And Vice Versa
Here is a strange way to being my essay: the title to my essay is not strictly true. Ethical issues could arise in science that should be addressed by theologians and other experts on moral philosophy. But, no religionist (or philosopher) should be in the business of making naturalistic pronouncements about how the world or the universe operates without consulting science. If religious institutions play that game without scientific knowledge, then they will lose. Officers of religious institutions that sponsor ill-informed naturalistic pronouncements place those arguments and perhaps even their institutions into an intellectual jeopardy. Further, scientists should NOT give the public the impression that scientific findings support notions of the non-existence of God. If scientists play the “no God game,” then they will lose.
Science and religion do need to communicate. I am not an advocate of a strict NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), the model that argues that science and religion are separate authoritative domains that should operate without influencing each other. Rather, I would advocate a qualified POMA (partially overlapping magisteria) where there are some lines of communication between the two domains. For example, I think religions in general would benefit from consulting scientists about how the natural world works. Conversely, science would benefit from theologians being part of their Internal Review Boards that oversee the ethical operations of science.
I am against COMA, because it would live up to its name. COMA refers to completely overlapping magisteria, in which science and religion are intimately intermingled. On this earth, such an operation would stop the advancement of knowledge, as we know it. COMA, indeed, would be a sleepy affair. Perhaps in the celestial spheres of heaven in some alternate universe, COMA could operate with synergistic energy, but I would have to see it to believe it.
The making of strong naturalistic pronouncements in the name of religion potentially sets up religion for embarrassment. As an example, let me slap with a wet noodle one of my scientific heroes, Kenneth R. Miller, for one of his side commentaries. Miller is Catholic, a cell biologist, and a very strong evolutionist. His recent book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, is brilliant and highly recommended. I agree with 99% of the book. But, he did make one tiny slip – as I see it. He argues the following:
[Religious] believers … are right to remind skeptics and agnostics that one of their favored explanations for the nature of our existence involves an element of the imagination as wild as any tale in a sacred book: namely, the existence of countless parallel simultaneous universes with which we can never communicate and whose existence we cannot even test. Such belief also requires an extraordinary “faith,” and the nonreligious would do well to admit as much. (p. 164)
Miller is alluding to “multiverse” theory that proposes that there are universes without number, existing simultaneously like a collection of bubbles. Why should anyone outright dismiss such a view?
Let me place multiverse theory into some context:
A popular argument for the existence of God is based in the anthropic principle and the fined-tuned universe idea. As the argument goes, the universe as we know it is finely tuned for the existence of life, which is true but not the full story. There are a large number of physical constants that came into being with the birth of the universe. I am speaking of fundamental constants like: atomic mass (m_u), deuteron mass (m_d), electron mass (m_e), Faraday constant(F), Newtonian gravitational contstant(G), and Planck constant (h). Very tiny changes in these constants could change the natural laws of the universe, making life impossible. Are these physical constants the product of chance or God’s intention? (Is this question a false dichotomy?) If there were but one universe, then it would be easy to conclude that the universe exists by the intentional design of God. But, this view is too good to be true.
Along comes the physicists, those pesky disrupters of our facile theologies. Imagine multiple universes going through a natural selection process. Suppose each universe was born with a “Big Bang” and with its own chance-produced physical constants. There would be multiple Big Bangs – one for each universe. Most of these universes (with their varied physical laws) would not support life. But, we just happen to live in THIS rare universe, because, of course, it physically can support life. Perhaps, our universe is e pluribus unum.
The physicists Hawking and Mlodinow (2010) argue in their new book, The Grand Design:
[The] multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine-tuning. It is a consequence of the no-boundary condition as well as many other theories of modern cosmology. (p. 164)
They further argue that the anthropic argument for God unravels under multiverse theory.
