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

[The Dude]

(IMO) there is no reason for the Church to take an official stand on the matter.

Can you give two reasons in support of your opinion? I already know one reason but I'm curious if you can think of another.

[ttribe]

Can you give two reasons in support of your opinion? I already know one reason but I'm curious if you can think of another.

Is this some kind of a test? I'll comply (and give you my OPINION), but I do so under protest given that you have ignored several of my questions to you.

1 - evolution (or the mechanics on how the Earth and its inhabitants were created) is not pertinent to faith in Christ, the Atonement, or the saving ordinances;

2 - scientific theory, including this one, is subject to radical shifts and it may very well be the fact that the matter is not settled enough to warrant revelation yet (we are here to learn a great many things on our own, after all);

3 - it is not needful for the Church to command its people in all things;

4 - not all of the Church's adult membership is capable of understanding the intricacies of the issue at hand;

5 - part of the purpose of the Church is to assist its members in developing a personal relationship with God and personal revelation is a part of that process. There are many things for which we are left to work it out and ask for ourselves.

Just a few off the top of my head. I'm SURE you won't like any of them...but there you go.

[J.S. Mill]

Evolution theory and my inability to harmonize it with the gospel caused me many years of stress and was catalyst in my lose of faith. So there is at least one person who would have benefited. I know of others.

There ya go, ttribe -- here's a very good reason for the Church to promulgate the idea that evolution is at least compatible with the Church: it does affect some people's salvation.

[ttribe]

There ya go, ttribe -- here's a very good reason for the Church to promulgate the idea that evolution is at least compatible with the Church: it does affect some people's salvation.

But there is no end to the number of issues that could affect some people's salvation. Is there no individual responsibility to develop a personal relationship with God and take the issue directly to the source?

[J.S. Mill]

I highly doubt that this is an isolated case. The Church's disappointing stance towards science wasn't the main reason I left, but it was probably a close second. A few of my Mormon friends have gone through a lot of unnecessary mental anguish because they feel that being a TBM requires them to not believe in evolution. John Larsen's story is probably more common than you seem to think.

[ttribe]

I highly doubt that this is an isolated case. The Church's disappointing stance towards science wasn't the main reason I left, but it was probably a close second. A few of my Mormon friends have gone through a lot of unnecessary mental anguish because they feel that being a TBM requires them to not believe in evolution. John Larsen's story is probably more common than you seem to think.

Why does everyone keep inferring that I think this is an isolated issue? Shall we create a list of all the things you think the Church should comment on that (you think) would prevent people from leaving the Church? At some point, we are responsible for ourselves.

[John Larsen]

Why does everyone keep inferring that I think this is an isolated issue? Shall we create a list of all the things you think the Church should comment on that (you think) would prevent people from leaving the Church? At some point, we are responsible for ourselves.

And at some point, a Church that demands as much from its members as the Church does, has a responsibility to be relavant to the modern world and provide people with answers to today's questions.

[ttribe]

And at some point, a Church that demands as much from its members as the Church does, has a responsibility to be relavant to the modern world and provide people with answers to today's questions.

Hmmm, well, I find answers to many of today's questions within the teachings of the Church. I'm sorry that the Church couldn't provide you with what you wanted.

[The Dude]

Is this some kind of a test? I'll comply (and give you my OPINION), but I do so under protest given that you have ignored several of my questions to you.

1 - evolution (or the mechanics on how the Earth and its inhabitants were created) is not pertinent to faith in Christ, the Atonement, or the saving ordinances;

2 - scientific theory, including this one, is subject to radical shifts and it may very well be the fact that the matter is not settled enough to warrant revelation yet (we are here to learn a great many things on our own, after all);

3 - it is not needful for the Church to command its people in all things;

4 - not all of the Church's adult membership is capable of understanding the intricacies of the issue at hand;

5 - part of the purpose of the Church is to assist its members in developing a personal relationship with God and personal revelation is a part of that process. There are many things for which we are left to work it out and ask for ourselves.

Just a few off the top of my head. I'm SURE you won't like any of them...but there you go.

Five reasons is more than I asked for and certainly more than I expected. I kind of thought you would say something snarky like "one good reason is more than enough." So thank you for the effort.

I could have done without #4. I've been trying to argue that the lack of understanding is the reason the Church should make a statement about evolution. If they could remove that stumbling block of ignorance, I think a lot of members would be thrilled by new possibilities, and done in the right way, it could even enhance spirituality. I would say more specifically what I mean about this but that would involve discussion of the temple ceremony.

And #2 is kind of funny, because it alludes to something the critics have suspected for a good long time. The Church doesn't take a lead in very many things. Mostly it follows trends after they are very worn into the fabric of society, sticking to the most conservative position, as a general rule. At least that's how it looks to me. Your answer confirms it as a revelatory mechanism. (just kidding... it was off the top of your head)

#1 is the canned answer again. If you want, you could say nothing is pertinent to faith in Christ, the Atonement, or the saving ordinances -- except for faith in Christ, the Atonement, and the saving ordinances. So really this reason is a wild card to be played on impulse, and that is why I asked you for more.

I would have to say I find #3 and #5 to be most acceptable, because they defer to individualism which is another good characteristic of the Church. I would like to see the Church say something like "evolution is in harmony with the gospel" or at least "evolution does not oppose the gospel" but I can see how things could be worse. At least they don't fund a BYU graduate program on Creation/ID theory.

There is my feedback, if you care.

Thanks again, ttribe.

[ttribe]

Five reasons is more than I asked for and certainly more than I expected. I kind of thought you would say something snarky like "one good reason is more than enough." So thank you for the effort.

I could have done without #4. I've been trying to argue that the lack of understanding is the reason the Church should make a statement about evolution. If they could remove that stumbling block of ignorance, I think a lot of members would be thrilled by new possibilities, and done in the right way, it could even enhance spirituality. I would say more specifically what I mean about this but that would involve discussion of the temple ceremony.

And #2 is kind of funny, because it alludes to something the critics have suspected for a good long time. The Church doesn't take a lead in very many things. Mostly it follows trends after they are very worn into the fabric of society, sticking to the most conservative position, as a general rule. At least that's how it looks to me. Your answer confirms it as a revelatory mechanism. (just kidding... it was off the top of your head)

#1 is the canned answer again. If you want, you could say nothing is pertinent to faith in Christ, the Atonement, or the saving ordinances -- except for faith in Christ, the Atonement, and the saving ordinances. So really this reason is a wild card to be played on impulse, and that is why I asked you for more.

I would have to say I find #3 and #5 to be most acceptable, because they defer to individualism which is another good characteristic of the Church. I would like to see the Church say something like "evolution is in harmony with the gospel" or at least "evolution does not oppose the gospel" but I can see how things could be worse. At least they don't fund a BYU graduate program on Creation/ID theory.

There is my feedback, if you care.

Thanks again, ttribe.

I appreciate the feedback.

Now, care to elaborate on why my opinions are prima facia evidence of "anti-intellectualism" and an "evaporating" commitment to education?

BTW, regarding your comment on #4, I can understand your perspective as it relates to the population of the Church within the U.S. and developed countries, but I'm not sure the Saints in Ghana are ready for such an idea...does that make sense?

[littlechild]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I think there are some very well structured facts within this person's site for those that are even considering theories regarding human evolution.

I figured after reading the recent poll regarding those who have lost a testimony in God, due to apologetics or whatever cause, could use some uplifting thoughts and facts.

I already knew this to be true. No one can claim to have evidence that ANY species ever turned into another. This idea is based on imaginative speculation.

But its rather hard to get this simple truth past the minds of those schooled in Darwinian propaganda.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/art_as_lust.html

[littlechild]

Who knows, but from my own anecdotal experience most, and if you were honest about it I imagine you would say that most members who you've discussed the subject with have expressed feeling some degree of conflict over it.

No, I'm simply being blunt in pointing out that to suggest that when one has a natural explanation for how an event occurs it is rather absurd to continue attributing that event to unseen beings.

The problem is, there IS no natural explanation that has been scientifically demonstrated according to the normal scientific method. There is not only great room for doubt that Darwinism is THE answer, there are contradictions within Darwinism that Darwinists don't and won't discuss, and won't allow others to discuss. There is substantial scientific reason to discredit Darwinism and it isn't being heard. Darwinists figure that if they stomp their feet and hold their breath, (and the breath of others, by the way) then all the dissension will go away.

It won't for the very simple reason that Darwinism doesn't add up.

By the way, unseen beings can refer to the authors of books who are long dead. This doesn't deny their existence it merely places them in the unseen category.

[John Larsen]

...there are contradictions within Darwinism that Darwinists don't and won't discuss, and won't allow others to discuss.

Such as?

There is substantial scientific reason to discredit Darwinism and it isn't being heard.

Please do tell.

It won't for the very simple reason that Darwinism doesn't add up.

And which theory "adds up" better?

[littlechild]

Such as?

Please do tell.

And which theory "adds up" better?

Read Jonathon Wells - The Icons of Evolution

Read Darwin's Black Box - Or Intelligent Design 101

or Defeating Darwinism, or Darwin on Trial

That is - if you are really interested in learning something new, but if you just want to rehash the same old tired Darwinian mantra - I am NOT your man.

The theory that adds up better is intelligent design.

But I sense a bit of antagonism in your voice - so I will not be engaging you on this subject.

[John Larsen]

Read Jonathon Wells - The Icons of Evolution

Read Darwin's Black Box - Or Intelligent Design 101

or Defeating Darwinism, or Darwin on Trial

That is - if you are really interested in learning something new, but if you just want to rehash the same old tired Darwinian mantra - I am NOT your man.

The theory that adds up better is intelligent design.

But I sense a bit of antagonism in your voice - so I will not be engaging you on this subject.

You are the one who chose to engage and insert yourself into the discussion. You are the one that expresses antagonism to the whole of the biological sciences. Look. There is a simple debating going on here, one in which you came in and made some pretty outlandish statements. I dare say one that 99% of BYU professors who are familiar with the subject would disagree with you on. And then you post this. If you want to play this passive aggressive game, this forum is not the best place for you. I will simply refer you to the board rules. If you have something to say, say it. But your hit and run response makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

[littlechild]

You are the one who chose to engage and insert yourself into the discussion. You are the one that expresses antagonism to the whole of the biological sciences. Look. There is a simple debating going on here, one in which you came in and made some pretty outlandish statements. I dare say one that 99% of BYU professors who are familiar with the subject would disagree with you on. And then you post this. If you want to play this passive aggressive game, this forum is not the best place for you. I will simply refer you to the board rules. If you have something to say, say it. But your hit and run response makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

All I said was, I am not engaging you on this subject. This response of yours further heightens my point - that Darwinists seek to aggressively maintain more intellectual ground than is warranted by their theory AND you are starting to come unglued. This is precisely why I am avoiding the, ahem, cough, cough "debate". Because it isn't a debate its a shouting match.

[John Larsen]

All I said was, I am not engaging you on this subject. This response of yours further heightens my point - that Darwinists seek to aggressively maintain more intellectual ground than is warranted by their theory AND you are starting to come unglued. This is precisely why I am avoiding the, ahem, cough, cough "debate". Because it isn't a debate its a shouting match.

Do you believe your position on "Darwinism" is representative of the common views of Mormon people?

[Jeff K.]

Can anyone really define or represent the"common views" of Mormon people beyond the basic doctrinal principles of salvation? Other than most of our theologicial points of doctrine, it is a bit childish to presume that "common views of Mormon people" can be defined given you are speaking of over 10 million people, the majority of which live in outside of Utah, half of the total living outside the cultural US. And no real poll taken to gauge much of anything beyond the conferences where we raise our hands to support the prophet and apostles and leaders of the church.

Yes, childish indeed.

Just so we understand, Darwinism is not the "whole of the biological sciences" it is a theory as to the adaption and/or accomodation of living things to their environments.

What I find interesting is that intelligent design itself would accomodate evolution. Something many people seem to overlook since Darwin's primary focus was on interaction, while intelligent design deals more specifically with design which may take place before interaction.

[The Dude]

What I find interesting is that intelligent design itself would accomodate evolution.

This reminds me a little of Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box (referred by littlechild above), who is a champion of creationists who don't know or don't care about his accommodations. IIRC, he believes there is evidence for common descent and he believes much of what evolutionists believe and disagrees with much of what creationists believe. Instead he only sees evidence for a few special cases of complexity that he says are evidence of Intelligent Design. Is that what you have in mind Jeff K?

Something many people seem to overlook since Darwin's primary focus was on interaction, while intelligent design deals more specifically with design which may take place before interaction.

Can you explain more of what you mean by this?

[Jeff K.]

This reminds me a little of Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box (referred by littlechild above), who is a champion of creationists who don't know or don't care about his accommodations. IIRC, he believes there is evidence for common descent and he believes much of what evolutionists believe and disagrees with much of what creationists believe. Instead he only sees evidence for a few special cases of complexity that he says are evidence of Intelligent Design. Is that what you have in mind Jeff K?

Can you explain more of what you mean by this?

I don't necessarily ascribe to Behe, nor do I reject his views. Logic itslef shows that evolution and intelligent design need not be diametric opposites. Design entails forethought and calculation prior to the establishment of environment. The tool used for such forethought and calculation can be evolution.

As an analogy: I see evolution as a potential vehicle, not the reason for the trip. You can use an electric car, an internal combustion engine, even a hybrid as your mode of transportation. In all cases your trip still requires forethought as to the direction and route you wish to travel and how you would interact with the environment you travel in.

[John Larsen]

I don't necessarily ascribe to Behe, nor do I reject his views. Logic itslef shows that evolution and intelligent design need not be diametric opposites. Design entails forethought and calculation prior to the establishment of environment. The tool used for such forethought and calculation can be evolution.

As an analogy: I see evolution as a potential vehicle, not the reason for the trip. You can use an electric car, an internal combustion engine, even a hybrid as your mode of transportation. In all cases your trip still requires forethought as to the direction and route you wish to travel and how you would interact with the environment you travel in.

Let us be clear. Evolution is scientific theory. ID is a faith based philosophy. Evolution theory and the biological sciences have no place for non-demonstrable statements of personal belief not based on the observable world.

You would first need to prove that forethought exists before working on its mechanisms of operation.

[lostindc]

Sargon put this in another thread (see link and give it time to open), what a magnificent paper by Hugh Nibley. It reminds me of the book Earth in the Beginning by one of the Skousen's, in fact it explains where Skousen got his viewpoints.http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=2&id=232

Let us be clear. Evolution is scientific theory. ID is a faith based philosophy. Evolution theory and the biological sciences have no place for non-demonstrable statements of personal belief not based on the observable world. You would first need to prove that forethought exists before working on its mechanisms of operation.

Would proof such as NDE's, visions, angels, dead messengers, etc count since they are observable by some just like watching bacteria morph in a lab is visible by some?

[John Larsen]

Sargon put this in another thread (see link and give it time to open), what a magnificent paper by Hugh Nibley. It reminds me of the book Earth in the Beginning by one of the Skousen's, in fact it explains where Skousen got his viewpoints.http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=2&id=232Would proof such as NDE's, visions, angels, dead messengers, etc count since they are observable by some just like watching bacteria morph in a lab is visible by some?

Reproducibility

[lostindc]

Sargon put this in another thread (see link and give it time to open), what a magnificent paper by Hugh Nibley. It reminds me of the book Earth in the Beginning by one of the Skousen's, in fact it explains where Skousen got his viewpoints.http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=2&id=232Would proof such as NDE's, visions, angels, dead messengers, etc count since they are observable by some just like watching bacteria morph in a lab is visible by some?

sorry I meant to link this page

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73#r47

[lostindc]

Reproducibility

Good point, so if my teacher/scientist/guru/whatever, such as the prophet, states that if you do such and such things you will not only have the spirit to be with you and feel it and know of a surety and this happens is reproduced over and over for millions over time, not even including non-Mormon's then it must be science....