No position on God? How Evolution works according to Science

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It also could be the spiritual creation before being formed physically is creating things in his conception.  We've just assumed it means God created a spirit for all living things.

I don't understand how God used Evolution. Science teaches Evolution is blind and unguided, the mutations are random.

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's certainly possible He did it that way.  But it's kind of a silly idea.  It would be like someone asking you to make Nestle Tollhouse Cookies, and you decide to experiment with thousands upon thousands of different recipes until arriving at the determined cookie, all the while having the recipe on the package in front of you.  Sure, you could do it that way, but it's hardly an intelligent use of time or cookie ingredients.

True. One also has to wonder why would God use millions of years and many extinction events to create mammals? 

Edited September 6, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Mr. Gray. You sound like a smart guy, do you know how God used Evolution? Doesn't Science teach Evolution is unguided and the mutations are random?

 

Evolution is totally compatible with any number of theologies. It's not, however, compatible with everyone's ideas about creation.

Everything in the universe operates from the bottom up. Evolution is a machine that runs itself. That doesn't erase God - that just means God is not, in any literal sense, some kind of life engineer. God is more clever than that.

We already understand this instinctively. We tell primary children that God gave them a physical body. But did God literally do that? No, their parents had sex.A tiny egg and a tiny sperm came together and grew into a life. That's the reality behind the metaphor. Evolution, likewise, is the reality behind the metaphor of God creating the diversity of life on earth. The machine of the universe runs itself. It's a more clever machine than fundamentalists have traditionally supposed. Doesn't that make God more clever as well? God doesn't need to guide evolution. The machine runs itself.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I sincerely don't understand how God used Evolution. Science teaches Evolution is blind and unguided, the mutations are random.

 

Me neither. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Evolution is totally compatible with any number of theologies. It's not, however, compatible with everyone's ideas about creation.

What your saying makes sense for Deism.

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Everything in the universe operates from the bottom up. Evolution is a machine that runs itself. That doesn't erase God - that just means God is not, in any literal sense, some kind of life engineer. God is more clever than that.

Why don't you just say that God is not really the creator?  I wonder you believe the Resurrection is going to be a natural process that is going to take millions of years? 

Gospel Topics quotes a prophet "“If there is a design in this world in which we live, there must be a Designer. Who can behold the many wonders of the universe without believing that there is a design for all mankind? Who can doubt that there is a Designer?” 

Do you believe our prophets can tell the difference between the spirit and their own assumptions?

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

We already understand this instinctively. We tell primary children that God gave them a physical body. But did God literally do that? No, their parents had sex.A tiny egg and a tiny sperm came together and grew into a life. That's the reality behind the metaphor. Evolution, likewise, is the reality behind the metaphor of God creating the diversity of life on earth. The machine of the universe runs itself. It's a more clever machine than fundamentalists have traditionally supposed. Doesn't that make God more clever as well? God doesn't need to guide evolution. The machine runs itself.

Again "divinely approve deception". See Jeremiah 1:5.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

What your saying makes sense for Deism.

It makes sense for mainstream Christianity as well.

 

Quote

Why don't you just say that God is not really the creator? 

What makes you think god is not "really" the creator if evolution occurs? Did god not "really" create your body since we know that was done by your parents? Metaphorical truths are no less "real" truths than literal statements of fact. Don't confuse "literally" with "really". They're not synonyms.

Besides that, in Mormon theology, god is not literally our creator anyway. We always existed. God is one of us.

 

Quote

I wonder you believe the Resurrection is going to be a natural process that is going to take millions of years? 

Who knows? If it were, would you complain to God about his methods?

 

Quote

Gospel Topics quotes a prophet "“If there is a design in this world in which we live, there must be a Designer. Who can behold the many wonders of the universe without believing that there is a design for all mankind? Who can doubt that there is a Designer?” 

 

That's actually not in harmony with Mormon theology. In Mormon theology there is no ultimate designer. That's one of many examples of the manuals borrowing from Christian fundamentalism and not realizing it doesn't actually work with Mormon theology.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[SamuelTheLamanite]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

It makes sense for mainstream Christianity as well.

