Young Earth Creationism in the LDS Church

[_DrW]

The absence of BCSpace from both this thread and the TDM=YEC? thread in the Celestial Forum is duly noted.

This is somewhat disappointing, though. It is always interesting to see what kind of new theories BCSpace comes up for reconciliation of Mormon Doctrine and science in any given area of disagreement, the age of the Earth and the Universe being two of the most significant.

From the responses so far to the two threads, I think it is fair to say that those Mormons who are YEC are often loathe to admit it. I know that is the case with my siblings (2 of 6) who still attend Church. As seems to be the case here, trying to get a straight answer or have them make any kind of clear declaration of belief on the subject is something I have yet to accomplish.

[_Themis]

The absence of BCSpace from both this thread and the TDM=YEC? thread in the Celestial Forum is duly noted.

I think bcspace is actually not a YEC, even though he has some crazy ideas in trying to reconcile what he believes with scientific knowledge. He believes in an old earth and local flood(he can correct me if I am wrong).

[_DrW]

The absence of BCSpace from both this thread and the TDM=YEC? thread in the Celestial Forum is duly noted.

I think bcspace is actually not a YEC, even though he has some crazy ideas in trying to reconcile what he believes with scientific knowledge. He believes in an old earth and local flood(he can correct me if I am wrong).

Oh yes.

I know BCSpace's narrative involving pre-Ademic humans and his explanation of the no death before the fall doctrine and the rest of it.

What I don't hear from him is any recognition that his narrative is cobbled together in the best make it up as you go along tradition of Mormonism and has little value as any kind of a model. From it we can learn nothing about the real world or even get a consistent definition of the Mormon God (or gods).

If BC Space disagrees, he is welcome to come here and set me straight. I somehow doubt that he will.

[_Tobin]

Actually, I don't think bcspace or I disagree very much about this. I'm sure Themis paints this as not a Mormon position, so he ignores it. But, the idea that the garden of Eden was separate from this biosphere and no death applied only to that place and not this planet is very consistent with Mormon doctrine. Also, the view that life evolves to a certain point on a planet, such as Earth, and then an Adam and Eve are introduced into that world is another view I'm sure he shares with me. It certainly doesn't make the Earth thousands of years old or mean Adam and Eve were the first human beings to evolve.

Now, you may view this as science fiction. But it is no more science fiction than the billions spent by scientists in the search for life outside of our biosphere. What if we don't have to look any further than ourselves to find it? What if the traditions of God are nothing more than higher orders of intelligent life interacting with us and these primitive accounts are the result. I don't think all accounts of God are superstition, but are likely much more than that.

[_Chap]

Now, you may view this as science fiction.

Yup. One might dignify it by that name if you hung an interesting plot on it.

But it is no more science fiction than the billions spent by scientists in the search for life outside of our biosphere.

There is a well-focused set of scientific investigations in progress to seek for any signs of living systems outside our own planet, based on a reasonable set of assumptions about the ways in which living systems reveal their presence by, for instance, distinctive chemical activity. It's just, well, science. Even if the results are firmly negative, that would be worth knowing.

What if we don't have to look any further than ourselves to find it? What if the traditions of God are nothing more than higher orders of intelligent life interacting with us and these primitive accounts are the result.

You tell us. How can we tell the difference between the world you imagine might exist and the one we inhabit according to current science?

I don't think all accounts of God are superstition, but are likely much more than that.

Your opinion will no doubt be noted and given all the weight it deserves.

[_DrW]

Tobin,

Rather than trying to fit the data into a model wherein we are all the result of some panspermia experiment by space aliens, why not take Occam's razor down from the shelf and give it a go?

Hypothesis #1: Religious belief among humans is an evolutionary holdover from the demon haunted world when sickness was caused by evil spirits and humans made up their own stories to explain what they could not other wise understand.

Hypothesis # 2: Religious belief was conferred on humans six thousand years ago by space aliens who came to this planet to do some biological terraforming and went to a ton of trouble to design humans using the same amino acids, proteins, lipids, DNA and RNA bases and gene sequences they found in animals existing here on Earth so as to give the appearance that humankind evolved here, and having not even bothered to fix a few evolutionary mistakes in the process, left humans here to fend for themselves while they headed off to the next habitable planet, being enabled to do so on account of their ability to live forever and or travel at speeds far in excess of the speed of light.

Razor, please.

[_Franktalk]

Belief in a non-linear past v. self correcting empirical conclusions?

I think you have the short end of the stick FrankTalk.

But hey, write your grant proposal, submit your research to a peer reviewed journal. That's pretty much the way it works.

I care not for the ideas of man and care not for a journal that has tunnel vision. The basis for science is the repeatable experiment. This gives us a great deal of confidence in most work done. But where repeatable experiment is impossible we enter into areas of theory and conjecture. Your journals you speak of have already accepted the assumptions of mainstream science as fact. What would make you hold an opinion that ideas outside of those assumptions would have a fair hearing.

I have heard that radioactive decay is constant over time but we know that is not true. Just in the recent past we have seen changes that we do not understand. Why is so difficult to accept that there are many things we do not know? Why is it that within a certain framework you accept everything offered but outside of that framework you reject everything? I argue for the unknown and you argue for wholesale acceptance of a naturalistic worldview in which assumptions run wild.

If this is what you desire to believe that is fine. Believe all you want. My problem comes from those like yourself that accept a tunnel vision view of the universe based on a naturalistic mindset. You see you have already judged that you stand on truth and fact because a group of people all voted on truth and fact. But that opinion is just that, an opinion based on assumptions that I do not hold. Your attitude about standing on higher ground comes through from your post. And your defender of your faith "the journals" may make you feel good and superior but they mean nothing. Try going back and reading Scientific American from 100 years ago. See how they shared your feelings and your attitude yet in your eyes they too would be wrong based on current knowledge. And in a hundred years from now the "current" understanding will have shifted and they will look upon your ideas as foolish. Such is the way of knowledge evolution.

[_lulu]

I thought you'd say more about your belief in a non-linear past.

Belief in a non-linear past v. self correcting empirical conclusions?

I think you have the short end of the stick FrankTalk.

But hey, write your grant proposal, submit your research to a peer reviewed journal. That's pretty much the way it works.

I care not for the ideas of man and care not for a journal that has tunnel vision. The basis for science is the repeatable experiment. This gives us a great deal of confidence in most work done. But where repeatable experiment is impossible we enter into areas of theory and conjecture. Your journals you speak of have already accepted the assumptions of mainstream science as fact. What would make you hold an opinion that ideas outside of those assumptions would have a fair hearing.

I have heard that radioactive decay is constant over time but we know that is not true. Just in the recent past we have seen changes that we do not understand. Why is so difficult to accept that there are many things we do not know? Why is it that within a certain framework you accept everything offered but outside of that framework you reject everything? I argue for the unknown and you argue for wholesale acceptance of a naturalistic worldview in which assumptions run wild.

If this is what you desire to believe that is fine. Believe all you want. My problem comes from those like yourself that accept a tunnel vision view of the universe based on a naturalistic mindset. You see you have already judged that you stand on truth and fact because a group of people all voted on truth and fact. But that opinion is just that, an opinion based on assumptions that I do not hold. Your attitude about standing on higher ground comes through from your post. And your defender of your faith "the journals" may make you feel good and superior but they mean nothing. Try going back and reading Scientific American from 100 years ago. See how they shared your feelings and your attitude yet in your eyes they too would be wrong based on current knowledge. And in a hundred years from now the "current" understanding will have shifted and they will look upon your ideas as foolish. Such is the way of knowledge evolution.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

Rather than trying to fit the data into a model wherein we are all the result of some panspermia experiment by space aliens, why not take Occam's razor down from the shelf and give it a go?

Hypothesis #1: Religious belief among humans is an evolutionary holdover from the demon haunted world when sickness was caused by evil spirits and humans made up their own stories to explain what they could not other wise understand.

Hypothesis # 2: Religious belief was conferred on humans six thousand years ago by space aliens who came to this planet to do some biological terraforming and went to a ton of trouble to design humans using the same amino acids, proteins, lipids, DNA and RNA bases and gene sequences they found in animals existing here on Earth so as to give the appearance that humankind evolved here, and having not even bothered to fix a few evolutionary mistakes in the process, left humans here to fend for themselves while they headed off to the next habitable planet, being enabled to do so on account of their ability to live forever and or travel at speeds far in excess of the speed of light.

Razor, please.

Occam's razor is only reasonable given all claims being equal. However, the claim of Mormonism is that you can experience these things yourself. I have had such an experience and I'm seriously dubious that I and the person I was with were both experiencing a mental break or were under any other influence. My view is such experiences don't arise from a desire to have them since I had no such desire; do not arise from a disease or other physical or mental incapacity since it happened to more than one person; and there are a long written and oral tradition of such experiences by others in the past. Of course, if I had not experienced something similar I would be dubious of these accounts and discount them as superstition. However, since I have experienced them myself and with another, I have a different view now.

Now, you are welcome to discount them since you haven't experienced something similar. That does not mean you are correct however. I have also explained as reasonably as I can, in the world we understand now, how such things may be possible and you don't need to believe in magic, YEC, or other such non-sense.

[_Themis]

I'm sure Themis paints this as not a Mormon position, so he ignores it.

That is true that it is not a church position, which is a literal view, many LDS have many different ideas they have made up about it in an attempt to try and reconcile their beliefs with science. Even I did as a believing member.