Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Part of my position is that the Bible was written, compiled, edited, and translated (over and over) by men. Men who had far less understanding of physical science than we have today - even though there is so much we still don't know or understand. We can't even come to a consensus on how it all came to be.
I'll use the simplistic analogy of trying to explain brain surgery to a 2 year old. You can (if you happen to know brain surgery) either explain it in the most rudimentary terms, so that they understand the basic concept, or you can explain it in intricate detail, and they will be completely unable to process it.
That's my opinion. God gave someone a basic rundown, and we have a story that's been run through the filter of generation after generation.
So far, so good. Take whoever is trolling Craig and SimpleTool out of the thread, and it's really going places.
I'd be interested to read your take on science and religion, Logg -- I wonder if it's close to what I think. Good points Bronco, keep talking. Cowhide and Archie, let's hear some more about why, if it pleases you.
As for me, in short, I think evolution makes sense both from a religious and scientific standpoint. Clearly I'm no scientist, and I'm far from a religious scholar, but from what I know and what I think I know, it all fits together perfectly.
I'd be interested to read your take on science and religion, Logg -- I wonder if it's close to what I think. Good points Bronco, keep talking. Cowhide and Archie, let's hear some more about why, if it pleases you.
As for me, in short, I think evolution makes sense both from a religious and scientific standpoint. Clearly I'm no scientist, and I'm far from a religious scholar, but from what I know and what I think I know, it all fits together perfectly.
There was a moment in Mormon history, in the 1950s, when some folks "in the leadership" were about to put the LDS firmly in the camp of the Bible-believing fundamentalist christians.
The infallible, spirit-of-God-breathed Word.
For one hundred and twenty years the LDS could go either with Joseph Smith's several versions of the Creation story, well, let's say as found in modern LDS scripture or could just wave a hand at the creation story and believe it might contain errors or changes made by man. . . . and a rising generation of LDS scientists were coming up more in the latter camp, believing the "Science" was superior somehow.
Henry Eyring, who could spin yarns about Albert Einstein. . . like "Albert Einstein didn't know beans. . . . . (audience audibly goes 'gasp'). . . . As we were walking across the commons at Princeton Albert saw some beans sprouting and asked me 'what are those?'", entered the dispute. Being the brother-in-law of Spencer W. Kimball, then an apostle of the LDS, he got a lot of invitations to talk to various church groups about things like the issues of faith and science.
He would say "I don't know how God did, but I know He did it" while opening the door to a less literal interpretation of the creation story. And he turned the tide for the LDS, who today mostly do believe in evolution in some manner but excluding the link to the skeletal or genetic specimens of a million or so years ago.
I noticed Trout's complaint about how his wife is one of the more steadfast of LDS believers, which allusion I interpret as being a religious literalist. Probably wants to be a housewife/mother sort with time to go to ward functions. And while I have indeed been annoyed sometimes by his speculations about who I am, one possibility exists that his wife has skimped on groceries lately and bought herself a laptop and a whole different ISP, and gone online as a "babe" or something.
But let me tell you how it all really is. Any good LDS should properly be in this orbit. Afterall, Brigham Young said Adam was brought here from another world, and that God brought all kinds of plants and critters here from those other worlds too. And as Parley P. Pratt, an aspiring scientific scholar of the mid nineteenth century and an LDS apostle as well, put forth in his Science: Key to Theology , the various specimens of humans with their less than Godlike features and proportions are evolutionary results of transgressions over the ages. Other aspiring scientists with the ability to knowitall, have variously offered as explanations that there were several earlier attempts at placing mankind here on earth, all of which failed just like ours almost did with the exceptions of Enoch and Noah.
But, bottom line, Mormons can believe the creation story is something of a allegory dumbed down for, or by, the mere humans, or practically anything else they want to.
At any rate, this whole Brigham concept would give the scientists lots of lattitude for "missing links" and gaps in the geologic fossil record, and a whole lot more time for the basic principles of biological genetics to operate, and you really don't need to just throw out the babe of religion with the bathwater of the millenia of gossipers, ignorant speculators, and pious knowitalls like me.
And by the way, that whole strategy laid down in "Fascinating Womanhood" just never did address the issue of exactly how frustrating it is for an intelligent woman to be hitched to a troutbum.
Thanks for that post Hopper, I was hoping you'd make an appearance. I'm interested to know what your alter-ego has planned for this thread.
When did I say anything about my wife being a steadfast LDS believer, let alone complaining about it?
I have two young kids and my wife works two days a week, and loves working. On the flip side, you'd be hard pressed to catch her dead at a ward function. You're 0-2 so far.
Ya, I have no idea what you're saying here. You sound like a man of experience though.
When did I say anything about my wife being a steadfast LDS believer, let alone complaining about it?
I have two young kids and my wife works two days a week, and loves working. On the flip side, you'd be hard pressed to catch her dead at a ward function. You're 0-2 so far.
Ya, I have no idea what you're saying here. You sound like a man of experience though.
Do you believe in an all-powerful God? If so, do you believe he created man in his own image? If so, how do you think he did that? Did he point his finger and *ZAP*, man was made, or did he/she use science to mold man into his image? I look at it like this: A master potter can create beautiful works of art from a lump of clay. That is, he takes that lump of clay (insert whatever scientific term you want to describe early humans) and over time, creates it/molds it into a finished product. Wouldn't an all powerful God do the same thing? I have a much easier time believing that God used evolution to create man than a magic finger *ZAP*, which is essentially what the Bible and other scriptures tell us.
Blech, I suck at trying to explain myself on here.
Blech, I suck at trying to explain myself on here.
Nah, you do alright.
Some Scientists believe in a singular incomprehensible event called the "Big Bang". It is the same thing as saying God (or Nature) just went ZAP somehow.
We really haven't got a lot of alternatives.
If you're LDS working with the notion of an all-powerful glorified Man you're probably letting loose the LDS concept that God follows natural law in all He does. The LDS concept of the Godhed, with the pre-mortal Christ being the Word/Creator under the instruction of the Heavenly Father there are some logical conflicts even though it does work pretty smoothly at first. If God was like us once, and there were earlier worlds and such, it becomes a matter of discussing what the very first God did and how He did it in the first place. . . . but the modern LDS have decided to go with the general Christians and just say Christ made it all. . . . Anyway, the kind of gods that follow laws rather than create them can't really tell us why the laws are what they are. . . . .
But since we're all sorta trapped within our own skulls for our notions of things, and since we really can't just see very far or know much about it all, I consider your view as plausible if not likely. In any event, from my limited studies in DNA and inheritance it's pretty clear to me that there are at least two fortuitous events in the DNA chronologies. There are whole sets of functional proteins that seem to have been clipped from remote species and inserted into ours, so that our DNA looks like we're directly related to yeasts or snakes. We would still have a hard time inserting such large systems into genes with such otherwise dissimilar content and preserving their functionality. . . . It could happen on some remote chance basis where species are in continual close contact, like yeast growing on our skin for millions of years. . . . but who knows, there might have been some organized intelligence at work too.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Hard to take this thread seriously when you stop reading because of the third sentence.
It makes as much sense to ask if my beagles are descended from dogs. My beagles are dogs. Humans are apes.
However, I don't believe it. I accept it. It is the only explanation that accomodates the overwhelming evidence consistently. I save belief for things I don't have evidence about.
I'm being serious here, DD, what about the third sentence turned you off to this thread? Again, it's obvious that I don't know much about the subject and would like to hear what everyone else thinks -- you included. Please forgive an ignorant fool for posing the question in such loose terms. Fair?
Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Just the libtarded ones.