Two mistakes are happening in this debate:
First, the truthfulness of multiverse theory (or any scientific theory) should NOT be turned into a test of religious validity. Religionists have no need to fear multiverse theory because God is above and beyond nature. Multiverse theory might be resisted because it makes our universe sound like a “chance” happening. However, it is a mistake to assume that “chance” physical processes cannot encompass God’s purposes. Why limit God? Why should we assume that God works like a human watchmaker might work? Such a view of God puts unnecessary limits on both theological and scientific interpretation. Besides, what could be more inspiring than a bubbly multiverse?
Second, scientists in the name of science should NOT be in the business of making pronouncements about the non-existence of God. True, the mathematical operations of the universe do not require God in their equations. Magic is not needed to understand the nature of atoms or galaxies. But, natural operations, even chance operations of the universe, eliminate only those theologies with the illegitimate motive of postponing or eliminating natural explanation. Such theologies extinguish themselves without scientists having to take aim. God, as a notion that is above nature, cannot be extinguished by any imaginable scientific finding. I would argue that “God” is not a scientifically testable concept.
Richard Dawkins and others may argue that science leaves nothing for God to do. But, any sophisticated view of God should avoid making God contingent upon natural operations (either presupposed or measured). Of course, religions can and should be interested in dinosaurs, atoms, and stars, but they had better consult the science textbooks before making pronouncements about their nature.
Neither science nor religion is going away anytime soon. It would best if there were a cultural atmosphere in which scientists were not scared away from religion, and religionists were not scared away from science. Such a world, in my opinion, would be improved, because we could more fully realize that the glory of God is intelligence.
POST SCRIPT: See the Feb. 4th issue of Deseret News, which interviewed S.Faux on a related topic: "In the beginning: ... God's role in the universe."
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.
30 comments:
Your post title says you're putting your head up to see who will fire. So I'll oblige you by doing so. And hope you take my comments in the spirit of love and concern in which I give them.
Unfortunately theory science is used as the religious (as it is truly a religion requiring faith, devotion [which you demonstrate] with priests [theory scientists] chapels [schools] and temples [universities]) front to atheism.
It is the largest religion in the world with its foot in everywhere. There is not one scrap of evidence to prove its claims other than by others in the same religion. Yet there is piles of evidence against it.
I have to inform you that anyone claiming they KNOW and can PROVE that such and such happened millions of years ago is just talking theory "science" religious nonsense.
Almost ALL "facts" invented by theory science (an oxymoron of itself) are proven false by priests of that same religion later on.
Of course this is argued to be an advancement of knowledge. But let me ask you, in regard the heading of the post, why would I believe a religion that keeps changing its dogmas rather than one that is constant?
The Scriptures tell me that the first man was made about 7 thousand years ago. Yes, I've read all the attempts to twist this to mean something else. They don't hold water. Moses clearly states that man was the FIRST flesh upon the earth and also the first man. Abraham's version of creation supports this as does the second chapter of Genesis. And the book of Abraham declares that a day constitues a thousand years in the chapter just before then talking of a day in creation. To suppose he changed his opinion in one chapter is a feeble attempt to try and fit a true religion with a false one.
All attempts by man to invent "facts" should be examined in the light of spiritual declared truths. And if they don't hold up, which theory science certainly doesn't, they should be discarded.
Yet in all fairness to your religious beliefs in this stuff I have to further inform you that you have been indoctrinated in a one sided version of these "facts."
Not only has real science disproven the theory science religion, but the religion has disproven itself by its own dogmas (which all false religions do). But then it can always turn to its right to ever changing doctrines.
I plead with you to come out of Babylon.
"I plead with you to come out of Babylon."
Come on out S. Faux, the waters of willful ignorance feel so refreshing. =:)
Doug Towers:
Thanks for your lengthy response, and for expressing your honest views.
I do plead guilty to promoting science, but I also think it is NOT a "front to atheism." I know many, many LDS scientists and faithful scientists of many other faiths. If science was "designed" to promote atheism, it has proven to be highly ineffective. Further, I know many great scientists who are agnostic or who are atheistic.
Latter-day Saints believe in expanding our minds with knowledge and intelligence. As we do so, our perspectives change and we see more clearly ... into the eternities, so to speak. We believe in "continuous revelation" for these very reasons.
We should NOT expect to see E = MC-squared in the scriptures. Nor should we expect science to be able to determine that baptism is important. Thus, I find both science and religion to be indispensable to my life.
I am saddened when other people find conflicts that make them anti-science or anti-religion. Those conflicts do not exist in my heart, and therefore I cannot relate to those with such problems.
Science is an extraordinary endeavor, and I will NOT be giving it up. (The same goes for my religion).
Even so, Doug, thank you for your concerns. I appreciate the goodness of your motives.
Congratulations S.Faux on the Deseret News article! I like what you said.
Doug: the scientific method is the very opposite of a religion and a faith. Scientists ask questions, collect data, and if the data refutes the original question - it is discarded or amended. If the evidence piles up in support of the original hypothesis, it is strengthened. When various convergent branches of scientific exploration continue to gather facts in support of the original hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes a theory - or a very useful model to understand nature and make predictions with.
You ask why should people trust scientists when they are always changing their mind? They change their theories when new data dictates such a change. This is an extremely humble enterprise. It only makes claims that can be falsified. Falsifiable claims that stand up to critical analysis can be verified. Unfalsifiable claims cannot be verified in any way, and can therefore not be counted as knowledge. When the ideas of science are falsified - they are given up or amended. It is in this way that we approach knowledge about ourselves and the world we live in. Just imagine people who are willing to admit they are wrong and accept new facts that contradict their, now outdated, view?
We tried trusting authority for hundred of years following the pronouncements of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Their views on nature persisted during the dark middle ages - a stagnant time for societies progress. It wasn't until the Reformation and Enlightenment when progress began to be made. At the core of the Enlightenment was a belief in observation, empiricism, and rationalism - in short the scientific method. With this brought democracy (instead of theocracy and dictatorship), freedom of religion (instead of hegemony by the Catholic Church), and advances in disparate fields of science which give us all the technology and knowledge we enjoy today.
Great post S. Faux! I almost agree with everything you say - and will leave it at that.
S. Faux
By saying that theory science is a religion of atheism I wasn't proposing that all scientists nor even all theory scientists are atheists. I am saying that the direction has been created and particularly promoted by atheists, who are keen to see it oppose the Bible.
Josh
Your explanation of scientific research sounds very similar to my religious research. I see no problem in this of itself.
And I would pose that religion in many areas (and in fact can be in all areas) is totally scientific. Man presented to me that I should hold a grudge. Yet God tells me I shouldn't even get angry in the first place.
I've tried both man's philosophy and God's philosophy. When I tried man's I never felt any better. When I tried God's it worked.
Man said to look to the flesh and focus on lust. I tried that and was deceived for a time. Yet when I gave that up and tried it God's way great things began to happen.
This is truly scientific discovery. Yes, I had to apply the faith to try it out and persist (as Alma explains in chapter 32), but now it is a certain scientific fact.
Unfortunately claims of future events and past events are not able to be tested in any truly verifiable way.
So neither you nor I have seen what happened on earth before Adam (that we can presently remember). So neither you nor I really know how old the earth is. You have to have faith in these theory scientists and how they present their claims. And I look at the claims God makes that the earth is only thousands of years old.
I then am free in my mind to consider theory science's claims without believing a word they say without serious examination of each part. My examinations have shown that there is seemingly endless problems with these claims of theory science. I am therefore, without further information to the contrary, left to accept the Scriptures statements as they stand. The same applies to Adam being the first flesh upon the earth vs evolution.
Doug,
Please clarify your thoughts a bit by answering a few questions . .
1) Why does the Earth appear to be billions of years old? Is it all a grand deception or does mankind just not understand the evidence?
2) What do you make of the fossil record? We have layers all over the world that progress from less complex to more complex. What does that represent?
3) Writing goes back about 5,000 years. Before that seems to be extensive evidence of ever more primitive societies that seem to be far older than the period of writing. What do you make of that?
There are certain truths our religion teaches us. As Doug has brought up, our religion is set in stone on the truth of Man only being less than 7,000 years old. A true believer of both his religion and science would thus question the validity of his science, not his religion. Science, that is- the science of evolution is based entirely on atheistic principles. It has no room for an Intelligent Agent for explaining our origins. Here again is where our religion sets this matter to rest and declares emphatically in the Creator and his role in our placement upon this earth.
This again is an area where some LDS scientists try to balance their religious beliefs with what they wish to believe in their scientific beliefs. Often times, and sad it is, they discard their religious beliefs in favor of their scientific beliefs and in trying to reconcile this fact they somehow try to surmise some fairytale scenerio for explaining their religious beliefs.
Take the flood for example. No LDS evolutionist believes in the flood of Noah but in trying to ammend their religion they try to aknowledge that perhaps it was a limited flood or perhaps it was some kind of allegorical event and never physically happened. They end up decieving themselves. After all what do they say- "Where is the evidence for such?" So, if we are taking this approach, let me ask a few relevent questions to their faith-
Where is the evidence of our resurrection and eternal life? Where is the evidence of God? Where is the evidence of miracles? Where is the evidence of faith?
There is evidence for all of these. We may not have the current technology to test them scientifically but there are proofs they exist. The BoM is replete with understanding how to perform these tests to know about God.
Science shouldn't have to first prove God exists before we believe. We have known for quite some time that science is often wrong on matters and that we shouldn't place our faith in it especially when it goes against God's teachings.
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn:
I always appreciate your determination and willingness to defend your religious beliefs. Mostly, we are on the same theological side, and therefore most of my disagreements with you are on points of science.
You contend that: "our religion is set in stone on the truth of Man only being less than 7,000 years old."
It frightens me that our religion could be placed in jeopardy over a VERY testable scientific proposition, such as the one you made above concerning the age of humans. I am under the impression that Mormonism is designed to avoid creeds and dogmas. Instead, I think Mormonism is designed to be enlightened by scientific progress. To me, Mormonism is NOT anti-scientific, not even remotely.
Your statement is contradicted by the findings of radiometrics (based in quantum mechanics), geology, genetic clocks, comparative anatomy, to name just a few independent fields. I really do think one can be an expert in these fields and STILL feel good about attending Church. In fact, there are thousands of such LDS.
Concerning your statement: "Science shouldn't have to first prove God exists before we believe."
I agree. All LDS scientists would agree with your statement. But, you should also know that science is the process of turning tentative propositions into thoroughly tested ones. Our accumulation of scientific knowledge is NOT on shaky ground.
Fortunately, for me, I find very little tension between science and religion. But, I understand that is NOT true for others. If I believed like you, then I would be arguing with people like me too.
I love science. I have studied it in it's relationship to things quite a lot over the years. I have always been fascinated by what we can develop with our technology. In that study however, one does notice the limits of it and how it is applied. One also notices the downside to it and how it can decieve and tell untruths- all based upon man's lack of understanding, or just basic ignorance or pride. Take dating things for example- Science knows there are issues with dating fossils, rocks, etc. We know all too welll that it is a process mostly of conjecture. If we leave it at that it is of no problem. But, when we begin to place it in the "factual" column we place ourselves in an ignorant position. I am often reminded of the Paleontologist who found soft tissue still in dinosaur bone supposedly millions of years old. Science tells us that no soft tissue could last millions of years, and yet- there it was- in the dino bone. Several reputable places did their own tests and sure enough, it was soft tissue from the dinosaur aand not contamination.
What this has done to the dating process is of great significance though. Either we have very little understanding of the actual dating process, or the dates themselves are grossly incorrect. On either account, the scientific process we thought was factual is anything but! So, if they can be wrong with the dating process on something as simple as dinosaur bone, certainly they can be off in just about every other process of dating geology also. In reality, the dating of human remains may end up being drastically different than what we have assumed.
So, when the church states that man is no older than 7,000 years old, perhaps they are correct and science is wrong.
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn:
You are referring to the work of Dr. Mary Schweitzer, and it is worth noting that she does NOT change the date of her dinosaur bones. They still date to the 68 million year range (plus or minus). What we learned from her research is NOT that dinosaurs lived in recent times, but that desiccated soft tissue can be preserved under some extreme situations.
Paleontological dating science is NOT founded in conjecture. It is based in fundamental principles that can be replicated by multiple procedures and multiple labs. No one in this science thinks the earth is much less than 4.5 billion years old.
I certainly do NOT believe that findings from radiometric and geology labs should have anything to do with whether I go to Church or not.
For me, the earth is ancient by billions of years, and I still should go to Church and read my scriptures. I am uncomfortable with all-or-nothing theological propositions that can be placed in jeopardy by the obvious facts of science.
My religion teaches me to be honest, and if natural data yield a clear message, then I feel an obligation as a scientist to convey that message without any preconceived slant based in religion or otherwise.
But, you are welcome to your views. I appreciate your persistence.
Anonymous
In regard the 3 questions you have asked -
1. While we know that the matter from which the earth was created already existed in some form (and that matter is eternal), we are also aware that those spirits working its creation made lots of changes in forming it into one mass. When you say that the earth "appears" to be billions of years old, I don't see this appearance anywhere that I look. It just looks like earth to me. But you mean when theory science has finished with their wild ideas and made it sound good it can appear that way. You really have to think when you are going throught their stuff. They make conjecture built on conjecture. They pose that only one possibility exists to explain something where given time I could come up with literally millions in some things they say.
2. The fossil record can be made into anything by just looking where you want to and ignoring every place that disagrees. I remember seeing a special on TV (and this is only typical, not unique at all) that was claiming an ice age. They showed layers in 3 places around the world to prove their claims. Then ON THE SAME PROGRAM, on a different subject, they were discussing things found in the layers and picked 2 places where they had found bones. In BOTH of these other 2 places I noted that there was no ice age layers. Its a religion that tells you what they want you to believe, but avoids presenting the evidence to the contrary.
3. Archaeologists all like to have earlier findings than the ones before. How do you know the writing really was done 5000 years ago and not 4000 (for example). Yet I have no trouble with writing being done 5000 or even 6000 years ago of itself. Adam wasn't stupid. He lived for 930 years. Do you really believe no one thought to write something?
I appreciate you asking rather than making wild assumptions of my opinions, as people can on this subject.
S. Faux --
Your patience is remarkable.
I've been a bit of time in the areas of geology and paleontology.
Frankly, I find it hard for folks to disregard all that the Earth teaches because it doesn't conform to their own notions.
A few points . . .
* The fossil record and the radiometric dating records are consistent. You find dinosaurs in material dating from a bit beyond 200 million years old to 65 million years old. You find trilobites in much older material. You find ice age mammals in material that is much younger.
* The rock layers show a progression from simple to complex. Older material is less complex. Younger material is more complex. To me that worldwide pattern tremendously reinforces the concept of evolution.
* I particularly am familiar with dinosaur material. You find particular varieties and associated plant material together, often widely separated by hundreds if not thousands of miles. Never jumbled like those who support a world-wide flood. Just consist layers. And, the layers above are more and more complex.
I think science adds to our understanding. Religion teaches us how to deal with each other and with God. It doesn't teach us physical laws nor the history of the Earth. The two are not in conflict.
Those who latch onto this or that scriptural passage fail to understand that the language reflects the bias and worldview of the drafter, someone who lived many years ago. Sometimes they were flat out wrong on scientific or historical points. But, they were dead right on religious and human grounds.
Of note, the church doesn't seem to have a problem with any of this.
BYU has departments of geology, paleontology and biology that are all staffed by folks who teach, research and believe in evolution, an ancient earth and the fossil record. They are interviewed by general authorities and paid by tithing money.
