As a science educator I was astonished by a recent article in the journal Science (Jan. 28, 2011, vol. 331, p. 404-405) entitled: "Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom." The article reports the results from a survey of 926 U.S. public high school biology teachers on whether or not they incorporated evolutionary science into their classes. The results were as follows: 13% of teachers actively taught creationism; 60% of teachers taught neither evolution or creationism; and only 28% of teachers actively taught evolutionary science. Is this a sorry state of affairs?
To me, the results are very depressing. Evolution has won science, but it has lost the battle for public education.
Do we want high school physics teachers telling our students that the sun revolves around the earth? Do we want to proclaim that the earth is the center of our galaxy and of our universe? Of course, not. Worse, do we want teachers to fail to teach about the stars, altogether? No.
But, along comes evolutionary science and its frightening claims… . Now, suddenly the public is content with natural history either being taught wrong or not discussed at all.
Should "special creation" be taught along side Darwinism in the public school system? Answer: NOT AS SCIENCE. The claim that each species has been individually designed has been falsified too many times to count.
Evolution is frightening because it seems to take humans out of the center of the universe. Some would proclaim that it devalues humanity by equating them with primates. But, we are primates and we are still valuable!!
Evolutionary science should be taught, even to young children, in my opinion. But, it need NOT be taught in a manner that subtracts from human value.
One does NOT need religion to conclude that humans are NOT mere reproduction machines.
Humanity has real value. It is worth sacrifice to be a doctor or a nurse in order to assist the ill. It is worth being a lawyer to defend the underprivileged. It is worth finding ways to serve others, because humans are extraordinarily valuable.
Evolutionary science connects humans to all of God's creations. We are part of life. As intelligent beings we have responsibilities to take care of the earth, to insure its sustainability.
Evolutionary science should NOT be taught in a manner that diminishes religion, morality, or the existence of God. In reality, science (even evolutionary science) can ONLY be neutral to such topics.
If the United States is to rise in its educational standing in the world, it must teach the BEST science, not a watered down version. Evolution, as the grand synthesis, must be part of the educational package.
I am sympathetic (to a point) to those Latter-day Saints who find significant tensions between their scriptures and scientific claims. To me, faith matters MORE than science. Science is NOT an adequate substitute for biblical understanding.
Having made that claim, however, the Latter-day Saint religion believes in progress – even scientific progress. We always have been a religious institution that has adapted to improvements in understanding.
We are a strong Church, and the solid claims of science need NOT become battering rams at our chapel doors. Thus, we should become thinking Mormons who are inspired to wonder how all things fit together. God does not lie, and neither does nature. Somewhere in the mix are the grounds for compatibility.
In the meantime, for the sake of progress, let us allow biology teachers to teach the established facts of evolution without shame or concern. As upholders of truth, let the chips fall where they may.
Copyright © 2011 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
52 comments:
Fine thoughts -- certainly evolution should be incorporated in the science curriculum at the high school and college level. To do less is to shortchange the students.
I wouldn't say it should be incorporated into the Sunday School curriculum, but at least overt anti-evolutionary rhetoric ought to be removed from the manuals and magazines. Correlation is pretty good at monitoring what gets published, so this could be done if the leadership supported it.
The comparisons with teaching astronomy are not quite right. Evolution has a place in biology more like that of cosmology in astronomy, not that of orbital mechanics. In a high school curriculum there should be a bit of evolution and cosmology, but not much. The students at that level need more context to place such ideas in, which they will get from all the other weeks of learning about organisms or celestial bodies. Even astronomy as a whole is a small part of a high school physics class. I remember the month or less we spent on Kepler's laws and using observational data to plot Mars' orbit. A couple periods spent on atomic spectra, standard candles, and redshift would be about enough and all there would be time for at that stage. Going beyond that to consideration of cosmic microwave radiation, inflation, ratios of photons and baryons, and such things would be too much and not meaningful at that stage.
John Mansfield:
We simply disagree about the appropriateness of my analogy. Does evolutionary science have the same status as orbital mechanics? My answer is yes. The factual bases of evolution has extensive published scientific documentation, perhaps even more than orbital mechanics. (But, I will admit I read more evolution articles than astronomy). The facts of evolution are not speculation, and they certainly have a higher status than certain tentative cosmological ideas.
"Evolutionary science should NOT be taught in a manner that diminishes religion, morality, or the existence of God. "
This is why people like Dawkins are idiots. Constantly being in the public eye proclaiming evolution implies there is no God (which is doesn't and so he is an idiot on a few levels) doesn't exactly turn the public into cheerleaders for evolution being taught to their kids.
The day the public honestly feels evolution is not a threat to their religion is the day they won't try to stop it being taught in their schools. But instead of alleviating her fears the most public men in biology spend all their time strengthening them.
Mr. Faux, we seem to be talking past one another. My thoughts on high school science teaching are not related to some concern over a lack of truth or rigor in any scientific principle. I think evolution should be taught in high school biology, but I wouldn't spend more than a week on it. Evolution matters because there is life—not the other way around. High school students have their hands full learning what organisms are; without that knowledge, evolution is more philosophy than science. An educated nonbiologist's store of knowledge should run a lot broader than just knowing organisms evolve, but that seems to be 80% of what many people know or think significant about living matter.
Why do we fear evolution? Let me rephrase it to mean what is really at stake here-
Why do we fear replacing the Creator with Godless causation?
People fear evolution because it seeks to destroy the basic fundamental beliefs of their religious being. Lets be honest here- No evolutionary class allows for a Designer or Creator in explaining life and its (ultimately our) origins. Evolution is taught or understood in entirely and purely natural terms void of any God whatsoever.
I have asked a few LDS evolutionists where exactly the Creator fits into why life exists. You know what- None of them- let me repeat- None of them, allow the Creator any physical role in the placement or cause for intelligent life. Now why is that? It is because of the fact that if they do allow the Creator in, then they are really in the Intelligent Design camp after all.
This is the very reason on why evolution is atheistic. It has become a political battle to remove God from explaining our existance. This is why Americans continually refuse a scientific theory that removes God from their understanding.
Tell you what- come up with an evolutionary model that allows an intelligent designer into the makeup and you may not have to ask these silly questions. But, if you guys keep intentionally trying to remove God from our existance- on why we are here then you will never get anywhere. Americans are not stupid. We know that there is an intelligent designer behind it all and we won't be demonized into believing we are the mere end product of chance in a godless universe!
Rob Osborn
"Why do we fear replacing the Creator with Godless causation?"
This is one of the few times I will be happy with a comment by Rob. *Not* in the sense that I believe evolution is "Godless causation" but because he is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Somehow scientists have seemed to have failed (and Rob is an example of this) to demonstrate that this is not the case. (In a way that is convincing.)
Even though evolution does not imply godlessness, it has been my experience that people in the public think evolution does imply godlessness.
And to make matters worse prominent scientists, who are trying to put forward there personal opinions as if they were somehow scientific, will tell the world evolution implies godlessness so until scientists are willing to emphasize the fact that evolution does not imply godlessness the public will hate evolution.
Evolution does not disprove God. It disproves the idea that 7000 years ago God turned a brick into a human by breathing on it, but it does not disprove His existence. If anything, evolution has proven that the true God must be so much grander than what the typical human mind has conceived. (As the typical human mind has conceived of a God who has to tinker with His creation every step of the way to be real.)
John Mansfield:
I maintain my position. Evolutionary ideas are central to all forms of biology. Evolution is every bit as important as biochemistry. In fact, biochemistry does not make sense without evolutionary understanding. So, yes, I place evolution right up there with orbital mechanics and all other major scientific ideas. I am appalled by any high school class that only spends a week on evolution. Evolution should be the running theme throughout the entire course.
But, alas, most high school teachers disagree with me.
Rob Osborn:
I have high respect for your concerns.
Too often, scientists pitch their naturalistic ideas to the public as though they were a direct attack on God. When they do so, they have gone beyond their data, and they are merely expressing their anti-religious biases.
I do NOT blame you for one nanosecond for your desire to place notions of God on a higher plane than science.
I find compatibility between science and naturalism because I think that God works go well above and beyond "nature."
For example, we can explain in minute detail how a gasoline engine works using mechanical principles. Your car mechanic may think he does not need God in order to fix your engine. At some level, he is right. But, I would argue that a fully mechanical gas engine cannot be isolated from God's purposes -- nor can any other aspect of existence. God is pervasive
Thus, we might explain in minute detail how a human body works and evolved (with a few question marks), but that mechanical understanding would NOT diminish God in any way.
My notion of God does not depend upon a particular scientific outcome being true or false. Thus, I feel totally free to explore the world as it presents itself.
I am sure I have not satisfied you, but mostly I am just trying to clarify my own thinking.
Really? When you think about a sodium-potassium pump, or a spinning ATP motor, or any enzyme or protein, its only meaning, without which it makes no sense, is within the context of the fitness of the organism and the consequences of that over generations of the species?
In high school, our evolution unit brought up changes in cytochrome-C as one of the indications and consequences of evolution. I've never looked that particular enzyme up, and to this day have no idea what it does. Evolution education can end up with a lot of empty placeholders like that in students' minds.
John Mansfield:
I don't think evolutionary science is as narrow as you are making it out to be. We usually distinguish between proximate versus ultimate mechanisms. If one wants to discuss action potentials of neurons, one can do so in strictly immediate mechanical terms, but neurotransmission (and neuroanatomy) is a whole lot more fun when placed in an evolutionary context.
Cytochrome C is an essential mitochondrial enzyme that is present in all kinds of living organisms. As such, slight changes in mtDNA sequence add light to the evolutionary history of the organism.
S. Faux, what in particular do you want a high school student, or anyone else, to know about evolution beyond that it's a sound scientific prinicple?
John Mansfield:
I would like high school biology to be a little more comparative in perspective. I would like such classes to teach that there is a common genetic code in organisms that stems from common descent. They should teach that all organisms are made up of communities of cells that have highly related operating characteristics. I would like them to teach why mammalian vertebrate skeletons all have the same basic design. I would like them to teach that taxonomic classification of an organism is really placing that organism within an evolutionary tree of many branching connections. I would like them to teach that over 99% of species on earth have gone extinct -- and I would like them to have a sense of why. I would like them to have a strong sense of the mutability of species and how transitions have occurred over time.
High school biology does not always have to be how to operate a microscope or how to dissect a frog. Such classes should attempt to teach how all life is tied together, not just genetically, but also ecologically.
