[Mormons and Evolution] 1/31/2006 08:31:47 AM

Jared,

Thanks. I’d say my key point was Jesus warned us of false prophets. How many things can a modern apostle mislead us on before one concludes he is a false prophet to be ignored? That threshold will vary greatly among different well meaning people. I find BKP’s shamefully using evolution as a Boogey Man as contemptuous, and he exceeded my threshold long ago. Another anti-evolutionist, JFSII, lost me as a youth when I found he completely missed the point of the parable of the laborers. But I respect those who can parse between the inspired and false teachings of such leaders.

On the tangential self pleasure issue, in a nut shell I said the church has moved on from BKP, based on my experience that none of my kids have ever been asked about it by Bishops, SPs or MPs. Moreover, I note the current “Strength of Youth” booklet omits the subject. This is opposed to me, even as an adult, having to deal with a disrespectful MP asking me in a first meeting if I was a wanking homo! I see that as an abandonment of BKP’s obsession over a generally harmless, healthy and private activity. Gary, Christian and I’m sure others do not. I hope we can agree to disagree.

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/31/2006 08:31:47 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/30/2006 03:28:30 PM

Steve,

I was responsible for the deletion of comments. It was not my intention to paint you as the loser, nor were your comments the sole factor in my decision. I simply thought that since the discussion seemed to be over, the off-topic comments could be removed. It is not our/my intention to exercise a heavy editorial hand.

I left Gary's comment so that both sides of the issue would be represented--since I did not remove your initial comment. You feel that letting his comment stand is unfair.

In the interest of fairness, let me summarize your rebuttal and you may correct or add to it as you feel necessary:

In the experience of you and your family, bishops don't specifically ask about it like they used to, and overall there seems to be much less discussion/emphasis on it than there used to be. Furthermore, you feel it is a private matter.

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/30/2006 03:28:30 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/30/2006 02:00:43 PM

Well admin, it’s your site and you’re free to do as you see fit. I will note, however, that all the comments you deleted, while tangential, always came back to topic and you reveal your bias by leaving Gary's comment up but not my counter rebuttal.

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/30/2006 02:00:43 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/29/2006 08:36:23 PM

Christian wrote the following as part of one of the deleted comments:

Back to evolution. As my first comment on this thread indicates, I don't agree with Elder Packer on evolution, and I agree that being mistaken on well-supported evidence tends to undermine confidence; but as a matter of strict logic I would not say that being wrong about A necessarily implies one is also wrong about X, Y, and Z.

--
Posted by Administrator to Mormons and Evolution at 1/29/2006 08:36:23 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/29/2006 08:31:28 PM

Administrative Note: Additional comments continued discussion of the Church's teachings on self-stimulation. Since the comments were off-topic and the discussion is over, they have been removed.

--
Posted by Administrator to Mormons and Evolution at 1/29/2006 08:31:28 PM

Re: Comments

Whatever you think is best is good enough for me.

On 1/29/06, Christian Y. Cardall <christian.cardall@gmail.com > wrote:

Jared, I agree. Feel free to delete the whole sequence. I regret
getting sucked into that discussion.

On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:41 PM, jaredsblog.8216123@bloglines.com wrote:

>
> What would you guys think of cleaning up the comments from my post
> on Elder
> Packer? My preference would be to edit out some of the comments
> focusing exclusively
> on masturbation.
>
>
>
> I agree with Christian on the specific argument, but now
> that the discussion is over, it seems like a blemish to me. When
> people interested
> in Mormonism and evolution find our blog, I'd prefer they not have
> to wade
> through such off-topic and potentially offensive material. I think
> our blog
> will, to some degree, be judged by the quality of comments, not
> just the posts.
>
>
>
> I guess we have not really established a policy on this. Would you
> favor
> deleting comments only when we all agree, or should we police our
> own posts?
>
>
>
> Anyway, let me know what you think. I won't act unless you agree.

Re: Comments

Jared, I agree. Feel free to delete the whole sequence. I regret
getting sucked into that discussion.

On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:41 PM, jaredsblog.8216123@bloglines.com wrote:

>
> What would you guys think of cleaning up the comments from my post
> on Elder
> Packer? My preference would be to edit out some of the comments
> focusing exclusively
> on masturbation.
>
>
>
> I agree with Christian on the specific argument, but now
> that the discussion is over, it seems like a blemish to me. When
> people interested
> in Mormonism and evolution find our blog, I'd prefer they not have
> to wade
> through such off-topic and potentially offensive material. I think
> our blog
> will, to some degree, be judged by the quality of comments, not
> just the posts.
>
>
>
> I guess we have not really established a policy on this. Would you
> favor
> deleting comments only when we all agree, or should we police our
> own posts?
>
>
>
> Anyway, let me know what you think. I won't act unless you agree.

Comments

What would you guys think of cleaning up the comments from my post on Elder
Packer? My preference would be to edit out some of the comments focusing exclusively
on masturbation.

I agree with Christian on the specific argument, but now
that the discussion is over, it seems like a blemish to me. When people interested
in Mormonism and evolution find our blog, I'd prefer they not have to wade
through such off-topic and potentially offensive material. I think our blog
will, to some degree, be judged by the quality of comments, not just the posts.

I guess we have not really established a policy on this. Would you favor
deleting comments only when we all agree, or should we police our own posts?

Anyway, let me know what you think. I won't act unless you agree.

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/27/2006 11:50:34 AM

No, no "expansion theory" at work in the Speculation Train story. It was 100% unadulterated "inspired fiction" all the way. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/27/2006 11:50:34 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/27/2006 11:27:45 AM

Did that "speculation train" story happen at all? Was it someone else you knew who did it?

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 1/27/2006 11:27:45 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/27/2006 06:02:01 AM

Your last line is a nice retort to Aaron Cox's "Get of the Speculation Train"!

Did you really go back and read the original Paley? If so, that's pretty cool.

Some combination of points 7, 8, and 9 are quite compelling. We can definitely tell the difference between three major kinds of things, both in their instrinsic properties and how they come into being: inorganic natural things, organic natural things, and man-made artificial things.

I think it's interesting that traditional Mormonism took seriously the "organic natural things" category that Paley left out, in its insistence on an eternal regression of procreation of various kinds of plants and animals. When it comes to organisms, the argument from design doesn't really have a natural place in Mormonism. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/27/2006 06:02:01 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/27/2006 06:36:50 AM

Interesting points for discussion, Clark. I'll just pick up one briefly: I'm not sure how necessary it is to integrate D&C 88 philosophically. It may represent an earlier absolutist conception of God that Joseph later moved away from. Perhaps sentiments like those Brigham expressed on the Bible and Book of Mormon also go for the D&C! 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/27/2006 06:36:50 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/26/2006 09:57:32 AM

I don't think one can say that is anti-science. There is a real philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge here. To make an analogy where the problem is more obvious, consider mathematics. When a new theorem is "discovered" is it discovered or merely created? That's a real debate and was the point of concern for philosophers focusing in on science like Husserl.

The further issue is how to take D&C 88 and the relationship between God and creation. That is, to what degree is God involved with the workings of all things. It seems to me that a very valid interpretation is that God is very involved. Whether that involvement is in a Deist fashion, a neoPlatonic fashion, a purely metaphoric fashion, or (as Blake Ostler takes it) a kind of loving relationship isn't at all clear.

I'd be cautious though of arguing that any of those interpretations entail being "anti-science."

Even if one takes a much more limited view of divine involvement, I don't see the problem with God being involved at least in the environment to allow the current explosion in knowledge that's been going on for about 200 years. Why now and not earlier? When a scientist has that "aha, flash of insight" do we really want to say that in all cases it is purely the effort of the scientist? I'm not prepared to say God doesn't inspire all minds from time to time. I think I can see it in my own life, often subtly.

With regard to the similarity of Nibley and Young, I wasn't thinking of the Watchers issue and technology but more of the neoPlatonic idea that innovation only occurs via an openness to the heavens. That is real thinking is an openness to Being whereas poor thinking is a kind of repetition. I discussed this a fair bit in my Nibley reading club . It's basically the distinction between the mantic and sophist that Nibley (and others use). I should add that I think it largely bunk. But I think one ought keep it in mind when reading these things.

The notion of the Masonic Great Architect is a good one. I suspect your right there. Young was very influenced by Masonry.

 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/26/2006 09:57:32 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/26/2006 04:27:50 AM

Clark,  that view of all science (really "technology" as you point out) as being "revealed" even if the scientists didn't realized they were being inspired seems to persist widely to this day in Mormonism. You'll hear sentiments like "people were inspired to invent computers so they could be used for family history work", or "satellites were invented so the Church could broadcast General Conference." It has always puzzled me why this would always be assumed. If humans have eternal intelligences too, can we not ascribe any independent capacity to them? So this sentiment of Brigham's seems anti-science to me (where here I use "science" in the modern sense of the scientific method).

Recognizing he means "technology" when he says "science," I guess I agree with your first sentiment that in the statement referred to he wasn't thinking of God as First Cause, but of teaching technology, like passing down knowledge in an artistic guild. Yes, very similar to what Nibley said was going on with the Watchers who revealed the secrets of the heavens (technology, really) to humanity without authorization. (This would be like unauthorized communication of the arts outside their legitimate guilds!)

That he believes laws, procreation, etc. are eternal I don't think makes him a Deist; he still requires the divine beings to individually organize each world, and populate it with seeds and each sample of species to propagate after their kind, etc.

It's true IDers say law is not enough, but do they require violations of law? They would say natural law is not enough to bring, say, an airplane into existence; but I don't think they would also say the engineers are violating any natural laws.

His final statement in your quote related to "design" is not really legitimate ammunition for IDers because he didn't mean it about the creation of organisms; he thought all that was done by procreation after their kind, for animals, plants, and humans, by bringing seeds and samples here (cf. the ritual creation account for which he was responsible). The "design" he referred to must have been the organization of the earth and solar system, and the bringing of individual species to it.

He didn't use the word "design", but his construction metaphor suggests he was thinking along the lines of the Masonic "Great Architecht." Perhaps for many non-Mormons the activity of the "Great Architecht" included the specification of natural laws, but I guess Joseph---and, following him, Brigham---got past this by anthropomorphizing the Father and placing him within the universe and subject to its eternal laws. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/26/2006 04:27:50 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/26/2006 03:36:26 AM

Jared,  I agree you didn't make too much of it at all, or try and bring evolution into it. You're right that we agree; I didn't intend this post as a rebuttal, but just as some further thoughts sparked by your post.  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/26/2006 03:36:26 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/25/2006 06:42:43 PM

The problem I have with the above is that there is that assumption I sense that efficient causality is all there is. It seems to me that one can object to ID without necessarily rejecting final causality.  

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 06:42:43 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/25/2006 06:14:48 PM

There's no doubt that applying Young's comments directly to evolution is problematic, if only because Young wasn't familar with evolution so we don't know how he'd have reacted. (Probably negatively)

I don't think one should see Young as arguing for God as First Cause. I think if we're going to make Greek comparisons he's closer to something Platonic than Aristotilean. I think Young really truly believes that our know-ing is tied to God is some direct way. That is all true knowledge comes via some sense of revelation. (I think Nibley adopts a similar view, for the record)

So Young truly believes that any discovery of a real law is actually a revelation from God. (Of some sort - I don't think it likely entails a normal communicative revelation that we in the modern church normally think in terms of)

One thing I almost mentioned in that post but didn't, is that Young is using "science" quite differently than from how we think of science. To Young something is a science if its laws are known. That is he uses it more for what we would think of as technology.

The reason I don't think this would support ID is that Young is arguing that all creation works by fixed law whereas ID depends upon there being a violation of law. i.e. their whole argument is that law isn't enough whereas Young's whole argument is that it is.

I do think you're right though that Young's portrayal is closer to what one would expect from a Deist. Indeed the language here is very much like the Deist. So perhaps I'll take back slightly my "First Cause" comments.

One final point to your concluding paragraph concerning the relevancy of Young's comments. I fully agree with you. I merely quote Young (and others) to show the diversity of thought within Mormonism rather than for arguing what is or isn't right. I find argument by proof text ultimately pointless. But if someone is going to do it, I can whip out the references as easily as anyone else.

 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 06:14:48 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/25/2006 05:51:54 PM

I don't think I disagree with you at all.

And just for clarity, I don't think I tried to make too much out of the quote--I'm well aware that Brigham would have been no friend of Darwin. 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 05:51:54 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] The Failure of the Argument from Design

As has been noted by some, the obstacles confronting intelligent design are not merely limited to scientific verifiability. In addition to the typical scientific objections to ID, which are myriad and persuasive, there are a number of philosophical issues which ID, as it is typically accepted, is simply unable to deal with. It has often been said that ID is not only terrible science (not science at all in fact) but it is ghastly theology as well. In this post I would like to make some of the less well known reasons for this explicit.

One of the main differences between intelligent design and Darwinian evolution is that while the latter is fully composed of what Aristotle would called ‘efficient causes,’ the former is principally composed of ‘teleological causes.’ In other words, ID’s central point is that the causes responsible for the biological world we now observe are goal or purpose driven while Darwinism maintains that entirely purposeless causes are fully sufficient to cover the appearances.

It is for this reason that ID is called ‘intellectualized creationism.’ The entire enterprise is centered on the ‘argument from design’ or the ‘teleological argument.’ It is my intention to provide an account of the principles involved in the argument from design, drawing upon William Paley’s “Natural Theology: Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature,” and expose its serious short comings.

Paley’s points are as follows:

1. We have the ability to recognize design when we see it. If on the beach we found a watch (he calls it a clock) next to a rock on the beach, we would easily be able to identify which of the two had been designed.


2. Natural phenomena such as our eyes, thumbs and noses are more like clocks than rocks.


3. Just as we are able to accurately infer the existence of a clock maker from the existence of a clock, we should also be able to infer the existence of an ‘eye-maker’ from the existence of eyes. While the maker of a clock need only be finite in nature, the designer of all these designed phenomena in nature must be infinitely wise and powerful.


4. Thus the only adequate source of such designed features as our noses being pointed down so that we wouldn’t drown from rain is God.

And now for the problems with such reasoning. Before continuing I would like to acknowledge that the ID movement does not insist that the ‘designer’ be infinite in anything, only that he be ‘intelligent’ in some form. However, this has not prevented most who adopt ID from accepting the infinite nature of the designer regardless. While most of these criticisms will apply to a finite designer as well, many will only apply to an infinite one. Like I said, it is the theological use of ID which I am principally concerned with.

1. The argument from designer violates Ockham’s razor, the principle of parsimony. It engages in serious explanatory overkill. While it may seem more natural to posit a designer, thanks to modern evolutionary theory, we really don’t need to. Without the principle of parsimony, no explanation which covers the appearances is any better than any other which also does. Jesse Prinz’s “theory” that birds are robots, which melt when they burn, were created by mad scientists from another planet and fly because they hang from ultra thin threads connected to spaceships that orbit the earth is just as good as the theory that they are animals which descended from dinosaurs that do not gestate their young. Without parsimony, these two theories are equally good. This argues strongly against (3).


2. Design need not come from above. In fact, it should not. If design can only be bestowed by an more-designed-Designer then we will have to explain how that more-designed-Designer got to be so designed in terms of an even-more-designed-Designer and so on ad infinitum. Thus, our explanation is heading in the wrong direction. This also argues against (3).


3. The entire argument depends upon the ability to infer certain characteristics about a cause from its effects. Such reasoning is incredibly unreliable. Are we supposed to be able to infer the properties of salt by the taste which is gives French fries? Such reasoning would never in a million years allow us to conclude that salt is composed of the metal sodium and the poisonous gas, chlorine. Again, this goes against (3).


4. Closely related, how in the world can anybody reasonably infer from finite effects that the cause must have been infinite? This is not just a case of going beyond what is necessary, but is in fact a case of going against reason to establish a desired conclusion. Hume put it best in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” where he asks if the designer could not have been stupid, or wicked, or a committee or simply vastly-but-not-infinitely powerful. All of these possibilities are actually MORE reasonable given the appearances which must be accounted for than is the all-wise, all-loving conclusion. This is a brutal blow against (4).


5. The argument from design engages is HIGHLY biased data selection. Sure, when flowers are blooming and suns are setting its easy to be caught up in the awe of it all. But what about when tsunamis and hurricanes hit? What about famine and disease? What about birth defects? What about the obvious injustice of the wicked prospering while the righteous dwindle in utter poverty? What about all the horrible our simply stupid cases of design we observe in the biological world? If these imply a Designer then it must be a relatively stupid or malevolent one. This works strongly against (3). (It should be also kept in mind that we simply can’t say “well, we simply don’t know about these cases” because if such is the case, then we really don’t know about any of the cases and we shouldn’t be using the argument from design at all.)


6. The problem is that most IDers believe that EVERYTHING, not just some things, shows design. God, sorry, the Designer designed everything including the rocks. This undermines (1).


7. Issue is not simply one of design vs. non-design. Instead, follow Michael Ruse, the issue would be better phrased as an issue of chaos vs. complexity vs. design. It is not so easy to distinguish chaos from complexity or complexity from design as it is chaos from design and Paley does us a great disservice by ignoring this point. This also works against (1).


8. Consequently, thumbs, while they may resemble clocks more than rocks, do not really resemble either very well. Nobody has ever seen a rock come into existence, loosely speaking. Lots of people have seen how clocks come into existence, namely by a clock-maker. Lots of people have also seen how thumbs, eyes and noses come into existence, namely by the birth of an organism. This final example shows how biological entities cannot be considered to be rocks or clocks, not by a long shot. This seriously undermines (2).


9. The argument from design attempts to show that since biological phenomena are not chaos then they must be design, but such is not the case. Biological phenomena, as we have seen, do not suitably fall into the same categories as rocks or designed artifacts. Instead they are something different from both categories and Darwin proposed what is so far the only suitable mechanism for this third category “complexity.” Inheritance of information by birth simply cannot be equated with design, nor does it imply it at all. This too speaks against (2).


10. Darwinian evolution (which is uncontroversially true to at least some extent) suggests that the equivalent of upside-down happens all the time. The appearances are equally compatible with the proposition that some individuals, in the beginning, were created with upside-down noses, but those people all drown some time in the past, leaves us “right-side-upers” to marvel at the benevolence of the creator. This, however, tells us more about us than the creator. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is uncontroversially true to some extent. (3) is again under attack.


11. Finally, and a little off topic, the argument from design to the existence of God, rather than a mere designer, simply does not work. Just because some entity designed this world and even us is no reason whatsoever to suppose that this Designer is deserving or desiring of worship. Of course this argument against (4) only goes to show the underlying motives which trump the inadequate reason involved in ID reasoning.

For all of these reasons, which are in addition to the typical scientific objections, perhaps it is time we all got off the ID train.

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 03:30:00 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/25/2006 05:22:55 PM

Yes, I agree that neither newer or older is "ultimate truth." But when it comes to defining what is "doctrine," or acceptable for the purpose of official discourse, newer---that is, the latest word from the authorities---is "correct." As I say in the post you referred to (thanks!), for me this means that "doctrine" and "ultimate truth" have to be allowed to be separate things. Mostly overlapping, one would hope; but history shows there must be allowance for some slippage between them.

An interesting thing about newer vs. older is that there are strong traditions in the Church of both restoration and continuing revelation. This means one can never be sure whether ideas no longer taught have been superceded by greater light, or are awaiting a future appropriate time to be openly preached again. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 05:22:55 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/25/2006 01:26:26 PM

Christian,

I think you make some good points. I noticed the end of Clark's quote also, but didn't comment further on it.

Anybody familiar with the broader range of Brigham's ideas, or even the larger history of the Church, would have to conceed that older isn't necessarily better.

But then neither is newer. Of course, it is absurd that ultimate truth changes based on who holds office. I think this leads back to one of your old posts . 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 01:26:26 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] The Relevance to Evolution of Brigham’s Science-friendly Statements

Jared has a nice post on the changing publication history of a very interesting quote from Brigham Young, and Jeffrey and Clark give some other interesting statements of Brigham’s. No question it’s gratifying to perceive support for one’s own sympathies for science in general, and interpretational flexibility of Genesis in particular, from someone of Brigham's stature; but there are some reasons for enthusiasts of naturalistic evolution to not to get too excited.

First, Clark italicizes a statement that, taken out of the context of the totality of Brigham’s thought, seems open to evolution; but Brigham surely did not intend it as such. In saying “Our spirits are His: He begot them. We are His children; He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles,” the ‘setting in motion’ Brigham had in mind could only have been the initial procreation by divine beings of the first parents of the human race, and not the initiation of naturalistic evolution by the creation of rudimentary single-celled (or even sub-cellular) life.

Second, the full statement Clark cited has potentially conflicting ideas on God being subject to natural law and God decreeing natural law, and also gives some ammunition to Intelligent Design advocates. Says Brigham,

But it is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law.

So far, so good; sounds like God as Engineer. But then he immediately says

It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author. … It is strange that scientific men do not realize that, all they know is derived from Him; to suppose, or to foster the idea for one moment, that they are the originators of the wisdom they possess is folly in the highest!

Here Brigham is either not recognizing a distinction between God as Engineer and God as First Cause, or is at least denying man’s ability to discover the regularities of nature through the scientific method without divine inspiration. Finally, a general teleological argument:

As for ignoring the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being, I would as soon ignore the idea that this house came into existence without the agency of intelligent beings.

For more on the distinction between God as First Cause and God as Engineer, and the styles of arguments from design they respectively inspire, see this post.

Finally, with regard to the ultimate relevance of Jared’s well-done and much-appreciated detective work: when it comes to what people and organizations take as religious doctrine, older and original are not always deemed more true. In fact, the opposite may be true. (This is contrary—not inappropriately, for science of course, and perhaps also for a religion with acknowledged infallible authorities and an open canon—to the usual values historians deploy in plying their craft.) We applaud Brigham for applying this principle in recognizing the limitations of the creation account in Genesis, by taking account of what we ‘know’ today—either by science or revelation/inspiration—that previous prophets did not. However, this freedom to set aside older statements is a two-edged sword: we may be less excited about the contemporary Church availing themselves of this principle in selecting for current consumption only the portions of Brigham’s statements that are today considered good doctrine by the current presiding authorities.



--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/25/2006 12:31:00 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/21/2006 08:48:04 PM

I'll skip the tangent Steve EM goes down. I'd just suggest that some people have an undue fixation with Church and sex issues and I don't think it's Pres. Packer.

I am interesting in John Redelf's comments (sorry I didn't return to the post earlier this week - I suspect John might never see this) My question is that when animals engage in homosexual acts and John says it is unnatural, exactly what does he mean by natural? Aren't animals typically the paradigmatic example of what is or isn't natural? It seems like John means something unusual by natural.
 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/21/2006 08:48:04 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/21/2006 07:25:21 PM

Boyd Packer needs to relax.

--
Posted by paul ramsell to Mormons and Evolution at 1/21/2006 07:25:21 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/20/2006 01:36:09 PM

Steve, all I'm saying is that there is a difference between what you will be asked point blank out of the blue, and what the Church approves of. Your teenagers deserve to know the difference in order to make an informed choice about the nature of their Church participation.

The fact is that if a priesthood leader discovers habitual masturbation he will almost certainly impose discipline of some sort. If you want to teach your children to disregard this and participate in all the ordinances anyway while maintaining their secret habit, that's your business. But since keeping things secret that would get you in trouble if they were known carries psychological costs, it may not be the most healthy thing to teach them to do. Teaching them to take a stand by not participating in ordinances under false pretences seems like the more honorable course. Depending on your teenagers' views of integrity, understanding this may affect whether and how they choose to participate in the Church.

Back to evolution. As my first comment on this thread indicates, I don't agree with Elder Packer on evolution, and I agree that being mistaken on well-supported evidence tends to undermine confidence; but as a matter of strict logic I would not say that being wrong about A necessarily implies one is also wrong about X, Y, and Z.  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/20/2006 01:36:09 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/20/2006 07:18:37 AM

Christian, love you man. Sometime in the last generation the church moved from having Bishops badger the youth about this to the current situation were they are asked the same question as married adults: “Do you live the law of chastity”. If we are in disagreement that that is a huge (and positive) change, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. In any event, I know BKP had nothing to do w/ the change, but I am most grateful to whoever did, for without it, I would have pulled my family from the church rather than have them subjected to the same harmful nonsense I was. While a believing LDS, protecting my family from psychological abuse comes first.

And come-on, you know my second point on the toilet paper and feminine products was a youth volunteering a private thing like masturbation to the Bishop would be akin to them volunteering that they prefer brand X toilet paper because of the way it feels……….. Some human experiences just aren’t normally volunteered to the Bishop. Do adults discuss sex toys, family planning or alternatives to intercourse with their Bishop?

And you are correct, my wife and I teach our kids that masturbation is normal healthy adolescent and single adult private behavior, part of reproductive health, preparation for a healthy and happy marriage, etc and should only be a concern if it becomes obsessive and they find it interferes w/ all the other things going on in their lives.

Things were so bad in the church I grew up in, I remember getting threatened with being sent home by my first MP in our first meeting after he asked me if I masturbate and if I had any homosexual tendencies. I wasn’t a freaking kid anymore, nor a virgin, and was so insulted that I flippantly told him off, “ I don’t know you. But if you really want to know, I’ve _____ _____ and ____ and love it, and I now know I need to wait for marriage. And if you ask me those questions again, we’re gonna have a fist fight.” Praise Jesus my kids can participate in the church w/o that abusive BS. You get your act together, volunteer to go on a mission, and a pompous MP ignores your sacrifice and dedication and asks in a first meeting if you’re a wanking homo! Makes ya wonder how many people the likes of BKP have chased from the church? Apostle of the Lord, my ___.

Again back to topic, BKP shamefully uses evolution as a Boogey Man. If that doesn’t make him a false prophet and someone to be ignored, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

G-d bless

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/20/2006 07:18:37 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/20/2006 04:38:10 AM

Steve, if someone took the current teachings of apostles as the word of the Lord they would not be comfortable with it. (I recognize your teenagers probably were not taught this, so they may well feel entirely comfortable ignoring the words of apostles.) In a recent General Conference Elder Scott has spoken against self-pleasure, and has also recently endorsed The Miracle of Forgiveness which teaches against it. In contrast, no apostle has given counsel on toilet paper or feminine products. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/20/2006 04:38:10 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/19/2006 06:44:09 PM

If the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus, then Elder Packer seems quite qualified.

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/19/2006 06:44:09 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/19/2006 11:21:32 AM

Hi Christian. We've exchanged comments on this before, and you’ve just made my point. As a teen, I joined the church (was born Catholic) and soon found out it was the CofJCofLDSof-the-Bishops-who-obsess-about-youth-self-pleasure. At 15, after becoming sexually active w/ my first gf and experimenting w/ drugs, I even had a Bishop who kept fixating on masturbation, when I had much bigger problems he seemed to ignore. Fortunately, I ended up finding Jesus on my own in spite of him. It seems we're both in agreement that that sorry church (the church of BKP) doesn't exist anymore: youth are no longer explicitly asked about this trivial subject. As for your challenge, just why would someone bring up a private matter to their Bishop w/ which they are comfortable? Do youth volunteer to their Bishops why they prefer a certain brand of toilet paper, feminine products, etc?

Back to topic, do you also defend BKP shamefully using evolution as a Boogey Man?

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/19/2006 11:21:32 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/19/2006 09:04:02 AM

Steve EM, your cause of liberalization is not served by offering up bad arguments. According to your logic, the Church is not against murder if your teenagers have not been specifically asked if they've murdered someone.

Gary is right about the continuing stance of the Church on masturbation. In addition to the current Church website, Elder Scott has mentioned it in General Conference fairly recently. This is a distinct matter from what one can get away with by keeping one's mouth shut. As I've hinted above, you could get away with murder by keeping your mouth shut.

If you want to put your money where your mouth is, have your teenagers declare to the bishop that they masturbate and have every intention of continuing indefinitely. See what happens and then come tell us what the Church's stance is.

(Note all I'm critiquing here are claims about what the Church's stance is on masturbation, not the merits of arguments about the underlying issue.) 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/19/2006 09:04:02 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/19/2006 06:38:14 AM

Nice try Gary, but I'm a Father of five (well, six, but a dad to five). Two of those kids are grown now. We've lived in a few places, and none of my kids has ever been asked about this. Not from a Bishop, SP or MP. The church, at least the wards I've been a member of, has walked away from BKP's silly obsession. I keep a pulse on this because I won't allow my kids to be subjected to such harmful nonsense. Young peopel have enough real problems to deal w/.

Back to evolution, anyone claiming prophetic authority and preaching against evolution is a false prophet. The good Lord gave me a brain and I'm using it.

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/19/2006 06:38:14 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/18/2006 09:48:36 PM

Sorry Steve, you may wish  the Church would walk away from Boyd K. Packer, but that's not likely — LDS.ORG, the main Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, currently  states:

------------------- quote -----------------------
"A boy should be taught about the power of creation within his body and that the Lord intended that this power should be used exclusively in marriage. He should be cautioned against sexual self-stimulation (masturbation). The Church has printed an excellent pamphlet, To Young Men Only (PBAP0210). This pamphlet is a reprint of an address given by Elder Boyd K. Packer in the priesthood session of the October 1976 general conference and can help fathers counsel their sons regarding their growth and physical maturation." (LDS.ORG -> Home and Family -> Building a Strong Family, "Teaching about Procreation and Chastity ;" emphasis added.)
------------------ end quote ---------------------

Go ahead, Steve, click the link.
 

Posted by Gary

--
Posted by Gary to Mormons and Evolution at 1/18/2006 09:48:36 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/18/2006 01:18:45 PM

You guys are so kind. By preaching against evolution, it is self evident BKP is a false prophet and a half. He has certainly exceeded his commission by claiming authority on subjects beyond repentance. This is worst than his boys self pleasure obsession a generation ago that the church has since fortunately walked away from. And how many were made to feel poorly about themselves and lost faith over that non-issue? JC had to put up w/ at least one false prophet, JS several. I guess our time is no different.

--
Posted by Steve EM to Mormons and Evolution at 1/18/2006 01:18:45 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/17/2006 04:20:22 AM

Elder Packer seems to be saying that acceptance of evolution will lead to complete moral breakdown---that people will be "compelled, to respond to every urge and impulse." This is manifestly false! Do all evolutionary biologists around the country, for example, go around acting like complete savages, raping, killing, what have you? Of course not!

Now it might be that acceptance of evolution leads some to question religious authority---particularly when said authorities undermine their own credibility by being unwilling to address solid evidence for common descent of man's physical body, and by using manifestly overwrought hyperbole about the consequences of this idea. This questioning may therefore lead some to some different conclusions on moral specifics, but to say there will be no  morality or no functioning society is simply wrong.  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/17/2006 04:20:22 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/16/2006 11:34:14 PM

Jared,

By definition, an allusion  is an "indirect reference." So I'm not sure what a direct allusion would be. Be that as it may, I honestly believed evolution to be reasonbly inferred from the excerpts in my comment. I didn't intentionally misread your post. I'm sorry if that is how it came across.
 

Posted by Gary

--
Posted by Gary to Mormons and Evolution at 1/16/2006 11:34:14 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/16/2006 08:02:29 PM

Jared:  Well, as you might guess, I feel you've left out some relevant material because without death before the fall, evolution would be impossible.

1. In the April 1988 General Conference, besides the paragraphs you've quoted in your #3, Elder Packer also said mortality could not have existed without the fall:

------------------- quote ----------------------- 
"The creation of their bodies in the image of God, as a separate creation, was crucial to the plan. Their subsequent fall was essential if the condition of mortality was to exist and the plan proceed." (Boyd K. Packer, "Atonement, Agency, Accountability," Ensign, May 1988, 70.)
------------------ end quote ---------------------

If mortality (death) didn't exist without the fall, then it clearly didn't exist before the fall.

Some speculate that the condition of mortality existed outside the garden prior to the fall. A person who holds that view might say, speaking of Adam and Eve, "Their subsequent fall was an essential step to their mortality." But those were not Elder Packer's words. He didn't say, "their mortality." He said, "the condition of mortality."

2. You missed the October 1988 General Conference entirely. In this talk, Elder Packer again identified the Fall as the point in time after which "all living things" experienced "mortal death":

------------------- quote -----------------------
"Since death is ever present with us, a knowledge of how essential it is to the plan of salvation is of immense, practical value. Every one of us should know how and why it came to be in the beginning.

"Mortal death came into the world at the Fall....

"It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal death." (Boyd K. Packer, "Funerals—A Time for Reverence ," Ensign, Nov. 1988, 18;italics added.)
------------------ end quote ---------------------

"Thereafter" means "from a specified time onward; from then on." In other words, it didn't happen before the time specified. Some claim death came for Adam and Eve at the fall. But that isn't what Elder Packer said. He said death came in the beginning at the Fall and "thereafter all living things" died.


3. I disagree that Elder Packer is "more open to the evolution of animals" in his paper on "The Law and the Light"—for three very good reasons.

First, in this paper, he again (for the third time in 1988) identifies the Fall as that point in time after which "all living things" experienced "mortal or temporal death":

------------------- quote -----------------------
"The word fall describes well what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place which made them 'a little lower than the angels.' (In the Hebrew text, the word “angel” is given as 'gods,' see Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7-9.) The bodies formed for mankind became temporal or physical bodies. The scriptures say “the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof” (Lev 17:11-13; Deut 12:23; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 199-200, 367 Kimball 5-6).

"After the transformation caused by the Fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies), would not endure forever. Somehow the ingredient blood carried with it a limit to life. It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal or temporal death." (Boyd K. Packer, "The Law and the Light," The Book of Mormon: Jacob through Words of Mormon, to Learn with Joy, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1990, 12; italics in the original).
------------------ end quote ---------------------

Second, although he says we "may safely study the adaptation of living things to the environment" (Ibid., 10), near the end of the paper, he also says,

------------------- quote -----------------------
"What application the evolutionary theory has to animals gives me no concern. That is another question entirely, one to be pursued by science. But remember, the scriptures speak of the spirit in animals and other living things, and of each multiplying after its own kind (D&C 77:2; 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:9; Abr 4:11-12, 24)." (Ibid., 21.)
------------------ end quote ---------------------

It's the word "but" that some don't see. But remember what the scriptures say about animals and see 2 Nephi 2:22! Elder Packer believes verse 22 refers to animals!

------------------- quote -----------------------
"And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." (2 Nephi 2:22.)
------------------ end quote ---------------------

And finally, the phrase "after its own kind" ties this paper neatly back to "The Pattern of Our Parentage" (Ensign, Nov. 1984, 67), thereby throwing a good deal of doubt on the supposition that his position in your #4 is substantially different from his position in your #1.

 

Posted by Gary

--
Posted by Gary to Mormons and Evolution at 1/16/2006 08:02:29 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/15/2006 07:25:42 PM

The most interesting talk to me by Pres. Packer (who is actually among my favorite GAs) was his one on homosexuality from about 8 years or so ago. (Too lazy to try and look it up) Anyway he makes quite a few appeals to biology in the talk, yet almost all the appeals are wrong. Further they are somewhat odd theologically, as I recall. (Going by memory now, so I beg forgiveness if I get his position wrong) As I recall he said homosexuality was wrong because it wasn't natural and that animals don't engage in homosexual acts. Yet many animals do engage in homosexual acts for various reasons. Further it seems like most Mormons see the natural man as problematic on the basis of Paul and Benjamin. So it always struck me as an odd appeal.

Ever since this talk though (and I should add, that despite the erroneous biology and appeal to nature, it wasn't a bad talk) I've often wondered what Pres. Packer's familiarity with biology consists of. 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/15/2006 07:25:42 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/15/2006 05:16:18 AM

Sarah,  I have no quarrel with teaching a Primary or Sunday School class under the assumption that God exists, and teaching what the scriptures say about creation and what that means for our relationship to him.

Just skimming quickly over the lesson, the only part I find problematic is the Attention Activity, which does make an "Intelligent Design" kind of argument. I think that part of the lesson could simply be left out. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/15/2006 05:16:18 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 08:43:59 PM

I don't understand three-fourths of the science referenced above, and I have to be driving to church in 9.5 hours, so I don't have time to learn. But I'd be interested to know how those of you who reject Alma's argument to Korihor would go about teaching tomorrow morning's Senior Primary lesson ...

I'll probably be teaching it again in a few years, so suggestions are still welcome. ^_^ 

Posted by Sarah

--
Posted by Sarah to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 08:43:59 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 12:58:11 PM

island,  the cosmological constant that may be responsible for the observed accelerating expansion does exert tension (negative pressure if you must), but it's not increasing in magnitude---that's why they call it a "constant." Anyway, I am not aware of any reason why the existence of a cosmological constant should negate the perspective on the second law of thermodynamics I mentioned above.

How common life in the universe is has nothing to do with how much entropy humans are responsible for. Every planet with life will require a star, and every star generates vastly more entropy than life on earth. This is all that one needs to know to understand that life makes negligible contributions to the entropy budget of the universe.

The article you linked is worthless, being based on the misconception that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This "law" applies to closed systems; Earth, with energy from the sun flowing through it, is not a closed system. The combined system of Earth, Sun, and light escaping the Sun is increasing in entropy with that of the Sun and its escaped light completely dominating that of Earth. The article, BTW, says nothing about vacuum energy. Oh, and one more thing, intelligent life has never made massive particles from vacuum energy. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 12:58:11 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 09:46:53 AM

It seems to me that is like saying we flush toilets to help move water to the sea. In both cases it would proceed faster without our intervention.

And you think that the second law of thermodyamics is about how fast entropy occurs... but that's not what efficiently increasing entropy entails.

You're confusing an effort toward universal "cold death" with the actual effort toward "heat death".

--
Posted by island to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 09:46:53 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 09:40:06 AM

island, I disagree with you about when anthropic arguments might be useful. In the first place, I don't see the second law of thermodynamics as a fundamental law that demands to be satisfied, but instead as a by-product of natural evolution of our universe from a simple initial condition.

That might be true if the negative pressure component didn't increase in an expanding universe... but it does.

Moreover, I think we can be quite confident that carbon-based life forms contribute a completely negligible amount to the total entropy budget of the universe.

1) You don't know how common life in our universe is and you have no basis for which to conclude that it isn't biocentric because anthropic principle readily extends to every banded spiral galaxy that exists on the same evolutionary "plane" as us.

2) Intelligent life is by far the most energy-efficient means for isolating the release of enough energy to make real massive particles from vacuum energy. In at least one cosmological model, this directly affects the symmetry of the universe by driving expansion while holding the universe flat and stable in the process... which solves the flatness problem, the horizon problem the matter/antimatter asymmetry problem, the cosmological constant problem, the causality problem... eg... ALL of the anthropic "problems" are resolved by this model.

FYI: Other scientists have independently derived similar conclusions:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

--
Posted by island to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 09:40:06 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 07:29:49 AM

Christian,

I enjoyed this post. I like the way you approach the issue from both ends.


the universe produces carbon based life-forms as a means to efficiently satisfy the second law of thermodynamics 

It seems to me that is like saying we flush toilets to help move water to the sea. In both cases it would proceed faster without our intervention. 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 07:29:49 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 05:31:04 AM

island,  I disagree with you about when anthropic arguments might be useful. In the first place, I don't see the second law of thermodynamics as a fundamental law that demands to be satisfied, but instead as a by-product of natural evolution of our universe from a simple initial condition. Moreover, I think we can be quite confident that carbon-based life forms contribute a completely negligible amount to the total entropy budget of the universe. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 05:31:04 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/14/2006 05:26:18 AM

Clark,  my point is that even if a full house is viewed as particularly special within the context of a certain game humans find interesting, this "extra specialness" does not constitute a good reason to think that an intelligent agent intervened to provide that hand. (But I think we ultimately agree on that.)

I'm a little puzzled as to why you bring up the term "anthropic reasoning" in this connection, however. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/14/2006 05:26:18 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/13/2006 03:21:20 PM

Anthropic reasoning becomes valid when good physical reason for the "special" implications is found.

For example, it is true that the universe would need to produce "sites" that are conducive to life if the universe produces carbon based life-forms as a means to efficiently satisfy the second law of thermodynamics in an expanding universe that has an increasing negative pressure component.

There is readily observable evidence that supports that intelligence enables humans to continue increasing entropy via technological development, so you can "reason" from this knowledge that our leap from apes to humans enabled us to make fire for the above given good reason for us to be here, which certainly is no accident... ;)

--
Posted by island to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 03:21:20 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/13/2006 01:24:14 PM

But that depends upon what one counts as special. i.e. how specific.

If special is just a class, then you're right. As it becomes more narrow things change.

Really this just gets into the issue of anthropic reasoning and at what point it becomes significant. It's like a deck of cards. If a full house is viewed as special in our game we treat it differently than if we view it as part of a class of say certain configurations. Being dealt a full house is understandably more questionable, even if it is possible.
 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 01:24:14 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/13/2006 12:57:31 PM

Clark, one of the points of the post is that even if one acknowledges something is "special," we have examples of "special" configurations arising without intelligent intervention. It seems to me this is a stronger statement than saying that what one considers "special" depends on what your belief about God is.  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 12:57:31 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/13/2006 12:49:26 PM

The God as engineer model only has troubles if this particular state of affairs is seen as not special. If it is special, then God as engineer becomes significant. Of course one could always argue that seeing this particular state of affairs as special presupposes a belief in God. So you can't prove much from this teleological view. You first have to have that empirical evidence of God. 

Posted by clark

--
Posted by Clark Goble to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 12:49:26 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] Two Classes of Argument from Design, Which Both Fail

In a recent post that took Alma’s encounter with Korihor as a springboard, my discussion of the possible evolution of Joseph’s views on the nature of God turned on the assumption that Alma’s argument from design points to a kind of God—which for convenience I will call God as First Cause—who is somehow outside the universe, and logically prior to its natural laws, and therefore the ultimate potentiator of the universe’s observed order. I mentioned parenthetically that it was debatable whether Alma’s argument took this form, and invited commenters to call me on it, but no one did. Hence I take it upon myself to clarify the matter by pointing out that there is a second type of teleological argument, and that it is not clear which Alma had in mind. Then I do that effort at clarification the dubious honor of rendering it moot on the larger issue: while it might make some difference for how we interpret the evolution of Joseph’s theology, when it comes to evidence for God it doesn’t really matter which type of argument Alma (or Joseph writing Alma) had in mind (or if he even thought carefully enough to distinguish them), because they both fail—leaving us, in the end, with the testimony of direct experience as the only potential evidence for God’s existence.

The version with God as First Cause takes the apparent messiness of nature as a starting point, and proceeds to the uncovering of simple laws that give rise to these complicated phenomena. It is then the simple underlying universal laws—rather than the complicated phenomena—that are taken to be the hidden manifestation of God’s wisdom. A possible example of this might be Kepler’s faith-shaking discovery that—horror of horrors!—planetary orbits are ugly ellipses with varying speed, rather than uniform circular motion pure and undefiled. Perhaps this result was rendered more palatable to some—which is to say, more consonant with alleged divine æsthetic sensibilities—by Newton’s derivation of a single set of beautiful laws to unify not only different kinds of orbits, but also terrestrial gravitational and projectile phenomena. Here, underlying the bewildering diversity of phenomena, was the hidden simplicity worthy of divine wisdom.

This argument is turned on its head in the other class of argument from design. In this version, simplicity is not the hallmark of God’s handiwork, but marvelous complexity. Simple laws are not the manifestation of the mind of God, since these alone can lead to meaninglessly messy behavior; the real genius is in the use of these laws—whether by setting up special initial conditions, or through more prolonged regulating interventions—to bring about his purposes. In this more organizational version of creation, instead of God as First Cause we have God as Engineer. (If it were not so unwieldy and inflammatory, we might also say God as Most Excellent Advanced Alien Technologist.)

This perspective of God as First Cause has a grave difficulty. What does it mean to say something outside the universe interacts with it? Considering God outside the universe seems to be nonsensical; the right thing to do is expand one’s definition of the universe to include everything that interacts with us, including God. Similar comments apply to alleged non-material entities like souls (or God himself): if it interacts with our physical bodies, it too ought to be defined as material. Moreover, on what basis could this God’s actions be judged good, or even be orderly, except by fidelity to some set of principles external to himself?

Mormons who believe in God as Engineer—a finite and embodied God within the universe, the nature of whose existence depends on laws and order bigger than him and beyond his control—can be justifiably proud of escaping the above-mentioned (and other) dilemmas presented by God as First Cause. They can also avoid a problem facing religionists who, in accepting something like Intelligent Design, believe in both God as First Cause and God as Engineer: If complex things like human bodies must be designed, and the designer is also a complex thing, then who designed the Designer? Even those Mormons disinclined to attribute the origin of humanity’s physical body to an infinite regression of physically procreating Gods can nevertheless hijack the basic concept and renovate it as an infinite regression of designers.

But God as Engineer faces another problem that not even Mormons can avoid: the reality that we have both theoretical and empirical examples of systems in which random initial conditions can give rise, without intelligent intervention, to ‘special’ outcomes that are both orderly and complicated. There are multiple mechanisms for this; I will mention two examples.

One class of order without intelligent intervention might be called ‘specialness amidst randomness,’ arising from the presence of a statistical ensemble with variations in properties. An example here is planetary systems, of which 150 or so have been detected since the first discovery about a decade ago. None of these systems have conditions similar to Earth suitable for life. It is almost certain that this results from a known observational selection effect, but observing the degree of variety we have so far, it is clear that fundamental natural laws are not sufficient to ensure that all planetary systems have suitable conditions like those of our solar system. But the point nevertheless remains that there are billions and billions of planetary systems out there, and given observationally plausible ranges of conditions, it would be surprising indeed if none of them had suitable conditions. Hence regardless of whether Alma means that divinely ordained fundamental laws on the one hand (God as First Cause) or divinely arranged initial conditions on the other (God as Engineer) are responsible for the “regular form” of our planetary system’s motions, he is dead wrong in asserting to Korihor that it constitutes an evidence of God’s existence.

A second class of order without intelligent intervention—which might be called ‘specialness from randomness’—is exemplified by nonlinear dynamical systems with ‘attractors,’ that is to say, systems that deterministically drive arbitrary initial conditions to one of a few special ‘final’ conditions (manifolds of bounded volume with smaller dimensionality than the entire dynamical phase space). Philosophically similar to this—if less mathematically clean—may be evolution, which in Darwin’s view involves the channeling and ratcheting, via natural selection, of arbitrary variations in species characteristics into certain obviously useful features: eyes, for instance, which I gather have been shown by genetic evidence to have independently evolved several times, by different paths from different initial conditions, to functionally similar ‘attracting’ final states.

Does Alma’s argument from design refer to God as First Cause or God as Engineer? The fact that it is more offhand reference than sustained argument means that it’s difficult to say—and difficult even to tell if Alma (or his creator) had thought carefully about it at the time the statement was authored. Alma’s statement has two parts: a general reference to “all things,” and a more specific reference to the regular motion of our planets. Each part could arguably be motivated by either of the two styles, though I tend to think the first reference to “all things” sounds more like God as First Cause, and the second to planets in their “regular form” like God as Engineer. (Note that in arguing for an evolution of Joseph’s conception of God I deftly combined the two parts to slant interpretation of the combined argument towards “God as First Cause.”)

However the conclusion is that neither style of teleological argument from design for God’s existence holds water. To make an analogy admittedly more poetic than strictly accurate, the fact that certain texts are attributed to, say, Aaron B. Cox is not sufficient to establish Mr. Cox's existence. And works alleged by some to depend on God’s intervention—like the creation of Earth and life upon it, or the Book of Mormon—may be similarly pseudepigraphic. (The analogy is deficient because, having observed that most texts arise from human authors, it is most likely that texts attributed to Mr. Cox were also written by some human. But since we have no clear examples of intelligent minds creating either individual organisms or large-scale biospheres, no ‘watchmaker’ argument can be made remotely rigorous, and every example of ‘specialness from randomness’ renders such less necessary—and perhaps, in combination with observations of biological deficiencies and exaptations, less plausible as well.)

Hence scriptural statements connecting God with creation cannot be understood as arguments for his existence. Given other reasons to believe in him—presumably, direct experience with him or his heavenly messengers—such scriptural statements then, and only then, may tell us something about the nature of our relationship to him, and perhaps also something about his and our natures. To the extent Joseph is responsible for the content of the Lectures on Faith, he deserves credit for reflecting this perspective. And to Alma’s credit, his rebuttal to Korihor started off well, with reference to the testimonies of the prophets and other saints; it’s just that that’s where he should’ve stopped!


--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 10:42:00 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] Response to God and science

Since Geoff B mentioned me by name, I feel inclined to respond. Statements from his post are in italics, and my responses follow.


As an example of how God might fit into scientific articles, consider articles about the origin of life on earth. There could be a whole array of scientific hypotheses put forward, all of which could lead to scientific tests, especially in the field of genetics.

As I look over Pratt’s list that follows this statement they all seem, contrary to what Pratt says, either untestable at present with little hope for future testability, barring God’s detailed and public disclosure of his role (b through d, g and h); or falsified, with regard to organisms’ physical bodies (e and f).


A refusal by the scientific world to accept God in any of its respected experiments these days makes for incomplete studies and false science.

Science does not include God in its hypotheses because no one has discovered indications of his actions that are sufficiently precise, testable, and publicly shareable to be amenable to the methodology of science. The range of questions that can be addressed by science is obviously limited (though it has grown steadily over time), and in this respect science is certainly “incomplete.” But that in no way makes it “false.”


As any student of the history of science will know, Sir Isaac Newton and even Einstein accepted the existence of a Creator.

Neither man accepted an anthropomorphic, embodied God. I think for Newton, infinite and absolute space and time (that is, the entire ‘stage’ on which everything plays out) were essential aspects of God’s very being. As far as Einstein goes, one quote I quickly found through Google put it this way:

He rejected the conventional image of God as a personal being, concerned about our individual lives, judging us when we die, intervening in the laws he himself had created to cause miracles, answer prayers and so on. Einstein did not believe in a soul separate from the body, nor in an afterlife of any kind…

…he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science…

…it seems likely that he believed in a God who was identical to the universe—similar to the God of Spinoza. [!] A God whose rational nature was expressed in the universe, or a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together.

I don’t think Mormons can really look to either of these guys for support in specific theology, or that creationists of any stripe can point to them in support of their perverse notions of science pedagogy. That they had interests and perspectives that included things beyond science is a good example for all of us, but says nothing about what should be in science classes—which, after all, is only one slice of life. Ironically, by insisting on including God in science classes, creationists may have already given in or sold out: they shoot themselves in the foot by implicitly conceding and adopting the point of view that the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, insight, happiness, and so on.


Do they honestly believe that the study of science in a Millennial world will be the same as it is now?

If there is open communion with the heavens in a Millenial world then yes, the range of questions addressable by science will be expanded, because there will then be precise, testable, and publicly shareable indications about God’s nature and his past and current involvement with Earth and humanity.


And, lastly, if science classes are incomplete without factoring in the “God factor” in their experiments, isn't there room for at least bringing that up in evolution or astronomy classes?

I think science classes should reflect the content and methods of mainstream professional science, with protracted discussions of its limitations and alternative putative ways of knowing left to other areas of the curriculum (philosophy, “Guidance” class as they call one subject in our local district, etc.), and to other venues (churches, books, blogs, seminars by charismatic circuit tour speakers…)

In this connection I am against the inclusion of so-called ‘teach the controversy’ approaches involving Intelligent Design in science classes, because this does not reflect mainstream science. However such discussions may have a useful place in classes on philosophy, social studies, science and society, etc.

Having said that, I do not think claims should be overstated in science classes, and I do not think all subjects should be taught at all levels, and this leads me to a particular kind of science pedagogy I think should prevail. What belongs in science classes are tested hypotheses for which the students are capable of understanding the nature of the tests. Because I think science classes should leave students with a ‘feel’ for the practice of science, even more than filling their brains with specific facts, I think it would be poor science pedagogy to present even well-established conclusions of professional scientists at a point before students can have some understanding of how those conclusions were arrived at. This approach would, to some extent at least, both allow and teach students to evaluate evidence for themselves. Adherence to this approach would also serve as a prophylactic against the temptation to bandy about the latest and greatest hypotheses at the margins of knowledge before they are tested—as often happens in the media—which often leads to the unfortunate false impression that science is continually overturning itself, when in fact there is steady accumulation of well-established facts and ‘laws,’ and new theories reduce to well-established old ones in the limited conditions addressed by the old theories.

[This is cross-posted from The Spinozist Mormon. Please go to the original post to comment.]


--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 10:37:00 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] Do all things denote there is a God?

Suggesting a resonance with the Intelligent Design approach to biology, Matt Evans mentions Alma’s teleological argument to Korihor in Alma 30: the observed order, or “regular form,” of “all things” shows there is a God. There are questions, however, as to whether Alma’s argument is consistent with Joseph Smith’s mature views on the nature of God, and also with the ancient Hebrew worldview from which Nephite culture sprang.

Is God (a) somehow outside the universe and responsible for its laws and its order, or (b) a finite and embodied being within the universe, the nature of whose existence depends on laws and order bigger than him and beyond his control?

I think most Mormons would say Joseph believed (b) during the Nauvoo era. But an early (I think the 1832) account of the First Vision, in which he marveled at the heavens in language somewhat like Alma’s—and also language in D&C 88—may suggest he believed something more like (a) in his earlier years. It would not be surprising if Joseph had been exposed to teleological arguments in, for example, the youth debating club he participated in, mentioned by Richard Bushman in his books on Joseph.

To the extent Alma’s statement represents (a) (this may be debatable—I leave it for commenters to explain why), how to account for its difference from and possible incompatibility, or at least tension, with (b)? One possibility is that Alma did not know as much as Joseph Smith about the nature of God and eternity. This seems plausible; we know from Alma’s teachings to Corianton that Alma did not know as much about the afterlife as Joseph came to know. But a second possibility is that Joseph is the true author of Alma’s argument, and that it therefore reflects Joseph’s early beliefs rather than those of ancient prophet. (Similarly, in this scenario Alma’s hazy picture of the afterlife could be a reflection of Joseph’s haziness on the matter prior to the reception of D&C 76.)

A reason to prefer the theory that Joseph is the source of the Alma’s teleological argument can be derived from a recent post by Jim F. by way of background on the Old Testament. (The responsibility for this use of Jim’s post is mine; he may well not endorse the argument I make here.) Jim describes the very different way ancient Hebrews wrote history: the existence of God and his action in the world was a universal assumption brought to both the writing and the reading of literature, to the extent that to write a meaningful history was to describe God’s involvement in the events of the world. An argument like Alma’s seems completely out of place in such a narrative tradition, in which God’s existence is not something to be argued for, but instead is an unconscicous necessity before a text can even be meaningful. Alma’s argument is much more comfortably situated as a typical believing response, characteristic of Joseph Smith’s era, to issues raised by the Enlightenment.

As a parting comment, I note that Joseph’s mature Mormonism, embracing (b), seems in important ways to be philosophically much closer to atheism than traditional Christianity, which embraces (a). This may be a reason why Mormons imbued with (b) who leave Mormonism tend to become atheist or agnostic rather than active in a denomination of traditional Christianity.

[This is cross-posted from The Spinozist Mormon. Please go to the original post to comment.]



--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/13/2006 10:28:00 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/07/2006 09:13:13 AM

Apparently my memory doesn't serve me as well as I thought. Though he was a strong advocate of reincarnation, the only reference to A-G that I can find is pretty indirect. Of course this is really the latest reference one can find any reference at all in official literature since by this time the church was trying pretty hard to distance itself from Brigham's teachings. Here is the Hymn which Orson wrote in his "Elias An Epic of the Ages" pg. 18, 76, 77; c. 1914:

"Father!" - The voice like music fell,
Clear as the murmuring flow
Of mountain streamlet, trickling down
From the heights of virgin snow-

"Father," it said, "since one must die
Thy children to redeem,
Whilst Earth - as yet unformed and void -
with pulsing life shall teem;

"And thou, great Michael, foremost fall
That mortal man may be,
And chosen Savior yet must send,
Lo, here am I, send me!

I ask - I seek no recompense,
Save that which then were mine;
Mine be the willing sacrifice,
The endless glory - thine!

*****

"The sealing of the sexes, male to mate,
Earnest of exaltation's lofty state,
Where evermore they reign as queens and kings,
And endless union endless increase brings;
While serve as angels the unwedded ones,
Abandoning their right to royal thrones.

"One are the human twain, as sheath and sword-
Woman and man, the lady and the Lord;
Each pairthe Eve and Adam of some world,
Perchance unborn, or into space unhurled...

"Earth a celestial law hath magnified,
And by that law shall she be sanctified,
And by the same shall she be glorified;
By fire refined, the gold from dross set free,
Shining forever as a crystal sea,
Celestial seer-stone, making manifest
All things below to souls upon her breast-

Chosen, omniscient, children of the Sun,
Offspring of Adam, Michael, Ancient One,
Who comes anon his fiery throne to rear,
His council summoning from far and near.
Ten thousand times ten thousand bow the knee,
And "Father" hail him, "King," eternally."



As I said, pretty indirect.

 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 1/07/2006 09:13:13 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/07/2006 08:39:24 AM

Jeff,

Could you give me a reference on Whitney and Adam-God? I checked Buerger's article but did not find any reference to him.

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/07/2006 08:39:24 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/06/2006 08:08:27 AM

Jared,

I'm impressed that you actually took the time to address such an ill-informed opinion. Did either of those comments have ANYTHING to do with the post? 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 1/06/2006 08:08:27 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/05/2006 06:42:48 PM

Jared, very interesting. It would be fascinating to be able to read a transcript of meetings in which the changes were made.  

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

--
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall to Mormons and Evolution at 1/05/2006 06:42:48 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/05/2006 01:29:38 PM

What's interesting is that Whitney was a staunch advocate of both Adam-God and Reincarnation.

I do find it interesting that the immutability of species is explicitly removed from the article.

That said, Jared, your comments are absolutely hirarious. 

Posted by Jeffrey Giliam

--
Posted by Jeffrey D. Giliam to Mormons and Evolution at 1/05/2006 01:29:38 PM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/05/2006 09:47:35 AM

Buckminster Fuller proved creationism--I must have missed the memo.

Joseph,

I'm not sure what role you see for man mucking up creation, but I doubt it can explain what needs explaining.

As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's called a law because it is true as far as can be observed, not because it was given some divine sanction. And as I understand it, it is really more about the accounting and ultimate destiny of energy. It has very little to do with evolution. 

Posted by Jared

--
Posted by Jared to Mormons and Evolution at 1/05/2006 09:47:35 AM

[Mormons and Evolution] 1/05/2006 07:15:37 AM

I just lost my little long comment,so here is a condensed version!Very condensed.(not any more,but different)
Hello all,
I seem to find a lot of mind disturbance in the bloggs and comments!I do not feel confused myself(my friends may not agree).I see no problem with God as the creater going to the table and making a few parallell shots,maybe for knowledgeable reasons he did not want to connect all in one chain,and scientists are looking for chains of course.It is important for all sciences to discuss ideas!Actually discussion in itself -if carried out in a sivilised way is always a good, and can only lead to good.Some small,minor thing from the discussion may lead to grand thinking in theory at least!Anyway,back to evolution.Paradigms in science go through revolutions sometimes and this alter the ruling view-s,however,the content or processes in the previous discussion to support a paradigm of its day may be the necessary part to bring on the new"truth".So as far as I can see,there can be viewpoints diametrical opposite that still supports truth,maybe not the same at the same time,but still truths in one form or another-even if it is just a minor point.If I teach art to amateur groups and to very experienced you would think I was not talking about the same subject!Do not use white-keep it back,leave white and black out altogether etc,to the other-try white even at the first stroke!!!Both may be true depending on the circumstances!So it is with God ,I am sure.He has the right to use the best commentary in the context he is making it,and he knows how to do it.(I am now assuming there is a God)
He also has the right like even any small creator as me(artist)to enjoy the creative prosess!Why should he not-part of this is calculated chance,the detailed result cannot be seen as it is not made,but the very detailed general idea is pretty accurately understood visually,and results although still able to encourage and delight are not out of control nor unplanned.The "mormon God"is not a robot!However,there is plan in all undertaking,and evolutionary processes would be used where seen fit in the creations of the worlds as well,I am sure.Why is it difficult?Oh,yes -Adam- seems a strange one.Why really.God must be allowed to arrange a different development for a special species-man.Their development and evolution prosess of sorts have gone before-before the earth and planets in our system even,they have a different landing on earth planned because of their pre-existence background.The brain is vastly developed,they already have language experience and great communicative experience as well.
They are according to scriptures able to understand and take part in serious democratic prosesses already.
I cannot see why science and religion cannot just discuss freely together and separately and now and then some small detail from either discussion will fall into place and give a better and truer picture of things.As long as we are aware that it is discussion and analyses not to prove wrong but to find truths!In this case all positive sensible research will over time add to the total picture,and all serious religious research and beliefs will in time add also.Still there are for religions certain absolutes,God does exist,but maybe he has not been understood totally.I feel that informed members of the church welcome all research which has the intention of honest research,however,may be not aware that a lot of research is only concerned with trying to prove their paradigm!On the other hand if they did not do this,the test of the paradigm would not happen and a new truth never be promoted!In terms of a critical revolution.Look more at art guys?and see the great width of this area,still all is giving insights.
And one could not do without the other.
Darwins reveolution has provided researchers with "endless"material and it is fantastic in its own right.However,why should it be so difficult to believe that a God Almighty would understand more and that the impossible dis-connections between science and religions maybe do not exist if one views it from another angle.All discussion is good,just do not think any of you knows it all,and moreso written discussion is best!And printed discussion better still so it can be pondered upon in front of TV-we do not want to miss that!!The problem is that science is not discussed enough in details on TV-and maybe it is made too popular when it is...Here is a job for you scientist people.God will be just fine with all of it as long as we don't resort to belittling each other in the name of any belief.
 

Posted by synnove ellingsen

--
Posted by Anonymous to Mormons and Evolution at 1/05/2006 07:15:37 AM