Just this past year BYU scientists announced a magnificent sauropod species from Dinosaur National Monument. They unveiled to excited media, were featured in much of the church-owned media and have published how that species ties into the evolutionary species. All without threats of being apostate or excommunication. In fact, the scientists were honored by the university.
Just a few weeks ago a BYU student announced the discovery of 10 dinosaurs in Idaho, published a paper on the evolutionary implications of the species discovered. His work was funded with tithing money.
BYU scientists are heavily into human evolution, particularly the evolution of diseases, DNA research on post hominid species, etc. All funded by the University and approved by their department.
The church and the board of trustees (all three members of the First Presidency) don't seem to have a problem with any of this. Why do some others??
Steve
Steve:
Thanks for adding your dinosaur expertise. Yes, there are a lot of LDS evolutionists. Count me in.
The Church teaches us how to find the truth. One of those ways is science. Of course, science is not a substitute for religious truth, but the converse is true as well.
As for me, I need to attend Church, but I also need to study T. rex!!
Steve
Well you have me bothered about paying tithing now.
In all seriousness that sounds all very intelligent and highly educated. But it is still the same old unproven stuff. You talk of ages that you have no experience in. Have you invented some time machine with all that scientific learning, so that you, or anyone else, is qualified to inform us what definately happened millions of years ago? Or are you just another believer in whatever you are told? It isn't S. Faux that needs the patience. And Rob is doing well.
As to the fabled accuracy of dating methods _
A guy found a Roman style sword. Took it to get carbon dated. They knew the sword was made around 650 AD. It was dated at 1380 AD. So they then went to the area it was found and cut through a tree assuming about 100 years for each ring. After several reajustments they got 670 AD. Very scientific, guys.
They found a skull in Australia and it dated at 2500 years ago. Didn't like that date. So they went all around the world but the oldest date they could come up with was 10000 years ago. That couldn't be right because they had to have today's aboriginal descended from them. And they couldn't have changed that much that fast. So they finally found one in England that proved it to be 60000 years old. That was the date they wanted. Success. Gee, this science stuff is great.
But, hey, the Scriptures are wrong and this stuff must be true, because these guys are highly educated in this stuff.
Isn't it time to come to reality? This is all just science fiction, fellas.
That many in some positions in the church are sucked in is sad. But this doesn't dictate truth. The Scriptures refute an earth that is millions of years old. And theory science hasn't presented anything that I see as evidence to the contrary. Just a lot of religious piffle.
Doug, I must say you are more entertaining than Rob Osborn and R. Gary combined! You are most welcome here!
Doug ---
That was so bizarre that I have no idea how to respond.
Can I make a suggestion? I don't know where you live but you need to take a few days this summer and go out on a fossil dig for a local university.
If possible, I'd highly recommend a BYU dig. Spending some time with a BYU professor and students, excavating a Utah dinosaur, learning about how things are dated, exploring the evolution of a species or two --- would probably be rather enlightening.
Steve
Doug Towers:
Based on your recent note to "Steve," I would prescribe some homework, such as dendrochronology. Scientists are NOT in the business of making assumptions and then getting them published. Consequently, true scientists are NOT going to assume that a tree ring equates with 100 years!!!
Feel free to be critical of science, but please dish out findings from serious journals like Science or Nature. Otherwise, I will criticize you for simply building a "scientific" straw man and then knocking him over, which is NOT much of an accomplishment.
Evolutionary science is no where near as dangerous as pseudo-science. As an educator, I am often amazed at the filters through which some view science.
To Readers:
As a good starting point, I recommend LDS scientist David H. Bailey's essays on the reliability of radiometric dating. He provides several additional links as references. Skeptics of dating methods owe themselves this bit of homework. At the least, I think, one can begin to understand from these essays why scientists are committed to these dating techniques.
