Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I do as well, I just don't think peoples mind change while listening. 

You're assuming they're listening.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

You're assuming they're listening.

That proves the point-peoples minds don't change because 1) they aren't listening and 2) that's not how arguments and debates work, especially those online. 
 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That proves the point-peoples minds don't change because 1) they aren't listening and 2) that's not how arguments and debates work, especially those online. 
 

I'm sorry, what was that?  I wasn't listening.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

If you take the stance that this mortal experience is simply a virtual simulation then both evolution and creationist are incorrect.

If.

[mikbone]

There are some pretty impressive arguments for the possibility, from some serious scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

 

I’m just saying, if you want to have a totally irrelevant argument you might as well know all the players...

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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?

I would think that with the gift of the Holy Ghost (for those willing to utilize it) would have the advantage in overcoming "traditional" worldly opinions.  In general it would seem that there has been a significant paradigm shift in the last 50 years - both within the sciences and within the religious community towards a better understanding of the different points of view concerning organic evolution (and a great many other things).  Of course there are exceptions but in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have seen the attitude diminish greatly concerning the intolerance expressed towards those that believe in organic evolution.  Terms like "hogwash", "ridiculous", "dumb", "stupid" with a few exceptions have mostly been removed from the discussion - with some exceptions on both sides.

In all my experience I have never heard a member of the Church that believes in organic evolution ever say to another member that believes in young earth creation traditions that they have no place at church, serving in callings or teaching youth - or doubt that someone's salvation is in question over their beliefs in evolution.  I have, both seen and experienced the attitude of intolerance so expressed by young earth creationists about those that believe in organic evolution.  But I have seen a shift of tolerance.  

Because I do not hide my scientific background at church or my religious background at work it is often that fellow scientist that purport atheism with genuine questions and willingness to learn.  I experience the same at church - often I am sought out for my opinions of science within the gospel frame work - especially from youth in the high school and college demographic.

One other observation (not really a scientific observation but rather my personal experience) - When living outside of Utah - there seemed to be more acceptance of all members regardless of their opinions about anything.  There does seem to be in Utah, more of a culture of "disapproval" and "intolerance" to diverse thinking - not just in the sciences but life in general.  About 35 years ago when I moved to Utah there was hostility towards evolution, Democrats or anyone else outside the culture norms.  Most of my friends outside those culture norms have become inactive because they felt rejected and disapproved by members that used terms like "hodwash".  There are a few - very few and the numbers seem to me to be diminishing - that believe such inactives have no place among the saints or should be allowed to express their opinions as a member - at church or on forums.  And should they express any opinion they must be opposed and silenced.  It does seem to me that opinions about organic evolution are changing.  I believe it is for the good.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 14, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would think that with the gift of the Holy Ghost (for those willing to utilize it) would have the advantage in overcoming "traditional" worldly opinions.  In general it would seem that there has been a significant paradigm shift in the last 50 years - both within the sciences and within the religious community towards a better understanding of the different points of view concerning organic evolution (and a great many other things).  Of course there are exceptions but in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have seen the attitude diminish greatly concerning the intolerance expressed towards those that believe in organic evolution.  Terms like "hogwash", "ridiculous", "dumb", "stupid" with a few exceptions have mostly been removed from the discussion - with some exceptions on both sides.

In all my experience I have never heard a member of the Church that believes in organic evolution ever say to another member that believes in young earth creation traditions that they have no place at church, serving in callings or teaching youth - or doubt that someone's salvation is in question over their beliefs in evolution.  I have, both seen and experienced the attitude of intolerance so expressed by young earth creationists about those that believe in organic evolution.  But I have seen a shift of tolerance.  

Because I do not hide my scientific background at church or my religious background at work it is often that fellow scientist that purport atheism with genuine questions and willingness to learn.  I experience the same at church - often I am sought out for my opinions of science within the gospel frame work - especially from youth in the high school and college demographic.

One other observation (not really a scientific observation but rather my personal experience) - When living outside of Utah - there seemed to be more acceptance of all members regardless of their opinions about anything.  There does seem to be in Utah, more of a culture of "disapproval" and "intolerance" to diverse thinking - not just in the sciences but life in general.  About 35 years ago when I moved to Utah there was hostility towards evolution, Democrats or anyone else outside the culture norms.  Most of my friends outside those culture norms have become inactive because they felt rejected and disapproved by members that used terms like "hodwash".  There are a few - very few and the numbers seem to me to be diminishing - that believe such inactives have no place among the saints or should be allowed to express their opinions as a member - at church or on forums.  And should they express any opinion they must be opposed and silenced.  It does seem to me that opinions about organic evolution are changing.  I believe it is for the good.

 

The Traveler

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.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

For all my studying and education I have never come across any other way for a living cell to exist on this earth (I would add here, that no other living cells to my knowledge, have been found anywhere else) other than to have come from another already existing living cell.  I would be very interested in what has convinced you (from your education, study or other way of becoming informed) of any other rational educated possibility.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

For all my studying and education I have never come across any other way for a living cell to exist on this earth (I would add here, that no other living cells to my knowledge, have been found anywhere else) other than to have come from another already existing living cell.  I would be very interested in what has convinced you (from your education, study or other way of becoming informed) of any other rational educated possibility.

 

The Traveler

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?

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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?

Actually the very understanding of evolution and the beginning of life on earth has been evolving.  It was once believed that if all the correct parameters came together in a kind of protein soup that such would begin a genesis of a living cell.  You are correct that this is theory.  But that theory has always had problems - just as you have suggested.  Currently the popular notion is that life here on earth was introduced from a extra-terrestrial (celestial) source foreign to our little planet.  But that theory is also problematic because all the elements of cellular life exists abundantly here on earth and are not so abundant in deep space - which is very hostel to life as we think we know it.

Many religionists wonder why science will not accept the notion that G-d created life.  But this is the wrong question.  Science is not concerned with who introduced life - science is interested in how it was done (science is based on the idea that the genesis of life is isotropic.  The truth is that despite our faith (or anyone else) in G-d no one has been able to answer how life began - not who done it but how it was done.  Science has been able to alter the process and genetically engineer the daughter offspring from a mother cell.  There is indication that scientist will soon generate a lost species through this process of genetic alterations and produce a living woolly mammoth.   Obviously if this ever occurs then the debate over organic evolution is over for good - Only if the effort fails can the debate continue (though I am quite sure that some will think it so).  I personally refuse to base my faith in G-d on the failure of such experiments.    So to answer your question - yes those with a strong background in science do indeed think those of religious faith that base their faith in G-d completely on the failure of science to ever genetically engineer an new species - at this point of scientific understanding - to be gullible and stupid.  And I agree - I think it is gullible and stupid for anyone to base their entire faith in G-d completely on the outcome of some scientific experiment.  I was taught by my father that it is gullible and stupid to call any notion gullible and stupid unless you can provide a better one.  Until if find a better way to explain the abundance of life - I believe G-d likely used the process that most logically applies.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Actually the very understanding of evolution and the beginning of life on earth has been evolving.  It was once believed that if all the correct parameters came together in a kind of protein soup that such would begin a genesis of a living cell.  You are correct that this is theory.  But that theory has always had problems - just as you have suggested.  Currently the popular notion is that life here on earth was introduced from a extra-terrestrial (celestial) source foreign to our little planet.  But that theory is also problematic because all the elements of cellular life exists abundantly here on earth and are not so abundant in deep space - which is very hostel to life as we think we know it.

Many religionists wonder why science will not accept the notion that G-d created life.  But this is the wrong question.  Science is not concerned with who introduced life - science is interested in how it was done (science is based on the idea that the genesis of life is isotropic.  The truth is that despite our faith (or anyone else) in G-d no one has been able to answer how life began - not who done it but how it was done.  Science has been able to alter the process and genetically engineer the daughter offspring from a mother cell.  There is indication that scientist will soon generate a lost species through this process of genetic alterations and produce a living woolly mammoth.   Obviously if this ever occurs then the debate over organic evolution is over for good - Only if the effort fails can the debate continue (though I am quite sure that some will think it so).  I personally refuse to base my faith in G-d on the failure of such experiments.    So to answer your question - yes those with a strong background in science do indeed think those of religious faith that base their faith in G-d completely on the failure of science to ever genetically engineer an new species - at this point of scientific understanding - to be gullible and stupid.  And I agree - I think it is gullible and stupid for anyone to base their entire faith in G-d completely on the outcome of some scientific experiment.  I was taught by my father that it is gullible and stupid to call any notion gullible and stupid unless you can provide a better one.  Until if find a better way to explain the abundance of life - I believe G-d likely used the process that most logically applies.

 

The Traveler

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.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Just a couple of thoughts:

I should probably vote “I don’t care” in the survey because “organic evolution” can mean so many things; so much so I think that on some level and in some ways, you believe in it too.

Science is as godless as a hammer. It is a tool for learning about the world around us and can be used equally for good or evil, and by a faithful person as well as a wicked person. As a discipline, it “leaves out God” just as a hammer does no matter who drives the nail. It still works.

Satan does seek to remove God from everything, but also to pervert an understanding of Him and His ways, and to foster enmity with and intentionality against Him.

Celestial laws (whether physical, spiritual, mathematical/logical) do not necessarily correspond to terrestrial laws, and terrestrial laws do not necessarily translate into telestial laws. For example, processes such as hybridization and viral mutation are unlikely operative in paradise, the spirit world or in the resurrection.

