Evolution And Mormonism

[Hamilton Porter]

I apologize. I keep forgetting that the US ranks very low in science education amongst the wealthier nations of the world. The US ranks 23rd amongst science abilities for grade 9 students and 27th amongst graduate degrees in math and sciences. Utah is one of the lowest ranked states for money per capita spent on education.

Utah has the highest percentage of science majors going on to PhDs.

[ERayR]

The data are the data.

How one interprets the data is where people have diverging opinions. One's interpretation rests on one's world view and/or faith or belief. IF one is persuaded that our Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then when reviewing this new data, the obvious conclusion is exactly as this scientist stated, "showing us we really don’t understand decay". However, if one believes the Earth isn't old, but very young by comparison, then the data confirms their suspicion and is what they would expect to find.

Neither position is scientific or testable, it simply is their world view talking, or their faith if you will.

Sorry I could only give one rep point for this.

[thesometimesaint]

The data are the data.

How one interprets the data is where people have diverging opinions. One's interpretation rests on one's world view and/or faith or belief. IF one is persuaded that our Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then when reviewing this new data, the obvious conclusion is exactly as this scientist stated, "showing us we really don’t understand decay". However, if one believes the Earth isn't old, but very young by comparison, then the data confirms their suspicion and is what they would expect to find.

Neither position is scientific or testable, it simply is their world view talking, or their faith if you will.

Not quite. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[ERayR]

Not quite. http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

The assumptions made to arrive at the conclusions was/is definitely affected by worldview. I am not saying the conclusions are incorrect. The may or may not be but please do not pretend those assumptions were not affected by worldview.

Edited March 12, 2013 by ERayR

[semlogo]

Alien tinkering is a way of taking the chance out of evolution. It is a form of evolutionary thought. Really a form of ID replacing God with aliens but all safely in the evolutionary camp.

If you are going to assume a superior education positions you really ought to learn to spell better or at least get somebody to show you how to use spell check.

The drivers of evolution are random mutation and natural selection based on environmental pressures. You might as well posit guided chemical reactions. It would fail the test of parsimony just as quickly.

[semlogo]

In the immortal words of Rhett Butler to Scarlett O'Hara "Frankly my dear I don't give a d..." what you want to believe concerning this issue.

What I believe is what is demonstrable with good evidence. I know that some people prefer to ignore evidence and instead follow crackpots and fringe groups. Such groups can be seductive but ultimately fail the sniff test.

[semlogo]

The data are the data.

How one interprets the data is where people have diverging opinions. One's interpretation rests on one's world view and/or faith or belief. IF one is persuaded that our Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then when reviewing this new data, the obvious conclusion is exactly as this scientist stated, "showing us we really don’t understand decay". However, if one believes the Earth isn't old, but very young by comparison, then the data confirms their suspicion and is what they would expect to find.

Neither position is scientific or testable, it simply is their world view talking, or their faith if you will.

The age of the earth is testable, and is based on repeatable, testable, internally-consistent laws of physics. Faith has nothing to do with it.

The data do not support a young earth.

[ERayR]

What I believe is what is demonstrable with good evidence. I know that some people prefer to ignore evidence and instead follow crackpots and fringe groups. Such groups can be seductive but ultimately fail the sniff test.

Arrogant and elitist attitude again noted.

[bcuzbcuz]

Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious... I'm still learning Hebrew, so pehaps others on here can confirm this? but the word that is translated "create" does not originate from an ex-Nihlo type of concept -

Isa 45:7 I form ³³³⁵ the light ²¹⁶, and create ¹²⁵⁴ darkness ²⁸²²: I make ⁶²¹³ peace ⁷⁹⁶⁵, and create ¹²⁵⁴ evil ⁷⁴⁵¹: I the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸ do ⁶²¹³ all these [things].

1254 - בָּרָא - create - bara' means to "shape, form, fashion"... transform - not make something from nothing. a better translation would be:

I transform the darkness into light, I transform - רַע - unkindness - into - שָׁלוֹם - friendship/peace, I the Lord do all these things. ( because God does not create darkness - 1 John 1:5 God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.)

Here is another site discussing what the original word for create actually means - that it means transform (evolve)

http://www.ancient-h.../5_creator.html

The above goes along quite nicely with:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We were not ex-Nihlo created, we were transformed (evolved).

and what does it say about the animals? Does it say they were ex-Nihlo created from the ground? no, it tells us they were transformed, evolved - at least that is what the Hebrew seems to be saying to me.

http://www.bluelette...1&t=KJV#conc/21

Again we see the word: ברא bara'

Gen 1:21 And God transformed/organized/evolved the great whales, and every living creature that moveth...

It is not an ex-Nihlo kind of a deal, it's a transformation/evolution kind of a statement, at least that is what seems like a more accurate translation to me.

So you mean Creationists should actually call themselves, "The Transformers!!!!!" Even I'd vote for them if they had a name like that! LoL

[Ahab]

What I believe is what is demonstrable with good evidence. I know that some people prefer to ignore evidence and instead follow crackpots and fringe groups. Such groups can be seductive but ultimately fail the sniff test.

You don't have to go very far to see evidence for the way things really happened, and still happen.

Like begats like. That's what we see all around us. You've got a fairy tale idea that some kind of being begat another kind of being, and you have NO evidence for that idea. You think the fact that some kinds of beings are similar to other kinds of beings is evidence that one kind was begat by another kind, but that similarity doesn't prove that. Of all the kinds of beings there are it stands to reason that each kind would be more like some other kind of being in existence, rather than none of them having any similarities at all whatsoever.

When God put this planet together he simply put different kinds of beings here from some other places where they already existed, and then once they got here they started reproducing, each after their own kind of being. All plants came from other plants, with each kind of plant from their own kind of plant. And the same for all other kinds of beings whether they lived on the land or in water. God was the architect. He put it all together, and without him (and those who helped him) to do it this planet would not have become the way it was by itself. The crowning touch was when he begat his own kind of being and put his own kind on this planet, both male and female.

The truth couldn't be more obvious if you were to see it happen now as it happened before. It's the simple story of the birds and the bees that all people should have heard from their parents when they were little children. But don't mind me. You can continue to believe in your fairy tales if you really like those stories better. For me that stuff is just a big bunch of hoo hah.

[semlogo]

You don't have to go very far to see evidence for the way things really happened, and still happen.

Like begats like. That's what we see all around us. You've got a fairy tale idea that some kind of being begat another kind of being, and you have NO evidence for that idea.

Yes, you're right, but evolution also posit that like begets like. A tyrannosaur does not give birth to a chicken one day. You've been watching too many creationist banana videos.

When I see people who are hostile to evolution consistently misrepresenting it like this, it tells me that much of the opposition to evolution is coming out of a place of ignorance - they do not understand what evolution is, and therefore are unable to articulate a reasoned (or at least, reasonable) critique of it. Unfortunately creationist/ID websites propagate misconceptions about evolution.

[bcuzbcuz]

Perhaps you could explain how it is possible that soft tissue can even survive in any condition in the earth for 50+ million years. You certainly cant escape the fact that the soft tissue contains carbon, so why don't they carbon date it?

If you understand anything about carbon dating and carbon isotope decay sequence and time, you will know why they can't carbon date the apparent blood cells. Look up and read and try to understand the relationship between Carbon 14 and Carbon 16 and how time estimates are achieved. Dinosaur bones are never carbon dated. Again, see the previous sentences. Any modern day find is carefully documented and time estimates, if they cannot be arrived at from the bones themselves (see http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html) then the estimates are arrived at using the surrounding materials.

If surrounding material was found that could be carbon dated and it could be confirmed that the material is not, or was not, contaminated, whole careers would be made overnight. The whole theory of evolution would have to be thrown out. Given that Mary Schweitzer's discoveries were made over 20 years ago, someone would have made a declaration by now.

As someone else stated, you are ill-informed.

[semlogo]

Arrogant and elitist attitude again noted.

I note that the focus of your replies is on your opinion of me, and not on evolution.

