God; The Intelligent Designer

[Rob Osborn]

I was over at the FAIR blog posting away when they suddenly pulled the plug on me, sensoring my posts. The topic was about an interview with Steven Peck, associate professor at BYU, who teaches evolution. We were just starting to get into the heart of the matter when they decided to sensor my comments. Of course its perfectly legitimate for them to bash the other way, just don't rain on their parade! This is very typical of LDS evolutionists for some reason.

Anyway, I found it interesting that they began just bashing away on "intelligent design" all the while their subtitle to their blog is "Defending Mormonism". This seemed like a contradiction of the deepest sort to me. Here you have a supposedly neutral LDS site that is in the hobby of defending mormonism's beliefs and yet can't even get it right where it matters most. It got me to thinking about the whole evolution movement in the LDS church amongst members. And so, I wanted to ask you-

First, we must define what Intelligent Design is. Intelligent design is the simple belief that the complex features in nature (life) is not the product of an unguided and unintelligent process but instead the opposite- that behind it all, there is an intelligent entity, force, or law that guided intelligent life into being. Basically, it is the belief system that only intelligence begets intelligence.

LDS beliefs falls into this group. We believe that God planned, designed and carried out the creation and brought to pass the generations of life, especially you and I.

So why is it, that a blog such as FAIR (kind of an oxymoron if you ask me!) is so hostile to intelligent design and not against Darwinian evolution, especially when one realizes that Darwinian evolution is a completely godless paradigm?

I just can't figure it out. I did come to realize that though that the folks over at the FAIR blog aren't really "fair".

Edited November 23, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[ged1650]

To Ron Osborn,

What do you mean when you state Darwinian Evolution is Godless?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

You were pulled for your Ad Hominen attacks.

Evolution doesn't address the issue of God. A person can be a very scientist and use Evolution whether they personally believe in God(s) or not.

[kolipoki09]

This isn't the first time we've done the rounds on ID. Here's a thread from earlier this year that will probably cover everything you'll want to discuss.

It should be noted that as of yesterday, another BYU-Idaho devotional speaker openly attacked Darwin from the pulpit (sorry, no printed text yet).

As for your insistence that Darwin's paradigm is irreconcilable with a belief in God, I recommend Dr. Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God.

I shy away from cdesign proponentsists primarily on grounds that it doesn't follow the scientific method, and hence, shouldn't be called science. It's one thing to believe in a Creator and believe in evolution, but I don't believe Creationism (particularly the kind advocated by its most vocal supporters) is in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

[Cobalt-70]

First, we must define what Intelligent Design is. Intelligent design is the simple belief that the complex features in nature (life) is not the product of an unguided and unintelligent process but instead the opposite- that behind it all, there is an intelligent entity, force, or law that guided intelligent life into being. Basically, it is the belief system that only intelligence begets intelligence.

LDS beliefs falls into this group. We believe that God planned, designed and carried out the creation and brought to pass the generations of life, especially you and I.

So why is it, that a blog such as FAIR (kind of an oxymoron if you ask me!) is so hostile to intelligent design and not against Darwinian evolution, especially when one realizes that Darwinian evolution is a completely godless paradigm?

I have no problem with people believing in intelligent design as a religious belief, as long as they don't teach it in schools, or claim that it has anything to do with science. Intelligent design is not a necessary tenet of Mormonism, which unlike other Christian theologies, teaches that God follows natural law. There is nothing at all godless about Darwin's natural selection model of evolution. God doesn't enter the picture in Darwin's theoretical framework, for good or for bad. It is therefore God-neutral. But it is by far the only complete theory, and only scientific theory, that explains the fact of evolution.

[cdowis]

I understand that God is the creator by using pre-existing designs, so not sure if we can strictly use the term "Intelligent Design". Perhaps "intelligent engineer" is a more apt term. On the other hand creatures produce offspring "after their own kind" which, to me, places a restriction on evolution regarding interspecies evolution. I understand they are still working out the kinks on the relationship between bovines and the whale.

Finally I *sense^ that they ^censored^ you, rather than the other way around. But who cares about spelling in a truly fair forum.

[Cobalt-70]

On the other hand creatures produce offspring "after their own kind" which, to me, places a restriction on evolution regarding interspecies evolution. I understand they are still working out the kinks on the relationship between bovines and the whale.

There is no "interspecies evolution." Species diverge when two populations of the same species separate from each other for a long time so that they are unable to interbreed, and each of them accumulates mutations that are not found in the other. Eventually, their populations become distinct enough that they may be classified as separate species. No one organism ever gives rise to a child that is not "after its own kind."

There is no mystery as to the evolutionary relationship between the cow and the whale. Whales and cows share a common ancestor in the Artiodactyla order that looked roughly like a mouse deer and lived about 50-60 million years ago.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[ged1650]

My youngest son was attending BYU Id (which is still Ricks to me). His History of Christianity instructor discussed the "doctrine of the Devil" which to my son's surprize was evolution. When my son asked why it was considered a "doctrine of the Devil" the instructor informed him that it removed God from the creation. My son asked him if it was so wrong why an apostle would teach it was the means God used to create life. The individual forgot James Talmage accepted evolution as a fact. I do't think this means it is Church doctrine but it does allow for some debate.

