Anti-Evolution and the Church

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Those darn scientists always suppressing evidence, and trying to destroy people faith in God.

[kolipoki09]

And those cases while "solved" according to the police without physical evidence rarely stand in court and if you do get a conviction most are overturned in appeals.

The problem is, you assume there is no physical evidence for evolution, when there is. If you're interested in knowing how a theist (Dr. Kenneth Miller) used evidence in support of evolution in the courtroom, check this out:

If you are going to use such a lame analogy you have to look at the whole justice system, the Detective can know all he want's without a confession, eyewitness (direct observation), or physical evidence, the DA will never try the case. Detectives don't determine guilt a jury does, and that jury is subject to appeals if the defense feels the jury or prosecution were not acting properly.

Whether the analogy is "lame" or not is merely subjective. Whether a jury believes something or not doesn't change the observations.

So in case of evolution, this analogy is more against evolution, since the proponents seek to ignore or undermine the legitimate claims and critiques of the opponents. In a court of law this is called suppression of evidence and it misconduct on behalf of the prosecution that is grounds for the ruling to be overturned on appeal. So like most things with Dawkins if he actually engaged his brain impartially as a scientist, instead of playing biased partisan, he would see how his analogy is against him just like his theories are not supported by the data.

Exactly what are proponents of evolution suppressing? What data has proven evolution to be false? CFR.

[bu11fr0g]

bullfr0g, while you are correct that ETB gave the talk at a BYU devotional, it's important to remember that the Church subsequently published the talk in The Liahona, the Church's official worldwide magazine.

In our current Gospel Principles manual, we read:

It's also important to remember that "The Liahona" is published under the Correlation program of the Church. In Gospel Doctrine class, we were taught that one of the purposes of the Correlation program is "Maintaining purity of doctrine."

And as others have noted, the principles of this talk were taught not once but twice in the October 2010 General Conference (and subsequently published in the Ensign magazine and official Conference Reports distributed by the Church).

So it's a little disingenuous to suggest that President Benson's 14 Points are somehow marginalized based on their having been originally delivered at BYU.

I wasn't aware that the talk had been published in the Liahona. I am still strongly of the opinion that if a new church doctrine is to be introduced (or a contested area of thought is to be settled) that the channel that this is done is at General Conference by the First Presidency, and almost always the President of the Church.

.... NOT in a private correspondence, not in stake conference talk, not by regional representative, not by a new general authority, not by a seminary teacher

but also not by a member of the quorum of the 12, not in a talk at a university, even if the editor of the Ensign or Liahona chooses to publish it (it is not hard to find some awful decisions the editors have made in the past).

That being said, I think that it is foolishness to ignore a speech given by an apostle, especially when its context is also considered. So any disingenousness that was perceived is not there by intent.

When I heard the talk quoted twice, it was very striking to me. This is especially true given the context of criticism of the church's involvement in gay marriage. I was asked to give a talk in Sacrament meeting on the talks (this was my most unliked talk assignment ever), so I did a lot of reading to try to sort this talk out. That ETB was criticized by the First Presidency when he gave the talk is especially telling, in my opinion. There are definitely different schools of thought in the church. The two general authorities that quoted ETB's talk definitely fall into the strident school (a la BRM and JFS) -- but this group also has a habit of making seemingly definitive statements that turn out to be wrong, embarrassing and need to be repudiated [like man on the moon, Blacks and the priesthood, Blacks being borderline in the war on heaven, all Native Americans being descended from the Book of Mormon peoples, ......].

[LDS Guy 1986]

Exactly what are proponents of evolution suppressing? What data has proven evolution to be false? CFR.

There is no data for the claims that evolution makes about the origins of life, the assumptions how life arrived on this planet. The primordial goo, the statistical impossibilities of there claims regarding the prime ancestor (that single celled organism from which everything evolved from), the complete lack of any credible supporting evidence.

Your trial is one sided, you have no evidence to support your claims it is all circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence rarely holds in cross examination. Also cases decided on circumstantial evidence rarely hold up on appeals, so if you guys want to talk about detectives know something happened without key evidence that's fine but a detective isn't a judge a detective investigates he doesn't determine guilt or innocence. That's the judicial system's job and your complete lack of hard evidence means your case will fail either on trials or appeals.

[WalkerW]

you have no evidence to support your claims

Yeah, you said that. The video above disagrees. What do you have to say to Miller?

[consiglieri]

You may be gratified in baiting people, and attempting to undermine members with a false premise. But you should also be called on it when you try it.

I am really having trouble following you, Jeff.

LDS Guy seems to believe that because he is Mormon, he must believe that Adam was literally created from the dust of the earth.

I gave him two quotes showing Brigham Young did not believe the account to be literal.

Now, what was your point again?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Special thanks to TSS for the kind words.

[kolipoki09]

There is no data for the claims that evolution makes about the origins of life, the assumptions how life arrived on this planet. The primordial goo, the statistical impossibilities of there claims regarding the prime ancestor (that single celled organism from which everything evolved from), the complete lack of any credible supporting evidence.

Actually there is "credible supporting evidence" and mounds of data for the claims evolution makes about the origin of life. From the base elements of hydrogen and helium (the remnants of the Big Bang) all other elements were formed, creating the foundation for the origins of life. You're confusing "statistical impossibilities" with "improbabilities." If you insist on putting God in a box, then I'll agree with you the evolution is "impossible."

Your trial is one sided, you have no evidence to support your claims it is all circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence rarely holds in cross examination. Also cases decided on circumstantial evidence rarely hold up on appeals, so if you guys want to talk about detectives know something happened without key evidence that's fine but a detective isn't a judge a detective investigates he doesn't determine guilt or innocence. That's the judicial system's job and your complete lack of hard evidence means your case will fail either on trials or appeals.

Scarcely enough time has passed for you to even watch the video, let alone type a response. I'm confident that it is you, not the scientific community, that is ignoring the evidence. Now what exactly is the scientific community ignoring when it comes to evolution?

Let me explain it this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajULH6dNihI

[Edited to rejoice in the irony that this is my 666th post on this forum.]

[WalkerW]

Your trial is one sided

What are you talking about? The video isn't the trial. He is presenting evidence from the trial, which included representatives of ID.

[maupayman]

I can't tell you how to believe, but I really like Elder Russell M. Nelson's take on this. He was a gifted heart surgeon and certainly had his share of schooling in the merits of Darwinism, which he rejects outright.

Your assertion, that he was schooled in the merits of Darwinism is shown to be false by Nelson's later quote:

To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!

This is not what is claimed in these theories. Maybe, Nelson didn't pay much attention to the parts of his lessons that dealt with evolution?

[maupayman]

The only lie is your statement, twisting words and declaring it false is not truth. Evolution teaches that Man and monkey (or specifically primeapes) have an unknown common ancestor that both descended from over millions of years of separation and mutation.

To back this claim up they present ZERO evidence, they simply make claims and draw diagrams without a single piece of evidence to support the idea. All you need is show these transitional forms or show the common ancestor, you have all these fossils where is the common ancestor that both man and primeape evolved from?

Have you ever read a book outlining the evidence for evolution. There is a lot more involved than simply drawing a chart. Embryology, genetics, and many other scientific evidences converge to form the evidence of common descent. Anyone who claims their is ZERO evidence for these claims has ZERO clue what they are talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

The simple FACT is that Evolution does not address the origins of life. That is Abiogenesis.

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

It is true that much needs to be learned about it. However to claim some supernatural means behind it places that claim well outside of science and into religion.

Further I am a scientist, albeit a Social one. I am also a faithful member of the Church and resent your attempt to claim that I can not be both.

For another faithful LDS scientist's view.

http://www.tungate.com/LDS_scientist.htm

[toon]

Consig

What you are doing is intellectually lazy. And it is disengenuous for you to shift the blame to someone else for your actions. It is well known that we as Latter Day Saints do not accept all things from the mouth of Brigham as doctrine. Everyone here knows that. Even you know that.

So we are back to your lazy intellectual attempts to bait (just as your last post does).

You may be gratified in baiting people, and attempting to undermine members with a false premise. But you should also be called on it when you try it.

If a Church member has such a literal interpretation of Genesis to conclude that God making man from the dust necessarily makes evolution incompatible with the Church doctrine, then that person needs to deal with Brigham Young's statements. That doesn't mean that there's no explanation, or that they two cannot be reconciled. It doesn't require an infallible prophet. It's not intellectually lazy to point out an apparant inconsistency and ask for an explanation.

[Hughes]

Exactly what are proponents of evolution suppressing? What data has proven evolution to be false? CFR.

1) Darwin's criterion: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [a direct evolutionary pathway]

2) Bacterial Flagellum is irreducibly complex and is a test of Darwinians criterion. Evolution is falsified on this basis.

3) Even darwinian apologists admit there is no direct evolutionary pathway for the BF to arise, instead offering many speculative indirect routes.

"That that critics refuse to accept falsification it also means that critics are placing Darwinian evolution in an effectively unfalsifiable position, where no level of complexity can falsify it. Proponents of Darwinism are effectively arguing that if an explanation is merely possible, then it defeats counter-arguments."

taken from Article: Link

[WalkerW]

If a Church has such a literal interpretation of Genesis to conclude that God making man from the dust necessarily makes evolution incompatible with the Church doctrine, then that person needs to deal with Brigham Young's statements. That doesn't mean that there's no explanation, or that they two cannot be reconciled. It doesn't require an infallible prophet. It's not intellectually lazy to point out an apparant inconsistency and ask for an explanation.

I've mentioned this before, but I think royal/covenant terminology regarding "rising from the dust" fits the temple and covenant theology of Mormonism much better than a literalist interpretation.

[maupayman]

So the scriptures are not the source of doctrine anymore?

When did that happen?

Cause according to the Church (as published in the 2009 edition of the Gospel Principals Manual) we have 5 sources of scriptures, The Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the inspired words of the living Prophets. In here is a direct quote from the manual on page 48 " In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazines, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

The First Presidency message is the inspired words of the living prophets it is scripture and doctrine to us, we need to have faith in out prophets and seek confirmation that they are revealing the will of the Lord, but lack of faith in the prophet doesn't mean there inspired words are not our scriptures and doctrine.

You are completely wrong on this, in fact we are told in almost every General Conference that the words of the Living prophet is more important than the words of a dead prophet. That we are to take the words of the living prophet over the recorded words of the previous prophets (aka the scriptures).

If you have never heard this message it comes from President Erza Taft Benson, at the time he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve and later became President of the Church. His message is called "The Prophet - 14 Fundamentals" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvTYMv1SsfY

Ah, I love watching the new-age apologist mormons argue with the harcore fundamentalist ones. Its always funny to watch the fundamentalist LDS argue the points that the secularists/atheists etc. are trying to point out too.

[WalkerW]

2) Bacterial Flagellum is irreducibly complex and is a test of Darwinians criterion. Evolution is falsified on this basis.

"A particularly damaging crack in the foundation of Intelligent Design theory arises from recent revelations about the poster child of ID, the bacterial flagellum. The argument...rests on the presumption that the individual subunits of the flagellum could have had no prior useful function of some other sort, and therefore the motor could not have been assembled by recruiting such components in a stepwise fashion, driven by the forces of natural selection...Comparison of protein sequences from multiple bacteria has demonstrated that several components of the flagellum are related to an entirely different apparatus used by certain bacteria to inject toxins into other bacteria they are attacking...Presumably, the elements of this structure were duplicated hundreds of millions of years ago, and then recruited for a new use; by combining this with other proteins that had previously been carrying out simpler functions, the entire motor was ultimately generated." (Francis Collins, The Language of God, 191-192)

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

[WalkerW]

Hughes:

You love that guy. I've seen you post a number of his videos. Good stuff.

[WalkerW]

Ah, I love watching the new-age apologist mormons argue with the harcore fundamentalist ones. Its always funny to watch the fundamentalist LDS argue the points that the secularists/atheists etc. are trying to point out too.

Too true. It reminds me of Paul Wallace's essay "Way Beyond Atheism: God Does Not (Not) Exist."

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

I'm commanded by God to love everyone, though I often fall far short.

His science is sound, so I have a hard time arguing against it. IF someone can come up with a convincing opposing science based idea. I'll listen.

[consiglieri]

I suppose by this point in the thread, somebody has brought up the creation account in the Book of Abraham, which sounds like it can fit comfortably within an evolutionary process.

Something about the Gods commanding the waters to bring forth life, and then watching until they were obeyed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Maybe. But I normally don't go for calling people names, other than their on screen avatar. I'll let consiglieri speak for himself.

Personally, he nearly always makes me think more deeply about a subject than I usually want to do, and that is good. For instance I am very literal(probably too much so), and if something can't be scientifically supported I am far too quick to find fault or dismiss the religious arguments. On this subject I took it as a personal challenge to see if I was unnecessarily rejecting the words of people I believe to prophets of God.

My point of view is in the sincerity of the argument. I can understand when people sincerely disagree with a point of view based on the science. I however dislike when people knowingly embrace a false premise and then attempt to project that falsehood upon others. It speaks of a certain lack of respect for the intellectual process and it insults those they are attempting to work on. Consig lately has been doing that more and more often. I keep hearing how he was once an intellectual champion of the church. The weak arguments he presents are done with a slyness that belies sincerity.

Consig knows we don't take the opinions of prophets as literal. Baiting is not debating.

I look forward to something thoughtful coming from him that makes others think. But taking things out of context, pressing a false premise, and then taking the passive aggressive route is not putting forth thoughtful context.

He has become lazy, if before he was thoughtful

[WalkerW]

I suppose by this point in the thread, somebody has brought up the creation account in the Book of Abraham, which sounds like it can fit comfortably within an evolutionary process.

Something about the Gods commanding the waters to bring forth life, and then watching until they were obeyed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Excellent point. I mention this the blog post I linked to. Here is the relevant passage:

While I most certainly would not argue that the Bible or any other scripture teaches evolution, the language of the various creation accounts in LDS scripture is interesting: "Let the waters bring forth abundantly (Heb. "swarm with swarms") the moving creature that hath life...Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind...and so it was." (Gen. 1:20,24; emphasis mine) And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales...And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind." (Abr. 4:21,24, emphasis mine) The Abrahamic account emphasises the Gods' control over chaos: "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." (Abr. 4:18) The divine council's governing power is at the head, but this does not negate the role of nature's obedience. Surely the science behind evolution fits well within the concept of pre-existent chaos obeying God's commands to bring about natural order.

[Senator]

Baiting is not debating.

Review again the new and improved forum name, Jeff.

It's not a debate forum anymore. It's dialogue and discussion.

Baiting discussion is not a sin; in fact, it's a skill.