Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[supersnail]

As was pointed out early in this thread and several times thereafter by various posters, evolution has both non-random and random, or probabilistic, aspects. As a whole, it can be viewed as a stochastic process, a complex one with deterministic and stochastic components. This is not controversial. Any atheist science enthusiasts out there who don't understand what I'm talking about should be wary of making claims about evolutionary theory and religion, because they run the risk of looking scientifically illiterate contrary to their claims of being more knowledgeable and rational than Mormons.

None of the different convergence theories out there have to be true for Mormonism to be compatible with science.

Lack of convergence on H. sapiens or a human-like species or characteristic just goes to show that evolution is not a human-centered theory and has validity regardless of how or in what way the creation story is true.

If there were convergence on H. sapiens, that would not prove incompatibility between Mormonism and science either.

As a stochastic process that is inherently subject to external influences that become a part of it, evolution is not incompatible with God's influence. It just isn't.

Edited August 7, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

Regarding Einstein, the typical Einstein quotes show little. Einstein was a great scientist, not necessarily a great philosopher of religion. His genius was specific to certain areas. Einstein said various things. In some cases, it seems he was willing to make statements about God that weren't called for by his theories, or other scientific theories, themselves.

Einstein said more on the philosophy of science than he did on religion, though. What Einstein did say on philosophy that is relevant to the original topic of this thread has been neglected in this conversation. For example, Einstein's ideas about the relationship between theory and evidence and the role of principles in theories.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Newtonian gravity and general relativity are both good enough for making predictions about slowly moving non-massive objects above the Planck scale. Their conceptions of reality are different, but engineers use and therefore accept both.

This speaks to what science is and isn't. A theory that may not correspond to ultimate reality in every aspect or case may still have validity. The notion that the Holy Ghost is in conflict with special relativity, even if no theory will ever supersede special relativity, misunderstands the function of science and scientific theories.

And this is not just about scientific theories and religious beliefs belonging to separate domains. If we approach Newton's law of gravity the wrong way in our thinking, we can lead ourselves to ridiculous conclusions such as that no agent cooperating with the law of gravity can exist, or that other scientific theories aren't possible that can be used to make the same predictions as Newton's law can.

[Ahab]

It isn't so simple.

To put it simply, it is.

Is the roundness of an electron determined through the "5 senses" (let's just say "sense experience" because the number of the senses is utterly questionable)?

If it isn't, how do you "know" it is? I'd say either the 6th sense is involved to let you know that it is, or you're just guessing while hoping you're right... even when you're using some data to support your theory.

Data received from machines that measure these things aren't really making us see the roundness of the electron, does it?

No, they're not really "making" anyone see that, if that's what a person concludes based on the data. What then do you think it is that could lead someone to "conclude" that it is round, instead of some other shape. Maybe what they know based on what they have seen of circles?, maybe? There's still a possibility they could be wrong about that, though, isn't there? Maybe there's some other reason to explain why electrons have those properties, instead of because they are round? Do you really think you have anything that could "prove" to someone they are round if they didn't buy into that theory?

Most of particle physics is like this. But, what about forces? Do we see them or touch them? Nope. Vectors? Nope. That a car is moving is not science (any child can tell us that) but to what velocity, where it will be if it continues to move as it's doing, how the combustion engine works, etc, are things that are not known through the senses directly, although we can test these predictions and ideas in specific cases.

Who's to say it's not just guesswork, even educated guesswork, based on some data that can be interpreted that way?

Observations are part of science, but they aren't what science is all about. Science is a HUGE enterprise with methods to get data, to test data, to compare data, to explain data, to predict data.

Yes, and when the "science" is bad they generally try to update it to bring it up to current ideas. It's not usually what can be experienced through the 5 natural senses that needs to be updated, is it. Usually it's just the way that data is interpreted or described.

Science isn't a data-gathering activity, Ahab. If you saw Jesus then you have a bunch of questions to ask:

My premise was: What if Jesus was standing in front of you, and you saw him with your natural eyes. I explained how a person could be mistaken in thinking someone was Jesus, but my premise supposed that it really was Jesus who was standing in front of you. And then I asked how you would know that it really was him.

You seem to be trying to make it more complicated than it really is.

[Alvino]

If it isn't, how do you "know" it is? I'd say either the 6th sense is involved to let you know that it is, or you're just guessing while hoping you're right... even when you're using some data to support your theory.

What I wanted you to understand is that mixtures of mathematical calculation, indirect observation reported to us by machines that we know react in particular ways when particular phenomena is present, and the theories that explain what is going on... all these things combine in science to give us knowledge that is overtly naive to say was given to us by "the 5 senses".

No, they're not really "making" anyone see that, if that's what a person concludes based on the data. What then do you think it is that could lead someone to "conclude" that it is round, instead of some other shape. Maybe what they know based on what they have seen of circles?, maybe? There's still a possibility they could be wrong about that, though, isn't there? Maybe there's some other reason to explain why electrons have those properties, instead of because they are round? Do you really think you have anything that could "prove" to someone they are round if they didn't buy into that theory?

Again, the point is that the '5 senses' are a simplistic view of how we actually obtain data in science.

About being wrong... no one is speaking here of certainty. Only math and logic give us such knowledge but not science and it mostly shows a lack of global rationality to not be able to think probabilistically.

Who's to say it's not just guesswork, even educated guesswork, based on some data that can be interpreted that way?

No one's to say but we don't say it. Who's to say you are not just dreaming?

Blah. Let's simply move on from such vacuous objections. Once you start thinking about what is most probable then you start thinking seriously about matters of fact. After all, it has worked wonderfully since.

My premise was: What if Jesus was standing in front of you, and you saw him with your natural eyes. I explained how a person could be mistaken in thinking someone was Jesus, but my premise supposed that it really was Jesus who was standing in front of you. And then I asked how you would know that it really was him.

and I asked questions that I would try and ask to see if he was Jesus. What's there not to get, Ahab? Mine was an answer to what you wanted to know.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

For the 6th sense to kick in you need to be able to sense things through one of your 5 senses, so if you will acknowledge what I said about how God has been known and can be known through the 5 senses, we can get a little more into the 6th sense.

In other words, you have no justified, evidentiary basis at all for pretending there is a 6th sense. You are merely asserting the existence of something you think is there, but you cannot demonstrate it as say we all can demonstrate that trees are real, or water exists. There is no physical basis of reality to this hypothesized 6th sense. It's make believe, a fairy tale like Santa Claus. It's a subjective interpretation that you cannot provide any objective means for believing in that others can comprehend and accept.

[Bill Hamblin]

In other words, you have no justified, evidentiary basis at all for pretending there is a 6th sense. You are merely asserting the existence of something you think is there, but you cannot demonstrate it as say we all can demonstrate that trees are real, or water exists. There is no physical basis of reality to this hypothesized 6th sense. It's make believe, a fairy tale like Santa Claus. It's a subjective interpretation that you cannot provide any objective means for believing in that others can comprehend and accept.

Technically speaking, Kerry, no human senses are objective. They are all personal.

At any rate, there is more evidence for spiritual sensibility in humans than there is for, say, string theory--for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, even though it may be true.

[mfbukowski]

In other words, you have no justified, evidentiary basis at all for pretending there is a 6th sense. You are merely asserting the existence of something you think is there, but you cannot demonstrate it as say we all can demonstrate that trees are real, or water exists. There is no physical basis of reality to this hypothesized 6th sense. It's make believe, a fairy tale like Santa Claus. It's a subjective interpretation that you cannot provide any objective means for believing in that others can comprehend and accept.

Kerry- where do you think up these things?

In your own world of "subjective interpretations". You decide to turn on the computer in your subjective life, you read a post in your subjective life and you decide subjectively if it is worth answering. Then subjectively you pick some words out of your subjective vocabulary, formulate your subjective argument and type your subjective "thoughts" into the computer.

Every thought you think, every decision or choice you make is subjective. Every conversation you have requires you to have something subjective to say.

You chose to become the "Backyard Professor" subjectively, you decide to make a video subjectively and what to include and where and how to shoot it subjectively. You get responses and interpret them subjectively and answer subjectively.

In fact you "live" in the subjective. You will also die in the subjective. You dream in the subjective. Every experience you have is subjective- yes, some are shareable and those we call "objective" but most of the time all you are doing is in the subjective realm. Every plan every purpose you have ever had in your life was subjective. You decided to follow your subjective passion subjectively.

Maybe its time to acknowledge that.

[mfbukowski]

Technically speaking, Kerry, no human senses are objective. They are all personal.

At any rate, there is more evidence for spiritual sensibility in humans than there is for, say, string theory--for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, even though it may be true.

[Alvino]

Kerry- where do you think up these things?

In your own world of "subjective interpretations". You decide to turn on the computer in your subjective life, you read a post in your subjective life and you decide subjectively if it is worth answering. Then subjectively you pick some words out of your subjective vocabulary, formulate your subjective argument and type your subjective "thoughts" into the computer.

Every thought you think, every decision or choice you make is subjective. Every conversation you have requires you to have something subjective to say.

You chose to become the "Backyard Professor" subjectively, you decide to make a video subjectively and what to include and where and how to shoot it subjectively. You get responses and interpret them subjectively and answer subjectively.

In fact you "live" in the subjective. You will also die in the subjective. You dream in the subjective. Every experience you have is subjective- yes, some are shareable and those we call "objective" but most of the time all you are doing is in the subjective realm. Every plan every purpose you have ever had in your life was subjective. You decided to follow your subjective passion subjectively.

Maybe its time to acknowledge that.

I think you are missing the point, mfbukowski, UNLESS you think these objections to Kerry's objection to Ahab is also applicable to science.

The point is that there isn't any evidence of the reliability of a sixth sense just as there are extremely good evidence for, say, the reliability of sight or hearing in most contexts. Saying something is "subjective" misses the point that there are subjective beliefs that correspond with reality and are, therefore, true.

You seem to me to want to say as people today sometimes do: "That is YOUR opinion." Sure, but opinions can be true or false, also.

[thesometimesaint]

Alvino:

"Think about the claims Mormons make, for example, that the findings of science can make plausible or implausible. The age of the Earth, the origin of life, the origin of our specie, historical claims, etc.".

Mormons claim all types of things, but the Church doesn't make claims about the age of he earth, the origin of life, the origin of our specie, nonLDS specific historical claims, the Pythagorean Theorem, and a whole host of nonLDS specific claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

They overlap in, for example, the effective curative abilities of prayers for the ill which doesn't seem very hard to test. But I wouldn't say their methods 'overlap' (I'm not clear what you mean) more than one is insufficient and not very good, and the other one is the best we've developed so far.

I was merely asking, Alvino, whether you thought that scientific method and religious method overlapped. You seem to be suggesting in response an example of the practical application of scientific method to testing the curative power of prayer. Perhaps you are thinking of the principles of the experimental method as mediated by repeatability and statistical analysis, and concluding in a kind of by-gosh-and-by-golly way that some general concept of the scienfific method is the best we've got and that relioious method is not very good in comparison. Or you may be thinking in terms of technology, rather than science.

A good summary on scientific method is available on Wikipedia online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .

Science doesn't address ultimate reality, Robert, Philosophy does (Metaphysics, specifically). Religion does so in a very superficial way so it at least talks about it.

They often deal with the same subject matter as with prayer, but not in "ultimate reality". Think about the claims Mormons make, for example, that the findings of science can make plausible or implausible. The age of the Earth, the origin of life, the origin of our specie, historical claims, etc.

Again, I don't think science has much, if anything, to say about "ultimate reality" as I understand the term to be used. With regards to the Easterners, justification is what we're looking for and tools to manipulate nature, not just correct general hypotheses.

Here again, we may be talking past each other, because, while science is very much concerned with fine data points, it is also concerned with grand unifying theories (GUTS) -- of which the recently discovered HIggs Boson is a major constituent. The ordinary scientist or technician in a lab somewhere or out gathering samples for testing (I have done both, and perhaps you have as well) may not be deeply concerned with the debate about Quantum theory, Big Bang theory, or the theory of Biological Evolution (was life generated spontaneously?), or the nature of Dark Matter & Dark Energy (which is believed to compose over 90% of everything), but some scientists do have a great deal to say about the ultimate nature of reality or realities -- and it can be a very controversial area of discussion. At the same time, some scientists are very vocal in attacking supernatural religious claims, and substituting their own naturalistic assumptions about the nature of the universe. Indeed, that is a prominent feature of the discussion which we have been witnessing on this Board, particularly from Kerry Shirts. You may have noticed that in the short time you have been here. I was merely asking whether you thought that science and religion overlapped in addressing ultimate reality.

I'm not familiar with the work of FARMS or with linguistic analysis or Archaeology to give you any opinion worth your time. But what I can tell you is that the credibility of a Mormon institution saying they have good evidence for the historicity of the BoM is rather weak, to say the least.

Most of us are merely vaguely familiar with the results of scientific inquiry and many of us have apriori views about what is or is not plausible or likely, and that seems to get us through the typical day. Most of us make regular use of the products of advanced technology, which rest ultimately on the practical application of scientific knowledge. We depend on the accuracy of the reportage of scienfitic inquiry in a variety of areas, and some of it can be very entertaining (see Nova or Nature on PBS for example).

What I was referring to here has to do with testable (theoretically falsifiable) Mormon claims on the one hand (they assert that God is part of an entirely natural universe, a universe in which the Book of Mormon describes an actual series of civilizations which existed in the New World during a very specific period of time), along with the correspondence theory of truth on the other -- in which convergences of claims which match scientific reality confirm the hypothesis. No supernatural assumptions apply.

[mfbukowski]

Saying something is "subjective" misses the point that there are subjective beliefs that correspond with reality and are, therefore, true.

This is incredibly philosophically naive. The entire field of epistemology- 2000 years old- has grown up to examine these questions.

Precisely please explain to me how you KNOW that your experiences "correspond" to reality when you can't- and no one can- get "outside" your experience to check "reality" to see how well they allegedly correspond???

All we have present to our minds is what we see feel taste touch- and HOW WE ANALYZE THAT DATA, and order it mentally. Every bit of "reality" we know about has been experienced by a human mind and transmitted in language.

Yes we can all agree that "The cup is on the desk"- that is a shared experience. I can see that it is on the desk and so can you. That is in principle like "scientific data".

But what is that statement? It is a confirmation that you and I have similar sense data organized by our brains which we commonly define as a "cup" in English- a device probably made of pottery with a handle, designed usually for drinking, which is "on" - meaning in English, supported by, another sense data which we define in English as a "desk"- a piece of furniture (note that all these terms are culturally defined- even "furniture" - you need each term to explain the other)

Each word implies the whole of the English language. You cannot define "cup" without knowing what a cup "is" in English, neither the notion of "on" and you also must understand what a "desk" is.

But where did we get that data? The scientific description of that, in English, is that light waves in the proper wavelengths reflected off something somewhere, and because they were in the proper wavelengths, our brains interpreted those waves, ordered them, some synapses fired off a message to the language center of our brains and we associated those neurons firing with the word "cup". And our brains both did that at the same time.

But where did that sense data come from? How can we get outside the sense data to see the world it "corresponds" to?

We cannot.

All we have is data organized by our brains. That's all there is as far as we can know. Yes, we agree on much of it, but some of it we don't agree on.

When we agree on the sense data with certainty we use the word "knowledge" to describe that mental state. You and I both "know" with certainty that indeed the sense data of the cup is in the relation of being "on" the sense data we call "the desk"

We call that data we all can agree on "objective". That is what that word means. Agreed upon sense data which we all similarly have unless we are blind. Or deaf. Or have never experienced that particular experience.

That is why we cannot describe the difference between the sound of a violin and the sound of a tuba. We know instantly what those sounds "are" but we don't have the words to describe them to a deaf person- because that persons brain has never had the subjective experience of that sense datum.

We each must have had the subjective experience before we even really know what the words mean.

But then our brains are also receiving other data- internal data from our bodies. That is "private" or "subjective" data but it is data nevertheless.

Some of it is emotional. Perhaps we fall in love. What is that?? Sense data about an "other" - undefinable qualities we see in another person suddenly stimulate us to say "I love you". Are we certain about that? Yes!

But why? Geo Harrison:

Something in the way she moves

Attracts me like no other lover

Something in the way she moves me

I don't want to leave her now

You know I believe her now.....

What IS that? It is the receipt of sense data which our brain processes- just like it processes "The cup is on the desk" and yet the reaction our brain experiences is a totally SUBJECTIVE one. It is what we now define as "love"

Can YOU verify that I am in love? Perhaps in principle you could put me on some kind of brain scanner to check my hormones etc but all the scans in the world cannot tell you how I feel about that person and what is unique in my subjective life and in her subjective life that somehow makes us "sympatico" SCANS ARE NOT FEELINGS - THEY MAY BE DATA ABOUT THEM BUT THEY "ARE" NOT FEELINGS.

The scans would be YOUR data about what I am feeling first hand. It is the difference between watching data about the heart beat of the astronaut on the moon and being on the moon. Can you see the difference?

Big difference.

They are third person statements- your OBSERVATIONS and your INTERPRETATION of what I am feeling.

Can I "know" with certainty what I am feeling? Absolutely! Can YOU by means of your scans KNOW what I am feeling? NEVER!

And perhaps I have experienced the feeling of an intelligence outside myself giving me knowledge that I could never have known on my own. Maybe you have never experienced that. Maybe you have never thought of it that way. Maybe you just have not have not defined it that way.

Whatever it is- you might just be like the deaf person who never heard a violin or a tuba and now you are trying to tell us that the difference doesn't exist or it is part of our "brains". If there is no common experience there is no possibility of a discussion. Or perhaps your brain has not yet made the connection between what we are talking about and what you think we are talking about.

But saying it is part of our brains misses it totally.

Of course it is part of our brains. What isn't? That is not the point.

But if you think you are going to get outside of sense data including data we all share, you are mistaken.

Edited August 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

What I wanted you to understand is that mixtures of mathematical calculation, indirect observation reported to us by machines that we know react in particular ways when particular phenomena is present, and the theories that explain what is going on... all these things combine in science to give us knowledge that is overtly naive to say was given to us by "the 5 senses".

What I wanted you to understand is that science deals with what can be observed through the 5 natural senses, and so does religion. I acknowledged that the 6th sense could be utilized when studying and analyzing data for science, as well as religion. I never said science deals with ONLY what can be observed through the 5 natural senses, which is what you seem to think I was saying.

Again, the point is that the '5 senses' are a simplistic view of how we actually obtain data in science.

It seems you were missing my point. Sometimes there is some guesswork involved in scientific analysis, just as there can be in religion, but there are also times when science is derived from what is plainly manifested through the 5 natural senses, just as there is in religion.

About being wrong... no one is speaking here of certainty. Only math and logic give us such knowledge but not science and it mostly shows a lack of global rationality to not be able to think probabilistically.

Just because something is "probably" true doesn't mean it "is" true... whether in science or religion.

No one's to say but we don't say it. Who's to say you are not just dreaming?

I am, and so is everyone else who can observe reality, by knowing the difference between reality and just dreaming.

Blah. Let's simply move on from such vacuous objections.

Please do.

Once you start thinking about what is most probable then you start thinking seriously about matters of fact. After all, it has worked wonderfully since.

Heh, yeah sure, as long as you can tell the difference between reality and the what ifs.

and I asked questions that I would try and ask to see if he was Jesus.

How would you know even if he answered the questions correctly? He could have ALL the right answers, or at least seem to from your perspective, and still not be the real Jesus Christ.

What's there not to get, Ahab?

What you didn't get.

Mine was an answer to what you wanted to know.

That still wouldn't lead to the correct result, necessarily. Don't you see how you could still be wrong?

[shalamabobbi]

This speaks to what science is and isn't. A theory that may not correspond to ultimate reality in every aspect or case may still have validity. The notion that the Holy Ghost is in conflict with special relativity, even if no theory will ever supersede special relativity, misunderstands the function of science and scientific theories.

I've wondered at some members rejection of the theory of relativity as well. To reject it based upon the speed limit of light is to suggest that the medium of prayer is what? Sound waves and Photons??

If the answer to prayer came via photons how would the brain receive/process it anyhow?

When we pray silently what is the medium of that??

Since there is no universal *now* in our universe, one would think that concept more troubling than the speed limit of light.

Or the slowing of time relative to observers in differing gravitational wells or with differing relative speeds of motion. What about a dopler effect to prayer? Nope never experienced that either.

Surely if we profess a faith in God, He better be able to transcend the currently known universe or we are in a world of hurt as the heat death of the universe would bring an end to Him as well as to us anyhow..

[thesometimesaint]

As "Heat Death" is such a long time into the future. I don't believe I'll lose much sleep over it. Who knows but at that point the Gods may once again say let there be light and it will be.

Edited August 7, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Another point:

Data must always be evaluated and interpreted, standards set, procedures established, categories defined and decisions must be made about what data to accept and what to reject.

Does that data do that to itself?

No, those decisions are based on what a human decides is important and what is not important. It always comes down to a judgement call as much as it does for Judge Judy.

She looks at the evidence, evaluates the credibility of the testimonies and decides who is lying and who isn't, and what probably happened and what didn't.

Even Ockham's Razor was invented by a guy named Ockham and everyone else decided he had a good idea. Somewhere all this comes down to human judgement.

[supersnail]

T

I've wondered at some members rejection of the theory of relativity as well. To reject it based upon the speed limit of light is to suggest that the medium of prayer is what? Sound waves and Photons??

If the answer to prayer came via photons how would the brain receive/process it anyhow?

When we pray silently what is the medium of that??

Since there is no universal *now* in our universe, one would think that concept more troubling than the speed limit of light.

Or the slowing of time relative to observers in differing gravitational wells or with differing relative speeds of motion. What about a dopler effect to prayer? Nope never experienced that either.

Surely if we profess a faith in God, He better be able to transcend the currently known universe or we are in a world of hurt as the heat death of the universe would bring an end to Him as well as to us anyhow..

To mistakenly reject special relativity because one thinks that it is in conflict with ideas about prayer is actually the flip side of rejecting prayer because one thinks that it is in conflict with special relativity. The second is more frequent though. Atheists are more likely to see a contradiction there and reject prayer. Among other reasons, the question arises often because atheists are raising the supposed contradiction as a justification for disbelief in the first place.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, just wanted to let you know that I found your last post very thought provoking and uplifting on many levels. Thanks.

You are most welcome. I just try to pass along what has provoked and uplifted my own thoughts, me having been converted, wanting to strengthen my brethren.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

If it doesn't have to do with whether it is compatible or not, it does have to do with what those who have control over the official positions of the Church intuit regarding evolution. Why not simply say there is no contradiction between evolution and the teachings of the Church? They don't even need to say evolution is correct, they can just say that, IF it were true, then it wouldn't conflict with true doctrine... so, why don't they? Let's not attempt to say that the issue is of no relevance since there is no single point of conflict between religion and science in the U.S. then this one.

Sorry to butt in on your & Stormrider's debate, Alvino, but I just noticed this entry.

It is true that the "point of conflict between religion and science" is particularly evident on the issue of evolution, though many religious thinkers consider evolution to be no more than God's method of long term creation. I'd have no theoretical problem with that were it not for the fact that LDS theology sidesteps the issue by opting for transmission of all life (including the DNA blueprint) from elsewhere. Thus, the debate over archebiosis versus special creation conducted by biology and normative Western religion leaves naturalistic LDS theology relatively untouched. All this aside from the fact that biologists who just happen to be Mormon happily teach evolutionary theory in universities, including BYU.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

Sorry to butt in on your & Stormrider's debate, Alvino, but I just noticed this entry.

It is true that the "point of conflict between religion and science" is particularly evident on the issue of evolution, though many religious thinkers consider evolution to be no more than God's method of long term creation. I'd have no theoretical problem with that were it not for the fact that LDS theology sidesteps the issue by opting for transmission of all life (including the DNA blueprint) from elsewhere. Thus, the debate over archebiosis versus special creation conducted by biology and normative Western religion leaves naturalistic LDS theology relatively untouched. All this aside from the fact that biologists who just happen to be Mormon happily teach evolutionary theory in universities, including BYU.

