Throwing science under the bus

[semlogo]

Thats a good scripture. I believe in science and in learning but I don't believe in evolution as a means by which an animal can (given enough time) morph into a totally different animal. Like say...a turtle evolving into a giraff.

Then say goodbye to these:

Evolution

Evolutionary biology

Evolutionary developmental biology

Paleobiology

Paleontology

Genetics

Genomics

Proteomics

Population genetics

Zoology

Abiogenesis

Paleontology

Biology

[ERayR]

Indeed. I think science will prove to be one of the greatest defenders of the Church and that includes evolution. We should embrace it as the scriptures encourage us to.

Maybe but I think it may depend on what you think the scriptures meant by a fall. To me a fall denotes a descent from a higher place but then I guess an upward fall is possible lacking sufficent gravity.

[zelder]

Maybe but I think it may depend on what you think the scriptures meant by a fall. To me a fall denotes a descent from a higher place but then I guess an upward fall is possible lacking sufficent gravity.

[Pahoran]

Semlogo,

from where I'm sitting, you appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to set up a rather elaborate straw man. Granted that there are one or two people who seem not to think much of C-14 dating, I still fail to see how this equates to "throwing science under the bus." Scientific opinions come and go, and methods gain and lose favour; how does rejecting one method or one opinion amount to rejecting vast swathes of scientific knowledge?

Then say goodbye to these:

Evolution

Evolutionary biology

Evolutionary developmental biology

Paleobiology

Paleontology

Genetics

Genomics

Proteomics

Population genetics

Zoology

Abiogenesis

Paleontology

Biology

Abiogenesis is a science?

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

[SilverKnight]

I feel Semlogo's pain.

Lately whenever there has been any sort of discussion on faith & science, some loud-mouthed fundamentalist blowhard come crashing into the discussion demanding that his way is God's way, and anyone who disagrees is a prophet-denying atheist.

These ogrish spectacles of stupidity are very frustrating for those of us who at least make an effort to harmonize faith with science.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Semlogo,

Abiogenesis is a science?

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

Good catch. Lol.

[thesometimesaint]

Not so much a "good catch.

http://search.incredimail.com/?q=Abiogenesis〈=english&source=017104051022105

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-?-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller

[zelder]

I feel Semlogo's pain.

Lately whenever there has been any sort of discussion on faith & science, some loud-mouthed fundamentalist blowhard come crashing into the discussion demanding that his way is God's way, and anyone who disagrees is a prophet-denying atheist.

These ogrish spectacles of stupidity are very frustrating for those of us who at least make an effort to harmonize faith with science.

I love science and I love the church. I love it when they harmonize together but when they don't harmonize I don't try to force it.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

While ultimately true religion and true science will be reconciled. No mere mortal knows enough about either to make that reconciliation happen any time soon.

[zelder]

zelder:

While ultimately true religion and true science will be reconciled. No mere mortal knows enough about either to make that reconciliation happen any time soon.

The way I see it is that if they don't harmonize someone is wrong (or lying). You have to give something up and its all a matter of who you believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

I don't have to give up anything. To me it all just shows Gods' great love and knowledge in making this beautiful world for me to come to and live on.

[SilverKnight]

The way I see it is that if they don't harmonize someone is wrong (or lying). You have to give something up and its all a matter of who you believe.

The problem is that science is allowed to be wrong.

Religion, Scriptures are Prophets are not (at least to fundamentalists).

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time - the problems vanish.

[Mark Beesley]

zelder:

While ultimately true religion and true science will be reconciled. No mere mortal knows enough about either to make that reconciliation happen any time soon.

Not so. True religion is and always has been reconciled to true science. The reconciliations that will never occur are:

1. True religion with faulty science;

2. True science with faulty religion;

3. Faulty religion with faulty science; and

4. True socialism with Droopy's world view.

[zelder]

The problem is that science is allowed to be wrong.

Religion, Scriptures are Prophets are not (at least to fundamentalists).

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time - the problems vanish.

Yes, I can agree with you on that observation. If you have a moderate level of trust in both then you can pick which parts fit together and which parts are rubbish. I have a high level of trust in the prophets and scriptures and a low level of trust in societies institutions and their leaders including education and science so naturally I disbelieve anything that contracts the scriptures.

[zelder]

Not so. True religion is and always has been reconciled to true science. The reconciliations that will never occur are:

1. True religion with faulty science;

2. True science with faulty religion;

3. Faulty religion with faulty science; and

4. True socialism with Droopy's world view.

I concure...

[44Foxtrot]

The problem is that science is allowed to be wrong.

Religion, Scriptures are Prophets are not (at least to fundamentalists).

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time - the problems vanish.

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time, they can be confident that science will eventually correct its mistakes as new and more reliable evidence becomes available. Furthermore, science will (generally) learn something from the mistakes made and be less likely to make similar mistakes again. Scientists do not claim absolute truth, and reserve the right to continue to question and refine knowledge. Such actions strengthen science.

In the case of religion, absolute truth is claimed by the religionist at the outset, and mistakes are generally ignored or covered up. If mistakes are ever recognized, acknowledged and corrected, such actions severely damage the credibility of the religion.

[SilverKnight]

I have a high level of trust in the prophets and scriptures and a low level of trust in societies institutions and their leaders including education and science so naturally I disbelieve anything that contracts the scriptures.

I appreciate your candor.

I think the problem is that even in our own faith, many people are unwilling to allow prophets and scripture to be wrong, on anything.

I have learned that many devoutly LDS are indeed Sola Scriptura literalists - even though our whole faith was founded on refuting that idea.

[zelder]

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time, they can be confident that science will eventually correct its mistakes as new and more reliable evidence becomes available. Furthermore, science will (generally) learn something from the mistakes made and be less likely to make similar mistakes again. Scientists do not claim absolute truth, and reserve the right to continue to question and refine knowledge. Such actions strengthen science.

In the case of religion, absolute truth is claimed by the religionist at the outset, and mistakes are generally ignored or covered up. If mistakes are ever recognized, acknowledged and corrected, such actions severely damage the credibility of the religion.

Yes but your argument assumes that everyone in science is pure in heart and only seeking the truth. I have come to the conclusion that science is bought and paid for and teaches the people what the owners want the people to believe. I do believe that the prophets are pure in heart or at least close to it and I know that God does not lie even if prophets are human and make mistakes.

[zelder]

I appreciate your candor.

I think the problem is that even in our own faith, many people are unwilling to allow prophets and scripture to be wrong, on anything.

I have learned that many devoutly LDS are indeed Sola Scriptura literalists - even though our whole faith was founded on refuting that idea.

What do you mean?

[SilverKnight]

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time, they can be confident that science will eventually correct its mistakes as new and more reliable evidence becomes available. Furthermore, science will (generally) learn something from the mistakes made and be less likely to make similar mistakes again. Scientists do not claim absolute truth, and reserve the right to continue to question and refine knowledge. Such actions strengthen science.

I agree.

In the case of religion, absolute truth is claimed by the religionist at the outset, and mistakes are generally ignored or covered up. If mistakes are ever recognized, acknowledged and corrected, such actions severely damage the credibility of the religion.

I would like to think religion is similarly self-correcting, but perhaps that is naive.

[SilverKnight]

What do you mean?

I mean the whole purpose for the Restoration was that Christianity had take an wrong turn, and the bible was wrong about many things (plain and precious things).

Yet a good number of mormons are surly fundamentalists who will call into question the faith of anyone who dares suggest the Genesis story was anything but historic fact.

In fact, the root cause of most apostasy is fundamentalist assumptions about church history, scripture, doctrine and leaders colliding with the facts.

[44Foxtrot]

I agree.

I would like to think religion is similarly self-correcting, but perhaps that is naive.

SilverKnight,

Thank you.

I wish the same as you.

Unfortunately, I do not see how it would ever be possible for the vast majority of religions, and especially for Mormonism.

[Pahoran]

SilverKnight,

Thank you.

I wish the same as you.

Unfortunately, I do not see how it would ever be possible for the vast majority of religions, and especially for Mormonism.

Is that because you don't think any Mormon teachings or practices have ever changed, or simply because it would cause you pain to see any good characteristics in Mormonism?

Regards,

Pahoran

[44Foxtrot]

Yes but your argument assumes that everyone in science is pure in heart and only seeking the truth. I have come to the conclusion that science is bought and paid for and teaches the people what the owners want the people to believe. I do believe that the prophets are pure in heart or at least close to it and I know that God does not lie even if prophets are human and make mistakes.

My assertion assumes that the majority of scientists, and those who are responsible for funding science, are basically honest people and have the best interest of science and their fellow man at heart. If these conditions exist then science can be self-correcting over the long haul, as I claim has been well demonstrated by history.

At the same time, religion cannot be self-correcting over the long haul. Religions are founded, eventually proven to be irrelevant and replaced with new ones, or new versions of the old ones. Thus we have the innumerable factions, breakaways, reform movements, restorations and "new" sects and cults that typify the history of religion. Over recorded history, there have been thousands of religions that were true by consensual validation, just as Mormonism is in your mind today. And humankind is probably fated to see many more.

[44Foxtrot]

Is that because you don't think any Mormon teachings or practices have ever changed, or simply because it would cause you pain to see any good characteristics in Mormonism?

Regards,

Pahoran

To answer your question, it is because religion claims to have absolute truth at the outset. Statements such as that of Joseph Smith claiming that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book ever written, or that a prophet of the Church can never lead the members of the Church astray, are typical of these claims to absolute truth. Once a church claims that its leaders are in direct contact with an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and never changing supreme being, they de facto (and often overtly) claim access to absolute truth.

When they are finally forced by to admit that they were wrong (or to claim that God had somehow changed his unchanging mind regarding a specific matter) the credibility of the religion is damaged. Members must now apply an extra dose of rationalization or self-delusion to continue in the belief their leaders really are in contact with an almighty, omnipotent and omniscient being.

As to any pain caused by acknowledging good done by the Mormon Church, I would say that there is not much pain because, on balance and relative to its resources, there is not much good done. When one looks at the resources of the Church and at how those resources are distributed and expended, one has to conclude that the Mormon Church could do a lot better in the world than it does. Over my lifetime I have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Church, and fully supported my three sons on full time missions. I now recognize these actions as mistakes and poor stewardship on my part. So I do not stand blameless in this matter.