I'd like to begin by quoting my old missionary discussions.
Today man endeavours to explain truth through science, literature, philosophy and religion. ... Knowing the truth frees us from the consequences of following false information that can come to us from other people. Evil men deliberately teach false ideas as if they were the truth. On the other hand sincere individuals might lead us astray unintentionally. Regardless of the reason the Lord has continually reminded us to rely upon revelation for truth, and not on the ideas of men. End of quote.
The scriptures present (by my interpretation) some things that appear to be challenged by these 4 above methods at times. Do we just bend the scriptures to fit in with them, or make a proper challenge of the claims? If the claims are not proven sufficiently, why should I even begin to decide that I need to remould my beliefs? If we just drop our belief at the slightest sign of some apparent conflict, where is our faith? Is it the world that forms our belief mixed with scripture?
Firstly, the scriptures present to me that God had a plan for us to come to this earth. We accepted that plan. Plain, obvious sense tells me that he did not then take millions of years getting on with it. We may have been slow learning how to create things (those who were involved), but millions of years is ridiculous.
Next, any animals living on past worlds were resurrected and therefore any bones found here are from this creation. Again the scriptures (to me) present that when the animals were made they were brought to Adam to name. Thus Adam was coexistent with them, not millions of years after.
Jesus Christ clearly spoke against anger, not in its favour. I have never seen a person angry at someone who had happiness in their heart from it.
Jesus Christ also spoke equally plainly against lust. I also am yet to see a person with true joy yet lust in their eyes. The enormous increase in pornography has not decreased rape, as some "experts" claimed it would.
New parenting methods haven't decreased youth violence, as also claimed.
Divorces haven't produced all these contented women. Most sit around winging about their ex.
(these latter 2 statements are generalisations, as should be noted by the terms used).
Anything that I feel challenges the scriptures needs challenging itself. If irrefutable evidence exists to prove the worlds claim, THEN I will re-examine my view of a particular scripture. And not before.
So far none of these 4 methods above has presented anything that has held ground, where it appears to me to be in conflict with scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
"If irrefutable evidence exists to prove the worlds claim, THEN I will re-examine my view of a particular scripture."
OK. Irrefutable evidence shows that a literal interpretation of the creation narratives found in the Book of Genesis, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the temple endowment ceremony, is false. Darwinian evolution is an established fact, one of the most established facts of all established facts.
If you want to argue for a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation of the scriptures' creation narratives, be my guest. But to accept a literal interpreation requires you to reject the irrefutable evidence compiled over the last two centuries in a broad array of scientific disciplines, all of which corroborate one another, and all of which point to an ancient origin for life on earth, the complexities and varieties of which are explained by natural selection and descent with modification as generally proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species published in 1859.
An interesting argument as usual, equality _ something to get my teeth into.
"But to accept a literal interpreation requires you to reject the irrefutable evidence compiled over the last two centuries"
I would tend to say "the often refuted bias conclusions compiled over the last two centuries".
Belief in millions of years ago for this earth is based on disproven dating methods. If you want to see them disproven just watch and listen carefully to a few documentaries by these people.
However, even IF we have found some method that actually works, these people ignore scripture and thus come to false conclusions. When the earth was created all things were in a quickened state _ nothing died or decayed. When Adam and Eve made their mistake things BEGAN the fall from this state. Thus Adam lived for over 900 years. As time went on the affect of the fall became greater and greater. By Abraham's time God declared man's life was 120 years. By Moses time it was 70 years. At this time (around 2400 years after the fall) matter had completely fallen from its original state in the garden. So an accurate dating method could date effectively to that point. But to date properly prior to that time is totally impossible as we have no idea of what the original state of the matter was before the fall.
As to Darwin's philosophy, the basic concept is completely irrational. It proposes that an insect saw how bad things were getting millions of years before it would be wiped out. And then proposed a plan to resolve the problem. It would invent this extra appendage (wings for example). It worked out how to grow them and where. Then it passed this concept on to its children in detail, so they would keep on with it. Those children didn't say, "ah, forget about it Dad". No, like good little kiddies they said, "no worries, Dad". So on they went with this brilliant plan. And then they passed on this highly complex concept to their children (by some mysterious, unseen process). And so it went for millions of years.
Doug,
I have two problems with your response (well, maybe more, but two basic ones.
First, you seem to accept at face value that the scriptures are, in all respects, literally true (i.e., they provide accurate and reliable information about the origin of life on earth, for example). This is, incidentally, a claim the scriptures never make for themselves. Your logic appears to be that you can rely on the scriptures because they are true and because they are true, they are therefore reliable. This is circular. I would say that where the scriptures prove to be unreliable, they should be rejected or reinterpreted in a manner that makes them compatible with knowledge that has been accumulated through repeated and repeatable rigorous testing and experimentation over centuries of time by scientists not encumbered by a slavish devotion to ancient texts.
Second, from your remarks about evolution, it is clear that you do not enjoy even the faintest understanding of how evolution works. May I suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, which would surely disabuse you of your gross misconceptions regarding the mechnanisms of organic evolution.
BTW,
I would agree with you that Darwin's theory is, at first blush, counter-intuitive and difficult to grasp. Upon further examination, however, I think you will find that it is not irrational. Belief in the inerrancy of the scriptures, though, might be.
You have presented several large subjects here. So I will have to deal only briefly with something.
I wouldn't accept that I take the scriptures at face value, exactly.
The Masoretic text (from which we derived our Old Testament) was taken from a collection of manuscripts the Jews had, where they burned all versions of Isaiah (for example) that disagreed with their belief of God and religion.
The New Testament is taken from a 375AD (an optomistic appraisal, no doubt) manuscript. The Book of Mormon is a brilliant translation considering the education standard of the translator and scribe. The D&C suffers a similar fate, as does the PofGP. However, leaving the frailties of men aside, they are filled with the spirit.
And I have found them accurate within the understanding of the writer or the readers he was addressing. Which certainly beats the everchanging philosophies of man. And if you use that spirit you will understand the feelings and intent of the writers perfectly.
There are many who do have a circular belief in scripture, as you present. But I wouldn't see myself as one of them in the manner you have expressed. The scriptures present concepts. I fervently examine the concept. Also I, again, listen to the spirit. There does arise concepts that can't be examined, such as future prophesies. Because of how accurate the scriptures have shown themselves to be I have accepted a circular belief in regard these.
As to evolution I am quite aware of the multitude of present philosophies. However, whichever you choose it still comes down to some magical way of passing on the information assessed by some insect to create a pair of wings: Whether you want to claim he used his genes, a t-shirt or whatever magical concept. It is still just as irrational.
Doug,
Thanks for clarifying a bit your view of scripture. I am still not sure whether you are arguing that the creation accounts should be taken literally and if so, why you think so.
On evolution, I would respectfully disagree with your characterization of it as "magical" and "irrational." It is the antithesis of these. Evolution is natural and sensible and provides tremendous explanatory power to the human mind in understanding the world in which we live. To one with no understanding of the processes of evolutionary biology, it may sound like a "magical" idea. But if you read Dawkins and Mayr and Gould I think you will come away with an understanding and appreciation for evolutionary theory that would enhance and expand your worldview.
I would also respectfully disagree that the scriptures "beat the everchnaging philosophies of man." Not all philosophies of man are created equal. Some are more valuable than others. And the scriptures themselves are the products of men and are imbued with the philosophies of men who lived thousands of years ago. What you really have, with respect to the creation accoutns, for example, are the philosophies of ancient men without the benefit of the past 2,500 years of scientific discovery and observation pitted against the philosophies of men who can take advantage of this accumulation of knowledge.
It is curious to me that people who are so willing to take ancient man's philosophies about the origin of life and are quick to dismiss modern man's philosophies on the same tend not to apply the same logic to the medical field.
Great post doug,
What I find interesting is that within the framework of modern biology, evolution is the answer framed in stone to our origins. This is also in light of explaining how things came to be in an atheistic mindset. Remove a creation process such as is found in the bible, and what are you left with? You are left with a very complex system of life seeming somewhat devoid of direction. You are left with a mysterious puzzle of just how all these complexities came together.
It is at this point that theory gets involved. Darwin and several others from his day proposed several of these theories to explain the great puzzle in purely atheistic manners and views. I say atheistic because they challenge the very foundation of the bible and God's word.
Now advance to our day and what do we find? We find this problem of reconciling ones faith in God with the mighty arm of man. It is easy to prove what mans arm can do because it requires no faith to do so. But to try to prove God's power in the complexities of life it requires faith, something that is not part of the scientific method. So what do men do? They accept the easy way out- something they can see.
And what do they see? They see theories that meet their ideas of what predictions should entail, while overlooking the basic requirements needed to found solid and logical proof that makes up the foundation of the theory.
(sorry for the long post)
This is found with the theory of an earth millions of years old with millions of fossils that apparently have progressed from nonlife forms in the beginning. This Godless theory is now a building many stories high, in fact you can no longer see the top as it is shrouded in the clouds. This building though lacks the foundation, the very factual scientific, without a doubt proof on a biological level of how this process works.
It is easy to assume that just because a dogs hair, heigth, length etc. can be changed through survival and breeding conditions, that it may be also possible to grow into different types of species down the road after many small changes. But this requires more time that what the bible has allowed, according to the theory, and so we just toss the bible right out the window.
In the book "Darwins Back Box" by M. Behe, he uses the correct scientific approach to examine the foundation that the evolutionists argue so strongly to exist. He uses both rational and scientific proof to show with math that this very foundational framework on a biological level does not exist and cannot exist according to evolutionists predictions. Now if the building of evolution only exists based upon the very biological predictions that were assumed, and these predictions are found to be untrue through scientific proof, then doesn't the whole building fall?
This is where the paradox lies for the atheistic evolutionists, because if you take away their only ground to stand on, then how are they able to stand? Because there are enough people with a lot of money and prestige to hold them up. Organizations like the NCSE, ACLU, and the National Geographic Society are the very forces that keep this false theory alive. Because they are people in highly swayful positions, they have to prove they are right at all costs. It really has turned into a political battle now with Republicans generally siding with conservative view found in the bible, and Democrats generally siding with the "arm of man" view of evolution. This is not always the case (I do like Democrats and have voted for them in the past) but generally is.
(sorry for the long post)
In closing I get quite fired up on these kind of topics because they truly underly our very foundations of faith. If the most miraculous events of history can be discounted as myth or fable, then where do we, and maybe more importantly, how can we even believe in the resurrection? Will evolution ever be able to justify the physiacl scientific facts of the resurrection?
Sigh. Michael Behe is the poster child for the theologically driven unscientific so-called Intelligent Design movement, which is, in reality, simply Creationism all gussied up.
His basic argument is that irreducibly complex systems appear to be designed, so they must have been designed. Since he cannot comprehend HOW such systems could have evolved, he concludes that they could not have evolved. Dawkins dubs this the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity. Behe offers no scientific evidence to call into doubt the conslusions reached by an overwhelming near-unanimity of scientists on the basic facts of organic evolution.
Indeed, if you read the Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, the Selfish Gene (all by Richard Dawkins), you will see that Behe's arguments don't hold any water. You might also consult more technical scientific papers published in numerous scientific journals (none of which publish ID "science", but I guess you would just argue that is part of the conspiracy of evil evolutionists, eh?)
"But this requires more time that what the bible has allowed, according to the theory, and so we just toss the bible right out the window."
rob, it may be that your interpretation of the time period "the bible has allowed" is incorrect. Many people believe the abundant scientific evidence that proves the earth is billions of years old and yet also retain a belief in the Bible. It is only a hyperliteralist, strained interpretation of the Bible that demands a young earth.
For a sampling of scientific reaction to Behe's book (and I don't even include any references to Dawkins here), see the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe_text.html
Good posts from 2 different perspectives.
In regard creation and its actual manner of occurrance, equality, I totally agree with the path Brigham Young was up. I just believe he didn't see the final key to the subject. I believe Adam to have been born to glorified parents. We are all one continual family for eternity. No living thing is an invention. Everything has eternal parents. I'll leave you to guess whom I believe to be the glorified father of Adam. However the scriptures plainly tell us twice. Genesis is completely right, it is just what it doesn't say. Church evolutionists may say the same, but I think that is an enormous amount not to say.
Concerning dating methods I still point to my post on this. And hold that the fall makes dating beyond Moses time impossible. If these people would just turn to God to help them in their studies they would go in the right direction. The scriptures seem to present that each period of creation was a thousand years. Without anything scriptural or otherwise to seriously challenge that interpretation I have stuck with it to date.
In regard evolution itself I think reading both comments demonstrates my feelings on the subject as expressed in the post. I don't think any living person could be sufficiently expert in every field claiming evolutionary "discoveries" to know just how real these are. As you point out, Rob, piles of funding goes into this research. And, as I know from my studies in atomic theory, scientists make statements that they prove with irrefutable proof, that later becomes totally refuted.
On the other hand, Equality, your point is true that one area of falsehood within science doesn't make the whole thing rotten.
So as an average person I return to my common sense and examine known facts. Even leaving religion aside for a momoent and just looking at it all. Evolution can't be proven because to do so would require millions of years. I haven't seen, nor is it proven that an ape changed into a man. I moved to a different climate and adjusted to it eventually. This doesn't prove that I could change into a different species over millions of years. It seems to me that scientific evidence could be found to prove that the moon used to be made of cheese, if they were keen enough to do so, and just viewed things from the one sided point they demonstrate in what I have seen in regard some concepts. So I don't accept scientists as prophets, seers and revelators (as most of the world seems to).
But putting religion back in, my understanding of the creation makes evolution unscriptural also.
As to the medical, I treat it with the same caution. Where it actually works I accept it.
equality,
The point I bring up with Behe's work is that he has shown how unlikely from scientific and mathmatical research the mechanism for evolution is. He studies a lot of things from the inside out such as organ development and how there is no way that organs come out of nothing over any amount of time.
Creationism can't be proven with our scientific knowledge just as evolution can't either. Another teaching in the bible is the flood in Noah's day. Many scholars have gone on to conclude that this flood, if it really happened was just a localized event as we see no evidence in the world for a worldwide flood. They then go on to say that the flood story was more mythical than real. So who should we believe- God, or the arm of man?
I myself see evidence for a global flood everytime I drive to work and see the sedimentary laid rocks that have been upthrust thousands of feet that make up the backdrop of my horizon. I also see it in the road I drive on as being oil based. The funny little paradox of the flood is that if it truly was a global event as the scriptures describe, then evolution has no evidence to draw off of as it is merely the testimony that billions of lifeforms died in a great watery catastrophe. If the flood was never a global event, then the bible falls flat on it's face in regards to historicity. Personally I know that the flood was a global event because geology has not produced a workable method yet where what we see in the rocks is just a process of natural events that can be watched today.
rob,
The point I bring up with respect to Behe's work is that it has been roundly and soundly criticized and refuted by many reputable scientists who have put forth sound arguments (supported by evidence from a vast array of observations and experiments accumulated from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines) that show precisely where Behe is in error.
While I can appreciate your own observations of rocks while driving to work, I think it more reasonable to put my confidence in the accumulated wisdom of geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, molecular biologists, etc. whose observations and experiments show no evidence for a universal flood during the time period prescribed by the biblical narrative.
As to whom we should believe, "God or the arm of man" I would simply remind you that the Bible was written by the arm of man and you, being a man, are relying upon your own "arm" to interpret it.
equality,
You bring up a good couterpoint with the arm of man interpreting what the arm of man wrote, kudos for you!
I know there are errors in the bible, but when so much is spent forth on describing the creation and flood I would have to side with the prophets and what they have told us on the matter. doug brings up a very good point in this post that even good sound theories can be refuted and changed. A lot of the dating methods used to date rocks, have in recent years and better technology, been scrutinized for their inability to be precise.
Carbon dating has so many issues, that often times more information is needed than just the sample such as where was it found, a predictive date, etc.. Then you have the supposed contamination issues whenever something reads differently than predicted. Does this mean that prediction carries more weight than the procedure itself? Or does it just mean that predictable figures are part of this scientific process?
My guess is (correct me if I am wrong) that guesswork and predictions make up the majority of evolutionary science when it deals with major evolutionary change such as when and how fish grew apendiges and became land dwelling animals. All this while we are told that we have irefutable evidence for these changes which pretty much actually means that we have some pieces of fossils and some artists rendetion of the creature itself including it's habitat, thinking abilities, climate. It is all science fiction!
I have been waiting for years for the biological proof that we came from apes that explains the process of that evolution. That is a much easier step than a man from a fish which I also know science has yet to show biological process of how the organs developed and changed through time to what we carry inside us right now.
Where is the eveidence? If evolution is so true then show me the solid evidence. It does not exist! All that exists are scientists carfeul wording and conjecture backed with an endless supply of money resources telling us what to believe rather than explaining the process involved.
On the flood- Observations and experiments have also shown that the forces that created our vast sedimentary graveyards are not in operation today. Scientists refute this claim because they say that it takes millions of years to observe this. Go to the Grand canyon and ask yourself this question- Did all of these uniform layers, spread out over thousands of square miles, get deposited through gradual random processes over the coarse of millions of years? Plain and simple logic tells us that it is impossible.
In one of my geology books it explains how this land formation formed. It explains that each layer was deposited slowly over the coarse of thousands and thousands of years while in the shallow depths of a sea. Then the sea retreated and different processes such as weathering, erosion and wind blown sediments gathered. After this process, another shallow sea intruded the land again and deposited more sediment. This process of retreat and intrusion of the sea continues over the coarse of millions of years, all of the time building itself higher and higher in altitude. Then a small river starts to make it's presence known, and over the coarse of several hundered thousand years carves itself deep into the rocks to form the Grand Canyon, while suddenly our magical coming and going of a shallow sea is nowhere present while this canyon is formed. This process is completely ridiculous, and has no scientific basis to back up it's claim!
Nowhere in the world do we see this process happening on a magnitude scale of what is framed in our rocks as evidence. In fact many scientists are turning from gradualism and uniformatarianism to catastrophism to better explain the evidence. Even evolutionary geologists are changing their minds as to how the rocks were deposited because the predictions their forefathers proposed are not adding up to anything at all!
One more thing- Do we sustain the prophet because he is a prophet, seer, & revelator, or do we sustain him only as the dictates of our "arm of man" will allow us to do so? If prophets in every dispensation reveal and testify that Adam, the first man on earth, was a literal descendant of God, do we sustain that knowledge only as our "arm of man" mentality allows us to? Where do we as a church really stand on the age of the earth, or how we came about? The only way to find out those deep questions is to put aside our earthly knowledge and believe in what the prophets have testified.
I will not rely on science to tell me whether or not I can be resurrected or cured from cancer through fasting and prayer when I already carry the faith and convition that through God anything is possible- even the unfolding of the truth of the bible and the error of man's ways!
I have to echo Rob's points, Equality. I think that all this evolution stuff is just one great big con.
Watching some documentaries I would cry with laughter if it wasn't for the fact that I'm concerned for my brothers and sisters believing this. I have to agree with Rob in questioning, "Where is the eveidence? If evolution is so true then show me the solid evidence? It does not exist! All that exists are scientists carfeul wording and conjecture backed with an endless supply of money resources.."
Rob asks the questions, "Does this mean that prediction carries more weight than the procedure itself?"
The answer to this from my observation is a resounding, "YES".
Science (generally speaking) refutes religion on the basis that it can't show actual evidence. A church member won't stand there and consistently call down fire from heaven. By the same logic evolution can never be proven either. It is as simple as that. Their own logic condemns them as people wasting our time and theirs.
Wow. I'm speechless. Science is a waste of time? Wow.
On the evidence front: there is a difference between saying that you have not examined evidence and concluding that, because you have not examined the evidence, such evidence does not exist. It kind of reminds me of the OJ Simpson jurors who, having refused to look at any of the evidence presented by the prosecution, concluded that OJ Simpson was not guilty because they hadn't seen any evidence to inplicate him.
Have you read Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee? Have you explored the web sites I link to on my blog? Have you looked for the evidence that you say is lacking. I assure you it's there.
I accept your point, Equality, but I would have to have spent my life under a rock not to have both seen and heard many of the concepts and conclusions of evolutionists. You hear enough at school, for starters. I don't doubt that the things presented can sound good. But neither you nor I are highly skilled in these areas of science to the point that if a flaw existed in the claim that we would know.
Yes, that doesn't mean that we just reject them. What I do is listen to their logic. I analyse their method of drawing conclusions. In those things I can understand I think, "is the conclusion that they have drawn really the only one they could have from those facts."
I don't need a degree in all these areas of science to use common sense. Where I can understand it I see too much conjecture. Far too much for me to have confidence that they are right in the parts I have no training in. I don't see how reading more books by them and watching more of their documentaries will change this. They would have to have changed.
doug,
I think you are asking the wrong question. It's not whether the conclusion the scientist draws is the only one that can be drawn from the facts, the question is whether the conclusion drawn is the BEST one to explain the facts. The next question is whether any alternative explanation BETTER explains the facts. 99%+ of scientists over the last 100 years (give or take) who spend their lives looking at the facts from every conceivable angle, have determined that Darwin's basic theory on the origin of species BEST describes the facts that have been gathered in anthropology, botany, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, etc. And no alternative theory has emerged that better explains the origin and development of life on earth.
equality,
You are right. In our Godless theories, there is nothing else that describes how life could of possibly came about, that is an easy conclusion to make. That is also why it is still regarded as a theory. Some would have us believe though that it (evolution) is now firmly established in fact. I see the question of our origins as more of a philisophical question more than a scientific one. Why are evolutionists so concerned about alternative theories that might better explain our origins? Why are they also so concerned when an official statement is made that evolution is still just a theory?
The forces that be are so concerned about the rest of us believing in a God and special creation, that they literally spend millions of dollars fighting to make sure that we don't mention "God" or "creation" in anything made public, especially in schools! And why is this? Because the so called sacred institutions that have been built up to try to disprove there is a God must be kept shrouded in mystery and lies. I mean really- if we are just "animals" and there is no God then who or what protects us in this godless society? The ACLU?
Evolution has always in my opinion been the forefront for the fight for atheism. There is nothing sacred or pure in thinking our forfathers were just animals. Also if our spirits existed in their forms before their physical bodies, did our spirits also evolve from apelike creatures? So much for being a child of God!
There is nothing Godlike about evolution that scientists would have us believe. Where God adds harmony, purpose, and order, science destroys all that in a random, mutative chaos! So where does man go from here according to evolution? What will man evolve into next? After all, according to their doctrine, there is no God or destruction of the wicked and we will continue on in this random state of mutative chaos for millions of years. Don't tell me that evolution stopped only for us humans once we changed into our current forms either because I don't recall 99% of the scientists saying that in their many publications. Is it then pick and choose when it comes to theory? Yes, it definately is. It is what we hope for and nothing more!
That's a lot of questions, Rob! I will try to address each briefly. And may I add that I am grateful to you and Doug for engaging me in civil discourse and allowing me to converse with you. I find your perspectives interesting and although we disagree I do understand where you are coming from.
"Why are evolutionists so concerned about alternative theories that might better explain our origins? " Though I can't speak for all evolutionists, I think that scientisits generally are open to any theories that might better explain observed phenomena better than current theories. So, if someone comes along and can improve upon the theory of evolution, scientists are open to learning about such a theory.
"Why are they also so concerned when an official statement is made that evolution is still just a theory?"
I think it is because the term "theory" is used differently by scientists and the general public. In common parlance, a "theory" is mere conjecture. Anyone with an idea about something can propose an idea and it may be termed a "theory." In common everyday usage, a "theory" is synonymous with an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge.
In science, a "theory" is much more than mere conjecture. In science, the word "theory" describes system atically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of contexts, and especially describes a set of accepted principles and facts accumulated through the employment of the scientific method over time, which system has descriptive, predictive, and/or explanatory power with respect to certain natural phenomona.
Those who disparage evolution often use the word "theory" dismissively, as in "well, after all, evolution is only a theory." When they do so, they are employing the former definition, but, of course, scientists who speak of "evolutionary theory" are employing the latter definition.
"Also if our spirits existed in their forms before their physical bodies, did our spirits also evolve from apelike creatures?"
You are making the assumption, first, that we have spirits. Obviously, whether man has an immortal spirit animating the body has never been proven scientifically, though there is a substantial amount of research that calls the proposition into doubt. However, it may be that this is one of those "ultimate" questions that is beyond the ken of scientific determination.
"So where does man go from here according to evolution? What will man evolve into next?"
Man, and other life forms, will continue to evolve as they have for millions of years according to the principles of natural selection and descent with modification, none of which is "random" or "chaotic" as you suggest. Your characterization of evolution as random and chaotic illustrates that you have not studied it much.
Now, a question for you (just one):
Why do chimpanzees and humans share approximately 96% of their DNA?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050901074102.htm
equality,
I am thankful for this thoughtful conversation also. Kind of like North Korea talks with America at Burger King, eh eh.
I will answer the last question first. If as you say that we share 96 % of the same dna, then one would think that we are very similar, and without much intelligence you could prove it to anyone, such as- We both have ears, eyes, legs, fingers, hair, teeth etc.. So where the other 4% comes in is knid of interesting. What makes up the 4% that is not the same at all? Because that is an awful lot of information.
I build vintage cars for a living, and you could say that both a farm tractor and a Rolls Royce share about 96% the same technology, physics, and even are made of the same materials. How does this relate? Did Rolls Royce autos evolve from tractors? Can you take a tractor starter and bolt it on the Rolls Royce? Can you take a chimps lung and put it right in a human?
I am not at all concerned as to whether a chimp might be genetically made up of 96% the same. What might be brought up though, is if we are supposed to be 96% the same, then how come we are so different? How come the tractor and the Rolls Royce are so different even though they both have engines, wheels, windows, fuel, metal and plastic controls etc..
I think maybe, the answer is that they share a common design, but that they are unique in their own way and serve totally different purposes. Does it bother me that chimps have blood running in their veins just as I a human also have blood running in my veins? No, it doesn't bother me anymore than the knowledge I have that oil flows through hydraulic lines on both the tractor and the Rolls Royce and that in both our case and in the machines place them veins/lines serve different purposes and uses that are independantly unique for what they were designed to do.
I personally believe that we will not eveolve into a higher order od "animal". I believe in the resurrection and the restoration of the physical body in it's perfect form, just Like my father (God)!
My site as Burger King! I hadn't quite seen that. As long as they don't want to charge me for the franchise.
There's a lot here. A good converstation, guys.
In regard spirits I can only testify from an enormous amount of personal experience that we have a spirit in us. I have been physically dead twice and thought continued. On one of those occassions I know for sure that the thought was not in the head area but from a being (my spirit) inside the chest/stomach area.
I worked as a nightpatrolman for awhile, and all the guys who went to some woolsheds said that something weird was in there and you knew you weren't alone. Even those who professed no belief in God. I also felt them, and on one occassion saw many spirits standing around talking. One girlfriend I had used to communicate with me through thought (telepathy - yes, it does happen). We did these things in our pre-existence. I sometimes saw her spirit standing next to me as we talked (when she was elsewhere physically). I also saw her spirit in her body on one occassion. This is just a small amount of the experiences I've had in this area. Be that to you to take as you will.
Rob has answered well, but I would like to add to one issue that you questioned me on, Equality. I agree that we should proceed with the most logical answer in examining a theory (as I see the word). But then the issue goes on and we come to the next set of possibilities and we pick the most logical conclusion. Then it goes to the next set of possibilities, and so on. It becomes like playing an endless game of lotto. Even if each number has 99.9% chance of being correct, considering how many variables they are dealing with it would be virtually impossible for them to be right. It is just totally irrational mathematics. And the question then also becomes, "how far back were they wrong"?
On top of that is the problem that Rob and I have both presented that they are motivated toward a conclusion. These areas of science have some degree of agreement because they are mainly trying to come to the same conclusion. This agreement doesn't prove anything of itself. I remember once looking at a horse racing guide, and looking at systems to win (just to see if it could really be done, as some claimed). I found lots of systems that worked. The only problem was that they only worked for the set of figures derived from past races, and had no relevance to future races. So if I sit down with a set of scientific data I can also prove a system. And I can prove it as surely as I could prove those racing systems worked. But when it came to reality(without me altering my concepts on the way) it failed.
I remember watching a documentary not so long ago about some skulls they had. They had a problem in that their theory says that the brain size is increasing and that is why we are now more intelligent. But one skull with less space for a brain was dated after one with more space. By a huge amount of time. By the end of the special, through a large amount of gobbledy-gook and supposition they (of course) had the one with the smaller amount of brain space coming first. Very scientific!
I know it is just one instance, but I have just seen so much of it, how would I trust them? Not having another better "scientific" explaination isn't relevant to whether the theory is right. And I'm sure that with little imagination and the type of effort and money they are putting in I could come up with an equally proveable theory, that would probably even sound better than theirs.
But the scripturs have proven themselves right. And they explain the whole thing. And evolution just doesn't seem to fit in at all.
doug and rob,
This has been a fascinating conversation. I've tried to find a simple way of summarizing what distinguishes your way of thinking from Equality's. You must admit (and are probably proud of the fact) that your views are at extreme odds with the rest of the scientific world.
From my perspective, it appears that the distinctive characteristic of your worldview is the belief that if any claim refutes a literal interpretation of holy writ or the words of prophets, then the claim must necessarily be false. I hope you don't find it offensive when I say that this puts you squarely in the cognitive camp of medieval geocentrists who called Copernicus a heretic for believing that the earth orbited the sun. It makes you religious anti-scientists. If you don't mind being labelled as such, then I have nothing to fear in offending you by saying that.
If you haven't read any of the contemporary literature about evolutionary theory that Equality has suggested, if you haven't seriously investigated evolution in an honest search for understanding, then you have no right to disparage it's power to explain the origin of life on earth.
Mormonism claims that a farm boy living in upstate New York translated a set of golden plates from reformed Egyptian to English using a pair of sacred stones. It teaches that a resurrected ancient American appeared to this farm boy to tell him where the golden plates were buried. It teaches that the God of the universe and his son Jesus appeared to this boy with physical bodies of flesh and bone. What would you say to a non-Mormon who dismissed these extraordinary claims as illogical lunacy? If you thought they sincerely wanted to know, you would probably tell them to read the Book of Mormon and ask God to discover the truth for themselves.
How can you dismiss the overwhelming evidence that supports evolutionary theory as illogical, when you have done nothing to investigate the truth for yourself? The science is there, and there are plenty of books that explain it for a layman to understand. You don't have to be an expert. You really have no excuse for being ignorant about the science.
Why can't science inform your opinions about the world? There are plenty of people who remain devout Mormons who also accept evolutionary theory.
According to the Book of Mormon, faith is to believe things that are not seen, that are true. Can you have faith that the sun revolves around the earth, as the religious geocentrists once believed? Of course not, because observation proves that it is not the case. You have "seen" that geocentrism is false, so you can't have faith that it is true.
By the same token, once someone really get into the details about the age of the earth and natural selection, if the person has any ounce of rationality in them they would have to accept those are true scientific principles.
Do you really have to be some immortal observer and witness an ape evolving into a human over millions of years to believe in natural selection? That is absurd. Most of the scientific knowledge that humans have acquired has been obtained by indirect means. Observations are made, and the observations are interpreted.
You feel that science is unreliable because the theories are "ever-changing." But it's not as if scientists are like fickle teenage girls who can't decide which dress to wear for the school dance. Theories are refined as new information is gained. Refinement is not the same as indecisiveness.
I don't think we'll be able to agree on these things, rob and doug. But it's been a very interesting conversation and I have enjoyed reading your perspectives.
Welcome to the discussion, Lunar Quaker. I tend to wonder on the wisdom of your later point of what is likely to be resolved. But I believe discussion stimulates thought. What I may argue against today I may be strongly in favour of tomorrow, because of things I come to see in the meantime. Discussing your opinions and hearing an opposing thought makes you think more deeply about what you believe, and why.
I think though that considering me to be "anti-science" just because I don't believe in science as a religion, is a bit of a misdirection.
But in regard reading; I remember a Seventh-day Adventist once saying that if I read a particualar book, I would come to see that God demands us to worship him on Saturday. And will send us to hell if we worship him on Sunday. Well, I read the book and it really said nothing that changed my mind in that area (most of it I had already heard). Nothing it said detracted from the point that it is an illogical concept to propose God to be so ridiculous as to be fussy about what day of the week a seventh day is observed.
Upon writing the post about Atoms, some for scientific theories proposed that my comments were based on ignorance of quantum mechanics. So I read what they asked (most of which I already knew). And having read it I found it didn't detract in the slightest from what I had said _ the theory claims electrons going around a nucleas, amd they had no photos to prove it.
We already knew that some things became extinct through being killed off, long before evolutionists. You would term this "natural selection". I would tend to say, "that's the way the cookie crumbles". But evolution theory claims this is how we came about. That they can't possibly prove. It is still a theory based on facts not facts based on a theory. Proving the facts on which a theory is based, or proving other facts and making them part of the theory isn't evidence that would be accepted in a court (unless you had a crooked lawyer and judge).
"You feel that science is unreliable because the theories are 'ever-changing.' But it's not as if scientists are like fickle teenage girls who can't decide which dress to wear for the school dance. Theories are refined as new information is gained. Refinement is not the same as indecisiveness."
You are right, but what do I believe while they are refining?
I beleive those things the Holy Ghost tells me. He is always right, even about simple things. He helps me remember things from the pre-existence. I know that some of us helped create the earth. This creative power still resides in us and can be used when tapped.
I have moved matter with my mind more simply than blink an eye. How does evolution account for this? Propose me to be a new evolution? As eternal beings we have inherant powers based on our efforts to grow before coming here. You may be surprised at what exactly is in you.
doug,
What is religion? Does science qualify as such? My view is that people of your persuasion call science religion for two reasons: First, they say this to create an equivalence of justification between themselves and those who acknowledge science for holding their particular worldview. This is a false parity. And though they may not realize it, by creating this false parity they are merely trying to protect themselves from the influence of science on shaping their belief systems. The second reason that religious anti-scientists call science a religion is because they truly believe that science is just another belief system not based on hard evidence, but rather on a desire to believe it. It's fascinating that they don't seem to notice the glaring irony in that position.
Back to my original question: Can science truly be classified as a religion? Isn't religion based on faith, which is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1)? Does it require faith to believe in science? I say this for the sake of the argument, but really it is a contradiction in terms to say that one "believes in science."
Science is not a belief system. If it were, then there would be no honest Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or Mormon scientists in the world, because they would be living a double life. Was Mormon general authority and biochemist John A. Widtsoe just fooling himself? Was James E. Talmage a fraud?
You can't cirumvent the argument by calling science a religion. While I still think that both of you have religious anti-scientist leanings, your real complaint is against certain theories that contradict your personal interpretation of your religion, not against science as a whole. The only reason that evolutionary theory is controversial is because it is at odds with a literal interpretation of scripture. But the controversy only exists between those people who allow science to inform their beliefs, and those people who don't. There are some controversies among the scientists that study evolutionary theory, but these controversies are about "how," not "whether."
Are you telling me that you can't believe in any theory that is undergoing refinement? What a hypocritical stance to take. Doesn't your church and your standard works teach the principle of "line upon line, precept upon precept"? At what point did Mormonism become true then? Was it after Joseph received the plates? Was it when Peter, James, and John gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Melchizedek Priesthood? Was it on April 6, 1830? Was it after the sealing keys were restored in the Kirtland Temple? Maybe it was after Joseph Smith learned about the endowment? Or perhaps it was after 1978, when people of African descent were allowed to hold the priesthood? I know that Mormonism isn't a scientific theory but I hope you get my point.
Religion and science are not two sides of the same coin. I think we can both agree about that. They are not two different belief systems either. Religion is a belief system, and science is a method. You are free to ignore any widely accepted and well-established fact of science that contradicts your religion. But you can't get away with calling science a religion. It just isn't.
Lunar,
It's not that I automatically lean towards my religious beliefs no matter what or without sound reasoning- that is blind faith! What I do is read the scriptures and then try to reason with science on who or what system goes along with logic and testimony both.
Plain old simple logic tells me that evolution and it's vast age to work it's magic is simply not a "scientific method" at all. If it were, then we could actually abserve that process happening today. In fact, all different species always give birth to their own kind. There might be from time to time a mutation in the genes that causes deformities like a human missing an eye or more fingers but these mutations are never part of this "evolution process" of getting more sophisticated.
I do like science and trust in many scientific methods to explain our environment and technology. I just don't see evolution as being part of any scientific method because there is nothing to observe or do experiments with. It is all guesswork! It has always been guesswork on the process involved as to how we evolved from non-lifeforms of matter.
I believe the bible has a much better theory on how life originated, especially us humans. We were created by the normal processes involved for creating another duplicate, namely- sexual reproduction! I mean why start with non-lifeforms over the coarse of billions of years to duplicate yourself when all one has to really have is a mate and some intimate time together. This might, and probably is the same process for how all lifeforms were placed on this earth- sexual reproduction.
This theory of sexual reproduction can actually be tested as a scientific method whereas evolution absolutely cannot.
I believe that both creation theory and evolution theory should be approached with a philosophical or theological approach. Get the subject out of science classrooms for now until we have a better understanding of God, or until we are even willing to acknowledge God in a classroom setting.
I mean really, since when did the word "God" become a religion? Is the word phrase "evolution science" also a religion? Yes it is, because it's whole merit lies within the bounds of a purely atheistic view and thus denies the student of his freedom of worship by grading his views within an atheistic view only!
so rob,
evolution is happening right in front of us every day. do you want examples? or will you simply dismiss them as non-godly because they are not from the book of exodus?
here you go -
people run faster today than the fastest people ran in the olympics of years past.
check out your local akc registry. did you know that the poodle is a hunting dog. it was bred and evolved from a large field retriever. the mini ones that sit on your mamas lap, those were an evolution of a different breed.
go to australia pal. look at the feral camels. feral cats. feral buffalo. feral horses. feral sparrows. feral cats. feral ostrich. need more? there are plenty. the camels are bigger stronger faster than their african dna-sharers. evolution baby. evolution. same for the cats. the rabbits have adapted. the sparrows, they call them spoggies, are thriving. dont worry pal, there is evolution going on all over. in real time.
but, now that you asked for examples. and you have them. i am sure you will simply dismiss them as unexamples.
oh, just for fun. you claim science is not really science without god. and that with god, you can know all science. or whatever it is you claim.
and, you also claim the book of mormon is the truest book and its closer to god and with god you have this huge advantage. thats swell. great. super duper.
the god=science thing must explain the supernatural successes at Brigham Young University Medical School. D'oh.
oh heck. the small poodles evolved from the same breed, not a different one. typo. oops.
mayan,
It sounds like you are describing adaptation to environment in the animals cases. In the human running faster, two words- Steroids and running shoes!
Some more interesting points again.
Your point about feral animals is a good one, Mayan Elephant. The thing it would lead me to wonder is whether this adjustment would remain if returned to their natural environment? I know that the natives of New Guinea (for example) have "evolved" larger kidneys because of probelms in the environment. But taken away from that environment the 3rd generation has returned to normal. Poodles suffer certain degenerative problems (one being a bad heart). And so I'm not sure how they deal with that. It may require some re-breeding. It would require us to be expert in this field also, to examine this fully. and, of course, this isn't exactly an evolution. Worth a further look.
I have read a couple of links from your site Equality. But I would say that Rob has answered those issues I read that were new. In regard the old "missing link" syndrome that seems a waste of time, as even if evolution were correct most of the chain will always to missing regardless of how many links we find. The concept would require literally billions of links. Us finding millions would be meaningless. Then there would be trying to prove that one came after the other. Then there would be trying to prove that one came from the other in all cases.
As to science and religion, lunar quaker. I have no different method in approaching them, anyway (whether proven by my standards or not). It is true that if a claim of a science field conflicts with my present beliefs (whether found through religious, social or scientific areas) it is first viewed with suspicion. The same would be said of a religious concept. The more it conflicts the more suspicious it looks. But I'm sure you are the same.
You say that my talking of theory science as a religion is virtually a way of dismissing it. But, surely, I could equally argue that your claim that religion isn't scientific is a way of dismissing it in this area. When I was 5 I just believed whatever I was told. But at 11 I began to question ministers and not be satisfied with the answers at all. I would say that religion is very scientific from the way I approach it. God presented that lust wasn't good. I couldn't see that. But I eventually really tried what he said. And he was right. Is that unscientific? I had tried and tested one method. Then I had tried and tested the other. God's method was right. That is about as scientific as you could possibly get. God said that if you are angry with someone you won't have true joy inside, but that you should love others. It didn't seem entirely that way to me. But with time and true examination I found him to be right again. More scientific evidence. He said that greed isn't good and that I shouldn't desire to be rich. That didn't seem right either. Again time and study has shown him to be correct. More scientific research. My mother claimed to be receiving revelation when I was about 9. For awhile I didn't question it. But one day I decided that I wanted to know for sure. So I listened in to 2 of those revelations. I remember one was in regard some people who had a relative die and they couldn't find his will. My mother told them that it was in the back of his piano on the right hand side looking at it. I was curious to see the results. The next week the people were back to say thanks as that was exactly where it was. That, with the second one (which I can't remember the details of) was enough for me. That seems scientific enough for me. Revelation was a scientific fact. This is the type of evidence I am used to. Along with TVs that work. A computer that works. There is evidence. Yes, we must first use imagination and faith that an idea may work. But it isn't fact until it is working. Whether a scientific, psychological or religious concept. Evolutionists don't match this type of evidence. Contrary to what I feel they have convinced you, even if they found a group of apes that wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that we evolved from them. All it would prove is that we found a group of advanced apes.
Darn, its adaptation not evolution? well that explains everything doesnt it.
it must be fun to think that a creater guy put every animal on the earth exactly as it is today, and that there was absolutely no evolution within species. bwahahahahahaha.
until we have can perfectly incorporate all the science in the book of mormon, shall we go see the graduates of byu medical school when we need medical care?
oh. by the way. i studied plate tectonics at byu and loved it. Geophysics was the best class taught on that campus. perhaps my interest in that voodoo science is what killed my testimony. damn byu. damn science.
doug,
i have a bad heart too. damn thing attacked me at a very early age. so..... is that evidence of a bad adaptation? bad evolution? or bad luck? or a bad creator?
and can you please source this bad hearted poodle reference?
I'm sorry to hear that you have had heart problems, mayan elephant. I have had 2 attacks myself.
In regard poodles, I had been told that during a discussion with a couple of people breeding them. However I noted it referred to briefly in the section - The search for the perfect poodle _
"Ask about breed genetic problems such as generalized progressive retinal atrophy, an eye disease that eventually causes blindness, and congenital heart problems."
I can't put the whole referrence on the one line as it keeps chopping off the end.
http://www.poodleplayground.com
/poodlefacts/the_poodle.htm#Today
In regard bad hearts and creation. Knowing that Adam wasn't born fallen, but with a perfect body, I don't see it as a flaw of creation (if someone is to use that word relative to living things). Obviously there is change in all things since the fall initially happened. The fall was a process that took around 2400 years. Even since that time problems continue to exist because of it _ sickness, deformities, death etc.
As to the Book of Mormon and evidence, I hear all sorts of claims pro and con (again). It gets down to that old one of examination of claims relative to life. The book shows that no matter what government you have, no matter what date it is, no matter what philosophies prevail within the society, certain things will result from certain actions. I only need to examine the last century to see the Book of Mormon.
Your comments about BYU only reflect the point I've expressed: That theory science presents itself as an opposition to God, and a person must make a choice. People trying to mix the 2 will only end up confused, as they don't mix any more than water and oil. WHY? Because the doctrinal claims God presents can actually be proven by tests. The other has constant theory which can never be truly proven (again let me clarify that I am speaking of THEORY science). Thus you have the truth of God mixed with certain wrong present conclusions of man. You can try to mix them but I just see you heading more and more in the wrong direction.
Well, Mayan Heffalump and equality, etc., what if someone did empirically prove that evolution was false and impossible?
What if someone undertook empirical scientific study that actually supported the Adam and Eve account of holy writ that many seem to think is only a story??
What if the evidence given in fact was such that the only stark naked conclusion that could be drawn was that simply God had to have made things that way??
What if that was the only reasonable conclusion that would make any sense of the reality and findings at all?
We know people were wrong re Copernicus ... and even Galileo; however as I've had to write a book and report re these things, I also realize that people even of that period, and certainly, without the true context of the Gospel of Christ actually read things into scripture that were not as they were meant to be interpreted, plus, they tossed in a false sense that because Man was the most important creation of God, he would necessarily be the centre of things.
What they didn't understand was the Brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God.
In the Real world of things, the Father is not only the Head, but the centre of a child's universe.
And the Father is a HUGE figure, compared with His children, and He is also a source of Light, truth and glory.
And what is it in our solar system that most depicts this relationship symbolically? ... realizing, of course, that symbolism is rampant throughout life and the Gospel, and as I have discovered, in fact, permeates ALL creations of God!
In fact, i discovered this as I was also empirically disproving evolution and as I simultaneously discovered POWERFUL EVIDENCE SOPPORTING THE ADAM AND EVE ACCOUNT!
In other words, what I have discovered is Perhaps, the greatest [but very simple, nonetheless] scientific conclusion of all time - thus far!
Now, people, as to those who say, to the intent:
"Well, I would prefer to believe the 98% of scientists that claim evolution to be virtual fact," let me just say this to you:
It is also an established fact that 96% of the world owns only 5% of its monetary wealth!! ... this is because no matter what their degrees, experience, and other qualifications, they, simply, remain, 'the uninformed', when it comes to financial reality!
4% of people own 95% of the world's 'wealth'; but what is not so easily realized is that: likewise, real knowledge!
3 or 4% [only] of the world's 'intellectual' hold 95% of true 'knowledge wealth' that is currently known.
You can see, even by the examples of the discoveries of Copernicus and many others, the vast majority are only followers - even in academe ... they don't set the pace, and they don't find the truth; they don't know, of themselves.
As the apotle Paul said, of the latter day teachers, "They are everlearning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth".
In regard to the concept that the majority 'must' be right, consider the words of the master:
As Jesus, in effect, said, "Most of the world are sheep"
"All ye like sheep, have gone astray", I believe it was.
The real achievers in history, know that 'the vast % of people'... and, certainly, the "trained 'establishment'" are usually wrong! They don't really think for themselves; they are taught a doctrine and a philosophy of approach to matters that usually will not permit them to explore outside the square; then they feed this to others - as "experts"!
The world and history itself, is full of examples that proved the vast majority wrong!
'Couldn't be done!' they said.
Think of poor Karl Benz [Mercedes Benz fame]:
It was so bad for him that he had to get a new partner, and had to do all his experiments late at night!
My study is just another - another that proves them all wrong - well, as usual, anyway - the terrible Vast majority; but the point is that in my case it is on such a Key issue as to elevate it, technically, to "the most significant study-discovery of all time" status.
denidowi,
What was that phrase, something like- "Evolution will be come to known as the greatest hoax of the 20 century". Something like that, anyway, that was a good insight you gave about only very few have most of the knowledge of the world and the mysteries of godliness. I belive Joseph Smith was one of those guys.
I believe that it requires a certain amount of faith to believe in the bible and it's mysteries because it is not something that you just go out in your backyard and prove.
Let's put it this way, Rob.
The beauty of life is that, in actual fact, if you know what you are doing, you CAN actually go out into your garden and prove God.
In fact, it is via the wondrous garden creature - the serpent/snake that I prove that evolution is false.
It is via that same creature, or my comparative study, using it, that I prove [or build Powerful support for] the Adam and Eve account as given in holy scripture.
But that book I have written will not be released publicly til some time in February, I would think.
It shall be available on amazon.com about then.
It is being published by Xulon Press and is named, "TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE!!", by Denis Towers.
I am really too early to be promoting it yet; they tell you not to say too much til they send you your own copies, which I am not expecting for at least another 5 weeks, and maybe even 8 weeks yet.
But I'm expecting that if we make it happen right, all Hell will break loose when it does hit the decks!
But as they say, all new accomplishments begin by receiving ridicule, then disdain and criticism, then they are slowly accepted.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that the general populace will mostly love it; it will be the Powers that be that rebutt it.
Rebuttal always comes from those in Powr, as they do not want to lose their authority to a new 'upstart'!
Now, although I've said you can go out into your own garden and prove it [provided you keep a few snakes, that is], as YOU have said, it was only through an UNSHAKEABLE faith, 1ST, in the literalness of the Adam and Eve account that the Lord was able to lead me in my discovery, as I needed it for another purpose of high quality as well, and He rewarded me accordingly.
By the way, Rob, I was saying to Doug Towers before that I really caught the simple genius of your comment to Equality about the tractor and Rolls Royce being 96% like each other.
I thought that was a Magic analogy; and I must remember to use it when I eventually cop flak over my publication!
If you give me your identity, I can source it properly when I need to bring up that point, publicly!
Genes are different from car and tractor parts. So the analogy is inapt on its face. The reason chimpos and humans share 96% of their genes is that they once had a common ancestor. The 4% difference is a result of descent with modification and natural selection. But I realize I am talking with people for whom facts are stubborn things.
The basic problem I see with Rob, Doug, and now Dennis's approach to obtaining knowledge is that you think truth comes by revelation from God and then go about rying to "prove" that truth. Because God gave you the truth in the first instance, any facts which contradict that preconceived, received information will be discarded with dispatch. Scientists, on the other hand, do not start out with a preconceived truth that they believe was revealed by God. They start with the accumulated wisdom of earlier generations of honest, objective truth-seekers. But if, in experimenting and observing, they discover something amiss in the interpretation of earlier data, or they uncover additional data, they re-evaluate the evidence and change their views. In this way, scientistrs are, as you say, always learning, and in this way they come to a knowledge of truth. Basing science on stories of talking snakes and sword-wielding cherubs is, in my estimation, not a valid epistemoligcal approach.
That's "chimps" and "epistemological."
When studying another religion I learn the way they think and view scripture. Then standing in their doctrines I look to see how logical it is (ie is it sound: Does it have flaws in the thinking). It is pointless me just saying it doesn't fit with my doctrine, as that isn't the way to understand other people, or help them to see the truth. I regard science as a religion (I realise you don't). Its main basic foundation for proposing its dogmas as being superior is that it claims they can demonstrate them in a lab. My science teacher took a baloon and weighed it. Then he filled it with air. He weighed it again and its weight had increased. From this it was concluded that air had weight: A demonstrated claim. It was proposed that 2 chemicals mixed would create a rotten smell. He mixed them and was very correct.
This sort of absolute evidence is the foundation of science as surely as priesthood authority from Jesus Christ is the foundation for the existence of the church. If either deviate from these they are no longer following their own basic tenet: Their reason for existence. Both areas may have theories they are investigating and may grow in information. But neither can break their basic tenet. The church separates its known facts from its theories. Not that it has to, as its basic tenet is only priesthood authority. But science breaks its basic tenet by creating dogmas of things that can't be demonstrated. We can't go into a lab with an ape and turn it into a person. Thus their claims about evolution being scientific are an hypocrisy by their own standards.
I'm still left looking at a pile of people with "demonstrated" conclusions that they expect me to just believe in spite of the almost endless list of mistakes they have made from false, "demonstrated" conclusions previously. It requires me to have a faith in them that you have. I can't share your faith in this, regardless of what else I believe.
As this subject has become firmly implanted in evolution and some people are coming to the site and aren't aware of the topic being evolution I have moved it on to the next post.
Post a Comment