Enslaved By Science

[happy]

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.

The chance that people discuss is that a beneficial mutation would occur in the first place and that then Peahen doesn't make a mistake and mate with the lesser animal and that the beneficial mutation can pass on to the offspring. These are chances or gambles. If the world is getting excessively hot, A species almost has to hope mutations in their fur will occur fast enough to provide benefit before the species dies off. Because Evolution imagines no divine or intelligent involvement, one can assume an environment that increase in temperature could actually kill off all life on Earth if not enough beneficial mutations occur to allow survival.

So while natural selection in a cold environment would favor the individuals with thicker fur, and hence their offspring, the chance seem high that either the thick fur will not pass on to the offspring, or that the mutations, while great, do not thicken the fur enough for survival.

Edited August 23, 2012 by happy

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over time.

[Jeff Walsh]

The sometimesaint

The same can be said about scientists also what they say is not binding upon me, I will put my faith in Prophets of God, I think we have both made plain how we consider these things and it will have to be decided in the future if we have put our faith in truth or error, have a good life. Jeff

[supersnail]

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.

I agree with your last sentence. But there are Young Earth creationists who don't support creation science, but patronize perfectly respectable biology journals etc. without necessarily contributing research to them. This is what is really relevant. I am not suggesting that faith-based beliefs be accorded a scientific status. I ask the patience of readers and that they look over what I said again if that was unclear.

Let me ask you, do you think Jesus literally resurrected is like a "miniature flying pink elephant"? I'm not questioning your testimony. It's just that I'm not familiar with your ideas apart from a few conversations. On what basis does one dismiss the global flood using Occam's razor, but not the literal resurrection?

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

Most mutations are neutral to the survivability of the individual. IE; There is no apparent benefit to humans from having blue eyes or brown eyes. However if we change the environment(such as mate selection) then the favored eye color will tend to predominate. In an like example donkeys are nearly always sterile. However man finds them useful so we continue to artificially produce donkeys.

Evolution is not chance. It merely says that more individuals are born than survive to reproduce. IE. It takes on average about 2.3 humans to be born for 2 humans to survive to reproduce. That reproduction opportunities are limited by natural or artificial(man made) means. That only those traits that get passed down survive.

That is the problem with massive quick changes in the environment. Just ask the dinosaurs. Despite what the so called "Creationist Museum" folks want you to believe. From Adam and Eve down to Noah humans DID NOT ride around on dinosaur backs.

In light of the fact that there is life from the Arctic regions, to the tropical rain forests, to the bottom of the oceans, to the boiling water of geysers, is evidence(proof) of the adaptability(evolution) of life on this planet.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over time.

Not so. Micro evolution is the observed and observable changes within a specie. Macro evolution postulates mutations that resulted in unrelated(unable to reproduce when mated to other related mutations i.e. DNA changes) specie.

[ERayR]

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.

How can we know if it credible or not when it is dismissed out of hand?

[Freedom]

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.

I would agree with this, so the problem is not the scientific effort to gain a more correct understanding of the universe but rather the misunderstanding of what science can actually tell us today. I mentioned this before, but from reading the actual studies and not the agenda driven distortion of the results by the media we get much more conservative pronouncements. Most of the papers do not make such absolute pronouncements as the anti-religious crowed claim they do. Thus, it is not the science that is the problem, but it is how the non-scientific community misinterprets the science.

[ERayR]

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.mormonnew...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.

There are many things the church has no doctrine for or against. That doesn't preclude that some or many may or may not be accurate. All that does is allow you to decide for yourself.

[Freedom]

The 'doctrines' that are being challenged by science generally turn out not to be doctrines at all but rather erroneous interpretations of peripheral teachings or word usage. The fundamental doctrines of the gospel, to my knowledge, have not been challenged by science. The age of the earth is not a fundamental doctrine of the church, nor is the method God uses to travel around his domain. Theoretical Physics, a legitimate field of science, has produced an alarming amount of research that fits quite well with LDS doctrine.

[ERayR]

I would agree with this, so the problem is not the scientific effort to gain a more correct understanding of the universe but rather the misunderstanding of what science can actually tell us today. I mentioned this before, but from reading the actual studies and not the agenda driven distortion of the results by the media we get much more conservative pronouncements. Most of the papers do not make such absolute pronouncements as the anti-religious crowed claim they do. Thus, it is not the science that is the problem, but it is how the non-scientific community misinterprets the science.

True but I don't think you were inclusive enough. IMNSHO there are many in the scientific community who also misinterpret or, sometimes, ignore the evidence

[ERayR]

Happy:

Most mutations are neutral to the survivability of the individual. IE; There is no apparent benefit to humans from having blue eyes or brown eyes. However if we change the environment(such as mate selection) then the favored eye color will tend to predominate. In an like example donkeys are nearly always sterile. However man finds them useful so we continue to artificially produce donkeys.

Evolution is not chance. It merely says that more individuals are born than survive to reproduce. IE. It takes on average about 2.3 humans to be born for 2 humans to survive to reproduce. That reproduction opportunities are limited by natural or artificial(man made) means. That only those traits that get passed down survive.

That is the problem with massive quick changes in the environment. Just ask the dinosaurs. Despite what the so called "Creationist Museum" folks want you to believe. From Adam and Eve down to Noah humans DID NOT ride around on dinosaur backs.

In light of the fact that there is life from the Arctic regions, to the tropical rain forests, to the bottom of the oceans, to the boiling water of geysers, is evidence(proof) of the adaptability(evolution) of life on this planet.

I agree with this statement, however, I don't think you can dismiss the possibility.

[happy]

Happy:

Most mutations are neutral to the survivability of the individual. IE; There is no apparent benefit to humans from having blue eyes or brown eyes. However if we change the environment(such as mate selection) then the favored eye color will tend to predominate. In an like example donkeys are nearly always sterile. However man finds them useful so we continue to artificially produce donkeys.

Evolution is not chance. It merely says that more individuals are born than survive to reproduce. IE. It takes on average about 2.3 humans to be born for 2 humans to survive to reproduce. That reproduction opportunities are limited by natural or artificial(man made) means. That only those traits that get passed down survive.

That is the problem with massive quick changes in the environment. Just ask the dinosaurs. Despite what the so called "Creationist Museum" folks want you to believe. From Adam and Eve down to Noah humans DID NOT ride around on dinosaur backs.

In light of the fact that there is life from the Arctic regions, to the tropical rain forests, to the bottom of the oceans, to the boiling water of geysers, is evidence(proof) of the adaptability(evolution) of life on this planet.

Your response makes me feel as if you did not fully read mine.

[thesometimesaint]

Supersnail:

I'm not an evolutionary biologist. So I can only go by what I read in the professional journals. I find no cause to agree with the young earth believers and find plenty of cause to not agree. But I fully support their right to believe any silly thing they want as long as they allow me to believe any silly thing I want.

I fully believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, and believe that someday it will happen for me. I do get world weary at times. But I'm not volunteering the check out any time soon. I don't use Occum's Razor except in a very limited ways that it is applicable to. It doesn't apply to human thinking, and motivations. I think we all choose what we want to believe, and Atheism doesn't have any appeal to me. I can't put every idea into my Scientific Method test tube, at least not yet. So I'm content for now to keep them them separate until I have a lot more knowledge than I do now.

To my Atheistic friends: If it really is just this life and then oblivion. How would we know any different any way?

[ERayR]

Supersnail:

I'm not an evolutionary biologist. So I can only go by what I read in the professional journals. I find no cause to agree with the young earth believers and find plenty of cause to not agree. But I fully support their right to believe any silly thing they want as long as they allow me to believe any silly thing I want.

Neither do I find any cause to agree with the young earth proponents. Neither do I agree that Man was the product of evolution.

Edited August 23, 2012 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

That is where the remains of actual once living plants and animals provide the proof of evolution.

The latest remains of the dinosaurs date back to about 65 million years ago, after that no more dinosaurs. The earliest remains of modern humans date back to about 200,000 years ago. A factor of about 325 to 1. If I was a betting man you do know where I'd place my bet.

Ps; If anyone wants to disprove evolution it is easy to do. No special training or skills are required. Just a good shove, and a means my which you can accurately record what you find. Now just dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt.

Edited August 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

ERayR:

That is where the remains of actual once living plants and animals provide the proof of evolution.

The latest remains of the dinosaurs date back to about 65 million years ago, after that no more dinosaurs. The earliest remains of modern humans date back to about 200,000 years ago. A factor of about 325 to 1. If I was a betting man you do know where I'd place my bet.

That is where the remains of once living plants and animals provide proof of changes within the specie not transformation to a different specie

Don't mistake what I said. I said I am not a young earth proponent. That said, because data(don't call for a CFR because I am not in a position to research anything for the next few days) used to make these estimates has been selectively culled to support these estimates. Data which does not support these estimates is rejected. In the scientific community if you are not an "evolutionist" you are rejected.

Edited August 23, 2012 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Not true. We have the remains of 100's of thousands of transitional forms. Not all of them are meaningful to evolution but they are still transitional forms.

I have no problem with outliers per say. All I ask is that they provide evidence for their claims. At one time Galileo was an outlier, but time and experience has shown him to be correct.

If I conduct one hundred times the same experiment and get the same result ninety nine times. That one time is an outlier. If I or you can not reproduce the same results as that one outlier then chances are that that one outlier is a one off or an artifact of the methodology we used. It can be safely discarded.

if you want to disprove evolution it is easy to do. No special training or skills are required. Just a good shove, and a means my which you can accurately record what you find. Now just dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt.

Edited August 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[happy]

I have no problem with outliers per say. All I ask is that they provide evidence for their claims. At one time Galileo was an outlier, but time and experience has shown him to be correct.

And that thus returns to the original point of the thread. Is that scientific proof? Or is spiritual proof allowed?

[supersnail]

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:-

The fact of birth had been known for ages, and thus I'm not sure Moses 6:59 can really be said to disclose anything new about biology. Very strictly speaking, the idea that we come from maternal wombs could in principle be overturned -- I think I get what you're saying -- but I do not see what is said in Moses 6:59 as rising to the level of a scientific theory by any stretch or even to a suggestion that we should support a certain scientific theory on the basis of revelation. Are other kinds of birth, oviparity and ovovivipary, really addressed by contrast by revelation? Maybe you could point to Job 39, but eggs are only mentioned there in the context of a certain animal. It reflects an observation, not a theory.

I am not against the idea that Adam and Eve were born like we are. No doubt birth is one of the means by which we gain bodies. We see it every day. I am less sure the creation story specifically addresses how the first two individuals of Homo sapiens sapiens came to be.

I do respect faith-based beliefs and that one can in principle believe various things as pertaining to biology while accepting in their entirety the consensus findings of other branches of science. Because of the organization of science into disciplines and so forth, the conflict between certain Young Earth creationists and science is not as great as one might assume. There are Young Earth creationists who are chemists, for example, and who do contribute to perfectly respectable chemistry journals. Similarly, someone who just doesn't accept macroevolution or speciation or never thought about those things much may be a statistician or computer scientist with no responsibility for funding biological research.

I think you would agree that the vast majority of science is not focused on questions like was there a global flood or even where a certain ancient human came from. The atheists laboring to drive a wedge between scientists and the religious actually put themselves in something of a bind on the Adam and Eve question. I mean, do we really need to spend billions of dollars on trying to get more proof that Homo sapiens came from Homo heidelbergensis? I thought that was supposed to be already settled scientifically. How big is the conflict really and what is at stake?

