List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[ERayR]

Very nice, Alex Jones is a war veteran and he fights immorality too, but all the stuff he says is just not true. 

Anyways, Horowitz is not a climate scientist, and the topic is Evolution. 

Just because Horowitz fights immorality, doesn't mean that his arguments are right. 

 

Faithful Mormon biologists believe in Evolution (and talked about it in their testimony) because the evidence is strong, not because their parents taught them to believe in Evolution. 

 

You keep dismissing people because you perceive a lack of credentials.  Its time for you to reveal your credentials.  How can anyone take you seriously without the proper credentials.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Intelligent creation is not Darwinian evolution.

 

He said, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface"

 

and Amazon said about his book, "the author argues that we must find God on our own and not be enticed by scientific evidence to believe or disbelieve. His own belief in God, coupled with decades of study and research that he shares in this book, has led him to appreciate the beauty of an Intelligent Creation." 

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Divine-Design-Frank-Salisbury/dp/1555179002

 

If you are not going to believe in Evolution, at least believe that there was death before the Fall. The only botanist you found (Dr. Salisbury) believes in Death before the fall. "No Death Before the Fall" is clearly not a doctrine of the LDS church. 

Edited June 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

He said, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface"

 

If you are not going to believe in Evolution, at least believe that there was death before the Fall. The only botanist you found (Dr. Salisbury) believes in Death before the fall. "No Death Before the Fall" is clearly not a doctrine of the LDS church. 

 

Of course evolution occurred over the eons.  Micro-evolution is occurring all the time.  Please be more precise in your pronouncements.

 

Of course there was death on earth before the fall.  Adam and Eve introduced death into the Garden of Eden and so were expelled from said garden.  The Garden of Eden was a Celestial interface(part) of the Celestial Realms.

 

MFT Waiting for credentials.

Edited June 7, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

Of course evolution occurred over the eons.  Micro-evolution is occurring all the time.  Please be more precise in your pronouncements.

 

Of course there was death on earth before the fall.  Adam and Eve introduced death into the Garden of Eden and so were expelled from said garden.  The Garden of Eden was a Celestial interface(part) of the Celestial Realms.

 

MFT Waiting for credentials.

 

"Micro-evolution is occurring all the time" x  Millions of years = Macro-Evolution. SIMPLE.  

 

"MFT Waiting for credentials."

Don't believe me, believe the Biologists (including Mormon Biologists). Most Biologists believe the evidences are strong for Macro-Evolution. 

[ERayR]

"Micro-evolution is occurring all the time" x  Millions of years = Macro-Evolution. SIMPLE.  

 

"MFT Waiting for credentials."

Don't believe me, believe the Biologists (including Mormon Biologists). Most Biologists believe the evidences are strong for Macro-Evolution

 

Not so simple as you are trying to portray.

 

You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials.  If we are to take your evaluation seriously then we need to know your credentials.

[Judd]

I'll say I'm somewhat baffled at what conclusion(s) you're intending to reach with this thread. I think a few things are worth mentioning that typically never are mentioned in these evolution threads:

 

-The first is that evolution is a very, very broad topic and field. Unfortunately, because of a particular religiopolitical history of conflict and false dichotomy, it has caused the lay-public, black-and-white view of evolution as a whole to bleed over into parascientific discussion (by that I mean those who are otherwise educated but with little formal training and experience in any relevant field). In any case, we continue to reference evolution (in it's broadest terms) as a black-or-white issue. Nobody seems to give room for the possibility of God creating mankind in a way more in line with a traditional religious view and being able to accept what we do know about evolution. I find it kind of silly to only consider the false dichotomy of all creation or all evolution as the only two things on the differential. Moreover, I find that scientific education has a tendency (in general) to temper people's enthusiasms and to get them much more comfortable with the unknown and being able to say "I don't know" without being uncomfortable or feeling obligated to provide an answer. The exception to this are (again, generally) those with less exposure to scientific inquiry (and therefore less first-hand experience in recognizing how large the unknown is) and those who are very impassioned by agenda. It's unfortunate that we have a societal history on the subject of evolution as if upon it rests the ultimate answer to the validity of Judeo Christian belief. Because of many years and decades of warring factions on this false dichotomy, we have a lot of deeply ingrained assumptions on both sides that make for poor theology and poor science, yet we perpetuate them unknowingly from conventional wisdom. It's not sufficient to be able to appreciate the discovery and findings that pertain to evolutionary biology and, when confronted with questions that we may not yet have full answers for, say "I don't know... but I believe in the evolutionary model." No, this one, of a handful of issues in contemporary science, is one that demands testimony be given. Saying, "I don't know but I believe [in evolutionary theory]" is not enough. When we start to understand theology and science a little better, hopefully we can finally gain enough insight to realize that Judeo Christian belief really doesn't stand or fall on the issue of evolution, and we can hopefully stop using century-old logic as the basis for all the polarized, false dichotomous thought that abound within the debate.

 

-Second is that having a PhD in a particular area of hard science study (or most things, really) is incredibly specific. Yes, there's certain exposure to some diversity of subjects, but the bulk of it is some limited coursework, more advanced training in statistics, and a whole lot of research in whatever it is you're studying (including reading and being familiar with a lot of the relevant literature on that and related subjects) that exposes you to the scientific method by experience. For instance, someone may spend their entire career studying a particular subunit of a neuronal receptor in a particular animal. Based on what you've stated, I think you may have a different idea or expectation of what a person holding a PhD in a biological field may know about in-depth evolutionary biology. This is an incredibly broad subject. Now, as a qualifier, I will have to state that I am not a scientist but rather a physician. Nevertheless, doctors are similar in this regard that people, generally, have a simple understanding of their training background and what that does or does not give them expertise in. For instance, you may have an ER doctor talk about the options for initiating treatment for renal cell carcinoma, but this would not be a subject enlightened by his/her training or day-to-day experience. Though he/she may have significantly more knowledge on this issue than a lay person, this knowledge would typically be only very superficial. Likewise, simply stating somebody has a PhD, even in a presumably relevant field, does not necessarily imply that all of one's opinions are informed by their training/experience (or that their training/experience is sufficient to inform those opinions as being expert). This isn't to say that any of the opinions are right or wrong or to discount anybody by any means, but the subject of this thread seems somewhat unusual as if a consensus of seemingly relevant individuals opining on an issue (which is actually many issues, really, that colloquially is being wrapped together as if it were one issue) is binding on reality is some way. This would be akin to saying, "Of course amoxicillin will treat your skin infection. Look at all this evidence showing statins (cholesterol lowering medications) improve mortality. Medical science is true!" Now, perhaps amoxicillin really will treat that skin infection. But the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is a horribly poor one.

 

Earlier, you alluded numerous times to a "PhD in biology," which is such an incredibly broad umbrella of subjects and sub-disciplines. Later, you discounted someone for being a plant biologist; however, among the people you listed in the original post, you included a plant biologist (as well as a marine biologist). I'm not really too particularly concerned about arguing who's qualified for what, but I'm curious what your criteria is. Moreover, I'm curious what your point is.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Judd

[ERayR]

I'll say I'm somewhat baffled at what conclusion(s) you're intending to reach with this thread. I think a few things are worth mentioning that typically never are mentioned in these evolution threads:

 

-The first is that evolution is a very, very broad topic and field. Unfortunately, because of a particular religiopolitical history of conflict and false dichotomy, it has caused the lay-public, black-and-white view of evolution as a whole to bleed over into parascientific discussion (by that I mean those who are otherwise educated but with little formal training and experience in any relevant field). In any case, we continue to reference evolution (in it's broadest terms) as a black-or-white issue. Nobody seems to give room for the possibility of God creating mankind in a way more in line with a traditional religious view and being able to accept what we do know about evolution. I find it kind of silly to only consider the false dichotomy of all creation or all evolution as the only two things on the differential. Moreover, I find that scientific education has a tendency (in general) to temper people's enthusiasms and to get them much more comfortable with the unknown and being able to say "I don't know" without being uncomfortable or feeling obligated to provide an answer. The exception to this are (again, generally) those with less exposure to scientific inquiry (and therefore less first-hand experience in recognizing how large the unknown is) and those who are very impassioned by agenda. It's unfortunate that we have a societal history on the subject of evolution as if upon it rests the ultimate answer to the validity of Judeo Christian belief. Because of many years and decades of warring factions on this false dichotomy, we have a lot of deeply ingrained assumptions on both sides that make for poor theology and poor science, yet we perpetuate them unknowingly from conventional wisdom. It's not sufficient to be able to appreciate the discovery and findings that pertain to evolutionary biology and, when confronted with questions that we may not yet have full answers for, say "I don't know... but I believe in the evolutionary model." No, this one, of a handful of issues in contemporary science, is one that demands testimony be given. Saying, "I don't know but I believe [in evolutionary theory]" is not enough. When we start to understand theology and science a little better, hopefully we can finally gain enough insight to realize that Judeo Christian belief really doesn't stand or fall on the issue of evolution, and we can hopefully stop using century-old logic as the basis for all the polarized, false dichotomous thought that abound within the debate.

