Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[BCSpace]

We are taught in the Temple as well as in the scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death was introduced. Adam was the first to ... become subject to the flesh."

The temple and the scriptures are simply a retelling of a story that is incomplete in terms of details so I don't think either must be taken literally. As for preAdamites, I don't think the notion can fit well with scripture and doctrine unless one assumes that the spirits within homo sapiens prior to Adam are not the literal children of God or that they are not homo sapiens at all.

Eventually, it resulted in a statement from the FP that has commonly been thought to refer to evolution, when it might not be referring to evolution at all.

It was just a reiteration existing of doctrine and said nothing at all about evolution. It certainly didn't present any details whatsoever that evolution is in conflict with. The theories of men may or may not be in harmony with the doctrine.

[HiJolly]

There is no scientifically established proof of macroevolution.

The only difference between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is time.

ID is better [than evolution].

Yup. But it's not science.

Have you come up with a definition of science yet HiJolly?

I never needed to. It's a common thing amongst the educated. And I did link to an excellent definition long ago (in a thread far, far away...), which in your wilfull ignorance you rejected. Ah well.

Have you scientifically demonstrated your claim that ID is not that definition, whatever it is you conceive it to be?

How could I, since you haven't the foggiest what 'scientifically' means? I did link to Judge Jones' decision in the Dover trial, though, which went through the whole "ID is not science" thing very thoroughly and comprehensively. You never refuted or even addressed ANY of it. You just kept blindly on your pre-determined path of dogma.

You WAY deserve the whole "pot calling the kettle black" thing. It's YOU.

http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

ID is not science.

HiJolly

[littlechild]

The only difference between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is time.

Yup. But it's not science.

I never needed to. It's a common thing amongst the educated. And I did link to an excellent definition long ago (in a thread far, far away...), which in your wilfull ignorance you rejected. Ah well.

How could I, since you haven't the foggiest what 'scientifically' means? I did link to Judge Jones' decision in the Dover trial, though, which went through the whole "ID is not science" thing very thoroughly and comprehensively. You never refuted or even addressed ANY of it. You just kept blindly on your pre-determined path of dogma.

You WAY deserve the whole "pot calling the kettle black" thing. It's YOU.

ID is not science.

HiJolly

ID is hundreds of thousands of times more probable than macroevolution. And there are quite a few more differences between macroevolution and microevolution than time. Please stick with some facts, and please define your terms. If you can't define your own terms, then your point is not credible. At least I can point to demonstrable facts that ID is science.

the fields of forensics, archaeology, and SETI are all based on detecting intelligence. Intelligent design is used in creating new genomes. Where are your counterevidences? Some judge tells you what to think and not to think, and so you comply without really thinking it through or being able to articulate your reasoning.

AND SO WHAT IF IT ISN'T? IT doesn't matter. Evolution (of the neo-Darwinian variety) is still an unproven hypothesis, untested, undemonstrated, and unbelievably unlikely. And all the testing that has been done substantiates that statement.

[littlechild]

Since you used so many capital letters, I figured I would actually take the time to show you how you are absolutely, and utterly wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

HILARIOUS! FUNNY! Nothing in this 'faq' demonstrates the overall claims that neo-Darwinists make, that animals have a geneaology that links into ours. You promise a Rolls-Royce, deliver a rubber-band tied to a matchbox car.

Scroll down to 5.0

I am also curious on what your education background is. Just how much biology have you learned? Most of the issues you are bringing up are issues that a high school biology teacher should have been teaching.

Really? Please get specific. You mean, your little Darwinian propoganda has failed to convince all the starry-eyed little worshipers in their youth? Incredible oversight on their part.

Oh, and one more quote of yours

"there is no scientifically established proof of macroevolution. It is an ideology and philosophy. ID is better. Demonstrably so."

Here is my favorite one: http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1483/480302.pdf

I doubt you will read it, so I will summarize it for you. Some virus's attack our DNA. You have probably heard that 9x% percent of our DNA is "junk DNA". A great deal of this "junk" is viral remains. A virus would infect an animal, and copy part of itself in the animals DNA. This would allow this "virus" to replicate through the genome of the species. The mechanism for how they do this is very well understood. However, the virus then loses its other functions and just lingers around as sort of a "fossil". Now here's the cool part. If you look back through our "ancestral tree" that biology proposes, you see that chimpanzees and humans share the largest amount of these ancient viruses, then say, monkeys and humans (yes, a chimpanzee is not a monkey). In fact, some of these virus's are really old, meaning they infected some organisms DNA a LONG time ago. We can find this virus in our genome, as well as the genome of all mammals. It's a really cool bit of evidence that all living things have a shared lineage through their DNA.

Here is 29 more btw: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Well, expand your horizons son, and get a real education. Microbiological facts and mathematics combine to undermine your faith in the foolish notion macroevolution is a historical verity. And oh, by the way, junk DNA isn't really junk, it serves useful purposes and scientists are just now grappling with the fact that something they thought was useless, (and their Darwinian prophecies predicted as much, so much for that) is now a new field of discovery for them, and their eyes are being opened to just how fallacious that notion was.

Even if your little theory about viral infections had any merit whatsoever - it is STILL just conjecture and speculation that it means anything about common ancestry. Please don't leap to conclusion that are not substantiated by the evidence. That's not science, now, is it? Or how do YOU define science?

[macmini]

HILARIOUS! FUNNY! Nothing in this 'faq' demonstrates the overall claims that neo-Darwinists make, that animals have a geneaology that links into ours. You promise a Rolls-Royce, deliver a rubber-band tied to a matchbox car.

Really? Please get specific. You mean, your little Darwinian propoganda has failed to convince all the starry-eyed little worshipers in their youth? Incredible oversight on their part.

Well, expand your horizons son, and get a real education. Microbiological facts and mathematics combine to undermine your faith in the foolish notion macroevolution is a historical verity. And oh, by the way, junk DNA isn't really junk, it serves useful purposes and scientists are just now grappling with the fact that something they thought was useless, (and their Darwinian prophecies predicted as much, so much for that) is now a new field of discovery for them, and their eyes are being opened to just how fallacious that notion was.

Even if your little theory about viral infections had any merit whatsoever - it is STILL just conjecture and speculation that it means anything about common ancestry. Please don't leap to conclusion that are not substantiated by the evidence. That's not science, now, is it? Or how do YOU define science?

How is it possible that someone with so little understanding of what he/she is talking about can make such claims. You lack of education in biology, evolution, and science is profound. I would have no problem with that except that your claims are presented as if you are the be all and end all of knowledge about this particular subject. Seriously it is not becoming of a educated person to make claims in the manner you do. Stop telling people to get a REAL education!!!! How in the world can you assume the nature of their education???? How can you assume you KNOW what type of education is best for people??? How can you talk about things like junk DNA and seemingly have little knowledge of what it really is???? How can you use personal attacks and still feel like a good person?? How can you ever hope to connect with people by treating them so poorly?? How can you know what is right without having a real understanding of what you are talking about??????

If you don't understand junk DNA then ASK someone. It doesn't have to be us go and read and then ask an educated person what it is. You say that junk DNA is not junk......well I hate to break it to you it is JUNK!!! This would be like a landfill full of rotten meat and food that has one diamond somewhere in the miles of trash. Do you still call it landfill or is it now a diamond mine. It is still a landfill and junk DNA is junk DNA even if there is a diamond in the miles of trash.

[Eldwynn]

HILARIOUS! FUNNY! Nothing in this 'faq' demonstrates the overall claims that neo-Darwinists make, that animals have a geneaology that links into ours. You promise a Rolls-Royce, deliver a rubber-band tied to a matchbox car.

Really? Please get specific. You mean, your little Darwinian propoganda has failed to convince all the starry-eyed little worshipers in their youth? Incredible oversight on their part.

Well, expand your horizons son, and get a real education. Microbiological facts and mathematics combine to undermine your faith in the foolish notion macroevolution is a historical verity. And oh, by the way, junk DNA isn't really junk, it serves useful purposes and scientists are just now grappling with the fact that something they thought was useless, (and their Darwinian prophecies predicted as much, so much for that) is now a new field of discovery for them, and their eyes are being opened to just how fallacious that notion was.

Even if your little theory about viral infections had any merit whatsoever - it is STILL just conjecture and speculation that it means anything about common ancestry. Please don't leap to conclusion that are not substantiated by the evidence. That's not science, now, is it? Or how do YOU define science?

This is going to be my last post to you. I was hoping you weren't like every other anti-evolutionist on the planet, but I think I might be wrong. You said :

"And you never EVER get new species no matter HOW HARD YOU TRY."

I showed you very many examples where you can observe new species coming to light in the lab. You claimed nothing about "that animals have a genealogy that links into ours." That was not the claim. You claimed that speciation is not demonstrably true, when it indeed is, and that FAQ showed quite a bit of ways. What do you expect? Science to take an animal and through selection processes, make a new one? We have done that with dogs (all descended from a common ancestor, a wolf) and look what we have done in the past 10,000 years. Yes, it takes a long time. Yes, the planet has been around long enough. There just isn't a debate in the professional academic field. It seems most of the people on the ID side are just like you: with little or no understanding of the theory anyways.

There is no sense debating with you any further as far as I can tell. You don't even know the basic facts about our genome (most of it codes for polypeptides that have no use... or is ridden with stop codons and no start codons, meaning it never even gets coded into a amino acid to begin with).

I have no interest in getting in a yelling match ridden with personal attacks. I have better things to do. Anyways, I am off to class (advanced cell biology actually).

BTW, you still have 29 more evidences for macro evolution to dismiss, and that's a small list. You were wrong to dismiss the thing about virus's. If you would have read the link, it explained PRECISELY what it has to do with common ancestry. You look like a little child when you make claims like that without reading what someone has provided.

[littlechild]

This is going to be my last post to you. I was hoping you weren't like every other anti-evolutionist on the planet, but I think I might be wrong. You said :

"And you never EVER get new species no matter HOW HARD YOU TRY."

I showed you very many examples where you can observe new species coming to light in the lab. You claimed nothing about "that animals have a genealogy that links into ours." That was not the claim. You claimed that speciation is not demonstrably true, when it indeed is, and that FAQ showed quite a bit of ways. What do you expect? Science to take an animal and through selection processes, make a new one? We have done that with dogs (all descended from a common ancestor, a wolf) and look what we have done in the past 10,000 years. Yes, it takes a long time. Yes, the planet has been around long enough. There just isn't a debate in the professional academic field. It seems most of the people on the ID side are just like you: with little or no understanding of the theory anyways.

There is no sense debating with you any further as far as I can tell. You don't even know the basic facts about our genome (most of it codes for polypeptides that have no use... or is ridden with stop codons and no start codons, meaning it never even gets coded into a amino acid to begin with).

I have no interest in getting in a yelling match ridden with personal attacks. I have better things to do. Anyways, I am off to class (advanced cell biology actually).

BTW, you still have 29 more evidences for macro evolution to dismiss, and that's a small list. You were wrong to dismiss the thing about virus's. If you would have read the link, it explained PRECISELY what it has to do with common ancestry. You look like a little child when you make claims like that without reading what someone has provided.

You are right it is no use arguing with me anymore. When you start off by likening me to a sub-highschool student, and when you give me 'evidences' which are variation not speciation, and when you talk about how you are off to your advanced cell biology class as though that means diddly squat to me or anyone else, and when you make up facts such as that dogs came from wolves, when that has never been proven to be possible or that in all of our efforts, that we have ever made a dog into anything resembling anything other than a dog, I think you need to start with defining terms. You are quite mixed up on definitions. Maybe by the time you reach my age you will have learned a fair amount of humility as well.

[littlechild]

How is it possible that someone with so little understanding of what he/she is talking about can make such claims. You lack of education in biology, evolution, and science is profound. I would have no problem with that except that your claims are presented as if you are the be all and end all of knowledge about this particular subject. Seriously it is not becoming of a educated person to make claims in the manner you do. Stop telling people to get a REAL education!!!! How in the world can you assume the nature of their education???? How can you assume you KNOW what type of education is best for people??? How can you talk about things like junk DNA and seemingly have little knowledge of what it really is???? How can you use personal attacks and still feel like a good person?? How can you ever hope to connect with people by treating them so poorly?? How can you know what is right without having a real understanding of what you are talking about??????

If you don't understand junk DNA then ASK someone. It doesn't have to be us go and read and then ask an educated person what it is. You say that junk DNA is not junk......well I hate to break it to you it is JUNK!!! This would be like a landfill full of rotten meat and food that has one diamond somewhere in the miles of trash. Do you still call it landfill or is it now a diamond mine. It is still a landfill and junk DNA is junk DNA even if there is a diamond in the miles of trash.

You don't have a clue, mate.

The first systematic analysis of a significant portion of the human genome was published in June, 2007 . The analysis attempted to determine the function of entire regions of DNA. The results showed that, although only a small amount of the genome codes for protein, most of the rest is still transcribed into RNA, which functions in ways not described before. As more is learned about the structure of the human genome, it is apparent that most (if not all) of the non-coding regions of DNA are required for the proper functioning of the DNA

Rich Deem, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html

http://www.junkdna.com/

[JangoStango]

You don't have a clue, mate.

The first systematic analysis of a significant portion of the human genome was published in June, 2007 . The analysis attempted to determine the function of entire regions of DNA. The results showed that, although only a small amount of the genome codes for protein, most of the rest is still transcribed into RNA, which functions in ways not described before.

Just because it is transcribed doesn't mean it has a function, especially when it is broken viral RNA as far as we can tell -- most of this remains to be determined and may still be "junk RNA".

As more is learned about the structure of the human genome, it is apparent that most (if not all) of the non-coding regions of DNA are required for the proper functioning of the DNA

http://www.junkdna.com/

That's a speculation and can be empirically shown to be an overstatement. Surprisingly large chunks of non-coding DNA have been eliminated from mice without any apparent consequence on health and fertility. It has no apparent function in the organism. You could still accurately call it junk DNA.

[macmini]

You don't have a clue, mate.

The first systematic analysis of a significant portion of the human genome was published in June, 2007 . The analysis attempted to determine the function of entire regions of DNA. The results showed that, although only a small amount of the genome codes for protein, most of the rest is still transcribed into RNA, which functions in ways not described before. As more is learned about the structure of the human genome, it is apparent that most (if not all) of the non-coding regions of DNA are required for the proper functioning of the DNA

http://www.junkdna.com/

CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS

I see you have learned how to use Control C and then Control V. It makes me wonder if you even know what you copied and pasted from http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html. Didn't you learn not to plagiarized in high school??? You should not present it as your own because they give the impression you may know what you are talking about.

[macmini]

In the interest of stepping up the intellectual nature I present the death blow to evolution......

[HiJolly]

In the interest of stepping up the intellectual nature I present the death blow to evolution......

Oh, C'mon. That's obviously the result of scientific Intelligent Design!

HiJolly

[BCSpace]

In the interest of stepping up the intellectual nature I present the death blow to evolution......

Refuted along with the rhinopus. See the link in my siggy.

[littlechild]

CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS CITATIONS

I see you have learned how to use Control C and then Control V. It makes me wonder if you even know what you copied and pasted from http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html. Didn't you learn not to plagiarized in high school??? You should not present it as your own because they give the impression you may know what you are talking about.

And that refutes the statement, how? I didn't intend in any way to claim that statement as my own, and if you want to call it plagiarism, sobeit? At least it is so. At least it is true. You haven't in any way shown that A) I don't understand it, or That it isn't true.

What has been proposed here as speciation and refutations of evolution is nothing more than variation, something which we all witness and have no issues with. There is no positive proof of common ancestry in anything you have shown me, which can't also be explained in other ways.

Anyone here want to prove macroevolution? Anyone here want to respond with facts instead of character assaults? Anyone here want to prove that species developed from one another without resorting to historical revisionism, speculation, myths, fantasies, wild imaginations, and such?

I thought not.

Of course you can always come down with authoritarian thunder and claim, "My college professor said so" and walk off as though you were some kind of conqueror but that makes you only a legend in your own mind.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

OOPS! I better tell you where that came from, D&C 121. Don't want you to accuse me of PLAGIARISM.

[littlechild]

Just because it is transcribed doesn't mean it has a function, especially when it is broken viral RNA as far as we can tell -- most of this remains to be determined and may still be "junk RNA".

That's a speculation and can be empirically shown to be an overstatement. Surprisingly large chunks of non-coding DNA have been eliminated from mice without any apparent consequence on health and fertility. It has no apparent function in the organism. You could still accurately call it junk DNA.

Uh, no. It isn't speculation. It's based in part on a government research project. Please read.

http://junkdna.com/pellionisz_principle/

[macmini]

And that refutes the statement, how? I didn't intend in any way to claim that statement as my own, and if you want to call it plagiarism, sobeit? At least it is so. At least it is true. You haven't in any way shown that A) I don't understand it, or That it isn't true.

No attempt made in refuting it..sorry. You inability to use your own words makes me believe you don't even understand what you are plagiarizing

What has been proposed here as speciation and refutations of evolution is nothing more than variation, something which we all witness and have no issues with. There is no positive proof of common ancestry in anything you have shown me, which can't also be explained in other ways.

Anyone here want to prove macroevolution? Anyone here want to respond with facts instead of character assaults? Anyone here want to prove that species developed from one another without resorting to historical revisionism, speculation, myths, fantasies, wild imaginations, and such?

Sorry plagiarism is not a charter assassination

I thought not.

OOOHHHH I am scared you say that with such authority you must know what you are talking about!!!!!

Of course you can always come down with authoritarian thunder and claim, "My college professor said so" and walk off as though you were some kind of conqueror but that makes you only a legend in your own mind.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

I don't now is repeating the EXACT same words from another website with seemingly little to no knowledge of what you are copying and pasting anything like this.

OOPS! I better tell you where that came from, D&C 121. Don't want you to accuse me of PLAGIARISM.

Actually no need to do that since you gave your source!!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

"Creationists should educate themselves about evolution, which does not contradict LDS doctrine in any way."

[Eldwynn]

You are right it is no use arguing with me anymore. When you start off by likening me to a sub-highschool student, and when you give me 'evidences' which are variation not speciation, and when you talk about how you are off to your advanced cell biology class as though that means diddly squat to me or anyone else, and when you make up facts such as that dogs came from wolves, when that has never been proven to be possible or that in all of our efforts, that we have ever made a dog into anything resembling anything other than a dog, I think you need to start with defining terms. You are quite mixed up on definitions. Maybe by the time you reach my age you will have learned a fair amount of humility as well.

Lol, all dogs you see today share a common ancestor with the gray wolves. I never CALLED you a sub-high school student, I merely asked how much education you had on evolutionary theory, because you aren't showing much of an understanding of it. You of course avoided the question.

The evidence I gave you was not of variation, it was all of speciation (all the examples I gave were of a species who could not produce offspring with the ancestor it originated from).

AS far as my cell biology class, I thought it was merely ironic, and did not expect it to mean anything to anyone. However, I don't think it's a shot in the dark to say that I have studied evolution longer than you have. Feel free to correct me though. How much formal biological education do you have?

[JangoStango]

How much formal biological education do you have?

I would guess that littlechild's exceeding self-confidence is the advantage he gets from no formal education in this area.

Thus sayeth the prophet: "Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand."

[Eldwynn]

I would guess that littlechild's exceeding self-confidence is the advantage he gets from no formal education in this area.

Thus sayeth the prophet: "Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand."

I like to give the benefit of the doubt

[littlechild]

I like to give the benefit of the doubt

Speaking of doubt - you should read the book by William Dembski - No Free Lunch. He mathematically shows how any evolutionary algorithm utterly fails to explain the existence of specified complexity in the universe.

I didn't get a degree. I am a college senior as of about 1985. As if it matters in this discourse. If the knowledge explosion leads us to double our knowledge every couple years such a degree would be dated anyway.

I don't care how much you know. If everything you 'know' is wrong, of what use is it?

To claim that evolutionary processes are responsible for the variation of life, (something which William Dembski proves quite thoroughly in his book), is to believe that you can flip a coin and get heads 380 times in a row. (Scientists believe that the minimal number of genes to support the lowest life forms is approximately 380).

Show me your Darwinian Tree of life, and I'll show you mine. There are millions of them in existence, each one conflicting with each other. You've got a lot to learn despite your formal education, or likely because of it.

If you believe the absurdity, as HiJolly does, that Intelligent Design isn't science, then I feel sorry for you and your 'education'.

There are three things in life that science investigates. Chance, necessity, and choice. Any event can be reduced to these three causes. Can you arbitrarily require that science ignore those activities that are the result of choice?

Forensic science - determines whether the cause of death was accidental or the result of an intelligent agent.

Archeaology - determines whether the rocks that look like natural formation are just geological happenstance or whether they represent tools, created by an intelligent mind.

SETI - searching for intelligence. How will they differentiate intelligent signals from natural ones?

Cryptoanalysis - looking for an intelligent message in an otherwise random looking sequence of encoded symbols.

Intelligent design is here to stay, it won't be going away anytime soon. And as scientists realize that the case they made for Darwinian forces is vanishing, there will be varying reactions to that reality. Some will dig in their heels and resist, others will embrace the new insights afforded them by the better science.

[Eldwynn]

Speaking of doubt - you should read the book by William Dembski - No Free Lunch. He mathematically shows how any evolutionary algorithm utterly fails to explain the existence of specified complexity in the universe.

Intelligent design is here to stay, it won't be going away anytime soon. And as scientists realize that the case they made for Darwinian forces is vanishing, there will be varying reactions to that reality. Some will dig in their heels and resist, others will embrace the new insights afforded them by the better science.

I think it is so funny that creationists still talk about William Dembski. His book has been thoroughly refuted, by so many people that it is a yawn to bring it up anymore. The fact that no one with a degree has written a book similar to his (and his book was written several years ago) is a good indication that Intelligent design is pretty much blowing over (in the academic field). Sure, you get the people without degrees, or even an understanding of the theory (natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the result, so it's natural selection that would "fail" to explain the existence of complexity... but of course it doesn't fail at all) lashing out on message boards, but the debate is gone in the scientific field.

But, I will give you a chance. Can you give me one peer reviewed study that shows evidence for intelligent design on it's own, that is, without mentioning problems with evolution? It seems to me that creationists are set on the idea that if Darwinism is wrong, intelligent design wins by default. This certainly is not scientific.

"I didn't get a degree. I am a college senior as of about 1985. As if it matters in this discourse. If the knowledge explosion leads us to double our knowledge every couple years such a degree would be dated anyway."

Even Darwin himself could topple over your arguments. hell, I have been reading your posts, and I still don't see a refutation of natural selection. I'm not even confident that you understand the theory as it is laid out anyways. This is why I asked about your background.

One more question if you don't mind. Who taught you evolutionary theory? Can you even describe the theory as science does?

If you can, then I agree, education is not relevant. But if you couldn't when writing your above posts, then it's silly for you to weigh in on a scientific theory you don't understand. It would be like me saying that since I don't understand the theory of gravity, then intelligent falling must be correct.

[JangoStango]

I read an interesting article that makes me think of littlechild.

Why do some people resist science?

The developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology.

According to research cited by Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, intuitive expectations about the world arise in children and persist in adults (like our aptly named "littlechild") when they are reinforced by culture.

Look at this graph showing public acceptance of evolution in different countries:

The USA ranks second to last, but look at Turkey which is dead last. People in the USA and Turkey aren't worse educated or stupider than people in Scandanavia and Japan. Instead, there are cultural forces that cause some people to reject only certain unintuitive scientific ideas. One is prevailing views of authority. In the USA, scientists who study many technical areas are generally respected and trusted by the public, which does not have the time or capabilities to understand the technical aspects in depth. But then the public singles out a particular field -- evolution -- for disrespect and distrust, and this is for cultural (religious) reasons, not scientific reasons. Other countries like Sweden and Japan do not do this. Instead these countries may have a culture that causes them to disrespect and distrust a totally different scientific field -- like genetic technology -- for idiosyncratic cultural reasons. Littlechild is a product of American culture. If he had grown up in Germany, he would likely be protesting "Frankenfoods" (genetically modified food) instead of protesting evolution.

[BCSpace]

Not saying one must give up the belief, but I think claiming creationism is doctrine when there are absolutely no verses or LDS doctrinal statements or revelation dedicated to it is tantamount to making the same mistake the Catholic church made regarding an earth centered universe a few hundred years ago.

[cinepro]

Speaking of doubt - you should read the book by William Dembski - No Free Lunch. He mathematically shows how any evolutionary algorithm utterly fails to explain the existence of specified complexity in the universe.

littlechild, you would probably really like this video. I especially recommend the part about "accidents and blind luck" at 4:40.

If you have a whole ten minutes to spare, you might really enjoy this video as well. It really speaks to the issue you raise about complexity in the universe.

To claim that evolutionary processes are responsible for the variation of life, (something which William Dembski proves quite thoroughly in his book), is to believe that you can flip a coin and get heads 380 times in a row. (Scientists believe that the minimal number of genes to support the lowest life forms is approximately 380).

No, that's really not true. And be careful not to conflate "the variation of life" with "the origin of life". Evolution speaks to one, but not the other.

If you believe the absurdity, as HiJolly does, that Intelligent Design isn't science, then I feel sorry for you and your 'education'.

CFR that Intelligent Design is "science".

There are three things in life that science investigates. Chance, necessity, and choice. Any event can be reduced to these three causes. Can you arbitrarily require that science ignore those activities that are the result of choice?

CFR for this claim as well.

This is a much more practical explanation of science:

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.

What Is Science?

Intelligent design is here to stay, it won't be going away anytime soon. And as scientists realize that the case they made for Darwinian forces is vanishing, there will be varying reactions to that reality. Some will dig in their heels and resist, others will embrace the new insights afforded them by the better science.

That's an interesting idea. Can you explain any "new insights" that are scientifically verified by Intelligent Design? Please describe the scientific method that was used to verify these "new insights".

For example, here is a good list of 29+ scientific variations for macroevolution. 29+ Evidences For Common Descent. Each of these is explained as a scientific verification, including the critical potential falsification for each of them. They actually explain what scientists would find instead if evolution weren't a valid theory, or what data could come forth that would falsify that experiment.

Can you provide anything similar for Intelligent Design? What claims has it made that can be tested and falsified?