Des News - Believers Finding God in Science

[_Maksutov]

I think that what NC47 is missing here is that the "movement" for Young Earth Creationism came about in response to the growing scientific movement which cast the Young Earth beliefs into doubt. Even if the "YEC movement" began only in the 1920s, that doesn't mean that YEC beliefs only started in the 1920s - it only means, in this case, that there wasn't thought to be a need for a "movement" to defend YEC beliefs prior to that time, because they were nearly universally held. It had taken the budding scientific developments going back 200-300 years prior to grow until they had reached some critical mass of YEC-skepticism, before the reactionary YEC movement grew up in response.

The LDS church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the Earth, and that they lived a mere few thousand years ago. They also teach that all mankind today descend from a family of 8 individuals who were spared in a large wooden boat when everyone else on Earth was executed by drowning by God, again a few thousand years ago.

These beliefs are in conflict with the evidence that scientists have now uncovered as they piece together the scientific understanding of Earth's natural history. The conflict is not subtle.

I think the Des News article is either a smoke, or a mirror, in a smoke & mirrors attempt to distract LDS believers who are starting to see this conflict for what it is. But rather than encouraging them to dig in and really understand the conflict, it seeks to persuade LDS to rest assured that there really isn't a conflict at all. Ie: "smarter people than you don't think there's really a problem here, ergo you shouldn't think there's a problem here either."

McReady Price & company were the dudes who influenced Joseph Fielding Smith. And they were riding the culture war wave of Fundamentalism/Temperance in the WWI era. Funny how cyclical this stuff is.

The DN reminds me of "Mormon Scholars Testify" and the security blanket that was/is Hugh Nibley. In other words, there are impressive Mormons available to pat you on the head and tell you to keep your shoulder to the wheel, they have all those big bad issues covered.

I don't favor people in government who patronize me and tell me to STFU. It's not likely I would listen to it from the Lord's Salesmen, no matter how many PhDs, JDs and other credentials they can accumulate.

[_nc47]

I think that what NC47 is missing here is that the "movement" for Young Earth Creationism came about in response to the growing scientific movement which cast the Young Earth beliefs into doubt. Even if the "YEC movement" began only in the 1920s, that doesn't mean that YEC beliefs only started in the 1920s - it only means, in this case, that there wasn't thought to be a need for a "movement" to defend YEC beliefs prior to that time, because they were nearly universally held. It had taken the budding scientific developments going back 200-300 years prior to grow until they had reached some critical mass of YEC-skepticism, before the reactionary YEC movement grew up in response.

The LDS church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the Earth, and that they lived a mere few thousand years ago. They also teach that all mankind today descend from a family of 8 individuals who were spared in a large wooden boat when everyone else on Earth was executed by drowning by God, again a few thousand years ago.

These beliefs are in conflict with the evidence that scientists have now uncovered as they piece together the scientific understanding of Earth's natural history. The conflict is not subtle.

I think the Des News article is either a smoke, or a mirror, in a smoke & mirrors attempt to distract LDS believers who are starting to see this conflict for what it is. But rather than encouraging them to dig in and really understand the conflict, it seeks to persuade LDS to rest assured that there really isn't a conflict at all. Ie: "smarter people than you don't think there's really a problem here, ergo you shouldn't think there's a problem here either."

McReady Price & company were the dudes who influenced Joseph Fielding Smith. And they were riding the culture war wave of Fundamentalism/Temperance in the WWI era. Funny how cyclical this stuff is.

The DN reminds me of "Mormon Scholars Testify" and the security blanket that was/is Hugh Nibley. In other words, there are impressive Mormons available to pat you on the head and tell you to keep your shoulder to the wheel, they have all those big bad issues covered.

I don't favor people in government who patronize me and tell me to STFU. It's not likely I would listen to it from the Lord's Salesmen, no matter how many PhDs, JDs and other credentials they can accumulate.

JFS sent McReardy fan mail.

[_Maksutov]

JFS sent McReardy fan mail.

Yes. There's more about their relationship and its impact in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists- ... 0674023390

[_nc47]

JFS sent McReardy fan mail.

Yes. There's more about their relationship and its impact in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists- ... 0674023390

Cool cover with a prestigious publisher. You're welcome to buy it for me for Christmas.

[_DrW]

nc47,

You seem to be a bid confused here. To begin with, I believe I stated that the NAS statement was a form of NOMA. The NAS statement was clearly based on the idea that science and religion were two different ways of gaining knowledge. (Although the *knowledge* gained from religion could be better described as *beliefs*, with the acknowledgment that religious beliefs can depart in dangerous ways from any representation of reality and are notoriously unreliable as a basis of decision-making in the real world.)

Once again (for you and the NAS): either the magisteria overlap or they do not. Likewise, there is either conflict or there is not. Claiming "Partial overlap" is like claiming to be partially pregnant.

You can't have it both ways. If there is overlap, then there is conflict.

You have stated that there is overlap. I agree. Dawkins agrees. According to you, even the NAS agrees.

How can you possibly say, then, that there is no conflict?

You may want to rethink your two Manichean assumptions.

I believe I've sufficiently explained how they overlap "partially." 99%+ of science does not overlap. So how does the Heat Equation conflict with religion? Wave Equation? Rikitake Model for Geomagnetic Reversals? Lotka-Volterra Predator-Prey Equation? Lotka-Volterra Competitive Species Equation? Is Newton's Cooling Law going to war with my home teaching appointment?

Overlap <> Conflict. A lot of believers say the science they do reinforces their belief (e.g. Kepler).

When I said "no conflict" I meant no inherent conflict. Any conflict is circumstantial. Science is radical and tends to conflict with many established institutions: feudal Japan, secular philosophers during Galileo day who clung to the Aristotelian worldview, Luddites, the church being one of them.

99%? That's your number?

Rather than consider the thousands of religions that are now, or have been, out there, let us consider merely as an example, say Mormonism. Let us check your "99% does not overlap" claim against the facts when it comes to Mormonism. Here are a few foundational claims of Mormonism, including a few that distinguish Mormonism from most other religions.

1. God and Jesus Christ are beings of flesh and bones (who do their work in accordance with natural law - as taught by Joseph F. Smith and other prophets).

2. God dwells near Kolob and has the power to answer prayers said on Earth in a time period of less than 8 years.

3. The Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all living today.

4. The Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that were written by the hand of Abraham.

5. The New World was originally populated by a small band of transoceanic migrants from the Middle East.

6. Lamanites are among the ancestors of Native Americans.

7. Black skin is a result of a curse from God upon Cain and his posterity, through Ham.

8. Coffee and tea are unhealthy for man and should not be ingested.

These above listed claims, made in LDS scripture no less, are all in direct conflict with science.

When one considers that the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants - Standard Works of the Church and cornerstones of the religion - all make claims that are in direct conflict with science, it is hard to believe that there is only a 1% overlap.

That is, it is hard to believe that only 1% of the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church conflict with science in that they are falsifiable and have been falsified.

From where I stand the majority of the truth claims of the LDS Church conflict with science and have been falsified.

Perhaps you should undertake a re-count.

[_nc47]

Day-um that's a lot "foundational" truth claims. Most religions have just one or two.

[_DrW]

Day-um that's a lot "foundational" truth claims. Most religions have just one or two.

Perhaps. However, Mormonism isn't most religions. Ask any Mormon.

Tell me: which one of these could you deny or disobey and still receive a TR?

Do you think that one could still get a TR with if one denied/disobeyed 99% of these?

What about admittance to the Celestial Kingdom?

[_nc47]

Day-um that's a lot "foundational" truth claims. Most religions have just one or two.

Perhaps. However, Mormonism isn't most religions. Ask any Mormon.

Tell me: which one of these could you deny or disobey and still receive a TR?

Do you think that one could still get a TR with if one denied/disobeyed 99% of these?

What about admittance to the Celestial Kingdom?

You can deny all of them and get a temple recommend and go into the celestial kingdom. Last time I checked the TR interviews didn't cover any of those questions. Mormonism is more concerned with practice.

