Evolution And Mormonism

[cdowis]

I will be happy to address your questions, even though it was not addressed to me.

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.

As I said in my previous post, In this context, faith is an assertion of a future event. There is an admission that there are unanswered questions for which evolution has no answers. The assertion from faith is that, given additional knowledge, we will be able to answer all of those issues. That is a statement 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.

I think scientists are human beings, subject to the weaknesses of mortality. You statement implies that they are superhuman -- with complete objectivity with no bias compared to us lessor mortals. As a teacher of science, you have fallen into this fallacy, that scientists ascend into their towers to pronounce judgements beyond the ken of mortal man.

They are not liars, they are mortal just like the rest of us. They are driven by what is taught in the temples of education, they have pride and have concern for their reputation and future career, some (not all) lack courage to question the establishment. They have ambition, they do not rock the boat, for fear of the severe consequences.

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.

Yes, that wonderful thing called peer review to verify the process. But the interpretation of that finely honed process is based on certain assumptions. (BTW, as a scientist, have you looked at the research that has studied the peer review process itself. How has that turned out over the long term?)

[ERayR]

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".

Just got a chance to look at this and rather than write up a time consuming answer I will just point you to what cdowis has written in post #651. Thanks cdowis you pretty well covered it.

[bcuzbcuz]

I will be happy to address your questions, even though it was not addressed to me.

As I said in my previous post, In this context, faith is an assertion of a future event. There is an admission that there are unanswered questions for which evolution has no answers. The assertion from faith is that, given additional knowledge, we will be able to answer all of those issues. That is a statement of faith.

I think scientists are human beings, subject to the weaknesses of mortality. You statement implies that they are superhuman -- with complete objectivity with no bias compared to us lessor mortals. As a teacher of science, you have fallen into this fallacy, that scientists ascend into their towers to pronounce judgements beyond the ken of mortal man.

They are not liars, they are mortal just like the rest of us. They are driven by what is taught in the temples of education, they have pride and have concern for their reputation and future career, some (not all) lack courage to question the establishment. They have ambition, they do not rock the boat, for fear of the severe consequences.

Yes, that wonderful thing called peer review to verify the process. But the interpretation of that finely honed process is based on certain assumptions. (BTW, as a scientist, have you looked at the research that has studied the peer review process itself. How has that turned out over the long term?)

I am painfully aware of how a contrary opinion, in some scientific quarters, results in fights of prestige and egos. And that the winner of the argument isnot always based on the facts in the matter. I have seen where money and influence are sometimes deciding factors. The science of reviewing and studying and evaluating has gone on far longer than my petty experiences, though.

You use terms like "superhuman" and "towers" and "temples of education" and "pronouncing judgements". Very loaded expressions. There are few in education that use any such symbols and these are people fully engaged in the process and know it inside out, ugly parts included.

But you're confusing the process with the outcome. Somehow you think all march in step with decrees from above. No, that is what happens in religion.

Edited March 17, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[thesometimesaint]

I will be happy to address your questions, even though it was not addressed to me.

As I said in my previous post, In this context, faith is an assertion of a future event. There is an admission that there are unanswered questions for which evolution has no answers. The assertion from faith is that, given additional knowledge, we will be able to answer all of those issues. That is a statement of faith.

I think scientists are human beings, subject to the weaknesses of mortality. You statement implies that they are superhuman -- with complete objectivity with no bias compared to us lessor mortals. As a teacher of science, you have fallen into this fallacy, that scientists ascend into their towers to pronounce judgements beyond the ken of mortal man.

They are not liars, they are mortal just like the rest of us. They are driven by what is taught in the temples of education, they have pride and have concern for their reputation and future career, some (not all) lack courage to question the establishment. They have ambition, they do not rock the boat, for fear of the severe consequences.

Yes, that wonderful thing called peer review to verify the process. But the interpretation of that finely honed process is based on certain assumptions. (BTW, as a scientist, have you looked at the research that has studied the peer review process itself. How has that turned out over the long term?)

Science doesn't work on that type of faith. Prognostications work on trends from past events. The further the trends are apart the further apart the probability of an event occurs. Usually expressed in as a +/- or percentage. IE; A forecast of 10% chance of rain. You'd probably leave your umbrella a home. A forecast of rain at 90% chance you'd probably take your umbrella with you.

No scientist that I know of claims they are Supermen. They just use the tools they are given to accurately explain the physical universe, and make logical predictions about it. IE; We coming up on the Spring equinox, a logical prediction, based on past experience, says that in 6 months time we will have the Autumn equinox.

You don't know scientists very well if you think they don't want to rock the boat.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydLNrTzMIgc&feature=player_embedded

If you really want to rock the boat about the science of evolution. It is a very easy process, and I've described that process a few times.

[thesometimesaint]

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.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

Every single item that has been brought up as an example of so called irreducible complexity has fallen flat.

See

[danielwoods]

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.

As I said, ID doesn't care the source. And if you are correct then the SETI project is not valid scientifically either.

[danielwoods]

Every single item that has been brought up as an example of so called irreducible complexity has fallen flat.

See [media=]

Which is where the opinions of different scientists diverge. I'm not here to try and persuade you, just observing.

[thesometimesaint]

As I said, ID doesn't care the source. And if you are correct then the SETI project is not valid scientifically either.

ID is just Creationism with a longer name.

SETI is quite valid as a scientific investigation. Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone in the universe. The implications of either are tremendous.

[thesometimesaint]

Which is where the opinions of different scientists diverge. I'm not here to try and persuade you, just observing.

Science doesn't relay on opinions, but what can be demonstrated. ID is demonstrably false.

Edited March 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

As I said, ID doesn't care the source. And if you are correct then the SETI project is not valid scientifically either.

The first word in SETI is Search. "Search" does not in any way mean predetermined outcome. As soon as SETI finds any single train of communication signal that displays a pattern, then, and only then can the discussion begin as to "whether" the signal implies an intelligence behind it.

I'm not convinced there's all that much intelligence on the planet we live on.

[thesometimesaint]

The first word in SETI is Search. "Search" does not in any way mean predetermined outcome. As soon as SETI finds any single train of communication signal that displays a pattern, then, and only then can the discussion begin as to "whether" the signal implies an intelligence behind it.

I'm not convinced there's all that much intelligence on the planet we live on.

Or if we never find that signal the implications are just as profound.

I'm more and more convinced that space aliens landed on the Mall in Washington DC. Found absolutely no intelligent life, and left never to return.

[Stone holm]

I find much of this thread to be painful to read. We find people categorically attacking evolution and in the process normally just displaying their ignorance of the subject. And then we see people asserting religious views and asserting that such views are inconsistent with known science. I am left scratching my head, realizing that what we know precisely about the process of the actual creation from a religious standpoint is very, very little, to a point that we really are not in a position to claim much of anything other than at one point in time two individuals were designated to be our progenitors. And as for science , right now we only have one paradigm that has stood up to the rigors of research and which has been helpful in understanding and predicting biological phenomenon. Which therefore is what should be in our science books until it get refined sufficiently to be replaced by a new paradigm...which probably will happen someday. But neither of these are necessarily contradictory and so long as both stay where they belong - namely religious doctrine in church and science in the classroom, both can further develop until someday probably long after we have been resurrected the twain shall meet. For Heaven's sake develop just a sufficient amount of tolerance for cognitive dissonance that we can continue to advance both in religion and science, that we not revert to threatening to burn people for suggesting that the Earth re valves around the Sun, not vice versa.

[CASteinman]

I also would like to see what people here think better describes the events of the Adam and Even story to have been: a symbolic narrative with people who did not exist in real life, or a narrative about concrete people who actually lived.

I hope it is acceptable to say "Both" because that is how I view it.

[thesometimesaint]

I find much of this thread to be painful to read. We find people categorically attacking evolution and in the process normally just displaying their ignorance of the subject. And then we see people asserting religious views and asserting that such views are inconsistent with known science. I am left scratching my head, realizing that what we know precisely about the process of the actual creation from a religious standpoint is very, very little, to a point that we really are not in a position to claim much of anything other than at one point in time two individuals were designated to be our progenitors. And as for science , right now we only have one paradigm that has stood up to the rigors of research and which has been helpful in understanding and predicting biological phenomenon. Which therefore is what should be in our science books until it get refined sufficiently to be replaced by a new paradigm...which probably will happen someday. But neither of these are necessarily contradictory and so long as both stay where they belong - namely religious doctrine in church and science in the classroom, both can further develop until someday probably long after we have been resurrected the twain shall meet. For Heaven's sake develop just a sufficient amount of tolerance for cognitive dissonance that we can continue to advance both in religion and science, that we not revert to threatening to burn people for suggesting that the Earth re valves around the Sun, not vice versa.

Agreed.

[CASteinman]

It's interesting that as of right now, there are slightly more people who don't believe in a historical Garden of Eden or who are undecided on the topic than there are who believe in a historical Eden. I'm not one who believes in a historical Eden as the first dwelling place of the first man, etc...I'm also surprized by the percentage that believes in organic evolution.

There are a lot of "uncorrelated" (as they say) people here.

[CASteinman]

I find much of this thread to be painful to read. We find people categorically attacking evolution and in the process normally just displaying their ignorance of the subject. And then we see people asserting religious views and asserting that such views are inconsistent with known science. I am left scratching my head, realizing that what we know precisely about the process of the actual creation from a religious standpoint is very, very little, to a point that we really are not in a position to claim much of anything other than at one point in time two individuals were designated to be our progenitors. And as for science , right now we only have one paradigm that has stood up to the rigors of research and which has been helpful in understanding and predicting biological phenomenon. Which therefore is what should be in our science books until it get refined sufficiently to be replaced by a new paradigm...which probably will happen someday. But neither of these are necessarily contradictory and so long as both stay where they belong - namely religious doctrine in church and science in the classroom, both can further develop until someday probably long after we have been resurrected the twain shall meet. For Heaven's sake develop just a sufficient amount of tolerance for cognitive dissonance that we can continue to advance both in religion and science, that we not revert to threatening to burn people for suggesting that the Earth re valves around the Sun, not vice versa.

I don't really agree that they both have to exiled away from one another.

I also do not think its a horrible thing if people reject science or seek to find some way to bend science to help them with their faith. You may not like it that people do that, but you may not have quite achieved perfection yourself either.

[bu11fr0g]

Science = reasoned expectation for future events based on the accumulated weight of previous observation when observations repeatedly do not match expectation, reinterpretationis necessary. All reinterpretations are tentative.

"Faith"-based = future events are based on personal interpretations or interpretations of authorities. (Often both such as the interpretation of a scripture by an authority figure. ) These frequently contradict reasoned expectations.

If people based evolution on their interpretation of Darwins book rather than the most current onservations it would be faith based.

Trust = which you will rely on as a source for truth and action.

Scientists trust the observations and interpretations of observations by reputable scientists. Religious people tend to trust their congregations leaders.

Hopefully this disentangles the faith-based scientist misnomer.

There are statements that the theory of evolution ignores facts. No recurrent observation is ignored.

[Stone holm]

Science = reasoned expectation for future events based on the accumulated weight of previous observation when observations repeatedly do not match expectation, reinterpretationis necessary. All reinterpretations are tentative.

"Faith"-based = future events are based on personal interpretations or interpretations of authorities. (Often both such as the interpretation of a scripture by an authority figure. ) These frequently contradict reasoned expectations.

If people based evolution on their interpretation of Darwins book rather than the most current onservations it would be faith based.

Trust = which you will rely on as a source for truth and action.

Scientists trust the observations and interpretations of observations by reputable scientists. Religious people tend to trust their congregations leaders.

Hopefully this disentangles the faith-based scientist misnomer.

There are statements that the theory of evolution ignores facts. No recurrent observation is ignored.

Perhaps counterintuitively I would rely on science for action, namely I would rely on evolutionary theory to govern what to do about the over use of antibiotics in creating superbugs and the use of herbicides and pesticides in creating super weeds and super insects. But the Gospel for truth. But, the Creation story doesn't generate much action related truth. However, in this specific instance I don't see any significant dichotomy at least given the gloss put on the Garden story by the early leaders of the Restoration.

[cdowis]

You use terms like "superhuman" and "towers" and "temples of education" and "pronouncing judgements". Very loaded expressions. There are few in education that use any such symbols and these are people fully engaged in the process and know it inside out, ugly parts included.

I am using words and ideas that Nibley has written on the subject. He is indeed one of the few, and has greatly influenced my ideas.

But you're confusing the process with the outcome. Somehow you think all march in step with decrees from above. No, that is what happens in religion.

That is why I consider some branches of science driven by "religion", with their own creeds and high priests. There are several excellent accounts within the history of science, and you might start with Coe's book on decoding the Mayan language. Most recently has been the issue of transatlantic migration into the Americas, where scientists have had their careers in jeopardy. Excavations were literally abandoned when they reached a certain level because of the dictations of the high priests that there was nothing beyond a certain age.

Fortunately, with great difficulty and courage by certain individuals, this view has been corrected.

[cdowis]

Perhaps counterintuitively I would rely on science for action, namely I would rely on evolutionary theory to govern what to do about the over use of antibiotics in creating superbugs and the use of herbicides and pesticides in creating super weeds and super insects. But the Gospel for truth. But, the Creation story doesn't generate much action related truth.

It is unfortunate that you appear to be ignorant of the scriptures, which mention the use of herbs for healing, the effects of certain substances on our health, "there is enough and to spare", the real causes of climate change. We find that we are stewards over this earth which gives us plenty of "action" items.

The scriptures do not end with the book of Genesis.

Edited March 18, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Hopefully this disentangles the faith-based scientist misnomer.

There are statements that the theory of evolution ignores facts. No recurrent observation is ignored.

I agree with your points, and you actually reinforce my point. You are looking into an ideal world, but the world of science is gritty, full of human beings, not this fantasy world you describe.

"No recurrent observation is ignored." How can you possibly prove such a statement?

But I will concede the point. Facts may not exactly be ignored, but the issue is the interpretation of data remains. We often get amazing discoveries with breathless statements, only later to discover that things are not what they seem to be. Over time we get a fresh analysis and interpretation of the data, and the same old questions still are unanswered.

The data is not ignored, only the fundamental unanswered questions. I find it quite amusing the discussion, for example, over the first humans. The only answer so far is that there is no such thing!

Now that is what I see as being ignored ==>> those petty, niggling questions which threaten the very foundation of evolutionary science. Evolution is like a scooter. Of course, it can get us from point A to point B, but it is incapable of carrying the load of 16 wheel trailer. It just can't handle the load. And that is where scientists and people like yourself use creeds and belief to fill in the gap.

They ignore the elephant in the room.

Edited March 18, 2013 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

I asked three questions because it is these questions that, given certain answers to them, might seriously put LDS theology in trouble.

1. If humans did evolve through evolution, what did God do? If we are made in the image of God, did God also evolve or why does he have the physical traits we have? The whole evolution thing starts to look like a very manipulated process by God, but yet no explanation of what he actually did? Did he start the ball rolling and created the mountain in such a way that he knew what way the ball was going to roll? Did he (and does he) kill some preys to predators can reproduce more or kills predators so the preys can reproduce more and affect the environment like that? Etc.

2. If Adam and Eve were NOT real people but symbols only for something else, what is one to make of the necessity of the Atonement and verses like 1 Corinthians 15:21,22? How did whatever-the-symbol-for-Adam-and-Eve-are create the necessity for a LITERAL Savior? Clearly, Jesus Christ's sacrifice is not symbolic so, what did he died for?

