mormonsandscience

I'm going to guess that the future is going to be set up so that only "science" is taught in science classes and religion and philosophy in religion and philosophy classes.

Now what do I mean by "science". I mean only theories that have predictive power and are falsifiable.

Though anti-ID people often seem to focus on attacking religion and creationism, the real argument that is going to win is this one.

The power behind "scientific" theories is that if someone makes a false claim, if it is a scientific theory you can disprove it. This keeps you protected from error.

Also, if it is a "scientific" theory, you can make definite predictions with it. Example: we are really benefited because quantum mechanics predicted semiconductors and we went out, found them and have computers because of it. Predictive power is a very helpful thing.

However, ID will always be able to be taught in religion and or philosophy classes. Though you can't falsify God is behind the scenes, nor can you (as far as I am aware) predict distinct physical things from ID, ID still has value...just not being labeled a a "scientific" theory. Hence the compromise will be, only science in science classes and everything else in religion/philosophy classes.

This also solves the problem of "what do you do with everyone believing different religions?"

Joseph is right, the scale is tipped to favor science in this case. In order for ID to have a level playing field, science itself will need to be redefined so that "Then a miracle happened" is accepted to explain phenomena. I think it is understandable why the scientific community, in their arrogance and pride, don't want to go there.

There is quite a bit of misinformation out there regarding Intelligent Design.

First off, ID is not religion cloaked as a science. ID does not require the teaching of God or how one would worship that God- that is religion.

ID is a theory of explaining the complexity of life and that the mechanism behind this complexity is an intelligence- that intelligent design is incorporated in the fundamental building blocks of life. So in reality you have two differing sides-

1. Evolution in explaining how life arose from random chance

and-

2. ID in explaining that life is incapable of arising out of mere randomness- that life arose from an intelligent process involving planned intelligent designs.

The upper hand here of coarse goes to ID because intelligence can be documented to large degrees in the complexity of organs on a biological level. Cells communicate with other cells, replicate themselves in a highly ordered and intelligent manner, etc. What we do not see however is how randomness controls this delicate balance.

As science technology gets more and more sophisticated we find that the inner workings of life are so incredibly complex and "intelligent" that it happening on its own from some random set of events is nearly completely if not totally impossible.

S.Faux,

Evolutionary change over time is only a documented event within a species, not from one species to another. That is called variation within species. Kind of like different breeds of dogs, frogs, horses, etc. There is no documentation or evidence that is proven of evolution changing a line of species ovber time into a new and different species.

You are confused about ID. ID is a premise based entirely upon falsifying macro-evolution on one hand and then providing a better theory for the origination and perpetuation of life. The principle foundation of ID is in the study of microbiology and its findings in the complexity of biological material. Much of ID research is in trying to understand the mechanism of life- how it works. What ID is not about is looking for the designer- whoever or whatever it may be.

Rob Osborn,

The fossil record is the GREAT document of evolution. Species are systematically arranged within it. The Intelligent Designer was NOT very creative, since species were "originated" as if taken from specific genealogies. An Intelligent Designer could have given us a hint by skipping orders within the phylogeny, but that never happened.

Evolution is documented in a second great way: DNA sequencing, which again is systematic and orderly.

How proposers of ID can get around the fossil record and DNA sequences is just beyond me.

Of course, stories can be made up. You probably would not believe me if I proposed that there are elves in my piano that watch what keys I press. When I press a certain key on the keyboard, they strike a hammer against the proper cord to produce a sound. Those elves work pretty hard when I play some rock n' roll.

Sorry, ID strikes me as being no better than a story with elves.

Naturalistic explanations with parsimony are probably the best, after all is said and done.

I agree with Rob. To suggest that belief in evolution is akin to acceptance of gravity is absurd. Almost everyone accepts gravity, and that is because it is an observable phenomenon in everyday life. As to evolution, most members of the Church, and most Americans for that matter, reject it. That is at least partly because macroevolution is not observable and must be believed in. Attempts to demonstrate it are fruitless, with its adherents only being able to ever cite examples of microevolution, or inescapably subjective evidence like fossils or homologous anatomy.
I think the complaint that IDers/Creationists do not publish in more established peer-reviewed journals is also an invalid argument. Does anyone seriously think the editors of such journals, who are evolutionists, would allow that kind of subject matter to be printed in them? There is an elitist attitude surrounding the scientific establishment, and it shows in their comments regarding ID/Creation. They unofficially but unequivocally disallow ID/Creation in their science journals, then they turn around and criticize them for not publishing in the said journals.
I find it interesting that an LDS evolutionist, when commenting on a blog, almost always feels compelled to qualify that they are an "active" member of the Church. Why should they have to do that, if evolution is so in line with the gospel, like almost all of them claim? If evolutionists in the Church feel like they are on the outside, it is because many of them clearly have stronger belief in Darwinism than in the scriptures. They seem content to bend and twist any and every part of the gospel or scriptures they need to, but one thing always remains undeviating and steadfast for them - their adherence to Darwinism. Normal members of the Church have that circumstance the other way around. Also, LDS evolutionists will find it hard to have the rest of the membership of the Church want to fellowship them when they are continually having their intelligence insulted for not believing in their theory.
As for the so-called fossil record:

"Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together in Turkmenia and in Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian and Precambrian rocks – rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years. Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footfprints in Virginia.
"…Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary timescale." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 7th ed., p. 11)

And for the Geologic Column:

"Practically nowhere on earth can one find the so-called 'geologic column.' At most places on the continents, over half the 'geologic periods' are missing. Only 15-20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, more than 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 7th ed., p. 29)

I would also agree with Ryan. There are actual scientists with real degrees that can't get their work published in peer reviewed material because of the eliteism in the scientific world. Evolutionary science has a lot of sway power- they have the backing of the ACLU, PBS, NGC, NCSE, not to mention most if not all Ivy league colleges.

Convincing the world of the actual validity of ID has a definite set of heirarchy ramifications it must pass through before it streams to the public, especially at the public funded grade school level. The reality of it is that Intelligent design has actually been proven scientifically- that there is a design and intelligent agent involved in the replication and sustainability of life. I am not saying that Scientists have found God- that is not what ID is about.

Evolutionary scientists are careful to avoid certain words like "intelligence" and "design" in discussing the inner workings of the cell even though they know that the principle foundation of a working cell is its unique ability to work in a reliable, pre-planned intelligent manner where "design" is the process of building new parts and sustaining already built parts.

Even though Evolutionary scientists will tell us that cells are way more complicated than the worlds most sophisticated computers, they refuse to aknowledge the "intelligence factor" as part of the cells unique design.

In fact, biological science cannot get around the fact that all life is intelligent. DNA- the foundational chemical chain is in and of itself the map for how intelligent life operates and replicates- its a master blueprint. But, without some intelligent other process, the code means absolutley nothing! We thus know through scientific study that an "intelligent" process makes life possible, of which without, no life would replicate or even exist.

Its one thing to have a code that numbers in the billions, but it is an entirely crazy phenomenon that there exists in biological material intelligent agents that can read and interpret this code to near perfection and thn be smart enough to continue to recreate the code over and over for future code readers.

Randomness, unintelligent, I hardly think so!

Ryan:

However, it is my understanding that the human brain has not really changed for, at least, 4,000 + years.
And considering that George Washington and the Pharoes of Egypt, both traveled to their palaces in the same manner and had ,virtually, the same plumbing facilities, - that there was no need for the human brain to change in any substantial way.
It is only in the last 150 years that this tech explosion has taken place, with the last 60 years, accelerating very fast.
Also, at least half, or more, of the human race are, just now catching up with the first half.

Is there any physical evidence, that in the last 100 years, that the human brain is changing - to a degree that a "new" human species is now in the making?

There have been some recent experiments where humans are "hooked up" and can control a computor with their mind. And it only makes sense, that if you reverse this process, that the "super - duper" computor will control the mind, - then we will be on the verge of living a "borg" like existance, until such time when the human brain, makes that "jump".
However, by that time, the "jump", simply will not be enough and we can never catch up.
Thus we are doomed.
Unless human evolution - is not true.

Dave C:

Just one more thing: Your essay quotes a source as claiming that natural selection is an "undirected process." Natural selection is anything but "undirected." It is a directed process (albeit, by the environment). Organisms are a nonrandom collection of cells. There is little random about organisms. The scientific study of evolution is the study of how "design" is extracted from the environment.

