God; The Intelligent Designer

[elguanteloko]

Stargazer:

I was hoping you were courteous enough to respond to what I said directly instead of turning around and repeat what you said already and completely ignore my objections to your position. I know what you believe already, no need to repeat over and over again. Now, please, answer my objections to it quoting and responding as directly as I did to you. I'm being as direct and honest in discussion as possible and I don't think it presumptuous to ask the same of you.

In other words, NOTHING of what you said addresses my objections.

Edited November 25, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Cobalt-70]

Good grief. What is it with people who try to apply human laws to God? Or who try to turn God's laws back on Him? God can't kill any of His creations, you think? He does it every day. The fact is simple. If God does not prevent the death of one His creations, when He is perfectly capable of it, then it is as if He caused the death. Because He created the mortal being, He created the very fact of death. Why is this such a problem? He could, if He chose, decide the whole thing was a big mistake and cause the Universe itself to cease existing. It's His. Get used to it. There is nothing that prevents it except His will and His purposes.

God controls every bloody speeding neutrino streaming through your body every single moment.

There are no "random" mutations.

You sound like a Calvinist. If God micromanages the motion of every subatomic particle, then what about free will?

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I think I understand what you mean now. Let me know if I'm not.

I think a lot depends on what we call man, as opposed to what God calls man. From my religious persepective man is more than just a collection of cells that look something like us as a species. A primary feature of man is that he has a history. He can write/tell that history to others of his species and have that knowledge effect future events. I know of no other species that can do that. Our species achieved that ability some 7-10,000 years ago. Well within the time frame of a Adam.

Disagreeing with the science is one thing, scientists do it all the time, interjecting a totally unsupportable idea and claiming it is science is quite another. I'm old enough to remember when some poor LSD addicts believed they could fly without a airplane out of a tall building. It didn't work out too well for them. Even firmly held beliefs, just don't have much effect on the natural world.

I think a certain amount of randomness is built into the system. It allows for variation. Heaven forbid if everyone was just like me.

I agree with the Genesis, and Abrahamic telling of the Creation story. What I disagree with is us mere mortals putting a limit on Gods' ability to follow a logical process to achieve a logical result.

Evolution doesn't deal with God(s). Individual scientists of course are free to believe or not believe as is their personal choice. Many in fact do believe. Including present company.

Edited November 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

I don't know as that neutrinos interact with matter at all. They seem to pass through the entire earth, extremely rarely encountering even one atom.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt70's assertion that the impact of a cosmic ray with someone's DNA strand is all so very random and out of God's control is absolutely farcical. If God isn't perfectly aware of things down to this level, and cannot control things there, then God can't know or control anything.

I'm not saying that cosmic rays, and their impact on genetic mutations, is not under God's control. God, and any human for that matter, could for example build a thick lead box to surround the DNA in question and thus prevent the cosmic ray from creating the mutation. Or God could observe a cosmic ray heading your way, and warn you to stay clear of its path. And God wouldn't have to break the laws of physics to do so.

But the idea that God is himself physically steering every cosmic ray in the universe seems like a lot of wasted processing power in God's mind. What kind of a hell it must be to be God, and have to spend eternity with such mundane tasks as steering subatomic particles, making the planets go round, and forming every raindrop that falls from the sky? Also, if God is really physically steering and micromanaging every subatomic particle in the universe, why does it seem like the universe is governed by physical laws? Is God trying to deceive us into thinking he is not the puppet master behind every physical interaction?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Agan science does not deal with God. I can not invoke God to demonstrate my science. God by definition is the Supernatural. Science only deals with the Natural. Science by defintion can neither support nor deny the existence of any God(s).

Let's make this real simple. Say you get a little cut on your finger. You can not demonstrate that God caused the bleeding to stop. But I can demonstrate it was the clotting factors in your blood that caused your finger to stop bleeding. Now; DID God stop the bleeding? Of course he can if he wanted to. But a better explanation is that he gave your body clotting factors, and the brains to put on a bandage.

That is nothing more than a variation on the watch on beech argument.

http://philofreligio.../paleyhume.html

That is nothing more than an appeal to the "God of the Gaps".

http://en.wikipedia....God_of_the_gaps

All that nothing can create is nothing.

