Quantcast

Comments about ‘Creationists praise atheist for anti-Darwinism book’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 7 2013 2:35 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

A philosopher cannot trump scientific investigation and data.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Creationism does not validate anyone telling me what I can eat or drink.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

@Hutterite,

No, creationism can't, but common sense and moral can. And yes, that can be leglislated. Common sense and morals say that drugs are bad and therefore we've made them illegal, even if you want to eat or drink them.

Similarly, common sense and morals say that I shouldnt marry my sister, a pineapple, or another man. And in most places with common sense and morals those things are illegal too.

So no, Creationism shouldnt have rule over you. But common sense and morals should rule over those without common sense and morals.

jeanie
orem, UT

It is interesting what current scientific investigation and data ARE discovering.- the long list of elements that would each have to be perfectly aligned for our universe to exist and for there to be an earth with life on it, the possibility that given enough time a race of beings could evolve that was capable of controlling elements in the universe as if it were a garden.

There is room for Creationists theories and room for questioning Darwinian beliefs. It seems that any science worth it's salt was first vehemently rejected when first proposed. Good for this guy. Rock the boat.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

I am most certainly a darwinist and certainly philosophy is not a substitution for scientific observation, however i will very likely be reading this book as it sounds like Hagel has taken on a very on interesting philosophical exercise that could provide insight into how the human mind perceives and makes sense of its world.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Sensible Scientist

Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is built on neither scientific investigation or data.

The only fact that can found in evolution is that it is built entirely on assumings and supposings.

That is obvious to anybody who has studied carefully the theory of evolution and the language it is written in.

may haves, might haves, possibly could haves, and so forth.

It is the Sergeant Schultz of theories, it actually knows nothing!

With that kind of science anything is possible!

And without serious questioning of it it is not worth anything scientifically.

jeanie
orem, UT

Atl134 - That's true that evolution does not attempt to explain the universe. However, the larger idea that things just happen to happen in a way that evolved into the life we know can still fall into the categories of intelligent design or a chance combination over time.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

Creationists praise atheist philosopher who attacks science. Sheesh, you just can't make these things up. Strange bedfellows, but I suppose the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- though I suspect the philosopher is equally willing to target the creationists. Someone like me who is a theist *and* believes in evolution must really drive him nuts!

RickK
Provo, UT

"Truth" said: "Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is built on neither scientific investigation or data."

That's fundamentally dishonest. The same evidence-based approach that we use to determine any other answers in science (or in a courtroom for that matter) are used to validate and expand evolutionary theory. We've SEEN species evolve - fundamental organ changes, changes in size, shape, metabolism. There's more DNA evidence for Common Descent than all the DNA evidence used in every criminal trial and every paternity test combined. The fossil record confirms the DNA confirms the biogeography confirms the cladistic tree confirms morphology all confirmed by multiple dating methods and all in sync with biology, chemistry and physics.

Whatever the implications to your worldview, whatever the implications to your moral foundations, whatever the implications to society, the simple fact is that species evolve and we are the product of evolution.

I don't like the implications of nuclear weapons - is the right response to deny Atomic Theory and declare Einstein wasn't doing real science?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

unfortunately Nagel seems to have fallen into the creationist thinking of the probability of step one leading to step 100 is astronomical therefore could not be true. there are 99 steps along the way that lead to 100, it was neither inevitable or created out of thin air.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

Evolution is one of the most well-supported, thoroughly tested, useful scientific theories in the history of mankind. The mountains of evidence are overwhelming. You may as well deny gravity -- you're free to do so, but you'd be just plain wrong.

Some of you misunderstand what "evolution" means. It means that life forms change through time, that life forms have common ancestors. That is simple fact, observable in the fossil record. Details of how and why changes take place are where investigations continue.

So NO, there is no room for creationist and young-earth ideas in education or science. No evidence supports them, only religious and philosophical ideas, and that means they are NOT science.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@RickK
@Sensible Scientist

There has been no observable evolution, regardless of claims,

unless you want to suppose and assume, they're just observable adaptations within a creatures own sphere, minor environmental adaptations that never progress beyond it's own sphere, a fish is still a fish, a bird is still a bird, and a flu virus is still flu virus, and so forth.

We have never observed, even by trying to force it in laboratories, a species become something else entirely.

DNA does not prove anything, it just suggest possibilities, it is assuming and supposing, may haves, might haves, could haves,

Trying to base things on common genetic traits is just plain bad science, all based on assuming and supposing relationships,

Fossils are whatever you want to make of them, again you can assume and suppose anything about them, and invent imaginary relationships, and makeup any story you want about them,

again assumings and supposings.

Nothing in the so-called theory is an actual scientific fact.

Now if don't stop science from critical questioning, and not create dogma like evolution, and try out different theories, maybe we can actually come to some actual truth and fact.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

You know believers are getting desperate when they unwittingly embrace the arguments of someone like Nagel, a philosopher whom most believers completely misunderstand (and have probably never read).

Knowing Nagel's mentor, it is not surprising Nagel's critiques of reductionist explanations are attractive to believers. But they embrace Nagel's arguments at their own peril.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@the truth
why do you fight against something even most religions acknowledge as fact? Is it really that scary to think that maybe we are not all that much more special then other animals? That heaven forbid God used the rules of science to create the universe?

minininjatriforceman
American Fork , UT

I don't see myself as desperate. I am a studen in biotechnology at uvu I have a biology professor that believes in both god and evolution. I personally don't believe in evolution yet I study it. I don't know how god created man but I know that he did and we were never apes. Science changes constantly. People believed in all seriousness that the sun revolved around the sun. They rejected the idea of an atom. Eventually I know that if science is to be perfect then it will match with what god has said because he is perfect and teaches and is a supporter and always will support truth. Truth never changes because it is true. Science changes because it is imperfect.I am not saying science is bad though by all means it is wonderful I love science but it is imperfect. Any scientist would agree with me that we don't know everything and we know it is reckless to assume we know everything.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Here is an interesting case study. minininjatriforceman wrote:

"Any scientist would agree with me that we don't know everything and we know it is reckless to assume we know everything."

Of course, any true Scotsman would agree that, for a comment that insists "we don't know", it sure is filled with a lot of "knowing":

- "I don't know how god created man but I KNOW that he did and we were never apes."

"People believed in all seriousness that the sun revolved around the sun." ??

"I KNOW that if science is to be perfect then it will match with what god has said because he is perfect and teaches and is a supporter and always will support truth."

"Truth never changes because it is true." (Now that we have that settled...)

It was either Artemus Ward or Mark Twain who said "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."

I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nagel's arguments against reductionism are "true"... and that they do nothing to favor theistic belief.

Strange bedfellows indeed...

maclouie
Falconer, NY

Sometimes people confuse "knowing" with strong belief and vis versa. Both sides should take a break and replace their "knowledge" with beliefs. Even scientific "knowledge" is really a belief system. You can tell because their knowledge and theories of the Univers, evolution, atoms (ie things they can't see) keep changing.

People of faith "know" the same things that people of science "know", people of faith just "know" more. And in the end, there is nothing wrong with knowing more unless it serves you wrong. Believing in God and/or creationism never served anyone wrong.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments