Regarding Evolution

[EdGoble]

Something to think about. If we were created by some sort of biological accident, why is it that we all (birds, cows, horses, goats, sheep, rabbits, dogs, cats, giraffes, alligators, flies, gophers, an infinitum...):

Have four limbs, Have one mouth, Have two ears, Have two eyes, Have one nose (with two nostrils), Have identical aspiration systems, Have two lungs, Have one heart, Have one liver, Have on bladder, Have two kidneys; again, the list goes one ad infinitum... If all that's not enough: We even poop and pee and procreate the same way.

Inly a complete moron would call that an accident....

Yes, because just because things evolved does not mean that they weren't designed with God's hand in the process the whole time. So there is nothing accidental about Evolution. When I say this, recognize that it is a religious conclusion by a Mormon that believes religiously in God, but that favors evolution as the best explanation for the process, that happens to be described by science. I am not a scientist, but I consider myself science-friendly. But I do not confuse my religious convictions with science. Science operates in a box called methodological naturalism. This means that scientists, whether they be religious people, or whether they are agnostic or atheist, come together in the lab to do science. When they actually do science, they operate within this box, where their spiritual or philosophical leanings to not meddle, regardless of which side they are on.

When scientists that are atheists are speaking as atheists, they are making a religious claim that there is no God. They are not acting as scientists when they do this. Because at the moment they do this, they are not practicing science, but instead are practicing ontological or philosophical naturalism, where they claim that science proves there is no God, something that science has nothing to say about. And so, they are making unsubstantiated, unscientific claims when they do this.

Similarly, when a scientist that believes in God gives his opinion that God was behind Evolution and that there was Intelligent Design, he is not speaking as a scientist, but rather, a religious person. If he says that science proves God, he has made an unscientific claim. If he tries to get Intelligent Design into the science classroom, he has done us all a disservice. Why? Because who's version of Intelligent Design ought to be taught in the science classroom? Nobody's. Because I don't want a Baptist teaching my kids the Baptist version of Intelligent Design. I want my kids taught the Mormon version of Intelligent Design in family home evening, in Seminary and in Institute, by good teachers that also know science, who perhaps were well-educated by science-friendly professors at BYU. I don't want Rod Meldrum's ideas, as an example, taught in the science classroom, because not only is it not science, but it is bad Mormon Intelligent design. I want Intelligent Design kept out of the science classroom, because it is RELIGION, but there are also bad versions of it, both Mormon and Non-Mormon. And confusing it with science is out of bounds, and is as evil as someone making atheistic, non-scientific claims, when so-called Intelligent design meddles in the domain of science and the science classroom, making unscientific claims. Religion belongs within its own domain, even though it is true in the sense that there is a God. Because I don't want my kids taught Young Earth Creationism, as an example, by followers of Rod Meldrum, or by Young-Earth Creationist Baptists. I don't want them indoctrinated by bad or apostate religious claims about creation.

Because as I said, science has nothing to say for or against the existence of God, or the non-existence of God. Science has nothing to say for or against spiritual things. Science, when kept pure, within its bounds, is non-theistic. And anyone that purports to use science outside of those bounds has become non-scientific, and has gone into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, for or against such things, something that science itself has nothing to do with.

So science isn't against religion or religious claims as atheists say. But it has nothing to say for religion either. It is absolutely neutral with regard to anything that it cannot measure or test.

[larsenb]

Regarding Evolution:

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent and insightful Evolution is. Evolution gets credit for everything. Evolution is brilliant; it can actually walk and chew gum all at the same time. Evolution knows exactly what it is doing. Evolution can sing, dance, and conduct symphonies all at the same time across the whole surface of this planet. Evolution never has to backtrack. Evolution can actually turn slime into a frog; no human on this planet is smart enough to do that. Where did it get such brains and smarts? Where did Evolution learn how to be so perfect at what it does? Where did Evolution get its training and skills? Where did Evolution go to school and get all those advanced degrees that it holds? Where did Evolution learn how to do advanced genetic engineering? Where did Evolution learn how to do everything and do it well?