One could loosely say "God created the world and then stepped away." Why? Because the "world" contained all the information necessary for life to become a reality. Why would God intervene when intervention is NOT necessary?

Thanks for letting me argue on your wonderful site.

Rob-

I'm glad you brought up language. What a fascinating topic!. Some of the reading I've done recently makes me wish I had studied linguistics, a topic I would have thought to be boring before. Jared Diamond discusses language development and its evolution in studying human development and migration. In the book I am currently reading by Jared, 'The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal', I wouldn't expect a hard core ID/Creationist to be open minded enough to read this book, but the chapter on language development is really amazing. Mr. Diamond also talks about language as is relates to human migration in 'Guns Germs and Steel' He talks about the migration of Polynesians island hoping across the Pacific and how this migration can be traced using linguistics. I know there is nothing I can say to refute your belief that linguistics proves ID, but I'd like to think that you are open minded enough to do some reading on the topic.

I guess I didn't really address any language/evolution relationship. I think it is interesting to see some parallels in the two.

To be specific though, Jared Diamond's book does attribute the "great leap forward" to the development of human language. Sometime about 30,000 years ago humans went from very crude tools and no art to more sophisticated tools and beautiful cave art in a relatively short period of time. This is referred to as the great leap forward and, according to Jared, was due to the development of sophisticated communication which allowed more cooperation in hunting and such. Evolution provided a more functional larynx allowing a broader range of sound at some point in time before that.

Jared also talks about the long extinct Proto Endo European language (PIE) from which Latin, Germanic and many other European languages were derived. He talks about linguistic studies that look at the surviving languages derived from PIE and piecing together several hundred root words from that language. Using those techniques they have developed a theory of when and where that language came from. I would have never thought it possible to use language like an archaeological tool. It is a theory but with a fair chunk of good science behind it. Of course there are other theories too and I don't know that there is a solid consensus. Jared attributes the spread and success of PIE to the domestication of the horse, which allowed those people to spread their language and culture through advanced warfare. (nobody else had horses)

He also talks about communication in other species. I guess if you buy into the fact of common decent, then human language has come a long way from grunts and screeches.

More to your point, however, is that human language has consolidated in the past several hundred years and many languages are being lost as a result. So rather than becoming more fragmented, language is consolidating. That doesn't make it better, however. When humans lived in more isolated groups, their language was much more diverse. In New Guinea, isolated tribes in neighboring valleys had very different languages that weren't even related! Dominant language is not determined by its quality but by the quality of warfare by its speakers. Language development has a life of its own and does not follow an optimal and efficient path, just like evolution. Maybe 50 years from now we'll all be speaking a "phone text" language. lol! Oh, which reminds me of the whole pidgin/creole discussion on language development, but I've rambled enough.

Dave-

Here is P.Z. Myers take on that paper. Would you expect anything less abrasive from him? =:)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/dembski_does_it_again.php

S.Faux -

A clarification just so that I am not misunderstood. God does not initiate evil. In the scriptures, we are given to understand that it was not God who directly "sicced" disease, etc. on mankind. But it was man himself, through transgression, who set the forces in motion that made the unpleasantness of the earth operative. Enoch said, "Because that Adam fell...we are made partakers of misery and woe" (Moses 6:48).
Mormonism answers the problem of evil just fine, without the aid of Darwin.

Stan,

Ryan has immersed himself in YECism, as shown here:

http://loyaltotheword.synthasite.com/mans-true-origin.php

His views on mainstream science are entirely understandable, given his sources.

S.Faux,


You say that ID does not meet a scientific standard. I would like to debate that for a moment because as a believer in ID I see things a bit differently. First off, I do not believe in make believe or magical or even supernatural science. For me its all in the "evidence". This is also where the science of Intelligent Design sits. ID scientists are not trying to prove what or who the Designer is, they may haver their own ideas on the subject but their scientific research- the part that actually is testable, is done in conducting fact finding missions and tests in biology.

Lets say for instance that ID scientists are looking for signs of intelligence in cells. There are literally thousands of experiments and observations they can do conducting testable theories to test how intelligence works inside of a cell- how they communicate, what language they communicate with, how systematic the processes are, etc.

Remember- ID scientists are looking for the element of "intelligence" and "design" in their studies. The study of DNA has revealed both the element of intelligence and design in its layout and workings. Evolutionists have a hard pill to swallow trying to compose a theory that would account for the complexity of DNA and how it originated from purely natural random processes. The element of intelligence is so astronomically high in the complete DNA of a living organism that it is impossible not to aknowledge that it represents something far more complex than anything mankind has ever invented or dreamed of creating in the lab let alone waiting around observing ponds for this process to happen from scratch!

Evolutionary science always falls back on millions of years as their main support. it has become their scientific standard. Although, I hardly think there is anything scientific about claiming millions of years while chance keeps playing out over and over again until life magically evolves. Evolutionary science has a lot to answer for in the study of lifes origins, especially that in the "intelligent" origins. Exactly how does "intelligence" arise from randomness? How does the Human DNA genome get 3 billion letters long creating a highly sophisticated language that we as its holders cannot even properly decipher? And yet we have these millions of proteins in our body just go about doing their business day in and day out completeing literally billions of tasks in a harmonized intelligent order- they know exactly how to read the DNA, what to build, how to regulate it all, etc. ID science is the study of those intelligent processes. Id science does not claim "magical" millions of years coupled with random chance and mutations to achieve intelligence. Id science looks at the obvious- If something portrays intelligence it must have a design element within it. If it has a design element, then it must have intent. If it has intent, then there is obviously purpose in life- that it is not just random nature dishing out intelligent things.

It is true that ID in its principle study leads directly into the realms of philosophy and religion because at some point there has to be a general intelligent cause that is at the beginning of how intelligence came about. Nature does not produce intelligence merely on it's own- it has never been documented, all tests always show intelligence only coming from an intelligent cause before it.

Evolutionary science on the other hand must rely on magic, mathematical odds of absurdity, and then slam on millions or billions of years for it all to randomly play out. There is no science in that!

Stan,

I would hardly think it is a hacked up spaghetti code. It is a highly sophisticated code that we still have yet to fully decipher. Just because good knowledgable scientists can't quite crack the code doesn't mean that it is mostly useless. That is a fault of science. They assume too much. it reminds me of when they use to think there were like 100 organs that were useless. Now that number is like near to zero.

If you say that our DNA is so screwed up and not intelligent then what are you that your DNA created? Are you not intelligent? I will leave that to you to figure out. I hope you will conclude that you are intelligent and that because of your DNA that intelligence inside you can exist.

Stan,

What I am stating is that the evidence points to intelligent design and not to random mutative processes. Evolutionary science would have us believe that DNA arised out of a chance encounter. If this is true, then we should be able to simulate the process and write a computer program that would randomly create a program for the direction, building, and replication of life. Of coarse many a math genius and science prodigies have but to no avail. Codes and languages do not arise from random chance encounters.

So, scientists instead say that perhaps the code was written a few letters at a time and then over the coarse of millions of years it evolved and developed into the complex code as seen today. Let me tell you this much because it is so true- "It is all conjecture", there is no scientific proof that the DNA evolved from simple to complex- there is no viable hypothesis for this event. The ramifications are monumental. What science is basically saying is that order comes from disorder- that intelligence is born from chance encounters with nature. The laws of nature state that a dumb rock will always remain a dumb rock no matter what natural effects in the environment play on the rock. Nature does not turn random lifeless rocks into thinking intelligent entities capable of creating and understanding or self awareness.

All things denote there is a God. DNA should be the exclamation to that saying!

Except for the fact that it took an intelligent designer to write the program with will and intent to reach the desired outcome.

All you created was a filter that is set to a preconceived design parameter. it would be more like true evolution (supposing it really exists) to create a program that creates its own language and then with that language it creates something useful encoding the program itself intot he material it makes- that would be novel, and yet we both know that without an intelligent designer behind it all it will never ever happen.

S.Faux -
"I am NOT arguing for atheism. I am NO atheist."

I did not call you an atheist. I said that you employed an argument that is commonly used by atheists, and that it is unbecoming of an intelligent member of the Church such as yourself.

"I am, however, a disbeliever in magic."