I could go on and on, but I will spare you.
John Mansfield,
One thing I would like students to get out of biology class is the benefit we as mankind have gleaned from trying to come up with explanations for nature that we can go out and test. This gives the student insight I think not a lot of people have coming out of high school: that not all theories are on equal grounds. Some make predictions and pass those tests and others do not and we as a society have greatly benefited by holding to those theories who have passed such tests.
I so often hear "but X is just a theory just like my Y" showing they have not learned the above principle. Not all scientific theories are on the same ground and how many predictions they make and pass is what differentiate them.
Evolution predicts DNA between living creatures should look like it has come from the same source. (check!) Evolution predicts animals much have existed for many many generations before we see new species immerge. (check) Evolution predicts there should be common ancestors. (Check) Evolution.... and the list goes on.
This is not true of *any* other theory being discussed in biology class. I want students to understand this well, that evolution and it's alternatives are *not* on the same footing for this very reason.
S.Faux,
There are a couple points about evultion that drive me crazy. The first and formost is that I hear a lot of LDS and other Christian believeing scientists who believe in evolution and the Creator but can't find any room to fit the Creator into the Creation. This drives me crazy. I think for the most part this is due to the fact that Darwinian evolution excludes God from the creation- he just simply can't fit! One thing about ID that most people do not know is that evolution is not forbidden within the realms of it's theory. The real difference is that ID makes the claim that intelligent information does not come about through random processes in nature whereas Darwinian evolution demands it. For Christian scientists this is especially troublesome because we believe in a Creator- an intelligent designer who both planned and physically carried out the duties of bringing to pass intelligent life forms on this planet. We cannot believe that without his (the Creator) physical actions that intelligent life can come about on it's own!
Christian evolutionists cannot even agree that the evolution was somehow guided by his omniscient hand either because that would mean- intelligent design. In fact, one cannot believe in Darwinian evolution and believe the Creator had something physical to do with the creation. This is an absolute principle that must be defined here- there is no room for God in Darwinian evolution!
The other point of evolution that drives me crazy is how they state it as fact as it pertains to the macro side of evolution. I don't have any problem with believing in small scale evolution- small variation changes within species. This is how we get variety within species. It can be proven and in some cases even be predictable. But to jump from there clear into the macro side and state it as fact....that drives me totally crazy!
It's funny to hear people speak of DNA and how predictable it is in evolutionary terms. Ha, that is laughable! Before they discovered DNA, they had no clue what it would ultimately look like or how it would work. What they found out is that DNA is a highly complex and intelligent language of the which is not explained at all in evolutionary terms as it pertains to coming into existance. All they know is that DNA only comes from DNA that already exists. ID already makes that prediction- that DNA only comes from an intelligent source to begin with. So far, their prediction is 100% solid. All this while evolutionary biologists are trying yet another way top to dream DNA into existance from non-life substance. Like I have always said- Good luck on trying but I am not holding my bets that you will win!
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn:
Natural principles do not make God unnecessary -- by our theology.
Planets are spheres in large part because of gravitational forces that pull mass inward. Do we need God in our gravitational equations? No. But, gravity is NOT an anti-God concept. I think you would agree.
But, I go farther. All life operates on natural principle. Life is lawful. Yes, there may be chance processes, but even randomness has systematic characteristics, as illustrated by Galton machines. No one argues, especially evolutionists, that organisms are a random collection of molecules. There is design, but scientists argue that we can resort to natural principles to account for that design. Such an argument is no more anti-God than gravity is anti-God.
God's role is all-encompassing. His purposes are NEVER obviated by natural operation. Thus, I firmly believe that Latter-day Saints can study nature as it presents itself, without jeopardizing our testimonies in the process.
I.D. makes too many assumptions about how God intervenes. It assumes that speciation is contrary to "God's" intelligent purposes. It resorts to arguments of "irreducible complexity" that stifles scientific research. It resorts to concepts of "special creation" that remove the links between species. Such a doctrine invalidates all biological taxonomic language. Humans would no longer be Homo sapiens because we would NO LONGER belong to a genus.
I.D. would be a scientific step backward by about 300 years ... or even more.
Thus, I am grateful that there can be faithful LDS evolutionists who value BOTH science and religion.
S.Faux,
From all of your posts it seems as if you have a belief in the Creator as a person, but that he stays entirely out of the creation. Am I wrong. Where exactly does the Creator fit into the Creation? Is he an intelligent designer? Did he have anything to do with placing intelligent life on this planet? Could life come about on this planet without him?
I patiently await.
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn,
I'm surprised you find common DNA a prediction of evolution. (Since it is not that hard to see.)
If:
A.) You inherit the DNA of you ancestors modulo an extremely small number of mutations.
B.) The whole plant/animal/etc kingdom comes from common ancestors.
Then...
C.) All living creatures should have the same DNA modulo mutations that should be larger for animals that separated farther back.
And lo and behold! This is what we see.
Said another way (in case this is too hard): If we looked at the DNA of all the different species of the earth and found that it was so vastly different that it was imposible to have been inherited from the same source in any realistic way.... that would be a major blow if not falsification of evolution and hence a prediction of the theory.
Now, perhaps you are confused thinking a prediction doesn't count unless it is laid forth in the first public revealing of the theory. Well, that is garbage.
Take for example the Big Bang. One major prediction the big bang makes is that it could only have produced hydrogen and helium and basically nothing else. But that realization did not come about until about 30-40 years after the theory was proposed. And guess what, in the early universe only Hydrogen and Helium exist with the right raito ~80:20 and so the big bang passes another prediction *that was not realized until decades after the theory was proposed.*
Rob Osborn,
I will answer your question about God's role.
First, I don't *know* with a certainty His exact role and I'm sure there are few if any LDS people who do. But for me there are two most likely possibilities (And if I find a 3rd is what is real I won't be worried.)
1. That in line with the King Follet Discourse and Abraham you have something like Dr. Eyring suggested: "It is natural for me to worship the Supreme Intelligence of the universe. This Supreme Intelligence necessarily exists since the world is full of unequally intelligent beings. [famous scientists estimate the universe is vaster then our wildest dreams] It is accordingly natural to conclude that the universe is
flooded with intelligent begins and, presumably, always has been. [and so the "I am more intelligent then they all" Being eventually comes into existence with a desire for all other intelligent life to enjoy what He enjoys]".
2. Though we can uncover laws of nature from science, we really will never know from science "why" they are what they are. (For example, Hawking says the universe comes into being naturally from string theory and has no explanation "why" the universe happens to be made of small strings.) Another way of saying this is science can tell us how the universe goes but cannot ever tell us "why" it goes that way (beyond anthropic reasoning) and yet one thing is sure: it all seems to go forward in a rational way obeying laws. (And again, why the universe obeys laws at all is a mystery). So, it is entirely possible to me that God is some grand rational being who then broght the full thing into existance with tools so profound, like evolution, the He know all of His designs could be accomplished Naturally without Him having to tinker along the way at every step.
Those to me are two possibilities. I could think either God is both consistent with LDS doctrine and science. One one hand a supreme intelligent being must surely exist and the universe is so vast that it may be one glorious being indeed. Or two, the universe may operate by principles of natural selection because the great being who brought everything into existence is so wise he can accomplish all his designs by no more then getting "The first great cause" right.
Rob Osborn:
Here is my theological argument -- and I am not addressing issues like prayer, etc. Instead, I am making an argument about the general operations of creation, trying to harmonize notions of God with naturalistic science. Please give me feedback...
**Suppose God as perfect being makes no unnecessary efforts.
**Consequently, God does not need to hold up the earth or spin it on its axis. If so, neither does God need to change the course of evolution.
**Natural phenomena within the universe do not need divine intervention because the whole of nature is God’s intervention. Any further divine effort would be redundant and wasteful.
Rob (or anyone), the above theological argument is how I think. Where am I wrong? I am very open to correction.
S.Faux,
I've said this before but I thought it worth mentioning if readers were not aware: A major conclusion Talmage draws in Jesus the Christ is Christ never uses his miraculous power *if there was any other way to accomplish the same end goal.*
So yes, if something like string theories, evolution, etc... can bring to pass all of His designs without any more effort exerted on His part than by Talmage's own reasoning we should expect to see these scientific laws being the driving forces behind creation. (Just like the Apostles were the driving force handed the bread out to the masses after Crust blessed it.)
Joseph Smidt:
I always love your contributions and thinking. Yes, I love that quote.
If the universe is magical and not lawful, then I would need to hang up my hat as a scientist. The universe would no longer be worth studying.
J, Smidt,
Just because DNA has similarities with other living things does not mean that we are all related at some point in history.
Your view of the Creator seems to be sidestepping the point. If you believe that God created evolution as an intelligent tool to bring to pass his designs, then by every definition you adhere to the theory of Intelligent design. And for that,I say...
Welcome to the ID club, good to have you on board!
Rob Osborn
S.Faux,
Your view of the Creator is as mysterious as ever! I honestly believe that you believe in the Creator as an actual being. But I question you on just where he fits into the picture. You speak of things of nature as a type of natural phenomenon on the one hand that needs no divine intervention, but on the other it seems as if you are inplying that natural phenomenon is the work of God. This is a paradox- which is it?
If you believe the operation of evolution is a byproduct of Gods intelligence than you cannot place Him outside of that occurance. You cannot just blindly say he is the author of it and then set him aside on every account for explaining our origins.
I have always had a belief that LDS evolutionists are truly Intelligent Designers in heart and principle. The reason being is this-
If we are the product of an intelligent agent (God), then it is wholly impossible that we came about through some other process besides an intelligently planned and guided process. This is what ID states- that life and all it's complexities exist because of planned and intelligent actions preceding the event. This is what LDS doctrine teaches.
You cannot just say that God used some magic loaded dice in the beginning, not having any clue, nor caring about how that dice worked, and then magically all life came into existance in purely naturalistic ways without any divine intervention. Is not the loaded dice in the beginning divine intervention?
I asked Steve P. on this issue several times and eventually he told me that he may believe that God didn't invent evolution but in fact he is the product of this natural phenomenon that precedes even the Gods themsleves! Thus, he believes that God just allows it to happen naturally on it's own. Is this too how you believe?
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn:
Good questions, but I cannot know what's on the mind of God. I am merely human. But, here is my simple minded view:
Just as we know how the balls are going to end up in a Galton machine before even one ball drops, I suppose God could know how things were going to end up before the Big Bang. Nonetheless, the balls of the universe operated by natural law. No magic needed. To me, it is beautiful.
