Born to run

[Paul Petersen]

Sasha, please read this link and tell me what you think of it. I thought it was interesting.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#age

[Cheryl Keith]

I'm not Sasha, but I read it and found it very interesting.  Another interesting read is Evolution and Mormonisim, a Quest for Understanding, by Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum.  It attempts to reconcile Mormon doctrine with evolution and does quite a good job, as did this article.

[Sasha Pachev]

As the article states, the Church takes on position when it comes to the fine details of how exactly the Earth was created.

As far as my opinion is concerned - God is not a lamer. If the Earth was created like what the science of today says, that makes him quite a lamer. I do not see His fingerprint in the way modern theories describe the process. There has to be more creative beauty and power. What I see in the theories of today is a mere reflection of man's ineptitude. Not a surprise - in order to produce a "scientific" explanation of the Creation you have to reject the Creator, or you are not scientific otherwise. Now that you've cut the branch you were sitting on your rear end is headed straight for the ground.

I have never seen God's light in full brightness, but I have seen a measure of brightness, enough that when that brightness is reduced or absent I notice it, I feel empty. Those experiences lead me to believe that
Creation happened in a way that is so magnificent and so beyond the ability of a spiritually unprepared man to grasp that when he tries to reason about it he cannot help but make a fool of himself.

Anybody who wants to reason scientifically about  the Creation needs to be prepared to deal with some very hard questions. One of them is what were the laws of nature before the Fall. Was time the same as it is now? Was the atom built the same way? Did the processes we observe today happen the same way they did back then? The answer to those questions most likely is no, and if that is the case further research becomes impossible.   We would have to wait for God to reveal to us those laws. But we would have to be humble to receive it. If we keep throwing supposedly 5 million year old rocks in His face bragging that we do not need Him anymore because we are too smart, we will get nothing except our own foolishness that we think is wisdom.

[Paul Petersen]

I disagree completely that an ancient earth implies that God is a "lamer". Quite the opposite. Personally, I think 4.6 billion years magnifies God's glory, infinity, design, and plan, and His fingerprints are all over every iota of the 4.6 billion years the earth has been around. It's an exciting time to be on Planet Earth.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I have never convinced you of anything...ever. That would truly be a miracle. 

[Cheryl Keith]

Sasha--I probably shouldn't get involved in this, but you are willing to reject some very established scientific facts because you think it makes God a "lamer?"  A quote from the book I cited earlier:  "In April 1910, in their official columns in the church magazine, the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith was the prophet at the time). . . identified three possible options for the origin of the human body, listing evolution by natural processes. . . through the direction and power of God as one acceptable view."  If they could see evolution as an acceptable view, and which seems to be supported by a lot of evidence, why can't we?

[Jeff Linger]

The history of the separation of church and science is one of those stories based in arrogance, misunderstanding, and control ... sadly, primarily on the part of the church. It is also based on failed understandings of biblical intent. The imposition that the biblical account of creation become not only an explanation, but an alternative to the incorrect scientific explanation is simply a botched attempt at understanding the bible both within as well as outside of its historical context. This imposition is a direct result of the dabacle that science and the church entered into. The biblical account is not, and was not intended to be, a scientific, detailed explanation of creation and such an understanding of that account is a direct result of the ancient disagreement the church had over a group of thinkers who imposed a threat to their control. The scientific explanations and biblical accounts are not mutually exclusive .... it is not a case of you are either for us or against us. The two accounts can work together if each side is understood to be what it is. To say that the biblical intent is to give a scientific and detailed analysis of the unfolding of the creative act is much akin to saying that Jack Daniel's Marathon Training book was written to explain the exact manner in which a marathon must be run without exception and that his book covered all angles .... I know, I know ... one will argue that the analogy falls short when trying to compare a marathoning book to a sacred text ... but if you step back and look at the analogy within the context of the discussion, I think one will find that the analogy not only does not fall short, but is further helpful in understanding the age old debate at its core. Of course, to understand this requires that the assumption that the bible explains all aspects of the creative process be called into question. Simply put, one can look at scientific analysis as a detailed explanation that can fit within the broader and less complex parameters of the biblical account.

[Sasha Pachev]

Paul:

I think it is lame to watch the earth for 4 billion years and wait for the creation to happen at snail's pace when you can do it much quicker. However, the discussion is rather pointless since prior to the Fall the idea of time was most likely quite different. Meaning time did not go like it does today. Even lamer - create the Earth exactly like the scientists with more ambition than knowledge, and not a whole lot of faith would imagine you did by analyzing a few artifacts left over. Why is that really lame?  One of the methods they use to estimate a chess player's rating is to see how well he can predict moves in a grandmaster game. Guess what - a mediocre chess player almost inevitably will predict all of the moves wrong, while another grandmaster will get all of them right. The grandmaster will see that out of many moves in a certain position that would appear acceptable to your average player only one, likely excluded by most lower level players, only that one move was a reasonable response, anything else would have lost the game. My assertion is that the scientists of today are not able to predict God's moves in the area of creation for some very fundamental reasons similar to why your average player has a hard time predicting grandmaster moves.

Cheryl:

There are not that many truly well established scientific facts. Not as many as people think. E.g. if you have three points in space, then you would hope that if the distances between them along a straight line are a, b, and c, and the angle between a and b is theta, then c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2*a*b*cos(theta). In geometry this works perfect in R^3 space, and in practice this is also true for everything we have been able to measure directly, or in other words, small distances. This is one of the best known scientific facts, as certain as if you dropped something it would fall down, that level of confidence.  But when moving to larger distances, who knows, there might be a surprise. We already get a surprise when particles start moving at near speed of light. We get a lot of surprises when we try to observe very small particles. Life is full of surprises.

