Enslaved By Science

[ERayR]

Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

Brigham Young

I certainly go with this. The problem is which interpretation of the data to believe when capable competent people have differing opinions.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I am certainly open to new interpretations, as the evidence allows.

It is said that faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH science is the study of the seen evidence. They are fundamentally two different frames of reference. I appreciate both and use both in their respective frames. I believe that someday the two will be reconciled, but I have little hope that today is going to be that day.

[Jeff Walsh]

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

Alleluyah, so if you believe what Brigham Young says why cannot you accept what he said about Adam's Birth, his interpretation not mine. By The way at least you could of got my name right.

I am the High Priest Group leader in our ward so we should be on an equal level so if my revelation from God is of no relevance or significance to you your revelation then your revelation must be superior to mine and you must assume that I am not in tune, how conceited can you get.

Oh and by the way I do not feel under any kind of threat from Science and do not feel under any obligation to accept the words of men who attempt to take God out of creation. I think we should leave it there as you seem to be becoming contentious. Jeff

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff Walsh:

Very simply.

See

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.

Please show me in our D&C where Brigham Young's statement concerning evolution can be found.

I've been in High Priest Group leadership positions too, and Bishopric positions for that matter. But I claim no authority over you to revelation by virtue of those positions. Why do you do it to me?

I didn't say that. Neither mine nor yours is superior to the each others. I prefer mine for what should be obvious reasons, just as you prefer yours.

Then why do you insist on some magical force needs putting into science? The next time you want a cup of hot chocolate are you going to rely on some magical force to heat it up, or are use an heating element of some type?

Your choice, but I'm not being contentious. I'm simply disagreeing with some of your statements. As a Psychiatric Social Worker, albeit a retired one. I've had more than one occasion to mediate, and counsel between contentious family members and their teens.

[mfbukowski]

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

Spiritual proof is allowed for spiritual questions, scientific proof for scientific questions. Is that so difficult?

Think of it in terms of "attitude" - I am liking that word more and more to explain spiritual matters to believers in scientism. Spiritual understandings are quite analogous to the common understanding of how we use the word "attitude" in situations- indeed understanding the meaning of life involves an attitudinal change.

So the question becomes- can scientific findings give you peace in life? Would you read a scientific journal to help you overcome anger?

If someone close to you passed away suddenly, would your first impulse be to read about quantum mechanics? Or perhaps a comforting tome on nuclear physics?

It is at times like those that we really understand the function of religion. Not necessarily the alleged "facts" of religion- but the function of religion

The entire point is that spiritual matters- (matters about your attitude toward yourselves, others, and the world around you) have very little to do with scientific facts. If you don't understand that, you will never understand the religious impulse.

[supersnail]

This magic thing is a distraction. The way the OP used the word, I don't feel he or she was making a distinction between the natural and supernatural in a sense contradicting D&C 88, or between material and immaterial in a sense contradicting D&C 131.

The main point is that faith-based beliefs should not be discarded or changed just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and observational data, which is not the same thing as saying that they rule out those faith-based beliefs.

A powerful agent, incomprehensibly more advanced than us, altering the trajectory of an asteroid would not be an example of magic in the ordinary sense. I am not claiming revelation that that is actually the case, just illustrating a point. Even an atheist could have made it.

Edited August 24, 2012 by supersnail

[Chaos]

The thread will be closed after the next post that analyzes somebody's faithfulness.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

I am certainly open to new interpretations, as the evidence allows.

It is said that faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH science is the study of the seen evidence. They are fundamentally two different frames of reference. I appreciate both and use both in their respective frames. I believe that someday the two will be reconciled, but I have little hope that today is going to be that day.

I have no quarrel with what science does. The problem I have is with the conclusions.

