Regular readers of M* may know there is an ongoing debate between the pro-evolution crowd and some of us who are skeptics. To sum up: I am skeptical of macro evolution but willing to accept it may have happened with a Creator’s guiding hand. But for the meantime color me doubtful. Others, including our brilliant Clark Goble, and a supporting cast of scientists at the fascinating web site Mormons and Evolution are politely but insistently critical of doubters like myself. Clark, for example, has said repeatedly that evolution is “settled science.”
Well, I have some new thoughts to add to the debate, and I wanted to post them here. I’d like some input from our scientific friends (who consistently amaze me with the depth of their knowledge).
The following argument is made by John Pratt, the science editor at Meridian magazine. Here’s the entire article by Brother Pratt. I disagree with many points made by Brother Pratt, but I think this argument is incontrovertible. Perhaps Clark and Jeffrey, Jared, Mike and Christian can come up with believable counter-arguments. We shall see.
Q5. If science only concerns what is observable, and if God remains hidden, then would there be a proper place for God in scientific journals? Isn’t the real reason that God is not mentioned in scientific journals because he has no place there, rather than a result of a Satanic conspiracy to keep him out?
A5. As an example of how God might fit into scientific articles, consider articles about the origin of life on earth. There could be a whole array of scientific hypotheses put forward, all of which could lead to scientific tests, especially in the field of genetics. For example, there could be a theory that a) atoms just came together by themselves, forming all plant and animal life with no need for a Creator; b) same as a) but directed by a Creator; c) same as b) with the requirement added that spirits are needed for life; d) all instructions for life were encoded by the Creator into the first single cell, which was then left on its own to evolve into all plants and animals; e) several separate kinds of plants and animals were created, which are not related to each other at all, but rather share similar “good design” features; f) the various kinds of plant and animal life were transplanted to the earth; g) the real creation was all done in the spirit world where DNA codes were written, and the physical creation consisted of planting seeds, watering them, etc.; and h) God’s creations are never “left alone” but God is actively involved with all of his creatures.
This list could obviously be extended, but the point here is that only theory a) is allowed in scientific journals today because it is “unscientific” to mention God. Thus we are only allowed to discuss and teach in science classes the one theory that God has told us explicitly is guaranteed to be false, namely that God was not involved at all.
What will scientific journals be like after the Savior returns, and the Millennium is fully underway? Will we not still have schools where youth are taught science? Will they still learn Kepler’s laws of astronomy and Newton’s laws of physics? Will they study genetics and be taught how to understand the DNA code of life? I think so. But what about theory a) above, the atheistic theory of organic evolution, the only one taught in most schools today? Will it be taught any more at all? Will it still be forbidden to speak of the Creator in science classes? Of course not.
Re-reading this, I think John Pratt makes some excellent points. A refusal by the scientific world to accept God in any of its respected experiments these days makes for incomplete studies and false science. As any student of the history of science will know, Sir Isaac Newton and even Einstein accepted the existence of a Creator. Isn’t scientific study incomplete without this factor?
Another and related question for our scientific observers: Do they honestly believe that the study of science in a Millennial world will be the same as it is now? Obviously, this is pure speculation, but isn’t it safe to say scientific study will be very different then?
And, lastly, if science classes are incomplete without factoring in the “God factor” in their experiments, isn’t there room for at least bringing that up in evolution or astronomy classes?
You think Pratt makes some excellent points? Whoa. I think Pratt is the most embarrassing thing about Meridian and that they ought fire him as soon as is possible.
BTW – LDS Science Review discussed this article of Pratt’s last month.
My answer to the above is though that while I don’t think God is intrinsically “hidden” to science, science can put forth tests that might explain without requiring God. If it works, then why is God necessary? You have a theory that makes successful predictions, is falsifiable, and is simple. Contrast this with ID which doesn’t make successful predictions, isn’t falsifiable, and isn’t simple.
Certainly the opportunities for science once we have angels and the like around are tremendous. But that doesn’t mean that what science says isn’t knowable.
I’d also say that the issue is less whether God was involved than how he was involved – something Pratt doesn’t touch upon.
One thing I’d add is that science is always incomplete. Indeed this is at the heart of science being science. And sometimes that incompleteness results in errors. But that doesn’t make science false.
Just to add, if the argument is that God ought be brought up in cosmology and evolution discussions to be fair, since it is what isn’t included, then by exactly the same reasoning everything excluded has the same right to be included and mentioned.
I don’t think we want to go down that path.
Clark, just as an explanation: I think Pratt makes some excellent points in this particular argument, which I attached here. In general, he has some pretty far-out stuff, and frankly I don’t know what to make of a lot of it. I disagree strongly with you last statement: “I’d also say that the issue is less whether God was involved than how he was involved – something Pratt doesn’t touch upon.” If you re-read the above, that is exactly what he is asking for. In other words, he is asking us to consider God as one possibility and build experiments around that. If we were to do that, we would get a lot closer to scientific truth.
Clark, I don’t agree with your #2. I am not asking for everything to be brought up. In a more complete view of science, the idea of a creator must be considered as one possibility to get a full picture of how the universe was created and how we were created. If you ignore that possibility, you are not getting a full picture or a true picture. Or do you think Newton and Einstein had it wrong?
I’m going to call a few of Dr. Pratt’s bluffs.
Dr. Pratt conveniently neglected to elaborate on this. What scientific tests would confirm or falsify his hypotheses?
None of my science teachers, high school or college, LDS or non, mentioned the theory that “God was not involved at all.” How could they have omitted this if it’s the only theory that they’re allowed to teach?
Has Dr. Pratt tried to publish a paper that argues for a scientific model of God? If so, what was the response? If not, then on what basis does he claim that such theories are categorically prohibited?
What do you mean by Einstein or Einstein had it wrong? Einstein’s view of God was Spinozist. i.e. it wasn’t God the way we think of it. The universe was God working according to deterministic laws. Newton was more of a neoPlatonist.
As I said, I don’t mind people putting forth creation as a hypothesis. Then it has to be tested. And there, it fails.
Here, here, Clark. Pratt claimes that:
Last I checked these have failed. Miserably.
Now, I’ll be the first to claim the fallibility of science, my disertation repudiated 100 years worth of conventional wisdom (mostly becasue there is not a huge amount of interest in the field). The thing is, though, that the errors were repudiated by science, not wishful thinking. If evolution is repudiated, it will not be by wishful thinking. Though, now evolution is quite a formidable scientific theory.
Perhaps what is Satanic is not the conspiricy to remove God from science, but the conspiricy to have Faith in the wrong thing.
Clark, we’re back to the same old argument. You believe creation fails as a hypothesis. I guess it depends on your definition of creation (I don’t believe in the six-day creation theory, as you know). There is no way to test the creation I believe in — it is based on faith. There is also no way to test the evolution you believe in — it is also based on faith with a lot of scientists in today’s world to back it up and repeat the mantra again and again that is is proven. But by the rules of science (is it observable? can it be repeated?) it is impossible to prove scientifically.
So many good post going on right now and so little time. Let me read everything and I’ll be back to comment.
Geoff, you said, “There is no way to test the creation I believe in — it is based on faith.”
Isn’t this the exact opposite of Dr. Pratt’s thesis?
But by the rules of science (is it observable? can it be repeated?) it is impossible to prove scientifically.
I guess I would ask you what evidence there is to suggest your creationism. There is quite a bit of evidence to support evolution. And though we don’t have time in our lifetimes to observe the history of the universe, we do have the evidence left by evolution and the tools to use evolution for our knowledge and benifit. We can observe species with rapid life cycles change with time. What is there to support your hypothesis, Geoff B.?
The best way to correct Pratt’s argument is to say that IN AS MUCH as God is hidden (and that’s a whole lot) then He is not included in science. This is what exactly what science teaches. Scientists don’t have a vendetta against God as an actual cause or being, only as an explanation. “God did it” makes for a terrible explanation for it can be applied to anything, therefore amounting to nothing at all. It is in the restrictions and regulations that order arises, both in the nature science studies as well as in science itself. Only by invoking what can be observable, replicable and falsifiable has any progress been made. Since God and His acts fall outside this category, He is simply not in science. Notice, science isn’t against God, it simply ignores Him since that hypothesis doesn’t contribute anything.
I’d also like to second Clark’s thoughts about Pratt. He makes Mormonism seem far more antagonistic toward science and intellectualism in general than it really is. He portrays Mormonism as if all Mormons should be young earth creationists, thus making a laughing stock out of the church. One thinks of the line from Mean Girls: “And on the third day God created the triple pump action rifle so man could fight the dinosaurs…. and the homosexuals…. AMEN!”
I’m sure science during the second coming will be different for the very reason that Pratt seems to be challenging modern science. Namely, God and His acts will at that time be accesable for observation, replication and falsification.
Sorry about the typoes.
“For example, there could be a theory that a) atoms just came together by themselves, forming all plant and animal life with no need for a Creator”
Wow, this Pratt is one embarrassing intellectual lightweight, n’est-ce pas? (although you could say the same of many of our leaders on this subject). But to be fair, he’s probably another victim of the ridiculous limits Nibleyites place on their concept of the Almighty. My G-d is the creator of everything: space, time, everything else. As an almighty being he is independent of his creation, including time. Part of G-d’s creation is the elements, and if they happen to spontaneously combine to form life w/o any later intervention on His part, G-d still created life, just not in the way Pratt’s primitive mind envisions. In a nut shell, while I believe in evolution, it doesn’t explain creation, doesn’t even come close. What evolution does is explain a very necessary mechanism by which species, which go extinct all the time, are replaced so that life overall continues.
The one thing I’ve never understood is why so many get so bent out of shape about evolution. It was an ancient idea, common in many stories and myth. Darwin comes along and contributes a mechanism that explains it, natural selection, and then the excrement hits the fan. Why?
Links:
Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research
A testable hypothesis devloped using this method:
Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
Also of interest:
A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
by john Davidson
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life
by Hubert P. Yockey
Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress
by William Dembsi
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence
by William Dembski
http://www.designinference.com/
Anon,
I don’t see how belief in Darwinism precludes coming up with they hypothesis that centrioles are molecular turbines or how belief in ID leads to that hypothesis. A Darwinian could easily think, “Wow, centrioles kinda look like little turbines, I bet that’s how the polar ejection force works.” Whether they look like turbines because they were designed that way or because of the natural selection of genes whose products happened to assemble in that form is beside the point. The question cell biologists ask is “how does it work?” not, “how did it come to be so?”
Further, I hope you have something better than the centrioles-as-turbines hypothesis to tout as a triumph for ID-based scientific reasoning, ‘cuz it’s a stinker of a hypothesis. Sure, the hypothesis is testable, but testability isn’t the only criterion for a good hypothesis. It also has to not be dumb. The centrioles-as-turbines hypothesis is dumb. Maybe I shouldn’t say dumb. I’ll say this: there is no reason to believe that centrioles act as turbines.
In every astronomy class I took that discussed cosmology and theoretical models of the universe the big bang was always discussed. For those unfamiliar with the idea it goes like this: There was a major event, then there was radioactivity, then as things cooled down it became sub atomic particles, which became hydrogen, which coalesced into stars, that burned the hydrogen into more complex atoms, which coalesced into molecules, that became planets and stars and the house that Jack built. Inevitably someone always asked, “What was there before?” The professors would always say “We don’t know.” Those that have a belief in God answer in their minds “God was before.” Those that don’t have a belief in God accept the answer “We don’t know.” Part A from the example is something that would only occur in a class where the debate on whether or not to include God is raging, and the teacher is against it. If the debate wasn’t raging the teacher would feel no need to fill in “Atoms came together forming plant and animal life” with rhetoric specifically excluding God. I’m perfectly alright with science classes not mentioning God by name, because those that have a belief will put God where the textbooks say “we don’t know.” Those that don’t believe aren’t taking science classes to learn about God, and will not be receptive to hearing about it in that manner.
As far as science classes in the millenium, I think they will be different in two ways, First when someone asks a question the teacher will never have to say “we don’t know.” And second instead of just saying how planets, stars, plants, and animals came to be how they are, we will also hear how we can make them ourselves, like a cooking class.
Geoff (#8): There is also no way to test the evolution you believe in — it is also based on faith with a lot of scientists in today’s world to back it up and repeat the mantra again and again that is is proven.
I disagree with this quite strongly. The problem occurs only if you take “test” to entail a deductive test. I don’t. Indeed I think most useful tests are anything but simple and deductive.
I’d second Justin’s comments in #11. I think there is considerable evidence for evolution and no evidence (except some silence ala the God of the gaps) for ID and even less for Creationism. (Meaning by the later a particular theory of how God created the universe)
Andermom (#16), there actually are quite a few scientific theories attempting to understand what was before. Linde universes, which I mentioned, are one. M-Theory (sort of a superset of string theory) makes many claims in this regard. There is also a conflict between the experimentalists and the theoreticians over the nature of the big bang. So a lot of science does go on relative to these things.
Andermom, I think knowledge won’t be quite that easy to gain in the millenium. I don’t think everything will suddenly become easy to learn. I also don’t know if we will be that interested in learning some of the things we care about now. I also think we will still need to say “I don’t know”. Why else would we be told that during the millenium whatsoever we ask for will be granted? Why would we need to ask if we knew everything already? We will still need to ask and learn and grow and there will undoubtedly still be eons and eons of growth and probations that will need to go through to fully comprehend all that God does.
I’m sure this isn’t helpful, but my science teacher explained in 7th grade that most people in America believe that God created the earth and everything/everyone on it. Scientists believe that man evolved from more primative life forms and that we can all be traced back to protiens that evolved into SSOs, then multi celled organisms, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles and so on. These are all statements of fact because they discuss opinions.
As for evolution being “settled” why then are there so many theories of evolution that disprove the other theories? Why are the statistical probabilities unreasonable. Why do we see examples of intra-species evolution but almost no evidence of inter-species evolution? While there may be some minor evidence among bacterium, there is hardly any evidence and certainly not on the scale suggested by the enormous time it would take for evolution to occur.
Just asking.
Why doesn’t the existence of a watch prove the existence of a watch maker? According to a couple articles Pulsars produce some kind of artificial signal. Something that repeats or has a pattern. Isn’t this evidence of ID? If stars have evidence of being created, clearly the universe was created by intelligent design.
Heli, there certainly are different particular evolutionary theories, but the basics of evolution which is what is debated are settled. So the variations are merely taking basic evolution as a given and debating about the particular forms evolution took.
As for whether we “see” inter-species evolution. We do. There are actually several examples. The problem is that this takes time. But one could argue that the fossil record provides quite a few examples as well. Once again, if you demand deductive reasoning to count as “seeing” then you won’t find the fossil record sufficient. I’d merely point out that “deductive seeing” is not necessary in science. Indeed science tends to be about indirect knowing. This misunderstanding about science is unfortunately heavily propagated by anti-evolutionists.
Clark (#1) said, “Then why is God necessary?”
That question troubles me. The Bible says God is necessary. Twenty-six times in Genesis one, we are told what God did “in the beginning.” Do the scriptures falsely give God credit for things He didn’t do? Was Moses not speaking about the God we LDS think of?
will (#5) said,
Did your science teachers mention God’s involvement in evolution? If your school teachers taught evolution without mentioning God’s involvement, then they taught a process in which “God was not involved.” I’m not necessarily a Pratt fan, mind you, but shouldn’t we give a man credit when he makes a valid point?
Some people believe evolution explains the origin of species—with God’s involvement. However, it is presently taboo to teach that in most science classes. Isn’t that correct? And isn’t that what Pratt meant when he said we are only allowed to discuss and teach in science classes the origin theory that excludes God?
John Pratt asks (in Geoff’s original post),
Perhaps we should first ask, What will science itself be be like after the Savior returns, and the Millennium is fully underway? This will be a wonderful time in the history of the earth. Scientists will have the opportunity to study the earth as it was before the fall of Adam, and some scientific theories will be drastically overhauled when it becomes clear that there was no death during the pre-fall stage of earth’s existence.
Gary (#21) we have to distinguish the natural laws and processes God made use of and whether God was involved in bringing about this particular state of affairs. Evolution is seeking after the processes. Now if one believes that God doesn’t use natural laws and principles to bring about his ends, then that’s not a big issue. But if the evidence points that life doesn’t happen in unexpected ways but can be explained via natural law, then I don’t think it is any more necessary to invoke God than it is necessary to invoke God and angels to explain the movement of the planets.
Do you think a discussion of Newton’s laws of mechanics ought also discuss God? There’s even more justification there since at least Newton did think God was involved. Me, I think God makes use of natural law: things like the force of gravity.
Too funny. You are nothing if not consistent, Gary. You may want to consider various NDBF-themed epitaphs.
Clark (#24),
Can you tell me what gravity is? Scientists can describe gravity’s effect, but do not know why it works that way. We not have a definitive answer for the question, What is gravity? (see the statement “Science at this time really does not know what exactly gravity is” found here, and the statement “What is gravity? We don’t really know” found here.)
Regarding what does “explain the movement of the planets,” President John Taylor made this observation:
If God did merely “make use of natural law,” as you assert, those laws would replace God as the supreme power in the universe and God himself would be inferior to natural law, just a super engineer.
Please refer to a more lengthy discussion of these issues here.
My goodness. To those non-scientists out there, please educate yourselves in science. Enroll in an introductory biology course at your nearby community college. Your criticisms and objections are without understanding. I think it is fine to take issue with things, propose alternatives, etc., if you have some idea what you are talking about. Geoff says he is open to hearing what the scientists out there have to say. I praise you for that, but please do some personal study on your own first. You may have done some, but not nearly enough. I’d be satisfied with an introductory biology course taken within the last 10 years and some basic understanding of scientific principles such as parsimony, falsifiablity, experiment, and the philosophy of science.
I am not trying to be rude. It is just exasperating to read these attacks on science that demonstrate nearly complete ignorance on the subject. It is similar to the feelings you get when someone attacks the church with arguments that are completely without merit or understanding. Like the rumor that late 19th century Mormon men kidnapped French women and took them back to Utah through underground tunnels. The argument might make sense to an uneducated person, but to an educated person the idea is so without merit that he hardly knows where to begin to correct the lack of understanding. So, please, go take some classes.
Enochville, I have taken some college-level science courses and read a fair amount on biology, cosmology and the like. I don’t think general attacks on commenters, ie that we have no idea what we are talking about, are very useful. Can you give us specific cases and address specifically the arguments that have been made? I am openly calling for a discussion, so why not discuss the issues at hand?
Clark, I would like to take this opportunity to address your comment #1 above regarding the discussion at LDS Science Review on John Pratt’s assertions.
First, let’s do an exercise. Let’s say that you were in John Pratt’s position and had just made an assertion, for example, that Richard Bushman’s RSR book was interesting and worth reading. Now, let’s say that another web site read your article, and posted it and spent nine comments talking about how Clark Goble was a complete idiot who was destroying the Church and providing anti-Mormon fodder without ever addressing Clark Goble’s primary assertion, which was that RSR was interesting and worth reading. That is basically what LDS Science does to John Pratt (and, btw, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people at LDS Science as well, so I was disappointed to read this thread). Note that I am addressing the comments, not the original post, which actually does address some of the substance of his article, but somehow misses the primary assertion of John Pratt’s article.
The primary assertion is that Satan does exist and that he is interested in using science to fulfill his purposes. This seems rather uncontroversial to me. I happen to believe that Satan does exist. Why does Heavenly Father allow him to exist? To provide “opposition in all things.” Would Satan completely ignore science or would he twist science like he twists everything else? It would seem very likely the “father of all lies” would try to introduce lies, innuendo, exaggerations, incomplete research, falsified data, etc, into the world of science, just as he does in all other fields.
What would Satan’s primary targets be? It seems that because Satan is primarily interested in destroying faith in God and Jesus Christ that he would attack the fields of science that most touch on the existence of a Creator. Biology and cosmology are just two of those fields. He would build up theories that allow scientists to discount the presence of God.
Note: I am not saying that we shouldn’t study these fields or that all people who support evolution are dupes of Satan or anything of the sort. I am using basic logic, which says: a)Satan does exist b)he has a purpose, which is to provide opposition c)he will be active in attacking science as he has in other fields and d)the most likely fields of attack are those that allow him to decrease faith in God.
If you’re going to take on this argument, you need to attack one of the legs of the logic tree, such as saying a)Satan doesn’t exist or b)he is not interested in providing opposition, etc. Attacking John Pratt (or me) for making an argument will not convince anybody.
Again, let me make sure I am not misunderstood (which seems to happen a lot in blogging). I am not saying that scientists are dupes of Satan. I am not saying it is evil to study science (in fact, I believe just the opposite). I am not saying I agree with everything John Pratt writes (I happen to think some of his articles are pretty wacky). I am not saying the theory of evolution is evil (I happen to think there is a lot of truth there, I just am doubtful of its primary assertions and the logical jumps that scientists make to try to make it fit to reality.)
The primary issue is: is Satan not involved in science at all? If he is, wouldn’t he promote theories that decrease faith in God? I think those are assertions that should be addressed.
Enochville: Those were British women, not French women, who were transported in tunnels to the Kingdom of the Saints. Get your false calumnies straight!
Geoff B (#29), I find it just as likely that Satan could twist religion in such a way that people rest their faith on conceptions of God that are overly rigid and narrow so that when they are presented with evidence that appears contrary to their conception of God they lose faith entirely.
I agree with you that it is inappropriate (and maybe evil) for scientists to overreach and make assertions that aren’t warranted. It is appropriate and necessary, however, for scientists to assume no supernatural intervention as they try to figure out how stuff works.
Tom, good comment. You raise some interesting points.
Tom, a follow up (and this gets us back to the issue of materialism): how do you define “supernatural?” For centuries, scientists did not understand the makeup of the atom or understand forces such as gravity, radio waves, television, etc. These forces would have been considered “supernatural” to them. I happen to think that angels exist on a plane and/or frequency that we simply haven’t discovered yet, just as microwaves exist on a frequency that was not discovered hundreds of years ago. Is it scientific for scientists to assume that no new discoveries (such as another plane of existence) regarding our world will ever be made?
I’m pretty sure that the Adversery would try to influence every aspect of human existance. However, from the Mormon perspective, it seems that, especially the Temple instruction (noteably the pre-1990), suggest there is not scriptural warning against science, but there is substanital warning of the adversaries influence in other religious belief systems. All this controversy is the fruits of other religious systems.
Now, I am as much of an ecumenicist as the prophet, so I don’t want to assign Satanic motive to any seekers of God. I think such is not in harmony with our current directives in the Church.
J. Stapley, just a few words: Satan teaches “the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures.”
Indeed he does, but who is it that are teaching them? Especially in the older version.
I’m sad to be wading into this conversation late. I will comment a little more on Pratt’s article at my blog.
Pratt has proposed several hypotheses for the origin of life. The main problem is that most of them are not really testable, at least as far as I can tell, while others can probably be ruled out based on what we do know. This is not to say that none of them will be shown to be ultimately true, but how do you deal with a proposition that God is actively involved with all of his creatures?
Do you believe God ever favors a nation in battle? Imagine in a history class that every time a conquest was discussed and a list of reasons why a particular side was victorious was made, the teacher also had to list, “Or God either favored the victorious side or was angry with the losers.” Neither proposition could be formally ruled out, but is such a thing practical in any systematic sense? They would just be empty words thrown in to placate the religious.
As for the discussion on his previous article, I’m glad you (Geoff) differentiated between my post and the comments. I didn’t really deal with what Satan might be up to. Certainly I would say that he might inspire use of science for evil purpose. As far as the paradigms and philosphies that drive science, I don’t think it is a black and white issue. I think it is a matter of balance, just like many other principles of the gospel. There is a time and a place for faith, but also a time for skepticism. An extreme of either is unhealthy and I suspect that is where you find Satan, especially when these concepts are translated into our personal philosophies and behavior.
Carl Youngblood,
The individuals, like you and me, will still be able/have to say “we don’t know” but the teachers won’t. When you say “we’re told that whatever we ask for will be granted” that is exactly what I’m talking about. We’ll ask, and someone will be able to tell us. It might(or probably will) be a situation where it takes years of teaching to answer the question, but my point was *someone* will be able to answer the questions.
Geoff B (#33), If observations of physical phenomena give a scientist reason to believe that there is another plane of existence or what have you and if he or she can come up with a valid experimental approach to try and disprove the hypothesis and provide further reason to believe the hypothesis, then more power to him/her. But it all has to be based on physically observable phenomena, not faith. Afterall, the goal of science is not to discover all truth, but only to explain how stuff works in a physical sense.
So no, scientists should not assume that no new discoveries will be made. But they can’t assume something that they have no reason to believe based on their observations of physical phenomena.
I’m not much of a philosopher so I probably can’t give you a satisfying definition of supernatural. But the way I use it supernatural means something like this: that which defies the physical laws that govern our universe. It is not something that defies physical laws as we understand them.
In my mind, teachings of God don’t have much place in science class any more than they do in wood shop.
You want to talk about God? Go to philosophy class. You want to discuss world religions? Go to history class.
Science is the study of fact. Not truth. And I don’t think it should be interested in truth. If education is well-rounded, there is no need to worry about the seeming absense of God in science class. He won’t be absent because the participants will have Him in mind anyway, regardless of the textbook.
The movement to put God in the schools is little more than the product of spiritual insecurity. Those with weak and superficial ideas of God want the government to step in and do the job of strengthening their testimonies for them.
You want your kids to learn about God? Get off your lazy rear and do it yourself. It’s not the government’s job to play daddy, or bishop (and it will do a lousy job of both).
Note: I think that the fact that the Mormons generally do a rather good job of educating their kids about religion is a major reason that Mormons really don’t care whether evolution is taught or not in schools. It’s the religions that are failing to teach that are in an uproar.
Geoff B, thanks for bringing up this important subject. I responded in this post.
Gary, declining to address the role of God is not the same as teaching that God was not involved. Although folks like Pratt decry the purely secular approach, it’s fundamental to virtually all academic disciplines. History teachers don’t address God’s role in the Civil War. Math teachers don’t talk about whether God causes 1+1 to equal 2. English teachers don’t characterize certain literary passages as divinely inspired. The reasons for this should be obvious, as are the reasons for setting religious beliefs aside when teaching science.
John C Williams, who is best known for Pioneering the “Gene Selection” flavor of Darwinism, which Richard Dawkins made popular in his book “The Selfish Gene,” has since said:
That is why Dembski’s formalized mathematical information theory of Design Inference via complexity and specifity is so interesting and important. It has been linked above by Anon, but you should really check it out:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf
Look for instance at the SETI project. You saw the movie Contact. SETI seeks signals from outerspace from other intelligent beings. The project takes for granted that their are types of information or signals that exhibit qualities that indicate that they were created by an intelligent mind and not by a purely natural process and that we can indentify that difference. While SETI is marginal scientifically, it is good enough that Berkeley hosts the SETI at Home project (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ) that allows people to donate their CPU time to SETI.
Dembski has proposed his theory of Complex Specified Information as theory that provides a formal way in which we can identify information that is likely produced by intelligence and not natural processes. Such a theory could be employed by the SETI project to formally show what kind of signal would indicate extra terrestrial intelligence. But Dembski’s theory can also be used to show that the information in genes is complex and specified in a way that indicates intelligent design.
Evolutionary Biologists are still ignoring the vital difference between the phsyical structure of DNA (the medium) and the gene (the message). Naturalistic Evolution must account for the creation of the information contained in the DNA. I don’t think that it does.
2 Nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
Gary,
The Starchild page that states “we don’t really know” what gravity is immediately contradicts itself by saying “Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles…the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between their centers of mass.” It’s like saying we don’t really know what electricity is, but here are the equations that describe electromagnetism and the right-hand rule for the effects of moving charged particles. If you can describe, calculate and predict it, it’s not “magic”. Please don’t use a simplified explanation intended for children to imply it’s all “a mystery”. We can describe exactly how gravity works, and conduct experiments to confirm it. Gravitational effects can be observed in real-time, not hypothesized over millions of years. True, physicists have not yet managed to include gravity in a Grand Unifying Theory, as they have done with electromagnetism and the weak force, but I would not use that statement to draw a parallel between physics/gravity and evolution/creation issues.
Wow! I’ve missed a lot. Here is a comment I posted over at Christian’s response to this post:
I think attributing to science the promotion, even indirect, of atheism is quite unfair. True science is non-theistic, but this is because God’s actions don’t seem to be at all observable. How is this science’s fault? The other way in which science may be considered atheistic is that their conclusions are different from what is taught in religion, but again this is not science’s fault. If religious claims don’t match up with the evidence found then it’s religions fault not the scientists’.
Some controversies should be taught in class yes, but in grad school classes. The biggest problem with the ID movement is that they think that science should become like law school complete with debates, votes, equal time for all theories and so on. This is not science AT ALL. Science is proceeds not by defending by argumentation a theory, but by formulating testable hypotheses and by such confirming (not proving) or falsifying your hypothesis. Thus the genuis of science lies not in individuals, but in method. If the IDers want to be respected as scientists then this is what they need to do, not sending armies of lawyers across the country to promote debates and votes as to what is good science.
If something is controversial in science, they usually don’t teach it, least of all in high school. If something controversial is taught it is almost alwasy done so with proper qualifiers, but such instances, again, are quite rare. The proper place for the “controversies” is grad school and those who are well enough informed to have something intelligent to contribute to the controversy.
Hmmm, very interesting thoughts in this thread…should spend more time studying them, but in response to #29, and the following comments:
“Note: I am not saying that we shouldn’t study these fields or that all people who support evolution are dupes of Satan or anything of the sort. I am using basic logic, which says: a)Satan does exist b)he has a purpose, which is to provide opposition c)he will be active in attacking science as he has in other fields and d)the most likely fields of attack are those that allow him to decrease faith in God.”
I think that if this is your assertion, then b) has to be changed because he does not simply provide oppostion, but his purpose is to ‘seek that all men might be miserable like unto himself (2Nephi2:27)’. I do not think that he thinks that he is ‘providing an opposition as his purpose’ and in fact i don’t even think that cares about this, his main purpose is to provide us with thoughts that if excercised will make us miserable. Perhaps he meets God’s requirement that we have ‘opposition in all things’, but I do not assert that this is his purpose in any way.
I am good with the other 3 assertions though, a, b, and c! Perhaps a little change to c) as well that he does not decrease our faith, we do that by our following the dictates of our own conscience given the faith in the information we have. Satan is simply an enabler to that end.
Geoff in 8:
“There is also no way to test the evolution you believe in”
This is about as wrong as it could ever be. There are so many lines of testable evidence which intersect at the truthfulness of evolution that the fact of evolution has not been a question for some time now. Of course scientists still argue the mechanisms and paths of evolution but this is not the same thing at all.
When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection, his ideas could have been falsified by a demonstration that: the earth wasn’t very old, there were no particular patterns in the distribution of taxa, the fossils were scattered in a relatively random way, DNA sequences didn’t match with predicted evolutionary paths, mathematical evolutionary models didn’t even come close to modeling genes pools, evolutionary algorithms weren’t able to produce what in retrospect appeared to be “irreducible complexity” in computer simulation and so forth. All of these things we PREDICTED based upon evolution and where later brilliantly confirmed.
Heli in 19:
In response to the Paley’s watch argument the scientist simply maintains that we believe that an intelligent designer built the watch and this because that is the only way we have ever observed watches coming into existence. Similarly, the only way we have ever seen a remarkably well designed animal come into existence was not by some intelligent designer but by birth from its parents. Who created the frog? Its parents, not some elusive designer. And this goes all the way back until the creation of a very simple replicator of some sort. Paley’s watch argument lost ALL of its steam with Darwin.
I think the saddest of all responses to the evolution/creation debate is that God simply hasn’t revealed it yet but will when we are ready. What? You mean God wants us to be bickering like this or some really uncontroversial evidence? Does he want people like Gary and other Young Earth Creationists to look that stupid to everybody else? Why in the world would He wait until later to give us this knowledge? It’s not like we haven’t studied the issue. It’s not like we couldn’t use such help.
Seth R. – YES, exactly (everyone go back and read Seth’s post again – #40). I’ve never understood the urgent need on behalf of some to have their spiritual beliefs validated by secular institutions.
I have never ever understood this argument and philosophy very well as to why men are so enthrolled with the concept of proving scientifically that there is a God, or that there is a creator, or that something was created by some external force or whether it has evolved through time?
What would it change if we allowed finite mortal thinking to bring a God/Creator our of ‘His/Her hiding place’? Wouldn’t it just make things worse for us because we would be forced to receive the consequences we are not ready for! Is not God, if he/she exists by some assertion, a scientist him/herself which makes him/her understand all these principles anyways and thus again not forcing him out of his hiding place. Are not all the assertions made about God’s very existence a convoluted way of trying to force God out of his hiding place? If you read any of the accounts of God appearing unto men, is it because of science? NOPE! Because of Faith, that is assuming that God exists of course!
Perhaps a new assertion is that God does not appear because of Science, but because of faith, but wait that is not that new at all, but is an age-old fact that we simply try and prove over and over again by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. Not that this a bad thing, but perhaps a wasteful thing sometimes! Joseph Smith made his “assertions” about God based upon what he saw, and not what he could prove through quantum physical laws of how Gods travel through space and time continuums containing worlds without number just to get to a small grove of trees on a small, yet significant plant to Them, to witness to a 14 year old boy that he should simply join none of the churches of the time! That was faith not science at work, but again if it all happened and to which we will try and assert until we finally know.
Are not assertions about God simply speculations about what we hope he will reveal to us or which we think he is not capable of revealing to us or that He has understanding about? If Satan knows these things and can use them in negative ways, then if the assertion is true that God does exist, then I would hazard a guess that He knows them better and for that reason has seen no need to reveal them to us in any great God, or man, -made details…yet?!? Just another assertion, of course!
What if science, in all of it’s finiteness, actually proved that there was an infinite creator, and that ‘Intelligent Design’ was an actual reality based upon a Creator with a body as tangible as man’s? What if science proved the exact opposite of this, that there is no God? Then what, can we answer that? Those are 2 much more interesting questions really! I would assert that the scriptures would be proven true in either case — and how scarry is that really!?!?
(#48) Jeffrey “I think the saddest of all responses to the evolution/creation debate is that God simply hasn’t revealed it yet but will when we are ready. What? You mean God wants us to be bickering like this or some really uncontroversial evidence? Does he want people like Gary and other Young Earth Creationists to look that stupid to everybody else? Why in the world would He wait until later to give us this knowledge? It’s not like we haven’t studied the issue. It’s not like we couldn’t use such” help.
I don’t think God really cares. I don’t think my salvation or anyone else’s depends on finding out the truth of evolution. If evolution is fact (which I believe it is to a certain degree) that’s fine, if not–oh well.
Tim,
I agree w/ you, but try telling that to BKP or Gary.
Tim,
Right, but God doesn’t care only about our salvation does He? He also cares about us knowing the truth and not having contention among us. To say that God does care to help out in this matter isn’t a very inspiring answer.
Jeffrey,
What would you like God to do? Would you like him to tell His prophet the answer, or you? There is much contention over which church is the true church–and I believe he has revealed to us the answer. But not everyone believes this to be true. Show me a truth the Lord has revealed for the SOLE PURPOSE of ending contention. He doesn’t reveal truth to end contention–he reveals truth as it pertains to our salvation.
Moses 1:39:
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
I would like him to give an official revelation to His church who he is supposed to be guiding by official revelation constantly so that we, as a church, will not look so stupid in defending young earth creationism and having such contentious discussions in sunday school. This doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
I thought the whole purpose of the continual revelation was to put an end to contention? (2 Ne 3:12) Who ever said it had to be the SOLE purpose anyways? I put forth a number of reasons why it should be revealed. Can you show me where it says that revelation is for the sole purpose of promoting our salvaiton? Obviously that’s his main goal, but who says he doesn’t have other ones? Besides, I thought we could only be saved as fast as we gained knowledge. How is revelation regarding the biggest intellectual controversy of our time not going to help us in all these ways?
We don’t need a revelation to stop contention. We need to be more Christlike. And we don’t need a revelation before we can stop looking dumb. We need to be smart (even then, we’ll look dumb to somebody). It is of little to no eternal consequence whether or not we learn in this life exactly how life came to be. Our salvation depends not on how much we know, but on how much like Christ we are. There’ll be plenty of time in the eternities to learn whatever we need to learn for our eternal progression. In the meantime, trying to figure stuff out is a nice way to keep our minds occupied.
Tom,
This response simply seems like waving the white flag in defeat. There are more than a few people in the world who reject Mormonism and religion in general because of science. This is not because they are “stupid” but because many Mormon/religious positions are stupid. This inability to be right on the things which can be verified greatly calls into quiestion their ability to be right on the issues which can’t be verified.
To say that we only need to have faith in the atonement and be good goes against so much of Mormonism. Didn’t Joseph Smith explicitly reject such an idea speaking of the spiritually immature who refuse to progress beyond simply faith. What is the purpose of all those books of scripture if all we really need in John 3:16? Why is it that we are suppose to be filled with not only grace but truth as well?
Unfortunately, I think it will take nothing short of an official statement to get church members to stop making themselves and their church look so stupid. Surely they must say something about human origins and nature (don’t we have lessons on these things?) We sure would progress a lot more as individuals, a church and as a race if we could get a revelation on the subject.
Any talk to the contrary betrays intellectual cowardice in my opinion.
Jeffrey,
Again, the only contention that God wants to end, is contention about things pertaining to our salvation. I don’t believe one of the questions asked during judgment will be, “What did you think about that whole evolution deal?” The fact that God hasn’t revealed anything as of yet (though he will (D&C 101:32,33), means it’s not really important for us to know–this knowledge would benefit me personally in no way whatsoever.
“I thought we could only be saved as fast as we gained knowledge.”
This is true, but what knowledge? Do we need a graduate degree to get into heaven? What knowledge saves us? Again, the fact that this is causing contention doesn’t mean God should step in and provide us with that knowledge.
BTW, if God did tell President Hinckley the answer and during the next GC, he got up and said “EVOLUTION IS FALSE!” would you accept it? I would say you wouldn’t accept an answer except the one you’re looking for.
Right, but my point is that evolution does pertain to our salvation both directly (through gaining knowledge) and indirectly (its effect on non-members/atheist/agnostics). Such knowledge would benefit both you and everybody a great deal.
One should also not confuse contention with argumentation. I think that later is a good thing, while the former can be a pretty ugly thing.
To answer your question, YES if one expects to acheive full salvation (which is the Mormon context means godhood) they will definitely need to have the knowledge requisite for a grad degree. One should reread section 130.
Regarding the “revelation” (which is total speculation I might add) I would definitely want to know the details regarding its content and reception before I go too far with it. If that were the revelation, this would amount to pretty much a non-revelation for it gives us no knowledge whatsoever. It makes no attempt whatsoever to reconciling the appearances which is what the debate is all about. My comments aren’t aimed at getting a revelation concerning whether evolution is true or not (because it clearly is), but rather at a revelation which offers some sort of reconciliation.
YES if one expects to acheive full salvation (which is the Mormon context means godhood) they will definitely need to have the knowledge requisite for a grad degree.
Whoa. Those poor people I baptized without an education in Guatemala…
its effect on non-members/atheist/agnostics
What effect?
I didn’t write section 130, don’t blame me. BTW, which part of Gaute? I served in the north mission.
This effect:
“There are more than a few people in the world who reject Mormonism and religion in general because of science. This is not because they are “stupid” but because many Mormon/religious positions are stupid. This inability to be right on the things which can be verified greatly calls into quiestion their ability to be right on the issues which can’t be verified.”
Jeffrey, I am going to make a prediction here that if you stop and think about it is likely to be proven true. My prediction is that at some point in the spirit world or after the resurrection you will have an incredible knowledge of human origins and cosmology that will make your puny conceptions of “evolution is clearly true” today seem quite childish in comparison. This is not the same thing as saying that evolution is wrong, because I don’t know that it is. The point is that whatever is revealed to us later will be so much grander and make so much more sense to us that we will laugh at our relative lack of knowledge today.
I compare it to my concept of God before my conversion and my concept now. Before, God was just some “force” that floated around randomly, often doing evil things. Isn’t that a relatively childish concept compared to my concept now, which is a magnificent creator who looks like us, has a magnificent son who died for us and has created this world for us to advance and become like him? My level of understanding is 1000 times what it was before.
So, please don’t throw around the “stupid” epithet so freely. Yes, by the world’s standards I and others may appear stupid by questioning evolution. But by the standards of the knowledge that is to come, perhaps I am right to think that evolution is not the great unifying theory you think it is. I am hoping for something much bigger and grander than that.
Jeffrey,
Avoidance of looking stupid is a dangerous path as it is fundamentally all about pride. (1 Nephi 8:26-28,33-34, 1 Nephi 11:35-36)
If people reject the church it is not because of science but because they do not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit. His sheep hear His voice, and if they do not hear his voice they are not his sheep.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
If Evolution is true, I doubt that the Lord will deny entrance to the Celestial world to one who doubted its veracity, especially when that doubt was rooted in a faith that God was responsible for and influential in the creation. It is the meek that will inherit the earth–regardless of whether they looked stupid to the world–or perhaps even because they looked stupid to the world for Christ’s sake.
Let’s be clear about one thing, I’m not calling anybody who question evolution stupid. I myself was an IDer until a couple years ago. What I am calling stupid are those who go far beyond this in saying that there was absolutely no death whatsoever on this earth until about 6,000 years ago. That is stupid, completely stupid. A smart person can believe such I guess, but only when they are completely ignorant as to the relevant data. It is the belief which is stupid, not the person, and I have no qualms about throwing that word around in that manner.
Without trying to sound too harsh, I too can throw around haphazard prediction as well as the next guy. But predictions do not serve as adequate substitutes for arguments. There is no biologist who doubts that evolution has happened. None. They might speak out against it paths or its mechanisms (this is all ID really does), but no reputable biologist doubts the fact of evolution.
“There are more than a few people in the world who reject Mormonism and religion in general because of science. This is not because they are “stupid” but because many Mormon/religious positions are stupid. This inability to be right on the things which can be verified greatly calls into quiestion their ability to be right on the issues which can’t be verified.”
So if revelation was given that reconciled evolution and Mormonism–conversion rates would increase? (“Hmmmmm, I believe Joseph Smith saw God, but you guys don’t believe evolution to be true? No thanks.) I find this laughable. Especially since the Church apparently has no official stance on the matter. BTW, you have reconciled the two, as have many other members. And this has not stopped Mormons from entering a scientific field, either.
I agree with Geoff’s last statement. I don’t know everything about evolution, though I believe a lot of it to be fact. But I am reserving judgment until further revelation is given–though it doesn’t really matter.
–Central Mission (’97-’99)
Don,
I was waiting for somebody to throw in the pride response to my point. Psychology is now starting to come up with adequate explanations of why we are inclined toward religion and religious experiences. Of course we can say that God guided evolution towards such in order to help us be religious, but this is doesn’t change the fact that the atheist now has an alternative explanation for those “promptings”. Should which version should he accept: that man had invented religion due to his pyschological dispositions or that God guided evolution to create an inclination toward independently true religion? I can’t think of any way to objectively address such a question other than by addressing the paradigms which each response assumes. It is a classic show down of non-theistic science versus religion.
Religion has made lots of claims beyond simply historical reporting. Those claims which have been available for verification have not done so well (consider life’s origins for example). To say that this calls the other claims into question is simply not a matter of pride versus humility, but is a simply matter of being reasonable. In other words the arguments which I bring up have absolutely nothing to due with pride or humility. After all the communists, “black magicians” or any other group can just as easily say that everybody who doesn’t accept their claims, no matter how ridiculous, is sinfully prideful as well. This doesn’t help establish any kind of truth at all.
This is what is so bad about the church and its members preaching stupid things. It calls into question its other claims as well and seriously undermines its authority. Its not a question of a person’s pride, but is instead an issue of the church’s reliability in making authoritative claims.
There has clearly been a succession of species. What IDers such as myself doubt is that unguided random mutation, decent with modification, and survival of the fittest is alone capable of the level of information generation required to accomplish the speciation we observe. Plus that information exhibits a level of complexity and specification that would normally be associated with design.
Jeffery, check out the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis by IDer John Davidson. I think that you will find that it recognizes a succession of species (the “fact” of evolution as you call it) while still allowing for design and the lack of ability for complex specified information to be generated through purely natural means.
“So if revelation was given that reconciled evolution and Mormonism–conversion rates would increase?” I really do think that. You can laugh all you want but I personally know more than a few people who aren’t relgious because religion has been so wrong on issues like this. It should also be said that the revelation, for it to be really successful, should show not only a reconciliation but also why it was that the original revelations seemed so wrong. A revelation which simply says “past revelation was wrong” serves only to undermine itself to a certain extent.
“Especially since the Church apparently has no official stance on the matter.”
This is only what members say when they are backed into a corner. While the church doesn’t have a REALLY official stance (on what doctrine do we really have one?) it is by no mean difficult to find many statements which call evolution into question both in church publications as well as in scripture. This is why so many member fight against evolution, not because they think the evidence isn’t good enough (they rarely take a good look at the evidence) but because they know that it really isn’t compatible with the religion that is taught in church meetings. Remember, I don’t think that the members are stupid, they realize that there are problems. If there are any questions on this matter simply go check out Gary’s “No Death Before the Fall” blog for more details.
I just think that maybe it’s time that we stopped reserving judgement about somethings which are clearly wrong. Of course not everything about evolution is totally true, but it is true enough to show that many ideas, such as strong NDBF, are clearly wrong. To withhold judgement on such things is simply a display of willful anti-intellectualism.
Don,
Great, you doubt the sufficiency of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Fine, lots of bioligists actually do doubt this with you, though they are few and far between. Nevertheless, this is not doubting the fact of evolution (it was actually Michael Ruse who called it such).
While biologists clearly have little problem with such a distinction, it seems to be the various forms of creationism that keep trying to say that since we are still largely ignorant concerning most evolutioinary paths and that work still has to be done regarding evolutionary mechanisms, we should therefore doubt the fact of evolution. This is false, false and more false. There is still plenty of room to suggest that God guided evolution in its mechanisms somehow (though science shows absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever), but to even suggest that young earth or special (separate) creationism is scientifically tenable is simply ignorant on all accounts.
I think that this is a common mischaracterization of IDers. While there are certainly a few who are young earth believers, and/or radical special creationists, nearly all of the IDers I have communicated with are not so radical–and many of them are molecular biologists and other scientists. It is easy for people, like yourself, to rant against IDers as if they are all the young earth type you describe.
Most of the IDers I know fall into the category that you describe: those who doubt that Evolution could have been accomplished by purely natural means, and who believe that the complex specified information expressed in genes exhibits the qualities of design.
The whole point of Darwin was the completely naturalistic mechanism he proposed. When people speak of Evolution, they most often mean Evolution via Darwin’s mechanism. Many, if not most, of those who are IDers are Anti-Darwinian mechanism, not anti all speciation.
Don, you refer to “the lack of ability for complex specified information to be generated through purely natural means” as if it’s a given. The fact is that nobody has come up with a usable definition of “complex specified information,” much less shown that it’s a conserved quantity.
When did I rant against IDers in this thread? I was ranting agianst the yec’s and spec. creationists only. Of course, once you give up NDBF and special creation then the IDers are just as far out of the scriptures and quasi-official statements as the full blown evolutioinists are. Packer is not an IDer. Not by a long shot. Niether was Moses and neither is Gary. Those are targets I have been aiming at all along here.
Of course this doesn’t mean that the arguments against ID as science aren’t just as powerful either. There is no evidence to support ID whatsoever. People can argue and debate about evolutoiin til the cows come home but this won’t make ID any more scientific.
Don’t try to make my argument look silly by attributing things to them which clearly aren’t true.
will,
See comment #43 and read Dembski’s article linked there.
These ideas are only beginning to be explored. They are interesting to me and appeal to my common sense as well as reason and faith. I am interested in seeing them developed further. They may be proved flawed or superseded by better ideas later, but I so no reason why they shouldn’t be widely explored, developed, and discussed.
The Darwinian establishment, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to want to allow such ideas to be explored or discussed. They just want to paint anyone interested in ID as a young earth creationist, religious fundamentalist wacko.
Science always risks being caught attempting to essentially rebuild the Tower of Babel.
At least secular science is modest enough to leave God out of it and make no assertions on deity one way or the other.
The ID crowd is much more in danger of trying to impermissibly uncover God than the secularists are.
“The Darwinian establishment, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to want to allow such ideas to be explored or discussed. They just want to paint anyone interested in ID as a young earth creationist, religious fundamentalist wacko.”
Similar to how non-Darwinians want to paint all Darwinians as people who paint anyone interested in ID as a young earth creationist, religious fundamentalist wacko?
Jeffrey, since you seem to be fighting almost alone on this one, I just wanted to throw in another voice on your side. You might speak with a little more brashness than I might, but on the substance I think you’re right on the money. I share your concern about how being demonstrably wrong on verifiable matters undermines overall authority.
One thing we could note however is that our revelatory tradition is one in which God does not proactively bonk his leaders on the head with new revelations, but waits to be asked specific questions. I have concerns about what this whole paradigm implies about the reliability of revelation. But setting those aside for the moment, one approach that might be taken is to recognize that not being in the leaders’ shoes we don’t know the range of issues that require their attention, and that our pet concerns might be of marginal concern for the global church at the moment compared to other issues that compete for detailed attention, and that we therefore might remain patient during the present era of treading water on the traditional perspectives that continue to be recycled in Church media.
Yeah I’m sure that I could say things with a little more sugar coating, but I’m afraid that the point simply won’t be understood for what it is if I don’t put it out on the table. Just simply saying “truth isn’t in contradiction with itself, and we’ll all someday know the truth” is just saying “I’m ignorant and comfortable with that.” It’s a refusal to engage the actual debate. If one doesn’t want to engage the debate then fine, don’t proud tout your opinion and try to force it on others by political action. In fact, if one isn’t willing to engage the debate it would be better for them simply to not have an opinion at all. But how practical is that really? Not very considering how often issue concerning both the origins and nature of human life come up in church and life. This, howeve, is just a way of say that we all need to fully engage the debate or simply stop talking about things we know nothing about. We all need to stop trying to be able to preach whatever we want while asking others not to take us to task on what we preach. Sure we can preach whatever we want, but don’t be surprised when other point out how stupid we sound when we do so.
Jeffrey,
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position.
The fact is that there is not a lot of evidence to support the naturalistic mechanism either. While there is no question that a naturalistic mechanism can alter phenotype, the evidence that the same mechanism can create new species is scant. And the problem of information generation as separate from the medium that contains the information by purely naturalistic means has not been well addressed by evolutionists–see the John C Williams quote in #43.
If both the IDers and the Naturalistic Evolutionists acknowledge the succession of species and the reality of micro evolution, but neither has evidence for their proposed mechanism for macro-evolution, are they not in the same situation?
Read Dembski’s article and read John Davidson’s hypothesis.
Don, I’ve already read the article, wherein Dembski redefines specified complexity and then claims that he didn’t redefine it. The problem is that none of his definitions are useable, as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t used. Even the loquacious Dembski is almost silent when it comes to applying specified complexity to real-world problems, and his few attempts to do so were so bad that they surprised even his critics.
Of course anyone is free to explore, develop, and discuss Dembski’s ideas, but must of us prefer to spend our time on theories that have some basis and are likely to bear fruit. I don’t know of any Darwinists that have tried to censor ID discussions, and most of us are familiar with the distinction between ID and young earth creationism.
Jeffrey, I hear you. Well, blogs are good venue in which to engage the issue. And the manuals often solicit comments, though I have no idea who reads them…
Don, the problem of information (regardless of which definition you use — there are many) generation is one of the IDers’ own making. There is absolutely no reason that information can’t be generated spontaneously.
will,
I’m glad you have read it.
Is there something wrong with reformulating a theory in response to criticism? No. I don’t see why redefining specified complexity is a bad thing. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the sentiment behind your comment.
Maybe Dembski’s ideas will never be useful. Perhaps in some future formulation, however, maybe by someone else using his ideas as a stepping stone, they will prove useful.
It is not likely that we will convince one another, but at least we can agree, I hope, that neither of us is as ignorant of the other’s point of view as we might assume. I’m sure that we will just have to agree to disagree for now. I’ve spent too much time in this thread as it is. Until another time perhaps.
will,
John C Williams was not an IDer, he practically invented Gene Selection darwinism.
Cheers
Donald, did John C Williams claim that information is a conserved quantity?
This question is way off topic, but I’m wondering how those of you commenting here are planning to deal with the creation lessons coming up next year as we study the OT?
“The fact is that there is not a lot of evidence to support the naturalistic mechanism either.”
There is some serious ambiguity in this sentence. There is actually A LOT of evidence which shows that natural selection can accomplish the feat of designing immense amounts of what in hindsight looks like “irreducible complexity.” I assume that natural selection is “the naturalistic mechanism” which you refer to. But evolutionists don’t for a second think that it is the only mechanism involved.
Take for instance complexity theory which Philip Johnson thought supported his position in some way. This is a classic example of the ID technique which is to simply say natural selection couldn’t have done it therefore ID is true. That’s the worst argument I think I have never seen which has been taken so seriously. Johnson had read that Stuart Kauffman considered complexity theory to be overthrowing natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution. Therefore, according to Johnson, evolution as a whole was false. WRONG.
Complexity theory has now been included in the modern synthesis as another mechanism which contributed to the emergence of organization. Complexity theory made the set of naturalistic mechanisms even stronger for not only did it not contradict natural selection but it actually provided yet another tool for totally mindless processes to use. At no time did anybody ever think that complexity theory provided any evidence for a creator. Nobody except perhaps Johnson unfortunately.
Work is still being done which is further strengthening the set of naturalistic mechanisms. Who ever said that “information” had to originate from outside the medium which contains it? A new book recently came out entitled “Evolutoin in Four Dimensions” which I highly recommend. In it the authors show how natural selection has created totally naturalistic mechanisms by which organisms can produce spontaneous mutations not only when it is needed but also where, in the genetic code, it is needed. Now these mechanisms don’t produce the actual mutations which are needed and are still random, but the fact that their occurence in both space and time can be controlled only goes to show how powerful the set of naturalistic mechanisms can really be.
To say that there is no evidence that naturalistic mechanism can account for vast amounts of complexisty as well as speciation events is simply unthinkable. See here for details. But what your “argument” really boils down to is this: Does one believe that the set of naturalistic mechanisms were sufficient to account for what we now observe? I believe that the answer is a resounding yes, whereas you differ. Fair enough. Nevertheless, our positions are not equal. As more naturalistic mechanisms are discovered and added to the set my hypothesis only gets stronger while yours weakens. Nor is there any sign that your position can really find any evidence in its favor. We already know that the mechanisms which we are aware of CAN produce order, its not like we are going to somehow forget this and start losing mechanisms from the set.
It should also be mentioned that Dembski is a mathematician. His insight are totally a priori and deductive from some set of premises. The problem is he, just like everybody else, doesn’t know what those premises are in the first place. He has no clue was values to plug into his equations. This is not to say that math cannot inform evolutionary biology (take population genetics and game theory as examples of that) only that he really needs to be a bit more humble in his pronouncements.
Disproving the power of naturalistic mechanisms is like trying to disprove the existence of God. They are both attepting to prove the non-existence of something, a feat which is practically impossible. While God may not be in my room right now or on the moon when the astronauts went there He could always be somewhere else. The same thing goes for the set of naturalistic mechansims. Even if the ones we know of aren’t entirely powerful enough, there always might be something else which we simply haven’t found yet.
CJ,
Very patiently and with much long-suffering I’m sure.
The creation lesson in the OT manual seems innocuous enough. I suppose it depends on what the teacher does with it.
(The lesson on the flood seems blessedly vague also.)
Yeah, its not the manual that I’m worried about as much as the class’s “one true” interpretation of it and the scriptures that worries me.
My mother (currently serving her 3rd mission) would be right there in the front row with the “one true” interpretation! I guess it’s not enough to only worry about those with a scientific bent who aren’t religious because they perceive religion to be so wrong on evolution, but also worry about those (often older) members who might leave if the church did come out with some kind of an official statement.
So I think patience and long-suffering really are the answer, and as a different generation moves into leadership, wait for opinion to, um, evolve…
I think I would bring up a question such as, “How are eveolution and Mormonism incompatible?”
I think this is a pretty harmless question that could lead to a good discussion without attacking one point of view.
How are Mormonism and evolution incompatible?
Mormons believe that God is the Creator.
Evolutionists believe that God (if there even is such a being or entity) had nothing to do with the creation.
Now some of the Mormion “evolutionists” will holler but take it to an evolutionary bioligist. They won’t take you seriously for a nano-second if you claim a role for God in the creation.
I find a lot of Mormon evolutionists are really adherents of an intelligent design theory. This doesn’t cut it with evolutionists.
J. Stapley (#34),
Is this statement “in harmony with our current directives in the Church?”
What do you think?
will (#42),
If you teach a process and you don’t teach that God was involved in that process, then the process you teach is one in which God was not necessarily involved, otherwise that necessary ingredient, God, would have been included in your teaching.
If God’s participation is not required and you teach how the process happened without without mentioning God, how can you deny that the process as taught is one in which God was not involved.
You are certainly entited to your opinion about this, but I think John Pratt is equally entitled to his. Whether or not I agree with him, what he says is perfectly clear to me.
NFlanders (#25) suggested,
How’s this?
Space Chick (#44),
The Starchild page describes, as I said, gravity’s effect,
In other words, Newton described mathematically the effect of gravity, including its diminishing effect as a result of distance. But in answer to the question, What is gravity? the Starchild page is very careful,
The fact that the page goes on to be more specific about what we do know about gravity’s effect does not make the Starchild page self-contradictory.
Tim J. (#51),
Gary doesn’t care either. Looking stupid is the least of my worries. Now feeling stupid? That would be another problem entirely.
Geoff (#62),
Thank you for a most excellent, superb comment.
Regarding Jeffrey Gilliam’s (#48), it is tiresome the way he insists on misrepresenting my views. I am not a young earth creationist. That was clarified more than six months ago here and here and Jeffrey knows that because he contributed several comments to the discussion.
georgeD, a few points:
– Not all evolutionists believe that evolution necessarily precludes God. In fact, I would say that most believe that evolution and religion can be compatible.
– You contrast Mormon evolutionists with evolutionary biologists. What about Mormon evolutionary biologists?
– Some Mormons are ID adherents. And other Mormons consider the ID movement to be misguided.
Gary, I think the statement in #93 is definitely in harmony with our current directives in the church, especially the part about acknowledging that we don’t understand the processes of creation.
Jeffrey Gilliam (#72),
Thank you for placing me in with Moses and President Packer. In reality, they are out of my league, but I am flattered. Thank you.
Sometimes you’re not such a bad guy after all!!!
Jeffrey,
I haven’t had time to respond to your response (#57) to my response (#56).
I’m not advocating “waving the white flag” or “intellectual cowardice.” I’m advocating focusing on what matters most. What matters most is having faith and learning to love. Without that it doesn’t matter how much we know about anything. Does nothing else matter? No. There’s other stuff. But we’ll all be OK if all we learn in this life is faith and love. Personally, I’m having a pretty hard time with the basics.
I don’t think the church should have any position on evolution or anything else that belongs in the magisterium of science (I know people don’t like Gould’s DOMA, but I do). I’m quite pleased with the church leadership’s current attitude toward science. I can’t remember hearing a General Conference talk that would cause me to be embarassed if one of my colleagues (biologists) heard it. Maybe the fact that the General Authorities don’t have anything to say behind the GC pulpit about evolution, NDBF, or ID is a good indication about how important it all is in the grand scheme of things.
In my mind, what would be better for us as a church than knowing straight from God how it all went down would be if we, like the GA’s, stopped focusing so much on relatively irrelevant peripherals. This would solve the problem of turning off intellectuals from our religion because of our collective attitude toward science. (Although I personally don’t know any scientists that would be more likely to become Mormons if we had an official position on evolution that was entirely, explicitly harmonious with science–there are a lot of other stumbling blocks for skeptical intellectual types.)
Sorry everyone. I wasn’t at the computer today, return and there are over 50 new messages. There’s no way I’ll be able to answer them all.
Gary, when you ask “what is gravity” I’m not sure what you mean. It’s hard to make sense of what you would consider an acceptable answer. There are two main answers in physics. The standard answer can be found in the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. That’s pretty much the standard GR textbook. In GR gravity is the curvature of spacetime.
If one moves from relativity to particle physics, then gravity is the flow of virtual particles called gravitons that are akin to light, which is the field for electromagnitism but is instead the field for gravitation.
Clearly there are problems since we don’t have a completely agreed upon unification of gravity and the other “forces” of physics. In the main attempts at quantum gravity though you end up with a field that one could see as entailing curvature only with certain other unique features. In general physicists tend to consider gravity a kind of field and would make it ontologically fundamental.
So to ask what gravity “is” tends to be an odd question. Gravity is gravity. One needn’t go more fundamental. It’s akin to asking what existence is.
Clark (#103),
Do you then disagree with President John Taylor as quoted above (in #26)?
George D. How are Mormonism and evolution incompatible? Mormons believe that God is the Creator. Evolutionists believe that God (if there even is such a being or entity) had nothing to do with the creation.
It isn’t clear to me that believing that God is a creator is at odds with the tools he used to create being independent of God. A sculpture creates sculptures but he doesn’t created the raw materials from which he sculpts.
It seems to me that Joseph Smith is fairly clear that the sculpture metaphor is how we ought view God’s creation. Indeed he makes God independent from the raw stuff of creation. (We are co-eternal with God)
This is something I’ve never understood about this debate. Fundamentally Mormons reject creation ex nihilo as an element of the apostasy that suffused traditional Christianity. Joseph made some pretty impressive sermons in this regard. Now traditional Christians have trouble with evolution by chance because they need God to be involved in every facet. Mormons, who have the idea of eternal element and eternal pre-existent souls don’t. We fundamentally view God as organizer.
Given that, whether one agrees or disagrees with evolution, it seems very difficult to say that evolution as a natural process is problematic. If true it would merely be one of many tools God uses.
Now some Mormons have problems with evolution not because of some philosophical point but simply because of how they read Genesis 1 – 3 in terms of the actual history of the world. However I think even these people, like Gary, while they believe their readers are right would acknowledge there are other ways to read those texts.
BTW – while some evolutionists think God has nothing to do with creation, I don’t think all do. Further those evolutionists like Dawkins who spout nonsense about science falsifying the notion of God aren’t doing science when they make those sorts of statements.
Gary (#94), you’ve shifted the claimed teaching from “God was not involved” to “God was not necessarily involved.” Two very different claims. And neither of them necessarily follow from a teacher focusing exclusively on the science and avoiding issues of faith, which is exactly what thousands of theistic teachers do.
Of course everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but that shouldn’t keep us from pointing out falsehoods and fallacies.
Gary (#104), not at all. However I see John Taylor’s comments as not entailing God being involved the way you see him involved. From what I can tell you are arguing for all existence being ontologically dependent upon God. That to me ends up leading logically to the notion of creation ex nihilo and to doctrines I feel are tied up with apostate Christianity. I don’t think that God is more fundamental than all law.
It’s a fundamental debate which touches upon the question of whether God is ontologically prior to all laws or not. I think it very hard to accept a view that he is and reconcile that to most important theological notions within Mormonism.
Clearly you disagree. Which is fine. As your link shows, you’re hardly alone. To me the tendency to want to put God above everything and logically prior to everything is the same thinking that brought the notion of God in traditional Christianity.
To return to John Taylor’s quotes, if we view God as artisan then the beauty of the planets John Taylor is speaking of is akin to the beauty of what an artist puts on the canvas. And indeed God has brought about a lot of beauty in that fashion. However we’d never demand that the artist to be an artist need make his canvas from nothing nor the paints from nothing. We allow the painter to be a lawgiver through the use of natural processes.
Tom (#102),
The Church’s official internet site has a Gospel Library where members may "Study Selected Topics," one of which is Creation. The Church’s very first Creation resource is Elder Russell M. Nelson’s talk on “Creation” in the April 2000 General Conference. It turns out this talk is something you might want to read more carefully.
I was not surprised (though you might be) to discover that Elder Nelson rules out evolution entirely by teaching the LDS doctrine of No Death Before the Fall:
Just to add to the above, we must perhaps distinguish between God as a lawgiver decreeing laws and the notion of there being fundamental laws independent of God. Gary (and others) tend to want to conflate the issues. That’s unfortunate as even physics distinguishes physical law that is what is termed emergent and physical law that is fundamental.
