Evolution And Mormonism

[thesometimesaint]

No, religion concerns itself with every aspect of how we should live our lives, and science can too.

Yes and each individual scientist can use science to learn about his religion and the "Supernatural" (whatever that is).

Then you need to unlearn that by learning to mix both better than you know how to right now. I use both at the same time and it works rather well for me.

People can convey property from one person to another without using any money, though. Money is not necessary.

Science doesn't get into how we "should" live. Only if it is functional or not. We individually get to decide what if any religious tenants we believe.

To whatever extent that scientist imposes their religion on science the less s/he is using science.

IE; I can fully believe that if I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen a miniature flying pink elephant pops out. But until I and others accomplish that, no matter how hard I pray to God(s), it isn't science.

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

Believe me I do know about science, and I do know what I believe. You really believe it is working for you? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

See http://www.forbes.com/sites/juliabricklin/2012/09/26/why-bill-nye-is-right-to-warn-against-creationism/

I never said it was the only way. Only that is the way money is used.

[thesometimesaint]

Supra natural? You mean like magic wands and stuff? The GAs, bless their total accuracy, during the early days of the Restoration were pretty clear that the gods employed physical laws when doing their thing, it's just that we don't understand all the laws that well that things appear to be supra natural. I am not saying that you don't have to have authority and perhaps righteousness to cause some of the things to work but that is just a more refined skill or technology, not abracadabra (unless that happens to be some kind of technology keyword or something).

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

[semlogo]

I'm all for being cautious. Claiming that the physics we observe today "created" the intelligence that we enjoy isn't being cautious in my view, rather as I've said it's a display of one's beliefs not science. It's like saying that your computer software is derived from the silicone that make up the guts of the machine.

Where is it ever demonstrated that this principle is a work? That the software (information stored on DNA) is derived from the hardware (organic compounds) itself?

In the recorded history of humanity, every time a gap in knowledge has been filled with (postulated) direct divine intervention, it has been eventually filled with a naturalistic explanation once knowledge increased. It is incautious to postulate that this time the explanation will be divine intervention. It is not incautious to postulate that the explanation will once again be naturalistic, as seems to always be the case. That doesn't mean that divine intervention as explanation for natural phenomena is not possible. It just means it's unlikely.

By software do you mean information? It's true that information is not physical, but information is encoded and transmitted physically.

Non-life HAS demonstrably contributed to our software, in the form of retroviral endogenization. That is to say, we have coding in our DNA that originated from retroviruses that infected the reproductive cells of our non-human ancestors. This new coding was passed on to their offspring, and some of it remains a part of human DNA today.

Edited March 15, 2013 by semlogo

[thesometimesaint]

In the recorded history of humanity, every time a gap in knowledge has been filled with (postulated) direct divine intervention, it has been eventually filled with a naturalistic explanation once knowledge increased. It is incautious to postulate that this time the explanation will be divine intervention. It is not incautious to postulate that the explanation will once again be naturalistic, as seems to always be the case. That doesn't mean that divine intervention as explanation for natural phenomena is not possible. It just means it's unlikely.

By software do you mean information? It's true that information is not physical, but information is encoded and transmitted physically.

Non-life HAS demonstrably contributed to our software, in the form of retroviral endogenization. That is to say, we have coding in our DNA that originated from retroviruses that infected the reproductive cells of our non-human ancestors. This new coding was passed on to their offspring, and some of it remains a part of human DNA today.

About 8%.

[Ahab]

Science doesn't get into how we "should" live. Only if it is functional or not. We individually get to decide what if any religious tenants we believe.

With science we can find out the "best" way to live, as far as our scientific discoveries go. The fact that people can choose to live some way which is not the best way to live is not the fault of science, or a good religion.

To whatever extent that scientist imposes their religion on science the less s/he is using science.

Which would lead me to believe that religion has a flaw that should be improved upon by applying more science to the religion.

IE; I can fully believe that if I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen a miniature flying pink elephant pops out. But until I and others accomplish that, no matter how hard I pray to God(s), it isn't science.

And it isn't a good religious convinction to have, either. I never have said all religions are equally beneficial.

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

And everything pertains to God in some way, whether for better or worse.

Believe me I do know about science, and I do know what I believe. You really believe it is working for you? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

See http://www.forbes.co...st-creationism/

Wait until your scientific discoveries catch up to what God knows about everything. Maybe then you'll see that what God has told me is true.

I never said it was the only way. Only that is the way money is used.

Science can be "used" to support a lot of bad ideas, too, just like how adhering to some religious ideas isn't a sign of intelligence.

[thesometimesaint]

With science we can find out the "best" way to live, as far as our scientific discoveries go. The fact that people can choose to live some way which is not the best way to live is not the fault of science, or a good religion.

Which would lead me to believe that religion has a flaw that should be improved upon by applying more science to the religion.

And it isn't a good religious convinction to have, either. I never have said all religions are equally beneficial.

And everything pertains to God in some way, whether for better or worse.

Wait until your scientific discoveries catch up to what God knows about everything. Maybe then you'll see that what God has told me is true.

Science can be "used" to support a lot of bad ideas, too, just like how adhering to some religious ideas isn't a sign of intelligence.

Best is debatable. All science can do is allow us a greater range of choices. We get to decide which is "better".

It is not a flaw. It is a great strength of faith. If it motivates us to action. It is just intrinsic to any and all religions when they make claims about the natural world.

Science can not impose any God(s) or supernatural force on science. It is oxymoronic.

Science doesn't get into whether a religion(religious practice) is good, better, or worse, than any other religion(religious practice). Only whether it is adaptive or maladaptive to the society into which it finds itself. IE; Polygamy among the early Saints in the US was neither good nor bad, better or worse, according to the rules of science. But it can be argued that is was maladaptive for the early Saints in the US, and unsupportable over a long haul.

It sure has been used in less than admirable causes. But that isn't the fault of the science. Hopefully we can learn more humane applications of science. The same technology that allows us to watch GC in the furthest reaches on our planet is the same technology that allows for Honey Boo Boo.

[Stone holm]

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

That is new to me. I don't think that is the way Mormonism views how God works. God uses science in the sense of knowledge of how physics works, it's just that his knowledge of how things work and how to make things work how He wants them to is vastly superior than ours. That doesn't mean he does not apply the laws of the universe to accomplish things or that He simply makes things up as He goes along. His house is a house of order and that is what such laws are about so He is governed by such laws as well. It's just as Einstein said there are a lot of spooky things out there.

[Nathair/|\]

[Stone holm]

lol

[danielwoods]

In the recorded history of humanity, every time a gap in knowledge has been filled with (postulated) direct divine intervention, it has been eventually filled with a naturalistic explanation once knowledge increased. It is incautious to postulate that this time the explanation will be divine intervention. It is not incautious to postulate that the explanation will once again be naturalistic, as seems to always be the case. That doesn't mean that divine intervention as explanation for natural phenomena is not possible. It just means it's unlikely.

By software do you mean information? It's true that information is not physical, but information is encoded and transmitted physically.

Non-life HAS demonstrably contributed to our software, in the form of retroviral endogenization. That is to say, we have coding in our DNA that originated from retroviruses that infected the reproductive cells of our non-human ancestors. This new coding was passed on to their offspring, and some of it remains a part of human DNA today.

I haven't postulated a devine intervention. The point of the article was that it was improbable that it occurred using purely natural means. It could be sourced from an alien or devine, don't think it really matters to science one way or the other. What we can detect is that it was most likely not from natural sources.

Cautious mean to me that we admit to ourselves how much we don't know. And when the software (information) is demonstrably *not* derived from the organics then it would seem to me that it must be sourced elsewhere.

[thesometimesaint]

That is new to me. I don't think that is the way Mormonism views how God works. God uses science in the sense of knowledge of how physics works, it's just that his knowledge of how things work and how to make things work how He wants them to is vastly superior than ours. That doesn't mean he does not apply the laws of the universe to accomplish things or that He simply makes things up as He goes along. His house is a house of order and that is what such laws are about so He is governed by such laws as well. It's just as Einstein said there are a lot of spooky things out there.

