God; The Intelligent Designer

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

I don't have a problem with God. The problem I do have is that as all of Christianity believes that God is omnipotent. That some believe that he does change the very laws that made and control the universe to fool us his children. That those people try to pass that religious idea off as science.

I believe that God uses those laws(even ones we don't know anything about) to achieve his purposes to help us understand him better, and become like him However outright violate. NO.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Circular logic at its finest.

Do you believe that God organized, planned and carried out the creation under His direction? Is God's direction involved paramount to our existance?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Again it is not a matter of my belief. It is what I can demonstrate from science.

But yes I personally believe he did. All we disagree on is HOW, and WHEN he did it.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Again it is not a matter of my belief. It is what I can demonstrate from science.

But yes I personally believe he did. All we disagree on is HOW, and WHEN he did it.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what it sounds like to me-

You believe that God planned and designed the creation, of the which without, there would be no existance. You believe that God used evolution for his creation. You thus believe in at least a God who started life- jump started it. If this is correct, then do you believe God planned or directed life in a way to ensure that we would become like God- be in His image?

[Rob Osborn]

I should note to those who are unaware. ID does not directly rule out evolution. Id only makes a case against the model of evolution through natural selection. One does not have to totally disagree with evolution to believe in ID theory. Here is a good definition from www.intelligentdesign.org that explains what ID theory is and confronts-

Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[David T]

This doesn't make any sense. If God did the creation then obviously the creation was intelligently designed. They are the same thing. This is the exact problem that LDS evolutionists have because they admit on one hand that God created life, but yet on the other hand fail to place God into that creation. How then could God create life if He was not part of it? Go back and read my opening statement about what this thread is all about. If God did plan the creation, as LDS do believe, then the creation was an intelligently designed event for the purpose of bringing about God's will. That makes God the intelligent designer.

There is a difference between the concept that there is an intelligence influencing and in some way organized or planned or guided the results of biological life, and the specific theory and methodology which has been called INTELLIGENT DESIGN™. It is very possible to agree or consider that God (or some intelligence, call it what you may) had some sort of guiding/organizing role, and still reject INTELLIGENT DESIGN™.

Kind of like how I can believe in Mormon doctrine, but not be a fan of MORMON DOCTRINE™

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hopefully this conversation will lead a few people over to the actual podcast episodes with Steven Peck, some of the best episodes to date!

http://www.fairblog.org/2011/11/17/fair-conversations-episode-12-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-1-of-2/

http://www.fairblog.org/2011/11/21/fair-conversations-episode-13-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-2-of-2/

[jo1952]

Mariner:

I don't have a problem with God. The problem I do have is that as all of Christianity believes that God is omnipotent. That some believe that he does change the very laws that made and control the universe to fool us his children. That those people try to pass that religious idea off as science.

I believe that God uses those laws(even ones we don't know anything about) to achieve his purposes to help us understand him better, and become like him However outright violate. NO.

Do you not see that it is the interpretation of scientific theories which create the paradigm of "God fooling His children"???? God isn't trying to fool anybody. However, He will not take away your free agency to fool yourself.

When science first became a subject of interest, its purpose was to help prove that God exists, and to support scripture. Since Darwin (an atheist), who lived between 1809 and 1882, science has purposefully removed God from the study of His own Creation. Unfortunately, many Christians have readily accepted the terms and conditions while trying to convince themselves that they can remain unshaken in their own personal beliefs about God. My experience is that they have failed miserably to do so. Hence we see statements on this board like "you must remove God from science' in order for the scientific method to remain true to itself; or even worse, to make the study of science pure idolatry, "we (scientists) worship at the altar of science". Fortunately there ARE scientists who have refused to remove God from science inspite of the bad rap they get from their colleagues. They have NOT replaced worshiping the Creator with worshiping the Creation. They do not find it necessary to rewrite scripture or to discount or question the teachings of the Prophets. They do not gloss over comments supported by scripture such as:

Romans 1:16-23 (bolded words added)

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (yet man takes God out of science--the study of His own creation???): for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

¹⁷For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (and who is living by science? Is this a righteous method?)

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

¹⁹Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.(Personally, I do not need science to know about God or to know that God is the Creator.)

²⁰For 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; so that they are without excuse:

²¹Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

²³And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

It just seems to me that this is one of the things which explains why the Church has not received more from the plates:

3 Nephi 26:9-10

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

Remember that the above two verses followed these (think and ponder on this!):

3 Nephi 26:3-4

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory--yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fevent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

Why do you think we have not received more? We must be doing something wrong. Are you willing to look at the big picture of what is happening with science? Maybe, just maybe, by taking God out of science, re-writing scripture as a result, worshiping at the altar of science, etc., is an indication that even faithful members of the Church have embraced science and turned it into a worldly pursuit of the Creation making man "wise" by their own determination, rather than focusing on the Creator? Could this have something to do with why we have not received any more of what is hidden on the plates?

