List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[Walden]

There's nothing impossible about it. Once we're resurrected and like our Father, or at least some of us, we can then see if we can create different kinds of living beings from our own DNA, or whatever you might want to call it, his living essence.

I'm sure it would be much easier for us to just gather some different kinds of living beings and put them wherever we want them, though, rather than having to make new ones from scratch.

But we could still see if we could do it the hard way.

 

Sorry, I thought you were genuinely interested in a scientific viewpoint.....given your response, I will refrain from referencing the scientific method in any of our conversations going forward.

[Walden]

I must say that's brilliant. We can have scientific proof of the afterlife and of God's existence--after we're dead. Can't argue with that.

 

Wow, just......wow, not much else left to say

[jkwilliams]

Wow, just......wow, not much else left to say

 

I hope you know I was joking, hence the

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't confuse belief in intelligent design with creationism, Mormon FreeThinker.

 

They overlap, but they're not the same thing.

[jkwilliams]

Don't confuse belief in intelligent design with creationism, Mormon FreeThinker.

 

They overlap, but they're not the same thing.

 

What is the distinction?

[Walden]

I hope you know I was joking, hence the

 

Yes certainly....my dumbfounded shock is in reference to the logic exhibited by Ahab regarding science and the scientific method, not in relation to your comment.

 

You and I are on the same wavelength on this one.

[Rain]

and you commited the Red Herring fallacy.

Don't dodge my question, can you name one Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics that doesn't believe in Evolution?

 

Just one, if you can't, the debate is over.

I can't even name a Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics period and very few non mormon with a PHd in those areas. Unless someone knows or knows of a great many of these scientists I think the idea doesn't really work.

 

Now if you asked a similar question about engineers, lawyers or MDs then it might work. 

[Daniel Peterson]

What is the distinction?

 

It blurs, but creationists lean (in many though perhaps not all cases) toward a young earth and (in every case to which I would feel comfortable applying the term creationist) toward the immutability of species.

 

Adherents of Intelligent Design insist that mind was involved at various stages of the emergence of life on earth, but they're open to (and most openly affirm) both an ancient earth and evolutionary change and adaptation (including speciation).

 

I suppose you could say that all creationists believe in a form of Intelligent Design, but you cannot accurately say that all believers in Intelligent Design are creationists in the usual sense of that word.

 

--"DCP, no less"

[jkwilliams]

It blurs, but creationists lean (in many though perhaps not all cases) toward a young earth and (in every case to which I would feel comfortable applying the term creationist) toward the immutability of species.

I was thinking that might be the case. I have always distinguished between creationists and young-earth creationists. I just have considered ID to be essentially the same as the former. Hence my question.

 

Adherents of Intelligent Design insist that mind was involved at various stages of the emergence of life on earth, but they're open to (and most openly affirm) both an ancient earth and evolutionary change and adaptation (including speciation).

Fair enough.

 

I suppose you could say that all creationists believe in a form of Intelligent Design, but you cannot accurately say that all believers in Intelligent Design are creationists in the usual sense of that word.

 

--"DCP, no less"

 

Thanks for the clarification, no less.

Edited June 5, 2014 by jkwilliams

[MormonFreeThinker]

I can't even name a Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics period and very few non mormon with a PHd in those areas. Unless someone knows or knows of a great many of these scientists I think the idea doesn't really work.

 

Now if you asked a similar question about engineers, lawyers or MDs then it might work. 

 

What? Didn't you see the list? and it is only a list from MormonScholarsTestify. 

There are plenty of Mormons that have a PhD in Biology and related fields. 

 

Now, almost all religious scientists that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, Genetics, and other related fields believe in Evolution. See 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

"engineers, lawyers or MDs then it might work"

Lawyer and Engineers? So if you are sick, do you go to the medical doctor or a lawyer?

Sorry, but nobody cares what lawyers and engineers have to say about Biology, it is not their field.

MDs are not the best experts in Biology.  

 

Excerpts of Statements by Scientists Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/StatementsScience.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Edited June 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

I must say that's brilliant. We can have scientific proof of the afterlife and of God's existence--after we're dead. Can't argue with that.

We already have scientific proof of the afterlife and God's existence, although you may not agree with calling it "scientific". I was talking about knowing whether or not God created or can create other forms of life from his own living essence, even though there is an easier way to do it.

[jkwilliams]

We already have scientific proof of the afterlife and God's existence, although you may not agree with calling it "scientific". I was talking about knowing whether or not God created or can create other forms of life from his own living essence, even though there is an easier way to do it.

 

My guess is that you and I disagree about the scientific method and how it applies to "proof" of the divine.

[Bikeemikey]

So you believe that with enough time a gnat will become one of us, even glorified like our Father in heaven?

I believe a gnat may eventually become the best kind of gnat among all gnats in existence, but that a gnat will never become one of us even if it continued to live on into eternity.

A gnat will always be a gnat. That does not mean it can not be part of a complex biological diversity that ends up being made of both gnats and other things.

Evolution doesn't happen to an individual, it happens to a system.

[Ahab]

My guess is that you and I disagree about the scientific method and how it applies to "proof" of the divine.

I concur with your guess, but it is still science.

The "ology" is on the word "theology" for scientific reasons, don't cha know.

[Darren10]

What is the distinction?

Intelligent Design blatantly rejects biblical creationism, utterly refusing to use it as a means to do its research and to formulate conclusions.

 

Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities.

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

Edited June 6, 2014 by Darren10

[jkwilliams]

I concur with your guess, but it is still science.

The "ology" is on the word "theology" for scientific reasons, don't cha know.

Actually, the "ology" part comes from the Greek "logos," meaning strictly "word" but used throughout history to mean a reasoned principle or study. Thus, theology is just the application of reason or study to issues of the divine (theos). It doesn't necessarily imply the application of the scientific method.

[Ahab]

Actually, the "ology" part comes from the Greek "logos," meaning strictly "word" but used throughout history to mean a reasoned principle or study. Thus, theology is just the application of reason or study to issues of the divine (theos). It doesn't necessarily imply the application of the scientific method.

I couldn't have said it much better myself, even though you don't seem to realize the scientific method is all about, at its best, the application of both reason and study to discover more about any particular issue.

[thesometimesaint]

So human beings was a chance happening?

 

No. We are the result of millions of years of evolution IE; Change with descent.

[thesometimesaint]

There's nothing impossible about it. Once we're resurrected and like our Father, or at least some of us, we can then see if we can create different kinds of living beings from our own DNA, or whatever you might want to call it, his living essence.

I'm sure it would be much easier for us to just gather some different kinds of living beings and put them wherever we want them, though, rather than having to make new ones from scratch.

But we could still see if we could do it the hard way.

 

Science doesn't concern itself with God.

[thesometimesaint]

I couldn't have said it much better myself, even though you don't seem to realize the scientific method is all about, at its best, the application of both reason and study to discover more about any particular issue.

 

Is Astrology a science?

[frank_jessop]

But all Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics do believe in Evolution, all.

Call for References.

Provide the list of EVERY MORMON - in the world - with a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics.

[thesometimesaint]

Call for References.

Provide the list of EVERY MORMON - in the world - with a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics.

 

While it is incongruous with the demands of those specialties. It is possible that some very few do not accept Evolution as the best science we have, at this time, for the development of life once it got here. That being said BYU has one of the best paleontological museums there is.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not particularly of a scientific bent, but I (in my ignorance) don't understand how believing in evolution obligates me to believe (in the absence of the infamous missing link) that human beings descended/ascended from other so-called hominids or, ultimately, from some primitive, single-celled organism somewhere.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not particularly of a scientific bent, but I (in my ignorance) don't understand how believing in evolution obligates me to believe (in the absence of the infamous missing link) that human beings descended/ascended from other so-called hominids or, ultimately, from some primitive, single-celled organism somewhere.

 

I am of a scientific bent. I have no particular problem with those that don't believe it(They can believe anything they want to.). It has no bearing on my faith whatever process God used to create us and our world is fine with me. Though I do tend to believe he used Evolution in that process. The problem I have is with those use a scientifically invalid scientific explanation for it. So Rachael Welch did not fight with Dinosaurs in one million years BC. And Adam and Eve didn't ride around on a coconut eating T-Rex some 7000 years ago.

[Ahab]

Is Astrology a science?

When using the scientific method and applying both reasoning and study in the discovery of knowledge on any particular issue it is still possible to make false conclusions and assumptions which while logical are not true and astrology is an example of that. And so is the theory of evolution.

Or in other words, the fact that science or the scientific method of discovery was used to reach a particular conclusion which is both logical and reasonable doesn't mean the conclusion is true.