So the following is all from a note I wrote on face book, the responses to it and a subsequent note I wrote in response.
“IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THE CHURCH IS FALSE. If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken.”
-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 1:, p.143
I agree with this statement 100%
Paula Duerden at 3:26pm March 19
All things will be known in the long run. You either take a leap or not. Choices...
Randy Parry at 3:37pm March 19
Since evolution is already known, I guess that answers that question.
Paula Duerden at 3:57pm March 19
Guess we'll see.
Jon Heaton at 5:41pm March 19
How do we know that "all things will be known in the long run"?
Randy Parry at 8:09pm March 19
Because some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so.
Brandi Duerden Newlan at 9:27pm March 26
Only the dead know the answers to the questions you are seeking. The question is...have you seen the dead? Because I have. Whether they know all or not does not matter but the fact that they simply exist after this life. Whether you know or believe that to be the truth, that is something you have to decide for yourself. If you do not believe in life after death then why does it matter what other people believe?
Then I got a comment that disappeared before I could respond to it in the original note. So here is my note about that comment.
Evolution: Continued
Share
Today at 8:34am | Edit Note | Delete
Someone close to me commented on my evolution note, however when I came in to respond to it this morning I can't seem to find the comments any longer. I guess they thought better of their position and decided to take it down. For that reason I will allow them to remain anonymous. However I still wish to respond to their claims.
The note as pulled directly from the email alerting me to it.
"Evolution is not already known my friend. Like most ideas in science it is in fact a theory, and if you know anything about the scientific community a theory isn't a Known truth. It is, just a theory, an idea. And as far as "some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so" this some guy happens to be immensely inspired by God. (which last I checked, is awesome) You believe evolution because some twit spent some time on an island, and decided based on his own Perceptions of his surroundings that evolution must be so. But, to each their own I suppose."
Evolution is in fact known it has been demonstrated and you will not find any legitimate scientist who will question it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in science.
In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.
The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".
As defined by Kevin Padian in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:
"A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time."
— Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, day 9, a.m. session
"Theory" in science is like the graduation point. Something does not recieve theory status without tons of evidence in it's favor. Does that mean it is 100%, no however it is the best explanation based on all data and evidence at this point.
I am going to jump around a bit here and address another claim of this poster.
" You believe evolution because some twit spent some time on an island, and decided based on his own Perceptions of his surroundings that evolution must be so. But, to each their own I suppose."
I don't believe evolution because some twit spent time on an island and his perceptions lead him to believe in evolution. Darwin as we commonly call this "twit" did not come up with the theory of evolution.
Darwin wrote a book called "On the Origin of Species" in which he introduced natural selection as a method in which differentiation of species could be explained.
This was the seed for what eventually became the theory of evolution however Darwin was not the one who came up with it.
Evolution has been demonstrated, and like any good theory should it makes predicitions and those predictions come true. In evolution for instance we believe there should be a member of the fossil record that has certain traits. Having no fossil record for "missing link" organism we search for it, and time after time we find exactly what evolution says we should.
Evolution is proven in the fossil record, micro evolution is proven in bacteria. It happens, there is no disputing it. The only disputes are in what are the EXACT mechanism's of evolution.
For more evolution information is suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Now to address this bit of information
"And as far as "some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so" this some guy happens to be immensely inspired by God. (which last I checked, is awesome)"
Can you demonstrate that this guy is "immensely inspired by God". If this is true it should be very easy to come up with some evidence to back it up. I will even take it a step further for you, this guy is supposed to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator in your religion.
Tell me what has he Prophesied? What has he seered? What has he revelated? As for your current Prophet Thomas S. Monson, I won't claim to be terribly familiar with his work so the question is out there for you to answer
However I know a lot about your last Prophet the recently departed Gordon Bitner Hinckley. His powers of prophecy where very much lacking. I bet you are not familiar with the Mark Hoffman incident that happened in the 1980's. However I see this is a good example to show where Hinckley failed to even have any power of discernment, which is an attribute that any worthy church member should have, not just a Prophet.
Here is some in depth information about the case. I will leave it to you to read it or not.
http://www.mormoninformation.com/hofmann.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hoffman
Tell me though, where was your Prophet on 9/11? Where was your prophet on Dec 26, 2004? Aren't prophets supposed to warm of terror and calamity?
As for Monson, I am familiar with the man as a counselor in the LDS 1st presidency. He is a great story teller to be sure, problem is few of his stories can actually be corroborated. However if you like someone who looks like a kindly old man that tells stories about him helping widows, or raising animals in a sugar sweet soft voice he is can be great. I myself would like a little more substance from God's mouthpiece on the earth.
As for me I am and continue to be a skeptic. I am always open to more information so that I can believe the most correct of all things. When new evidence comes in I will reevaluate my position and change my views if I deem the new information to be more accurate than what my prior knowledge has been. Show me some evidence that your Prophet is more than just another guy in a suit behind a podium. If he really is this should be a simple task.
"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking."
As for any claim of a religious or supernatural method my thoughts on the matter are best summed up by Carl Sagan.
"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" Bring me the evidence and I will always be ready to examine it and reevaluate my views on the subject.
Posts
