Rob Osborn

Do a search on intelligent design vs. evolution. And, we are discussing the origin of life and where man came from.

In context though, we arent talking about genetic or mutative differences. We are discussing the actual origin of life and where our race came from.

One can only be open minded when they reduce or neutralize their bias

I believe it is possible to be open minded, just improbable in most circumstances. However one views it, the problem is that we have bias and even when we think we arent showing bias, we in fact really are.

See my above quote. We both know, in that context, of what I was asking. I asked why, if scientific inquiry (scientific process), leads to the logic of intelligent causation, why does it reject intelligent causation? The answer, it appears, is that this "intelligent causation" might include the possibility that there being a God (an intelligent cause) and as such must thus be rejected wholly and outright.

Everything is in context. We all use "science" in different contexts to mean different things. I believe we all know what I originally asked.

But I'm not talking about "creationism". I'm talking about intelligent design. The real and furrent argument isn't whether some supernatural entity poofed things into existence but rather if there was an intelligent cause and/or process of how and/or why life came into existence. On the one side you have evolution who does not believe such a notion as an intelligent causation for life, that it was done outside of an intelligent cause, and on the other you have a the argument that because life shows no sign it came about outside of an intelligent cause therefore all that remains is there must be an intelligent cause.

Ridiculous fallacy. If scientific inquiry points to an intelligent causation, it cannot be blind to that possibility. So then, on the topic of the origins of life, why does it do just that?

In reality, anything of good report is centered on Christ. The real question is are we recognizing that fact.

Absolutely not. But certain aspects, particularly secularism, which pervades the sciences, definitely are the very works of Satan.

Now certainly you aren't trying to say that God is outside of science or physics...? God works within the laws of physics, within the laws of truth. He isn't supernatural in the sense we can't explain his works. His very works are the very things we see and measure.

The most logical explanation is that life arose on this planet from life itself. And not just one lifeform but a myriad of different kinds of life forms. And, logic also points to the conditions leading up to being able to support life on this planet were a deliberate and planned out series of actions by an intelligent agent/process. In fact, the complexity of everything really does denote there must be a God. This last sentence is where science shys away. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge God. It's entirely motivated by Satan. It really is, it's the work of Satan. Satan seeks to remove God from all things. Intelligent Design theory is rejected by scientific bodies entirely, and solely, on the premise that it allows for the possibility of an intelligent Creator. That's what troubles me.

We agree then. Life is really good at replicating itself with a very high degree of accuracy. Most of evolutions foundational claims state that cells evolved basically from nothing over time. The part that bothers me with evolutionary science in regards to the origin of life is that it's entirely based on conjecture yet they claim "empirical" in all of their musings. Do they think we are just gullible and stupid?

I don't doubt opinions are changing. It still troubles me though that holding a conservative view is being seen as uninformed, uneducated, etc. I am very well informed and educated. In fact the more wisdom knowledge I gain leads me further from the teachings of evolution. So I am left to wonder if the shift is because people are getting dumber.

I disagree with their assessment that because LDS students are more acceptable to evolution it must mean the k-12 instruction is better. What a bunch of hogwash! They basically are saying that belief in an actual Creator makes you stupid whereas believing in what scientists say on the other hand makes you smarter. Ridiculous! How do we know our kids are just plain dumber now and that's why it's easier to pull the wool over their eyes?

To clarify- are you saying that you are raising your kids without the expectation of their conversion to Christ? Not sure what you mean here.

I see the 2 hour change as a step up in spiritual preparing. I don't see it as an answer to complaints that revolve around laziness. The two hour change places a greater emphasis on the Sacrament meeting service. Members will be more edified by this change.

I woul strongly argue that serving a mission as a young man is not a commandment. A young man who chooses not to go on a mission or is unable to because of serious transgressions is not breaking a commandment and does not meet conditions for the process of repentance.

Aye. Didn't quite catch it. Thanks.

I agree that breaking commandments that prevent one from going is a sin. Not going on a mission however is not a sin. One cannot break a commandment from which they are ineligible from, even through sincere repentance.

Serving a mission is not a salvanic ordinance. If they had the same current interview questions in place 30 years ago, I would have been wholly ineligible from serving. So, how would one be able to keep a commandment from which he was ineligible from?

I think the current attitude has created a culture of casualness in the church. A lot of youth speak about going on a mission as some type of duty placed on them by parents that they truly never grasp the wanting to serve. I remember an old employer I worked for who was really pushing his kid to serve and one day I was talking to the young man and I asked him "do you want to serve a mission, or are you doing this to please your dad?" Well, the dad overheard this and gave me a reprimand of sorts stating it was required of him to serve and I shouldn't place doubts in him. To this day I don't speak with any of my youth with a tone of expectation they serve a mission. Neither do I do such with getting married in the temple. I calmly just ask- "So what are your plans? You thinking about a mission, college, work?" No matter their response, I always show an encouraging tone in my voice for what their desire is at that time. Subtly though, in lessons and in bearing testimony I can state the power of serving a mission and how it's a good thing. I am against the brainwashing and casualness in which our culture has now accepted. It's an attitude of belief that rather than placing as utmost importance the individual conversion, it's about the checklist items and making it the standard whereby we believe it has power to exalt ourselves. I had a bishop a few years ago who bragged it all up Everytime the subject arose about how his kids all served missions, they all got married in the temple and we should pattern our decisions around him. Needless to say, he was the sole leading factor to my son going inactive. I think he meant well, he just lacked the pure love of Christ (conversion in his heart) in his words. But it's that culture, that's what really was the reason. Think about it- when we speak of 16-18 year old young men our expectation is that they serve a full-time mission. That's what first comes to our brainwashed minds. It's the absolute truth. What should our first expectation really be? How about this- how is he doing? Our concern for his individual conversion to Christ. That should be our expectation -have they found Christ yet?

Aye, and that driving force has been vacated from the home. That was my point.

A lot of conjecture here...a lot.

I didn't serve a mission, I was too rebellious and sinful. With the new standards in place for worthiness now even fewer will go. If these same standards were in place 30 years ago I wouldn't have been able to go even if I wanted to. I find it interesting that over the past year in my stake they are really trying to push getting our young men to serve missions. The numbers are insane- only 1 in 10 LDS young men in our area are serving missions and we live in the heartland of the LDS belt. Their challenge to us as leaders is for all young men to commit to serving a full time mission. I had a hard time with coming to terms with this challenge and discussed it with my bishop. He told me that my main job and calling is to be there for all the young men who don't serve. Their worth is still the same in God's eyes and we need to be even more diligent in helping those who don't serve missions to remain in the church and connected to God. The real cause of this lopsided number is due to what's happening in the home. Families are not preparing children to have strong faith in the Lord and to put Him first in their lives. We see this in our idol worship of sports and climbing the social world ladder. We have this casualness as parents to build our little world up around us and put God secondary in goal setting. We have this attitude of "not now God, I'm busy building my world". Our worship of sports in our kids lives is horrific. I was guilty of it too. My son was really good at baseball. He was the Captain and best player on his HS team. He was invited to participate in the Junior Olympics. I had great grandeur for him. I dreamed of him playing at the highest levels. Needless to say, it's not what God had in store for him. Through a series of miracles and injury to his pitching arm he never even played college ball. Now he is a director in an after school program and a physical education teacher for elementary school kids. My point is that we live our lives through our children and often times do not realize that the mission of God of bringing souls to him, saving the lost, is of most importance. I never pushed my kid in spiritual things let alone to serve a mission. I don't think it was in his cards anyway in hindsight. If we want change, it has to start in the home. Leaders can only do so much.