What makes you think god is not "really" the creator if evolution occurs? Did god not "really" create your body since we know that was done by your parents? Metaphorical truths are no less "real" truths than literal statements of fact. Don't confuse "literally" with "really". They're not synonyms.

That is Deism.  According to Ledewitz, God started "things at the big bang, set up evolution on autopilot, and then watch everything unfold". That is what you are basically telling me.  Why not be a Mormon Deist? 

General Authorities teach God is our literal creator.  Please clarify if you believe General Authorities can tell the difference between the spirit and their own thoughts? 

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's actually not in harmony with Mormon theology. In Mormon theology there is no ultimate designer. That's one of many examples of the manuals borrowing from Christian fundamentalism and not realizing it doesn't actually work with Mormon theology.

Did you read the FAIR article? I can find other examples in the scriptures too 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is Deism.  According to Ledewitz, God started "things at the big bang, set up evolution on autopilot, and then watch everything unfold". That is what you are basically telling me.  Why not be a Mormon Deist? 

Not necessarily. To say that God does not need to specially create each species is not the same thing as saying God never intervenes.

 

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

General Authorities teach God is our literal creator.  Please clarify if you believe General Authorities can tell the difference between the spirit and their own thoughts? 

Did you read the FAIR article? I can find other examples in the scriptures too 

Read the scriptures. Human beings always existed. We're coeternal with God, therefore he did not create us.

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, snowflake said:

I believe God is infallible and so is his word (this bible).

God may be infallible, but it was fallible mortal men that wrote the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Come now oh foolish ones, Jesus walked on water? scientifically impossible so it's a metaphor. Jesus raised the dead? , sorry, there were no defibrillators in His time so , metaphor.

The scriptures state that God created all things spiritually ( metaphorically? ) before He created them physically ( metaphorically ?)

It is my opinion that whoever believes that all life on earth was built over 4.5 billion years by random mutations of the DNA/RNA and natural selection , forgets that in order to mutate genes there must be genes there to mutate, so where did that massive information storage unit come from?

What are the chances that in the next 20 minutes, an airplane flies over my house and drops an elephant out and the beast falls through my roof and lands in my bed ? It is even possible? Sure it is. Is it likely ? Nope. The odds of such an event happening can be estimated roughly from experience and supposition. The odds of molecules randomly combining to create a single nucleotide are trillions and trillions and trillions of times LESS than the given scenario.

Scientists say that there have been many extinction events which have occurred over the history of the earth. Maybe the bible and other scriptures are speaking of only the latest iteration.

Science can not address miracles. It can address the physical evidence for such "Miracles". Tell me what possible physical evidence is there for Jesus and Peter walking on water/raised the dead or did any number of such miracles?

How can we fallible mortals create things spiritually? Isn't that an idea? IE; Doctor Seuss and his fantastical animals.

Again you are conflating Abiogenesis with Evolution. They are not the same thing. Theologically speaking what is a few billion years to an immortal being?

You really do need to take a course in probability before you make such claims.

SEE http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

Noah's account of a extinction level event is a "Miracle" of such proportion that it strains credulity. Natural physical events leave natural physical evidence, there is none such for a world wide flood in the time of Noah. Plus there is overwhelming natural physical evidence against it.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Not necessarily. To say that God does not need to specially create each species is not the same thing as saying God never intervenes.

In Evolution there is no intelligent intervention according to the Science. 

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Metaphorical truths are no less "real" truths than literal statements of fact.

Can we say the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphorical truth?  Is the Resurrection a slow process that is going to require millions of years? 

[readstoomuch]

Evolution is the underlying principle of biological sciences, including medicine.  It is not a perfect theory, nor is every step along the way in man`s "creation" all known.  Duane Jeffrey write as much or more about this as anyone in the Church.  I know you can google his articles.  Steven Peck writes some interesting things also.  If evolution is the tool that was needed to create man, given whatever course he took in touching, shaping or bringing it about-good by me.  There are some problems with how much evolutionary forces can act and be shaped by a creator.  Intelligent Design isn`t the automatic answer.  There does seem to be something different about resurrection than the original process of creation.  Particularly after Jesus experienced death and resurrection.  I always found the general authorities as forward thinking as almost any religion about evolution.  No one is going to prove it to you or have the magic  answer about how it all interacts.  You have to read, pray and work it out for yourself.  God exists and we exist.  We are a mystery as is the universe.  So ponder and enjoy the ride.  You don`t have to give up believing the gospel because this isn`t worked out in your mind yet.  

[strappinglad]

In this article about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through it covers the changes necessary to change an ape-like  creature to a man-like one. I suppose one could read the entire thing to see just how established as fact evolution ie. molecules to man by random mutation and natural selection is. I will get to the probability question in another post. I do have some slight knowledge on the subject having taught it for over 15 years. My students even PASSED the government exams on the topic, praise be !

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Edited September 7, 2017 by strappinglad

[thesometimesaint]

On 9/6/2017 at 7:54 AM, stemelbow said:

Me neither. 

Evolution isn't blind. Those organisms that reproduce survive as a species. When enough random mutations accumulate in enough of individual organisms that they can no longer reproduce with the parent species that is when a new species is formed.

[thesometimesaint]

Science by definition must be Agnostic.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In this article about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through it covers the changes necessary to change an ape-like  creature to a man-like one. I suppose one could read the entire thing to see just how established as fact evolution ie. molecules to man by random mutation and natural selection is. I will get to the probability question in another post. I do have some slight knowledge on the subject having taught it for over 15 years. My students even PASSED the government exams on the topic, praise be !

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Actually evolution does put severe limits on what can be created.

SEE

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/6/2017 at 9:21 AM, Gray said:

Not necessarily. To say that God does not need to specially create each species is not the same thing as saying God never intervenes.

How does he intervene?   In your view what is God's role in creation? 

According to Evolution theory "there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations", so how do reconcile Evolution with the Creation?  

Quote

Evolution is a machine that runs itself. That doesn't erase God - that just means God is not, in any literal sense, some kind of life engineer

I think you are making God indistinguishable to a god that doesn't exists.  

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[clarkgoble]

On 9/6/2017 at 8:52 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't understand how God used Evolution. Science teaches Evolution is blind and unguided, the mutations are random.

True. One also has to wonder why would God use millions of years and many extinction events to create mammals? 

Mutations are somewhat random, but selection is not random.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Mutations are somewhat random, but selection is not random.

Yes I understand, but Evolution teaches that "there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations - Ayala.  My friend quoted a famous Atheist "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."  I don't understand why you believe in both Evolution and God (theism). Evolution only makes sense for Deism. According to Ledewitz, God started "things at the big bang, set up evolution on autopilot, and then watch everything unfold". You believe in the God of Ledewitz? If you do, why not be a Mormon Deist? 

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes I understand, but Evolution teaches that "there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations - Ayala.  My friend quoted a famous Atheist "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."  I don't understand why you believe in both Evolution and God (theism). Evolution only makes sense for Deism. According to Ledewitz, God started "things at the big bang, set up evolution on autopilot, and then watch everything unfold". You believe in the God of Ledewitz? If you do, why not be a Mormon Deist? 

Evolution happens. God can intervene by modifying the environment or even doing genetic engineering. However there's no way to detect that. Further God may have millions of planets going at once looking for what suits his needs. Finally God has a lot more knowledge than we do so he may well know what structures evolution converges upon in what circumstances. 

Put simply there's a lot of middle ground between deism and Intelligent Design. It's just that many don't want to admit it.

Edited September 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes I understand, but Evolution teaches that "there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations - Ayala.  My friend quoted a famous Atheist "A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."  I don't understand why you believe in both Evolution and God (theism). Evolution only makes sense for Deism. According to Ledewitz, God started "things at the big bang, set up evolution on autopilot, and then watch everything unfold". You believe in the God of Ledewitz? If you do, why not be a Mormon Deist? 

Science is not based on a belief in any God or the lack there of. A Theist can be just as wrong on a question of science as can an Atheist. To put it another way "If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work you're not doing science, but you are doing religion". 

SEE

 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

How does he intervene?   In your view what is God's role in creation? 

Principally in the life and mission of Jesus Christ, right? That would be a good Christian position that is compatible with evolution.

In my view God is identical to everything that exists, but I'm not really talking about my own theology.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

According to Evolution theory "there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations", so how do reconcile Evolution with the Creation?  

Creation is a metaphor for evolution. Simple.

 

 

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think you are making God indistinguishable to a god that doesn't exists.  

A God who creates things in the way imagined by fundamentalists would be a god who doesn't exist, because creation doesn't work like that.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Evolution happens. God can intervene by modifying the environment or even doing genetic engineering.

Nice, we are now doing some progress. However, "genetic engineering" is god-of-the-gaps according to scientists. Science has rational explanations to why the environment changes. In Science I don't see much room for Theistic creation, and that is why I believe God simply made our world appear to be godless to test our faith.   

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Put simply there's a lot of middle ground between deism and Intelligent Design. It's just that many don't want to admit it.

You believe in Evolution because of the evidence, so why do you believe in the Resurrection? Science teaches that resurrections don't happen, especially if the dead body is decomposed. Do you believe the Resurrection is going to be a slow process like Evolution? 

See, Gray is saying that "Creation is a metaphor for evolution. Simple." 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Creation is a metaphor for evolution. Simple.

Do you believe the day of the Resurrection is a metaphor too? Science teaches that resurrections don't happen, especially if the dead body is decomposed. 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

A God who creates things in the way imagined by fundamentalists would be a god who doesn't exist, because creation doesn't work like that.

A god that didn't literally create anything is indistinguishable to a god that doesn't exists.  

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Principally in the life and mission of Jesus Christ, right? That would be a good Christian position that is compatible with evolution.

Why not Mormon Deism? 

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Nice, we are now doing some progress. However, "genetic engineering" is god-of-the-gaps according to scientists. Science has rational explanations to why the environment changes. In Science I don't see much room for Theistic creation, and that is why I believe God simply made our world appear to be godless to test our faith.

Don't conflate explaining all life to whether God intervened. They're not the same argument. ID is a god of the gaps argument because it's arguing that what science doesn't know about process is what God did. The Mormon evolutionist is fine with occasional intervention but doesn't think God has to determine in advance every life for to create them. He merely has to set them in motion and control the environment. The main issue for a Mormon evolutionist is merely how God could create bodies for his children. The rest is irrelevant to them.

The main issue over evolution is whether there's a young earth and the evidence is overwhelming and abundant that there's not.

Quote

  You believe in Evolution because of the evidence, so why do you believe in the Resurrection? Science teaches that resurrections don't happen, especially if the dead body is decomposed. Do you believe the Resurrection is going to be a slow process like Evolution?

I don't think evolution is a natural event in the sense of happening on its own. It's a technological event. As to why I believe it, it's because I trust God who says it happens. The difference from creation is that while God says he did it, he's rather vague how. 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Principally in the life and mission of Jesus Christ, right? That would be a good Christian position that is compatible with evolution.

In my view God is identical to everything that exists, but I'm not really talking about my own theology.

Creation is a metaphor for evolution. Simple.

A God who creates things in the way imagined by fundamentalists would be a god who doesn't exist, because creation doesn't work like that.

Maybe it's just me, but creationism seems to me a rather immature approach to scripture and science. As mfbukowski noted, the Bible is not a science text. It isn't meant to explain exactly how things came about but is meant to convey doctrines and concepts that are important for human salvation. To insist that scripture must be taken absolutely literally (i.e., literal in terms of the way the reader interprets it) is to miss much of the depth of what is in there, and it is to limit and constrain God. I was a hard-core creationist for a few months in my early 20s after doing some heavy reading of Joseph Fielding Smith. I got better.

Edited September 12, 2017 by jkwilliams