Adam And The Apes

[mfbukowski]

Somewhat true. I see prayer as evidence. However that evidence is for me alone.

OK I can live with that.  That's about the way I see it also.

[mfbukowski]

So, the discussion concerning the origins of life cant be considered science then because it includes God?

Including God by definition makes it not "science" as we know it, unless God's existence can be proven scientifically.

 

The function of science is to make up stories about how things happen, leaving out what it defines as "supernatural" because for science "there is no such thing".

 

Your error is to think that science is looking for "truth"- that is also what many scientists think, though others understand it differently.  Science is not about "truth" it is observable evidence. 

 

Evidence for God is not objectively observable- his evidence is in your heart.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, the data is irrefutable.  The issue is the interpretation of the evidence.

 

Exactly

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution would not change if it accepted panspermia.

So, even if life was transported here from somewhere else full formed evolution is still true? Is that what you are getting at?

[mfbukowski]

Godless science- I just dont subscribe to it, sorry. Dont mean to pry or ask a retarded question but what does having children sealed in the tempke have anything to do with this subject?

Having children who don't have to go on boards and waste time debating silliness= Priceless.

[mfbukowski]

Godless science- I just dont subscribe to it, sorry.

Welcome to the real world.  Rob Osborn won't change it.  Humans are adaptable.  We can bang our heads against the wall or learn to live with reality.  Whatever your politics- and I won't get into that- let's just say that sometimes we have to live in a world which is not.......  ideal.

[mfbukowski]

The theory of evolution must cover how life first evolved otherwise its incomplete.

Yes it is incomplete and always will be.

 

It's a string of theories (stories) made up by people who don't want to accept anything they can't observe.

 

That in itself is like a religious belief- that we "should" think that way - cannot be proven.

[thesometimesaint]

So, the discussion concerning the origins of life cant be considered science then because it includes God?

 

The origins of life are a scientific concern. Just not a concern of evolution. Abiogenesis concerns itself with the chemistry of organic compounds that are not yet life as we know it. It does not consider any God or Godlike force, and can not by definition.

[Freedom]

The theory of evolution has been proven false because it does not address the selection process of the supreme court of Alberta. We do not rely on God to hang a door. God has made us agents unto ourselves and has provided a vast amount of knowledge that we access through scientific research to solve many of our own problems. 

[cinepro]

So, God must remain conpletely outside of science?

 

The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be.  It's not the scientists that keep Him out.

 

We had "Godful-science" for thousands of years (and, as you have pointed out, some still practice it today), and we can judge for ourselves whether Godful-science does a better job of explaining our world and the physics and biology of the planet better or as good as what Godless-science has given us. 

 

The reason Godless-science is superior isn't because it isn't more interesting, or less faith-promoting, or more fun.  It's because it's more useful.  In order for you to argue that Godful-science is worth supporting, you need to show that it is as useful, or more useful, than Godless-science.

 

That's why I only use car mechanics who repair cars using Godless-theories of motor vehicle operation, and plumbers who use Godless theories of plumbing.  It might be valid to pay a mechanic to explain to you why God doesn't want your car to start, but I'd much rather pay someone $70/hour to assume that God doesn't care either way, and they can use their understanding of mechanical and electrical principles to logically determine what the problem is.  I don't have anything against theist mechanics, but the quality of a theist mechanic is usually based on their ability to act like the atheist ones when it comes to repairing stuff. 

 

So it is with science in general.

 

That being said, I can understand the allure and comfort of Godful-science.  In fact, I suspect I could be the greatest physicist in the world if I were only allowed to use supernatural factors in my theories.

 

Edited January 10, 2014 by cinepro

[Freedom]

As Cinepro explains,  God does not use his mystical powers to control every atom at all times. He has set laws in place that govern the natural world. gravity is allowed to act as it does, electricity flows, and flowers grow. These no more require Gods constant intervention than cooking a meal requires the cooks constant intervention. The cook needs hot water so he puts a pot on the hot stove and lets nature to act according to its laws to make the water turn hot. 

 

We are most certainly children of our father in heaven, but we have two bodies - our spiritual bodies which are eternal and come from God, and our physical bodies which are simply temporary vessels designed to give our spiritual bodies a physical experience. It does not matter how these bodies came to be, and having them evolved over millions of years is no more a problem than to consider a temple is built from trees that grew over hundreds of years. The data God has left behind tells us that he put laws in place that allowed our bodies to evolved so that we could live here. He has been around for ever and has been making earths for ever - why do we need it to be created in 7 days? He has eons, he might as well let natural forces to the work for him. 

