Enslaved By Science

[mfbukowski]

Does this count?

And from official Church publications....

What's your point? The issue is not whether or not continental drift is a justifiable scientific theory, which it is of course- the issue is whether or not Peleg was talking about the physical separation of continents or some kind of division of people.

I haven't got a clue what you mean by this post. Complete sentences help a lot.

[Jeff Walsh]

Depends on how you define myth. IE; There is good evidence that King Arthur really existed, but that the various myths that grew up around him. not so much.

It doesn't take much science to see if the earth is real. God making the earth takes a whole lot more evidence than we currently have.

No that isn't what the sciences say about the Big Bang. The earth didn't have to exist at all, and there was still the Big Bang. The slight preference to matter over antimatter(1 part in 10,000) made what we know as the physical universe.

See Abiogenesis

I guess if you believe that a couple billion years is sudden. We have very different ideas as to what sudden is.

Natural selection is not chance, nor is it random.

See evolution of the eye.

[media=]

There are not millions of missing links. While there is still lots to learn about exactly how evolution worked in practice, there is no debate amongst scientists, including the LDS ones, that it does work.

I have no problem with science, and I have no problem with God. So maybe it is just your ideas about God and nature that need to be re-evaluated.

I certainly hope and believe I will learn a lot more than I do now. However my God doesn't play tricks with the universe in order to deceive us.

I should point out that I was not saying anything was a myth it was the person who I was replying to who seemed to say that science had all the answers and the biblical stories were myths.

I take it from your post that you also are sceptical that God organised the earth, well LDS theology tells me that He did and this being so maybe it is you that needs to re-evaluate your thinking.

Let me ask you some of the questions I have asked others, as you say the earth is real, where did it come from if God did not have anything to do with its creation? If mankind are not His creations where did we come from? Are we here by some chance happening? Where is the "evidence" that science can explain the starting point of life. Natural selection can only become a possibility if there is someting which started the process.

I did not think much of your link about the evolution of the eye, all I got from it was speculation of what could have happened, it is full of mights, maybes, ifs, theories etc. Darwinism is always talking about the concept that if enough time is available anything is possible, well somethings are not possible, one of the impossibilites is that lifeless material can generate life. . This is one of the greatest myths that those opposed to God try convince us happened. Well the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodinamics tells us simply that matter left to itself without any outside involvement does not get better and more complex it retrogrades. So where does that leave the Darwinian concept of the "ascent of man". Unless God breaths life into lifeless material it will remain lifeless. No amount of scientific theories can change this. The scientific world is a huge industry and has a vested interest in trying to prove that we did not need God to bring this world and life into being, science can do it.

Now let me say that I am not saying that science is not needed, Our Heavenly Father has revealed laws governing this earth to mankind and has inspired very great minds since creation with eternal truths and helped develop these laws to benifit His children on this earth and is still doing this. The great advances in knowledge that has been revealed in the last few centuries are wonderful and has been of great worth to the whole of mankind, but we should also acknowledge that there is also a movement authored by Satan that is also active in the world which has taken some of these advances in knowledge and used them for other purposes than what they were intended for. Satan would have us believe that there is no God just as he inspired Korihor to teach the Nephites. So we should be careful to find out what is true and what is false. Remember the Saviour said that in the last days if it were possible Satan would deceive even the very elect. Jeff

[cinepro]

What's your point? The issue is not whether or not continental drift is a justifiable scientific theory, which it is of course- the issue is whether or not Peleg was talking about the physical separation of continents or some kind of division of people.

I haven't got a clue what you mean by this post. Complete sentences help a lot.

As far as I can tell, the three times Peleg's division is mentioned in Church publications, a "division of the continents" interpretation is put forward.

As for whether or not Moses (the author of Genesis according to LDS teachings) could or couldn't see the shape of the continents in his vision of "the ends of the world", we'll each have to decide for ourselves I suppose.

[ERayR]

As far as I can tell, the three times Peleg's division is mentioned in Church publications, a "division of the continents" interpretation is put forward.

