My 180 On Evolution

[cinepro]

Those that know are the Gods. We, with our puny brains and puny amounts of data, are like 5 year old children. It is naive and arrogant to presume that those with PH.Ds are anywhere close to understanding how life actually came to be. I am pointing out that those on the so-called creation side have a very limited understanding of Gods plan, and those on the evolution side have a very limited understanding of the available data. Both sides are about as capable of drawing accurate conclusions as those in my example.

I apologize. When you said "this issue" in post #105 I thought you were referring to evolution, not abiogenesis.

[mfbukowski]

More the nonevolutionists need to explain the genetic relationships.

NOW we find the real ELEPHANT. A little hard to even maintain we are not related to life forms which it is clear we are related to.

Either we face the facts and understand them correctly or remain with our heads in the sand. I don't like chewing on sand, it's yucky. Up the nose? Even worse!

[mfbukowski]

@samlam. No elephant.

This is the argument of the watchmaker. It is not irrefutable in the least and makes many false assumptions.

More the nonevolutionists need to explain the genetic relationships.

There IS an elephant, unfortunately he is demonstrably related to all other creatures.

[mfbukowski]

Samlam:

The Creationists are divided.

Types of Creationism

What Types of Creationism Exist?

Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why. Not every critique of creationism and creationist ideology will apply equally well to all creationists.

1. Scientific Creationism

When the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up, we are usually speaking of a more specific type of creationism: the fundamentalist Protestant version of creationism. This creationism (usually called Scientific Creationism or Creation Science) involves a literal interpretation of the Bible that is incompatible with evolution as well as with much other science and history, but which fundamentalists attempt to harmonize with scientific investigations of nature.

2. Flat Earthers & Geocentrists

Flat Earthers believe that the Earth is flat rather than round. The sky above is a dome or “firmament” which holds back the waters which once covered the Earth in Noah’s Flood. This position is most commonly based upon a literal reading of the Bible, for example references to the “four corners of the earth” and the “circle of the earth.” Although some believe that all Christians used to think that the Earth is flat, that isn’t the case.

3. Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC), the largest and most vocal group of creationists active in America, rely upon the most literal interpretation of the Bible in comparison to other forms of special creationism. At its heart, the Young Earth Creationist movement is a movement of conservative Christians. It is rare to find a Young Earth Creationist making a case either for creationism or against evolution without doing so from a deliberately religious and, usually, fundamentalist Christian position.

4. Old Earth Creationism

Sometimes, special creationism accepts the existence of an “old earth,” such that an ancient earth is accepted, but not evolution itself. This requires rejecting a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, but not abandoning it wholly and not simply reading it as metaphorical in the manner of Theistic Evolutionists. When reading Genesis, Jewish and Christian Old Earth Creationists (OEC) can take a number of different paths...

5. Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism

Creationism does not have to be incompatible with evolution; there are many who believe in a creator god(s) and who also accept evolution. They may have deistic beliefs and believe a god started everything then let it run without interference. Theistic Evolution encompasses theism, some system of traditional religious beliefs, and the idea that a god or gods used evolution to develop life on earth.

6. Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe.

I don't see "Process Theism" anywhere.

http://plato.stanfor...process-theism/

If you will read the article, you will find remarkable parallels with Mormonism. Think that might be helpful in this discussion?

Blake Ostler is usually seen as a process theist.

Edited May 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

I apologize. When you said "this issue" in post #105 I thought you were referring to evolution, not abiogenesis.

Doesn't matter which one. In order for scientists to come close to being sure God does not have a hand in evolution, they must be able to account for every single atom and subatomic particle in, on, and in the immediate vicinity of earth for all time. Just because we think we know what factors caused specific evolutionary chages doesn't mean we can say with any surety that God did not play a role. It is an absolute scientific impossibility to provide an example of such.

Edited May 21, 2012 by BCSpace

[Freedom]

Freedom:

Gravity is a fact. It is inseparable from matter(no matter = no gravity). The explanation of gravity is theory. IE; Is it waves, or depressions in the time space fabric of the universe, or some other thing we don't know about?

Evolution is a fact. Descent with modification is the law behind it. The explanation of evolution is a theory. IE; What is permissible given what we do know reproductive biology and DNA, or some other thing we don't know about?

While I'm very interested in eventually knowing everything about everything. I'm not going to throw out all I do know now in some hoped for future knowledge.

Again, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that you are agreeing with me. Do you even read my posts or do you just assume that I am anti-evolution?

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I always read your posts. I find you one of the more knowledgeable posters here. I honestly don't know what you think on this subject. All I can assume is we're talking passed each other.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

I always read your posts. I find you one of the more knowledgeable posters here. I honestly don't know what you think on this subject. All I can assume is we're talking passed each other.

My argument is that the evidence strongly suggests a process of evolution, although it cannot yet be proven. The only way to prove it is by creating another earth under the same circumstances as ours and observing it over millions of years. A lack of absolute proof (ie the missing link) does not disprove the theory either. I acknowledge that evolution does occur and cannot be denied, but since it is not possible to observe the evolution of mammals from omebas, we can only draw conclusions from the evidence. Back to my analogy, on a scale of 1 to 1,000,000, 1 being no information and 1,000,000 being all the knowledge of God on the matter, I suspect that the 5 year old understanding is a 2, and the most informed scientist is a 10. The same can be said of the creationists, only instead of knowing 10 out of 1,000,000, they know 10 out of infinity. The creationists create a dogma out of some 10 verses of scripture of unknown origin and buttress it with piety and condescension.

So I will never say that evolution through natural selection is the final answer. It is the best answer, but it cannot be proven through the scientific method. LDS doctrine is that Adam was the first man and that he introduced death into the world. This reality must be reconciled with the science. We have lots of crazy hypothesis but none of them have any data for support. So I lean towards evolution but I am reluctant to close the book on the matter until we have more revelation on the life and role of Adam.

All knowledge comes from God, and over time, more and more knowledge is being made available. I find it difficult to accept that all the information we are discovering on the origin of species is all a huge hoax by Satan. For me, the ascension of science has revolutionized religion and broken down its historical oppression. The horrible treatment of women in the middle east is rooted in religion. Science has broken this unjustified interpretation in the west. The same can be said of homosexuals. Religion was forced to acknowledge that we are not the center of the universe, evolution is the next big hurdle.

Science goes hand in hand with scripture but there is still so much to learn. I will remain open minded. We can observe evolution just as we can observe gravity but we do not know how either of them work because we cannot truly observe them with our puny and crude observational tools.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanx.

[cinepro]

Doesn't matter which one. In order for scientists to come close to being sure God does not have a hand in evolution, they must be able to account for every single atom and subatomic particle in, on, and in the immediate vicinity of earth for all time. Just because we think we know what factors caused specific evolutionary chages doesn't mean we can say with any surety that God did not play a role. It is an absolute scientific impossibility to provide an example of such.

I suspect that's why scientists aren't "sure God does not have a hand in evolution."

God isn't included in evolutionary theory for much simpler reasons: because we can learn much more about the process if He isn't.

Keeping in mind as well that even if scientists did agree that more "truth" on the matter could be had by allowing LDS theology to be included in scientific theories, it would put scientific publications in the awkward position of having to reject scientific theories and studies that include false deities and misapplications of theology while accepting the theories that include proper application of LDS teachings.

Who can blame them for just keeping gods and other supernatural factors off the table entirely?

[Freedom]

God isn't included in evolutionary theory for much simpler reasons: because we can learn much more about the process if He isn't.

Who can blame them for just keeping gods and other supernatural factors off the table entirely?

I would agree with this in the sense that, insisting on placing God in the equation requires to define what role God plays. You cannot insist that yeast must be in bread without determining why. So, if we cannot determine the role God plays through the scientific method, it is not possible to include him in the research. We do not study viruses (just as much a part of Gods creation as the emergence and development of life over time) under the burden of religion so why the double standard?

[cdowis]

I don't see "Process Theism" anywhere.

http://plato.stanfor...process-theism/

If you will read the article, you will find remarkable parallels with Mormonism. Think that might be helpful in this discussion?

Blake Ostler is usually seen as a process theist.

Interesting. "Thus, process theists speak of God and the creatures as co-creators."

God gave commandments in the creative process and watched to see if He was obeyed.

The BOM hints at this obedience:

Hel 12

[7] O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.

[8] For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.

"Man is less than the dust, because dust obeys the command of God."

The Book of Moses tells us that the earth is a living entity. One can reasonably conclude that its baptism is an act of an intelligent being with free choice.

[Rivers]

In speaking about the Big Bang in his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking wrote that it is unnecassary to talk about what existed before the Big Bang becasue it is unnecassary to explain what we now observe. I don't have the exact quote but he said something to that effect. I think this can be applied to God. We don't need God to explain what we can now observe. . I once heard someone say that science is not anti-thesistic but non-theistic. Once you put God into the equation, it isn't science anymore.

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

"We don't need God to explain what we can now observe. . I once heard someone say that science is not anti-thesistic but non-theistic. Once you put God into the equation, it isn't science anymore".

Agreed.

[cdowis]

This idea differs from creationists who argue that God actively intervened. My theory argues that He did not need to intervene because the natural process, as complex as it is, would always result in Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Interesting, but the scriptures contradict this model of creation.

[cdowis]

Rivers:

"We don't need God to explain what we can now observe. . I once heard someone say that science is not anti-thesistic but non-theistic. Once you put God into the equation, it isn't science anymore".

Really? How about this==>> " Once you put man into the equation, once man is able to go to the moon, it isn't science anymore."

Deity, the Creator, is bound by the laws of the universe just as man is.

This is just philosophical rubbish. There are many things for which science has no answer. Now, the scientist can express his faith in science by stating that "someday" we will understand. But the religionist can say the same thing.

Edited May 22, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

That is a non sequitur.

Then that deity is indistinguishable from the universe.

Absolutely. For every one answer we come up with there are five more questions to take its place. Some day we will understand but not by putting any "real" or alleged deity into science.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

That is a non sequitur.

Then that deity is indistinguishable from the universe.

How very glib. I think you just sputtering some meaningless platitude.

Why not really clever, "am I a man dreaming of a butterfly, or am I the butterfly dreaming that I am a man." There is no reality, no universe, we do not exist. Nihlism at its finest.

Absolutely. For every one answer we come up with there are five more questions to take its place. Some day we will understand but not by putting any "real" or alleged deity into science.

Each of us will at some moment finally face the truth.

I believe that our decisions in this life will have consequences in the next life. Others live their life, hoping that there is nothing afterwards.

That is the decision each of us must face. And no clever, glib sputterings will save us then.

Edited May 22, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

Last time I looked man is not God. Though I do hope to be like him someday. Your statement makes about as much sense as JSF prophesying that man would never be on the moon.

Then how do you distinguish God from the universe? I can distinguish man from the universe, but not a God who for all intents and purposes obeys the same laws I do. But is immortal, and seemingly can change the laws of nature at whim

I believe that.

I believe that too. Outside of my role as a member of the Church what others believe about some afterlife, or the lack thereof, is of little to no concern of mine

As I've said before I have no problem with God, but I have no way to explain a natural event with a supernatural cause.

Also that.

Ps. I've long maintained that the best arguments against the Church don't come from Atheist or religion believers, but by the Agnostics.

[Aliwe]

I once heard someone say that science is not anti-thesistic but non-theistic. Once you put God into the equation, it isn't science anymore.

Not exactly true. If there's evidence for God, lay it out on the table and let's have a look at it. It's not science anymore for any subject which is considered "settled" dogma, not just God but Anthropogenic Global Warming, cancer-causing cell phones, alien abduction stories, and Paul Krugman's idea a government can get out of debt by going deeper into debt.

[cinepro]

Not exactly true. If there's evidence for God, lay it out on the table and let's have a look at it. It's not science anymore for any subject which is considered "settled" dogma, not just God but Anthropogenic Global Warming, cancer-causing cell phones, alien abduction stories, and Paul Krugman's idea a government can get out of debt by going deeper into debt.

Is your view of science informed by reading actual science, or mainly newspapers and talk radio?

Edited June 21, 2012 by cinepro

[Hamilton Porter]

New DNews article on evolution:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557613/Science-and-faith-Navigating-the-world-of-discovery.html?pg=1

LOL

Whiting, who studied biology at BYU in the 1980s, said evolution was a much more controversial subject when he was a student. Professors would often hand out packets with quotes from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that supported their beliefs.

"We were having this battle of my general authority can beat your general authority," he said.

Props to DNews for doing their best to avoid making ministers look stupid.

[Calm]

Another one: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765584771/Angela-M-Berg-Robertson-God-is-the-maker-of-all-things.html?pg=2

Among biologists, the idea of God "creating" life and mankind often generates an impatient, condescending tone. I do not claim to know how evolution and God interact, but I believe that they do, and I see no conflict between biology and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[cinepro]

Another one: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765584771/Angela-M-Berg-Robertson-God-is-the-maker-of-all-things.html?pg=2

The question isn't whether or not she sees a conflict. The question is what she would do if she did see a conflict?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will mention a conversation I had with a scientist, an expert in DNA and molecular chemistry in the cell who is also LDS. I will not give his name as this conversation was explicitly not for attribution.

He pointed out that he believes in Evolution and he also believes in Adam and Eve.

I asked him about this and he told me that whenever he talks about ancient humans he describes the old ones as "anatomically correct human beings". He does not refer to them as "Man". While he would not hazard a guess as to the exact time, he would say that the spirit of "Man" came into anatomically correct human beings, not all that long ago -- and quite a bit after their first appearance on the earth.

He also indicated that the Garden was a type of Temple Environment where these more refined humans could feel more comfortable.and could make covenants with the Lord -- the first Humans to have the capacity to covenant with the Lord. And the fall of Man was where some of these covenants were violated.

This is a well respected man and I enjoyed hearing his views.

I cannot reconcile this with what the Book of Mormon teaches about Adam & Eve.