Anti-Evolutionism in "The New Era"?

[cinepro]

Can you really not think of many other topics and philosophies that other Churches today are promoting and accepting today that are contrary to principles and doctrines of the Restored Gospel that don't have anything to do with the details of the formation of life on earth? Do you think that in context, with what was included in the reprinted article, Evolution would really be the first thing that comes to mind for the editors and modern readers as it is currently presented?

That's why I started this thread. My understanding of that article is overshadowed by my knowledge of the context in which the original talk was given. I'm curious what modern LDS teenagers might assume is being discussed.

And considering the anti-evolution stance consistently taken by The New Era in the past*, it's not impossible that even modern LDS teens would recognize it as the focus of the article.

*My Answer to Evolution, Thank You So Much, Feedback, Roots and Branches, The Magnificence of Man

[LDS Guy 1986]

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.

Look there is a trailer above about an excellent documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

IF you actually were here to discuss instead of troll, you would of watched the 7 mins trailer and seen how the academic and scientific community refuses to consider any data or evidence collected scientifically in support of Intelligent Design from accredited scholars, how these "scientists" openly admit that they will not listen to any arguments for Intelligent Design because they are right about this and everyone else is wrong no matter how much data and evidence they got.

Now I am not a scientist, I am a furniture delivery guy who took 1 year of college classes in 2007-2008, so I am not privy to all the data and evidence these scientist have. What I do know is that it is relevant data collected through the scientific method, published in respectable academic journals and the authors are punished for presenting scientific data to the world.

Science is no less flawed and hypocritic than religion, this is because men are hypocrites by nature, some believe in God some believe in science. Both are equally ignorant and foolish.

[kolipoki09]

It is against the flawed theory of organic evolution that states all live came from a single celled organism which somehow happened without any intelligent design (even though this is statistically impossible) and evolved over billions of years into many different creatures.

I take it you never took Science 101 at BYU. It'd be an eye-opener for you. But you're still a young guy (like me) and you still have time to reconsider. A scientific theory is not the same as what one typically thinks of (i.e. an educated guess) when we often think of the normal use of the word. It has to do with explanations of observations (laws). Evolution is therefore, also a law. The earth has had 4.6 billion years to form life, and to be frank, Expelled was a deeply flawed propaganda piece for I.D. that contradicts the overwhelming consensus of specialists in the fields in question.

[LDS Guy 1986]

A scientific theory is not the same as what one typically thinks of (i.e. an educated guess) when we often think of the normal use of the word. It has to do with explanations of observations (laws). Evolution is therefore, also a law.

Now only in the most arrogant of the arrogant in academia is a theory ever considered a law of nature.

We have a theory of evolution, and Newton's Laws of Motion, a law is as guaranteed as man can get, vetted for to the highest degree that science can. So supported, proven, and uncontroversial, that the only way that they can be wrong is if they nature of the universe as we know changes.

The fact that you consider theory as law smacks of so much arrogance that I know you really could use those courses at BYU than I do. (Plus I have never gone to BYU I attended Fitchburg State University (then called Fitchburg State College) in Fitchburg Massachusetts. See your assumptions and arrogance lead to a foot in the mouth! LOL

[LDS Guy 1986]

to be frank, Expelled was a deeply flawed propaganda piece for I.D. that contradicts the overwhelming consensus of specialists in the fields in question.

This sounds familiar! Oh wait let's change Expelled with any documentary that supports the BoM, and replace ID with Book of Mormon!

This is what we get: "to be frank, (Insert name of Pro-BoM documentary) was a deeply flawed propaganda piece for the Book of Mormon that contradicts the consensus of specialists in the fields in question."

This is the exact same thing I hear from all the Anti-Mormon haters about any evidence or documentary produced in defense of the BoM! Isn't that funny, when people hate something the use the exact same junk to attack it! Who would of thunk it! ROFL

[thesometimesaint]

Que the Twilight Zone music.

BTW. Outside the field of mathamatics theory is the highest explanation of a given event or process. IE It is the Law of Gravity(Gravity exists) AND Theory of Gravity(Why it exists).

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[frankenstein]

Nope.

The context is that mankind is basically bound to this Earth.

where are you getting the "context" from? I have searched for the full talk, but only the little blip comes up. So how can you say "context" when there is essentially none to be found?

[BCSpace]

And considering the anti-evolution stance consistently taken by The New Era in the past*, it's not impossible that even modern LDS teens would recognize it as the focus of the article.

*My Answer to Evolution, Thank You So Much, Feedback, Roots and Branches, The Magnificence of Man

Yet the interesting thing is that evolution itself is never actually addressed. Consider:

My Answer to Evolution: The context is an assumption that evolution precludes God.

Thank You So Much: Again, the context is the assumption that evolution proves that God does not exist.

Feedback: Here, even though the emphasis was on science, the phrase "as if it were a fact, not a theory" shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific definitions (theories don't exist without facts)

Roots and Branches: Evolution of course does not say that humans evolved from apes but again the erroneous assumption is that if they evolved from anything, they must not have been created by God in His image.

The Magnificence of Man: The doctrine being taught here is that "To me[Russel M Nelson], such theories are unbelievable!"; someone's opinion in other words and that someone shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge with his dictionary Big Bang example. Russell M. Nelson was been corrected in this by his junior companion on May 21 2007 in an interview with the Pew Forum. the transcript of which is no longer at present on the Church website, though they link to it and the link is broken.

The Church really has not addressed the issue for or against and that is in keeping with the Grant First Presidency statement.

[kolipoki09]

Now only in the most arrogant of the arrogant in academia is a theory ever considered a law of nature.

Thanks. You just made my sig line.

We have a theory of evolution, and Newton's Laws of Motion, a law is as guaranteed as man can get, vetted for to the highest degree that science can. So supported, proven, and uncontroversial, that the only way that they canbe wrong is if they nature of the universe as we know changes.

You're not getting it, so I'll simplify it.

A scientific law is an observation of nature which typically comes before a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is the explanation of the scientific law. It is not just an "educated guess" of how things might have happened. It is an explanation deeply rooted in empirical observations. In this sense, while there is a law of gravity, there is also a theory of gravity which is the explanation of said law.

The fact that you consider theory as law smacks of so much arrogance that I know you really could use those courses at BYU than I do. (Plus I have never gone to BYU I attended Fitchburg State University (then called Fitchburg State College) in Fitchburg Massachusetts. See your assumptions and arrogance lead to a foot in the mouth! LOL

I've taken Science 101 at BYU-Idaho. This is extremely basic material, all of which is covered within the first two days of class. This isn't arrogance, it's simple scholastic literacy. I know you didn't go to BYU, which is why I recommended it. Your blatant ad hominem is immature. BYU is always open to you.

[Jason]

where are you getting the "context" from? I have searched for the full talk, but only the little blip comes up. So how can you say "context" when there is essentially none to be found?

The context he spoke in - LDS doctrine at the time and in the present generally is that mankind is tied to the Earth during its mortal existence and that the faithful will receive the Earth (not Alpha Centauri III) as an inheritence. That would seem to preclude the possibility of extra-terrstrial colonies before the Second Coming, and is probably the basis of Pres. Smith's opinion.

[LDS Guy 1986]

terial, all of which is covered within the first two days of class. This isn't arrogance, it's simple scholastic literacy. I know you didn't go to BYU, which is why I recommended it. Your blatant ad hominem is immature. BYU is always open to you.

I have a family to feed so I will go to a school that is not on the other side of the nation, the arrogance of the statement is that as a Mormon I must of gone to BYU. BYU is one of thousands of reputable universities in the country. A Mormon family that demands there children go to BYU is a family of fools, you pick a school based on much deeper criteria then there religious affiliation.

[LDS Guy 1986]

A scientific theory is the explanation of the scientific law. It is not just an "educated guess" of how things might have happened. It is an explanation deeply rooted in empirical observations. In this sense, while there is a law of gravity, there is also a theory of gravity which is the explanation of said law.

Maybe BYU teaches things differently than the Massachusetts Public University (and School) System then, cause I have been taught that scientific theory is the best educated guess based on study and data, that it does change and will continue to change as new evidence and data is discovered through further experimentation.

A theory that is vetted to the point where there is little if any controversy or disagreement on it's basic principals is a scientific law, something that is considered universal and unchangeable as far as we can tell.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

I took my family to BYU in 1975. But I understand the necessity of doing what you feel best for them. Good luck in your studies. One of the more important things you will learn at whatever university you go to. Is the difference between a popularly held opinion and a scientific theory.

[kolipoki09]

This sounds familiar! Oh wait let's change Expelled with any documentary that supports the BoM, and replace ID with Book of Mormon!

This is what we get: "to be frank, (Insert name of Pro-BoM documentary) was a deeply flawed propaganda piece for the Book of Mormon that contradicts the consensus of specialists in the fields in question."

Actually, the comparison isn't even remotely valid, unless you're referring to this, in which I would wholeheartedly agree. For one, Expelled consisted largely of non-specialists who made claims about science that simply aren't true. If you have LDS archaeologists making empirical claims about the Book of Mormon, they deserve attention given that many of them are legitimate, recognized specialists within their fields. That is not to say that they've proven the Book of Mormon to be true via archeology. However, most documentaries produced by the Maxwell Institute have never received major academic attention outside LDS circles (unlike Expelled did in the scientific community). But, if you're wondering about the academic credentials of many of those associated with the Maxwell Institute (from a non-LDS academic perspective), you ought to consider this.

This is the exact same thing I hear from all the Anti-Mormon haters about any evidence or documentary produced in defense of the BoM! Isn't that funny, when people hate something the use the exact same junk to attack it! Who would of thunk it! ROFL

You've set up a false dichotomy here that fails to recognize the implications of either subject.

[semlogo]

I know the science behind evolution, I have taken high school and college biology courses. The science behind it is the most unscientific and flawed of any theory to date, 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.

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.

Academia is known for removing pro Intelligent Design professors, they will remove tenure, they will censure findings, and they will chase them out of the scholarly world. If you refuse to have facts determine what theories you accept then you cannot call yourself a scientist. The modern academia is not scientific, if you disagree with there fundamental values they excommunicate you in a heartbeat.

You're quite wrong - evolutionary biology is one of the strongest scientific disciplines. Intelligent design, however, does not even qualify as science, lacking falsifiability and predictive value.

[semlogo]

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:

I would suggest that if scientific facts "kill" your religion, it wasn't very worthwhile to begin with.

[kolipoki09]

I have a family to feed so I will go to a school that is not on the other side of the nation, the arrogance of the statement is that as a Mormon I must of gone to BYU. BYU is one of thousands of reputable universities in the country. A Mormon family that demands there children go to BYU is a family of fools, you pick a school based on much deeper criteria then there religious affiliation.

I'm not implying that you went to BYU, but as a Latter-day Saint you might be surprised what a Church-owned university actually teaches about evolution, which is dramatically different from what you've proposed here. You ought to pick what academic standards suit you, not merely because of religious affiliations (I never claimed otherwise). It's wonderful that you've got a family to feed (so do I and 30% of the BYU student body). I'm just saying, it can be done (at a remarkably affordable price compared to the "thousands of [other] reputable universities in the country.")

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

I took my family to BYU in 1975. But I understand the necessity of doing what you feel best for them. Good luck in your studies. One of the more important things you will learn at whatever university you go to. Is the difference between a popularly held opinion and a scientific theory.

Ok, now don't go taking what I said out of context, here.

I said I family that FORCES there children to go to BYU is fools (and this applies to all schools not just BYU), if children decided that BYU is the best fit for them then I am all for it but I that there is Mormon families that pressure children to go to BYU this is completely stupid IMO.

A Mormon University teaches the same math, english, and sceince that a non mormon university teaches, to expect someone to attend a specific university because it is affiliated with the church they attend is silly.

[semlogo]

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:

Right, just like round earth theory is an attack on the flat earth described by the Bible. Or Heliocentrism is an attack on the Bible's Geocentrism. Or meteorology is an attack on the Bible's clear statements that God controls the winds.

[kolipoki09]

Maybe BYU teaches things differently than the Massachusetts Public University (and School) System then, cause I have been taught that scientific theory is the best educated guess based on study and data, that it does change and will continue to change as new evidence and data is discovered through further experimentation.

A theory that is vetted to the point where there is little if any controversy or disagreement on it's basic principals is a scientific law, something that is considered universal and unchangeable as far as we can tell.

When exactly was the last time you took a science class?

Here's a little more of a supplement on what I've previously mentioned (given the limitations of Wikipedia in the first place).

[semlogo]

To this point no one has ever lived in space for more than a year or so, and the astronauts didn't stay on the moon for more than two or three days. So President Smith is pretty much correct - aside from some momentary forays we haven't gotten away from the Earth.

He didn't say anything about living in space - he said we'd never go there at all. He was wrong. It's okay to admit that.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Right, just like round earth theory is an attack on the flat earth described by the Bible. Or Heliocentrism is an attack on the Bible's Geocentrism.

That's funny I don't remember my Bible ever teaching that the Earth was flat! Guess it's out of date or something!

The Bible does teach that God created the beast of the Earth and that he made man in his image.

Evolution desires to say we are the descendant of a primordial goo phantom, so yeah it is a huge attack on the fundamental position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Also as far as your flat/round Earth stuff, even if the Bible did say this (which as far as I know it doesn't) that doesn't fundamentally change the Plan of Salvation, evolution does fundamentally change our plan of salvation.

Of all the Church's we are the most pro-scientific Church I know of, we accept that the Bible is not inerrant, so we tend to be more accepting of science knowing that the scriptures are not perfect, they were written by mortal men who made mistakes.

But that still doesn't mean we will toss overboard the core principals of our faith because some men say so.

Evolution is not nearly as "inerrant" as the proponents try and make it appear to be, the likely hood of life appearing without intelligent design is astronomically tiny.

So with such lacking evidence I don't see why anyone would expect someone to abandon what they believe to follow another theology that has little to no evidence regarding there claims of how life began on this planet.

If you expect me to change my core theology you got to do better than make up an impossible story and tell me it is the truth. You sound more like some of the Church's I was taken too a a child, those "believe because I say so" attitudes is what lead me to the eternal truths of the Restored Gospel, I would not leave because someone told me to (much to my fathers displeasure)

[LDS Guy 1986]

When exactly was the last time you took a science class?

Here's a little more of a supplement on what I've previously mentioned (given the limitations of Wikipedia in the first place).

There "source" for this statement you mention is some back water blog by some nobody with no expertise. Once again just because it is what most people want the facts to be doesn't make it so.

It is also a blog about how you cannot use theory as a reason to not follow evolution so the author is far from unbiased about the state of a theory.

Added by Edit:

2008 was my last science class, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, unless the scientific method has changed in the last 500 years give or take.

[semlogo]

That's funny I don't remember my Bible ever teaching that the Earth was flat! Guess it's out of date or something!

The Bible does teach that God created the beast of the Earth and that he made man in his image.

Evolution desires to say we are the descendant of a primordial goo phantom, so yeah it is a huge attack on the fundamental position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Also as far as your flat/round Earth stuff, even if the Bible did say this (which as far as I know it doesn't) that doesn't fundamentally change the Plan of Salvation, evolution does fundamentally change our plan of salvation.

Of all the Church's we are the most pro-scientific Church I know of, we accept that the Bible is not inerrant, so we tend to be more accepting of science knowing that the scriptures are not perfect, they were written by mortal men who made mistakes.

But that still doesn't mean we will toss overboard the core principals of our faith because some men say so.

Evolution is not nearly as "inerrant" as the proponents try and make it appear to be, the likely hood of life appearing without intelligent design is astronomically tiny.

So with such lacking evidence I don't see why anyone would expect someone to abandon what they believe to follow another theology that has little to no evidence regarding there claims of how life began on this planet.

If you expect me to change my core theology you got to do better than make up an impossible story and tell me it is the truth. You sound more like some of the Church's I was taken too a a child, those "believe because I say so" attitudes is what lead me to the eternal truths of the Restored Gospel, I would not leave because someone told me to (much to my fathers displeasure)

Evolution changes absolutely nothing about the plan of salvation. Sin exists no matter what the "origin of species" and must be atoned for.

The ancient Hebrews had no idea the earth was round - they thought of the earth as flat, on pillars, and covered by a hard dome called the firmament - sort of like a biodome.

There is no serious doubt whatsoever that evolution in fact occurs. Evolution is a fact. How evolution works is subject to revision.

[semlogo]

Not according to these people:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

I work with several people who whole heartedly believe man has never made it to the moon, they talk of Hollywood sets and how Google Earth has not images of the lunar landers or the flag planted by Armstrong.

Personally after working for the US Government for 8 years in the Army, I doubt that they have the common sense to fake something like this, it would require too many people to make the hoax beleiveable and the US Government can barely keep it's highest secret from being leaked, something of this scale would of leaked back in the 1960's IMO

Gotta love conspiracy theorists. The moon landing is a hoax. Evolutionary biology is a conspiracy to destroy religion. LOL.