Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

When you're ready, quote one specifically. Until then, you've shown nothing.

I already have. The first pres statement from 1909, but you already knew that.


So what specifically in the 1909 statement precludes evolution? The Grant first presidency in 1931 didn't seem to think there was anything.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

Once again bcspace makes the claim that Mormonism (which speaks directly for God on Earth) and science are not in opposition.


Yes. And I predict it won't be long until I do it again.

Immediately thereafter bcspace admits that the LDS Church has no official position on evolution,


Hence no opposition.

but fails to acknowledge that the Church cannot take a position on evolution because Church doctrine and beliefs are so internally inconsistent, confused and contrary to science that neither position (for or against evolution) could not possibly be supported by the LDS Church.


Incorrect. The Church cannot take a position on evolution because it doesn't have enough information to do so; something it even says in some of the recent quotes refered to.

The Church’s failure to acknowledge the reality of evolution certainly does not give one confidence that science and Momromnism are not in opposition.


Actually, it's the scriptures and official doctrines which give one confidence to state that evolution is not in conflict with LDS doctrine.

And the problems with the unfounded claims of bcspace with regard to the lack of opposition of Mormonism to evolution and the lack of conflict between science and Mormonism go much deeper. Consider the following with regard to LDS beliefs that are related to evolution alone, let alone its beliefs (from scripture) that are incompatible with physics (special relativity , general relativity), cosmology, astronomy, and geology among other disciplines:


Having done so for the last three decades, ever since my teacher's quorum advisor and Bishop sought to disabuse me of the notion of evolution and the Stake president then rescued me with actual doctrine, I will now proceed to destroy your arguments:


In D&C 77:6, we read:

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will,mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
The bold emphasis is mine.

Thus we learn, from LDS scripture, that the age of the Earth is 7,000 years (and not 4.7 billion years). Since this is from scripture, the normal bcspace dodge that the absurdities of Mormonism are “not doctrine” cannot be applied here. Perhaps bcspace can explain how this word of God as revealed in LDS scripture is not in opposition to science, and is compatible with the theory of evolution in particular.


You have made a very serious mistake my friend by not looking up what the doctrine (interpretation of scripture) of the Church actually is on the matter:

Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?
“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
Doctrine and Covenants Institute Manual Section 77


Notice that this puts a physical aspect onto the spiritual creation. Evolution certainly could have taken place during the earth's "preparation as a dwelling place for man". Of course this jives quite well with 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that everying was created AND THEN placed into state of no death. The properties of this creative state are not given, therefore one cannot simply assume that it to was a state of no death. So by the scriptures it is shown that evolution can swim with LDS doctrine and not conflict.

See also the creation account in the Book of Abraham which makes the spiritual creation into a planning session and then the elements are commanded until it is seen that they have obeyed. String Theory, Big Bang, expansion and aging of the universe, the elements created in stars, Evolution of species; they all can fit within LDS doctrine with no conflict.

In addition, the Church counters your unfounded age of the earth claim thusly:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.
Old Testament Institute Manual, Genesis 1-2, (2-3) How Old Is the Earth?


So indeed we see that the notion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old can swim just as well as the 7000-10,000 year claim (except that the command to the Church is to learn these things from science and science doesn't teach a 7000 to 10000 year old earth). Once again, no conflict.

Boyd K. Packer, from "The Law and the Light"


BYU Symposiums are not doctrinal. We could now take BRM's admission in his Seven Deadly Heresies speech that evolution could be noncontradictory (he just doesn't understand how it could be).

Even though the “that is not doctrine” tactic used by bcspace would allow him skate on this one, I included it anyway for its combination of Mormon anti-science absurdity and arrogance (the way only BKP can do it).


It's not a "tactic". It's simply how the Church views doctrine. It is not absurd that BKP would not accept evolution. The reality though is that an indiviual's opinions do not count as doctrine and since the Lord has not revealed the details of creation, BKP can take whatever stand he wants and not come into conflict with LDS doctrine.

Finally, there is the article in the April 2011 Ensign, which pretty much shuts the door on evolution and shows that unsupported Mormon anti-science beliefs are alive and well in 2011. The quote below in that Ensign article is from Bruce R. McConkie, but a reading of the article shows that the Prophet Seer and Revelator of the Church, President Thomas S. Monson, preaches the same nonsense.

It teaches that all things were created in a paradisiacal state, without death and without procreation. Then came the Fall, by which Adam and Eve became the first mortal flesh on earth, and by which procreation and death entered the whole creation. The Atonement of Jesus Christ saves all things, not just the human race. As in Adam all things die, even so in Christ shall all things be made alive. (Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, April 2011, 59; summarized.)


How does this diverge from 2 Nephi 2:22 or the doctrine I quoted on D&C 77? What earth? Answer: The already finsished being created earth. What flesh? Answer: That subject to temporal time, after the Fall.

