Some will propose that religion and "Modern Science" can meet in a perfect union: That there need be no opposition. Is this concept true?
There is no greater scientist than God. Science is a wonderful thing when it is true. Even some theories are reasonable models to use for development and repair. I spent years as a TV technician and used the theoretic atomic model for circuit board repairs and designing my own electronic equipment. This generally served as a passable concept for me to envisage what to expect and where.
But in reality the term "scientific theory" is an oxymoron. "Science" means "knowledge" or to know. "Theory" means that you are making an assumption, and don't know at all. And this point seems to be forgotten by some that get caught up in the perception of knowledge and wisdom that many theory scientists go to a lot of trouble to present.
Some may pose that such theories are a continual evolution of ideas. And it is true that the theory expands in time. But that doesn't make it any more correct of itself.
What of where it challenges what God has said? Do we compromise God's word to fit in with man's present perceptions? I have had some on-line tell me that they are a member, but regard the Scriptures can be compromised to comply with what science says: They remould what God has given to fit in with man! This is turning science into a greater religion than that of God's.
These obvious conflicts became apparent to me when at 5-years-old I went to a museum, with the school, and was told some bones were millions of years old. Knowing the Bible said otherwise I questioned the teller of this tale (who worked for the museum) 3 times before he admitted that the bones weren't real, as he had been claiming. I questioned him a further 3 times before he admitted they weren't out the back either (as he had then claimed). He then claimed they were in Germany. I then had to question him a further 3 times before he admitted that they only had part of a leg bone.
This experience has made me seriously question the most basic of claims of "modern science". And I have been glad that I have. For many lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been thrown at us. I could go into each as a subject of its own. And some of these I've briefly presented on this site in the past. But I'm looking at this subject from a faith in God VS faith in man concept.
This choice of holding what man says above what God says has dangerous consequences for individuals and society. We can begin to philosophise other things God says, and begin to create unclear lines of action and intent. I think it important that I leave no one in doubt that theory science and God aren't in harmony in many areas.
Abr 3:4 tells us that a day with God, by his reckoning, is as a thousand years on this earth. It even explains why. The VERY NEXT chapter tells us that the earth was created in a day (one time of light and one time of darkness). Now we'd have to be very imaginative to propose that this doesn't mean the 7 days of creation were 7,000 years only.
Next the D&C tells us that man will only spend 7 thousand years upon the earth (that includes the, as yet not arrived, millennium)(D&C 77:12A)(also note 2 Pet 3:8).
Now how do these things fit with the claim of modern science that the earth has been here for millions of years? And what of the proposed "Ice Age"?
Abr 3:24 tells us that some of us came down to create the earth for us all to dwell on. So here we are with this great plan, and off we go to make these things. Now I know we weren't experienced, but let's be realistic. Are we to propose this effort took us MILLIONS of years: That we floundered around for that long? And did we do this, by trying to get lava to do this and that for us etc, and a big bang to occur? How does this fit with Abr 4:18 that says that we watched those things until they obeyed? This demonstrates that we did all the creation actions ourselves.
Then we have the classic - evolution. Considering that Moses version in Genesis chapter 1 has man put here during the 6th day, and the animals in the same day (a thousand year period), and fish and birds the day before, we have a definite challenge to the theory. Add to that the point that the insects were made AFTER the birds and fish (on the same day as animals and man) and we really are lost to the theory of evolution.
Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 both declare that Adam was God's son (not as Jesus Christ is, who is the only begotten in the fallen flesh).
Now I would pose the question, are we to believe God to be smarter than man or visa-versa? Do we have faith, or do we crumble at the first sign of a challenge to our beliefs?
The Book of Mormon speaks of steel long before the proposed "iron age". This idea was rejected by "modern science" for many years, until they were proven wrong again. So who should we have believed?
Any student of science knows that ideas in science keep changing. We like to hope that the new opinion is actually correct THIS TIME.
It seems a simple mathematical equation to me. God is right 100% of the time, the first time. Man SOMETIMES gets it right eventually, and extremely rarely the first time. Ummm... Let me see. Who will I follow?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
While God may be right 100% of the time, persons who believe themselves to be inspired by God are not right 100% of the time. There are many examples, but one of the most poignant is Joseph Fielding Smith's repetative claim that humans would never go to the moon because God would not let it happen. He was simply wrong about that, despite his many admirable qualities and visionary leadership in other areas.
Prophetic fallibility does not mean there is no value in our efforts to seek and understand inspiration from God. It does mean that we should never relinquish our personal responsibilities to seek confirmation of inspiration, both through spiritual and physical means available to us. Science is among those means, and is demonstrably the most effective tool for attaining objective (shared) knowledge. We should regard science, as the Book of Mormon teaches us to regard all good things, as a gift from God. Through its method, we are better able to account for our diverse experiences and seek a unity of understanding.
Science should not be perceived as a threat to prophetic or ecclesiastical leadership. Joseph Smith taught that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, even "babes and sucklings" would attain to knowledge never before known. We all have roles to fill in the plan of God, whether we're prophets or scientists. As a recent LDS Church press release explained, the work of God is far greater than that which can be accomplished by any one people. And as Joseph said, we should gather up all that is true, whatever the source, or we shall not come out good Mormons.
lincoln
I agree with all you've said here. True science has been the source of many useful inventions. In fact I began my post with the point that God is the greatest scientist and how I've used the atomic theory myself.
However problems arise where we just believe whatever nonsense someone throws at us in the name of science.
For example I remember watching a program where the "scientists" were presenting that there was an ice age. They showed 3 sets of layers from different parts of the world and showed how in each place, at what they concluded was the same time period, what they decided was an ice age existed in the layers. However later in the same program they showed 2 instances of where they found skulls at a certain level elsewhere, and guess what? No ice age.
They talk of brains and how this part does this and how we have this other part that makes us human etc. Yet one girl was born with absolutely NO brain whatsoever. Many only have small bits and are as normal as you or I. We could be one of them - unless you've had a brain scan and know otherwise.
Too much is ignored in certain areas of science. These things are the reasons why revelation becomes more important than such science.
They talk of millions and billions of years, but their evidence isn't satisfactory at all. It is assumption built on assumption.
God has demonstrated truth and man has demonstrated falsehood. It is this later that my post is aimed at avoiding.
I am all for taking God's word over man's, but we must be careful not to interpret the word literally in all cases. For example, the "day" spoken of in the Bible is actually interpreted as a time period, and that time period could have been much longer than we might suppose.
Orson Pratt emphasized the fact that the exact amount of time involved in the creation is unknown and he accepted the possibility that the time it took for the dry ground to arise from the primordial sea could have been thousands or even millions of years. -JD 14:234-35, 18:316
The Hebrew word for day used in the creation account can be translated as 'day' in the literal sense, but it can also be used in the sense of an indeterminate length of time. Abraham says that the Gods called the creation periods days. If this last meaning was the sense in which Moses used the word day, then the apparent conflict between the scriptures and much of the evidence seen by science as supporting a very old age for the earth is easily resolved. Each era or day of creation could have lasted for millions or even hundreds of millions of our years, and uniformitarianism could be accepted without any problem. (Old Testament Student Manual 1981)
bryce
While yom has no definite interpretation in time period we are left with the scriptures presenting it as one period of light and darkness. So each creative period would have to be exactly equal. That throws science around of itself. But ignoring that point for a moment.
Several problems present themselves with the idea of a millions of years old earth. But the first and most obvious thing to me is the fact that the dating methods are built upon assumption. First we have to accept that the conclusions of the scientists involved were right to begin with, when they set the standard for reading of the dating instruments. Carbon dating can't be used beyond a very short period. And even then it is terribly inaccurate anyway. So all dating methods have to be calibrated. Who set the standard? And how could they possibly PROVE that their assumptions were correct?
Next we have the problem that when we first made the earth matter was entirely different to what it is now. Over the time from Adam (who lived for 930 years) to the time of Moses (where God declared that matter had fallen to the point that man would only live for 70 years) matter continued to change.
Then we have the problem that we'd have to assume that with this great plan all worked out, and everyone eagerly waiting, we were so incompetent that it took us millions of years to get the job of creation done.
I have seen scientists disprove their own theory of an ice age.
So I'm yet to see any real evidence that the earth is millions of years old. And the reality is it actually can't be proven, because how can the assumption be proven, short of us going back in time and seeing whether it is correct or not - no matter how good it sounds at first hearing?
THE POTENTIAL UTILITY OF A SCIENCE BOOK, A DICTIONARY, AND A BRAIN SCAN
Before I begin (and since I already put it in the title), are you really suggesting that any random person you see walking down the street or playing tennis might literally have no brain? This is not one I’ve heard before.
My main objective is to respond to points you have raised about the nature of scientific theory and the duration of creation.
First of all, one of the best first clues that someone has minimal scientific training (or none at all) is that they demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what the word “theory” means in science. They make extensive use of phrases like “but it’s just a theory” or claim, as you have done, that “theory means that you are making an assumption, and don’t know at all.” This reflects the widely held misconception that the definition of a “scientific theory” is something like “an unsubstantiated guess”. In fact, this is much closer to describing a hypothesis (although a good hypothesis is typically not wholly unsubstantiated either). A more accurate definition of “theory” as it is used within the scientific community would be something like “a model that describes some aspect of the universe and makes predictions that can be tested by experiment”. Many within the scientific community who have found themselves and members of the general public talking past each other, in large part because of this semantic difference, suggest that we replace the word “theory” with “model” when having such discussions.
Newton’s theory of gravity is a great example of how this apparently contentious word is used in science. Newton’s theory says that gravity is a force that exists between any two objects, each having some mass, that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This theory has done a wonderful job of describing astronomical and terrestrial observations, from Newton’s day onward, and makes unambiguous predictions that have been successfully tested time and time again. It is a very successful “model” in terms of describing an aspect of the universe, and has therefore become a well-established “theory”. It is not some wild assumption in the absence of knowledge, yet it can never move beyond the status of “theory” because, scientifically, there is nowhere further for it to go.
The idea that a scientific theory never represents absolute or complete knowledge is not an attack on science, but one of its main tenets – both acknowledged and taught by its practitioners. Based on a long history of watching falling apples in the past, the theory of Newtonian gravity predicts that an apple dropped tomorrow would also fall to the ground. But it does not prove absolutely that it would happen, nor does it claim to. Newton’s theory is also a good one for illustrating the utility of a theory with limited applicability: It is well known that the theory is incomplete and fails to make accurate predictions in the vicinity of very compact objects such as black holes and neutron stars. Under these extreme conditions, the more comprehensive theory of general relativity is required to accurately model observations. Once this was understood more than half a century ago, Newton’s theory was not tossed out because it continues to be a tremendously useful “model” when applied where its assumptions are valid.
When someone puts forward an alternative to a successful model such as Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity (and this happens all the time), they cannot be accepted unless they not only successfully make predictions that can be tested, but also explain all of the prior success of the theory they seek to invalidate. When these people come around to the physics conferences and present their ideas, they often seem to miss this point. Like you have done in your dismissal of the theory that the earth is very old, they often make hopelessly vague references to evidence they have come across that in their mind disproves the mainstream theory, they throw around equally vague phrases like “based on assumptions based on assumptions”, and they rarely bother to even try to explain how their idea is consistent with observations or offer suggestions as to how it might be tested. Finally, it always seems to turn out that these self-acclaimed Einsteins have never bothered to actually study, in any kind of detail, the theory they have rejected.
Like Newtonian gravity, the theory that the earth is about four billion years old is widely accepted because it is consistent with the body of evidence available. To date, alternative hypotheses and models have not gained traction because they have failed to make accurate prediction and/or are inconsistent with the data already available. Consequently, there is no reason to off-handedly dismiss it unless it is inconsistent with revealed truth.
You acknowledge that the word “day” can be used figuratively to describe an indeterminate period of time. Apostles from Orson Pratt to John Widstoe (A Rational Theology, pg 49-51) to Bruce McConkie (Common Consent, pg 11) to Neal Maxwell (conference address a couple of years ago) have made statements accepting that there is nothing revealed about how long creation actually took, expressing an understanding that periods of creation need not be the same length, and even appearing to accept the numbers put forward by the scientific community. Not only does the church take no doctrinal position on the issue, but Elder Maxwell related to the whole church his recent experience of turning to BYU astronomers to learn about astronomical ages. Despite all this, you appear to hold the 7000-year interpretation as indisputable doctrine based primarily, it would seem, on the fact that in Abr 3 God says that he lives on a planet with a 1000 year rotation period, and in Ch 4 he used the word “day” when relating the creation story. How long do you require he wait before using a word figuratively that he has already used literally? And are you really basing this on text in the same chapter that begins by speaking literally about stars and then transitions to a figurative comparison of His children as stars?
Perhaps strangest of all, you offer as evidence the idea that, even if it’s you doing the creating, it couldn’t have possibly taken “MILLIONS or years” (to say nothing, I presume, of BILLIONS of years). How on earth did you decide that 7000 years is a reasonable amount of time but 7000 hundred years (or whatever) is patently excessive and constitutes “floundering around”? On what basis do you decide that it should take more than 700 years, or 7 seconds? Why should we believe that we would “flounder around” for more than 7 twinklings of an eye, or whatever other favorite unit someone might offer?
Frankly, I just don’t get why you need so desperately for the 7000-year belief to be correct. Surely it is not the basis of testimony and could not be argued as central to the Plan of Salvation. When some other beliefs once interpreted literally (such as Satan as an actual snake) are now understood figuratively, why can’t you just let this one go?
-Aaron
Aaron
Some well presented arguments. And, of course, you are right that I couldn't possibly have studied all opinions and ideas on all of these subjects I've presented. No one could.
Fortunately, however, that isn't required always for a person to separate truth from error. For example Christ didn't need to commit adultery to understand it isn't right. Nor do I.
The concept presented by scientists that I must completely understand everything they think to analyse its truth is false. It is like suggesting that I must know all about every religion in the world to know something is right or wrong that they teach.
If something doesn't fit with reality it is false.
It is true that some knowledge is required to know what is being suggested. I have studied many religions and aspects of scientific theory. I don't mind you calling them models. I have used that term myself (if you note the 2nd paragraph). Yet either way, whatever word we wish to use, "a rose by any other name smells as sweet." You have expressed that these concepts aren't entirely shown as accurate. And this is all I was saying in that regard.
While "yom" may not be a set period I don't quite get why anyone would feel the time periods are different, when the day and night period were established upon the first "yom" (day).
As to the stars being his children, are you suggesting that God made his children on the 3rd or 4th day? Because we were in the process of creating the earth at the time. So we obviously weren't being created then.
The concept of whether something is important to my salvation hasn't been the issue since I fully accepted the atonement of Christ and gave up sinning. My focus now is whether it is important to me gaining eternal life. If God does it. And if it is part of eternal law, then I must know it to be a God.
What I'm really on about is that people are placing very flimsy evidence, presented by "science falsely so called" (to quote Paul), BEFORE trusting what God has given by revelation.
I fully support continued examination of known facts, to understand them better. I am not at all opposed to TRUE science. And I support all efforts of those involved to improve our situation. Don't misunderstand me in that point.
Thanks for your reply.
I had no objection to you speaking of scientific theories as sometimes incomplete and never absolutely proven. But you went beyond this when you said that "Theory means that you are making an assumption, and don't know at all”. This seems to suggest that a theory is, well, “just an assumption”, in the absence of supporting data or predictive capability. A rose may indeed be a rose, but what you have done smells more like bait and switch, not unlike arguing that you don’t like kittens because they live in the ocean and sometimes eat surfers.
As you suggest, comprehensive (or even minimal) secular knowledge of a subject is not required to ascertain its truth in those cases where the answer has been given by revelation. If your entire argument had been that the earth was created in 7000 years because the scriptures say it was created in 7000 years, then I wouldn’t have said anything about science. In fact, I almost certainly wouldn’t have written anything at all. But instead, you attempted to support your interpretation of scripture with science. You go beyond scriptural evidence and expand your argument into the realm of observational science by referring to unspecified “flimsy evidence”, citing childhood recollections in support of some kind of worldwide paleontological conspiracy representing one drop in a veritable sea of “lies, distortions, and misrepresentations” (each of which you “could go into”, but don’t), recalling TV-proof that there was no ice age, saying something that seems to claim that some fully-functional people literally have empty skulls, and criticizing radio-isotopic dating as unsubstantiated, limited, and inaccurate. “Too much is ignored in certain areas of science”, you assert, and “their evidence isn’t satisfactory at all. It is assumption built on assumption”. The moment you go from scriptural-based criticism of scientific theory to allegedly science-based criticism is the moment it becomes appropriate to question the depth of your scientific knowledge and expect scientific conclusions based on the available body of scientific data.
For myself, I would illustrate this distinction as well as the question of whether or not an issue is “Gospel-central” with something like the reality of resurrection or the existence of the spirit. If the scientific community were to claim evidence that a person cannot possibly have a spirit, then I could immediately discount them based on unequivocal revealed truth. Such a dismissal is sound in the absence of any knowledge or familiarity with the purported scientific evidence, and furthermore I need not question whether or not I have correctly interpreted this passage of scripture or that because the reality of the spirit is gospel-central in the sense that the whole good-news story falls apart with it. My conclusion cannot be challenged by scientific observation because it was not informed by the scientific method as it is understood by the community. On the other hand, if I say that I know spirit is real because the scriptures say so and, oh, by the way, some scientists from the University of Science conducted an experiment wherein they weighed a body just before and just after death and found a difference, then it’s time to ask what do I really know about the experiment, am I qualified to judge its legitimacy, etc.
Likewise, it’s fair to question whether or not you have really surveyed the body of evidence the climatology community relies on in concluding that there was an ice age, whether you have any current verifiable evidence that museums are deliberately lying to the public about the reality of their fossil specimens, and to ask why you imply that radio-isotopic dating has a very limited range based (apparently) on the half-life of Carbon 14 without considering the full range of isotopes available with widely-varying decay times.
Unlike the reality of the spirit, the duration of creation is not gospel-central because no inconsistencies in the Plan of Salvation are introduced whether it took 7000 years or 15 billion years. Consequently, I am left to either form no opinion or take more care in forming my opinion than in deciding on whether, for example, the resurrection is real. God has seen fit to reveal very little detail about how he does things, but it makes sense to start by checking what the scriptures have to say. In biblical creation accounts, it refers to “days” of creation. But then we know that the word can be used figuratively to represent an unspecified period of time. You make a great deal of the additional use of the bounding words “day” and night”. This in no way settles the deal for me, though, since if there exists a figurative day (in the 24-hour sense) representing an unspecified period of time, then it must be defined by a figurative day (ie beginning) and a figurative night (ie end). If there is a second period also referred to figuratively as a day, then the fact that it also begins with a figurative morning and ends with a figurative night in no way implies that the two are of equal duration. Only that each has a beginning and an end. Then there are the verses in Abraham where the “day” of creation appears to be used interchangeably with a “time” of creation, as if a specific collection of “labors” had been “called” a day. Then there is the literal-to-figurative transition structure of Abr. 3. I wasn’t suggesting that the stars are his children, or that they were created on the 3rd or 4th day. I was trying to point out the poetic beauty of a chapter (one of my favorites) that begins by talking about the hierarchical order of the stars created by God – how one stands above to govern the great ones physically near to the throne of God as well as all the stellar multitudes at all stages of development, and then makes a transition in verse 18 with the words “as also”. From there on the same structure is repeated, now applied to the spirits of the children of God rather than the stars. Again we read of One great one set to govern (like unto God) as well as other noble and great ones, now figuratively near to the throne of God. Thus the spirit children of god are compared to the stars in the firmament. It’s in the first “half” of this chapter that the rotational period on the Lord’s planet is equated to 1000 years on ours. But seeing that this occurs in a chapter that begins with physical stars and planets following their appointed orbits and ends with human “stars” choosing to follow their foreordained course, I have no problem with the analogy continuing by using the word “day” figuratively in the chapter 4, which is after all an artificially-divided continuation of the same story. In fact, I have to consider equating any subsequent use of the word “day” with 1000 years as wholly unsubstantiated except where the Lord expressly does so Himself.
Finally, there are other scriptures that could be brought to bear that do not deal specifically with creation. For example, the Lord is said to be “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” One could no doubt engage in endless debate over how and when to apply this statement, but one possible application would be to say: Look. Creation is an ongoing process. The creation story relates the formation of stars, planets, etc., and what do astronomers observe now? They see multiple generations of formation of planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, at all different stages of their evolution. Our scientific understanding of physical law is based on and applied to observations of things like how long does it take a cloud of hydrogen to collapse into and form a star and associated solar system. Distances and scales are measured by a number of different direct and indirect methods, velocities are measured by the temperatures they generate, and temperatures are measured by the light emitted. These observations speak to how long it takes to form a star (or whatever). But aren’t these also His creations? Why would He take billions of years to create the stars in, say, the Eagle Nebula (with their associated planets), but only take 1000 years to create ours? That doesn’t sound like the same yesterday, today, and forever. In fact, considering measured distances and the finite speed of light, some of the creation we observe now actually occurred thousands of years ago, some occurred millions of years ago, and some occurred billions of years ago.
So what I am left with is a scriptural record with multiple possible interpretations (although I consider the overall body of scriptural record more in favor of the figurative interpretation of the creative day). I can then turn to public statements made by people I consider spiritually reliable. There too I find no absolute answer but several statements by apostles leaving open the possibility or even suggesting belief that creation took a long, long time. Finally, I can look around me. For a believing person, I can see two possible interpretations of physical law and the theoretical physics that seeks to describe it. In the first, apparently common to much of the religious world, physical law is a description of how the universe operates except when God takes some action, in which case physical law is superceded and violated. In the second interpretation, to which I subscribe, theoretical physics is a mathematical description of how God is observed to operate. Note that this says nothing about whether or not He is free to operate any other way. You seem to indicate a similar view when you refer to God as scientist and true science as compatible with (or perhaps even identical to) true religion. Just by looking up, I can see the process of creation in many and various stages, and I can see a scientific and mathematical framework that provides a remarkably successful and strikingly beautiful description of what I see. This picture is consistent with one possible interpretation of the creative “day”, but is starkly inconsistent with the other.
My belief is always shaped first and foremost by revealed truth. But I try to be very careful not to read more than is justified into the very little God has told us about how He operates, or to be more narrow in my scriptural interpretation that is warranted. Where He ‘s not opted to tell me how He’s done something, I feel perfectly justified in looking around and trying to figure it out myself through my own experience as well as the observations and formulations of others. Almost without exception, these “others” are not out to disprove the existence of God or delude the public. On the contrary, they are truth-seekers, in many cases motivated by a desire to comprehend the “how” that attends the divine “why”. The theoretical picture is never complete (in which case it wouldn’t be any fun), but the religious do themselves no service by making overly-haste conclusions about what scientific conclusions are not admissible. And yes, when the observations paint a coherent and compelling picture that is not inconsistent with revealed truth, I see no reason to be shy about defending it.
-Aaron
Aaron
You have again presented some interesting points.
I suppose I should first tell you (least we talk in circles for no reason) that Jesus Christ has taken me out of this system and shown me how creation is actually acheived. The power that is used etc. While this obviously isn't recorded in accepted scripture, it does, naturally, influence my thinking of this subject.
He didn't show me the duration of a day of creation though. But what I came to understand does influence my decision of how long it would have taken us to organise matter.
Comparing that to the point that matter altered continuously over the first 2,400 years, as the fall took full effect, does leave me to completely refute the idea of consistency of the dating of matter before the time of Moses.
In regard star dating and what is really happening all this distance away. And for that matter whether our assumptions of triangular distances etc are correct. We are making the assumption that space holds no surprises that we don't understand, over all that distance. That should be understood to be an assumption only. It is a reasonable assumption. But an assumption none the less. Many obvious "facts" have been found to be wrong when the evidence came in. So I regard such concepts as interesting assumptions only. Of course aspects of these assumptions can be used as models. But to start mixing them with scripture isn't advisable in my opinion.
I have worked with models and know what you mean that they are useful. I only challenge science from the point that I feel it presents itself as a religion. It opposes the birth of our parents Adam and Eve. Which leads to more suicide and a lower morality and self-esteme level in society.
As to the earth taking millions of years to make. Many people have had their faith seriously challenged by this idea. That certainly isn't a reason to reject it if it is true. But it is a reason why I would challenge the concept that people should really believe it. It makes me challenge the idea. And I find faults. The biggest being that there can't possibly be any proof. Many scientists snub religion saying that there is no proof of God. So I'm standing in the same box saying, "where is your real proof?" And all I see is evidence that their models aren't right at times (meaning there are problems wiht them). You've also agreed with the concept that there are flaws in these models.
As to brains. I saw these people who had very little, in that program. The point here is proof that it isn't that grey blob in your head that is thinking, but your eternal intelligence.
So my issue with theory science is of a spiritual nature. I'm not just sitting around trying to pick on something for no reason.
It does seem sad that there are so many people who are performing important research, but get a bad name from the excessive fringe that are also so noisy in proposing themselves as the priests of wisdom and all knowledge.
Okey-dokey, now I get it. I won't trouble you anymore. I will, suggest, however, to prevent future missunderstandings and in the interest of full disclosure, that you change the title of your blog from "LDS Deep Doctrine" to something more appropriate like "Doug Towers' Deep Doctine".
-Aaron
Aaron
Yes, an interesting point. But isn't every blog full of the perspective of the writer? And what is LDS doctrine? If I am to speak of "deep doctrine" who's deep doctrine do I use?
If we all understood the same and thought the same and had the same doctrines then we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses. Because we have independent revelation and learning we can share ideas that are different from each other's and, hopefully, learn.
The concept I have presented in this post is that there are flaws in the scientific evidence that is presented to us as alternative doctrine, to taking scripture as stated.
My reasoning in exposing this doesn't detract from that message.
Since many of my posts are based on personal revelation and discussion with deity should I call my site "God's Deep Doctrine?" I can't do so as I don't believe that everything I say is what he would say.
So I do think it is reasonable to use the title I have, even though, obviously, we won't all agree.
Post a Comment