas with you lest you contaminate the true believers. Interestingly, the more tenuous and illogical the belief, the more insistent the righteous seem to get, as if belief in ultimate absurdities is indicative of ultimate faith.
Science is accessible to all, even if you choose to remain willfully ignorant. It makes predictions - eclipses, cometary appearances, the morphology of undiscovered fossils - that are extensively verifiable, and that have so far upheld the theories.
What useful, testable predictions has religion made lately?
Interesting that you should compare bad science to a house of cards, and then to religion.
The primary difference between them is that bad science is subject to peer review, testing, and revision. If you don't agree with a theory, then you are welcome to introduce your own compelling ideas, and back them up with experiments and evidence. With science, we all learn through conflict and disagreement.
With religion, conflict and competing ideas are neither solicited nor tolerated. If you disagree with the proclamations of your leaders, then you are perfectly free to get lost, and take your heretical ideas with you lest you contaminate the true believers. Interestingly, the more tenuous and illogical the belief, the more insistent the righteous seem to get, as if belief in ultimate absurdities is indicative of ultimate faith.
Science is accessible to all, even if you choose to remain willfully ignorant. It makes predictions - eclipses, cometary appearances, the morphology of undiscovered fossils - that are extensively verifiable, and that have so far upheld the theories.
What useful, testable predictions has religion made lately?
RE: c almond | 7:08 p.m. June 7, 2009
All reputable debates are on tape; if it Be Protestant vs Roman catholic or
Protestant versus oneness pentacostal. Christian vs Darwinist. I suggest you get
a copy, I have heard one on Christian Radio.
G C | 10:10 a.m. June 8, 2009
There is no question among the LDS that God exists.
There is no question among scientists that all living organisms developed from a single ancestor.
There is no question in my mind that both groups are right.
There is no question among scientists that all living organisms developed from a single ancestor.
There is no question in my mind that both groups are right.
RE: Ancient wisdom | 4:37 p.m. June 8, 2009
Except you show NO wisdom.
IF you go by your thinking then Ethic and Morals will always be controlled by and based on values and views of whoever is in charge.
That is an unavoidable and unchangeable fact.
The leaders in China are deciding what is wrong ad right for china,
the leaders in saudi arabia are deciding what is wrong adn right for saudi arabia
the leaders in france are deciding what os wrong and right for france,
and so on for EVERY country,
what you inevitably end up with is hundreds of different versions of ethics and morals.
IF you go by your thinking then Ethic and Morals will always be controlled by and based on values and views of whoever is in charge.
That is an unavoidable and unchangeable fact.
The leaders in China are deciding what is wrong ad right for china,
the leaders in saudi arabia are deciding what is wrong adn right for saudi arabia
the leaders in france are deciding what os wrong and right for france,
and so on for EVERY country,
what you inevitably end up with is hundreds of different versions of ethics and morals.
James | 4:51 p.m. June 8, 2009
I find it interesting that a majority of liberals like Darwinism, but yet are
for saving dying companies. PLEASE EXPLAIN!
RE: G C | 4:58 p.m. June 8, 2009
Whether they question or not it is not the issue, but may be the problem,
when science becomes dogmatic and allows no questioning that creates a big impediments to finding truth.
Especially when the allow no questioning of things that they themselves have not been able to prove,
but only BELIEVE,
and is therefore_no more than just an assumption,
all to force a theory to work.
NO ONE here is defending creationism nor religion, or that it should be taught in science classes,
all we are demanding is an open_mind from science,
and NOT to assert things as facts that're NOT facts but simply a belief of science,
in other words stop teaching evolution because NO ONE knows, not even science whether it happened or not.
all they can do is assume, because that what they want to believe.
And certainly ANYONE who believes the bible CAN NOT believe in evolution as the genesis for man,
if no other reason it make NO logical sense, that a God, who is so advanced, omnipotent and omniscient, and so capable of doing all wonders and miracles, would bother with or even need evolution.
This is not to say there that_there_may_not_be_some_form_of_evolution_if_nature_is_left_to_itsself_allowed_to_grow_or_go_wild
when science becomes dogmatic and allows no questioning that creates a big impediments to finding truth.
Especially when the allow no questioning of things that they themselves have not been able to prove,
but only BELIEVE,
and is therefore_no more than just an assumption,
all to force a theory to work.
NO ONE here is defending creationism nor religion, or that it should be taught in science classes,
all we are demanding is an open_mind from science,
and NOT to assert things as facts that're NOT facts but simply a belief of science,
in other words stop teaching evolution because NO ONE knows, not even science whether it happened or not.
all they can do is assume, because that what they want to believe.
And certainly ANYONE who believes the bible CAN NOT believe in evolution as the genesis for man,
if no other reason it make NO logical sense, that a God, who is so advanced, omnipotent and omniscient, and so capable of doing all wonders and miracles, would bother with or even need evolution.
This is not to say there that_there_may_not_be_some_form_of_evolution_if_nature_is_left_to_itsself_allowed_to_grow_or_go_wild
RE: SLCSKP | 5:14 p.m. June 8, 2009
MOrphology of fossiles?
that is all assumption and interpetation.
waht we really have are just evidence that a creature once existed,
And again, I point out the fossil evidence of unchanging creatures (but perhaps in size),
like sharks, pteradons, crocadiles, coelacanth, plants, insects, etc, the list goes on and on.
the biggest problem is in creating the tree of life, a fossil find can become whatever they, scientists, decide they want it to be, all so that a theory looks like it works.
and all relationships are pure conjecture, pure supposition and assumption, all manufactuerd by man to create the order in it they want to have.
Scientists are NOT god, whtever they utter is not fact and law,
but only there feeble attempt to make sense of things,
and they could be very very wrong,
sometimes they are able to gain some understanding atleast part of the greater truth in some limited way.
It is a great leap of faith to believe they got it ALL right here,
when it is really nothing more than a hypothesis.
that is all assumption and interpetation.
waht we really have are just evidence that a creature once existed,
And again, I point out the fossil evidence of unchanging creatures (but perhaps in size),
like sharks, pteradons, crocadiles, coelacanth, plants, insects, etc, the list goes on and on.
the biggest problem is in creating the tree of life, a fossil find can become whatever they, scientists, decide they want it to be, all so that a theory looks like it works.
and all relationships are pure conjecture, pure supposition and assumption, all manufactuerd by man to create the order in it they want to have.
Scientists are NOT god, whtever they utter is not fact and law,
but only there feeble attempt to make sense of things,
and they could be very very wrong,
sometimes they are able to gain some understanding atleast part of the greater truth in some limited way.
It is a great leap of faith to believe they got it ALL right here,
when it is really nothing more than a hypothesis.
correction | 5:19 p.m. June 8, 2009
It's "Nietzsche," not "Nietzche." Just so you know.
Bill Jr. | 5:23 p.m. June 8, 2009
William of Ockham argued very persuasively that the most simple explanation
should always be used, and that we should not multiply abstractions in our
explanations. Interestingly, he was a devout believer who was trying to defend
theology from rendering God as nothing but an abstraction.
Taking "Ockham's Razor" (the principle of parsimony) seriously, however, provides an elegant conclusion to be reached about the universe: The scientific explanations work just fine without the hypothesis (abstraction) of a god. The idea of a god is superfluous abstraction and useless in our explanations of the universe.
This keeps it simple.
I would say "Thank God for William of Ockham" but that would be silly.
Taking "Ockham's Razor" (the principle of parsimony) seriously, however, provides an elegant conclusion to be reached about the universe: The scientific explanations work just fine without the hypothesis (abstraction) of a god. The idea of a god is superfluous abstraction and useless in our explanations of the universe.
This keeps it simple.
I would say "Thank God for William of Ockham" but that would be silly.
Ancient Wisdom | 7:02 p.m. June 8, 2009
To: RE Ancient Wisdom
I wasn't calling myself wise, but referring to the wisdom of the ancients.
Morals & ethics are innate. People have an idea what is right and what is wrong.
Granted, our human goodness may take some cultivation, encouraging childrens natural empathy, and teaching the arts of peace, such as conflict resolution. This important instruction has been taking place in all cultures for thousands of years.
There are universal principles of ethics & morality that we all can agree on regardless of sectarian beliefs. A religious parent's child and an atheist's child can both be taught these universal principles
I wasn't calling myself wise, but referring to the wisdom of the ancients.
