Mormons On Intelligent Design

[Maidservant]

God may be the Creator, but if we look like Him, He wasn't the designer. Unless He designed Himself.

Let US make MAN in OUR IMAGE! after OUR LIKENESS!

It says there that some collection of "us" (whatever that set would be) made that vessel that would be experiencing mortality (man) to represent "us" (same collection).

( . . . a vision of Wii's mini me's flows through the mind for some reason . . .)

[Mariner]

Intelligent design is the best represented theory for our existance- plain and simple. LDS doctrine bases its beliefs that the intelligent designer s God himself and that He is the cause for all existance. In my opinion- case closed.

Rob Osborn,

The scientific community (you know, the one that has moved humankind from the horse and buggy to automobiles and airplanes, from snake oil to pharmaceuticals, from witchcraft to medicine, and from imagination based religion to evidence based science) recognizes intelligent design for what it really is.

ID is the bankrupt and useless b*****d child of creationism - an unfounded belief for which there is no evidence. It is far from the best explanation for the overall observational and experimental data set available to humankind and it does more violence to science and education in this country than pretty much any other discredited and unfounded belief that religionists can come up with.

It has been deemed so dangerous to science and education by the Federal courts that they have outlawed the teaching of it in public schools. Yet religionists seem to crave it like some kind of addictive drug - sort of like methadone for those who have decided to give up the heroin of creationism.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mariner

[Bikeemikey]

If god breathes into us life, then what is the uncreated intelligence JS taught in the D&C?

(null)

[inquiringmind]

Is there an edge to the universe?

Don't know.

What if nothing actually existed?

Lehi said that's how it would be if there was no God.

And He said that the fact that something does exist is evidence that there is a God.

All that matters for us is that we have a knowledge that we are not just the mere end result of random chaos.

So if Lehi didn't know what he was talking about, that's not important?

Isn't it important to have a testimony that 2 Nephi 2:13 is true?

It says:

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

Lehi thought this was important.

Intelligent design is the best represented theory for our existance- plain and simple. LDS doctrine bases its beliefs that the intelligent designer s God himself and that He is the cause for all existance. In my opinion- case closed.

Thank you Rob.

ID is the bankrupt and useless b*****d child of creationism.

Are you an atheist Mariner?

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Maidservant]

If god breathes into us life, then what is the uncreated intelligence JS taught in the D&C?

(null)

All that exists possesses intelligence for what it is (i.e. atoms). When something is built (leaf, car engine, human) then there is also an increase in the complexity of intelligence. And by this I do not mean academic smarts, I only mean, that it functions for the purpose for which it was created.

I do not micro-manage the activities of my cells, at least not from the locus of my awareness . . . they just do their thang . . . but it's still me. (Or is it?)

The actual phrasing in the King James Version says: the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I would be curious as to what the Hebrew says and suggest here.

But with English, you have "forming", you have "dust of the ground", you have "man" (what the heck is that?), you have "breathed" (also . . . huh?), you have "nostrils", you have "the breath of life" (not merely "breathing", for example), you have "became" (something it was not before?), you have "living soul". There is phenomenal amounts of information in this verse, all hidden in the folds.

Not giving answers here (not sure I have them), just poking around.

[Bikeemikey]

Lehi didn't know everything, or ever say he did.

He didnt know that the savior would be called Jesus, and yet we are meant to entrust our interpretation of the entire universe to a few verses where he was obviously waxing poetic??

That doesn't make any sense.

Why are you so wrapped up with one verse that Lehi wrote 3000 years ago at a time when the greatest religious prophets were so undereducated in the doctrine and theology of the plan of salvation that they didn't even know the name of the messiah.

I would say in straight up doctrinal knowledge and gospel fact your average primary graduate would have a more robust understanding of the plan of salvation than many of the early prophets.

That is the meaning of continuing revelation and modern day prophets - also the meaning of th restoration.

(null)

Edited February 26, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[inquiringmind]

Lehi didn't know everything, or ever say he did.

He didnt know that the savior would be called Jesus, and yet we are meant to entrust our interpretation of the entire universe to a few verses where he was obviously waxing poetic??

So you basically agree with Mariner (the resident Atheist here), and you disagree with poor old (ill-informed, and poetically inclined) Lehi.

Is that right?

Why are you so wrapped up with one verse that Lehi wrote 3000 years ago

Because my reason tells me that he's right.

If I have a testimony of anything, it's that these words are true.

Not "Mormon theology". In someone's ideas on what they personally are learning (based in scripture and Mormon concepts). I myself have never made the distinction, although in a philosophical discussion like this, I might end up doing so.

This is really hard for some to grasp, it took me some time to get my head wrapped around that, ha ha. Some never even consider that there is a distinction.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Here is something I think. I think we are blinded by our paradigm of "nature". We imagine that some things are "nature" or "natural". That there is something fundamentally different from leaves, water, bodies, etc. versus cell phones, buildings, pulleys. Especially since for most of the ages of the world, we have been pondering on things without having cellphones and such ilk as object lessons.

I had a professor who taught an origins of humans class, and while I don't know how he conducted his personal religion, he was very committed to the received wisdom of the state of today's "origin" science(s). So when the following came out of his mouth, not realizing the implications of what he was saying, I had an ephiphany. He spoke on "artifacts". He said that, let's say we start exploring a far off planet. All things are strange there. But we see something, just something. It's an artifact. We know that it means that someone made it, even if we know nothing else about their culture, lives, technology. He said, it's like if we were going through the wilderness and came upon a set of railroad tracks, even if we couldn't explain it very much, the tracks are an artifact and a prima facie evidence that someone made it.

I just laughed inside as I realized.

A leaf is an ARTIFACT. In the EXACT SAME WAY A TRAIN TRACK, CELL PHONE, GODDESS STATUE, PLASTIC THAT DOESN'T BIODEGRADE, etc.

There is nothing mystical about it. (Well, there is, but that's another story; in the sense that a painting can be just a bunch of chemicals swiped all over a solid object, yet we know that the mystical is really there in the piece of art.) Not only is a leaf designed and created, it is also built.

In today's age, we can comprehend the possibility of that technology. But we are in the habit of ages gone by who could not see that even faintly; we speak in the habit of the old paradigm.

Reproduction is a program. We all know this. Look at it straight on in the face. What is in DNA? A program. A what? A program. A what? Hardware, software. Actually, quite a bit of software with a minimum of hardware. Bill Gates would be proud/jealous.

If you see a leaf, you have a culture that created it, just like if you found a statue and tried to understand the culture that created that. Etc.

Any theory on artifacts and understanding them and how they came into existence is applicable to understanding rocks, streams, atoms. Realized like this, this is not a theological nor a scientific inquiry. It's a humanities inquiry.

Artifacts. Programs.

It is all technology. There is no such thing as nature and never has been.

It does not take a religion or a science to behold what surrounds us. We are simply those explorers who have stumbled across the train tracks.

Thank you Maidservant.

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. Here's a quote I found from Joseph Smith.

“The heavens declare the glory of a God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork; and a moment’s reflection is sufficient to teach every man of common intelligence, that all these are not the mere productions of chance, nor could they be supported by any power less than an Almighty hand” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56)

http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-3.asp

He sounds a lot like Lehi here.

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[dtorge26]

And before we get sidetracked by questions like what has to have a beginning, and why-- I'd like to point out that ontologically "first" doesn't imply first in a temporal timeline (Aristotle believed the universe has always existed, but he believed it exists because of an ontologically first cause underlying it's existence.)

If there are a million gods (or an infinite number of gods), could they all have some ontological first cause?

I like the idea that an ontological first cause need not be part of any temporal timeline. My best shot at that first cause is something akin to Plato's world of forms. Or, that first cause is logic or math. It's metaphysical. This view seems to be supported by modern scientific findings regarding the consistency to which the physical world conforms to logic and mathematical reasoning. Some will say that math is a product of man's mind, others like me will say that math is discovered, not created. Metaphysics leads to the existence of physical things (including God), and God organizes physical things.

Of course this view is heresy to the orthodox christian view of God's creation, but its not really heresy in Mormonism. That is because Mormonism supports a God who is not the absolute first cause himself, but He is effectively the first cause of "US", which is probably all that we should really worry about anyway.

When I read scriptures like the ones by Lehi, which attempts to prove God's existence by the existence of order, magesty and beauty, I don't really worry too much about it. Perhaps Lehi was not given (by God) the complete view of God's beginnings, or of absolute beginnings, and he is simply giving us his limited perspective, and doing his darndest to convince us of God's existence. From my own view, I do see a connection between God's existence and things like order, magesty, and beauty, but I see the causal relationship differently. In other words, for me, the self-existence of order, magesty, and beauty are good reasons for a God to emerge who would want to promote and propagate such things throughout space for all eternity.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn,

The scientific community (you know, the one that has moved humankind from the horse and buggy to automobiles and airplanes, from snake oil to pharmaceuticals, from witchcraft to medicine, and from imagination based religion to evidence based science) recognizes intelligent design for what it really is.