That is the definition of the word. We LDS don't get to make our own special definitions of words. Anymore than the Evangelicals get to special definition the LDS out of Christianity.

I personally have no problem with God. I kinda like him. But we don't get to decide HOW God created everything. We can merely propose rules( IE; Theory), and see if that proposal meets the requirements of observable, testable, results.

Quantum Physics was "spooky" according to Einstein, but so far it has produced consistent observable, testable, results.

[thesometimesaint]

I haven't postulated a devine intervention. The point of the article was that it was improbable that it occurred using purely natural means. It could be sourced from an alien or devine, don't think it really matters to science one way or the other. What we can detect is that it was most likely not from natural sources.

Cautious mean to me that we admit to ourselves how much we don't know. And when the software (information) is demonstrably *not* derived from the organics then it would seem to me that it must be sourced elsewhere.

I do hope that your post is not a plea for so called intelligent design.

True. Science can't impose any Supernatural being or force on the natural. If it is not natural, science can not impose it on science.

In science it is perfectly acceptable to say "We don't know". What science can not do use that we don't know to impose an explanation, including the Supernatural, that is not consistent with the observable, testable universe.

[cdowis]

In the recorded history of humanity, every time a gap in knowledge has been filled with (postulated) direct divine intervention, it has been eventually filled with a naturalistic explanation once knowledge increased.

You are predicting the future by events in the past. That is called faith -- that "eventually" science/evolution will answer all questions. That is not science ==>> You are merely stating a creed, a statement of faith.

My faith is that science and religion are compatible, and that Divinity uses natural laws. The unanswered questions will be resolved by an understanding and combination of both -- that we are beginning to understand natural laws even as God understands them. That we will be able to change water into wine.

Edited March 16, 2013 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

You are predicting the future by events in the past. That is called faith -- that "eventually" science/evolution will answer all questions. That is not science ==>> You are merely stating a creed, a statement of faith.

My faith is that science and religion are compatible, and that Divinity uses natural laws. The unanswered questions will be resolved by an understanding and combination of both -- that we are beginning to understand natural laws even as God understands them. That we will be able to change water into wine.

And why would you want to change water into wine? Wine can made quite simply and the process is thoroughly understood. I've both picked and pressed grapes, it's no big deal. Furthermore, as a Mormon, you can't drink the stuff. So, again, why?

"predicting the future by events in the past. That is called faith". I beg to differ. Evolution, as a theory, may or may not find evidence to fill the gaps in knowledge about development of life on this planet. If evidence is found, marvelous. If contradictory evidence is found, then it is back to the drawing board to come up with a theory that encompasses all the varying elements. Faith isn't a factor.

If I were to believe in evolution despite the evidence that exists, then it would be faith. "things hoped for and evidence of things not seen" and all that.

[ERayR]

Faith isn't a factor.

[thesometimesaint]

Non-answer to illogical statement. Sure all scientists of whatever have faith in the scientific process.. It is a demonstrable faith. I have faith that if I follow the exact same steps in an experiment that another scientist, not of my religion. I will get results that either confirm or disprove that scientists results.

Edited March 16, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

CFR

[ERayR]

CFR

To what?

[ERayR]

Non-answer to illogical statement. Sure all scientists of whatever have faith in the scientific process.. It is a demonstrable faith. I have faith that if I follow the exact same steps in an experiment that another scientist, not of my religion. I will get results that either confirm or disprove that scientists results.

It is simply ludicrous to make a statement that there is no faith involved in the scientific process.

[danielwoods]

I do hope that your post is not a plea for so called intelligent design.

True. Science can't impose any Supernatural being or force on the natural. If it is not natural, science can not impose it on science.

In science it is perfectly acceptable to say "We don't know". What science can not do use that we don't know to impose an explanation, including the Supernatural, that is not consistent with the observable, testable universe.

