Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[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]

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:

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

knives, but ultimately he said what he said, and the laughing crowd knew exactly what he meant without needing to parse his words. Edited April 1, 2012 by cinepro

[bluebell]

We can slice and dice his words with our apologetic

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]

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.

"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:

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:

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]

Paraphrasing Elder Nelson:

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

[why me]

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]

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]

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

"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.

[Calm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Log]

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.

Then you do NOT subscribe to the orthodox Darwinian theory of evolution, but are speaking of something else altogether. Only by equivocating on the definition of evolution and related notions can a "belief" in them be affirmed along with a belief in the doctrines of the Gospel.

[silvermoon383]

The Big Bang and the idea of eternal matter are not contradictory.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was compressed into a singularity, a point of microscopic if not subatomic size. Then something happened that caused the singularity expand.

In the early moments of the universe everything was still super-dense and super-energetic, so hot and compact that everything was nothing but energy. As the universe expanded it cooled, eventually reaching the point where subatomic particles could condense out of the energetic soup. As things continued to cool and expand the subatomic particles lost enough energy that they could start to bond into nuclei, then hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen condensed into the first stars and galaxies, helium and several more of the lighter elements forming out of the stellar fusion. When they died they formed the heavier elements and spread them throughout space to form the basis of the next generations of stars, now capable of forming planetary systems due to the existence of the heavy elements.

This process continued until today, and is still continuing.

I've never been able to find anything in the BBT that contradicts the idea that God had no hand in the creation of the universe. After all, we don't know what caused the Big Bang (and can't know according to science since it falls before time began). And as far as I know, the scriptures only say "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth." I've never seen any details on how (aside from the priesthood of course).

[inquiringmind]

I don't think Elder Richard G. Scott was mocking the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution per sey. but doesn't his asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

And wasn't he mocking any theory of a wholly undirected, and purposeless process of evolution?

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.

Isn't that what Elder Scott's General Conference remarks implied today?

Edited April 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

The Big Bang and the idea of eternal matter are not contradictory.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was compressed into a singularity, a point of microscopic if not subatomic size. Then something happened that caused the singularity expand.

Hmm. "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

[inquiringmind]

Hmm. "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

Most physicists would say that time and space began with the big bang, so it's incorrect to say that it postulates "a time in the distant past" when there was nothing.

I think the term "bio" might be a little misleading, but some of you might be interested in what's commonly called The "Biocentric UniverseTheory."

You might even find this interesting.

Von Neumann showed that one can place the entire physical world, including the

bodies and brains of the agents, in the physically described world. Then the

entire physical world is described in the mathematical language of quantum

mechanics. In this von Neumann formulation the physically described action

associated with the consciously intended probing action by the agent is a

mathematically described action on the brain of that agent. The psychophysical

causal connections thereby become mind-brain causal connections. This makes

the theory similar to a Cartesian Interactive dualism, with, however, causal

connections between the two realms now specified, in part, by the basic laws of

physics.

This feature overcomes the main objection to Cartesian dualism, which was the

lack of any understanding of how a person’s mind could have any effect upon

that person’s brain...

Von Neumann’s theory is a development of the pragmatic Copenhagen form. But

if one considers the von Neumann theory to be an ontological description of what

is really going on, then one must of course relax the anthropocentric bias, and

allow agents of many ilks. Yet the theory entails that it would be virtually

impossible to determine, empirically, whether a large system that is strongly

interacting with its environment is acting as an agent or not. This means that the

theory, regarded as an ontological theory, has huge uncertainties.

However our interest here is the nature of human agents. Hence the near

impossibility determining the possible existence of other kinds of agents, will

mean that our lack of information about the existence of those other possible

kinds of agents will have little or no impact on our understanding of ourselves.

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf

Depending on how you view "Intelligence," this seems to fit very well with Mormon Theology.

The only problem is in explaining how there could be a past eternity of matter if time itself isn't eternal (but if there's such a thing as non-linear time, maybe that's the wrong question.)

Edited April 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

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.

I don’t think he (Elder Nelson) was mocking it. I think he was using humor to juxtapose the indifference involved with some thing that happened somewhere with the reverent intent of some thing made by God.

[Libs]

I don't think Elder Richard G. Scott was mocking the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution per sey. but doesn't his asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

And wasn't he mocking any theory of a wholly undirected, and purposeless process of evolution?

Isn't that what Elder Scott's General Conference remarks implied today?

Yes. I didn't disagree with him, generally speaking. I do believe that the creation of the universe had intelligence behind it (however it came about)..

[Libs]

Then you do NOT subscribe to the orthodox Darwinian theory of evolution, but are speaking of something else altogether. Only by equivocating on the definition of evolution and related notions can a "belief" in them be affirmed along with a belief in the doctrines of the Gospel.

Well, gee...okay.

I am not LDS, btw...but, I do believe in a Creator.

[Log]

Oh, sorry. Such a gentle-spoken poster, I just assumed... well. You are a credit to your beliefs.

[LDSToronto]

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

"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."

Oh, I dunno, that sounds like he's poking fun at people who believe in the Big Bang or a random event. I mean, it's sort of like me saying:

"Some people erroneously believe that an all-powerful being created the universe intentionally" [smile and pause for laughter]

"Ask yourself, would a perfect almighty being produce this defective body?" [points to self, smiles, waits for more laughter]

"The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never be proud of it's creation or love something so pitiful"

All in all, I don't really care what he said or who he poked fun at. However, to declare that the likelihood of the Big Bang occurring is far remote, well, he'd better have some evidence to back that up.

H.