[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
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
posted by Christian Y. Cardall at 6:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home