Questions for the Scientifically Inclined LDS

[DigitalShadow]

The recent "belly button" thread made me curious about a few things. As many of you probably know, I am not LDS and don't believe in any particular religion, but I do find the intersection of science and religion to be an interesting subject. I would like to respectfully ask a few questions of willing participants, not to debate the answers, but to further my understanding of how science and religion interact. These questions are open to anyone, but I am particularly curious how some of the more scientific members answer these questions.

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

How old do you believe the universe is?

How old do you believe the earth is?

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

[Vort]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

How old do you believe the universe is?

How old do you believe the earth is?

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

Yes, yes, probably, about 13 billion years, about 4.7 billion years, more or less, no, probably not but I would have to know the specifics of the supposed contradiction first.

[Dravin]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Yep, just look at antibiotic resistant microbes.

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

Not sure I do but I don't discount the possibility, in fact if evolution as the origin of man is correct (and all scientific evidence points to such being the case unless I'm mistaken) then it would be the case.

Of course I'm a fence sitter on the issue.

How old do you believe the universe is?

I actually don't have an answer to that one, I've never considered it terribly important. It's older than 7,000 years at least, actually I'd say its in the billions (has to be older than earth right? See Below), but I don't have an exact number for you.

How old do you believe the earth is?

Several Billion, I've heard several numbers over the years, don't know what the scientific consensus is on that.

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

I don't know much about the Big Bang theory honest, not much more than there was a bang at some point and the universe happened as a result. You'll have to chalk me up as once again too ignorant to really have any sort of formed opinion.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

Depends how one classifies prevailing and scientific. :) Nothing comes to mind though.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

It does, all evidence points to people not dying and then coming back to life three days later and becoming immortal during that particular process, though I suppose that depends on what you mean by directly contradicted. Depends how you mean faith as well, many things that may be thought of as contradiction (creationism vs. evolution) aren't necessarily so.

It might change things, it might not. People have lost faith over things less impressive than strong direct scientific evidence so I can't say with a surety that nothing you could throw at me could possibly faze me.

P.S. I realize I may not be what you call scientifically inclined LDS, but hey, you can always ignore this particular data point. :)

Edited November 13, 2009 by Dravin

[DigitalShadow]

Yes, yes, probably, about 13 billion years, about 4.7 billion years, more or less, no, probably not but I would have to know the specifics of the supposed contradiction first.

More or less those would be my answers to the questions as well (except for the last two that don't really apply to me).

I have a followup question for you. Since you said probably on the common descent question, do you believe Adam and Eve to be allegorical? How do you reconcile the scientific evidence that humans evolved with the seemingly very different religious account of the creation? Honestly this particular question has been one of the main reasons I am not a member.

[Moksha]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Yes, it is probably the chief life cultivator in God's garden bucket.

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

We are the proof.

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

From God's first amino acid chain to all life on Earth today.

How old do you believe the universe is?

14.5 billion years old give or take...

How old do you believe the earth is?

4.5 billion (a lot longer than Pam can remember!)

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

There is the competing string theory. Don't really understand God's exact mechanism in doing this, but the Big bang seems a good possibility.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

That skin curse business for sure. Won't go into the DNA stuff since it would just provoke some literal posters.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

For me, science expands the boundaries of religious understanding. Let's us better understand the hand of God and helps us to correct our misunderstandings as part of our eternal progression. Look how far we have progressed from our primitive beginnings.

Primitive Beginnings? Speak for yourself!

I try.

:)

DigitalShadow, these are great thread questions.

[Vort]

More or less those would be my answers to the questions as well (except for the last two that don't really apply to me).

I have a followup question for you. Since you said probably on the common descent question, do you believe Adam and Eve to be allegorical?

No. I believe Adam and Eve to have been real, actual, breathing human beings, and the primal ancestors to the human race on earth today.

How do you reconcile the scientific evidence that humans evolved with the seemingly very different religious account of the creation? Honestly this particular question has been one of the main reasons I am not a member.

I think the religious account exists for an entirely different reason, and that it has little to do with the mechanics of creation.

For example, suppose your three-year-old asks, "Where do babies come from?" Is this your big opportunity to describe the wonders of human sexuality and the variety of pleasuring techniques available to each partner? To a three-year-old? Or is a better response to say something like (depending on your own religious and philosophical beliefs), "Babies come from heavenly Father"?

Another example: Suppose a medical student, being introduced to a type of cancer, asks: "What comes next?" He probably wants to know the oncological progression. Now suppose a lawyer asks the same question about the cancer. He probably wants to know the legal ramifications and protections involved when someone has that type of cancer. Now suppose a patient asks that upon diagnosis. He's probably asking about what treatments are available, what his options are, and so forth.

Same question with different intents and different answers.