Rob Osborn,
As I stated, I am open to the idea that God is the answer to the question science fails to answer: "why, the laws of the universe are what they are" or "where the laws of nature come from in the first place" or is the author of the "first great cause" that again science seems it will never explain. (Because as soon as you say X explains the first great cause you answers why the laws are what they are you have to ask what caused X, etc...) And furthermore given the laws seem so rational and orderly (and thus describable by math and logic) that I could imagine there is a "rational purpose" behind why they are what they are and therefore the laws themselves become the ultimate "intelligent design".
However a few things:
1. All evidence points to evolution, the big bang, etc... being 100% true and *the* mechanisms leading to the current state of the universe for the last 13.7 billion years. Most IDers have a hard time with that.
2. The above is not good science and so I *do not* think it should be taught in the science classroom. Again, most IDers don't think that.
3. I am only open to the above. I am also open to the idea the the universe is so big and so vast eventually, like the Book of Abraham, you get myriads of every time of intelligent life with God being the Supreme Intelligent Being who has a desire to lead others into the position He is.
But it is true: "why the laws of nature are what they are" is probably a question beyond the reach of science. (Because as soon X explains Y you now have to explain X.) Godel has rigorously showed that there are true things that are not provable and perhaps whey the laws are the way they are is something that has a true reason but is not provable by science, math and logic.
But we know the laws seem rational and orderly and thus well described by math and logic and so I could be convinced this hints at a rational purpose behind it all making reality in that sense intelligently designed.
Rob,
One last thing (and I blogged about this before), If everything is just materialism and existence seems to exist for no underlying reason, I almost want to say purely randomly, then I do have to ask then why is it the case that the universe is apparently governed by rational laws?
Or like Einstein said, and the above logic is what drove this very quote: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." Which is to say: Why does a universe that exists with no rational purpose seem so dang rational?
I mean, if math and logic are just man made constructs we've obtained from evolved brains why does the entire universe seem to be governed by these rational man-made constructs that obey a logic that seems to be true whether man had dreamed it up or not?
So yes, I am open to the reason a pointless universe seems rational is that there is a rational purpose behind it.
But agan:
1. That rational purpose behind the universe appears to *never* tinker with the universe in any supernatural way and and lets the laws of nature take care of themselves.
2. I would never suggest this be taught in a science class as it isn't good science.
3. It is philosophy so you could make a case it should be taught in a Philosophy class. Write a paper on: "Why is a pointless universe apparently so rational?"
S.Faux,
Nice sidestep. I will hand it to you, you have a wonderful way of not answering the question by doing it in a nice manner unlike some people I know (Steve P, if you are reading you may take note at this point).
Let me ask real bluntly though-
Do you believe that God planned and designed our coming into existance?
Rob Osborn
J Smidt,
Do you think evolution is a natural (outside of God) phenomenon? And- If so, Do you believe God uses it to his advantage to bring us into existance?
Rob Osborn.
Rob Osborn:
Sorry, I just had a funny thought.
Yes, I believe in God. That is not the funny part.
I cannot believe in a God who has to pay attention to the skies like a flight controller directing traffic in some airport tower .
The God in whom I believe does not need to micromanage the universe. Instead, my God is more concerned with how to get His children to live with Him again. Simple minded? Yes, but that is what my Church teaches me. I just don't know many more details about God.
"Do you think evolution is a natural (outside of God) phenomenon?"
Perhaps, I was suggesting this is possible in my "Book of Abraham/King Follet" scenario. That some things are just not created and made and God in some sense exalts Himself by mastering the self-existant laws and is the Supreme Intelligence hoping to allow others to progress like himself.
" And- If so, Do you believe God uses it to his advantage to bring us into existence?"
Of course as do we. For example, each year we use what we have learned about evolution to design drugs that compensate for mutations in genes. Our drugs are therefore intelligently designed. :)
Oops, didn't catch that last part.
"to bring us into existence?"
Yes He would use evolution to his advantage as do we. But, did He then turn around and create us with it?
We have no evidence for that part. All we know is we came from natural selection and any role God has had has remained undetectable to the point that we should not think he is injecting Himself into Natural selection.
You caught me with not reading that full sentance right, but surely if we use evolution to our advantage a much smarter being would do so likewise.
And let's just say everything I have said is extreme speculation that I am saying is merly Possible. That's it, that's possible and definitely not scientific and not something to be taught in a science class.
So, what I am getting is this- You believe in a God who is completely outside of nature- outside of explaining why intelligence exists. You believe that nature by itself, without any intelliegent prodding, is perfectly capable of producing everything there is?
or...
You believe in a God who enabled, by some means, a process in nature which somehow guides intlligence into existance without his direct signature on it?
Not even I believe that God sits at the controllers intervening and interupting everyday nature to bring about his purposes. But, on the other hand I do believe that God planned and directed the physical actions that brought about my existance, of the which without, no nature would even exist.
Perhaps this is where we differ. I believe in a God who planned, designed and physically directed life into existance while you believe in a God who is just labled "Creator", but after that has no role in nature to bring life into existance- you thus believe that nature is self existant outside of Gods influence.
Please correct me if I am wrong. It gets pretty hard to figure you out when you can't seem to be able to define the Creators role in nature.