To some extent, there would be no problem to speak of if critics didn't raise certain questions to try to invalidate a faith on scientific grounds. If we had to do it again, we could arrive at our present geological and physical theories without addressing the parting of the Red Sea.

Contrary to the false impression perpetuated by some atheists who may or may not know better, evolution is not a human-centered theory. We could arrive at all the theoretical points of evolution without addressing human origins. Any self-styled pro-evolution skeptic of religion who suggests otherwise is probably either a crackpot or scientifically illiterate, at best. It is unfortunate when a false so-called scientific doctrine of evolution as leading inexorably to Homo sapiens sapiens and excluding God has influenced Christians' perception of evolution. Yes, few evolutionary biologists believe that or say such in formal discourse, but those with an anti-religious agenda tolerate a false understanding of evolution among lay people because they need to have the idea floating around that evolution must displace God. The anti-religion agenda benefits from it -- notwithstanding the lip service paid by some to the Sermon on the Mount being a nice idea. Consider:

"For example, findings from an evaluation study of the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History indicate that visitors came away with the idea that evolution meant progression from simple to more complex life forms, with humans as the culmination. (Guisti 1994a, 1994b)."*

That is a museum in Manhattan, not Petersburg, Kentucky.

Of course, there is also the idea floating around that evolution is "random" and purposeless. The truth is that evolution is partly random, and though evolution per se does not speak to any purpose, the deterministic and probabilistic lawfulness of evolution may cooperate with God's power and purpose. The problems with teleology and directionalism in unscientific evolutionary thinking today have absolutely nothing to do with whether a powerful agent can be involved in evolution at some point. The idea that adaptations arise through an interaction of phenotypic selection and genetic variability no more rules out God's purposeful influence than it precludes an asteroid impact out of the blue. Unless they themselves have not learned evolutionary theory correctly -- which is a significant possibility -- educated atheists who speak of the purposelessness of evolution in vague terms to argue against theism are misleading the public, including both the non-religious and the religious.

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:-

Despite having supposedly higher educational attainment and allegedly being intellectually superior to Christians/Jews/Muslims, I believe the majority of those believing in "evolution" to the exclusion of God's creation and influence actually have a poor understanding of evolution. In a sense, there is a cult of evolution, around such people as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. Many people's belief in the speciation of humans is based on an extrapolation of some popularization of evolution involving other animals, not on an understanding of the details and issues involved with the Homo heidelbergensis ancestry theory. I'm not saying that the theory is wrong, just that there are a lot of people walking around whose beliefs depend on human authority. They trust that there is a good scientific explanation which they may one day crack open a book to learn about -- and there may very well be one -- but they have somehow made this trust mutually exclusive with faith in Jesus Christ.

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.

Atheists should be open to considering all new objections and new data. That said, evolution is not inherently atheist. It isn't atheist at all.

I see idolatry when evolutionary ideas are abused or misrepresented to support genocide, eugenics, racial discrimination, population control, abortion, "might makes right," and dwelling on human ideas at the expense of prayer and service in the name of Jesus Christ -- the only way to worship God.

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.

I agree with that.

* http://www-personal....GramDiamond.pdf

Edited August 24, 2012 by supersnail

[Jeff Walsh]

Supersnail

Thanks for your post,

Just to make it plain I am not advocating Moses 6:59 is anything to do with a biological theory, or that it has anything to do with a scientific theory, I am of the opinion that revelation was given to Moses that Adam's birth was literal. his and Eve's bodies were organised by parents just as we were.and Brigham Young gave more detail of the birth of Adam and Eve in His conference address in April 1852.

So I do not look toward either scientific theory or any other theory, once we accept that God has revealed the method He used to bring mortality into being so that we His spirit children could work out our second estate here upon the earth all speculation to the contrary are just the theories of men. Remember that Satan's mission is to teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture to try and deceive mankind and that in my opinion includes Darwinian evolution. The only evolution I accept is the developement of species to give us the ethnic diferences of human beings and the speciation in animal and plant life etc.

