Bored at work so I figured I would post my interesting site of the day regarding evolution

[John Larsen]

Your assumption is incorrect. I subsribe to changed brought on by environment, be they man made or not, not the single species theory.

However, in the real world changes are brought on by genetic mutation. A species cannot adapt to its environment. Some of these mutations may be passed on to future generations if they give a competitive reproductive advantage.

[Droopy]

Evolutionary theory give answers to questions about human beings and life that are also answered by the tenets of Mormonism The answers often conflict or at least the answers given by the church are rendered unnecessary.

It does nothing of the sort unless prior assumptions about the nature of reality itself have already been made, and those prior assumptions are than contrasted to LDS doctrine. Tarski is a adherent of the philosophy of scientism, which attempts to apply science to questions well beyond its tools and perceptual range.

Philosophical Naturalism confuses the observable, repeatable, mechanical cause and effect relationships of the mortal, natural world with all of reality, and hence, confuses mechanical developmental dynamics (evolution), with questions of origins and teleology, questions the Gospel answers but which science cannot. The idea that it can is scientism - science attempting to answer, or claiming it can answer, the same question as the Gospel answers.

The problem with evolutionary theory is not the theory itself (although it is still very much a theory and open to correction by new data in the future), but the attempt, as Tarski does, to make it explain, not just the development of life on earth, but its ultimate origin. The concept of pure, blind, accidental chance is, indeed, a severe problem for the Gospel, at least if its the kind of transcendent, irreducible randomness supported by many modern positivists and materialists. But this, happily, has long been discredited by a number of physical scientists who have pointed out the sheer preposterousness of any claim that anything of even modest order, and certainly the high order organization observed in the universe and in biological organisms, could have come into being purely by unmediated random chance (whatever the concept of "randomness" really means, and that's an interesting philosophical question in and of itself).

Evolution is not the problem. Darwinism, or Darwinian fundamentalism is the problem theologically and philosophically.

Evolution may explain how my mortal organism arose as a matter of physical process grounded in fixed, physical laws. The Gospel, however, ultimately explains evolution, and evolutionary processes would not exist at all without God's creative activity having structured, organized, and mediated those processes. Evolution then, is a part of that which God brought out of chaos; it is an aspect of creation serving certain ends in a certain manner. Evolution itself creates, or actually is a means or technique through which God creates. What evolution doesn't explain is either its own origin or the ultimate origin of the forms derived from its action. That is: evolution can explain the physical manifestation of those forms as a matter of the mechanics of their development so far as empirical science has the perceptual tools and methodology to comprehend them. Beyond that; if the Gospel says that these physical organisms are all based upon eternal, spiritual templates, science has nothing to say upon the matter. An individual scientist may disagree philosophically, but he cannot draft science to his aid.

[Tarski]

Beyond that; if the Gospel says that these physical organisms are all based upon eternal, spiritual templates, science has nothing to say upon the matter.

and if some gospel somewhere says that the shape of Florida is based on an eternal template and that plate tectonics is guided by invisible beings to achieve this template then science has nothing to say upon the matter. Perhaps each planet has a US continent complete with a Florida.

There remains however a few things 1) Occam's razor, 2) the matter of actual evidence for the grand claim about eternal templates, 3) the fact that the shape of Florida is already explained without the silly template hyothesis and 4) plain old plausibility. The last one is important. The ability to recognize an absurdity is quite valuable.

By the way, I am tired of people saying that a humans look designed. I say they don't. A car looks designed. An organic thing like a mushroom or primate looks evolved.

[lostindc]

You are way over your head with these guys lost. What is your field of expertise?

My expertise is now, currently population geography, as I do this for the US govt. My schooling was in the study of Diffusion of Religions, specifically Mormonism, within the science/art of geography.

As for being over my head, perhaps, and perhaps not, there are numerous scholars in the realm of biological sciences who do not agree with the evolution of man from some primate man...

[The Dude]

As for being over my head, perhaps, and perhaps not, there are numerous scholars in the realm of biological sciences who do not agree with the evolution of man from some primate man...

Who are you thinking of, Dr. lost? Boyd K Packer, perhaps?

[Jeff K.]

The plan of salvation exists because of "the fall". Also, apparently this subject is important enough that apostles and prophets take the time to discuss it and expound upon it. Perhaps now that we are all "fallen" we can forget about it and just work on being atoned? However, if you want to know if your particular religion and leaders are capable of revelation that isn't contradicted later by science, then evolution as it relates to the doctrines of "the fall" may be relevant.

Please, if you will, provide a scripture or quote from an LDS leader that might expound upon this "outside of the evolutionary scope" idea. I promise to provide some quotes that show otherwise.

The fall is part of the process, not the reason for its existence. We have already established that the quotes that you pulled from various church leaders were opinion and not doctrine. Therefore you want to elevate opinion to doctrine. Sorry if your opinion of such elevation does not work out.

So you are upset that your opinion was not elevated to doctrine? Too bad.

[Jeff K.]

What in the world are you talking about? LOL

What questions would you ask her? Math questions? McConkie questions?

Are you attempting to violate my anonymity? I don't think you know how things work around here.

Are you doubting the PhD thing? Really? We have several PhD's that post here both on the Mormon side and on the critic side. I am not even the only math PhD here. Zeta Flux is also. Dr. Peterson is also a PhD of course.

Some short answers.

I do doubt your Phd claims.

I know Zeta personally and your bringing their names up merely reflects a certain desperation since logic alone would dictate that knowing someone does not imbue you with any kind of legitimacy. Another indication of your need to be known.

However if you wish I would be glad, as a third party to verify with UCLA that you indeed have a Phd from there. That option remains a service I can provide to you in order for you to overcome your insecurities.

None of these guys have given any indication they doubted me or thought me unintelligent and so on. Perhaps you know better right away. LOL

Not surprising. I don't speak to flys much when I swat at them either. That doesn't mean I believe them somehow to be equal. Nor do I tell a fly he is not very intelligent.... it goes without saying..

[Jeff K.]

Now, I once again point out that you claimed to ask some key questions (where?). If so, then they aren't in this quote which you threw at me yet again. There is only one question mark in there that I can see (I bolded it). Key questions are usually,..well, questions and those usually end with question marks. So what are your key questions? Maybe I should ask the key questions instead (they will be actual questions). How about this: You said, "Evolution is not a doctrinal issue". My question is "on what authority or on what grounds do you assert this?" Is it doctrine that evolution is not a doctrinal question? Or your opinion? You disagree with Elder McConkie on whether the question of evolution bears on salvation and doctrine. Whom shall we listen to on this? You?Is it a doctrinal question as to whether all men descended from Adam? Is the reality of the fall doctrinal in nature? Do you understand what the theory of evolution by natural selection says about human origins?

Questions exist within the statement themselves. Perhaps you haven't had much experience with critical thinking techniques? A question mark and proper grammatical points must exist for there to be a question? One assumes that your knowledge of parables is equally as deep? The statements are indeed clear.You on the other hand appear to require some shallower depths.

1-Evolution is not a doctrinal issue, it neither enhances nor detracts from salvation.

2-The information, as has been mentioned, has never been presented to the general body as revelation. Indeed, from an anti Mormon website it was acknowledged to be the personal opinion of Mr. McConkie.

3-Because someone thinks something is important, whether an apostle or not, does not make it so. Anymore than Jonah thought it was important not to go to Ninevah. Or was he also a false prophet?

4-It is amusing that you presume to make criteria for seers and prophets not being one yourself. If I might state... you should "at least know what is an important opinion and what isn't".

[Tarski]

Some short answers.

I do doubt your Phd claims.

And I doubt that you are older than 17. But then you haven't claimed to be older as far as I know so I am not calling you a liar. On the other hand I have said that I have a PhD. Do you wish to call me a liar--you have in effect already done so.

By the way, calling someone a liar is against the board rules.

I know Zeta personally and your bringing their names up merely reflects a certain desperation since logic alone would dictate that knowing someone does not imbue you with any kind of legitimacy.

Ahem, I never said that the mere knowing of someone imbues me with legitimacy. I merely pointed out that in the course of interacting with me, these people have apparently come to the conclusion that I am not lying about the matter. I have a 4 or 5 year tenure on this board and your off the cuff judgment is insignificant. Why don't you ask Zeta his opinion (if you really know him).

However if you wish I would be glad, as a third party to verify with UCLA that you indeed have a Phd from there.

How do you propose to do that without violating my anonymity (to you of all people)? I have already revealed my identity to at least one trustworthy person (also a PhD). But you? Come on!

[Tarski]

Questions exist within the statement themselves. Perhaps you haven't had much experience with critical thinking techniques? A question mark and proper grammatical points must exist for there to be a question? One assumes that your knowledge of parables is equally as deep? The statements are indeed clear.You on the other hand appear to require some shallower depths.

1-Evolution is not a doctrinal issue, it neither enhances nor detracts from salvation.

Is that an opinion or a fact? Is it doctrine?

(BTW, go back and read my last post)

2-The information, as has been mentioned, has never been presented to the general body as revelation. Indeed, from an anti Mormon website it was acknowledged to be the personal opinion of Mr. McConkie.

Do you suppose that all doctrine has been so presented? Also, if I have an example of something that that has been presented to the general body (say by Brigham Young) is that doctrine? Just asking.

3-Because someone thinks something is important, whether an apostle or not, does not make it so.

Quite right! For example, just because Joseph Smith thinks God has a body and lives near Kolob does not make it so.

Anymore than Jonah thought it was important not to go to Ninevah. Or was he also a false prophet?

The Book of Jonah is most likely a fictional work. Why should I care? BTW, I think its Nineveh not Ninevah.

4-It is amusing that you presume to make criteria for seers and prophets not being one yourself.

So who should make the criteria? Warren Jeffs? You? Sidney Rigdon? Anyone who claims to be a prophet?

I have reasonable criteria that help me decide--I think for myself. For example, a seer should not repeatedly make false prophecies nor should he preach scientific falsehoods to a large body---but then who am I right?

If a guy comes along and claims to be a prophet and then foists his own criteria on you are you going to accept it? If you think for yourself and reject him, couldn't he just say "who are you presume to make criteria for seers and prophets not being one yourself"? Now that's amusing.

[Tchild2]

The fall is part of the process, not the reason for its existence. We have already established that the quotes that you pulled from various church leaders were opinion and not doctrine.

Then you clearly and plainly do not understand church doctrine concerning "the fall".

Therefore you want to elevate opinion to doctrine. Sorry if your opinion of such elevation does not work out.

So you are upset that your opinion was not elevated to doctrine? Too bad.

I am just spellling out to you what you ought to know, but don't. What your leaders teach, and what is doctrine. Like I said, if you have something, anything to back up your "opinions" concerning what is doctrine or not, please cite them. Otherwise we will assume that you are opinining and nothing more, and I can get back to eating my Fruit Loops.

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Jan 16 2009, 07:42 AM)

The fall is part of the process, not the reason for its existence. We have already established that the quotes that you pulled from various church leaders were opinion and not doctrine.

Then you clearly and plainly do not understand church doctrine concerning "the fall".

I think I have a fair understanding of the fall. But it appears you don't much understanding of the plan of salvation.

QUOTE

Therefore you want to elevate opinion to doctrine. Sorry if your opinion of such elevation does not work out.

So you are upset that your opinion was not elevated to doctrine? Too bad.

I am just spellling out to you what you ought to know, but don't. What your leaders teach, and what is doctrine. Like I said, if you have something, anything to back up your "opinions" concerning what is doctrine or not, please cite them. Otherwise we will assume that you are opinining and nothing more.

No, you are spelling out the opinions of our leaders, not the doctrine and it appears to upset you that it isn't doctrine. I appreciate the fact that you are so interested in elevating various opinions of various church leaders to a doctrinal level. I admire your persistence in wanting to make that opinion doctrine. I am even amused that you turn a blind eye to the fact that those opinions have been listed as opinions by leaders of the church.

Unfortunately for your position, it does not change the reality that they are opinions and not doctrine.

[John Larsen]

Some short answers.

I do doubt your Phd claims.

This just demonstrates the length that some apologists will go to hold on to an argument.

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Jan 16 2009, 08:52 AM)

Some short answers.

I do doubt your Phd claims.

And I doubt that you are older than 17. But then you haven't claimed to be older as far as I know so I am not calling you a liar. On the other hand I have said that I have a PhD. Do you wish to call me a liar--you have in effect already done so.

By the way, calling someone a liar is against the board rules.

I haven't called you a liar. Other possibilities exist, indeed you may be delusional. Of course someone with an "extensive" education would be able to interpret the possibilities that exist. Someone without an extensive education may make assumptions and assume those to be fact.

QUOTE

I know Zeta personally and your bringing their names up merely reflects a certain desperation since logic alone would dictate that knowing someone does not imbue you with any kind of legitimacy.

Ahem, I never said that the mere knowing of someone imbues me with legitimacy. I merely pointed out that in the course of interacting with me, these people have apparently come to the conclusion that I am not lying about the matter. I have a 4 or 5 year tenure on this board and your off the cuff judgment is insignificant. Why don't you ask Zeta his opinion (if you really know him

).

How quickly you brought up your "Phd" reflects a certain insecurity. Then just as quickly you brought up "other people" in what can only be viewed as an attempt to bolster your own position. Your excuses aside, it is amazing the amount of time you spend in response to an "off cuff judgement". One wonders how sure you are of your own claims.

QUOTE

However if you wish I would be glad, as a third party to verify with UCLA that you indeed have a Phd from there.

How do you propose to do that without violating my anonymity (to you of all people)? I have already revealed my identity to at least one trustworthy person (also a PhD). But you? Come on!

If one has an extensive knowledge in education, then one knows, quite clearly that anonymity cannot be violated if a person identifies himself. Less educated people might assume that any revelation of identity is the equivalent of a violation. It isn't.

I am sure that "worthy" person (which implies a certain "unworthiness" in others) shows just how you deign to reveal yourself to mortal man. chuckle. I might be tempted to vote delusional after your last comment.

[John Larsen]

And I doubt that you are older than 17. But then you haven't claimed to be older as far as I know so I am not calling you a liar. On the other hand I have said that I have a PhD. Do you wish to call me a liar--you have in effect already done so.

By the way, calling someone a liar is against the board rules.

I haven't called you a liar. Other possibilities exist, indeed you may be delusional. Of course someone with an "extensive" education would be able to interpret the possibilities that exist. Someone without an extensive education may make assumptions and assume those to be fact.

).

How quickly you brought up your "Phd" reflects a certain insecurity. Then just as quickly you brought up "other people" in what can only be viewed as an attempt to bolster your own position. Your excuses aside, it is amazing the amount of time you spend in response to an "off cuff judgement". One wonders how sure you are of your own claims.

How do you propose to do that without violating my anonymity (to you of all people)? I have already revealed my identity to at least one trustworthy person (also a PhD). But you? Come on!

If one has an extensive knowledge in education, then one knows, quite clearly that anonymity cannot be violated if a person identifies himself. Less educated people might assume that any revelation of identity is the equivalent of a violation. It isn't.

I am sure that "worthy" person (which implies a certain "unworthiness" in others) shows just how you deign to reveal yourself to mortal man. chuckle. I might be tempted to vote delusional after your last comment.

You have crossed the line.

[Hermes]

jeffk, others, cool out. take a step back. dont make things personal~hermes