Some Kenneth Miller links
Those of you who missed Ken Millers wonderful BYU address are in for a treat. A friend of mine just complied a list of things you may find useful:
The Nova Program about Intelligent Design – Judgment Day:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
The link to Kenneth Miller on the Colbert Report:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/talks/colbert.html
And finally, here is his entire lecture given at Brown University (Almost identical to what was given at BYU):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBMgNOXperg
Here are some papers he referenced:
Krauthammer – Phony Theory False Conflict
and
the Dobzhansky paper “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution”
Please don’t make comments if your unwilling to look at these in detail. If you are determined to only read the Intelligent Design Creationism side, this isn’t the site for you. I’m assuming honest seekers here. Intrenched fundamentalist Mormon creationists can form their own Church and add it to that. Intelligent Design Creationism is not friendly to or a part of Mormonism despite its appealing name.
Posted in Uncategorized
October 30th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
SteveP:
Of course, I am just one of the evolutionary choir singing praises behind your Darwinian podium, but I listened to the entire Miller talk (at the link provided), and I found it to be a most cogent presentation. I recommend the Miller talk to all.
Yes, indeed, we have the fossils, and therefore we win.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I’m really bummed I missed it and I’m soooo glad BYU sponsers these kinds of lectures.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Fossils? Most of the ID proponents I am aware of believe in common descent. No one is going to disprove common descent ID with fossils.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:27 am
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution”
Mr. Behe would have no disagreement with that. Now if you said:
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Natural Selection”,
Mr. Behe would definitely have a problem with that. Suppose one said:
“Everything in biology is completely reducible to conventional physics”.
Alex Rosenberg, author of “Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology”, doesn’t believe that. He thinks (implausibly) that evolution *is* a law of physics.
Elliot Sober, author of “Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science”, doesn’t believe that either. According to him, biology does *not* reduce to physics.
So which is it? Does biology reduce to conventional physics or doesn’t it?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:40 am
I watched the lecture and loved it! I wonder though, does he address the Adam problem in his books? Is there room for Adam in this reconciliation? It doesn’t seem to me that the Laverne and Shirley method of evolution with Adam works. That being an irreverent but illustrative account for Adam’s spirit being put into a modern human body at some point during evolution. While it answers the question regarding Adam’s navel, what of his parents, siblings and all of humanity existing along side the newly enlightened Adam and Eve? How could the non-enlightened masses not be part of our lineage? Could this new enlightenment given to just two hominids have given them a reproductive and survivability advantage which spread through the genome until it encompassed all of humanity? Does that fit with the “primal parents” statement?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:37 am
Mark D.:
Here is my I.D. hypothesis. Tell me how good it is.
God, knowing in advance that humans would make ships and become seafarers, by design changed a nucleotide sequence in a gene necessary to make vitamin C. In this manner, God could insure that the navy would get scurvy.
By contrast, God, knowing that the wet-nosed primates would never live on ships, allowed them to still genetically manufacture vitamin C.
OK, this is starting to make sense. I think I am converted.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:09 am
SteveP:
Thank you. Thank you, for the Krauthammer link. I don’t know how religious Einstein was, but other than that small issue, I think I agreed with every word.
You are educating me this week.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Mark D., What Rosenberg and Sober (both of whom I’ve read) mean by that is that you can’t study biology by studying physics. Although they would both agree that biology supervenes on physics meaning there is no question in their minds that all of biology is made up of atoms and their relationships. They are making the claim in saying biology does not reduce to physics, that there are emergent processes that can only be studied at the higher level. This is not a controversial claim in biology. Everyone knows that studying moose mating behavior is not best served by studying the underlying physics.
Stan, Because we don’t know anything about Adam biologically. Our knowledge comes from only from ancient and modern revelation the only thing we know that Adam is that He was the first human in which a literal spirit child of God was placed in that form. The official doctrine of the church makes no claims where that body came from. What makes Adam the first man is the nature of his spirit not the origins of his body.
S. Faux, you are one of my heroes! Keep up the good work.
I’m still confused why people want to hold on to ID? It doesn’t fit with anything we know about biology. Its examples have all been refuted. Its claims cannot be tested or researched, it adds nothing for scientists to do or explain (’stop looking for causes because we say you can’t find them’, they claim). It adds only silliness theologically, is a nice name really worth introducing such an unnecessary and useless idea into our thinking? I honestly can’t see what the appeal is, especially to Mormons. It baffles the mind. It wants to put God into the story in the most naive and silly way like someone who has to poke a tangle in a irrigation ditch to get the water flowing. We don’t need this people. It’s an embarrassment to thought, science and religion. It adds nothing!
Of course Sung Myung Moon likes it and maybe that is good enough for some Mormons to try and weld it onto our clean doctrines.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for publishing the links, Steve! I really wanted to attend Miller’s address, but was unable to. Good to know his Brown University lecture is basically the same. I’ll have to watch.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
What Rosenberg and Sober (both of whom I’ve read) mean by that is that you can’t study biology by studying physics
That is indeed a trivial corollary of both of their positions, but that is not what a non-reductionist position means at all.
It is like saying you can’t study computer architecture by studying physics. No kidding. A non-reductionist position about computer architecture, however, is precisely the position that the operation of a modern computer *cannot* be explained in terms of of a model or simulation of all of its physical components, not even in principle.
Elliott Sober does not believe that biology cannot be completely explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models and has written a formal paper defending the non-reductionist position:
“The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reductionism”, Philosophy of Science, 1999, 66: 542-564
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/mraar.pdf
Rosenberg claims he is a reductionist, but on the other hand he thinks “evolution” is a fundamental law of physics, which is pretty much a non-reductionist position in different terms. See:
“Is Biology Reducible to the Laws of Physics?”, John Dupre, American Scientist, May-June 2007, Book Review of Alex Rosenberg, *Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology*
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/is-biology-reducible-to-the-laws-of-physics
October 31st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
S Faux: Here is my I.D. hypothesis…
First of all, I don’t believe that anything plausibly describable as “Intelligent Design” is necessary for biological evolution. I am a soft reductionist. That is apparently an *extremely* common position among philosophers of biology and of the mind. They are not hard to find – I just cited two.
Now, the nice little example you gave has an *exact* parallel to the general issue of divine theodicy – i.e. why is there so much hardship in the world if it is true that God can trivially intervene to end it all (or mitigate it to an enormous extent without compromising his other objectives).
Classical theologians invent all sorts of arguments to explain this and it is hardly a stretch to apply the same arguments to unfortunate mutations in evolution.
It is exactly because I don’t find theological absolutism credible that I do not believe in the necessity of anything plausibly describable as “Intelligent Design”.
And indeed the only arguments that ID people can bring to bear are *not* capable of establishing “Intelligent Design” either. The only thing they are potentially capable of is proving that hard reductionism in biology and in the philosophy of the mind is wrong.
Considering that there are no end of respected biologists who also take a non-reductionist position of some sort or another, I don’t think a *mathematical* arguments to establish the same should be ridiculed simply because the researchers are hoping that such a demonstration would rub off in favor of theism in general.
Such inquiry appears to be far and away the most practical way to demonstrate whether biology is definitively non-reductionist in some way or another. It is only relevant to ID because the ID folks believe in an unusually exotic (read “super-natural” in the strict sense of the term) form of non-reductionism
I don’t believe that there is *anything* that is “super-natural” in the strict sense of the term at all. That puts me in a world apart from virtually all of the ID folks, and the ID leaders (Behe et al) in particular, but also a world apart from the hard reductionists like Dawkins and Dennett. Somewhere in the vague middle ground with Sober and Rosenberg, apparently.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
Correction: “Elliott Sober does not believe that biology cannot be completely explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models”
That has an incorrect double negative. It should be:
“Elliott Sober believes that biology cannot be completely explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models” Mea culpa
November 1st, 2009 at 4:59 am
Mark,
I second Steve’s reading of reductionism and Sober/Rosenberg.
Also, Dennett is just as much a reductionist as Sober and Rosenberg are. If anything, they are stronger reductionists than he is. He doesn’t think that the intentional stance (mind) or the design stance (biology) is reducible to the physical stance (physics) in the least.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:07 am
Jeff G, With regard to Sober in particular, what I am saying is not a “reading”. You really should check out his paper on the subject – the one that I cited and linked to above. His non-reductionist position on biology is unmistakable.
As I said, Rosenberg’s position is a much more curious case. “Evolution” as a fundamental law of physics certainly implies non-reductionism to physics as we know it.
Neither of these sources address the specific question with regard to the philosophy of the mind – it is just that the non-reductionism (in some form) of the latter is a corollary of the non-reductionism of the former (biology / evolution).
He doesn’t think that the intentional stance (mind) or the design stance (biology) is reducible to the physical stance (physics) in the least.
Surely you mean to put quotes around “design” there. I happen to think the such a position about mind and matter is ridiculous (if that is indeed Dennett’s position). Everything about neuroscience and the physiology of the brain is evidence for (at least) the partial reduction of the mental to the physical. I would wonder if someone who believes that has ever seen a drunk person or been “hopped up” on some medicine themselves. To say nothing of individuals with brain damage.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:07 am
Mark, I just read Sober and I think I see the mistake you are (might be) making. You are assuming that these authors as have ontological reductionist concerns rather than epistemic. They are talking about explanation and the effect of multiply realized causality on our ability to make causal inference. All of these authors assume biology supervenes on physics. He is arguing that there are explanatory laws or theories about higher laws that cannot be had from lower level processes. But laws and theories are for human consumption not statements about ontology. He’s arguing about explanatory power.
I cannot find this statement in his paper (or it’s equivalent) Elliott Sober believes that biology cannot be completely explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models. Can you point me to it, I want to see what he means. I suspect he means that those (as I said above) level processes do not have the laws visible that we are trying to work with.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I cannot find this statement in his paper (or it’s equivalent) Elliott Sober believes that biology cannot be completely explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models. I should say more accurately that is a trivial corollary of Sober’s position. Quoting from the introduction to the previously cited paper:
Here Sober is telling us that the received view among philosophers of biology [a view which he is about to defend] is that reductionism is false, and in particular those two claims listed are false, i.e. laws in a higher level science *cannot* be explained in terms of laws of a lower level science. Sober continues a couple of paragraphs later, speaking about the reductionist position:
i.e. reductionism claims that all higher level properties of a system are *determined* by its lower level properties.
Implication: the biological behavior of a system can be *completely* explained, modeled, or simulated in terms of physical models, if (and only if) reductionism is true.
But Sober doesn’t believe that reductionism is true, he doesn’t believe that biological properties of an organism can be explained solely in virtue of its physical properties, that is the whole point of his paper, therefore he must accept the proposition that a biological organism *cannot* be explained in terms of physical model or simulation alone. Not only that, (implicitly) that that this is the received view among philosophers of biology and of the mind.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Steve,
I think it is logical from someone who holds dear to another ideal to view things exactly as they see them and wonder why the other side can’t see the light. A Catholic Priest for example who finds peace and happiness in life may very well attribute that to his catholocism views and wonder why Mormons do the same on the wrongs side. This applies across the boards- A Republican may have no idea what is going through a Democrats head and vise-versa. I can see where it is the same exact scenerio for Evolutionists and ID’ers. Both sides see things from their views, have their own prescribed speakers and teachers that they listen to and believe, etc.
I can easily see why a lot of Mormons adhere to the ID theory. Just like most conservative Christians, they just do not see life being explained from a purely naturalistic point of view. It doesn’t matter to them that evolution in some measurable degree actually happens, it’s more important for them to believe that man is the literal offspring of Deity. There is absolutley nothing wrong with this view and ideal. It leads men closer to God, explains their existence, and most importantly, adds credential to their historical book that the Prophets of old have compiled.
Truthfully, evolution, when it comes to explaining how life “first originated” is at a complete loss of words. The leading evolutionists know that they really have no idea how life first originated on earth. Their models of abiogenesis fails in every aspect in explaining how complexity arose from nature.
I see it as no big mountain then why so many Christians believe in the Bible when it comes to creation. Sure, some may say the processes to be “supernatural”, but then again, most of the things God does is seen as being supernatural. Take walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, resurrection, eternal life, existence outside of time, etc. All of those event are attributed to God. As LDS believers we are somewhat attached to believeing these events as real physically possible events that obey every law of physics.
What is wrong with man believeing in ID? Nothing. Plain and simple. There is evidence from intelligent design in enough magnitude that people for the most part in America still hold to this belief over evolution. Now certainly, Americans can’t really be idiots can they?
November 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I’d say there’s a problem with accepting ID if one’s faith is based on a God of the gaps. If one believes in God because of things science can’t explain, will one still believe in God when science does explain those things? Or, if one believes in God because they believe science can’t explain something, and then they take a few biology classes and learn better–do they still believe in God? If they don’t have a stronger foundation for their faith, their faith may fail.
As far as Americans being idiots–we’re all idiots about something. For example, I can’t even begin to follow the philosophical stuff that goes on on these threads–to me, it’s all mumbo-jumbo. Most Americans (whether or not they accept evolution) are idiots when it comes to biology (or any other standard science).
November 1st, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Tim,
I think it is safe to say that ID’ers believe in God because of the evidence, not the lack of it or understanding of it. I worry more about the evolutionists who are atheists. ID’ers are not God of the gaps individuals. Perhaps there are some creationists who are- especially some of those deep South Protestant preachers on Sunday! Most ID’ers, including myself do not just fill in the gaps with G-O-D, we too want to scientifically justify everything.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
If only because it never claimed to try and answer that. It also is at a loss for words in explaining gravity.
Yes, but unlike conservative mainstream Christians there isn’t the theological need for this. The main argument against evolution for Mormons is the No Death Before the Fall line of theology but that leads to Creationism and not ID. (Which has just as many problems with the NDBTF position)
You don’t really want an answer to that, do you? As Mencken said no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
The problem is that most people don’t bother to inquire far enough so as to see if their “evidence” is really sufficient to establish what they think it is. With ID it clearly isn’t.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Mark, I can’t speak to the figures in question as I’ve not read the papers in discussion. However based upon the philosophical papers on reductionism in biology I’ve read I wonder if there isn’t some equivocation of terms going on.
My understanding is that there long has been a feeling in biology that biological law can’t be translated into the language of physics. But the justifications typically given for that typically aren’t anti-naturalist. That is I’ve never heard of anyone arguing for philosophy of biology that is seriously anti-physicalist or anti-naturalist. The problem is one of how biological laws are constructed. Up through the 70’s this was in part due to there being very many teleological arguments. The question then became whether one could make new laws that didn’t rely on teleological reasoning. I think most think one can. Although it’s still a bit of an open question.
This doesn’t mean though that naturalism is false on two levels. For one there is the old problem about what one means by physics. Does one mean physics as now comprehended? But that’s problematic in that no physicist thinks we know all physical law. (And this isn’t just a problem of quantum gravity: most physicists would point to problems of turbulence, chaos and a lot more)
There’s also just a general position in philosophy of science that debates reductionism of law. For instance there are strong arguments that GR doesn’t accurately reduce to Newtonian mechanics in the special case. This position sees laws never as universal and it erroneous to reduce them. But once again this isn’t a claim about physicalism or naturalism. Just about the nature of physical laws in science.
Further even if mind is somehow special that says nothing about ID that I can see since ID is arguing at the molecular level that certain causality is impossible. The nature of mind seems quite unlikely to be able to affect molecular interactions unless it is a particular advanced mind with advanced technology.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Clark,
Clark: “If only because it never claimed to try and answer that. It also is at a loss for words in explaining gravity.”
I disagree, I can open every biology and science book I own and the introduction for evolution is abiogenesis. So, yes, evolution does try to answer chemical evolution also- they are directly related. As for gravity we know that it exists- we see things constantly fall when dropped. We know that it exists although we may have theories in how it exactly works (the physics). Abiogenesis is not something we know exists and as such we (scientists) are at a complete loss for words in explaining not only “if” it exists, but also the mechanism behind it.
Clark: “Yes, but unlike conservative mainstream Christians there isn’t the theological need for this. The main argument against evolution for Mormons is the No Death Before the Fall line of theology but that leads to Creationism and not ID. (Which has just as many problems with the NDBTF position)”
Perhaps you are wrong in some degree. LDS do not believe in creation from nothing. We also have a different teaching regarding the length of days before the fall. There are a lot of differences between creationism and ID, especially when viewed from a LDS doctrinal standpoint.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Clark how is that you can speak so well on so many topics in philosophy? You range from Continental to PofS without skipping a beat. My esteem grows and grows. Nicely answered.
“too want to scientifically justify everything” Without science that’s a good trick. Abiogensis is just a problem that we haven’t cracked. People are working on it from a scientific standpoint and making progress on piecing together bits of the story. Creating replicating molecules has already been done the argument now rests on understanding early Earth atmosphere. Of course, certain elements of it may be unknowable like some of the conditions on Ancient Earth. But if we don’t crack it it won’t be because we declared something unsolvable by fiat.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Steve,
Define science then. ID falls under the umbrella of the historical sciences. “Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to “test” historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.
Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.”
The biggest hurdle for naturalistic evolution is being able to show a viable and working hypothesis for how life did arise/ may have arisen without the interference of an intelligent agent in the lab. If naturalistic evolution theory cannot show how life arose from no-life then they are left with the embarrasing question of “who” or “what” intelligent cause created it. Thats a pretty hard pill to swallow. Currently there are two major parts to the debate-
1. Did man evolve from a lower order of species, and-
2. Did life originate from an abiogenesis process.
Both of these quests stare strongly in the face of conservative mainstream American Christianity challenging not only their faith but their core beliefs, moral views and their basic meaning to life.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
“The_Truth”, please don’t confuse a pedagogy of how to teach evolution to people with what evolution as a scientific theory says. You are doing that which is really arguing beside the point. Evolution proper simply says nothing about abiogenesis.
As to your point about Creationism I confess I don’t understand your point in the least. The No Death Before the Fall Folks say that there was no death before 7000 years ago so at the fall of Adam there was an absolute creation. Thus all the fossil records and historic claims of evolution are false. The typical answer was that there was life on earth prior to Adam and that it was all destroyed in a manner akin to Noah. Of course this can’t in the least be reconciled to the evidence.
But in any case my point was about the theological need for ID in Mormonism. And there simply is none. Some individual Mormons see a need, but I simply don’t think they can point to any Mormon text for it. All the anti-evolution texts really are tied to the NDBF theology.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“The_Truth”. Seriously. You are seriously trying to say ID is science? I mean, really?
In any case philosophers of science have been debating the meaning of science for decades. About the only thing everyone tends to agree upon is that ID isn’t science. Even Behe, who promotes an expanded definition acknowledge any definition that would allow ID would allow astrology.
You’re really not helping your case here.
As for the “hurdle for naturalistic evolution” why on earth does evolution have to do that? That’s akin to saying the biggest hurdle for a theory of gravity is to explain the electromagnetic phenomena. A scientific theory need not be encompassing to be a verified scientific theory.
Your conception of science is just really warped…
Learning how life started would be great. Who knows, maybe it couldn’t start on its own. Although there’s no reason to believe that at this stage. What that has to do with evolution escapes me since it has to do with the changes of existing life forms.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Clark,
We could debate the philosophy of ID being scientific or not all day long and both of us would never be able to convince the other. Sufficeth to say, there are both scientists on the ID side, and the evolution side.
Evolution- Darwinian evolution, deals with life evolving from the simple to the complex. At the bottom of this evolutionary tree it is supposed as part of the theory that chemical evolution developed the first single cell life forms. They are related. In fact, you do not really get one without the other.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
There is large consensus among scientists that ID isn’t science. Will that convince you? Probably not. But that’s not really at issue. If you bring up ID as science few scientists will believe you and if you are talking to people with a scientific background it really undermines your position.
As to your point about evolution. No. It’s simply not part of evolutionary theory. This ought be obvious since natural selection makes no sense relative to the question.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Clark,
You mentioned-
“Evolution proper simply says nothing about abiogenesis.”
Read this from the “Understanding Evolution” at the Berkeley site-
“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. “
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
According to the Berkeley site (a reputable poro-evolution site), the “field of evolutionary biology” encompasses the “origin of life”. They then go on to explain in theory how abiogenesis works. They are related, are they not?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 am
To claim that ID is a credible “scientific challenge” to Darwinism is absurd. It is even more ridiculous to claim that it is ID that keeps Darwinism from becoming “unchallenged dogma.” Darwinism has been open to challenge, doubt, attack and questioning of all kinds ever since it was first unveiled. It is the very fact that it has been challenged so often and so expertly that gives it its strength.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
The trouble with people like The_Truth (aka Rob Osborn, RoDeO) is that their belief in ID is not based on rational arguments so rational arguments are not going to change their mind. He misunderstands science too badly to grasp why any definition of science that lets in astrology (as Behe admitted at the Dover trial) is not science. And why the theology that undergirds ID (he even denies that the discovery institute is at heart a religious institution–which is obvious even on a superficial reading of their literature) is not Mormon and in fact would undermine our conception of God. You can’t argue with someone who will not change their mind no matter what facts are presented.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
Clark: Does one mean physics as now comprehended?
No. Sober talks about this issue in the introduction to his paper. Rosenberg explicitly affirms the “No” position as well. Evolution as a law of physics is how he considers himself to be a reductionist.
Property dualism as physics is how I consider myself to be a soft reductionist, potentially more reductionist than Sober (who claims reductionism is wrong, current physics or future physics whatever).
As I have said elsewhere, I think stuff like radical emergence is incomprehensible. Something reducible to properties at the particle level, some particles or all is the only way to go in my opinion.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 am
“The_Truth” I’m not sure what you mean by “the Berkeley” site. Nor how it is binding on this. Do you have a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Mark, as you know I’m most sympathetic to something similar to a property dualist perspective.
I confess I don’t know what it would mean for evolution to be a law of physics. That seems an odd position to take. I’d say I’d read the paper but given my backlog of reading and how busy I am realistically I doubt I’d find the time to get to it. So I’ll bow out of that debate.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Steve,
I have decided not to debate you on your territory (your blog) anymore. I believe doing so is unfair. I have put forth a challenge to you and whoever here who wants to join in at my blog. Over there I do things a bit different. I do not believe in censoring, barring or blocking posts, or labeleing people as “trolls”. If you want the debate “fairly” come on over. It is your reputation on the line.
Here is the link-
http://rockofsalvation.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-intelligent-design-science.html
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Mark,
Pretty much all of these philosophers of biology are naturalists. And, as you read in the paper on Rosenberg, they pretty much all reject the reductionism of biology to physics. The obvious question is “so what?”
If you are trying to use all of these naturalists’ arguments against reductionism as arguments against naturalism, doesn’t it seem most probable that you are misunderstanding their arguments?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The guys posting as The Truth, Rob Osborn, and RoDeO are all the same person? I was wondering where this outpouring of support for ID was suddenly coming from. But why post with three different handles? To make his opinion seem more popular? Or some other more honest reason?
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
SteveP,
I have a few questions about that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Tim, I don’t think there was anything nefarious going on, he was just end running my blocking him for his insults and trolling. He has his own blog now (above). I’m thrilled.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Tim,
“The guys posting as The Truth, Rob Osborn, and RoDeO are all the same person? I was wondering where this outpouring of support for ID was suddenly coming from. But why post with three different handles? To make his opinion seem more popular? Or some other more honest reason?”
The reason- the honest reason is that Steve blocked the first- “Rob” when the debate got good and rolling on his previous thread. I still wanted a good debate- perhaps to learn differing views so I took another name- “RoDeO” to finish the debate. But then Steve once again blocked me just when the debate gets good and interesting. So I then switched to “The_truth”. In the end I found that Steven really didn’t want people to debate against him on his site- especially when things get good and fun! That is why I challenged him to come to my blog which has been up for several years but somewhat abandoned for the last two years. I reopened it just to debate Steve if he is willing. We’ll see if he is really up for a real uncensored debate as I play by the rules over at my place. I guess we’ll see if this post gets censored or blocked eh?
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I agree with Clark that NDBF is likely at the heart of objections to evolution by Mormons. To many (most?) Mormons, the scriptures are their “basic” book. They take a scriptural view of things.
I also take a scriptural view of things. I think it is pretty clear, from the viewpoint of the scriptures, that there was no death before the Fall of Adam. I think it is pretty clear, from the viewpoint of the scriptures, that the earth became mortal and death entered the picture when the Fall occurred. Since evolution is a mortal process, I think it is clear, from the scriptural viewpoint, that evolution was not involved with the original creation of the earth without death, and that evolution entered the picture after the Fall. I thus see no conflict between NDBF and evolution.
The King James scholars used the word “day” in describing the creation, and I see no reason to assume that “day” was 24 hours or 1000 years. I think the organization of the creation into seven “days” was just the way the ancient prophets organized the creation in their minds. Geologists do the same thing today when they organize the creation into “periods”. I see no value at all in debating how long a “day” was or how many “days” there were.
Science has no way of investigating how an earth without death was created. Science is limited to investigations of the mortal world in which we live, and it can’t say yea or nay about a prior creation of a world without death. Just as science can’t answer the question, Is there a God, it can’t answer the question was there a creation of an earth without death prior to the creation of the earth with death. Since can only answer questions about conditions that give information that scientists can observe, i.e. the mortal earth.
I accept evolution because I think it is the best answer scientists have about the operation of this mortal world.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Here’s what Behe *really* said about Astrology:
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
——————————
It seems like he’s just being open about defining “theory-making.” He certainly is not saying that Astrology *today* is scientifically viable.
If you read the entire transcript you’ll see that it plays out little better than a standard Perry Mason episode. Behe’s answer was his best effort to be truthful within the tight frame of the question — and it’s abvious that the shrude lawyer who was doing the framing didn’t give a damn about the truth.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Thanks Jack.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:55 am
SteveP, do you actually believe the apostles have diverse views on evolution?
November 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
SteveP said…
“I’m still confused why people want to hold on to ID? It doesn’t fit with anything we know about biology. Its examples have all been refuted. Its claims cannot be tested or researched, it adds nothing for scientists to do or explain (’stop looking for causes because we say you can’t find them’, they claim). It adds only silliness theologically, is a nice name really worth introducing such an unnecessary and useless idea into our thinking? I honestly can’t see what the appeal is, especially to Mormons.”
I so agree, Steve! I am one of the three TA’s for the Evolutionary Biology class taught at BYU (this semester), and one of the papers I have to grade is where a student watches a video on evolution and/or creationism/ID, and they have to come up with a scientifically defensible alternative hypothesis that was not presented in the video. In other words, we’re trying to teach students to train their minds to think like a scientist. When I’m grading these papers, it blows my mind as to why a very few of the students (no more than 2 or 3 in a class of about 60) completely ignore the requirements of the assignment and instead try to argue a case for Intelligent Design. (We discuss ID and what it claims to be the first 3 or so lectures, and most students move on.) And they keep doing it, and they keep getting lower grades than anyone, because it’s a philosophical argument they’re making — not a scientific one — and like one of the other grad students in Whiting’s lab and I were joking about, it’s like these students are somewhat obstinately saying, “Well, I got a D- on the assignment, but I got an A in my heart.” It’s very silly…it’s almost like some Mormons are using science the way a false-friend uses you, but secretly hates you…it’s like they bless and curse the scientific method of inquiry in the same breath, even though they benefit every minute of every day by the blessing of science.
And grading these papers is very important to me, because I truly — in my heart of hearts — want all biology students who take that class
to come out understanding that science is not hostile to religion or ideology; it’s just neither here nor there with either of those, by necessity! And if students can understand that principle AND how a scientist thinks, then there’s one less person in our country who is hostile to real science, like Ken Miller said in his presentation.
For proponents of design and any bench-sitters, take a moment to browse BYU’s College of Life Sciences web pages. You will find that the only theory taught on the origins of species in that college are that of evolutionary processes — for a very good reason — Intelligent Design is not science, and no other scientific method of inquiry has found a better explanation than that of evolution. A scientific theory is useful for predicting natural events, which is what makes science so exciting for a student like me!
The CDC uses principles of evolutionary biology to predict the flu vaccine that will be most effective each flu season. Modern farmers use principles of evolutionary genetics to grow the best crops. Biologists can predict with great precision where transitional fossils are found. The germ theory of disease and the theory of relativity each have predictive power.
Marking an observation of natural history as “irreducibly complex, so therefore God dunnit” has no predictive power, is not testable, and is therefore NOT science.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:11 am
R.Gary & the_truth aka Rob Osborn
In your misguided zeal to support every word the Brethren utter, you do your fellow man a great disservice. I was taught these fundamental views on creation by both my parents and local leaders of the church. I still remember my Mom telling me the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood… or was it at the death of Christ. I believed Adam and Eve were placed on this Earth by some sort of Godly magic. I believed the planet Earth, fully populated with flora and fauna, was hurled through the vast reaches of space from Kolob when Adam fell. I was setup for a big fall. I studied history and biology and geology in school and now have a passionate curiosity about the real world. This has not come without great pain, doubt and anguish as to how my new found knowledge seemed to conflict with what I had been taught all of my life. It is thanks to the likes of Steve P. and S. Faux and so many other faithful naturalists that I can have some piece of mind at last. The vast body of evidence in the various fields of science all supporting and validating each other simply is not and cannot be as wrong as you say it must be. Many have and will continue to fall away from the church because of misconceptions and inflexible all or nothing beliefs which you so eagerly propagate. You do a great disservice.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
SteveP, I would argue that we don’t know anything about Adam at all. LDS have certain believes about Adam, based upon their scriptures, that are in many aspects different than the beliefs of Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. And then there are Hindus and Buddhists who don’t have any concept of Adam in their theology.
Our knowledge about Adam really isn’t any different that the knowledge held by proponents of ID – they’re both based upon certain theological beliefs that ultimately cannot be proven. Certainly not proven in any scientific sense.
So what do I do when someone claims to know something that cannot be proven, or even goes against proof that we have? R. Gary knows that there was no death before the fall. My father knows that the earth is only thousands of years old. You know that Adam was the first human who was literally a spirit child of God.
Maybe we shouldn’t be using the term “know” when we speak of religious “beliefs”. Or maybe we should come up with a term for scientific knowledge that would make it distinct from religious “knowledge”.
(p.s. Was your capitalization of He, in referring to Adam, a subtle reference to Adam-God theory, which Brigham Young knew to be true?
)
November 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Some comments:
First of all, does it really matter whether or not evolutionary theory encompasses biogenesis, or whether biogenesis was a completely “natural” event? The evolution of living organisms over 3+ billion years since biogenesis is very well established, independent of how the first biomolecules formed. If biogenesis was all that was left to discuss in evolution, would we be here “debating” creationism? Hardly!
Secondly, ID is not good science, partly because it makes so few substantive, testable claims, but mainly because the few substantive claims it has made have been soundly refuted. Behe’s “irreducibly complex” features have been shown to be features that were biologically useful in an earlier context, and then later combined. Probability arguments by Dembksi and others are all fallacious — they could be applied equally well to “prove” that snowflakes (extremely improbable structures) cannot possibly form without individual acts of God.
Honestly, the older I get, the less I understand these vociferous objections to evolution. Why? Is it a romantic David vs Goliath dream?
The trouble is, for every David that slays a Goliath, there are ten thousand Don Quixotes who, in the end, only make fools of themselves. At least Don Quixote had a fighting chance against the windmills — he could spear one of the panes and disrupt rotation. But how can a Don Quixote creationist possibly compete against 100,000 scientists worldwide armed with the latest high-tech measurement and computer gear that our modern society can produce, and with tens of thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of papers documenting their results? You can’t. It’s utterly and completely hopeless. The scientific evidence is just too strong.
I’ve mentioned before the only alternative: to insist that God is a Great Deceiver, a being who has planted deceptive evidence under our feet and in the stars above, all to mislead diligent seekers of truth. Is that the philosophy the diehards wish to promote?
Creationists: give up — the longer you cling to the notion that the earth is 6000 years old, or that no evolution has occurred, or that there was no death before Adam in 4000 BC (itself a questionable premise), the bigger fools you make of yourselves. And trying to tie the LDS Church to creationism only casts considerable disrepute on the Church. For the Church’s sake, give up!
November 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year”
“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men…..The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity”
Speak for yourself there David. The church doesn’t support human evolution- it refutes it outright!
November 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
What constitutes a man in the biblical sense, or in a modern day sense? I feel that in regards to men we typically are referring to those who have a spirit. Who are one of the spirit sons and daughters of God.
What constitutes a man in a scientific sense? In an evolutionary sense? Can we call the homo-erectus a ‘man’. Or would it be better to say that he is an early ancestor of man?
Think about it.
There is plenty of room for evolution.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Cap,
The context of the Statement by the Brethren is that “man” refers to Adam in the flesh (ie; “the first man of all men”) It can’t mean “spirt” personage because LDS doctrine teaches that that Christ is our older Brother in the spirit (the oldest of spirit brothers and sisters).
“Man” is almost exclusively used in the context of “flesh” inthe scriptures.
I don’t believe that the Brethren were seeking to convey that Adam was the first “spririt personage”.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“The First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.”
But the Church has already published several official responses to the 1909 statement. In 1910 (just one year later), the Church released a statement backing away from ruling out an evolutionary process. In 1925, the 1909 statement was re-released as the “Mormon View of Evolution”, conspicuously omitting the passages you mentioned above. In 1931, a letter from the First Presidency to other general authorities (written in the wake of continued debates on the general topic of evolution by James E. Talmage, B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith and others), concluded “Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.” In the 1960s, Pres. David O. McKay, in response to various queries about JFS’s book “Man: His Origin and Destiny”, replied that “on the question of organic evolution, the Church has no official position”. Finally, in 1992, when the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being assembled, editors inquired to the First Presidency what should be said about evolution. Gordon B. Hinckley, the acting president at the time, responded with the detailed instruction that the article on evolution was to be only a very short piece, concluding with the quote from the 1931 FP letter mentioned above. Hinckley specified its contents almost word-for-word.
Complete details of the above history, plus the full texts of the Church’s statements and letters, may be found in the booklet “Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements”, which is available at many LDS bookstores, or from Amazon.com.
By the way, when the article you mentioned appeared in the Jan 2002 Ensign, the Ensign’s editors received numerous letters asking whether this amounted to a change in the Church’s neutrality on the topic. These letters were referred to the First Presidency (evidently at the FP’s direction), which responded by sending the article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on evolution (ie the passage mentioned above: “Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church”)…
So rather than rejecting evolution, the facts speak rather strongly that the Church wishes to officially distance itself from scientific controversies. This is certainly a wise course. I myself couldn’t think of a better statement that the short one the Church has provided.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
to “The_Truth”,
Besides all of those First Pres. statements you left out, which have come about in the 100 years that have passed since then with the anti-evolution sentiments removed (that David nicely summarized), why do you think, then, that BYU’s College of Life Sciences ONLY uses (and appeals to) the theory of evolution for teaching the origins of species at BYU?
How could that be? Is BYU not owned by the church? Is the current church president (President Monson) not the chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees?
Could it be because even church leaders’ attitudes and even their opinions have changed towards real science?
Is the church 110% perfect? Do you think the line between a church leader’s passions, personal opinions, and revealed doctrine from God (for the church) ever get blurred? Ever?
Has the church, ever, at one time, not believed in the Word of Wisdom, for example?
(from Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 158:
“When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet [Joseph Smith] entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry.”)
Has the church evolved?
Did that make the church any “less true” back then?
Just curious.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The 1909 statement is still the standing official doctrine on the matter. The 2002 article has not been rescinded. It doesn’t matter that certain apostles refer certain individuals to articles of neutrality after that. The point is that the 2002 article states-
“..the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters.”
BYU teaches evolution to be “accredited” at least in part. That is what Duane Jeffereys told me at least from the zoology dept. there at BYU.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
There was no 1910 First Presidency statement on evolution. The alleged “backing away” comment did not originate with the First Presidency (click here). It doesn’t even represent the thinking of Church President Joseph F. Smith.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Contrary to its title, Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements fails to comprehensively provide “the” authoritative LDS statements on evolution. It provides some of them but it also leaves some out. What’s worse, statements are included that don’t meet the book’s own stated criteria for authoritative status. The result is that individuals who want the LDS Church to be neutral on evolution will be enthusiastic about this book. Those, however, who just want to know where the LDS Church stands on evolution should be wary of this book. A three part 6,800 word review of this book is found here.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“The_Truth” and R. Gary:
What exactly is your position??
If you really wish to engage in productive dialogue on this forum, don’t you think that you have an obligation to state your real position, and why you think it is tenable?
For example, for the purpose of discussion let us for the time being grant the following propositions:
1. Technical details of the physical creation, such as the time frame and methods employed, are central to LDS beliefs.
2. LDS leaders have uniformly taught that the physical creation occurred over a few days or a few thousand years, and was completed ~4000BC.
3. LDS leaders have uniformly taught that there was no death of any organism before the fall of Adam, which occurred ~4000BC.
4. LDS leaders have uniformly taught that the theory of organic evolution is false.
5. In any event, notions 1-4 constitute official, fundamental, non-negotiable LDS doctrine.
If you hold that these propositions (which I personally find to be false) are true, then may I be so bold as to ask a question:
Why do you affiliate with an organization that presumably has adopted, as fundamental doctrines, a set of notions that are negated by mountains of scientific data, and which indeed have not been remotely plausible, from a scientific point of view, for at least 50 years?
Do you hold that scientists have overlooked data, or misinterpreted their data? Do you have other data?
If not, then do you hold that God planted evidence in the earth (and in light from distant stars), to give the world and life on earth a (misleading) appearance of great age? If so, why was this done? And where in the scriptures does it state that this was done?
In general, are the principles above really worth fighting to the last soldier for? Why?
I ask again: What is your position??
I might add that one person who argued items 1-5 above is Dwayne Anderson. He left the Church and wrote a book “Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms with Mormonism and Science” (see his comments on the Amazon.com website for his book). Surely you are not in agreement with him!!?
November 10th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
David,
My position has been and has always been that the evidence for evolution in explaining lifes origins is completely and wholly nonexistent as required by “science”. There is no evidence that life was jump-started into existnence as evolutionary theorists propose. There is also no evidence that man came from a line of lower monkey like animals.
As for the geology part, I do not believe the fossil record to be a record of lifes origins over billions of years. The implications within LDS doctrine and true science (the part that is actually right) is that the geologic column is not what most scientists make it to be. I have taken a personal interest in the Grand Canyon and how it formed (not the canyon cut itself but instead the deep rock layers). I have asked several scientists to help me understand the problems I see with it and NOT ONE of them has been able to sufficiently answer them. It’s as if they themselves do not know and understand geologic principles. I am not saying they are stupid or that science is stupid, but rather that when properly analyzed, the answers we have for the GC existence do not match up with the evidence.
It’s funny that I actually stumbled on to the theories of evolution being wrong from a long decades old study of geology and it’s persistent problems of it’s claims to be true. Personally from a mere geologic position, I believe that the fossil record is a fake as for the age and evolution of life that scientists have given. I can list at least a handful of geologic related problems that evolution cannot answer for.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The_Truth (why don’t you use your real name? I use mine):
Thank you for explaining your position in more detail. I appreciate your willingness to provide this information.
With regards to biogenesis, as I mentioned earlier, there is no connection between the means of biogenesis (natural or supernatural) and the course of evolution since then. Focusing on uncertainties in biogenesis buys nothing for those who oppose evolution.
With regards to the ages of the earth and fossil layers, these are established by many thousands of careful studies, employing numerous independent dating techniques rooted in the fundamental laws of physics, measured and analyzed advanced high-tech equipment. These dating methods have survived more than 60 years of rigorous scrutiny. There is no way that they can be off by several orders of magnitude.
As for your other questions above, I suggest that you read Kenneth Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”. This book deals with many of the issues you mention above such as the reliability of geologic dating. Two other good sources are Miller’s “Only a Theory”, and “Relics of Eden” by LDS biologist Daniel Fairbanks.
I can understand if you decide not to read this material. That is your choice. You have every right to believe as you wish on these questions (contrary to what some say). Should anyone question your right to believe as you see fit, I would be the first to come to your defense.
But it seems to me that there is little point in continuing to discuss the matter here. Our discussions are based on a different worldview.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
David
Sorry, ‘the_truth’ is currently reading ‘Your Inner Fish’ which he promised me he would read. Your book recommendations will have to wait. =:)
Really what I’m saying is we’ve piled on the reading resources to both of these guys many times before. Unfortunately, they are like automatons and are not capable of breaking out of their programs.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I think I basically get Gary’s position. He would basically say the following:
“No, I don’t believe the church leaders to be perfect or inerrant at all. However, if they believe something roughly in unison, the safest thing for me to do is believe that thing as well.
“It’s true that evolution is not indisputably, unequivocally and officially rejected by the church. If it did so, this would be pragmatically unwise for the church and it’s mission. However, an unbiased mind will acknowledge that there are more than enough official statements (especially those dealing with NDBF) which touch near enough to the subject, and they nearly uniformly speak against evolution. The church’s official position on the subject might be something close to neutrality, but the church’s unofficial position on the matter is clearly anti-evolution.
“I don’t need an official statement on any subject to follow what the brethren and scriptures unofficially say with relative clarity. If you do, that’s fine, but don’t act like the brethren or the scriptures are really and thoroughly pro- or even neutral on the topic of evolution.”
November 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Yes! What Jeff G. said. He and I have been discussing these questions on various blogs for nearly five years.
Anyone who still wants to know more about my position on things related to the LDS Church and evolution is welcome to visit my blog, ndbf.blogspot.com.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
R. Gary: I’m well aware of your blog, and your long-standing view against evolution (and that the Church is against evolution). But I have never read anywhere exactly what you DO believe about the creation.
How, for instance, would you respond to these questions (please be specific):
1. How long did the physical creation take, according to our current units of time?
2. When was the physical creation completed, and when did the Garden of Eden and the Fall take place?
3. By what means or processes was the physical creation performed? Can we learn about this process? If not, why?
4. How do yo account for the fact that empirical evidence strongly points to a very old earth, and a progression of organisms through eons? Did God create the world and the fossils to look very old? Why?
5. How do you account for the fact that the vast majority of God-fearing scientists (including LDS scientists) see the earth and the universe as very old, and evolution as real? Are they not examining their data correctly?
6. What is your view towards science in general? Does God wish us to explore the world around us and measure it with tools? If not, why?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
It just seems to me that this “No Death Before the Fall” business being argued from a doctrinal perspective is extremely unimportant and trivial, especially to salvation.
Joseph Smith said to stick to the trunk of the gospel (i.e. the doctrine of salvation) and to not get hung up on the trivial branches.
During my mission, I don’t recall interviewing and asking converts who were to be baptized whether they believed in NDBF.
If your goal is to preach the gospel as it has been revealed beyond doubt, then is a NDBF blog needed as much as a blog is needed that shares simple uplifting testimonies of Jesus Christ?
I don’t mean any disrespect to you, Gary, but I just don’t get why anyone would create an individual blog to this topic from a DOCTRINAL standpoint. (You’re obviously not trying to argue NDBF from a scientific standpoint, so I can only conclude it must be doctrinal.) I just don’t get why that’s so important to anyone’s salvation.
I mean, you might as well make a sister-blog called “No Coke and Dr. Pepper!”
November 10th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Wow, I missed this whole thing because I was watching my post at BCC (about updating belief in the face of evidence). I’ve said before that the detractors like Rob and Gary do great harm to the Church by setting up a false dichotomy that sets the enormous weight of scientific evidence against faith. By their misreading both scriptures and the role of prophets by supposing that these give scientific accounts on the history of the earth and its processes they set up a false version of faith that forces people to chose between the two. Because their arguments are not based in rationality either theologically or scientifically, rational discourse is not going to bring them around. They did not come to these ideas rationally based on evidence, and since they will not examine or update their beliefs based on evidence there is no hope they will change their views. Nor will they try to integrate the evidence into their thinking. That would mean changing their minds and that they will not do. Rob keeps saying there is no evidence for evolution, but this is just entrenched ignorance. Even a cursory glance at the literature blows that idea away. Gary has no need to incorporate data because he’s chosen to ignore it and not bring it to bear on his version of what he thinks it means to follow the prophet. (I still don’t know why he doesn’t believe in Brigham Young’s Teaching on Adam-God, why doesn’t he follow the prophet in that?) Have no fear though. Darwin predicts their ideas will go extinct because they have no fitness. It’s just a matter of time.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Dusty R.
Are you quite sure NDBF is doctrinally “unimportant and trivial”?
Maybe we should alert the current First Presidency and Twelve. They have approved a new edition of the Gospel Principles manual which teaches:
In 2010 and 2011, this manual will be used in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society classes, as well as the Gospel Principles class for investigators and new members.
In view of your suggestion about No Coke and Dr. Pepper, you might enjoy my post on Politics, Pepsi, and Evolution.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
David H. Bailey,
It’s nice to know you are “aware” of my blog. One year ago, I posted an article there titled, “David H. Bailey, creationism, and the 1931 First Presidency.” I made reference to it at that time in a comment here on this blog. Maybe you saw my article, maybe not. I noticed you didn’t leave a comment. If you decide to actually visit my blog, please notice the blog subtitle. The first four words state very clearly something that I DO believe about the creation.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:50 am
SteveP,
Nice of you to hear from ya. I don’t know if you were aware, but we had a debate over at my blog and you were the invited guest speaker to defend your position. In the end, victory was given to the ID side because you were a no-show! It’s kinda hard to win a debate if you don’t show up- you know how those things are.
Anyways, I came to the conclusion after some thought, you know what it is- “evolution doesn’t need God”. Now I have never heard that evolution has a missing link where you insert the “Creator” to explain the origin or happening of life. That said, I can see why you delete God from the origins of life. In LDS doctrine we call it the “creation”. But you see, evolution not only doesn’t need God, “evolution doesn’t need the creation”. Now certainly you can’t believe in the Biblical creation can you- that would require the insertion of God and order- intelligent design into the mix. But you guys don’t believe in that do you?
You can explain everything biologically devoid of God, the creation, or any intelligent cause. You must do that because you have already picked your side, and your side doesn’t need God (evolution).
November 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
The_Truth (why don’t you use your real name):
To the contrary, several writers have pointed out how evolution can be seen as a solution to the age-old problem of why suffering exists: God didn’t “design” us to suffer; rather it is an inescapable feature of evolution-based life.
Also, Pres. McKay himself pointed out that evolution can be seen as evidence that mankind is destined to eternal life. Here is a quote from a talk he gave at BYU (and later, almost word-for-word, in general conference):
But science, dominated by the spirit of religion is the key to progress and the hope of the future. For example, evolution’s beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will infest the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counter balancing though. Even the skeptic teacher should be fair enough to see that even Charles Darwin, when he faced this great question of annihilation, that the creation is dominated only by chance wrote: “It is an intolerable thought than man and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long, continued slow progress.” And another good authority, Raymond West, said, “Why this vast [expenditure] of time and pain and blood?” Why should man come so far if he’s destined to go no farther? A creature that travels such distances and fought such battles and won such victories deserves what we are compelled to say, “To conquer death and rob the grave of its victory.”
November 11th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
David H. Bailey,
Thank you for the David O. McKay paragraph in which he likens Darwin’s theory of evolution to the concept of man’s eventual resurrection from the dead. It is a rhetorical comparison that he used more than once during his ministry.
Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2005, p.46) are careful to point out that President McKay
In reality, of course, it should be obvious that the resurrection is far beyond the scientific scope of Darwin’s theory. But unfortunately, such remarks are sometimes cited as evidence that President McKay believed in biological evolution.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
SteveP, just as you feel I don’t understand you, in the same way I feel you don’t understand me. So let me ask you this: What evidence do you have that NDBF was invented by or belongs to me? I flatly deny having arranged its repeated inclusion in official Church publications and in talks by living apostles. I’ve been blogging about it since May 2005 and the publications just keep on coming, two major ones in 2009 alone.
Regarding Brigham Young’s teachings, he had been dead more than 70 years when I was born. In 1976, on the other hand, Spencer W. Kimball was God’s mouthpiece on the earth and I personally heard him say this in general conference:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Mr. Gary,
You can quote the first presidency, any of the 12, the lesson manuals and conference talks until you are blue in the face. But when such quotes are in direct conflict to self-evident truths, as in the case of NDBF or evolution or men living on the moon (or the sun), or blacks never having the priesthood in this life, or men never being able to travel to the moon, or George Bush being a trustworthy president, etc., it comes down to believing that such men are infallible super-humans, or fallible men with fallible opinions (usually uttered in ignorance) who are usually trying to do and say the right things, the will of God, etc., but often confuse personal reasoning with promptings of the spirit. “I ain’t no monkey!” sounds cute, but is, quite frankly, retarded. Such is also the current, ridiculous statement you quoted from the forthcoming Gospel Principles manual. Obviously the Church is also stuck in some longstanding traditional doctrinal ruts, like NDBF. Yes, it’s in scripture, along with the “everlasting” covenant of circumcision. Along with the suggestion that women keep their mouths shut and their hair long. The brethren are loathe to contradict voices from the past. Instead, they often just quietly excise the offending passages from subsequent editions (e.g., Mormon Doctrine) and pretend it never read differently.
But what I find most disturbing about your whole approach to this subject however is the inference that we should all just “abandon all reason ye who enter herein”. I cannot stomach the idea of a God that created me with a curious brain, who wants me to set aside any and all curiosity and reason and instead become some kind of mindless automaton, programmed to blindly obey orders and doctrines at all costs to reason and logic. I refuse to believe in such a wicked, capricious, and contradictory God.
Evolution is no mere “theory”. It is observable fact. OBSERVABLE. Testable. Demonstrable. Across all scientific disciplines. The brethren who say it isn’t comprehensible are behaving like children who claim calculus isn’t comprehensible, when they have not yet mastered algebra. Just as calculus ISN’T comprehensible to people who are ignorant of basic algebra and arithmetic, evolution may also be incomprehensible to people ignorant of basic biology, of genetics, of the fossil record, of fundamental geological principles, of human anatomy, of basic zoology, etc.; this appears to be the camp you and Rob fall into. Willful ignorance is inexcusable because of (a flawed) loyalty to brethren you deem infallible, especially when they themselves would adamantly refute such a notion.
This all reminds me of a joke. Jesus and Mary are out in the garden pulling weeds. Up jumps Jesus and runs into his dad’s carpenter shop. “Did you call me?” he asks. “No son” replies Joseph, “I just hit my thumb with a hammer”.
Not every word that falls from the lips of a “prophet, seer and revelator” is revelation, or even truth. Sometimes it’s just flat out wrong.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Er, that should have read “…as in the case of NDBF or MOCKING evolution, or men living on the moon…”
November 12th, 2009 at 1:14 am
The other thing I find equally disturbing is the notion that we’ve learned NOTHING since 1909. Are you kidding me? Knowledge is exponentially gaining on us, like trying to drink from a fire hose. The more we learn, the more clear the picture becomes. Crystal clear. Yet you (and apparently the CES folks that penned the NDBF “doctrine” in the upcoming manual) want us to believe that we haven’t learned anything in the last 100 years? Good grief.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Rich,
re-tard-ed adj. 1. Often Offensive – Affected with mental retardation.
President Boyd K. Packer served on the Board of Trustees for Brigham Young University from 1961 until 1995. During that time, he twice quoted his son’s comment (“I not a monkey, Daddy, I a person”) in general conference. In 2006, he quoted those words again at the BYU Women’s Conference.
President Packer is not “retarded.”
The 2009 manual Gospel Principles is also not “retarded.”
By the way, Gospel Principles isn’t CES. It was written in 1978 for investigators and new members, not seminary students. It is core curriculum material, prepared under the direction of and approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The 2009 edition is a “subsequent edition.” But it doesn’t “quietly excise” the NDBF passages. Are we to believe that’s because those who approve such manuals, are all “retarded”?
If I were SteveP, I would be embarrassed to see the word “retarded” used on this blog to describe living apostles and prophets.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I would love to have a conversation with brother Packer, but, alas, instead I’m told to trouble my bishop and Stake president with doctrinal concerns. That’s how we maintain the status quo in the church. We insulate those that make policy and doctrine from ever being bothered with silly things like truth.
What did the church membership learn from his quoting his grandson, twice? “Even my little grandson knows that evolution is false, you silly, faithless followers of reason and science you!”
Any willful, deliberate effort to retard the growth, knowledge, and progress of members of the church, so that one can thus (seemingly) uphold and defend ones own (prideful) ignorance is, itself retarded. I can’t think of a better word that fits here.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
R. Gary:
In spite of the circuitous who-said-what-when in the posts above, you have still not complied with my modest and reasonable request, made above, that you candidly disclose what you DO believe on the topic of evolution and creation. I listed six simple questions above. What is your response?
It is not right for you to continue to critique the stated views of others, when you have not exposed your own views to the same scrutiny.
I ask again: What is your response to these questions?
November 12th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Rich, don’t hold back. Go ahead and tell us how you really feel about Boyd K. Packer.
David, I’ve been on the internet for more than five years and I’ve posted well over a hundred blog and other web articles explaining to the whole wide world my beliefs about creation. I’ve also posted hundreds of guest comments on more than forty LDS blogs, including this one. My beliefs about all six of your questions (in #63 above) have been thoroughly discussed and documented with hundreds of source citations and LDS.org links for all the world to see. I can only conclude that you aren’t really interested in my response to your questions. What DO you want, David?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Rich,
There is one point you made (#12) where you stated-
“Evolution is no mere “theory”. It is observable fact. OBSERVABLE. Testable. Demonstrable. … Just as calculus ISN’T comprehensible to people who are ignorant of basic algebra and arithmetic, evolution may also be incomprehensible to people ignorant of basic biology, of genetics, of the fossil record, of fundamental geological principles, of human anatomy, of basic zoology, etc.; this appears to be the camp you and Rob fall into. Willful ignorance is inexcusable because of (a flawed) loyalty to brethren you deem infallible, especially when they themselves would adamantly refute such a notion.
Personally I believe in small leveles of demonstratable evolution. I think most reasonable and logical people on both sides of the debate won’t argue with that which is demonstratable.
It is where evolution across large taxa groups that causes problems when we state it as “fact” and “demonstratable”, “testable”. I look at this part of evolution as scientific “theory” as a means of possibilities just as Id proposes it’s model as a scientific theory.
What we need is a middle ground both sides can agree on without warring words and statements that are misleading. There is a common misconception as you and have noted, you called it “willful ignorance” to science. ID’ers and creationists getr this label quite a lot and it is misleading and wrong. We are well aware of scientific inquiry and where science finds truth, we applaud. As I said earlier, I believe in demonstratable evolution- that which we can see and document in population changes within taxa groups. Beyond that, the answer is unsettled.
Perhaps we can come to a middle ground. Explain to me more on what parts of evolution you believe to be fact. Do you agree that there are some parts of evolutionary theory that aren’t “fact”? What would those be?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
whoops, meant to say (#72), my bad.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Rob,
What I mean by the term ‘willful ignorance’ could be illustrated with the following thought:
“I don’t need to read evolutionary biology texts. I heard (fill in the blank GA name) say it’s a false theory, and that’s good enough for me, therefore reading such material is a waste of my time”.
…or words/sentiments to that effect.
Keep in mind that I’m no biologist; the last college biology class I had was in the early 1980’s. So what I say next may be inaccurate, but it’s my understanding that the notion of micro and macro evolution (what I think you are alluding to here) are creationist invented constructs, and are not labels actual biologists bother with because they are rather arbitrary and unimportant as they relate to evolution.
It would be pointless for me to try and do justice in describing to you the mechanisms of evolution across special boundaries (what I assume you mean “across taxa”) in a blog comment, particularly if what Stan said is true, that you are reading the book “Your inner fish” by Neil Shubin, a very good book that should explain quite a bit about how that works, in far better detail and authority than a layman like me could hope to manage. I would also recommend “Why evolution is true” by Jerry Coyne, and “The Making of the Fittest” by Sean Carroll. And while I can’t imagine anyone with an ounce of objectivity having doubts about the veracity of evolution after reading books of this caliber, experience leads me to agree with the sentiment that “people who formulate opinions outside of reason, cannot be reasoned out of such opinions”.
And yet I hope…
As to delineating facts, I would answer with a question: what aspects of the theory of gravity do you think are not fact, but mere theory?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:07 am
“As to delineating facts, I would answer with a question: what aspects of the theory of gravity do you think are not fact, but mere theory?”
It’s funny you ask. I once wrote a lot of philisophical material on “gravity”
Gravity can pretty much be summed up as fact in it “being an observable and testable force of the attraction of certain objects together in relation to movement”. The theory of gravity is in defining the mechanism of “force”. Lets apply this to evolution and ID-
In biology there are many things we can observe and test. We know certain facts about how different chemicals interact and cause reactions that are predictable. We can call these “laws” just like we say “gravity” is a law without knowing exactly the mechanism but do know the predicatble outcome. We thus can apply this knowledge in medicine research, etc. But these predicatble outcomes really do not say much about the “facts” of the “mechanism”. Evolution, as it applies in science can be broken down into 2 parts- the observable laws or principles that are both observed and tested and have semi-predictable outcomes, and then there is the “theory” part such as- can these “factual” small changes add up over time and create new complex material (neo-Darwinian evolution). It certainly is a theory worth pursuing, if anything but to just settle the score. But, because it is a “theory”, it means that it can and should have competing theories to thus “test” it. ID is one such theory.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I’m sorry, I’m not well versed on the subject of NDBF… but is it anywhere clarified that “death” in that context refers to “physical death?”
In the church we generally refer to two types of death: physical and spiritual. No physical death before the fall wouldn’t make sense given what we know about the history of the earth, while no spiritual death before the fall makes perfect sense doctrinally.
Could it be that the doctrine of NDBF originally referred ONLY to spiritual death, but has been misused by prophets who didn’t understand the physical aspects of creation?
It is apparent that the Lord doesn’t wish to give us specific revelation on the creation at this time, so we are left to our own devices (science). I don’t know why anyone would even touch the subject unscientifically at this point in time, given that all official doctrine on the subject is vague and inconclusive. There is much more interesting doctrine that is much better explained to study if one is interested in drawing knowledge only from scriptural sources. But why waste all the tools that we’ve been given to observe and learn some things on our own?
November 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Rob, to answer your question:
“…can these “factual” small changes add up over time and create new complex material (neo-Darwinian evolution)…”
Absolutely; we now have the ability to see into the forensic record of our own DNA and that of other creatures to observe when and precisely how this is working.
Here’s a simple example: Let’s look at a horse and a donkey. They certainly look similar. You can even get a donkey to mate with a horse. The result is a mule (and folks I know who breed mules love them and swear by them). They tend to be strong, smart, and make excellent pack animals, etc.
Mules are sterile. Why? Because horses and donkeys are right at that species boundary. They each have evolved enough apart that they are separate species. Barely. The fact that they can still breed means they have a close common ancestor. But the fact that their offspring isn’t sexually viable also means they each are a new species. Barely. Give them more time to evolve and the ability to create a mule will also likely disappear. There are thousands of similar examples found in nature, in both the animal and plant kingdoms. I had a biologist explain to me once that there are examples among plants where it’s nearly impossible to tell where one species ends and another starts.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
R. Gary:
You claim that you have discussed this elsewhere. Could you then please summarize for us, in a few sentences posted here, what your response is to each of these questions? This is a very reasonable request. Surely, if you wish to participate in this list, you could provide this information for us?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
SteveP, is this your new blog format? You have to answer David’s questions “if you wish to participate in this list”?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Rich,
I think I generally understand small changes as in the horse/mule example. This much can be demonstratable, perhaps even be called a fact of ebolutionary theory. I am fine with that. The theory part such as, for example- whale evolution- mammals walking and breathing on land exclusively to then evolve into water mammals losing some parts and gaining others, though is not something proven.
It is this area of evolution that we discuss generally in the evolution/ID debate. Obviously it is going to take some inferrence to state how (the mechanism and details) animals evolved in the large sense. Is it testable? Is it observable? One thing is for sure, and I think we can both agree on it- Evolution of life from simple to complex is a “theory” that is yet to be proven and as such is not a “fact”. Would you agree?
November 13th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Will the NDBF guys answer my question please (or at least point me to where they have previously answered a similar inquiry)?
November 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Physical
November 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Gary,
I’ve read many of your posts here and elsewhere, and I can’t find where you’ve specifically addressed the questions the other David has asked. I second the request – simply because I value your opinion.
Thanks.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Gary,
I was hoping for a scriptural clarification (or at least a nudge in the general direction of where to find one). Thanks anyway.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
David (not Bailey), here’s the thing. Over and over, on the web and in the bloggernacle, for more than five years, I’ve provided information that shows the 1931 FP memo had nothing to do with evolution and that its original intent was not what David Bailey reads into it. Three years ago, I ran into David Bailey over at Eyring-L and since then I’ve disputed his claim that the anonymous 1910 comment was “carefully reviewed” by the First Presidency as clarification of the November 1909 statement on “The Origin of Man.” This week again, on this very thread, he has made the same bogus claims about the 1910 and 1931 comments and once more I’ve disputed those claims. Can David Bailey defend his assertions regarding the 1910 and 1931 non-statements? We don’t know. So tell me, why should I discuss his laundry list when for years he has refused to discuss my questions about 1910 and 1931.
JonB, you might start by looking in the First Presidency’s “doctrinal guidebook” True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference under Death, Physical.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Rob (86), Just read the book already. Any of the 3 I mentioned. Your question will be satisfactorily answered. I promise.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I have a few questions for R. Gary and any other NDBF proponents:
If The Fall triggered fundamental, physiological changes in every form of life on Earth, one naturally then wonders, what did our present-day life forms look and behave like prior to The Fall? Tigers and alligators and great white sharks now have sharp, meat-eating teeth, honeybees now have stingers with barbs, mosquitos and horseflies and leeches now suck blood, snakes now have fangs and poisonous venom, and spiders spin webs to catch insect prey in order to wrap them up and suck them dry, and all sorts of nasty, disease-causing bacteria and viruses and protozoans lurk everywhere, leaving sickness and death and suffering in their wake. But what were all of these creatures like previous to The Fall? How were they different?
Some have suggested that modern meat-eating predators were simply once herbivores, but I would hasten to point out here that plants are also living things, therefore, cows and horses and zebras and elephants and snails and slugs and birds and beetles (and pretty much everything else) should also be considered predators, and therefore must have gone hungry prior to The Fall, because the consumption of vegetation means the death of said vegetation, and we’ve already been told that death didn’t exist beforehand.
So, unless perfect creatures (whatever that means) don’t feel hunger, and/or don’t need nourishment, or… I don’t really know how to finish that sentence. And forget about vultures and earthworms and maggots and fungi and all the other scavengers and microbes that feed on dead stuff – they apparently didn’t (couldn’t?) even exist until The Fall, because, we are told, nothing died or decayed prior to that event.
So if nothing is dying, and nothing is eating and nothing is defecating and, as we are also given to understand, nothing is reproducing, what, exactly then is all of creation actually spending time DOING? Did life actually have any meaning in such a state? What was its function, beyond mere existence? And how do we explain the hard evidence of their (predatory) lives, preserved in fossil sediments, that pre-date Adam by millions (or billions) of years? If, as some have suggested, these things are merely remnants or pieces of other worlds, cobbled together in ages past to form this world, why do we find many of them (still) swimming in our oceans today?
What exactly was God’s purpose in making Adam and Eve perfect immortals, if His intention for the rest of us was to instead come down from our pre-mortal existence to gain bodies and experience mortality? Wouldn’t that just be a pointless waste of time?
If the knowledge of good and evil is requisite for human sexuality, why isn’t it requisite for any other (kindred) mammalian species? If the rest of creation was, in the meantime, busy multiplying and replenishing the earth, would Adam and Eve have merely remained simple, ignorant observers, wondering what these creatures were up to? Or did the forbidden fruit also contain the seeds of curiosity and the ability to reason?
We are told that The Fall is the result of disobedience, namely, Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command to not eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Generally we equate disobedience with sin, yet we LDS are loathe to ascribe the term sin to Adam’s (correct) choice, so the word transgression is typically substituted, presumably to mitigate the rather dramatic consequences that resulted in death for everyone and every thing. But this strange tale certainly begs the question, why are there such dramatic consequences for Adam and Eve, when it was actually God Himself that put them in this no-win, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma? He appears to have trapped Adam and Eve between two conflicting commands – multiply and replenish the earth, impossible (we are told) without eating of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or withhold from eating said fruit, and disobey the command to multiply. There seems to be no possible way for them to fulfill both commands; in fact, there’s no possible way for Adam and Eve not to sin! Whatever choice is made (including a lack of choice) leads to death; it’s utterly impossible for them to remain immortal or sinless. Consequently, that would make God the author of confusion / disobedience / transgression / sin (whatever you choose to call it), which of course is denied by scripture (e.g., 2 Cor. 14). Furthermore, the whole idea is contradicted by the 2nd Article of Faith: we are punished for our own sins, and not Adam’s transgression. Well, if that’s true, then why does the Book of Mormon instruct us in Ether (3:2), “because of the fall our natures have become evil continually”. What? Our natures became evil because of Adam and Eve’s choices?
How does a rational son or daughter of God make sense of any of this mass of contradiction and confusion?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Rich,
The correct answer is that evolution is a theory. Scientists have no problems calling evolution a theory. There would be no debate with ID or creationists if evolution were a fact- a demonstratable, testable fact. I don’t consider my mind as being hostile towards science. I love science and those who engage in finding the truth to make life easier and more joyful. It’s not that I say evolution- macro-evolution, couldn’t have happened, I just believe it didn’t happen. And, I will admit that my beliefs do somewhat balance off of faith based religious principles. Of course, you will admit you believe evolution did happen. So why do we believe the different ways we do? I will tell you mine-
First off, I put a lot of faith in Gods word- his scriptures and prophets. They are generally correct, moreso than man is correct independent of God. So, I do somewhat have speacial goggles on when I look at the evidence. I am looking for evidence to back up my faith. Now certainly evolutionists do the same exact thing on their side- they go out and look for specific evidence to back up their belief system, they test certain things looking to back up their beliefs. It’s human nature to see things through belief goggles.
The evidence I see therefore leads me to infer that intelligent design best explains the evidence. So, how can one truly be objective? It’s impossible. People generally only see what they want to see, or believe to see. I can understand how an evolutionary scientist can look at a humanoid skull and piece together in his mind a pathway leading to his beliefs. I can also understand why he believes the way he does that makes him conclude- “why can’t others see this- it’s so obvious”. It’s all about the goggles. If you look for God, you will see God. If you don’t look for God, chances are, you are not going to see him. And so it is with scientific evidence- if you want to see something, chances are you will see it, at least in your own mind or imagination.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Rich (#93),
Let’s talk about just your first paragraph. In our current Priesthood and Relief Society manual, there is a chapter about “The Second Coming and the Millennium.” If we reorient the questions in your paragraph to that perspective, it comes out like this:
Does evolution anticipate the Second Coming? Consider this: The incomparable James E. Talmage, a favorite son of modern LDS evolutionists, ended his masterful 1931 address on “The Earth and Man” with these words:
I believe Talmage was right: Science can say nothing about conditions on the earth after the Second Coming. Why? Because the earth will have moved on to an entirely different sphere of existence. The natural laws of mortality will no longer apply.
Many Christians faithfully anticipate the Second Coming and all of the glorious changes it will bring to earth. In the same way, I look back and faithfully accept what the scriptures and the apostles and prophets teach about no death before the fall. If, prior to the Fall, the earth was in an entirely different sphere of existence, the same statement could be made. “Science has nothing to say on the matter; it can neither refute nor prove. But the Lord, even God, hath spoken.”
November 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
R. Gary (and others):
The view on the general topic of the creation and evolution by the Church and its leaders has had many twists and turns, and any very brief overview, such as mine above, will of necessity gloss over important details. But given R. Gary’s reasonable request for a more thorough account on how I view the topic, here is the history as I understand it. I recognize that R. Gary sees things differently, and I fully respect his right to hold his views, so I will try to highlight our differences of opinion below.
To keep this note manageable, I will limit my discussion to the “BYU Packet on Evolution”, which was approved by the BYU Board of Trustees in Oct 1992 to be provided to all students who inquire as to the Church’s view on evolution. According to someone I know close to these events, members of the First Presidency (Elders Hinckley and Monson) were in attendance at this particular meeting. The BYU Packet can be read in its entirety at http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf.
Item #1: the 1909 FP statement. This statement, a long doctrinal discourse on the origin and nature of man, has much interesting material including, for instance, one of the few places in official LDS literature that mentions Mother in Heaven. One passage in this discourse speaks negatively on the notion of human descent (although the word “evolution” itself is never mentioned): “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.”
Item 2: A 1910 note. In the wake of this statement the FP received numerous inquiries as to whether this statement was to be taken as a rejection of evolution or, more generally, of the larger old-earth picture of modern science. In its Christmas message of 1910 (as I recall), the FP responded “to questions raised by science”: “Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept…”. There is no way to know with certainty whether this statement was specifically responding to the concerns of the 1909 statement, but the circumstances suggest that they did not want to be drawn into a technical debate over scientific theories on the physical creation of man.
Item #3: the 1925 FP statement. In 1925, in the wake of the Scopes trail (and some continuing discussions between LDS apostles on the general topic of the creation of man, the FP re-released a shortened version of the 1909 statement, as “Mormon View of Evolution”. The sentences mentioned above that were critical of human beings having developed from lower orders were conspicuously absent.
Item #4: the article on evolution from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. From roughly 1925 to 1931, Elders Smith, Talmage and Roberts had been debating issues of creation of mankind, pre-Adamites, geology, age of earth, and other aspects of the creation. Roberts felt that the Church should be more accommodating of modern science. He wrote, in a book manuscript he was preparing, “On the other hand, to limit and insist upon the whole of life and death to this side of Adam’s advent to the earth, some six or eight thousand years ago, as proposed by some, is to fly in the face of the facts so indisputably brought to light by the researcher of science in modern times.” Smith, on the other hand, approached the issue from a scriptural point of view and rejected any “pre-Adamites”, any life or death before Adam and the fall, and an old earth. Finally, in 1931, the FP sent an internal letter to general authorities summarizing the two competing views (from Smith and Roberts), and then declaring “Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…”.
More recently, in 1993, when the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being assembled, editors inquired to the Church as to what should be said regarding evolution. Two lengthy manuscripts (one generally anti-evolution, and one more accepting of evolution) were referred to the Quorum of the Twelve for review, then rejected. The matter was referred up to Gordon B. Hinckley (first counselor at the time and, in effect, acting president). After some study of the matter, he responded with a copy of the 1931 letter from the FP’s files, and with the specific direction that the article on evolution was to be only a very brief note, with conclusion just as open as the 1931 letter. He even included an outline of the article, specifying many of the words. The resulting article was prepared (by William Evenson of BYU) exactly according to these instructions. It is true that the 1931 letter did not specifically deal with evolution per se, but it did deal with the overall topic of the creation, pre-Adamites, life before the fall, and science vs religion. In any event, it was selected by Elder Hinckley to briefly encapsulate the Church’s view on evolution. The EOM article was selected for the BYU Packet because of its quotes from the 1931 FP letter, and because Elder Hinckley of the FP had a key role in its content.
R. Gary and I disagree on how to interpret this package. I hold that the overall bottom-line message of the BYU Packet is clear — while the Church takes seriously the scriptures on the creation, Adam and Eve, and the fall, it does not want to be drawn into technical debates in the general area of geology, paleontology, and evolution, which debates would be a distraction to the Church’s focus on morality and salvation. In contrast, R. Gary’s position, which I certainly respect, is that only the 1909 statement should be regarded as official, and the “BYU Packet” is not really reflective of the current official view.
There are of course many other historical items that could be mentioned: Brigham Young’s comments about the creation taking millions of years; McConkie’s comments against evolution in Mormon Doctrine, Pres. McKay’s letters saying there is no official doctrine, the 1909 statement in the 2002 Ensign, etc etc. But what’s the point of rehearsing all of this? The scientific evidence is pretty clear now, so I personally think that we should move beyond these petty debates. And besides, from everything I read (and numerous discussions with a former Area Authority whom I know well), the Church has far more important matters to deal with: incessant anti-Mormon propaganda from evangelicals, political opposition, youth and young adults dropping out, child abuse, conservatives teaching strange doctrine, modern-day polygamy, etc. Why resurrect the evolution question (or any other scientific matter) in the Church, which compared with the above is pretty unimportant?
November 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am
David B,
You can’t just walk away from these issues and charge the debate as being petty. There is a lot at stake here, perhaps more than we realize. First and foremost, The church teaches 3 fundamental physical events that if proved wrong would completely undermine the church leaders and it’s doctrine. Here they are-
1. The creation. The physical creation of this world and placing of life upon this sphere. This creation was orchestrated in an orderly intelligent process by an intelligent human being.
2. The fall. The physical fall of the creation. The church has never taught that the fall just effected Adam and Eve, The church has always taught that the physical fall introduced death to the entire creation.
3. The resurrection. The resurrection will allow all life-forms to be resurrected that fell according to Adam and Eves decisions which brought death into the world.
I am not sure that the theory of evolution can deal with these three fundamental doctrines which we as LDS hold to be true. As for #1, I know that evolution theory rejects the idea of the “creation” by an intelligent agent. As for how LDS evolutionists deal with this I am not quite sure.
I know that #2 is perhaps the most controversial because if no death was occurring before the fall some 6000 years ago, then science and religion have some serious complications to work out- either one or the other is wholly incorrect. Personally, because man has a written record of the fall, I am compelled to take them for their word and believe that the fall really did happen. The scientific evidence hinges completely off of unseen and unobserved processes. Sure, it may be a scientific process, but that does not prove it is correct. How man dates rocks is theoretically applied- assumption based technology.
As for #3, I am not sure that evolutionary theory, or even basic biology theory can explain resurrection and eternal life.
I do know that our religion is based upon faith- the belief of prophets and their words in the face of what would otherwise be basic logic. Noah warned the ancient inhabitants of the world of the flood that would come to destroy the earth and all life. For 120 years he preached and for the most part they rejected his words disbelieveing, and then the flood came and took them all away. Modern geology theory also rejects that this flood ever occurred and this is the same institution that dates our rocks. If they are as fundamentally wrong about the flood, then who isn’t to say they would be wrong about other things also like rocks, dating, fossils, etc?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“As for #1, I know that evolution theory rejects the idea of the “creation” by an intelligent agent.”
Wrong. Science doesn’t have a thing to say about the existence or non-existence of “an intelligent agent” (although I prefer to call Him God). The existence of God is not scientifically falsifiable, and therefore, is not science. It’s knowable, but not through scientific means.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
This thread is making my head spin. I had no idea people could embrace ignorance with such… misguided devotion. This is what Nibley described as “Zeal without knowledge”. My final thought here (since it’s clear I’m trying to reason with a brick wall), a quote from Elder Sterling W. Sill:
“To become a son of perdition, one must sin against great knowledge. That is the sin of the greatest enormity. But the sin of the greatest frequency is ignorance. That is, not to know in the first place. The religion of Jesus has always suffered more from those who did not understand and those who did not care than from those who opposed. It is largely our ignorance that stands between us and our blessings.”
November 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
David H. Bailey,
I very much appreciate your most recent comment. It is unexpected but welcome and I will respond appropriately (but not immediately).
Rich,
I’ve enjoyed conversing with you on this thread. I understand we don’t agree on some things and ascribing zeal without knowledge to me personally is just fine. But you might want to remember this: It was a Pharisee named Gamaliel who counseled moderation when criticizing the Apostles, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39). And it turns out that Boyd K. Packer and Russell M. Nelson are two living apostles whose teachings would apparently make your head spin.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
It does, and yet I sustain them and admire their great efforts to lead and direct (when they aren’t trying to pontificate on scientific issues in which they clearly lack understanding). Call it cherry picking if you will, but I see them also as fellow flawed men, like myself, capable of error. Unlike myself however, they have a serious responsibility of stewardship to the church at large, which is why their personal opinions on this particular subject, sometimes expressed as doctrine, I find so distressing.
If it is a fatal, sinful flaw to need the world I live in to make sense, then I happily raise my hand and say “guilty”.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“As for #1, I know that evolution theory rejects the idea of the “creation” by an intelligent agent.”
Not so. This is where Kenneth Miller will help. Also, Karl W. Giberson “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution” shows nicely how the perception that evolution and atheism go together arose in America. The integration of evolution and faith is alive and abundant in the Academy of both science and theology (Look at the Journal Zygon or Theology Today for instance). It’s intelligent design that is rejected by both believing scientists and theologians as the body of literature promoted by the Discovery Institute. That God is ‘creator’ and ‘intelligent’ is accepted by all theistic evolutionists I know. It’s the Behe/Dempski version that is rejected.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Rob Osborn wrote “Modern geology theory also rejects that this flood ever occurred and this is the same institution that dates our rocks. If they are as fundamentally wrong about the flood, then who isn’t to say they would be wrong about other things also like rocks, dating, fossils, etc?”
That’s the point — modern geology is NOT wrong about the flood and the dates of the rocks. Evidence for a simultaneous, worldwide flood is completely lacking, and would be there in huge abundance if such an event truly happened. And the dates of the rocks cannot possibly be mistaken — the evidence comes from so many directions, literally tens of thousands of careful measurements, based on the most basic laws of physics, using advanced, high-tech equipment that can’t be fooled by human bias.
Indeed, the evidence has grown to the point that the only way in which “geologists are wrong” on these matters is if God deliberately created the earth and the rocks with an “appearance of age” — ie with isotopic ratios deliberately altered in many tricky ways, and with a hundred other lines of altered evidence, implemented worldwide (and even in light reaching earth from other stars), all with the intent, evidently, of misleading diligent seekers of truth in the latter days into thinking that the rocks and fossils are many millions of years old, when they are not.
As I’ve mentioned before, such a “God the Great Deceiver” theology, in my view, is so absurd and disrespectful to the nature of God as to be tantamount to blasphemy. I’ll take a God who expects us to read the scriptures in a more intelligent manner any day.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
R. Gary,
Now that David Bailey has answered your question, will you please give me your insights on the questions he raised earlier? I’ve copied them here in case you forgot. Thanks.
1. How long did the physical creation take, according to our current units of time?
2. When was the physical creation completed, and when did the Garden of Eden and the Fall take place?
3. By what means or processes was the physical creation performed? Can we learn about this process? If not, why?
4. How do yo account for the fact that empirical evidence strongly points to a very old earth, and a progression of organisms through eons? Did God create the world and the fossils to look very old? Why?
5. How do you account for the fact that the vast majority of God-fearing scientists (including LDS scientists) see the earth and the universe as very old, and evolution as real? Are they not examining their data correctly?
6. What is your view towards science in general? Does God wish us to explore the world around us and measure it with tools? If not, why?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
SteveP,
So we are on the same page-
In my statement I was referring to the evolutionary theory as found in textbooks and taught in classrooms at all levels. What is it they teach about the origins of life? They teach that the origins of life came about by an unguided random process, not a process to us LDS known as the “creation” by Jesus Christ. Evolutionary theory as is accepted and taught, when discussing the origins of life, explains how life arose independent of any intelligent person (Jesus Christ in our case), intelligent agent, intelligent purpose or intelligent design. That is general evolution. Next I have theistic evolution.
Now, help me out here with “theistic evolution” because I can’t seem to figure it out. How is ID theory different than theistic evolution? To my mind (which lacks at times, eh eh), it seems that under theistic evolution, an intelligent creator both oversees and instigates by design the process of evolution. In regards to the origins of life, it seems that under theistic evolutionary theory that the intelligent designer is not just a bystander.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
David,
I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers. I wonder why we reject the church’s teachings regarding the flood? To me it is seen as a general lack of faith not to accept it at least for me personally. I have no real problems with mixing the theological with the scientific. For me the evidence is clear that the flood occurred. I have studied the geologic principles of “uniformatarianism” for a few decades now and have traveled around and looked at various geologic formations. To me the evidence for it is mostly absent for what I see in the rocks.
One of the biggest breakthroughs I had was in studying the layers seen in the Grand Canyon walls. There are no current uniformatarian processes that are laying down sediment layers anywhere in the world that even come close to what we see int he Grand Canyon. The amount of sediment layers piled generally parallel on top of each other over thousands of square miles would far surpass the amount of available mountains and other higher earth portions to be eroded for deposit over such long period of time.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
David H Bailey,
To begin with, I like your idea of limiting the discussion to the BYU Evolution Packet and its contents.
The Chairman and Vice Chairmen of the BYU Board of Trustees are the Church President and his Counselors in the First Presidency. Typically, there are also three or more members of the Twelve on the board. It seems reasonable, therefore, to auggest that the BYU packet cover letter, titled “Evolution and the Origin of Man,” was approved by the 1992 First Presidency.
The cover letter is actually the first item in the BYU Evolution Packet. It contains three paragraphs which explain the origin and purpose of the remaining items in the packet.
First paragraph
The three First Presidency statements named in this paragraph are:
After naming these three statements, the packet cover letter emphasizes, “these documents make clear the official position of the Church regarding the origin of man.” This clearly includes the 1909 sentences that were critical of the idea that human beings developed from lower orders of the animal creation.
Second paragraph
The 1931 First Presidency minutes have never been formally issued by any First Presidency to the general membership of the Church. Therefore, neither the Encyclopedia article nor the 1931 excerpt itself could be appropriately listed in the first paragraph as equal in authority with the three statements that were so listed. It is clear that the 1931 excerpt is not a statement of the official position of the Church on anything.
Third paragraph
As if to emphasize the unofficial status of the Encyclopedia evolution article, the third paragraph repeats what was said in the first paragraph, namely that “statements issued by the First Presidency … make clear the official position of the Church.” Here is the third paragraph:
The meaning of the 1931 excerpt
The 1931 First Presidency memo (excerpted in the Encyclopedia evolution article) closed the Church’s official evaluation of a priesthood manual submitted in 1928 by Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy. Neither the author nor his manuscript were sympathetic to evolution. Problems arose for the manual, however, because it tried to reconcile fossils with scripture by bringing the conclusions of science into its gospel lessons. The 1931 First Presidency memo says:
In the manuscript, and in his presentation before the Twelve (which was taken from Chapter 31 of the manuscript) Roberts brought in the latest conclusions of scientists in the fields of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology to support his theory.
Then, after two and a half years of discussion, the 1931 First Presidency memo said basically, Let’s get back to work. Referring to the Roberts book, the First Presidency said the conclusions of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology don’t belong in a priesthood manual. Discussions about the manuscript are over. The Roberts book will not be published.
To the extent that it applies to anything beyond the Roberts book, the 1931 First Presidency memo is a directive not to bring the conclusions of science into the gospel and use them to interpret scripture. I can see why President Hinckley wanted this message included in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, but I’m not sure today’s LDS evolutionists really want to hear it.
What is official
BYU provides its students an evolution packet that contains two official (1909 and 1925) position statements on evolution and the origin of man, plus one official (1910) and one unofficial (1931) warning not to use science to interpret scripture. The 1909 First Presidency statement is by far the largest and most significant item in the packet.
For its general membership, the Church has reprinted the official 1909 First Presidency statement in major publications twice in this decade (click here and here).
Conclusion
I feel David H Bailey has misrepresented me on one point:
Hopefully, the above discussion will clear up that little misunderstanding.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:31 am
SteveP,
I hope a long response to David H Bailey’s comment (#96) is okay. My comment is actually slightly smaller than his.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Rob: “One of the biggest breakthroughs I had was in studying the layers seen in the Grand Canyon walls. There are no current uniformatarian processes that are laying down sediment layers anywhere in the world that even come close to what we see int he Grand Canyon.”
Rob, do you really believe that geologists have somehow overlooked huge amounts of very accessible evidence that completely counters the entire old-earth picture of the earth? If this were really true, every self-respecting postdoc in the field would be furiously writing up the results, exposing the “cover-up”, and earning everlasting fame…
Don’t kid yourself: scientists have combed over every bit of available evidence, in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere. All available evidence points in only one direction, namely to a formation over hundreds of millions of years. There is no way this conclusion can be wrong.
This may be an unpleasant turn of events, and may make life more complicated for some. But it is an adjustment that we, as believing LDS, must make. Indeed, the older I get the less I understand the reluctance to accept the obvious. Why?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Gary a long response is fine. I will be interested to read it.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
SteveP, I think it got stuck in moderation at 10:30 am this morning.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
You were thrown to spam for some reason. It’s there now as comment #108. I discovered two of Rob’s there too which I freed up.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Rob,
I know you are well read on a lot of these subjects. From all your comments, though, it would seem that all of the sources you have read have been those you can purchase in your local Christian book store.
While, yes, one does become acquainted with the arguments the scientists put forward for evolution, etc. from these sources, they do a really, really, REALLY bad job at representing the ideas they are attacking.
I know how patronizing it sounds for me to say it, but your comments sound VERY similar to what I used to say back when I had only read “corrections” to Darwinism rather than actual descriptions of Darwinism.
Is it safe to assume that this is more or less the background which you are bringing to the table?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
SteveP – re your comment #114,
Some of the comment numbers have changed, although links to the same comments are not affected. For example, David H Bailey’s long comment to which I responded was #96 but is now #98 (perhaps due to a freed comment). Anyway, my long comment, whatever its number, is here.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
David,
I just do not see the evidence for “millions of years” of uniformly laid sediment. What exactly would it look like? We haven’t been around long enough to actually document what nature really does in hundreds of millions of years. I am not being close-minded here, I am honestly seeking the truth.
There is a way that modern geology is wrong. Just because they say it is doesn’t set it in stone as a paramount achievement of mans knowledge. Maybe it does, but that still doesn’t qualify it as the truth. Not every geologist believes the layers were laid gradually over hundreds of millions of years.
I don’t really have to make any adjustments being LDS. The prophets say there was a global flood, I go out in the world, weigh the evidence, make the judgment myself and conclude that the prophets are exactly right in the matter. It doesn’t matter to me that there is an overwhelming majority who believe otherwise. Joseph Smith and followers have been plagued by that all along. There is a great amount who believe the Book of Mormon is a fake, and we can’t really seem to find the adequate evidence rerquired by scientific inquiry to prove it true, but we stick by it none the less having faith in the prophets. So I ask-
Is it just a matter of picking certain things in the gospel to have faith in while discarding others?
November 15th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Jeff G,
I have read all sides of the debate. I have read on evolutionists sites what they say about their theory and I have been to ID sites. Kind of off topic a bit but I do the majority of my study in religious studies (heaven and hell, etc) and I often go to anti-mormon and anti-christian sites to do research to see what the arguments are- how they view the issues. I do so objectively always. I have learned over the years that often times the supposed “antis” have a good case- that they are honest in their intentions and that quite often they bring up real issues that have not been resolved. I always try to go right to the “source” rather than go seek something that sounds good to my ears. Why run from it? Go straight to the source, find the truth and judge for myself what is and what isn’t. Years ago when I was studying creationism, I immediately saw the flaw in their movement- that being the indoctrination of a belief system into the public, especially the yound children at the peril of the rights of the students. Whereas I believe a lot of what creationism believes, I do not believe that “creationism” should be taught in a science class. I don’t have a problem with having a religious studies optional course in public schools to discuss the merits of creationism and other religious ideas.
The thing with ID and evolution is that both sides make great points. Evolution makes a great point with the theory of natural selection and how it can effects populations. as to if it can generate and produce new life, its up in the air- the jury is still out. ID on the other hand makes a great point in extrapolating the idea that intelligence in nature exists and that perhaps it isn’t just “chance” that we are here. Plus, LDS doctrine in fact states that we are here for a purpose- that the whole creation is made and tailord to mankind. Physicists have been saying for years that it certainly appears that the universe was tailormade for life. ID and evolution both have great ideas. What needs to happen is for both sides to drop the politics, find out some common ground, agree upon that which is unseen and untestable, and move towards the direction of finding the truth together.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:23 am
“I always try to go right to the “source” rather than go seek something that sounds good to my ears. Why run from it? Go straight to the source, find the truth and judge for myself what is and what isn’t.”
Rob, prove you aren’t a liar and list for us the actual science books you’ve read, cover to cover, as the source for your alleged understanding of evolution. I say prove it because you have utterly failed to convince anyone here that you comprehend even the most basic concept of biological evolution. My guess is that you can’t list a single one. Please prove me wrong. I dare you.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:26 am
“I say prove it because you have utterly failed to convince anyone here that you comprehend even the most basic concept of biological evolution.”
Rich,
I am beginning to think that no matter what I say you won’t believe. I have already posted that I believe in small evolutionary change- that which is demonstratable. I just do not believe in large across taxa lines evolution. I also do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of life.
I already understand the “basic concept of biological evolution”, if you think I am wrong please explain. It’s as if you assume I know nothing about it because if I did I would believe it. Sorry but some people are different and actually have to see real evidence to believe. The leading evolutionary scientists still say they have no idea on how the origin of life started, its a mystery to them too.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Rob, despite the fact that multiple people have already explained it to you, ad nauseum, I’ll explain it yet again, since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. Darwinian Evolution HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT ORIGIN SCIENCE. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Origin science IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FIELD OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
(Does it help if I use cap lock?
The fact that you can see both discussed in the same textbook does not negate that fact. They are entirely independent of one another.
Yes, scientists are actively trying to understand how life may have started here. That’s what science does — it investigates the unknown.
The two are often DELIBERATELY thrown together by creationists and ID advocates simply to muddy the waters regarding evolution. Because yes, life springing out of random chaos is probably rather statistically improbable. Yes, we don’t (yet) have a good explanation of how chemical soup becomes a living cell. That’s all truly a great big mystery, and nobody here disputes that (not yet anyway, give science a few more years to work on that problem)…
But evolutionary science has plenty to say about how “simple” cellular organisms can become more complex over large amounts of time; you add up all the baby steps — the very ones you claim to believe in — and over time, small changes add up to big ones. It’s really that simple. The forensic evidence for this is abundant in our DNA. Right there for the looking. All you have to do is look!
So do us all a big fat favor and quit trying to confuse the two separate branches of science. They have nothing to do with one another.
And, I can only assume, since you refused to answer my challenge, that you have yet to read a single evolutionary biology text. Get thee to the library before you make me any more crazy with your ignorant questions.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
<>
Rob: As we have mentioned several times already, geologic dating is a very well established field, with techniques that have survived at least 60 years of careful scrutiny.
Dates of various rocks and various fossil layers have been measured using these techniques, and the dates measured from the same layer, taken at different spots around the world, by different labs, all agree. Many thousands of such measurements have been made. There is no possible way that all of them are simultaneously in error by huge factors.
If you’re not familiar with how radiometric dating works and why it is so reliable, please read the very clear, accessible writeup in Ken Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”. For your convenience, I have transcribed this material into a pdf file, which is available here:
http://www.dhbailey.com/misc/miller-pg66-80.pdf
Please read this.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:33 am
David,
Ok, I read the pages and noted it was complete anti-creationist. Truth mixed with conjecture? Here is some more from the other side of the tracks.-
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Rob,
I noticed that the author of your article is not (surprise!–or rather entirely not surprised) a geologist. He’s not a chemist, he’s not a physicist, he’s not a biologist–he’s a computer scientist. He’s writing totally outside of his field. Not reliable. Ouch.
LDS scientists at BYU do not agree with your stance. Nor did Henry Eyring, who wrote about the age of the earth in his book “Reflections of a Scientist.” As a world-renown chemist, he had a first-rate knowledge of how atoms decay (and thus, how the world really is as old as scientists say it is). As a faithful member of the church (father of a member of our current First Presidency and brother-in-law to a past prophet, as well as a noble defender of the church), he didn’t have a problem combining real, demonstrated science with the gospel.
So you’ll pardon me if I take Eyring’s words about the age of the earth over those of a non-LDS computer scientist.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Rob: That website is complete nonsense. There is not a reputable geologist in the world who would endorse this stuff. Even the “intelligent design” writers long ago acknowledged that radiometric dating is beyond any reasonable doubt, and the earth really is very very old.
With regards to the arguments raised on the website, there are VERY good scientific reasons to presume that radioactivity rates are constant over the eons and reliable as “clocks”. Radioactive decay rates have been measured carefully in the lab many times. Radioactivity itself is rooted in the fundamental laws of quantum physics, which have been tested over and over again in the most exacting experiments that we can devise.
What’s more, there is very strong evidence that the laws of quantum mechanics have been in effect, exactly as we now see them, for many millions of years. When astronomers look at light from distant stars and galaxies, they are in effect looking deeply into the past, because the light they see was emitted millions or billions of years ago. And yet this light has the same characteristic spectral lines that we see on earth and which we deduce from quantum theory.
Don’t kid yourself. There is not the slightest possibility that these radiometric dates are in error, certainly not by six orders of magnitude. The earth really is very very old.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Rob: P.S. If you think one can tilt against the windmill of modern quantum physics, consider the following. Scientists, using exacting means of measurement, have determined that the magnetic moment of the electron is 1.00115965219. The value computed from the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) is 1.00115965220. Coincidence?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
David,
I was recently reading a page from W. D. Stansfileds book “The Science of Evolution” (college level textbook)- and came across this, here is the link-
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/stansfield.html
and here is the relevent passage-
“If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of u238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time…It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists…”. (W.D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt. State U., THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, 1977, p.84.)
How am I supposed to interpret this in light of your post? Are you saying that radiometric dating methods are accurate beyond all doubt, or that they are just agreed upon? I can agree that geologist generally agree on given dates of rocks based off of many accumalitive assumptions. But does this mean the process is accurate beyond doubt? No.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Rob,
May I recommend a science textbook that’s not over 30 years old? Science has moved forward quite a bit in the last 32 years.
You also left out the last half of the last sentence, which reads “but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.”
I realize that quote-mining is an oft-used creationist technique, but it is also dishonest.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Tim, be careful. It is my personal opinion that quote-mining has been used on this thread by David H. Bailey in connection with the 1931 First Presidency memo and he is not a creationist.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Rob: Professional radiometric dating procedures include numerous safeguards to ensure reliable results. For example, multiple independent “clocks” are typically analyzed in a single sample, thus eliminating the chance that argon gas, for instance, escapes and distorts the result — if it has escaped, the K-argon date will disagree with other radioisotope dates, and the data will not all lie on a straight line. This was explained in the extract from Prof. Miller’s book that I posted.
This is an example of the “trees” fallacy — finding faults with the bark of one or two trees, then trying to insist the forest really isn’t there…
Let me emphasize again that a very large percentage of practicing scientists (at least 99%), and even many intelligent design and creationist writers, acknowledge that the earth and fossils are many millions of years old. To cling to the possibility that somehow all of the thousands of carefully measured geologic dates are simultaneously in error by several orders of magnitude is to dig yourself into a very lonely hole, one populated only by a handful of bible-thumping fundamentalists. Even among active professional LDS scientists, the vote is virtually unanimous — if there are exceptions, they are in a very small minority.
If you do not wish to seriously study the matter and become familiar with the huge number of studies analyzing the reliability of radiometric dating, or the huge number of studies using radiometric dating, that is fine. If you simply do not wish to accept the consensus scientific conclusion, that is fine. But don’t pretend that there a large sector of the scientific community that doubts the old-age conclusion. There isn’t. You will have to find some other way to find a harmony between science and religion.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
David,
Perhaps this is where we can agree to disagree. I do not doubt the ability to check ratios of atoms in rocks. I doubt the ability to align up all of the presumptions correctly and have a basis of fact that needs to be in place to date it “accuratly”. Just because scientists agree on the assumptions does not make it factual. You know I find it very interesting that Tim made me aware of the fact that I left off the rest of a sentence in the previous writing I posted. But when you add the two together it pretty much sums up how modern scientist agree on that which they call to be “reliable results”. here it is again-
“It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.”
If they can be off sometimes by “hundreds of millions of years” and then conclude that they agree the interpretation supports the long history of geological evolution, I am left to conclude that it is anything but precise. I have always been skepticle of dating methods because it requires too much conjecture. And both sides are using it- both ID and Evolution. Even old-age creationists use it. This issue isn’t about sides (evolution or ID), it’s about unreliable data plain and simple.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Rob: We could discuss in more detail, but…
Suffice it to say that the vast majority of scientists (even LDS scientists) who have familiarized themselves with the mathematics, physics, experimental procedures and results of published studies agree that the earth is many millions of years old, and that this conclusion is beyond reasonable doubt from a scientific point of view.
As I emphasized above, if you do not wish to accept this conclusion, for any reason, that is your privilege. For example, if you reject the above conclusion for religious reasons, that is your right, and I would be the first to step up to defend your right to think the way you wish.
I wish you well in any case. Thanks for your discussion, DHB
November 18th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
David and Tim, having had similar discussions with Rob before, I know his standard for science is set very high. He will not accept any factual assertion that has not been reproduced in the lab under controlled circumstances. His difficulty, which is understandable, is that these millions of years you speak of have yet to be reproduced in a laboratory. Produce 1 eon, period or even an epoch in the lab and you may have a convert. Oh, and a Crock-o-Duck wouldn’t hurt either. =:)
November 19th, 2009 at 12:44 am
David,
It’s been good discussing this issue. I respect your position and opinion. My stance on dating procedures is somewhat religiously biased, I will admit that, it just bothers me that science is not more forthright on explaining procedure and the associated problems inherrent in such procedures. Its the “assumption” part that makes me question just how reliable it is.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Stan,
What would be cool is for them to cross an elephant and Rhino and get an “eleph-ino”
November 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“It just bothers me that science is not more forthright on explaining procedure and the associated problems inherent in such procedures.”
Rob: One last comment:
Science is completely forthright. All of the techniques, procedures, potential limitations, and ways to overcome potential limitations, of radiometric dating (and all the many other dating schemes) have been openly published and debated at length in the scientific literature — both in numerous journals and in the many books that have been published summarizing research in the field. Most of these journals and books are available in any good university library.
As I emphasized before, you are certainly welcome to form your own views on this topic, but …
November 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
David,
I agree that the information on dating rocks can be found out. It seems there is a discrepency though about the actual validity of reliable dating. Those adherring to a long age of evolution will agree readily that the numbers are correct and reliable and cite why in a very scientific way. But, they also often fail to be forthright about the problems encountered in the dating procedure. Many of the claims by young-earthers have valid claims but are generally rejected because of their religious stance or belief system.