Science and Religion


Guest LiterateParakeet
 Share

Science and Religion  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Are the Big Bang and the Creation compatible...i.e. do you believe in both?

    • Yes, absolutely.
      15
    • No way, the Big Bang is not real.
      2
    • I don't know enough about one or the other to form an opinion.
      2
  2. 2. Do you believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which was about animals, not the origin of man)

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      7
    • I don't know enough about Darwin's Theory to form an opinion.
      0


Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet

I know some will say we have :deadhorse:  the topic of science and religion.  But humor me.   

Science is not my best subject (hard science anyway) so I haven't followed along on all those dead horse beating conversations.  I have recently changed my views on the Big Bang and Darwin's theory of evolution.  I'm simply curious if I'm the only one.  The poll is anonymous if you are shy. :)   

Feel free to discuss...or not...as you choose. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The  current scientific evidence points to God using both in some fashion during the creation.  That does not mean that God did, in fact, use both - it is just what the current evidence points towards, subject to change with new data.  That is the beauty of science - it is never final.  Regardless, I have concluded that there is no conflict between Mormonism and evolution/big bang.  While some general authorities in the past strongly condemned the two, others have supported the two.  This tells me the Church has no official opinion on the matter (which was confirmed by David O. McKay) and various general authorities have just offered their opinions on the matter.

I also interpret the current scientific evidence, particularly in cell biology, to strongly support that God exists, to the point I have ruled out atheism for myself based on science alone (without getting into spiritual experiences, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I believe in the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution.  I only came to this conclusion recently because in the past -- without really knowing anything about either one -- I decided they were not compatible with religion, and therefore not true or worth learning about.  Sigh, "a little learning is a dangerous thing."  Once I learned more about them (science class) I realized that they could  both be true and have no conflict with religion.  Wowzer!  This opens up a wole new world to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about mortality is we die - easily.  Unlike God, we need an environment to nurture us almost perfectly so we live long enough to fulfil the plan of salvation.  I could see God creating a world that is generally nurturing enough for mortal humans, then allowing us to evolve to specific conditions on Earth so, by the time He started sending human souls down, we would live long enough to accomplish the purposes of mortality in conditions of this Earth.  Evolution is like necessary fine tuning of our bodies for survival here on Earth, or maybe taking a general blueprint for what mortal bodies are supposed to be and building them from the ground up to survive in this world under the physical conditions of this Earth.  We are very adapted to the Earth, and we would not survive long even without some of the small changes brought about through evolution.  So maybe evolution is necessary for our survival, even on a planet created with human life in mind?

Not sure if I am making sense here, but my point is that evolution could be an integral part of the Lord's plan for enabling this thing called mortality.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LiterateParakeet,

You posed two dissimilar phrasings of each question.  The different phrasings are not synonymous.  So, I can't answer either question.

I believe the big ban CAN be compatible with creationism.  But while I believe God created the universe, I don't "believe" in the big bang.  I merely believe it "could" be one possibility.

Do I believe in evolution?  Yes (as broad a topic as it is).  Do I know enough about Darwin's theory to make a conclusion?  Yes.  But that's not where I have uncertainty.  I understand Darwin completely.  What I don't know enough about is the biological history dealing with the origin of the body of man.  We have some doctrinal statements, which I believe to be prophetic speculation more than the word of the Lord.  But apart from that, we really don't know where Adam's body came from except "from the dust of the earth".  And I'd really challenge anyone to clearly define exactly what that's supposed to mean.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@Sunday21, thanks this looks like a great video (and channel?)  Just what I need to bring me out of the dark of self-imposed ignorance.

@my two cents I went to the site, but what I wanted to know was simply what is the 'universal model' I coudn't find a short, concise explanation (perhaps I was impatient and didn't look long enough.)  Could you tell me briefly what it is?

@DoctorLemon I love your explanation about why evolution might be true.  I agree.  When I was learning about Darwin (just a short article) it made me think of all the changes in dogs due to selective breeding (cats and other pets too.)  It doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe that the same sort of thing happens in nature.  

@Carborendum  Lol, sorry, I don't have a lot of practice creating polls...I've always felt that I'm not very good with questions, but I'm working on it.  Thanks for answering my questions.  I see what you mean. :)   I don't know what to think about anthropology and the origin of man either.  The article I read said Darwin was not speculating at all about the origin of man, just animals.  I agree with Darwin about animals, but I don't know enough about anthropology to form an opinion about that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I know some will say we have :deadhorse:  the topic of science and religion.  But humor me.   

Science is not my best subject (hard science anyway) so I haven't followed along on all those dead horse beating conversations.  I have recently changed my views on the Big Bang and Darwin's theory of evolution.  I'm simply curious if I'm the only one.  The poll is anonymous if you are shy. :)   

Feel free to discuss...or not...as you choose. 

If we were to be able to understand the *how* God performed the amazing Creation, it would make is no less amazing or wonderful.  Evolution/big-bang are imperfect theories of men's current best guess on a time fraction of the how God performed these miracles.  This current best guess is constantly being revised, line upon line, as we learn more.  Again, this does not minis the wonderfulness of the Creation!   

Evolution/big-bang/science also simply cannot address the questions as to *why* the Creation was.  Nor questions as to whether or not their is God behind it.  Nor whether or not this is for our benefit or we're just riding waves of chance.  Nor whether we matter really at all in the grand scheme.  For those questions, we have faith and prayer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pope at the time when big bang theory hit the public was pretty ecstatic about it when he heard it. (also any specific big bang theory?)

And i think darwinian evolution is a pretty good theory. About the only fly in the ointment is we have not directly obsereved the sorts of morphological changes over time to the degree that is suggested by the various evidences that seem to support it (and i think in that regards, we just need a lot of time to verify that aspect, and that it will eventually be verified)

 

In relation to religion, the creation of the universe/existence as we know it is outside the bounds of scripture other than "god did it". Furthermore the term create (or the ways in which something new can be generated)  can be implemented in various ways.. Which makes trying to wrest a definitive picture or telling on the specifics of univerese creation from scripture an uphill battle , to say the least.

the most description of any creation we getbis only in regards to earth itself, and thevsmall bit we do get is very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
16 hours ago, my two cents said:

@LiterateParakeet They're bringing all of the sciences together instead of looking at things from each individual lens (earth science, biology, physics, etc).  

That's very cool because in my science class we learned about the two scientists who first discovered CBM, they didn't recognize at first what they had discovered because that was a question cosmologists were looking to answer.  So I think bringing the sciences together could be helpful, although I have no idea how that would be done. :) 

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The big bang is such a farce. How can it even be science? Fairy tales and science fiction have more truth in them.

I used to think that too.  I mean first of all the name "Big Bang"...it's hard to take that too seriously.  But when I started learning about it, it is really fascinating, and to me, plausible.  I'm open to new information from man, and especially from God...but until we get more information I think Big Bang is a great theory.  Not trying to convince you, just explaining.  Until recently I thought the Big Bang was a myth and I would have thought all other religious people would think the same.  Now, I've changed my mind and I was just curious what other people actually think rather than assuming as I did before. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
5 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Peppered moth changed colour quite quickly in response to environmental demands

http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Interesting!  Thanks.  I really think if mankind can selectively breed dogs and create new breeds, certainly nature can do the same thing. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From universalmodel.com:

    A Revolutionary Universe

Stephen Hawking states in his book, The Grand Design, “…the universe can and will create itself from nothing…” How did cosmology get to the idea of everything coming from nothing? The Big Bang theory, invented to try to explain our Universe, amounts to nothing more than just a “Big” theory. With no observable evidence or testable experiments to confirm it, we need to move past this failed idea.  With all of the false modern science theories revealed in the UM, we see entire science fields drifting back to philosophy. How can we ever expect to answer how something formed if we don’t even know what it is? If we do not have the correct knowledge of what the Universe is, then we can never comprehend the wisdom of how the Universe formed. Science today has adopted a Universe envisioned by Einstein, but Einstein’s Universe does not fit actual astronomical and laboratory observations. Now, in the Universe Model Chapter, we discover a remarkable revolutionary order to the Universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
19 minutes ago, my two cents said:

From universalmodel.com:

My main thought is "sure took you long enough to get to the point." :( Why didn't you just say this in the first place?   

Other than that, all I can say is, I still believe in the Big Bang Theory. :)  
http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Interesting!  Thanks.  I really think if mankind can selectively breed dogs and create new breeds, certainly nature can do the same thing. :) 

Another obvious example is the raise of MRSA and other resistant lifeforms.  If you want a marco example of this would be the history of rabbits in Australia and all the diseases Australians have released trying to eradicate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Another obvious example is the raise of MRSA and other resistant lifeforms.  If you want a marco example of this would be the history of rabbits in Australia and all the diseases Australians have released trying to eradicate them.

When I have a minute, I'll look into the Australian rabbit issue --that's new to me,  But I know what MRSA is and multi-drug resistant TB.  Aha!  Good point.  Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That's very cool because in my science class we learned about the two scientists who first discovered CBM, they didn't recognize at first what they had discovered because that was a question cosmologists were looking to answer.  So I think bringing the sciences together could be helpful, although I have no idea how that would be done. :) 

I used to think that too.  I mean first of all the name "Big Bang"...it's hard to take that too seriously.  But when I started learning about it, it is really fascinating, and to me, plausible.  I'm open to new information from man, and especially from God...but until we get more information I think Big Bang is a great theory.  Not trying to convince you, just explaining.  Until recently I thought the Big Bang was a myth and I would have thought all other religious people would think the same.  Now, I've changed my mind and I was just curious what other people actually think rather than assuming as I did before. :) 

The biggest problem I have with the big bang is that matter gets "poofed" into existance. Then, when one includes God, he somehow existed outside of all this universe that was the cause to poof it all into existance. So basically you have God, existing for perhaps an eternal amount of time before any matter came about...but wait, my bad, Gods made of matter himself. Not sure exactly how that works- how God, made of matter exists before matter exists...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue with these theories has nothing to do with my religion.  My issue is that theories that go unproven are being pushed as absolute truth.  Evolution theory is treated as an axiom now and to question it is heresy some circles.  That kind of thinking is not scientific and it's dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share