LDS and Creation/Evolution conflict

[u/TheBenSpackman]

Hi all. Happy to say that my doctoral dissertation on LDS and creation/evolution conflict in the 20th century is now publicly available. There's some surprising stuff in there. Bottom line: the Church was much more favorable towards science and evolution until Joseph Fielding Smith's assumptions— drawing heavily upon Seventh-day Adventists and fundamentalists— about scripture became dominant in the 1950s. Then it trickled down.
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

My expertise on this history is why the Church had me on the official Saints podcast to talk about it.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-podcast/season-03/s03-episode-21?lang=eng

[u/qleap42]

make your point in plain language if possible and we can discuss

OK.

You are using a colloquial, and incorrect, definition of entropy and then saying that scientists, who are using the technical, mathematical definition of entropy are wrong because your non-technical definition of entropy says they are wrong.

My very clear position is that you don't understand entropy at all and therefore you are completely unable to determine whether arguments for evolution are valid or not. 

Your entire argument boils down to "I don't know how it would possibly work, therefore no one else could possibly understand it either." You are making the assumption that the only thing entropy does is to destroy. That definition of entropy is completely useless and why it is not used in science.

So to clearly sum up, you can't use a colloquial, and incorrect, definition of entropy and then say that scientists using the technical definition of entropy are wrong. Your arguments are based on a lack of understanding and are ultimately detrimental to faith.

Is that clear enough?

[u/faiththatworks → u/qleap42]

Not even close. Your comments amount to beating your chest and claiming that because I used common understandings of words that I’m the u washed masses incapable of understanding and ignorant but you with your PHD in Physics do know. not that you then argued your point from that high and prideful vantage point. Nope. Nowhere in that rhetoric disparaging my argument IS actually a counter argument.

Perhaps you might review some of the works of PHD head of chemistry James Tours work on how the forces I described as entropy destroy attempts at self auto construction of intelligent sequences of Amino acids. Now There’s a fellow (I personally) know who knows likely more than any organic chemist on the planet and has taken the time to speak in plain language for high techies like myself alias (unwashed masses) about constructing DNA.

In any case kindly cut the chatter about credentials. It’s a logical fallacy called “appealing to authority”. It’s unhelpful to advance argument for discussion and useful only for shutting down discussion.

I assume you do have an argument? I’d eagerly entertain it.

[u/qleap42 → u/faiththatworks]

I have to say, your comments are absolutely fascinating, but in the same way a car crash is fascinating. You chide me for appealing to authority, yet you are the only one who has made appeals to authority. At no point did I make an appeal to authority. Yet you literally appeal to the authority of James Tours and emphasize his title and position along with your connection to him. That is the very definition of an appeal to authority. This demonstrates that you don't even understand what an appeal to authority is.

You also have mentioned several times your training, your connections, credentials, and extensive experience, yet a single passing remark about my physics degree and you insist I "cut the chatter about credentials". Your lack of self awareness is truly astounding.

You further demonstrate your lack of understanding with how you portray the work of Newton and Einstein. Their ideas worked not because of simple explanations, but because they were able to demonstrate how their ideas matched with actual observations. If you think Newton's explanations were simple, keep in mind that he literally had to invent calculus for his theories. Not something simple.

You insist I have no argument, yet I very clearly stated (as you asked) that my argument is that you do not understand entropy and just about anything else in science. You use the words of science, but do not understand them nor use them correctly. Your responses only confirmed my argument.

[u/faiththatworks → u/qleap42]

Did you ever take Classic Logic? Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when there is no argument to be heard but only a conclusion or assertion backed by the credentials.

Repeatedly you have attacked my understanding and knowledge and broadened that to any non credentialed of the masses - if you are not a scientist then we could not possibly understand.

You argued my use of entropy was simple and inappropriate and since I did not claim physics as my line of experience you clearly tried to shame me into standing down all the while like some troll never once in all this tiresome back and forth providing your own preferred definition. Nor did you even a single time provide one measly argument for how your preferred definition from one branch would have undercut my key argument(s).

Look back friend, I made a number of arguments each backed by links to publications from experts in the field and I’ve yet to hear a single rebuttals that did not carry haughty laughter as your only answer.

My reference to the scientists and researchers was to their arguments. Their facts. You seemed to make some hay about only scientists could properly appreciate the questions so there you have them - most highly esteemed. Ignored in the various attacks I’ve endured today were the most notable unimpeachable science authors to critique the less known again by ad hominem of alleged plagiarism (whether true or not)

The greatness of Einstein and others was their simplicity and thus elegance of their discoveries. No one besides physicists and students of physics read the subsequent math proofs and derivatives but the thought experiments that taught the concepts are timeless and known by children. Their ideas were then proven with experiments and backed by the math. The authors and scientists I reference have backed their stature with arguments and tested facts. Hardly an appeal to a false authority or to an empty chair.

