Homosexuality is designed?

[Mustard Seed]

MS, I appologize for interjecting my comments into your discussion with the ThePhy. But don't you see that ID philosophy is going against the epitaph you have chosen for the bottom of your posts. In my opinion your strategy is not what the LDS is all about. I used to write healthcare ajudication software for the LDS, and the administrators I had contact with were quite polte and respectful of my own beliefs. They were more like Jewish people than fundamentalist Christian's. In that they did not prosletyze. They only want converts that have chosen that path from thier own free will. And not those who are forced from the fear produced by injecting theology into scientific understanding.

You are correct. Science is dynamic and changing. Do you think it should be any other way?

Again I have no qualms with science. I think it's great. My problem is where science is placed, explicitly or implicitly, by the likes of ThePhy. I should also point out that my conversation with ThePhy is not in any way to convince him or to prostlytize. What I am doing is more in the realm of maintaining an atmosphere in which belief can exist. Apologetics, in my view, is more about this than it is convincing anyone of anything. ThePhy initialy entered this forum primarily to pick apart Mormonism. If you go through our dialog and pay attention to the the modes used by ThePhy for measuring the validity of a faith you'll note would destroy any faith anywhere that has ever been. That is why the man is either agnostic or atheist. I find it interesting that in his initial attempts at sparring he avoided disclosing the above whenever possible. He would play sympathetic to biblical archeology and then duck and cover whenever asked his view on the meaning of anything biblical. He's one smart duck. And he didn't limit it to this forum either. He engaged in several other forums and guess his favorite subject. Age of the earth? No. Anything directly scientific? No. All his initial forum particiapation (at least under the name ThePhy) were all directed against Mormonism. Yet now he plays coy to that and tries to paint me as a fanatic religious zealot while he is a steady scientist giving correction here and there on TOL to poor lost souls. Never giving the slightest hint to any new comer that he was the initiator of the Mormon bashing and hence my consequential apologetics. He also conveniently forgets that part of the reason his post count is not near mine is because a great many of his posts from his first days (many if not all on Mormonism) have since been deleted. Thus he can proudly boast his great discernment in wise use of time in his apologetics for all things scientific. ThePhy is quite the guy. Smart, resourcefull, brilliant, but by no means harmless. He tries to foster such an image but give heed when I tell you that if he could talk you into believing what he does you will be set down the path of forsaking any faith you might have in anything but science.

Try going back to the quotes of Nibley regarding the limitations inherent in science and tell me where Nibley is wrong. Think about what is really being said and what the actual limits are of science, logic and reason. I hope you will be able to see that despite the great and necesary role all the above play they are still frail when placed next to what is truly vital in our lives.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Thank you.
I picked it out myself

I do like your signature. Curious as to why an atheist would chose such.

 

[ThePhy]

one-liners and missives

one-liners and missives

Wow, MS, you are a hard one to predict. You issue several almost empty posts, then suddenly you publish a missive. But I really appreciate you taking the time to fill in enough detail to say something substantive.

It is clear that your offense is still largely from my rejection of your religious tenets as much as the science vs religion issue.

I will touch on a just a few points in your post.

From MS:

Science is your God. Your dogma.

Science is something I have great respect for, a respect that I give to no religious philosophy. I make that distinction simply because my experience and analysis of religion convinces me that it is not fundamentally true. On an emotional level religion serves as a comfort blanket for many people that buffers against the injustices of life and promises something after death. I would love it if someone could show me that life continued after death, but absent that proof, to hold that belief is nothing short of self-delusion. I will not lie to myself that way.

On a social level, religions provide a community for fellowship and common interests. This is why most Mormons stay Mormon, most Catholics stay Catholics, and so on. If some religion were really the repository of demonstrable eternal truth, then all truth-seeking people should gravitate to it. The social aspect of religion provides a natural setting for most peoples need for a comfortable social interaction. But beneath it all I still find no validity to any special insight into eternal truths. Rather, every religion I have looked at has not only compromised on truth, but many dogmatically defend lies. A literal adherence to Genesis is just that, a blind acceptance of a fairy tale.

I find it strange that Christians in their own society and writings will speak so glowingly and reverently of the meaning of faith and god and such, and then in their need to discredit science, will charge that scientists employ similar ideals in their “worship of science”. You charge that science is my god. I know what Mormons think of their god. If your worship for your god is on the same level as my respect for science, then your god is much less than what Mormons portray him to be in their books. You either sully the terms normally used to describe religion, or you imbue on science a level of reverence that few scientists really hold, when you equate my science with your god.

You have a fluid dogma. Dogmatically non-dogmatic as it were.

Fundamentally you are correct. As I pointedly said, science deals in advancing knowledge, and current knowledge is always tentative. This hardly means that science might be completely screwed up and we just haven’t realized it yet. Technology, the applied side of science, would simply fail to work if our ideas were fundamentally flawed. As in Newton’s case, we may find that we have been using an understanding that was flawed in extreme cases, but in the day-to-day world Newton is just fine.

You can take Newton's laws as acceptable and worthy of being the foundation of elementary science teaching despite the fact that they are often not what they are portrayed to be, but if a faith doesn't disclose 'meat' and 'milk' and all in between on demand then it is 'dishonest' and, in your view, not possibly the conduit of God's word.

I hesitate to comment on this, because I sense reference to our previous discussion in theological forums on what I perceive to be errors in Mormonism. I will not go down that avenue in this forum, other than to directly say that Mormonism, like all religions, holds and defends as truthful teachings that are lies. You buy into the lies, I presume for the same reasons most returned Mormon missionaries do. I have enumerated s significant number of them before, and unless you have significant new evidence that I am wrong, the extant postings will suffice on those issues.

Science is free to publish 'approximations' to be built upon but if God were to ever do similarly with man then it's an irreconcilable discrepancy and God doesn't exist.

Religionists are the ones who decree the inviolability of their god and his teachings. If you want to propose a “learn as he goes along” god, please do so. I am aware in Mormon history where statements approaching this idea were made, and were answered with denunciations that such thinking means maybe we are just experiments of god, and he might decide we are actually mistakes.

All who mention the limitations of science are painted as anti-Science pro-inquisition bigots. On simple tangents and extrapolations you've tried to paint me as some fanatic that would round up all scientists and place them under house arrest. You know full well the rhetorical power of insinuation and constant hinting. I, like you, don't have forever to answer every hint and attempt at slandering made against me. But the astute will see that you insinuate my stance then proceed to use the false or grossly exaggerated personas to paint me in whatever hue you feel best suits your agenda. You demand that what you say be judged solely on it's merits but you feel free and easy in your character attacks. Never mind what Nibley says, forget his logic or reasoning, he's NOT A SCIENTIST. How DARE a non-scientist question science and it's pervading presumptions or those who participate in it!

We are not attacking science. We are attacking the false idea that science is the end all of authority on truth.

And I am saying that science, is spite of its need to refine itself, is more in conformance with the evidence that nature provides than is religion. I will not accept a second-place method of gaining knowledge when a better way is in front of me.

I am pointing out that since science can never answer the questions as to why we're here, what we're supposed to do and what comes next then it's all a bunch of nonsense.

Just like Nibley, here you fault science for not having eschatological answers. And it doesn’t. Ultimate beginnings, ultimate endings, reasons for existence – science is poorly equipped to deal with these questions. But to buy into the answers religion has in these fields is predicated on faith, which is little more than a balm for the discomfort people have over such questions.

Science is inherently stymied yet it is set up by the likes of ThePhy as the great salvation of man kind. Salvation from what? Does it matter? It's all just a big show.

Nonsense. Science provides knowledge about the physical world, nothing more. I am sorry if in not answering the question of eternity you find fault in it. Now, how many of the applications of scientifically derived technology that you enjoy do not work because science has limited itself to what it can address? As you say – “Does it matter?” Remove all the benefits of science from your life and see what you think.

Anyway, your post continues on in a similar vein, deriding science for not providing the ultimate answers. In such fields, where science is silent, religion is not hesitant to provide all the placebos that the yearning masses want.

As many scientists have said before, I don’t find discomfort in not knowing, but I strongly object to being asked to accept a lie. Religion, as far as I know all religion – falls in the latter category.

 

[Mustard Seed]

But don't you see that ID philosophy is going against the epitaph you have chosen for the bottom of your posts. In my opinion your strategy is not what the LDS is all about. I used to write healthcare ajudication software for the LDS, and the administrators I had contact with were quite polte and respectful of my own beliefs. They were more like Jewish people than fundamentalist Christian's. In that they did not prosletyze. They only want converts that have chosen that path from thier own free will. And not those who are forced from the fear produced by injecting theology into scientific understanding.

You are correct. Science is dynamic and changing. Do you think it should be any other way?

I need to say a wee bit more on the above.

Please realize that while I'd be happy to see anyone convert I am not aiming at that in this conversation.

I'm curious as to how you see ID as conflicting with the quote in my signature. Especialy since ID is compatable with many different possible degrees of evolution. I'm not advocating we teach ID as though it was as scientificaly sound as gravity or even that it has any direct scientific evidence or testability. Do you see any questioning of science as the supreme mode of ataining knowledge as being threatening? I'm having a hard time how your thinking is adding up to what you're saying.

 

[Mustard Seed]

If some religion were really the repository of demonstrable eternal truth, then all truth-seeking people should gravitate to it.

A fascinating statement. Seems to make sense. Light cleaves unto light. That's true. People are constantly in flux. Inticements go in almost every conceivable direction. Your above statement seems to assume that "truth-seeking people" always remain such or are sufficiently stable to arive at such a conclusion. There are so many factors that you've left out because you simply lack the capacity (as do all humans) to include all factors into the equation.

So you do what you've done and explain away to the best of your capacity what you see at present.

A literal adherence to Genesis is just that, a blind acceptance of a fairy tale.

I know you want to avoid the whole LDS view and disputations upon it in this sub-forum but for the sake of argument just look at the above assumptions you have to make to make the above statment. To apply the label of "fairy tale" there are so many assumptions you have to make. I for one am not dogmaticaly attatched to the Genesis account. You know that. You see there are so many factors you assume in such pronouncements that they are no more dogma dependent than what I believe.

Technology, the applied side of science, would simply fail to work if our ideas were fundamentally flawed.

Funny. Look at the LDS view of Babylon and the pronouncements made upon it when there was the proverbial "writting on the wall" Mene mene tekel upharsin. Measured measured weighed divided. Babylon works because it uses correct principles. So does Zion. The difference comes in the extent to which they apply them. Babylon does so finitly and does so in a manner that eventualy divides itself. It stands for a while but when the accounting in the system finaly comes due the house folds. Science has a place in both Babylon and Zion. But to limit ones allegience to just science is to doom one to the "weighed in the balance and found wanting" pronouncement. You've always admited and I've pointed out that science alone can't give many answers that would be more than nice to have. My point is that to put science on the top of the heap, even if your heap is only a few feet or inches high in your estimation, is lying to yourself.

I will not accept a second-place method of gaining knowledge when a better way is in front of me.

But the method for discerning the above as being true is inherently flawed so how are you sure that what you have is better than anything else out there?

Just like Nibley, here you fault science for not having eschatological answers.

NO

We fault it for feigning to being the most capable of acheiving or approaching these answers. It's not science we're attacking but the placement of science in the echelon of importance by the likes of you.

But to buy into the answers religion has in these fields is predicated on faith, which is little more than a balm for the discomfort people have over such questions.

In many cases I'd fully agree with the above.

As you say – “Does it matter?” Remove all the benefits of science from you life and see what you think.

Funny. Ever see the Connections series on Public Television? They have a facinating episode where it contemplates a civilization thrown back to the dawn of time. When they discuss the dawn of civilization it it all leads to the Temple. A structure/concept that science is still grapling with. It just appeared on the scene. Like writting. Poof and there it was. They try and say it all just evolved from hyroglyphics. Course the earliest hyroglyphics they can find is in the form of a highly advanced language. Geography, masonry, metalurgy, agriculture, city planning. As best they can tell they just all poofed into existance. Metalurgy just seems to have spontaneously developed in China, the Mid-East, India and the Americas all at about the same time. Dispersion? Not likely since they were different forms of Metalurgy entirely. Again no heaps of evidence of a primative language evolving. It just kind of comes outta nowhere.

As many scientists have said before, I don’t find discomfort in not knowing, but I strongly object to being asked to accept a lie. Religion, as far as I know all religion – falls in the latter category.

But 'lies', like Newtonian Physics 'aproximations' in your current view are vital. I obviously don't see the 'lies' and 'discrepancies' you see in my faith.

 

[ThePhy]

MS wants me to use the more flawed method

MS wants me to use the more flawed method

From ThePhy (previously):

If some religion were really the repository of demonstrable eternal truth, then all truth-seeking people should gravitate to it.

MS’s response:

Your above statement seems to assume that "truth-seeking people" always remain such or are sufficiently stable to arive at such a conclusion. There are so many factors that you've left out because you simply lack the capacity (as do all humans) to include all factors into the equation.

I agree. That is largely why Mormons stay Mormons, Catholics Catholic, and so on. Not because one religion or the other has a greater claim on truth, but because for most people social factors play a bigger part in their decisions than does a rational examination of their beliefs.

From ThePhy (previously):

A literal adherence to Genesis is just that, a blind acceptance of a fairy tale.

MS’s response:

I know you want to avoid the whole LDS view and disputations upon it in this sub-forum but for the sake of argument just look at the above assumptions you have to make to make the above statment. To apply the label of "fairy tale" there are so many assumptions you have to make. I for one am not dogmaticaly attatched to the Genesis account. You know that. You see there are so many factors you assume in such pronouncements that they are no more dogma dependent than what I believe.

I know Mormons do not take Genesis nearly as literally as do most fundamentalist Christians. But there are aspects of Genesis that are believed by the Mormon faithful – such as a literal Noachian flood, the reality of a unique primal Adam and Eve from whom are decended the entire human race, and who were themselves possessed of a sophisticated language, and were not products of Darwinian evolution. These religious ideas are falsehoods. If fundamentalists say 2 + 2 = 7, and Mormons says no, 2 + 2 is 5, why not go that last step and make the full correction, let 2 + 2 = 4? Let the flood of Noah be allegorical, or a devastating local flood, or perhaps something borrowed from older traditions, but definitely not a worldwide deluge of a few thousand years ago. Take delight in knowing that your relationship to the animal kingdom, and even the plant world, is not just in being neighbors, but in sharing a common ancestry. The offense people express when they make statements such as “I am not descended from a monkey” are emotional statements, not backed by the evidence. I might with equal validity declare that I am of a different species and share no kinship with Jeffrey Dahmer, not because it is true, but because I am morally offended by the thought of even being a distant relative of his.

Look at the LDS view of Babylon and the pronouncements made upon it when there was the proverbial "writting on the wall" Mene mene tekel upharsin. Measured measured weighed divided. Babylon works because it uses correct principles. So does Zion. The difference comes in the extent to which they apply them. Babylon does so finitly and does so in a manner that eventualy divides itself. It stands for a while but when the accounting in the system finaly comes due the house folds. Science has a place in both Babylon and Zion.

Perhaps you are being allegorical here, but I really have no idea what you are saying. Try again, simple straightforward English.

But to limit ones allegience to just science is to doom one to the "weighed in the balance and found wanting" pronouncement. You've always admited and I've pointed out that science alone can't give many answers that would be more than nice to have. My point is that to put science on the top of the heap, even if your heap is only a few feet or inches high in your estimation, is lying to yourself.

What to put on top of the heap then? Religion, with it’s attendant belief in doctrines that are contradicted by the evidence? When I am hiking ot the top of a mountain, I try to choose the best path. Science is not perfect, but please don’t ask me to subjugate it to something that is based on emotion.

But the method for discerning the above as being true is inherently flawed so how are you sure that what you have is better than anything else out there?

I am willing to consider any competing philosophies you might propose. I and thousands of my colleagues have found science to be by far the best way of expanding knowledge so far. You are welcome to claim it is not optimum, and indeed it may not be, but until you can propose something that is demonstrably more productive, then I see no reason to abandon it for a second-best solution.

From ThePhy (previously):

Just like Nibley, here you fault science for not having eschatological answers.

MS’s response:

NO

YES. Look at the very next thing you say, and tell me how that supports your “NO” to my statement that science is not in the eschatology business.

We fault it for feigning to being the most capable of acheiving or approaching these answers. It's not science we're attacking but the placement of science in the echelon of importance by the likes of you.

Science goes where the evidence takes it. Even with the realization that the evidence shows a “big bang”, yet science stops short of one of the ultimate questions – that of the absolute beginning. The big bang is only defined starting a small fraction of a second from the “beginning”, beyond that are only speculations on what started it all, or whether it is even meaningful to talk of “before” when time itself was a product of the big bang. Here again the fool (religion) rushes in where the wise man (science) fears to tread.

Funny. Ever see the Connections series on Public Television? They have a facinating episode where it contemplates a civilization thrown back to the dawn of time. When they discuss the dawn of civilization it it all leads to the Temple. A structure/concept that science is still grapling with. It just appeared on the scene. Like writting. Poof and there it was. They try and say it all just evolved from hyroglyphics. Course the earliest hyroglyphics they can find is in the form of a highly advanced language. Geography, masonry, metalurgy, agriculture, city planning. As best they can tell they just all poofed into existance. Metalurgy just seems to have spontaneously developed in China, the Mid-East, India and the Americas all at about the same time. Dispersion? Not likely since they were different forms of Metalurgy entirely. Again no heaps of evidence of a primative language evolving. It just kind of comes outta nowhere.

You have definitely been imbibing far too many creationist books. At BYU take a few classes in the development of civilization and society and see how many claims you have made above are sheer fundamentalist religiously motivated BS.

But 'lies', like Newtonian Physics 'aproximations' in your current view are vital.

Why do you call Newtonian physics a lie? Up to a hundred years ago it was believed to be complete and correct. Does your definition of a lie include a sincere belief in something that is only later found to be an exquisitely good approximation to the truth? And I see no lie in it now, when we use Newton’s Laws fully aware of their limitations.

I obviously don't see the 'lies' and 'discrepancies' you see in my faith.

And that is what amazes me. As already shown in the religious discussions documented in the religion forums, you uncritically give obeisance to history and doctrines that by almost any standards would fall squarely in the center of the world of lies, and when called on them, you turn to the Bible to show that at times lies were employed there as justifications for them in your faith. Is it any wonder I cannot countenance either your faith, or the Bible that you use as a moral justification for lying?

 

[Yorzhik]

ThePhy... have you checked your PM's lately?

 

[ThePhy]

quid pro quo

quid pro quo

ThePhy... have you checked your PM's lately?

I can't respond to you until you confess that evolution is absolutely true, and you solemnly promise to never again entertain the slightest doubt about the inerrant accuracy of science. Deal?

Yes, I read it.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I note that in the writings from Nibley that you offer, the core is not science, but the attitudes of the practitioners of science.

The above is why I said no to us attacking science. To attack the preconceptions and failures of the participants is not an inherent attack on the philosophy or construct.

Why do you call Newtonian physics a lie? Up to a hundred years ago it was believed to be complete and correct. Does your definition of a lie include a sincere belief in something that is only later found to be an exquisitely good approximation to the truth? And I see no lie in it now, when we use Newton’s Laws fully aware of their limitations.

I didn't call it a lie. That is what I thought you were stating it was when you said--

...A typical example is Newton’s laws, which we now know to be only approximations to the truth.

Now following your implicit definitions of honesty, deception etc. regarding things mormon I was simply applying them here. If the church came out and said that the First Vision was something akin to an "approximation" (in the same manner that Newton's laws are) wouldn't that be an essential, or close too, a square one, primrose dead-end, retraction and redo? I mean you could technically claim to be building on past developments but you would also be forsaking the very foundational keys to the original power and intent of the First Vision as it is portrayed and has been by the LDS Church since before it's inception. (This of course is what the intellectual apostate elite are trying to do to our faith) See I'm not saying that Newton's law was a 'lie' (hence the quotation marks) I was simply placing it in the context you've created for what is classified to be a deception, or something along those lines. Simply extrapolating on the implicit dots you've laid down.

I clearly see the First Vision and the History of the Church as correct. If you zoom into a close up it may not be what many expect but that does not mean that it is a miss-portrayal, a lie or a sham. In like manner Newton's laws are true in their context and hence are eternal truths as long as they are eternally kept in the context in which they are meant to be used. Like Specs for industrial production simply because some specs are not as tight or demanding for some applications doesn't mean that something is necessarily incorrect. You use the proper specs for the specific job at hand. As progression continues on specs get tighter but that does not mean the previous runs were wrong simply because the current demands tighter specs.

If you want to call Newton’s laws fallacious because we know they are not really correct, go ahead. They still occupy an important place in the development of scientific understanding, and serve a vital function in the educational process.

The above is primarily where I got your view that they were fallacious. I personally don't see them as such as long as they are kept in proper context. Like the exception given by God to many to seemingly break previously given laws. They were not ever real infringements upon the base governing law. Rather the overly simplified view of the law was what was being crossed. The law had to be given simply in order for progression to occur to the higher states. The same way you see it as being impossible or nigh impossible to jump from pre-Newtonian science to current understanding. No law was every really wrong if it is kept in it's context. Likewise divine command killing or deception or whatever can be abiding law just in a context not revealed to everyone at once.

You go off on the whole 2+2=7 vs 2+2=5 and complain that they do not go all the way to correct. Perhaps a reference to a similar thing I've done with equations to demonstrate the point. 2+2=11 seems ever so much further from the truth. Perhaps as absurd as one might see, as you do, the Genesis account as viewed by Latter-day Saints. Noah's flood seen as a literal covering of the whole earth or the strict lineage back to Adam and Eve is all clearly something you view as just non-sensical. But if you find out that the assumptions of the system were far far off of what you had ever conceived, if like the 2+2=11 equation you find out that the base of the entire number system is not what you always thought it was (ten in this case) but rather something that would render the above equation the only correct answer (base three). This is a big part of my point.

You have definitely been imbibing far too many creationist books. At BYU take a few classes in the development of civilization and society and see how many claims you have made above are sheer fundamentalist religiously motivated BS.

Beyond Nibley I really haven't read much in the way of creationist literature. The metallurgy facts come from "Out of the Fiery Furnace". Hardly a creationist publication. And if you watch the Connections episode I reference (I believe it's first one and is centered on "switches" and in the original series by James Burke) you'll see that they by no means are supporting creationism. If my statements are so easy to dispute then a few references (rather than a broad general reference to courses at the Y, a school I've never attended) would seem to be sufficient. Your broad dismissal is not well suited to supporting your claims on any rational level. It may work rhetorically for some of the audience but it largely shows your refusal and/or inability to successfully counter my logic with logic rather than vain inferences to a possible lack in understanding I may have. But you'll probably hold on to all your potato chips regardless. Can't seem to lose ground when rhetorical devices will maintain the appearance of success.

 

[noguru]

Please realize that while I'd be happy to see anyone convert I am not aiming at that in this conversation.

Well maybe not in this conversation. But by backing an author who proposes ID as a valid substitution for the current paradigm you are.

I'm curious as to how you see ID as conflicting with the quote in my signature. Especialy since ID is compatable with many different possible degrees of evolution. I'm not advocating we teach ID as though it was as scientificaly sound as gravity or even that it has any direct scientific evidence or testability. Do you see any questioning of science as the supreme mode of ataining knowledge as being threatening? I'm having a hard time how your thinking is adding up to what you're saying.

Because, given the evidence as it stands now, ID is a metaphysical question. The presupposition is made prior to inquiry into the material sciences. Without the presupposition of a higher power it is not a logical imperative from the empirical evidence. Therefore it is inappropriate to inject this idea into a subject addressing the material sciences. Any attempt to do so, given our current understanding, is nothing more than proselytizing. And I believe that this is the wrong approach to teaching theology.

 

[Yorzhik]

I can't respond to you until you confess that evolution is absolutely true, and you solemnly promise to never again entertain the slightest doubt about the inerrant accuracy of science. Deal?

Yes, I read it.

I confess that ev...

Hey, wait a minute, I already read your reply!

I'll have to find time again to get back up to speed in this section. So, to get back on topic. Are y'all basically saying that science has no insite into detecting design?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Because, given the evidence as it stands now, ID is a metaphysical question. The presupposition is made prior to inquiry into the material sciences. Without the presupposition of a higher power it is not a logical imperative from the empirical evidence. Therefore it is inappropriate to inject this idea into a subject addressing the material sciences. Any attempt to do so, given our current understanding, is nothing more than proselytizing. And I believe that this is the wrong approach to teaching theology.

So any presupositions render something as not being science. That means that the view of evolution as acounting for all diversity of life on earth is not science because it makes similar presupositions that cannot be supported any more than the claim to the existance of a higher power is. This comes back to my whole point that as science tries to graple with problems of an eschatological nature it runs into the same problems it accuses the religious communities of being inherently stuck in. I believe that evolution exists and occures and to a degree can be supported very very well with science, logic, and reasoning and in many cases has no conflict with any of my beliefs or logic. But when you apply all the requisit assumptions needed to say that evolution is "the origin of species", that is ALL species, then I have a problem with you calling such science to the exclusion of ID. If it's bad and not science to presupose the existance of a God or God like entity, then what makes it any more scientific or good to presuppose the plethora of requisits to believing that all life proceeded out of a single happen chance occurance in some primordial guck? To believe those presuppositions and teach it in a science class as science and then turn around and say that a presuposition of an intellegent being ordering it or something else that led to the current state of things organic then what gives? I have no problem keeping ID out of science class as long as you are willing to remove the teaching that evolution is the source of every last piece of organic diversity on this planet as being 'science'.

 

[noguru]

So any presupositions render something as not being science. That means that the view of evolution as acounting for all diversity of life on earth is not science because it makes similar presupositions that cannot be supported any more than the claim to the existance of a higher power is. This comes back to my whole point that as science tries to graple with problems of an eschatological nature it runs into the same problems it accuses the religious communities of being inherently stuck in. I believe that evolution exists and occures and to a degree can be supported very very well with science, logic, and reasoning and in many cases has no conflict with any of my beliefs or logic. But when you apply all the requisit assumptions needed to say that evolution is "the origin of species", that is ALL species, then I have a problem with you calling such science to the exclusion of ID. If it's bad and not science to presupose the existance of a God or God like entity, then what makes it any more scientific or good to presuppose the plethora of requisits to believing that all life proceeded out of a single happen chance occurance in some primordial guck? To believe those presuppositions and teach it in a science class as science and then turn around and say that a presuposition of an intellegent being ordering it or something else that led to the current state of things organic then what gives? I have no problem keeping ID out of science class as long as you are willing to remove the teaching that evolution is the source of every last piece of organic diversity on this planet as being 'science'.

The material sciences make the presupposition that there are natural explanations for the things in the material universe. Without this presupposition it could not take the next step.

