Vort Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: I think most people do have a pretty good view of evolution and are pretty smart with rejecting it. Thanks for the clarification, Rob. I might never have figured that out if you hadn't told me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Of course you don't have to believe me. But at least understand what I'm saying. I've never argued that Behe is not a scientist nor that he didn't use the scientific method in ID. But, just because you ran a scientific experiment doesn't make it science. My son can submit science projects every year for the science fair. Doesn't necessarily mean that the science fair accepts it as sound science. And like I said - this requires us to have the same understanding of the standards of acceptable scientific method. Its okay, we dont have to agree. You say its not science, I say it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: I think most people do have a pretty good view of evolution and are pretty smart with rejecting it. That's fair. As long as people reject it with good reason. "Evolution doesn't coincide with my religious beliefs" is a good reason. "Scientific evidence of ID debunks the scientific evidence of evolution" is a bad reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, Vort said: Thanks for the clarification, Rob. I might never have figured that out if you hadn't told me. Hey, no problem Vort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, anatess2 said: That's fair. As long as people reject it with good reason. "Evolution doesn't coincide with my religious beliefs" is a good reason. "Scientific evidence of ID debunks the scientific evidence of evolution" is a bad reason. Well, for you, in your mind, that works. For the rest of us it doesnt. But its okay, we can disagree on the science. Im just glad I have taught my children the right logic. Thats all that matters really for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, Vort said: The Church has disclaimed any ecclesiastical condemnation of evolution at least as far back as the early 20th century. But even though the Church has no formal institutional teaching against evolution, many Church members (including leaders, even General Authorities) have continued to harbor deep suspicions and even resentment against the idea. I suspect that, like the supposed "angel of the pool of Bethesda", this is one of those issues that God sees as unrelated to his work and therefore not worthy of revelatory clarification. Besides, if God were to give a revelation, what would he say? "Evolution is true"? Even the scientists who support the theory don't pretend it's correct in every detail. God reveals divine truths. As far as I can tell, he doesn't weigh in on societal trends, including scientific theories or models. I can understand this. But it's just weird because of the Articles of Faith. God doesn't have to reveal to us the truth of some things for us to determine it virtuous and of good report, or at least, not against virtue. May it be that it's like the kid thinking there's a monster in the closet so he won't open it to find out if it's really there? I don't know, it kinda makes it difficult to approach the rest of modern scientific discovery, especially the advances in bioengineering without it, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 27 minutes ago, anatess2 said: I haven't heard of scientific theories that have rigorous vetting and mountains of supporting data proven wrong by religion. Rather, they are proven wrong by science. Science have that extraordinary capacity to correct its mistakes. In the large scale, yes. I did not mean to imply that religion proved science wrong. On the other hand, we live in the present. We do not have the advantage of knowing what science will prove and disprove a generation from now. So, while we respect science, when a particular theory appears to contradict a long-established scriptural interpretation, folks like me may drag our feet a bit--perhaps expecting that extraordinary capacity of the field to correct itself to..well...err...do so. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: I don't know, it kinda makes it difficult to approach the rest of modern scientific discovery, especially the advances in bioengineering without it, yes? I believe it does. But the leadership of the Church apparently thinks other things are more worthy of their time, and I support them in that. anatess2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said: In the large scale, yes. I did not mean to imply that religion proved science wrong. On the other hand, we live in the present. We do not have the advantage of knowing what science will prove and disprove a generation from now. So, while we respect science, when a particular theory appears to contradict a long-established scriptural interpretation, folks like me may drag our feet a bit--perhaps expecting that extraordinary capacity of the field to correct itself to..well...err...do so. :-) I understand this. Saying evolution theory may be wrong is completely different from saying evolution theory is absolutely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: I guess we really do need to define what "science" is. I hate doing it but somehow we have digressed into basic semantics. 39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: As long as you say ID isnt science, then we will always disagree. Im surprised that scientists in generall cant see ID as science. Science is a branch of investigation which uses the scientific method to gain knowledge. The scientific method tests hypothesis that can be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion. Hypothesis which cannot be proven cannot be addressed by the scientific method and hence are not science. Likewise hypothesis which cannot be disproven cannot be addressed by the scientific method and hence are not science. The idea that there is a deity (let alone ID) cannot be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion, and hence are not scientific questions. That doesn't mean that they aren't valid or important questions, just that they don't fit within the domain of science. SilentOne and anatess2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, anatess2 said: I can understand this. But it's just weird because of the Articles of Faith. God doesn't have to reveal to us the truth of some things for us to determine it virtuous and of good report, or at least, not against virtue. May it be that it's like the kid thinking there's a monster in the closet so he won't open it to find out if it's really there? I don't know, it kinda makes it difficult to approach the rest of modern scientific discovery, especially the advances in bioengineering without it, yes? Bioenginerring= Intelligent designers in a lab. Truly ironic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: Bioenginerring= Intelligent designers in a lab. Truly ironic. Nothing ironic about it. We don't conflate intelligent design with Intelligent Design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Science is a branch of investigation which uses the scientific method to gain knowledge. The scientific method tests hypothesis that can be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion. Hypothesis which cannot be proven cannot be addressed by the scientific method and hence are not science. Likewise hypothesis which cannot be disproven cannot be addressed by the scientific method and hence are not science. The idea that there is a deity (let alone ID) cannot be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion, and hence are not scientific questions. That doesn't mean that they aren't valid or important questions, just that they don't fit within the domain of science. ID is only trying to show there is a design element in nature and is best explained by showing that intelligent input is required to produce something intelligent itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: I think most people do have a pretty good view of evolution and are pretty smart with rejecting it. I would passionately disagree with this statement all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, Rob Osborn said: ID is only trying to show there is a design element in nature and is best explained by showing that intelligent input is required to produce something intelligent itself. Hence, it fits more within the realm of philosophy and not science. Wait... are we going to have an argument now that Philosophy is science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: ID is only trying to show there is a design element in nature and is best explained by showing that intelligent input is required to produce something intelligent itself. Which is not something which can be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion, hence it is NOT science. Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: Hence, it fits more within the realm of philosophy and not science. Wait... are we going to have an argument now that Philosophy is science? Technically science is one branch of philosophy . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: I would passionately disagree with this statement all around. And, I also think LDS are just a hair smarter than most other Christians so it is nice to know that more LDS reject evolution than almost every other Cristian religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, Jane_Doe said: Technically science is one branch of philosophy . Yes, yes... I was anticipating that... Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, Rob Osborn said: And, I also think LDS are just a hair smarter than most other Christians so it is nice to know that more LDS reject evolution than almost every other Cristian religion. Ugh. I apologize to @prisonchaplain for this remark. Please don't teach your kids that. Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: And, I also think LDS are just a hair smarter than most other Christians Proportionally, LDS in the US tend to be more educated than normal. Now, educated does not mean smarter. 4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: And, I also think it is nice to know that more LDS reject evolution than almost every other Cristian religion. That is not true. For example, certain fundamentalist branches make it a central tenet of their faith to reject evolution. Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Which is not something which can be proven or disproven in an observable quantifiable and repeatable fashion, hence it is NOT science. You can think that line of philosophy, its okay. I will believe my line of philosophy which says it is science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: You can think that line of philosophy, its okay. I will believe my line of philosophy which says it is science. And hence you have failed out of science 101. But you're welcome to think whatever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Proportionally, LDS in the US tend to be more educated than normal. Now, educated does not mean smarter. That is not true. For example, certain fundamentalist branches make it a central tenet of their faith to reject evolution. The polls show us, the Mormons, as being almost dead last in acceptance of evolution amongst other religions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Bytheway Rob, Evolution is a REQUIRED course at BYU-I for all biology majors. (I don't know about the other BYU's, I didn't attend them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.