I would be careful here S.Faux, and I mean this in the nicest way possible. I would take care not to belittle supernatural things as "magic." If you want to be in this religion you cannot divorce yourself from the supernatural (or the seemingly supernatural). The Atonement, and revelation, for instance - the very foundations of our religion - are supernatural occurences which cannot be reduced to the paradigm of Darwinism.

Stan -
"say that due to legislative action by religious activists (it's not going to happen any other way) evolution is displaced in our science classes by Intelligent Design. Tell us what would be taught in ID-ology 101?"

I don't think it is wise to make any legislation regarding a school curriculum and origins. I don't think it is right to simply tell the kids what they should believe - either evolution or ID. I would like to see in the classroom an open and honest discussion without fear about origins and in light of all the known facts, and encourage the kids to actively and openly discuss the issue, and come to their own convictions.
But suppose that your hypothetical scenerio comes to pass (heaven forbid it does), I suppose the teacher could focus on facts relating to the purposes, functions, and interactions of body structures rather than talk about might-have-happened stories about how they ultimately came to be; maybe talk about the obvious intelligence put into the design (if it is, after all, "ID-ology 101" class). There is no doubt a lifetime worth of science to study from the topics just mentioned - and no need to come up with hypothetical scenerios about how they might have been made, because there is no way to be certain about that anyway.

Ryan-

I've poked around your website and now I know better where you are coming from. Knowing you are a literalist loon who has written off most of the scientific fields of study as "not being in harmony" tells me a reasonable discussion with you about science simply isn't in harmony with anything. And your scolding of Mr. Faux above makes me feel icky all over. Have fun flying back to Kolob.

Rob-

Seriously, pick up some books on evolution. Look at the evidence. Read 'Why Evolution Is True', also 'Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters' After reading those two books you can believe ID and I will respect you for having an open mind and not being afraid to re-assess your belief and look at opposing views head on.

Last response to Ryan:

I do NOT believe that arguing as an "orthodox evolutionist," which I am, is behavior "unbecoming" to a member of the Church. There are many LDS evolutionists running around, and the ones I know are all firm in their testimonies of the Church. (By the way, the virus example I used above is one I got from my evolutionist/microbiologist Stake President).

The good news is that we are all believers. Belief in Christ is infinitely more important than belief in Darwin. So, in reality I don't care what members of the Church believe about evolution.

I merely hope that I can remain a member in good standing while at the same time being a firm evolutionist. I certainly intend to be.

No, I don't believe in magic, but I certainly believe in the Atonement and the Resurrection. However, I feel NO need to conceptualize those processes as magic. Admittedly, I have a feeble understanding of the Atonement and the Resurrection, but I also feel confident that when my understanding deepens, perhaps in the afterlife, I will understand those wonderful processes as being very naturalistic. So, sorry, I reject the supernatural, but that in NO way is a rejection of the gospel. In fact, I think that the LDS conception of God is far more scientific than standard non-LDS views.

OK, sorry, I no longer want to engage in this battle royale. The debate is getting too close to name-calling for my taste. Bye for now.

Rob,
Your statement early on, discussing different "breeds...of frogs," makes me wonder if the "evolutionary material" you have read is any good.
According to Wikipedia, diversity of frogs is not shown in breeds, but in the number of suborders, families, and so forth, making up a total of almost 5000 individual species.
So, my question is, did all of these species evolve from a common ancestor? Or was each species created individually? Where exactly do you draw the line between "God did it" and "evolution did it"?
One thing I've noticed is that many of the most ardent anti-evolutionists know next-to-nothing about animal classification, and do not understand the concept of species. I'm not sure a rational discussion about evolution is possible unless the concept of what a species is is understood by all parties in the discussion.

Too many comments for me to read them all so I hope I am not repetitive. Many posts are very interesting. I have enjoyed the topic of evolution for many years. Over the years I have learned that even scientists are human and they have their own agendas. Not all of them are seekers of truth and many of us are led into false beliefs.

For me there are way too many missing links to demonstrate or prove that evolution went from species to species. Also, many "evolutionist" confuse evolution with natural selection, even the author.

And then there is death. To me that kills the idea of evolution. And what I mean by death is "old age". To me that is completely contradictory to the purpose of evolution and ironically is in perfect harmony to the purpose of life.