Evolution in Sunday School Yesterday

[Zakuska]

It requires a certain audacious intellectual dishonesty to dismiss an apostle which has provided scriptural backing for his position, and to dismiss that apostle by insulting the person. Doubtful such a person would have the guts to do so in person, better to be honest in all your dealings with your fellow man.

But it does reflect a certain shallowness in the person who chooses to do a drive by rather than engage on specific issues and valid points raised.

Those who defend such shallowness are also reflective of a very large building with jeering multitudes.

One is force to wonder what passes for intellectual discourse in classes led by such people.

Oh and you're just a pinacle of honesty and depths of intelecual knowledge and humility arnt you Jeff?

Do us all a favor. Put your keyboard down and walk away.

Its attitudes like yours which make me... when I do teach in presthood Qurom... read the manual word for word. Are my classes boring? Maybe... but its better thean having back bighters such as your self come after me and critisize.

[gtaggart]

To be clear: I don't think a Gospel Doctrine teacher must be a slave to the manual in the sense that the teacher must teach from the manual in a a strict, word-for-word manner. For example, two Sundays ago, I taught Lesson 44: "Being Good Citizens" and showed portions of the documentary "Truth and Conviction," the story of Helmuth Hubener. We then had a great discussion of Section 134 and Article of Faith 1:12 and possible exceptions to the belief/command that we should obey the laws of the land, using Helmuth's and his branch president's actions discussion prompts. In the end, we returned to the purpose of the lesson: "To encourage Church members to be good citizens by participating in government, obeying the law, and strengthening the community."

In short, I strive to teach to the purpose of a particular lesson and use the lesson manual as a loose outline of what I should try to cover that Sunday. Sometimes I bring in outside material. Recently, for example, I taught the lesson on correlation and read extensively on the subject in three different history books. I shared what I learned with my class because it supported the lesson's purpose: "To show class members that the Lord continues to guide the Church through revelation . . ." and because what I learned surprised me, a person who, prior to preparing for that lesson, was not a fan of correlation. Other times there are so many great scriptures to discuss that it doesn't make sense to me to go outside the lesson manual. But that's just me, the Mormon equivalent of Sam the American Eagle Muppet.

[gtaggart]

He didn't call you a muppet? He called the GA a muppet.

I understand why you think that. His referent was ambiguous at best. I was giving him the benefit of a doubt that he would never call an Apostle derogatory names. He just doesn't pay any attention to them if they try to tell him how to ride his hobby horse.

[toon]

It requires a certain audacious intellectual dishonesty to dismiss an apostle which has provided scriptural backing for his position. . .

I agree with Elder Oaks' point. However, I don't believe D&C 42 really supports that point.

[Zakuska]

I understand why you think that. His reference was ambiguous at best. I was giving him the benefit of a doubt that he would never call an Apostle derogatory names. He just doesn't pay any attention to them if they try to tell him how to ride his hobby horse.

Calling an Apsotle Sam the Eagle is derogitory? I have to admit, There's quite a few Apostles who speak at conference that more closely match Sam the eagle, but Id sooner take offense of Cinepro's depiction of SWK as yoda.

You guys need to chill out and quit getting your G's tied up in knots. Life is too short to be so serious all the time.

[Jeff K.]

Oh and you're just a pinacle of honesty and depths of intelecual knowledge and humility arnt you Jeff?

I raise honest points. Points that neither you nor Consig seem to have been able to answer. What does that say regarding your honesty in making such a charge? Feel free to respond and I will gladly retract my post and apologize.

The Lord next proceeds to indicate what he expects his authorized ministers to teach:

[Jeff K.]

Calling an Apsotle Sam the Eagle is derogitory? Theres quite a few Apostles who speak at conference that more closely match Sam the eagle and his droaning. I have to admit.

Id sooner take offense of Cinepro's depiction of SWK as yoda.

You guys need to chill out and quit getting your G's tied up in knots. Life too short to be so serious all the time.

Chill out? Yes, how very high school of you.

Feel free to raise valid points, we will be waiting.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 07:36 PM, said:

It requires a certain audacious intellectual dishonesty to dismiss an apostle which has provided scriptural backing for his position. . .

I agree with Elder Oaks' point. However, I don't believe D&C 42 really supports that point.

Perhaps, but I also raised points by another General Authority which used other scriptures.

[littlechild]

lol sadly none of them have an advanced degree in biology. Why trust a critique on the subject, if they never fully understood it in the first place?

His math is flawed because he is using assuming a random selection process. Evolution relies on cumulative selection.

This totally changes everything. Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" deals with chance quite nicely. I will fully admit that I have only read Dembski's work, and not Meyers.

You're just flat out wrong on this issue. He doesn't 'assume random selection' . Of COURSE cumulative selection is much more plausible than random selection, but that's saying nothing at all. Cumulative selection is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve and is what Meyers is referring to.

And the Blind Watchmaker is as full of philosophical and mathematical absurdities as you are about Meyer's position. Maybe you should read and understand the opposing view BEFORE you attack it, what do you say?

Unless you LIKE standing up straw men and knocking them down for the entertainment of the viewers.

Not only that but many biological functions come as complete systems, such as the endocrine system, and CANNOT have evolved piecemeal. They require all components to be functional within a single lifespan. Such as the thyroid, which I've mentioned before and which no one, including you, have been able to explain.

It's simply not plausible that a thyroid - essential to life - can have developed piece by cumulative piece over eons - it's a complete package. As is the DNA - rDNA relationship. One can't exist without the other - they rely on each other to be functional at all.

But I fear you are too full of propaganda to understand and think about all of this.

[Zakuska]

Chill out? Yes, how very high school of you.

Feel free to raise valid points, we will be waiting.

Who peed in your wheeties jeff?

Acting a little grammer schoolish today huh? You might as well go through over the swing set while your at it.

[Jeff K.]

Who peed in your wheeties jeff?

Acting a little grammer schoolish today huh? You might as well go through over the swing set while your at it.

..... still waiting

[Zakuska]

I raise honest points. Points that neither you nor Consig seem to have been able to answer. What does that say regarding your honesty in making such a charge? Feel free to respond and I will gladly retract my post and apologize.

Ensign January 1974

Now there hasn't really been a response to the point I raised, only that I should not have raised that point.

Students like candy, its fun, indeed many people like candy because it gives you a momentary rush or sugar high. It doesn't last long though, and it certainly isn't a good foundation for life, and when there is work to be done, candy doesn't quite cut it. The gospel isn't candy, it is truth, and its foundation is sure. The truths it speaks to are not the philosophies of men and the theories of men, they are the spiritual essences of Eternal Life and building blocks for our return to Heavenly Father, how we can, as a people, gain greater light and knowledge as to God's will for man.

And there has been absolutely no response on such salient points. Beyond some drive by's by Consig (one supposes that is his intellectual retort?), there really hasn't been anything to show that perhaps I have taken the article, the general authority, the scripture or any of the references out of context.

It is not about Consig so much as his teaching method and what, why he chooses to use as I would call "the philosophies of man mingled with scripture", rather than adhering to the more important truths. Entire books are written on the subject matter by prophets and apostles, tons of references are found, and yet, evolution is more important and more pertinant to Gospel Doctrine than all those other sources?

I still haven't heard a clear reply.

So is it simply the tactic of drive by's that seem to be what these people call intelelctual rigor?

1974 ? Come on jeff thats a little dated wouldn't you say?

[Zakuska]

..... still waiting

Im waiting for the swing set to fall and for you to finish your trantrum, and to quit dropping BOM epithests of baseles buildings.

[Jeff K.]

1974 ? Come on jeff thats a little dated wouldn't you say?

Oh, you mean like the Bible and Book of Mormon?

Your point is irrelevant.

[littlechild]

lol sadly none of them have an advanced degree in biology. Why trust a critique on the subject, if they never fully understood it in the first place?

His math is flawed because he is using assuming a random selection process. Evolution relies on cumulative selection.

This totally changes everything. Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" deals with chance quite nicely. I will fully admit that I have only read Dembski's work, and not Meyers.

A degree confers no special infallibility clause.

Natural selection can't "create" anything:

But to refer to the power of natural selection by appealing to the course of evolution is a little like confirming a story in the New York Times by reading it twice.

http://www.discovery.org/a/130

An algorithm called "Face Prints," for example, has been designed to enable crime victims to identify their attackers. The algorithm runs through hundreds of facial combinations (long hair, short hair, big nose, wide chin, moles, warts, wens, wrinkles) until the indignant victim spots the resemblance between the long-haired, big-nosed, wide-chinned portrait of the perpetrator and the perpetrator himself.

It is the presence of the human victim in this scenario that should give pause. What is he doing there, complaining loudly amid those otherwise blind forces? A mechanism that requires a discerning human agent cannot be Darwinian. The Darwinian mechanism neither anticipates nor remembers. It gives no directions and makes no choices. What is unacceptable in evolutionary theory, what is strictly forbidden, is the appearance of a force with the power to survey time, a force that conserves a point or a property because it will be useful. Such a force is no longer Darwinian. How would a blind force know such a thing? And by what means could future usefulness be transmitted to the present?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 08:04 PM, said:

..... still waiting

Im waiting for the swing set to fall and for you to finish your trantrum, and to quit dropping BOM epithests of baseles buildings.

This is your best counterpoint? Again, its not just me, but several people who have raised points that neither you nor consig seem able to answer. If you cannot answer it, then just admit it and move on, otherwise you prove how little you really know, and how small you really are.

Accusing someone who has raise a legitimate point of having a tantrum is really just a reflection of your own lack of depth in dealing with the question.

[Zakuska]

Oh, you mean like the Bible and Book of Mormon?

Your point is irrelevant.

Irrelevant for those who with a scorning finger point at others not realizing they have 3 fingers of their own pointed directly back at them.

When was the last time you taught the perfect lesson?

This is your best counterpoint? Again, its not just me, but several people who have raised points that neither you nor consig seem able to answer. If you cannot answer it, then just admit it and move on, otherwise you prove how little you really know, and how small you really are.

Yep theres tha Ramiumtum raising its ugly head in the church once again.

I know more than God himself Neenere nennere. Im bigger and better than you and consig put together.

Jeff. Get over yourself. Ill bow out now.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 08:06 PM, said:

Oh, you mean like the Bible and Book of Mormon?

Your point is irrelevant.

Irrelevant for those who with a scorning finger point at others not realizing they have 3 fingers of their own pointed directly back at them.

Lets look at what you wrote....

Jeff K., on 15 December 2009 - 07:58 PM, said:

I raise honest points. Points that neither you nor Consig seem to have been able to answer. What does that say regarding your honesty in making such a charge? Feel free to respond and I will gladly retract my post and apologize.

Ensign January 1974

Now there hasn't really been a response to the point I raised, only that I should not have raised that point.

Students like candy, its fun, indeed many people like candy because it gives you a momentary rush or sugar high. It doesn't last long though, and it certainly isn't a good foundation for life, and when there is work to be done, candy doesn't quite cut it. The gospel isn't candy, it is truth, and its foundation is sure. The truths it speaks to are not the philosophies of men and the theories of men, they are the spiritual essences of Eternal Life and building blocks for our return to Heavenly Father, how we can, as a people, gain greater light and knowledge as to God's will for man.

And there has been absolutely no response on such salient points. Beyond some drive by's by Consig (one supposes that is his intellectual retort?), there really hasn't been anything to show that perhaps I have taken the article, the general authority, the scripture or any of the references out of context.

It is not about Consig so much as his teaching method and what, why he chooses to use as I would call "the philosophies of man mingled with scripture", rather than adhering to the more important truths. Entire books are written on the subject matter by prophets and apostles, tons of references are found, and yet, evolution is more important and more pertinant to Gospel Doctrine than all those other sources?

I still haven't heard a clear reply.

So is it simply the tactic of drive by's that seem to be what these people call intelelctual rigor?

1974 ? Come on jeff thats a little dated wouldn't you say?

Now, you stated it was "dated"? Care to explain how it is "dated"? Or do you belief some truths become outdated? Is the Book of Mormon outdated? Perhaps the reference to the Doctrine and Covenants are "out dated"? Remember you are the person who implied that somehow my use of the talk is outdated. Since you made the statement, can you explain yourself or are you simply not able to respond since you cannot conceive of something that is "outdated"?

So your continued non sequitir exposes that maybe you are out of your depth? Of course I will gladly hear what information you can exchange that shows my quote is "outdated", or perhaps the other quotes are incorrect or taken out of context.

Otherwise it would appear you haven't really shown much in the way of thoughtful interchange and it would you yourself and not I who is childish and unwilling to concede that maybe you are wrong to have been so flippant when a valid point is raised?

[toon]

Perhaps, but I also raised points by another General Authority which used other scriptures.

I don't see this particular lesson as involving "philosophies of men mingled with scripture." The point, as I understand it, was that the Church has no offical position on evolution -- that it's a big tent with room for members who believe in it and those who don't. While Consig's position on evolution can be inferred, it wasn't the point of the lesson. I just don't see how the lesson can be characterized as a "philosophy of man," especialy given President McKay's statement on the issue.

The only "sin" I see is that the lesson was outside the manual. That his bishop apparently isn't trying to reign him in means it's fine with me.

[Jeff K.]

Toon, I don't see a big difference between our two stances.

Allow me to explain:

A lazy teacher seeks to tittilate for the basic reason that tittilation is easier than research and approach. It is easy to toss out something controversial in order to avoid seeking inspiration or an inspiring approach in which key issues of implementaion of our doctrine are explained and steps to internalize that doctrine are taken. In one you help the knowledge grow within the individual, you guide them to a greater light and understanding. In the other you offer cotton candy entertainment in order to push buttons, but you don't really help them see more clearly, or create in them a desire to know more depth.

I view evolution as being a philosophy of man, not as an ephemeral muse, or wishful thinking, but as hard science. Philosophy in its original original characterization (even unto Joseph Smith's time) it meant, not simply philosophy in the sense that we understand it, but as the understanding of the principle causes and principles of the universe viewed through physical (not spiritual) observation. Evolution, which I think is highly likely with some nuanced positions within the framework, is a philosophy of man. When one uses "philosophies of men, mingled with scriptures", one creates a stance in which the importance of the philosophy overshadows the scripture.

The original posts dealt with the focus (as does the title) upon the philosophy of man, with little or no thought to the scripture being taught. Indeed, it appeared that we had to wait several pages before the teacher even let us know which lesson he was teaching. It is one thing to "mention" evolution, it is another to focus on it, and then use scriptures to gild the point, rather than stick with the importance of the lesson.

[toon]

I agree that evolution can be rightly characterized as a philosophy of man, along side relativity and quantum mechanics. Other than learning about the beauty of nature, etc., I don't see anything necessarily spiritually uplifting or faith promoting in those topics. It would be inappropriate to have a sunday school lesson teaching them.

However, I think the point Consig was making is appropriate and can see many instances where it would fit in nicely with stated goals in the manual. The only issue I see is whether the point, in and of itself, is appropriate for an entire lesson, especially when it comes at the expense of one of the actual lessons in the manual. But again, that's an issue for Consig's bishop. I would certainly prefer sitting through one of his lessons than many of the dry readings that sometimes pass as lessons in my ward.

On a separate note, I don't think Consig is being lazy. You and I may disagree, but I don't see enough to indicate tht he is not sincerely trying to fulfill his calling. I do agree that teaching an engaging lesson from the manual, and meeting the manual's stated goals, is often more difficult and challenging than teaching the topic of one's choice.

[Mordecai]

I agree that evolution can be rightly characterized as a philosophy of man, along side relativity and quantum mechanics

I would put it alongside Newtonian physics, as it is true but not universally. It can't change body plans, as far as anyone can tell. Microevolution also results in decreases in complexity. Not likely to be a means to produce any complexity at all.

[Jeff K.]

I agree that evolution can be rightly characterized as a philosophy of man, along side relativity and quantum mechanics

ditto on those points.

It isn't the mechanics we are studying in gospel doctrine, it is the doctrine of why, not how. That was my take on it.

[Zakuska]

Jeff,

If we are suposed to be teaching the basics we shouldn't even have a manual at all.

1) Since the Manual is extra-scriptural by definition

2) Heck we could elliminate the NT all together since Christ never endoresed it as scripture.

Riddle me this Jeff...

Why is it OK for Apostles to Quote CS Lewis in General Conference? Heck... Paul himself quoted Pagan poets and that made it into the scriptures? Why can they realy on extra scriptural material and its taboo for the rank and file to stray from the instruction manual?

Like I said... its attitudes such as yours that make me dread teaching in church. There is a wealth of greate material out there there I could use in my leasons to make them more intresting, but Since the ward I come from is 80% retierees and most of them are in the habit of not reading the leason before hand, I, 95% of the time read the lesson word for word, or have some one in the class read a paragraph or two. Rarely rellying on anything else for fear that some one such as yourself will run to the Bishop and complain that Im not sticking to the manual strictly enough.

[HiJolly]

Perhaps some teachers are incapable of making gospel truths intersting or important? It is so easy to fall back on gossip, rumor and speculation. It requires talent and learning and more than a little knowledge teach the gospel properly with the respect accorded to eternal truths that led us through the atonement and hopefully Eternal Life.

Well, Consig seems to always make it interesting, and I'll bet his students *think* more about the scriptures and the Gospel thanks to his teaching approach.

I may not be as good as Consig, but I also teach GD adult class, and I take every chance I get (almost) to bring in concepts and examples that illustrate the lesson objectives in ways that keep the gray cells moving. I have had many class members thank me for my 'style' of teaching. I have had a High Council member in my ward comment to me that some point I gave emphasis to (in this case, members obtaining temple recommends) in class was exactly what the Stake President has been teaching the Bishops and HC members. GASP. It wasn't in the manual, but I guarantee you it was on topic nonetheless.

I can see how Consig's lesson was on topic. AND something to get the members actually *thinking*.

Bravo, Consig.

HiJolly