Very often scientific laws discovered in one range become completely useless when the range is significantly increased or decreased. Unfortunately we are often not able to understand the limitations of the laws we discover until we run into an actual glaring experimental error. It is a human nature to over-extrapolate. We want to feel like we know and understand more than we actually do.

My rule - if you do not understand the science behind it, do not call it a well-established scientific fact.

[Paul Petersen]

Sasha, you are just too impatient. Sometimes things are better when done slower. Join the slow food movement. Accept the antiquity of Earth. I command you.

[Jon Allen]

Paul got a new avatar!  And I found that link of yours very interesting.

I have to laugh at you guys arguing/discussing this.  Do we know for sure?  I don't think so.  Does it really matter?  I don't think so.  I'm sure everyone has some truth in their views.  But all that really matters is how you live and how fast you run 
 

[Cheryl Keith]

Sasha--very interesting points, but I don't feel you answered my question.  If the church's official position is that it is possible that life was created by evolutionary methods, why do you totally discount it?  Bruce McConkie said in the Mortal Messiah that he thought the earth was perhaps 2.5 billion years old.  Does he see God as lame?

By the way, do you accept as scientific fact that the earth is not the center of the universe?  If so, I find it lame that God would put his great creation off in some corner of the universe.  Why didn't He make His glorious creation the center of His universe and have everything revolve around it?


All I'm saying is it's possible the scientists are right, and if so, to label God lame for creating it that way, I think is limiting and discounting God's power.

[James Moore]

Sasha I like your analogy with the Chess players. It is true that we can only discover so much about the universe with our limited intellect. I am an atheist, but I cannot there are certain things that simply escape my comprehension: Why are there 3 dimensions? If God created the Universe, who created God, himself? If God didn't create the Universe and it all came from a singlarity 15 billion years ago, then how did that singularity get there? What happened before that? How can something be said to happen before the creation of time? Where is the seat of human consciousness? You know...unanswerable questions....

You can tear everything down and say that almost all scientific "facts" only have a 99.9999% probability of being true and even then can't be extended beyond the specific experiments that were used to prove them. With that kind of attitude, its difficult to get very far. Even your
example with the Pythagorean theorem isn't true universally (although you can define exact mathematical conditions when it is true). My view is that everything we know and I mean EVERYTHING is just a model of a true reality that we could never understand. Is the model true? Not in every case. What makes a good model is its ability to make accurate and useful
predictions in a well defined area of experience. Quantum physics is an excellent model of subatomic interactions. That's an obvious model. Any system of ethics or morals is also a model. Each rule can't be applied in every circumstance perfectly, but it gives a good approximation of what the correct course of action is.  Modern scientific views on the creation of the world THOUGH THEY MAY BE TOTALLY WRONG still provide useful models that help us understand how the world around us works today, with undeniably successful results.

There is another aspect, too. We are curious people. We all want to understand how the universe works. I personally view it as a cop out to simply stop and say "God did it". I guess I agree with those who say that delving into physical nature of the universe gives one a much greater appreciation for its majesty.

[Nathan Bundy]

There is another aspect, too. We are curious people. We all want to understand how the universe works. I personally view it as a cop out to simply stop and say "God did it". I guess I agree with those who say that delving into physical nature of the universe gives one a much greater appreciation for its majesty.

I beileive in God but I beleive that God follows the same scientific methods that we "discover" (plus a few more that we have yet to discover). God is the ultimate scientist so I don't simply say "God did it" and leave it at that. I gain greater appreciation for the majesty of the earth and God's creations by realizing just how much detail he was willing to put into it and learning all I can to get even a small glimpse of how that was accomplished.

I amazed at our bodies and even the simplest thing like breaking down food and and creating energy to live and keep our hearts pumping. It makes me feel very good to know that we didn't just evolve here by chance but that someone actually created me for a purpose.

[Sasha Pachev]

James - as you said a model of reality is any good if and only if it correctly predicts what is going to happen. Even then it might not be that good. Niels Bohr, I believe, at one point said that out of a continuum of idiotic theories there will always be one that will correctly predict experimental results. Anybody who was ever involved in anything computational where you had to figure out a law from the numbers can appreciate the depth  of the above.

One example - suppose the true pattern is y = sin(x). You guess y = x-x^3/6+x^5/120-x^7/5040. Your range is limited enough that for everything you can measure your guess is right on. It will take another 1000 years before mankind has the opportunity to measure far enough out of the range to be prove you wrong. Now your obviously idiotic  theory has become a scientific fact for the next 1000 years.

Cheryl - the Church does not require its members to believe in evolution. So I do not. I have never seen enough scientific rigor behind the arguments for it. Science aside, I do not believe it does man much good to reason about Creation while being prohibited for fear of being mocked as "unscientific" to mention the Creator.

I agree with Jon to a point. Who can say he really knows? And, to a certain extent, who cares? If we recognize the hand of the Creator and are humble before Him, that is all that matters. I think that is why the Church takes position of neutrality.

[Paul Petersen]

And, to a certain extent, who cares? If we recognize the hand of the Creator and are humble before Him, that is all that matters.

I can agree with that.

[Cheryl Keith]

I can agree with that also.  Maybe Henry Eyring, a prominent Mormon scientist, and if I'm not mistaken, the father of the current apostle, said it best:

"Questions involving pre-Adamic man, organic evolution. . . are interesting and important questions.  They will all receive adequate answers in accord with the truth in due course.  Whatever the ultimate answers are, the gospel will remain . . . the truth of the gospel does not hinge on such questions, interesting as they are." 

He also stated:

"Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability . . . The physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable . . .  It would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas . . .  That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children . . . will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies."


As quoted in Evolution and Mormonism