In terms of fundamentals we have perhaps quantum mechanics and general relativity and nothing else. Everything else emerges from those laws and the particular state matter finds itself in. This leads to the unusual consequence that new laws can “freeze out” as the universe evolves. It is quite in keeping with physical theory that were we to rewind the universe to the big bang and restart it that as the universe evolved we’d end up with very, very different physical laws. (Meaning emergent laws)
Now, can we view God as artist and engineer determines these laws by manipulating and working with the matter in the early moments of the universe? Certainly. I have no trouble with that.
To make an analogy, the laws of matter in a block of ice and the laws of matter in a bucket of water are different. Clearly here I don’t mean fundamental laws, but rather the thermodynamic description of what is allowable or not in terms of the system (assuming closed systems here – no heat flowing in or out). The analogy to thermodynamics is quite appropriate I feel for what God did.
So yes, in one sense of law God totally could have had a huge control on the laws. Secondly he certainly could have intervened and controlled where matter went. (i.e. ensuring that say earth developed at the proper distance from the sun so as to have the conditions necessary for life)
The other problem, of course, with the complaints about God and external law is that it runs right smack up against the King Follet Discourse. God once was man and had to learn to be God. That implies a law independent of God naturally. Now I know among many Mormons of late it is popular to reject the King Follet Discourse. However I fundamentally think that Joseph largely knew what he was talking about. Short of a very clear revelation on these issues invalidating the King Follet Discourse I’ll take Joseph Smith’s views on these matters. Especially when Joseph appears to line up with the science so well.
Gary, we should probably stay on one topic. I’d just note that Elder Nelson could easily be taken to be talking about the death for Adam and his descendants. To read him as asserting that all the animals and plants of creation mentioned prior didn’t die seems reading far more into the text than is there. I recognize why you’d so read it. But if you are going to bring forth texts for your particular views they really ought address the controversial matters under question and not simply vague comments that both sides agree with.
I’d not that Elder Nelson in this talk explicitly rejects creation ex nihilo.
Gary (#95), I’m genuinely impressed with your poetic skills.
Clark (#107),
The link on the last word of comment #26 takes you to a number of statements by Joseph Fielding Smith, Howard W. Hunter, and Ezra Taft Benson, as well as statements from Bruce R. McConkie and Anthon H. Lund. But the last two are especially significant, from the Prophet Joseph Smith. Do these all speak of a God unknown to me?
Clark (#110),
Does Elder Nelson have to start at the beginning every time he teaches the doctrine? He has been extremely clear in the past. His views are no secret, including his views about creation ex nihilo. His April 2000 General Conference talk teaches No Death Before the Fall. Elder Nelson did not say, “Mortality and death came to Adam and Eve and their posterity through the Fall of Adam.”
He very clearly said, “Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.” How plain can he say it?
will (#111), Dare I claim inspiration? No, I’d better not do that. But thanks for the compliment.
Clark (#109),
Regarding God being once a man, it is said that there exists an endless line of Gods.
Sometimes one God speaks in the collective first person singular on behalf of all Gods. Jehovah may have been speaking thus when He “spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?†(Moses 1:3; see also D&C 78:16; Moses 6:67.) This is just a thought, and not said as an expression of Church doctrine.
Worlds innumerable to man have been created by our Father in Heaven for his children. Following this eternal pattern, an endless line of worlds stretching back into time without beginning have been created by loving Fathers for their children. In this way the entire universe, infinitely old and infinite in extent, has been created by a collective “one God, without end.†(2 Ne. 21:31.)
Does that doctrine run “right smack up against the King Follet Discourse?” I think not.
Donald (#70) I think that this is a common mischaracterization of IDers. While there are certainly a few who are young earth believers, and/or radical special creationists, nearly all of the IDers I have communicated with are not so radical–and many of them are molecular biologists and other scientists. It is easy for people, like yourself, to rant against IDers as if they are all the young earth type you describe.
I do think this is an important point. While I think ID is bunk, I think ID has been unfairly treated by many scientists. Although some of this is understandable. A lot of creationists have simply changed the name of creationism to ID without understanding that ID actually does buy into all the history of evolution and just quibbles over a few fundamental mechanisms. Most people I hear espousing ID clearly think it is Creationism. I think real IDers would do well to distinguish their movement from Creationism better.
Gary, as I said, I don’t necessarily think all those figures were speaking as prophets when they made those comments. You do. Not much left to say there. I certainly don’t deny that you can find major figures who believe as you do.
As for reading Elder Nelson, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see the use of “into” rather than “to” as significant. You clearly don’t.
With regards to the KFD, clearly though you can’t take the collection of Gods in the fashion you are and treat them as an individual because that undermines the very infinite regress of Gods that Joseph is teaching. You are attempting to take an infinite set and treat it like a finite set. That’s a no-no mathematically. The point is that with an infinite regress of Gods there is no first cause who could do what you claim.
Geoff (#29), while I understand where you are coming from, I respectfully disagree. Unfortunately Pratt has a history of writing at Meridian and it is a very undistinguished one. I’ll leave it at that.
With regards to the claim of satan in science. I suppose he could be, but the beauty of science is its collective nature that tends to correct mistakes. As a method it is a very good way of getting at truth. That’s not to say individual scientists don’t do evil things. Consider the scientific experiments by the Japanese on POWs during WWII for instance or the experiments upon African Americans with syphilis in the United States during I believe the 1950’s. One could perhaps even look to the series of lies over human cloning by a Korean scientists as an example of something less than exemplary in science.
What science does though is constantly inquire, constantly test, and constantly refine its ideas. This would, I believe, undermine any effort to control science via some conspiracy. Claims are open to all to test and they can be confirmed or rejected in a relatively objective fashion.
Contrast this with the problem of how to read texts where things are not as objective and where, I suspect, Satan could have far more success. I’ll not extend that line of reasoning, but I think it obvious how to take it. I think suppositions can easily become traditions which can then lead us away from the truth. Indeed I think that one of the problems that occurred in the early church.
Gary (#93), you asked me what I thought of the quote you raise. My thought is that you took a quote from Elder Monson and added a line to it for some reason. The original (CES Fireside Nov. 6th 2005) stated:
You added “I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it.”
I wholehearted endorse President Monson’s discourse. I would hope that we, however, do allow science to refine our faith. So that we do not as the ancient hebrews believe in a firmement which holds back water from destroying the earth and so that we don’t believe God created the earth in 7 of our days, etc.
Clark (#116),
Exceptionally well said. You and I agree on this point.
J. Stapley (#119),
Nice effort. You’re close. However, the statement quoted in #93 was made by President Monson five years ago in his February 2001 First Presidency Message, fourth paragraph from the end of the article (see Ensign, Feb. 2001, 2).
So it turns out it was President Monson himself who modified the paragraph, taking something out in 2005. Very few of us would not be so tempted. Whenever I read something I wrote five years previously, something always strikes me that could be said differently (i.e. better). Who knows why he changed it.
Or do you think there is some larger meaning in how President Monson changed this paragraph?
lol…sorry about that, Gary.
Perhaps he changed it to be less antagonistic to scientific ideas about the formation and population of the world…but your right, who knows.
Gary (#108),
Thanks for the link to Elder Nelson’s conference talk on the Creation. It’s wonderful.
It also happens to prove my point. In a talk specifically about the Creation, an Apostle of the Lord does not say the E word once, nor does he warn against falling prey to certain prominent theories. He does remind us of something very important:
Which is pretty much the point of the Creation account in Genesis as I read it. We should know that we are here because God wants us to be here and that He is our Creator and our Father. Vital truths those. But Elder Nelson doesn’t mention anything about mechanisms, which is quite appropriate for a religious leader, I think.
He says something else that I find enlightening: “Though our understanding of the Creation is limited, we know enough to appreciate its supernal significance.” I think it’s worth noting this Apostle’s humility. We don’t know everything we want to know about the Creation, but what we do know (by faith) is that it was God’s doing. What specifically He did and how is a fun, interesting thing to talk about, but it doesn’t ultimately matter all that much.
As for Elder Nelson’s talk “ruling out evolution completely,” I agree with Clark’s critique of your interpretation. If he wanted to rule out evolution completely, if he really wanted to persuade the membership to not believe in evolution, I think he would’ve expounded and made the assertion that you believe he implied.
Gary and J.#121 and #122
Maybe Monson got inducted into the Brother of Jared Club and he now understands the processes of creation.
Tom (#123),
The problem I see with your position is this, Elder Russell M. Nelson has in fact expounded and made the assertions you deny. For many years, he has talked about these questions and has not only mentioned the “E word,” but has asked for volunteers to help overcome such “foolishness of men.” Click here to read excerpts from four such articles by Elder Nelson.
In all four of these articles, evolution is “ruled out” by Elder Nelson because No Death Before the Fall is forcefully and unambiguously taught. Also, it turns out that Elder Nelson does in fact “warn against falling prey to certain prominent theories.”
We cannot reasonably assign meaning to Elder Nelson’s April 2000 general conference talk that contradicts what he previously taught. Give the man some credit. Should he ever decide to change his mind about death before the fall and evolution, you can be sure he’ll be as clear about his new position, whatever you might imagine that could be, as he has been about his current one.
All I’m saying is what I said in #102.
As a run-of-the-mill General Conference-watching member I’ve not felt called to repentence by the Brethren for believing in evolution. If that’s because I’m not reading everything the Apostles have to say on the matter and I therefore can’t read between the lines when they make passing references to certain “heresies” then, well, that’s my point. Nobody cares to expound in the venue where their words carry the most weight.
Geoff:
I apologize for my earlier comment. The other posters have addressed the main points that I would have brought up. Using God as a causal explanation in a scientific theory is philosophy, not science. Although there is a philosophy to science, science broke from the formal field of philosophy when it started to incorporate replicable observations and testing ideas of how the world works against those observations. Predictable observations give rise to the formulation of laws. There is always room for God as creator of the laws, but that is beyond the reach of science because we cannot make observations of his causal hand. Therefore, God remains in the realm of philosophy and religion.
Furthermore, there is a scientific principle called parsimony (this is part o the philosophy of science). We tend to prefer theories that are parsimonious over those that are not. In other words, if we had two theories that described the same phenomenon equally well, we would prefer the theory with the least number of constructs, or elements/actors. Example: If we can adequately explain the functions of the brain without ever using a supernatural spirit, why keep the spirit as part of the theory.
Three, scientists also believe that theories should be falsifiable, meaning it is possible for us to conduct an experiment to prove that the theory is incorrect. Since there is no way to prove that God did not have a hand in creation, scientists would not use the theory because it does not have the quality that scientists agree a theory must have to be useful to the furtherance of science.
99 and 105
You are clearly adherents of an intelligent design theory of one sort or another. It is fine with me. But don’t delude yourselves in to thinking that evolutionary biolgists will have anything but scorn for your beliefs. And Mormon evolutionary biologists are not taken seriously by the the evolutionary biology establishment if they say anything about God. It is the way it is and wishing it different won’t make it so.
The objective of evolutionary biology is to explain life without God. That is it pure and simple.
I prayed hard one time and asked God to reveal Himself to me because I wanted to get to know Him better and I had a dream and God told me He was a scientist and He showed me around His lab.
Coulda been a dream, coulda been God.
georgeD, I think any disagreement we might have is purely semantic.
I don’t know how you define intelligent design theory, but the common definition excludes both Clark and myself.
If, by your last line, you mean that evolutionary biology fills in gaps that some people think God inhabits, then I agree with you.
Gary, given the information age that we live in, I don’t find it hard to believe that some of our leaders may have changed their views on scientific issues like evolution. And I don’t expect them to give us a public play-by-play of their evolving viewpoints since, as you have pointed out many times, their former views were never considered official doctrine.
Tim in 91,
That sounds like a really dangerous question. It sounds like it wouldn’t be so bad but it has been my experience that every gospel doctrine class has at least one guy that can make an awkward situation out of anything. I think your question is great, but I would beware of the consequences.
George D in 92,
I think you are partially right but I wouldn’t phrase it as strongly as you have. There is a difference between those you are anti-“teach-ID-as-science” and those who are simply anti-ID altogether. I know quite a few people in both camp who accept that God took a role in creation. On this note I would highly recommend “Finding Darwin’s God” by Keith Miller. It’s an easy read that has a positive ending for the theist. I also wrote a post recently regarding the difference between those two camps which I mentioned here.
Gary in 98,
You believe that all species where created separatly and did not die in any form until 6,000 years ago. That is pretty much the definition of yec. Now I don’t think that you attribute the creation of the earth or universe to such a recent time, only life. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Gary in 101,
I figured you would be flattered by such company. I’d hope you would take it that way after a couple statements probably came off as being less than kind toward you. Thanks for “turning the other cheek” instead of calling me a heretic or something like that.
Tom in 102,
“What matters most is having faith and learning to love. Without that it doesn’t matter how much we know about anything. Does nothing else matter? No. There’s other stuff. But we’ll all be OK if all we learn in this life is faith and love.”
I can think of no better example of “waving the white flag” or “intellectual cowardice.” Are we supposed to go to seminary every morning, and then institute, and morning scripture study and sunday school all to simply talk about faith every time? C’mon. “The glory of God is intelligence” I thought. Again, I appeal to section 130. What you say may be fine for born-again christians, but it can hardly be considered something which Joseph Smith would have ever advocated.
To make an appeal to Gould NOMA is a serious strike against religion. It means that they only have the right to talk about “values” and nothing else, for everything else falls in the realm of science. Its all well and nice to say that they shouldn’t speak on the creation of life after what they have said turns out to be completely wrong, and let’s be honest, it’s hard to imagine Moses describing “the beginning” in any less accurate terms than he did. Of course we should advocate silence, because speaking out on these matters either 1) makes us look stupid or 2) makes Moses look stupid. Either way we would be in big trouble. Of course keeping silent makes Joseph Smith look a little stupid as well since he was decidedly against such a policy, not to mention Brigham Young and pretty much all Mormon apostles of the 19th century.
Jeffrey,
I agree there always seems to be one guy that will run to the bishop demanding that he confiscate my recommend. But I think if I preface the question by saying I’m simply playing “Devil’s Advocate” we might be able to actually have an intelligent discussion without trampling on various members’ basic beliefs. All I want to do is introduce the fact that God and evolution can coexist and that we should have no problem with it being taught to our children.
I’m sure if you just say it like that it will not be a big problem, but if you address your original question to the entire class, I do fear the consequences. Now I don’t think that anybody would run to the bishop or anything, only that the spirit of contention will immediately manifest itself. This has been my experience anyways.
My Gospel Doctrine Teacher is an Evolutionary Biologist for a living, and he also has a Temple Recommend. He even wears his birkenstocks to church and is a democrat. I always find his lessons refreshing.
Jeffrey (#136),
I don’t think we should stop trying to figure stuff out. Sure, lets keep trying to figure stuff out. It’s good for the soul. In a small, incremental way gaining knowledge helps us to become like God. But if we miss the mark on that which is absolutely necessary it will matter very little how much we know about the peripherals. Without love we are nothing. I fail to see how this position entails cowardice or acknowledgment of defeat. It is an assertion as to what matters most. It is a position different from that of many people’s, I suppose. And I refuse to “wave the white flag” to anybody by conceding that the debate about evolution has very much real import in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t.
What is the purpose of all of our Gospel study if salvation rests entirely on such simple principles as faith and love? Well it’s not so simple to me. It’s very difficult to have faith in this life while God is so quiet. Gospel study should be devoted mostly to developing faith and Charity. We have to know what and whom to have faith in. We need to know God’s character, how He deals with His children, and how He feels about them. We need to be motivated. We need to understand why we have commandments. We need instruction on how to navigate this life in such a way that we attain joy. We need to learn how to love. We need to learn what this life is all about. We need to know what it takes to become cleansed of our sins. It’s all very difficult.
I usually find this an interesting topic but not really worth debating. Someday we will find out if God used evolution to help in the creation process or if all the fossils are simply from other worlds/matter sources etc. and God simply organized matter at the creation and the fossils came along with the matter.
As for me it could go either way. My Dad is a PHD research scientist and he has similar mixed views as I do.
I do know this from my own testimony. Jesus under the direction of God the Father created this earth and the life on it. How this was accomplished and Man came to be is not really that important to me.
Bob, I agree with your sentiments. I would also add that, while it’s not terribly important to me that I understand fundamentals like evolution, it’s very important to me that scientists understand them. We all benefit, directly or indirectly, from scientific research.
Jeffrey in #66
“Psychology is now starting to come up with adequate explanations of why we are inclined toward religion and religious experiences. Of course we can say that God guided evolution towards such in order to help us be religious, but this is doesn’t change the fact that the atheist now has an alternative explanation for those “promptings”.”
Do you mean that psycologists are saying that religious experiences fulfill some kind of evolutionary purpose? That it is wired into our brains somehow?
If so, I am firmly in the “then God wired us that way” camp, but I have long wondered how science would explain what my son calls “God’s tractor beam”.
As an LDS believer in evolution generally, I am still in the question about ID and about the notion of a blind evolution guided by mindless chance. It seems to me that in some sense LDS must reject ID because it assumes creation ex nihilo. If God created and chose the intial conditions that make our current pocket universe feasible (assumes Linde’s view of multiple universes) then God must do something like creation ex nihilo. To that extent, it seems to me that LDS cannot be IDers — and Steven E.M.s view which adopts creation ex nihilo is not one that I find at all plausbile.
On the other hand, it seems that those of us who accept evolution and LDS beliefs must also accept that evolution is not blind and that it is guided by supreme intelligence and maximal power. I personally don’t see that there is any explanation for the complexity of organisms that assume multiple complex organs and organisms that interact to have any utility to each other so that the entire organism must be provided with intelligent directions or it just cannot get there. In that sense, ID is something that is both plausible and necessary for me. I don’t want a bunch of evangelicals teching my children about God or their views of creation in school; but I don’t think that it is outside the perview of science to accept that the best explanation for the biological and genetic phenemona that we see in the geological record and current species is best explained by assuming intelligent direction. I worry that this last move has little scientific power to explain and that it may stop the search for further explanations. Yet doesn’t LDS belief accept that our bodies and the entire earth are the result of organizing matter by a supremely intelligent being?
Tom in 140,
Why do you keep thinking that trying to find out the truth about evolution has absolutely anything at all to do with having faith and being good? Why do you keep trying to change the subject? There is no relation at all as far as I can tell. Saying that you’ll just worry about faith, etc. is just a way of avoiding the question.
Additionally, the problem which is all too transparent with the “we’ll wait and see” response is that it doesn’t mean that at all! Why do people insist on waiting in this matter while more than willing to accept all sorts of other things backed by less evidence? What such people are saying is that they believe the scripture are near infallible and when some idea which is so strong that it can’t be contested by any means we currently have (and we have lots of means to draw upon) rather than granting that the scriptures were simply wrong (which they clearly were) they simply say “we’ll see.” We already have seen. What more do we need?
Does such a strategy not sound like intellectual cowardice? “This evidence doesn’t allign all that well with my preconcieved conclusions therefore I’ll wait and wait as long as I live until something changes” !?!? What would a missionary think of an investigator who took this position regarding the Mormon church. Would we not simply say that they didn’t have the courage to face up to the obvious truth? What do we tell investigators who simply say “it’s all about having faith and being good so I don’t need to convert to anything you say”? These are the exact same things which I see all too many church members saying when it comes to evolution.
As Hansel said on Zoolander: “The results are in amigo, what’s left to ponder? …… Nice come back!”
CJ,
“Do you mean that psycologists are saying that religious experiences fulfill some kind of evolutionary purpose? That it is wired into our brains somehow?”
While I wouldn’t phrase it this way, you are more or less right. It’s not that religion is an evolutionary “adaptation” or something like that, only that our human nature has evolved so that what we now call “religion” comes naturally to us and is in fact very difficult to resist.
This offers two options, as I said above, namely that 1) God likes this so that we will all be more inclined toward religion or 2) there is nothing real about religion, it’s just something we do.
No matter which position one takes, however, everybody has to admit that religious experiences, if they are so nature to us, can be used to support an acceptance of religion, at least not without seriously bringing into question the origin and authenticity of such experiences.
Blake,
“On the other hand, it seems that those of us who accept evolution and LDS beliefs must also accept that evolution is not blind and that it is guided by supreme intelligence and maximal power.”
I’m not too sure about this. Gary has pretty much been advocating this idea as well, but I have not addressed it until now. The creation says that God create the earth, its true. The account is simply not all that straight forward though. Did God himself actually do it or did He assign somebody else. Most Mormons allow for the later, and as such have already deviated from the original statement.
Did God himself do it?
Could He have assign somebody else to do it?
Could He have “allowed” somebody else to do it?
Could He have used a tool to do it?
Could He have “allowed” some tool to do it?
Could He have simply allowed it to happen without His intervention if He knew it would turn out okay?
I personally consider all of these options to be acceptable and some of them don’t at all adhere to your (or Gary’s) statement.
Matt, (#139), I can take the Democrat and evolutionary biologist parts OK. But the Birkenstocks have me worried. Does he go barefoot or with socks? Black socks or white? I am really concerned about this. Here in Miami, Democratic evolutionary biologists usually stick to flip-flops with no socks, which is okay in general. In fact, we have several “Brother Flip Flops” in our ward. Not to mention the bevy of “Sister Flip Flops” who can be heard slapping their ways down the halls constantly.
Why do you keep thinking that trying to find out the truth about evolution has absolutely anything at all to do with having faith and being good?
It doesn’t. That’s the point. That’s why evolution doesn’t matter. That’s why we don’t need a revelation on the subject. That’s why the Church should remain silent on the matter. Because it has nothing to do with having faith and learning to love. It has nothing to do with my salvation or yours.
GeorgeD (#128), I can assure you that I don’t believe in ID and I’d also point out that BYU’s evolution department is very highly regarded. The claim you make are just false.
Blake (#144), within a Linde universe creating a new universe only works because the laws of physics exist and a prior universe exists. So it couldn’t be called creation ex nihlo by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m also not clear on how ID entails creation ex nihlo. Certainly most people promoting it probably accept it. But that’s just due to the accident of religion and not anything in the theories that I can see. It seems to me that ID would work equally well with pantheism, for example.
I’d also agree with those who point out evolution is hardly religiously significant. We don’t need to know how God created, merely that he did create.
150 Clark
I am certainly glad that the BYU science department believes in God. In fact I am thrilled. But I’ll put it to you again. The purpose of all science is to find a natural explanation for everything. No scientist is really able to detect the hand of God using the methods of science so it isn’t possible to find a supernatural explanation for things. Once you start with this you are an intelligent designer and that is just the way it is. I challenge you to put the question to an evolutionary biologist.
Anyone who thinks that God had anything to do with the creation is a creationist or an ID’er (of one sort or another) by definition. I’ll grant you that some evolutionary biologists may grant you a “pre-bang” God but they’re “all-natural” and hands off from the big bang forward.
George, a few comments.
1. I don’t believe in the existence of the supernatural. I think the great strength and wonder of Mormonism is that God is embodied, that spirits are matter and so forth. I think the strongest way to read Mormonism is as a religion which rejectes the supernatural. I think that if angels were here they could be scientifically analyzed.
2. Science attempts to find explanations that it can. If it can find an explanation and tests it, then it’s worth believing. If science can find out that evolution is true, then I don’t see the problem.
3. I don’t think you understand what intelligent design asserts. ID asserts that macro-evolution can’t work very natural mutations and natural selection. I disbelieve that. Thinking God uses evolution technologically the way he uses the laws of physics is not ID.
4. I was taught about all this by Paul Cox in a religion class at BYU. He is a world respected biologist.
5. Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding on all sides concerning what ID does or does not assert.
Clark: Have you read ID? I agree that Linde’s multiverse is not creation ex nihilo. However, the notion of ID is that God sets the initial conditions to the universe that make it fine tuned and possible for life to exist in our universe. I believe that this argument has some appeal — but it seems that God has to be able to create the laws of physics and not work within them to set the intial conditions and in that respect it assumes creation ex nihilo or that God creates from a transcendant POV outside the physical universe. That is, God exists outside the realm of physical laws and creates them and to that extent it assumes a classical theistic view of the universe. If we accept Linde universes, however, then we must assume that in some sense God exists within the scope of whatever laws govern the superverse and then fine-tunes pocket universes like ourts when he draws them out of the superverse — so perhaps the notion isn’t so different. That was my point.
Jeff: The notion that God created but it really was merely others doing it for him is fine but it doesn’t address the issues related to evolution. I believe that evolution requires recourse to an intelligent designer to make sense of it — though there are gaps aplenty in both the biological/geological record/explanation and in principal in any system that invokes God as the explanation of intelligence expressed in the design of living organisms. The notion that God created or did it through others still entails that it expresses intelligence because the designer and those carryng out the creation possess intelligence.
So I am a bit lost at what you claim. God created the universe through others so we can ignore divine intelligence? Or that God utilized solely natural means so that it doesn’t express his intelligence? (Even a jet uses natural laws but it still expresses the intelligence of its designers). That God is really a deistic God squared so that not only did he not get involved in the creation but he also didn’t do anything at all to create (and if so, how is that creation?)? None of these respond in any way to the notion that if God is involved in any way then the creation expresses his design and hand (indeed, in nothing is God so offended as when we don’t recognize his hand in all things). So I don’t see any but your uber-deistic position responding to the notion of theistic evolution and deistic creation (or worse, just sitting back and letting it happen); yet this view of uber-deism just doesn’t jive with scriptural accounts as to who created in the least (let alone how he created — though that is a very large discussion and neither you nor I see any of the scriptural accounts as approaching a scientific dialogue about creation).
I’ve certainly read some ID and had discussions with people discussing it philosophically. Those I’ve discussed it with don’t make the assertion you are. Which may be due to some of the problems with the very term ID. It’s come to mean much more than the Discovery Institute intended. But certainly from what I’ve read they assert more than simply a kind of anthropic principle as you appear to portray it.
I understand, with your clarification, what you’re saying. I think the fact that there is a pre-existent universe and pre-existent laws of physics is a pretty big difference. But there definitely are some similarities.
When you say you believe evolution requires an appeal to an intelligent designer, what are you saying? Are you speaking of a kind of anthropic reasoning with respect to the laws of the universe or are you saying something about macro-evolution?
Clark,
I am a Mormon who does believe in a God who is supernatural (read that as a superset of nature as we know it). He says for my ways are not your ways neither are my thoughts your thoughts for as the heavens are higher than the earth so are my thoughts than your thoughts and my ways than your ways.
I do not believe that the elemnts of the superset are knowable using the elements of the subset we call nature. Only faith can find God through his Son Jesus Christ.
How can there be any controversy on what ID asserts? There is no rigor in ID so it is whatever anyone says it is.
Clark: As ID started out, it was a design argument based on the fine tuning of our universe to support life within a very narrow range of variable that seemed asstronimically impossible (pun intended) without an intelligent designer choosing just this vary narrow range of variables that could develop into a universe that lasts more than a few nanoseconds. ID originally had nothing to do with evolution or Paley’s design argument about the remarkable complexity of biological organisms. Of course now what goes for ID is really just the teleological argument for God’s existence. (Note what I said about ID george — we agree that it has come to mean just about anything but it started out as an observation about fine-tuning of initial conditions).
As for evolution and the need for intelligence to direct it, I mean both — the end product seems to have been a direction teleologically intyended and possible within the first organisms and macroevolution seems to me to require intelligent direction to account for progress at all. However, as I said, I am torn in two different directions. How can we get our heads around something that is in principle not testable or repeatable? Does referring to God take us out of the realm of “science”? If it does, why should we care about that, as if science demanded our obeisance and assent. If the best explanation exceeds scientific explanations (as surely it does presently) then why not accept explanations that are not based on the scientific method? These are real questions for me — and I don’t trust the present pronouncements of various scientific disciplines because I am sure that one day, in the history of science, our world view will look quaint and rather uninformed.
Blake, I think when people talk ID though they mean primarily the Discovery Center and especially the writings of William Dembski. As I understand him and related figures like Behe, the primarily focus is macro-evolution and the issue of probabilities. They don’t focus on the anthropic elements. Dembski in particular is trying to use information theory and the ways we discern intent to apply to biology. And the common focus appears to be that macro-evolution is evidence of design. In recent interviews I’ve heard with Dembski he’s backed down off even the general anti-macro-evolution position, simply saying that some cases would be evidence of design but that some may well be due to chance and natural selection.
While you may be right about the history of what developed ID, I think what you describe isn’t the ID that people talk about.
George, when you say, “supernatural (read that as a superset of nature as we know it),” that becomes problematic. Every scientist you speak to will agree that science doesn’t know everything yet. The most obvious example is the failure of physicists the last 50 years to come up with a workable quantum gravity. (String theory is starting to suffer a backlash – although the backlash is still small) Does that mean that quantum gravity is supernatural? Of course not.
There is a big danger is using the term supernatural as merely a way of expressing our ignorance of natural law. Unless you mean the stronger thesis that supernatural is beyond all natural law (known or unknown by scientists)
Jeffrey (#134),
The yec (young earth creationists) believe earth was created in six 24-hour days. I stated more than six months ago (in a discussion in which you participated) that “two questions I cannot answer are: 1. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? and 2. How long were the creation days?” (link in #98).
I believe “time” as we know it began after the creation because, even in the Garden of Eden, “as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning” (Abr. 5:13).
I’ve commented above about yec ex nihilo (#113) and, in case it’s not already clear, I don’t believe that either.
On the other hand I say with President Boyd K. Packer, “God bless them!”
I subscribe to a monthly yec newsletter and occasionally I even buy one of their books (not everything they say is bad). So I think I’m in a position to say whether or not I am one. I’m not. Does this help you understand my position?
will (#131),
Elder Nelson has not changed his views on these issues. I’ve quoted him in 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993, and 2000. Let’s go ahead and bring it forward a couple of years. In the April 2001 general conference, Elder Nelson said, “I like to recommend … short explanatory paragraphs in the Bible Dictionary, listed under … ‘Fall of Adam‘ (page 670, paragraphs 1–2)” (Ensign, May 2001, 32.)
The following year, Elder Nelson wrote, “I recommend … selected paragraphs under Fall of Adam (page 670, paragraphs 1–2) … in the Bible Dictionary” (Ensign, Mar. 2002, 17.)
When was the last time you read what it says on page 670, paragraphs 1-2, in the LDS Bible Dictionary?
I think the evidence strongly suggests that Elder Nelson has not changed, and is not in the process of changing, his views on No Death Before the Fall.
“Do not despise those who over the years defended these doctrines in spite of intellectual mocking. Do not belittle their efforts. However foolish they may have appeared to some, there is substance to the position they have defended. I say, God bless them! “
I actually agree with Pres. Packer. However I’d wish the respect went both ways. I think those who think “real time” started 6000 years ago are clearly wrong. But I certainly understand why they feel that way. Hopefully as we discuss these matters those who adhere to these views, like Gary, don’t see me as mocking them.
I also think Pres. Packer puts his finger on why people believe these things: because the scriptures speak in this way. Even though we, as LDS, don’t have the Evangelical notion of innerancy and shouldn’t read Genesis the way Evangelicals do simply because of our other scriptures, it’s clear that the fundamental issue is how to read Genesis. Just as I think people, including prophets like Joseph Smith, misread the Book of Mormon thinking its events took place over the entire hemispheric of the Americas, I think we can have naive readings of Genesis. But just as I think the hemispheric readings of the Book of Mormon are completely natural and understandable, I think these readings of Genesis are as well. The fact that there is a tradition of these readings leads some to not question the fundamental issue of how they are read. And that’s fully understandable as well.
Gary, with respect to the young earthers, you’re clearly not one. However you also clearly share many beliefs with them. It seems you are forced by your views to deny the entire historical record of the planet as laid out in the evidence from about 6000 BC back. Further, even most of the history from 6000 BC – say 4000 BC you’d probably have to reject. In that regard both you and the young earthers share views. I recognize that you have open to you alternative to explain the fossil record: the idea of colonizing earth that many 19th century Mormons bought into. i.e. the idea that the fossils are real but were of a prior creation. As I recall Nibley buys into that as well.
I think that believe can be falsified fairly easily scientifically. But I can understand why you would accept it that way. You privilege your reading of the texts based upon certain traditions above the evidence of the natural world. I’m open to being critical of natural evidence, but I think our readings of texts – especially those independent of explicit revelation – also ought be examined critically. Perhaps more so given the issues and ambiguities inherent in reading texts.
