Lds Doctrine Vs. Intelligent Design

[Log]

None other than those which are LDS doctrine such as like produces like.

And others, such as "there must always be a progenitor" which is not doctrinal. Or do you not even realize you make assumptions?

Alma 26:14, to which you referred in the other thread, is specifically about Jesus Christ and not the Father and that is backed up by official doctrine in the manual.

I'm sorry, I did not refer to any specific verse. If you had clicked my link, you would have seen this: http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=most+high+god&collection=scriptures&testament=Book+of+Mormon

And, so sorry, the manuals are not official doctrine either.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problem with God doing it. I do have a problem with man saying this is how God did it.

[Log]

I have no problem with God doing it. I do have a problem with man saying this is how God did it.

It is excellent that design theory says nothing of how anything is done.

[BCSpace]

It is excellent that design theory says nothing of how anything is done.

But it does seem to place restrictions on the creation that don't exist in LDS doctrine. The age of the earth for example, or the use of known scientific principles and facts for the creation of the human body or life in general.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Design Theory claims that the probability of life evolving is practically zero.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/evolution/7d0efb9447ed887261e17d0efb9447ed887261e1-895925486704?q=you+tube+Evolution+&FORM=VIRE5

[shalamabobbi]

Here's a new design..

[HiJolly]

Whoa. Funky feet!

HJ

[Mordecai]

Design Theory claims that the probability of life evolving is practically zero.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/evolution/7d0efb9447ed887261e17d0efb9447ed887261e1-895925486704?q=you+tube+Evolution+&FORM=VIRE5

True...within the time and resources of our universe, absolutely. But ID never claims that, necessarily, there haven't been other universes. Only that there is a lack of evidence for such a thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

Design Theory is part and parcel of Intelligent Design.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

[Mordecai]

It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

While this is true, ID being scientific in nature, is limited by the evidence and only makes assertions based on the current evidence. The foremost advocate (IMO) of ID is Meyer, and he himself has implied (among others) that if there were enough resources and time, evolution could do anything. But since there is a lack of evidence for 10^199 universes like ours to provide the resources to produce the first life, it's not a scientific assertion (or at least not a good one) to say naturalistic causes were behind it.

Everything on our planet that appears after abiogenesis, if it evolved without intelligent intervention, would have to have had its roots in something virtually infinite in time and scope. If God didn't design it, God clearly cherry picked stuff from other universes and put it here. Either way, ID comes to the right conclusion that a greater intelligence is behind life.

As far as the universal constants, they also appear to be fine-tuned. Your guess is as good as mine how that occurred, but again, the numbers don't add up for a naturalistic cause for that, without practically infinite resources.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mordecai

[thesometimesaint]

See: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/evolution/7d0efb9447ed887261e17d0efb9447ed887261e1

-895925486704?q=you+tube+evolution&FORM=VIRE5

[shalamabobbi]

Intelligences always existed. They weren't created or made neither indeed can be.

I am not a fan of the infinite regression view. My opinion in view of the evidence in favor of evolution is that it happens to occur. And we intelligences found that we could take advantage of that fact by inhabiting the bodies that formed from the process.

Witness the followers of Lucifer entering the swine. Somehow that process is regulated now by God(s).

Spirit matter whatever that is may happen to behave in a similar fashion. It may all be simply an extension of chemistry applied to self replicating entities. The elements are eternal but not H, O, C, Si etc. We know those are made of smaller building blocks now. They can be formed not just into various combinations of molecules but they can be transmuted into one another by nuclear transformations. Within stars as time passes the quantity of lighter elements in the universe diminishes while the quantity of heavier elements they fuse together into increases.

My view is that if the aggregation of elements that we call our bodies had to be coerced together by some process of design there would be a constant need to fight the tendency toward disintegration and deterioration (they would be very fault intolerant). If this tendency does not exist then the body must be the natural state that matter will assume. The existence of intelligences and the tendency of matter to form bodies - neither necessitates creation. If I create a garden I don't create the fruits. I merely arrange the conditions for which the processes may occur that bring about those fruits. Those processes may be self existent realities.

[inquiringmind]

...since evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, I postulate the possibility that the first Gods may have come up through evolution...

But if Gods, their bodies, gender differences, and sexual reproduction could evolve (without being intelligently designed), aren't you throwing the whole concept of intelligent design out the window?

And if you do that, wouldn't you have to throw the Bible and the Book of Mormon out the window?

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

...For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. (Romans 1:20.)

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3.)

[BCSpace]

...since evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, I postulate the possibility that the first Gods may have come up through evolution...

But if Gods, their bodies, gender differences, and sexual reproduction could evolve (without being intelligently designed), aren't you throwing the whole concept of intelligent design out the window?

And if you do that, wouldn't you have to throw the Bible and the Book of Mormon out the window?

Not at all. I posit that the first generation(s) of Gods, having uplifted themselves by the bootstraps and possibily suffering numerous casualties (unsalvagable in any degree) along the way, figured out more efficient and effective ways of doing it and here we are.

Just speculation of course, but the nice thing about it I think is that it reduces the complexity of the infinite regression problem, at least for the near term.

A little bit of tension though. On the one hand, the scriptures say we cannot accomplish salvation by ourselves. On the other hand, God says, for instance, at the tower of Babel "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

[elguanteloko]

Mordecai:

Design Theory is part and parcel of Intelligent Design.

http://www.ideacente...ails.php/id/832

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

I am surprised. You really believe in ID?

[Robert F. Smith]

Which is another way of saying it isn't official doctrine at all. If we were to ask President Monson "Is there a Most High God?" what would he answer?

Of course it is true doctrine. As for what any given LDS prophet might say, one could speculate, or simply cite Brigham Young's statement that our God the Father is the only god with whom we have to do. A jurisdictional matter, as it were.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm comfortable knowing that I am in the image of God. We both have two legs, two arms, two hands, and one head. My parents pro-CREATED me. In part, they designed me as I have inherited many of their attributes. But God does not have blood coursing through his veins as we do. I think God designed the immune system, blood system, and hormonal system, etc. to be compatible with this earth. But there was no "original" designer of our form.

Doctor Ninja may think this an excellent summary, but I have some problems with it.

For one thing, the late Isaac Asimov once wrote a regular science column in which he carefully reasoned what the optimum characteristics of any sentient being might be throughout the universe, and he came up with a being which seemed quite humanoid in structure and appearance.

Second,Craig Venter (Celera) now claims to have created synthetic life which can replicate itself. Whether his claim is true will be decided by the scientific community, but it was only a matter of time and technical advancement until we would be able to create life. So the designing of biological bodies for humans, although far more sophisticated than creating a one-celled animal, is a matter of science and technology. ID is not merely a theory.

Third, in a universe in which there was no beginning and will be no end, it would be advisable to look deeper into the matter of the formation of spiritual bodies, and of the existence of intelligence(s) even before that. In the infinite chain of being, there are far more mysterious matters than simply biological adaptation and natural selection. Worlds without end, amen.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Not at all. I posit that the first generation(s) of Gods, having uplifted themselves by the bootstraps and possibily suffering numerous casualties (unsalvagable in any degree) along the way, figured out more efficient and effective ways of doing it and here we are.

Just speculation of course, but the nice thing about it I think is that it reduces the complexity of the infinite regression problem, at least for the near term.

A little bit of tension though. On the one hand, the scriptures say we cannot accomplish salvation by ourselves. On the other hand, God says, for instance, at the tower of Babel "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

A little bit of tension? We still face the old chicken & egg problem: Which came first? Infinite regression is not a problem. It is a solution.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[elguanteloko]

While this is true, ID being scientific in nature, is limited by the evidence and only makes assertions based on the current evidence. The foremost advocate (IMO) of ID is Meyer, and he himself has implied (among others) that if there were enough resources and time, evolution could do anything. But since there is a lack of evidence for 10^199 universes like ours to provide the resources to produce the first life, it's not a scientific assertion (or at least not a good one) to say naturalistic causes were behind it.

Everything on our planet that appears after abiogenesis, if it evolved without intelligent intervention, would have to have had its roots in something virtually infinite in time and scope. If God didn't design it, God clearly cherry picked stuff from other universes and put it here. Either way, ID comes to the right conclusion that a greater intelligence is behind life.

As far as the universal constants, they also appear to be fine-tuned. Your guess is as good as mine how that occurred, but again, the numbers don't add up for a naturalistic cause for that, without practically infinite resources.

Mordecai, I wonder why you keep on repeating all over this board (when talking about ID) about low probabilities. Low probability is the weakest possible argument you can give for ID and this has been pointed out to you before by Tarski and other users.

Edited July 19, 2011 by elguanteloko

[BCSpace]

A little bit of tension? We still face the old chicken & egg problem: Which came first? Infinite regression is not a problem. It is a solution.

Sure. I like that as a solution.

[cdowis]

Mordecai, I wonder why you keep on repeating all over this board (when talking about ID) about low probabilities. Low probability is the weakest possible argument you can give for ID and this has been pointed out to you before by Tarski and other users.

You seem to insist that this issue has been resolved and Mordecai obviously disagrees. Why don't give us a link to those posts. Better yet, start a new thread.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Sorry about my late response.

"I am surprised. You really believe in ID?".

As a member of the Church of course I believe God did it, and as a scientist I think that evolution is how he did it.

[cdowis]

As an LDS and educated in science, I think he primarily did it through panspermia, using evolution to tweak the designs. Evolution has proven itself incapable of doing the "heavy lifting", just the light stuff like beaks and claws.

Edited July 20, 2011 by cdowis

[elguanteloko]

You seem to insist that this issue has been resolved and Mordecai obviously disagrees. Why don't give us a link to those posts. Better yet, start a new thread.

I know of few issues that are "resolved" so I would never say that.

What I would say is that his "probability" case is very weak. Heck, even Dembski's whole book is an attempt to go beyond probability because it is well known that you can't do it with it alone!

Watch these videos to see why:

(the following says that it is part two but part one is unnecessary since he only explains what he is going to do)

...following:

[elguanteloko]

...and the most important being: