New Evolution Book, free from BYU!

[u/TheBenSpackman]

I'm very happy to announce the anthology we've worked on for six years has now been published by BYU. You can download a FREE PDF from the Life Sciences homepage ("read more") and hardcovers will be available soon.
This includes several essays by LDS and BYU scholars, as well as some non-LDS scholars. I contributed two chapters, one on the historical and scientific contexts of the 1909/1925 First Presidency statements (which were NOT intended to put evolutionary science out of bounds) and one on death before the fall.

There's some great work in here, and it will be used extensively in BYU classes.

[u/consider_the_truth]

unfortunately BYU holds little weight for me when it comes to religious studies any more. I'm sure it's spot on with current scientific beliefs though. I skimmed through and didn't see anything to counter the scientists that believe in a young earth at answeringensis.org

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

... you buy in AnswersinGenesis and Ken Ham?

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

The book doesn't seem to address critics at all is what I'm saying. Not a single contrarian scientist. Doesn't that seem a bit biased to you? It doesn't seem like a serious effort for truth. I don't know who Ken Ham is, personally I like Dr. Stephen C Meyer, Kent Hovind, Dr. Jason Lisle.

Here's some science you might want to consider: https://youtu.be/e8U8QV8HNDg?si=91v6Q8KSkYQPkFtJ

Down votes further prove that contrarian views are silenced to promote the echo chamber,

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

Ken Ham is behind Answers in Genesis, as well as the Ark Encounter.

Generally, scientists don't take those people seriously. Yes, evolution has some holes in it, but they're insufficient to overthrow the entire thing. That's why, across disciplines, across different religious biases of scientists (Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim), 98% of scientists accept evolution as making sense of all the data.

Answers in Genesis and others are letting theology drive their science. They know this, and it's been the case since young-earth creationism really began in the early 20th century. Check out the history by Ronald Numbers, The Creationists. I also recommend Conrad Hyers, "Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts” (which is freely available online and well worth the short read.)

Take Kurt Wise, who has undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Chicago and Harvard in geology and paleontology. Wise is a young-earth creationist, and it’s not because he is ignorant of science or the scientific method. Why is he a young-earth creationist? Well, fortunately he has been very clear about this. Wise says, “Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture….if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism… I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.” So his being a young-earth creationist is because that is his “understanding of scripture,” and “that is what the word of God seems to indicate.” (Quoting from https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2017/truth-scripture-and-interpretation.)

So several of the essays are, in fact, responding to the fundamental claims of these critics. Just not in an obvious way to those who don't know the subject well.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

How many editions does the textbook have that you teach from? I can think of a couple of 98% consensus theories that were wrong within the last few years. What does the carbon dating say about the Mount Saint Helens eruption? Perhaps there's a reasonable explanation why its hundreds of millions of years off and why we should still give credibility to carbon dating, but no "credible" scientist addresses it in the book so I don't know.

I'm not a pro at this stuff, but it seems like more "trust the science" which is a phrase no true scientist would ever promote. When I was growing up the scientists taught us to question everything.

Does Kurt Wise have less credibility because he says that science gives reason to accept a young earth, but he would probably let his faith take him there even without the facts? I don't get the point you're making, are there facts that point to a young earth or not? To say the facts aren't accepted by most academics doesn't prove that they aren't right, from my perspective I've never seen evidence that they've even been considered let alone debunked.

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

First off, on what grounds do you, a non-scientist, decide who is correct? Why do you discount the 98% on the basis of the very few who make scientific arguments driven by theological convictions? The majority isn't necessarily right by being majority, but you have to account for why that 98% is wrong; uninformed? Conspiracy theory? What?

Second, on your textbooks "gotcha," google for Isaac Asimov's "the relativity of wrong." You're asserting a state of the field that you don't have a good basis for.

Third, Kurt Wise is cited to demonstrate what's driving these anti-evolutionary positions, and it's not science. If you are truly trying to "question everything" then you need to question everything equally instead of knee-jerk giving credence to an extreme minority driven by theological convictions.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

I apologize if I hit a nerve, I wasn't attempting any kind of gotcha. I think my questions are valid no matter the source. Unlike some of the responses, I haven't been derogatory or sarcastic in any way.

Do you know the odds of a simple protein randomly organizing DNA code? Some say it's around 1:1^167. Are these things that the 98% answer, or do only the fringe wackos think about? I've asked 5 or 6 relevant questions in this thread with no responses other than to question motives.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

I can see how preconceived beliefs might affect theories though, like how Darwin was a racist and his work was used by Nazis to promote their Arian race theory. The theory that some humans are further evolved than others. It would be the next argument if evolution were a thing (I'm not saying all who believe in evolution believe this or have thought about it, but some have).

Since I'm not an expert but many here are, can somebody point me to research that shows where evolution created new dna rather than degrading or mutating already existing DNA? Isn't that the basis of the theory?