Edited November 15, 2018 by CV75

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 It's entirely motivated by Satan. It really is, it's the work of Satan. 

Is all science motivated by Satan? 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Is all science motivated by Satan? 

Yes, you see, matter and energy are always at odds.  God is pure energy.  Satan is the force if evil that keeps energy in a state of matter.  It is HIS evil that keeps us from growing into the spiritual beings of pure energy that we were meant to be.

[Guest MormonGator]

dupe

Edited November 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, you see, matter and energy are always at odds.  God is pure energy.  Satan is the force if evil that keeps energy in a state of matter.  It is HIS evil that keeps us from growing into the spiritual beings of pure energy that we were meant to be.

Of course. Silly me. 

It's ironic when people complain about science....and drive a car. 
It's ironic when people complain about science....on a computer/iPhone. 
It's ironic when people complain about science....and take medication for blood pressure. 

It's ironic when people complain about science....oh never mind. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Of course. Silly me. 

It's ironic when people complain about science....and drive a car. 
It's ironic when people complain about science....on a computer/iPhone. 
It's ironic when people complain about science....and take medication for blood pressure. 

It's ironic when people complain about science....oh never mind. 

It's ironic that Alanys Morrisette has changed the meaning of ironic.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's ironic that Alanys Morrisette has changed the meaning of ironic.

That album was a monster. Everyone from my generation seemed to have that album. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

That album was a monster. Everyone I know my age had that album. 

I know of no pop star that burned so brightly and faded so quickly.  She was like the musical equivalent of Ally McBeal.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm currently reading Endless Forms Most Beautiful, a book presenting the stuff we're learning about how complex forms start from a single cell.  We've always known how one cell splits into two identical cells, then four, then eight, etc, but we've always wondered how this million bunch of cells know how to turn into a rib, an the next million bunch do the same, but the 9th million somehow know there are enough ribs and they go form something else.   The exciting and growing field of study seems to go hand in hand with everything we think we know about evolution.  

A thing that stands out in this book, at least for me, is the smug pedestal on which the book places it's theories and scientific knowledge.  The pedestal from which it tosses phrases of triumphant crowing about how this stuff finally and utterly kills any creationist thought a rational person might have entertained at one time.  I see the same triumphant crowing coming from both sides of the debate.  It seems like it just must be personal.  Whatever else this book is teaching me, it's deepening my understanding of how the scientific can deify science and what is currently considered proven truth.  It's more than just "we think it's this way and here's why".  It's more like "cracking these majestic secrets have finally made it possible to pull ourselves out of the dark ages of superstition and witchery."   I wish it wasn't that way.  Y'all don't have to be hatin' the other side just because you're getting a leg up.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I know of no pop star that burned so brightly and faded so quickly.  She was like the musical equivalent of Ally McBeal.

I totally agree with you. I think we all know that it's virtually impossible to top/match an album that had as much success as Jagged Little Pill, but she really seemed to crumble after that. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I totally agree with you. I think we all know that it's virtually impossible to top/match an album that had as much success as Jagged Little Pill, but she really seemed to crumble after that. 

Here's a secret: Neither my wife nor I had that album.  And I really only knew two songs she ever performed.  "Isn't it Ironic" and "Head over Feet."  I actually had to go look up "Head over Feet".  I'd completely forgotten about it.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Here's a secret: Neither my wife nor I had that album.  And I really only knew two songs she ever performed.  "Isn't it Ironic" and "Head over Feet."  I actually had to go look up "Head over Feet".  I'd completely forgotten about it.

Yeah, I said my generation dude. You are, um...not in that generation. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Yeah, I said my generation dude. You are, um...not in that generation. 

Of course not,  Alanis could have been your grandmother.

JUST IN: Mormongator has been found to be the son of one of Alanis Morissette's love children.

[Rob Osborn]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Just a couple of thoughts:

I should probably vote “I don’t care” in the survey because “organic evolution” can mean so many things; so much so I think that on some level and in some ways, you believe in it too.

Science is as godless as a hammer. It is a tool for learning about the world around us and can be used equally for good or evil, and by a faithful person as well as a wicked person. As a discipline, it “leaves out God” just as a hammer does no matter who drives the nail. It still works.

Satan does seek to remove God from everything, but also to pervert an understanding of Him and His ways, and to foster enmity with and intentionality against Him.

Celestial laws (whether physical, spiritual, mathematical/logical) do not necessarily correspond to terrestrial laws, and terrestrial laws do not necessarily translate into telestial laws. For example, processes such as hybridization and viral mutation are unlikely operative in paradise, the spirit world or in the resurrection.

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.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Rob Osborn