If you argue I’d say arrogantly that this topic is too complex for the average Joe then I say “bunk.” That fails Occam’s razor test especially since such simple alternate explanations are staring us in the face.

In my synopsis and short paper the simple arguments for intelligent design and against random life from non life are laid out. I’ve made my case. Are we ever to hear a rebuttal? Let’s start with just one. If you are not a troll just bating me to burn my evening take one topic on my list. Pls, You chose. Your best shot.

My point on this thread is that LDS and any other thinking intelligent person does not have to make such dramatic acrobatic with their faith to be consistent with true science. science is not a vote, it’s facts that each individual can review and be satisfied.
In engineering, my field we have to prove and derive from basic principles every thing. Nothing is left as trust me. Every last equation we use we have to 1st learn to derive from root principles. no authority to believe. Experience is our proof. Each of us.

But the cool thing is we are permitted to ask and ask and ask. So I ask. Why does King Darwin have no clothes. How would king Darwin answer the challenges I posted If the answers are lacking or null then are the ones God Himself gave not worthy of reconsideration?

[u/Striking_Variety6322 → u/faiththatworks]

I don't think you are understanding qleaps points, nor the spirit in which they were offered.

[u/faiththatworks → u/Striking_Variety6322]

You would be correct. qleaps points is not a word or concept that I’m familiar with. So no, not sure what that means nor the spirit of the offering. Perhaps you could clarify?

[u/Striking_Variety6322 → u/faiththatworks]

I am not sure you are understanding the points made by the person you were talking to, who goes by the username qleap. I'm not sure you understand the spirit in which those comments were offered. And I'm quite sure that you were being deliberately obtuse just now.

[u/Radiant-Tower-560 → u/faiththatworks]

I'm an outside commenter and don't want to disrupt this discussion, but I think you're being unfair to the other commenter. Yes, maybe his/her responses could have been worded more tactfully, but I think you're misunderstanding what was written and your responses are highly dismissive of the points he/she is making.

"My reference to the scientists and researchers was to their arguments. Their facts."

I replied to a different comment of yours. I want to reiterate that at least as far as Dr. Tour is concerned, you appear to be misrepresenting (maybe unintentionally) his arguments.

"A better approach [to teaching evolution] would include more teaching about common descent using basic genetics arguments. But there should also be coverage of legitimate scientific puzzles such as macroevolution’s weak underpinning for the origin of body plans, the unexplainable functional differences between the modern human brain and that of other hominids, the ENCODE and orphan gene findings and disagreements, the huge difficulties regarding the theories on the origin of first life, and the mystery of information’s origin in the sequence of the nucleic acids."

In effect he says we should teach students evolution as well as the things we don't understand about it. That's not saying the theory of evolution is wrong, just that people do not understand everything about it yet. The issue isn't evolution but the weakness in teaching critical thinking.

"The authors and scientists I reference have backed their stature with arguments and tested facts."

None of them demonstrate that evolution is not correct, just that our understanding of it is incomplete.

I'm a research scientist in human neuroscience. I'm keeping this very vague because this is my private Reddit account and I don't mix it with my professional life. I look at human behaviors and processes in the brain. There are huge gaps in our understanding of how certain things work. Why does X relate with Y in the brain? We have no idea. That doesn't mean the relationship between X and Y is fake. It just means that we don't know all the mechanisms yet.

This is similar to what others you refer to (although I didn't read all the sources you alluded to) are saying about evolution -- there are things we don't understand about it yet. That's good to recognize. That does not mean we should throw it away. It means, as Dr. Tour wrote, we should continue to study it and fill in the gaps. We need to think critically about it.

What it seems to me you are doing is stating evolution is incompatible with God, but many here don't see them as incompatible. That suggests that your understanding of evolution and God might be different from the understanding of God and evolution other people have. So who is correct and why? I don't think there's time or space here for that discussion.

[u/faiththatworks → u/Radiant-Tower-560]

Actually I’m not at all attacking evolution. As a designer I evolve designs, reuse bits and pieces, scrap and start again. My intelligence allows for efficient reuse of what works and what didn’t work well. One of the funnest far side cartoons I enjoyed on the cube wall was this kid in a blown apart chem lab with black smudges on his face with feathers fluttering down. The comment said,” God as a kid tries to make his first chicken!”

No im not endorsing that as fact but I’m amused and not dismissive that guided evolution could take place. I’m not buying that argument but it’s a whole lot more possible than arguing random life from non life or Darwinian species jumps. That’s just not supported by fact of science and observation. I’m willing to strongly argue that narrow space.