Deseret News | Intelligent design and the new atheism: Evolution has limits

Reader comments
Intelligent design and the new atheism: Evolution has limits

Page:
1
2
Next >

Explanantions | 12:18 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Humans want answers. It's inherent in our nature. I think perhaps sometimes it is in the interest of a person to admit that they just don't know. Just because something can't be explained, doesn't mean it has to be God.

more.bla.bla | 12:35 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

And faith explains everything? what if Deteriorata is right and we are all just a fluke of the universe. all this arguing over nothing. People... put your effort into today. The past is history and the future is unknown. Feel free to hate on me if it justifies your existence. "I don't know if God exists, but I sure hope he does."

Timj | 4:30 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I'm going to take a wild guess and guess that the Biology department at BYU didn't invite Behe. In fact, BYU's biologists do better work than Behe; the only reason Behe was invited was because he is one of a small handful of biologists that believe in Intelligent Design. None of the biologists working for BYU accept intelligent design; they're a religious bunch, but they have no problem accepting evolution.
I would like to see DN talk to an LDS biologist about this subject matter. Any number of biologists at BYU and elsewhere would be more than happy to contradict Behe.

Comments continue below

Challenge with ID | 6:43 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

As a Christian, I see this speaker's argument that at some point, we have to recognize God's hand in the creation of the universe and life. The problem that I see is that it cannot be tested in the realm of the scientific method. If evolution is a science, it must operate within that realm of hypothesis testing, and within that realm, evolution with adaptation to external environments holds up quite well. ID cannot be tested in the same way.

Science has been a very powerful tool that has brought us cures for disease, put a man on the moon, and provides us new discoveries and technologies to build a better life. What makes it so powerful is that its knowledge isn't "cast in stone" and that better science and ideas can trump old perceptions of reality (e.g., Newtonian physics being replaced later by quantum physics as the dominant paradigm). Products of the scientific method are useful, even if our understanding of phenomena improve later on (e.g., Newtonian physics got us to the moon, but we now know that quantum physics is the more correct understanding).

ID doesn't have a hypothesis to test scientifically.

Anonymous | 7:56 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Prof. Behe, who been struggling for years to find credibility, can't get his research published in peer reviewed journals. Why? Because it's utter garbage. Richard Dawkins' new book puts to rest once and for all Dehe's argument that there are gaps in the record thereby invalidating evolution as a legit science. Read the book; it's compelling.

If it's all just random... | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

...then what's the purpose of our existence? Why do love, care about family and friends, and have morality and societal laws if our being here is all founded on some random, unplanned occurrence?

There's got to be some meaning behind it - and "intelligent designer" - if our lives are to be seen as having purpose.

Aldo | 8:24 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

And this is news why?????????? As a Christian and an evolutionist, I cringe every time I see Behe's unscientific balderdash fan this stupid controversy into flames again. Keep this hogwash in the Mormontimes, where it belongs.

Let's Call a Spade a Spade | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Let's face it. Evolution, though not perfect, explains things FAR BETTER than does reliogion. Evolution, while not able to answer all, is backed up by science, unlike religion. On the other hand, religion is nearly always contradicted by science, particularly LDS/Mormon theology.

Cats | 8:41 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

To "Explainations:" I think it is just astounding the contortions people will go to in order to avoid admitting what is obvious and true on the face of it. THAT GOD EXISTS AND HE CREATED THE UNIVERSE.

Of course, if you admitted there is a God, that would mean you would be required to accept a set of moral laws. That's the real reason atheists don't want to admit there is a God. The other reason is usually because they were forced to go to church when they were a kid and they hate religion for that reason. It isn't based on any proper reasoning. They just don't want to be required to follow a set of moral standards.

True science does NOT conflict with religion. True science is willing to go where ever the evidence takes it. That evidence points to an intelligence designer.....GOD!

Anonymous | 9:28 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Who was the creator of your god's creator?

Evolution could be a tool of God | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Let's consider Behe's example of a mousetrap, and let's work backwards. A mousetrap consists of a heavy wire that hits the mouse, a spring to move the wire, a wire trigger that releases the spring, and a container for bait. Lets change the spring to one less powerful. Lets replace the heavy wire with a lance that moves horizontally and has a sharp point. Now, replace the sharp point with a blunt point. Then remove the spring. Then remove the lance. All that is left is the container for bait. So, remove the container, and we end up with bait lying on the ground. Now, lets start with just bait and use evolution to create this path back to a mouse trap. This simplified example shows how small changes can cumulatively produce a complex mechanism. Of course, along the way there would be thousands of changes that didn't improve the chances of the mechanism to catch mice. And, there could be other paths, too, such as a sticky substance surrounding the bait.

I believe in God, and I think evolution could have been one of his tools of creation. Evolution doesn't mean no God.

RE: Timj | 10:09 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Evolution does contradict the Bible. Nazism,racism is also in conflict with the teachings of Christ. He should have not healed the lame and the sick if progress is measured by the "survival of the fittest". He taught self-sacrifice,but evolution is necessarly based on self-preservation in the struggle for existence. Any form of atheism or pantheism or occultism or progression must necessarily be based on evolutuion. The BYU professor have a dog in the race.

Anonymous | 10:13 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

To Cats,

Why all of the hostility?

Geezer | 10:16 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

They taught evolution at BYU when I was there 40 years ago. What kind of backwards nonsense is going on now?

Timj | 10:37 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Geezer,
They still teach evolution. I'm sure the biology department is also disappointed that a pseudo-scientist is speaking at the school.
Meanwhile, BYU keeps teaching and keeps doing research on evolution (first-class research, actually, including a cover story on a mainstream scientific journal a while back).

Anonymous | 10:39 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Prof. Behe says, "At that edge is intelligent design -- the intervention of a designer."

What is the acceptable form for an "intelligent designer" to be? What if it is non-human? Could those that deny evolution accept that?

Those that believe a man can be the son of God, i.e believers of western organized religions, have pretty much taken themselves out of the discussion because they've defined God already - he looks like Sean Connery with a white robe on right? Perhaps, a more refined version of Santa Claus?

@Cats: What are the "moral standards" by the way? Do they extend to how we treat animals?

Henry | 10:58 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Athiests make me nervous because they are so arrogant thinking that everyone else is so stupid. If I didn't believe in God I don't know if I could join such an angry bunch.

If you have taken nothing more than your 12th grade biology course, you should probably keep your comments to yourself rather than go up against a guy with a Ph.D. in biochemistry.

About Cats | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Oh,Do not worry about Cats,she is just wound tight this morning;and she always thinks that folks with a scientific bent are atheists and heathen...

Timj | 11:18 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Henry,
I'm pretty certain those disagreeing with Behe have more biology than those agreeing with him. I took a class on evolution at BYU, and I can assure you that I, and every classmate of mine, knows more about evolution than Behe.
If I were going up against Behe in biochemistry, I wouldn't stand a chance. But that doesn't mean he knows anything about evolution.

God has a purpose | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I can't read their minds, but the folks who believe in Intelligent Design seem to be people who are trying to find a purpose for God. If God exists, He must exist for a purpose. The best the ID people can come up with is that God exists to create complex things since evolution can't do that. Thus, we have a conflict between ID and evolution.

LDS, however, believe God has a very different purpose for existing: to create homes for the eternal progress of His spirit children (Moses 1:39). This reason for the existence of God doesn't conflict with science or evolution. I'm an active LDS, a firm believer in God, and a firm believer in evolution. I believe that evolution is one of the tools of creation used by God. I accept evolution as the best answer, at this time, that science has for the creation. I accept God, through faith not through science. I look to God for the "why" of things and to science for the "how" of things. The two go hand in hand and give me a greater reason to be happy that I'm alive.

Humes | 11:57 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

If god exists then evolution is one of his devine tools.

bunch | 12:03 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

what a bunch of hooey. GOd is God, not some intelligent designer, or whatever.

God is God. I am a scientist by training and by work. I have zero problems believing in God, evolution, and science.

If you have trouble with that, then may I suggest that your God is a little too small... let Him or Her out of the box, please.

The Argument from the mind | 12:44 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

"No man can think can about himself without turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and move; because it is perfectly obvious,that the endowments which we posses cannot possibly be from ourselves. How could consciouness have evovled from matter? Can matter think?

xscribe | 1:44 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I've never been able to buy into the premise that there is some one person - God - who magically made everything. The Big Bang and evolution just makes more sense to me. If I'm wrong and there is a God, hopefully he/she/it is sympathetic enough to see that, contrary to some posts, an athiest such as myself can live a moral life.

Anonymous | 2:30 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Do mormons believe in this? Just another slight against them being welcomed into the Christian community.

Hope | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

To Cats: Great comments as usual! I really enjoy reading your comments as they get right to the point and says it as it is as far as I'm concerned. This is definitely not my field of expertise but as a Christian I read from the Bible in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This pretty much tells me everything I need to know about this universe!

Anonymous | 4:28 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Humans are given answers...so many just will not accept them.

RFJ | 5:23 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

The scientific method never has been the means of finding out about God and never will be. But, there is a God and he has revealed the way by which he can be known. Faith may seem a far fetched notion to an unbeliever, but to those who have experienced the reality of personal revelation through the means God has prepared, know that it is real, and as undeniable as anything that you can experience through your physical senses. The debate between evolution and creationism is really meaningless. Ulimately we will know how and in what manner things came to be. There are, however, a great many who have come to a knowledge of God, by following the things of the Spirit, which God has revealed as the means of finding Him.

Even more anon | 5:40 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Too bad that DeGroot didn't mention that two of the people presenting at the conference were religious scientists who DON'T agree with intelligent design and believe in evolution. One was a biologist, one a physicist.

It may be hard for some to grasp, but inviting someone to speak doesn't mean approving of what they say.

Obamao | 5:41 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Science could NEVER create, nor explain, the existence of Michael Moore.

The difference | 5:45 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

It seems to me that revelation (scriptures) has answered the "whys" about creation but never about the hows of creation. God has revealed why He creates, but in His wisdom, He has not told us how He creates. Science generaly looks for the hows of creation. Their best theory so far is evolution.

jamesz | 5:50 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

This is fine..as long as he doesn't claim to be doing science. A scientist claiming to be a believer, or wishing that there is a creator/God behind all of this happens all the time. The problem is when they claim that this somehow informs science/biology etc. Intelligent Design isn't scientific and those who dress it up as such do all of us a disservice.

Behe Lacking | 6:06 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Behe lacks imagination. In his pride and arrogance, he states that if he can't imagine how something could have evolved, then it must not have evolved. That BYU would invite such a prideful man to speak about something he refuses to humble himself and address honestly reflects poorly upon my alma mater.

I know! | 6:07 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Evolution can't be right because natural selection couldn't have produced anything as stupid as a politician!

@Obamao | 6:25 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Good thing I wasn't drinking, I'd have sprayed my monitor... :-D

Ok, for all of you who poo poo intelligent design, please offer your refutation of irreducible complexity. How did complex systems, like an eye, develop? If any of the parts isn't there, there is no vision. So, how did any of them come to be, until they all were there? Without some intelligent being guiding the process that is...

For the record, yes, I believe in God, that He created the universe, and is a loving Parent, involved in our lives. And no, haven't got any particular set of beliefs about how He did it, how long it took, etc. Just can see no evolutionary purpose for art, music, literature, religion, morality, spirituality, philosophy, scientific study, the unused 90% of the human brain, the general structure of human society, etc. We could pass on our genes just as well if we lived in a prehistoric club-the-female-drag-her-to-the-cave society.

Anonymous | 7:16 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

God could have done a little better designing knees

Anonymous | 7:42 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

The argument shouldn't be whether evolution is valid or not, but what evolution explains. Adaptation happens on both a micro- and a macro- scale. However, the theory is misapplied to humans and many other organisms...man did not evolve from apes and apes did not evolve from lower level organisms. The scientific data supporting such claims are flawed and are generated by techniques, such as carbon dating, etc. that can be and are misapplied. The remains purported to be our ancient ancestors are either misidentified humans or apes and of an age that is measured in thousands of years not millions.

DennyG | 7:55 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

A problem shows up in this discussion making the assumption that humanity is the top of the evolutionary process.
I've seen humans pushed around for 57 years by their pets. Who is the smart one here.
My boxer gets fed, walked, pampered, blow dried and snacks anytime she looks for it. She runs the house and we're happy to let her.
Scientific study and humananity are an oxymoron.

the truth | 7:57 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Evolution is utter hocum,

it is NOT the answer.

it explains nothing, but invents and creates endless possibilities all built on speculation and supposition and assumption,

all to serve a theory.

One CAN NOT belirve in GOD and evolution,

else one would have to believe God chose a very laborious and slow way to create a purposeful creation.

something GOD SHOULD be able to do DIRECTLY if God were truly GOD.

While ONE can believe god created life that is adaptable to some extent to environments.

Everything is what it was DESIGNED to be, and can never be anything else.

The fact the IDea of evolution was made up first,
and then subsequently the so-called "evidence" has been FORCED_FIT to make it work.

BAD science,

BAD BAD science.

Any Good scientist knows you observe and collect evidence and data THEN see were it takes you, what conclusions it leads to.

A Good scientist would find a fossil and say this is evidence of a creature that once existed some time ago,

NOT jump a conclusion that they are related to it.

A Good scientist would be objective and consider alternative conclusions/theories until they must rule them out.

JayPee | 8:32 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Do mormons believe in this? How can they expect to be calle Christians when they believe in this stuff.

Diane | 8:43 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Re: Cats, Why do all your posts sound so mean and BITTER? Does everyone have to think and agree with you or what? PLEASE-Live and let live, and quit being so dog gone bossy!

Oh yeah, I believe in God, and that God created us all, but I do not believe that God created us to be thorns in the sides of others who do not fit into some crazy dome of nonsense. Narrow mindedness just doesn't work for me. Have a good evening.

Go back | 9:03 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

to your high chair "truth",this is a conversation for lucid adults..You are,I suppose,familiar with the old adage"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool,than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"..As far as true science and reasoning affecting you at all,for the sake of charity lets us say you remain pure and untouched by anything remotely approaching logic.. But be of good cheer,God also smiles on fools and their foolishness,as the rain falls on the just and unjust, as the world spins on it's merry way,life and creation evolving all along the way ...Charlie Darwin

JB Beesley | 9:33 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

This is a great article. It has made me do some thinking in what some people believe in and how they relate to God. I am not LDS, but do enjoy reading some of these articles. Some of the comments seem to come from some very mixed-up and strangely angry people. Especially those who are constantly calling the (NON-MORMOM & THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSE TO LEAVE LDS FAITH).. outsider Antis' None-the-less I do enjoy the reading and don't mean to sound judgmental of LDS. I personally would never join LDS, but do like reading the DN articles about many different religions and faiths.

xman2 | 12:34 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

To the truth: You must have missed science class. You don't seem to understand basic scientific method or the use of "theory" within that method.

byu_alum90 | 12:36 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

How embarassing for BYU...I can't imagine this tripe being allowed at my current university (and it's a Catholic school!).

To Cats | 1:19 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

I'm an Athiest, and I am happily married, take care of my things, love my dog, pay my taxes, obey the laws, treat others kindly, don't lie, cheat or steal, have good relationships with co-workers, family, and friends, and enjoy life.

Does it make you feel better to know an Athiest can live this way, or do you wish God would punish me? Just curious.

Beliefs don't make one moral, actions do.

Patriot | 1:37 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

Where is your missing link. You have only been looking 150 years for it. Yes, you can create it in a dish but wait, then your playing God. The reason Prof. Behe,has who been struggling for years to find credibility is the same reason you may not know the original title of Charles Darwins book. The Original title was "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? I wonder why that was covered up?

AB | 2:36 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

Way to go Cats!! You hit the nail on the head!!

James E Gambrell | 2:37 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

Natural selection? What makes selection natural. Is not all selection intellectual, an intelligent choice

S2 | 6:37 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009

I read here that many have accepted evolution as an explanation for how things have come to be. As an explanation. Ok. There is still no proof, and it is still JUST a theory.

Dawkins is a gadfly. Similar mo(u)ld as Michael Moore with the same sense and purposes.

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.