Mormon anti-intellectualism and Mormonism’s anti-science beliefs have seldom been more in evidence than they are today - bcspace or no bcspace.


There is no anti-intellectualism in the Church. To be learned is good........
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

I too would be interested in BCSpace articulating DRW's challenge regarding the Mormon scripture itself.

Further, I would point out what DrW implied more expressly. The word 'doctrine' is a red herring. It is enough for me to simply use adjectives such as predominant beliefs and attitudes. The church makes fundamental claims such as the restoration, the true priesthood that enables its holders to act in God's name, it claims additional revealed scripture, ordinances that give extraordinary blessings and spiritual refinement, it has prophets and apostles akin to the literal prophets and apostles of old - speaking in an authoritative way, every baptized member has the gift of the holy ghost to guide them - not little things to be sure. Given these great tools, why is confusion so predominant? I would claim more so than the mainstream Christian world that doesn't claim these additional lofty tools. Why do so many attitudes and beliefs that are inconsistent with science exist, from scripture, to leaders, and finally with the majority of the members?

The predominantly wrong cultural beliefs and attitudes are enough for me given the tools claimed by Mormonism - doctrine, policy etc.. they are just distractions and red herrings to an elephant in the room that doesn't go away regardless of the word you put on it. It also allows for the meaningless debates to surface "what is doctrine" etc.. or "Mormonism has no doctrine" etc.. The creedal or non-creedal nature of the Mormon church is irrelevant regarding the predominant beliefs and attitudes that arise in a religious environment that includes the tools I listed above.


I think it's the company you keep. Not enough active TBM's. Plus you seem to be under the misguided impression that members of the Church are like puppets on the strings of the Holy Ghost. That gift, in terms of knowledge, must actually be used. For some situations, it may not be readily apparent that it needs to be used.

If there is confusion in the Church, it is because of agency. We are the one's responsible for our own salvation, and that makes us more alive and full of faith than those of churches whose salvation does not need to be worked out.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Themis »

bcspace wrote:So what specifically in the 1909 statement precludes evolution? The Grant first presidency in 1931 didn't seem to think there was anything.


I provided the quote. It is fairly clear what they are saying about the origin of man which conflicts with established theory of evolution. Now how about quoting the 1931 statment/s. I agree with Dr W that the church has been inconsistant, but I have backed up what I said that the church has come out in conflict with evolutionary science.
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Themis »

mikwut wrote: The word 'doctrine' is a red herring. It is enough for me to simply use adjectives such as predominant beliefs and attitudes.


So another words what a church teaches. I would say though that it can be established by looking at what the church teaches through it leaders talks(GC) and teaching manuals. This of course can change and there can be some inconsistanties due to different ideas of each of the leaders. This is why doctrine is not static and changes over time. Many members I think incorrectly define doctrine as truth, which causes a problem as we can see Bcspace is having when certain established doctrines have changed or conflict with what he wants to believe.

The church makes fundamental claims such as the restoration, the true priesthood that enables its holders to act in God's name, it claims additional revealed scripture, ordinances that give extraordinary blessings and spiritual refinement, it has prophets and apostles akin to the literal prophets and apostles of old - speaking in an authoritative way, every baptized member has the gift of the holy ghost to guide them - not little things to be sure. Given these great tools, why is confusion so predominant?


Simply becuase it does not come from any divine being but ourselves. The environemnt may play a part.

The predominantly wrong cultural beliefs and attitudes are enough for me given the tools claimed by Mormonism - doctrine, policy etc.. they are just distractions and red herrings to an elephant in the room that doesn't go away regardless of the word you put on it. It also allows for the meaningless debates to surface "what is doctrine" etc.. or "Mormonism has no doctrine" etc.. The creedal or non-creedal nature of the Mormon church is irrelevant regarding the predominant beliefs and attitudes that arise in a religious environment that includes the tools I listed above.


Someone has to establish doctrine, and it really is the leaders even though it will change and have inconsistancies over time. The spirit of revelation means little when individual members have no authority to recieve doctrine, nor would it make sense.
42
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _DrW »

bcspace wrote:

You have made a very serious mistake my friend by not looking up what the doctrine (interpretation of scripture) of the Church actually is on the matter:

Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?
“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
Doctrine and Covenants Institute Manual Section 77


Notice that this puts a physical aspect onto the spiritual creation. Evolution certainly could have taken place during the earth's "preparation as a dwelling place for man". Of course this jives quite well with 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that everying was created AND THEN placed into state of no death. The properties of this creative state are not given, therefore one cannot simply assume that it to was a state of no death. So by the scriptures it is shown that evolution can swim with LDS doctrine and not conflict.