My point about the dino soft tissue is that science had already established that soft tissue should not be present in something millions of years old. So, when they found it, they then assumed that the bone was millions of years old and drew up the conclusion that they had been wrong on how soft tissue can be preserved. But in doing so they provide no process scientifically to explain it while still assuming their bone to be millions of years old. Logic alone tells us that no soft tissue should be in something millions of years old. This anomaly however gets chalked up as special though which I find interesting because there are lots of these special instances which scientists tend to ignore.
Have dino bones been carbon dated? Yes, but no scientists really pay attention to it because they don't believe the dates, or that they weren't contaminated. Let me ask you that- What do you think about the dino bones that have been found to contain carbon and have returned dates in the thousands of years?
Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn:
No one carbon dates dinosaur bones. Carbon dating only works up to about 60K years ago. Dinosaur bones are about 1,000 times older than the maximum date that the carbon method can measure. Half-lives of isotopes matter!!
Further, your use of the term "soft tissue" seems to miss the point that the tissue was preserved in a desiccated state. "Logic" (as you claim) may state that such preservation is impossible, but that is why science is empirical. "Logic" is often surprised by nature.
SFaux,
Then I argue that you either are ignorant that carbon dating of dino bones actually happens, or, you are fully aware that it has been happening but do not either believe nor care for this information.
http://dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm
Whether you agree or not, dino bones have been carbon dated.
Rob Osborn
Rob
Good on you, mate. Your point about scientists just discarding facts is so true they just look ridiculous to the nonbeliever. Then they wonder why we don't believe the same as they do.
S. Faux
My "straw man" came from watching the prophets of theory science on TV specials where their credetials were qualified. That I don't read the Ensign of theory science to quote from it you will have to excuse, as there is no point examining that which is believed today and disbelieved tomorrow. If I read the Awake magazine of the Jehovah's Witnesses (for example) almost all the data will still be believed in 20 years time; so will be useful in discussion with them.
However let me quote one such given me by my science teacher. He told me that scientists were in the process of creating an exact replica of the thinking grey blob (brain). He read this in a science journal. He assurred me that they would have it up and thinking in no time - they had declared this. Here we are decades later and no thinking grey blob.
Had these so called "scientists" used some sence and studied the things they didn't want to hear they would have found some interesting facts. At that time in Europe (and again this comes from a TV special I watched and saw these people and brain scans being done on the spot) studies were being done on the many people born with brain matter missing. One only having a brain the size of a quarter. And that these people were absolutely normal. No differences could be found in any areas of life after over a decade of study of them and others chosen who had normal brain sizes. Many of these didn't contain the so called "human" segment that supposedly makes us better than apes.
Steve
I would actually be interested to see such first hand, but health doesn't allow. Yet I don't believe my conclusions would lead to supporting theirs.
Stan
I'm glad you enjoy my inpute.
Rob Osborn:
Here is why you cannot show me in a peer-reviewed paleontology article the dating of a 65 million year old dinosaur bone using C-14.
Rob ---
The C-14 "research" is highly misleading. First, C-14 comes from two sources. One is the atmosphere (basically carbon absorbed by living organism). That is the form used for dating life forms in the past few tens of thousands of years.
But, C-14 is also found in very low levels when you have other radioactive materials.
Dinosaur bones show very low levels of C-14 consistent with deriving from radioactive materials in the bones. But, they don't come near showing the levels expected of living organisms. Thus, the levels don't implicate the great age of the bones.
Doug --
Why the intense hostility to science? Science allows us to feed the world, enjoy more leisure, travel, learn more, eliminate disease and live longer.
I sense you feel it is a highly negative force in the world.
I also perceive a belief that you are somehow protecting the faith.
Again, I would point out BYU's heavy involvement in evolutionary biology, geology, and paleontology. Considering that the church leadership supports the scientists engaged in these efforts by hiring them and funding their projects, I would submit that the LDS church doesn't see the conflict.
--- Steve
Steve
In regard technology and the advances of true (that is where something is demonstrated as real by a working unit) science I have no problems at all. I have worked in electronic engineering and repair for years. Science is good. Gods use the principles of physics in creation and maintaining worlds.
However from my youth many atheistic scientists have strived to use the good side of science as a springboard for presenting theory science, in a desire to disprove and/or undermind God and Scripture. This is the reason for so much funding. This is where the lies exist in abundance.
What this site is supporting is the concept of compromise to atheism and its false science. Let's bend a Scripture here and ignore a text there. Let's change things and say its symbolic, when it doesn't suit.
I am well aware that some in positions of responsibility in the church have also been deceived. This doesn't make the church wrong, of course. It means that each individual is entitled to make mistakes, and we can't judge all the ideas of a person by his position in the church organisation.
The Scriptures and church history have enough demonstrations of prophets and apostles making errors. Life is for learning.
My religion isn't a belief in people. It is in Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and using the Scriptures (particularly) with the aid of the Holy Ghost.
Yet I have to say that my belief is that the majority of the apostles and presidents have known the truth, but can't state it. A full explanation of this matter crosses parts of the Law of Moses that the church currently teaches to practice.
Fortunately I can delve into it and expound on the subject sufficiently without crossing the line, as my words will never be disseminated as theirs are.
Not only am I concerned about the negative effect of theory science's efforts to pretend to have disproved God, but it is an additional act of Satan to make people compromise Scripture in general - what pertains to one thing can pertain to all.
Yet amidst all this I must say that the Scriptures and the Holy Ghost have allowed me to think, rather than just believe.
And it isn't just spiritual truths that I know that refute theory science. It just doesn't come out scientific to me either, upon full examination.
Doug ---
So, are you saying the First Presidency is corrupt for supporting scientists at BYU?
Steve
Steve
And we were having a sensible conversation. Perhaps we have a language problem or you are oversensitive about church "leaders."
The Holy Ghost once explained the church to me as a straight line on which we are all on the same level but some have broader areas of responsibility on that line.
A problem members can tend to have is prophet worship. Along with that comes bishop, stake president and up the greasy pole of success in "leadership" positions. Thus making those at the "top" some superior being incapable of error.
It appears you feel this way. What can I say? Nice guys. Really. I have seen the fire of the Holy Ghost in Bro. Monson's eyes. I know him to be chosen of the Lord for his position. But he isn't my superior. I have as much right to revelation as he does. Just not for the running of the church organisation. Also any change of doctrine when God inspires it. Also I'm sure he diligently seeks the spirit to give helpful messages in conferences. But then, so would I.
Let me present some Scriptural facts to you.
1. Abraham was not THE prophet (ie president of the priesthood). Melchizedek was at that time.
2. Lehi was not THE prophet. In fact he didn't even hold any priesthood at the time he was in Jerusalem, as he came from Manasseh.
3. Nephi wasn't THE prophet when he was dealing with his brothers.
4. Joseph Smith wasn't THE prophet when he translated the Book of Mormon.
5. Balaam was a prophet who encouraged Israel to follow other Gods so he could curse them for the money.
6. One prophet told another prophet that an angel had appeared to him and told him to invite him over for dinner. He lied, and it cost the life of the other prophet. The other prophet had been told to go straight home, but ignored that in favor of the claims of the other prophet.
And what of church history and the GAs that caused serious problems and betrayal.
Get off the GA worship bus. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are my leaders. They are the only ones that never get it wrong. I worship them only. The others I assist and support in their various responsibilities as I can.
Suggesting that when someone makes an error they are "corrupt" is presenting the idea that they have done this deliberately.
I have in no way suggested such. I've merely pointed out that these people make mistakes at times.
So the mistake is that they have all these heretics at BYU.
Maybe the next step is to fire the entire Biology and Geology departments so they can't keep corrupting the youth. Then, refill the departments with folks with online degrees.
While we are at it, better fire the physics folks and anyone in astronomy. They teach the big bang.
Readers:
I am not liking the accusatory tone that is developing, and I think we have veered off the topic of the posted essay. Thus, I am bringing this discussion to a close.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment