WalkerW Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 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.Richard Dawkins actually devotes a good amount of time explaining the therm theory in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, 2009). For religion and evolution, seeKenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Cliff Street Books, 1999).Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation and also recently edited Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith (HarperOne, 2010).Simon Conway Morris, "Evolution and the Inevitability of Intelligent Life" in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010) as well as his 2005 Boyle Lecture entitled "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation."
mfbukowski Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Unfounded beliefs can be dangerous to an individual and to society at large. When beliefs are based on imagination only, with no objective evidence and therefore no connection to reality, and then built upon with more unfounded beliefs, one result turns out to be cults such as the Branch Dividians, Scientology, Heavens Gate, etc. The core beliefs of these groups of people are strongly held in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the individuals involved often suffer because their beliefs do not allow full participation in society at large. In some cases these unfounded beliefs result in increased morbidity and mortality among members of the cult or religious organization. Such was the case with Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones People's Temple (both near 100% mortality) and the David Koresh Branch Dividians. Increased risk of death and disease continues today within Christian Science (unfounded belief in healing by prayer only) and certain sub-populations in both the Mormon Church (unfounded and severe religious discrimination against homosexuals) and Catholic Church (poor men and women in Africa from AIDS because of unfounded belief that God does not condone the use of condoms).Not a good argument.The problem is that one man's "evidence" is always debatable by someone else.Every war which was ever waged was based on someone's concept of "evidence". Alleged evidence is always subject to interpretation. The Third Reich was not based on "unfounded belief" but "evidence" which turned out to be (oops!) false- or more accurately, misinterpretations of evidence.Surely you are not saying that if religion ceased tomorrow and everything was based on science, all war would cease- are you??Hitler's invasion of Poland was based on his interpretation (probably self-created) of the "evidence"; our use of the bomb in Hiroshima was based on "evidence" that it would end the war, and the invasion of Iraq was based on alleged "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction.Yes people have done bad things in the name of religion- but by that logic we should NOT live by "evidence" either because it has caused so much evil in the world.Now, as I asked originally, what is your "evidence" that we should live only by "evidence"?As I said earlier, I am positive you do not follow this maxim in your own life- yet you try to impose it on others.What evidence do you have for most decisions in your life which are based on feelings? What evidence do you have for your weekend destinations? Vegas or Paris? What evidence do you have for the choice between steak and chicken? Rice or pilaf? Baked or mashed?What evidence do you have for getting up in the morning and doing what makes your life meaningful? Surely it IS meaningful to you?And what evidence made you decide what was in fact meaningful for you? Physics or Biology? Math or Chemistry? Teaching or research?This woman or that one?
cinepro Posted March 2, 2011 Author Posted March 2, 2011 I believe that the Soviet Union was following our space program very closely. They would also be highly motivated to discredit us if possible. If the Moon landing was a hoax (and they would have the technology to know this), the Soviets have most certainly discovered it and made it public.That is a very important point.A simple way to look at it is to realize that a successful moon mission requires just three things:1. The technology and knowledge to get there.2. The resources to get there (i.e. $$$)3. The will to get there.At any time in history, you can look at a civilization and ask "Why didn't they go to the moon?" and the answer will be that they lacked at least one of those three things. For any current country, you can ask why they don't go to the moon, and it will be because they lack at least one of those three things.For example, the USA doesn't go to the moon today because we lack the will. But we have the technology and the resources. But if someone wants me to believe the USA didn't successfully execute six moon missions between 1969 and 1972, they need to explain which of those three things we didn't have. We certainly had the to get there. We allocated the money to do it (no one doubts that we built the infrastructure and vehicles and paid the personnel). And we had the technology to do it (how we did it is no longer a secret; every step of the missions and their technical execution have been well documented).The USA sent men to the moon (and returned them) because we could and because we wanted to. And we didn't fake it because we didn't have to.
frankenstein Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 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.as for the his statement:Man will never get into space.man will never go to the moon. Those are definitive statements. trying to explain them away as a matter of "context" is just incredulous when the statements are very clear.
Jason Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 as for the his statement:Man will never get into space.man will never go to the moon. Those are definitive statements. trying to explain them away as a matter of "context" is just incredulous when the statements are very clear.I suppose if you don't want to understand what he was saying and why you don't have to look at where and when he was saying it.
BCSpace Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Those are definitive statements. trying to explain them away as a matter of "context" is just incredulous when the statements are very clear.Definitive.......as to what?
frankenstein Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Definitive.......as to what? not too many things are more definitive of something NEVER occurring than "man will never".the most thoughtful responses I have read so far on the interwebs, is that the Prophet spoke his opinion or The Prophet never made the statement in the first place, as no one seems have the source.
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 If a Prophet were stating Doctrine, why would the Prophet make a statement that, on its face, was not true?Because he was mistaken?
Calm Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 ------------------the most thoughtful responses I have read so far on the interwebs, is that the Prophet spoke his opinion or The Prophet never made the statement in the first place, as no one seems have the source.Following the Apollo moon landings and the death of President David O. McKay, President Smith became president of the Church. At a press conference following his assumption of Church leadership, he was asked by a reporter about this statement. President Smith replied: Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?[2] http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Man_would_not_land_on_the_moon
Rivers Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 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. Evolution is not anti-religious. It is non-religious. Once you start using God as an explanation for things in science, it isn't science anymore. From everything I've studied about evolution, to me it doesn't seem flawed. It makes perfect sense based on the data that has been collected over time. The majority of credible scientists disagree with you. You don't have the credentials to be saying that evolution is flawed.
Rivers Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 The March 2011 "New Era" magazine (published by the Church for teenage Church members) includes a condensed version of a talk given by President Joseph Fielding Smith in 1953. The talk was entitled "Entangled Yourselves not in Sin", and the article in the New Era is titled "Be Not Deceived".Does anyone have access to the original version of this talk? I have seen the talk referenced as an instance of President Smith's anti-evolution teachings, and while the condensed version still carries undertones of anti-scientism, I'm wondering what the original talk said.I'm surprised that this was in the New Era. It is obviously talking about evolution. The church has been backing off from this subject. I think the church is worried that a belief in evolution would be a slippery slope to atheism. The most common approach the church has been taking to this issue is putting evolution on what was referred to as the shelf of mysteries.
thesometimesaint Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 LDS Guy 1986:If you have to appeal to your religion to support your science it is no longer science.
BCSpace Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Definitive.......as to what?not too many things are more definitive of something NEVER occurring than "man will never".the most thoughtful responses I have read so far on the interwebs, is that the Prophet spoke his opinion or The Prophet never made the statement in the first place, as no one seems have the source. The reason I ask is because you don't seem to be refering to a doctrinal work. It takes all 15 prophets and apostles to make doctrine. And so these statements don't seem to define anything LDS must believe or take into account. In other words, they probably aren't definitive in any important sense.
thesometimesaint Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Rivers:All it takes is a few science classes at BYU. Evolution is taught there.
T-Shirt Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Because he was mistaken?A close friend in my ward was in a Stake Conference, presided over by Joseph Fielding Smith, shortly after the first moon landing. Someone asked him about this very matter and his response, with a twinkle in his eye, was, "Well, I was wrong." That, pretty much, put an end to the matter and no one seemed too bothered by it.Best,T-Shirt
cinepro Posted March 3, 2011 Author Posted March 3, 2011 LDS Guy 1986:If you have to appeal to your religion to support your science it is no longer science.Sure, but is that a problem for LDS Guy 1986, or is it a problem for science?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.