3 Nephi 27:33

And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

All of scripture points to a spiritual life, and a rejection of the world. We are to use the world as a training ground to learn good from evil. We are also to learn obedience to certain commandments from Father. Once someone embraces the world, they are on the path of the wide gate. Science denies the existence of anything supernatural. Yet our walk in faith is entirely a walk in the supernatural.

To me, it appears that science is a very "wide gate"; especially when man holds his own interpretations up to be counted as in agreement with man-made "peer" reviews and such -- seeking after justification for their great wisdom among other men.

Jesus taught us to search the prophets. Why would He instruct us to do this? I do not think it was so that we would then look to our own worldly determinations and make claims as to which ones taught us Truth, and then likewise disgard the writings of those whom man decided were telling lies. Jesus specifically, in 3 Nephi 26:3-4 says:

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory--yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fevent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

Now, those are things for which we do not have the details because He has hidden them from us because we are not yet ready. We haven't yet passed the test of faith for what HAS been revealed. So, why does the Christian scientist insist on trying to prove or disprove God's words by studying the past through present eyes, rather than studying science by including God in their work with a focus on what is yet to come?

If we are not able to walk in our test of FAITH, and stop looking for PROOF, we will never be able to understand the prophesies of what is yet to come. And this will be to our own condemnation. This is something Jesus taught us; I think it is pretty significant!!!! Whenever, for instance, Franktalk and/or I bring up the need to study Revelation and other scriptures prophesying the Second Coming, the eyes of posters glaze over and they mumble something about, "well, if it were that important, Church leadership would be warning us." Yet we also know that God is NOT going to guide us solely through our Leadership. He has sent the Holy Ghost to lead us personally to ALL TRUTH. It is ONLY the Holy Ghost who can reveal Truth to our spirit. Even direction from our Leaders needs to be confirmed by the Holy Ghost so that we each can personally KNOW that what our Leaders teach IS Truth.

It frightens me to see the direction so many Christians, and especially LDS, are taking down the rosey path of science, who have turned their study and positioning it in their minds to the status of idolatry. Looking for PROOF has turned them away from walking in FAITH. Thus they are failing the test of faith which Jesus gave us. It frightens me that this is being done willingly and so readily, that they fail to recognize this brings on their own condemnation. It concerns me greatly! The fruit of their labors have not only caused them to disgard the words of the prophets whom they are supposed to be studying, they are rewriting scripture (seems like an act of pride where they call themselves wise and scholarly---but are actually being foolish). They give themselves an out, however, by claiming they are becoming learned which is not a problem UNTIL they become puffed up in their worldly pride, change the Word of God, etc.

When I see the work of some scientists' interpretations supporting scripture, while other's interpretations discount scripture who point to those who disagree with them as being ignorant or feeling the need to otherwise ad hom attack those who disagree with them, red lights of warning start flashing.

As an aside, I believe that God has always maintained a balance of good and evil upon the earth. During the end times, the God-sent powers who now work at restraining the power of Satan's influence will pull back, and Satan will temporarily have the scales tipped in his favor. With this concept in mind, I think it is no small coincidence that at the same time Joseph Smith was alive and doing the work for God which Father was bringing forth, that Darwin was also alive. IOW, Joseph Smith's efforts worked for the good, while Darwin's efforts worked for the evil; thus the balance of good and evil was in effect at that time as well.

Regards,

jo

[Rob Osborn]

There is a difference between the concept that there is an intelligence influencing and in some way organized or planned or guided the results of biological life, and the specific theory and methodology which has been called INTELLIGENT DESIGN™. It is very possible to agree or consider that God (or some intelligence, call it what you may) had some sort of guiding/organizing role, and still reject INTELLIGENT DESIGN™.

Kind of like how I can believe in Mormon doctrine, but not be a fan of MORMON DOCTRINE™

If it was the cause of God that brought intelligent life into existance then that is by very definition- intelligent design. It's only one of two ways. Either life was intelligently guided or designed into existance or it wasn't. There is no other way. If God had anything to do with bringing life into existance then it is intelligent design. If we state, such as from Steven Peck's position, that God just allowed or made room for natural evolution to run its course then that is thus Godless evolution and not ID.

[thesometimesaint]

Jo1952:

Incorrect. Why would God do one thing and deliberately have all the evidence say another? Further it has nothing to do with Agency. Neither I nor God is going to force you to believe anything, but we sure as heck do leave evidence of what we do. Science is the study of that evidence.

The first scientists were those ancient farmers that noticed that they could breed plants and animals for traits they wanted.

Darwin started out training for the ministry, and was no Atheist. It was the death of his daughter that soured Darwin on the religions of his time.

