well said Richard, right on. it seems that Steve, others like him and Buttars fundementally oppose evolutionary theory and evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of genesis but they hesitate to say so. Buttars needs to loosen his collar and take a second look at genesis. why do they insist that genesis account is literal in that it supports a spontaneous creation of a fully formed modern man (or human, if i desire to avoid sexist language). LDS faith is sophisticated, in my view, because it views God not as a supernatural being but supreme being who is contrained by natural law and conformed to natural law in his creations. If God uses the laws of physics as I would be inclined to believe then his supreme state comes from his superior knowledge of the natural sciences. we certainly are lagging in our understanding as compared to God. How do literalists suppose a prophet of the old testament time could understand enough to explain a literal creation. Creation can equal evolution if one is not married to the idea that Genesis is a literal account, which it seems clear it can not be. --Steve Black PS Because of the persistant literal interpretation, the myth that women have a different number of ribs in their body has lived long after anatomical knowledge should have dispelled this. I see buttars as a child who learned this and other such myths and failed, out of the lack of sincere desire to know truth or laziness, to learn this fact.
From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
I find it interesting Mark, that considering yourself and the biology staff at BYU devout Mormons when embracing Darwin's theory on the origin of man is in direct conflict with LDS church doctrine.
On this point you are flat wrong Steve. The LDS Church (of which I too am an active HP) CONTINUALLY REFUSES TO TAKE A DOCTRINAL POSITION ON HOW HUMANS WERE CREATED. However, commonly held LDS belief that God somehow created humans (completely separate from all other life forms) with a magic wand in a puff of hocus pocus, or from a literal lump of clay is simply pure ignorant superstition (from a literal reading of the creation myth in Genesis/Moses) that flies in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a position in fact paints a doctrinal picture in which either God is a capricious, wicked prankster that loves to decieve his curious children, or one in which He is laughing His head off (or shaking it in amazed disbelief) at our gross myopia and willful ignorance of what He has placed here all around us to discover and learn for ourselves.
Can someone please tell me why there are seemingly so many of you (fellow Mormons) that insist that creation == magic?
Why is (creation == evolutionary_process) such a bitter, difficult pill to swallow? I simply do not/cannot understand it.
-Rich
PS, As to any political overtones you might object to, Pres. Bush opening his politically-motivated mouth on the subject of ID is in fact the very ammunition Butters cites to pursue this ridiculous bill of his, and citing that is relevant to such a discussion, unfortunately. So fault him and his fundamentalist "christian" supporters, not folks like Mark that object to what is clearly political hay-making by the president (and one has to believe Buttars, who doesn't have a doctrinal leg to stand on).
Any politician that insists on micro-managing professional science educators should first be forced to pass a basic HS science exam, which Buttars would clearly fail to do.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa