I appreciate you checking my own arrogance. Perhaps I owe the Organon another look. Perhaps I owe Miller another look, too – but I have to say, his Only a Theory was torture to read. It was very boring.

I think I’m comfortable with the idea of “showing why they are not diametrically opposed.” As far as being a biologist is concerned, this is perhaps the best “third way.” After all, we shouldn’t require biologists (or psychologists, for that matter) to be philosophers (though, we ought to stop giving them Doctorates of Philosophy). Perhaps the onus, then, falls on the philosophers (of which I am, fortunately, not one).

Either way, I acknowledge your “third way” as a fine third way for now.

Ultimately, though, we (as scientists) have to acknowledge that our science is based on a philosophy, be willing to question its foundations (including the fact that there is no such thing as “objective” interpretation of the data – why does nobody ever catch that oxymoron?) and open the door for a third way that neither evolutionists nor ID theorists can even approximate at this point.

Perhaps that’s all I’m calling for. But I appreciate your willingness to have a more open and informed dialogue. Perhaps as the old generation of modernists get old, retire, and die, those of us who are younger and impatient with the status quo will get our say.

Or perhaps we’ll all remain uninformed (like me) and complain for others to do the work for us. ha ha!

I agree with you. I think there is room for third way here (1. ID, 2. Theory of Evolution, 3. third way). First let me make a couple of comments about what I have labeled 1 & 2.
1. ID or Intelligent Design is a technical term and there is an important distinction here as it concerns Mormonism. The term is used to describe a movement which Mormonism has taken no part in. For example, Mormons don’t sponsor anti-Darwinian seminars, create alternative dinosaur museums, and our scholars, who work in areas where evolution is important and the foundation to everything they do, rarely stray academically from the current scientific consensus regarding evolution. This is not to say Mormons do not believe in an Intelligent Designer, but belief in an Intelligent Designer is very different from saying you are a proponent of ID or that you believe in the theory of ID over the theory of evolution. For those who want a better idea of what this theory is about, Google the Discovery Institute or Dr. Michael Behe.
2. On to label two. The theory of evolution that everyone talks about today is still the same theory that came from Darwin. I sometimes hear people say things like they believe in evolution, just not the evolution Darwin came up with. I assume these statements are the consequence of being unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and associating Darwin with atheism. It is Darwinian evolution that is taught at BYU, although today the proper name for the theory is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis Theory (referring to the synthesis of Darwinian theory with modern genetics and other things that came after Darwin).
3. third-way? I think Mormon scholars at BYU are similar to Dr. Kenneth Miller’s thinking (a Catholic Biologist at Brown University). The basic idea here is to blend evolution with religious thought and at the very least show why they are not diametrically opposed. In sum, those from – 1. have thrown out the science, 2. have thrown out the Designer, 3. keeps the Designer and the science while at the same time trying to understand how the science fits in with their Designer. Some may think this is the “lukewarm” or “fence sitters” third way, but I don’t think so. This is the position BYU seems to have taken in and appears to be the general ethos of BYU towards any academic endeavor, not just evolution.

As to your other concerns, I can’t comment on arrogance or humility of the blog I refereed you to. My guess is that some of the tone from his blog comes from encounters with people who treat him like a 2, think Mormons are a 1 and think 3 cannot exist. If I am right in my “guess”, I believe that would mean that you are both concerned for basically the same reasons.

To the third way and a more open and informed dialogue.

Thanks for coming, even if you are late. And no worries about being a threadjacker – I’m pretty sure this post is dead. Fortunately, if anything from this post survives, it will only have been the best-fitted for survival and we can leave the rest of the crap behind.

One thing only, then I’ll let this horse die (maybe): evolution and ID both approach the world from a primarily modernist position. That is, in gaining knowledge makes certain assumptions about nature. We don’t have to make those assumptions.

Just for example: modernisim (at least, today’s brand of it) demands that we assume nature to be fundamentally the same today as it has been for eternity., because it behaves in fixed, universal, unchangeable ways. Why do we have to assume that? Because it’s what we see (empiricism). But if we didn’t have to assume that (particularly because, in a real sense, we did not – past tense – SEE anything), then couldn’t we assume that perhaps nature behaves differently in different circumstances? Allowing for that simple assumption to be challenged would change things rather significantly, though the data might look absolutely the same.

Anyway, that’s all. Rest in peace, post. May your progenitors learn from your mistakes.

Thanks for the links. First on the blog: I have to say that this guy has thought a lot about evolution and how to fit it with the gospel. That’s nice, but I never doubted it had happened before.

I guess you could say that my issue isn’t with the theory itself, but with the fact that given some of our beliefs, not a single LDS theory has been put forth that contrasts with both ID and evolution. There can’t be just two (viable) games in town?

There is one thing that bothers me about his blog. I am a little hesitant to take this guy seriously, though. His thinking is rather sound, I confess, and so is his hubris. Perhaps I have no sense of humor, but he seems to be so sure in some of his posts that evolution is how it is, that it seems highly unlikely that he would even question his own position, whether strong evidence were presented to the contrary or not. You see, this sort of arrogance is problematic no matter who expresses it because it shuts down dialog.

I may be wrong about evolution: it might fit perfectly with church doctrine. But why can’t we talk about it as though it were only a theory? Why does every single discussion have to fall on either one said (most often evolution) or another? And why is it that Mormons seem to know “more” about the eternities and STILL won’t assume that role?

We are none of us very humble, and I’m willing to bet we are none of us very right.

I believe that death did not exist before the Fall – I can’t scientifically explain that. However, natural law does not support resurrection, yet I believe in a resurrection. If a person can be resurrected, it seems that there must be some higher law that dictates whether a person may die or not. See also: a prolonged life such as the 3 Nephites.

Without death, there is no evolution. Hence “intelligent design” of the creation. In faith I have little problem accepting that the God who can command “let there be light” can also form man out of the dust of the earth. In science, well, er, uh, there’s obviously some puzzle pieces missing there.

So death enters the world. We definitely have evidence in this world that there is some sort of evolution in play. Why can’t evolution simply be a characteristic of a fallen world – the same a noxious weeds and thistles, and disease?

In summary: The best I can fathom is that there are higher laws not observable with mortal eyes in a fallen world. It’s not a satisfactory answer, but I don’t believe that all religious notions can be answered with scientific theories.

Though a bit of a threadjack at the moment. Someone said, “Australian aborigines are tall and slender and able to therefore keep a lower body temperature in the heat while the Alaskan Eskimos are generally short limbed, and have extra fat layers where they are exposed to the cold more.” So why are Norwegians generally tall and slender?

http://sciencebysteve.net/

Some of you may find the answers to your questions here and others of you may find you should be asking different questions.

In any case, I hope it is helpful.

Other links of possible interest.

http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=5343

http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf

Seriously, though, I want to take up the issue of natural law. You seem to be alluding to (whether intentionally or not) something CS Lewis said about natural law, which I think ought to be put on the table here. Lewis wrote “in the history of the Universe the laws of nature have never produced a single event.” He then goes on to argue that the laws of nature do not proscribe nature, but more likely describe nature.

So I hope I don’t kill the discussion here (that is, if it isn’t already dead), but I’m going to just come out and propose something that would fly in the face of Darwinian evolution and natural selection.

Nature is just as lawful as human beings are.

What I mean to say is this: humans are gods in embryo (if we take folk Mormon theology serious), and thus have an eternal “nature.” When we sin, we go against nature – that is, act contrary to the laws of our nature. Thus, at times we abide by the laws of nature and conform our behaviors to those laws.

Nature is the same. It has laws that are “natural,” and it (just like we) can act contrary to those laws. But nature doesn’t act contrary – ever. This might explain a little why King Benjamin accused man of being less than the dust – the dust obeys.

So how does this change evolution? I don’t know, but how bout I throw something crazy out:

Let us assume that the laws of the animal world boil down to a simple rule: act according to the human world. In other words, it’s as though God says: “nature, you will maintain an order like that of the human world: if they live in peace, you will live in peace; if they struggle for survival, you will struggle for survival.”

God puts man in the Garden, everything is peaceful. Man decides to rebel against God, nature follows suit. Death is introduced to the world through man, nature follows suit. Now, we spend out lives competing with one another and nature takes its cue from us. (This theory might go far in helping to understand how to turn back global warming…)

It would follow then that, as we as humans can “put of the natural man” (or, the “survival instinct,” if you will), then we not only turn the tide of humanity and bring peace to humans, but we would also bring peace to nature and we all would live in harmony.

That seems to fit the doctrine (loosely, at least). Does that seem to fit the data?

1) Age of the Earth and Radio-carbon dating: If it might be possible that the “Earth fell” as part of the fall of Adam, then all we need to do is to figure out if carbon decays at the same rate in a paradisaical sphere as it does in the telesstial world in which we now live. The age of the universe or solar system doesn’t at all matter for this question if we take seriously the Pearl of Great Price note that “Only an account of THIS world show I unto you” or the idea that the earth in our creation story was put in it’s current orbit, or “fell” or became in some important way the world as we know it AFTER the creation and fall.

2) The Natural Selection v. Niceness: Again, this comes down to the definition of “natural.” Does a natural law describe or proscribe nature? When we say it’s a “dog eat dog” world, are we describing the current and perhaps alterable current expression of the world, or the fundamental way things are on a basic level? The latter seems to be how many people interpret King Benjamin’s comment about the natural man being an enemy to God… how ever, from the beginning, it was (and is) not so ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/6/54-55#54 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/38#38 )

3) Death before the fall? Again, Dennis’s questions point the way. The real question is “Was Adam born?” ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/6/59#59 ) In other words, who are Adam’s parents? Without the benifit of the PoGP, it seems that the only answers the world has come up with are 1) Nothing and No one OR 2) Homo Erectus. The restored gospel does not seem comfortable with either.

4) The resurrection ought to have been our starting point for this debate 150 years ago.

In general Joe and Dennis, I think you’re right, with some rare exceptions ( http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73 ) we latter day saints haven’t done our homework on these issues… Let’s start asking some real questions!

1. Can evolution be squared with the notion of primal parents of the entire human race? If not, what does this mean for Joseph Smith’s pretty clear teachings on this issue? What does it mean for Joseph’s vision of family history work, in which the entire human family would be sealed together?

2. How might evolutionary theory look different if it BEGAN with the resurrection of Christ? I’m not interested in hearing answers about faith and science boundaries because I don’t live a compartmentalized life. So, I’m not asking what a SCIENTIFIC evolutionary theory would look like — I’m asking what a SCIENTIFIC-DOCTRINAL evolutionary theory might look like, that takes seriously the resurrection.

3. If (2) cannot satisfactorily be answered, then how does one decide what to believe concerning human nature? Why would one choose to begin with certain assumptions rather than others?

4. Might the evolutionary data be interpreted radically differently if one does not believe that there are fundamental, unchanging natural laws? For example, what if someone begins with the assumption that prior to the Fall, people really did live for up to 1000 years? Does this matter at all? In other words, is it that inconceivable that God might really shake things up? How could we assure that He has not? How far can we trust sense-data with these matters, if the interpretation of these data rely on assumptions about natural laws? (I really hope that this question is taken seriously, rather than immediately disparaged.)

If you would like to dig into understanding natural selection, I recommend this.

If you want to understand evolution more generally, I recommend Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True.”

Happy reading.

You’re correct: some Mormons do support ID. I do not.

I confess I’m a little ignorant of this theory as well as evolution, however I’m a little hesitant about using science to organize my data and “prove” that there is an intelligent designer.

I think you’re naively overlooking the politics of science when you say what you do about evolution. Other theories have generally have one or two things going against them (sometimes a combination of both): 1, lack of rigor, or 2, the fact that scientists are generally unwilling to change their mind because of the power and money involved. That seems to me to be the case with natural selection.

But that aside, I’m not a scientist and I don’t pretend to be one. I lack the expertise to develop a new theory of my own and frankly don’t want to take the time to gain that expertise. But I sure know a lot of people who do have that expertise and I’m just hoping that one of them has seen through the asinine notion that we humans have little drive other than to survive. If so, then I’m issuing them a challenge.

It appears so far that not a single person has taken up my challenge.

If the whole world were some big Zion society, I do not doubt that we as organic beings would adapt to our surrounding climate and culture. I do doubt, however, that we would be in immense competition with each other, as natural selection implies.

Indeed, to hear the prophecies concerning the lion and the lamb make me wonder if animals will be in competition with one another. Why can’t our Mormon capitalistic culture understand that we don’t have to compete to survive?

Many do not understand the strengths of the ID movement in science. There really only is one element to evolution that could cause it’s downfall. And what is that? The validity of ID theory proving correct.

ID makes a unique scientific case for their being an intelligent cause (God) without crossing the lines into religious thought and principles. The implications this has on the scientific community are huge once it catches on. It means that how we study biology will change- a change for the better. Whereas we may not to be able to scientifically identify who the intelligent cause is or where he exists, we will be able to scientifically understand his signature in living things. This somehow bothers evolutionists, not because it may be true, but rather they will be wrong and be on the side of idiocy- the great monument. Most “theistic evolutionists” including mormon evolutionists do not realize that they support the very principles of study of the intelligent design theory. What are those principles?

They are principles that state that complexity in nature were designed- they just didn’t arive here through some unintelligent ubguided random process. Christian believers must believe in the God of the bible which include the “creation” as a designed planned intelligent event. That my friends, is what ID is all about- showing through scientific means that life was planned and designed by an intelligent cause. For us Mormons this means the intelligent cause would be Jesus Christ.

Yes, mormons are ID supporters just be admitting they believe that life came about through an intelligent Creator! Think about that for a while. We know Christ will establish the truth, whose side are you going to be on? Hopefuly not part of the idiocy monument.

The Big Bang, is a cop-out for scientists to try to understand something they can’t possibly understand. It’s worse than making matter appear from nowhere as some Christians believe. The biggest implication to the Big Bang theory is that it attempts to cover the unseen. How? Ponder this-

Our best telescopes, hurdling through space in the universe see no end to matter- it just keeps on going and going and going (and no, it’s not the energizer bunny). From a physics view, if space goes on forever- as far as the best eye can see, then the distance some objects have traveled surpass the age of the universe itself. It’s a paradoxial quest- if there is a moment when we know the spatial relationship of “all matter” in the universe (before the bib bang hypothetically), then it could be calculated how far space goes. In order to thus know for sure, one would have to find the “edge” of space. This of coarse isn’t to be!