God in the gaps.
So I’m not exactly the science nerd type, the shameful truth is, I never in my life, not once, not ever, took a chemistry class. Shameful, I told you.
So when the evolution/ intelligent design debates pop up, I don’t feel terribly invested in the whole thing. I guess if I were to summarize my take on the situation it would be much the same way I feel about the nature/nurture debate, namely, it’s both. Little bit ‘o nature, little bit ‘o nurture, little bit ‘evolution designed by little bit ‘o intelligence. Maybe.
But for all that I do think that God created (in God’s mind-bendingly awesome beyond my comprehension way) the Earth and the creatures that creep upon it. I’ve never felt that a purely scientific, purely evolutionary explanation in any way conflicts or threatens this belief. It doesn’t seem to me that understanding the mechanisms of evolution necessitates the next conclusion to be: therefore, there is no God.
It seems to me that Science is about facts, and God is about faith. I think it would be a mistake to pray instead of studying your binary math (if that’s your thing), and I think it is a mistake to think studying equations will bring you peace or teach you the meaning of life. Surely the two can inform each other to some degree, and together they make our lives richer, but neither can replace or cast out nor really supersede the other (in their own spheres, go ahead and try to create a telescope using only information found in the Bible, try it!).
So then for book club we read this book called “Death by Black Hole” which I found to be a an engaging and accessible collection of sciency essays, many with the ongoing theme of the many ways the universe is trying to kills us (there are lots and lots and lots). Anyhow, the author, Dr. Tyson wrote one essay with his agnostic view of how God and Science interact. His argument was basically that whenever our scientific understanding fails, we step in and insert God as an explanation, into the gaps in our understanding.
One example Tyson gave was Sir Issac Newton, after he figured out the whole gravity thing, it was pretty simple (if you’re a genius) to do the math for two giant objects attracted to each other (like say the Earth and the Sun) but as soon as you add just one more object (let alone ten, twenty, thirty more) the math gets too complicated for anything but a super-duper computer to calculate (and then there’s always the pesky chaos problem). So Newton erroniously concluded that it was impossible for all those objects acting and reacting upon each other to come to a (semi)-stable solar system type balance. Therefore, Newton decided, God must step in sometimes and set things right, nudge things into back into the proper place to keep the whole thing in working order.
With that, and many similar examples, Tyson concludes that that every time we make new scientific discoveries, expand our understanding, prove a theory so many times it becomes fact, God’s role gets smaller and smaller. God no longer has to nudge the planets back into place because our math is now sophisticated enough to prove they keep the balance all by themselves.
While I have no problem believing that math (as done by a super-duper computer) can perfectly well explain the current planetary forces of our solar system, without God getting involved and I’m also pretty sure that Galileo was right after all about the Earth moving ‘n stuff (and why is it? do you suppose that the biblical literalists aren’t up in arms about that heliocentric crap along with the evolution crap?)
I also don’t see why God couldn’t create a solar system that didn’t need him to show up at regular intervals and nudge it back into working order. I mean, can’t God have a super duper uper computer too? I mean it is God after all. Maybe I just don’t really understand Tyson’s arguement, but my God isn’t just a God of the gaps, just because we can understand how something works, just because its workings are less mysterious, that doesn’t automatically make it any less awesome or Godly, does it?
Anyhow, those are just my non-intellectual, non-sciencey, Monday morning musings. Onward to the shower!
For my husband (PhD in Biochemistry), learning about science has strengthened his belief in God.
Comment by Stephanie — July 26, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Hmm, you should try taking Evolutionary Science for your zoology major the same semester you take the first half of the Old Testament at BYU (think Genesis) like I did. Then you can read Daily Universe cartoons making fun of girls who study science. Fun times!
Science tries to explain the how and religion tries to explain the why. It helps not to confuse the two.
Comment by Fairchild — July 26, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
It’s funny because you can see it both ways. Either Christian theology is always playing catch-up to science or science is playing catch-up to God. Unfortunately most people see the former but I would suggest our (Mormon) theology is the latter. Scientists are discovering the natural laws that God has always adhered to. Because God is concerned for our Eternal soul and not how old the earth is, His information leaks are about forgiveness rather than the existence of protons.
Comment by Rusty — July 26, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
I think if God is all-powerful, it makes sense that he’d set things up to not need micromanaging.
I don’t wanter my garden by hand (unless I feel like it), because I can set up the automatic sprinklers to do it for me.
Kind of a no-brainer there.
Comment by Alliegator — July 26, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
SteveP takes issue with the God of the Gaps theory on his Mormon Organon blog (see here for one example), which he considers the wrong way to look at God’s role in the universe.
Comment by austin — July 26, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
So it’s been a while since I’ve been here, but the link of FB from Melanie caught my eye.
My husband and I have been inactive for a year now. He’s firmly atheist and I’m agnostic. The difference between us is that he subscribes to the belief that the more we learn by way of science the less of a role God needs to play to satisfy our need to understand. While I get that completely and think there is a great possibility to that, I’m more of the belief that is written here–if there is a god.
Good post
Comment by lisa j — July 26, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
There was an interesting essay on NPR’s website this morning along these lines. I happen not to believe in a personal God, but it’s not because of science. I don’t see science and religion as incompatible any more than I see chemistry and sociology as incompatible. They serve two completely different purposes. I think science disproves fundamentalist views of religion, but not all religious views and experiences.
Comment by Leah — July 26, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
I believe that He is a God of order, and that as a perfect being He also has a perfect understanding of all the laws of “science” and “nature”. I’m never surprised by new scientific discoveries (amazed yes) because I think that God can do anything. It’s us pewny humans that are way behind the curve.
Just like on the Star Trek movie (sorry, I’m not nerdy enough to know which number) when they’re walking through a “current day” hospital and Bones looks around at the people on beds in the hallways and says, “Barbarians!” Then he fixes someone with a shot.
Someday the way we hack people apart in hospitals will indeed seem barbaric.
Comment by ErinAnn — July 26, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
scientists tend to get annoyed because some very loud, very vocal religious folk don’t view God and science as having two very different purposes. I think most scientists would be great with the idea of God being why, science being how, provided that everyone understand religion is not proof and not everyone has to believe the same thing (or anything for that matter). Unfortunately, you get people saying, nope, your science is wrong because my book says the earth is only 6000 years old, and that is far more important than all those dating experiments and tests you painstakingly did. And oh, that book is what we are going to teach all children as fact. Sure you have this objective logical coherent reasoning and mine is just God did it, but I am right so that is the truth for everyone now.
Comment by Tami — July 26, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
I don’t know how I could gain peace and/or learn the meaning of life from believing in something that I have no evidence for, and doesn’t show any measurable influence in my life that doesn’t stem from my beliefs.
For example, I had some medical tests done recently that were very stressful. In the past, I’d prayed to God and hoped he would help me. But this time, as I no longer believe in God, I had to rely on myself. And you know what?
I could.
Which begs the question — was it God helping me before, or was praying to God just kind of a mental stress-reducing trick?
As for the whole “meaning of life” thing — if the believers in God can’t agree on that, why should I believe that religion can answer that question?
God of the gaps, indeed.
Comment by Goldarn — July 26, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
I totally agree with you. I’ve never understood why its such an ‘either or’ argument. I’ve always just assumed that God is the uber scientist and He uses law and reason to create. Seems pretty straightforward and logical to me!
One thing that’s always impressed upon me is procreation. The more we learn about it and understand it, the more of a miracle it becomes in my eyes. The fact that anyone is ever born healthy, when so much can go wrong, is a total miracle. I feel like its the same for everything else. The more we learn about life and the universe, the more amazing it is that we’re here and that it WORKS.
I really liked the way you compared math and God, how we shouldn’t “pray” math and “study” God and expect the results to be the same. That’s a clever way of thinking about it.
Comment by Olive — July 26, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
I’ll ditto what Stephanie said about her husband. My life in science (PhD in virology) has strengthened my belief in God. For me evolution and creation have always gone hand in hand. In Genesis it says that God created the universe and everything in it in six days. Isn’t it a bit presumptuous of us to conclude that those days are 24 hour periods? I’m pretty sure that if I were an omnipotent, omniscient being, I”d have my own ways of measuring time. For God, a day could be 10 million years. Who knows?
That said, I’m tired of the fighting from the fringe groups. Just as there are a minority of the uber-religious who refute everything science says, there are scientists who are personally offended and threatened by the mere mention of a God. I think both sides are guilty and both sides need to step back and chill out.
Comment by Dancer 007 — July 26, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
I dont’ know if anyone else is as nerdy as I am since I watch Stargate SG-1 almost every night with my husband before bed, but during the last part of the series, they spent a considerable amount of time dealing this same philosophy.
Science can pretty much prove everything if you have the technology and comprehension to understand it all.
If anybody is interested, there is a fascinating movie called “Down The Rabbit Hole.” about how our intelligence effects the world around us, our bodies, and even our perception of reality. Its really heady and hard to understand, but about the third time around I finally started to get it, and it blew my mind.
Comment by Emily A. — July 26, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
If we don’t need Atlas or Turtle to hold up the world, then what is the meaning of God?
If God set the automatic sprinklers, is there any need to pray the lawn gets watered?
Is God part of or maybe the essence of the multiverse and not the creator of it or first cause?
Of what relevance is a omni-this and omni-that perfect God to a fallen sparrow?
If I had access to a super duper uper computer, could I be God too? Maybe the computer is sentient and progressed to Godhood.
Or maybe I could fly a load of cargo to New Guinea. if I get people to worship me does that make me a God.
A far more interesting question to me, is not whether God exists, but whether God is worthy of our worship. And that is not, I believe, a question science can answer.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 26, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
I will be honest and say that when I took a biological anthropology class sophomore year of college, my religion went straight out the window. Evolutionary theory made such complete sense to me; that class and the ones that followed were the closest I have been to having a religious experience, simply because the feelings and thoughts I had while learning about the evolution of humanity were so close to what I’d been taught I should feel while praying or studying the scriptures. At the time I considered myself to be an atheist pure and simple.
As the years have passed since then, I have moved back along the spectrum toward agnosticism mixed with some elements of paganism. The atheism of figures such as Dawkins seems irresponsible to me, and my own feelings are that since there is no concrete evidence for OR against there being a demiurge, there is no point in stating a dis/belief in God. Something I find appealing about some neopagan systems is that it is possible to worship (conduct rituals, create altars, etc.) without belief. Of course many other pagan systems, such as Wicca and heathenry, DO utilize a god figure, but the idea that I can meditate, participate in a ritual, compose hymns or poems, and carry out all sorts of spiritual activities WITHOUT the baggage that comes along with a strict religious setting is exhilarating.
Comment by DianaH — July 26, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Maybe not, but it would be nice if we prayed and thanked Him for taking care of that for us.
Comment by Alliegator — July 26, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
I am fascinated and in love with science, I am fascinated and in love with God. Great post and pretty much my take also, Lisa. Plus I really love your writing style. So, I am in a good place today with this new post. I probably won’t even get huffy if someone calls me sanguine and sugary.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 26, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
SN, “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” Albert Einstein,
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 26, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Many people combine abiogenesis with evolution, which is incorrect. Evolution doesn’t purport to declare the origin of life; rather it explains what happens since life began. In this sense one can believe in a god that created life then turned that life over to the environment to work upon it for billions of years.
Comment by Kentucky Gal — July 26, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
I have had some of my most spiritual moments in science labs. For me, I cannot discover even small scientific things without seeing and feeling our creator’s hand and attention to detail.
Scientists can get understandably jumpy about religion, since before science was given the power and respect that religion had, religion used ignorance to control people (especially scientists). It’s a long-standing grudge and I treat it as such.
I have no problem with creation and evolution melding. Makes plenty of sense to me. In my mind, God is the ultimate scientist. I don’t like it when either sells the other short. Sometimes, I do get annoyed at how we humans will elevate ourselves for our discoveries- the “now we understand such-and-such and that proves there is no God”. There’s a stretch for a logical person if I ever heard one.
Believe or don’t believe- that’s never been an issue for me. But, we truly understand so little compared to what is yet to be known. Our conceit amazes me. For me, when I get a glimmer of understanding of scientific complexity, I am so immediately humbled by how little I know and how hungry I am for more. I always thank my God for what little I’m able to comprehend and hope that my mind is good enough to understand more.
I really love Albert Einstein- he amazes me still. I especially like how he worried over nuclear technology and I think he was right to do so. He helped to bring about one of the most deadly weapons known to man, and he was a pacifist- he thought the threat of nuclear war was enough and didn’t think we should use it, just because we had it.
This is where religion comes in. Yes, we will learn, we will learn more. We will progress and learn more fully how we can act upon our known universe for good and for bad. Religion can help us to temper our pride in our limited but broadening knowledge so that we can differentiate between hunger for knowledge and lust for power. Maybe one of our spiritual lessons is to understand that all knowledge comes with responsibility to use it properly- and that sometimes, when we have the power to annihilate, we should not do it…sometimes when we have the power to cure, we should not do it…when we have the power to create, we should not do it. It’s a powerful lesson to understand that we may discover how to do some things, but we may not yet understand how doing it will effect the universe in response. This is the knowledge of gods and it’s heady stuff. In forswearing responsibility to some kind of higher power, we grab God’s throne and have a party worthy of a four year old.
Comment by Kimberly — July 26, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
The whole concept of physical rules is that once the system is set up it should not need nudging back into working order.
On the other hand, what is “right”? That could result in a lot of nudging.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 26, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
When the sun turns into a red dwarf, I hope the Earth gets nudged out of the way.
We seem to have a screwy solar system. What’s up with the orbit of Halley’s comet? Then there’s Uranus orbiting on it’s side. And poor Pluto, being downgraded by astronomers changing the traditional definition of a planet(is nothing sacred?), and probably in the future classified as the Pluto-Charon binary system. The thing I find interesting is that sometimes Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune.
Then there’s the Earth which is slowing down and the Moon, which came there after smashing the Earth, is moving away.(might need some more nudging.)
And speaking of impacts, what about Chicxulub? Was it Right? Bad for dinosaurs, great for mammals. Part of a divine plan or just space junk?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 26, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Love this subject - great post!
And Emily A - We watched all 10 seasons of SG-1 and all 5 of SGA with the kids (except for the pilot, which they finally re-released edited!) It’s my favorite!
I had a neat experience when taking anthropology in college. I always loved school (learning, actually) but when I finished my degree I had already been married and through the temple, and had my first child. I had great seminary/religion teachers/ family that prepared me for what to expect, and had already heard from teachers that each period of creation was “called the first day” or second, etc. I had educated parents, while conservative Mormons, encouraged us to seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
My Anthropology teacher was athiest, and anti-religion of any kind, and practically challenged us to believe in God after we were done with his class. He constantly used his knowledge to try and debunk every main story of the Bible. I was excited to take this class, but nervous, and so heavily relied on the Lord to know what to do.
As I studied, I was amazed to find certain principles clear in my mind, and feelings similar to testimony being born in me. I knew that many of the things we were learning were good principles, and true. And I also, on occasion, I found myself studying a principle and felt something different. I felt peacefully that the principle was incomplete, and/or incorrect. It wasn’t like an answer to prayer, where a negative answer may cause a stupor of thought (which would have defeated the purpose of trying to study for the class!) Instead, I was blessed to understand how things fit together, for the class, and how they fit together in HF’s Plan. My testimony increased because of that class!
I have not had quite the same experience in any other class, to that extent. It was truly a miracle to me, when so many classmates actually lost their belief during that semester. I have not looked at science the same way since.
God is truly the Why and the How. His messages to us focus on the spiritual, but there is much of the temporal there, too. So by studying his words, and the great works of all fields of study, we can progress closer to our Eternal goal of becoming like Him. If we claim to believe that the Glory of God is intelligence, we cannot ignore the study of the world and universe around us, without being ungrateful for all that He has created for us….
Comment by SarahJane — July 26, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
I’m a research biologist and have a strong testimony of both evolution and God. The “God of the Gaps” argument is incredibly dangerous (and often made by those hocking Creationism) because the more questions that science answers, the more God is eliminated. Fortunately, however, there is a place on continuum of belief in evolution for theistic evolutionists (those who believe in a god and believe life came about by evolution, not magic), which is where I find myself fitting. In studying life around me, my religion answers the questions of “who?” and “why?”, while evolution answers the questions of “when?” and “how?”.
Comment by HAF — July 26, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
Today I opened a text book from a brand new course I’ve just received; Psychology of Learning. The world accepted Darwin’s idea that to believe in Evolution meant that you had to expell God from the universe. That was Darwin’s OPINION ONLY.
I can’t separate the two. When I read about Evolution I feel comforted and calm about the world. I see all reality created in the perfection in which God intended. Science supports my testimony. It’s about life and relationships between the existing and the living. That is what God IS! So glad to hear comments made that agree that science and God compliment/support each other.
Comment by Rhonda — July 26, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
If all truth is eternal, then all truth should resonate in the soul. I believe it does. Thank you SarahJane, I’ve experienced that also. You expressed it beautifully.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 26, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
I love your musings today. I totally agree and without reading the book by Tyson, have held that exact belief for years now.
I too never took a chemistry class (well, I did have one in high school, but the teacher was really bad and the guys mostly figured out how to make their own stills, so it really doesn’t count), but I married a chemical engineer.
I like to think about scientific things at about the same level as you - which drives my husband a little bit crazy.
Comment by Lori — July 26, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
If Tyson is right, and the gaps are getting smaller and smaller, that could explain this latest from one of America’s finest news sources.
Comment by Mark B. — July 26, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
HA! Just awful, Mark B.!
Comment by SarahJane — July 26, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
Nice Mark, nothing eclipses the Onion.
We all have the benefit of living in an unprecedented time of not only pure knowledge, but also the ease of access to this knowledge. Things that took a lifetime to collect and disseminate now is at your fingertips for an afternoon of work. Our LDS church is far more advanced than many christian sects in being open to the scientific method and new change and understanding of our world. But even we must be careful not to bite into the garbage the creationists and intelligent design folks are selling. Creationism and the teaching of Evolution do not go hand in hand as competing sciences to be taught in school, in fact, intelligent design is a lazy and cheap idea, not wanting to be scrutinized and examined by peer review and the time consuming methods and falsifications that modern science evokes upon it’s adherers. I’ve had my teenagers come home from both seminary and sunday school after a bout with the teacher disputing the young earth view espoused by said teachers. We don’t and can’t believe such things.
It is always religion that has had to change in the face of new discovery. The more we discover, the less role God will interplay if he is indeed inserted in the gaps….so whatsay we not put him in the gaps, and recognize him through the majesty of our tiny understanding of the laws of the cosmos. If the big bang is the same as “Let there be light”, then great. But as to the creative process of the galaxies, solar systems, planets and moons, we are fast understanding the how, and again, physics, chemistry, biology, evolution have no competing theories that have been devoloped that challenge the explainations they provide. It is through these laws that many, including Einstein, Hawking, Darwin have recognized and labeled God. Not a God we as mormons are used to invisioning, but God as recognized in fixed laws.
Observing nature in and of itself is miraculous. Even more miraculous is that we are starting to comprehend it.
Comment by Rude Dog — July 26, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Rude Dog
If humans don’t even know where the missing matter is, we may be a long way from comprehending it? I guess the miracle is we know it’s missing.
One thing seems clear to me, this universe is messed up and evolution isn’t about a good design, but building upon what works and passing it on. When I look at my creaky body through the thick lenses on my eyes, there is no intelligent design. What about those eyes that see everything upsides down so the brain has to make corrections. Who engineered that? If it was God, I shudder for the future.
I hope if there’s a resurrection, things don’t remain jury-rigged and my flawed body get perfected. I also hope that perfection doesn’t means I will be walking around on all four limbs.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Rhonda, Darwin had a deeply religious wife, Emma, whom he loved beyond all reason. He never ever said anything remotely like “you have to expell God from the universe.” Ever. He simply gave a mechanism that did not need God’s guiding had at any step. That’s all.
Comment by djinn — July 27, 2010 @ 9:27 am
Thanks for this post!
I think this “God of the Gaps” idea sometimes creeps into our everyday church experiences too. When something happens that doesn’t seem quite right, or we can’t explain, or church leaders make mistakes, people seem to say, “Well, God must want it that way.” I like to take the same approach with church as you do with the universe in that I believe that God set up his church with Joseph Smith in 1830, and now lets it take it’s course. I don’t think God is a micro-manager. I do believe that we can interact with God in very personal ways, but I don’t think everything that happens with the church is always mandated by God.
Comment by TaterTot — July 27, 2010 @ 10:09 am
Nice post, Lisa.
Getting a PhD in molecular genetics didn’t strengthen my faith, but it didn’t undermine it, either. Being in awe of nature’s complexity can inspire faith, but being awed by humankind’s understanding of how nature works can also lead one to believe that God isn’t necessary. I think Lisa’s most important point is that she believes in a God who isn’t made necessary by our lack of knowledge, but is still real. I believe in that God, too. Secular writers like Tyson make a mistake when they think gaps in knowledge are the only reason for faith.
Comment by Emily U — July 27, 2010 @ 10:13 am
Problems arise when people cling to an idea without fully understanding it (creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc….). The truth of it is that it is all a matter of conjecture and best guesswork & faith as you can’t prove any of it, though the book of Moses is a good guide if you can understand it!
Comment by Jack — July 27, 2010 @ 10:13 am
In thinking more of this gap theory, it occurred to me that I’m using science to fill in the gaps and that it is God that is fixed. He was always there- as the creator and ultimate scientist, these discoveries of ours are like the discoveries I’ve watched my children make as they put all of the pieces together. It makes sense that man would be caught in the evolutionary cycle and that our creator has patience as we learn more about our world.
It just demonstrates how different people’s perspectives can be. Science draws me closer to the spiritual, but for some people, having scientific explanations eliminates the need to believe in the divine because they’ve personally perceived the urge to believe in a higher power as a crutch or a hedge against fear of death. If I were to view the Divine as pure Intelligence, I think the potential to reach the sublime can be found in expanding the mind to include the possibility of realms we, are as of yet, unable to reach. Quantum physics is a thrilling thing- I don’t think the mind-blowingness of it rules out God. I think it’s where we can actually find our divine parents- in realms that were previously inaccessible and not even on our radar last century. I think our trouble develops when our intellect runs away with us before we are spiritually developed enough to have the wisdom to face the divine. It’s the missing link…we begin to reach the intellectual capacity to find the divine, but lack the wisdom or the fortitude to exist in the same space with it.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Emily U- molecular genetics. Wow. That must have been a blast- what a neat major.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 10:33 am
So, maybe it isn’t sin that separates us from the divine, but the real capacity to embrace it because it confounds us.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 10:36 am
Kimberly - it was a blast in the sense that it almost killed me!
Comment by Emily U — July 27, 2010 @ 11:11 am
That’s what I’ve always thought, too. And yes, I took Evolution and Evolutionary Genetics in my undergrad at BYU.
Comment by Naismith — July 27, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Kimberly, I have had very similar thoughts, of course my brain could not put it all together like that, and I appreciate having someone who can. I agree that there is so much more that we don’t understand. I’m pretty sure I have only made it to about preschool so far. And then just the baby class, the one they allow you to enter because you are finally potty trained. I have a long, long way to go. And I don’t think any of us get to enroll for the really advanced courses till we have graduated a few more realms.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
Kimberly
You wrote, “So, maybe it isn’t sin that separates us from the divine, but the real capacity to embrace it because it confounds us.”
It’s like, wow man, have I got to think about that.
While I do view science as about the how, religion to me is not about the why but the who and what. As in–What manner of man ought ye to be?
The major religions all have some variation of the golden rule.
To me the essence of Christianity is revealed by it’s two greatest commandments which is to Love . One of my favorite questions is–”Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?
That to me is a question of far more importance to our lives than does matter have mass.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
I personally believe we have it backwards when it comes to scientific discovery. The God-of-the-gaps is a way for scientists to poke fun at the believers when in fact they themselves are “Imagination-of-the-gaps”. As we study the workings of life it becomes more and more apparent that the level of intelligence we are witnessing is not something controlled by any known law in nature. The greatest phenomenon of them all is “inteligence”. As “intelligences” ourselves we know that intelligent processes only come from intelligent actions by an intelligent being. But that still doesn’t explain what intelligence is or how it came about. Sciences findings are a classic example of imagination-of-the-gaps when it comes to settling this, they state that it just randomly happened that way and move on as if it is perfectly natural for intelligence to be born out of some kind of premordial soup billions of years ago.
Mathmatical statistics and analysis of the matter though shows the extremely and highly improbability of this happening. Not to worry though says the imagination-of-the-gaps, just add a few billion years and the odds get better!
But even still, none of this answeres the real question of intelligence in all life forms. This area as we know is not answered by what we know about science or evolutionary theory. Science is able to track how the inner workings of a cell operate and function but it can’t for the life of the matter figure out how cells communicate on an intelligent level so that toes don’t grow out of foreheads. Think about this known anomaly in science-
Every cell contains the same exact DNA strands carrying the same exact information and yet each cell which is made from that DNA plan is a separate cell providing a unique purpose somehow knowing it’s relationship and difference to the other cells.
What all this amounts to is that there si a level of intelligence that our scientific equipment just cannot yet track or see. More importantly is the fact that what we see in life is not something that the laws of nature, all by themselves, could ever create. The clues we have been given show that something intelligent created and formed life as we know it. As we come to understand nature more and more we are finding that it is a very intricate system pointing to a substance of intelligence at the heart of its very workings. I refuse to allow my imagination to fill the gaps that science cannot yet figure out. I can fill in the gaps with clues and that is all for now. But, all those clues point us in the direction of finding God as the mastermind behind it all. For me that is not “faith” so much as it is just pure sound logic. Neither is it a god of the gaps. That reasoning is the mindset of “well God can do anything, so there!” and doesn’t answere the puzzle of life.
Evolution by itself, or should I just say- the laws of nature by itself is wholly incapable of producing anything intelligent. Every study, observation and even mathmatical analysis shows that randomness does not equal intelligence no matter how many billions of years you throw at it. It bothers me that we tend to exclude the obvious (God) from explaining the mystery of life in favor of chance and possibility in the face of “never gonna happen”. Are we so consumed in removing God from science that we have allowed ourselves to be duped into thinking the possibility that Nature itself created God? Who then is really our God? Is it nature? If that is the case then i am justified in committing every act of sin without repurcushion. You can see where this is heading. As we replace God with mans feeble understanding we do so at the cost of our own salvation. This is what Satan was championing for all along- that we truly are or should be laws unto ourselves- that our very natures justify us to live in sin and be justified by it.
Nature is not the creator, God is. Nature is the mechanism of laws that God created which allows his creations to come forth in both happiness and joy. As we learn this reality and truth we will truly begin to understand that all scientific understanding and reason leads directly to an intelligent being- the Creaor himself!
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 27, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
I do have to wonder sometimes why in the world God would choose evolution as the mechanism to create human life. It’s such an inefficient, brutal and messy process. If he is really a “god of order” why wouldn’t he choose something a bit more…orderly? Especially since everything was apparently created spiritually first before physically. How many spiritual iterations of the modern day black snake are slithering around in the spirit world?
So yeah, I agree with those who are saying that religion and science answer fundamentally different questions, but I do wonder at times about how compatible they are when they intersect.
Comment by Chelsea — July 27, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Chelsea,
For me it is really easy to believe that God with his wife (gods), having perfectly functioning bodies could create the perfect offspring who literally were the very son and daughter of themselves. After all- we create offspring in our image all the time. Why would it be any different? Also- why does it take both a Man and Woman to be “Gods” and have the power of extending the seed forever and ever? To me it seems quite obvious- Man combines his seed with the Womans seed and through this process Mankind continues. Certainly it could be this very process for all other living beings also as they were first found upon the earth when it was created..
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 27, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Yes Rob, that is exactly my point. That seems the most straightforward way for the creation to have happened, and our LDS mythology lines up with that kind of explanation. But scientifically there is much evidence that all species including humans have evolved over millions of years.
Comment by Chelsea — July 27, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Chelsea- maybe that’s where Einstein was ahead of the game again- about the relativity of time. Maybe our divine creators have all the time in the world and so do we.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Chelsea,
Personally I see a lot of imagination-of-the-gaps in order for scientific evidence to show we evolved. There really is a giant lack of evidence that we evolved. Scientists have just filled the gaps in with a lot of imaginative scenerios over the years and thus concluded thier imaginations as fact. You may not know it but there are skulls which are very similar to human and probably are human, and then there are skulls which are very similar to apes and monkeys and probably are monkeys or apes. As for those “in the middle”, that is where scientists have “imagined”, and they really do not exist. Those few controversial few that do exist are at best partial pieces made to look more similar to man than monkey.
That my friend, is the best scientific evidence that we evolved that there is. think about it for a few minutes-
There are, in scientists possessions, less than a dozen skulls which resemble in some manner a humans skull and from that they have thus imagined that we have evolved from them. That is what i call an active imagination and not really any proof at all.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 27, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Again Kimberly, I like it.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
this is a fascinating topic. Its very interesting to me to read people’s thoughts regarding this. I tend to lean totally atheist, but I love trying to understand it from all perspectives. I think it can be difficult to a lot of people to think of it as all an accident of science where we aren’t the center of the universe - as Rob Osborn insinuated in #43 - I think there are many who have a hard time seeing it from that perspective without losing their idea of morality (ie - thinking that would mean there is no reason to be moral). It really has the opposite affect on me - I find awe-inspiring that nature could come together in so many amazing ways and it makes me value life and humanity so much more for the fleeting thing that it is.
I was just at the Berlin Natural History museum last week - which happens to be holding a Darwin exhibit and which has, in chronological order, all of the hominid skeletons/remains that have been discovered. It was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen (there were also an amazing collection of hundreds of fossils that are 100s of millions of years old -even older - that practically illustrate evolution in action. Its amazing how clear they are, like pictures drawn in rock). To me, the exhibit painted a picture of an earth billions of years old that humans are barely a drop in the bucket on. To me, its impossible to imagine we are somehow the center of it all.
If you want some really interesting reading about this subject some of my favorite stuff I have read has been from the lead singer of Bad Religion, Greg Graffin. No seriously…he has a PHd from Cornell university and his dissertation was titled “Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist Worldview: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology.” hes a great writer and I found his dissertation to be a great read and interesting perspective (I wish he would write more books). Hes a paleontology professor at UCLA now. He also published a book that is a collection of a year-long back and forth of emails between him and a Christian historian that is called “Belief in God - good, bad or Irrelevant?” that i think is a fascinating well-reasoned debate (from both sides) about the subject. A very good read
Comment by julie — July 27, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Rob Osborn
There you go –God and his wifes. Not only is your theology suspect (actually beyond suspect) but your lack of scientific knowledge is, well, lacking.
As for evolution, some books for the masses which you would benefit from reading.
“Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A Coyne
Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin
“Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.” bu Donald R Prothero
And for the molecular geneticists, a book from a BYU guy, “Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA” by Daniel J Fairbanks.
And it’s not the mid-19th century anymore, why is your theological speculation based on the world as it was understood in 1840.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
To me, evolution is a given. I love your attitude of trying to see things from all sides, Julie. .That makes me value your opinion. I do believe in God, but I have a high regard for all beliefs when they have been arrived at with careful consideration, and I am so glad you participate here. The atheists I know have a high moral standard, and for more lofty reasons than many who profess to be moral for religious reasons, but who are just afraid of being punished at some latter date. I would be very interested in reading those books and I thank you for the suggestion.
Thanks SN, I was still speechless from Robs first comment, and I’m glad you could pull it together to make an intelligent reply.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
I love the idea that our Heavenly Parents operate outside our normal view of time, I don’t know where the doctrinal basis is, but my Dad always taught that while we see time as linear, HF sees it eternally, more like an everpresent “now.” I get confused just trying to explain it. But look at evolution like building blocks, like how breeders take an animal for its desired characteristics, breed it, and within a very short period of time the breed looks very different.
I saw some show where they took foxes, bred them for gentleness, good temperment, etc, and within a few generations their ears began to flop down like a dog’s, when they weren’t even looking at the ears, only temperment.
I’m not saying we were bred, (eww) but look at creation, each step building upon the previous in an orderly manner.
HF could easily manipulate DNA, cells, etc, but from what we know of Earth’s systems, I think that the gradual, step by step building of our world, layer by layer, makes so much more sense than “Poof” in 6 days, or than eons of accidental development. A lot of evolution has occurred recently, with better nutrition, etc. Taller, stronger, faster, earlier puberty.
But all the downsides of what we humans have done to our environment, causing other things, who knows what all the chemical exposures have caused, with increase in autism and mental illness. I see the chaotic side as part of our mortal weaknesses.
….love this topic, but my brain is so scattered…
Comment by SarahJane — July 27, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Suzanne,
“Lacking”?
I would assume that it is the lack of “real evidence” of evolution that is lacking. I can prove scientifically that humans beget humans and even show on a biological level how the process happens. Evolution on the other hand has just a few skull fragments and an active imagination. There is no biologic evidence, no process evidence- nothing. Talk about lacking the correct scientific knowledge to make facts!
It is a fact that humans beget humans and monkeys beget monkeys. That is scientific proof that humans only beget humans. So I don’t really care how many millions of years scientists throw at fossils and imagine them turning into humans, there is no scientific evidence to support it- that, all in the face of what science really states- that it did not happen that way.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 27, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
Rob (#48),
I’m not quite following your logic. I don’t understand how the existence of only a few skulls that are not quite human but certainly not some other primate calls into question the theory of evolution.
Darwin formulated the theory to explain the biodiversity and similarities he saw in plant and animal life. The extrapolation (or imaginative filling of the gaps as you call it) is a useful scientific method, you fill the gaps and then create experiments to test the gaps. Darwin’s theory, created to explain biodiversity, predicts that we should be able to find evidence of species similar to, but not exactly the same as current species in the fossil record, and that we should be able to observe genetic drift in current species.
YES there are holes in the fossil record, YES there are fossils that are similar to current species, but obviously not current species and YES we have observed genetic drift (anti-biotic resistance bacteria for example).
The holes in the fossil record and a willingness to “fill in the gaps” by scientists is not a BAD thing. Extrapolation is a very sound practice in the scientific community. You predict something and then test for it, that is what science is all about.
As for the opening post, I think replacing religion’s gap with science knowledge is problematic. They are fundamentally different. I think that revelation is the gap filler for religion (especially in Mormon circles) and experimentation is the gap filler for science.
I think that there is something to the idea that we have been able to research and discover things so we don’t need to explain volcanic eruptions as ‘God’s Wrath’, but understanding the science behind it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t cause those things to happen.
Comment by queenlucy — July 27, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
I think Rob is referring to the absence of transitional evolutionary fossils- say, a skeleton of a fish that has leg buds.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Suzanne, I haven’t told you lately, but I love you. On this whole thread.
Comment by Enna — July 27, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
Hate to douse your fire rob but evolution has been observed on lab and human timescales many, many, many times.
Fruit flies and transposable elements leading to an inability of populations of fruit flies to interbreed any longer would be exhibit 1. Wait some fly generations and they’ll be fully fledged separate species.
Genetic evolution and genome instability and change leading to population interbreeding barriers are now commonly described. Admittedly they may not make all sanctioned textbooks.
Just because you aren’t familiar with the data and don’t want evolution to be true and just because your opinion of G-d’s modus operandi doesn’t allow for evolution doesn’t necessarily make it so. Take your head out of the sand - it’s a beautiful world where science explains the lot.
Comment by Martin — July 27, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Rob Osborn
I suppose you don’t get a flu shot either. Where, oh, where do those new strains come from?
I don’t even know if it’s possible to communicate to you, when you don’t even know what science is and are unwilling to learn.
You make blatantly false statement and declare them facts and I quite readily believe you don’t really care.
It’s not just fossils, but the evidence(if you bothered to look at it) is overwhelming. Look at Fairbanks book, our DNA screams that we evolved.
Look, the concept of what is a species is kinda fuzzy. Let’s look at some mammals. Dog and wolves can interbreed and have fertile offspring. So you think they maybe, might of, be related.
Now with female Horses(64 chromosomes) and male donkey(62 chromosomes) you get mules. The males are sterile. However with female hinnies and female mules you sometimes get offspring. Anyway were talking hybrids. Horses and Donkeys two related species. You don’t get offspring between horses and cows. That’s because there not as closely related. The thing is the fossil record of the horse is pretty good. They’ve even done genetic work on it.
So look up the evolution of the horse, it wild living counter part –Przewalski’s Horse and the other equines. Idaho has some good specimens.
Species change. That’s evolution.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
Enna
Thanks. I’m thoroughly embarrassed. You’re affecting my self concept of being rude and offending. Gosh, I hope this doesn’t mean I”ll have to stop being sarcastic.
So jump in. You’ve studied science. I just a broom-pusher and am in way over my head.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Kimberly
If he’s into fish, then a fun book I’ve mentioned is “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5 Billion-Year History of the Human Body” by Neil Shubin. He was a discoverer of Tikaalik
I ‘ll try to put in a useful link–http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/index.html
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
No way, Suzanne, I’d cry if you stopped being sarcastic.
I think my fellow science geeks have the debate well in hand. The only thing I’ve taken issue with that hasn’t been addressed yet is Rob’s assertions that:
and the idea that this
is inexplicable.
Actually, inter and extra cellular communication is a pretty well understood field, especially from the developmental and neuronal perspective. It’s pretty cool, actually. For example, cells secrete proteins in gradients that signal to other cells nearby. Close to the cell doing the secretion, other cells will get a lot of signal. Further away, the cells get very little signal. The amount of signal the cells get turn on different genes and tell the cell what type of cell it should become, or where it should migrate to. Incredibly complex when you look at complex mammals and humans, but certainly not impossible to figure out!
And as to his second point, maybe I don’t understand what he’s saying is such a mystery to science, but gene regulation (why some cells turn on some genes and other cells leave them off, letting two cells with the exact same genetic material turn into two different types of cells later on) is a pretty old field of study… Cells use all kinds of tricks to turn genes on and off, sometimes for good, and at all different times in development as needed.
But as to Lisa’s point, I don’t think figuring out the mysteries makes me any less interested in finding out who God is. I love what you said about religion being about the who - as in who ought we be? What kind of people should we become now that we have that “intelligence” to control our own destiny and shape our own evolution? Love it! I think God is much more concerned with that, and so am I (well, when I’m not working in a lab…)
Comment by Enna — July 27, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
Of course Rob’s not entirely wrong, but I really like queenlucy’s response. There is some jumps and some hand waving in science. It’s called theorizing. The difference is, we try to test the theories rather than burning people at the stake that disagree
If this link works, this is one of my favorite science comics. An oldie, but a goodie.
Comment by Enna — July 27, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Enna- I read Rob’s point and was nearly overcome with flashbacks of developmental bio (at grad level). Dang worms. But trying to explain just how detailed of an understanding we have to some one with such a weak understanding of bio seemed impossible.
Comment by Tami — July 27, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
SN, I damn near spit out my green tea. Do not quit being sarcastic!
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
I would give Rob the benefit of the doubt, but Nova is still on free TV, so who really has an excuse to know so little.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
That’s a great link, Suzanne. The pictures are worth a thousand words and pretty much delivers the evidence in spades…for anyone interested in examining it.
Comment by Kimberly — July 27, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
I am nerdy enough to know that this was Star Trek 4, and that is one of my favorite all time parts of the movie because Scotty picks up the mouse and speaks into the bottom end and says “hello computer.”
Comment by Emily A. — July 27, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
If you are at all interested in physics, our understanding of the universe, and where God fits in to all of it, please watch this movie—> “What the Bleep Do We Know - Down the Rabbit Hole.”
My recovering drug addict uncle recommended it to me, and I LOVED it. It explains a lot about the power of our intelligence, how our intelligence affects our body and the world around us, and how God can run the Universe.
Here is a link if you want more info.
Comment by Emily A. — July 27, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Sorry Emily A., but “What the Bleep Do We Know” has no actual physics or science of any kind in it.
Comment by djinn — July 27, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
I already put a hold on WTB-DtRH at the library, and I think I will go ahead and watch it, but keep in mind that it is considered pseudoscience. Curiosity gets me every time. Now, I have to know what the fuse is about.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 27, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
Rob #54,
As others have already said, evolution is easily observable, and there is more evidence than just a few skull fragments. Yes, observing human evolution is harder to do, because when you are dealing with such a large organism, changes occur more gradually than they do with smaller organisms.
But look all around you for evolution. As someone else stated, why do you think you need a new flu shot every year? Because of mutational variations in the strains which result in new viruses and require different neutralizing antibodies. Why do you think we are having such a surge in antibiotic resistant bacteria? Evolution. Rick Lenski studied E. coli for more than 20 years and found that eventually the bacteria evolved to use different compounds, such as citric acid, for a nutrient source.
If you want to make it a pissing contest, there is far more evidence for evolution than for creationism. I mean, evolution can be observed in lesser organisms, and we do have some fossil records of it. The only evidence for creationism is a text that is derived from the oral tradition of people thousands of years ago, written in ancient languages, and translated hundreds of times over (incorporating errors all over the place) to generate the book we have today. Before you start criticizing scientists on our methods, perhaps you should critically evaluate your own evidence first.
Comment by Dancer 007 — July 27, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
I see variation amongst species, but the evidence for us evolving from animals is absurdly non-existant! Just because species can vary in some small degree does not necessarily equate up to huge changes over time. Intelligence is a phenomenon that science cannot solve and yet is the vital engine of life’s existance. I am not portraying a god ofg the gaps here, I am statingt he fact that intelligence exists and cannot fundamentally be explained.
Evolution is a theory completely void of any intelligent source in it’s principle foundation and makeup. Those of you who believe in evolution and God are just wannabes. You want to accept evolution and God at the same time and yet evolutionary theory does not incorporate or even allow God to take part in the formation of intelligent life. It’s funny because in LDS beliefs we believe in an intelligent Creator who made it possible for life to come about, and yet, evolutionary theory does not nor cannot allow an intelligent Creator for the formation and placement of life. So for all you theistic evolutionists- give it up, you are just wannabes.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 27, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
I think we are back round again to the mythos / logos paradigm. It doesn’t help to mix the two. One is a tribal, magical, mystical mindset and one is a mundane, pragmatic mindset. They both work independant of one another and don’t need to be mixed…
Hey, it actually worked in church this week :).
I only squirmed once.
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Heya,
Anyone heard of the Ancient Astronaut Theory or Zecharia Sitchin? It’s kinda interesting, but a bit of a rabbit hole.
http://www.sitchin.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Here’s another theory regarding the formation of religion based on actual, observable events in nature:
http://www.varchive.org/
Comment by PapaKrok — July 27, 2010 @ 10:36 pm
Rob, you are wrong on so many levels. Perhaps you’d be happier over on the creationist websites that will support you in your ignorance.
All of the different magistrates of science, biology, paleontology, cosmology, anthropology, genetics, on and on and on all point strongly and convincingly toward descent with modification that occurs given enough time. Organisms will experience slight variations which will over great gaps of time add up to great changes. Hell, with artificial selection through human intervention over short span of a few centuries, we made a chihuahua out of a wolf. We’ve morphed cows, pigs, wheat, bananas out of simpler, less useful originals. Just think what billions of years can do with natural selection. The fossil record is full of excellent transitional fossils, one of the most stunning is the fossil story of the modern whale, and it’s historical fossil evidence of leaving the water for land and then returning again to the water. We know far more than your blinders will let you know. We know more than most people realize. We have so many transitional hominid fossils that I’m sure it would keep you up at night, and the one thing that I’m sure will bother you and all the creationist ilk, is that every new discovery bolsters the great theory proposed by Darwin and Wallace. There is not even a competing theory in existence. Every credible scientist will revolve and discover around this theory. And here is something that will really get your blood goin Rob, and that is that the genitic evidence is far supplanting the fossil record as the greatest evidence of organic evolution. This news, I’m sure Rob reaches deep Inside your DNA, where there’s a dormant gene to wag your old tail.
Evolution, contrary to your willfully ignorant statement has been established by much work, experiment, peer review, observation, falsification, blood sweat and tears. Your head in the sand approach of creationism is the lazy cheater in this scenario, wanting to be the excepted explaination without having to go through the refiners fire of deep examination. How typical of the shallow mind.
Comment by Rude Dog — July 27, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Rob Osborn
Here’s where I appeal to authority and ask you whether the Apostles Widstoe(a chemist) and Talmage(a geologist) were- what was it– wannabes.
I really don’t know what you mean by intelligences. Are you referring to the Turning test? Though in your case a reverse test might be interesting, because I think an intelligent machine won’t be able to realize it’s talking to a human.
Did you hear about the guy who insisted the Earth was flat so he was flown around the world several times, only to insist there was no evidence the earth was round. What can you say to such a person—”Hey, look out the window next time.”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
I think Suzanne, what Rob’s referring to in evolutionary parlance is “conscience”. Intellingence is easily measurable, demonstrable and quantifiable. It is also easily manipulated. Much interesting research on the question of conscience.
Loved your 31 post. Great minds…..
Comment by Rude Dog — July 27, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Rude Dog
I’d still like Rob to take a reverse Turning test.
There was an article on cockroach consciousness in Discover magazine a few years back. And crap, I haven’t been able to step on one since.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 27, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
I guess I should have said theoretical or philosophical physics?
Comment by Emily A. — July 28, 2010 @ 12:35 am
BTW. It is a proven fact that whatever you think about effects the chemicals in your brain, which then effects chemicals in your body, which effects the cells that make up your body. It has also been proven that you can change what electrons do just by observing them, which is directly related to physics.
I guess if you are looking for hard physics formula’s, then you aren’t going to find that stuff in the movie, but if you are looking for a different way to view your consciousness and how it interacts with the physical world, then watch it. If you want to understand how powerful you are, and how God can observe you and run the universe at the same time knowing the end from the beginning, then its a good flick to make your mind bend a little. It IS philosophical, and some of the people interviewed are cooky, but its still fascinating.
Comment by Emily A. — July 28, 2010 @ 12:43 am
Rude Dog,
Are you a wannabe? Do you believe both in evolution and a Creator?
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 12:44 am
Emily A
How ’bout speculative theology? I remember “Bleep” as a lot of fun. Of course, it would been funner with Romulans or Klingons.
Anything with Marlee Matlin is fine by me.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 12:50 am
LOL! Romulans and Klingons. Right on Suzanne.
Comment by Emily A. — July 28, 2010 @ 12:55 am
Suzanne,
Anyone who believes in the modern theory of evolution and in a Creator is a wannabe. It doesn’t matter if they are Jew, LDS, Catholic, etc. Here is why-
The modern theory of evolution encompasses a set of principles upon which the mechanism for why and how life arose was purely random chance. You will find absolutely no books accepted by mainstream scientific institutions that allow for a God in how and why life came about. So when you thus add God to the theory it is like mixing intelligent design with evolution. Just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it stand up in front of your peers. Steve Peck is well aware of this and has thus reasoned that God only allows evolution to run its natural course. He of course is also a wannabe. This is where it really bothers me. If theistic evolution is really how it is, how come they don’t start their own march in that direction? Why is it that they are willing to just ride the godless train of random mutations and chance being our Creator? They have no real creator- they are unwilling to believe and accept that God is the mastermind of bringing life as we know it into existance. they are perfectly happy to replace the Creator with mans feeble understanding which only allows for randomness and chance in an unalterable universe where the laws are seen as the gods themselves.
By “intelligence” I am specifically referring to decision making, communication and recognition capabilities. This happens both in consciouness and biologically- on a cellular level. As far as I know, the DNA does not encode for how and why this intelligence exists and operates. If it did we could thus have a written program for true intelligence. This phenomenon can only be explained in the light of intelligence already existing and knowing how to create it. Nature itself and the laws within do not produce things randomly in nature that eventually encode for intelligence or purpose. Because all life is governed entirely off of this intelligence we can thus conclude that no random chance event started this. It has never been documented that man can observe chemicals and allow them to randomly sequence themselves and end up with a life forem capable of independent thought, communicative and recognition capabilities. This is not something that can just be randomly done and created by nature alone even over the course of a bazillion years. But you know what the evolutionists will say….”Given enough time anything can happen”. I am calling their bluff! Its all bull-pucky and the evidence directly refutes it!
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 1:07 am
Rob Osborn
You are right about one thing(amazing) scientific textbooks don’t discuss the nature of God, cuz golly gee, it’s a Science book. If you want to know about God, read religious texts. Go commune with what ever you want to call it. Just don’t confuse it with science.
There is no such thing as intelligent design. I see plenty of evidence for crappy design.
I’s love to stay and chat, but the endless circling of the earth is driving feeble me nuts. Anyway, I have an expedition to mount to the North Pole to go and search for Santa Claus. I’m a wannabee who wants her presents gift-wrapped and to not fall off the sleigh..
Later.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 2:13 am
This whole back and forth reminds though, of a random story from when I was at Texas Tech.
There was a well-known and respected Bio professor that most students would go to for a letter of recommendation when applying to med school. Naturally, he got hundreds of requests every semester and couldn’t necessarily remember each of those students. So, as a criteria for the letter he asked each one “Do you believe in Evolution?”. There were a lot of fundamentalist christian types at the school, who actually said no (and they want to be doctors!) and he would refuse letters of recommendation to those kids. One semester one of those students sued him calling it religious discrimination. The professor refused to back down however, saying he could not in good conscience recommend students who would not accept the fundamental theories of biology to attend med school regardless of their reasoning. I believe the suit was eventually dropped.
Comment by julie — July 28, 2010 @ 2:45 am
Based on the whole evolution \ god arguments when are you changing the name of the site to Feminist Athiest Houswives?
Comment by Anon — July 28, 2010 @ 3:43 am
I know I’m late to the party, but I wanted to put in my bit. I really liked Kimberly’s post (36). The entire debate on God vs. Science has always baffled me. It isn’t that I cannot understand the debate and confusion, but that I have never understood why the two are not one and the same. As I understand it, the purpose of this life is to learn and prepare ourselves to become gods ourselves. We are to gain all the understanding we can of the laws present in the Universe that govern how everything works. We are supposed to become as knowledgeable of as much as we can so that we are a greater asset to the advancement of mankind on Earth, while facilitating our advancement in the hereafter. God has given us this ability, and has enacted the laws we are to learn precisely to grant us the opportunity to become like Him. He doesn’t need to take an overly active role in any of this because He already set it up for our success. We just have to take advantage of it.
On this same note, my above belief has created a difficulty in the way the most “normal” prayers are offered. It is almost as if we expect God to take up the slack we cannot or will not take up ourselves. We want Him to move mountains out of our way to make it easier to traverse this planet we call home, but we do so primarily to create an ease of travel…not for any other advancing purpose. It always seems to me we should be praying to learn His ways, understand His laws, know how we can be most effective by adhering to those laws instead of attempting to go against them. I really like Suzanne Nielson’s (11) question about whether God is worthy of our worship, because that is sort of what we seek, isn’t it? To know, understand, and accept Him? I further echo Olive’s (14) statement of God as the ubber-scientist. Seems pretty rational to me. I think faith takes a role in believing that there is Somebody who actually set all this up and is controlling it perfectly, instead of thinking that science, all on its own, is a sort of God. But either way, those who worship science and those who worship God are both worshiping the same thing.
Chelsea (44)…my understanding on evolution is somewhat limited, but from what I understand of our world and biology, it was necessary that our bodies be created from the various parts of this world in order for our bodies to be able to be able to fight against the diseases, viruses, poisons, and other dangers of our environments. We needed to be tempered against our sun, able to adapt to the varying climates, able to stand against our gravity, etc. I think that is where evolution (even starting from a basic cell) would be necessary. If God gave an entire period of time to the development of man, I would assume it took a long time to do it, and wasn’t something that could be done in even one year. If so, he could have created us along side the other animals.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 3:49 am
Anon 88……lacking any other information than the responses in this post and other past posts, I have to assume that comment was sarcastic.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 3:51 am
Keith 90….
Only in part
Standard Evolution theory & Deity are kind of incompatable with each other. You have to pick a side on this one.
Comment by Anon — July 28, 2010 @ 5:35 am
91,,,I don’t think that “God of the gaps” is sufficient. I think that it would be more appropriate to label it, “Our God of the Gaps.” I think that we, humanity, fill in the gap with whatever foolishness we can conjure in order to make sense of the gap while we (hopefully) seek what really exists there. Trouble is, too many people accept the God they choose to fill the gap and declare it as doctrine, truth, and/or the explication of all the unknown. Hence we have the recent post about blind Mormon traditions vs. doctrine vs policy in Priesthood vs priestesshood, the gay/lesbian issue, etc.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 8:00 am
sorry 91…that post was general. I think that you are correct only so far as it is argued that the commonly accepted theories that there is no God in evolution and that there is no evolution necessary with God. I happen to highly disagree with those theories as they are full of holes and highly illogical.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 8:01 am
We’ve proven God does not exist because of xyz.
We’ve proven science is wrong because God xyz.
Both sides are being arrogant and blind. Science cannot prove anything about God and religion cannot disprove anything about science. Saying so displays your biases and closemindedness.
Now, you are free to believe anything you want. Most of the opinions on this thread about science and God have been done with respect. But trying to “prove” anything to someone else about one using the other is just ridiculous.
I know only a tiny bit of the science, but I gobble up any knowledge I can get my hands on. I think evolution is a fascinating subject and learning about it has never touched my testimony or faith in God. To me, it’s clear that it was mechanism by which we exist. I also believe that God was the author of it. I’ve always felt that God was the ultimate scientist, as someone said before, and I love Keith’s theory of why our bodies seems so oddly designed.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 28, 2010 @ 8:50 am
ClaudiaHen…I can’t take full credit for the theory. A professor of mine once asked the question that if there was a poisonous plant on Jupiter, and we came in contact with it, would it have any effect on us? He was a medical scientist, researching toxins in the blood, and he said that since our bodies are made up of this earth, it is vulnerable to those things native to this earth alone. If we came into contact with something from another planet, it would be foreign to our bodies and we would feel no effect from it. I don’t know really how that works, but it got me thinking….and thus my theory.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 8:57 am
Keith, maybe I’m not quite following, but I would think the opposite. Our immune systems resonds to things that are foreign, not to things that are similar… well… actually, I guess if it’s something SO foreign that our immune cells are unable to even “see” it…
But I tend to think that life, wherever it is, would be similar in composition to ours… the elements of the universe are the same as we have on earth…
Comment by Enna — July 28, 2010 @ 9:23 am
Enna, you are correct in that, according to the doctor, the things of other planets would not be recognized by our bodies. All environments are different, and all planets are made up of different stuff. Just like I am horribly allergic to the grasses in Arizona, but no so much to the strands that grow in Michigan. But really, I don’t know enough of biology to really know if it is true or not. It just helped me understand how God could use evolution to temper a body to be able to withstand and utilize this world for its benefit.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 9:35 am
Emily A, it is not a proven fact that thinking about chemicals changes the way they act in your body. I think you’re discussing the various placebo (and anti-placebo) effects which occur most strongly in pain medications (and certain types of mood disorders) but not really at all in physical illness (don’t try treating a serious infection with a placebo.) The placebo effect, rather, appears to be the spontaneous recovery effect.
Now on to quantum physics, which is as baffling as all get-out. And absurdly accurate. But, it doesn’t scale; that is, it doesn’t affect us or anything we can see. I think the main problem with the lay-person’s understanding of quantum mechanics is the way the word “observer” is thrown around. It sounds like a person looking at something quatummy changes the outcome. Actually, an observation, in the quantum sense, simply means an interaction of any kind with the world, such as a stray photon hitting some object hovering between two quantum states.
So, not incorrect to say that observation changes the state of a single atom, it’s just misleading as it gives the impression that all this quantum magic can affect us up here in the macro world, the world of tables and trees and giant conglomerations of atoms called people.
Comment by djinn — July 28, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Rob Osborne, you seem to be confusing abiogenesis (how life got started) with Evolutionary theory, what life did afterwards. They are not the same subject. Evolutionary theory does not concern itself with abiogenesis. You don’t either. Where did God come from? Or, if you prefer, where did the first God come from?
You also seem to use the term “random chance” quite a bit, without the other halve (ish) of the evolutionary equation. To oversimplify, an organism is born with a mutation in its genetic code (random chance, if you will). Now, this mutation may be bad for the organism and so it dies without offspring, it may be neutral, or it may be good for it, increasing its chances of survival. (This is all grossly simplified, of course.) It’s the interplay between chance and real-world consequences that drive evolution, not chance alone.
Comment by djinn — July 28, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Rob, your ignorance is unfortunate. Please remedy it by study of the many excellent resources listed here. I also want to add Stephen Jay Gould as a great resource. His essay collections such as “Ever Since Darwin”, “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes”, “The Panda’s Thumb” and many others give the story of evolution and why we know it’s true (as well as many fascinating questions about exactly how it works) in clear and interesting language accessible to any layperson. He’s a great writer and a great scientist.
The glory of God is intelligence. We’ve been commanded to study and learn from all the best books, of which “The Origin of Species” is surely one. So, get to work, please! =)
Science is nothing but careful observation of what we see around us. Of course the science that studies God’s universe can’t conflict with the God of that selfsame universe. If it does, just as when study of various scientific subjects leads us to a contradiction, we’re looking at something the wrong way. There’s always a resolution to the contradiction that makes sense. Sometimes you just have to dig deeper.
In pursuing the burning (to me) question of where the universe came from, why it’s like it is, how did it all happen, how does everything work, I pursued physics to the deepest levels of our current understanding and it’s beyond bizarre, of course. The best encapsulation of the weirdness of plain old ordinary everyday physical interactions is probably conveyed by Jorge Luis Borges in his stories “The Lottery of Babylon”, “The Circular Ruins”, “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”, “The Garden of the Forking Paths”, and so on.
The whole Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is very contingent, very tentative and suspect. It’s not satisfying in a way that makes you feel it is a privileged interpretation that rings of truth. It’s one interpretation of many others, and the landscape is still littered with fruitful other viewpoints on the very exact understanding we have of how the universe works. In other words, it’s not so puzzling to calculate what will happen in many exact experiments, but trying to interpret what happens, to make a mental model of what’s happening, is very puzzling. And this is in the field of physics with which we’re most familiar, the everyday interactions of photons and electrons.
Then you have to add the understanding of understanding, or the knowledge of knowledge, the consciousness of consciousness. How do we know what we know? If it’s so easy to understand how people understand, then why do we all disagree so much? How are our observations woven into a narrative that brings us the feeling that we understand things? Our brains have this marvelous ability, yet why don’t they all lead us to the same conclusions? What is “Truth”? Is there just one “Truth” or are there many? Is there such a thing as objective reality at all, or is the universe essentially a subjective phenomenon? Do you guys really exist or are you all figments of my imagination? Etc.
My study lately of psychosis, and my understanding of it as the brain doing what the brain does, just in a slightly off-kilter way that reveals volumes about how we construct our everyday realities from the mass of sensory impressions our brains receive, all these things call into question the very nature of perceived reality. What are dreams all about? Why are they necessary? What is the dream state and how is it related to the waking state? What do we mean by meaning? What does it mean to say something “is”? All these questions arise when we try to examine our concepts of existence.
So I guess what I’m saying is that if someone might want to envision a God of the Gaps, there truly are plenty of gaps left for Him to inhabit. I’m personally not a God of the Gaps person, though. It’s my idea that when we’ve progressed to become gods, we each of us will design and execute our own universes with our own physical laws. The really hard part is probably finding sets of physical laws that make existence possible (and interesting), a prerequisite to life that’s sometimes called the Anthropic Principle.
Anyway, people who are strict philosophical materialists are patently wrong, but with what does one replace strict philosophical materialism? It’s not at all plain.
Comment by Tatiana — July 28, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Anon
I find your statement– ” Standard Evolution theory & Deity are kind of incompatable with each other. You have to pick a side on this one.”–to be incompatible with reality.
What, do you think it’s like a coin toss, with a head or tails to choose?
They are two different things.
What next, ya gonna say that plate tectonics is incompatible with being a angel?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Pick your side folks- It is either atheistic evolution or intelligent design. Sorry to inform you theistic evolutionists but…that is what they call “Intelligent Design”.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Rob Osborn
You’re such the expert.
Okay Rob, pick your side. It’s either plates tectonics or an angel with two legs straddling the fault line.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Tatiana,
A lot of people think I am quite ignorant of the sciences. But on the contrary I feel I have a very logical approach to science and understand it in many ways. With evolution there are some unique problems as I see it. One of the main principles of evolution is that it takes upon it a purely atheistic form in contrast to what we as LDS know about the Creator and the planned and designed creation. The two are patently incompatable. Evolution must try to explain as part of it’s theory how life arose from non-life matarial and then progress from that simple first life state into the complex life forms that now exist. Many say that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, but on the contrary, every biology and scince book I have begin to explain evolution by explaining how abiogenesis may have evolved.
The main problem with evolutionary theory is the grand assumption that life arose from random actions billions of years ago. Another grand assumption is that it was not planned or designed by some pre-existing intelligence. This is where the whole ID/evolution divides and takes sides. Thus you see the paramount problem arising- too many assumptions rather than just observing and studying what we really see. There really is no evidence that evolution takes place as they claim. Countless studies have shown that mutations in genetics kill off a population rather than preserve it and modify it to be more intelligent and complex.
Another paramount problem you have is explaining why the evidence shows stasis amongst species spanning supposedly hundreds of millions of years. “Living fossils” as they are called, are animals that are still alive today that have not basically changed over millions of years. The stasis here should actually prove evolution theory wrong. Think about it- how could a species go hundreds of millions of years without changing while others changed so drastically that they are not even remotely the same. Did they not live in the same environment on the same planet? Were they both not subject to the same planetary climate hazzards? These living fossils show to have the same mutation rates as assumed to other species. Why haven’t they evolved like everyone else?
There is another paramount problem in explaining the level of intelligence of humans as compared with animals. Why are humans so astronomically more intelligent than any of the other countless animal species? Why such the large gap?
All science can really state with any real and truthful authority is that primates and humans are similar in structure but vastly different in intelligence. They can also state that similarities do not necessitate a common ancestor. There has to be a trace of actual biological proof showing the link before they can make the actual claim- that hasn’t of course happened. Science thus has to move upon the same faith as I have in there being a God. Evolutionary Science doesn’t have a God as we know it. Must Science explain God if he really exists? Absolutely! God exists within the system we know and if he had any ounce of energy that was directed at the creation then yes- absolutely yes, he must be explained in part of the picture. Thus- Can we rule God out? No.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Rob…I wonder if you are experiencing the wonderful phenomenon called being “stuck”. The way you describe evolutionary theory is much the same as the faction of Christianity that accepts the bible as perfect: as a pseudo-God of its own; a book that God would never have allowed to be altered in any way, and therefore is without error in translation or content. What it is, they believe, is what it was meant to be; what God wants it to be. You are speaking of evolution from the standpoint of it being nothing else but evolution. That all needs to be explained by it, or else it falls apart. So yes, there are people who adhere solely to evolution as their basis for all existence, just as there are those who believe the bible to be the perfect and unmistakable stairway to heaven. Must of the conversation here, however, is a mixture of the two: an attempt to combine fact and faith into what they are supposed to be: science. Is God neglected in a lot of evolutionary theory? Yes. So what? Does it negate His role? No. Does that mean that He didn’t utilize evolution to bring about His purposes here? No. Does that mean that evolution is not His tool? No. In fact, all science points to the very real idea that evolution is precisely what He used in order to create or direct the entirety of this world. These two concepts are not opposites nor do they necessarily conflict.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Rob -
Evolution only happens where there is a selective pressure to evolve. If there is no selective pressure, change manifested by evolution may simply not occur. Hence we should expect to see living fossils in the Galapagos Islands. Nothing to eat the big tortoises and plenty of pretty female ones for each male. Same with brine shrimp. No surprises there at all. And that is also why we expect to see a weakening of the human gene pool - selective pressures are removed by nice healthcare, fertilization treatments and so on.
You can force evolution quite easily too. Start treating swine flu with vaccinations and that’s a huge selective pressure on the influenza virus to find a variant which can circumvent the resitance conferred by the vaccine (indeed, influenza viruses are RNA rather than DNA based - simply to allow much higher molecular sampling, or, if you like, evolution).
You may be suffering from that very evolution which produced you. All peoples around the world have developed religious systems or, if you like, “faith”, quite independently of each other and there is considerable anthropological evidence that peoples with “faith” survived better than those with none. Why? Perhaps a population-level selective pressure to deal with the environment, life challenges and death: cohesive groups were more able to collectively survive and better reproduce. And, faith itself evolved into theistic religions which themselves evolved into a “my god is better than your god” free for all. Witness the evolution of Christianity.
It may be that as fewer and fewer phenomena require divine intervention for explanation, of life’s nastinesses and for survival that populations will evolve out of faith too - just evolution happening again.
A common error in a consideration of evolution is to suppose that a creator necessarily exists: it is not relevant for evolution.
Comment by Martin — July 28, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
I love science days at fMh. I can feel the brain getting stronger already. I’m going to have a very fit brain.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 28, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
Keith,
The general theory of evolution is God esclusionary. Perhaps the theistic evolutionists need to further their own cause and theory of evolution. They can’t just hop on and use the same theory- they are incompatable with the belief of a savior and intelligent design.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Martin,
Let me just say…you lack faith in the almighty God of the Heavens. Religion did not come about because of evolution. Religion came about because God needs to save us- we need saving.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Rob -
Not at all - my faith in G-d is beyond questioning. I just don’t have a conflict between G-d leaving evolution on Earth (and of us) to its own devices: I just don’t see a need for him to micromanage everything. That doesn’t mean a need for religion didn’t evolve same as everything else. Another thing that probably evolved is a feeling of a need to be saved - it’s helpful for forcing patterns of behavior on us. After all, all religions which have made some headway in terms of converts have this feature.
Comment by Martin — July 28, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Rob, I learned about human evolution at BYU under faithful LDS professors. They’d be pretty surprised to hear that it’s impossible to believe in evolution and a creator.
Comment by Chelsea — July 28, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
@ 95
I think that medical scientist needs to retake a biochemistry course. On a molecular level, what he says makes absolutely no logical sense. Our cells contain receptors that cause particular actions to occur when the receptors come into contact with a molecule of a particular shape. Pharmaceuticals take advantage of this by creating molecules similar in shape to what the receptors are expecting, in order to trigger that same reaction in the cell. A toxin from Jupiter is still a molecule and will react chemically with something or other in the body. Depending on the chemical reaction, there may be little or no noticeable effect on the body, or our stomachs can swell up to the size of watermelons and our flesh can turn purplish-black.
Comment by DQ — July 28, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Then why are laws being passed to prohibit such interbreeding? If it is so impossible, then it would seem that laws are not needed.
Comment by Naismith — July 28, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
Naismith, haven’t you seen any scary sci-fi movies on genetic experimentation?
I second Chelsea on what she said about BYU - they are actually quite instrumental in putting together the scientific “Tree of Life” which organizes all creation into “families” of similar (related) species, showing a flow from less complicated to more complicated. I mean, seriously, where do we put the platypus - it is just too weird.
PBS had a great historical depiction of Charles Darwin, his life and work. I enjoyed it a lot (like Jane-Austenesque era) He seemed like a good man, loving husband and father, and dedicated scientist. He found that the commonly held religious beliefs of the day (not our modern restored gospel, remember) restricted the areas/directions of study, and that his observations directly conflicted with those beliefs. I think that in his day, the prevailing belief was that everything stays the same, static, unchanging, etc, just as God created it… Which we know is not how things were created!
He also suffered the tragic loss of 2 of his children, and the explanations of clergy were inadequate to ease his pain at their loss. They would have been inadequate for me, too, so I understood. In fact, I very much wonder if the restored gospel had been available to some of these men, if things might be different!
And to those mocking intelligent design - have you seen Ben Stein’s movie, No Intelligence Allowed? I was amazed, the “crazy” label I had believed about 6-day creationists and intelligent designers does not apply to everyone - there are some good and true scientists who still believe that “some intelligence” exists behind the beginning of life.
It is pretty awesome at the end of the movie, when Ben interviews some of the most staunch anti-religious athiest scientists, some well known, and even they have some interesting ideas you wouldn’t expect… I won’t spoil it.
The point Mr Stein makes is that there should be room for religious scientists at the table. Those who believe in both evolution, and God. Right now only the “god can’t be part of evolution” people have been running things (on both sides, might I add!).
While I don’t want anyone teaching my children mixed up sci-fi/religious theorhetical stuff, I don’t want a teacher saying that in order to truly learn, they have to give up on God.
I’m sick of people on both sides throwing mud at the other, without even listening to what they have to say. There are really nice, good, moral athiests, and there are really smart, excellent, God-believing scientists. Lets acknowledge that, and then continue the discussion, civilly!
Comment by SarahJane — July 28, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
112…I never said he was correct, only that his idea started me thinking about why the evolution of the human body would be necessary in order for it to survive this world and have the capabilities it now has.
Comment by Keith — July 28, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
I was referring to the fact that when you think happy/depressive thoughts (anything with intense emotion), it releases chemicals in your brain, which also affects other parts of your body. Like, dopamine release is an actual chemical release with cascading consequences in the body.
Are you saying that thinking anything at all never releases a chemical in the brain and that chemicals are only changed in the brain through literal physical means? If that is true, how can you explain depression in healthy individuals? That doesn’t make sense to me, although I can see how certain physical processes are needed to release things like endorphins (i.e. going for a jog).
Keep in mind I am a Sociology major. I didn’t major in physics or biochemistry for a reason. Lol.
Comment by Emily A. — July 28, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
Chelsea,
I have went the rounds with BYU professors. One thing I have learned is that they are truly no different than your professors at Berkeley, Stanford, etc. when it comes to evolution. One professor at BYU- “Duane E. Jeffery” is even on the board at the NCSE (National Center for Science Education). I spoke with him several years ago and asked how he could both teach at BYU and be part of such a pro-evolution vigilante left wing group trying to suffocate the ID movement. He told me that whereas the Brthren in SLC weren’t happy with it, it was his choice.
Another Professor- Steven Peck at BYU, I have went the rounds with also. He has his own blog and after much communication with him he basically kicked me off his blog. He said I was a “troll” and not willing to listen. Anyhow, he is of the basic belief that God “allows evolution” to run it’s natural course. He doesn’t even really believe that the LDS view of a Creator and the creation as seen and taught by LDS official publications is correct.
So….there you have it. I get tired of the “well BYU teaches it so it must be so”…
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 28, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
SarahJane, there always has been, always will be religious scientists at the “table.” The difference is that most of these religious scientists don’t interject a unquanitifiable God at the slightest hint of an seemingly unsolvable question. We observe, calculate, and quantify evolution. We experiment, falsify, subject to peer review. We follow the scientific method as should be followed, and there is no measure of God in the findings, nor should there be, unless he/she is willing to provide right here and right now, demonstrable proof of his or her existence. Science is a poor sphere to discover God. Faith is personal, and it’s findings very personal and unquantifiable to the individual. Interjecting God in the classroom as the designer of irreducable complexity, (it was once thought the eye was irreducably complex, but we know the eye is a very simple evolutionary process, and one of the quicker systems to evolve)
As has been stated before, Abiogenesis is the study of how molecules were manipulated to start the process of life. Many scientists believe that this may be the God nudge. I personally think we’ll have a perfectly natural answer in less than 25 years. But evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Just what happened after the first replicating molecular structures (not cellular Rob) were formed. And there is no room for “we can’t answer that so God must have done it”, because our knowlegde is ever increacing, and if we put God in the gaps, his/her role will continue to shrink.
Put God in your faith and heart, and your personal philosophy of living. Like a good Father, I’m sure Elohiem would rather us figure it out than pester him with the prayer of the lazy. Ben Stein is all about “the eye is too complex and must have had a designer”. We’ve figured that one out as well.
Comment by Rude Dog — July 28, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Rob Osborn
Okay, first it’s God and his wives.
Now it’s pro-evolution vigilante left wing groups.
Berkeley, Stanford, BYU– oh, yes, the scientific conspiracy to actually educate people about real science. Oh, the horror of it all–scientists not teaching your view of God.
So….there you have it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 28, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. The two concepts are not incompatible and I don’t believe anyone who tells me that they are.
Comment by Lupita — July 28, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
Rude Dog,
Laughable I say- laughable!!! To what brilliance do I owe the scientist who figured out eye evolution? Completely unbelievable! Evolutionist also sidestep or try to avoid the nagging question of abiogenesis. They may claim it isn’t a part of evolution, but in fact it is the very head of the evolutionary tree! Heck, I wouldn’t claim it either- no proof has ever been put forth that accredits abiogenesis. It is by far the greatest fairytale of evolutionary biology.
Tell you what- I will give you the 25 years but in the meantime admit that to this point abiogenesis is anything but sound science.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 29, 2010 @ 12:41 am
Funny comic regarding evolution:http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif
Comment by D — July 29, 2010 @ 1:14 am
Evolution is the central idea that makes sense of all biological observations. With the understanding that we’re all related (all life on earth), that descent with natural selection has sculpted the species, then biology makes perfect sense. Without that idea, there’s an insanely long list of weird coincidences that just happen to be whims of God. Either evolution is true, or God is going to crazy lengths to fool us into believing it. I don’t believe God is all tricksy like that. (The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, of course. She manipulates all our instruments all the time to make science seem true. But not the God I know and love.)
Either evolution is true or God seriously is going to a lot of trouble to trick me into believing in it, so I’m led to the same conclusion either way. =)
Comment by Tatiana — July 29, 2010 @ 3:59 am
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment which took inorganic molecules and reacted them in conditions similar to those of the early Earth to create organic molecules. They were able to create 22 amino acids. You can read more about it here: Miller-Urey Experiment
Comment by queenlucy — July 29, 2010 @ 8:10 am
Rob Olson,
So what do you consider sound science? I’m actually quite curious at this point. You seem to be able to discredit every scientific discovery made in regards to evolution ever. However, I have yet to see you offer one shred of evidence in favor of intelligent design, or how intelligent design and evolution cannot co-exist.
I find it humorous that you get all uppity about how “just because a professor at BYU says it doesn’t make it so”, but if it’s in a Church publication, it’s automatically true, no need to think for yourself. So what’s your irrefutable proof of ID? And here’s a hint: telling me that the brethren said/taught it or that you prayed and received this answer doesn’t count as proof.
Comment by Dancer 007 — July 29, 2010 @ 8:46 am
What is so laughable about the evolution of the eye? This is one area where I actually know a little bit. It’s a fascinating subject, and if you knew even a shred about it, it would make sense.
I liked the basic explanation in this link, if anyone is interested in it.
A quote from the end of the write-up:
I don’t know how you can look around, see animals that demonstrate every stage of the evolution of the eye, and then say it doesn’t exist. That’s just not using your brain.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 29, 2010 @ 9:08 am
I personally want to thank Rob. I kinda thought I was in the intelligent design group, but after carefully weighing all I have read here, I realize, clearly I am not. I am no scientist. Definitely, I am a wannabe scientist. I really, really badly want to be a scientist, but, alas, I am simply curious. Rob isn’t going to be convinced, but who cares. What matters is that the work put into the comments here has been fascinating and (plug your ears Rob) educational. I love what Rude Dog said and Lupita summed it up. So, thanks everyone and especially Lisa for writing the opening post. I hope we do science day again, soon.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 29, 2010 @ 9:18 am
Rob, Well yeah, it would make sense that BYU professors would teach the same thing as professors at other universities, given the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence for evolution. But clearly you’re not interested in the science, you just want things to line up with your doctrinal expectations. Which is fine. I know a lot of wonderful people who are the same way.
Comment by Chelsea — July 29, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Yes Tatiana, our splendid Flying Spaghetti Monster knows all of our feeble attempts, and rewards us properly. As a fellow pastaferian, I’m typing this with with my new feathered pirate hat.
For those who are interested in the great Pasta of Power, head to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rob, you’ll recognize the vibe there as well.
IdahoGm-ma, it’s been said before on this thread, but the book “Your inner fish” is such a good read, and presents the evolutionary process in a completely enjoyable read. It’s fascinating how the author, a paleontologist, relies upon geologists and paleobotonists, to predict rather reliably where to look for the transitionary fossils he was after. Every magistrate of learning, biology, anthropology, chemistry, cosmology, paleontology, genetics, and on and on all rely and employ the basics of evolutionary assumptions. Like I said before, there isn’t even a competing theory out there that would expain as deep, as wide, as complex, and as simple as the great theory of descent with modification.
Comment by Rude Dog — July 29, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Yes, and thank you I actually have a gift certificate to BandN, I will get that book today. Oh, I’m so excited.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 29, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Anyone who crochets and is a Pastafarian should consider this hat.
I’m just saying.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 29, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Dancer 007,
The evidence and proof of intelligent designn is staggering! Countless studies have time and time again proven that intelligent sytems- whatever they may be only come from a designed intelligent process. Whether it be the formation of new life or the program of a complex computer, only intelligently designed processes come from intelligent agents. Also as fact- no intelligent process or intelligent entity has ever been documented or witnessed coming from somthing unplanned and in a random sequence.
Call it what you want but in the observable world only intelligence produces intelligence. The grand principle of evolution is that intelligence arose from non-intelligent random sequences. That right there goes against every known law and principle we know.
So, when I calculate what is sound science I absolutley do not call it some fairytale of undocumented evolution arising from abiogenesis. I call sound science stuff like- “the law of biogenesis” where life is only documented as coming from intelligent life sources. There are many many things I call sound science all of which are observable and documentable. Evolution by common descent is not something either observable or documentable. Let me ask- would you call something sound science if you couldn’t either document or observe it happening?
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 29, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
In fact, everything we purposely do is proof of intelligent design. We as humans live lives full of intelligently designed operations with both purpose and intelligent function displaying communicative abilities, recognition and awareness.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 29, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Chelsea,
I am totally interested in sound scientific data and principles not in fairytales. Anyone who as at least partially studied the origins of life as science teaches it has to realize the paramount problems involved in nature randomly firing off and establishing life on this planet. Even in labs with the exact right conditions present and everything going just as imagined for life to succeed, no life happens. If they have proved anything to this point, it is the simple fact that life can’t just arise out of something unintelligent in a random process. If scientists can’t even figure out step #1, how am I supposed to believe in all the following steps beyond that?
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 29, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Faith, Rob. It’s why I’ve said it before- that religion and science have more in common than it appears. We may not know something right now, but given time and asking the right questions, we’ll find out.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Rob #133,
I think, as others have stated, you are hung up on evolution vs. the creation of life. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have the evolution of life that has been created. Evolution doesn’t explain how life began, it explains how whatever the initial matter was became what it is today.
As I’ve told you, evolution has been documented. It’s documented every day. I’ve actually documented it myself in research.
Furthermore, you still haven’t answered my question of proof of intelligent design. You claim you can observe it everywhere. Fine. But what evidence is there that there was a divine creator started life? Essentially, what it comes down to is if you need proof, how can you tangibly, scientifically prove that there is a God (or gods) who did all of this?
Comment by Dancer 007 — July 29, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
ClaudiaHen that is an awesome hat. Wow.
Comment by Emily A. — July 29, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Dancer 007,
The theory of evolution must explain where the first life form came from- it very much is part of the tree. Open up a biology book and read the section on evolution. I can abouyt guarentee that it begins with explaining the theory of abiogenesis.
All I can do is infer that because of the principle of intelligence only coming from intelligence that life arrived here on this planet due to an intelligence placing it here.
I would ask you the same question back- How can you prove that life arose out of non-life matarial?
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 29, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Fantastic FSM hat! I’m touched by his noodly appendage.
Comment by Tatiana — July 30, 2010 @ 12:00 am
I’m fed up with science telling religion that their beliefs can’t be true because it can’t be proved. I’m sick of religious people telling scientists their discoveries can’t be true, or they would be in scripture (or from the prophet). This is essentially the core fight, and it has to stop.
Look at Galileo, saying the Earth went around the sun, when the church stated the Sun and EVERYTHING circled the earth. (did I match the right scientist to the right theory?)
Look at the early doctors, trying to study corpses in secret, to learn anatomy, against religious beliefs of the day. Much of scientific discovery has been in spite of religion, not because of it, and aren’t we supposed to seek truth and knowledge?
It is a big deal that BYU studies these things, under the direction of the Board of Trustees. When so many people distrust anything scientific, for BYU to be at the forefront of research on Evolution is important.
Rob, there is evidence of microevolution all around us. How about the founders effect, where a small subgroup settles a remote area, interbreeds and certain characteristics become dominant that aren’t evident in the general population. With humans it is often diseases, but we can see this in animals very quickly, insects, too.
I remember hearing about moths in London, being white until the smoke and pollution made them stand out, leaving the mutation of a black moth to reproduce, and soon all the moths were black.
Macroevolution, where species evolve over time into totally different species, is not believable to me based on the evidence I have seen, but the idea that God could have directed or guided genetics in different species towards his ultimate creation is very possible to me. We can manipulate genes, of course He can. People have such a hard time with the ID label because it is associated with creationists, and has not broken away from that stigma.
The point of this great OP is being lost because you are trying to force others to see things your way, using your terminology. Try listening, try to understand what others are saying in their words - I think you will find you have more in common than you think, and life will be much more plesant… for everyone…
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 2:06 am
SarahJane,
First off, avoid the moth theory. There where white and black moths present both before, during and after the pollution. If you are going for an evolution example please don’t go there!
I said earlier that evolution and God are incompatible and I feel that I’m required to quantify my statement. This assumes that you look at this from a LDS\Christian point of view, I can’t speak for other faiths
Sorry if this feels a bit like teaching how to suck eggs.
If you believe in evolution you accept the premise that life evolved and progressed over the eons the earth has been present for. This can be thru several evolution theories (random mutation, spontaneous environmental adaption, slow term evolution adaption, Trans-species co-dependence, etc… make your pick!). The core detail of this theory is that it is self perpetuation and responds to external stimulus thru the survival of the species fittest to breed. Humans came about thru this method as one of the species on the planet.
Gospel doctrine is that all life was placed on the earth by divinity. Species could diversify within their own kind, but not change kind (in simple terms Cats stayed as cats, and can’t change into birds). This does not require claiming that the world is 6000 years old, or was made in 6x 24 hour days (I’ll leave that to the fundamentalists).
The second theory supports the logic that Humanity was placed here, had a pre-mortal spirit, and is in an unadapted form that will continue past the resurrection. In effect supports the entire ‘plan of salvation’ line.
The first theory supports the logic that humanity is here by change, and will continue to change over the aeons into a different species better suited to breeding and surviving.
One of these supports deity, the other requires an atheist belief.
Intelligent design theory is a grasping straw, either by would be atheist who are afraid to give up on their belief of god, or believers attempting to grasp onto a scientific theory because they think that it makes them appear more intellectual in the community they are in.
As I said earlier, pick a side, plant your standard and declare where you are! There is no fence on this one. As with many things in life you have to decide this one ultimately by your self.
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2010 @ 4:57 am
Anon 142…your premise is incorrect. It is not gospel doctrine that life was placed on earth by divinity. It is not gospel doctrine that man was placed upon this planet by deity. The bible and the pearl of great price both state that God said to let the earth and waters bring forth the animals in abundance. The scriptures do not declare any divine placement, but instead hint at a divine call for the planet to produce particular species “after his kind.” There is also no scriptural basis for your statement that each organism, beginning with one cell, could not evolve or mutate into the various different species present on earth. Simply put, we don’t know how God created this earth or directed the creation of any creature upon it. You limit the power of God in your statement. Your second theory is also incorrect for the same mentioned reasons. The only difference is that the scriptures state that God and Jesus made man in their image, which implies a more direct influence in man’s development. It does not imply, in any manner, how They influenced or manipulated the creation of the body of mankind. Your assumptions are in themselves foolish in that they limit the Lord by implying that He has no power other than those you wish Him to have. Unless, of course, you are privy to scripture that the remainder of us do not have that more clearly describes the creation process. Though I doubt you do, you do attempt to tell those of us who happen to keep God’s power open to the powers of evolution that very clearly exist among us. It’s a shameful attempt to draw attention to your misguided and incorrect belief by belittling those who try and figure out how God created this world and the things within it. Perhaps you were placed here, but my body has evolved from the neanderthal and beyond for millions of years to produce a body that is strong enough and tempered enough to be, as you put it, “better sutied to breeding and surviving” this day and age. So see, at least that one line I agree with…oh wait, you argued against it. My mistake.
It is a major error of many theistic individuals arguing against evolution when they state that God cannot and does not work by evolution. He has never made such a statement. He has never hinted against evolution. He has told us very little about His methods of creation, except to tell us that he commanded the elements of this world to bring forth species of all kinds
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 5:37 am
Variation among individuals in a population: check!
Comment by Left Field — July 30, 2010 @ 6:26 am
@ 144
“Variation among individuals in a population: check!”
no - Transpecies diversification: check!
now read carefully.
THE MOTHS DID NOT CHANGE GENETICALLY INTO A NEW SPECIES.
Your arguement flows the same line as stating about the evolutionary advantages of hair colour changes, when both are already present in the population.
Now if your moths had decided to change to a totally new colour (i.e. pea green to match the polution) then you would have had a basis to place your point on.
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2010 @ 7:06 am
@ 143.
1 - Latest theory is that Humans evolved at a later date than neanderthal and co-existed for a while without interbreeding before the Humans made the neanderthals extinct.You’ve got to keep ahead of these things
2 - The forum as a rule preferes to avoid direct scripture quotations as it comes across as too preachy, but as you’ve started lets turn to the book of Moses……
Moses 1 -
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him aface to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
In other words god is not going to tell us how he made the world, he does however provide some highly limited headlines of the process. More importantly this only relates to this world, and not others.
onto moses book 2 (I’ll skip day & night, earth & waters unless you want a real full breakdown).
11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth agrass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his akind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good;
“After his kind” is very specific here. Grasses yeild grasses, trees yield trees. They do not diversify into animal life.
To save time I’m not going to carry on as we both no the scriputure repeats when it concerns animals as well. I’m not arguing that animals don’t adapt & change in relation to their enviroment or over time. What I am saying is that if you accept that man is a result of evolution by default you dismiss the entire concept of Adam & Eve, and hence follow on to the concequences of the fall, the plan of salvation and so forth. Thats OK, everybody has the right to belive what they want to belive, but I do think you have a responsiblity to think your belives thru and study them before taking the word of a theoretical “scientist” or priest at face value.
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2010 @ 7:26 am
146
Not necessarily true. We don’t know how God prepared the bodies that Adam and Eve had. Regardless of common theory, it is very possible that God has some sort of sub-species of humanity that he utilized in the preparation of the body for the spirits of Adam and Eve. Again, we just don’t know how He did it, and if he did use this form of evolution, it is quite possible that he wouldn’t tell us because of the seemingly inhumane way we would most likely view it. I think, however, to discredit evolution and throw it to only the atheists is silly. You side-stepped that issue completely. I haven’t argued that the theory supplied by Darwin where everything in this world adapted and changed to create what we now have as a diverse population of creatures is wrong. I happen to believe that mankind (as well as all individual creatures) began as single cell organism who had their improvement and development nurtured by God and all His earthly elements for millions of years until they became what they presently are. I don’t accept the idea that one group or individual from one species separated themselves and eventually formed a new species. Be that as it may, however, it is my own theory, and again, to be frank, I don’t know that God did not utilize evolution to temper, educate, and develop His creatures into what they needed to be.
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 7:48 am
And to finish my thought…..
I believe that God directed the development of all species to be able to act on their own, instead of necessesitating His continual presence. Thus, we should attempt to fill in the “gaps” with science and whatever other thing as we attempt to make sense of everything. To shovel out particular ideas from the “gaps” without concrete evidence against them is akin to those who deny the gospel simply because their preacher says they should. It is whim, and whereas whim may be (in the end) sometimes correct, it is a horrible way to generally find truth. I think the same about those who place God in the gaps as a catch-all for what we cannot or do not yet understand. Evolution is mans best attempt to make sense of creation…don’t falsely accuse those of us who can see God’s hand in it as non-believers.
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 7:54 am
No, not even close. Evolution is HOW it was done, directed by a God who was so wise that he put things in place so that species could adapt. The “entire concept” and plan of salvation is WHY they were created.
The church explicitly believes in evolution. The First Presidency statement of Nov 1909 said, “… the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.” (reprinted in Feb 2002 Ensign)
Comment by Naismith — July 30, 2010 @ 7:55 am
Of course they didn’t.
You should review your own claim: “If you are going for an evolution example please don’t go there!” [emphasis added]
The moths ARE an example of evolution. They are NOT an example of speciation. Evolution and speciation are different things.
Don’t move the goalposts to salvage a false claim. Changes in frequency of preexisting traits are precisely what Darwin described as natural selection.
Comment by Left Field — July 30, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Organisms resemble their parents: Check!
Frequency of traits in a biological population change in response to their effects on reproduction: Check!
So far, you’ve acknowledged three of Darwin’s tenets of natural selection. If we can just get you to admit that more offspring are produced than will survive, you’ll officially be a Darwinist.
Comment by Left Field — July 30, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Poster Anon at 143, you think if the moths had turned “pea green,” a color of moth that didn’t exist in nature, that “then you would have had a basis to place your point on.”
Nylonase. Several types of bacteria now exist that can eat nylon, a wholly synthetic material.
From Wikipedia
Comment by djinn — July 30, 2010 @ 9:39 am
Re. #105
Actually, this article shows that 1-4% of the Eurasian genome comes from Homo neanderthalensis. That is more than just a ‘trace a proof’.
& re. #146
You are correct in saying that H. neanderthalensis came along before H. sapiens, and that they co-existed for thousands of years, but your other statements are essentially incorrect.
Comment by Lulu — July 30, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Re 147 -
I don’t agree. The scriptures say that God formed the bodies of Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into them. If there was a sub-species of humanity first that Adam and Eve came from, they would have had life already.
Regarding the creation, God didn’t “create” the earth out of nothing. He organized matter that was already here. Considering dinosaur fossils, etc., to me that means that a lot of life had existed on this earth before God organized it as the earth that we know now. To me, that explains neanderthals or other life forms that are older than 6,000 years old. It makes me wonder how many different cycles this earth has seen.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
But then, how do you explain that H. sapiens have been around for considerably longer than 6000 years?
Comment by Lulu — July 30, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
What intelligent design? I see plenty of evidence of stupid design.
Why do we see upsides down?
A good example of idiotic design is the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals. Instead of going the short distance from the larynx to the brain, it first goes down and wraps around the aorta, before going back up. As evil scientists have pointed out in Giraffes this design results in an extra 15 feet of nerve. Brilliant. (and evolution can explain how this happened)
Okay guys, are hernias and enlarged prostate a good design?(evolution can explain why they occur)
Whose idea was it for large head infants to go through a small pelvic area? There are better designs, but apparently no women were consulted.
And what about abdominal pregnancy. How does that happen. Oh Yes, Bad Design. Was somebody asleep at the drawing board, because they left a gap between the ovary and the Fallopian tube.
(But evolution can explain)
And why does a human fetus get a fine coat of hair called lanugo.
Not that I mind the design,but why?
And for all those with bad backs, ask yourself–Was this an intelligent design?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 30, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Lulu, well, I think it’s possible that the carbon dating could be off.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Stephanie, I haven’t heard that theory for 40 years except at my in-laws. Is it really still around? Or were you taught that as a child? I’m not being snarky, I really am curious. I thought it had gone extinct,
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
I’m not talking the carbon dating, I talking about the reorganizing the earth,
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
What theory, IdahoG-ma?
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
#154
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
That’s the way I read Genesis.
It sounds to me like the earth was already there in a disorganized state.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Stephanie 154….But whose to say that, once the body was ready after millions of years of directed development, that God didn’t put Adam’s spirit into it upon birth, conception, or whenever it is the spirit enters the body? Why, then, did Adam have to have a deep sleep come upon him so that he could await the finished product of Eve? Perhaps his prepared body took less time to finish than her’s did?
The 6,000 years? The temple states the creation was done in 7 periods of labor. They called their period of labor a day. They were not told to report after 1 day, but were told to call their labors the first day, second day……etc. It seems a bit illogical to think that each preparatory stage of creation took exactly the same time.
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
162…I agree that the earth was organized from existing matter…but I do not think that it ever existed as a world before then. Else how would you explain it receiving a paradisiacal glory after we are finished with it? Wouldn’t another civilization of God’s children have received the same blessing?
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
Keith, the 6,000 years I cited are since Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, not during creation. I think it is entirely feasible that each “day” of creation was millions of years and could have been different times. It says in Genesis that He didn’t even start “times and seasons” until the fourth day.
Look, I guess my opinion is just that I don’t find all of these ideas to be incompatible with each other. I believe in evolution, and I believe that God “created” our earth and life as we know it. I don’t really see the point in arguing either point. I am more interested in learning how it all fits together.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
Keith 164, I get your point. I don’t know.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
If so, God didn’t just pack all that matter together like making a snowball. He very deliberately organized the fossils in an evolutionary sequence, showing continuity with past ages, later ages, and currently living life.
In short, this hypothesis posits a God who deliberately set up an elaborate deceptive hoax, and then presumably expects us disbelieve the story he himself left in the earth.
Those want a trickster god can have it. I want no part of it.
Comment by Left Field — July 30, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
Left Field, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it that existence is a whole lot bigger than just us humans on this earth right now. We are just a small part of what is going on in eternity.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Stephanie, that was the explanation given by early christian churches and is still taught by certain Baptist factions today.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Well, IdahoG-ma, it makes sense to me.
Going back to the OP:
I feel the same way as Lisa. I’m just trying to figure out the ways they are compatible.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Oh shoot that was out of context, hubby want to talk history have to go.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 30, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
If we are bringing scripture into it then LDS doctrine completely supports intelligent design and not evolution. For one- the “temporal” age of the earth is only about 6000 years old. Evolutionists have a hard time digesting this because “temporal” means the age of the earth since death entered the world.
Another issue is that LDS doctrine teaches that the plants were planted on the earth before it started to rain- before any rain had fallen which would cause the plants to grow. Of course the paramount issue here is that seeds only come from fully matured parent plants and trees.
Another issue is that Joseph Smiths retranslation of Genesis explains that Man was created and formed physically before any other animal had formed. So, if man was here before the animals, then he possibly couldn’t of evolved from them.
Yet another issue is that the geneology of the Old Testament shows the lineage of the human race starting with Adam’s Father which is God himself.
The biggest one of all concerns the fall of the creation. It is very well established in scripture that the creation and all life was immortal intil Adama nd Eve fell. That being the case, there could be no countless ages of birth and death leading up to Adam and Eve.
Another point is this- if man is evolving and getting more intelligent and smarter, etc, why is it that in the beginning (Adam”s day) they lived longer, had more children, etc? Sounds to me like the human race is de-evolving to me! We live shorter lives, have fewer children and do not obey any Darwinistic survival of the fittest in our race. We protect the poor, hungry, handicapped, etc.
Many LDS may have a hard time believing this but if they believe in a creator at all (which you pretty much have to in order to be a Christian) then they must belive in Intelligent Design.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 30, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
I, too, am trying to figure out how they all work together, and since I have to spend my time doing an awful lot of other things (laundry, dishes, diapers, evil homework taskmaster, etc, in other words -building the Kingdom) I can’t just study life, like I could 10 years ago. I try in bits and pieces, but I’ll have to wait for the Eternities to truly piece it all together - in the meantime, I’ve been thinking.
I have to make dinner for tonight. Some of the ingredients come from my garden. I planted that almost four months ago, and before that, the little plants grew from seed at some nice nursery somewhere. While they were germinating, my kids and husband and I dug out grass, moved rock, built boxes, hauled dirt and compost and peat moss and vermiculite, etc, and mixed and dumped and shoveled some more.
After we had prepared our spot, we got some plants and some seeds, and in an organized way, put them together in the dirt, added water and chicken poop and prayed. Now, four months later, I need to make dinner.
I take different items from my garden, greens, tomatoes, zuchini, etc, along with different items from my pantry, that were prepared months (maybe years!) ago so that they would be available to me when I needed to make dinner. I even use some sauce that my husband made 2 months ago and we froze. It has spices and tomatoes and all sorts of things that themselves were prepared long ago, then combined into a finished product (sauce).
So I take the fresh ingredients, the pantry items, the frozen stuff we made months ago, and follow a specific recipe - and by no small miracle we get dinner on the table!
I created the meal, I personally helped create many of the ingredients that went into the meal, and maybe in a year or two, could completely get entire meals from just my own harvest, if I learn and work hard enough, but I’m not there yet.
I grew much of the meal from the dust of the earth, (elements, shall we say?) and by preparing it a certain way, following the recipe (DNA?) can create a wonderful finished product that will be nothing like its ingredients, yet very similar in many ways, because it is made from them.
I don’t claim to know how our earth was organized, but I know that God uses true principles to do so.
I believe that the periods of creation are not incompatible with a gradual, deliberate building of organisms by a wonderfully patient Father who spent unimaginable amounts of time preparing the planet for His ultimate work and glory.
Just like my kids could read the basic recipe and think they know how it works, we can see DNA and fossil records. Some take this knowledge and discount a creator, my kids know what happens if they are ungrateful for the dinner I make! Just because we (think we) know how things might work, doesn’t mean they weren’t done by Our Father. Man is a small part of all creation, “man is nothing” but yet, we are the entire point of all creation.
Just because I see truths in scientific principles, doesn’t mean I question my testimony - quite the contrary, it strengthens it.
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
That’s a pretty good analogy, SarahJane.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Um, Rob, Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father.
And was there no death in the garden, or the whole earth?
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Rob, I think the problem with “intelligent design” is that it just isn’t science. It is basically the religious belief in creation given a fancy new name so that it can be taught in a science class to counteract the teaching of evolution. It stems from parents being concerned that their children are taught that evolution explains the origin of human life. But, that doesn’t mean that it is actually science. According to the “God of this World” (wikipedia, of course),
Do you really think intelligent design belongs in science school curriculum?
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Stephanie,
I’m not ready to have some one else’s idea of gospel be taught in school, but neither do I like the scientists that force their athiest religion on young children by the ‘evolution explains away religion’ theory that I just don’t buy. I don’t think the science disproves God, so I don’t think they should teach that, either (and some do).
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
I agree, SarahJane. But I think that problem should be addressed differently than just adding in “intelligent design”. Overall, I think science should be taught with a lot more skepticism. So much “science” ends up being disproved later as better information is gathered. It happens all the time in major science journals. Science has its place, but I agree that too many theories, ideas, politics are taught as “science” (meaning it must be accepted as fact).
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
I’m with you, there - let’s teach scientific methods, and teach science history, theories and discoveries. Leave politics and religion (both theistic and atheistic) out of it, but leave room for discussion.
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Sounds like an intelligent way to approach it.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
A professor of mine stated that it was his opinion that God could have used evolution to bring about species on the earth, and that at some point in time, he decided to put one of his spiritually begotten sons in one of the bodies on the earth, and that is when man started to exist. I like that theory. It allows for evolution and for creation.
Comment by Emily A. — July 30, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
I see nothing wrong with allowing God to be part of the classroom discussion. Our constitution and Bill of rights protects us with that. Why not take advantage of it. I am not saying we should teach one how to worship, but that every avenue, including a Creator could be discussed in a totally scientific manner. I find it interesting that the only ones opposed to this are evolutionists- they want God to remain out of everything. Both the ACLU and the NCSE are partners in an evil athiest conspiracy. Shoot em on site I say!
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 30, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
BTW, That last sentence was just a joke, eh eh.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 30, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Whose God, Rob? What if the teacher and the bulk of the students are a different religion than you?
Comment by djinn — July 30, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
How do you discuss God “in a scientific matter”? I would rather not. My faith is not based in science. I don’t want to debate it on scientific merits.
Comment by Stephanie — July 30, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
I agree that we should not debate our faith based on scientific standards. I think there should be room for teachers to emphasize the theorhetical nature of unobserved, unproven ideas. I would hesitate to allow a teacher room to teach their personal beliefs to younger children, it would be confusing. Older students should be allowed to ask questions and discuss theories, within reason. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to students, though - schools are not democracies. A teacher mentioning different creation beliefs? That would be OK, but pretty hard to do right outside of college classes, it takes a lot of maturity to be able to respectfully discuss other’s beliefs, and most high school kids haven’t thought much beyond what their parents believe, so it would be interesting.
Best to leave science to science teachers, and religion to seminary teachers…
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Rob at 182: “I am not saying we should teach one how to worship, but that every avenue, including a Creator could be discussed in a totally scientific manner.”
So, it’s turtles all the way down, eh?
Comment by djinn — July 30, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
djinn,
You see, this is where a rather generic term- “intelligent designer” comes into play.The problem with our education system is being afraid of the very mention of the Almighty- whatever we may call him. People are so worried also about offending another or even dare I say “separation of church and state” of which isn’t even a part of the 1st amendment that all we are left with is the very thing that our Forefathers were afraid of- the government establishing a law which respects the rights of one religion (in this case- atheism) over another- even to the exclusion of others.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 10:24 am
I declare djinn the winner, hands down. Once your opponent uses the forefathers-as-prophets argument, they’re done. They have nothing left for a valid debate.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 10:43 am
IdahoG-ma,
You are like a back seat debater….
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 10:48 am
That’s me. And why not, I am hands down the best back seat driver in the west, I have even asked the hubs to install a rearview mirror on my side of the car. A girl has to play to her strengths.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Rob Osborne, “Intelligent Design” is, simply, not science and as such has no place in the science curriculum. Its only theory is that the world doesn’t make sense, and so a deux-ex-machina–God–must be applied when science does not have the answer.
This is the opposite of science. When “science” doesn’t know the answer, the correct response is to look around and think about what the answer might be, rather than throwing one’s hands up and declaring that there is no solution. (I.e., “Intelligent Design.”)
Your answer is doubly informative because it also puts a lie to the idea that “Intelligent Design” is anything but Christianity writ (badly) sciency.
Finally, leaving religion out of the science classroom is no more anti-religion than leaving religion out of a cooking class. To quote Pierre Laplace, one of the most brilliant scientists of all time (he formalized Newton’s equations to give some idea of his place in the pantheon), when asked by Napoleon where God was in his view of the universe, he famously replied ” ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ (”I had no need of that hypothesis.”)
“Science” has no need of the “God” hypothesis. Occam’s razor.
Teach what you call “Intelligent Design” somewhere other than science classes. It, simply, does not belong.
If ID can come up with an actual testable hypothesis, then you have a case, but so far everything that has been produced is between laughable and heart-breakingly not only wrong, but to quote another actual scientist, “not even wrong.”