Ged

[Log]

As for your insistence that Darwin's paradigm is irreconcilable with a belief in God, I recommend Dr. Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God.

Darwin's paradigm is irreconcilable with scripture.

Mormons are doctrinally wedded to the fact of intelligent design - sheer dumb luck is not the actual explanation for the state of the material universe and the biological structures found therein - whether or not they understand or accept the statistical theory of intelligent design.

Frankly, it appears most of the local board pundits who weigh in on the topic parrot Miller et al without having actually examined the fundamental background to intelligent design theory - which is simply a statistical tool that, when certain conditions are fulfilled, allows us to distinguish the effects of intelligent intervention from those of sheer dumb luck.

I suggest reading The Design Hypothesis, as well as Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, all three of which are available on Amazon. Then a fruitful discussion may commence.

The individual forgot James Talmage accepted evolution as a fact.

I'm willing to bet that, if pressed, Talmage would have agreed with the fact of intelligent design.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

Intelligent design is not a necessary tenet of Mormonism, which unlike other Christian theologies, teaches that God follows natural law.

What is 'natural law'? I mean, Christ resurrected... that doesn't seem to me to follow what I understand by 'natural law'.

If you try to excuse Christ's resurrection by saying He just knows those laws better or has the power to control them according to the same laws... then you have just stated a meaningless position since "God following laws" would be indistinguishable from "God not following laws" because we don't know those laws (and if you take the laws of Heaven as part of 'natural laws' then you get the same problem).

[kolipoki09]

Darwin's paradigm is irreconcilable with scripture.

Well, it's certainly irreconcilable with fundamentalism, but not scripture per se, particularly when viewed in light of the theory that the Creation narratives were written to mirror the basic elements of the pre-exilic priestly tabernacle.

Mormons are doctrinally wedded to the fact of intelligent design...

Umm....CFR. If ID is a fact, you've proven God's existence, or the existence of a designer, whomever that (or they) might be.

Frankly, it appears most of the local board pundits who weigh in on the topic parrot Miller et al without having actually examined the fundamental background to intelligent design theory - which is simply a statistical tool that, when certain conditions are fulfilled, allows us to distinguish the effects of intelligent intervention from those of sheer dumb luck.

Don't presume that I or others on this board haven't done our homework. I'm a former ID proponent and swallowed Expelled hook, line, and sinker. But I've done sufficient research to know that ID doesn't follow the scientific method - and hence, should not be called science.

I'm a believer in God. I believe God is an excellent scientist. I don't believe ID (as defined by its most vocal proponents) represents a compelling argument for God's existence, and merely attempts to provide an ever-fruitless God-of-the-gaps theory.

I'm willing to bet that, if pressed, Talmage would have agreed with the fact of intelligent design.

Or, he might just think it's creationism repackaged and reject it.

[Cobalt-70]

Mormons are doctrinally wedded to the fact of intelligent design - sheer dumb luck is not the actual explanation for the state of the material universe and the biological structures found therein - whether or not they understand or accept the statistical theory of intelligent design.

Natural selection has nothing to do with "sheer dumb luck." Natural selection works because millions of years of random mutations cause species to accumulate advantages that allow them to fill new ecological niches. The mutations are random, but the evolution itself is quite predictable when seen from a perspective of millions of years. If you put a bunch of strictly ground-dwelling animals on an island that has trees, you can bet that within a million years, at least some of their descendants are going to have mutations that are tree-adaptive.

[elguanteloko]

I honestly also don't see how other Bible-following religions can reconcile evolution and the Atonement. If a Bible-believing denomination fully accepts evolution, then they must reject the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story and, in turn, if they reject this story then, how can they make sense of the Atonement? That is, how to make sense of a concrete atonement, without a concrete fall of Adam?

[Cobalt-70]

What is 'natural law'? I mean, Christ resurrected... that doesn't seem to me to follow what I understand by 'natural law'.

If you try to excuse Christ's resurrection by saying He just knows those laws better or has the power to control them according to the same laws... then you have just stated a meaningless position since "God following laws" would be indistinguishable from "God not following laws" because we don't know those laws (and if you take the laws of Heaven as part of 'natural laws' then you get the same problem).

Read John A. Widtsoe's highly-influential Joseph Smith as Scientist: http://books.google.com/books?id=un9559MrJAUC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=joseph+smith+as+scientist+natural+law&source=bl&ots=y6vuhCkRge&sig=PMndghsgkhFkkdRaL__vo0osfDE&hl=en&ei=WW7NTpzNHNCztwfq0KzxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=joseph%20smith%20as%20scientist%20natural%20law&f=false

[kolipoki09]

I honestly also don't see how other Bible-following religions can reconcile evolution and the Atonement. If a Bible-believing denomination fully accepts evolution, then they must reject the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story and, in turn, if they reject this story then, how can they make sense of the Atonement? That is, how to make sense of a concrete atonement, without a concrete fall of Adam?

Perhaps Adam was the first man with whom God made covenants. I believe there is compelling evidence to suggest that there was death before the fall, and that there were examples of the genus Homo living long before the period described in Genesis 1. Of course, to reject evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis, one must do so on the assumption that Genesis has been accurately passed down and represents actual events for which there is no empirical data for verification.

[ged1650]

If one understands the scientific method one realizes evolution is a fact. It has been tested enough to work within the parameters of the biological paradigm we use to define our world. Intelligent design cannot be scrutinized to the point evolution has. ID is religion and I was always angry with high school biology teachers who brought their version of the Creation to public school. This is the fallacy of ID. My kids had to listen to a paradigm I didn't accept. To use Genesis as a text is difficult at best. The accounts in chapter 1 and 2 are quite vague. We need to realize God created Man in His image. This is what the Church teaches. We don't know the means He used to accomplish His Creative Work but He did it. All we know is evolution only runs couter to certain interpretations of the Genesis account.

Ged

[Cobalt-70]

I honestly also don't see how other Bible-following religions can reconcile evolution and the Atonement. If a Bible-believing denomination fully accepts evolution, then they must reject the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story and, in turn, if they reject this story then, how can they make sense of the Atonement? That is, how to make sense of a concrete atonement, without a concrete fall of Adam?

Mormons have already long regarded the story of Adam and Eve as "figurative." If you participated in an endowment ceremony before 1990, you know what I mean. Of course, the original reason for this was to allow for the fact that Brigham Young believed in the Adam-God doctrine, but if can be figurative to allow for Adam-God, then it can also be figurative to allow for evolution. Even if Adam was a real person, the story of his fall is derived from Mesopotamian mythology. It is a myth that explains why we have a fallen, corrupt, and sinful nature. Jesus can still be seen to redeem us from that nature even if that nature comes from the fact that we are, at heart, animals, rather than from the fact that some ancestor literally ate the fruit off the wrong tree.

[Olavarria]

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, it's a philosophical one.

[Rivers]

I was over at the FAIR blog posting away when they suddenly pulled the plug on me, sensoring my posts. The topic was about an interview with Steven Peck, associate professor at BYU, who teaches evolution. We were just starting to get into the heart of the matter when they decided to sensor my comments. Of course its perfectly legitimate for them to bash the other way, just don't rain on their parade! This is very typical of LDS evolutionists for some reason.

Anyway, I found it interesting that they began just bashing away on "intelligent design" all the while their subtitle to their blog is "Defending Mormonism". This seemed like a contradiction of the deepest sort to me. Here you have a supposedly neutral LDS site that is in the hobby of defending mormonism's beliefs and yet can't even get it right where it matters most. It got me to thinking about the whole evolution movement in the LDS church amongst members. And so, I wanted to ask you-

First, we must define what Intelligent Design is. Intelligent design is the simple belief that the complex features in nature (life) is not the product of an unguided and unintelligent process but instead the opposite- that behind it all, there is an intelligent entity, force, or law that guided intelligent life into being. Basically, it is the belief system that only intelligence begets intelligence.

LDS beliefs falls into this group. We believe that God planned, designed and carried out the creation and brought to pass the generations of life, especially you and I.

So why is it, that a blog such as FAIR (kind of an oxymoron if you ask me!) is so hostile to intelligent design and not against Darwinian evolution, especially when one realizes that Darwinian evolution is a completely godless paradigm?

I just can't figure it out. I did come to realize that though that the folks over at the FAIR blog aren't really "fair".

Mormonism is being defended by embracing evolution because it takes away the huge dichotomy between science and religion. Its better that mormons learn to embrace accepted science than be forced to make the choice between science and religion.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Rivers

[orion88]

Enjoy the Watchmaker ...

http://kids4truth.co...er/English.aspx

[kolipoki09]

Enjoy the Watchmaker ...

http://kids4truth.co...er/English.aspx

Since we're playing videos, here's one that's actually accurate and shorter to boot!

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

http://rationalwiki....hmaker_argument

Edited November 24, 2011 by kolipoki09

[cdowis]

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, it's a philosophical one.

Perhaps you should review some of the previous threads in this form -- especially check out the posts by mordecai, where he demonstrated it is testable, as any scientific theory.

Edited November 24, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

There is no mystery as to the evolutionary relationship between the cow and the whale. Whales and cows share a common ancestor in the Artiodactyla order that looked roughly like a mouse deer and lived about 50-60 million years ago.

You appear to be uninformed on this issue. May I suggest that you go through Mordecai's posts on this topic http://www.mormondia...ch&fromsearch=1

For example, this evolutionary process for the whale would have taken longer than the age of the solar system. Do you see that as a problem?

Edited November 24, 2011 by cdowis

[Freedom]

Since we're playing videos, here's one that's actually accurate and shorter to boot!

Thanks, that is a great video.

[Log]

I see, once again, that hardly anyone actually understands what the debate is actually about, and even fewer have read the necessary books. This experience is too frustrating to go through for no good end, so I won't.