Evolution

[micah]

I don't think this discussion is going in circles. I asked a simple question. Your reply did not answer that question. I will make it more concrete. Using the "best explanation that has been discovered so far," please explain to me how a mouse was created. Be as detailed as you can, please.

[Steve]

Perhaps it's time for a trip to the temple? I can be no more specific. None of us knows how a mouse was created. But we will find out one day.

[Ian]

maybe micah is thinking of another explanation? one thing we know is that mice multiply after their own kind.

[micah]

And while you are writing your detailed explanation on how a mouse was created (step by step would help) I will address a few other issues. And I am speaking of the first mouse, Ian. Of course I know how baby mice are made

First, appealing to authority:

My understanding of the main anti-evolution argument here in the forum goes as follows:

P1: President Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet of God.
P2: As a prophet of God, everything that President Smith wrote or spoke is revelation directly from God.
P3: President Smith taught that evolution is incorrect.
C: Therefore, evolution is incorrect.

This is an argument appealing to authority. That does not mean the conclusion is incorrect. Appealing to authority works great if you believe in their authority on the subject. If you agree with the premises, the conclusion does follow. However, I do no agree with premise 2, and I do not find this argument valid.

The next form of the argument put forth was as follows:

P1: The more authorities there are that agree with a statement, the more likely that statement is to be true.
P2: Everything that inspired men state or write is direct revelation from God.
P3: Many, many inspired men have stated the view that evolution is incorrect.
C: Therefore evolution is incorrect.

This is an interesting form of the argument because premise 1 seems to have some strength. It is still appealing to authority, however. By questioning premise 2, it is possible that many inspired men shared a common opinion at the time that happened to be incorrect. This argument is only as valid if the premises are valid, and I do not agree with premise 2.

Just because I don't find these arguments valid, does not make the conclusion untrue. It very well could be that evolution is incorrect. I look forward to the day when all knowledge will be revealed, and we will understand perfectly.

James has been interested in examining the veracity of premise 2. I am not sure that would be a very faith promoting discussion, and I believe that we are all quite firm in our views on this. Sharing evidence that logically disproves premise 2 will be unlikely to change anyone's view.

Now science and appeals to authority:
Ian seemed to say that using science is also an appeal to authority. It is not. If I made e an argument that did appeal to authority, it would be as follows:

P1: My science teacher (wikipedia, textbood) said evolution is true.
P2: My science teacher etc. is an authority on evolution.
C: Therefore evolution is true.

I hope I didn't make that argument.

Science really is about not using authority as your argument. It is about constantly questioning authority. With evolution, just as with any other science, you can carefully examine the evidence for yourself. And if you don't trust the evidence, you can replicate--with enough resources-- or at least carefully examine the evidence for yourself.

If anyone is interested in actually discussing the evidence for evolution, I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion about that. I am by no means an expert on evolution, but I have some (albeit limited) background in the biological sciences. This discussion has further rekindled my interest in the subject, and I have found several sources to be very enlightening on modern evolutionary theory.

And finally, regarding the use of the word "theory":

I will quote from Eugenie Scott, PhD, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education:

"The word theory is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science. In everyday usage, the synonym of theory is guess or hunch. Yet according to the National Academy of Sciences, 'The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.' A theory, then, is an explanation rather than a guess."

In science, Evolution is a theory. This does not mean it is a guess or a simple hypothesis. It means that it is a a comprehensive explanation encompassing "facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Until then, I look forward to hearing the detailed explanation of how the first mouse was created using the "best explanation that has been discovered so far."

[micah]

Perhaps it's time for a trip to the temple? I can be no more specific. None of us knows how a mouse was created. But we will find out one day.

I would love a trip to the Temple. I went Saturday and it was wonderful. Our temple is closed for a few weeks, however.

I am disappointed that you can be no more specific. Your answers have been extremely vague, and you have not provided any details. It seems like you are saying that God created the first mouse (which I agree with), but you can't say how. All you can say, is that you know it was not by evolution, and that someday you will know somehow.

So how is this the "best explanation that has been found so far?"

[Steve]

Neither of us knows how God created the first mouse, I'm afraid. Not that it matters for the time being. That "best explanation" you're seeking—best for what? Best for providing what we would need to know about creation in this life? Best for my family? What do we mean by "best"?

My answers have not been vague at all. I believe them to be simple, clear, and easy to understand. They may not be what you want to hear, but I assure you, they are perfectly suited to the question. I am waiting to know more, as President Harold B. Lee instructed. He said, "Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure." Do you know for sure how life was first created? Then I believe you are instructed to reserve judgment as to the facts as well. That is not vague. That is crystal clear. It is the best explanation for all of us.

[Ian]

micah, i was speaking of the first mouse, too.

[James]

Perhaps the question also contains

What explanation better coincides with current observations? Please provide details.

[Edward]

To be fair, you are asking for a better scientific explaination that evolution, but whether or not Steve can provide one does not in and of itself give the theory any credibility. Being the best idea around is not the same as being right, and so the validity of your points cannot logically depend on whether or not one has a better explaination. Evolution has to stand on its own if it is to be believed, and scientifically it is still fallible in many of its assumptions. If this is the best science has to offer, clearly then we have a great deal of discovry before us, for as a scientific idea is still leaves massive gaps in its biological perspectives and is essentially insufficient to offer any concrete statements as to what life is. How it came about, sure, it has some cute ideas, but as for life in the present and, even more interestingly, what it supposes for the future - well, evolution really stumbles over itself when it comes to that now, doesn't it.

[James]

"james is interesred in examining the veracity of premise 2." What i meant was that it seemed to me that the discussion was more about premise 2 than evolution itself. I have always been satisfied by the stAtement "when god mKes a man a prophet he does not make him not a man"

[micah]

What i meant was that it seemed to me that the discussion was more about premise 2 than evolution itself. I have always been satisfied by the stAtement "when god mKes a man a prophet he does not make him not a man"

I agree that this discussion (like most others on this forum) quickly turned into a discussion about the infallibility of God's chosen leaders. So, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I suppose it was more my feeling that issue is so frequently used here that there is a part of me that wants to discuss it. However, I just don't know if that is the best idea for myself.

I do very much like that quote that you shared. Prophet's are men, and treating them otherwise is idolatry.

[micah]

Neither of us knows how God created the first mouse, I'm afraid. Not that it matters for the time being. That "best explanation" you're seeking—best for what? Best for providing what we would need to know about creation in this life? Best for my family? What do we mean by "best"?

My answers have not been vague at all. I believe them to be simple, clear, and easy to understand. They may not be what you want to hear, but I assure you, they are perfectly suited to the question. I am waiting to know more, as President Harold B. Lee instructed. He said, "Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure." Do you know for sure how life was first created? Then I believe you are instructed to reserve judgment as to the facts as well. That is not vague. That is crystal clear. It is the best explanation for all of us.

Yes! That is it! None of us know for certain how the first mouse was created.

Yet, there is a detailed explanation that is elegant, logical, conforms to all observed data, and has been rigorously tested. And instead of reserving final judgement, the idea is plainly declared as false. Because someone said so.

I believe we should seek out truth from all areas of life--whether from religious or secular sources. As far as I know, we have not had clear revelation in the scriptures or from leaders about the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, germ theory, or plate tectonics. In fact, almost all of the specific details about nature have not come from revelation through prophets or scriptures. We do not have antibiotics because a prophet revealed it. We do not have cars, airplanes, computers, etc. because of revelation. Our understanding of nuclear physics, with subsequent power plants or PET scans, has not been revealed through the prophet. Is this understanding from God? I believe that God did inspire men--opened their understanding, and enlightened their minds. But it was not through carefully studying Genesis or reading "Man, His Origin and Destiny."

I strongly believe that we are supposed to try to understand this world, to try to understand how nature works. And one way God has given us to do this is through the scientific method. Another way is through revelation. Overwhelmingly, however, our understanding of the specifics of how nature works, comes from science.

[micah]

One thing we know is that mice multiply after their own kind.

I am guessing that you are referring to another idea of President Joseph Fielding Smith's (which I believe he got from President Brigham Young) that he taught as fact. President Smith taught that life was transplanted from other Earths. This is a fun idea. However, as far as I know, with no scriptural backing. There is absolutely no evidence for this in observed data. In fact, if you take the fossil record to mean anything, it would strongly argue against it.

But mostly, this idea just begs the question. How was the other-worldly mouse created? Or do you say that physical mice have always existed for eternity with no instant of creation?

And how is this creation? Why would an all-powerful God have to resort to transplantation? Was organizing the matter on his own too difficult? And how was the mouse transplanted here? Was there a spaceship? Or did it just disappear from another planet and then instantly reappear on earth?

While impossible to disprove (God, being all-powerful can do anything), I find it highly dissatisfying for the reasons above. It does not correspond to anything in scripture, is not supported by observed data and simply raises more questions than it answers. It seems to limit God's power and abilities. It is overly convoluted and unnecessarily complicates matters. And it still provides NO details on how such a transplantation would work.

If you were not referring to President's Smith's teaching of transplantation, I apologize for side-tracking the conversation.

[James]

Steve said about the mouse

not that it matters for the time being

I think it does matter. We don't need to be right, we shouldn't think we are right, but we should do all we can to learn, discover, and answer questions that naturally stimulate our minds.

[Steve]

Micah: Prophet's are men, and treating them otherwise is idolatry.

But prophets are not just "any ol' men." D&C 90:5 - "And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house." Nobody here suggests worshiping the prophets. Their calling is holy, though. They speak the will of the Lord. Ezekiel 14:9 - "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." So we don't have to worry too much when placing our trust in the holy prophets. We'll be ok.

And instead of reserving final judgement, the idea is plainly declared as false. Because someone said so.

If I err, I always want to err on the side of the prophet, not on the side of a science book. One of the "big picture" elements that is still missing in this discussion is why it would be so important for me to believe in organic evolution. Say I believed that men were previously apes. Now what? Say everyone jumped to your side of the debate. We dismissed our convictions in following the prophet's counsel and joined the "intellectual" side (quotes intended). Now what? Is my life better? Are my children more righteous? Am I closer to the Savior?

But what if I stay planted near the prophets? My children see that. My wife sees that. You see that. God sees that. I see that. We are all in a safe position. I've heard the Lord talk about the learned, and I know those men and women need to be extremely careful.

2 Nephi 9:42 - And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

2 Nephi 9:28 - O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

I see lots of benefits and blessings for those who stay close to the prophet. I have experienced the peace that comes with not looking for loopholes and excuses to ignore the prophet's words. It's easy to follow them when their words align with my own understanding. It can be much more difficult when their words go against the things I've understood from other sources. I will continue to put my faith in them, not as idols, but as holy prophets who the Lord has chosen as His mouthpiece.

We do not have cars, airplanes, computers, etc. because of revelation.

I could not disagree more with this statement. That is 100% false.

I believe that God did inspire men--opened their understanding, and enlightened their minds. But it was not through carefully studying Genesis or reading "Man, His Origin and Destiny."

I started to think you were recognizing the error of your previous statement, but then I read the second sentence. It is true that men and women have been given much light, despite their ignorance regarding the prophets of the scriptures and modern day prophets. However, make no mistake where those things came from. We would be far more advanced if all would heed the prophet's voice. There is also the assumption in your remarks that antibiotics and computers are the greatest blessings we could receive. There are far greater blessings than these. I am grateful for them, very grateful, but worldly perks are not always given to us because of righteousness. I've seen wicked men and women do seemingly great things. Their methods don't become holy just because good things resulted.

But mostly, this idea just begs the question. How was the other-worldly mouse created? Or do you say that physical mice have always existed for eternity with no instant of creation?

What does it matter? Say you solve this. Now what? Are you a better man? Why are we wasting time with these questions? You wondered why our conversation drifts to a discussion of prophets. That's because following or not following prophets matters. Your mocking tone about transplantation really matters more, in my opinion, than the questions themselves. If you were as quick to defend the prophets as you were to defend science, you would be in a much better position.