ID is the bankrupt and useless b*****d child of creationism - an unfounded belief for which there is no evidence. It is far from the best explanation for the overall observational and experimental data set available to humankind and it does more violence to science and education in this country than pretty much any other discredited and unfounded belief that religionists can come up with.

It has been deemed so dangerous to science and education by the Federal courts that they have outlawed the teaching of it in public schools. Yet religionists seem to crave it like some kind of addictive drug - sort of like methadone for those who have decided to give up the heroin of creationism.

I guess its a good thing that I don't pray to the "scientific community" for the welfare of my family and answeres to all my prayers. This is exactly what is wrong in our society- we are living closer and closer to a godless paradigm where mens puffed up wisdom rules and is worship as an idol! Must you see the actual hand of God before you belive he exists? Where is your faith? Oh, BTW, I don't pray to the Federal courts either nor appeal to them for my most desirest of prayers. I place my faith in my Creator and also your creator also. I dont care what the scientific community or the federal courts have to say regarding my own belief system- they can be wrong, that is fine- I don't pray to them for guidance, I pray to my God that they will be guided by his almighty hand. Who really is behind inventions and all of mans wisdom? God himself.

[altersteve]

I would also be very interested to hear an explanation of the difference between a supernatural designer and a suparnatural creator according to Mormon theology.

The first thing you need to understand is that in "Mormon theology" there is no such thing as the "supernatural."

[inquiringmind]

I like the idea that an ontological first cause need not be part of any temporal timeline. My best shot at that first cause is something akin to Plato's world of forms...

Would it be heresy to suggest that God is something like Plato's Demiurge?

The

demiurge

is a concept from the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy for

an artisan-like figure

responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the

physical universe

...Although

a fashioner

, the demiurge is

not quite the creator figure in the familiar

monotheistic sense

, because both the demiurge itself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or

the product of some other being

...

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

This definition seems entirely consistent with the Mormon concept of God, leaves room for some personal or impersonal ontological first cause (of everything that exists), and doesn't entirely undermine the logic behind passages like 2 Nephi 2:13.

What do you think?

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Bikeemikey]

P.S. Here's a quote I found from Joseph Smith.

“The heavens declare the glory of a God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork; and a moment’s reflection is sufficient to teach every man of common intelligence, that all these are not the mere productions of chance, nor could they be supported by any power less than an Almighty hand” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56)

http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-3.asp

He sounds a lot like Lehi here.

He does, and yet he also sounds very different. The comments made by Lehi and JS are very different. One is an argument for the existence of God based on the assumption we exist therefore God exists because we must have a creator. The other is saying, look at the universe and the world in which we live, the way things are today could not be chance and must be supported by the hand of God.

I am quite happy with either of these ideas and think the world could exist the way it does based on either method, or a method not described above. Claiming that God created everything out of nothing, that he designed the world out of preexisting stuff, or that the stuff did what it did and God noticed and tweaked, or maybe didn't tweak makes no difference to my belief in him being God. I am not trying to limit God by saying he had to have created the world in this way or that - I am saying I don't know and an ontological concept of the universe doesnt have to start with the idea of God in order for me to still worship him.

I don't think Gods capacity to save me is predicated on his creation/design of me. If I exist fundamentally uncreated by God I still believe that God is powerful enough, and that is plan is comprehensive enough, to save me.

That said, the LDS scriptures suggest that there existed something (intelligence) that was neither created, nor can it be. That thing has been described in some way as the basic idea of what makes us who we are. Perhaps it is our will, our conscious, or something else, like atoms or matter as described earlier. All that matters is that when something exists I believe there are laws. This means that at least in this context there is a law the predates God. A standard and mode that was not authored by God. Something that even God must adhere to when he does his creation/design, or whatever he does.

Lehi's comments don't seem to come close to capturing this idea, and why would they, it would be like expecting Plato to expound Quantum Theory to you. JS comments seem to come much closer to this idea, though they do not express it clearly. That said JS doesn't need to express it clearly here because he did on many other occasions.

Inquiring-mind:

Why claim a testimony of something we don't need a testimony of. Lehi wasn't revealed all things so to rest a testimony on the nature of the creation of the universe and the ontological origins of all we know based on a verse of a prophet who was not charged with that ministry seems odd, especially when we have current day prophets like JS who have given us teachings on these issues directly. Why not study the many pages and pages of writings JS has made on the topic and then base your testimony on that, not one verse of Lehi's recorded teachings: Lehi was trying to convince his Sons to not be morons... not convince the world of its ontological origins.