Rob Osborn
" If you believe that God created evolution as an intelligent tool to bring to pass his designs, then by every definition you adhere to the theory of Intelligent design."
Well one big difference between you and S. Faux and J. Smidt, other than their decades of hard work at top notch Universities to understand how science actually works, is that they do not believe man walked with dinosaurs, like you do.
Rob Osborn:
Thanks for pushing me harder. However, I don't think I can satisfy you.
You have put a lot of words in my mouth that I don't believe. Therefore, you do misunderstand me to a fair degree.
I have NO reason to believe that God works the way we humans do. He does NOT act like a human, because humans are ants comparatively. Regardless of how the universe works, our religion teaches us that God's purposes are achieved. Consequently, I have a hard time understanding why people resist science -- which provides firm evidence of how the universe operates in general terms.
I believe that humans are the product of natural design. By contrast, I.D. claims intelligence, independent of nature, intervened at every major step. I would counter that nature itself is "intelligent," and that nothing else needed to be added to the mix. I would argue that moments after the Big Bang it was inevitable that life would be produced. God did NOT need to make further adjustments.
Thus, I would argue that my version of God is more powerful than the weaker "flight controller" version who has to micromanage everything. But, of course, this is all ridiculous at some level: My Dad is tougher than yours.
As we speculate about God, NEITHER of us knows what we are talking about!! No greater truth on this post has been written.
I am a believer in science who goes to Church on Sundays. I have a LOT to learn about God, which is why I go.
Of this I am sure: The earth is ancient on the order of billions of years. Dinosaurs walked the earth 70 million years ago. "Modern" humans appeared roughly about 200,000 years ago. Evolution happened -- it is scientific fact.
I teach my 3 boys that none of these scientific facts have any bearing on the truthfulness of the gospel. Therefore, they all love dinosaurs and Jesus. Such makes me happy.
I am pleased you have the freedom to teach your children differently. And, I am pleased people who think a little differently, like us, can attend the same Church and worship in the same temple.
My message is that LDS people who want to enter science can find ways to make all things fit together. They need not fear. The gospel is robust.
But, if science causes strain, then I advise seeking first the Kingdom of God, and all things will be added later with the passage of time.
In 1925 was the Scope's trial, that set a very artificial negative tone on evolution. That tone has persisted in this country. Ironically, in 1925 the science of quantum mechanics was blossoming. It would forever change our conception of the universe(s).
As for me and my house, we will obey the Lord and also be inspired by QM and Darwin. I have no reason not to be in awe of the universe.
Rob,
"It gets pretty hard to figure you out when you can't seem to be able to define the Creators role in nature."
And can you name one person who can with exactness? Look, I have entertained your desire to see how working scientists think about God and His possible role with creation.
But *possible* is the key word. I have very much crossed the line of extreme speculation and I am fine with that as long as you realize everyone is just guessing. (All Mormons have a huge does of the High Priest syndrome in us.) Are there other possibilities? Yes.
Many people throughout history have decided to firmly define God's role and then conclude a lot of garbage from their assumptions:
1. The decide that since God is perfect orbits should only be perfect spheres.... wrong.
2. They decide since God says the earth has 4 corners it must be a flat rectangle... wrong.
3. They decide since God would not let you be born with bad eyesight unless it it was His will for you to have it they wouldn't let their children wear eyeglasses. (For reals!)
4. The decide because of their own current interpretation of scripture that evolution is false... and they really are wrong.
And I'm not going to join this "telestial-kingdom-size" club containing generations of members who would rather demonstrate how ubber-pios they must be by announcing they know with enough exactness God's role in all things that they can reject at their pleasure everything and anything science demonstrates.
No, I am going to stay in that club of humble supporters who know we have to work hard to receive knowledge here on earth and am always open to possibility that my current mortal way of thinking may be wrong.... and the true nature of God will turn out to be greater than I ever have supposed. Thus I stick to my "possibility" language.
Does God have a role? Yes. Prove that that is possible? I gave some possibilities. State who God is with such exactness that we can start discrediting scientific theories like our eternally-getting-it-wrong-club mentioned above? I'm not going to go there but will just humbly do my best knowing that God may be so much more than I or anyone else may have supposed.
S.Faux,
You mentioned one thing I would like to clarify. You said-
"I believe that humans are the product of natural design. By contrast, I.D. claims intelligence, independent of nature, intervened at every major step."
ID makes the simple claim that intelligent life did not evolve that way over countles ages from small random steps. There is no natural design of which you are speaking of. Scientists have been trying to generate this design capable of producing intelligence in the lab for almost a decade and have gotten nowhere. Science has actually proven that this natural design, capable of producing life, or of evolving life either is not yet known, or does not exist at all.
For evolutionists this is called their theory of abiogenesis, a theory that has produced fruitless results. What they have found is that life only comes from life- it didn't synthesize on it's own. I truly would be a believer if science were to actually show in results how they used purely natural environmental conditions that triggered life from non-life materials and produced self regenerating life. This after all is evolutions ultimate claim, as you say, that after the big bang life began through a series of natural events that triggered life.
Rob Osborn
Stan,
True, but still the point remains- If evolutionists make the claim that God was instrumental in bringing about life to this planet, then by every definition they are in the ID camp. This is what I was saying earlier about the principle of it- If one adheres to Darwinian evolution, then he must place God outside of explaining our origins. He cannot include God whatsoever into the equation because the moment he does, is the moment he adheres to ID.
That is very problematic for LDS evolutionists because in order to be in the same group as all the other mainstream evolutionists, they must leave God entirely out of the picture- He can have no role scientifically in why we exist.
That is why I have been pressing what role the Creator had because I am trying to show that their evolutionist beliefs are not in harmony with what the Lord has already revealed about the Creator being absolutely essential in the placing of intelligence on this planet.
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn,
So how about we turn the tables:
1. To what extent are you willing to define what the God's role was in the creation?
2. What are your feelings on evolution and are they compatible with observed science?
3. *If* you do feel opposed to evolution in any way for religious reasons, how open are you to the idea you you might be wrong about evolution and therefore have a fallacious understanding of God and the creation?
A fine post. I thank S. Faux and Joseph for all of their thoughts.
I just have to comment a bit on Rob here. It seems like this is more of a word game to trap an evolutionist into saying that they believe in I.D. than a thoughtful discussion.
I think that Rob is painting I.D. a bit too broad. It would be nice to have a definition of I.D. in the beginning of the discussion since it has turned out to be so important.
I'll throw in my 2 cents. If Rob's definition of I.D. means that the speciation of human beings occurred through some special action on God's part during the time whenever humans were uniquely set apart from other living things - then I reject it.
However, that doesn't mean that I must reject the idea that God is the ultimate cause of our existence. I too believe that God does physical things with as little effort to get the job done. Whose to say he didn't create us by snapping his fingers so that the giant dust cloud that be came our solar system formed in the right shape to ultimately lead to our existence? Even in that case, though God intelligently designed the dust cloud, I wouldn't fit Rob's definition of intelligent design (if it is what I laid out above).
So, we are at a place where we desperately need a definition of I.D. from Rob. And, that definition will either have to admit that humans could arisen through evolution - but ULTIMATELY were caused by God's actions (making it very different from mainstream I.D.), or it will have to admit that I.D. excludes the possibility that God created humans by letting his natural laws do their own work.
Which is it?
Rob Osborn:
You state: "Science has actually proven that this natural design, capable of producing life, or of evolving life either is not yet known, or does not exist at all."
Nothing I have ever read in the best science journals verifies your claim.
Biologists often discuss teleonomic (natural) design processes as explanation for adaptive functions. No magic or proximate intelligent intervention is require.
So, yes, I avoid making anthropomorphic attributions to God when reading creation stories. Such stories have value as moral lessons and as a revelation of higher purpose. They may teach us many valuable and essential doctrines, but they do NOT have value as science. The Bible is NOT a science textbook.
But, I would strongly argue that evolution is for everyone -- from the irreligious to the very religious. It is for everyone just as "the earth is round" is for everyone.
Organisms changed dramatically over geological time. That is scientific fact. That is evolution. Now, why should we think that fact is an attack on God? I cannot see it. Am I blind?
Again, the problem here is some tricky claims:
1. That if you believe that God could be the ultimate cause of our existence, then you are in the I.D. camp.
2. That if you are an evolutionist, God could not have a hand in our creation.
Both claims have serious problems. Science doesn't really touch what the ultimate cause of the universe is, because you get into the realm of things not fitting the definition of science. However, evolution DOES fit within the definition of science (regardless of what the cause of evolution is).
The problem with the other claim is that questions of evolution and our existence are actually entirely different. You can believe in evolution 100%, and also believe that evolution itself was intelligently designed in the beginning. Belief in God and Evolution do not necessarily exclude each other as has been suggested here. Sure, there are loud evolutionists who don't believe in God... but that doesn't say anything about whether the beliefs are compatible.
J. Smidt,
I would like to answer your questions because they are very relevent to understanding where I am coming from.
"1. To what extent are you willing to define what the God's role was in the creation?"
I believe most of the creative work by God was to prepare the earth and solar system in order to sustain life. As for the actual placement of life I believe that it was done in large part by the powers of procreation by the various species that already were in existance. God oversaw all of it and planned the creation of the earth in such a manner that it could support intelligent life.
"2. What are your feelings on evolution and are they compatible with observed science?"
My feelings are that small changes happen within species. I believe in small but limited evolution. By "limited" I am meaning that a dog doesn't evolve into a whale at some point.
"3. *If* you do feel opposed to evolution in any way for religious reasons, how open are you to the idea you you might be wrong about evolution and therefore have a fallacious understanding of God and the creation?"
I am always open the the reality of truth, wherever it can be found and documented. However, I find the material from our scriptures to tell more of a truthful picture than science does at this point. A lot of biblical history revolves around the reality of the global deluge in Noah's day. I find more than enough convincing evidence that the flood did happen. This being the case, the fossils in the rock paint a testimony to the flood, not to millions of years of evolution.
Rob Osborn.
Matt,
It seems as if you are understanding what I am trying to get across. Definitions and word games do come into play here because evolutionists are trying desperately to chalk up any resistance to their theory as being unscientific. They believe that once you insert an intelligent or supreme being into the mix it becomes religious and not scientific.
The problem for science is that they have disoriented view of God. They look at God as a mythical or supernatural being and a threat to science because he can do things outside of logic, outside of math, outside of the natural order of physics, etc. Therefore, they feel threatened by the ID and also the Creationist movement because they honestly believe that they will corrupt people into filling in the gaps with fairytales and magic to explain our existance and then stop and be satisfied with that assumption.
On the other hand, Id'ers and Creationists (they are different BTW) feel as if they are not being given the time needed to teach the correct principles of the truths that they put forth. ID believers know that there are a series of untruths in the theory of evolution and that in order to prove their side they have to properly define their ideas and theories. It is mostly still a word game from both sides, each trying to properly understand each other and find the areas of common ground and the points of difference. But, that being said, there are deeper issues involved here. The main issue is the attack on peoples individual religious beliefs and how teaching false doctrines (yes even in science) can lead to the general destruction of our rights and even our religious beliefs in how it effects society as a whole.
Dawkins and a few others have already made that abundantly clear!
ID, in it's definition therefore does point clearly back to a Supreme being in charge, or at bare minimum- a reason intelligently for our existance. ID sets out to try to prove that the complex and intelligent life system we have is thus not the mere conclusion of countless random acts in the universe. ID is defined by the idea that intelligence only comes from intelligence preceding it. It does not necessarily bother itself with finding the first intelligent cause in the universe but rather that if something is organized and appears intelligent and is decided to be in fact an intelligent body, then it must have come from an intelligent entity or body preceding it.
Evolution on the other hand- that is, Darwinian evolution is defined entirely by intelligence being the product of completely random acts in nature void of any intelligence as a first cause. I guarentee you this- you will find absolutely no biology text books that alude to their being a God as a first cause or for that matter- in any part of their ideaolgy for explaining the entire universe. Evolution is effective and has been effective in destroying God's proper role in the Creation and our divine lineage back to him, not to animals!
Rob Osborn
S. Faux,
See, there you go off claiming it as scientific fact. Where are the direct facts that we evolved from animals? I believe the term you are looking for is "conjecture".
Rob Osborn
I see what you are saying Rob.
The issue I have is with the way you are defining I.D. You say that I.D. clearly points back to God being in charge, and I agree. But it seems to matter how far BACK you are pointing.
For example, you said that the actual placement of life was done in a large part by the power of procreation, but that it is not possible for a single form of life to evolve and eventually split into more than one species (i.e. that a dog could never evolve into a whale). Right? So this has God creating the earth, then creating individually all the forms of life that have ever existed on it. Creating, then letting go extinct, millions of life forms over millions of years. Then, creating humans... not necessarily from any previous form of life through direct intervention on God's part. Is this correct? If so, that is how I see I.D. And, you don't have to point back very far to see God's involvement.
You also say that any pointing back to God as a creator means intelligent design in the modern sense of the word. This is where I dissagree. To say that God set up a giant dust cloud in a way that it would ultimately lead to our existence, then left his work to inevitably produce life through its own series of random events... this is not I.D. as commonly defined. You could back up further to say that God created the big bang knowing that it would lead to the dust cloud that would lead to the solar system that would lead to us. This isn't I.D. either.
I still think that evolution allows for a belief in God, that "God created." Those two words are so general it is just impossible to say how God created. Further, the mechanics of "how God created" is completely irrelevant in scripture, so it's no wonder there isn't more ellaboration.
I'll go a bit further to say that even Darwinian evolution allows for a belief that God created, because this scientific theory opperates under the umbrella of what is defined as science. And, the ultimate first cause of our existence clearly is outside of the definition of science. See what I mean? Science textbooks leave a big question mark regarding the first cause because any speculation wouldn't be scientific. That doesn't mean that science is saying there couldn't be a God which is the first cause, science just can't offer up an opinion. In that light, I would define Darwinian evolution as: intelligence being the product of completely random acts in nature with the ultimate first cause being unknown. That unkown first cause, excluded by definition from science because it is untestable, I believe is God who at some unkown distance back set things up in a way that ultimately led to us being here... no tinkering along the way necessary.
Rob Osborn:
The life sciences are built around the basic facts of evolution. Evolution is NOT conjecture -- not even close.
To overturn evolution would require negating the accumulated facts of genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, geology, physical anthropology, and evolutionary psychology, among others. That my friend, is a tall mountain to climb.
You can conclude that evolution is speculation, but you will be contradicting tens of thousands of scientists, who make a living based upon evolutionary facts.
Thus, to claim I.D. is a science is false, because scientists, as a professional body, do NOT recognize I.D.
"I believe the term you are looking for is "conjecture""
It looks like Rob is an example of someone who did not successfully learn in high school science what I told John Mansfield was a minimum I hope students are able to take away. :)
Well we have about beat this topic into the ground. For the record I am just going to state that Darwinian evolution is void of God and always will be. Evolutionary theory is atheism in practice and thats how I feel. It displaces the Creator, it makes us animals, and gives no purpose or reason for our existance. I guess if that is what one wants, it's a free world!
Rob Osborn
Alright Rob it's been fun. Have a good Weekend.
Readers:
Thanks to all for a well-conducted, honest, but respectful discussion.
Rob Osborn, I do thank you. We see the world differently, but I respect your determination, and I respect your devotion to God.
Joseph Smidt: Nice to hear from you. It is good to know that strong LDS scientific voices are coming up the ranks.
I am now closing down this discussion.
Post a Comment