 

You can spend hours working with a lump of dough and a needle filling it with bubbles of air so that it will rise or you can stick yeast in it and go watch tv for an hour. 

[teddyaware]

The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be.  It's not the scientists that keep Him out.

 

We had "Godful-science" for thousands of years (and, as you have pointed out, some still practice it today), and we can judge for ourselves whether Godful-science does a better job of explaining our world and the physics and biology of the planet better or as good as what Godless-science has given us. 

 

The reason Godless-science is superior isn't because it isn't more interesting, or less faith-promoting, or more fun.  It's because it's more useful.  In order for you to argue that Godful-science is worth supporting, you need to show that it is as useful, or more useful, than Godless-science.

 

That's why I only use car mechanics who repair cars using Godless-theories of motor vehicle operation, and plumbers who use Godless theories of plumbing.  It might be valid to pay a mechanic to explain to you why God doesn't want your car to start, but I'd much rather pay someone $70/hour to assume that God doesn't care either way, and they can use their understanding of mechanical and electrical principles to logically determine what the problem is.  I don't have anything against theist mechanics, but the quality of a theist mechanic is usually based on their ability to act like the atheist ones when it comes to repairing stuff. 

 

So it is with science in general.

 

That being said, I can understand the allure and comfort of Godful-science.  In fact, I suspect I could be the greatest physicist in the world if I were only allowed to use supernatural factors in my theories.

 

Two questions:

 

1 Do you have a quote from a prophet or apostle, either past or present, that you can cite to show that least one of these Church leaders is in agreement with your statement that "The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be?

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Two questions:

 

1 Do you have a quote from a prophet or apostle, either past or present, that you can cite to show that least one of these Church leaders is in agreement with your statement that "The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be?

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

 

That is a non sequitur. Just because someone doesn't address a specific issue don't make it disappear. IE; I know of no published statement by any of the Church leaders that the Pythagorean Theorem is a doctrine of the Church. We merely assume it true and move on.

 

I agree that there is no separation in science and religion to God and that someday we'll accept there is no separation. But that someday isn't likely to be today.

[Freedom]

Two questions:

 

1 Do you have a quote from a prophet or apostle, either past or present, that you can cite to show that least one of these Church leaders is in agreement with your statement that "The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be?

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

 

I think you answered your own question. The gospel, as you stated, embraces and circumscribes scientific truth. Evolution is a scientific truth. But here is a verse that may help:

 

I tried to explain to him that everything in the universe, and the universe itself as organized by a divine Creator, is governed by laws, known as the laws of nature

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-laws-of-god?lang=eng

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Two questions:

 

1 Do you have a quote from a prophet or apostle, either past or present, that you can cite to show that least one of these Church leaders is in agreement with your statement that "The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be?

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

In the church we accept all truth. Can you think of any scientific truth that has come from either scripture or a prophet? By this, I mean something that is verifiable through experimentation and observation and something that was previously unknown. If you really believe as you say, then why aren't you petitioning the prophet for a cure for cancer, an understanding of how Gravity works, or some other current unknown?

 

Edited to also answer your questions:

1)No.

2)The Gospel and science are not at odds. God is the source of both. God however appears not to be in the business of revealing science to us and leaves us to our own devices (see my challenge above).

Edited January 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stone holm]

Rupert Sheldrake once argued that the strongest law of nature was habit.  Namely, that once something occured one way once, the probability that it would occur the same way twice  increased, infinitum.  He also argued that once something occurred, that it was dramatically more likely that it would occur again.  Now if you think about it, if that is in fact a scientific law, then it is very likely that it also governs the plans of salvation that have been implemented by the gods through their countless generations.  Thus even God is subject to science, hence to speak of Godful science or Godless science is oxymoronic.

[mfbukowski]

The reason Godless-science is superior isn't because it isn't more interesting, or less faith-promoting, or more fun.  It's because it's more useful.

So it is with science in general.

Totally agree.

 

We could answer every single question about how anything works with "because God made it that way" and in a sense, understanding the plan of salvation, that is actually true.

 

Cars work because God made us able to figure out how to make them work, so in a sense God makes cars work.

 

But praying about it seldom fixes your fuel injection system.

[mfbukowski]

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

I think probably what they have said is that there is "no conflict" with science and the gospel, and they are exactly right.  There is no conflict between engineering and the gospel either.  There is no conflict between engineering and the music of Bach either.

 

That is because science does not deal with the gospel and the gospel doesn't deal with science.  We are the ones who need to learn that.

[mfbukowski]

That is a non sequitur. Just because someone doesn't address a specific issue don't make it disappear. IE; I know of no published statement by any of the Church leaders that the Pythagorean Theorem is a doctrine of the Church. We merely assume it true and move on.

 

I agree that there is no separation in science and religion to God and that someday we'll accept there is no separation. But that someday isn't likely to be today.

Excellent point.

[mfbukowski]

Rupert Sheldrake once argued that the strongest law of nature was habit.  Namely, that once something occured one way once, the probability that it would occur the same way twice  increased, infinitum.  He also argued that once something occurred, that it was dramatically more likely that it would occur again.  Now if you think about it, if that is in fact a scientific law, then it is very likely that it also governs the plans of salvation that have been implemented by the gods through their countless generations.  Thus even God is subject to science, hence to speak of Godful science or Godless science is oxymoronic.

"What works, works".

 

This is a scientific law because it is a tautology.  A=A.  Yes, logic works because that is the way our minds work.

 

Yes, if something works it is likely to work again.  But really that is pretty self-evident- no reason to dress it up into some mystical "truth".

 

I like Sheldrake but a lot of his stuff is like that.  I think morphic resonance is interesting, and who knows some day perhaps it will actually be considered "Science".

 

But when you think about it, evolution itself is not much more profound than this.  What it says is "What survives, survives".  That was essentially Popper's analysis of Darwin and I think he was right.

 

It makes it all kind of a Homer Simpson "Duh" moment when you look at it that way.

[teddyaware]

I think probably what they have said is that there is "no conflict" with science and the gospel, and they are exactly right.  There is no conflict between engineering and the gospel either.  There is no conflict between engineering and the music of Bach either.

 

That is because science does not deal with the gospel and the gospel doesn't deal with science.  We are the ones who need to learn that.

I think probably what they have said is that there is "no conflict" with science and the gospel, and they are exactly right.  There is no conflict between engineering and the gospel either.  There is no conflict between engineering and the music of Bach either.

 

That is because science does not deal with the gospel and the gospel doesn't deal with science.  We are the ones who need to learn that.

[/quote}

Among the most important, if elementary, investigative scientific instruments are our five empirical senses. Without the senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell there wouldn't have been even a single scientific discovery.

With this in mind, I quote the following verses of scripture:

2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

7 But he truly agave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. (3 Nephi 20)

 

The ancient Americans who participated in the above miraculous administration of the Sacrament used, as a matter of course, their five earthbound senses to discern what took place that day and they...

 

1 ... witnessed with their human eyes there was neither bread nor water present to employ as emblems of the Saviour's sacrificed body. The fact that these people were able to testify there was no bread and wine present was made possible primarily by the sense of sight.

 

2 ... witnessed with those same eyes that the Saviour was able to produce the needed bread and water seemingly out of thin air. They were also able to watch Him as He handled the bread and wine and by this the scientific instrument of sight demonstrated that the bread and wine were real. This is the first scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

3 If in close enough proximity to the Saviour, they may have very well heard the light crackling sound as He tore the loaves of bread and the sound of the wine being poured. By this they were able to discern the bread and wine were real. This is the second scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

4 The people so gathered were able to touch with their hands and/or feel with their mouths that bread and wine were real. This is the third scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

5. The people were able to taste the bread and the wine, and because of past experience in tasting bread and wine they were able to discern that the bread and wine were real. This is the fourth scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.  

 

5. These people were able smell the bread and wine as they partook of it, as smell is closely connected to taste. This is the fifth scientific demonstration of the bread and wine's reality.

 

So by using basic scientific method, these people were able to observe the very real phenomenon of bread and wine being miraculously produced by the Saviour. Though the people were likely unaware of just how the Lord used a certain scientific methodology to produce the bread and wine, the mere fact that they were able to observe what took place, through their empirical senses, was an experience in very real scientific method. And just because they likely didn't know how the Lord did what He did, they were able to observe what happened and testify to the very real reality of the miracle.