[supersnail]

When we go to the museum or the zoo, top questions on our minds, especially as children, may be about things like koalas, cheetahs, sharks, giraffe necks, and chimpanzee babies -- not why are there thousands of cockroach species and hundreds of billions of cockroaches. So it is possible to end up with a completely wrong conception of evolution even as a Portland or Seattle native. Unfortunately, there are individuals with graduate degrees in science, and even a former holder of the Simonyi Professorship Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, going around contributing to a false impression of evolution as being about humans to such an extent that evolutionary theory rules out co-operation with a divine purpose. When educators aren't precise and don't hammer home the proper concepts of evolution as a scientific theory, it is possible for both the religious and the non-religious to arrive at ideas about science and religion that are based on wrong information.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment expressed by some posters on this board that since revelation has already given us the most important truths about our existence, we do not need to be obsessed with trying to scientifically explain our origins. However, again, it is important to note that we could have arrived at all the major points of evolutionary knowledge without studying H. sapiens. Literally all the points of evolutionary theory that don't have to do with just one or two species could have been reached without investigating human origins. In addition, the mechanisms and circumscribed tendencies posited by evolutionary theory don't preclude various interventions and initial causes/conditions. The fact that scripture says one thing does not mean that something else cannot also be true, even without making a distinction between spiritual and physical or whatever.

*Human* evolution is not the overarching theme of biology. Put forward as a scientific notion, that is a crackpot idea. Scientific theories of human origins should never have taken precedence over teaching the public about things like dark matter or even correct views of adaptation and biological complexity. So now we have both religious and non-religious people thinking that scientific theories in some way rule out faith-based beliefs, and much of the blame has to go to self-styled pro-evolution critics of monotheism who make criticizing religion a bigger priority than teaching evolution and the philosophy of science correctly.

Edited August 25, 2012 by supersnail

[ERayR]

ERayR:

I am certainly open to new interpretations, as the evidence allows.

It is said that faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH science is the study of the seen evidence. They are fundamentally two different frames of reference. I appreciate both and use both in their respective frames. I believe that someday the two will be reconciled, but I have little hope that today is going to be that day.

It appears to me you statement would be more accurate if it read something like this: I am certainly open to new interpretations, as the evidenc ellows.as soon as you come up with evidence I will consider.

[ERayR]

Jeff Welsh:

Again you conflate the why with the how of God.

Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

Brigham Young

Tss not everyone agrees with your idea of how God does things. There is more than one valid theory and not all of them include evolution. Theories that fit nicely within the evidence available.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I don't need to put God, magic, or violate any natural laws to make evolution work.

Sure God could have done it in any number of ways, but then arranged all the evidence to show he did something else. Doesn't that make God a deceiver?

Biology including human biology makes no sense without evolution. There is only one valid theory of evolution. Change with descent. That is it. Nothing more complicated than that.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

I don't need to put God, magic, or violate any natural laws to make evolution work.

Sure God could have done it in any number of ways, but then arranged all the evidence to show he did something else. Doesn't that make God a deceiver?

You are misrepresenting and making assumptions about what I said without any evidence to substantiate such. I have never advocate an approach that could in any way be construed to include magic or the violation of natural laws. Nor have ever advocated that God arranged any evidence. For you to insinuate that I have is disingenuous. But then the straw man approach is not at all difficult.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

It appears to me you statement would be more accurate if it read something like this: I am certainly open to new interpretations, as the evidenc ellows.as soon as you come up with evidence I will consider.

Science is based on what the evidence allows.

Here is a small start for your look at the evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/quicktime/e_s_1.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Science is based on what the evidence allows.

Here is a small start for your look at the evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/w...time/e_s_1.html

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=46

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Why do you continue to insult me with this elementary school indoctrination pablum. Your reading list is pretty limited. Until the evolutionists cure their tunnel vision and start taking evidences of advanced ancient civilizations seriously they will continue to miss the mark.

[shalamabobbi]

When the brethren decided to leave science to the scientists and focus on the responsibilities of their calling it was reminiscent of a similar decision in the NT where they decided that it was not their responsibility to wait on tables but called Stephen and others to do so instead.

That does not mean that what Stephen did was not important. The responsibilities of his calling were different from those of an apostle.

We have been commanded to learn in the D&C by study. We may break this commandment if we like and refuse to learn. We may go so far as to believe in a hollow earth with an interior sun as another poster on this forum believes though it violates well established laws of physics and is a display of the utmost ignorance. If that is the future you desire for yourself and children don't place that curse upon me and mine and other members who feel a greater responsibility to be a blessing rather than a curse to their fellow men.