See also the creation account in the Book of Abraham which makes the spiritual creation into a planning session and then the elements are commanded until it is seen that they have obeyed. String Theory, Big Bang, expansion and aging of the universe, the elements created in stars, Evolution of species; they all can fit within LDS doctrine with no conflict.

In addition, the Church counters your unfounded age of the earth claim thusly:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.
Old Testament Institute Manual, Genesis 1-2, (2-3) How Old Is the Earth?


So indeed we see that the notion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old can swim just as well as the 7000-10,000 year claim (except that the command to the Church is to learn these things from science and science doesn't teach a 7000 to 10000 year old earth). Once again, no conflict.


BCSpace,

You should make up your mind as to what constitutes doctrine in the Church. Is it scripture itself, or is it the unfounded, ad hoc and off the wall "revelations" and "Saturday Night Thoughts" as to what the scriptures are "supposed" to mean when what they actually say is too absurd to be believed even by the faithful?

_________

Truth be told, while reading your response I had a bit of a revelation myself (in the form of a vision). I was suddenly swept away to a great and spacious lecture hall at MIT (where I did my post doc). There I beheld BCSpace at the lectern of a combined planetary sciences / biology section as a special guest lecturer. Quoting from the LDS scriptures, the Ensign and the various lesson manuals of correlated LDS doctrinal information, BCSpace was explaining the LDS (true revealed) version of planetary science and ascent of man to the elite science students there assembled.

BC Space went over the spiritual creation of the Earth and the fall of Adam. To enhance his credibility with the students, he even threw in some information about Kolob and the the real source of the light given off by the sun. He explained how LDS doctrine proves that modern humans were not found upon the Earth until approximately 7,000 years ago, and that this meant that most of evolution took place during epochs wherein there was no death (he thought). Regardless of the fossil record, he explained, the students would just have to trust him on this because the LDS Church does not have enough information to really make a call one way or the other on evolution.

As the confusion on faces of the science students became apparent, BCSpace assured the students that there was no conflict between the LDS version of planetary science and the ascent of man and that taught by mainstream science.

And I beheld that the professor who had granted BCSpace the lecture time was amused exceedingly at his LDS version of planetary science and evolution. But alas, I also beheld that the students, who had wasted their precious study time listening to the BCSpace / LDS science lecture were exceedingly wroth with BCSpace, for they knew religion when they heard it. Sadly, BCSPace would never be invited back to MIT to lecture, and the classes BCSpace had planned to give on alternative LDS science would never be offered.

As for BCSpace, he left MIT with his faith intact and sure in the knowledge that there was no real conflict between Mormonism and science.
_________________
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

mikwut wrote:
Third, I missed the parts in the article about the beginning of the universe, the laws of the universe, the sustaining of the universe, information, consciousness, abiogenesis and how they came about even in an efficiently caused manner. Your answers leave me where I began I simply do not understand why a scientific descriptive theory of the processes of biological development would have any falsification of a transcendent being. Your answers leave me just as intellectually unsatisfied.

It is quite possible that some of your prior conceptions of a God being and the role he played in creation have been eliminated by your understanding of evolution.

my regards, mikwut


Laws of and "sustaining" of the universe are really a red herring. If God is really responsible for everything that comes about due to his laws (and there's no evidence that God created any laws - if you're a Mormon, God exists separately from laws), then god is responsible for evil. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

mikwut wrote:It doesn't discredit the God of the Bible, again a phrase wrought with differing conceptions. There is nothing unreasonable about understanding the God of the Bible creating through the operation of created principles, evolution being some of them, which we partially understand in scientific laws.

Your conceptual problem follows you into evolution as well. Evolution occurred for sure but the naturalistic and metaphysical consequences of that are still reasonably debated and not fully understood. For example, I am fascinated by Simon Conway Morris' idea of convergence. He provides a compelling case for convergence in, "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe". This isn't ID or creationism, it is decrying them as well as their equivalent fundamentalists like Dawkins. The idea is opposite Stephen Jay Gould's idea that evolution would show a different movie if you rewound the tape. Morris argues we are inevitable, that implies purposeful and your article doesn't disprove that, it is actually perfectly consistent with the idea. Of course I don't accept that as proof in a way analogous to how you utilize evolution against God but as an illustration of how feeble it is to say unicellular organisms combining and evolving through complex ways disprove a creator God, or the God or the Bible.

my regards, mikwut


I haven't read the book so I can't speak to it. But I think it's silly to think humans were "inevitable." A sentient species could have come from many different evolutionary lines - it could have been dolphins, or horses, or reptiles, or any number of different factors. Natural selection is reliant on chance conditions at any given time.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Ceeboo »

Is that REALLY the score?

4,586,384,421 to zero?

Wow!

Talk about an ass kicking.


Peace,
Ceeboo
Post Reply