[bcuzbcuz]

Why do you assume this is a Utah thing? Utah produces the most scientists per capita of any state.

And while Utah may spend less money per capita, "Utah spends a larger percentage of state dollars on education than any other state."

http://linguistics.b...tond//utah.html

You will have to CFR better than the list you provided. I found stats for 1993, generated at http://sestat.nsf.gov. Go to http://lds-mormon.com/scientistsborninutahappendix.shtml and follow the directions for generating the last year of data available....for science degrees the last year collected was 2003.

But other than you finding the data you want, I think you will need to assume that the person who put that list together was one of those who didn't get a good grade in his or her math class and definitely failed at statistics.

[Ahab]

Yes, you're right, but evolution also posit that like begets like. A tyrannosaur does not give birth to a chicken one day. You've been watching too many creationist banana videos.

Perhaps you're not aware, but the phrase "like begats like" refers to the idea that each kind come from the same kind. I can see how you could have become confused, though, thinking I was referring to "like" as something only "similar", like how a dog is like/similar to a horse. But that's not what I meant. I meant dogs beget dogs, and cats beget cats, with the "offspring" being the same kind as their parents/progenitors.

When I see people who are hostile to evolution consistently misrepresenting it like this, it tells me that much of the opposition to evolution is coming out of a place of ignorance - they do not understand what evolution is, and therefore are unable to articulate a reasoned (or at least, reasonable) critique of it. Unfortunately creationist/ID websites propagate misconceptions about evolution.

I know what it is, and I know it is wrong. Try harder to see what I mean.

[bcuzbcuz]

False assumption alert. The amount of money spent is not indicative of the quality of education produced.

I find this to be an arrogant, elitist attitude. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them ignorant or deficient.

You may think my response elitist but when someone adds up two and two and gets 74 as their answer, I'm drawing the conclusion that they haven't done their homework.

And is money spent indicative of quality of education? Ask that in some other field of management. Do they pay more for qualified people? And even if Utah ranked higher than its 20th place, the US as a whole ranks in high teens and low 20's of math skills and science skills of the top countries of the world. Finland, South Korea and Hong Kong rank numbers 1-3.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

http://nces.ed.gov/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/education/us-students-still-lag-globally-in-math-and-science-tests-show.html?_r=0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

The article in the Guardian displays the stats very well. USA: reading 14th, math 25th, science 17th. Where does Utah place on this scale?

[bcuzbcuz]

Utah has the highest percentage of science majors going on to PhDs.

CFR

[danielwoods]

The age of the earth is testable, and is based on repeatable, testable, internally-consistent laws of physics. Faith has nothing to do with it.

The data do not support a young earth.

False (no disrespect intended). Age itself isn't testable. Data is collected and is interpreted to represent a certain age. That interpretation is influenced by our world view/belief, etc., that is my main point.

To claim that the data do not support one or the other, is to make a statement about your worldview, not the data itself. Because, how the data is organized/collected/categorized all can influence its interpretation.

You very well may be correct. It's just not objectively testable. The limitation of our knowledge has to be kept at the forefront of our mind. What can we know for certain? What can be tested and repeatedly observed? Certainly not the age of something that is claimed to be 4.6 billion years old.

For example. How does one calibrate a billion year measuring device? Calibration is at the very heart of all investigation and data collection. If one's measuring device is off, so also will be one's measurements and conclusions.

[Rob Osborn]

You can claim that DNA is evidence for anything at all including alien tinkering, but you have nothing with which to back up that claim or to connect current DNA evidence to any kinds of intelligent designer.

Evolution simply does not deal with the origins of life. You are mistaken. You seem ill-informed on scientific matters.

Proof of intelligent design is observed in the fact that things like DNA are known to not arise on their own without planning and design beforehand. Evolutionists swear in the reality of chemical evolution but yet fail in every attempt to prove it. All they have proven and continue to uphold is the reality that things like DNA show elements of design, purpose and intelligence of the which DO NOT RISE on their own.

