Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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.Obligation is not the issue. The theory of evolution, particularly macro evolution, involves the assumption that lower order forms of life evolved or advanced to become higher order forms of life, such as one single cell organism becoming a gnat and another of those same single cell organisms becoming a dog and another of those same single cell organisms becoming an elephant and another of those single cell organisms becoming a bird and another of those single cell organisms becoming a whale and another of those single cell organisms becoming one of us, etc.And yes we're talking about the very same type of single cell organisms, not babies of each type growing to maturity as the same type of being.
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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.Do you really believe astrology involves the scientific method?
Walden Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Obligation is not the issue. The theory of evolution, particularly macro evolution, involves the assumption that lower order forms of life evolved or advanced to become higher order forms of life, such as one single cell organism becoming a gnat and another of those same single cell organisms becoming a dog and another of those same single cell organisms becoming an elephant and another of those single cell organisms becoming a bird and another of those single cell organisms becoming a whale and another of those single cell organisms becoming one of us, etc.And yes we're talking about the very same type of single cell organisms, not babies of each type growing to maturity as the same type of being. I am getting the strange feeling that your grasp of the mechanics of evolution is lacking.
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I am getting the strange feeling that your grasp of the mechanics of evolution is lacking. Evolution is simple: "It goes germ, fish, mermaid, man." -- Karl Pilkington
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 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. I doubt it, there are few Evangelicals, but no Mormon.All Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists believe in Evolution, no one can name a Mormon that doesn't.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 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. Astrology is not a science. It is the conjecture that the ancient positions of distant wandering stars at the time of your birth have some measurable effect on your personality and actions today. The scientific method is based on objective tests against any given hypothesis. Of course it is always possible that further testing will falsify the hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is falsified it is no longer true. Every single objective test against Evolution so far preformed for the last 155 years has failed to falsify the Theory of Evolution. If you really want to falsify the Theory of Evolution you need to come up with better evidence than the false dichotomy of Micro-evolution vs Macro-Evolution. As has been repeatedly demonstrated Micro-Evolution is exactly the same as Macro-Evolution. It is the change in allele frequency. Morphological changes are simply the changes in the way an organism looks. IE; A dog will never be cat no matter how closely it looks like a cat.SEE
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I doubt it, there are few Evangelicals, but no Mormon.All Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists believe in Evolution, no one can name a Mormon that doesn't. I don't know of any that don't. Then again I don't know of All Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists. I suppose theoretically it is possible though.
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I doubt it, there are few Evangelicals, but no Mormon.All Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists believe in Evolution, no one can name a Mormon that doesn't. You can't really say one way or the other until you look at every believing LDS person with those credentials. No one here has access to that list, let alone their views on evolution 2
Ahab Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Do you really believe astrology involves the scientific method?Yes, it involves it, although the conclusions and assumptions are as invalid as the conclusions and assumptions involved in the theory of evolution, at the macro level.And if you really want to prove the theory of evolution is true, at the macro level, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than simply assuming macro evolution results from multiple stages of micro evolution, because your assumptions don't and never will make it true. Meaning you're going to have to show that it is actually happening now, with a higher or more advanced form of life evolving from not only a lower form of life but also another form of life, otherwise it's just another example of micro evolution. A cricket becoming something that is not just another kind of cricket, for example. Edited June 5, 2014 by Ahab 1
frank_jessop Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I doubt it, there are few Evangelicals, but no Mormon.Call for ReferencesAll Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists believe in Evolution, ...Call for references. Please provide the list of ALL MORMON (worldwide) PhD in Biology and Paleontologists. And provide the statement from EACH Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists which affirms their individual belief in Evolution.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) You can't really say one way or the other until you look at every believing LDS person with those credentials. No one here has access to that list, let alone their views on evolution I am not 100% certain, but it is reasonable to assume that all Mormon PhD Biologists believe in Evolution 2 reasons 1. Almost all Biologists believe in Evolution See www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html 2. I quoted Mormon PhD Biologists that do believe in Evolution, but so far no one has quoted a Mormon Biologist that said the contrary. If my statement is not true, someone should prove me wrong. Let's forget about the PhD in Biology, Genetics, and Paleontology, Can someone please name two Mormon scientists working in a relevant field of earth and life sciences, that don't believe in Evolution? Modern 21st century scientists please. Edited June 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Gray Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I am not 100% certain, but it is reasonable to assume that all Mormon PhD Biologists believe in Evolution 2 reasons 1. Almost all Biologists believe in Evolution See www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html 2. I quoted Mormon PhD Biologists that do believe in Evolution, but so far no one has quoted a Mormon Biologist that said the contrary. If my statement is not true, someone should prove me wrong. Let's forget about the PhD in Biology, Genetics, and Paleontology, Can someone please name two Mormon scientists working in a relevant field of earth and life sciences, that don't believe in Evolution? Modern 21st century scientists please. Well, I'm sure most of them do believe in evolution, but even among PhD biologists you do get the occasional crackpot, so it's really impossible to rule out the possibility that one or two of them don't believe in it.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Yes, it involves it, although the conclusions and assumptions are as invalid as the conclusions and assumptions involved in the theory of evolution, at the macro level.And if you really want to prove the theory of evolution is true, at the macro level, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than simply assuming macro evolution results from multiple stages of micro evolution, because your assumptions don't and never will make it true. Meaning you're going to have to show that it is actually happening now, with higher or more advanced form of life evolving from not only a lower form of life but also another form of life, otherwise it's just another example of micro evolution. A cricket becoming something that is not just another kind of cricket, for example. No it does not. European Astrology is no more scientific than Chinese AstrologySEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology Micro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Macro-Evolution.SEE There no scientific definition of kind. Examples of speciation in the "ring" species in nature.http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html Example of speciation in the lab.http://www.ask.com/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
frank_jessop Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I am not 100% certain, ... Now we are getting somewhere. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 IMO, the debate here is not about the evidence for or against organic evolution. Rather, it is about whether LDS doctrine is compatible with organic evolution. Obviously, those biologists et al. who are cited on MST show that, at least for them, the two are not incompatible. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Now we are getting somewhere.1. Almost all Biologists believe in Evolution See www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html"Almost" is not all. Edited June 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Science doesn't concern itself with God.Thats like saying the the painting "The Starry Night" doesn't concern itself with its artist Van Gogh. Edited June 5, 2014 by Rob Osborn 1
frank_jessop Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 It is impossible for me to prove that all Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution, ...If it is impossible to prove, then it is impossible for you know what ALL Mormons in the relevant field think. And this means, once again, you need to stop making claims you can not prove. And, once again, you need to stop attributing your personal ideologies to other people.
