No position on God? How Evolution works according to Science

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DJBrown said:

You believe our physical bodies evolved from simpler organisms.  And I think that is extremely difficult to reconcile with the doctrines of the restored gospel.  And I do not believe the evidence supports that concept either.

As it relates to the claims of evolution, the evidence shows:

1.  Earth is older than once believed.

2.  There are more species than previously recognized

3.  Those species are built from the same fundamental building blocks

 

So do you regard scripture as inerrant in science?

Do you drive a car?  Do you believe the earth is flat?

Seriously just wondering- I will not criticize your position- I am simply trying to figure out how you reconcile your beliefs with modern life.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/14/2017 at 9:02 AM, DJBrown said:

On the concept of human beings evolving from more primitive species, I think it is important to recognize some of the statements the brethren have made regarding Adam's creation.

http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl of Great Price/Creation Of Adam.htm

(The First Presidency in Melvin A. and M. Garfield Cook, Science & Mormonism [SLC: Deseret Book Company, 1973], p. 156; in Messages of the First Presidency 4:266.)

“In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, February 26, 1912, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose stated:But President Young went on to show that our Father Adam—that is our earthy father—the progenitor of the race of man, stands at the head being 'Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,' and that he was not fashioned from earth life and adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven."

(Joseph F. Smith, delivered Dec 7, 1913 at Mesa, AZ, Deseret Evening News, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. 3, p. 7.)

      I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions and that His Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father, grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman, and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

(Orson F. Whitney, "Divine Mission of the Savior," Course of Study for the Quorums of the Priesthood, 1910, pp. 35, 37.)

      Man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also....

      One of the important points about this topic is to learn, if possible, how Adam obtained his body of flesh and bones. There would seem to be but one natural and reasonable explanation, and that is, that Adam obtained his body in the same way Christ obtained his -- and just as all men obtain theirs -- namely, by being born of woman.

(Boyd K. Packer, General Conference Address, Ensign, Nov. 1984, pp. 66-69.)

      Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring?

(Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, SLC: Bookcraft, 1990 pg. 188-189, 193-194.)

      I believe that Adam's physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:22); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition and then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam's physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (D&C 93:11)–flesh meaning mortality. Jesus’ physical body was also begotten of the same celestial Father but through a mortal woman and hence into mortality.

This all flies in the face of evolution's concept of man coming from more primitive species.  

Something to consider.

 

Do you believe all statements by leaders are infallible?

[DJBrown]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So do you regard scripture as inerrant in science?

Do you drive a car?  Do you believe the earth is flat?

Seriously just wondering- I will not criticize your position- I am simply trying to figure out how you reconcile your beliefs with modern life.

Of course I don't regard scripture as inerrant in science.  But I recognize that science is a very misunderstood thing.  Many of us esteem science, or perceived science, too highly.  Too few people recognize the limitations of scientific evidences.  

My perspective comes primarily from working in the sciences and in laboratories and going through the process of having research published in peer reviewed journals.  I think I understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method.  And I see very clearly that people have a knee jerk reaction to accept anything that is somehow supported by "science." 

I am very familiar with evolutionary biology and the evidence relating to that field.  And I firmly believe that the conclusions made by evolutionary biologists (and so many others) are not completely supported by the evidences.  To me, the manner in which evolution is taught resembles the stereotype of some dogmatic, authoritarian, medieval priest shoving doctrine down the proverbial throats of those listening.  It is so contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry.  

Basically, I see too many gaping holes in evolution to swallow it "hook, line, and sinker" if that requires me to dismiss the words of prophets.  Call me naive and uninformed.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DJBrown said:

Of course I don't regard scripture as inerrant in science.  But I recognize that science is a very misunderstood thing.  Many of us esteem science, or perceived science, too highly.  Too few people recognize the limitations of scientific evidences.  

My perspective comes primarily from working in the sciences and in laboratories and going through the process of having research published in peer reviewed journals.  I think I understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method.  And I see very clearly that people have a knee jerk reaction to accept anything that is somehow supported by "science." 

I am very familiar with evolutionary biology and the evidence relating to that field.  And I firmly believe that the conclusions made by evolutionary biologists (and so many others) are not completely supported by the evidences.  To me, the manner in which evolution is taught resembles the stereotype of some dogmatic, authoritarian, medieval priest shoving doctrine down the proverbial throats of those listening.  It is so contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry.  

Basically, I see too many gaping holes in evolution to swallow it "hook, line, and sinker" if that requires me to dismiss the words of prophets.  Call me naive and uninformed.  

Oh no not at all.

That's what you are not understanding .  I don't want you to dismiss the words of prophets at all, just acknowledge that science knows more about science than prophets and prophets know more about God than scientists.

I am a Kuhnian and am well aware of the limits of science and current paradigms.

Science is deliberately agnostic and prophets are deliberately very much theists.  They are seeing the world in two different ways.  Science has nothing to do- deliberately- with speaking about God, and when religion gets into science, you get nonsense like Galileo vs Cardinal Bellarmine.

[DJBrown]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh no not at all.

That's what you are not understanding .  I don't want you to dismiss the words of prophets at all, just acknowledge that science knows more about science than prophets and prophets know more about God than scientists.

I am a Kuhnian and am well aware of the limits of science and current paradigms.

Science is deliberately agnostic and prophets are deliberately very much theists.  They are seeing the world in two different ways.  Science has nothing to do- deliberately- with speaking about God, and when religion gets into science, you get nonsense like Galileo vs Cardinal Bellarmine.

I understand.  But science has not provided sufficient evidences for me to disbelieve the prophets when they say that human beings did not evolve from more primitive life forms.  And this is clearly where there is overlap between the two worlds- where did human beings come from.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DJBrown said:

I understand.  But science has not provided sufficient evidences for me to disbelieve the prophets when they say that human beings did not evolve from more primitive life forms.  And this is clearly where there is overlap between the two worlds- where did human beings come from.  

The conflict only exists If and only if both descriptions are infallibly correct, and we know neither is perfect. 

Adam was the first "human". How God did that is unknowable and not relevant to our salvation.

That Adam fell is, and that the savior redeemed us IS relevant ,- the rest is unknowable and therefore not worth arguing about.

Maybe it's literal maybe it's figurative. What is important is that man fell and was redeemed.

We cannot put all the workings of God into our little tiny brains.

In my opinion it is silly to make science and religion conflict on this point when we can't possibly know all the details anyway. Both areas of knowledge are too important to lose.

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, DJBrown said:

You believe our physical bodies evolved from simpler organisms.  And I think that is extremely difficult to reconcile with the doctrines of the restored gospel.  And I do not believe the evidence supports that concept either.

As it relates to the claims of evolution, the evidence shows:

1.  Earth is older than once believed.

2.  There are more species than previously recognized

3.  Those species are built from the same fundamental building blocks

 

I don't "believe" in Evolution. The fact of Evolution doesn't care one whit what I "believe". IE; Gravity works whether I "believe" in it or not. I have no problem with the Restored Gospel or science. I have plenty of problems with some people's interpretation of both.

1. The earth is much farther older than the 17th Century's Church of Ireland's Archbishop Ussher thought it was. Even Joseph Smith thought it was much farther older. Unfortunately his reasoning was just a flawed.

2. There are about 8.7 million species on planet earth today. We find a few more every year. BTW Dinosaurs are still around today. They just go by a different name; We call them Fried Chicken.

3. We have yet to find any living thing that isn't built out of the same fundamental building blocks(DNA).

I don't see how any of those falsify the Theory of Evolution. if you really want to falsify the Theory of Evolution just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton from a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, DJBrown said:

I understand.  But science has not provided sufficient evidences for me to disbelieve the prophets when they say that human beings did not evolve from more primitive life forms.  And this is clearly where there is overlap between the two worlds- where did human beings come from.  