The foundational claim of all of Christianity is that Christ rose from the dead. For Mormons, it's that plus the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.

I'll respond to those claims anyway cuz I'm in a good mood:

1. Who the hell believes this is investigable scientifically? This is at most an interesting metaphysical question, and many non-LDS theologians and philosophers are coming around to God being material in some way. The proof for divine embodiment was done by Sarot, and Stephen Webb has constructed an entire metaphysical scheme around it.

2. This is an obvious metaphor. In the Bible (Job 38:6-7)and the wider Ancient Near East, divine beings were represented by heavenly bodies. In the Canaanite pantheon, the sons of El were called an "assembly of stars." Kolob is the star closet to God and represents Jesus.

3. As Andrew Sullivan said, anyone with half a brain knows this is metaphor. The allegorical nature is amplified for anyone who's been through the temple.

4. This is a historical question, not a scientific one, unless you consider Egyptology a science. Then the definition of science becomes so broad it's useless.

5. I have never been taught this.

6. This is has potential to generate a testable hypothesis through DNA testing, but not currently. The Middle Eastern DNA among natives has been on America too long to fit the Book of Mormon timeline. About 1/3 of Cherokee have Hebrew DNA, but you can't tell if it's post- or pre-Columbian with the precision of current molecular clocks. The Cherokee themselves claim they are Jews, but we can't tell.

7. Yeah, check the news.

8. Richard Feynman considers these health studies to be in the realm of pseudoscience. I don't quite agree with him, but epidemiological studies show both good impact and bad side effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY In any case, there are social cohesion benefits from building an identity around people with Kosher laws and the such anyway.

[_DrW]

Perhaps. However, Mormonism isn't most religions. Ask any Mormon.

Tell me: which one of these could you deny or disobey and still receive a TR?

Do you think that one could still get a TR with if one denied/disobeyed 99% of these?

What about admittance to the Celestial Kingdom?

You can deny all of them and get a temple recommend and go into the celestial kingdom. Last time I checked the TR interviews didn't cover any of those questions. Mormonism is more concerned with practice.

The foundational claim of all of Christianity is that Christ rose from the dead. For Mormons, it's that plus the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.

I'll respond to those claims anyway cuz I'm in a good mood:

1. Who the hell believes this is investigable scientifically? This is at most an interesting metaphysical question, and many non-LDS theologians and philosophers are coming around to God being material in some way. The proof for divine embodiment was done by Sarot, and Stephen Webb has constructed an entire metaphysical scheme around it.

Come on, nc47, you claim to be well versed in things scientific. If God has a body of flesh and bone, then his location in space can be specified. If this is the case, and if he hangs out outside the solar system, then he violates the laws of physics every time he answers a prayer or takes any immediate action here in Earth (such as giving guidance to Joseph Smith as he translated the golden plates, or helping absent minded Mormons to find their car keys).

2. This is an obvious metaphor. In the Bible (Job 38:6-7)and the wider Ancient Near East, divine beings were represented by heavenly bodies. In the Canaanite pantheon, the sons of El were called an "assembly of stars." Kolob is the star closet to God and represents Jesus.

What? The sun gets its light from Jesus? Kolob might be an obvious metaphor to you. To Mormonism and to non-Mormons reading about Kolob Cosmology in LDS scripture, it is just silly - and an embarrassment.

3. As Andrew Sullivan said, anyone with half a brain knows this is metaphor. The allegorical nature is amplified for anyone who's been through the temple.

Yet another metaphor. Nice try. Someone should get in touch with the Correlation Committee about this idea because Adam and Eve as the parents of all living is still Gospel Doctrine according to the Gospel Doctrine Manual. http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

4. This is a historical question, not a scientific one, unless you consider Egyptology a science. Then the definition of science becomes so broad it's useless.

Linguists would be disappointed to know that you don't consider what they do to be scientific. The linguistics Society of America defines linguistics as "bringing a scientific perspective and scientific methods to the quintessentially human phenomenon of language". In other words, linguistics is a science. By the way, and for future reference, Egyptology is also a science, defined as "the scientific study of the history and culture of ancient Eqypt --".

5. I have never been taught this.

Then you have not been paying attention when you read the Book of Mormon. And you have not been paying attention to the words of the prophets, even Jeffrey R. Holland.

6. This is has potential to generate a testable hypothesis through DNA testing, but not currently. The Middle Eastern DNA among natives has been on America too long to fit the Book of Mormon timeline.

Then why continue the argument? The Book of Mormon contradicts science - period.

About 1/3 of Cherokee have Hebrew DNA, but you can't tell if it's post- or pre-Columbian with the precision of current molecular clocks.

This statement reflects a terrible misunderstanding of population genetics. I have posted references to the peer reviewed evidence to the contrary here so many times I will leave it to you to find it if you ware interested. Search terms such as mtDNA, Amerindian and Beringia entered with DrW as the author will get you to the cited papers fairly quickly. Another look at Simon Southertons' blog couldn't hurt, either.

The Cherokee themselves claim they are Jews, but we can't tell.

The scientific data on mtDNA from Cherokees shows that it contains the same (Beringia Hold-up) markers as those found in the other Amerindian tribes and lineages. Compared to the other tribes, Cherokees have no special claim to being Jewish. You are sounding sillier and more desperate with each response here, my friend.

If you have been reading much on this board, you will know that there are dozens of recent scientific papers that show that you are simply wrong here. If you have been paying attention to Simon Southerton's blog entries on the matter, you know that you are wrong here.

7. Yeah, check the news.

I have. The fact that societal pressure forced the LDS Church to disavow this racist doctrine, held for more than a century, certainly does not indicate that it had a divine origin, does it? Nonetheless, currently disavowed or not, this uniquely Mormon doctrine is in direct conflict with science.

8. Richard Feynman considers these health studies to be in the realm of pseudoscience. I don't quite agree with him, but epidemiological studies show both good impact and bad side effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY In any case, there are social cohesion benefits from building an identity around people with Kosher laws and the such anyway.

As one well versed in science, you should know that Richard Feynman died in 1988. So when you use the present tense to describe his beliefs, you are either being misleading or demonstrating your lack of relevant knowledge. He was a physicist, not an epidemiologist.

And the fact remains that any number of epidemiological studies, including many published since 1988, demonstrate the health benefits of natural products such as coffee, tea and red wine, all of which are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. No matter how you try to justify it, many of the dietary prohibitions set forth in the Word of Wisdom are in direct conflict with science.

Discussing all this with you has been interesting. If your responses are the best that LDS apologists have, then the Church is right to discourage apologetics.

Most of the response you provided in your last few posts were beside the points, silly, or both. Responses like this do more harm than good to your cause. Believe me.

[_Sethbag]

McReady Price & company were the dudes who influenced Joseph Fielding Smith. And they were riding the culture war wave of Fundamentalism/Temperance in the WWI era. Funny how cyclical this stuff is.

JFS sent McReardy fan mail.

I trust that neither of you, with these statements, are trying to support the idea that YEC wasn't around till McReady's time. At least I'm pretty sure Maksutov isn't, but I can't say for certain about nc47.

Else what was Joseph Smith talking about when he taught that at the end of it all, Father Adam would preside over a great counsel of dispensational priesthood leaders at Adam Ondi Ahman, along with Noah and all these other prophets down to those of the present time? Joseph Smith died before George McReady Price was ever born, and Joseph Smith clearly taught a worldview born of, and steeped in, YEC. And we all know that Joseph Smith taught mostly things he'd accumulated and syncretized into his own doctrines from his environment. Ergo the YEC elements in Joseph Smith's theology were almost certainly a product of his theological environment, back in the early 1800s. "On the Origin of Species" wasn't published until 1859. Notice that the YEC "movement" nc47 talks about started after that time, not because YEC was a new concept at that time, but rather because post-Origin of Species (along with an accumulation of other scientific discoveries and understandings) there was perceived to be a need for such a movement.

And really, JFS could have been Price's biggest fanboi, yet everything JFS taught about YEC theology he almost certainly derived from Joseph Smith's teachings and the LDS scriptural canon.