Does Design Theory Contradict Lds Theology?

[Log]

I must CFR this. I am putting it in another thread though, hope you don't mind =).

http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=SCRIPTURES%2FBOM&query=%22most+high+god%22&bucket=Scriptures&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=

For at least one God of progression to, say, level X, there is not another God of progression to level X + 1. That's what it means to be the Most High God. QED.

[TAO]

http://classic.lds.o...=&findByAuthor=

For at least one God of progression to, say, level X, there is not another God of progression to level X + 1. That's what it means to be the Most High God. QED.

Please respond in the new thread =).

[zerinus]

Mormon theology (whatever that is) does not necessarily teach an infinite regression of Gods. That is one possible belief, and the Book of Mormon teaches of a Most High God, which contradicts an infinite regression of Gods. Hence, EGL was critiquing one possible notion that some Mormons hold, and not at all showing how Dembski's work contradicts Mormon theology (whatever that is).

It is also unclear how the rational ability to distinguish the effects of intelligent intervention from those of pure chance, described by Dembski, has any bearing on whether there is an infinite regression of Gods.

I freely grant that design theory, in rationally detecting that the human body was designed, does disprove the notion that the human body was not designed, but that's got nothing to do with anything any but a distinct minority of Mormons might believe. Hence, if it really interests you that much, go to BCSpace's thread about it. That's not LDS theology (whatever that is), and this isn't the place for it.

Since the "infinite regression of the Gods" has some place in Mormon theology in the opinions of some Mormons, then the question of whether that particular doctrine has a bearing on the compatibility of LDS theology with ID forms a valid part of the discussion on the subject.

[Log]

Since the "infinite regression of the Gods" has some place in Mormon theology in the opinions of some Mormons, then the question of whether that particular doctrine has a bearing on the compatibility of LDS theology with ID forms a valid part of the discussion on the subject.

I disagree, have explained why (there is no such doctrine), and asked you to drop it. Thanks.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[Ares]

Since the "infinite regression of the Gods" has some place in Mormon theology in the opinions of some Mormons, then the question of whether that particular doctrine has a bearing on the compatibility of LDS theology with ID forms a valid part of the discussion on the subject.

Log has requested that the topic of his OP be specifically discussed. Please respect that and take side topics (even related side topics) to another thread.

[Log]

It is abundantly clear Cdowis is intentionally not answering the CFR, which, according to board rules, he had an obligation to. Please lock the thread.

[Deborah]

For what it's worth we have this from D&C29:

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

Whatever the process of creation (which is the word the Lord himself uses) it was set in motion by him as it was designed spiritually before it was put into effect temporally. Moses 3 goes further into this:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

So basically the Lord had a blueprint for how the creation would take place. Whether this can be called ID or not is up to the debaters, but he had it planned out and the the plan was put into effect temporally.

[zerinus]

Log has requested that the topic of his OP be specifically discussed. Please respect that and take side topics (even related side topics) to another thread.

Thank you Ares. I would like to obey your instructions, but I need your help to understand it. The OP states that he wants the following subject to be discussed:

In response to Cdowis claiming that Intelligent Design is incompatible with LDS theology (whatever that is), I have issued a formal CFR.

Please show how anything in The Design Inference, by William A. Dembski, which is the standard reference on design theory, or, if you prefer, Intelligent Design Theory, contradicts any aspect of LDS theology (whatever that is).

Elguanteloko felt that the LDS belief in the infinite regression of the Gods is incompatible with Intelligent Design, and explained why. That is also the subject-matter that I was discussing. Can you explain to me how bringing that subject up in response to the OP falls outside of the remit of the OP as expressed above?

Edited July 6, 2011 by zerinus

[cdowis]

The validity of what belief?—that the human body was designed, or that it was not designed? In either case, it can have a bearing on the discussion.

If some people think that it is, then from their point of view it has a bearing on the current discussion, unless you can convince them otherwise, which cannot be done if the opinion is barred from the discussion.

If it is, then you are not defeating that position by barring it from discussion. You are defeating the purpose of the discussion.

I think you have discovered a dialog with this particular individual is not very productive. Reasoned argument is sucked into the black hole of irrelevant responses.

Off-topic, indeed.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I think we should consider what it means to "design". Design does not need to mean "designing the form and the physical image from scratch."

Design could mean that the Designer balanced the forces of nature, designed the blood and immune system and the endocrine and lymphatic system to be compatible with the bacteria, yeasts, molds, and microscopic organisms present on this earth. It does not mean that the organisms, elements, sun, moon and stars for this world are identical to every other inhabited world in the universe.

That's how I look at it.

[cdowis]

I think we should consider what it means to "design". Design does not need to mean "designing the form and the physical image from scratch."

Design could mean that the Designer balanced the forces of nature, designed the blood and immune system and the endocrine and lymphatic system to be compatible with the bacteria, yeasts, molds, and microscopic organisms present on this earth. It does not mean that the organisms, elements, sun, moon and stars for this world are identical to every other inhabited world in the universe.

That's how I look at it.

You assume, then, that there was a beginning of the human body. A specific point of time when that body did not exist in its present form, and in the next moment it did exist.

When was that body designed, according to your view == at the point of the Big Bang? Prior to that? There was a beginning of the creation process, and prior to that... what?

I have the feeling that you have not thought this through very well. Just an idea that flashed into your mind.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You assume, then, that there was a beginning of the human body.

No. I assume that there was no beginning to our form and image.

But there WAS a beginning to balancing and making compatible our existence and survival with the forces native to this world.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[cdowis]

No. I assume that there was no beginning to our form and image.

But there WAS a beginning to balancing and making compatible our existence and survival with the forces native to this world.

OK, so there was a tweeking of the various functions. The functions already existed, but slight modifications and evolution could certainly fit into that model.

I don't think that is what ID had in mind but it is a useful idea that would make it compatible with LDS theology. Very nice.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Creationism IS Intelligent Design.

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

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

OK, so there was a tweeking of the various functions. The functions already existed, but slight modifications and evolution could certainly fit into that model.

I don't think that is what ID had in mind but it is a useful idea that would make it compatible with LDS theology. Very nice.

I suppose evolution could fit into my idea, although I would not fit it in myself--at least not as far as jumping species.

[thesometimesaint]

Fig-bearing Thistle:

?

Evolution doesn't claim that one species "jumps" into another.

[Hughes]

You assume, then, that there was a beginning of the human body. A specific point of time when that body did not exist in its present form, and in the next moment it did exist.

When was that body designed, according to your view == at the point of the Big Bang? Prior to that? There was a beginning of the creation process, and prior to that... what?

I have the feeling that you have not thought this through very well. Just an idea that flashed into your mind.

Designs always happen in a mind. Which always refers to an intelligence of some sort.

Creationism IS Intelligent Design.

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

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[

False.

What would you say if people defined the LDS religion for you? Saying things that aren't accurate?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Fig-bearing Thistle:

?

Evolution doesn't claim that one species "jumps" into another.

Gradual graduation then. At any rate, if humans started out as some single-cell life form millions of years ago, and now we are complex creatures of a completely different genus and species, then somewhere along the line, "like begets like" was violated and "like begets unlike" began to operate. That's what I don't accept--that like begets unlike in a manner where a new life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species is eventually formed.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Like you telling me what I belieieve.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

[thesometimesaint]

Fig-bearing Thistle:

Birds are just modern day dinosaurs.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Edited July 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

Creationism IS Intelligent Design.

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

You are making an assertion and attempting to prove it by linking to another assertion.

Wiki is not what you suppose it is. Let's call it a discussion forum on steroids. It is full of opinions and assertions on such controversial subjects as religion and politics, including evolution and ID.

Look at the first sentence, "The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change..." Perhaps someone here should edit this article to give it more objectivity.

Finally, the article is about the MOVEMENT, claiming to define ID and the motives behind it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

And

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_novabrjudgmentday_2007-11-13

Edited July 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

Deleted.

Edited July 6, 2011 by zerinus

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Like you telling me what I belieieve.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

Which proves what that Barbra was able to manipulate the court to think that ID is the same as creationists?

Fact is that many who hold to ID aren't creationists. Oh well. I don't really care, most evolutionists don't have the interest or patience to understand anything outside their world view.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Your irony is just too much. :rofl: