320 replies to this topic

[Garden Girl]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 01 April 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

That's okay MJT... I tend to do some mocking of BB theory when I work in my garden and observe how everything is interconnected, dependent upon each other, the beauty of an iris or pansy or rose when I observe the exquisite patterns of colors and shapes of each separate bloom, the wonder of the crocus whose tiny bulb knows just when to send up its shoots in early spring to bloom once again for the few short weeks... each species meeting the measure of its creation... no, this cannot be random...
But there is also room in my observations to consider a form of evolution and natural selection as part of a process of creation.

GG

Edited by Garden Girl, 01 April 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[cinepro]

Stormy Waters, on 01 April 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

I transcribed this and it may contain errors.

It's accurate, although I would note that it is delivered more like this:

Quote

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)

Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)


The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

You can hear this portion starting around 36:25 in the Sunday morning session here.

I don't have much of an opinion about the Big Bang, but I would have loved to be sitting next to Hollis Johnson during that talk.

[cinepro]

cinepro, on 01 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

It's accurate, although I would note that it is delivered more like this:



You can hear this portion starting around 36:25 in the Sunday morning session here.

I don't have much of an opinion about the Big Bang, but I would have loved to be sitting next to Hollis Johnson during that talk.

[Stormy Waters]

inquiringmind, on 01 April 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

I don't think he mocked the big bang or evolution.

I think he mocked an uncaused and purposeless big bang, and undirected evolution.

He implied that an explosion in a print shop couldn't produce a dictionary, which seems to be the same argument for intelligent design that's used by David, Paul, and in the Book of Mormon (by Alma I think.)

(If his remarks turn out to be an embarrassment, I think they will only  be an embarrassment to the individual interpretations of Mormon doctrine that deny any ontological ground of being.)

He said, "Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere."  How do you think the average member will interpret what he said?

[bluebell]

Stormy Waters, on 01 April 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

He said, "Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere."  How do you think the average member will interpret what he said?

That the 'big bang' isn't the source of life, probably.

[Sky]

I didn't interpret his talk as discounting the Big Bang altogether.  But he was acknowledging that there had to be an organizer/divine creator behind it all.  This earth that we live on and our bodies of flesh didn't just happen by chance.

[jskains]

I am glad it wasn't "The Big Bang Theory". That would be horrifying. I can not be part of a Church that would mock such a great show!

Bazinga!

[cinepro]

Sky, on 01 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I didn't interpret his talk as discounting the Big Bang altogether.  But he was acknowledging that there had to be an organizer/divine creator behind it all.  This earth that we live on and our bodies of flesh didn't just happen by chance.

If that's what he meant, then Elder Nelson has a terrible inability to say what he means.

And since he had already discounted "chance" in the first part of the same sentence, the part about the "Big Bang" would be non-sequitur if he didn't mean to specifically discount it.

In other words, if he meant to include the Big Bang as part of his disparagement of "chance", he would have said this:

Quote

Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance; for example, that they resulted from a "big bang" somewhere.

The "or" means that he had finished mocking theories of "chance" and was now mocking the big bang on entirely different merits.  As it reads, he was most definitely "discounting the Big Bang altogether".  We can slice and dice his words with our apologetic Ginsu knives, but ultimately he said what he said, and the laughing crowd knew exactly what he meant without needing to parse his words.

Edited by cinepro, 01 April 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[bluebell]

cinepro, on 01 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

We can slice and dice his words with our apologetic Ginsu knives, but ultimately he said what he said, and the laughing crowd knew exactly what he meant without needing to parse his words.

I laughed, and yet i understood his words to be a condemnation of the idea that God was not involved in the creation of the world and nothing more.

In fact, i think the only one who has sliced and diced his words to authoritatively declare his exact meaning is you cinepro.  

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Quote

That's okay MJT... I tend to do some mocking of BB theory when I work in my garden and observe how everything is interconnected, dependent upon each other, the beauty of an iris or pansy or rose when I observe the exquisite patterns of colors and shapes of each separate bloom, the wonder of the crocus whose tiny bulb knows just when to send up its shoots in early spring to bloom once again for the few short weeks... each species meeting the measure of its creation... no, this cannot be random...

Evolution accounts for exactly that. A creature evolving needs food. The food cannot kill it, but must encourage continued life. Thus, a symbiotic relationship exists. Some creatures evolve to eat a broader spectrum (some monkeys), other don't (like koalas). Either way, it's not to say the sparks of life, the important steps along the way, etc weren't initiated and designed by God to ensure a specific outcome (a world ready for us), but evolution would be the natural way for everything else to work so well together, regardless of whether man came from the process or not. It's beautiful either way too.

Quote

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)

Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)

Exactly. I do believe that they resulted, at least in part, from a "big bang" somewhere. There was nothing in his statement though that implied the possibility of God using the Big Bang as a tool. Thus, my believe would be erroneous. And for the many followers of young earth philosophy in the church, this is exactly how they will take it. The pauses for laughter were designed to allow others to join in the laughter at such "ridiculous" notions.
There is a saving grace though, which was what he said thereafter:

Quote

The likelihood is most remote.

Which, when confronted with the other quotes, is what I will bring up. He said they are most remote, but did not outright say impossible. He then takes on evolution:

Quote

But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

This is a silly comparison. A book is not an organic being. It would of course not be able to self-replicate. But biological evolution allows for it. His statement could be taken to mean that a species cannot improve upon itself without God. This would mean that the various birds, insects, cows, etc were from God, not natural evolution.

I of course realize that he is trying to convey the point that we are children of God. He is in fact even allowing for the even remote possibility that man could have evolved, but only if guided by God. The way he said it was so broad though it could use refinement. It wasn't even close to the focus of his talk though, so I understand.

[why me]

JAHS, on 01 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Paraphrasing Elder Nelson:

"Can an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?"

[why me]

Sky, on 01 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I didn't interpret his talk as discounting the Big Bang altogether.  But he was acknowledging that there had to be an organizer/divine creator behind it all.  This earth that we live on and our bodies of flesh didn't just happen by chance.

I remember a few years ago when intelligent design was all the rage. I think that the point behind it all was as you stated: it is quite a happening to be left up to chance. Most mammals reproduce in similiar ways. That would be one chance in a zillion if left up to a big bang. But...who knows.

[Libs]

KevinG, on 01 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

It is easy to focus on the periphery and miss the center of the content.  I predict critics everywhere will continue to do this.

The talk on doctrine and how it is received was superb.  I hope some of our frequent visitors here were listening.  He put into clear language that which I struggle to express.

I would like to hear that one.  When did he speak?  Which session and approximately where?

I saw Elder Nelson's comment about the Big Bang....he got a pretty good laugh out of the exploding printing shop comment.  

LDS do not believe in the Big Bang, so I'm not sure why the comment would be considered inappropriate?

[BCSpace]

Quote

It's accurate, although I would note that it is delivered more like this:

Quote

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)





Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)


The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

What it means then is that he delivered no doctrinal disapproval of Big Bang or Evolution; only doctrinal disapproval of the unscientific notion that such things preclude God.  This is a prime example of how, no matter how strongly one feels, even an apostle can't get around already established doctrine [that there is no doctrine against evolution (preAdamites) as per the 1931 statement].  Even Nelson allowed himself to be corrected by Elder Wickman on this issue not too long ago.  This in no way diminishes Nelson's apostleship, but affirms that he is still conscientious of remaining within doctrinal bounds.

[calmoriah]

Libs, on 01 April 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

LDS do not believe in the Big Bang, so I'm not sure why the comment would be considered inappropriate?

It is not LDS doctrine, ie. it is not taught by the Church but many would say that in some forms it is not contradicted by church teachings either, that does not mean that all LDS do not believe in it or some form of it.  It is certainly taught at BYU which seems to me to indicate the best description of it is that the Church has no doctrine on the matter, much like the evolution statement from BYU says about evolution.

[Log]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 01 April 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

This is a silly comparison.

So, you are as yet unaware of the information problem involved in the orthodox doctrine of Darwinian evolution?  The comparison was, in fact, not only not silly, but rather mild compared to others which could be made.

[BCSpace]

Quote

LDS do not believe in the Big Bang, so I'm not sure why the comment would be considered inappropriate?

LDS don't (doctrinally) "disbelieve" in the Big Bang either.  The comment was neither inappropriate nor a condemnation of any scientific theory.  It may have been intended to communicate such condemnation, but the words themselves don't because they merely address an unscientific belief that the scientific theories of Big Bang/Evolution preclude God somehow.

[Libs]

calmoriah, on 01 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

It is not LDS doctrine, ie. it is not taught by the Church but many would say that in some forms it is not contradicted by church teachings either, that does not mean that all LDS do not believe in it or some form of it.  It is certainly taught at BYU which seems to me to indicate the best description of it is that the Church has no doctrine on the matter, much like the evolution statement from BYU says about evolution.

In some forms it's not contradictory?  I haven't really heard that, before.  I just always assumed that the Big Bang, and the idea of matter being eternal, were kind of contradictory.

[Libs]

BCSpace, on 01 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

LDS don't (doctrinally) "disbelieve" in the Big Bang either.  The comment was neither inappropriate nor a condemnation of any scientific theory.  It may have been intended to communicate such condemnation, but the words themselves don't because they merely address an unscientific belief that the scientific theories of Big Bang/Evolution preclude God somehow.

I see.

I don't believe that evolution or the big bang, have to, necessarily, preclude a God.  I believe that it is Intelligence that creates.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I see.

I don't believe that evolution or the big bang, have to, necessarily, preclude a God. I believe that it is Intelligence that creates.

The effect of the doctrine is that one can accept Creationism or Evolution or something else as long as one does not conflict with the actual details of the doctrine.  I personally prefer Evolution/Big Bang.