Science and particularly evolution says nothing about God. Anymore than 2+2=4 is a claim about God.

Let's do an experiement OK? I'll burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I expect to get water. I believe God wants me to get water. So I get water. I'm good with God?

You following me?

Now. You do the same experiement. You burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. You don't think science is correct, you believe miniture flying pink elephants are going to be produced. You pray real hard to your Supernatural omnipotent "god". What do you think is going to happen? Will those miniture flying pink elephants appear? Will they leave their dung as evidence that they actually exist? When those miniture flying pink elephants don't come forth. Are you still good with God?

Better yet let's stop this silly charade. I don't like being preached to by you. By you telling me that I'm some how less than faithfull than you, because I'm a LDS who happens to be a scientist. That you can toss out a few Scripture verses that apply just as well to you.

Have a nice day.

[KevinG]

Young Earth Creationism is not consistent with LDS belief. Any observant Temple goer or reader of the Pearl of Great Price will understand that.

The specific mechanisms of creation are not that closely defined in our doctrines or in opposition to scientific observation. In the early 20th century the brethren were asked not to have debates over this by the First Presidency in order to focus on more important matters of Salvation.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. . . . Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes .”

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, the First Presidency said:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

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

Edited December 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rivers]

If it was the cause of God that brought intelligent life into existance then that is by very definition- intelligent design. It's only one of two ways. Either life was intelligently guided or designed into existance or it wasn't. There is no other way. If God had anything to do with bringing life into existance then it is intelligent design. If we state, such as from Steven Peck's position, that God just allowed or made room for natural evolution to run its course then that is thus Godless evolution and not ID.

This is the type of black and white thinking that causes so many young people to leave the church.

[KevinG]

This is the type of black and white thinking that causes so many young people to leave the church.

...then come to the internet to preach to us poor ingnorant Mormons about how deluded we are.

[Rivers]

...then come to the internet to preach to us poor ingnorant Mormons about how deluded we are.

I'm working on it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since Darwin (an atheist), who lived between 1809 and 1882, science has purposefully removed God from the study of His own Creation.

To be clear, Darwin, to my knowledge, never claimed to be an atheist. If you know of a reputable source suggesting otherwise (preferably a primary source) I'm interested to see it. Granted, Darwin ultimately wasn't satisfied by certain Christian teachings involving hell (much like Lucy Mack Smith, incidentally), and he was troubled by what is typically referred to as "natural evil" (animal suffering, etc.). Though he began his career as a somewhat religious man (he once even considered becoming a clergyman) he shifted to agnosticism by the end of his life, a term coined by one of his friends. Labeling Darwin an atheist seems like a way to label his theory (which has undergone some substantial revision since his time) as intrinsically atheistic, which it isn't, and never has been. His disbelief in certain conceptions of God shouldn't be equated with "atheism."

[KevinG]

I'm working on it.

Thank you for taking that jibe in the spirit it was intended.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn, on 30 November 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

If it was the cause of God that brought intelligent life into existance then that is by very definition- intelligent design. It's only one of two ways. Either life was intelligently guided or designed into existance or it wasn't. There is no other way. If God had anything to do with bringing life into existance then it is intelligent design. If we state, such as from Steven Peck's position, that God just allowed or made room for natural evolution to run its course then that is thus Godless evolution and not ID.

Now Rob tell us exactly HOW and WHEN God "intelligently" brought life into existence on this planet.

Edited December 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Our first science denial.

http://www.markfiore.com/

[Freedom]

It is all a discussion about nothing. It is like having a chair in a room and showing it to a group of people who have never seen any furniture before in their life and allowing them to debate the nature of all furniture. We could have a meaningful discussion if we could compare the development of life on multiple planets, or if we could at least step back and observe time the way we can observe the chair. Otherwise it is all theory built upon theory built upon conjecture. The theory of evolution is the best working theory of how life came to be but it cannot be proven, nor can we prove intelligent design. We simply do not know. I used the following quote before, but I will use it again. From physicist Victor Stenger who is, as far as i am aware, an atheist:

Most people would agree that science must tell us something about reality. However, no one has stated what exactly that may be. Scientists do not speak with one mind on the matter. They, and the philosophers who study science, have not reached anything approaching consensus on the nature of reality revealed by science, or even if any has been revealed. Still, despite this collective uncertainty, something must be out there in the real world. And, based on its track record, science is still the best tool we have at our disposal to help us find it. from Timeless Reality, Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes

God has never said how he created our known universe and science has never said how our known universe came to be. God may have been involved all throughout the process, or the series of events that resulted form the big bang may have inevitably resulted in the formation of life and the emergence of man. An example was given earlier by thesometimesaint concerning creating water. Whether you put some elements together by design, or if they come together by accident in nature, the result will be the same. It may well be that no matter how many times the big bang occurs the result is inevitably what we have on earth. On the other hand, all the data we have now could be entirely superfluous to the truth. We simply do not know. I see no conflict with science the notion that God is actively involved in how life develops here on earth, and I see no conflict with religion the notion that it occurred by chance. Chance being what we observe because we cannot observe any other examples.

[Rob Osborn]

Young Earth Creationism is not consistent with LDS belief. Any observant Temple goer or reader of the Pearl of Great Price will understand that.

The specific mechanisms of creation are not that closely defined in our doctrines or in opposition to scientific observation. In the early 20th century the brethren were asked not to have debates over this by the First Presidency in order to focus on more important matters of Salvation.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

http://www.tungate.c..._statements.htm

Well, its good that we are not discussing young earth creationism. We are discussing Intelligent Design.

[Rob Osborn]

This is the type of black and white thinking that causes so many young people to leave the church.

What? That doesn't make any sense. A very poor excuse for leaving the church (if anyone really ever has left the church over this issue then they have their own other issues with faith, not a beliefe in science).

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn, on 30 November 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

If it was the cause of God that brought intelligent life into existance then that is by very definition- intelligent design. It's only one of two ways. Either life was intelligently guided or designed into existance or it wasn't. There is no other way. If God had anything to do with bringing life into existance then it is intelligent design. If we state, such as from Steven Peck's position, that God just allowed or made room for natural evolution to run its course then that is thus Godless evolution and not ID.

Now Rob tell us exactly HOW and WHEN God "intelligently" brought life into existence on this planet.

I may not be able to tell you exactly how God formed the earth to prepare it for life nor tell exactly when it all happened but my belief is that it seems quite apparent that the design we see in nature is the cause of an intelligent process. My beliefe is that God formed man from His own seed through procreation. I also believe that plant life came into existance through the planting of seeds coming from the plants of other spheres. Animal life also came to earth from other spheres by parents of their own kind by the normal methods.

[KevinG]

Well, its good that we are not discussing young earth creationism. We are discussing Intelligent Design.

It appeared that some posters (not all) were confused about that point. In any case the guidance from the First Presidency is sound. We know why we were created but not how. That will be revealed in the fullness of time.

In my opinion there will no doubt be scientific and religious zealots who are amazed at how much of the other sides arguement was correct.

[Rivers]

Well, its good that we are not discussing young earth creationism. We are discussing Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is young earth creationism's trojan horse.

[jo1952]

Jo1952:

Incorrect. Why would God do one thing and deliberately have all the evidence say another? Further it has nothing to do with Agency. Neither I nor God is going to force you to believe anything, but we sure as heck do leave evidence of what we do. Science is the study of that evidence.

The first scientists were those ancient farmers that noticed that they could breed plants and animals for traits they wanted.

Darwin started out training for the ministry, and was no Atheist. It was the death of his daughter that soured Darwin on the religions of his time.

Science and particularly evolution says nothing about God. Anymore than 2+2=4 is a claim about God.

Let's do an experiement OK? I'll burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I expect to get water. I believe God wants me to get water. So I get water. I'm good with God?

You following me?

Now. You do the same experiement. You burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. You don't think science is correct, you believe miniture flying pink elephants are going to be produced. You pray real hard to your Supernatural omnipotent "god". What do you think is going to happen? Will those miniture flying pink elephants appear? Will they leave their dung as evidence that they actually exist? When those miniture flying pink elephants don't come forth. Are you still good with God?

Better yet let's stop this silly charade. I don't like being preached to by you. By you telling me that I'm some how less than faithfull than you, because I'm a LDS who happens to be a scientist. That you can toss out a few Scripture verses that apply just as well to you.

Have a nice day.

You are the one who feels very comfortable with re-writing scripture. Perhaps that is why you do not like being asked questions about scripture. So, instead, you simply refuse to address the actual content of those scriptures. This is where I remind myself that YOU are the one who has removed God from your study of science, rather than placing Him first in all that you do. BTW, those were YOUR words, NOT mine. So you are going to try to hold ME responsible for repeating back to you your own words??

How can we spread the Good News while at the same time justify to ourselves that it is okay to re-write scripture from which we have obtained the Gospel message, and still try to maintain credibility with those whom we are teaching?

Do you suppose that man will get around to printing a science peer-reviewed version of the Bible? Basically, this appears to me to be what many Christian scientists would like to see. Although this is a logical and reasonable question to ask based upon all the threads and comments made by both LDS and non-LDS posters on this board, I will be the one who gets moderated for stating the obvious.

Regards,

jo

You are not being moderated for stating the obvious. You are being moderated for preaching and accusing others or re-writing the scriptures. LSD viewpoints are varied on the role of evolution and creation and you are free to represent one of those views as are other posters. You are not free to cast dispersions on their faithfulness for believing differently than you. -Ares