Science and religion may both be asked to describe the creation of the earth. Science attempts to describe the mechanics of creation. Religion, on the other hand, will probably attempt to describe the much more important idea of the ends of the earth's creation and what it means to human beings. The fact that the planet may have coalesced out of a cloud of hydrogen and heavier elements thrown off from ancient supernovae really has nothing at all to do with God's purpose for us here.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[DigitalShadow]

I think the religious account exists for an entirely different reason, and that it has little to do with the mechanics of creation.

For example, suppose your three-year-old asks, "Where do babies come from?" Is this your big opportunity to describe the wonders of human sexuality and the variety of pleasuring techniques available to each partner? To a three-year-old? Or is a better response to say something like (depending on your own religious and philosophical beliefs), "Babies come from heavenly Father"?

Another example: Suppose a medical student, being introduced to a type of cancer, asks: "What comes next?" He probably wants to know the oncological progression. Now suppose a lawyer asks the same question about the cancer. He probably wants to know the legal ramifications and protections involved when someone has that type of cancer. Now suppose a patient asks that upon diagnosis. He's probably asking about what treatments are available, what his options are, and so forth.

Same question with different intents and different answers.

Science and religion may both be asked to describe the creation of the earth. Science attempts to describe the mechanics of creation. Religion, on the other hand, will probably attempt to describe the much more important idea of the ends of the earth's creation and what it means to human beings. The fact that the planet may have coalesced out of a cloud of hydrogen and heavier elements thrown off from ancient supernovae really has nothing at all to do with God's purpose for us here.

That's my opinion, anyway.

I've never really thought of it that way. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

I would like to point out though, in your example of "Where do babies come from?" my parents actually did take it as an opportunity to explore the wonders of the human reproductive system, though not quite to the extent of discussing pleasuring partners.

[Traveler]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Yes

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

Yes and I also believe that some day man will create a new species from what we have learned about evolution.

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

Yes - but I also believe there is a great deal more to learn about genesis of life on earth. There are many questions yet to be answered.

How old do you believe the universe is?

15 billion is a good round number - But I also reserve the possibility that we may discover that there may be "things" in the universe older than that.

How old do you believe the earth is?

This is a most interesting question - If I were to bet I would go with the about 5 billion year concept. But there are some unanswered questions that bother me. The earth has evolved through stages and when we attempt to define the earth as we know it - most likely things could change. I have posted in the past that 100 million years ago there is evidence that gravity on earth was not the same as it is now.

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

I believe in the Big Bang Theory but the accuracy of the theory breaks down as we approach the event horizon of the Bang. There are problems with two major concepts. First is that our universe contains more (by magnitudes) matter and energy than could be contained in a single Big Bang. And second there are problems determining dimension space at and before the Big Bang.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

That is an interesting question - I have been at odds with many prevailing scientific theories for some time. For example - I believe the atomic theory and explanation of electrons is flawed. I also believe that the theory of calculating forces based on the square of the distance between objects is limited and not entirely accurate and can be proven to be false as objects approach the speed of light. To mention a few. As a blanket statement I would say that I am not opposed to scientific discovery but that I embrace it.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

Yes it would. Something is wrong and I would lose a lot a sleep trying to figure it out. However, if I discovered that my concepts of religion were wrong - I would not hesitate changing them.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I would like to point out though, in your example of "Where do babies come from?" my parents actually did take it as an opportunity to explore the wonders of the human reproductive system, though not quite to the extent of discussing pleasuring partners.

I asked my mom when I was four, and she pulled out a pencil and a pad of paper and started drawing pictures. To this day, I have never told her this, but it was TMI. A simple explanation like, "A baby grows inside the mommy's body from a seed that both the daddy and the mommy give" would probably have been much more useful to me at that time, and much more understandable. But my point was, questions mean different things in different contexts and require different types of answers.

[deseretgov]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

I know adaptation occurs but I don't believe evolution occurs.

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

No.

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

I believe that life is genetically related(similar) But I don't believe that all life on earth is the descendant of a single ancestor.

How old do you believe the universe is?

I have no idea but pretty dang old.

How old do you believe the earth is?

I have no idea but pretty dang old.

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

Possibly. It makes sense to me.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

It's possible, but that doesn't make either one right or wrong it just means they are different.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

It's impossible for us to know everything. There will always be some piece missing. So I would say no. But I think it's important that we shouldn't be afraid of gaining knowledge and understanding.

Edited November 14, 2009 by deseretgov

[Justice]

I'm going to answer honestly, although my answers may reflect a lack of scientific prowess.

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Yes.

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

Variations of species, yes, but not new species.

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

Mankind yes, but not all life.

How old do you believe the universe is?

I believe it has always existed, elements and all.

How old do you believe the earth is?

I don't know, but I have no reason to doubt what scientists discover. From a scriptural standpoint, I don't believe the answer is given specifically.

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

No. I believe what scientists are seeing is happening, but I think there are still many unknowns to be sure. Since I believe the universe has always been here, there is another explanation for what scientists are seeing.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

Nope.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

I believe I will yet learn many things about science and about my faith. I fully expect to change what I learn in all areas of my life over time. "Change my faith..." yes, "Doubt my faith..." no.

[mnn727]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

Yes

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

through variations and mutations? yes, can those variations and mutations eventually become a new species, yeah (think wolf, dog, fox, etc)

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

If you mean do I believe all animals are descendants of the primordial ooze and single cell creatures that eventually became different species -- then no. I personjally don't. However if it did, it would not contradict my faith.

How old do you believe the universe is?

Billions of years

How old do you believe the earth is?

billions of years

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

It may be and doesn't contradict our religion at all, however not even all scientists believe in it, so...who knows?

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

yes some are: theories are just that: theories not facts, science has "known" a number of things that have eventually turned out to be wrong. Over all though I believe we LDS are much more open to scientific theories that many o ther religions.

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

I doubt it. Unfortunatly most of the branches of science that could 'prove religion wrong' are the soft or inexact sciences (like anthropology), also theories are not facts.

Also some more thing's to think about

1. We LDS do not believe in Biblical inerrancy

2. We believe that the world 'created' in Genesis means 'organized' (as in from pre-existing material)

3. We also believe that the 'days' of Genesis were creative periods of unknown length that could have lasted thousands, millions or even billions of years.

----

Good questions! you'll see that there is some variation in our answers, but not a whole lot. I agree with Vort that religous texts are not meant to be scientific explainations. I'll go so far as to say that religous texts don't even have to be historically accurate as different writers have their own: world view, prejudices, and idea's. We don't believe that God dictated scripture nor (like some religous people) that he somehow protects scripture so it says exactly what he wants it to.

My personal opinion: God is the ultimate scientist and uses scientic principles to 'create' (or organiize) and to accomplish His goals -- and many of those scientific principle have yet to be discovered by mankind.

Edited November 14, 2009 by mnn727

[Snow]

If someone is "scientifically inclined" then of course they are going to answer yes to all or most of the questions. If they answered no, they wouldn't be scientifically inclined.

For example, the earth may not be 4.7 billion but that is the best estimate science currently has. If you are uninformed or dogmatically inclined, you may believe something else, but if you are scientifically inclined, then you are going to accept the best answer science is capable of giving... unless you are some sort of actual scientists in possession of facts or inference that the scientific community is not yet aware of.

[tubaloth]

Do you believe evolution occurs at all?

No, I believe we have the abbility to adapt.

Do you believe new species can occur through evolution?

No. Reason is because that would mean spirits would either have to evolve or that God created spirits for those lesser man, just for the purpose to bring about man? Shows limitations in God's power.

Do you believe in universal common descent, that all life on earth is related (in more than just a metaphorical sense)?

Releated in that we come from the same building blocks, same creator yes.

How old do you believe the universe is?

Have no idea

How old do you believe the earth is?

The Earth in the created form, some where close to 6 thousand years. But I do believe the elements that make up this earth are older then that.

Do you believe that the Big Bang theory is accurate?

No.

Do you believe any current prevailing scientific theories are at odds with your faith?

Has Science proved the existence of a spirit/soul?

If strong scientific evidence directly contradicted your faith in some way, would that change anything for you?

I don't think it would, because in the end it would still be faith either way. Either I have faith that some scientist proved something about Animals, humans or the universive. Or I have faith in God, Prophets, and Scriptures. There can be witnesses for both sides. Edited November 14, 2009 by tubaloth

[Snow]

No, I believe we have the abbility to adapt.

No. Reason is because that would mean spirits would either have to evolve or that God created spirits for those lesser man, just for the purpose to bring about man? Shows limitations in God's power.

Releated in that we come from the same building blocks, same creator yes.

Have no idea

The Earth in the created form, some where close to 6 thousand years. But I do believe the elements that make up this earth are older then that.

No.

Has Science proved the existence of a spirit/soul?

I don't think it would, because in the end it would still be faith either way. Either I have faith that some scientist proved something about Animals, humans or the universive. Or I have faith in God, Prophets, and Scriptures. There can be witnesses for both sides.

Did you read the OP and title?

This thread is for the "scientifically inclined."

Your answers demonstrate that you not at all scientifically inclined.

[Moksha]

This thread is for the "scientifically inclined."

Probably doesn't matter. Even if it has said "supernaturally inclined", I would have answered.

[Snow]

Probably doesn't matter. Even if it has said "supernaturally inclined", I would have answered.

It's kinda fruitless - if you are opposed to science then of course you'll deny the reality of evolution.

On the other hand, if you are inclined towards science you'll simply answer, correctly, in the affirmative.

[Just_A_Guy]

Science: If you're not with it, you're against it.

[mnn727]

Did you read the OP and title?

This thread is for the "scientifically inclined."

Your answers demonstrate that you not at all scientifically inclined.

and

It's kinda fruitless - if you are opposed to science then of course you'll deny the reality of evolution.

On the other hand, if you are inclined towards science you'll simply answer, correctly, in the affirmative.

Who died and made you the the arbiter of what is or is not scientific enough to be posted and what the "correct" answers are? Edited November 15, 2009 by mnn727

[hrsmn]

The scriptures say God made man in his image... not God made ape in his image, and man evolved from ape.

[Traveler]

One of my pet peeves is when people draw information to make important decisions about something, like science or religion, from sources hostel to the disciplines – especially when the information is false. It is sad when people say they disagree with something and all the reasons they give are very inaccurate. For example whenever someone says they oppose evolution because they cannot accept that man evolved from apes. This is like saying you do not accept Jesus Christ because he obtained his religious notions while traveling in China.

The most difficult problem in defending truth is defending it against someone that does not know what the “truth” is in the first place and then has made up their mind and refuses to consider information that directly effects making a logical conclusion. As a person involved in science and devout in my religion I have found that in most cases the gulf between science and religion is based on ignorance and in many cases completely false information. But, and I think this is most important for those that think they are more closely associated with religious conclusions, is that in the debate between science and religion those that argue for religion and against science are by far and away the most uninformed and many time embarrassingly silly in their opposition. Many times they really do not understand the real issues, the actual differences or the impact – even in their religious thinking from their ignorance and false conclusions.

In my mind the purpose of discussion is not to determine who is right but to discover for yourself if there is something in your personal quest for truth that you should have considered but have not.

The Traveler

Edited November 15, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

One of my pet peeves is when people draw information to make important decisions about something, like science or religion, from sources hostel to the disciplines – especially when the information is false. It is sad when people say they disagree with something and all the reasons they give is very inaccurate. For example whenever someone says they oppose evolution because they cannot accept that man evolved from apes. This is like saying you do not accept Jesus Christ because he obtained his religious notions while traveling in China.

The most difficult problem in defending truth is defending it against someone that does not know what the “truth” is in the first place and then has made up their mind and refuses to consider information that directly effects making a logical conclusion. As a person involved in science and devout in my religion I have found that in most cases the gulf between science and religion is based on ignorance and in many cases completely false information. But, and I think this is most important for those that think they are more closely associated with religious conclusions, is that in the debate between science and religion those that argue for religion and against science are by far and away the most uninformed and many time embarrassingly silly in their opposition. Many times they really do not understand the real issues, the actual differences or the impact – even in their religious thinking from their ignorance and false conclusions.

In my mind the purpose of discussion is not to determine who is right or who is wrong but to discover for yourself if there is something in your personal quest for truth that you should have considered but have not.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

The scriptures say God made man in his image... not God made ape in his image, and man evolved from ape.

The scriptures also don't say:

• In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.
• A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is proportional to the time derivative of momentum.
• Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Are we to discard something simply because it isn't in the scriptures? The scriptures say God made man in his image, they are mostly silent on the subject of the processes he used to do so (we have Eve from a rib, but nothing explaining that, and man from dust, the later could actually be a description of abiogenesis as far as that goes). Actually the scriptures are mostly silent on a lot of things, like electricity generation, plastics, computing logic, and yet, I'm here typing this out on an internet message board (once against not mentioned in the scriptures).

[Snow]

and

Who died and made you the the arbiter of what is or is not scientific enough to be posted and what the "correct" answers are?

Hey that was clever... with the whole dying and arbiter schtick. Are you here all week?

[Dravin]

Hey that was clever... with the whole dying and arbiter schtick. Are you here all week?

There is nothing to be ashamed of Snow. I know it is hard for you but you need to admit it, it is a part of the healing process. So repeat after me:

Albert Newton, arbiter of all that is or is not scientific enough, passed away and in his will bequeathed his mantle to me.

Come on, say it, you know you'll feel better. I can understand the reaction to to mnn727's question as it bring up those painful memories of the passing of a beloved friend, but you need to accept things as they are. And besides, not only will you feel better, I'm sure mnn727 will feel better as well upon knowing the answer to the question asked. Additionally, I'm sure if mnn727 knew your emotionally tender state they would be a little more sensitive and you wouldn't have to fight back the pain with sarcastic remarks to painful questions.

I know it will be hard, but you need to say it, come to grips with what has happened, only good will come of it.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Dravin