I am a bit afraid to respond to questions on this in excruciating detail for all kinds of reasons, but maybe I can touch on some things I am aware of.

One of my favorite theories is one put forth by BH Roberts as I understand it. It is like this:

The earth was created and went through eons of changes and evolutionary development. At some point in all of this, God placed on the earth a "Tree of Life" which had a protective influence over some part of the earth that was the "Garden of Eden". In this place, death had no place or power because of the influence of the Tree. And at some point, God placed man inside this Garden. (I am not sure if BH Roberts describes where man exactly came from). Man may have lived there for ages and ages, untouched by death or evolution. But then the Tree of Life was taken away and man was left to contend with the lone and dreary world full of thorns - and already in progress.

I like this theory a lot but I am not sure I buy into it exactly. However, I note two important things from the history of man and the earth that have some bearing:

1. It is abundantly obvious that for tens of thousands of years there have been anatomically correct human beings on the earth.
   
2. It is also abundantly obvious that after these many many thousands of years, something happened less than ten thousand years ago that changed Men so that they became more cultured -- with writing, cities, agriculture, law, etc.
   

I believe that:

• There was a "First man" and a "First woman".
  
• That God made covenants with them -- covenants that led to the "Fall" and the rise of man.
  
• That these first parents are important to us and are our ancestors.
  
• That even if they lived in caves (and I do not think so) they were not 'cavemen'.
  
• And that we know them today as Adam and Eve.
  

None of this in any way denies evolution. It also does not deny that we are a special species created in the image and likeness of God -- in multiple ways.

I recall years ago that there was an Ape who had been taught to communicate with sign language. The Ape had some fairly sophisticated thoughts -- or so I would say. One day the people who were working with the Ape asked her if she was an animal or a person. The Ape (interestingly enough) became thoughtful for a moment before replying with some degree of pride: "Mighty Fine Animal - Gorilla".

Apes can learn language, but are unable to teach it -- or other such skills -- very well.

Edited March 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[bu11fr0g]

What are the petty niggling questions?

There can be noanswer to the first humans question until the definition of what defines a human is answered.

Answering the question of what makes a human cannot fall into the realm of science.

Thus science cannot answer the question of the first human. It can do a reasonable job of sorting out when and where fossil and dna and archeologic evidence points to creations having certain characteristics or abilities are evident.

[Stone holm]

What are the petty niggling questions?

There can be noanswer to the first humans question until the definition of what defines a human is answered.

Answering the question of what makes a human cannot fall into the realm of science.

Thus science cannot answer the question of the first human. It can do a reasonable job of sorting out when and where fossil and dna and archeologic evidence points to creations having certain characteristics or abilities are evident.

This may be just a matter of semantics, but don't you really mean that science is not yet equipped to determine who or what is a child of God? Surely what makes for a human falls within the realm of science. I suppose it might not fall to the realm of science to determine when someone ceases to be a child of God, but I am leery of trusting such a decision to any earthly person.

[thesometimesaint]

It is unfortunate that you appear to be ignorant of the scriptures, which mention the use of herbs for healing, the effects of certain substances on our health, "there is enough and to spare", the real causes of climate change. We find that we are stewards over this earth which gives us plenty of "action" items.

The scriptures do not end with the book of Genesis.

There is nothing wrong with using herbs in healing. In fact much of our modern day pharmacopeia is based on plants and herbs. What is needed is good double blind studies to prove their effectiveness and safety.

There maybe enough and too spare. But getting that enough to enough people is a continuing problem. Say you have a big supply of fresh fish and live on the Californian coast. How do you get that fresh fish to me if I am a fourteen day hike on foot into the outback of central Australia?

The real cause of the global climate change that we are experiencing right now is too much hot air. CO2 is a known Greenhouse Gas and the amount has a great effect on the temperature of this planet. Too little and we are Mars, and too much we are Venus. If present trends continue CO2 levels, thus more hot air. It becomes problematic for life as we know it on this planet.

True, there are plenty of action items to pursue. Lets hope and pray that we pursue them with the right course of action.