[Maidservant]

I do think there is more to Lehi's words than meets the eye, however, and in my personal opinion it is a mistake to assign a lesser understanding to Lehi's view. I would say for me, anyway, the lack would be in my ability to understand what he could see clearly. Although I also have no problem in seeing that all those who wrote in the Book of Mormon, who write any where, are human beings, so in the end, it is always just what we understand. Just wanted to give a shout out to my man, Lehi , as it has been tough in this thread for him.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

There is no edge to the universe. Further I have no problem at all with God. I do have problems with how some people say that he created this unverse.

As a philosophical point; Would we know any different if he had done it differently?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

There is no edge to the universe. Further I have no problem at all with God. I do have problems with how some people say that he created this unverse.

As a philosophical point; Would we know any different if he had done it differently?

My question was rather rhetorical to begin with. We can ask questions of the which we have no answer for, they being paradoxial in nature to begin with. My questioning really comes down to this- All we can answer in questioning are those things that we can observe and understand. God doesn't expect us to know if there is an edge to the universe but he has placed within us the ability to use logic and know that there certainly must be a God. That is self evident- there is purpose and causation by intelligence in our universe. That is not a random process or result of randomness in nature. tHE EVIDENCE gOD HAS GIVEN US IS VERY PLAIN- THERE MUST BE A GOD.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

There is no edge to the universe. Further I have no problem at all with God. I do have problems with how some people say that he created this unverse.

As a philosophical point; Would we know any different if he had done it differently?

My question was rather rhetorical to begin with. We can ask questions of the which we have no answer for, they being paradoxial in nature to begin with. My questioning really comes down to this- All we can answer in questioning are those things that we can observe and understand. God doesn't expect us to know if there is an edge to the universe but he has placed within us the ability to use logic and know that there certainly must be a God. That is self evident- there is purpose and causation by intelligence in our universe. That is not a random process or result of randomness in nature. tHE EVIDENCE gOD HAS GIVEN US IS VERY PLAIN- THERE MUST BE A GOD.

[Mariner]

The first thing you need to understand is that in "Mormon theology" there is no such thing as the "supernatural."

Oh yes. I forgot for a brief moment that the Mormon God operates strictly according to natural law, and the fact that descriptions of his actions and attributes by Joseph Smith and others would have him violating gravity, special relativity, general relativity and rewriting pretty much all of cosmology, only reflects our limited understanding of these natural laws.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mariner

[Rob Osborn]

Oh yes. I forgot for a brief moment that the Mormon God operates strictly according to natural law, and the fact that descriptions of his actions and attributes by Joseph Smith and others would have him violating gravity, special relativity, special relativity, general relativity and rewriting pretty much all of cosmology only reflects our limited understanding of these natural laws.

Not only the mormon God but the whole of Christianity also. Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, being resurrected from the dead into an immortal frame, etc. Yeah, its all of Christianity. This is clearly an issue of placing mans knowedge ahead of Gods thinking we are somehow more knowledgable than our own creator!

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

The LDS don't beleive in the Supernatural per say. What we do believe is that we don't have a good explanation for some events YET.

A little over 100 years ago it was widely beleived that man would never fly. The Wright brothers proved that idea wrong.

A little over 50 years ago it was widely believed we'd never get a man on the moon, and safely return him. 12 American men proved that idea wrong.

A few days ago it was beleived that we'd discovered faster than light particles. It was found to be just a loose cable. But we continue the search anyway.

What was considered science fiction just a few years ago is science fact today. We have a long ways to go before we get to the point where we know more than God.

[Pahoran]

You're all putting the cart before the horse. Design is not intelligent.

Take, for example, the Goggomobil Dart. It was clearly designed, but it might have been better if it hadn't been.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

Mariner:

The LDS don't beleive in the Supernatural per say. What we do believe is that we don't have a good explanation for some events YET.

A little over 100 years ago it was widely beleived that man would never fly. The Wright brothers proved that idea wrong.

A little over 50 years ago it was widely believed we'd never get a man on the moon, and safely return him. 12 American men proved that idea wrong.

A few days ago it was beleived that we'd discovered faster than light particles. It was found to be just a loose cable. But we continue the search anyway.

