Anti-Evolutionism in "The New Era"?

[David T]

evolution is the result of anti-religion group think. They want to disprove the existence of an intelligent creator so bad that they only look for reason why he cannot exist.

It has nothing at all to do with learning from observations concerning biology, variations within species,etc. Nothing at all. All about Killing Religion.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

Before you make such broad generalization of the science behind evolution. I suggest that you learn what evolution actually is.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

This video is actually not bad, I never said I am against evolution. I accept natural and artificial selection (as I stated previously) what I deny is that all life came from evolution. Life was created by God and evolved from that point forward, this video is not really a evolution video as much as a selective breeding video.

The Theory of Evolution (as taught in the High Schools and Universities I have attended) is distinctively and permenately based in the preconceived notion that all life on Earth came from one prime organism some single celled life form and evolved from there, that this life form arrived here through chance not intelligent design.

This is what religion rejects, this is a false preconceived notion that some have and twist the truths of evolution to fit there preconceived design. The data tend to point (especially the mathematical probabilities) point more towards an Intelligent Design model instead of an Theory of Evolution model of creation.

When one removed the preconceived notions about evolution as the sources of all life on this planet it is a reasonable theory, as this person presented it.

You know though that this film isn't being 100% truthful with the viewer though cause evolutionist do claim that all life was created by complete chance and by a process of evolution developed into complex organisms like man, that we come from one unknown single celled common ancestor who was from some primordial goo by dumb luck.

This is sugar coated to trick the unknowing into thinking evolution (as put forward by the Theory of Evolution by the academia) is not what it really is.

[LDS Guy 1986]

It has nothing at all to do with learning from observations concerning biology, variations within species,etc. Nothing at all. All about Killing Religion.

Yes it is about killing religion, as the widest accepted version that all life came from one (unknown) organism and that all species are related and evolved from one common ancestor. This is a blatant attack on religion by a biased and unscientific academia, they refuse to listen to any evidence against and regularly punish and/or throw out any who try and spread such ideas.

Here is a great video about this:

[Walden]

Any evidence or data that supports Intelligent Design is tossed out and only the data that supports the academias views (academia is predominately very liberal and very hostile towards all faiths IMO) that there cannot be a God. If you have the answer you want and then form the data to fit you answer that is not science my friend.

I would love to see the objective "evidence or data that supports Intelligent Design"...can you provide some links?

And yes, you are correct when you state that "If you have the answer you want and then form the data to fit your answer that is not science my friend,"....no, that is generally the realm of religion.

[David T]

Yes, as the widest accepted version that all life came from one (unknown) organism and that all species are related and evolved from one common ancestor. This is a blatant attack on religion by a biased and unscientific academia, they refuse to listen to any evidence against and regularly punish and/or throw out any who try and spread such ideas.

Here is a great video about this:

So, even if all life on earth did have its start with single mutating cell, does that preclude to you the possibility that the conditions for its placement, development and expansion into all forms of life were not initially inherently programmed, overseen, calculated, and then set in motion by an Outside Source?

I'm not declaring that this is my position on the subject, but I don't see how this in any way precludes a benevolent Planner/Organizer/Overseer.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I would love to see the objective "evidence or data that supports Intelligent Design"...can you provide some links?

Here is the Wikipedia page, I am sure it is full of information and links if you actually seek to look into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And yes, you are correct when you state that "If you have the answer you want and then form the data to fit your answer that is not science my friend,"....no, that is generally the realm of religion.

Do you really think that the scientific establishment is any more accepting of outside opinions than the religious world?

If you do then you put more blind faith in science and academia than I have ever put into God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

So, even if all life on earth did have its start with single mutating cell, does that preclude to you the possibility that the conditions for its placement, development and expansion into all forms of life were not initially inherently programmed, overseen, calculated, and then set in motion by an Outside Source?

I'm not declaring that this is my position on the subject, but I don't see how this in any way precludes a benevolent Planner/Organizer/Overseer.

This is not what ToE is arguing though it argues that life has no intelligent design as it is taught in the classroom and used in the academic world.

The point is Evolution as taught and held in the academic world is against Intelligent Design, so I am against Evolution since it is a political gimmic of fascist professors instead of the result of actual academic research.

They use the scientific knowledge that things adapt to there environment and twist it to attack the idea that life is created not caused by accident.

They pervert science when they do this, this is why religion is rightfully against the false teachings of evolution.

[BCSpace]

Life was created by God and evolved from that point forward,

I agree. But I certainly don't accept Intelligent Design which is just Creationism repackaged and I've never seen anyone come up with anything scientific to discredit evolution. However, I am more interested with how Evolution does or does not fit with LDS doctrine. It seems that it's not difficult at all to envision a senario in which it fits perfectly.

this video is not really a evolution video as much as a selective breeding video.

Then it does not seem that you have actually watched it, especially since it addressed your first phrase I quoted in this post. Evolution does not attempt to explain cosmosgenesis or abiogenesis and therefore, it does not preclude God. It also does not preclude God's hand during and all throughout the process either.

Do you really think that the scientific establishment is any more accepting of outside opinions than the religious world?

If you do then you put more blind faith in science and academia than I have ever put into God.

My experience has been that science is quite accepting of that which can be demonstrated. In things where evidence may be lacking and demonstrations hard to come by, there is going to be as much resistence there as you'll find anywhere else. For example, scientists are in disagreement as to how much and to what extent is there (and when was) water on Mars. The problem with Creationism is that the use of the scientific method is generally not evident and that handicaps it from the get go.

[thesometimesaint]

From your link: "intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3] It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.[4] Its leading proponents

[David T]

This is not what ToE is arguing though it argues that life has no intelligent design as it is taught in the classroom and used in the academic world.

No, the Theory of Evolution is completely agnostic. It makes no declarations either way. It strives to understand the process based on observed natural law as much as possible, and does not stop with a 'God must have done it' explanation for roadblocks. The more we can learn about Natural Law, to me, the more we can learn about how God - the ultimate Scientist - works.

[Walden]

Here is the Wikipedia page, I am sure it is full of information and links if you actually seek to look into it.

http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

Do you really think that the scientific establishment is any more accepting of outside opinions than the religious world?

If you do then you put more blind faith in science and academia than I have ever put into God.

I looked at the Wiki page and found that much of the information contained there was related to neo-creation theories that I have reviewed in the past. I don't know how "scientific" these theories are, or whether it is science at all.....most of it appears to be metaphysical philosophy and conjecture. If you look into the actual theories, you will see that many of them arise from a misrepresentation of actual circumstances or even the misapplication of scientific law (such as the faulty premise in using the second law of thermodynamics to prove creationism).

I do think that the scientific estalishment is more accepting of opinions than the religious world....as long as those opinions are supported by objective and sound evidence. If one can produce credible data and facts, rather then opinion or "metaphysical philosophy," then I think that the scientific world will give you your due. Yes, there are some bad, dogmatic scientists out there, but tehy are the exception and not the rule.

And I highly doubt that I put more blind faith into science than you have ever put into god....you believe in god despite credible, objective evidence. I believe in science because of credible, objective evidence....who is the blind one here?

[LDS Guy 1986]

From your link: "intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3] It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.[4] Its leading proponents

[LDS Guy 1986]

And I highly doubt that I put more blind faith into science than you have ever put into god....you believe in god despite credible, objective evidence. I believe in science because of credible, objective evidence....who is the blind one here?

There is no unbiased empirical evidence either way, the problem is people on both sides act like there is.

Through faith I know what is true to me, this is my truth and what I believe.

You have other beliefs and I respect that, the problem is you rather attack my beliefs as blind faith when you put twice as much blind faith into yours.

Numbers and observations can become just as twisted and manipulated by the biased eyes of man as scriptures and doctrine of God.

Neither of us is unbiased, the problem is that it appears that one of us assumes that they are unbiased when they really are (hint: I am not talking about me)

Added by Edit:

Also can I assume (by your ignoring the question I asked) that you do believe (incorrectly) that the scientific community is completely accepting of all valid results of experimentation regardless of how those results may or may not conflict with pre-accepted tenets of the scientific community?

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

So now you are telling me that I need to follow all the footnotes to an article you linked to. As I expect footnotes to support the body of a work, not contradict it. I've got a better idea. You tell me what you think your link means and I'll tell you what it says.

IE. "It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations". Creationism/ID is Anti-Science.

[zelder]

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds:

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

On 20 July 1969 U.S. Astronauts are first men to walk on moon.

When I first saw these quotes some time ago on an anti-mormon site I was very happy. It confirmed my new belief that the apollo moon landings were a hoax. I don't believe any mortal has ever set foot on the moon.

[David T]

When I first saw these quotes some time ago on an anti-mormon site I was very happy. It confirmed my new belief that the apollo moon landings were a hoax. I don't believe any mortal has ever set foot on the moon.

[mfbukowski]

Quote from 2002 Ensign Article:

44 Foxtrot said:

Please explain how the passage; "He {God} made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant --" is not anti-science and anti-evolution. If you really believe that this statement is not anti-science and anti-evolution, then you need to read more about science and evolution.

I really try to NOT comment on your posts because they are so simple-minded.

Suppose one were to believe that God works through evolution.

There goes that argument.

[Walden]

There is no unbiased empirical evidence either way, the problem is people on both sides act like there is.

Through faith I know what is true to me, this is my truth and what I believe.

You have other beliefs and I respect that, the problem is you rather attack my beliefs as blind faith when you put twice as much blind faith into yours.

Numbers and observations can become just as twisted and manipulated by the biased eyes of man as scriptures and doctrine of God.

Neither of us is unbiased, the problem is that it appears that one of us assumes that they are unbiased when they really are (hint: I am not talking about me)

I have no problem stating that I am biased...we all are to some extent. Regarding this particular topic, I am very biased against non-scientific approaches that argue against scientific evidence, I am biased against Bible-based mythology trumping scientific evidence and I am biased against those who try to pass off personal, religious belief as fact. So yes, especially in regard to a topic such as this, I am biased.

I'm not sure why you keep tracking to this "blind faith" tangent. I'm not sure how much you know about the scientific method, but it is not based in blind faith. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Of course data can be manipulated by man, but unless you believe in a world-wide conspiracy perpetrated by the global scientific community, then I'm not sure what you are arguing. Scientific discovery and experimentation does not occur in a vacuum.....when a claim is made, that claim is tested (using the scientific method) by independent reviewers before that claim is accepted as scientific law or truth. It would take one heck of a conspiracy to ensure that all scientists who conduct original experiments and make claims are in kahoots with verifying scientists who perform experiments to prove or disprove those claims.

[kolipoki09]

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Isn't that an odd statement considering Vostok 1 and Mercury-Redstone 3 had launched on April 12 and May 5 respectively, sending Yuri Gagarian and Alan Shepard into space a month previous to Smith's statement? Do you suppose he never read a newspaper, or is the transcript of the stake conference in error?

If I remember correctly, Mike Quinn mentioned the above quotes in Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, though Quinn had not mentioned that two manned spacecraft had launched previously

[Jason]

but aren't just making up words for a Prophet, or teaching your own opinion in place of what the Prophet actually stated?

Nope.

The context is that mankind is basically bound to this Earth. This is apparently true - no living man has gone beyond the orbit of the Moon, which itself orbits the Earth, no one has ever been born or died somewhere other than Earth (albeit some have died at a considerable altitude), and even the astronauts and cosmonauts who have put in years in space did it all in low Earth orbit, essentially at a high altitude.

On the day we establish a permanent self-sustaining colony on Mars or some other planet and people are born there - on that day he'll be proven wrong. If the Second Coming happens first then he'll have been right.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

I'm hardly what anyone would call an anti-Mormon. But I do allow all Gods children their own opinions. However silly they may be. There have been exactly 12 very mortal men on the moon, every one of them an American.

[mfbukowski]

He's just trolling as usual.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

So now you are telling me that I need to follow all the footnotes to an article you linked to. As I expect footnotes to support the body of a work, not contradict it. I've got a better idea. You tell me what you think your link means and I'll tell you what it says.

IE. "It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations". Creationism/ID is Anti-Science.

See you are mistaken here about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an open source, anyone can write whatever they want, so the sources do not necessarily reflect the article every time. The references and links could of been provided by a completely different person than who made the statements you disagree with in the article.

Steven Colbert calls this the "democracy of fact", just because the majority of the people (who I will assume in most cases are not scientist but regular joe's like me) feel that ID is XYZ doesn't mean that the experts feel the same way.

If fact if your accusation holds merit (I didn't read the article at all, I was just providing you the opportunity to show your hypocrisy by doing exactly what you did which is go after nit picking stupid stuff instead of openly read the thing) than I doubt that the professors who are the leading experts of the outcasts of academia who comprise the Intelligent Design community hold those beliefs since they are scientists and scholars.

Of course this requires actual research into the topic instead of stopping at the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article and writing it off (which is ironically is what academia does, it stops as soon as ID is mentioned as writes it off as stupid without ever looking at the data)

[Walden]

Nope.

The context is that mankind is basically bound to this Earth. This is apparently true - no living man has gone beyond the orbit of the Moon, which itself orbits the Earth, no one has ever been born or died somewhere other than Earth (albeit some have died at a considerable altitude), and even the astronauts and cosmonauts who have put in years in space did it all in low Earth orbit, essentially at a high altitude.

On the day we establish a permanent self-sustaining colony on Mars or some other planet and people are born there - on that day he'll be proven wrong. If the Second Coming happens first then he'll have been right.

Gosh, I only wish I were around a century or two from now, when Mars colonies have become a fact, to collect on this bet

[Jason]

Gosh, I only wish I were around a century or two from now, when Mars colonies have become a fact, to collect on this bet

Get used to disappointment.