I hope I did not give the impression I was trying to justify any scientific therory by revelation, that would be like trying to justify truth with error. Kind regards Jeff

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

In the sciences spiritual proof is no proof at all. We can't even accept it as evidence. Science by definition is the study of the natural world/universe. The supernatural(pertaining to God) can not be used. That doesn't mean that the individual scientist can not be religious, even LDS ones.

See

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff Walsh:

Don't you see the problem with that. Let's do a little hypothetical here.

Say you have a serious medical problem, a life threaten disease at that. I come to and tell you I can cure you of your sickness. I also tell you I have no training in medicine. That I never went past the sixth grade in elementary school. Further that for $10,000 I'll cast out those evil spirits making you sick. That God told me how to cure you.

Are you going to hand over your money to me?

[Jeff Walsh]

Jeff Walsh:

Don't you see the problem with that. Let's do a little hypothetical here.

Say you have a serious medical problem, a life threaten disease at that. I come to and tell you I can cure you of your sickness. I also tell you I have no training in medicine. That I never went past the sixth grade in elementary school. Further that for $10,000 I'll cast out those evil spirits making you sick. That God told me how to cure you.

Are you going to hand over your money to me?

Now it is you that is being ridiculous, I think my friend you need to spend less time looking at evolutionist theories and seriously study the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Our Heavenly Father has blessed medical science with knowledge to help aleviate ilness and desease, it would be to these people that I would place myself. I think from your post that you have a very jaundiced idea of how we Latter-Day Saints approach medical problems, yes we do call upon members of the Priesthood to give a blessing but that blessing is to request our Father to guide the medical profession to use their skills which He has blessed them with to help us overcome ilnness.

We as a Church do not use black magic to cast out evil spirits, we try and live our lives so that he can have the guidance and protection from the gift of the Holy Ghost which we received following baptism.

Just because we have faith in our Heavenly Father please do not use this site to ridicule and try to destroy faith in God by assumimg that you have superior knowledge based on the theories of men.

By the way can I assume from your scepticism and your post name you have had or still have some contact with the Church, Revelation from God to individuals who have faith is just as valid or even more so than so called evidence built on assumptions you seem to accept as fact, reading your last post to Happy.

As I said in my last post to you, at some future time we shall see who has put their faith with the correct source of truth. Jeff

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff Welsh:

I am very well aware of, and believe LDS Theology. What I don't believe is your interpretation of LDS Theology.

Again you conflate the why with the how of God.

I have given and received such prayers. Further I'm still qualified to give such prayers upon request.

While I like doctors as people, and am dependent on them to keep me alive. Believe when I say that over the last nearly 20 years I've been pocked, prodded, pumped full of chemicals, and operated on enough to last me for a very long time.

Did Christ use black magic to cast out evil spirits? The Jews sure thought so. Personally I don't believe in magic of any type be it black, white, or green with purple pokey dots. There is plenty I can't currently explain. But invoke "Magic"? No!

I have no problem with Heavenly Father. He is the one and only being to whom I pray to. If your testimony is so shallow and fragile that science is a threat to you then you do not know much about Latter-day Saints or science. I marvel at and am in awe of the wonderful complexity that is life on this planet. That God thought enough of me to give me, and made me a part of this wonderful world. I am honored, and thrilled, that God has allowed me to know a small bit of how he did it. I want to savor and know everything there is to know. To become like God.

I am a High Priest whom has had many varied callings and responsibilities within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hold and use my Temple Recommend, as I have for the last 40 years of my membership in the Church.

You personal revelation is of no significance to my revelation.

Let's put that to the test. The Theory of Gravity has that all objects have an attraction to other objects. Now go jump out of an air plane in flight without a parachute. If it is just assumptions. You shouldn't have any problems would you?

Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

Brigham Young