I’ll concede your point on Elder Nelson. The first quote is rather explicit even if the ones that follow are not. (To me read naturally they only discuss Adam and Eve and not other life forms)
Clark,
Let me repeat what I said earlier, your comment #116 is exceptional—I’ve been defending it at LDS Science Review.
Another great comment in this thread was Geoff’s #62. The John Pratt paragraph Jared quotes seems to convey a similar line of thinking and may well have been the inspiration for Geoff’s #62 (since his post links to the same Pratt article).
I’d be interested in your response to Geoff’s #62 and Pratt’s paragraph as quoted by Jared.
Some thoughtful hypotheses which attempt to reconcile science with the scriptures can be found here: http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000736
158 Clark,
Anything that is knowable by anybody regardless of their faith (i.e. just by intellect) is not supernatural (e.g. quantum theory). It is natural. I believe that there are aspects of God that are only knowable by faith. These transcend natural and thus — are supernatural. Because I believe in law I do believe that there is a divine nature upon which all of God’s qualities are predicated but I do not believe that we can discover God with science. It is a useful preoccupation of the mind (for this world) but it is not sufficent to find our way into celestial realms.
Gary, I don’t know what Elder Nelson’s current position is. I’ll just say that, even given the quotes you’ve presented, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he’s changed his mind. Nor would it surprise me to learn that he hasn’t.
I suspect that our leaders are not of one mind on this issue. I would guess that Elder Packer maintains a traditional belief, while others like Oaks and Eyring are more open to scientific views. I have nothing to back up these guesses other than a general impression, so I don’t presume to know what’s going on in their heads. I will say that I put more stock in overall impressions than I do in microanalysis of selected quotes. I’m not criticizing your approach; I’m just saying that it doesn’t work for me.
Clark, and some of our other scientific friends. One of the reasons Gary keeps on coming back to my comment #62 is because there is an important point included there that may help us bridge the divide between scientists and doubters of evolution like myself. I used to believe in evolution. Now, keep in mind I wasn’t a scientist so I believed in evolution because it was what I was taught in high school and “everybody smart believed in evolution.”
I still think there is strong evidence of individual species evolving and adapting to different circumstances. I am even willing to believe that some species may have evolved into others, for example. I am willing to believe that God used the process of evolution and natural selection to make some species stronger over time.
But life experience has shown me that most things that are conventional wisdom usually end up being wrong. Everybody knows global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt, for example, and that Florida will be covered in water in 50 years. You will see newspaper articles nearly on a daily basis saying that xxx scientist measuring ice depth in xxx location in the Antartic has found that all the ice is melting. Well, one small problem: if you actually measure polar ice depths in dozens of places on the north or south pole, you find that the ice depth is smaller in XXX location, but it is much deeper in YYY and ZZZ location. In fact, if you measure ice depth today throughout Antartica, you will find that there is actually slightly more ice today than there was a few decades ago. So, Florida may not disappear after all.
But the scientific community is invested in global warming. It is a big industry now, so by golly they must prove it true, even if it isn’t true, which it isn’t.
The same thing happens in the worlds of biologists and cosmologists. Yes, biologists are correct to see evidence of evolution in particular cases, and yes, that can explain a lot in those cases. But biologists and other scientists who begin speculating about things we don’t and can’t know (such as pre-cambrian conditions, for example) are misleading the public and other scientists and, most importantly, leading people away from God by promoting a theory that leads to atheism. For some biologists and others, evolution is a substitute religion and, yes, an idol in exactly the sense that Isaiah and other prophets discussed. This is what I oppose — the evolutionary speculation that becomes a false religion.
We Latter-day Saints know through revelation that there were incredible powers involved in creating the world. Jehovah and his assistants used priesthood power to create the world out of particles of matter. Animals, insects and, later, man were put on this Earth through this power. Yes, I believe that evolution was one of the forces that Jehovah may have used. But there were dozens of other forces, most of which we cannot understand now. But when we do understand these forces it will be marvelous. Scientists will rejoice as they study and learn about these forces in detail.
Compared to the complexity and beauty of the many forces that were used during creation, the theory of evolution seems puny and insignificant, it seems to me. Yet so many people invest so much time and energy in something so small and unimportant, when there is something so much greater on the horizon. That is the point I was trying to make.
Tom in 149,
You have refused to engage the question by only responding to a statement taken out of context. Having faith and being good isn’t all that matters in Mormon theology. Knowledge is vital as well, and we are expected to learn as much as we can (with in reason) while here on earth. After all, (again) what do we think of investigators that drop that line on us?
We can’t attempt to engage in issues regarding evolution while insisting that these things aren’t that important. If thier not that important then why do people refuse to acknowlegde the obvious conclusion by instead saying “it doesn’t matter” or “we’ll see in the after life”?
This strategy seems like a football team you sees that its losing really bad and rather than accepting the truth of the matter simply asks to play a fifth quarter and then a sixth quarter and so on while continuing to lose each additional quarter as well. If all this team said as they did this was “we’ll see who wins” we would rightfully interpret these actions as a willful stubbornness and a refusal to acknowledge the truth. We certainly would not think that this team was being wise or patient. They were simply cheating the game.
Similarly, those who are willing to engage the evolution debate but when things go sour simply say “we’ll see” are really cheating the argument and are in fact wasting their own and everybody else who is also engaged in the debates time. If it really doens’t matter why do so many, if fact the majority of people enter the debate in the first place? Is it respectable for the defenders of animal magnetism, ether and phrenology to simply say “we’ll see” while refusing to accept modern biology, astronomy and cognitive science? Wouldn’t this sound pretty ridiculous?
Blake in 153,
“I believe that evolution requires recourse to an intelligent designer to make sense of it”
This is a mighty strong claim. Are you simply claiming that it couldn’t have happened without intelligent design of some sort, a la ID, or something more philosophical? If this is only a confession of ID then I’m going to have to disagree along with most of the evolutionary biologists out there. If you mean somthing else then please explain.
What my comment was aimed at was showing that God could have been the creator even though there might have been instances of creation wherein the creators weren’t as intelligent as we must expect God to be as well as some instances where there was no intelligence directly involved at all. My point is that the Mormon creation might actually allow for some of the options which Hume presented in his Dialogues.
Gary in 159,
I still think that you fit the YEC mold. Who cares how long the days were? The point is that you think that the creation as we now know it to be (fallen) came into existence about 6,000 years ago. You believe that all science which puts forth any description of the earth before 6,000 years ago is wrong. This is YEC regardless of when the actual act of creation happened and all that other stuff you bring into discussion.
Geoff (#167), it is an unfortunate fact that many who doubt evolution doubt it simply on the grounds that scientists have changed views. (Say from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics) I’d simply say that I think the horrible state of science teaching and the even worse state of science reporting in the media is to blame for this.
Let’s turn your argument around. Some LDS doctrines have been reversed. (Say blacks and the priesthood). Should we doubt all LDS doctrine simply because of this? Some statements by prophets have been reversed (think Adam/God or the many unfortunate statements on blacks). Should we doubt all prophetic statements because of this? Of course not.
It seems to me that the line of reasoning you are taking is rather dangerous. Further, it seems to me that you apply it very selectively.
George (#165), faith is what we have, we know by faith only in that it leads us to to experiment more. That’s the lesson of Alma 32. We don’t know by faith in the manner you appear to be suggesting. i.e. I fundamentally disagree with how you conceive of faith.
“Hopefully as we discuss these matters those who adhere to these views, like Gary, don’t see me as mocking them.”
Here I find myself walking a very fine line, for I clearly have no problems throwing out words like “stupid” and “intellectual cowardice.” As I have said before, I don’t think that everybody who buys into special or young earth creationism is stupid, but this doesn’t change the fact that the position itself is stupid. “Intellectual cowardice” cannot be applied to anything except the person so I should probably defend my use of such. When somebody enters an intellectual debate and every one of their arguments is shot down and vast amounts of evidence are piled up against them and they still refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong by various techniques this is indeed intellectual cowardice. Such a person is not participating in the argument at all, but are instead merely preaching and/or giving the others involved argument a little bit of practice. Such things as “we’ll see in the after life” contribute absolutely nothing to the argument and are used to distract attention away from the untenability of ones position.
Geoff (167),
Let’s face it, the opinions that you and I have on global warming and evolution are uninformed. If there is wide agreement within the scientific community on these issues (I don’t know if there is on global warming), then the consensus view of the experts carries far more weight than our armchair analyses. In this sense, I trust conventional wisdom more than my own opinions based on my own narrow experience.
Re: Blake
Thanks for your great comments. I think my own views are somewhat similar to yours. However, I don’t think that ID inherently requires creation ex nihlo. As A latter-day saint who leans toward ID, I see no reason why the design in life cannot be analogous to the things that our own human engineers design by organizing preexisting materials to create things. Design entails organization of materials in ways that they could not have come together without intelligent direction. So one can believe in ID while still rejecting creation ex nihlo.
You would probably be interested in the following quote from Dembski on his blog, posted today no less:
Donald, I think by ID Blake simply means anthropic planning. Something fairly different than ID as expressed by the Discovery Institute and folks like Dembski and Behe. So we’re talking apples and oranges.
Gary (#163) you asked me to reply to Geoff in #62. I certainly agree that “stupid” ought not be applied. And I’d disagree with Jeffrey (#173) on that matter. Having said that though I find it very sad how people simply discount science out of hand yet never engage in any critical thought regarding their own presuppositions or the ways the read scripture. It seems a very strong double standard and very troubling. The whole situation frankly reminds me of Moses in the desert where people just had to look upon the staff of Moses to be healed. In science the evidence is fairly public and there are numerous textbooks on the subject and very good popularizations. Yet people won’t bother to look. Rather they look for ways to justify their existing preconceptions.
I certainly think that right now we see through a glass darkly. But the fact is that we can know things now. The whole appeal to ignorance that some are making seems to me only to justify ignorance. That is, people are attempting to justify their being ignorance so as to avoid looking into science. I’d note that many investigators I had on my mission used very similar language to justify not taking the Book of Mormon seriously. They wouldn’t look since there were so many religions with so many beliefs and so many people changing religions.
I find that lack of a desire to know very, very sad.
That is the difference between argument (the good kind) and preaching. In argument both sides come with presupposition that both are seeking truth, are intent on and dedicated to furthering the argument with each exchange and are willing to concede that they might be wrong. In preaching, on the other hand, at least one of the people feels that he has the truth and therefore has no intent of ever bending no matter what the evidence of logic which may be piled against him or her. In order to maintain the appearance of truth when things may not be going so well for this person, they will often, whether intentionally or not, divert into irrelevant issues which serve no purpose in further the exchange. From this it is clear that there are preachers in both sides of the evolution divide, for even though there are immense amounts of evidence in their favor, there are many evolutionists, I suppose who would not be willing to budge even is such were not the case.
will (#166),
Okay, if you can say that after you’ve read 160 and followed the links, then I have to wonder, Do you even know what my position is? And let me also ask you, as I did Clark in 163, What is your take on Geoff’s statement in 62 “that at some point in the spirit world or after the resurrection you will have an incredible knowledge of human origins and cosmology that will make your puny conceptions of ‘evolution is clearly true’ today seem quite childish in comparison.”
There is a similarity in meaning between Geoff’s words “puny conceptions” and Elder John A. Widtsoe’s words “dimly sensed by mortal man,” as found in the following:
It seems even the great John A. Widtsoe was willing to wait for that “greater [light and] knowledge” (Abr. 1:2)—that “incredible knowledge of human origins and cosmology”—of which Geoff speaks. Wouldn’t it be exciting to have Elder Widtsoe come back and speak about the creation in a satellite fireside as an introduction to our study of Genesis next month?
Geoff B (167)
I have some holiday reading for you:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18616
Looks like the link didn’t work.
Here for your convenience
Jeffrey: “You have refused to engage the question by only responding to a statement taken out of context.
What question? The question of evolution? I haven’t engaged you on this question because as far as I can tell we have no significant disagreement in regards to evolution itself. I believe everything that has been proved by rigorous science. Where we disagree is on the question of the Church’s current attitude toward evolution. I engaged you on this point when you expressed in your comments #48, #53, and #56 discontentment with how God, through the Church, currently deals with the evolution controversy. You think we need a revelation that reconciles what we know about science with what we believe about God as Creator so that we can stop looking “stupid” by defending young earth creationism and whatnot, so contention on the matter will end, and so that we’ll stop offending people who don’t believe in the Church because some of our beliefs seem to be contrary to scientific fact. I responded by saying that revelation on the matter is not necessary because we can solve the problem of contention by being Christlike (by chosing not be be contentious) and we can solve the problem of looking stupid by being smart (by that I mean that we don’t have to defend young earth creationism if we don’t want to–as far as I can tell, members of the Church are not obliged to regard the accounts of the Creation as literal history). I then gave another reason why I don’t think we need a revelation to resolve the controversy (and the main reason I’m content with the current Church leadership’s attitude toward science): because it’s relatively unimportant.
Somehow you saw that response as conceding defeat and betraying cowardice. So I defended myself and elaborated on why the evolution controversy isn’t very significant and why I’m content with the Church’s treatment of the matter. How it’s cowardly to say the evolution controversy isn’t all that important is still lost on me. You disagree, and you suggest that Joseph Smith and the early prophets would disagree with my assertion that relative to being faithful and loving, being knowledgeable is not very important. I don’t care. I’m not backing down from that (not that I’m shutting my mind down from learning otherwise, but I do believe very strongly that this is correct). I believe that the charitable ignoramus deserves a greater reward than the knowledgeable jerk. There is knowledge that is vital for salvation because it helps us to have faith and develop character. That is knowledge of God’s character, His will, His plan, and His status as our Father and Creator, etc. Knowledge of the physical mechanism by which life arose on this planet, diversified, and came to be as it is presently is not vital knowledge in my opinion, nor is knowledge of the precise role that God played in the Creation. The vital lesson of the Creation accounts is that we are here because God wants us to be and that he is our Father and Lord.
To further defend myself I’ll make my position clear. I’ve not said that one shouldn’t engage in the evolution debate. I’ve not said that the answer is to “wait and see.” I don’t advocate turning a blind eye or maintaining willful ignorance when faced with a challenge to one’s faith. Personally, I face challenges from people on both sides and I defend myself on both sides by insisting that it’s not sinful to believe in all that science has proved and will prove and that it’s not stupid to believe in God in the face of all that science has proved.
In my experience in the Church I have not been officially (my dad doesn’t count, right?) reprimanded, called to repentence, or otherwise been made to feel uncomfortable for believing that the first life on earth and the diverse forms of life, including Homo sapiens, probably came to be by what scientists consider natural processes. And I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t face official repercussions if I were to publicize this belief. For this reason and all the other reasons I’ve mentioned, I disagree that we need further revelation from God concerning the Creation and evolution.
Tom, I’m pretty sympathetic to your views. I’d just say that I think it has an effect in member retention and missionary work. To me the issue is perhaps on par with debates over those of African descent in the 1960s. Now, looking back, I think we all wish we could have avoided a lot of that rhetoric. I think many people were very grateful for a revelation which is what it took to get everyone on board. I suspect with respect to reading Genesis an explicit revelation of God would be necessary to bring folks like Gary on board. (No offense to Gary, I’m sure he’d say the same of me)
Having said that though, I do fully agree that the primary purpose of the gospel is to develop a personal relationship with God, to make use of the atonement, and through Christ to become a better and better person. Sometimes doctrine can help with that, sometimes focus on doctrine becomes a hindrance. We miss the forest for the trees.
Genesis is one of the five books of Moses right?
So … where did Moses get his account of Adam and Eve, the creation, and all that stuff?
Is it possible that some of his source material was a bit vague?
Gary (178),
I realize that I must seem incorrigible when I insist on a more recent statement from Elder Nelson, but the fact is that thousands of BYU students change their views on evolution during their first few weeks of freshman biology. Since I don’t know what Elder Nelson has been reading or who he’s been talking to over the past 3 1/2 years, I can’t claim to know his current position.
Regarding Elder Widstoe, I don’t see him as a man who was content to wait for further light and knowledge when so many answers are within our puny human reach.
Seth one must add in that the OT was largely compiled after the return from Exile in Babylon. The idea that the books of Moses are the same as what Moses wrote is rather doubtful.
