The more traditional definition of religion includes reference to the supernatural or spiritual. If religion is viewed in this way then science is not a sort of religion. By definition science deals only with natural phenomena. Additionally, Scientific theories demand objective, empirical, reproducible evidence for verification. Religion allows subjective experience to be weighed as evidence. It is not testable. It is dogmatic rather than self-correcting.

How do you decide which of the many religious beliefs are correct? It becomes one group’s word against the other. There is no way to test between them. By demanding that a theory make testable predictions, science provides a way that all observers can agree on which theory is correct.

I suggested that your beliefs are distinctly different from LDS doctrine. In your response you said “I don’t think I’m leaving the bounds of what my church teaches in saying that the scriptural record is sparse because the details about exactly how God made our earth aren’t that important from a spiritual point of view.” I suggested that your view diverged regarding evolution, not the sparse details about how God made our earth. Its one thing to suggest that the scriptural record is sparse but entirely another to suggest that we evolved from a common ancestor. So I do think that your beliefs are outside the bounds of your church doctrine. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But the implication is that you believe that the LDS doctrine is a little off in this regard. By the way, the story of how God made the earth is not completely devoid of detail. The details that are provided do seem at odds with the theory of evolution.

You clearly contradict yourself in your last two posts. In your recent post you write “I don’t think I’m really descended from a single celled organism…but I couldn’t make a great scientifically sound argument for a different theory on how we came to be either.” Previously you said “I agree that overwhelming evidence points to a common ancestor for all life.” Care to clarify?

You say in your last post “As long as we recognize that he did it for us…so we could experience mortal life as part of an eternal existence…the details about how he did it aren’t that big a deal.” Every culture has had a version of a creation story; a set of myths to answer fundamental questions of meaning and address our place in the universe. These myths are creative, diverse, and soul satisfying to those who believe them but they aren’t ever based on empirical, objective evidence. Don’t you think that the ideas you just laid out fit better in that category than in the realm of actual literal truth?

Mormonism (and much of the rest of Christianity) has nothing but very vague doctrine on the creation. We believe that everything was created by God as part of his plan for the Human family. I don’t consider the bible’s story of the creation to be a text containing all of the information man has been allowed by God to know about the creation. I don’t think I’m leaving the bounds of what my church teaches in saying that the scriptural record is sparse because the details about exactly how God made our earth aren’t that important from a spiritual point of view. As long as we recognize that he did it for us…so we could experience mortal life as part of an eternal existence…the details about how he did it aren’t that big a deal. This is all just interesting pure science for us to work out on our own.

The idea that God would use the same tools (DNA and other proteins) to create all life doesn’t really bother me as far as my faith is concerned. I don’t think I’m really descended from a single celled organism…but I couldn’t make a great scientifically sound argument for a different theory on how we came to be either. I just don’t know. I guess Occam’s Razor suggests I’m probably on the wrong side of that argument…but the limited information man has about our evolution doesn’t do a lot to convince me that I’m that crazy in diverging a bit from current science on this topic. My personal religious beliefs wouldn’t be shaken if I were proven to be incorrect. If God chose to create man by evolving life from a single celled organism through billions of mutations and many cataclysmic extinctions…than that’s the way he did it…no matter how distasteful I think it is.

In the end it doesn’t really matter that we disagree on this. If I die and my conciousness ceases to exist than I guess you were right and I was wrong. Congratulations. If not…well then…cool for both of us! I don’t have a pure knowledge of which it’s going to be but I know what I would rather believe.

Not that there is anything wrong with that…
Devine creation should be taught at home, at church, or, in seminary (if your an LDS high school student). It doesn’t belong in public schools.

As to John’s earlier comment I have to admit that I agree with much of that one too. He’s right on the facts but I disagree with his conclusion. I agree that overwhelming evidence points to a common ancestor for all life. The DNA that exists in all life is far too similar to have developed independently over millions of years for every single living entity. Over 60% of human genes can also be found in the common fruit fly. It is inconceivable that these complex DNA patterns developed through random selection thousands of times…once for each species.

That said, I also think it is inconceivable that everything came together the way it is by chance. I don’t know how it was done but I think there really must be intelligence behind the creation of life. As this isn’t really something I can scientifically prove or even provide any solid evidence for other than my own personal spiritual experiences it is pointless for me to try to argue about it with John or anyone else…just like it is pointless for an educator to try to have a discussion about it in public school.

Hey Cody…were you in my class when the story from this post happened? It was a long time ago and I can’t remember if we were both in EJ’s class at the same time. I bet he remembers it!

There are many different beliefs about religious creation. These could be taught in a comparative religion class but do not belong in the science curriculum.

I tend to wonder at the late arguments on this case. I wonder if we shouldn’t teach all aspects of these theories together. To fail to teach creationism along with evolution is to fail to teach pure science. According to pure science, no theory can be discredited until it is proven false. Neither evolution nor creationism has been proven such. To ban schools from teaching either is as bad as the other.

I loved taking astronomy in college for this very reason. As astronomy literally explodes in breadth as a science, chapters are rewritten every year as we find out that the majority of things we thought to be true are now disproven. I remember my professor saying many times, “Well, back to the drawing board I guess.”

Stars don’t explode, they unravel, and yes it is possible to overstuff a black hole, …and on and on.

Let’s not close our eyes to any theory until it is proven false beyond question.

Theory is more like Philosophy and that is where it should stay. I agree there is not any place for the teaching of creationism in public schools. Unless it is in a Philosophy or Theology class.