Evolution And Entropy, Anybody Know F. Kent Nielsen

[SeattleGrunge]

F. Kent Nielsen gave the following talk about how evolution can't be a valid explanation for the diversification of species because it goes against the second law of thermodynamics. As a profesor of science at BYU and given the fact that his essay was published in the Ensign it is given undeniable credibility by many members of the church.

I am a faithful member that fully believes God used evolution to one extent or another to create all or almost all of the animal kingdom. I know several BYU professors and other scientists that feel the same as I. I kind of hate arguing about evolution with people that think it is evil (see below on the point of evil evolution) because it is so hard to explain the intricacies that to me seem undeniable without taking several courses in chemistry, physiology, animal phylogency, etc. Not to mention the fact that they come at me from a position of assumed infallability. Citing this talk is often considered one of the nails in the coffin of evolution from their standpoint since none of the professors that see as I do have been published in the Ensign before.

With this situation (and I think the obvious flaw in Brother Nielsen's definition of his system for which entropy is taking place) I would love to know if Brother Nielsen still believes his essay/article is sound or not. I would love to have a conversation with him to see if he has changed his position and if not what he thinks of the counter arguments. If he doesn't think so any more it would be very nice to have something from him saying so.

Does anyone know him? Anyone know what his position is? Know if he has heard the counter arguments and how he rebutts them? Anyone know him well enough to contact him and ask him?

FYI, evolution and God don't have to be mutually exclusive. If God uses natural processes for other things that He does, why couldn't this be another natural process that he has used? I don't really want to argue any other points of evolution as I hate contention and think this is too contentious of a subject too often. I'm writing this paragraph to show that evolution doesn't have to be seen as evil. I think if someone can accept that initial premise then they can be open to discussing the subject effectively, otherwise they already have their conclusion drawn and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.

If you are interested in some articles that discuss the flaws in using entropy to argue against evolution then consider the following I found from a quick google search:

-http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

-http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/10/entropy-and-evolution/

[Questing Beast]

Yeah, uneducated little me believes that "God" is in everything, so evolution is no trouble. Seems like an obvious process supported by the evidence, as a layman gets it from the Medía anyway....

[blackstrap]

Evolution club rules.

1. There are no flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Do not talk about flaws in the theory of evolution.

3. DO NOT talk about flaws in the theory of evolution regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

4. Any other questions, refer to rule #1.

[mfbukowski]

It appears that he is a member of the Emeritus Faculty at BYU in philosophy.

http://philosophy.byu.edu/directory/

[ERayR]

I am a faithful member that fully believes God used evolution to one extent or another to create all or almost all of the animal kingdom. I know several BYU professors and other scientists that feel the same as I. I kind of hate arguing about evolution with people that think it is evil (see below on the point of evil evolution) because it is so hard to explain the intricacies that to me seem undeniable without taking several courses in chemistry, physiology, animal phylogency, etc. Not to mention the fact that they come at me from a position of assumed infallability. Citing this talk is often considered one of the nails in the coffin of evolution from their standpoint since none of the professors that see as I do have been published in the Ensign before.

With this situation (and I think the obvious flaw in Brother Nielsen's definition of his system for which entropy is taking place) I would love to know if Brother Nielsen still believes his essay/article is sound or not. I would love to have a conversation with him to see if he has changed his position and if not what he thinks of the counter arguments. If he doesn't think so any more it would be very nice to have something from him saying so.

Does anyone know him? Anyone know what his position is? Know if he has heard the counter arguments and how he rebutts them? Anyone know him well enough to contact him and ask him?

FYI, evolution and God don't have to be mutually exclusive. If God uses natural processes for other things that He does, why couldn't this be another natural process that he has used? I don't really want to argue any other points of evolution as I hate contention and think this is too contentious of a subject too often. I'm writing this paragraph to show that evolution doesn't have to be seen as evil. I think if someone can accept that initial premise then they can be open to discussing the subject effectively, otherwise they already have their conclusion drawn and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.

If you are interested in some articles that discuss the flaws in using entropy to argue against evolution then consider the following I found from a quick google search:

-http://www.talkorigi...robability.html

-http://curious.astro....php?number=441

-http://scienceblogs....-and-evolution/

I do not think that evolution is evil but I do believe it is only valid within certain parameters (within what the Bible refers to as kinds). Beyond those parameters it falls apart. Like a good calculus problem where limits have to be defined to keep the results valid. I also think if carried beyond those parameters it does serious damage to the fall and atonement.

BYU professors are as subject to error as anyone else.

[mfbukowski]

There is no such thing as a scientific theory which is "done" and not subject to modification by further data.

[Calm]

It appears that he is a member of the Emeritus Faculty at BYU in philosophy.

http://philosophy.byu.edu/directory/

Apparently he taught "history of science" in the Philosophy dept. So not a professor of science exactly. Edited May 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Apparently he taught "history of science" in the Philosophy dept. So not a professor of science exactly.

Not at all. In fact he might be more historian than philosopher, but I don't know.

Edited May 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

It appears that he is a member of the Emeritus Faculty at BYU in philosophy.

http://philosophy.byu.edu/directory/

Yeh. And there haven't been any members of the BYU biology faculty who do not believe in evolution for many years. Moreover, the LDS Church is neutral on the matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................

I am a faithful member that fully believes God used evolution to one extent or another to create all or almost all of the animal kingdom. I know several BYU professors and other scientists that feel the same as I. I kind of hate arguing about evolution with people that think it is evil (see below on the point of evil evolution) because it is so hard to explain the intricacies that to me seem undeniable without taking several courses in chemistry, physiology, animal phylogency, etc. Not to mention the fact that they come at me from a position of assumed infallability. Citing this talk is often considered one of the nails in the coffin of evolution from their standpoint since none of the professors that see as I do have been published in the Ensign before.

..............................................

FYI, evolution and God don't have to be mutually exclusive. If God uses natural processes for other things that He does, why couldn't this be another natural process that he has used? I don't really want to argue any other points of evolution as I hate contention and think this is too contentious of a subject too often. I'm writing this paragraph to show that evolution doesn't have to be seen as evil. I think if someone can accept that initial premise then they can be open to discussing the subject effectively, otherwise they already have their conclusion drawn and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.

...............................................

You don't have to be embarrassed by your belief in biological evolution as God's method. All of the biology faculty at BYU have believed and taught evolution for many years, and the LDS Church takes no position on it pro or con. It isn't essential to your salvation. But it is interesting.

There are three basic theories used to account for the appearance of life on planet Earth:

(1) Special Creation

(2) Archebiosis and biological evolution

(3) Transmission/panspermia

LDS theology would seem to favor #3 since the Gen creation of Adam & Eve is considered by the Brethren to be symbolic and allegorical, one of them making the point that Adam & Eve were created the same way all humans are created -- by standard biological reproduction.

#2, the spontaneous generation of life and evolutionary development after that, is indeed a tough proposition to accept simply by dint of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy).

#1, Special Creation, can be argued effectively via the argument from intelligent design, which is the only way to get around Entropy, i.e., a watch implies a watch maker -- a watch doesn't make itself.

[Calm]

Not at all. In fact he might be more historian than philosopher, but I don't know.

Yes, unfortunately because he is emeritus, there isn't any info on his background and googling didn't bring it up...at least not as far as I wanted to look.

add-on: Looks like he started out in the Physics Dept in the late 50s before moving over to the Philosophy Dept, taught history and philosophy of science.

Edited May 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Yes, unfortunately because he is emeritus, there isn't any info on his background and googling didn't bring it up...at least not as far as I wanted to look.

add-on: Looks like he started out in the Physics Dept in the late 50s before moving over to the Philosophy Dept, taught history and philosophy of science.

Frankly I find it hard to imagine a trained philosopher saying this:

The laws which maintain the natural order constitute “truth,” which is “independent” only “in that sphere in which God has placed [them]” (D&C 93:30). Thus, as Latter-day Saints we understand how science can discover truths about our present order. In other words, as Latter-day Saints, we recognize that there are some limitations about the extent of uniformity in our present mortal order of nature.

I am not sure how the first sentence expresses the meaning of the second sentence "in other words". How do the "laws which maintain the natural order constitute truth"?

How does "discovering truths about our present order mean in other words

as Latter-day Saints, we recognize that there are some limitations about the extent of uniformity in our present mortal order of nature.

And how does the scripture he referenced make his point?

D&C 93:30

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

I see that scripture as saying that truth is dependent on the context in which it is organized, and without organization, there is no existence.

I am really not sure at all where Nielsen gets his interpretation.

Edited May 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Daniel Peterson]

I know Kent Nielsen. He's been retired for quite a long time from BYU, and isn't in particularly good health.

He did both his undergraduate and graduate work at Harvard University. He taught in the BYU Department of Philosophy at the end of his career, but, before that, he taught for many, many years in BYU's Department of Physics.

[ERayR]

Frankly I find it hard to imagine a trained philosopher saying this:

I am not sure how the first sentence expresses the meaning of the second sentence "in other words". How do the "laws which maintain the natural order constitute truth"?

How does "discovering truths about our present order "mean in other words "as Latter-day Saints, we recognize that there are some limitations about the extent of uniformity in our present mortal order of nature." ?

And how does the scripture he referenced make his point?

D&C 93:30

I see that scripture as saying that truth is dependent on the context in which it is organized, and without organization, there is no existence.

I am really not sure at all where Nielsen gets his interpretation.

It is the /calculus equation where things work within certain bounds but not outside of those bounds.

[jwhitlock]

Like many other topics, I find that people disagree on evolution because they're talking past each other, as far as the definition of what evolution entails. Are we talking about evolution that includes natural selection, genetic mutation, transformation of one species to another, spontaneous generation of life, etc., or does our discussion of evolution focus only on one or several of these aspects?

If we're talking about spontaneous generation of life, then we can safely say that the church stands in opposition to that particular theory. If we're talking about natural selection without species transformation, then that is something that doesn't conflict with what we have revealed in the gospel.

So what are we really including when we use the term "evolution"?

[Calm]

before that, he taught for many, many years in BYU's Department of Physics.

Did he teach physics courses or was he always focused on history of science (I can't find any reference to any courses besides history and philosophy)? Just curious now that I've spent sometime trying to find out... Edited May 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

It is the /calculus equation where things work within certain bounds but not outside of those bounds.

For me, it is also Wittgensteinian "language games" and why science has nothing to do with religion.

But I suppose that is somewhat specialized for this board- I am finally reaching that conclusion.

[thesometimesaint]

Far be it from me to question a BYU professor's conclusions. But evolution doesn't violate the law of entropy. Basically because this earth isn't a closed system. We are constantly receiving heat energy from our sun.

[ERayR]

For me, it is also Wittgensteinian "language games" and why science has nothing to do with religion.

But I suppose that is somewhat specialized for this board- I am finally reaching that conclusion.

I must admit it is beyond me. I can barely remember enough calculus to know that it can be shown that there are some things that only work within certain bounds. It seems plain to me that God sets those bounds.

[SeattleGrunge]

You don't have to be embarrassed by your belief in biological evolution as God's method. All of the biology faculty at BYU have believed and taught evolution for many years, and the LDS Church takes no position on it pro or con. It isn't essential to your salvation. But it is interesting.

There are three basic theories used to account for the appearance of life on planet Earth:

(1) Special Creation

(2) Archebiosis and biological evolution

(3) Transmission/panspermia

LDS theology would seem to favor #3 since the Gen creation of Adam & Eve is considered by the Brethren to be symbolic and allegorical, one of them making the point that Adam & Eve were created the same way all humans are created -- by standard biological reproduction.

#2, the spontaneous generation of life and evolutionary development after that, is indeed a tough proposition to accept simply by dint of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy).

#1, Special Creation, can be argued effectively via the argument from intelligent design, which is the only way to get around Entropy, i.e., a watch implies a watch maker -- a watch doesn't make itself.

I'm not embarrassed as much as I hate constantly being barraged with backlash for believing as I do. Even though all BYU professors in Biology/Biochemistry/Nuerology/Etc departments at BYU think as they do (I'm an '01 grad from zoology) the large majority of LDS people believe that not only is it evil, but that the church is against it. Articles like this one perpetuate that incorrect understanding of the situation. Therefore my desire to see the professor has or would be willing to give a statement to the contrary.

This is an important subject because not only do most people see the situation incorrectly, many youth grow up with that understanding and it unnecessarily shakes their testimony when they come across the vast amount of data supporting evolution (not to mention the documented in lab evolution in insects from one species to another that one of my BYU professors did at BYU).

[SeattleGrunge]

I know Kent Nielsen. He's been retired for quite a long time from BYU, and isn't in particularly good health.

He did both his undergraduate and graduate work at Harvard University. He taught in the BYU Department of Philosophy at the end of his career, but, before that, he taught for many, many years in BYU's Department of Physics.

Sorry to hear he is in poor health. Do you know if he would be amenable to contacting and discussing this if he already hasn't made a statement on the situation and the arguments against his position? If so, I would appreciate it if you (or anyone that knows him) could at least send him a link to this thread and my contact info (temp email forward of evodiscuss@calderwood.org that I'll leave active until it starts getting heavily spammed).

Thanks

[SeattleGrunge]

Like many other topics, I find that people disagree on evolution because they're talking past each other, as far as the definition of what evolution entails. Are we talking about evolution that includes natural selection, genetic mutation, transformation of one species to another, spontaneous generation of life, etc., or does our discussion of evolution focus only on one or several of these aspects?

If we're talking about spontaneous generation of life, then we can safely say that the church stands in opposition to that particular theory. If we're talking about natural selection without species transformation, then that is something that doesn't conflict with what we have revealed in the gospel.

So what are we really including when we use the term "evolution"?

Jwhitlock, the church does not have a position even on that aspect of evolution. They first presidency statements only directly say that we know we were created in God's image. They make (and in one confirm) no point about the way God did that.

[SeattleGrunge]

Far be it from me to question a BYU professor's conclusions. But evolution doesn't violate the law of entropy. Basically because this earth isn't a closed system. We are constantly receiving heat energy from our sun.

[media=]

Exactly, the main premise that he incorrectly assumed. What are the parameters of the system you are closing? Thanks TSS

[thesometimesaint]

TTBOMK Entropy is one of those fundamental laws of the universe. It works for sand and sandcastles. In order for a closed system to work it can't have a outside heat source. We have the sun. Without that sun we would be as cold as background. Not real conducive to life as we know it.

Edited May 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[jwhitlock]

Jwhitlock, the church does not have a position even on that aspect of evolution. They first presidency statements only directly say that we know we were created in God's image. They make (and in one confirm) no point about the way God did that.

Talking specifically about the theory of the spontaneous creation of life - which, BTW, is not supported by any credible scientific or laboratory evidence as far as I know - I probably would be on fairly solid ground taking the position that it is clearly inconsistent with the gospel, regardless of any position the church may or may not have on it.