I have no problem with God using evolution as the method of creation.

True we do sidestep the issue, but I don't believe it is due to life coming from elsewhere. That just puts the issue further back in time. According to Scripture God took some dirt of this earth and made man out of that. I view that Scripture as poetic license. We're actually much closer to ancient sea water.

In the not too distant past there was a significant controversy, and lots of hard feelings at BYU on the issue of Evolution. By the time I went and Bro. Oaks was President of the school. He had pretty much put a lid on most of it. Though there will probably always be some disagreements between the Religion Dept, and the Biology Dept.

Edited August 7, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Alvino:

"Think about the claims Mormons make, for example, that the findings of science can make plausible or implausible. The age of the Earth, the origin of life, the origin of our specie,

The scientific claims in these areas are subjective.

[ERayR]

I think this is relevant to the conversation so will interject it.

The Healing Power of Prayer

http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headline_health/prayer_healing_power/2012/04/06/443812.html

[Calm]

A massive 12-month study from a Kansas City hospital showed patients admitted with heart trouble did better when somebody was praying for them. Amazingly, the patients were not told people were praying for them. Volunteers from a local church were given the first name of a patient on a piece of paper and asked to pray for that person.

Those patients had fewer complications than those who weren’t prayed for. Researchers said they did not have a scientific explanation for the outcome.

I would be interested in seeing this one.

[Calm]

I think this is relevant to the conversation so will interject it.

The Healing Power of Prayer

http://www.newsmaxhe.../06/443812.html

Found another reference with more info:

A recent, controversial study of cardiac patients conducted at St. Lukes Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, concludes that this type of prayer known as intercessory prayer may indeed make a difference. Prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care, says cardiac researcher William Harris, Ph.D., who headed the St. Lukes study. The study was published in the October 25, 1999 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Harris and team examined the health outcomes of nearly 1,000 newly admitted heart patients at St. Lukes. The patients, who all had serious cardiac conditions, were randomly assigned to two groups. Half received daily prayer for four weeks from five volunteers who believed in God and in the healing power of prayer. The other half received no prayer in conjunction with the study.

The volunteers were all Christians. The participants were not told they were in a study. The people praying were given only the first names of their patients and never visited the hospital. They were instructed to pray for the patients daily for a speedy recovery with no complications.

Measuring marvels

Using a lengthy list of events that could happen to cardiac patients such as chest pains, pneumonia, infection, and death Harris concluded that the group receiving prayers fared 11 percent better than the group that didnt, a number considered statistically significant.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-01-18/health/prayer.power.wmd_1_daily-prayer-intercessory-prayer-cardiac-patients?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Ahab]

I have no problem with God using evolution as the method of creation.

True we do sidestep the issue, but I don't believe it is due to life coming from elsewhere. That just puts the issue further back in time.

You seem to have this really deep need to want to think we came from some kind of lower being, instead of our kind of being just always being in existence, along with all other kinds of beings, while we are the superior kind. I like my ideas better, and I think my ideas are more consistent with revelations God has given, but I know you are free to think whatever you want to think.

In the not too distant past there was a significant controversy, and lots of hard feelings at BYU on the issue of Evolution. By the time I went and Bro. Oaks was President of the school. He had pretty much put a lid on most of it. Though there will probably always be some disagreements between the Religion Dept, and the Biology Dept.

In science, what we see is evidence that some kinds of beings have some things in common with some other kinds of beings. I see no evidence that proves one kind of being gave rise to another kind. One theory I've seen, which is similar to your theory I think, is that God used his DNA (or whatever we would call it) to create all other kinds of beings, with even the lowest form of life getting at least something from God's essence.

I realize that there are different ways of creating things, though, so it's not necessary that God be the ultimate origin of all kinds of life in existence, but I still think God has at least something to do with how everything is and in a way there's a connection between all that exists everywhere. For creatures not capable of transporting themselves through space there needs to be someone or something to get them from place to place if they're really going to be fruitful and multiply without any limits in the universe among their own kind.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Ahab