Evolution For Coggies

[_Moniker]

Evolution is not incompatible with LDS doctrine in any way.

And evolution does not discredit God.

I’m skeptical of your comment way back there on page 1. (Sorry we don’t have a “thread” view which allows us to see comments directly under the post which they address.

God notions are irrelevant to evolution.

In most respects, science, by its discoveries, discredits indirectly any ancient mythologies. Science seeks to explain and understand what, where, when, why, and how through research, information, discovery, and conclusions which are tentative based on the evidence.

God notions are irrelevant. No evidence has been established for God notions nor was any established previously for many gods. Of course few if any today defend the gods.

JAK

Hi Jak!

Agreed that God is irrelevant to evolution. That's why I said that it doesn't discredit God -- it has nothing to do with God.

Evolution, in its simplest definition, is merely change over time. Biological evolution is the heritable changes seen in a population over many generations.

The theory (fact) of evolution does illuminate our understanding of the natural world -- yet, this in and of itself does not discredit God, necessarily. As we learn more, through scientific discovery, it makes many of these myths of the past obsolete -- agreed. Yet, the idea of a nebulous God floating off in lala land is not necessarily discredited.

Could a theist claim nature is God? Possibly? I don't know -- I don't want to know. I just know that to understand and accept the theory (fact) of evolution does not in anyway impact God. Could it impact the way people view their natural world and as a consequence make them question their theology? Yep. But all in all it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Is it possible that God created evolution? I don't think so -- but a theist might.

[_Moniker]

I seem to recall Dawkins saying that evolution makes God irrelavent or superfluous. I wish I could remember exactly what it was he said in his Delusion book, but whatever it was, it made me think that perhaps evolution and Mormonism (or indeed Christianity) are incompatible.

Well you know I'm a flunkie of Dawkins, so I suppose he's right on!

Or not.

Well... okay... I'll say this. I don't think you can believe in the literal Adam and Eve and the stories that are in the Bible as literal. Yet, many Christians don't do that anyway. It strips away many of the myths.

Here's what Dawkins said:

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

(Richard Dawkins, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God," The Huffington Post, October 23, 2006)

[_JAK]

Its really quite simple, heres Chi-chi to explain:

Man was CREATED IN the image of God. Any evolution that has taken place has taken place from the time of Noah till now.

Period.

Just backwards, Gazelam.

Earlier man invented the gods and later invented God in the image of himself. And the invention of gods took place relatively recently in the history of man.

Learn about Early Man

Early Man in North America

JAK

[_Coggins7]

God notions are irrelevant to evolution.

Have no mentioned this to Mr. Dennent and Mr. Dawkins (we could add Mr. Sagan, but he's assumed room temperature)?

[_Coggins7]

Earlier man invented the gods and later invented God in the image of himself. And the invention of gods took place relatively recently in the history of man.

Does the fact that this purely speculative secularist explanatory template has not the slightest shred of historical evidence to support it mean anything to anyone here?

Early man surely invented a great deal and added much around the central concepts, but the core, primal motifs, symbols, and patterns are another story altogether.

[_Moniker]

God notions are irrelevant to evolution.

Have no mentioned this to Mr. Dennent and Mr. Dawkins (we could add Mr. Sagan, but he's assumed room temperature)?

Is this why you dispute the theory of evolution, Coggins? You believe that the theory of evolution does actually discredit God? Why?

What about evolution is unacceptable to you? Not the theory itself -- what you think the theory does in essence?

[_Coggins7]

Shades is a returned missionary. Next dumb question, Loran?

Which allows him precisely what credibility? Walter Duranty toured the Soviet Union in the midst of the Great Terror.

Next dumb question?

[_Moniker]

Earlier man invented the gods and later invented God in the image of himself. And the invention of gods took place relatively recently in the history of man.

Does the fact that this purely speculative secularist explanatory template has not the slightest shred of historical evidence to support it mean anything to anyone here?

Well, there does seem to be a bit of historical evidence. Ever heard of Zeus?

Early man surely invented a great deal and added much around the central concepts, but the core, primal motifs, symbols, and patterns are another story altogether.

What was the central concept, or core patterns to what early man invented? Did it have anything at all with trying to understand the natural world and placing reasons for natural occurences into the hands of a god?

Did you just say "invent" when it comes to God? What?

[_Coggins7]

Is this why you dispute the theory of evolution, Coggins? You believe that the theory of evolution does actually discredit God? Why?

Where did I dispute the essence of it? I dispute certain aspects of it, particularly its extrapolations beyond its explanatory boundaries into areas for which it is not (and science, per se, is not) competent as a means of gathering and interpreting knowledge. Actually, I thought I was pretty clear what my problem is earlier in this thread.

What about evolution is unacceptable to you? Not the theory itself -- what you think the theory does in essence?

My problem is not with the science of evolution, but with scientism. Evolution explains nothing but the mechanics by which organic life evolved. What it has been used to do is explain both ultimate origins and the ultimate meaning, or ethical essence, of the universe; its been used as a kind of religious faith to make pronouncements upon ultimate questions of existence.

[_beastie]

Geez Louise, half the theists in this country believe in evolution, coggins. In fact, I would venture to guess at least half of the Mormon population believes in evolution, including the professors at BYU!! *I* believed in evolution when I was LDS. Theists simply believe that evolution was directed by God.

Now, admittedly, some of this doesn't make much sense. As Moniker said, it's difficult to reconcile evolution with a literal adam and eve story, but that's why people develop ideas about "pre-adamites". And some people interpret a certain phrase about "figurative as far as the man and woman are concerned" to possibly hint that the Adam and Eve story may not be as literal as many LDS believe, besides. And it's difficult to reconcile the bumpy and often erratic nature of evolution with an omniscient God directing things - but these challenges are no greater, generally, than other challenges believers regularly face in trying to reconcile their faith with logic and science.

As others have so clearly stated, evolution makes God superfluous in that it's no longer necessary to invoke supernatural intervention to explain the existence of complex organisms. Prior to the understanding of evolution, God of the Gaps managed to snatch quite a few people, who often called themselves "deists". They knew that they saw no evidence of the intervention of a godbeing in this world, but still were stumped as far as how complex organisms could come to be, so, voila, the deist god who creates it all and then steps back, invisible. That's why evolution threatened religion so much at its inception - believers could see the God of the Gaps getting smaller before their eyes. But human beings being the persistent religious beings they are manage, of course, to simply create a new story to allow for both evolution and God.

Really, even you believe in evolution, coggins. You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to deny it. Human beings deliberately manipulate evolution to our advantage all the time. Ever heard of breeding dogs? Evolution cannot be doubted by even the most fervent believer. They just believe that evolution has its limits and can't result in entirely different species (an opinion based on ignorance). So the real question is not whether or not evolution exists, it is just whether or not, given the vast amount of time spanned on this earth, evolution can explain different species and the origin of the species itself.

I bolded the phrase I believe most naysayers minimize.