Using prophets to determine science is a useful as using "A mid-Summer's Night's Dream" by William Shakespeare to measure the length of a football field. 

Living things evolve.

SEE

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[LittleNipper]

I feel that many here are confusing scientific THEORY with observable, repeatable, scientific method. In that regard even evolutionists have to depend on faith. 

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I feel that many here are confusing scientific THEORY with observable, repeatable, scientific method. In that regard even evolutionists have to depend on faith. 

OH Please do tell us what a Scientific Theory is.

[DJBrown]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The conflict only exists If and only if both descriptions are infallibly correct, and we know neither is perfect. 

Adam was the first "human". How God did that is unknowable and not relevant to our salvation.

That Adam fell is, and that the savior redeemed us IS relevant ,- the rest is unknowable and therefore not worth arguing about.

Maybe it's literal maybe it's figurative. What is important is that man fell and was redeemed.

We cannot put all the workings of God into our little tiny brains.

In my opinion it is silly to make science and religion conflict on this point when we can't possibly know all the details anyway. Both areas of knowledge are too important to lose.

 

My point, ultimately, is that the strength of science's position on the question of where man came from is grossly exaggerated.   There are people on this thread claiming that evolution is a proven reality as it relates to the origin of human beings.  And that is just ridiculous. 

[DJBrown]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't "believe" in Evolution. The fact of Evolution doesn't care one whit what I "believe". IE; Gravity works whether I "believe" in it or not. I have no problem with the Restored Gospel or science. I have plenty of problems with some people's interpretation of both.

1. The earth is much farther older than the 17th Century's Church of Ireland's Archbishop Ussher thought it was. Even Joseph Smith thought it was much farther older. Unfortunately his reasoning was just a flawed.

2. There are about 8.7 million species on planet earth today. We find a few more every year. BTW Dinosaurs are still around today. They just go by a different name; We call them Fried Chicken.

3. We have yet to find any living thing that isn't built out of the same fundamental building blocks(DNA).

I don't see how any of those falsify the Theory of Evolution. if you really want to falsify the Theory of Evolution just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton from a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

It is pretty clear that you do not understand the point.  Those three conclusions are what is supported by the supposed evidences for evolution.  Yet "scientists" extrapolate far beyond what is justified, claiming that the evidence demonstrates clearly that modern humans evolved from more primitive species. 

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

OH Please do tell us what a Scientific Theory is.

I'm telling you what science is. A theory is unproven.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, DJBrown said:

My point, ultimately, is that the strength of science's position on the question of where man came from is grossly exaggerated.   There are people on this thread claiming that evolution is a proven reality as it relates to the origin of human beings.  And that is just ridiculous. 

Yes, nothing in science- or anything else- is ever "proven" unless it is a tautology.

"Apples fall from trees is a fact"

Circular reasoning.  What we mean by "fall" is that they..... well, fall!  The word "fall" itself "proves gravity's existence" as a tautology as sure as "A=A"

We see a LOT of this around here:

 

Quote

 

Appeal to the stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.^[1][2][3]

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus."^[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley's argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.^[2]

Example[edit]

• Speaker A: Infectious diseases are caused by microbes.
• Speaker B: What a ridiculous idea!
• Speaker A: How so?
• Speaker B: It's obviously ridiculous.

Speaker B gives no evidence or reasoning, and when pressed, claims that Speaker A's statement is inherently absurd, thus applying the fallacy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't "believe" in Evolution. The fact of Evolution doesn't care one whit what I "believe". IE; Gravity works whether I "believe" in it or not. I have no problem with the Restored Gospel or science. I have plenty of problems with some people's interpretation of both.

1. The earth is much farther older than the 17th Century's Church of Ireland's Archbishop Ussher thought it was. Even Joseph Smith thought it was much farther older. Unfortunately his reasoning was just a flawed.

2. There are about 8.7 million species on planet earth today. We find a few more every year. BTW Dinosaurs are still around today. They just go by a different name; We call them Fried Chicken.

3. We have yet to find any living thing that isn't built out of the same fundamental building blocks(DNA).

I don't see how any of those falsify the Theory of Evolution. if you really want to falsify the Theory of Evolution just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton from a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

Semantic confusion.

Look- I have no problem with evolution being "true" for all practical purposes.  I have enough imagination to figure out all kinds of ways to resolve it with scripture, but that still makes it one interpretation of the data.

I see a lot of the "appeal to the stone" here- see above.

The idea that "dinosaurs exist" because their descendants do is really problematic.  We can say that unicorns exist too because the idea of unicorns exist but it just shows all the semantic confusion here.

[clarkgoble]

On 9/17/2017 at 10:42 AM, DJBrown said:

We either evolved from more basic species.  Or we didn't.  That is not a false dichotomy. 

We descended directly from Heavenly Parents without 'intermediary' species.  Or we didn't.  

Of course we have more than one source. So we could simultaneously come from evolved life and from God. That's why it's a false dichotomy. To give one (of many) examples our spirits could be created directly by God with no involvement in evolution (due to the nature of replication of spirits) and our body made via evolution. Or, to give an other example, our spirit was made by God without evolution, a distant ancestor(s) were made by God to mimic evolved bodies and other ancestor(s) had bodies that evolved. Lots of other choices.

The question I was addressing was "Go back far enough- evolution says we came from primitive, simple, far-less complicated beings." But if we don't come from one source then it's a false dichotomy because you eliminate from the answer other possibilities to only two artificial choices.

Now I'm not saying you have to agree with those other choices. I rather suspect you don't. But you shouldn't eliminate them from discussion and consideration.

Quote

You are perseverating on DNA/cell function.  And I don't think it is relevant.  I think it is simply distracting.  Will we be of another species after resurrection?  I don't think so.  Will we be resurrected in the physical form of a lower form of life- Neanderthal?  

You think it's distracting because you demand we embrace a false dichotomy. When we're resurrected we'll either have a celestial, terrestrial, or telestial body. I think it fair to say that such bodies will not require respiration, will not have cell division via the messy business of mitosis utilizing RNA and have possible mutations, we won't have telomeres determining how long cell devision works, we won't have red blood cells transferring oxygen atoms to various parts of the body, won't have trouble with vitamin deficiencies, or protein deficiencies etc. In other words even if a celestial or terrestrial resembles a regular body in appearance, at the "chemical" level they'll look nothing like a mortal body. 

Given that, of course a resurrected body won't be in the physical form of any fallen earthly life form. At best it might resemble it in appearance. So this whole line of reasoning is ultimately irrelevant. The whole point of the resurrection is that we'll have a whole new type of body. So I don't see the point here. 

Quote

Could it be that God made creatures with the same building blocks?  Why would he do otherwise?  Did a 2017 Ford F150 pickup literally, physically evolve from a 1908 Ford Model T?  Of course not.  But that is the argument you are making.  Similar structure and function somehow proves one thing evolved from another.  And this completely ignores the fact that the creator fashioned these two things separately out of similar materials and structures.

It's not just somewhat similar structure, but that you can make a family tree from the chemical differences in DNA and even find out what piece of the molecule changes to make a difference. To say that the creator fashioned two things out of similar materials is fine, but begs the question of why he did that.

Put an other way, when God fashioned a new body for Adam and Eve after the fall, why did he make them so close biologically to the life we find on earth before the fall. (Here critiquing the no death before the fall view where Adam was made a fallen body 7000 years or so ago) We know it's not the same body as before since he can now die. It functions completely differently. Do you see any significance to that at all?

[clarkgoble]

 

Quote

My perspective comes primarily from working in the sciences and in laboratories and going through the process of having research published in peer reviewed journals.  I think I understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method.  And I see very clearly that people have a knee jerk reaction to accept anything that is somehow supported by "science." 

I am very familiar with evolutionary biology and the evidence relating to that field.  And I firmly believe that the conclusions made by evolutionary biologists (and so many others) are not completely supported by the evidences.  To me, the manner in which evolution is taught resembles the stereotype of some dogmatic, authoritarian, medieval priest shoving doctrine down the proverbial throats of those listening.  It is so contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry.  

I confess from your arguments it really sounds more like you're rejecting science because it doesn't correspond to your beliefs. But I'd be happy to be wrong in that.

So let's take some simple fairly easy to establish scientific claims.

1. Do you think there were humans (homo sapiens) living more than 10,000 years ago?

2. When do you think Adam lived?

3. Were there pre-Adamites?

4. Do you think humans (homo-sapiens) interbred with neanderthals?

5. What aspect of evolution do you think is wrong. The mechanism, the chemistry or something else?

Out of curiosity, what field did you publish in?

[DJBrown]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I confess from your arguments it really sounds more like you're rejecting science because it doesn't correspond to your beliefs. But I'd be happy to be wrong in that.

So let's take some simple fairly easy to establish scientific claims.

1. Do you think there were humans (homo sapiens) living more than 10,000 years ago?

2. When do you think Adam lived?

3. Were there pre-Adamites?

4. Do you think humans (homo-sapiens) interbred with neanderthals?

5. What aspect of evolution do you think is wrong. The mechanism, the chemistry or something else?

Out of curiosity, what field did you publish in?

I am rejecting that part of science in which I recognize very significant gaps and from which enormous, unsupported conclusions are made.

1. Yes.

2. Don't know.

3. Yes.

4. The DNA evidence from Europe makes it seem so.

5. The extent to which evidences dealing with both the mechanism and chemistry have been used to extrapolate beyond that which is justified.  So both.

Plant genetics, gene therapy for Cystic Fibrosis, vascular smooth muscle signaling, endothelial responses to endovascular instrumentation, and vascular surgery outcomes.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, DJBrown said:

My point, ultimately, is that the strength of science's position on the question of where man came from is grossly exaggerated.   There are people on this thread claiming that evolution is a proven reality as it relates to the origin of human beings.  And that is just ridiculous. 

We the fruits of evolution; we have demonstrated it in nature, and in the lab; we have the skeletons; we have the genetics, we have a Scientific Theory while not perfect does a good job of explaining HOW we evolved. What do you have?

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Semantic confusion.

Look- I have no problem with evolution being "true" for all practical purposes.  I have enough imagination to figure out all kinds of ways to resolve it with scripture, but that still makes it one interpretation of the data.

I see a lot of the "appeal to the stone" here- see above.

The idea that "dinosaurs exist" because their descendants do is really problematic.  We can say that unicorns exist too because the idea of unicorns exist but it just shows all the semantic confusion here.

Modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.

SEE http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.

SEE http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Yes, that's what I said.

So Homo Erectus then are "still around today" right?  Because we are their descendants? 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, DJBrown said:

I am rejecting that part of science in which I recognize very significant gaps and from which enormous, unsupported conclusions are made.

[...]

5. The extent to which evidences dealing with both the mechanism and chemistry have been used to extrapolate beyond that which is justified.  So both.

Plant genetics, gene therapy for Cystic Fibrosis, vascular smooth muscle signaling, endothelial responses to endovascular instrumentation, and vascular surgery outcomes.

I'll confess I'm a bit surprised by your responses. I'd taken you as more embracing a NDBF viewpoint. But it seems like that's not your view at all. In all the above your views are pretty similar to mine. So it's just not clear to me what parts of evolution you're critiquing.

[thesometimesaint]

23 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm telling you what science is. A theory is unproven.

Incorrect. Science by definition is always tentative. It is subject to change. A scientific theory is just  the best explanation we have so far for any given observation. IE: We observe the sun. Scientific theory explains how the sun works.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, that's what I said.

So Homo Erectus then are "still around today" right?  Because we are their descendants? 

 

Homo Erectus is not still around. But we are his/her descendants.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/18/2017 at 2:15 AM, thesometimesaint said:

BTW Dinosaurs are still around today. They just go by a different name; We call them Fried Chicken.