 

And as any scientist knows, one doesn't have to know the causation of an observation in order to know that something really did occur. Early scientists and physicians were able to observe that people very often got infections after surgeries, so they knew infection following surgery was a real and verifiable phenomenon. But until more powerful and sophisticated scientific instruments were discovered and employed, there was no way of knowing microscopic pathogens caused the infections.

 

So in this particular instance, science was very much dealing with religion. This is only one of a great many scriptural instances of science intersecting with religion in a very real way. I'm sure you'd never get the Nephites who witnesses this miracle with their five senses to say that what they observed wasn't real and that their method for discerning the miracle wasn't scientific.       

Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

In the church we accept all truth. Can you think of any scientific truth that has come from either scripture or a prophet? By this, I mean something that is verifiable through experimentation and observation and something that was previously unknown. If you really believe as you say, then why aren't you petitioning the prophet for a cure for cancer, an understanding of how Gravity works, or some other current unknown?

 

Edited to also answer your questions:

1)No.

2)The Gospel and science are not at odds. God is the source of both. God however appears not to be in the business of revealing science to us and leaves us to our own devices (see my challenge above).

I believe there is scientific proof of the flood which validates the scriptures and helps us to understand that events in nature can be caused by God's wrath.

[cinepro]

Two questions:

 

1 Do you have a quote from a prophet or apostle, either past or present, that you can cite to show that least one of these Church leaders is in agreement with your statement that "The reason God is "completely outside of science" is because He has chosen to be?

2. In consideration of the fact that I've heard or read several statements made by Church leaders to the effect that there is no real separation between the Gospel and science, and that Gospel truth embraces and circumscribes scientific truth, how do those statements square with what you've said above?

 

1. I'm not sure what you mean.  Scientists use the scientific method to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.  If God wants to be a part of science, He has to do things that are observable (in an objective, repeatable way), and subject to experimentation.  He is capable of doing such things, but He chooses not to.  Ergo, He chooses not to participate in science.

 

Here's an example.  LDS claim that God heals the sick through Priesthood Blessings.  The implied claim is that people who get Priesthood Blessings for healing are more likely to be healed (or will be healed more quickly, or will experience less discomfort) than those that don't.  This is a very testable claim.  But I suspect your first reaction to the idea of testing such a claim would be that there is no way God would ever allow it (meaning, He would not honor such blessings if they were offered under the observation of an experiment).  That is a good example of how God chooses to be "outside of science".

 

Ultimately, the only place God "fits" in science is as a euphemism for "I don't know".  How did life and evolution get started?  "I don't know" = "God did it".  He might have done it, but if it's just another way of saying "I don't know", then it isn't scientific.

 

2. Smart religions (i.e. those that want to survive) realize at some point they need to get out of the way of science or they will get squished like a grape getting run over by a steam train.  Each religion figures this out at their own pace.  The LDS might be a little ahead of some religions, and a little behind others, but we are not unique in realizing this. 

 

But if you had non-LDS scientists all over the world insisting that science (and specifically their science) didn't interfere with LDS teachings but instead embraced them as the standard against which their theories should be judged, then you'd be on to something.  Until then, having LDS leaders falling all over themselves to insist that LDS teachings (and doctrines?) can nimbly adapt to modern scientific theories as they progress isn't remarkable or unique.  But it is better than the alternative!

Edited January 11, 2014 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

"What works, works".

 

This is a scientific law because it is a tautology.  A=A.  Yes, logic works because that is the way our minds work.

 

Yes, if something works it is likely to work again.  But really that is pretty self-evident- no reason to dress it up into some mystical "truth".

 

I like Sheldrake but a lot of his stuff is like that.  I think morphic resonance is interesting, and who knows some day perhaps it will actually be considered "Science".

 

But when you think about it, evolution itself is not much more profound than this.  What it says is "What survives, survives".  That was essentially Popper's analysis of Darwin and I think he was right.

 

It makes it all kind of a Homer Simpson "Duh" moment when you look at it that way.

Never thought of it as truism, although I think Sheldrake argument was a bit more than that, in that he cited the fact that scientists had struggle for years to get certain crystals to form, but once they formed in one lab they started forming in labs all over the world without the possibility of contamination.

[changed]

As Cinepro explains,  God does not use his mystical powers to control every atom at all times. He has set laws in place .... 

But if God made the laws, then isn't that controlling every atom all the time?  Not just the origin of life, but the origin of the fine tuned laws of the universe, I think that is where you can start seeing God...