Tom,
Thanks for the recap. Clearly my responses included far too much material (most of it totally irrelevant) and this lead the conversation astray. I do, however, disagree with your position, though I don’t have the time to give a proper response right now. I’ll try to get around to it on Tuesday when I’m back in town.
Merry Christmas
Bill, #’s 179 and 180, I know I brought up global warming. Let’s save that for another thread.
I’m familiar with the arguments in the articles you cite. You get plenty of global warming propaganda just by picking up your daily newspaper or newsweekly. If you’d like to hear the other side, I recommend Wilfred Beckerman’s “A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth” and Peter Huber’s “Hard Green.” Of course, “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton makes the science of global warming easy to understand and follow. If you dare to challenge the environmental terrorists, you can read Bjorn Lomborg (“The Skeptical Environmentalist”) and Aaron Wildavsky (“But Is It True?”).
will (#184),
First, regarding your eternal hope that Elder Russell M. Nelson has privately changed his views on evolution, let’s not forget who we are talking about:
Elder Nelson is not a freshman biology student. Maybe it would satisfy you if he stated publicly once in a while that his previous teachings are still valid—something along the lines of what Joseph Fielding Smith did in 1970.
Second, Elder John A. Widtsoe stated more than once a different position than the one you attribute to him.
Third, in spite of any BYU converts to evolution, probably 90 percent of Latter-day Saints “think the Church is against evolution” and I have a reliable source for that estimate.
For the past thirty years, Duane Jeffery has been a de facto spokesman for Mormon evolutionists. His well respected and often referred to article, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,†was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 [Autumn-Winter 1973], 41-75. The article was announced to the whole Church in the Ensign (Dec. 1975, 71) and to the Mormon academic community in BYU Studies (Vol. 15, No. 4, Summer 1975, 532). The article’s respectability is enhanced by the fact that it appears in many Bibliographies, including those of four Encyclopedia of Mormonism articles.
I think Duane Jeffery, of all people, would be least likely to overstate any anti-evolution sentiment in the Church. In fact, if anything, I think he might play it down. Yet, last March he estimated that “probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution.†(See “Utah’s non-war over evolution: It’s taught — but probably not believed,†Deseret Morning News, Mar. 19, 2005, pp. E1 & E3.)
Lastly, I suppose we both hold tightly to our respective views. In spite of that, however, we can and should be friends.
188,
I think that most LDS believe that God made the heavens and the earth. Evolution, intelligent design, creationism etc. are all words that get thrown out around that.
Jeffrey, why do you resort to words like stupid? If someone doesn’t believe in a theory you believe in that doesn’t make them stupid. Certainly there is evidence to support your theory but you don’t have actually proof, its not like showing the world isn’t flat because we can fly above it or around it and see that it is round. Evolutionists find fossils and piece together a theory that explains why we found this here and that there. You combine this knowledge with our current understanding of DNA, natural selection and sexual selection and you believe you understand how everything works.
The scriptures teach that we need to be careful otherwise we may believe we understand more than God. By the way have you or Clark seen the matrix? Its possible we’re living in a computer game where the programer simply set all the settings to where we are now. In that case everything we discover about this universe is based on the computer program. Similarly, God could be the one that wrote the DNA computer program and Adam and Eve could have been in a Garden that existed before the plates moved apart. They could have lived there for millenia while the rest of the earth experienced what we find now. There are numerous explainations for what we find now, not to mention the group think that sets in as “scientists” loose their willingness to be openminded.
I remember as a physics major haveing debates with students and professors about the big bang theory. They find a few shreds of evidence and conclude that they know and understand how the universe began. Then they revise the idea each time new evidence changes their previous assumptions but they are unwilling to consider as readily that there may be other explainations for everything.
When you say evolution is settled science, what parts of evolution do you mean? Natural selection? Sexual selection? Mutations? Inter or intra species evolution? Do you mean that you believe without doubt that man evolved from a protein soup? You have conclusive evidence that no other explaination is possible? Or just that evolution is the best explaination we have given what we know now?
There was a really amazing Devotional at BYU last Summer about Evolution. I think the recording of it is on site and available. It was about bugs and the “tree of life”. It was really good. THis link is to the transcript, but the video was much better.
http://byubroadcasting.org/devotionals/transcripts/whiting052405.pdf
Heli,
Did you even read my comments? I repeatedly said that people that believe (specifically) in young earth creationism or in special creationism are not necessarily stupid. Nevertheless, the position itself is stupid. It is totally ignorant and misinformed and willfully so. Anybody who doubts the fact of evolution simply needs to read a book other than the Bible. Somebody who doubts the mechanisms of evolution such as theistic evolutionists or IDers do not far under such strong condemnation.
In other words one doesn’t need to “believe you understand how everything works” in order to read the writing on the wall.
Sure, one can think of all sorts of sensational, over-the-top ways in which all the huge amounts of evidence for evolution might be wrong, but do we have any reason to accept such other than our dislike for evolution?
Openmindedness is simply a willingness to accept the conclusions which the evidence points toward. Is it really the scientist which don’t do this? C’mon.
Evolution is not like the Big Bang theory. The big bang is based on a very limited set of evidence while there are numerous lines of evidence which all independently point toward evolution. Paleonotological, geographical, genetic, embryological, geological… pretty much anything learned in biology and then some.
Your final questions reveal how much you didn’t read my comments earlier. While the paths of evolution and the set of mechanisms responsible for evolution may be in debate, the fact of evolution is quite settled. Absolutely no respectable biologist doubts this. It should be said, however, that of all the species’ paths which we do have established, man’s is one of the least controversial. There is no doubt that man did evolve from earlier primates. While there is still some question regarding exact time, place and mechanism, there is no near enough ambiguity to doubt that it actually did happen.
Basically, the first three chapters of genesis, as taken as a historical record, are totally inaccurate. Moses couldn’t have gotten it more wrong.
Jeffrey
I must agree with you. Openmindedness? I am a bit older I supose than most writing here. I must laugh to myself at the memories I have of earlier christian attitudes. If man were ment to fly he would have wings. Many church leaders today very much enjoy the speed of flight in their world travels. How about the one “If God wanted us on the Moon he would have put us there.” I have long believed no one knows how long Adam and Eve spent in the garden. years? Centuries? melleniums? All just curious thoughts.
But I have to take a strong oposition to your statment the books of Moses are totaly wrong. If you are LDS then how would you account for the Book of Moses as found in the Pearl of Great Price. Read carefully how Joseph Smith got that record. I supose if you want to deny the gift he had and his prophetic position you could make such a statement. But to walk in so much self confidence as to believe he did not recieve it as he did would definently lead one to believe you are completly to one side of this discusion and are not clear to look objectively at both.
I am assuming you are LDS if not then this statement would have no revelance here and I would Apolagize.
Sorry Jeffrey,
I meant to say a position is not stupid just because there seems to be more evidence for that position today than others. You sound like someone preaching with some self interest in the outcome. You sound off other sciences as if they confirm your most controversial beliefs in evolution. No one doubts that living beings generally carry DNA that is passed from parent to child. No one disbelieves in natural or sexual selection, those things are obvious to the most casual observer.
I’ve read books on the statistical probability of evolution as believed by your group, written by a scientists (don’t remember exact credentials). Wherein it was clearly explained probability of mutation and the conclusion of this scientist is that it takes more faith to believe every part of us evolved by chance than to believe there was some outside help. The evolution of the eye, the hand, and by all means the brain are so improbable that it doesn’t matter if you have 20 billion years or a biliion planets on which to roll those evolutionary dice. It is more probable that there is a watch sitting in outerspace that was formed by random collisions of asteroids. I’d tend to think the watch is evidence of a watch maker, but maybe if I found similar objects throughout the universe at different stages I’d believe the watch evolved.
As for the clear evidence that man evolved from primates, I don’t know how God created us. Its possible that since he wrote the code for DNA, which is the most complex computer program ever to come into being spontaneously, that God used DNA from primates as the dust from which Adam rose.
Kevin,
I don’t understand your last paragraph. I simply said that the first three chapters of Genesis could hardly have been more wrong in describing the creation of modern life. Pretty much every detail which is given is wrong. I said nothing about the book of Moses or the book of Abraham or the mode of reception of either one. I really don’t think this statement is a very speculative one.
Heli,
It’s clear from your reference that you have been reading the wrong kind of books (as I once did as well) about evolution. The books which attempt to either demonstrate the statistical improbability of evolution or show how the bible has actually taught evolution all along are seriously flawed and should not be taken seriously at all. I mean that in the strongest way possible. The evolution of the eye has occurred independently in dozens of geneolgical lines. In other words the evolution of the eye is almost inevitable. It should also be mentioned that if an intelligent designer designed our eyes then he really botched up the job for any idiot of a designer would have designed our eyes to NOT have blind spots (its actually quite easy) and all those nervous cells being on the side of the retina which is not exposed to the light. In other words, there is no better evidence against both the need for as well as the actual intervention of an intelligent designer than our eyes.
There are two major flaws with the “probability” arguments. First of all, these guys have absolutely no clue what values to plug into these equations. They are merely engaging in a priori free wheeling. Second, who says that “we” were a target. Sure maybe the odds of “us” being here are very small after all, but the odds of “something” or “somebody” being here are vastly bigger and it just so happens that “we” are the ones out of all those which could have been here, which simply happened to evolve. Third, these guys don’t take natural selection into account at all in their calculations. Let us suppose that EVERY single life form which has ever existed actually survived and reproduced to its full capacity. This would easily over take the entire mass of the universe many times over, an obvious physical impossibility. What natural selection does is weed out those which aren’t very fit to reproduce, thus only the smallest portion of “design space” is ever explored, namely the successful one. That these books don’t mention any of these basic arguments shows that they are either deliberately lying, are completely ignorant of the subject they are discussing or are STRONGLY biased which leads to one of the other two options.
Yes, as I said before, a watch is evidence of a watch maker because that is the only way we have ever seen a watch come into existence. What is the only way we have ever seen an animal come into existence? An animal maker? C’mon, it had parents, just like everything else until we go back millions of generations to the very first form of life which itself evolved from chemical processes which are still not very well understood. This is what the watch-makers argument really amounts to, an argument which actually tends toward evolution, not against it.
Again, your speculations as to how God might have done it after all do not serve as adequate substitutes for evidence and argument. We can’t simply run around saying that we don’t know….. We know quite a bit and while what we know doesn’t prove the inexistence of God or God’s hand in creation, it does prove the inexistence of many forms of God. Take, for instance, the God of the special creationists and the young earth creationists; He never existed.
When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection, his ideas could have been falsified by a demonstration that: the earth wasn’t very old, there were no particular patterns in the distribution of taxa, the fossils were scattered in a relatively random way, DNA sequences didn’t match with predicted evolutionary paths, mathematical evolutionary models didn’t even come close to modeling genes pools, evolutionary algorithms weren’t able to produce what in retrospect appeared to be “irreducible complexity” in computer simulation and so forth. All of these things we PREDICTED based upon evolution and where later brilliantly confirmed. If this isn’t evidence for evolution I don’t know what is, and this is hardly the tip of the iceberg.
See here for some more wonderful evidence.
You may notice that this comment is VERY similar to 47.
Jeffrey
The book Of Moses as contained in the POGP covers the first three chapters of Genesis.
It was recieved by the Prophet seeing a vision of Moses recieving a vision of the creative period. God would make the same mistake twice?
I have now positioned myself too far on one side. so let me just say. Blind, narrowmindedness, is the cause of a lot of problems not only in religion but science, politics, engineering (my field). It is by carefully looking at and accepting truth as it is discovered where ever it may come from that we learn about the TRUE nature of God. “If there is ANYTHING praisworthy, or of good report, we seek after these things”
I will say I believe the testimony of witnesses (even if spiritual), to be evedence. As prescribed in our judicial system.
I attended High School in the Salt Lake Valley, I was required to take biology. and was taught the more primative version of evolution. Looking out our biology window you could clearly see the seminary building accross the parking lot. Which led to a lot of jokes. Anyway, I received an A for the class, (not because I deserved it} due to the fact that I defended the teachers position to teach the theory. Any theory if based on any evidence of credibility should be concidered.
Who ever said that the main text of the BoMoses came from God? Certainly Mormons will believe that the corrections were inspired, but the actual text came from Moses not God. Furthermore, Joseph never fully “corrected” the Bible as can easily be seen in the differences which he introduced in the BoAbraham and later the King Follett discourse. Moses got it completely wrong and this spilled over into the PoGP.
Gary (188),
I don’t dispute the 90% number, and it probably applies to religious people as a whole, not just LDS. The vast majority of people are simply uninformed on this issue. Elder Nelson was also uninformed at least as recently as 1987, as witnessed by his use of the “explosion in the printshop” argument. So I’m not sure how relevant his degrees are to this issue. Also, I don’t see how Elder Widtsoe’s views of science in his time are relevant now.
I definitely agree that we should be friends. You’ve been a great discussion partner, and maybe we should just shake on it and agree to disagree.
Jeffrey,
That’s quite the statement. And one that I think would cause a loss of credibility in certain areas of the so-called bloggernacle, even if we are discussing something that fits your apparent expertise. I was on your side more than the opposite, but now find it difficult to defend your positions.
If you want people to agree with you, I don’t think you’re going about it the right way, though you may no longer care. Your “argument” has now devolved into “preaching.”
will (#198),
Let’s not forget how the Russell M. Nelson discussion got started here. Tom (in #102), claims “the General Authorities don’t have anything to say behind the GC pulpit about evolution, NDBF, or ID.” But Tom is clearly mistaken in this claim because, as was previously pointed out (in #108), Elder Russell M. Nelson spoke in the April 2000 General Conference about “Creation” and said a few things that do relate directly to evolution and No Death Before the Fall.
(A.) “The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God” (Ensign, May 2000, 84). To Latter-day Saints generally and to Elder Nelson specifically, “paradisiacal” means “terrestrial.” Elder Nelson made this clear in the April 1990 General Conference when he said, “It is true that scriptures foretell the final days of the earth’s temporal existence as a telestial sphere. The earth will then be renewed and receive its paradisiacal, or terrestrial, glory. (See A of F 1:10.)” (Ensign, May, 1990, 17; italics added; see also D&C 77:6-7.)
(B.) “Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam” (Ensign, May 2000, 84). Using the words immediately before this sentence (see A. above), the meaning is that the earth was changed when mortality and death came to the previously paradisiacal planet through the Fall of Adam. What he clearly did not say was that mortality and death came to only Adam and Eve and their posterity through Adam’s Fall because the rest of earth had been mortal for millions, perhaps billions, of years prior to the Fall of Adam.
(C.) “At the Second Coming of the Lord, the earth will be changed once again. It will be returned to its paradisiacal state and be made new” (Ensign, May 2000, 84). “Changed once again” refers back to earth’s first change from a paradisiacal, or terrestrial, deathless state to its present temporal, or telestial, mortal state (see B. above). Here he is clearly saying that earth will be “changed once again” back to its previous paradisiacal, or terrestrial, deathless state. “It will be returned to its paradisiacal state and be made new” is another way of saying that, before the Fall of Adam, the earth was paradisiacal and new and it will be “returned” [the act of bringing something back to a previous condition] to that same terrestrial, deathless state that existed before the Fall of Adam.
Please re-read comments #160 and #188 above. Elder Nelson is not a freshman biology student. His B.A., M.D., and Ph.D. degrees, his honorary Doctor of Science degree, along with his many professional awards and honors, make it difficult for the vast majority of Latter-day Saints (including me) to believe your claim that “Elder Nelson was also uninformed at least as recently as 1987” on a subject about which he chose to speak (remember, he published that talk to all members and to LDS youth in the Ensign and New Era). I think it would be more appropriate to say that, having looked at the subject carefully, he made some conclusions with which you don’t agree but with which most Latter-day Saints do agree. Nor do I understand how his April 2000 comments abrogate or modify what he said in 1987. On the contrary, 2000 reiterates the core doctrine of 1987 in my view (see all of the above).
According to Elder Russell M. Nelson, there was no death before the fall.
And without millions, perhaps billions, of years of death and dying, evolution is ruled out completely. Of course, you are entitled to believe he is “uninformed” (and wrong) about this if you wish, but you cannot deny that he has clearly stated his position using plain and simple language at least seven times during the past 19 years.
So yes, I agree (a) you and I should maintain a friendly relationship in our discussions, and (b) we should probably agree to disagree about death before the fall.