As for whether or not Moses (the author of Genesis according to LDS teachings) could or couldn't see the shape of the continents in his vision of "the ends of the world", we'll each have to decide for ourselves I suppose.

You are right but i just haven't decided that this issue is particularly germane to my salvation.

Edited August 22, 2012 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

As far as I can tell, the three times Peleg's division is mentioned in Church publications, a "division of the continents" interpretation is put forward.

As for whether or not Moses (the author of Genesis according to LDS teachings) could or couldn't see the shape of the continents in his vision of "the ends of the world", we'll each have to decide for ourselves I suppose.

Oh, ok, that helps a lot, I think but of course I still don't understand your full position because you have not stated it.

So you are saying, first, that indeed the passage IS about continental drift, AND I assume, that Peleg could not have known about continental drift, but indeed correctly through revelation knew about it before it was possible to have known about it scientifically and therefore was correctly inspired, so it is a bulls-eye scientific verification of the Old Testament.

Is that your position?

I'm tired of your innuendo and making us guess at what you are saying and what you are not saying. I would appreciate a clear declaration of your position.

Edited August 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You are right but i just haven't decided that this issue is particularly germane to my salvation.

What exactly is he "right" about? I don't understand what he is saying.

[ERayR]

What exactly is he "right" about? I don't understand what he is saying.

The way I understand him(and indeed it is sometimes difficult) is that when Peleg's division is mentioned in church publications it is mentioned as a division of land masses.

Also that as far as Moses whether Moses saw the shape of the continents is up to personal preference.

I was saying he was right about the way it is mentioned in church publications not that I agreed with that interpretation. I just don't see it as that important to me.

[mfbukowski]

The way I understand him(and indeed it is sometimes difficult) is that when Peleg's division is mentioned in church publications it is mentioned as a division of land masses.

Thanks for your response. Yes, I agree with that part.

Also that as far as Moses whether Moses saw the shape of the continents is up to personal preference.

Since presumably Moses was not a spaceman, then he must have been inspired, and that makes it a bullseye.

I was saying he was right about the way it is mentioned in church publications not that I agreed with that interpretation. I just don't see it as that important to me.

Thanks.

I kind of see it that way too. My only point was that IF the writer of Genesis (whether or not it was Moses or someone else) took the continental drift position before such could be known by natural means, he must have know it by supernatural means, or made a lucky guess at random which is not believable.

On the other hand, I have seen good evidence that the church also supports the "division of the people" interpretation as I recall, but I will let those who believe that argue that position.

[ERayR]

Thanks for your response. Yes, I agree with that part.

Since presumably Moses was not a spaceman, then he must have been inspired, and that makes it a bullseye.

Thanks.

I kind of see it that way too. My only point was that IF the writer of Genesis (whether or not it was Moses or someone else) took the continental drift position before such could be known by natural means, he must have know it by supernatural means, or made a lucky guess at random which is not believable.

On the other hand, I have seen good evidence that the church also supports the "division of the people" interpretation as I recall, but I will let those who believe that argue that position.

I don't exactly buy the primitive to advanced theory. We interpret the data that way but Von Danikin et al (space men theories aside) have revealed some interesting anomalies in artifacts, relics and myth that need to be considered. The uniformitarian model just brushes all this aside and ignores that which is unexplainable to them. There is more than meets the eye. Again irrelevant to my salvation but an interesting exercise that I break out and dust off every once in a while.

[Joyful]

In another thread, people seem to need to create scientifically approved reasons why Joseph Smith had his vision. Why do we do that? Why is there this need to appease the Science God to justify our faith?

Top things we seem to need to get science's approval to believe:

1. A global flood - Instead of it being just the simple power of God to add or remove water through pure will, we need to see things like where the water came from, and how archaeological evidence matches. We ignore the fact a flood story has occurred in more than one culture and seem to want Science's permission to believe.

2. The parting of the Red Sea - Again, I see so much of a need for this to match science. Perhaps it was a drought and a low tide, or perhaps a big storm caused a sand bar to be exposed. This one is especially supposed to demonstrate the literal power of God. Jesus uses it as an example of a divine miracle, yet we dumb it down to simple naturalistic explanations.

3. Moses and the desert - This one is similar to the First Vision thread. That perhaps Moses wondering around in the desert caused him to hallucinate God.

I have seen apologists suffer from this. FAIR and to a more aggressive extend, the Maxwell Institute, both seem to try to secularize everything.

I am reminded of the moral of the "Never-ending Story".The "Nothing" was supposed to represent humanity's loss of hopes and dreams. And in my interpretation, a loss of magic. I remember recently reading an article on love. They are trying so hard to turn love into some simple chemical emotion. I am not sure I want to live in a world of sterile science and a notion that humans are just biological robots.

Why do we seem to hell bent on appeasing science? Are we to the point that religious ideology must get scientific approval? How is that not the philosophies of man (Science) mixed with scripture? And should all ideas get approval from science first?

It is important to keep in mind the difference in purpose between science and the Gospel. The purpose of science is to examine the characteristics of the world around us in order to more fully understand it. A main purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to develop faith.

[ERayR]

It is important to keep in mind the difference in purpose between science and the Gospel. The purpose of science is to examine the characteristics of the world around us in order to more fully understand it. A main purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to develop faith.

Yet as we examine those characteristics we are expected to parrot the accepted doctrine. If someone dares to question about the anomalous data that was ignored they are branded heretic. The accepted solution is often not the one that answers the most questions but the one that is politically expedient.

[supersnail]

Wrote this a while ago and set it aside. It is unfinished, but speaks to some issues that have been raised in this thread.

Idolatry and the relationship between religion and science

The gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth. Revelation has not given us anything to replace evolutionary theory. It never pretended to offer a naturalistic mechanism or principle. Rejection of God is not integral to evolutionary theory, which speaks to regularities seen in a necessarily limited set of observations, about a particular portion or facet of reality, in a good-enough way. Evolutionary theory organizes data into a structure that can be used to meet human needs and build other theories. All of these things are true, but it is a challenge to understand what unites religion and science while scientific theories speak neither for nor against God or his influence.

I would like to suggest that what unites religion and science is a shared concern: opposing idolatry. Religion explicitly draws people closer to the one true God: the Godhead presided over by the Father. Science also has an anti-idolatrous character, because science is concerned with what is real and typically with what is useful, or useful to know, or efficacious. Science has the power to unsettle idolatry by explaining how things work. Jesus Christ was never something one could see on a daily basis and is beyond such explanation. Jesus Christ is not something that we can encounter with our senses and then dissect or destroy as an idol can be.

The whole point of authentic monotheism, which the idolaters of the empirical fail to appreciate and some of those attempting to reconcile Christianity with certain scientific theories (as if such an adjustment were necessary in the first place) fail to grasp, is that you cannot see God, but you can hear him spiritually and encounter him by seeking after righteousness--through Jesus Christ, not through an idol, and not even through a theory about God that functions as an idol if approached improperly. So we are to worship God the Father in the name of his Son, not worship the divine through something in the sky or on the earth. When you listen to the voice of God, what you are listening for is guidance in the midst of sin. God is not to be worshiped as someone or something doing something frightening, inexplicable or entertaining right before our eyes. God is a fountain of righteousness in the middle of a wilderness of sin, a place in which idolatry flourishes.

It's hard to believe that God would care to be worshiped for his demonstrations of power alone. His invisibility keeps us focused on his message, on prayer, and on doing what he commands us to do. We can appreciate his creation, but we do not encounter God by dwelling on some allegedly incontrovertible evidence of him in empirical data or sensory experience.

Drawing from scientific theories and empirical data to make an argument for God or his influence can only have an apologetic function. It's possible to lose sight of what it's really all about: worshiping God. Religion is interested in the truth, because genuine religion opposes idolatry as an obstacle to worshiping God. Religion is not interested in the minutiae of theory and facts for their own sake. But there is no such thing as truth without worship anyway. We do not oppose idolatry because we are going to worship nothing, because that is impossible. If we are not worshiping God, we are worshiping something else: an idol of one form or another. Without the worship of God, idols can be continuously replaced with other idols.

Modern revelation presents an opportunity to better understand the relationship between religion and science, because of the passage of time between when the Holy Bible was received in its present forms and modern revelation, and intervening advances in scientific knowledge. We can see whether and how new theories and facts are represented or treated, or not, in modern revelation, viewed in comparison with the Holy Bible. The most correct translation of the Holy Bible was not completed, but we can even compare D&C revelations with what was told to Moses as revealed through modern revelation or translation of the ancient original, and compare the Doctrine and Covenants with the Book of Mormon. Modern revelation shows that the search for truth from the point of view of religion is based on obeying and worshiping God, but that scientific theories aren't introduced or supported by revelation. The discovery of natural selection, a culmination of previous efforts, was only a matter of years away from the publication of the BoM, the majority of D&C revelations, and the Pearl of Great Price, but throughout those scriptures/revelations there is no evidence that the biological understanding of the times was incorporated, and the creation stories in them are essentially unchanged from the Genesis account. The differences that do exist involve the purpose of creation and responsibility for different aspects of it. Modern revelation does not replace, or add to, the creation story with scientific knowledge in spite of our ability to comprehend many things that could not have been understood hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Instead of assuming that modern revelation insists upon an anachronism or is woefully ignorant of scientific advance, we should consider that asserting the fact of God's creation without explaining how he did it or the means by which he created was the intention all along. Even if taken literally, the creation story doesn't explain the "how" of creation in biological, chemical, geological or physical terms. Nor we should expect it, or modern revelation, to. It's not simply that Genesis' initial audience was not prepared to receive or understand scientific knowledge. Genesis may to a degree reflect the understanding of the times--one could have surmised at any point in history that the earth was formed before life was put on it--but explaining the actual process of creation or the lawful development of the earth and its life does not appear to be the point; and this is clear in retrospect, because modern revelation provides no elaboration. If modern revelation did exhibit evidence of being informed by a recent understanding of nature, that--not the retention of, or lack of correction of, an apparent anachronism--would be an indication of idolatry. Such an understanding would necessarily be incomplete or imperfect, or partial in representing only a particular aspect of nature.

[Joyful]

Yet as we examine those characteristics we are expected to parrot the accepted doctrine. If someone dares to question about the anomalous data that was ignored they are branded heretic. The accepted solution is often not the one that answers the most questions but the one that is politically expedient.

This has nothing to do with being politically expedient..

[ERayR]

This has nothing to do with being politically expedient..

It does. Many times it is all about the money and/or recognition. Tow the party line or you get have neither.

[Joyful]

It does. Many times it is all about the money and/or recognition. Tow the party line or you get have neither.

I understand what you are saying. I see it now...

[Carborendum]

I do not think most people who want to apply the scientific method are guilty of this.

I never said as much. The scientific method is not the problem that produces pride. It is the application of our caveman level (by comparison) scientific understanding (i.e., that "knowledge" which we have developed through mortal means) in an attempt to explain to neanderthals (by comparison) Star Trek level (or beyond) natural laws.

In reality, the separation between our understanding and God's knowledge is even greater. Yet we seek to explain it as if we were much closer.

It is not just the attempt to "explain" miracles in terms we understand, but rather the common effort to "explain away" miracles as something rather mundane.

[mfbukowski]

They might have agreed on some things, not on others. The point is that both were just as committed to epistemic virtues and fought against 'magical', non-serious thinking. What Happy is portraying in the OP and in his comments is a grim picture of the world he thinks secular folks who value science are committed to. He is clearly unfamiliar with the plethora of writers and scientists who were against "magical thinking" but still happened to be some of the most artistic and passionate human beings around.

Well I suppose if you make it general enough, there is something any two people can agree on. But I suppose the point is not really that important.

Actually believing in the "magical" is one of the most irrelevant aspects of the religious experience. Most religious folks are mistaken in believing that they have a monopoly in their reactions to religious art and, IMHO, that is the primary protector of religious belief. But they are mistaken. Imagine how unexceptional believers would feel the Spirit to be, how natural what they thought to be more than worldly nature, if even atheists could have the same strength and kind of reactions to religious art and symbols while being totally atheist.

Reactions to religious art? I have never heard that discussed here as an issue. But I certainly don't disagree with what you said. See? Even we can sort of agree on something!

i noticed how you got a little Quine into that article as well- pretty slick.

[supersnail]

There are many mysteries in the scriptures that as yet cannot be explained by science, but there are many misconceptions of the scriptures that have been set aside through science. Evolutionary theory suggest complete randomness however it cannot be proven so I can accept the evidence of evolution but set aside the un-provable theory of randomness.

Evolution is a stochastic process with random and non-random parts. Even if the slate were wiped clean, evolution would not have to lead to Homo sapiens or even a human-like species. In that, both atheists and creationists find support for their position. But evolution is about regularities in the present and in the future and is not just about history -- the past. We also would expect the same or similar mechanisms to be at work on other planets with life. Emphasizing the historical over the theoretical aspects of science as if evolution were a human-centered theory is a degradation of science.

Evolutionary theory is a description of a process, not an account of every event in that process. This is often ignored or dismissed as unimportant. Evolutionary theory posits certain principles and patterns. Evolutionary theory does not speak to the presence or absence of every agent or event that may interpenetrate with the process of evolution. Even something like the Chicxulub impact is not integral to the modern evolutionary synthesis or even addressed by it at all necessarily. Phenotypic/natural selection, mutation, Mendelian inheritance, allopatric speciation, chromosomal inheritance -- these things would all happen regardless of this or that minor or even major event, though the significance of mass extinctions in general (not the Chicxulub impact in particular) is now recognized today in our efforts to keep current a comprehensive theoretical understanding. The notion that evolutionary theory rules out a powerful agent having something to do with the origin of humans is profoundly unscientific and even scientifically illiterate. Evolutionary biologists know better. Some are religious; a few others insist on allowing a lay misunderstanding of evolution to persist because it serves an anti-religious agenda that has nothing to do with science itself or any scientific theory. That does not mean the existence of God is likely according to the methods and principles of science, but one can a hold a faith-based belief in God's influence without rejecting any point of evolutionary theory.

In terms of what the OP is saying (or my take on it), we should not need to say God used this or that mechanism of evolution. We can have a faith-based belief in the creation story without drawing from, or opposing, evolutionary theory.

Even if we did have data on all the events of evolution on this earth, there is always more than one explanation. Always. Even science admits of this philosophically. Data collection is never really complete. Another viewpoint is that science is an industry focused on producing useful theories and has a method for constructing and choosing those theories that is important for us to uphold, but which need not dictate our religious beliefs. General relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's law of universal gravitation, evolutionary theories -- these are all useful though practicality may not have been the immediate concern initially in each case. So even a Young Earth creationist, who need not support creation science, can make use of, and even wholeheartedly support, the production of biological, chemical, geological and physical theories, no matter how far-reaching they may appear.

No, I am not a Young Earth creationist, but I see no good reason to throw Young Earth creationists under the bus. I have less appreciation for creation science, which is something else. The idolization of science may be found even among those who purport to resist the modernization of religion.

[Jeff Walsh]

Supersnail, I have read your last 2 posts with much interest and thank you for them, you have put your case a lot more elequently than I could. There are some points that I would make if I may. In the main I am in agreement with you, all knowledge of this earth originates with God our Heavenly Father, and although there may be questions concerning the organising of our physical bodies, surely there can be no argument that we are spirit children of Heavenly Parents.

You say that "revelation has not given us anything to replace evolutionary theory and it never pretended to offer a naturalistic mechanism or principle" Could I ask you to consider a passage of scripture. In Moses 6:59 a conversation between the Lord and Adam says:-

"That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul.................."

Now this sounds to me very much like a mortal birth, it does not give any evidence of evolutionary processes. President Brigham Young said that everyone was born into this earth by the same method. I do not want to go into this too deeply but a study into what Brigham Young said about Adam's birth need to be fully understood.

