Friday, December 30, 2005

Re: [Mormons and Evolution] 12/29/2005 10:32:10 PM

Jared, LOL!

On Dec 30, 2005, at 1:32 AM, neha wrote:

sir can u please mail me about 15 pages for production of amylase n pectinase.it's my school assignment n i m not getting it anywhere. so sir if u can mail it plz send it before 31 december. i'll always b grateful 2 u - NEHA SRIVASTAVA
UP INDIA
( CLASS XI) 

Posted by NEHA

--
Posted by neha to Mormons and Evolution at 12/29/2005 10:32:10 PM

Thursday, December 29, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/29/2005 10:32:10 PM

sir can u please mail me about 15 pages for production of amylase n pectinase.it's my school assignment n i m not getting it anywhere. so sir if u can mail it plz send it before 31 december. i'll always b grateful 2 u - NEHA SRIVASTAVA
UP INDIA
( CLASS XI) 

Posted by NEHA

--
Posted by neha to Mormons and Evolution at 12/29/2005 10:32:10 PM

Monday, December 26, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/26/2005 11:26:03 AM

Interesting site. The CURRENTLY prevailing impact theory of Earth's moon formation (as well as the increase in Earth's mass and influence of its current inclination and axial rotation) seems to agree with what has been attributed to Joseph Smith. According to the theory, one protoplanet collided with another. The collision added core mass to the larger body (now called Earth) and ejected mass from both bodies which eventually formed the Moon. This "breaking up and remodeling" of these worlds and the creation of a stabilizing moon seems to have been a precurser to the establishment of life on earth.

As for how God created life here; it "is wisdom and it remaineth in Him." 

Posted by Dispatcher

--
Posted by Dispatcher to Mormons and Evolution at 12/26/2005 11:26:03 AM

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/21/2005 11:21:56 AM

I don't think that I agree with the way that you have laid out the 'Multi-Step Process', I do like the concept though, portion of this thread in that I am not convinced about the timing of the journey you have outlined. I would prefer to think of the timeline from the time they partook of the fruit to the time they were cast out of the garden, instead of from the pre-existence to the sometime thereafter. There is just no hint in any scriptures or doctrine to indicate that they were 'falling' before the partaking of the fruit.  

Posted by Anonymoose

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/21/2005 11:21:56 AM

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/20/2005 08:49:56 AM

Actually no, global warming is real and there are various scientific explanations for it. The two most obvious being that the Earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles and we are simply getting warmer now. The other would be that we are killing the ozone layer (which is fact) and that is allowing unfiltered UV rays in that are warming the planet and that we are generating gases that trap heat in the atmosphere thus raising the average of the Earths temperature.

But of course ID is just political; everyone who pushes ID is a Christian who is just trying to disguise the creation myth of the Christian Bible.

--
Posted by Toad734 to Mormons and Evolution at 12/20/2005 08:49:56 AM

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/06/2005 05:00:09 PM

That's strange, I'm almost positive I put the link in. Well anyway, it's my post, "Blood, the Fall, and Intelligent Design." It's in my notebook. 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 12/06/2005 05:00:09 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/06/2005 01:19:47 PM

Jared,

Your link isn't working. I don't know if you put it in wrong (doubtful) or if blogger is just having more issues as I have noticed around a few other blogs as of late. You might have to simply cut and paste the url. 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 12/06/2005 01:19:47 PM

Monday, December 05, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/05/2005 08:37:55 PM

Jeff,

It seems like you are making a point similar to the one I made in this post . I agree with your last paragraph--at least in the strong versions of each camp.

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 12/05/2005 08:37:55 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/05/2005 10:39:19 AM

Jared,

I had to go back and figure out what, exactly, it really was that we were arguing about.

My point in the post that you called into question was that the strength of evolutionary algorithms in a creative process lies in both its exploratory nature and its ability to design without a designer. However neither of these can really be considered virtues in the hands of a (supposedly) vastly powerful creator.

If the Creator did used only these algorithms then it suggests both that 1) He didn't really know what the final product would entail exactly and 2) He didn't really to the creating Himself. These are problems in addition to the typical problems of wastefulness and natural evil.

The IDers state that God didn't use ONLY these algorithms, but instead jumped in to give the Creative process a helping hand every now and then. This however raises other problems. First of all, the problems of wastefulness and natural evil are serious issues now, for whereas the ECist can write off most wastefulness and natural evil to the mindless nature of the process (just as we will everything else to a certain degree). Another problem is that it would seem that God would intervene under with ID only when He for some reason couldn't accomplish His purposes with EC, in which case the Designers power and/or competence is called into question. Finally, and most importantly, the evidence for the creative process can only ever work against ID as far as I can tell.

At this point you responded that this process is only wasteful if we only consider humans as being somehow important. If we look at the whole picture, you suggested, we might have a very different perspective.

I don't think so. The wastefulness comes not necessarily from the billions of years which life took to evolve to us, but from the very nature of evolution by natural selection. There is a constant struggle for survival and resources are always limited with few exceptions. In this light, the creation of any organism looks a bit wasteful and a bit cruel.

I also think that we shouldn't get too carried away in our esteem, in God's eyes, for other animals. We have no strong scriptural reason to think that this earth and all its life was created for anybody but us humans. The idea that intelligence extends into the animal realm, as I have defended elsewhere, is an entirely ad hoc attempt at twisting the scriptures. This isn't to say that it isn't a good idea, only that we have no reason to believe it really.

The main objection to it, as I said earlier, is that God, though not ALL powerful, really needs to be VASTLY powerful in order to inspire worship. Nobody is saying that any idiot could create a full blown ecosystem without the help of evolutionary algorithms, on that God should have been able to.

As to the fallen world, fallen compared to what? What was the not-fallen world from which we supposedly fell? The basic difference, it would seem, is merely mortality. But the existence of mortality does not at all suggest that life must come into existence in such an indirect and brutally competitive way. This is the beauty of special creation in that mortal life is created whenever God wills it. What EC and to a certain extent ID say is that God apparently COULDN'T have created a paradise at all, that this was pretty much the best He could do. Remember, at no point in the past do we have any reason whatsoever to suggest that there was a "fall" from a paradisiacal earth to a fallen one due to man's failure. Instead, it has always been pretty much this way, and this, THIS was pronounced "good."

Now as I said at the beginning of this comment, the problem of evil is only exacerbated (sp?) by a more direct creation. The problem of wastefulness is addressed a little bit but not too much. The problem of credit, however, is alleviated as is the problem of competence (whether God knew the eventual outcome).

That is the main point of that part of the post, namely that these problems work against each other in considering ID versus EC. One can only give God more credit and competence in the creative process only at the expense of exacerbating the problems of wastefulness and natural evil.
 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 12/05/2005 10:39:19 AM

Sunday, December 04, 2005

word verification


I turned word verification back on for comments. I don't know if it is fixed
yet, but it looks like we got a spam comment. Unfortunately I deleted the
email, so I don't know where it was posted. If any of you know where it is,
you can delete it.

Jared

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/04/2005 07:13:07 PM

Hi Jeffrey D. Giliam I’ve been looking for birth related blogs and I came across yours on Evolution and Spirit Birth during my trawl, so I thought it would be polite to let you know about my visit. You are most welcome to come and visit me at birth. I would also be happy to trade links with you if you are interested. Bye for now and have a nice day! Roy.

--
Posted by good will to Mormons and Evolution at 12/04/2005 07:13:07 PM

Saturday, December 03, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/03/2005 09:11:47 PM

(I had comment trouble also.)

Christian,

Given the stochastic nature of ecosystems, it is hard for me to believe that every detail is planned. That would be a lot of bean-counting (or beetle-counting). I tend to believe that the assignment of intelligence to life-form has some kind of simple principle behind it that does not require constant attention.

On the other hand, since I believe that we are an intended product, I can certainly imagine that God had other intended products.

So I really don't know, but I suspect that both processes occur. That's just my speculating opinion. 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/03/2005 09:11:47 PM

comment trouble


Word verification on Mormons and Evolution wasn't working right for
me on a comment I sent this evening. It kept bringing up the same
word-image and would never let me comment through. I tried it on
three different browsers and had the same problem. I finally turned
off word verification and it let it through. I'm not sure what the
problem is, but I've left word verification off for now.

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/03/2005 06:44:07 PM

Jeffrey:  DE is quite efficient, but efficiency is only a virtue to those who are limited in power, resources and/or personal investment. ... He simply didn't do it the best way which he (presumably) could have. 

As you're fond of pointing out, we don't believe in a God of unlimited power. However I'm not sure how much of the "waste" should be construed as delineating limitations on God's power, because as Jared points out, this is alleged to be a fallen world.

We are also left with a situation in which God isn't really creating anything in particular at all.

Well, believers may say God was needed to kick it off. And they'd also say we're only witnessing the second of three acts, and it remains to be seen how he'll pull it all off in the end.

But I should admit that I sympathize with the questions, and to some extent am playing devil's (or rather God's) advocate here. In fact I have Spinozist leanings... ;-> 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/03/2005 06:44:07 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/03/2005 12:51:32 PM

Jared,  I'm curious to know what you think about the historical contingency of species and ecosystems that are peripheral to humans. Do you think God specifically designed each one for a particular kind of lesser intelligence? Or do you think they arose naturalistically, with God assigning appropriate lesser intelligences to them "on the fly"?  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/03/2005 12:51:32 PM

Friday, December 02, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 05:01:22 PM

Jeff,

Aren't you forgetting that we live in a fallen world--and it is supposed to be so? Is the wastefulness and natural evil problem lessened by a more direct creation? I don't think so. I doubt you do either, so now I'm not sure what we're talking about.

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 05:01:22 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 03:13:19 PM

Man, this is starting to sound like a New Cool Thang thread.

Now about your cake. If God could produce a fully formed cake or mix the (unspecified) ingredients and let nature take it toll (this toll being huge amounts of suffering, waste and a not too intelligently designed product) which should we choose? The answer seems all too obvious to me. We can only make EC sound like a good option if we trivialize the waste and/or postulate some undefined mechanisms to get what we want.

These are the reasons why I hate analogies so much. They too easily serve to divert attention away the real issues at hand. (No offense intended to anybody here. Geoff, the king of analogies, knows about my undying hatred as much as anybody.)

DE is quite efficient, but efficiency is only a virtue to those who are limited in power, resources and/or personal investment.

We can allow nature to do the "heavy lifting" but this is exactly what I addressed in the post. God doesn't get credit and we are left wondering why He simply didn't do it the best way which he (presumably) could have. This is why special creationism and ID are so attractive to theists, because they avoid the negative implications of these questions.

There are two things which Jared wrote which I want to address:

1) Wasteful doesn't simply mean "efficient use of materials" in this context. Wasteful also includes the waste of life in the inherently competitive nature of natural selection and the inevitability of unintelligent and even immoral design. This is what separates evolution from the lifeless expanses of heaven.

2) I have also suggested that eternal progression can be extended to less lifeforms, but I don't think that this is good enough. This response doesn't address the natural evils of unintelligent and immoral design (by immoral I mean the numerous examples of infanticide, rape and murder which is so common to life and atheists are so fond of pointing out). We are also left with a situation in which God isn't really creating anything in particular at all.
 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 03:13:19 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 02:10:52 PM

The scriptures are centered around humans, and well they should--we are his children. But they also hint that God has other big projects going on. All those wasteful ecosystems are wasteful when thinking of us as the goal, but they may have value in and of themselves. I'm thinking of the progression of lesser intelligences such as animals, and so forth. Are they more wasteful than all of those stars and planets God created 'for mine own purpose'? 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 02:10:52 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 02:01:30 PM

Jeffrey, I definitely don't believe all the things I say. ;-> I like to explore many angles and may play devil's advocate, even when my true position is actually closer to that of my interlocuter.

I agree, in very many places in nature it is apparent that God doesn't care exactly what is happening---at least it's not relevant for humans---and this probably is the case with many peripheral ecosystems as you mention.

Whether the task is creating a specific creature or an entire ecosystem... Just thinking out loud here, suppose the task was to bake a cake. Would God directly create a fully-formed cake, or mix the ingredients and put it in the oven, letting natural law take over? Would the latter be called inefficient, wasteful, etc.?

There are many important differences with evolution, but still it suggests the attractiveness of what you call deistic evolution. While seemingly slow, wasteful, whatever from the point of view of time, it's exceedingly efficient with regards to the amount of effort God himself has to put in. Nature does the heavy lifting. A version of this in which God is involved not only at the beginning, hut comes around only from time to time and adjusts only crucial things is also possible (and indeed suggested by our creation accounts).

A key question is how contingent evolution really is. One deist-style solution would be that God kicks off evolution on many worlds and only in some of them do beings arise that are close enough for him to call his "children."

For Mormons, however, this would be giving up a lot because the First Vision is strictly interpreted to mean that God is exactly anthropomorphic. Also our creation accounts suggest nothing like this, but rather successful involvement with a particular planet. Again, this involvement could be quite intermittent, mostly hands off. But again, with any "hands off" approach there is still the problem of contingency; even if getting to some sort of intelligent being were roughly automatic, getting something that looks just like God---close enough to seem like his literal offspring---seems like a tall order.

In summary, next to atheism, the deist-style position seems to be most consonant with "waste" in nature (and some degree of occasional "checking up" may not be ruled out), but the contingency this implies makes it a tough fit for Mormon conceptions of what it means to be a child of God, made in his image. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 02:01:30 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 12:51:12 PM

At last some comments. I certainly thought that my post was at least a little controversial and deserving of some criticism.

Your first comment is a rather good one, but I'm not sure that your response is broad enough to cover the gap its trying to bridge. For staters, the actually ecosystem which supports man is but a small portion of what actually has arisen. I simply don't accept that all the the ecosystems which now exist on earth, let alone all those which have existed, have done so in order to support man's existence. I don't actually think that you really believe it this strongly either, but that is what your comment amounts to.

Your comment also begs the original question to a large extent. Obviously the design which we are talking about here far exceeds that which those engineers were working on. That, it seems to me, is all your comment really says in the end, for why couldn't God have simply intelligently designed an ecosystem suitable for his purposes on the spot rather than, again, using such a prodigously wasteful and indirect method of creation? This is simply the original question put in its proper perspective.

As regards your second comment, Darwin did state, and correctly so, that the most intense competition will be between those organisms who occupy the most similar niches.

Your comment on one interpretation agrees with my post if by "environment" you mean selective pressures. I don't think that the selective pressures can be controled by anybody due to their being intrinsically self-defined and I consider the environment as you seem to be describing it as being part of these selective pressures.

If, however, environment is taken to mean God's somehow artificially protecting or endangering particular organisms then I do think that it is possible that it could be done. HOWEVER, there are some serious drawbacks:

1) Its would be VERY DIFFICULT to overcome the intrinsically self-defined selective pressures require huge amounts of divine supervision and interference.

2) We have absolutely no reason to suggest that God works in such non-subtle ways. It simply seems wrong to suggest that God interferred with the course of nature all the time before there men on the earth but stopped intervening once man showed up. Serious issues regarding the problem of evil naturally arise.

3) Similarly, if God did have such power and influence over the evolutionary history of life, then He is, at least indirectly, responsible for all the bad things which have evolved as well, for He could have avoided them. This is what makes ID such bad theology for it puts God in role of a very unintelligent designer.

It is issue like these that help keep Evolutionary Creationism in check, making it obviously clear that such a position is based upon pure faith without any pretentions to science. This, in my opinion, is a good thing. 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 12:51:12 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 12:00:59 PM

This, however, isn’t really giving the engineers their full due, for they did, presumably, supervise the process and guide it according to their tastes by a manipulation of selective pressures and variability. 

A difficulty in applying this to God's possible influence over biological evolution is that a very large part of an organism's environment is other organisms. (In fact I think in Darwin's original version the competition against other individuals of one's own species almost completely dominated.) Hence to influence evolution by influencing the environment would still amount to either designing or controlling other organisms. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 12:00:59 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/02/2005 11:56:13 AM

If they had known what that optimal design was beforehand, they simply would have intelligently designed it that way rather than taking the long and wasteful route. ... If the Designer knew the design then why waste so much time, energy and life in taking the long route? Why take the longer and more exploratory route if no exploration was necessary? The ID answer is that He (to one degree or another) didn't. The evolutionary creationist, on the other hand, doesn't really have much of an answer. 

Obviously an incisive question, but it may misleadingly focus too much on individual organisms. Remember that entire ecosystems have to be built up into a biosphere that can support man. Starting from a lifeless planet, it could be that it is necessary to build up slowly, gradually bringing along complicated systems with many interactions. In this context what seems wasteful from the perspective of a single individual of a single species might actually be quite reasonable in the context of the bigger picture.
 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/02/2005 11:56:13 AM

Thursday, December 01, 2005

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 04:34:30 PM

Yet another test in which I'm trying to cut out a step in our comment distribution system. I suspect this one will not make it through. 

Posted by Third Random Guy

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 04:34:30 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 04:41:24 PM

I'm hoping this one will go through, and without the extra tagline with Christian's name on it. 

Posted by Fourth Random Guy

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 04:41:24 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 03:25:59 PM

I'm solidly in the "undetectable God" camp, i.e. theological evolution. One interesting question worth asking is whether God can accomplish anything he wants to while still eluding detection.

For example (and this may seem off topic), we often hear that the commandment to tithe is for our own good. "God could provide the money himself if he wanted to," we're told. But how could God fund a multibillion dollar church without tipping his hand? If he inspired church investors to buy certain stocks, for instance, then the church's inexplicable "good luck" would not go unnoticed.

The trick is for God to carry out his purposes in ways that are indistiguishable from undirected nature. Stochastic processes provide an opportunity for God to do this, but his actions must look statistically random. So I guess I see God as a very smart pseudorandom number generator. 

Posted by will

--
Posted by will to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 03:25:59 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 12:38:09 PM

This is a third test comment on the test post. 

Posted by Another Random Guy

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 12:38:09 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 12:29:23 PM

This is another test comment on the test post. 

Posted by Random Guy

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 12:29:23 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 12/01/2005 12:24:43 PM

This is a test comment on the test post. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 12/01/2005 12:24:43 PM