Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ironically, those are all statements of faith. That's science fur ya.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not all of em Wade........ we are all genetically related, without question. Every single living form of life is genetically related. Beetles are also the largest quantitative species in existence right now, hence Darwin amused that God was so interested in beetles...... etc.

[mfbukowski]

Not all of em Wade........ we are all genetically related, without question. Every single living form of life is genetically related. Beetles are also the largest quantitative species in existence right now, hence Darwin amused that God was so interested in beetles...... etc.

yep. I have a testimony of the tree of life.

Ever seen one of those charts with all the phyla lined up with a trunk and branches? You can't take this stuff too literally, you have to see what's behind it.

It IS poetry you know!

[wenglund]

Not all of em Wade........ we are all genetically related, without question.

There is a reason why within science evolution is still rightly considered a theory rather than a fact, and this because we can't directly observe what happened over the last several billion years, and are thus left to induce, in faith, the genetic relationships.

As others have astutely pointed out on this and other threads, there is much of science that involves faith, including some of the foundational principles of science.

Like me, faith is your friend, not your enemy, and it ought to be embraced with passion rather than shunned. Without it we could scarcely function.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

A forced choice between scientific observation and faith is myopic.

[thesometimesaint]

Kevin G:

And detrimental to both.

[cinepro]

Ironically, those are all statements of faith. That's science fur ya.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's weird how people arguing for faith always joy in pointing out how they think "science" involves "faith" (as if that proves their point), yet people arguing for science have never tried to argue that "faith" involves "science". I wonder if that means something.

[CV75]

It's weird how people arguing for faith always joy in pointing out how they think "science" involves "faith" (as if that proves their point), yet people arguing for science have never tried to argue that "faith" involves "science". I wonder if that means something.

Not weird at all. My observation is that those who argue for faith (many of whom are scientists) tend to be more dexterous and liberal in the application of their preferred discipline to gaining knowledge than those who tend to be more rigid and limited in the name of discipline.

[wenglund]

It's weird how people arguing for faith always joy in pointing out how they think "science" involves "faith" (as if that proves their point), yet people arguing for science have never tried to argue that "faith" involves "science". I wonder if that means something.

It means that you find things weird that you evidently don't rightly understand and don't correctly frame. Nothing new there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Not weird at all. My observation is that those who argue for faith (many of whom are scientists) tend to be more dexterous and liberal in the application of their preferred discipline to gaining knowledge than those who tend to be more rigid and limited in the name of discipline.

I find the exact opposite, but I suppose it depends on what you are looking for and who you are looking at. On the other hand, if the discipline you speak of is religion.......then most certainly are closed in a rigid and limited way. (I know, I know, here I go again - LOL!)

[supersnail]

Some atheists go around portraying evolution theories as inherently opposed to faith, and then people wonder why some Christians reject evolution as an explanation of the origin of humans. If those particular atheists would stop doing that, then maybe we could have more clarity from Christians. As those atheists gradually lose the argument because of their low birth rates, I expect discussions between Christians will become more interesting. (an evolution joke, sorry, couldn't resist)

There is relevant difference here between Stephen Jay Gould and someone like Richard Dawkins. Not all evolutionary biologists see such a conflict between faith and science. Citing Stephen Jay Gould (as was done in post #4 in this thread) as some kind of proof that Mormonism is incompatible with science is odd. Nobody is claiming that the ideas of a religion have been incorporated in any popular evolutionary theory, so just listing evolutionary thinkers who have not included the divine in mechanisms of evolution doesn't show much.

The supposed conflict between evolutionary theories and religion, especially those religions that are more or less neutral on macroevolution questions, is exaggerated. There isn't really any parallel topic in science where the same conflict is seen. Can you imagine someone trying to argue that there is a conflict between Mormonism and gravity because "Heavenly Father" doesn't appear in descriptions of Newton's law of universal gravitation, general relativity, or the Brans-D icke theory?

One could argue that *any* process, which takes places according to laws, "just happens" in its theoretical descriptions.

Edited July 26, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

It's weird how people arguing for faith always joy in pointing out how they think "science" involves "faith" (as if that proves their point), yet people arguing for science have never tried to argue that "faith" involves "science". I wonder if that means something.

Evolution (in various senses) itself is a fine idea. Like anything else, it can be used for immoral purposes. So can the idea of mass-energy equivalence and atomic theory, and I am not disputing mass-energy equivalence or atomic theory.

So rather than say that science involves faith, let me suggest that some atheist scientists (or just non-scientist atheists who have seen Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher) are in fact idolaters. They are idolaters when they use some evolutionary theory as a substitute for religious belief and support eugenics and other life-cheapening activity. That is idolatry, and such idolatry does not require the idolater to have an explicit belief in any "god."

[Pahoran]

Perhaps the more important question should be:

Is Mormonism, science and good grammar compatible?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Perhaps the more important question should be:

Is Mormonism, science and good grammar compatible?

Regards,

Pahoran

Is they not?

[ERayR]

Can you imagine someone trying to argue that there is a conflict between Mormonism and gravity because "Heavenly Father" doesn't appear in descriptions of Newton's law of universal gravitation, general relativity, or the Brans-D icke theory?

One could argue that *any* process, which takes places according to laws, "just happens" in its theoretical descriptions.

Comparing macro evolution theory with gravity is apples and oranges.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps the more important question should be:

Is Mormonism, science and good grammar compatible?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Is they not?

These dang furriners. Why you talkin like at? Ya shoulda said "ain't they"? Doncha even talk plain english?

[CV75]

I find the exact opposite, but I suppose it depends on what you are looking for and who you are looking at. On the other hand, if the discipline you speak of is religion.......then most certainly are closed in a rigid and limited way. (I know, I know, here I go again - LOL!)

Ha ha -- the preferred discipline of the faithful is spiritual, not religious!

[wenglund]

Perhaps the more important question should be:

Is Mormonism, science and good grammar compatible?

Regards,

Pahoran

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." President Bill Clinton.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Both are explanations for natural phenomenon.

[supersnail]

Comparing macro evolution theory with gravity is apples and oranges.

My only point in comparing evolution and gravity is that gravity theories' lack of religious content also does not show that Mormonism and science are incompatible. I was not, for example, claiming that macroevolution or human macroevolution was as uncontroversial as gravity.

I do, however, agree that the concept of macroevolution is more narrow than evolution. Human macroevolution is even more specific, and this leads me to:

The broad concept of evolution itself, in biology, is more akin to something like gravity, whereas the idea of evolution leading to the beginning of humans is more like saying that gravity (and inertia) is why the moon orbits the earth or why the earth orbits the sun. If the number of planets in the universe is in the septillions (10^24), the earth is just one of those. If it somehow turned out God did something to influence the position of earth, in particular, in the solar system, that wouldn't render general relativity or Keplerian/Newtonian orbital theory false. They would continue to be true, or true enough.

Likewise, if God started evolution in some sense and the unfolding of evolution was his means of bringing about the existence of human bodies, or if God made some adjustment/correction/refinement during evolution, that doesn't negate a partial role for evolution or make evolution false.

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[supersnail]

Many atheists have no difficulty with the idea that we--humans, beings with intelligence, technological power, intention, and free will--can intervene in a process to cause something to develop in a lab, even intervene in gene storage and replication. Nobody claims that the notion of human genetic intervention is incompatible with genetics and developmental biology. Yet, somehow when it comes to God, science is supposed to imply a crude materialism and empiricism, and science is viewed as contradicting religious belief in general. The idea that God intervenes in his creation is mocked on the basis that evolutionary theories don't mention him. It is as someone else in this thread suggested: humans are being deified in a way that is inappropriate.

Well, evolution doesn't entail the existence of humans either. A description of evolution could still be complete without mentioning humans at all. There is no conflict between human agency and biological theories, and there is no conflict between God's will and evolution.

[KevinG]

The earth is an experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbNtlS69HhU

[mfbukowski]

My only point in comparing evolution and gravity is that gravity theories' lack of religious content also does not show that Mormonism and science are incompatible. I was not, for example, claiming that macroevolution or human macroevolution was as uncontroversial as gravity.

Just remember that things were falling a long time before Newton defined the rules and the way we now think of "gravity".

[mfbukowski]

supersnail:

http://www.theonion....h-new-int,1778/

There are no facts, only interpretations- Nietzsche