So I contend that revelation does contain methods other than evolutionary theory for the birth of mankind, and also it would be logical to me that an omnipotant God who organised a world could organise bodies to house hIs already mature spirits, He could produce a body for that spirit to begin its mortal probation without the need to wait eons of time for it to evolve. Any other theory of the birth process are just that theories. when the Lord reveals things to mankind that should be the end of further speculation.

The next point I would raise is that I am afraid that atheistic phillosophers look to evolution and natural selection with a fervour bordering on idolatry, they object violently when anyone challenges their theories and reject these objections with disdain and imply that such show immaturity. I am reminded here of Nephi's comments "When they are learned they think they are wise". The knowledge that our Heavenly Father shares with His children including scientists should increase our love and respect for God and should not cause me or anyone to believe that "they know of themselves". I agree with you when you said:-

"The whole point of authentic monotheism, which the idolaters of the empirical fail to appreciate and some of those attempting to reconcile Christianity with certain scientific theories (as if such an adjustment were necessary in the first place) fail to grasp, is that you cannot see God, but you can hear him spiritually and encounter him by seeking after righteousness--through Jesus Christ, not through an idol, and not even through a theory about God that functions as an idol if approached improperly."

But can you not see that idolatrous worship of this evolution theory put forward by atheists is the being used improperly!!!! I would emphasise here that I do believe in the evolutionary process which takes place within a species, an example of this is the fact that I am sure that when Noah welcomed 2 dogs aboard the ark, one male and the other female, inbuilt in the gene pool of these 2 dogs was sufficient variation whereby all the different breeds of dog could come. I do believe and have faith in this type of evolution, but 2 dogs never mated together and produced anything else but dogs.

Our Heavenly Father does not need apologetics to defend Him He is well able to do that Himself and the theories of men will someday be seen for what they really are the theories of men not TRUTH.

In built into the Plan of Salvation which Heavenly Father, who knows the end from the beginning, is the fact that He knew when the right time would come for each new revelation to be given either through his mouthpiece the Prophet or given through inspiration to scientists. Thus everything is progressing in a divinely organised manner. For instance instead of the Jaredites having to endure 344 days in a journey to the new world, I suppose God could have provide 747's to do this and save all the effort of building barges etc. But no, the time for this had not arrived for this.

So let me sum up, our Heavenly Father is actively involved in what happens to this world which He organised for his children to work out their second estate, He does not leave anything to chance. The creation of this earth and the peopleing of it did not come about by chance, it came about by His Holy will. Atheists, using evolution and even natural selection, had nothing to do with this process. Nothing on this earth, especially in the Kindgdom of God on the earth today, namely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, happens by chance. Nobody comes into the Church today by chance, each of us come in because we have someting to contribute, we all need to find out what this is.

Please do not assume that I have all the answers or even many of them because I do not, no one can claim this only God, we are all learning, even scientists, that we receive things line upon line precept upon precept, this process is the way Heavenly Father reveals things to us as we journey through life. Kind regards Jeff

[thesometimesaint]

Supersnail:

I don't recommend throwing anyone under the bus, even if they ask for it. But some voiced ideas have no credible evidence to support them. So the person advocating them either has to show the credible evidence for those ideas, or retract them.

IE; I can believe all I want in miniature flying pink elephants, but until I have one in hand. It is best not to publish, in scientific journals, claiming them.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff Walsh:

Much depends on how those verses are interpreted. The Church has no revelation claiming an interpretation. But allows all members to believe in or not believe in Evolution.

Brigham Young wasn't particularly friendly with the Protestant worlds' interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

That still doesn't address how God did it. You do know what a scientific theory is don't you?

The science works whether you're a theist or an atheist.

If that is your understanding of evolution. Then you are sadly mistaken on what evolution does.

I'm sure God will let me know what of my ideas are wrong. But until he does I have pretty good reasons(evidence) to maintain those ideas.

Sure God could have provided that 747 if he'd wanted to. But speculations about what God could have done are really rather fruitless

If a Peahen picks a certain Peacock to mate with because of his nicer looking plumage. That isn't chance. But it is natural selection.

No scientist that I know of claims to know it all. In fact science is predicated on us not knowing it all.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

[Jeff Walsh]

The Sometimesaint

All commentaries I have read of Moses 6:59 agree with the reasoning I accept, The Book of Moses is one of the standard works of the Church and therefore is classed as scripture ie. revelation.

President Brigham Young is a prophet of God and he did reveal in the April Conference of 1852 the way in which Adam;s body, who was the first man, was created and it certainly was not by evolution. Seeing that God revealed this to him would qualify as being the word of God

I freely admit that I have not studied deeply Darwinian Evolution for the simple reason I do not believe it, and contrary to what you are saying I would rather accept the words of one of God's prophets than any theory put forward by men most of whom freely admit to being atheists.

Of course everyone of God's children have their free agency and can believe what they wish I have no problem with that, if you read the context of the 747 point I was pointing out that then was not the right time for this technology to come forth.

Last point there is one person that does have all the answers and it is to Him I give my allegience. Jeff

[ERayR]

Much depends on how those verses are interpreted. The Church has no revelation claiming an interpretation. But allows all members to believe in or not believe in Evolution.

That is correct but macro evolutionary theory certainly savages the meaning and concept of fall.

Brigham Young wasn't particularly friendly with the Protestant worlds' interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

Neither was he much impressed with the macro evolutionary theory. He had some definite ideas of his own.

That still doesn't address how God did it. You do know what a scientific theory is don't you?

I am well aware of what scientific theory is. I am also aware that the wagons have been circled around the macro evolutionary theory and alternatives are ridiculed. Also I'm not so sure many really understand that macro evoulution is still a theory and not a law. I am a proponent of BY's theory.

The science works whether you're a theist or an atheist.

If you are meaning the science of the macro evolutionary theory I don't see it as working so well unless you suspend the meaning of "fall".

If that is your understanding of evolution. Then you are sadly mistaken on what evolution does.

I see that micro-evolution works quite well but the strings that attach it to macro-evolution are quite tenuous

.

I'm sure God will let me know what of my ideas are wrong. But until he does I have pretty good reasons(evidence) to maintain those ideas.

And I and others have pretty good reasons for not buying the "bundle".

Sure God could have provided that 747 if he'd wanted to. But speculations about what God could have done are really rather fruitless

Agreed

If a Peahen picks a certain Peacock to mate with because of his nicer looking plumage. That isn't chance. But it is natural selection.

Agreed but you just get a different colored pea fowl.

No scientist that I know of claims to know it all. In fact science is predicated on us not knowing it all.

Their rhetoric claims this but in practice, well lets just say that sentiment isn't expressed so well. Of course I don't have any idea which scientist you know.

Edited August 23, 2012 by ERayR

[Lightbearer]

We are not using science to rationalize away God, we are using the scientific method to rid ourselves of false dogma. This method has been used to discover the original meanings of words that are used in the bible and has led us to understand the text quite differently. The church's position on homosexuality has changed no doubt in part from ongoing research concerning sexuality. It is the process of continually learning and looking at all the available data to gain understanding that we advocate.

CFR, please explain how the Church has changed it's position on homosexuality? The position is the same as it was 40 years ago. Homosexual acts are still and have always been deep sin. It is an abomination and has never changed it's stance on it. Also I do not use the scientific method to determine doctrine in the scriptures. That is what the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is for. The Holy Ghost is how we are convinced of those interpretations.

In fact his is a good summation of the Church's postion on Homosexuality:

"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff Walsh:

We have no reason to accept any interpretation not accepted by the Church. The Church has no doctrine for or against evolution.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. But it is pure ignorance of, and a misuse of science to claim evidence from non science books or talks that there are tooth fairies. Further such claims as not to know what evolution actually claims, but here is what I believe about it, is tantamount to "Don't confuse me with the facts".

Pure non sense. I have never said that we don't have agency. You, and I are free to believe anything we want. However if you, or I, are claiming something about the natural world/universe we need to provide evidence beyond I said so, or appeals to authority.

That he does. However that statement is irrelevant to our discussion.