Why not take it figuratively? It doesn't matter, in the long run.
That is well and good. The problem arises when you try to put an exact meaning on that “figurative interpretation,” which is not supported by the scripture. Saying that it is figurative is one thing; going further, and saying that it occurred by Evolution, is another. When you are going that far, then you are not just being figurative. You are putting an exact meaning on that “figurativeness” which is not readable into the scriptural text. That is quite apart from the theological contradictions that that particular theory brings into it.
The theology of the Fall necessitates that there was no death before the Fall. Evolution necessitates death before the Fall.
The theology of the Fall necessitates man’s sinlessness before the fall. Evolution makes no such presumption. At what point did man become sinful before the fall; and when did he need to be saved; and saved from what? What law did he break that made him sinful?
The theology of the Fall necessitates man knowing God before the Fall. The distancing or estrangement came as a consequence of the Fall. At what point did man become sufficiently advanced to know God before the Fall? If Evolution is true, it implies that man was created fallen, then he became “unfallen,” and then he became fallen again! How does that make sense in theological terms?
The theology of creation and Fall makes a clear distinction between man and the rest of God creations. Whereas man was made in God’s own image, the rest of the animal creation was not. Man is thus given a special status that distinguishes him from the rest of God’s animal creation. That does not square with the assumption that man was created a beast, and then transformed into a man.
These are just some of the theological problems that arise from making those assumptions.
That is well and good. The problem arises when you try to put an exact meaning on that “figurative interpretation,” which is not supported by the scripture. Saying that it is figurative is one thing; going further, and saying that it occurred by Evolution, is another. When you are going that far, then you are not just being figurative. You are putting an exact meaning on that “figurativeness” which is not readable into the scriptural text. That is quite apart from the theological contradictions that that particular theory brings into it.
The theology of the Fall necessitates that there was no death before the Fall. Evolution necessitates death before the Fall.
Talmage saw the rocks Adam used to build an altar with and they had fossils. There was death before the Fall!
The theology of the Fall necessitates man’s sinlessness before the fall. Evolution makes no such presumption. At what point did man become sinful before the fall; and when did he need to be saved; and saved from what? What law did he break that made him sinful?
Quote
The theology of the Fall necessitates man knowing God before the Fall. The distancing or estrangement came as a consequence of the Fall. At what point did man become sufficiently advanced to know God before the Fall? If Evolution is true, it implies that man was created fallen, then he became “unfallen,” and then he became fallen again! How does that make sense in theological terms?
Every time you sin you are fallen, and every time the atonement of Christ brings you back into his presence, you are unfallen.
But supposedly God knew all along exactly what the end product was supposed to look like (namely: like Him). He knew the form and function of all the organs, and the total anatomy from head to toe. This idea is most explicitly outlined in the LDS doctrine of “Spiritual Creation“, in which things are actually created in spirit form before their physical creation. But how can that be possible with evolution?
This may be putting the cart before the horse. Spiritual creation may have taken place to match physical creation. Many critics have illustrated the flaws of the human form as a design. I won't list them here. It may simply be that our form was determined by looking at what was available and most desireable when we decided that a physical tabernacle would be desireable.
Do our spirits have spirit microbes in the intestines that match the physical microbes found there without which we would die? Do they match in number and in kind throughout the duration of mortality?
Quote
So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends? It would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”?
Why do we use the same trial and error process in programs that design functional objects when we could simply design them in a straight forward manner? http://scienceblogs....better_ante.php
If you know something about optimization, you know that by following the steepest gradient you arrive most quickly to local plateaus where local maxima and minima exist. But the process does not allow for the discovery of all hills with their peeks and surrounding valleys. Only a random process discovers these areas of optimization. Using an evolutionary paradigm is sheer genius. I would expect nothing less from God.
Quote
The other problem is the ongoing nature of evolution. The story of the creation gives the idea of a creative “period”, and then the state where things are “created”. 2 Nephi 2:22 certainly frames the creation in such a way. But evolution doesn’t have an end. How could it? How could God be evolving thousands of different species, each moving slowly towards their intended finished design, and then find that one moment in time where a species is “created”, and then have it keep evolving?
This is simply a fact. There is an ongoing rate of change that we can measure in the lab from one generation to the next. Perhaps this is the reason for our brief stay upon the planet?
Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone dis-believe that?
I don't desire to enter this forum again. I've decided that knowledge, like oil from the lamp, is something each must earn for themselves.
Where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? Moses 1:15
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
If you know something about optimization, you know that by following the steepest gradient you arrive most quickly to local plateaus where local maxima and minima exist. But the process does not allow for the discovery of all hills with their peeks and surrounding valleys. Only a random process discovers these areas of optimization. Using an evolutionary paradigm is sheer genius. I would expect nothing less from God.
Since you know something about optimization, you know sometimes local maxima / minima are surrounded by sheer cliffs which cannot be climbed in a slow, steady, step-by-step progression. In other words, there are problems - many of them - which cannot be solved by evolutionary algorithms. So please, spare me the paeans to evolution; you know, or ought to know, it can't do what has been attributed to it.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Since you know something about optimization, you know sometimes local maxima / minima are surrounded by sheer cliffs which cannot be climbed in a slow, steady, step-by-step progression.
Which proves my point, the necessity of random search.
??
Where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? Moses 1:15
Which proves my point, the necessity of random search.
??
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. NOT ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED VIA A STEP-BY-STEP PROGRESSION UP A GENTLY SLOPING HILL. That is to say, not all problems are tractable via an evolutionary algorithm.
May I suggest reading Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," which details the theoretical shortcomings of both random search and evolutionary algorithms?
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
thesometimesaint, on 09 April 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:
Demski has been proven wrong.
Let's see the proof, then - a counterexample to specified complexity, or a formal proof demonstrating the contradiction in his theses concerning the applicability of the No Free Lunch theorems to the Darwinian algorithm.
I'm going to go farther and ask you to detail Dembski's claims. I mean, if you are in a position to say his work has been nullified, then you had best be in a position to say what, exactly, was nullified.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
This may be putting the cart before the horse. Spiritual creation may have taken place to match physical creation. Many critics have illustrated the flaws of the human form as a design. I won't list them here. It may simply be that our form was determined by looking at what was available and most desireable when we decided that a physical tabernacle would be desireable.
Do our spirits have spirit microbes in the intestines that match the physical microbes found there without which we would die? Do they match in number and in kind throughout the duration of mortality?
Why do we use the same trial and error process in programs that design functional objects when we could simply design them in a straight forward manner? http://scienceblogs....better_ante.php
If you know something about optimization, you know that by following the steepest gradient you arrive most quickly to local plateaus where local maxima and minima exist. But the process does not allow for the discovery of all hills with their peeks and surrounding valleys. Only a random process discovers these areas of optimization. Using an evolutionary paradigm is sheer genius. I would expect nothing less from God.
This is simply a fact. There is an ongoing rate of change that we can measure in the lab from one generation to the next. Perhaps this is the reason for our brief stay upon the planet?
Other than the fact that some LDS need to reconcile the evidence for evolution with a belief in God-centric creation, why would anyone dis-believe that?
I don't desire to enter this forum again. I've decided that knowledge, like oil from the lamp, is something each must earn for themselves.
That's an awesome article. I like Newton's method better than the method of steepest descent, but thanks for sharing.
No. I want you to tell me what Dembski's position is. Throwing up a link to a wikipedia article is insufficient for me to know that you, TSS, understand what's at issue and how it has been addressed. Because, in the year(s) since you and I have had this conversation last, I want to see that you have, in fact, finally got a grasp on what's being discussed, unlike last time. If you don't understand, or have refused to research for yourself, then I shall indeed decline to pursue this with you and formally request you retract your groundless claim that Dembski has been disproved.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. NOT ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED VIA A STEP-BY-STEP PROGRESSION UP A GENTLY SLOPING HILL. That is to say, not all problems are tractable via an evolutionary algorithm.
May I suggest reading Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," which details the theoretical shortcomings of both random search and evolutionary algorithms?
Linear optimization theory is not evolutionary theory, nor did I state or imply that it was.
It is a man made process of optimizing something that has shortcomings one of which was pointed out by yourself.
Evolution works by utilizing a random search and as a result is not limited by man made processes of searching for an optimal solution nor by the shortcomings of any other process based upon intentional design.
That being said, it can certainly be utilized in an intentional manner as per the referenced article on antenna design.
Where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? Moses 1:15
Evolution works by utilizing a random search and as a result is not limited by man made processes of searching for an optimal solution nor by the shortcomings of any other process based upon intentional design.
Read the book; you're apparently unaware of the actual limitations of evolutionary algorithms.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
0
This topic is locked
Stargazer, on 09 April 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:
