That natural selection is a fact of life means nothing for how we ought to treat each other–any more than the fact that gravity pulls us to the ground means that we should go around pushing people down.

I hope that helps.

I thank you (sincerely) for helping to expose my ignorance. As the age of the earth is not really that interesting to me, I’ll respond simply by saying this: Judging by what you’ve said, it seems even scientists make no final decisions concerning the age of the earth. That’s fine; I don’t either.

As far as your comments about education, I’ve discussed that in previous posts (rather ignorantly, I should add) and am done discussing it. Let the courts figure that out (although why we’re letting them decide is beyond me – another issue for another day).

I’m not concerning myself with education for the time being. Some background: I work at BYU, the LDS sponsored university, and most of their biologists use evolution as their theoretical frame of reference. I want to understand why.

So let’s scratch the whole young earth/old earth bit; that’s fine. But what about my other questions?

I might agree with much of what you say, particularly that Darwinian evolution is somewhat godless. However, I don’t think that means we need to banish the data and so-called science of evolution from our homes. It might be that all the adaptation we see in the world around us fits quite well with a theistic evolutionary theory – I’d just like to see someone more sophisticated than I come up with that theory.

yes, being nice does fit into natural selection, if you make it fit in. But the so-called “niceness” is rather meaningless when motivated not by concern (or love) for the other, but rather for survival’s sake. That doesn’t seem to be the love that Christ is talking about. That’s my biggest concern with natural selection.

Your questions are good, however their a little mixed on the concepts.

I’ll just take on the first one. The age of the earth for young earth creationists is (more or less) based on calculations done by Archbishop Ussher in 1640, a series of dates gained by (among other things) counting the ‘Begats’ in the bible and estimating.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with the age of the earth, most of our calculations center around radio-isotope dating wherein the decay rates of different isotopes of radioactive materials can be precisely calculated, giving us a range for the age of the earth.

Third concept, the whole ‘Big Bang Theory’ relates to ex-nihilo creation in no way shape or form. No physicist worth his salt would say that the elements were created out of nothing. The big bang is thought to have been caused by a hot, compressed mass of existing matter/energy (really the same thing, as Einstein showed).

So, what you’re doing is bringing in a lot of concepts that appear to relate, but really have no connection to each other. You might want to try to break down those concepts and look into the individual aspects to get a better idea as to the conversation and the politics of evolution in education.

The fight going on outside between evolution and ID with a side of creationism is about education- the principles of education. People are picking sides, lining up, taking names- the whole works.

Where do LDS stand in all of this? It seems somewhat divided but still the heavy side leans towards order, design, and NO evolution. Evolution is a bad apple for organized religion.

Evolutionary theory does not include the most important element- that of a designer/ Creator. For this reason alone, every Christian abiding person should ban evolution from their homes. Evolution doesn’t need God, but we do, and evolution isn’t giving us the answeres were looking for.

In terms of natural selection, not every one seems to have been commanded to be nice. Just look at the Old Testament, or civilization up til a couple centuries ago. And in this modern age, we have access to enough resources that we don’t have to fight over them any more, so being nice fits into survival of a population.

In terms of the fall, I can’t see most of the story as literal. The principles that we should learn from are there, so that’s all that matters to me.

And in terms of resurrection: no idea.

My view is that God works with natural laws to bring things about, be that evolution or physics. Hopefully some of this made sense!

I know that there are some compelling evolutionary arguments concerning Joe’s concerns about selfishness and death. But I hear little if anything that is compelling about his concerns about eternal matter and resurrection. And I think his call for a “third way” should be taken very seriously.

Anyway, I hope this post engenders civil and constructive conversation around these points, rather than the arrogance and holier-than-thou attitudes that are all too often present about science and religion debates. To anyway who may need to hear this, I encourage you to put down your ax for a minute and enter into a charitable and humble conversation.

Please read the article
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

One other quick thing. Do you honestly believe that slavery was “the extension of unfettered capitalism?” Where did you come up with such a silly idea? Please, in the future, educate yourself on a topic before commenting on it.

If anyone really longs for the good old days of unfettered capitalism, I suggest reading Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which influenced Teddy Roosevelt quite a bit. You could also read up on the Great Depression (Utah voted for FDR) or you might try reading Jennifer Government, a dystopian novel about a libertarian future. You could even go back to the Articles of Confederation or the Whiskey Rebellion, which reminds me of the spirit of the tea-baggers.

I don’t view my democratically and constitutionally elected government as my enemy, thought I don’t view it as perfect. The American Revolution was a protest against taxation without representation, not against any taxation once we had representation. It was a protest against domination by a foreign monarch, not against our own democracy. The founders of our country, and Joseph Smith himself, recognized the value of the government in standing up for the little guy against powerful private, moneyed interests. What was slavery, but the ultimate extension of unfettered capitalism, where, in the end, people own other people.

Have we had problems with the Fed? Absolutely! As the Frontline program pointed out, Greenspan was a regulator who didn’t believe in regulation. He allowed the derivatives market to become a dangerous and opaque market, more like a game for insiders than a free market, more like a time bomb than an engine of growth. But he did so because he was a disciple of Ayn Rand. But ending regulation won’t make markets less opaque. The answer is better people at the Fed and the Treasury Department. We’ve had them in the past. It is not impossible to find good public servants, unless you believe government is inherently bad.

Do we have problems with Obama advisors? Absolutely! Let’s talk about the big advisors, not the small fry, who are merely a distraction in my view. President Obama has put people like Geitner and Summers, associated with the Bush era, in key positions. He needs more people like Paul Krugman.

Virtually every industrial democracy has found it necessary to mix capitalism with regulation. Too much government is bad, but so it too little. Our public sector has been starved and inequalities have increased as the post Reagan years have unfolded. One would think Latter-day Saints would be concerned about an unbridled capitalist system that increases social and economic inequalities.

I do worry that President Obama has not put in place the regulations necessary to reform the banking system and the markets, which is job number one in my view (after the emergency resuscitation of the economy). And, as we all seem to agree, he hasn’t yet signaled his course in Afghanistan. Also, as a veteran I must say that my heart goes out today to those shot at Ft. Hood, as well as their families. We are all Americans.

I will admit that I’m a bit disappointed in the first year. I am not at all pleased with the amount of spending that has taken place, and thought that Obama would be smarter than that. Unlike some that feel that the government is intruding too much into business, I’m actually glad that this is taking place for businesses receiving bailout funds. One of the problems with the Bush set of bailouts was the lack of oversight – that’s been addressed, albeit not in a way that many conservatives are comfortable with, but that’s what you get when a business should fail and gets propped up by the government. Sad thing is, with the government’s funding or not, many of these businesses just aren’t viable and will completely self-destruct eventually.

I do feel it’s a shame that the wedge between the parties has been driven even further – at least where I live in Utah, people can’t rationally talk about politics. There’s a lot of Obama griping, but very little gets said in terms of the specifics of what he’s done that’s so awful. Mostly it’s speculating on healthcare reform issues and general griping that a democrat is in office. Because, truth is, he hasn’t really done a whole lot in his first year. Might be better that way, because there are problems that need to be addressed, and I don’t feel they are being addressed the right way, and I don’t think that would change regardless of who had won the election.

Lastly, in full disclosure, my family has benefitted from Obama – we received the $8k first time home owner’s grant. That was very nice for us – my wife and I had great credit scores, money in the bank, and were debating whether it was time to buy a home. That incentive (plus UT’s $6k new home grant) made it a no-brainer.

Marxist Mike signing off

Oh, and regarding your misunderstood comments on regulating the banks, I would encourage you to read The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard and Meltdow by Thomas Woods. They’re both very short and very informative about the corruption that government regulation and intervention creates.

It ticks me off how there was such an uproar with Bush and his actions but when we see Obama doing the same thing there is silence from the same crowd.

I can say there had been some dicesions theat Bush made that I don’t like but he at lease didn’t go against his political stance set in his election, like I see Obama doing. He is so crooked he talks arond corners.

-D

I would be very surprised if the Roberts court or any Supreme Court or Congress or President since in the last 70 years would agree with your constitutional views. As for the H1N1 vaccine, remember that it is being manufactured by the private sector and sold to the federal government as well as other governments around the world. Would you prefer that it be sold to the highest bidder in an unregulated market, like the ads you get for medicines on the internet that come from goodness knows where?

When he was a Senator, President Obama, in contrast to so many others, argued for more banking regulations http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/422/create-new-financial-regulations/ I admit he was not as active as Ralph Nader, but he was definitely on the side of more regulation, not less. Not all regulations are good, of course, but deregulation is another name for anarchy.

You are right in your second paragraph however; It does remain to be seen what our President will do in Afghanistan. I’m sure that the men and women over there wish he would hurry up and make a decision.

Please dude, dust off your copy of our constitution and read through it. The things you want big brother to do he just doesn’t have the authority to do and if the way he is handling the H1N1 virus is any indication of how he will handle the rest of our healthcare?…I would rather not

On the war front, it remains to be seen what President Obama will do in Afghanistan, but he clearly has moved in Iraq to wind down our involvement in a way that I would have not expected from either Senator McCain or President Bush.

The obvious threat to “all my money” is not from a modest tax increase to trim the deficit or from a program to reduce the number of those without medical insurance, but from an unregulated Wall Street that has repeatedly shown its ability and tendency to bring down the economy not just of the U.S. but potentially of the whole world. The Taliban is unable to inflict as much damage as the gang on Wall Street and their enablers in Washington. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

I for one cannot see much of a differance, except those who were so loud about Bush sending troops to war are now quiet at Obama moving those troops and sending more into War.

The best he has done is made me hope for change. As he (Obama) plans to take away all my money, to instill that hope for change… Sp’ange, you got sp’ange?
-D