My 180 On Evolution

[CASteinman]

Science knows considerably more about religion than religion does about science. It is not science per se that I trumpet but the scientific method. If religion would adopt something similar and be willing to discard romantic beliefs it could evolve more dramatically.

That is merely a personal opinion that is not only unvalidated, but not able to be validated. Its an editorial.

[mfbukowski]

No. If it ever happens though, I will weep with joy!

Well as a certified "old guy" who was raised with the shadow of the iron curtain and duck and cover drills in elementary school so that we could supposedly survive the nuke attacks that we were convinced were imminent, fallout shelters, Kruschev saying things like "We will bury you" and the Cuban missile crisis, I have to tell you that when the Berlin Wall fell, it was about like having the Martians land outside the Whitehouse.

It was a total paradigm shift so huge I don't think anyone who had not lived through it could possibly understand, and yes, I wept for joy on that one too- but I think it is a good analogy. It was much like if North Korea suddenly became democratic- but on a larger scale- because it was the entire "Eastern Block" that changed virtually overnight.

[mfbukowski]

The fundamental biochemistry of life is largely the same. This is why we can eat energy that plants have made and use also use their nutrients for our own cellular processes.

Although the genes are similar, the nucleic acids that form nearly the same genes are only about 40% similar between fish and man.

Between rats and man it is above 90%

With chimps it is >98%.

Moreover, much of the noncoding, unimportant DNA is shared between chimps and humans.

The exceptions are very interesting .. things that have to do with language, brain development, skull size.

Humans are >99% similar amongst different ethnic groups including the noncoding DNA.

The exceptions are very interesting .. things that have to do with drinking milk, tolerance of high altitudes

Someone said 96% you say 98%, with a plus or minus 1% for different groups if I read you correctly- that makes some humans only 1% different than chimps.

I'm not giving you a hard time- I believe we are very very close, but I think this whole thing of putting a percentage on it to emphasize the similarity is misleading.

What ever number you put on it, I'm still not going to kiss a monkey.

My point made half-jokingly is that the difference in actual genes has little to do with our perceived difference in the results of how those genes are expressed and how different we are in our "reality".

The gulf is enormous and leaves plenty of room for an "Adam" who is one of us, vs. some bones that look an awful lot like ours but represent a being far removed from what we are today.

[mfbukowski]

Science knows considerably more about religion than religion does about science. It is not science per se that I trumpet but the scientific method. If religion would adopt something similar and be willing to discard romantic beliefs it could evolve more dramatically.

CFR on that one that science knows more about religion than religion does about science.

You have exactly made my point. Precisely made it!

The entire point is that science as it is presently constituted precisely does NOT study what you call "romantic beliefs"! And what ARE included in those "romantic beliefs"?

Religion!

Those "romantic beliefs" include fields such as ethics, and all that gives your life meaning which cannot be scientifically proven, like you deciding whom to marry, what school to attend and everything that is important to you in your life, like whether or not abortion is right, if gays should be allowed to marry, if we should have socialism in this country, or whether you should leave home or live in Africa, get out of bed today, or sleep in.

The answers to ALL of those questions cannot be determined by science

Science by definition puts no VALUE on anything. It simply observes and describes- and mostly interprets, creating its own little world while ignoring the rest- all those things which include value and the nature of what meaning itself is.

It appears you have never heard of fideism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."^[1]

Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. The term fideist, one who argues for fideism, is very rarely self-applied. Support of fideism is most commonly ascribed to five philosophers: Montaigne, Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not supported by their own ideas and works or followers.^[2] There are a number of different forms of fideism.^[3]

I don't mean to be smug, but the fact is if you have not read these philosophers, and the pros and cons, you are not prepared to discuss the issue in any kind of depth.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That is merely a personal opinion that is not only unvalidated, but not able to be validated. Its an editorial.

It's a "romantic belief"!

[cinepro]

Those "romantic beliefs" include fields such as ethics, and all that gives your life meaning which cannot be scientifically proven, like you deciding whom to marry, what school to attend and everything that is important to you in your life, like whether or not abortion is right, if gays should be allowed to marry, if we should have socialism in this country, or whether you should leave home or live in Africa, get out of bed today, or sleep in.

The answers to ALL of those questions cannot be determined by science

You may be overestimating the degree to which religion illuminates those examples for us, as well as underestimating the usefulness of applying the scientific method to them.

I would also be curious about what religion tells us about socialism (and I'm sure the LDS in Sweden would be equally curious).

[CASteinman]

You may be overestimating the degree to which religion illuminates those examples for us, as well as underestimating the usefulness of applying the scientific method to them.

I would also be curious about what religion tells us about socialism (and I'm sure the LDS in Sweden would be equally curious).

You are asking him to defend a position he did not take.

[mfbukowski]

You may be overestimating the degree to which religion illuminates those examples for us, as well as underestimating the usefulness of applying the scientific method to them.

I would also be curious about what religion tells us about socialism (and I'm sure the LDS in Sweden would be equally curious).

Please re-read the post. Your answer is irrelevant. I said religion was included in "romantic beliefs" as he used the term- not that it was the only "romantic belief"!

[mfbukowski]

You are asking him to defend a position he did not take.

Gadzooks! A Reasonable Man!!

[inquiringmind]

Not that I necesarilly buy into it, but this does remind me of the "animal soul" idea which featured prominently in medieval philosophy.

Could you elaborate on that a little (I'm totally unfamiliar with the idea)?

[katherine the great]

Science knows considerably more about religion than religion does about science. It is not science per se that I trumpet but the scientific method. If religion would adopt something similar and be willing to discard romantic beliefs it could evolve more dramatically.

That is seriously an absurdity. The scientific method works well in the physical world--not the spiritual world.

[thesometimesaint]

KtG:

It's like adding apples to bananas, all you get is fruit salad.

[Monster]

That is seriously an absurdity. The scientific method works well in the physical world--not the spiritual world.

I believe you are correct. I was trying to apply a scientific process to religion. That would never work.

[thesometimesaint]

Monster:

How's the fruit salad?

[katherine the great]

Well as a certified "old guy" who was raised with the shadow of the iron curtain and duck and cover drills in elementary school so that we could supposedly survive the nuke attacks that we were convinced were imminent, fallout shelters, Kruschev saying things like "We will bury you" and the Cuban missile crisis, I have to tell you that when the Berlin Wall fell, it was about like having the Martians land outside the Whitehouse.

It was a total paradigm shift so huge I don't think anyone who had not lived through it could possibly understand, and yes, I wept for joy on that one too- but I think it is a good analogy. It was much like if North Korea suddenly became democratic- but on a larger scale- because it was the entire "Eastern Block" that changed virtually overnight.

I served in Korea on my mission (South, of course) and I pray every day of my life for North Korea. I can't imagine it, but I do hope for it. Now that Kim Jung Il is dead, who knows what will happen. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, but thanks for the food for thought!

[rameumptom]

That all animals and plants have a spirit is LDS teaching, so the concept that Adam was the first one with a spirit does not sit right with me. I believe that Adam was the first one to receive the fulness of the gospel, the priesthood, and the covenant, making him the first Man of Holiness on earth.

I believe in evolution. I believe the earth has gone through a variety of Creation/Destruction cycles, all in preparation for this final one.

I have no problem with blooit's three points, but would add one more. Matter is eternal, and so co-eternal with God. God did not make man or anything from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), but organized matter into what things are now. This means we all have a part of us that is independent of God, explaining how evil can be in the world without God being the author of it. Instead, we get the issue of opposition in all things: God vs matter, order vs chaos, tree of life vs tree of knowledge of good and evil, etc.

[Freedom]

Having DNA in common simply demonstrates that we have the same source code, not necessarily that we evolved from the same organisms. On the other hand, a lack of a missing link simply shows what evolution is. An evolution and not a perpetuation. My house design evolved from ancient huts but there are no links in my neighborhood to transitional designs. Evolution means that the most fit survives. From an evolutionary point of view, humans are the species best suited for this environment - others became extinct. A lack of evidence is not proof of no evidence. I understand that we do not have a single full skeleton of a neanderthol. A full body was pieced together from remains of various partial bodies. If there is no tradition of preserving the dead, the remains do not survive and therefore leave no record.

We know so little of the earths history is it pointless to become too dogmatic for or against evolution. It is a theory that explains how we got here. Religion explains why we got here. The two are unrelated. I can accept or accept evolution based on the evidence, but I do not believe I can accept or reject it based on the teachings of my church or passages in the scriptures.

I must say, however, that this has been the most civil and enlightening thread I have followed on the subject.

[mfbukowski]

I have no problem with blooit's three points, but would add one more. Matter is eternal, and so co-eternal with God. God did not make man or anything from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), but organized matter into what things are now. This means we all have a part of us that is independent of God, explaining how evil can be in the world without God being the author of it. Instead, we get the issue of opposition in all things: God vs matter, order vs chaos, tree of life vs tree of knowledge of good and evil, etc.

An interesting idea!

[cinepro]

That is seriously an absurdity. The scientific method works well in the physical world--not the spiritual world.

But isn't Alma 32 (and the "Parable of the Seed") an attempt to frame faith in a quasi-scientific methodology?

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

[BCSpace]

Therefore animals may have evolved on this planet but not humans. Anybody buy this?

Can you imagine North Korea becoming democratic? (Or even republican? )

Sure. Eastern Europe after the Cold War.

[BCSpace]

That all animals and plants have a spirit is LDS teaching, so the concept that Adam was the first one with a spirit does not sit right with me.

Has anyone proposed no spirits for pre-Adamites though? I specifically have, in my hypothesis, spirits within (pun intended) pre-Adamite homo sapiens because of that doctrine. Why would anyone think that pre-Adamites would have no spirits or be souless?

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

Having DNA in common simply demonstrates that we have the same source code, not necessarily that we evolved from the same organisms. On the other hand, a lack of a missing link simply shows what evolution is. An evolution and not a perpetuation. My house design evolved from ancient huts but there are no links in my neighborhood to transitional designs. Evolution means that the most fit survives. From an evolutionary point of view, humans are the species best suited for this environment - others became extinct. A lack of evidence is not proof of no evidence. I understand that we do not have a single full skeleton of a neanderthol. A full body was pieced together from remains of various partial bodies. If there is no tradition of preserving the dead, the remains do not survive and therefore leave no record.

We know so little of the earths history is it pointless to become too dogmatic for or against evolution. It is a theory that explains how we got here. Religion explains why we got here. The two are unrelated. I can accept or accept evolution based on the evidence, but I do not believe I can accept or reject it based on the teachings of my church or passages in the scriptures.

I must say, however, that this has been the most civil and enlightening thread I have followed on the subject.

Evolution isn't those whom are fittest survive. It is those that reproduce win. We don't know why Neanderthals went extinct. Could have been due to competition for food with Modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There is genetic information that Neanderthals and Modern Day humans interbred. That may have been a factor in their disappearance. In any event Neanderthals existed far longer than we have so far. Neanderthals buried their dead in a religious type ceremony.

I agree that Evolution is neither for or against Church doctrine, and it has no bearing on my Salvation.

[katherine the great]

But isn't Alma 32 (and the "Parable of the Seed") an attempt to frame faith in a quasi-scientific methodology?

To me, it is an analogy. No more, no less. (a pretty good one at that!)

[katherine the great]

Evolution isn't those whom are fittest survive. It is those that reproduce win.

I think they are both important elements. However, the same trait that makes one superior for survival in one environment could prove detrimental in another. Natural selection--environments always change eventually. And yes, no matter how superior our genes are, if we don't pass them on, they die out.

[mfbukowski]

You know as I see it, evolution is no big deal and is kind of self evident and I don't know what the fuss is about.

We live on a volatile earth- asteroids strike, climates change, volcanoes pop up, earthquakes happen, the poles switch- it's all pretty chaotic. Some organisms adapt, survive and reproduce and others don't. What's the big deal about that?

We have been given the ability to adapt to almost any situation because we create our own environments- we organize our own "worlds". We can survive where it is 80 below zero, at the bottom of the ocean, on the moon, practically anywhere because we carry with us our own created (organized from the elements we found) world.

And how did we learn this? From One Human, the Man of Holiness, who figured out how to take what was lying around and "organize it" into a world.

Nothing to it. It's what we do for a living.