No plea, simply an observation. Science is limited to what it can detect, based on the physical (read natural) evidence. It can detect whether things are sourced from an intelligence or not.

That is all ID claims to be doing.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

[Stone holm]

No plea, simply an observation. Science is limited to what it can detect, based on the physical (read natural) evidence. It can detect whether things are sourced from an intelligence or not.

That is all ID claims to be doing.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

An interesting and in my view partially correct, but also a completely unverifiable truth which therefore should not be taught in our schools unless we have evidence of ancient ETs messing around, because it is just a back door to religious education on the public dime.

[bcuzbcuz]

To what?

You have, on various question and posts for this topic, repeated, like a mantra, that you think the evidence accumulated for evolution comes down, simply, to a belief system. I challenge that and ask you to explain exactly what you think the word faith means. Then apply that definition to how a person's willingness to accept evolutionary evidence is then encompassed by your definition of faith.

You have also stated, on numerous occasions, that you think scientist's belief systems define how they interpret their findings. To someone who has both studied and taught science for a good many years, that statement smacks of calling them willful liars. A qualified scientist is very careful about what he posits because it must be reviewed by many, even thousands of other scientists, who may have completely different belief systems and that these other scientists will, by studying the evidence, come to the same conclusion.

If someone were to put forth a "Mormon" scientific explanation of how Adam and Eve's DNA is so closely linked to pre-Adamite DNA, they would need all reviewers of the work to put on "Mormon glasses". Each person studying the work would need to start from a very, very similar belief in Joseph Smith and the Mormon churches definition of how things were, in order to come to the same conclusions.

Evolutionary theory doesn't need a qualified scientist to already believe evolution to be true before starting work with the evidence. I can give you whole list of books that challenge commonly held conceptions within evolution, along with the critiques and arguments that have gone along with them. Start with Darwin's "Origin of Species".

[bcuzbcuz]

No plea, simply an observation. Science is limited to what it can detect, based on the physical (read natural) evidence. It can detect whether things are sourced from an intelligence or not.

That is all ID claims to be doing.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

You comment that science can "detect whether things are sourced from an intelligence". That is a purposefully cloudy supposition that is nothing more than a regurgitation of the "unseen watchmaker" analogy.

No, science does not even try to "detect" such things. If I were to discover a beautiful and perfectly designed watch lying in the sands of the Sahara, I would check for an engraved name on the back to trace its owner, then I would read the name of the company stamped into the face of the watch. If it says "Rolex", I would suppose I knew the quality. (But I do already own a fake "Rolex" that has worked flawlessly for four years)

Whose name do you find stamped on the glorious marvels of nature? Is it God or Allah or Adam? No name? Then it could have come from Aliens in space? Or is it that you'll accept any so-called ID

, no matter how ridiculous, just as long as it doesn't entail accepting random chance.

Edited March 17, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[bu11fr0g]

The problem is in the equating of things that ate not 100% certain. Take a real example: :one religious figure says the rapture will occur 5/21 based on the Bible and scientists say that 5/21 will be a sunny day without rain in Ohio.

Camp was able to point to the Bible and to all kinds of evidence that this is when the rapture would occur. Many people believed.

Scientists were able to point to all kinds of evidence that it would be a sunny day.

However, these are not equivalent faith-based belief systems. When you sort out the differences you will find that the exact same differences exist between evolution and terraforming or 7000 uear creation or foreign planet mashups or alien information encoding.

[cdowis]

Non-answer to illogical statement. Sure all scientists of whatever have faith in the scientific process.. It is a demonstrable faith. I have faith that if I follow the exact same steps in an experiment that another scientist, not of my religion. I will get results that either confirm or disprove that scientists results.

Please tell us how this applies, for example, to archeology. I assume that you agree that it is a science.

My point is your leap in this process to "results". I do not think you understand the difference between facts/data and conclusion/opinion/assertion. How do you replicate the steps of an archeologist to confirm or disprove the "results".

The real work for scientists is not so much gathering data -- in many cases that is the easy part. The "results" is interpreting the data. How do you replicate that?

Edited March 17, 2013 by cdowis