Man, The lineal and literal offspring of deity

[LDS Guy 1986]

I'm joining this discussion late. However, I am concerned that a number of posters have stated that evolution is a fact. It is not.

I work as a scientist and can confirm that evolution has never been observed and is therefore not an observable fact. It is therefore a belief. It may be that a person believes in it because of the weight of evidence, or because of the interpretation of that evidence; but in pure scientific terms it is not a proven fact and is therefore not a fact (scientifically).

My own view is that evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by.

Now, Alan if they didn't say it was a fact, they said is was a FACT!!!!

How do you as a learned scholar of science, dare disagree with the Cap Lock? (LOL)

[LDS Guy 1986]

Yeah, a picture is nothing we need fossils, anyone can draw that thing. Heck I could draw it too, it just wouldn't look as nice.

Drawings are not evidence, you need photographs, fossils, ect

[ERayR]

But it can't and it doesn't.

And you know this for sure because..?

[ERayR]

I'm joining this discussion late. However, I am concerned that a number of posters have stated that evolution is a fact. It is not.

I work as a scientist and can confirm that evolution has never been observed and is therefore not an observable fact. It is therefore a belief. It may be that a person believes in it because of the weight of evidence, or because of the interpretation of that evidence; but in pure scientific terms it is not a proven fact and is therefore not a fact (scientifically).

My own view is that evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by.

Alan, I agree with you. I am not a scientist but my training and occupation requires that I connect the conclusions to the evidence. Assumptions don't impress an IRS agent. As you have pointed out the "evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by".

[ERayR]

Obiwan:

Biologically we are a type(species of ape), whom all of our fore-bearing species members are now extinct.

It is a bit like saying all Chihuahuas are related to all Mastiffs, they are. But they not descended from each other. They have a common ancestor the Gray Wolf.

You are more acquainted with your family tree than I am. However, I have not found any apes in my geneology.

[ERayR]

Many transitional form pre-homo sapien common ancestors have been found. Many. But what I specifically had in mind was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

That is one way to interpret the evidence but ...

[Nofear]

When I consider the fact that the literal offspring of God inhabit a vast plurality of worlds but that each world is likely distinct and unique in its character and composition (gravity, radiation levels, temperature, diurnal cycle, seasons, atmosphere, etc., etc., etc.) and how specifically our physical body is adapted to the characteristics of this planet, I find it very unlikely that DNA is the defining attribute of lineage. While I believe in the human phenotype for God and for his children on other planets I have no expectation that we are the same biologically in the same way we share heritage with our Last Universal Common Ancestor. Dissolved of this expectation the discussion of evolution and such becomes quite moot.

[Nathair/|\]

Wow, this is not only silly but has no purpose besides killing braincells.

Oh, I assure you, there is madness to my method.

[Rob Osborn]

When I consider the fact that the literal offspring of God inhabit a vast plurality of worlds but that each world is likely distinct and unique in its character and composition (gravity, radiation levels, temperature, diurnal cycle, seasons, atmosphere, etc., etc., etc.) and how specifically our physical body is adapted to the characteristics of this planet, I find it very unlikely that DNA is the defining attribute of lineage. While I believe in the human phenotype for God and for his children on other planets I have no expectation that we are the same biologically in the same way we share heritage with our Last Universal Common Ancestor. Dissolved of this expectation the discussion of evolution and such becomes quite moot.

Who says that it is any different on other worlds? When Christ comes we will be resurrected and have a perfect body and we shall see that we are just like Christ. Even God the Father will come and live on this planet.

[SkepticTheist]

The problem here is that we need to get a couple of things straight.

Evolution is an honest effort and an honest conclusion that scientists have come to inside the box in which science operates.

Evolution is a scientific theory in the same sense that Gravity is a scientific theory.

Gravity has not been scientifically falsified, and neither has Evolution.

The conclusion that men are not descended from animals is not a scientific conclusion. Only evolution is a scientific conclusion.

I choose to NOT believe in evolution to the degree that we were descended from Apes. My reasoning for this is a religious conclusion, not a scientific one.