Comment by djinn — July 31, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
I am as Mormon as it gets - both in commitment and in calling(s). Just need to get the basic bonafides out of the way up-front for at least one commenter.
The LDS Church’s official statement about the exact nature of the creation of life and physical bodies is, “We don’t know.” I agree with the LDS Church on this one, and if Rob chooses not to do so, that’s his right.
I believe in evolution as the process by which mortal bodies are created - and the ruling statement from the LDS Church (which most members either haven’t read or don’t understand) leaves that possibility open. (I will paste the actual sentence into a following comment.)
I believe Mormonism teaches a very clear evolutionary path for us from intelligences to gods - that we start out as a different spiritual “species” than we end up becoming.
I believe in God as Creator / Organizer / General Designer / Master Scientist Extraordinaire.
I believe scriptures are people’s best attempts to explain their beliefs about God - and that when you put the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and current Ensigns / Proclamations / GC talks back to back and compare them you get a really good understanding of evolution writ large and what it really is.
I believe Intelligent Design as commonly explained is a load of crap - and, at its core, anti-pure-Mormonism.
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
From a First Presidency statement printed in the November 1909 New Improvement Era and re-published in the February 2002 Ensign, the critical excerpt stating the LDS Church’s official position relative to evolution is:
The official statement of the LDS Church is that we don’t know for sure, but that there is NOTHING in our theology that excludes Adam from having started his physical existence as an embryo. There is NOTHING in Mormonism that dictates evolution cannot be the process by which our bodies developed to the point where they were ready for the insertion of a spirit that would create a new species - related to its physical predecessors and subject to animalistic, “natural” tendencies but totally different in potential. (Imo, that’s about the only construct that makes sense of “the natural man is an enemy to God” - but that’s probably for a different discussion.)
Any philosophy that denies that possibility is not “Mormon” at the fundamental level, according to the most “mainstream Mormon” interpretations of orthodoxy.
(Ironic, isn’t it, that those who scream the loudest about evolution being an evil, God-less philosophy generally are the ones preaching the loudest to follow the Prophets the most closely - and yet they are the ones in this case who are ignoring the Prophets (and even, by extension, accusing them of apostacy) and espousing their own interpretations as Truth over what the Prophets have said).
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Sorry, I forgot to insert the following link to the 2002 Ensign article I referenced in my last comment:
Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
djinn,
You are so well uninformed. ID is very much a part of scientific study. You seem to be mistaking bible class from ID- two separate studies. Bible class studies to find out who we are, why we exist, who God is, and why we need salvation from hell. ID is the scientific study of complex orderly intelligent systems in nature and the universe.
When studying cells for instance, we study why and how the inner workings operate. This study is the study of intelligent design. Let me explain-
We know that DNA is a coded language. What does it encode? It encodes design information on an intelligent level for the sole purpose of continuing its complex condition- replicating itself. Thus, DNA as we can best describe it is an intelligent code that is made to be read by other biological intelligent matter and give it the directions to make intelligent parts serving both purpose and function. The proteins that read the information are also coded themselves fromthe DNA strand as to how they themselves are made. This is an instance of ireducible complexity at that level- DNA is not remade and duplicated without the available protein, yet the DNA is what encodes for how that protein to be built. ID is the study of this phenomenon in nature.
Intelligent design scietists study why systems such as a cell can only be produced by having a plan (DNA in this case) available. The implications also lead them to study and hypothesize that the DNA code itself did not evolve naturally on it’s own from nothing due to the facts in place showing DNA only being made from already existing proteins which themselves were built by a coded intelligent plan to begin with.
The study of ID can also be applied to many fields including computer science. We are all aware of the study and furhter work concerning artificial intelligence, random generators, etc, that sets out to duplicate what evolution claims it can do. One of the unique principles as it applies to computer science is that in reality there is no such thing as a truly random generator or a true intelligence that can come froma computer program. The underlying principle is that whatever did come from a random generator program and formed something we view as intelligent information was in fact programmed to produce specifically that all along. That is what is so interesting about the effects of intelligent communication and intelligent systems. Anything that produces an intelligent communication can be shown through multiple hypothesis to have been entirely generated from either the direct product of an intelligent agent or intelligent entity ort its byproduct.
Science thus clearly shows that intelligent systems, whatever they may be- a living cell or a computer chess program, are not the products of random chance events driven by the natural laws. The hypothesis thus of ID scientists is to show that intelligence or signs of intelligence can only come from an intelligent system itself. The flip side of this study is to show that Nature does not nor is capable of producing intelligent information shared by multiple cognative systems of intelligence (such as the interactions of the DNA and protein together).
Try informing yourself a little more. You may surprise yourself.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Ray, that same article also states that man did not evolve from animals. read the whole thing.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Rob, you’ve been sadly misinformed. The bulk of our DNA is junk of various types–outdated versions of currently-working genes, broken genes that have analogues in similar species (I suggest you read up on how chimps and us share an almost identical version of a broken vitamin C synthesizing gene. Unlike most other mammals such as dogs and cats, neither chimps nor us can synthesize vitamin C and we know exactly why), ‘broken’ retroviruses, etc. It’s fascinating stuff that shows the, uh, random nature of the DNA code, and in turn, us.
Your comments have consisted of hand-waving. How about an example or two?
Comment by djinn — July 31, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Rob, I read the whole thing. I never claimed man as an entire soul evolved from animals. I made that clear in my comment. I agree 100% with the article, based on what it actually says; you don’t. It’s really that simple.
Mis-representing the article and ignoring the part that directly contradicts your position - then mis-representing my comment, ignoring its substance and throwing in a totally irrelevant comment (then, to top it off, scornfully accusing me of not reading the entire article) doesn’t constitute discussion. I’m not going the rounds with someone who takes that route, since it is extremely childish and just ends up going absolutely nowhere.
If you actually want to discuss what I wrote, please comment thoughtfully and respond to what I actually said. Otherwise, please ignore my comments and argue with others.
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Rob Osborn
You are so well uninformed. ID is very much NOT a part of scientific study. From the National Academy of Sciences–”Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25
Try informing yourself a little more. You may surprise yourself.
I beginning to think your a 20 year old guy getting his jollies by writing the most asinine things, proclaiming it doctrine and then sitting back and laughing silly.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 31, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Suzanne,
Grow up.
I don’t care about the opinions of pro-evolutionist websites. Reply to what I posted or leave out of it.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
djinn,
I gave examples of ID. Did you not read the post?
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Rob Osborn
Now I’m getting pretty certain how you are getting your jollies.
What next?
You going to tell Heart surgeons they don’t know the first thing about operating.
Car mechanics that they couldn’t recognize an engine.
Yet, according to you, the National Academy of Science doesn’t know anything about science. You don’t care. You are the expert. When’s the Nobel prize coming?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — July 31, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Rob Osborne, your explanation was nonsense that was long on tendentious argument and short on actual examples. You said that there was a code in DNA, therefore (big big leap here) there was a designer. I said the code didn’t appear to be designed, due to its very nature, with examples, such as the shared broken genes for synthesizing vitamin C that both humans and chimps possess.
This also shows that humans and chimps are related, btw.
You don’t know anything at all about DNA that I can tell.
Comment by djinn — July 31, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Specifically, Rob, how about this comment:
What are these multiple hypotheses that show that “intelligent communication” is the the product or byproduct of an intelligent agent? If such hypotheses exist (which they do not, btw (hint, Goedel), where did God come from (an even more intelligent agent?), and where did the God + 1come from, on up to God + n?
Comment by djinn — July 31, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
This is not meant to be directed to any person individually. It’s sad that I need to make that clear, but it is important to do so.
The issue here seems quite simple to me. I am going to posit two statements and comment on each:
1) There is a God, and God is intelligent, so creation is the result of the exercise of intelligence - which we will call “Intelligent Design” - but we really don’t know exactly all the steps about HOW the actual creation began and has continued. We will accept any explanation in which God might have played the central, creative role.
This leaves the door open to many different ways the creation, in general, and the creation of life (and, more particularly, human life) might have occurred - from simple to complex. I can accept that definition of “Intelligent Design” (with the only reservations being semantic) - and I think pretty much every theist wouldn’t argue too strenuously with it.
2) There is a God, and God is intelligent, so creation is the result of the exercise of intelligence - which we will call “Intelligent Design” - and we know how the actual creation began and has continued because our religious scriptures tell us, no matter what scientific discovery has occurred over time.
This leaves the door open to NO different ways the creation, in general, and the creation of life (and, more particularly, human life) might have occurred. It also is based on a very literal interpretation of scripture and ignores all possible figurative or allegorical interpretations. It is one way and one way only (the one that was postulated first by people at least 3,000 years ago) - and it doesn’t matter how absurd any detail is (like the earth is only 6,000 years old, because when the Bible says “day” it just has to mean “a 24-hour period), because that’s what those ancient people said.
I cannot accept that definition of “Intelligent Design” (mostly because it’s not very intelligent) - and I think pretty much every theist-scientist who doesn’t lean toward fundamentalism in their denomination (including Mormons in that group) would argue strenuously against it. When “Intelligent Design” is used in our modern society, it means a specific religious philosophy, not a more broad, expansive postulation void of specific limitations.
I have no problem with the general concept of a creation that was designed intelligently. I have a HUGE problem with the specific religious-socio-political philosophy of men mingled with scripture that is called “Intelligent Design” - and the way that its proponents want it taught as science instead of religion. It’s a religious philosophy, not a scientific theory.
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
Ray, you put it so well, I want to do a little dance.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
thank you Ray! We sometimes forget that we don’t have a complete scriptural record of everything that ever happened from pre-creation til now. We have what we need to seek our salvation, nothing more. Assuming otherwise is pretty presumptuous.
Comment by SarahJane — July 31, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
I am curious about something- Darwinian evolution posits that complex life evolved that way from simple to complex. We call it a “scientific theory”. So, If a group of scientists decided that it is wrong and posted a theory to counter its claims, is that the premise for it also being a “scientific theory”? Is that not what ID sets out to specifically do?
On that alone we should be able to agree that because darwinian evolution is a theory, a counter claim to prove it false should also be theory.
Comment by Rob Osborn — July 31, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Rob Osborn
If you really are curious– learn what a scientific theory is and about the scientific method.
To quote Carl Sagan, “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That’s perfectly all right; they’re the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.”
And from a National Academy of Sciences, “Is evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, “theory” does not mean “guess” or “hunch” as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.
Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.”
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It’s an idea that says God did it. There is no way to test this idea, nor does it explain the evidence. It is not a scientific theory
If you want to understand, go ahead and read this– http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R1
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 1, 2010 @ 1:25 am
Rob, more on the question of why Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Theories have to have predictive power, and there has to be some way to show that a theory is incorrect.
For example, Evolutionary theory proposes 1) organisms that appear similar (not only appearance, but internal structures as well) are more closely related than organisms that look different. For example, the rosebush outside should not as closely related to me genetically than a chimpanzee is.
This can be tested by peering into the genes of me, the rose, and the chimpanzee–the similarity of each can be noted. If the rosebush looked more like me genetically than a chimp, this would be a pretty strong proof that the Theory of Evolution was wrong.
The fossil record, likewise, could disprove the Theory of Evolution by having a fossil in the wrong place. That is, the rocks of the earth are of different ages; the rocks in a strata of a certain age can only have fossils of creatures from that age. If someone found the fossil of a modern rabbit in precambrian rock, that would disprove the Theory of Evolution.
As to predictive power, In 2006, scientists discovered a fossil link between fish and the earliest known land critters by determining when such a creature would have appeared, and then finding rock of the appropriate age. After a suitable amount of fossil-hunting, Tiktaalik, one of those not-nearly-so-rare-as-some-would-hope transitional species was found. The book “Your Innner Fish” by the co-discoverer of Tiktaalik has already been recommended on this thread, I again recommend Rob reads it, if only so he has the background information to have a more fruitful conversation.
How would you (or anyone else, for that matter) disprove Intelligent Design? What predictive power does ID have? If someone cannot test an idea to see if it is right or wrong, and if the idea cannot extend our reach of this rather amazing universe then that idea lies outside the realm of science.
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 11:30 am
Evolution is still called Theory because we cannot test the “macro” part of it. The “micro” part we can document clearly (and test with insects and selective breeding, etc), and there is substantial evidence supporting the “macro” evolution theories, but it takes too long to do in a lab! (That I am aware)
So, it isn’t the Law of Gravity - something immediately testable, provable, etc. There is a lot of evidence, but not the same as like with gravity. I’m sure there are more examples, but they don’t float around in my brain like they used to…
Comment by SarahJane — August 1, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
djinn - I know portions of Darwin’s theory are difinitively testable, provable and documented, … like you said with genetics, etc. But not all.
Comment by SarahJane — August 1, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
SarahJane, the way the word “theory” is used in normal English is different than the exact same word “theory” used in a scientific context. This is extremely confusing. Only hypotheses that give accurate predictions about the world over time are elevated to the exaulted state of “Theory,” using the word in the sciencey way.
Evolution is a fact, as shown by the fossil record. Gravity is also a fact. I leave specific tests up to the reader. The Theory of evolution– common origin of critters on the planet, the process being descent with modifications (in a nutshell)–explains the fossil record and the existing species in ways that are predictive, testable, and consistent. The theory of gravity doesn’t exist. Currently, we just have hypotheses. Even though there is no universally accepted theory of gravity, a dropped object will still fall down.
The “macro” portion of evolution can absolutely be tested in three distinct ways:
1) the fossil record,
2) the physical structure of all living species, and
3) the genetics encoded in all living species.
All three types of tests converge. The converge so tightly that Evolution is the best-proven theory out there right now except for quantum mechanics.
For example, you could any given BYU biology professor about macroevolution.
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
For example, you could not drop words in the middle of sentences, djinn. Macroevolution is a fact as shown by the fossil record. The theory that explains microevolution, “Evolutionary Theory, or the modern synthesis, or whatever you want to call it, is accepted even by biology teachers at BYU.
However, as I lamely attempted to show with my gravity example, even without an extremely well-supported theory of evolution, macroevolution from a common ancestor is still a fact (cue fossil record, genetics, and physical nature of existing species).
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Lets get some things straight here. For one thing, Quoting the National Acadamy of Sciences is like Quoting the National Geographic or the ACLU or the NCSE, all of which show some bias towrads evolution and against Inteligent design. By that standard am I allowed to quote from The Dicovery Institute or Intelligentsdesign.org or even from prominant scientists such as Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer? Besides that we know that both ID and evolution has drawn lines in the political field also. We know that the conservative right believe in a Creator and ID for the most part while the left has sided with atheism and evolution for the most part.
Organizations have strong political ties that go so far as to also effect judges and their opiniated yet politcal rulings. Are we aware of whose side we are on when we agree with differing organizations and people? For instance- I was speaking with a professor at BYU over evolution and he kept quoting Dawkins- a staunch evolution supporter. With Dawkins, who has garnered a very favorable following amongst scientific organizations like the NCSE, he has built his entire legacy around evolution while at the same time dismissing God and even attributing the worlds problems to mans belief in Christianity. Of mormons, he hates them. So, as we side with individuals and organizations that seem popular, underneath they really are at battle or war with Christianity and it’s movement. Its no wonder that it is also a political battle. Lets just be careful of whose side we are really on.
The other issue I have is defining what is fact and what isn’t fact. Evolution, as used to describe the varriances in a beetles population from one generation to the next can be considered “fact”. Evolution as used to describe mans ascent over millions of years from primates is anything but fact. That is why we call it a “theory”. Many organizations like those on the left use trickery to confuse the public into believeing that macro-evolution is a “fact” when in FACT it is not. We could go off on a whole evenue on semantics of the various words and terms but sufficeth it to say- a fact is something established as being absolutley true. Facts are things that do not generally get questioned by the general masses. For instance- “The moon is round” is a “fact”. A car that is painted red is said to be a fact when in fact it really is red.
The interesting point about the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context is that it is used as a form of battle by both sides in the use of its semantics and application principles. I know for a fact that the scientists on the right call “ID” a true scientific theory, while on the left, scientists belonging to pro-evolution groups and affiliations dismiss it on grounds that it fails “their own” criteria for what a theory is and what may be termed scientific or not. I know for a fact that these same groups will dismiss any evidence from scientific study if it leads to or points to there being something “intelligent” involved such as God or a Creator of some sorts regardless of the merits holding any ground.
This of course has shown its ugly head in various court rulings by lawyers and judges swayed by the left. So what we really have at that level is not judges saying what can or can’t be “science” so much as the fact that they are not in a position to officially rule on what theories can and can’t be taught in school because when they do so they do it in a disregards as to what the bill of rights allows for us to be protected in our free speech and religious beliefs.
As for this criteria-
1) the fossil record,
2) the physical structure of all living species, and
3) the genetics encoded in all living species.
Evidence from scientists on the right have shown the discrepencies in dating methods, geologic anomalies and hydraulic sciences. There is ample evidence that the geologic column trapping what we now have as the fossil record was laid rather quickly. Of course both sides will dispute the others findings. Because of the discrepencies and data we can conclude that we do not know enough about the geologic column to make true or accurate measured factual statements.
The physical structure of things, while on the surface points to a common ancestor, for others shows a common intelligent designer who created or designed with similar techniques. There are some obvious anomalies such as certain types of insect which can blend in with their surroundings quite well. Of course on the surface the structure may look like a “twig of a tree” we know or believe that it didn’t come froma tree even though that is what it looks like could be its closest relative. Structure similarities does not prove a common ancestor. It can be strongly argued that design similarities can be tied to a loving creator or designer that utilized the best structure similariteies that best suits them in an environment with the similar hazzards being the same for all creatures.
The genetics encoded in living things may show similarities, but that alone does not necessitate a common ancestor. Genes code for certain traits in living things. It could once again be strongly argued that plans for certain traits in defferent species are the same and yet built separately once again showing that designs may be copied and used in other species without actually taking the actual biologic matarial from the one into the other. Genetic lab techs do this all the time- altering, changing, or even adding genetic information in things to bring about similar results in differing species. How is a genetic lab tech any different than an intelligent designer?
The bottom line is this- We must be careful whose side we are really on in this battle. Ask yourself this- do my LDS beliefs in a Creator and the creation interfare with this or that organization or persons personal or political beliefs?
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Rob, we are going to hell if we don’t side with you? Really? That’s your augment? When you’re losing a debate you scream that the left and science are evil, that’s your strategy? You obviously have an agenda, but you will never convince me that it is in our best interests to teach God, in any way, in the schools. You understand that even if they do decide that they can teach about God it isn’t going to be our Mormon version, right? Yeah…..I still declare djinn the winner. Djinn and others have given you enough time, and you aren’t going to make any converts here. Even our most conservative bloggers aren’t buying it. Move along.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 1, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
So Rob Osborn, you are making a political argument? Evolutionary Theory and Evolution itself has nothing to do with politics, any more than math does.
To speak about specific evolutionary concepts, once you introduce God, then the argument is outside the realm of science. God could have produced the world as it exists, complete with the existing overwhelming evidence for evolution. Fine. Unarguable.
This, however, is a different argument than the one you are attempting to make, which is that Evolutionary Theory is fatally flawed. It’s not, and scientist one you quote to make your case against, I think, both evolution and Evolutionary Theory, Michael Behe, is an embarrassment who doesn’t know the field he is purporting to write about. If he did, he would know that the biologist H.J. Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize 1946 for identifying and explaining “Muller’s morphs,” a way that genes change, which lead to exactly the sort of structure that Behe decreed to be “irreducibly complex.” Ooops.
So, Behe took something previously shown to be a natural consequence of evolution and, uh, missed the point somewhat spectacularly.
Stephen Meyer, scientist number two, seems to be the chap who tried to use “information theory” to “prove” that an increase in the amount of information in DNA was impossible. Finally, an area that I have actually worked in. All Meyer proved was that he had no idea what information theory was about at all. None. None. None. None. None. None. Working from memory, as I recall, the best Meyer did was “prove” that it is impossible to have a hot bath in a cold room; rather amusing, actually. (He has no idea what “entropy” is.)
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
djinn,
This is exactly where I thought this debate would go- your guys against my guys. That is usually how it works out in these types of debates- You discredit my guys and I discredit your guys. If that is the case I guess there is nothing left to argue over because you seem quite assured that only your guys are qualified to make official scientific statements.
Once again, politics get in the way of the real truth. Oh well, I guess thats just the nature of the world we lve in.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
IdahoG-ma,
My argument all along is that the theory of Dawins evolution doesn’t coincide with Christianity, especially our LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine supports and mainatins at its most basic foundation that we were created each after our own kind- that we were designed and created by an intelligent being with both purpose and function. Evolution cannot claim this at all. If it did, then please show me your “peer reviewed” work supporting both evolution and an intelligent designer.
As we give up the reigns to the popular likes of such individuals and organizations like Richard Dawkins and the ACLU and NCSE what we are really giving up is our own LDS core beliefs. Dawkins isn’t on the side of Christianity or creation. The ACLU isn’t on the side of LDS and their beliefs. The NCSE isn’t on the side of LDS beliefs ina loving and intelligent Creator. As we give up our reigns into the hands of these others by our own willingness to side with their beliefs, we thus make their cause become our own.
If you want to displace God and the Creation from society, then believeing and promoting evolution is one of the greatest ways to do that. Replace God with “nature”, go ahead, it is a free world- at least for now.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
One final word: It is ludicrous to state that Evolution and Evolutionary theory is only allowed to be taught by ” various court rulings by lawyers and judges swayed by the left.” The court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to teach ID in the classroom, Kitzmiller v. Dover, was decided by a republican judge, John E. Jones III, appointed by that arch-liberal President George Bush.
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Say what you want but evolution is swayed by the general masses on the left. I am sorry it is that way…but it just is.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Rob Osborn
You haven’t discredited anyone. There is no legitimate argument. It’s your view of theology vs scientific fact.
The quickest way to separate man from God is to present ludicrousness as the Truth. If you want advance atheism just keep on talking.
You’re doing a wonderful job.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 1, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Rob Osborn, you seem to have missed the section in school where you are required to show evidence to support your thesis. For example, simply listing two names (Behe and Meyer) does not an argument make. You have to say why they are more correct than those on the other side of this debate. Conversely, you could say why the evidence I proposed (Muller’s Nobel prize based on Muller’s morphs) against Behe is incorrect. That didn’t happen. You, instead, started name-calling. All I can assume is that you have no evidence.
Similarly, simply stating that “evolution is swayed by the general masses on the left” also lacks evidence. I gave you one conservative judge in the most important legal ruling dealing with the matter directly at issue. Rebut. Or you are wrong.
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Suzanne,
You must have me confused with someone else. I have been promoting the creation and the Creator all along in the face of “atheism and evolution”- the twin friends.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
djinn,
The only way that we are gonna continue this debate is to accept each others side to some extent. In saying that we have been unable to even get to the heart of what ID really stands for. If you can’t even accept it as theory there is no room for further debate because we will just continue to argue over semantics and who has authority and will never get anywhere. I find it interesting that in order to define each other we go to our own political side on the matter. Are you even LDS? Do you believe in the creation and in a Creator- an Intelligent Creator?
Also here- I found this interesting-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
Rob Osborn
When I was a kid, we all had a good laugh in Sunday School when someone quoted the prophet of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith as supposedly saying– Men would never land on the moon.
Well, guess what. Men did land. Or, are you also, one of those people who deny that. I hope no one based their testimony on Smiths statement.
If there is insistence that belief in God requires belief in a flat earth, a young earth, or that evolution is false, when someone religious comes across scientific fact, there may go the belief in God
So. in my opinion, those evil godless atheists would like thank you for the spectacular recruitment to their malevolent ranks.
But it’s a false choice. They are two different things. Several people here have stated both their belief in God and evolution. But you pooped on that. Do you really believe that defecation brought people closer to God?
So I can hear those evil atheists saying, “Keep up the good work, Rob.”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 1, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
Yeah, Rob we have heard it all before. God is a Republican. Now, we have proof of the theory because the Gallup poll said so. Oh, I will just have to repent of my evil liberal ways.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 1, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.
-Sir William Osler
We’ve heard alot of dogmatic statements throughout this thread. One thing common among scientists who examine the competing hypothesis of intelligent design, is the unwillingness of the ID folks to submit their work to the scientific process, to peer review, to test ideas and to produce the evidence. ID is huge on PR from the wealthy religious right, and short on evidence and peer observation from any credible scientific organization. Thank God ID was struck down as a religious philosophy in 2004, and banned as a substitute hypothesis to be taught along side evolution in science classes.
“Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.”
“Evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don’t need to prove it anymore. Nonetheless we must explain why it happened and how it happens.
-Ernst Mayr, Harvard University
By the way Rob, most people who are fighting the joke that is intelligent design are indeed most lines of protestants, most babtists, most catholics. ……..the anticreationist cause in the U.S. would be doomed without the help of Christians who are favorably inclined toward the teaching of evolution. -University of California, Berkely.
And don’t forget Rob, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. The Church has been on the wrong side of the social sciences for over 1,500 years, sounds like your view has been a common failed view historically speaking, but hey, you’re entitled!
http://discovermagazine.com/photos/intelligent-design.s-08-biggest-fails
Comment by Rude Dog — August 1, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
“The church” takes no position on evolution, only that God is the Creator.
The historical persecution of scientists was done prior to the restoration. I know some in the LDS church have been staunchly against this or that, with science, but “the church” itself has tried to stay out of these matters, unless they infringe on our ability to worship, or like in one case where some one claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist, and the Church issued a statement that he had been ressurrected, which I think is cool.
Comment by SarahJane — August 1, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
This is an interesting article on lds.org that relates to evolution:
Comment by Stephanie — August 1, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
Stephanie, you are my hero.
Comment by SarahJane — August 1, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
As I have said- theistic evolution is completely unsupported in the theory of evolution. if you guys want to believe in both the creation and evolution then get your own train and ride it, don’t ride the same tracks as general evolutionary theory as it completely discards God and the creation.
If I am wrong then provide me with peer reviewed matarial which supports darwinian evolution with creation.
As for now I will stand behind what I have always maintained- evolution is atheistic and if you favor darwinian evolution then you do so in the face of the knowledge of an intelligent Creator and God himself.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 1, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Rob, there are many thousands of theistic evolutionists inside and outside the LDS Church (including, by the way, multiple apostles) - and, as I quoted already, the Church’s reigning statement on the matter leaves the possibility open for theistic evolution. Are you really saying that people like John Widstoe, Henry Eyring, James E. Talmage, etc. were closet atheists? Seriously?
However, you are missing the point totally with regard to the comments in this thread. In #233 you used the EXACT same argument that others have been using against you - that there is no firm scientific proof of theistic evolution. OF COURSE THERE ISN”T - and I’ve never shouted anything ever on this site. That exact same argument applies to Intelligent Design.
In essence, all you just said is that it’s impossible to prove scientifically that God exists, is the Creator and used evolution in order to create the physical bodies of mankind - which isn’t exactly a controversial statement. However, it is the exact same argument against teaching ID as a scientific theory instead of a religious philosophy that has been put forth by multiple people with whom you are arguing - that whether or not God exists and was involved in the creation of this world cannot be proven scientifically. The differences between the two are important religiously to some people but totally semantic scientifically.
I’m probably done with this thread. Nothing is accomplished when the exact same argument ends up being used by both sides to support two different conclusions. Impossible impasses just aren’t my thing.
Comment by Ray — August 1, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Stephanie’s last post is profoundly anti-scientific. How do you, Stephanie, and you, Rob Osborn, ever get on a plane, or have any medical procedure, as the outlook you present directly implies that planes shouldn’t fly and medicine shouldn’t work; not to mention the even more complex outcomes of the scientific world view. Do you think some sort of magic makes your lights turn on?
Comment by djinn — August 1, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
The article Stephanie posted clearly states the flaws in the currently taught THEORY of evolution - those things which cannot be proved or tested in a lab. (as opposed to evidence one may draw logical conclusions from, but may change as a more developed group of facts and knowledge is acquired) However, it also refers to many things we have the capacity to do ourselves that prove the general principles of evolution to be real. It is very logical (though not scientifically proveable) that step by step building of our Earth and systems took place, with careful deliberate direction towards the ultimate ends of creation. Look at the balance of nature, the air, the temperature, the resources, the microbes, all of it had to be developed prior to introducing higher species, which are dependent on the life cycles now existant.
Some one I love once did not believe in Dinosaurs, because they couldn’t figure how they fit into the Bible. As I take my children to museums, walking underneath the ginormous fossils so painstakingly prepared by scientists, I am in Awe of a loving Father in Heaven who prepared such a beautiful, perfect world full of life and everything we may need.
He truly encompasses all of creation, in all of our lives everyday, definitely not just “in the gaps.”
Comment by SarahJane — August 1, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
Stephanie, you said:
Give an actual cite or I’m calling foul.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:02 am
SarahJane, do you ‘believe’ in dinosaurs?
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:04 am
Djinn, now you are being silly - it does not imply any kind of magic, only that in our observable, lab-tested science, a direction or energy source must be present, that accident alone is insufficient ( and unprovable) as the means of evolution. There are several leaps of faith required for both unguided evolution and theistic evolution. To each his own.
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 12:09 am
oh, and “duh” on the dinosaurs, as well as all the other specimins of fossils I have personally seen and handled, including various species “between” chimpanzees and humans. My awe and acknowledgement of their existance does not change by testimony that God was at the helm. (I am not advocating for ID being taught in schools, as you will see in my earlier posts.)
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 12:15 am
Oh, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with whether or not evolution happened. The second law of thermodynamics states that randomness in an isolated system will increase over time. The earth is not an isolated system–you know that big yellow ball in the sky during the daytime? I hear rumors that it’s called “The Sun.” It provides extra energy (the sun’s rays) that produce extra stuff in the world. The second law of thermodynamics is fine with evolution on the earth as we are continually bombarded by extra energy from the sun.
Invoking the second law of thermodynamics as a proof against evolution is really really a completely unsupportable idea and immediately demotes the promoter to not only cluelessness but also complete irrelevance and (bonus!) a guarantee that listeners will assume (correctly) that the person in question has only a tenuous grasp on reality (or at least the most basic ideas in science). Sorry. Might as well tell someone on an anonymous board; don’t do it in the hearing of people who know who you are.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:23 am
On the other hand, failing to close my italics may invoke in readers the idea that I am an idiot when it comes to HTML. Correct they are.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:25 am
SarahJane, as you don’t accept evolution, either the fact or the theory, where do you think dinosaurs came from? God having a frolic?
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:30 am
Stephanie
Thanks for the Link.
A couple problems. I am totally surprised the author brought the old canard of the second law of thermodynamics.
Here’s a link without math that explains–http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
The other thing, don’t know about the grasshopper, but I have two words–calrose rice.
And here’s a link–http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html
It’s the short essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 2, 2010 @ 12:33 am
I just saw Emily A’s post at 81 stating that “What the bleep do we know” contains theoretical physics. Ask a theoretical physicist. See him or her fall down because they (actual correct usage until the mid 18th century) are laughing so hard. Hint: English is not the language of the universe.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:43 am
Yes, I should quit, but SarahJane, there are NO SPECIES (ahem, sorry), between chimpanzees and humans. Proto-chimps and proto-humans diverged about five million years ago. That is, chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor about five million years ago. We do not descend from monkeys. Humans and (old world) monkeys descend from a common ancestor a very long time (5 million years) ago. In spite of the huge time difference, humans and chimps only differ in their DNA by about (depending how you calculate it) 1.7 percent.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 12:55 am
djinn,
I very much believe that the majority of the theory of Evolution is good and true. I have said that repeatedly here, and stated that my only quibble is the assumed random accidental nature of that progression of species, which I believe is not possibly to verify without Dr. Who’s time machine and immortality. Athiests have faith that evolution explains everything, even if all the pieces don’t quite fit, or we don’t understand them yet. I believe that God will someday explain everything, even if the pieces don’t quite fit, because I KNOW I don’t understand everything (yet). In the meantime, my brain is very capable of seeing the diversity and development in the fossil record, as well as our recent advances in science, that point to a gradual development of species over time. I just believe that the whole point was the creation of Earth for man, not accidental random no-purpose existance. That is my faith, which I would keep separate from my science, if I were to teach it. I only ask that others do the same.
The magnificent resources of the earth developed over time, that is certain, and the oil, coal, soil, air composition, etc, are what they are because of the eons of life that was created and died, forming the balance of nature as we know it.
Are you saying the same thing as Rob - Theistic Evolution is impossible?
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 1:02 am
SarahJane, I am saying that once God is invoked as an answer, Science is meaningless. Saying “God did it” cannot be refuted by science. You get God or Science, not both. I am not saying Theistic Evolution is impossible, I’m saying it is a theory outside of science and cannot be discussed in the same terms. If you think God magicked this amazing world into existence, fine; but then leave innocent science out of it. And if God did magic the world then where are the unicorns? They are in the Bible, after all.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:08 am
Oh, and I know that our genes are so similar, and my chimp to human comment was just simplifying, as it is late and most people haven’t studied as much science as you have. I think its amazing that we carry Neanderthal DNA, too (although observing my husband’s table manners should have been proof enough).
My brain is too tired, and spelling out different species like Austraileopithicus would probably only display my need for spellcheck (could FMH get spellcheck?) but I have taken a few courses, back in the day before diapers and elementary school homework completely took over my life.
Thanks for the lively debate, as always…
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 1:10 am
So, SarahJane, I have encountered an argument many times in my life that essentially runs:
Me: various stuff.
The other Person: Wow, you know way more about this subject than I do. But if I knew as much stuff as you did my side would win. Therefore in spite of my lack of any sort of rebuttal to your points I totally win this argument. (Never once has this argument been presented this cogently, for the record.)
Is that what you just did?
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:14 am
Again, I agree, in the lab and in the classroom, God and science do not really mix. The scientific method would not really work to prove God’s existance. It also does not work to disprove His existance. However, in a forum such as this, hypothesizing purpose and method of Deity in Creation in completely appropriate, and dare I say, fun. I make no claims to know how He did it, only that I believe He did. I would love to learn the methods and mechanisms, so I can become more like Him, and learning all about our world is one part of that equation.
As to magic and unicorns, I, too, am dissapointed. Dragons would also be nice, as long as there were wizards to handle them.
But spellcheck would be great, I really hate spelling….
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 1:17 am
Actually, I’m taking comment 250 back with reference to SarahJane, as long as she reads up on the second law of thermodynamics. Rob Osborn, on the other hand, I have less sympathy for.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:19 am
djinn,
You seem to know a lot but disregard the main and important points people are making.
Re: my contribution to this post, “expell(ing) god from the universe”; I am not a scholar so you’d have to take up that comment with the scholar who authored that statement. I don’t understand the significance you put on Darwin’s wife, Emma’s, deep religious values when referring to his theory of Evolution. Plus, I never discounted Darwin’’s theory. I said it supports my testimony.
But thanks anyway for providing feedback.
Comment by Rhonda — August 2, 2010 @ 1:21 am
I agres, SarahJane, English spelling is not only difficult but actually malevolent. I know some of the history–English was undergoing a profound pronunciation change (known as the great vowel shift though consonants changed as well) at exactly the same time that spelling was being more or less formalized. So, words in English from the get-go were spelled differently than they were pronounced. Lucky us.
Plus, we (us poor English speakers) sometimes got the spelling of a word from one part of England and the pronunciation from a different location with a different dialecgt. As an example, I give the word “Women.”
My personal opinion is if the meaning can be understood, it’s all good.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:25 am
Um, huh?
I believe in Evolution, I don’t think ID or creationism should be taught in class (outside of Sunday school, that is) But I also believe in God, hence the “mormon” part of the FMH equation. I have not claimed that I was opposing your “side,” I have much more in common with you on this subject than with Rob, I am sure. MY philosophy is simple, I love to learn, both science and scripture. If I shut my mind to either I would feel ungrateful to HF.
Did that clear up anything?
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 1:25 am
Ok, thanks for clearing me of the charges… maybe a magic spellcheck? I reallyshould to go to bed…..
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 1:29 am
Rhonda, I know I write poorly. I’m deeply sorry that I didn’t make my point in an understandable way. It, simply, is that God (because he can perform miracles) and science (because replicable non-miraculous events is a requirement) don’t mesh. You get to choose one. You choose God. Fine. Sorry sorry sorry that I wasn’t clear.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:30 am
I think God and science do mesh. I believe that there are no inconsistencies between TRUE science and TRUE religion, because truth is just that, truth. I believe that God’s miracles are accomplished through the laws of nature. Obviously, we don’t understand how or have the power to utilize those laws…but He does. Perhaps my opinions are too simplistic for many here, but they are what I believe.
Comment by Lera — August 2, 2010 @ 2:42 am
you are not alone, Lera.
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 2:48 am
So, Lera an SarahJane, you believe in an interventionist God? What’s he doing during the various genocides/holocausts that the world is heir to? Having a postum break? For example, what’s with the current ongoing slaughter in the Sudan caused at least in part by the increased desertification with a concommitant decrease in arable land leading to to few resources to go around. Why doesn’t he fix it? Would a bit of extra rain be too much to ask? Human agency is not required for such an outcome. Is he too busy locating your car keys in a pinch?
Lera and SarahJane, why do you risk airplane flight if you believe that “God’s miracles are accomplished through the true laws of nature” as clearly the same science that gave us trains, planes, and iphones do not account for and are the opposite of “God’s miracles.” How do you trust that your plane will fly?
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 2:57 am
djinn….somewhere (and I can’t remember who it was other than that it was a GA) stated that what we call God’s miracles are simply our meager way of stating that we don’t understand how He did something. Is there really anything that is a miracle? I don’t think so, only something that is unexplained (and that is why we have science: to attempt to find an explanation). I don’t think that anyone arguing God’s hand in evolution refutes, in any way, the idea that evolution was used in the creation of this world. We are told, theologically, that in these latter days there will be increases in man’s understanding that surpass all previous times. That is happening. We are finally becoming more and more open to the wonders that created this universe. Attempting to discredit God by stating that He couldn’t have used evolution because it is a scientific thing is atheistic at its core (if that is in fact what you are trying to do and not simply arguing). I happen to believe that God belongs in schools, but that theological teaching does not. Everything we have here is His. Everything that we learn and accept as fact or know is because He laid down the laws and rules and we have finally become knowledgeable enough to understand them. Evolution is a wonderful theory, and I accept the principle of evolution as almost a fact of creation. That being said, faith in God should not be taught in school at this time simply because it is unprovable, is based on personal conviction, and there are too many ridiculous theories about Him. If He saw fit to allow us to know the truth about Him, He would become testable, provable, and therefore scientific in nature. At that point He would have to be admitted, by our very arguments and laws, into discussion. But for now, until that happens, He stays out of it, and we keep Him out of it. Let it be taught at home, not to fill in the gaps, but to help understand where ultimate searching and intelligence can take us, and to recognize that He is the source of further light and knowledge. I just don’t see how science and God clash. I can, however, understand very easily how science and religion clash.
I don’t understand your mentioning of catastrophes and calamities that are happening in the world. How does that argue against a God, His love, or His creation of this universe? How does the accomplishments of technology do the same?
Comment by Keith — August 2, 2010 @ 5:31 am
I apologize, in retrospect, for any misunderstanding my comment will cause. I don’t know why, but someone always takes my words out of context and is offended where I meant no offense. Just an error on my part in not articulating things clearly.
Comment by Keith — August 2, 2010 @ 5:34 am
Science explains how. Religion explains why.
The problem comes when one tries to explain or discount the other one’s question.
Comment by SilverRain — August 2, 2010 @ 8:54 am
djinn, this is your point of debate? The article I cited is “anti-scientific”? Because I cited an article on lds.org that brings an interesting question into the debate (written by a scientist), you assume I believe in magic making things work? Since when was personal insult really an acceptable form of debate? Calling someone stupid and yourself smart is also not a great form of debate. It might make you feel good, but it doesn’t help the discussion.
djinn, did you not notice that I was QUOTING something? You can google the info the same as I can. Call foul all you want. I am not sure it really means anything anyways.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Looks like we are blurring the line between mythos and logos again. That doesn’t work very well….
Religion cannot be explained by logos, it cannot be proven or disproven and it is very subjective. I have been listening VERY carefully to testimonies, yesterday was another fast Sunday, and I am observing that personal knowledge of the religion come through undefined, subjective persoanl experiences rather than through empirical testing or observation. “I know” seems to be the buzz phrase, even in relation to the unknowable. “I believe” would be more accurate.
I was approached by the bishopbric yesterday and had to explain my boundaries. I told them that Mormonish was my culture, not my religion. They looked a bit puzzled.
My tribe is Mormon, my spirituality and my religion is something totally different. Like being a Baptist Jew…
Science, like it or not, is open to reexamining prior claims and correcting its course form time to time based on emerging technology and additional evidence. Religion, generally, is not as flexible.
Comment by PapaKrok — August 2, 2010 @ 10:38 am
Keith, actually well done. You’ve articulated what the greats, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and many others have explained when asked about the God question. Many have incorrect assumptions about the beliefs of the likes of Einstein, and Hawking. It appears that they only believed in God to the extent of how we understood and comprehended the natural laws around us.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I have to agree along this line of reasoning. We as mormons beleive in a creative process, replete with time frames. However, this is so increadibly vague, undescript, and short on detail, that to make assumptions on the how of it all is so presumptuous, so arrogant as to make reason stare. I think we are only on the beginning road to understanding, understanding that it is the natural laws that reveal the true majesty of God. As we gain knowledge, nothing should derail our faith in God. However, there will be discovery that will challenge long held dogmatic beliefs. Relgion has had to rethink major dogmatic assumptions in the light of discovery including some basics….flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, demonic possesion vs germ theory and mental illness….and on and on. We will also be brave to take the next step of casting off the archaic assumtions in favor of new discovery? I hear what sounds like great mental gymnastics….Adam was just the first man with a soul…..the earth was organized from other existing planets, hence the fossil record of dinosours and such…..
I think until we have the great book of “How I made the earth”, by God, I’ll concentrate on faith, hope and charity as my great life persuit, and revel in the discoveries of the natural world.
Comment by Rude Dog — August 2, 2010 @ 10:58 am
Bravo Papakrok. I hear you brother!
Stephanie and SarahJane, We could go on ad nauseam about the second law of thermodynamics. Google it and see how the creationists misconstrue the term. Again the subject is complex to the point that creationists know the lay public will not persue it and take their psuedo-scientific explaination at face value. We as mormons do not adhere to the creationist arguement, because Joseph Smith himself articulated the fact that we are truthseekers. ID is not just only an attack on evolution, but an attack on all of science.
Comment by Rude Dog — August 2, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Can I get an Amen?
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Papakrok, my bishop hasn’t approached me yet but I’m sure it’s coming. Guess I better prepare an answer. Might steal yours.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 11:28 am
Oh give me a break.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Rude Dog, you are not making any sense to me.
?????
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 11:39 am
This is why I have so much trouble. What rudedog said made so much sense to me, then Stephanie, who represents the main stream Mormon to me, can’t understand it. I really am never going to be happy as a Mormon am I.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 11:55 am
And I have to go to a family reunion this weekend with dozens and dozens of creationists, and people who worship Glenn, and are staunch Republicans and I think I better get my warrior woman armor out and polished. Pray for me.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Idaho-Gma, maybe your problem is that you keep categorizing everyone into sides and keep picking a side instead of just listening to many ideas and forming your own opinions. I don’t “represent main stream Mormon”. If I do to you, that’s just your own construct.
Would you do me a favor and quite trying to discredit people with snide remarks?
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Last time I checked, Mormons do believe that God created the earth and all things in it and humans (after His/Her image). It is the HOW that is at question. Heaven forbid you have to spend a weekend with people who believe that.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Ya know, IdahoG-ma, I have always found it amusing how quickly members of the church…oh heck, Christians in general, cling to the creationist theories as if they were the last morsel of bread in the cupboard. They switch their views every time a GA or other official claims to have further understanding, but never attempt to uncover the truth themselves. Fascinating contradiction to call themselves mormon (who, as a people, even BY stated that the gospel of JC is all truth encompassed into one), much less Christian by limiting the power and reach of God’s abilities. Man’s understanding is not God’s understanding? Really? Who do you think gave us our understanding? Perhaps what we seek and attempt to comprehend is on a minute part of His understanding, but it nonetheless comes from him. We, then, pollute it to make it fit our agenda. How sad. Good luck this weekend. Reunions at my family are always a riot…literally.
Comment by Keith — August 2, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
How do you know that, Keith? How do you know what people are learning and not learning on their own?
Judgement much?
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Stephanie, it is the question of HOW that creates so much contention to many staunch members of the church. Mention evolution as a possible method and they balk with demonic shakings of heathenistic repulsion. But ask them how He did it, and they have no answer that makes any sense. They cling to it like other churches cling to the Nicaean creed.
Comment by Keith — August 2, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Keith 278, I disagree.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
I’ll take that into consideration Stephanie. As for the snide remarks, Uhmm, I already work really hard at keeping them to a minimum, so that’s probably as good as it is going to get. I’m just snide.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Geez, I remember when opinion in Utah towards the MX missile changed overnight.
I’ve met many Mormons, who idea of research to discover the truth, is to find what some GA said about it. RIP McConkie Doctrine.
Personally when it comes to a secular field, I don’t want someone proclaimed as an expert if they have never studied it.
I don’t think my car mechanic should be researching lds.org in order to fix my car. If they want to fix their life, that’s another matter.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 2, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Is this in response to the link I found on lds.org? I was interested in finding out what an lds scientist had to say about evolution. Does the fact that I found it on lds.org discredit the fact that the man who wrote it is a scientist who discussed it with other scientists? Are only atheist scientists “credible”? Granted, you have pointed out articles that appear to contradict the thermodynamics question, but it’s not like he’s some unknowledgeable GA with no credentials.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Stephanie, I do apologize for my remark about you representing the mainstream Mormon. I crossed a line there, and I will, hopefully, do better in the future. I will try to not get my hackles up when I disagree with you. Please accept my apology.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Stephanie
I think it natural to want to know the Church’s position on important issues.But I do think the old Paul Dunn joke,something like,– I don’t know the Church s position. But we’re right and you’re wrong–has a bit of truth to it.
I think, atheistic or believer, a scientist who does not follow the scientific method is not credible.
I am disappointed that an article on lds.org is not more accurate.
An article may be 99% correct, but people will focus on the small mistake even if in is not germane to the argument. I think it unfortunate that thermodynamics and irradiation were brought in, because people may cite that as further evidence to discredit all of lds.org.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — August 2, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Thank you, IdahoG-ma.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Ray, (#234)
Apostles ar eallowed their varried oppinions- that much is fine. However, they should really anaylize what they say and believe in when faced with the facts of their own religious prejiduce.
In my comment of #233, I was making the point that theistic evolution and the general “evolution” that science holds in high regards are not compatible. Thiestic evolution actually falls under the intelligent design movement and theory more than darwinian evolution. The important thing to realize in darwinian evolution is that God or any other intelligent agent was not the cause or driving force in simple to complex evolution. What this means is that evolution was not a directed or planned event by deity or any other physical intelligent force or entity. So therefore, if you want to be a theistic evolutionist and but don’t believe in ID then get your own set of tracks and a train to ride that theory on because theistic evolution absolutely does not fit into the evolution that mainstream science supports.
I am not suggesting that theistic evolution isn’t “science”, I am stating that theistic evolution isn’t science by the same standards that science applies to their own darwinian evolution. Basically- theistic evolution and ID are both science in my book but in mainstreams book they neither are nor can be.
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 2, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Suppose that scientists were to find something in the cell that they determined could not have evolved in small steps- suppose that they determined that the only possibility for its very existance was that it had to have been intelligently designed or manufatured by some intelligent source. Would that prove Intelligent design would be true? Or, must all instances of this type be somehow explained by evolution from small undirected steps?
That may answer the grand quest- Are scientists predisposed to finding an answer that is only conforming to their own predisposition or are they truly objective?
Somehow I get the feeling that evolution scientists are predisposed to only finding a purely naturalistic (meaning; random or undirected by intelligence) answer and will not accept anything else. ID scientists on the other hand aknowledge and realize that randomness and indirection affects parts of life and its continuation (such as mutations in DNA) but also realize that God has directed the complex life they see- that it didn’t nor couldn’t of just came about through evolutions claims.
As LDS we must aknowledge and recognize as part of our devout religious beliefs that we exist solely because an intelligent Creator designed it to be that way. In every respects then, LDS followers believe in intelligent design for the reason of our existance. LDS cannot be true followers of Christ believing that we came about ina purely naturalistic and unguided set of circumstances.
The problem is thus obvious- LDS who also believe in evolution believe that we evolved to become what we are as humans from lower life forms but that it was a designed process involving an intelligent designer. Those few LDS who believe in an unguided evolutionary process for our existance must therefore reject the Creator as a whole. But, even intelligently directed evolution is not the “evolution” that mainstream science supports and teaches, no, they call that intelligent design.
So I guess my real question for all you theistic evolutionists is what part of evolution did the Creator design and plan or control to happen?
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 2, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
Stephanie, when I say ‘”creationist” argument, I’m referring to creationists, a group of ultra-right religionists who support the Intelligent Design mindset, including those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs sailed with Noah, and that all species were created in their present form. These people have started with a conclusion, and have worked backwards to find evidence, most of it dishonest and psuedo-scientific in support of their views. I hope we as mormons adhere to Josephs words about truth cutting it’s own way. It may cut into deeply held dogmatic beliefs (Adam being metaphorical, not literal), but we are better off as a species to know the truth of our existence.
“In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and science, and invariably on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stage may have seemed…, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and science.” Andrew Dickson White, founder of Cornell University.
IdahoG-ma,
Good luck this weekend. I know exactly how you feel. Bunch of Beckhannitylibaugh koolaid-drinkers at my family reunions. Kick their collective right wing knuckle-draggin mouth breathin cricket stompin asses! I love your spunk, you’ll be a hit!!
Comment by Rude Dog — August 2, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Thank you Rudedog.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
*sigh* I still don’t see how believing that evolution occured (as I do) would necessitate me believing Adam was not a real person? Just because I believe that God is everything, and at the helm, does not mean I don’t love to learn and study, and see all the new discoveries being made, and recognise truth in many of them? I can see and handle all sorts of pre-man species of fossils, know they were real, and still believe that God is my Father and Creator.
I do not know the spiritual history of the Earth out side of the 6,000 years we have record of, nobody does. Making assumptions based on my limited understanding would be silly…
It doesn’t matter that we believe God is at the helm, creator, intelligent designer, etc. In the classroom, we need to focus on the scientific Laws and Theories, and history, teaching the scientific method. I would not insert God or Zeus or athiesm into that equation, because NONE of it is conclusive by the scientific method. If you can not duplicate it in a lab, with consistent results, we don’t have enough info to call it a scientific fact. Theories, great, lets learn them, modify them, seek new understanding until we can prove or disprove through the scientific method.
Until we have that Handy “Creation for Dummies” by HF himself, I will consider the evidence and seek more knowledge, from all good sources, be they religious or not.
So Rob, stop lumping me with athiests, and Rude Dog, stop lumping me with the people pushing for Creationism in the schools, or a young earth theory, etc.
I do not drink any flavor of Kool-aid! I listen to all sides and think for myself. Which is what I teach my kids. It is totally possible to have strong faith and a curious, open mind.
And I disagree with some one’s statement that science remains open, but religion does not. people in general do not like change, whatever their affiliation. I see the faith of many who have changed their lives and opened their hearts and minds, because of religion. An many who have shut off all spiritual dialogue because of science.
Can’t we all just play nice? feels like my 6 and 7 year olds whining about who ate more ice cream, or who made the mess in the bathroom. bleh…
Comment by SarahJane — August 2, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Rob at post #288, a scientist that showed that theistic evolution was necessary would get a Nobel Prize.
Everyone else, I’m sorry. I got way too overheated and went off on random people (as is my sad, sad wont) due to my general cluelessness and random factors in my own life. I think, I believe, I trust, that Stephanie is a superhero who keeps her cape hidden simply because of the difficulty of getting it cleaned properly. What was I thinking? Oh, yeah, I was wrong.
And SarahJane and Lira, my sincere apologies for going off on you when you did nothing to deserve such poor treatment.
I admire all of you, actually, and feel both privileged and ashamed that I get to respond to you (poorly, generally) using this inexact medium — hastily and ill-advised letters lined up in vaguely English word order. You guys are my heros. As a self-proclaimed villain, like cat women (except for all the coolness and awesomenss) it at least gives me the leeway to wear leopard-pattern clothing. Not the catsuit, though. I do have my standards, low though they may be.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
Feminist Mormon Housewives, I wish I knew how to quit you.
In the interim, more thanks than I can express for your continued toleration of one so flawed as myself.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
Rob, let’s agree to end this in peace. Apostes being allowed to have their own opinions but being labeled prejudiced if they don’t match one specific outlook simply is unanswerable for me - especially when some of them are among the titans of our history, well respected by nearly everyone. I literally can’t respond to that properly, so let’s agree to walk away from it.
We simply disagree. That’s fine. We aren’t going to change each other’s minds, and I don’t want to fight about it. In the end, we both believe in God and that He created an amazing creation - with us as a unique species. That’s far more important to me than the differences surrounding the question of how he did so - and it’s why it’s so frustrating to me when the “minor” difference gets swallowed up in arguments that ignore the “major” similarity.
It’s hard enough to avoid fighting with others to think we’re cultists headed to Hell; I don’t like fighting among ourselves over what I consider to be practical trivialities. You seem to disagree with that conclusion, but it’s how I feel - so let’s shake hands and let it go.
Peace, brother.
Comment by Ray — August 2, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
djinn, I for one, love ya. We just get excited sometimes. It’s our passionate nature.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
I just had a rather astonishingly enlightening conversation with a kind, patient (need I say Mormon) relative that for me, yet again, throws this entire discussion into a different light. You guys rock for whatever your allowed values are comfortable with (and let me tell you that I, myself, have very strictly allowed values).
Now comes confession time, so feel free to ignore (even more than my normal comments.) I had a beloved bishop at BYU who held a chemistry PhD. The first time I heard the “the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution” was from his lips during a private conversation. I believe I answered that according to his reasoning, his kids could never pick up their rooms. (Think about it.)
Anyway, I was crushed. A man I truly admired and was truly a decent man according to any standard told me face to face that he was either lying to me or completely clueless about his own field. I was crushed. The outcome was (and as this happened before the last ice age) that I never talked seriously to him again, assuming (beyond incorrectly) that, well, just that if he would lie about the meaning of a law understand since 1824 (roughly, depending on how you count) how could I trust him on anything else.
Since, I have decided he was confused. My serious mistake. But he was a fine man by whatever standards you care to apply and the fact that I myself couldn’t forgive him for misunderstanding some law that only had relevance to our personal lives tangentially, basically, I regret to this day.
But yet, waving the 2nd law of thermodynamics in front of me is just like waving a flag in front of an overweight, out-of-shape, yet sharp-tongued cow (masquerading poorly as a bull.)
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Thank you, Idaho G-ma. You are kinder to me than I deserve. Also thanks Ray, for saying the same thing I was trying to say, but in Engilsh, and understandable (another djinn fail.)
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Ray was wiser than wise, and even managed to spell correctly. Pointlessly, but English. Ahhhhh.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
G-ma!
You can have it!! It worked, I think. I could see them zeroing in on me from the opening song… Of course I am 6′3″, bald, earringed (2 guage flesh tunnels with large ball capture hoops), dressed in black with slave bands and a wallet chain….oops. I could almost hear the water running in the font
the air kinda went out of them, (all three approached in a row) when I delivered the line.
I am willing to go, but on my terms. There seems to be a great deal of pressure there to be all in. I can’t make the jump. I don’t have it in me.
I haven’t figured out “subtle” yet. I might be too old to even learn at this point! PS…just as expected, the two weeks of peaceful, loving togetherness between myself and my SO was obliterated post fast meeting. Grrrrr.
Why is it so difficult to maintain a division between mythos and logos in the church? What if all of this is meant to be archetypal instead of literal? It makes soooo much more sense that way. I should be able to see the “vibration” behind the semantics, the essence behind the vocabulary and not commit myself to every rule and reg under the sun, right?
Comment by PapaKrok — August 2, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
Did I forget to apologize to anyone? So many insults, so little time. If I didn’t directly apologize, sorry. Group air hug.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
SarahJane 290: I agree! Thanks for writing!
Comment by Rhonda — August 2, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
Did I confuse Stephanie with Kimberly? Kimberly too has a superhero outfit. I picture her as a blonder, better looking wonder woman.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
But modest.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Oh, PapaKrok, I am such a copycat, but I have got to do that same outfit on Sunday.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 2, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
PapaKrok mentioned the word “subtle.” I theoretically understand its definition but practical application is, painfully obviously, beyond me.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
holy heck! a discussion about god and science and i missed it!!!
Comment by mfranti — August 2, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
and ray stopped by?
why does all the good stuff get posted when i’m on vacation?
wah.
Comment by mfranti — August 2, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Sit and pout under the redwoods in the cool, cool air, mfranti. We’ll all feel your pain. And the breeze too, if we’re lucky.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
breeze? more like fog and mist.
and yes, it is cool in the Redwoods (Del Norte county). 58 was the warmest temp my car thermometer measured until we got into Sonoma county. there the temps reached the mid 60’s.
btw, (yes, total threadjack here because it was the most exhilarating feeling….)RIDE YOUR BIKE ACROSS THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE.
Comment by mfranti — August 2, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
Sorry, mfranti. Next time I think of commenting, I will send you an e-mail and make sure you are available to comment.
djinn, we’ve been on radically opposite sides of more than one discussion over the years (under-statement anyone?), but I meant it when I said a long time ago that I respect and admire you. You are right that you need to keep working on deep, cleansing breaths and controlling your tongue (*said in kindly old man voice*), but I hope you know I really do admire you. I figure when all is said and done, we will be sitting together on a heavenly beach somewhere swapping stories and laughing at our shared ignorance of things we felt so strongly once upon a mortal time.
Now, let’s all join hands and voices in a giant circle of loving hymns.
Comment by Ray — August 2, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
having spent 10 days in genuine hippy country (humboldt and mendocino counties) i feel absolutely qualified to lead us all in a banjo and guitar accompanied round of Kumbayah.
all together now…
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
ok, fine then… go back to arguing
Comment by mfranti — August 2, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
Thank you Ray, I’m crying I’m so touched.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
djinn, yeah, it’s Kimberly with the superhero suit, not me.
Thank you for clearing things up. No hard feelings here.
Comment by Stephanie — August 2, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
Oh, Ray, those loving hymns, is there room for “Anarchy in the UK,” or “I wanna be sedated?”
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
I’m gone for the afternoon and everybody’s all holding hands? What gives? Let’s get the bashin going!! (Insert funny face here)
Actually the discussion has been good. I admire Rob for sticking to his guns, and in a way he has a point. Major dogmatic assumptions may change as time goes by. Never easy. I’m sure it was hard on Bruce to find out that blacks are people too.
SarahJane, your 290 post is taken to heart. Thanks for the bantor.
Comment by Rude Dog — August 2, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
You get a superhero costume, Rude Dog. You look like a dog. A really cool dog. Now we can all sing “kumbaya” except me; I’m in the corner listening to a mashup of PIL and the late Beethoven Quartets.
Comment by djinn — August 2, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
I take it back. i can sing Kumbaya, Off-key. I’ll sit in the corner.
Comment by djinn — August 3, 2010 @ 12:17 am
Would Avenue Q be acceptable, djinn? If not, we could go the opposite route and listen to some old Anne Murray or Neil Diamond. Air Supply might be a bit much . . .
Comment by Ray — August 3, 2010 @ 12:19 am
Oh, Ray, you are such a sweetheart. Let’s stick to Kumbaya. We have a much better chance of knowing the words, and I promise to sing very softly.
Comment by djinn — August 3, 2010 @ 12:31 am
Well, it has ben a good conversation. And to Ray- peace brother.
When it is all said and done I hope we have all found the right side to be on. Somehow, I feel we will all be on that same side.
Whereas we may disagree on some things we can still be firm brothers and sisters to Christ and his work of salvation for the souls of man. Someday, we will all sit down in paradise and have agood laugh at it all and eat green jello.
They do have green jello in heaven don’t they?
Comment by Rob Osborn — August 3, 2010 @ 12:51 am
Only if they also have fruit cocktail, Rob. Jello isn’t jello if it’s all by its lonesome.
Comment by Ray — August 3, 2010 @ 1:09 am
There aren’t many places on the web where people will thrash each other and make a huge mess and then will come back the next day and clean it up. Once again fMh amazes me — in a good way.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — August 3, 2010 @ 4:38 am
These be good people. Ah, djinn, can I sit in your corner, I only mouth the words.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 3, 2010 @ 8:11 am
Hey Stephanie, I did a little more research on that quote of yours and you managed to quote my old bishop. 18 year old me had exactly the same reaction as 52 year old me. Not surprising, really. He was a real sweetheart, but, uh, just ‘but.”
Comment by djinn — August 3, 2010 @ 9:00 am
Now back to “Kumbaya” (with a bit of parathetical John Lennon humming in the background by me, but I’ll be very very quiet.)
Comment by djinn — August 3, 2010 @ 9:08 am
djinn 323, that’s really funny.
Comment by Stephanie — August 3, 2010 @ 9:16 am
djinn- I’m in hysterics…no, I’m not blond, not even close- I’m brunette as can be, although, I used to have a lot of red in my hair until I had my kids. I’d kill to look like Wonder Woman- she’s the greatest and I covet her lasso of truth. Also, if I could ask her one question, it would be who makes her bra… I don’t think they make her costume in my zaftig size!
Comment by Kimberly — August 3, 2010 @ 12:30 pm