No scientist that I know of claims that something came from nothing, and certainly no LDS that I know of claims that.

Evolutionary science is the explanation of how living organisms changed(evolved) AFTER life first appeared.

You use the word "supernatural" in the sense of something outside of the laws of nature and science. But, I don't believe in God who is "supernatural" in this sense. My God works within laws of science and nature. After all- I believe I am the product of his work and I am not "supernatural". Science deals with the observable and testable. We can test and observe things in nature to find out about them. What do you think forensic scientists in the lab do? They teast things and try to ascertain the most probable cause in something. Specifically- they try to determine scientifically if something was a random event or a planned event. They look for patterns going either way- towards something random or something deliberate. In biology we can do the same thing- look at the signature of if it is the product of something deliberate or random.

You bring up this "God-of-the-gaps" as a weak front. NObody who works within the ID theory uses anything like this. We don't get to a hard spot and just say- hum...guess we gotta invoke the supernatural here". No, we get to a point where we can rule out all other possibilities and then logically make a case for the most probable cause. Isn't that what evolution trys to do yet fails miserably? Abiogenesis comes readily to mind- After almost a 100 years of countless scientific tests and observations, science hasn't been able to rule out the obvious. No matter what they do, they cannot get nature, in a every controlled environment conceivable, to produce anything life-like out of non-life substance. You would think by now that they would have finally figured out the probable. That probable being that life only begets life.

Oh, and BTW, who even brought up anything about us believing something came from nothing? Who made that up? It certainly wasn't Intelligent design theory! ID theory states in principle that in order for something intelligent to first exist, there must be something intelligent that precedes it to begin with. Putting the logic together then, ID theory states an endless perpetual line that intelligence must have always existed. Thus- "something always must come from something preceding it." ID theory and deep south protestant creationism are not the same thing. Related- Yes, but then again- so are you and I and we think completely different.

[Rob Osborn]

elguanteloko,

You are very wrong about intelliegence and computer programs. I will state it again- "no computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own." One thing you have to remeber here is that if a program is set up to appear to come up with new information, in fact, and in reality, it is only doing exactly and precisely what it was programmed to do- look for patterns that we ourselves as the programmer want it to look for. That is not what i am getting at. When i stste about it actually being able to create new and discernable new information on it's own i am specifically meaning just that- new and discernable information. For example- Is it possible for a computer program to be written in such a manner that at some point it would rewrite it's own program into its own discernable program and come up with its own perameters of how it does that in a new and novel way and then have it be not only discernable to itself, but to us also being able to produce entirely new and novel information of the which was not written into its original program? If you could do this (of the which is impossible) then you would have truly invented real intelligence. But that is precisely the paramount paradox that faces evolutionary biology.

You see, evolutionary biology looks at "intelligence as the product of nature"- as the product of unguided random events. It supposes that in essence, nature as now well documented, is a written program that came about all by itself without any intelligent programmer to get things started or give it direction to begin with. You and I both know that DNA is the written program for life- how it is to be built, how it functions and maintains life, etc. But we both know from countless attempts through computer programming models, that an intelligent program does not write iself from nothing- computer programs don't develop their own programs and work on their own. If something as simple as a computer can't do this, how is something extremely more sophisticated- that of "life" going to do it if it must first start with nothing at all - no program to begin with at all not even a life-source?

[Stargazer]

You couldn't be more wrong. Computers can create new information in the same way humans can. Computers can even create mathematical proofs never seen before and that look as creative as any human proof.

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

This is the best IDvsEvolution debate I've seen in part because it shows how simple the issues at hand are that determine the differences between ID and modern Evolutionary theory:

Cool stuff! Thanks for posting those videos elguanteloko!

[Cobalt-70]

You are very wrong about intelliegence and computer programs. I will state it again- "no computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own."

From a mathematical and scientific perspective (specifically, information theory), this is incorrect. Information, in a scientific sense, is created by any thermodynamically-irreversible process. Because of the second law of thermodynamics, the amount of information in any closed system (such as the universe as a whole) always increases. Computer programs, because they follow the laws of physics, always create new information regardless of how they are programmed.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko,

You are very wrong about intelliegence and computer programs. I will state it again- "no computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own." One thing you have to remeber here is that if a program is set up to appear to come up with new information, in fact, and in reality, it is only doing exactly and precisely what it was programmed to do- look for patterns that we ourselves as the programmer want it to look for.

I know what you were trying to say, brother, but, isn't exactly this what a human does when it is said that the human came up with new information? Thinking about it. If I'm trying to come up with a proof for a given mathematical theorem, that doesn't mean I already know the answer (in the same way the computer does NOT have the proof in its system yet). Now, after we tell the computer to figure it out (just as someone could tell me to figure the proof out) then I come up with new information that wasn't there before... How is this in any way different from what the computer is doing? It is not.

Watch the video I posted to you. It isn't that computers are merely following instructions... they are creating new instructions with the given information already given to them just as, with a few axioms, we can come up with a whole algebraic system.

That is not what i am getting at. When i stste about it actually being able to create new and discernable new information on it's own i am specifically meaning just that- new and discernable information. For example- Is it possible for a computer program to be written in such a manner that at some point it would rewrite it's own program into its own discernable program and come up with its own perameters of how it does that in a new and novel way and then have it be not only discernable to itself, but to us also being able to produce entirely new and novel information of the which was not written into its original program? If you could do this (of the which is impossible) then you would have truly invented real intelligence. But that is precisely the paramount paradox that faces evolutionary biology.

...I don't get why a computer 'rewriting its own program' is a necessary and sufficient condition for intelligence. Do humans rewrite their own information in completely "new and discernible information"? Can WE rewrite all of our information as to say it is now completely new information not traceable back to the primary pieces of information we learned when young? Computers can be fed a set of information and come up with new information not previously there, that is indisputable, bro. Computers can come up with all sorts of new proofs and operations we didn't put there.... you know, just like humans. Now, there are things computers can do and we can't and computers can't do and we can... but your (still very vague) criterion for intelligence is something either both can do or none of them can do.

Your criteria for 'intelligence' is as outrageous as it is based on fantasy.

You see, evolutionary biology looks at "intelligence as the product of nature"- as the product of unguided random events. It supposes that in essence, nature as now well documented, is a written program that came about all by itself without any intelligent programmer to get things started or give it direction to begin with. You and I both know that DNA is the written program for life- how it is to be built, how it functions and maintains life, etc. But we both know from countless attempts through computer programming models, that an intelligent program does not write iself from nothing- computer programs don't develop their own programs and work on their own. If something as simple as a computer can't do this, how is something extremely more sophisticated- that of "life" going to do it if it must first start with nothing at all - no program to begin with at all not even a life-source?

If what you want is a program that writes itself from nothing... then you will never get it and that's not something humans or living things do either. DNA came from other slightly different DNA molecules. Those different DNA molecules cam from different ones going back a long ways where DNA was simpler (probably not even nameable DNA at all). The whole point is that complexity arose, through many random changes and natural selection, from simple stuff, not out of nothing. Are you reading yourself, brother? I haven't seen such a display of ignorance of evolutionary theory here on the boards. Do you seriously think we believe humans just popped into existence out of nothing as you say here? Give me a break.

No wonder you don't accept evolution through natural selection and random mutation as the mechanism when you think it is "evolution ex nihilo." Good grief!

Edited November 25, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Mariner]

Mariner:

I can accept a God that uses all the sciences to achieve, including some we now know little to nothing about, his desired goal. IE; Abiogenesis.

Would it be fair then to say that deep down you are really a creationist and that you just believe in "creation by other means"?

I ask this because the existence of the world and the universe, as you have explained it in your single sentence response, would require a creator God.

How is this different from creationism or ID? You spent a lot of time correctly pointing out the fatal problems of ID, and then on the same thread admit to believing in a form of creationism.

You are trained in the soft sciences. How can you explain such a contradiction?

If you believe that the world we see could come about by natural means, why claim that there is an unseen creator God behind the curtain pulling the levers?

[elguanteloko]

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.

It's funny because I thought the best explanation was that the temple stuff was figurative for the actual Adam and Eve event, IWO just the opposite.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

In a very loose sense of the word. I have no problem at all with the science telling me HOW God did it. While the Scriptures tell me the WHY.

True. However that says nothing at all about any process he may have used. As I understand both Evolution and the Sciptures. I would suggest that the tool is not the tool user.

Yes I did spend a lot of time critiquing ID. Because to my way of thinking it makes inaccurate, unsupportable, statements about the Natural world/universe. It uses an intellligent being, or agent as a priori to dismiss science. I can't do that. I have no poblem with God. However; God by definition is a Supernatural agent. As a scientist I can not allow my beliefs about God to determine what I should study to the best of my ability. IOW I can't put God into a test tube.

Because I have had experiences with God.

Edited November 26, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

I know what you were trying to say, brother, but, isn't exactly this what a human does when it is said that the human came up with new information? Thinking about it. If I'm trying to come up with a proof for a given mathematical theorem, that doesn't mean I already know the answer (in the same way the computer does NOT have the proof in its system yet). Now, after we tell the computer to figure it out (just as someone could tell me to figure the proof out) then I come up with new information that wasn't there before... How is this in any way different from what the computer is doing? It is not.

Do you even have a grasp for what true intelligence even is? We both know that the computer program itself is the end product of intelligence- seeing it work is the signature that something intelligence designed and created it. But, we also know that watching the computer program work as a designed machine does not mean that the computer program has any true intelligence of its own- none of it's capabilities did it design and put into motion on its own. It can only do precisely what it was programmed to do. If we were to take even the most sophisticated computer program and break it down mathmatically step by step, we would find that every step it carried out in sequence wopuld follow the programmers input precisely and exactly. It isnt doing anything truly novel on its own at all. Its only and always just- artificial intelligence.

Watch the video I posted to you. It isn't that computers are merely following instructions... they are creating new instructions with the given information already given to them just as, with a few axioms, we can come up with a whole algebraic system.

It is only following the programmed input. Again, if one were to break down every single operation or step, one would find that it is following precisely and exactly what it is programmed to do.

...I don't get why a computer 'rewriting its own program' is a necessary and sufficient condition for intelligence. Do humans rewrite their own information in completely "new and discernible information"? Can WE rewrite all of our information as to say it is now completely new information not traceable back to the primary pieces of information we learned when young? Computers can be fed a set of information and come up with new information not previously there, that is indisputable, bro. Computers can come up with all sorts of new proofs and operations we didn't put there.... you know, just like humans. Now, there are things computers can do and we can't and computers can't do and we can... but your (still very vague) criterion for intelligence is something either both can do or none of them can do.

It is paramount that it rewrite its own program. It is the only way to determine that new and novel information was actually made. Of course, this would mean that somehow the program could be written in such a manner that it could of course discern itself and make decisions based off of its newly aquired re-written program.

Your criteria for 'intelligence' is as outrageous as it is based on fantasy.

What, I pose a clear and distinguishable method to test whether or not truly new novel intelligence can arise from nothing and you think it is outrageous and fantasy? I merely am proposing a testable method to see if abiogenesis is really scientifically viable. So, by your own admittance- the theory of abiogenesis must be outrageous and fantasy. Ok, I agree with you on that.

If what you want is a program that writes itself from nothing... then you will never get it and that's not something humans or living things do either. DNA came from other slightly different DNA molecules. Those different DNA molecules cam from different ones going back a long ways where DNA was simpler (probably not even nameable DNA at all). The whole point is that complexity arose, through many random changes and natural selection, from simple stuff, not out of nothing. Are you reading yourself, brother? I haven't seen such a display of ignorance of evolutionary theory here on the boards. Do you seriously think we believe humans just popped into existence out of nothing as you say here? Give me a break.

Unbelievable- just throw out a long time and a myriad of supposedly simple steps and anything complex will assuredly arise? That is complete ignorance of known natural laws. Do you really think that me and you are the end result of nature acting randomly on non-life objects? It would be far easier for a monkey to type a fictional novel by randomly striking keys on a typewriter.

No wonder you don't accept evolution through natural selection and random mutation as the mechanism when you think it is "evolution ex nihilo." Good grief!

Whe ever said I believe that? Unbelievable! I don't accept evolution as the reason for my existance because I don't believe matter assembles itself on its own to form intelligent and purposeful functions capable of self repair and propagation of its kind.

[Rob Osborn]

Mariner:

In a very loose sense of the word. I have no problem at all with the science telling me HOW God did it. While the Scriptures tell me the WHY.

True. However that says nothing at all about any process he may have used. As I understand both Evolution and the Sciptures. I would suggest that the tool is not the tool user.

Yes I did spend a lot of time critiquing ID. Because to my way of thinking it makes inaccurate, unsupportable, statements about the Natural world/universe. It uses an intellligent being, or agent as a priori to dismiss science. I can't do that. I have no poblem with God. However; God by definition is a Supernatural agent. As a scientist I can not allow my beliefs about God to determine what I should study to the best of my ability. IOW I can't put God into a test tube.

Because I have had experiences with God.

But, you do put His (God) work into the test tube. That is of course, saying that you actually think nature is the work of His hands. God is a physical being. He is not some supernatural agent. Just because you can't comprehend him with your limited knowledge at this point doesn't mean we should just chalk him up in the same category as fantasy or mythical.

ID doesn't dismiss science- thats absurd. ID merely questions the theory of evolution by natural selection as to whether or not it was truly random. What- you can't dispute a scientific theory?

[elguanteloko]

Do you even have a grasp for what true intelligence even is?

Actually, and honestly, no (and, as far as I've read, it is an elusive concept on its own right) but I do know quite a few things about it, enough to show you why what you are saying makes ZERO sense. Not only am I saying what you say makes no sense, I'm telling you why. I hope you realize that and attack my objections to what you're saying.

We both know that the computer program itself is the end product of intelligence- seeing it work is the signature that something intelligence designed and created it.

Sure, because we know how computers are made. The problem is, Rob, that we do NOT know how life is made (although we have reasonable speculation about it). I know a computer was intelligently designed because I see computers being designed and made. I do NOT see plants and DNA being formed by intelligence at all and, actually, I see exactly the opposite: the workings of DNA and its replication require absolutely no intelligence to occur. How do I know a painting had a painter? Because I have previous experiences of painters doing paintings and I reason that that painting had a painter.

We know things can become complex without intelligence (crystals lattices is one example). Chance itself isn't any indicator and your 'common sense' has no experiences to based the assumption that a super-intelligent intelligence must have helped all along the process of thousands of species through evolution guiding them by the hand.

But, we also know that watching the computer program work as a designed machine does not mean that the computer program has any true intelligence of its own

I already told you why this doesn't work, pal.

It is only following the programmed input.

Sure and the whole point of yours was that it couldn't create new information and I already gave you examples of clear cases where it can in very similar ways in which humans can (and sometimes perform even better). Are humans not following any input? Once again, your criterion for intelligence doesn't work AT ALL.

Again, if one were to break down every single operation or step, one would find that it is following precisely and exactly what it is programmed to do.

Duh. Can humans do something we aren't programmed to do? Can computers do something they aren't capable of doing? I mean....

Once again, computers can consistently create new information that was nowhere to be found on either the input or the program. I already told you also why "rewriting its whole program" is, simply put, a childlike fantasy standard of intelligence. Humans can't do it and computers can't either.

It is paramount that it rewrite its own program. It is the only way to determine that new and novel information was actually made. Of course, this would mean that somehow the program could be written in such a manner that it could of course discern itself and make decisions based off of its newly aquired re-written program.

Oh, really? So, I will come up with a word I've never seen before: Carchutrinca and it means a fruit that doesn't even exist in the world. There you go. That's new information and I didn't need to 'rewrite' any program. Computers can, quite easily, come up with stuff that wasn't in the program... that's the whole point of freakin' programs, man!

What, I pose a clear and distinguishable method to test whether or not truly new novel intelligence can arise from nothing and you think it is outrageous and fantasy?

Your method amounts to this: If it looks complex enough and it works in ways I imagine to be hard enough to be brought up except by an intelligence, then it was brought by an intelligence.

I merely am proposing a testable method to see if abiogenesis is really scientifically viable. So, by your own admittance- the theory of abiogenesis must be outrageous and fantasy. Ok, I agree with you on that.

LOL You haven't done ANY such thing!

Unbelievable- just throw out a long time and a myriad of supposedly simple steps and anything complex will assuredly arise? That is complete ignorance of known natural laws. Do you really think that me and you are the end result of nature acting randomly on non-life objects? It would be far easier for a monkey to type a fictional novel by randomly striking keys on a typewriter.

yeah...

Go ahead, sure. We, evolutionists, believe you are the product of random molecules that, one fortunate day, collided in the right way and in the right order to produce the first human being. We believe what we explicitly deny. You have unlocked our secret combination to destroy faiths.

Edited November 26, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Cobalt-70]

Unbelievable- just throw out a long time and a myriad of supposedly simple steps and anything complex will assuredly arise? That is complete ignorance of known natural laws. Do you really think that me and you are the end result of nature acting randomly on non-life objects? It would be far easier for a monkey to type a fictional novel by randomly striking keys on a typewriter.

...

Whe ever said I believe that? Unbelievable! I don't accept evolution as the reason for my existance because I don't believe matter assembles itself on its own to form intelligent and purposeful functions capable of self repair and propagation of its kind.

It doesn't sound like you quite understand what natural selection is. Natural selection is not just a bunch of monkeys typing on a typewriter and stumbling on the human code. There are no giant, spectacular random leaps. Each successful mutation only makes the slightest, almost imperceptible change. Though each mutation might be random, over the long haul, evolution is rather predictable. If you have a large grassy plain, you can bet that in a few million years, one population of animals will acquire the behavior of grazing, and look something like a cow or bison. If there are no flying animals in the ecology, you can reliably count on one population of animals will evolve flight and look like a bird, because it has happened independently three times, with pterosaurs, birds, and bats.

Nothing pops into existence ex nihilo. Rather, natural selection is a slow process of tweaking something that exists to make something ever-so-slightly better adapted for its environment over thousands and thousands of generations. The only thing that we don't know about this process is the exact way that life first began, although we at least know that the earliest life was composed primarily of RNA. But once life got started, there is really no mystery. The fossil record tells the story in minute detail, as does our DNA and the DNA of every living creature.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

You keep saying that God is not supernatural. The dictionary definition disagrees with you. I'm really not into the ideosyncratic definitions of words.

I can't put any God(s) into my test tube. If I make a claim, i absolutely must be able to demonstrate that claim to a disinterested third party. IE; If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I expect to get water. However IF a miniture flying pink elephant pops out. Chances are very good that it was I and not God that did something terribly wrong. If I go on to try to present that claim to a scientific body. Well let's just say that it wouldn't be a fun experience.

I have no problem with God. I kinda like him myself. However when religionists, or anyone else for that matter, make claims about the physical earth/universe those claims become subject to established methods needed to demonstrate what is fact, and what is merely a religious belief. IE; If a Hindu makes a claim that the earth is "X" years old. Why should that claim be subject to different less stringent tests than if a EV or a Mormon makes a similar claim?

Edited November 26, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

In a very loose sense of the word. I have no problem at all with the science telling me HOW God did it. While the Scriptures tell me the WHY.

True. However that says nothing at all about any process he may have used. As I understand both Evolution and the Sciptures. I would suggest that the tool is not the tool user.

Yes I did spend a lot of time critiquing ID. Because to my way of thinking it makes inaccurate, unsupportable, statements about the Natural world/universe. It uses an intellligent being, or agent as a priori to dismiss science. I can't do that. I have no poblem with God. However; God by definition is a Supernatural agent. As a scientist I can not allow my beliefs about God to determine what I should study to the best of my ability. IOW I can't put God into a test tube.

Because I have had experiences with God.

While yours is one of the best personal explanations for a reconciliation of theism and science I have seen in a long time (maybe ever), at its core, and by your own admission, it is still in a variation of a creationist worldview. In other words, you believe (I assume) that without a creator God (regardless of how passive His role once things were set in motion) this Earth, would not exist.

If you believe that there was "matter unorganized" when God set to work on the Earth (as taught by the LDS Church) what form would you assume this matter was in?

Did God make the Earth out of other planets to give us the bones of prehistoric animals? (We have both heard this explanation from folks higher up in the Church than one might think.)

Was the Earth really formed originally in a location near unto Kolob?

Did it really fall from that orbit to enter this solar system at the time of the fall of Adam?

Was there really no death before the fall of Adam (less than 10,000 years ago)?

Did the Eastern and Western Hemispheres really break from a single land mass and move apart in a cataclysmic event approximately 4,000 years ago, as described by Elder Jeffrey Holland?

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.

To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes. - Jeffrey Holland in the Ensign in 1976

Once an LDS scientist sets his feet on the path of Mormon creationism, how far along it is he obliged to go?

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

I have no problem with being a creationist in that very loose sense of the word. It works for me as it doesn't contradict either my science or my religion.

That is like asking would a house exist without a hammer? Of course it could, but hammers make building that house so much easier.

Though I have heard that idea too. I see no reason to accept it. I am comfortable with the earth being organized from the dust of long ago exploded stars.

I don't know exactly where the earth was formed. TTBOMK it was a long process of gravitional pull that collected the materials that formed our earth in roughly the area it is now. I have no idea where Kolob is other than what is said in the Scriptures.

I don't believe so, and see no evidence for such a belief. Now if you ask me if I believe God formed this earth here, in its particular orbit around the sun, for a reason. I believe that he did. We seem to be in what is known as a "Goldie Locks Zone". Not too close or we'd be a Venus, Not too far aways or we'd be a Mars. But "Just Right".

I don't believe the earths plates did so at that time. I see no reason to believe in a young earth, or disregard what is known of Plate Tectonics. Appealing to religious Authority to explain a natural event doesn't hold much weight with me. We have a long established method of determining what is doctrine, and no one man, no matter how well placed in the Church has that authority. If God were to give direct Revelation to the Church First Presidency on the age of the earth, and what processess he used, agreed to by unanimus consent by the Quorum of The Twelve, and sustained by the Church in General Conference. Then of course I would be obligated to believe. But TTBOMK such has never been done.

I can't speak for anyone but myself. I am not required to believe anything but the Truth. That Truth is found in my religion and my science. LDS as a people accept Truth wherever it is found. WILL there ever come a point where I reject my religion? I don't foresee such an event, and I don't see any necessity to reject my science either. I guess in theory there COULD come a time when we have to part ways. But I have been a member of the Church for 40 years, and a scientist longer. So it is not likely to happen.

[Mariner]

thesometimesaint,

Again, your post #95 is a seemingly reasonable response. I notice that you are apparently willing to accept LDS teachings that may be contrary to science, so long as they are established as doctrine in some acceptable way, including the method that you describe.

BCSpace, Freedom and doubtless other posters on this board, and probably millions of Mormons who understand something about science, seem to draw a line similar to yours; that being that even though some claim or explanation may be common belief, if it is not canonized doctrine, one need not accept it in order to be considered a faithful Mormon.

I have noted that BCSpace apparently spends a great deal of time deciding what is doctrine, and what is not doctrine, and then justifying that decision as best he can (often with bizarre results). One thing that BCSace is pretty clear about is that if something is set forth in revealed LDS scripture, it is doctrine. Would you agree with this?

BCSpace denies that there are contradictions between science and LDS doctrine as set forth in scripture. However BCSpace's understanding of science leaves a lot to be desired and so his claims can be easily dismissed.

As a scientist, do you feel comfortable accepting the truth claims of Mormon scripture?

Or is it necessary for you to pick and choose?

I guess what I am asking is this: does the ultimate measure or determination of what is truth for you lie in science or religion?

And please do not claim that there are no conflicts, because we both know that there are plenty of them.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Thank you. I do try to be reasonable. Unfortunately I have my hobby horses like every one else.

BCSpace is a good guy. I see him trying to reconcil that which is intrincly very hard to do. Philosophers and scientific minded people have struggled with those ideas from before recorded time. I do much the same.

Of course BCSpace and I don't always agree. But that is to be expected in a religion as diverse as Mormonism is. I still value him as a friend(albeit an internet one), and a good member of the Church.

As long as members of the Church agree with the canonized Scripture. I believe we can have our own ideas on such things as the nature of the Creation, how old the earth is, whether chocolate is the necture of the Gods or not , and still be good faithfull members.

I think we all have more than enough to learn about God, and his creations to keep us very busy for a very long time to come. So I don't get all that bothered by some odd belief(s), and figure someday(Probably after I've past onto the next life.) God will explain it all to me to my complete and total satisfaction. My job here is to learn every thing I can in this life. If I'm wrong I believe God will gently correct me.

I'm perfectly comfortable accepting the Truth Claims of my religion, but I feel no need to accept what some, even some members of the Church, interpretations of those Truth Claims are.

I don't see any conflicts. Do we understand fully science? How about religion? I sure don't, and I don't believe that any mere mortal does. I do beileve it is fair to say that I don't see the reconcilization happening anytime soon, at least not in my life time.

Some 400 years ago they were still burning witches at the stake. If we could build a time machine and go back to that time. If we tried to explain television we'd get burned at the stake too. Einstein never did accept Quantum Mechanics, but today it is well accepted in the scientific community. Today is it String Theory or will some other theory that will get the nod. I don't know. However I am confident that someday all will be revealed either by the Truths of my religion, or the Truths of my science. It is all Truth to me.

Edited November 26, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

elguanteloko,

You confuse artificial intelligence with real intelligence. A computer program is artificial intelligence and we are real intelligence. A computer program is in no way real intelligence- it is wholly incapable of inventing or creating new and novel intelligence on its own. That is the difference. I don't suppose that next we are gonna debate on whether or not reality really exists....

We do know how life is made- we actually do see the painter who painted the painting. Take me for example- If I am the painting, then of course I know who painted it- my own father and mother. That was too easy. Thus we can extrapolate that my father had a father and so on and so forth until one gets to Adam and from him to God himself. That isn't too hard to figure out.

If you think that the way DNA is made and works as a plan doesn't require intelligence then I guess this argument is over right now cause I can't debate the absolutely obvious here that it requires intelligence to read and interpret the DNA.

Perhaps you don't understand the implications of what is required to actually create something that is purposefual and intelligent. Computer programs have no real intelligence whatsoever and they never will. Only things that re alive have intelligence and it has been observed over and over without any doubt that any intelligent process (such as DNA replication) only comes from an intelligent source to begin with. I can prove all day long that DNA can only come from an intelligent source. Scientists who study chemical evolution can't even figure out step one of many million steps. Just think- that is 0% progress!

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

You keep saying that God is not supernatural. The dictionary definition disagrees with you. I'm really not into the ideosyncratic definitions of words.

I can't put any God(s) into my test tube. If I make a claim, i absolutely must be able to demonstrate that claim to a disinterested third party. IE; If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I expect to get water. However IF a miniture flying pink elephant pops out. Chances are very good that it was I and not God that did something terribly wrong. If I go on to try to present that claim to a scientific body. Well let's just say that it wouldn't be a fun experience.

I have no problem with God. I kinda like him myself. However when religionists, or anyone else for that matter, make claims about the physical earth/universe those claims become subject to established methods needed to demonstrate what is fact, and what is merely a religious belief. IE; If a Hindu makes a claim that the earth is "X" years old. Why should that claim be subject to different less stringent tests than if a EV or a Mormon makes a similar claim?

Perhaps you could give a clear definition of how you are using the word "supernatural" then because I am assuming you are using it in the sense of something outside of nature and the laws of nature. Am I wrong? I don't believe God is "supernatural" in this sense.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

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

Ps; One definition of intelligence is self awareness. If we developed a computer program that was self aware. IE Star Treks' Data would that meet your defintion of intelligence?

Edited November 26, 2011 by thesometimesaint