Morals & ethics are innate. People have an idea what is right and what is wrong.
Granted, our human goodness may take some cultivation, encouraging childrens natural empathy, and teaching the arts of peace, such as conflict resolution. This important instruction has been taking place in all cultures for thousands of years.
There are universal principles of ethics & morality that we all can agree on regardless of sectarian beliefs. A religious parent's child and an atheist's child can both be taught these universal principles
Anonymous | 7:14 p.m. June 8, 2009
Unbeknownst to religious nuts, who have been severely deprived in their
education of history, science, philosophy and such, those who have their
morality (if that is what we can call the behavior of the Inquisition and the
Mountain Meadows Massacre) from some revelation by a god have been less than one
tenth of one hundredth of a miniscule portion of an iota of the worlds human
population over the centuries! For all the rest of humanity, by which we all
exist today, morality has come from practical, everyday experience, rationality,
and common sense. It takes the lies of religion to twist real morality into a
justification for multiple wives, child brides, mutilation of male and female
genitals, suicide bombings, and all the other horrors that are the legacy of
religion!
Sean | 11:37 p.m. June 8, 2009
Bill Jr.: To me, it seems that Occam's Razor argues in favor of a God who
created the world upon which we stand.
Is it not making fewer assumptions to believe that a single, all-knowing being took materials and crafted them by some method (perhaps evolution, perhaps not) into the wonderfully complex mixture of electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up our existence than to assume that somehow the elements formed an earth at exactly the right distance from the sun, that the "primordial soup" was composed of exactly the right mixture, that a shock of energy caused elements to form exactly the correct amino acids, these somehow met up and formed a protein, which gradually combined with others until a basic bare-bones cell was formed, which by some form of endocytosis "ingested" other cells to form Eukaryotes, etc? There are so many *assumptions* in this explanation that lead to a vastly complex, impossibly rich organism like a human being. Is it not simpler to believe that a God orchestrated these events than to make the thousands, nay, millions of assumptions that lead to a randomly created Homo sapien?
It most certainly is.
Is it not making fewer assumptions to believe that a single, all-knowing being took materials and crafted them by some method (perhaps evolution, perhaps not) into the wonderfully complex mixture of electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up our existence than to assume that somehow the elements formed an earth at exactly the right distance from the sun, that the "primordial soup" was composed of exactly the right mixture, that a shock of energy caused elements to form exactly the correct amino acids, these somehow met up and formed a protein, which gradually combined with others until a basic bare-bones cell was formed, which by some form of endocytosis "ingested" other cells to form Eukaryotes, etc? There are so many *assumptions* in this explanation that lead to a vastly complex, impossibly rich organism like a human being. Is it not simpler to believe that a God orchestrated these events than to make the thousands, nay, millions of assumptions that lead to a randomly created Homo sapien?
It most certainly is.
To Sean | 11:59 p.m. June 8, 2009
It is simpler to believe in a creator. But who created the creator?
Marx, Freud and Darwin | 6:25 a.m. June 9, 2009
All these three men did was found a new religion...
Dear RE: Ancient Wisdom | 7:07 a.m. June 9, 2009
"The leaders in China are deciding what is wrong ad right for china,
the leaders in saudi arabia are deciding what is wrong adn right for saudi arabia
the leaders in france are deciding what os wrong and right for france,
and so on for EVERY country,
what you inevitably end up with is hundreds of different versions of ethics and morals."
And Islam deciding what is right and wrong for Islamists; and Mormons for Mormons; and Jews for Jews; and so the list goes on.
With or without "God" or "gods," there is no common version of ethics and morals - the closest man and God has come up with is the "Golden Rule" which is necessary for a cohesive society whether God is involved in that society or not.
the leaders in saudi arabia are deciding what is wrong adn right for saudi arabia
the leaders in france are deciding what os wrong and right for france,
and so on for EVERY country,
what you inevitably end up with is hundreds of different versions of ethics and morals."
And Islam deciding what is right and wrong for Islamists; and Mormons for Mormons; and Jews for Jews; and so the list goes on.
With or without "God" or "gods," there is no common version of ethics and morals - the closest man and God has come up with is the "Golden Rule" which is necessary for a cohesive society whether God is involved in that society or not.
Reasons for morality and ethics | 7:12 a.m. June 9, 2009
Religious individuals believe that if they are not "good" they will be
punished by some greater being - usually referred to as "God." This
is the basis of their morals and ethics.
Non-religious individuals believe that if they are "good" society will function at an ideal level allowing more time to enjoy life because you will not always have to be fighting to protect what is yours.
One groups acts out of fear, the other group acts out of pleasure.
Different stick, same effect.
Non-religious individuals believe that if they are "good" society will function at an ideal level allowing more time to enjoy life because you will not always have to be fighting to protect what is yours.
One groups acts out of fear, the other group acts out of pleasure.
Different stick, same effect.
A Global Time Line | 11:41 a.m. June 9, 2009
I applaud our modern eras rejection of our Christian foundation.
Here is another history time-line, that put is all into perspective, in a lot less detail.
Hunter-Gatherer = Worship of Animals.
Animal Domestication = Ancestor Worship
Agricultural Society = Sun, Seasons and Planet worship.
The first true Civilizations, Trade, Art, Armys, = Polytheism (Multiple planets & seasons related to multiple Gods)
Further Development of Civilization and the beginning of Urbanization and specialization in the work force = Monotheism
The Age of Enlightenment, the Digital Revolution, the mass explosion of our scientific understanding = Atheism & Humanism
Every one of these eras of our history provided important truths in their time, and even fueled the next step in our development. At this point in our history, there is no use for Christianity. Its time has come and gone. Its past its Sell By date and its starting to stink.
Here is another history time-line, that put is all into perspective, in a lot less detail.
Hunter-Gatherer = Worship of Animals.
Animal Domestication = Ancestor Worship
Agricultural Society = Sun, Seasons and Planet worship.
The first true Civilizations, Trade, Art, Armys, = Polytheism (Multiple planets & seasons related to multiple Gods)
Further Development of Civilization and the beginning of Urbanization and specialization in the work force = Monotheism
The Age of Enlightenment, the Digital Revolution, the mass explosion of our scientific understanding = Atheism & Humanism
Every one of these eras of our history provided important truths in their time, and even fueled the next step in our development. At this point in our history, there is no use for Christianity. Its time has come and gone. Its past its Sell By date and its starting to stink.
G C | 4:04 p.m. June 9, 2009
@RE_G_C
But they do question, a scientist following her best judgment would not accept evolution if there were not compelling evidence confirming the theory. Theories cannot be proven, they can only be validated by the success they have in making predictions. Given that every prediction made by evolution bears out, what reason does a scientist have to reject the theory? There is no theory that can compete with evolution, and among scientists no one has seriously challenged the theory in more than one hundred years. The question isn't whether evolution occurs, it is how it occurs. This isn't dogma, it is science at its most elegant.
So what is the proper role of an educator? It can only be to present the most effective theory available to explain a given phenomenon. Evolution is that theory, has anyone suggested another?
As for God and the Bible, only a literal reading of the Bible will be incompatible with evolution. Neither does the occurrence of evolution preclude the existence of God. If you believe God exists, it isn't difficult to see a role for him in directing evolution to whatever extent_is_necessary_to_fulfill_his_purposes,_on_this_view,_evolution_could_require_near_zero_direction_by_God_or_substantial_direction_by_God. The_option_is_God's.
This_is_just_another_instance_confirming_that_a_completely_literal_reading_of the_Bible_is_intellectual_suicide.
But they do question, a scientist following her best judgment would not accept evolution if there were not compelling evidence confirming the theory. Theories cannot be proven, they can only be validated by the success they have in making predictions. Given that every prediction made by evolution bears out, what reason does a scientist have to reject the theory? There is no theory that can compete with evolution, and among scientists no one has seriously challenged the theory in more than one hundred years. The question isn't whether evolution occurs, it is how it occurs. This isn't dogma, it is science at its most elegant.
So what is the proper role of an educator? It can only be to present the most effective theory available to explain a given phenomenon. Evolution is that theory, has anyone suggested another?
As for God and the Bible, only a literal reading of the Bible will be incompatible with evolution. Neither does the occurrence of evolution preclude the existence of God. If you believe God exists, it isn't difficult to see a role for him in directing evolution to whatever extent_is_necessary_to_fulfill_his_purposes,_on_this_view,_evolution_could_require_near_zero_direction_by_God_or_substantial_direction_by_God. The_option_is_God's.
This_is_just_another_instance_confirming_that_a_completely_literal_reading_of the_Bible_is_intellectual_suicide.
RE: G C | 4:39 p.m. June 10, 2009
Evolution is not that theory,
and most of what you say is nonsense,
and just rationalization to BELIEVE whatever it is you want to believe.
and most of what you say is nonsense,
and just rationalization to BELIEVE whatever it is you want to believe.
Sci Tchr & Believer | 11:20 p.m. June 13, 2009
G C, in my opinion, has it figured out. I feel sad that so many poeple think in
is evil to use scientific process to try to figure out how God did it all. If
some day (in the next life) I find out that new species were not made by
evolution I will be surprised but not devatstated. I also think that it is sad
that some people use the evidence for evolultion to deny any existence of God or
to bash religion in general. There are many scientist who find the great
discoveries in science to be MORE evidence of God's handiwork. Science
tries to answer "HOW the world was created." Religion answers
"WHY it was created."
It is possible to be a scientist & a believer in a Creator & an active member of a religion.
It is possible to be a scientist & a believer in a Creator & an active member of a religion.
Sci Tchr & Believer | 11:29 p.m. June 13, 2009
Darwin was not anti-God, he was persecuted to some extent by some religios
leaders & perhaps he lost some faith in a loving god becasue of the death of
2 of his children, however, he said in the last edition of "The Origin Of
Species:" "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." For all of us our greatest
challenge is, as J.K Rowling said: "...to reamain a believer." When
we have terrible things happen to us or our loved ones we all have that
challenge. Darwin lost his faith in a loving god, and that is sad to me.
However, he never lost a belief in the existence of a Creator. Darwin's
science was never an attack on God. It was an attempt to understand God's
methods.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Aggies beat Spartans in snowy Logan 4:31 a.m.
- TCU 55, Utah 28 4:24 a.m.
- BYU 24, New Mexico 19 4:21 a.m.
- Jazz game at a glance 3:00 a.m.
- Real Salt Lake: Game at a glance 3:00 a.m.
- Stanford ends Y's soccer season 2:20 a.m.
- Jazz hope D-Will returns soon 2:19 a.m.
- Snow, SUU lose 2:18 a.m.
- Toone saves day for Wildcats 2:15 a.m.
- Win in New Mexico good for Y? 2:15 a.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- D-Will home for daughter
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Crash on snowy road kills woman
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- BYU happy to escape with victory
- GameDay in Fort Worth
- Born of water and the spirit
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
358 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights200
- BYU happy to escape with victory194
- Will state consider gay rights law?148
- TCU creams U.134
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?130
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges106
- Celtics crush Jazz104
With an intrasquad scrimmage and two exhibition games under their belts,...
Advertisement
Latest comments
So Great!!! So Proud - Love RSL - Bring Home The CUP!!!!!
mr cannon's bold assertation that the purpose of the first ammendemnt as...
Great great great game!!!! Nicky Rimando is a god! We're the most complete...
I had the game on DVR and just watched it. That was the most exciting game...
financially cannot this year, but I will watch loyally, how great to hear...
This is hardly surprising. Bennett has a remarkable arrogance which is also...
I guess that is why "they play the game" as Herman Edwards would say.. ...
What was the score of the LSU vs LA tech game? Alot closer than you'd like to...
Has Fedor not said that THIS IS OUR YEAR all year long? Go back and...
This is just a small glimpse of the future with Obamacare: corruption, waste...
Advertisements
Richard Dawkins is just as off as Cannon here. Science doesn't say there is no God, and it doesn't say there is a God, any more than any other secular field (construction, computer programming, the study of law) does.
Cannon says he's not a scientist. If he wants to make an intelligent statement about science, he should at least learn a little about science first. There are plenty of good scientists at BYU that would be more than happy to talk to him about Darwin, etc.