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Thats like saying the the painting "The Starry Night" doesn't concern itself with its artist Van Gogh. That makes no sense at all.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Being overly specific is just as misleading as being underly specific. IE; The average American is a 37.2 year old white female with 2.3 kids living in a small town in southern Indiana. There maybe a few that meet that criteria but overall we don't 1
Hamilton Porter Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I am not an expert, I am not qualified to challenge the scientific consensus. I haven't done the research myself, and I don't have the tools to study DNA. The reason why I believe that Evolution is true is very simple. If there were no evidences that Evolution happened, no Mormon scientist would believe it. But all Mormons that have a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, and Genetics do believe in Evolution, all. I have challenged many to name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that doesn't believe in Evolution, but so far no one has answered my question. Common sense tells me that the public doesn't understand the evidence, only scientists (in relevant fields) understand it. That is why it is extremely easy to make ID creationism appear scientific. It is okay to believe in direct creationism, but it is not science, and I hope creationist admit that. If you disagree, name Mormon Biologists that don't believe in Evolution. Here is a list, there are more Geneticists and Biologists that do believe in Evolution, but they didn't mention "Evolution" in their testimonies, such as Dr. Ugo A. Perego) Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater (Ph.D. in genetics) "In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. Not only that, but at the genetic level we are also remarkably similar to mice, fruit flies, and brewer’s yeast. Information we learn about genetic function by studying these organisms is often directly relevant to humans and provides great benefits in our understanding of human health and disease." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) "From an early age I knew that my grandpa, who also served as an LDS bishop at one time, believed in evolution. He even authored a pamphlet called Evolution and the Bible in which he argued that the Bible tells us why the world was created, and evolution tells us how. This taught me that one need not “choose sides,” although I’m aware that certain scriptures can be interpreted to deny the possibility of “theistic evolution.” However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner Dr. Heath Ogden (PhD in integrative biology) "I do not know when Adam and Eve lived on this Earth. However, I accept that their physical bodies are united to all other life on this planet in a great tree of life. In other words, all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification. The evidences that support this idea are astounding" http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden Dr. Angela Robertson (Ph.D from the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology)"Among biologists, the idea of God “creating” life and mankind often generates an impatient, condescending tone. I do not claim to know how evolution and God interact, but I believe that they do, and I see no conflict between biology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1897/angela-m-berg-robertson Dr. Larry St. Clair (professor of integrative biology at BYU)"The facts as to the age of the earth and the processes of creation are not described in sufficient detail in the scriptures to prove or discount evolution as a mechanism for the origin and diversification of life on earth." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/437/larry-st-clair Dr. Craig M. Young (Ph.D. in Zoology) "It is clear to me as a scientist that much of what we have learned about biology, including evolution, is correct and true." http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1699/craig-m-young Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD in Paleontology)"For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller Definitions http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us Zoology - "The scientific study of the behavior, structure, physiology, classification, and distribution of animals" Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants." Biology - "The study of living organisms" Genetics - "The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics. " Dear Mormon Free Thinker: Your boss wants to see you in his office about your productivity. But in any case, evolution is the official science taught at BYU. Hunting for Mormon biologists who believe in evolution is like hunting for Canadians in Canada. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Thats like saying the the painting "The Starry Night" doesn't concern itself with its artist Van Gogh. SEE Sophistry. IE; I use a computer but I neither conceptualized, designed, or built it. Edited June 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 That makes no sense at all.Let me put it in simpler terms-Thats like saying that the creation doesnt concern itself with the Creator.
Rob Osborn Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 SEE Sophistry.Oh, so thats what you are up to, I get it now.
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Let me put it in simpler terms-Thats like saying that the creation doesnt concern itself with the Creator. Humans concern themselves in all kinds of activities with thoughts of their Creator. Science isn't one of those activities.
Recommended Posts