I dont care what you state about evolution and the origins of life being separate, you absolutely will find no class in high school or college that teaches basic biology that doesnt include theories on the origins of life in the evolution section of the biology book or class. Evolution DOES INCLUDE theories on the origins of life.

[Stone holm]

I tend to go with Brigham Young on this one. Adam was the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, although he was not born into mortality or flesh, as that was reserved for Christ. Exactly how all that got worked out, not sure -- other than I don't think they were fully human until after they ate the fruit of the tree. Whether that had some kind of virus in it or not that caused them to change physically, don't know. Tend to think of the Earth as a terra-forming process. We tend to think of the Garden of Eden as the whole Earth, but there is no real Scriptural authority for that. What happened outside the bounds of the Garden of Eden we don't know. Nor do we know how long Adam and Eve wandered around in their private nudist colony. I think it is a bit unrealistic to believe that they get placed in the Garden of Eden one day and then they immediately say to themselves, "Oh cool, that fruit will kill us -- lets go have a snack!" More likely they wandered around in the Garden of Eden for millenia and who know what the heck was going on outside the Garden during all that time -- they apparently didn't either until they got kicked out of their sanctuary and prevented from getting back in again. Is it possible that human-like life evolved out there? Sure...is it possible that some of the descendants of Adam and Eve interbred with whatever developed out there? Possibly, we have found Neanderthal DNA in humans now, so if we didn't evolve from common ancestors then apparently somebody had some kinky sex back then. There is a reference to sons of god and daughters of men -- but GA who may or may not have known what they were talking about have said that refers to the descendants of Seth marrying into other bloodlines -- but we have been throwing a lot of that doctrine overboard lately, so who knows what that referred to. Is the theory of evolution correct, well it pretty much looks that way -- and failure to understand how it works could be devastating if we keep over-using anti-biotics. Is there some kind of connection between us and the primates, well it pretty darn well looks that way -- so someday, somebody is going to come up with the answers as to how this all works out. But for now we have to exercise a little ability in cognitive dissonance and one not toss away our testimony over something so pathetically unimportant as the genealogy of mankind while we wait to figure out the answers. And meanwhile, we can do ourselves a big favor by not going around spouting Skousian nonsense about the Earth popping into existence in 7 thousand years.

[ERayR]

Yes, you're right, but evolution also posit that like begets like. A tyrannosaur does not give birth to a chicken one day. You've been watching too many creationist banana videos.

When I see people who are hostile to evolution consistently misrepresenting it like this, it tells me that much of the opposition to evolution is coming out of a place of ignorance - they do not understand what evolution is, and therefore are unable to articulate a reasoned (or at least, reasonable) critique of it. Unfortunately creationist/ID websites propagate misconceptions about evolution.

And I have a bit of difficulty taking anyone seriously whose elitist attitude leads them to denigrate someone who disagrees with them. It tells me they are coming from a place of ignorance of the others views and that they do not intend to educate themselves. Your arguments would be a little more persuasive without the derogatory comments.

When I see someone hostile to views contrary to evolution it tells me they do not understand the opposing view nor evolution. If they did they would know that evolution is based on a set of assumptions that may or may not be valid.

[ERayR]

I note that the focus of your replies is on your opinion of me, and not on evolution.

No the focus of my replies is to get you to see that your dogma is not as set in in concrete as you seem to believe. As I have stated earlier I do not care about evolution. What I care about is the attitude that it is all over but the party and that everybody else better get in line.

Edited March 12, 2013 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

Of course there are alternative explanations. There are alternative explanations for everything. What matters is how compelling each explanation is to each of us. Listen up and choose.

I have.

Perhaps you have not seen all the explanations.

[ERayR]

The age of the earth is testable, and is based on repeatable, testable, internally-consistent laws of physics. Faith has nothing to do with it.

You forgot those tests, and the testability of the earths age, rely on a goodly number of assumptions which may or may not be valid assumptions.

[ERayR]

I have.

Perhaps you have not seen all the explanations.

You are probably right, but then this topic is not high on my priority list. What does bother me is the attitude some have that if you do not believe in evolution you are an ignorant savage that doesn't read.