 

-Second is that having a PhD in a particular area of hard science study (or most things, really) is incredibly specific. Yes, there's certain exposure to some diversity of subjects, but the bulk of it is some limited coursework, more advanced training in statistics, and a whole lot of research in whatever it is you're studying (including reading and being familiar with a lot of the relevant literature on that and related subjects) that exposes you to the scientific method by experience. 

 

Earlier, you alluded numerous times to a "PhD in biology," which is such an incredibly broad umbrella of subjects and sub-disciplines. Later, you discounted someone for being a plant biologist; however, among the people you listed in the original post, you included a plant biologist (as well as a marine biologist). I'm not really too particularly concerned about arguing who's qualified for what, but I'm curious what your criteria is. Moreover, I'm curious what your point is.

 

His criteria moves so that he can discard whatever is not congruent with his conclusions.

[thesometimesaint]

Most MD's have a biology degree and then take a high level genetics course in medical school. Embryology goes into depth about the branchial clefts which are the backbone of vertebrate strategies of evolution. I have never met a physician who didn't assume eviolution and the LDS MDs I meet believe God is involved in the process.

 

Agreed.

[Rob Osborn]

Science is about figuring out how things work. Hypotheses (what I'm assuming you mean by "guesses and conjecture") stand or fall based on what is observed. Evolution is accepted precisely because it explains quite well what is observed, not because it fits someone's imagination.

Hum...how exactly does one observe evolution of species from common descent?

[thesometimesaint]

The things scientists will do to develop a reasonable interpretation of the evidence can be said to be rigorous but in the final analysis that's really all that any of their theories are... just reasonable interpretations of the evidence they have examined.

 

Partially correct. Any theory must meet all the conditions of the observation. If it doesn't the theory is either modified of abandoned.

[thesometimesaint]

Not so simple as you are trying to portray.

 

You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials.  If we are to take your evaluation seriously then we need to know your credentials.

 

I'm not enamored with credentials.  I merely say that if you need open heart surgery the better person to go to is the surgeon and not your local house plumber. Even if it is all just plumbing.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm still unclear as to what the problems are with macro-evolution. The fossil record shows transitions from fish to amphibian as well as other transitions. If macro-evolution didn't happen, we would not see anything like that in the fossil record. But we do.

The fossil record shows lobed finned fish that were supposed to evolve into amphibians but then along came that coelacanth and surprisingly never evolved limbs after all. The supposed missing link was thus the nail in the coffin for fish to amphibian evolution myth.

[thesometimesaint]

Hum...how exactly does one observe evolution of species from common descent?

 

One way: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U5K0Wyi9Ztg

[Rob Osborn]

One way: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U5K0Wyi9Ztg

Hum, not so much. Where is the observed evidence of evolution from common descent? Watching bacteria evolve doesnt really mean much- its still bacteria. I want to see a cow turn into a whale or something like that. I mean if they say it happened and there is strong evidence for it lets see it happen!

[thesometimesaint]

Hum, not so much. Where is the observed evidence of evolution from common descent? Watching bacteria evolve doesnt really mean much- its still bacteria. I want to see a cow turn into a whale or something like that. I mean if they say it happened and there is strong evidence for it lets see it happen!

 

The ever shifting meaning of kind.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Not so simple as you are trying to portray.

 

You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials.  If we are to take your evaluation seriously then we need to know your credentials.

 

"Not so simple as you are trying to portray."

That is all you can say, and perhaps link to some anti-evolution Evangelical websites. 

 

"You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials"

I am not a Biologist, so my credentials are not relevant. 

 

"If we are to take your evaluation seriously"

Don't take me seriously, take the Biologists seriously. 

Almost all Biologists 99.9% believe that the Evidences are Strong for Macro-Evolution. 

 

micro-Evolution X 10 million years = Macro-Evolution 

You don't understand what Biologist say about Evolution. 

[thesometimesaint]

"Not so simple as you are trying to portray."

That is all you can say, and perhaps link to some anti-evolution Evangelical websites. 

 

"You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials"

I am not a Biologist, so my credentials are not relevant. 

 

"If we are to take your evaluation seriously"

Don't take me seriously, take the Biologists seriously. 

Almost all Biologists 99.9% believe that the Evidences are Strong for Macro-Evolution. 

 

micro-Evolution X 10 million years = Macro-Evolution 

You don't understand what Biologist say about Evolution. 

 

Partially correct. 10,000,000 years isn't needed for evolution to occur. Of necessity the longer the creature lives the longer it's offspring take to evolve.

[ERayR]

I'm not enamored with credentials.  I merely say that if you need open heart surgery the better person to go to is the surgeon and not your local house plumber. Even if it is all just plumbing.

 

Note:  That post was in answer to one from MormonFreeThinker.

[thesometimesaint]

Note:  That post was in answer to one from MormonFreeThinker.

 

So noted.

[ERayR]

"Not so simple as you are trying to portray."

That is all you can say, and perhaps link to some anti-evolution Evangelical websites. 

 

"You are the one enamored by credentials so don't be shy reveal your credentials"

I am not a Biologist, so my credentials are not relevant. 

 

"If we are to take your evaluation seriously"

Don't take me seriously, take the Biologists seriously. 

Almost all Biologists 99.9% believe that the Evidences are Strong for Macro-Evolution. 

 

micro-Evolution X 10 million years = Macro-Evolution 

You don't understand what Biologist say about Evolution. 

 

My position is not based on anti-evolution websites.  Sorry to disappoint you but as noted somewhere above my education, training and vocation is based on critical thinking skills.  There is a lot of reasons to reject macro-evolution and few to accept it.

 

As has been pointed out not even all biology degrees are useful in this area.  It does, however, require critical thinking and analytical skills.  You are the one who sets great store in credentials so if one is to take you seriously it behooves you to reveal your credentials.  How can you be taken seriously otherwise?

 

Is your credentials in statistics?  If not how can anybody take your statistical analysis seriously.  What is the margin of error in your statistical analysis?

 

You really have no basis to make any judgement about what I understand about what biologist say about evolution.  As I said before I don't find their theoretical arguments for macro-evolution compelling.

 

Again, if we are to continue with any serious dialog wit you reveal your credentials, if you have any.  Quit trying to hide behind someone elses.

Edited June 7, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

My position is not based on anti-evolution websites.  Sorry to disappoint you but as noted somewhere above my education, training and vocation is based on critical thinking skills.  There is a lot of reasons to reject macro-evolution and few to accept it.

 

As has been pointed out not even all biology degrees are useful in this area.  It does, however, require critical thinking and analytical skills.  You are the one who sets great store in credentials so if one is to take you seriously it behooves you to reveal your credentials.  How can you be taken seriously otherwise?

 

Is your credentials in statistics?  If not how can anybody take your statistical analysis seriously.  What is the margin of error in your statistical analysis?

 

You really have no basis to make any judgement about what I understand about what biologist say about evolution.  As I said before I don't find their theoretical arguments for macro-evolution compelling.

 

Again, if we are to continue with any serious dialog wit you reveal your credentials, if you have any.  Quit trying to hide behind someone elses.

 

"raining and vocation is based on critical thinking skills"

Common sense is sometimes not useful in scientific research.  

 

"Is your credentials in statistics? If not how can anybody take your statistical analysis seriously. What is the margin of error in your statistical analysis?"

 

Simply go to any university to the Biology department and find out for yourself, don't take me seriously. 

Or look for a scientific poll in Gallup or an unbiased poll. 

 

"You really have no basis to make any judgement about what I understand about what biologist say about evolutio"

Then why do you deny Macro-Evolution? All you say is "there are no good reasons" but you don't say what the reasons are. 

So in your own words, what are the reasons to reject Macro-Evolution? 

 

"Quit trying to hide behind someone elses."

I am just saying, trust the biologists, not me. 

Edited June 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

"raining and vocation is based on critical thinking skills"

Common sense is sometimes not useful in scientific research.  

 

I can see your problem.  Common sense is useful in all things.  I might agree that in some interpretations in the macro-evolutionary science it seems in short supply.  Thanks for admitting it makes no sense.

 

"Is your credentials in statistics? If not how can anybody take your statistical analysis seriously. What is the margin of error in your statistical analysis?"

 

Simply go to any university to the Biology department and find out for yourself, don't take me seriously. 

Or look for a scientific poll in Gallup or an unbiased poll. 

 

Do you really make your decisions based on polls?  If so I would guess you are a politician or an aspiring politician.

 

"You really have no basis to make any judgement about what I understand about what biologist say about evolutio"

Then why do you deny Macro-Evolution? All you say is "there are no good reasons" but you don't say what the reasons are. 

So in your own words, what are the reasons to reject Macro-Evolution? 

 

More than once I have given reasons on this forum.  If you are really interested go back and read what I have already posted.  The last time (think) was less than a year ago  Others going back two or three years..

 

"Quit trying to hide behind someone elses."

I am just saying, trust the biologists, not me. 

 

Believe me I am not trusting you.  You have no credentials. 

Edited June 7, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

My position is not based on anti-evolution websites.  Sorry to disappoint you but as noted somewhere above my education, training and vocation is based on critical thinking skills.  There is a lot of reasons to reject macro-evolution and few to accept it.

 

As has been pointed out not even all biology degrees are useful in this area.  It does, however, require critical thinking and analytical skills.  You are the one who sets great store in credentials so if one is to take you seriously it behooves you to reveal your credentials.  How can you be taken seriously otherwise?

 

Is your credentials in statistics?  If not how can anybody take your statistical analysis seriously.  What is the margin of error in your statistical analysis?

 

You really have no basis to make any judgement about what I understand about what biologist say about evolution.  As I said before I don't find their theoretical arguments for macro-evolution compelling.

 

Again, if we are to continue with any serious dialog wit you reveal your credentials, if you have any.  Quit trying to hide behind someone elses.

 

Its been observed in nature and in the lab. So it's your turn to name one scientifically valid argument against evolution.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

 

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)

 

No, but that is irrelevant in either direction. Both are an appeal to authority.

 

Lets get specific. What exactly is your scientifically valid argument against evolution?

 

My credentials are in Social Work. However that is largely irrelevant to the question at hand. As a Social Worker I search for evidence of my claim. Test that claim against the evidence, and publish my results for my Peers to the critique. Unless you are my Peer in Social Work you really don't have any  standing, and are merely stating your opinion. So show me the Peer Reviewed evidence for your claim against evolution.

[ERayR]

Its been observed in nature and in the lab. So it's your turn to name one scientifically valid argument against evolution.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

 

— Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)

 

No, but that is irrelevant in either direction. Both are an appeal to authority.

 

Lets get specific. What exactly is your scientifically valid argument against evolution?

 

My credentials are in Social Work. However that is largely irrelevant to the question at hand. As a Social Worker I search for evidence of my claim. Test that claim against the evidence, and publish my results for my Peers to the critique. Unless you are my Peer in Social Work you really don't have any  standing, and are merely stating your opinion. So show me the Peer Reviewed evidence for your claim against evolution.

 

I have on more than one occasion on this board presented information that calls into question macro-evolutionary assumptions. Just for starters One of them is anomalies found around the world pointing to very ancient technological advanced civilizations.  An impossibility if macro-evolution is to be believed.  As I remember they were summarily dismissed as hoaxes.  Another is that there are just too many interconnected specialized mutations that must occur very quickly and in unison in more than one entity(like two sex reproduction).

 

 

If macro-evolution had been proven it would be headline news.

 

The credential thing is for MormonFreeThinker as he seems enamored with credentials.

[thesometimesaint]

I have on more than one occasion on this board presented information that calls into question macro-evolutionary assumptions. Just for starters One of them is anomalies found around the world pointing to very ancient technological advanced civilizations.  An impossibility if macro-evolution is to be believed.  As I remember they were summarily dismissed as hoaxes.  Another is that there are just too many interconnected specialized mutations that must occur very quickly and in unison in more than one entity(like two sex reproduction).

 

 

If macro-evolution had been proven it would be headline news.

 

The credential thing is for MormonFreeThinker as he seems enamored with credentials.

 

Macro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Micro-Evolution.

 

I've got stocks in a gold mine to sell you if you believe in very ancient technological advanced civilizations.

 

I don't know what you mean by two sex reproduction. Please clarify.

 

Science doesn't "Prove" anything. Never has. What scientists do is provide evidence to support the claim. The open that evidence to critique by Peer Review.

IE; Newton explained the law of gravity for the medium sized scale. Einstein explained it on the very large scale. Quantum Mechanics explains it on the very small scale.