Until the evolutionists cure their tunnel vision and start taking evidences of advanced ancient civilizations seriously they will continue to miss the mark.

What on earth has alleged ancient technology to do with evolution??

Change is measurable. It is actually occuring in real time.

http://www.scienceda...91231164743.htm

When run on a computer with a random search the results repeat.

http://www.scienceda...81030201857.htm

The favorite objection of some, the whale, is succumbing to more fossil evidence.

http://www.scienceda...80917210028.htm

If there is no evolution what reason is there for an immune system??

The existence of a mutation limit for viruses helps explain how the immune system can perform its function. Because viral replication and survival can only occur at a limited rate, the body has a window of time to develop antibodies against infectious agents.

http://www.scienceda...71001172753.htm

Why not spend one's life on a couch as well and make the atrophy complete?

Edited August 26, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[supersnail]

Change is measurable. It is actually occuring in real time.

http://www.scienceda...91231164743.htm

When run on a computer with a random search the results repeat.

http://www.scienceda...81030201857.htm

As long as we are talking about Stephens, we need to understand what Gould meant by "the awesome improbability of human evolution" (Wonderful Life). The notion that if evolution were to start over, the same "result" would come about (H. sapiens) is a crackpot idea. Yes, I know that is probably not what was meant above, but this is an example of the kind of imprecise language I was talking about earlier. Lay readers will get the impression that evolutionary theory precludes the possibility of intervention because evolution supposedly must lead to humans.

What the second ScienceDaily article refers to is what could have happened under certain conditions ("selected only those that were the most fit") over a relatively short period of time. The actual clause is "until it eventually arrived at the network that adapted perfectly to a random biochemical input." The article specifically addresses how something like an eye could have evolved. In such circumstances certain outcomes are more probable than others. Over a long period of time, in which all the mechanisms of evolution come into play as well as changes in the environment, vastly different outcomes become equally possible and prediction becomes a loser's game.

And again, I would let the OP speak for herself or himself, but the whole point here is that we should not abandon faith-based beliefs just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and data. That is not equivalent to saying that we should instead abandon scientific theories. It is possible to accept a literal parting of the Red Sea without rejecting any geological or physical theory. Whether or not God is a "deceiver" for not making his power more apparent to us under a magnifying glass (figuratively speaking) is another issue.

Edited August 26, 2012 by supersnail

[yootaw]

Why do you continue to insult me with this elementary school indoctrination pablum. Your reading list is pretty limited. Until the evolutionists cure their tunnel vision and start taking evidences of advanced ancient civilizations seriously they will continue to miss the mark.

What evidence of advanced ancient civilizations are you referring to here? Did I miss a reference in an earlier post?

[mfbukowski]

We may go so far as to believe in a hollow earth with an interior sun as another poster on this forum believes ...

Seriously?

Edited August 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

Seriously?

Yes, I'd rather not name names. He hasn't posted for a bit.

[shalamabobbi]

As long as we are talking about Stephens, we need to understand what Gould meant by "the awesome improbability of human evolution" (Wonderful Life). The notion that if evolution were to start over, the same "result" would come about (H. sapiens) is a crackpot idea. Yes, I know that is probably not what you meant, shalamabobbi, but that is an example of the kind of imprecise language I was talking about earlier. Lay readers will get the impression that evolutionary theory precludes the possibility of intervention because evolution supposedly must lead to humans.

What that ScienceDaily article refers to is what could have happened under certain conditions ("selected only those that were the most fit") over a relatively short period of time. The actual clause is "until it eventually arrived at the network that adapted perfectly to a random biochemical input." The article specifically addresses how something like an eye could have evolved. In such circumstances certain outcomes are more probable than others. Over a long period of time, in which all the mechanisms of evolution come into play as well as changes in the environment, vastly different outcomes become equally possible and prediction becomes a loser's game.

And again, I would let the OP speak for herself or himself, but the whole point here is that we should not abandon faith-based beliefs just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and data. That is not equivalent to saying that we should instead abandon scientific theories. It is possible to accept a literal parting of the Red Sea without rejecting any geological or physical theory. Whether or not God is a "deceiver" for not making his power more apparent to us under a magnifying glass (figuratively speaking) is another issue.

The gist or point is that objections to the ToE seem to be foisted upon the random search part of evolution as though that would preclude God from using such a process. The results are not the result of the random search but of the filter through which the results are passed. Indeed a directed search rather than a random search would potentially miss the most beneficial outcomes and would require that the most beneficial results were known beforehand which would make a search superfluous to begin with.

Can I be the creator of a garden even though all I do is choose what to plant in that garden? Can God be the creator of life even though that may simply consist of Him running the evolutionary process and selecting the desired outcome?

Edited August 26, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[William James]

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?

I do not believe that science and history must support belief in the supernatural. But supernatural or historical beliefs which are undercut by science, archeological evidence, the secular historical record, and/or lack of internal consistency should be questioned and often discarded when the evidence is sufficiently damning. To take an example for illustrative purposes, I don't have a problem with the belief that God has the power to part the Red Sea. But believing that God would categorically command the denial of priesthood to people because they are black is internally inconsistent with both a loving God and a God who is no respecter of persons. Also, dramatic historical claims about extraordinary events should be questioned when record-keeping was in place and the event or person seems to get no mention. I would expect, for example, that the Egyptian historical records would mention pharoah and thousands of soldiers being horrifically drowned in the Red Sea. The absence of that does not prove the event did not happen, but it certainly gives legitimate reason to doubt. Where doubt is perfectly reasonable, it is not the place of believers to criticize the doubters for not believing, particularly when the criticism is based upon the assumption that non-belief is a sign or result of moral weakness or mere "desire to sin."

[thesometimesaint]

Why do you continue to insult me with this elementary school indoctrination pablum. Your reading list is pretty limited. Until the evolutionists cure their tunnel vision and start taking evidences of advanced ancient civilizations seriously they will continue to miss the mark.

I have no idea as to the level of education you have as to evolution. I said it was a start. What does advanced ancient civilizations have to do with evolution?

See http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

See http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus/

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

See http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/

[supersnail]

A secondary comment I would like to make, if I may, has to do with where people are coming from and why some of the disagreements seen in this thread may be hard to resolve.

Maybe it is one thing if someone grows up in the LDS Church and then in adulthood starts learning about evolution in earnest, but in an anti-religious context because of 9/11 and Stephen Jay Gould's death less than a year later. Then one might feel the need to change one or two beliefs because those beliefs are perceived to be dissonant with science (whereas they might actually not be, for reasons I have discussed). On the other hand, you have ex-atheists who are going from a position of total unbelief to acceptance of various doctrines, including the Resurrection and the Ascension. Many of them probably learned about evolution from an agnostic viewpoint in childhood, but are willing to explore Mormonism.

In the second situation, ideas like Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), and underdeterminism in philosophy, become important, because they deal with various so-called scientific objections to Mormonism in a sweeping way. You cannot be expecting ex-atheists to deal with Mormon doctrines on a piecemeal basis from a "scientific" standpoint or they may never reach a state of belief. They may just languish in agnosticism or revert to atheism.

With respect, I caution human-evolution enthusiasts that if they keep harping on this theme of a conflict between faith-based beliefs and scientific theories, and if they continue to deny that faith-based beliefs should not be discarded/changed just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and data (and this extends beyond this message board), they risk pushing away atheist or formerly atheist investigators. They will look at what you are doing with evolution and apply the same reasoning to areas other than the Creation and the Fall. More importantly, the reasoning is wrong and even scientifically illiterate in some cases, as we are seeing despite pretensions to being more scientific and educated than creationists.

Maybe none of this matters in third world countries, where there are fewer atheists to begin with. In the USA, there are more atheists and more people who are just nominally religious, or modernist Christians. Orientations like NOMA are needed to help dissolve huge obstacles to belief. NOMA emphatically does not mean that faith should be justified using science. Drawing from science can be appropriate in apologetics, but apologetics is mainly about critically examining alleged reasons for disbelief, not building belief in the first place. Ultimately, views such as NOMA must prevail.

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

Sorry I have no idea as to what you meant. Please explain in simple words that this faithful LDS who happens to be a scientist can understand.