 

[ThePhy]

equating black and white to microscopic shades of grey

equating black and white to microscopic shades of grey

From MS:

The above is why I said no to us attacking science. To attack the preconceptions and failures of the participants is not an inherent attack on the philosophy or construct.

Both Nibley’s and your intent, whether directed against the conclusions of science or the imperfections in the scientists themselves is to ultimately discredit science in those areas where it threatens your dogma.

From ThePhy (previously):

Why do you call Newtonian physics a lie? Up to a hundred years ago it was believed to be complete and correct. Does your definition of a lie include a sincere belief in something that is only later found to be an exquisitely good approximation to the truth? And I see no lie in it now, when we use Newton’s Laws fully aware of their limitations.

MS’s reply:

I didn't call it a lie. That is what I thought you were stating it was when you said—

From ThePhy (previously):

...A typical example is Newton’s laws, which we now know to be only approximations to the truth.

Then you are reading far more into my statement than is justified. As long as the difference between the reality and an approximation is not important, then approximations are very useful in both science and everyday life. A lie in place of the reality is not even close to the same thing.

Now following your implicit definitions of honesty, deception etc. regarding things mormon I was simply applying them here. If the church came out and said that the First Vision was something akin to an "approximation" (in the same manner that Newton's laws are) wouldn't that be an essential, or close too, a square one, primrose dead-end, retraction and redo?

You keep trying to equate errors in Mormonism with the fact that Newton’s Laws are less than perfect. This is a poor and strained comparison. If you insist on such, then you are automatically imbuing on Mormonism the same tentative nature on everything it claims that science does for its conclusions. Just maybe Mormonism will some day say that Christ wasn’t really divine or pure, but just a good approximation to it. Maybe Noah’s flood was just local, but approximating a global deluge. Maybe Christ really never died on the cross and resurrected, but instead approximated that scenario when he passed out and revived a couple of days later.

For the neophytes in Mormon history reading this exchange between MS and I – the “First Vision” was supposedly a personal visitation of God (the father) and Christ to Joseph Smith, which ultimately led to the founding of Mormonism.

MS - As to the First Vision, you and I have already examined some interesting aspects of that in more appropriate forums than this one. The magnitude of the errors in Newtonian Mechanics are nominally so small that I challenge you use the most sensitive weighing device you can get your hands on and then measure the weight of a speeding object and see how much it differs from Newton’s world, or use your best yardstick and measure distance contraction, or your most accurate watch and measure time dilation. Meantime I will document (as I did before) several glaring differences between the first known written account of the First Vision (written in Joseph Smith’s own hand) and the version that Mormonism now proffers as the canonized version of the First Vision. As you said before:

I obviously don't see the 'lies' and 'discrepancies' you see in my faith.

The problem is not that you don’t see the problems, it’s that you WON’T see them. The founder of Mormonism issues the first written account of his first personal encounter with God in which he specifically tells of his prior conclusions about Christianity, and yet where that is flatly contradicted by the later more polished account that became the canonized one, you see nothing significant. I cannot force you to see what you refuse to see, nor can anyone else, and even god would cease to be god if he did so. I sometimes portray myself as a scoundrel, but one of the few virtues I do not compromise on is intentionally deceiving myself. You show no allegiance to such an internal code.

For reasons you probably have never dared to faced fully and openly within yourself you refuse to look at Mormonism from any view other than that of a devout believer. Just like those in almost any church who have been intensely involved in the teaching of their faith, you have an emotional, social, and family stake that holds far more sway in your life than truth itself.

I have been somewhat gratified to deflect this thread away from its original focus, but it is approaching becoming a pure discussion of Mormonism, which is hardly on the subject of Origins. I recommend that if you have points on the correctness of Mormonism that have not already been aired, you go over to the theology forum and resurrect one of the Mormon thread and append your comments there.

 

[Mustard Seed]

From MS:
Both Nibley’s and your intent, whether directed against the conclusions of science or the imperfections in the scientists themselves is to ultimately discredit science in those areas where it threatens your dogma.

No. It's to point out that it is not truely science. That the kind of great assumptions needed to be made for certain views that are promoted as science are as big a streach as the presumption of a higher power as is requisit to ID.

Then you are reading far more into my statement than is justified. As long as the difference between the reality and an approximation is not important, then approximations are very useful in both science and everyday life. A lie in place of the reality is not even close to the same thing.

An aproximation can be a lie in some contexts and not in others.

3.6746

3.674

Technicaly they're not the same number but if all the accuracy you need at present is to the hundreth place then either will work. This is what I see as being the case with things, both with Newton's law and with my religion's history. Neither are errors in their context. If you try and throw them into an equation together with no regard for sig figs then you'll end up with a screwy answer. This is what you do to my faith and what I was demonstraiting would occure in science if things are removed from context.

You keep trying to equate errors in Mormonism with the fact that Newton’s Laws are less than perfect. This is a poor and strained comparison. If you insist on such, then you are automatically imbuing on Mormonism the same tentative nature on everything it claims that science does for its conclusions. Just maybe Mormonism will some day say that Christ wasn’t really divine or pure, but just a good approximation to it. Maybe Noah’s flood was just local, but approximating a global deluge. Maybe Christ really never died on the cross and resurrected, but instead approximated that scenario when he passed out and revived a couple of days later.

The constants, such as Christ's atonement, are much like pi. They don't change and are never, at their core, aproximations.

The magnitude of the errors in Newtonian Mechanics are nominally so small that I challenge you use the most sensitive weighing device you can get your hands on and then measure the weight of a speeding object and see how much it differs from Newton’s world, or use your best yardstick and measure distance contraction, or your most accurate watch and measure time dilation. Meantime I will document (as I did before) several glaring differences between the first known written account of the First Vision (written in Joseph Smith’s own hand) and the version that Mormonism now proffers as the canonized version of the First Vision.

In context they are no more profound than Newtonian discrepancies.

The problem is not that you don’t see the problems, it’s that you WON’T see them. The founder of Mormonism issues the first written account of his first personal encounter with God in which he specifically tells of his prior conclusions about Christianity, and yet where that is flatly contradicted by the later more polished account that became the canonized one, you see nothing significant.

There are discrepancies of this magnitude in Anne Frank's diary. Would you throw the whole thing out as a hoax because the girl did the same thing every human's ever done that's tried to keep a log of the happenings in their life in such a situation at such an age. Criticism you would level on history would null and void all of history because there are discrepancies like the above commited all throoughout history by anyone that's written anywhere close to the level of what Joseph produced.

I cannot force you to see what you refuse to see, nor can anyone else, and even god would cease to be god if he did so. I sometimes portray myself as a scoundrel, but one of the few virtues I do not compromise on is intentionally deceiving myself. You show no allegiance to such an internal code.

I do show allegience to such an internal code. As did Joseph Smith when he said that he "could not deny it". I've experienced things that if I were to deny I would bring upon myself condemnation. Not some trivial social repulsion or anything of the sort that ThePhy would like to paint me as avoiding. I have found something true outside of science, logic, and reason, as reckoned by finite man. I can't prove it empiricaly but I know it to be true. I am not deceived on this count.

For reasons you probably have never dared to faced fully and openly within yourself you refuse to look at Mormonism from any view other than that of a devout believer. Just like those in almost any church who have been intensely involved in the teaching of their faith, you have an emotional, social, and family stake that holds far more sway in your life than truth itself.

I would say the same is true for yourself within your own dogmas

 

[noguru]

I confess that ev...

Hey, wait a minute, I already read your reply!

I'll have to find time again to get back up to speed in this section. So, to get back on topic. Are y'all basically saying that science has no insite into detecting design?

Design by what/who?

Science can have insight into design by physical entities such as nature or physical beings. But if you posit a non-physical being that is not within the bounds of the material universe, how exactly would science get insight into that?

 

[Yorzhik]

Design by what/who?

Science can have insight into design by physical entities

This doesn't follow. It wouldn't be dectecting design, but solving a question about who did designing. You cannot get to the point of asking who until you can first detect that design exists. Are you conceding that science can never figure out how to detect design? Or are you saying we can detect design, but will only admit it if after the fact we find out who the designer is?

But if you posit a non-physical being that is not within the bounds of the material universe, how exactly would science get insight into that?

It cannot. That is why neither those who posit ID, nor I, say a non-physical being is required to explain design.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Design by what/who?

Science can have insight into design by physical entities such as nature or physical beings. But if you posit a non-physical being that is not within the bounds of the material universe, how exactly would science get insight into that?

In my theology God is in the "bounds of the material universe" that doesn't mean that science as we have it can empiricaly observe him. Things such as the precise location of an electron at any given moment or many elements of Super-string theory are things that are within the material universe but beyond the bounds of scientific observation.

 

[billwald]

The Problem with Mormonism is that God on several occasions has had to edit the texts dictated to Smith by the Angel. The occasions being conflicts between the LDS and the U.S. govt. Specifically regarding polygamy and African people.

 

[Stratnerd]

Specifically regarding polygamy and African people.

Bill, what's the deal? - especially with the latter.