Evolution is immortal. Evolution never gets it wrong, because Evolution is apparently the smartest creation in the universe. I want to go to the same university that Evolution went to, if only I could be so lucky and smart and had eons of time to study and perfect it all. Evolution must be the name of the first immortal cell that intelligently put itself together so that it could live, thrive, and reproduce without killing itself in the process. I'm just in awe at the foresight that Evolution has, if only I could be so crafty, creative, cunning, prophetic, and intelligent. Evolution sounds like it is a godsend, because it knows how to do everything that needs to be done and knows exactly when it needs to be done. I sure would like to have its resume. Let's all raise a salute to Mr. and Mrs. Evolution, the father and mother of all life on this planet. If only you and I could be so perfect and good; but, we're only human after all. Evolution is a god.


Over time, I have noticed that many scientists ascribe prescient cognitive powers to Evolution treating it as if it is intelligent and alive. They often talk about Evolution using the exact same terms that creationists use with God -- Evolution did this; Evolution accomplished that; Evolution designed a separate pathway; Evolution created all life on this planet; Evolution took awhile to do all of this but he got the job done in the end; Evolution is true and supreme. I came to realize that for many atheists, Evolution is their god, and they actually personify it and ascribe to it god-like magical powers. Anywhere that they use the word Evolution, you can safely substitute the word God, and their sentences will still make sense. In fact, there are times when their sentences will actually make a lot more sense, if you simply substitute the word "God" for the word "evolution". Try it sometime. You'll be amazed.

You clearly don't understand evolution, or nature for that matter.

Those who are into Intelligent Design think that it makes sense that God simply spoke, and things happened, or that he snaps his fingers and wala, things happen. Its not as you portray Evolution at all, nor is it as simple as God snapping his fingers. You talk about Evolution as if it has consciousness or as if science is ascribing consciousness to it. Evolution is process. Evolution is Nature in Action. Evolution is nature going step by step from the simple to the increasingly complex

The implication of this is that Nature/Evolution is NOT intelligent in the sense of conscious beings. And also, it does NOT imply that somehow God can just snap his fingers, and the elements simply obey as some people portray. Rather, nature is only intelligent because of its nature as being set up to respond to those commands. In other words, it is only intelligent the same way a computer can be artificially intelligent. An artificially-intelligent program can learn on its own and retain that knowledge by storing it and referring to it, and making that knowledge a part of its programming. Nature is set up in a similar way. The computer can only respond to those commands because of the type of programming it has received. Things like DNA and cell replication show precisely what kinds of "programs" are run in nature, that have a sort of "artificial intelligence" to them.

Evolution isn't hard to understand. Because over long periods of time, programs in processes that are artificially intelligent in a manner of speaking run in such a way that parts self assemble from pure "junk" until they come together with something useful for what they were set in motion to accomplish.

And by junk, I mean that literally. Our cells and the so-called organelles and structures in them are pure accumulated junk over time that work like machinery. Our Mitochondria are re-purposed bacteria that are related to Typhus (yes, they sequenced the mitochondrial genome, and they are actually related to other types of bacteria). They originally were invaders to the cell, but became symbionts, until finally their reproduction got in sync with the rest of the cell, and they became a part of the machinery. Our cell nuclei came originally from an invading DNA virus into a cell. Cloroplasts are simply algal cells that invaded plant cells. All of these parts are pure junk that accumulated together until it was something useful. This is not the mark of design. This is the mark of bottom-up self assemblage.

This doesn't mean that there isn't Design. It just means that there is an automatic-ness to nature where lots of processes are self-intelligent enough to carry out basic complex processes, and God doesn't have to be involved all the time in the nitty gritty of these basic process, because he created them to be smart enough in the first place to take care of those details.

As mentioned in a previous post, this is basically the argument I heard the first time from Dr. Armand J. Hill, physicist, then Dean of the College of Engineering Sciences and Technology at BYU a few decades ago.

His argument was, as Ed mentions, that "there is an automatic-ness to nature where lots of processes are self-intelligent enough to carry out basic complex processes, and God doesn't have to be involved all the time in the nitty gritty of these basic process, because he created them to be smart enough in the first place to take care of those details."

And that it would take a greater intelligence to set such a system up and make it work, than otherwise; that the processes were strongly heuristic. Which fits the scriptures that say: "the earth was prepared to bring forth [various forms of life]".

However, I listened to the interview of Peck, the 'evolutionary biologist' from BYU, and was rather disappointed that he didn't really get much into God's role in the whole process. I was left with the idea that Peck was still in the clutches of the 'God of the gaps', and that creation could just as well have proceeded strictly from the bottom up, i.e., its all a function of matter . . . period.