DiscussMormonism.com

Dr W,

Could you please look at this article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... rmony.html

And then opine? Anyone else is welcome to join in.

"As a scientist, I have the enviable job of working every day trying to figure out how God did cool things," he [a BYU professor] said. "I consider myself a lucky person. I don't suspend my faith, I'm in awe as it unfolds before me."

Hey, I'm a scientist too. I have the job of working every day trying to figure out why diseases kill millions of people. Men, women and children struck down in the prime of their lives, or other times doomed to years of agony as the body turns against itself through cancer, autoimmunity, neurodegeneration, etc. I consider myself a lucky person that so far I'm not suffering, but I am relatively young. Someday the loving God will torture me too. It is such a cool thing! -just like the BYU professor said.

Edit: the intellectual thrill is probably pretty similar for the BYU professor and me. I really enjoy what I do on an intellectual level. But I never forget that my research has an impact on human well being (at least that is my goal), and I have a hard time solving the problem of evil in terms of these diseases. Being a non-believer is easier for me.

Jason Bourne,

Asking a scientist to look at an article on science in the DN is like asking a Mormon to look an article on abstinence in Playboy. Because of the venue, neither side would expect to find much of anything credible.

Science has been proven, over and over again, to be the method by which one gains knowledge about the world and about how the world and the universe work.

Religion has seldom been able to do so. (Earth younger than 10,000 years, Kolob, Global Flood, Parting of the Hemispheres 2200 years ago, and Intelligent Design are but a small number of demonstrably false assertions from religion about how the universe works.)

So is it any wonder that religious leaders would like to try and convince the general population (and especially their adherents) that religion is compatible with science (or at least not at war with science)?

Such articles are misguided and pitiful attempts to misrepresent the relationship between science and religion, and they simply make things worse.

Let's follow one main themes in the article (evolution) and see how the logic goes. One of the main claims of the article is that Church members can be comfortable with evolution because it is possible to believe that evolution is the mechanism through which God created life on Earth as we see it today (ID if I ever saw it).

Then the authors admit the following (I kid you not - this is a direct quote):

However, a majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design as a non-scientific theory.

That, my friend, pretty well sums it up.

In fact, science and religion are diametrically opposed enterprises. One relies on verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence and one relies on myth and superstition.

In science facts are checked, re-checked and theories tested and verified. In religion, facts are ignored by the likes of Jeffrey Holland n favor of a good story, and theories are put forth by the likes of Will Schryver.

The kind of tripe in the DN article is misleading and even annoying. If it make the TBM's feel good, then it has served its purpose, I suppose.

However, if you think that science and religion are not diametrically opposed, just have a look at the serious and high stakes battles between religion and science being waged now on the national political front.

Dr W

I should have explained more. I do think that science and religion can be at great opposition. The brief article attempt to show that many scientists don't feel that way. One thing that struck me was this:

In fact, researchers at Rice University and Baylor recently released a study that showed 85 percent of the 275 scientists they interviewed believe that science and religion never or only occasionally conflict, and that spirituality is personally important to them.

When I read it I thought of you and your seeming stronger view that most good scientists reject religion, at least that is what I think your position is. Feel free to correct me. So what do you think of the comment above?

Personally I see no reason why one cannot hold to a belief in God and that this God used evolution to create life. One would need to set aside a lot of what they may have held to be literal of course.

I also thought this part was interesting:

A lesser-known but heavily supported position among scientists is one of theistic evolution — that God exists and he created the universe and all life in that universe using evolution as a tool.

Christian scientists can take theistic evolution one step further to evolutionary creationism, which holds that God is a personal god with a grand purpose to his work, not just an uninterested observer in the evolutionary process, said Baker, a Presbyterian who writes a blog on the science/faith dialogue.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are atheists such as theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who assert that science has proved God is not necessary and that those who believe in God are delusional, respectively.

Rejecting ideas like Dawkins', proponents of Intelligent Design believe that some things in nature, those that are "irreducibly complex," cannot be explained by natural evolution processes and thus require an intelligent designer (God) to fill in the gaps.

Theistic evolutionists differ from Intelligent Design supporters in that they believe God used evolution and natural selection to create things, and that God continues to work among his creations by the laws of science which he put in place, Holder said.

Intelligent Design has its own movement, fueled by individuals who want it taught in classrooms instead of evolution, even promoting a "Teach the Controversy" campaign, to point out perceived flaws in evolutionary theory.

However, a majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design as a non-scientific theory.

It seems that so called theistic evolutionists are different from those who support intelligent design. I really have not studied the positions in detail to understand how they differ.

Anyway I wanted to get your thoughts because I find most your comments here fairly interesting and sometime compelling.

I also found this comment by Jack Welch near the end of the article a bit interesting:

"Like a good scientist, all readers, all people must take stock of what we really know, assess how well we know what we know, why we know what we know, quantify our margin of error and formulate tactics to move our knowledge ahead," Welch said. "This is good scientific procedure and it applies just as well in the area of religion."

The thing is most very religious people don't really do this with their religious beliefs. I wonder if Welch does?

This is all really simple.

ANY scientist who makes a claim that spirituality is important to them are either downright lying or they are deliberatly trying to mislead good people into considering the mere and indeed laughable possibilty that a God/Creator exists.

As far as trusting researchers at Rice and Baylor to get their math right (85% of the 275 scientists interviewed) I completely reject that (So should all of you)

Science perspectives from 275 scientists (How laughable) :) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Jason Bourne wrote:I also found this comment by Jack Welch near the end of the article a bit interesting:

"Like a good scientist, all readers, all people must take stock of what we really know, assess how well we know what we know, why we know what we know, quantify our margin of error and formulate tactics to move our knowledge ahead," Welch said. "This is good scientific procedure and it applies just as well in the area of religion."

The thing is most very religious people don't really do this with their religious beliefs. I wonder if Welch does?

If Welch applied that to the ever shrinking body of LDS 'doctrine', there would be nothing left for him to 'believe' in. So, I doubt Welch does.

Jason Bourne wrote:Dr W

I should have explained more. I do think that science and religion can be at great opposition. The brief article attempt to show that many scientists don't feel that way. One thing that struck me was this:

In fact, researchers at Rice University and Baylor recently released a study that showed 85 percent of the 275 scientists they interviewed believe that science and religion never or only occasionally conflict, and that spirituality is personally important to them.

When I read it I thought of you and your seeming stronger view that most good scientists reject religion, at least that is what I think your position is. Feel free to correct me. So what do you think of the comment above?

Personally I see no reason why one cannot hold to a belief in God and that this God used evolution to create life. One would need to set aside a lot of what they may have held to be literal of course.

I also thought this part was interesting:

A lesser-known but heavily supported position among scientists is one of theistic evolution — that God exists and he created the universe and all life in that universe using evolution as a tool.

Christian scientists can take theistic evolution one step further to evolutionary creationism, which holds that God is a personal god with a grand purpose to his work, not just an uninterested observer in the evolutionary process, said Baker, a Presbyterian who writes a blog on the science/faith dialogue.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are atheists such as theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who assert that science has proved God is not necessary and that those who believe in God are delusional, respectively.

Rejecting ideas like Dawkins', proponents of Intelligent Design believe that some things in nature, those that are "irreducibly complex," cannot be explained by natural evolution processes and thus require an intelligent designer (God) to fill in the gaps.

Theistic evolutionists differ from Intelligent Design supporters in that they believe God used evolution and natural selection to create things, and that God continues to work among his creations by the laws of science which he put in place, Holder said.

Intelligent Design has its own movement, fueled by individuals who want it taught in classrooms instead of evolution, even promoting a "Teach the Controversy" campaign, to point out perceived flaws in evolutionary theory.

However, a majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design as a non-scientific theory.

It seems that so called theistic evolutionists are different from those who support intelligent design. I really have not studied the positions in detail to understand how they differ.

Anyway I wanted to get your thoughts because I find most your comments here fairly interesting and sometime compelling.

Jason,

1. Baylor is located in Texas and self identifies as a "Christian University". Rice ranks a bit better as a university, but is located in Texas as well, as State that elected an individual as Governor who thinks that mass prayer meetings are a valid means of solving tough social problems. The study from these two institutions on this subject would have about as much credibility outside of Texas as a similar study made by BYU and Oral Roberts University would have outside Utah.

2. How exactly is theistic evolution different from the discredited concept of intelligent design?
Quick answer: It is not. Same unfalsifiable claims - different name.

Sorry, Jason. You will find no sympathy or agreement with this kind of religionist tripe from me.

And I hope that you will think about what I have said in terms of the important differences between religion and science. The two enterprises are diametrically opposed, by definition.

What exactly is it about the valid statement that science is based on evidence and religion is based on superstition that makes you uncomfortable?

Jason Bourne wrote:Dr W

I should have explained more. I do think that science and religion can be at great opposition. The brief article attempt to show that many scientists don't feel that way. One thing that struck me was this:

In fact, researchers at Rice University and Baylor recently released a study that showed 85 percent of the 275 scientists they interviewed believe that science and religion never or only occasionally conflict, and that spirituality is personally important to them.

When I read it I thought of you and your seeming stronger view that most good scientists reject religion, at least that is what I think your position is. Feel free to correct me. So what do you think of the comment above?

This is a very interesting finding to me that has emerged the last few years. The spiritual side of scientists shows up with more open ended in questionnaires about spirituality. The word means many things to many different people with a large percentage of scientists seeing themselves as spiritual in some respect. This kind of grouping tends to scoop up into the 'spiritual' camp someone who might identify as an atheist but with a Spinoza type approach to the world - a not uncommon position among scientists. Because of the wide umbrella involved, the Deseret News is abusing the term to get the kind of overlap they would like to see with scientists & theists. An overlap between more traditional religiosity and scientists is a much lower number than implied in the article.

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/features/finding-the-sacred-in-the-secular

The Dude wrote:I really enjoy what I do on an intellectual level. But I never forget that my research has an impact on human well being

And you know what The Dude? It brings a tear to my eye knowing that you use science to better mankind and place no stock in the hocus pocus of the priesthood etc..

But wait, that BYU professor and others? They don't really put a lot of faith in the priesthood either. They rely on science. The best they can hope for per this article is for their religion to be compatible, or not outright contradictory, with science. What a victory for religion! There is some nuanced way to interpret their doctrines such that it doesn't get in the way of real progress; sound the bells.