What was considered science fiction just a few years ago is science fact today. We have a long ways to go before we get to the point where we know more than God.

thesometimesaint,

Seems to me that we have had something very close to this discussion before. As a scientist (even a soft sciences scientist) you should understand that there are fundamental laws of physics. Humankind has a good understanding of these laws as embodied in classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, relativity and quantum mechanics and electrodynamics. More importantly, scientists have a very good understanding of how and where these laws apply. None of the science fiction-turned-fact examples you provided involves the violation of any natural physical law. Nobody who understands the science involved would say that they did.

This excuse and associated examples that you often come up with to try to justify your unfounded belief in miracles does not show a very deep understanding of physics (or science in general) on your part, and I would think that after being called on this a few times, you would figure that out.

What you are essentially saying is that you do not understand science well enough to determine what would really constitute a violation of physical law. Rather than simply claim that science will eventually catch up with your miracles, you should learn to determine the difference.

[Mariner]

Not only the mormon God but the whole of Christianity also. Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, being resurrected from the dead into an immortal frame, etc. Yeah, its all of Christianity. This is clearly an issue of placing mans knowedge ahead of Gods thinking we are somehow more knowledgable than our own creator!

If I were forced to select a deity for my creator among the hundreds or thousands of deities that have been worshipped by humankind through out history, I would select the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is because the religion that has built up around this deity is much less violent, less racist, less homophobic, less misogynistic, less expensive, and makes more sense than the one built up around the Christian God, especially as this deity is described by the LDS Church.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

If you can show me where there is fundamental difference between the bell shaped curve of intelligence distribution and the bell shaped curve of the reaction rate of iron filings in Sulfuric Acid then I'll say that Sociology is a "soft" science.

I'm familiar with the fundamental laws of physics. I just claim not to a be physicist. As I have told you before my chosen profession does not preclude me from knowing about other areas of interest. Heck I can even cook a prety good meal, and I'm not a CIA trained chef.

I never said they didn't have a good understanding, but it is either foolish or an act of extreme hubris to say that we understand all there is to know about any of the sciences.

Tell me everything you know. I have a minute. Do you get it now?

Explain to me what happend 10 minutes before the Big Bang.

I don't have a problem with science though I readily admit I don't know everything about all sciences, just as I have no problem with God, and readily admit I don't know everything about him either.

I suggest that it is your arrogent ignorance that is the problem, not my relative lack of knowledge that I readily admt to.

Ps. Worship that Flying Spaghetti Monster all you want for all I care. Joseph Smith addressed that over a century and a half ago. Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Edited February 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

If you can show me where there is fundamental difference between the bell shaped curve of intelligence distribution and the bell shaped curve of the reaction rate of iron filings in Sulfuric Acid then I'll say that Sociology is a "soft" science.

I'm familiar with the fundamental laws of physics. I just claim not to a be physicist. As I have told you before my chosen profession does not preclude me from knowing about other areas of interest. Heck I can even cook a prety good meal, and I'm not a CIA trained chef.

I never said they didn't have a good understanding, but it is either foolish or an act of extreme hubris to say that we understand all there is to know about any of the sciences.

Tell me everything you know. I have a minute. Do you get it now?

Explain to me what happend 10 minutes before the Big Bang.

I don't have a problem with science though I readily admit I don't know everything about all sciences, just as I have no problem with God, and readily admit I don't know everything about him either.

I suggest that it is your arrogent ignorance that is the problem, not my relative lack of knowledge that I readily admt to.

Ps. Worship that Flying Spaghetti Monster all you want for all I care. Joseph Smith addressed that over a century and a half ago. Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

theometimesaint,

While I was not kidding about the relatively better internal logic and less harmful beliefs associated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as compared to Christianity and especially Mormonism, I did not claim to believe in this version of a man-made deity.

Getting back to the main point, do you really believe that any of the science-fiction-to-science-fact examples you provided involved the violation of physical law?

Do you believe that shining anthropomorphic personages hovering in the air in a beam of light in a closed room as Joseph Smith first described the Angel Nephi (later edited to the Angel Mormoni) would violate any fundamental laws of physics?

Do you believe that human communication with God near Kolob with a turn-around time of less than a few years involves violation of the laws of physics?

What about an anthropomorphic God the Father and Jesus Christ traveling to Earth from near Kolob in less than 4 or 5 years time?

Or are you going to say that humankind really does not understand these basic laws of physics and therefore would not be able to determine if these laws have been broken or not?

I ask you these questions because it seems incredible to me that a college educated adult, who claims to be scientifically trained, could simply accept, without serious questioning, the kind of illogical, self-contradictory, undisciplined and unscientific beliefs that you and many on this board seem to hold about how the world works. This is especially true of one who belongs to a religion that claims to believe that God is bound by natural law.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mariner