For those of us that don't believe in the conclusions of the science, Let's not confuse our religious conclusions with science just because we don't believe in the science.

Let's not make the claim that our religious conclusions are scientific in some way just because we believe that our religious conclusion trumps the science.

Alan, I agree with you. I am not a scientist but my training and occupation requires that I connect the conclusions to the evidence. Assumptions don't impress an IRS agent. As you have pointed out the "evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by".

[SkepticTheist]

Wrong. Intelligent Design is a Protestant political movement bent on teaching my children a strange version of creationism in school that I don't want them taught.

Any person that seeks to inject religion into science like ID theorists is an ignorant fool that doesn't understand that science is a box free of outside concerns which includes whether there is or is not a creator.

LDS people who are friendly to science have a duty to keep their religion out of science and to acknowledge when they are making a religious interpretation of the science, to either accept it partially or entirely or to reject it entirely based on a religious interpretation. We need to acknowledge that our religious interpretations of science only amount to a religious thing.

I agree here, that Intelligent Design at it's core is not there to discredit evolution as much as it it there to add a creator to the evolution picture. This is why the evolutionists that dismiss ID as "another creationism" are ignorant fools that fail to impartially look at the critique of there claims.

This is why I am not an ID guy (I was a few year back) but a creationist, I use the Bible as my source of truth.

[Rivers]

I'm joining this discussion late. However, I am concerned that a number of posters have stated that evolution is a fact. It is not.

I work as a scientist and can confirm that evolution has never been observed and is therefore not an observable fact. It is therefore a belief. It may be that a person believes in it because of the weight of evidence, or because of the interpretation of that evidence; but in pure scientific terms it is not a proven fact and is therefore not a fact (scientifically).

My own view is that evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by.

True. Evolution is not a fact. But it is not a hypothesis. In common speech, a theory is a synonym of hypothesis. In science, a theory is more than a hypothesis. In science, a theory is an intellectual framework by which predictions can be made.

As a Latter-Day Saint, I agree that I cannot believe in macro-evolution in the fullest sense. In other words, I cannot except pure Darwinism, which is the belief that every single living thing has developed by pure natural selection and chance. I believe that there is a higher power and purpose behind it all. I believe in intelligent design. Just not the brand of ID which acts as a Trojan Horse for young-earth creationism.

[Nofear]

Who says that it is any different on other worlds? When Christ comes we will be resurrected and have a perfect body and we shall see that we are just like Christ. Even God the Father will come and live on this planet.

When I consider the fact that the literal offspring of God inhabit a vast plurality of worlds but that each world is likely distinct and unique in its character and composition (gravity, radiation levels, temperature, diurnal cycle, seasons, atmosphere, etc., etc., etc.) and how specifically our physical body is adapted to the characteristics of this planet, I find it very unlikely that DNA is the defining attribute of lineage.

That is to say, the adaptions of my mortal body (I can't say anything about the immortal body's biology since we have no real understanding of that) are quite specific to this planet and the other life on it. It is very much intertwined from the microbial symbiosis to the the universally shared chirality in amino acids allowing me to metabolize other life when I eat them. This is all in addition to the the topics listed above. There is plenty on astrobiology that is available to read on the internet and you may well find it both enlightening and disillusioning.

Personally since I believe in panspermia, and radical panspermia at that, it is not unimaginable that life on the vast plurality of worlds in our cosmos all share the same DNA but I rather suspect our Creator has a more diverse toolkit at his disposal and suggest that it is entirely premature to claim that DNA is the defining attribute of lineage with our Father in Heaven. That it to say, I am open to the idea that what defines my humanness and lineage may be tied to something other than DNA once we reach beyond the scope of this mortal body. Although I couldn't say what those attributes might be.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Any person that seeks to inject religion into science like ID theorists is an ignorant fool that doesn't understand that science is a box free of outside concerns which includes whether there is or is not a creator.

Science is not a "free-box" it is about the most closed box in modern society, the atheists in scholars clothing, openly and intentionally distort observation and make wildly unsupported assumptions to support there belief that there is no God. There is a science of evolution, it is not the Theory of Evolution which is taught around the world. The Theory of Evolution is a crock of assumptions and bent data to support the pre-conceived notion that there is no God only chance. Bending data to what you want it to be is not science, there is absolutely no data at all too support the concept that everything evolved from a common ancestor. We have no observation of such thing ever happening in nature or in the laboratory, we have no record of this happening through the fossil record, we have nothing yet it is still taught as absolute fact.

The only fact is that organisms adapt, using that fact to try and say they all evolved from one common ancestor, with no evidence at all, is not science, it is lying.

teaching my children a strange version of creationism in school that I don't want them taught.

So you don't want your children to be presented with differing opinions and be allowed to listen to both and decide for themselves which is correct?

Well if that is the case feel free to pack you bags and get out of the Free World, you can move to Cuba or China and they can tell you what you must believe all you want over there. But in the free world we allow people to hear all sides of the discussion and to make an informed decision.

Evolution is not ironclad it has many many holes and flaws, it has a lot of unfounded assumptions and is far from absolute. Yet you rather brainwash children with this junk than have both sides of the argument taught and allow the individual to decide, that tells me you are afraid of Intelligent Design. You know that it is a legitimate threat to the Theory of Evolution and that unnerves you, if you are so sure that all life evolved from one common ancestor over billions of years, then why are you afraid to have that taught side by side with the oppositions ideas as well?

Obviously if your ideas are so great and so backed up then people will naturally go with what you think, right.Only tyrants seek to suppress the opposition, and tyrants do that because they know they are full of hot air and nothing of substance.

[Rob Osborn]

An evolutionists most influencial tools are an artist, a sketchbook and an active imagination!

[LDS Guy 1986]

An evolutionists most influencial tools are an artist, a sketchbook and an active imagination!

/agree

[Jason]

I am reminded of a classic sci-fi short story called "Robot's Return" by Robert Moore Williams where a group of robots visit a long-desolate Earth to try to uncover the origin of their species. One of the robots insists that robotic life arose from the natural elements, and he proceeds to declare that an elevator they find is one of their ancestor species.

Seven, prying among the mechanism, whispered. "It is one of our primitive life-forms - one of the early upward steps. All the fundamentals of robot construction are here. Wheels turn, work is done."

The other robots disagree, saying a robot is more than a machine.

"We, ourselves, are only highly developed machines," Seven persisted. "Our operation can be explained purely in terms of mechanics. When you attempt to make us more than machines, you become illogical. True, this is a machine. It is also a primitive robot form, for the two terms mean the same thing. There are many links missing between it and us, but perhaps we may find those links-"

"But how?" Eight asked. "In the beginning how could lifeless, dead metal build itself into the first machine?"

..."I-I don't know the answer to that," Seven spoke. "Perhaps the Universe was different millions of years ago. But I don't know. Nobody knows. However, we have found one link in the chain. Maybe we will find others."

Finally the robots find a monument with written text that speaks of the death of mankind and the creation of robots. They have to accept that they are, in fact, the products of design rather than some kind of mechanical evolution.

It's worth a read if you can find it.

[SkepticTheist]

Science in its ideal is not atheism but is methodological naturalism, where God or any concern of the supernatural is left out, where science has nothing to say for or against God.

An atheist that brings his philosophy into science that there is no God is just as guilty as any ID-er of bringing non-scientific, non-provable philosophy on a spiritual matter into something that is a region of inquiry that cannot be polluted with such things.

Evolution is an honest effort that has many assumptions that exist because they honestly explain the natural world without the concern of religion.

I do not want my children taught as science "other ideas" that are not scientific. Once they are taught those things, then they can understand what science is and why it is what it is.

I don't want them taught crackpot ID conspiracy theories that say that atheists are bad men that want to crush the do-gooder ID-ers who all they want to do is to show God can have something to do with science. ID-er "scientists" deserve to be fired for bringing God into science.

I want my children to understand science, and I want them to understand the reasoning for disagreement with science lies in the region of life and inquiry called religion, which concerns itself with the supernatural and with God. I want my children to understand the reasons why science is as it is.

Your statements betray the fact that you have no idea what science is or what science is about.

Science is not a lie. It is a conclusion abstracted out from the supernatural, outside the scope of the supernatural. If it is wrong on any particular point, it is only because it has to have that methodological purity to do what it is designed to do, and by design, the supernatural is NOT what it was designed to have anything to do with. It is outside of its scope. Please leave your religion out of science, even if your religion is true. Just because your religion is true doesn't give you the right to inject it into science. yes, that may sound bold, but it is necessary. Because if you bring your Mormonism into science, that means that Protestants can bring their protestantism into it. We cannot have either.

Ed Goble

Science is not a "free-box" it is about the most closed box in modern society, the atheists in scholars clothing, openly and intentionally distort observation and make wildly unsupported assumptions to support there belief that there is no God. There is a science of evolution, it is not the Theory of Evolution which is taught around the world. The Theory of Evolution is a crock of assumptions and bent data to support the pre-conceived notion that there is no God only chance. Bending data to what you want it to be is not science, there is absolutely no data at all too support the concept that everything evolved from a common ancestor. We have no observation of such thing ever happening in nature or in the laboratory, we have no record of this happening through the fossil record, we have nothing yet it is still taught as absolute fact.

The only fact is that organisms adapt, using that fact to try and say they all evolved from one common ancestor, with no evidence at all, is not science, it is lying.

So you don't want your children to be presented with differing opinions and be allowed to listen to both and decide for themselves which is correct?

Well if that is the case feel free to pack you bags and get out of the Free World, you can move to Cuba or China and they can tell you what you must believe all you want over there. But in the free world we allow people to hear all sides of the discussion and to make an informed decision.

Evolution is not ironclad it has many many holes and flaws, it has a lot of unfounded assumptions and is far from absolute. Yet you rather brainwash children with this junk than have both sides of the argument taught and allow the individual to decide, that tells me you are afraid of Intelligent Design. You know that it is a legitimate threat to the Theory of Evolution and that unnerves you, if you are so sure that all life evolved from one common ancestor over billions of years, then why are you afraid to have that taught side by side with the oppositions ideas as well?

Obviously if your ideas are so great and so backed up then people will naturally go with what you think, right.Only tyrants seek to suppress the opposition, and tyrants do that because they know they are full of hot air and nothing of substance.

[Jason]

Science as an ideal is just fine. It's just that there are people out there who attempt to use science as a bludgeon against religion. Some on this very forum. Such people do not understand the real limits of scientific knowledge (and yes, there are real limits).

I want my daughter to be taught critical thinking along with science. I don't want her to accept the pronounciations of science as infallible. Being familiar with the ideas behind Intelligent Design can help with that, since they point out some of the problems with the current accepted scientific view on our origins.

[SkepticTheist]

More power to you then. Just don't confuse science and religion. Keep them in their separate compartments.

Teach her critical thinking and the importance of the region of religion, and how skepticism is necessary towards bad or incomplete science. But at the same time, don't find fault with science for doing what it is designed to do.

But the problem here is, you need to recognize that Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy. You need to teach intelligent design in that context. Don't go telling her that Intelligent Design is "scientific."

Science as an ideal is just fine. It's just that there are people out there who attempt to use science as a bludgeon against religion. Some on this very forum. Such people do not understand the real limits of scientific knowledge (and yes, there are real limits).

I want my daughter to be taught critical thinking along with science. I don't want her to accept the pronounciations of science as infallible. Being familiar with the ideas behind Intelligent Design can help with that, since they point out some of the problems with the current accepted scientific view on our origins.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

There is nothing wrong with science within its limits. There is nothing wrong with religion within its limits. The problem comes when trying to mix the two. At present, and the foreseeable future, we know so very little about both it is probably for the best not to.

IOW When science makes testable claims about religion it is outside of its field, when religion makes testable claims about science it is outside of it field. Mix at your own risk.

Creationism/ID is religion parading as science.

[SkepticTheist]

;)

I think my only disagreement with this statement is that religion necessarily trumps science in personal philosophies at times, or the other way around, because that is one's personal prerogative using agency to believe as one wishes. But once the two are mixed in that personal philosophy, it is still religion or philosophy. Mixing isn't a bad thing in personal philosophy. But calling a personal philosophy scientific that has elements in it that are religious is NOT science. My comments in the other posts were in the context of practicing science as a scientist, or teaching science in science class, or other scientific forums or contexts where religion cannot be injected.

Jason:

There is nothing wrong with science within its limits. There is nothing wrong with religion within its limits. The problem comes when trying to mix the two. At present, and the foreseeable future, we know so very little about both it is probably for the best not to.

IOW When science makes testable claims about religion it is outside of its field, when religion makes testable claims about science it is outside of it field. Mix at your own risk.

Creationism/ID is religion parading as science.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Science in its ideal is not atheism but is methodological naturalism, where God or any concern of the supernatural is left out, where science has nothing to say for or against God.

An atheist that brings his philosophy into science that there is no God is just as guilty as any ID-er of bringing non-scientific, non-provable philosophy on a spiritual matter into something that is a region of inquiry that cannot be polluted with such things.

Evolution is an honest effort that has many assumptions that exist because they honestly explain the natural world without the concern of religion.

I do not want my children taught as science "other ideas" that are not scientific. Once they are taught those things, then they can understand what science is and why it is what it is.

I don't want them taught crackpot ID conspiracy theories that say that atheists are bad men that want to crush the do-gooder ID-ers who all they want to do is to show God can have something to do with science. ID-er "scientists" deserve to be fired for bringing God into science.

I want my children to understand science, and I want them to understand the reasoning for disagreement with science lies in the region of life and inquiry called religion, which concerns itself with the supernatural and with God. I want my children to understand the reasons why science is as it is.

Your statements betray the fact that you have no idea what science is or what science is about.

Science is not a lie. It is a conclusion abstracted out from the supernatural, outside the scope of the supernatural. If it is wrong on any particular point, it is only because it has to have that methodological purity to do what it is designed to do, and by design, the supernatural is NOT what it was designed to have anything to do with. It is outside of its scope. Please leave your religion out of science, even if your religion is true. Just because your religion is true doesn't give you the right to inject it into science. yes, that may sound bold, but it is necessary. Because if you bring your Mormonism into science, that means that Protestants can bring their protestantism into it. We cannot have either.

Ed Goble

Wow, and they call me a fundamental! LOL

Science is the most politically motivates study there is, nothing is left out. Atheists us it to attack theists and theists us it to attack atheists.

Your naive definition of science is useless, there is no science without people analyzing the data, and when people analyze the data they see it through the lenses of there beliefs and understandings.

You can show two people the exact same data and they can and will come up with two different opinions through there independent analyses.

This crock pot idea that the data is science is silly, the data is data, you have no science until the data is analyzed and published to be refuted or corroborated by other scientists.

It is this blind faith in this false concept of science that leads to this idea that science is infallible, that it is always right and everything that doesn't agree with science is wrong.

Data is not science, analysis is science, analysis is done by man, and man is fallible.

You have not idea whatsoever what science is, all you know is that you hate religion and don't want anyone hearing about it because you hate it.

Like I said before this is fine, if you live in China, but in America we have this thing called freedom and everyone's opinions and analyses of the data get heard in America.

[Jason]

Creationism/ID is religion parading as science.

I agree that the idealogy behind Intelligent Design seems to be religious, but I don't believe that the methods and substance of Intelligent Design theory, such as it is, are religious.

Refusing to look at sound scientific ideas because their origin was a religious individual is unsound science. I am reminded of an excellent Orson Scott Card essay on the subject - Creation and Evolution in the Schools.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Jason:

There is nothing wrong with science within its limits. There is nothing wrong with religion within its limits. The problem comes when trying to mix the two. At present, and the foreseeable future, we know so very little about both it is probably for the best not to.

IOW When science makes testable claims about religion it is outside of its field, when religion makes testable claims about science it is outside of it field. Mix at your own risk.

Creationism/ID is religion parading as science.

Wow, this is total garbage, where is your support Mr. Scientist?

You gig ID saying they make blanket statements backed up with no evidence but throw out garbage blanket statements like this!

Got to love the hypocrites, they never do what they preach!