My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_spotlight]

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham's razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.

But let's say you do that. How is the spirit energy supposed to interact with us? Here is the equation that tells us how electrons behave in the everyday world:



Don't worry about the details; it's the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It's the Dirac equation -- the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia -- coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.

As far as every experiment ever done is concerned, this equation is the correct description of how electrons behave at everyday energies. It's not a complete description; we haven't included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. But that's okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain.

If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn't exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren't any soul at all, and then what's the point?) So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking -- what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information?

Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It's not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... -the-soul/

Science is agnostic.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJpYUxRL_3U

Science is agnostic means simply that it does not proscribe anything beyond the reach of the evidence. Once there is evidence then it falls within the realm of science. We don't disallow that evidence because "there is a rule that science must remain agnostic."

You can see this with evolution. Science is not agnostic with respect to theistic beliefs that accept special creation 6,000 years ago. The idea of creation with age requires that DNA was also created with the appearance of age. The idea that the "specially created" arrangement of DNA that allows lifeforms to exist just happens to coincide with a structure that falsely evinces common ancestry is a big pill to swallow, enough so that we can agree that it disproves the idea of creation with age.

Theistic evolution is not disproved. So you could say that science remains agnostic there. Though Deism is the only idea that fits it really.

So you see using the mantra that science is agnostic does not forbid the train of thought presented in the article by Sean Carroll. If you don't agree with his thoughts feel free to show where he is wrong and please provide your evidence and experimental results that support your position.

[_huckelberry]

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV.

If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies,,,,,

Science is agnostic means simply that it does not proscribe anything beyond the reach of the evidence.

You can see this with evolution. Science is not agnostic with respect to theistic beliefs that accept special creation 6,000 years ago. .

Theistic evolution is not disproved. So you could say that science remains agnostic there. Though Deism is the only idea that fits it really.

So you see using the mantra that science is agnostic does not forbid the train of thought presented in the article by Sean Carroll.

spotlight, there are several interesting observations above. . I am in agreement with the idea that 6000 year old earth is so badly out of step with what we know about the world as to be absurd much like the idea of green cheese moon referenced in the article is absurd. However as a Christian believer I do not see that deism is the only possible theistic evolution. I know of no reason evolution excludes the Christian basics of incarnation and atonement and life after death. I am also quite sure that there is no scientific evidence excluding God doing some sort of gardening encouragement to evolution. (though Christian orthodox ideas do not requite that God did)

As a believer I agree completely that the idea of a soul as some glob of spirit trying to drive my physical self around is a mess. It was a very broadly held idea in ancient time(not just Christian) but it no longer fits our understanding of who and what we are. I understand human spirit to be the sum of our physical self and activity. It only continues after death in the mind of God and recreated if God so wills. Other wise when your dead your dead.

I can easily understanding doubting we live after death. The only possible way I can see it happening is if there is a God with eternal and immense knowledge and power. Our living after death is so unlikely as to be possible only under the conditions of there being a creator God at least roughly like traditionally understood in Christian tradition. (should that be the case, otherwise when your dead your dead)

My way of summing the situation is I can see doubt about life after death but it is not quite like green cheese moon. (well perhaps a little bit in common)

[_spotlight]

However as a Christian believer I do not see that deism is the only possible theistic evolution.

By Deism I am referring to a god that sets the laws and then sits back without interfering. A god tinkering with the natural processes such as most LDS I've met in the church have believed does not really agree with evolution which of course ascribes mutation to the laws of nature without any divine intervention. While that cannot be proved it's certainly not part of the theory nor is there any indication of it in the present. For example our bigger brain space due to a mutation which damaged our jaw muscles by weakening them is the same mutation that occurs to DNA leaving people with weakened/damaged muscles in other parts of the body.

I think that is the way Catholics accept evolution so obviously there are Christians who accept evolution in the same way it is explained by science. I was giving my viewpoint which comes from a background of growing up LDS. Although I don't subscribe to any theology any longer I don't have any disdain for those who have a theology that is without conflict with the progress and findings of the scientific community. I just don't see how it fits is all since the appearance of man was a chance occurrence that did not necessarily have to happen and I don't think we will remain the same over geologic time into the future (if we manage not to go extinct).

Also not having a spirit seems hard to fit into a Christian theology for me probably due to being raised LDS again. But of course Jehovah Witnesses are fine with that viewpoint if I'm not mistaken.

[_Gunnar]

Though I no longer subscribe to it myself, I am fine with the belief that some supremely intelligent and powerful entity or entities started the process of creation somehow, and maybe even tweaked it now and then to accomplish some desired outcome, as long as one doesn't deny the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of the Earth's great antiquity and the reality of evolution and other scientific processes that have been so painstakingly and meticulously worked out and confirmed by the honest application of science.

I have a tremendous problem, though, with the idea of atonement and a God who can't forgive us for anything or refrain from punishing us, even if we sincerely repent, unless some totally innocent being is cruelly tortured to death to atone for the sins of the guilty. I can't help but see this as totally irrational and unjust, and belying any claim that God is both intelligent and compassionate, let alone omnipotent. Threatening people with God's wrath and eternal damnation for failing to accept this nonsense on faith is mainly or even solely for the purpose of intimidating people into joining organized religion to insure the livelihood of its leaders and promoters.

[_The CCC]

Spotlight:
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, and Dr. Francis Collins are all eminent scientists and Christians.

[_Gunnar]

Spotlight:
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, and Dr. Francis Collins are all eminent scientists and Christians.

Yes, they are, and I am so glad that they manage to not let their religious beliefs interfere significantly with their scientific objectivity and interpretation of actual, observed reality. Nevertheless, the Christian dogma of atonement and proxy remission of sins makes not a whit of sense to me. I was never entirely comfortable with the idea that a totally innocent being had to be cruelly tortured to death for redemption of others' sins, and never will be. Nor can I escape the realization that when one doesn't require evidence for what one believes, it becomes possible to justify belief in any nonsense imaginable.

[_spotlight]

Spotlight:
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, and Dr. Francis Collins are all eminent scientists and Christians.

But they are not LDS. Rectifying LDS theology with science is a tougher row to hoe. You manage to do it somehow and other LDS do as well. I think it's a significant portion, though a minority, of LDS that are capable of integrating evolution with LDS theology. To me it does not make any sense which is why we are different in our acceptance of the church's truth claims.

That there are people who are Christian who accept evolution is also true. I am well aware of Ken Miller's work etc. The general body of Christians do much better than the LDS here being a majority that accept evolution. Again I am no longer a Christian either. To me it does not make any sense. To me Deism is the only position that does not conflict with evolution. But neither am I a Deist.

The observation of Sean Carroll is from a large body of data and facts that indicate there is not a spirit in man that is doing the thinking and deciding apart from the material brain. Your post of the youtube video came across as an objection to Carroll's article. I simply point out that "science is agnostic" does not mean that science cannot comment on areas that are believed to be true by people from various religious backgrounds. The facts pointed out by Carroll are within the realm of science and are as valid as the science that is behind evolution. It no more violates "science being agnostic" about areas for which it has no data than evolution does for the young earth crowd. That is my only point.

Again you have your post supporting that science is agnostic. Does that mean that someone who believes in a young earth can use it to say the theory of evolution is not scientific? Hardly. Does that mean it can be used to ignore Sean Carroll's post about how and why existing science indicates there isn't a spirit pulling the strings inside the physical body? Hardly.

You could say that there is a spirit but it doesn't do anything physical but is just along for the ride so to speak. Science would have to remain agnostic about that possibility for the present. But I'll leave it to you to put that square peg into a round hole and maintain an LDS theology. Those types of attempts for me simply limit my ability to learn and impede my progress. I found that not to be "good." For me this was a contradiction with the Book of Mormon which taught that all things good come from god. This contradiction allowed me to begin the journey of thinking my way out of the church. Now that I am all of the way out, the church and its doctrines seem no more in touch with reality than do those of the Jehovah Witnesses. I look back on the time I was LDS as a dark period of my life by comparison much like those who are deaf and mute describe their lives before learning sign language as a dark episode in their lives.

[_The CCC]

I never claimed they are LDS only that they are Christians. LDS cover the gambit of the arts, and sciences.
SEE http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/i ... -specialty

Evolution is taught at BYU. Officially the Church takes no position on it.

You are free to believe or not believe the Church's Truth Claims as you choose. I'm not here to convert you.

What physical evidence do I have that your mother had the emotion of love towards you? Assuming she did.

Deism really doesn't appeal to me. But if anyone wants to believe it, that is fine with me. Atheism the same. I started college as an Agnostic working for a degree in Chemistry. I took 2 years of it, and was good at it. I still find it fascinating, but am no longer in Chemistry or Agnosticism. Then I took Psychology 101, found my true love was Psychiatric Social Work.

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

My journey in Mormonism has been a Grand Adventure, with me learning more and more all the time. It has given me a wonderful wife whom I want to be with forever. Children and Grandchildren I love. A purpose beyond my selfish instincts. I feel as though it has made me a better man. not that I was terrible to begin with.

[_spotlight]

If that list of Mormon scholars testify is the complete list of LDS scholars within the church I would not be waving it around.

I am aware that evolution is taught at BYU and that the church officially has no position on it. Most of the members I encountered online were not so enlightened and were the ones who argued with me about evolution when I was still a member.

What physical evidence do I have that your mother had the emotion of love towards you? Assuming she did.

If you are stating that there isn't any evidence of a scientific nature for the emotion of love I would disagree. Just as they are now able to tell what picture a person is thinking about by examining the firing pattern of neurons in the brain I am fully convinced that the time will come when the existence of the emotion of love will be evidenced in the same manner. In other words it is all physical and at some point will be discernible and decipherable when we figure out how to do so.

The following is I think a stretch:

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have a common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

I think that position ended with our ability to sequence DNA. We can date the geologic column so we know it represents the passage of a great amount of time. Where were cats and dogs in the geologic column 55 million years ago? Where is the Dormaalocyon latouri today? Special creation of a series of animals each a bit closer to a cat or a dog doesn't sound very reasonable. Transplantation from another realm doesn't sound any better. How did they all get the ERVs in the right places to look as if they are all related? Just 7 ERVs in the same location in the DNA between a human and a chimpanzee would be like the odds of selecting the same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement. There are some 200,000 ERVs that are in the same locations between a human and a chimpanzee. That's picking that same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement 2,857 times in a row! ERVs and other features within DNA prove common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.

My journey in Mormonism has been a Grand Adventure, with me learning more and more all the time.

About what exactly? Are you keeping up on your science or has that fallen by the wayside?

It has given me a wonderful wife whom I want to be with forever. Children and Grandchildren I love. A purpose beyond my selfish instincts. I feel as though it has made me a better man. not that I was terrible to begin with.

Certainly there are multiple avenues to accomplish those same things.

Then I took Psychology 101, found my true love was Psychiatric Social Work.

Please tell me you are not employed by the church telling people that masterbation is bad or some other such nonsense.

[_The CCC]

If that list of Mormon scholars testify is the complete list of LDS scholars within the church I would not be waving it around.

I am aware that evolution is taught at BYU and that the church officially has no position on it. Most of the members I encountered online were not so enlightened and were the ones who argued with me about evolution when I was still a member.

What physical evidence do I have that your mother had the emotion of love towards you? Assuming she did.

If you are stating that there isn't any evidence of a scientific nature for the emotion of love I would disagree. Just as they are now able to tell what picture a person is thinking about by examining the firing pattern of neurons in the brain I am fully convinced that the time will come when the existence of the emotion of love will be evidenced in the same manner. In other words it is all physical and at some point will be discernible and decipherable when we figure out how to do so.

The following is I think a stretch:

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have a common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

I think that position ended with our ability to sequence DNA. We can date the geologic column so we know it represents the passage of a great amount of time. Where were cats and dogs in the geologic column 55 million years ago? Where is the Dormaalocyon latouri today? Special creation of a series of animals each a bit closer to a cat or a dog doesn't sound very reasonable. Transplantation from another realm doesn't sound any better. How did they all get the ERVs in the right places to look as if they are all related? Just 7 ERVs in the same location in the DNA between a human and a chimpanzee would be like the odds of selecting the same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement. There are some 200,000 ERVs that are in the same locations between a human and a chimpanzee. That's picking that same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement 2,857 times in a row! ERVs and other features within DNA prove common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.

My journey in Mormonism has been a Grand Adventure, with me learning more and more all the time.

About what exactly? Are you keeping up on your science or has that fallen by the wayside?

It has given me a wonderful wife whom I want to be with forever. Children and Grandchildren I love. A purpose beyond my selfish instincts. I feel as though it has made me a better man. not that I was terrible to begin with.

Certainly there are multiple avenues to accomplish those same things.

Then I took Psychology 101, found my true love was Psychiatric Social Work.

Please tell me you are not employed by the church telling people that masturbation is bad or some other such nonsense.

I'm a scientist and not on that list.

You'll never go far wrong in underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

It may someday, but so far such brain pattern recognition is beyond us. Large amounts of chocolate has a very similar effect.

DNA research is wonderful, but I do think that while DNA accounts for the differences between Species. It has a harder time within Species. IE; The genetic differences between you and me are vanishingly small. I accepted Evolution from Common Ancestry a long time ago. Whether God wanted it to occur that way is a faith position and not a scientific one.

I'm retired now, but regularly read the journals of my profession.

I was never the employee of any church, and it would have been very inappropriate for me to use my profession to further my religion.
SEE https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp