am not suggesting that it is not possible to develop a non-anthropocentric theology that is consistent with evolutionary theory, but this would require ousting humans from their special place in the order of creation. When this type of theology is formulated I confess that I see little reason why this divinity would be worthy of worship or veneration. To worship such an entity makes about as much sense as worshiping gravity;

Now obviously I disagree and think there is a very workable middle ground. The error is in assuming for God to be worshippable he somehow has to have so much purpose that everything is effectively mastered equipment to him. Now one problem when talking about the divine is that clearly there has been a wide range of views through human history. So to say what the divine must be to be worshipped always struck me as a bit odd. To privilege what I perceive to be a mixture of Hebrew and primarily Greek absolutist perceptions of God is just mistaken. I’m actually quite sympathetic to Nietzsche here who thinks such a conception of God is dead. It is, as Levi points out, simply unworkable. I’ll not deal with that objection more, even though I suspect many will disagree with Nietzsche and I there.

The alternative position is a God who is more limited by the constituents of existence. i.e. reject both creation ex nihilo as well as the views closer to pantheism of the Greek philosophers. Since that’s the deity I happen to have faith in anyway, this isn’t much of a problem for me.

In this I think the approach to evolution is quite different. That is I think evolution just becomes one of the entities or structures in a pre-existent universe God finds himself embodied within. As such the issue of evolution is as much a non-issue as the issue of gravity. Stuff evolves just as an inherent aspect of the substance of existence. There’s really nothing else to resolve inherent to evolution itself.

The bigger problem — even for Mormons — is the nature of man. Typically within evolutionary proponents there is a view that evolution entails there be nothing special about man. That is the traditional medieval great chain of being is wrong. There is nothing special about man in terms of creation. I think the theist who accepts evolution can simply say that God could interfere with the environment and that evolution would produce life that adapts to that environment. I see nothing problematic there. So, for instance, if God sent an asteroid to earth to privilege mammals over dinosaurs is there anything wrong with that? I can’t see how.

The main argument is more that evolution with life is a horribly inefficient way to product man and why on earth would you want to believe in such an inefficient God. My sense is this might partially be behind Levi’s comments. I don’t find that terribly persuasive since it is effectively saying man is all that matters – something I don’t believe. Further it is ultimately making an aesthetic argument against God which seems a pretty weak argument at best.

Related posts:

1. Mormons Worse at Believing Evolution?
2. Ethics and the Death of God
3. Evolution and the Problem of Evil

Eleesha of MormonInsider.com

Well, welcome Eleesha, to your newly adopted website, MormonInsider.com. Eleesha is currently living in the Washington DC area, working by day and schooling at Georgetown by night. She has recently contacted The More Good Foundation, and has adopted an unofficial LDS website through our Site-Adopt initiative, which enables members to post about their lives authentically, so that “the best missionary tracts ever” (to quote the late and beloved Mormon prophet, President Hinckley)–the lives of faithful saints–reach the broadest audience.

For more information on ways to engage the Mormon discussion online, volunteer your design or translation skils, upload talks, or otherwise particpate, please contact us or respond to this post.

To adopt an unofficial LDS website, please visit siteadopt dot org, Adoption Application.

The Mormon Channel has a great series of programs called Questions and Answers. The 13 episodes produced to date pose a series of questions about gospel topics, and provide answers from General Conference audio clips, the Church’s Web site, and other publications from the current and previous First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

This is a great way to learn simple ways to answer gospel questions from your family, friends, and neighbors. Another great source for answers to gospel questions can be found at Gospel Topics (GospelTopics.lds.org) on the Church’s Web site.

See previous posts about other great programs on the Mormon Channel.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark:

Recently considerable attention has been drawn to the fact that some errors were found in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and the fact that, as revealed in a set of emails exchanged by some leading climate scientists in the U.K., the report had been “dressed” to some extent. Many now claim that there is a full-scale conspiracy of the scientific world to hide the “truth” from the public, a view now apparently held by 16% of Americans, according to a recent poll [Broder; Vanderhooft].

Similar claims have been made about modern evolutionary biology. The recent movie “Expelled” claimed that creationist and “intelligent design” writers have been systematically “shut out” due to a “conspiracy” among the scientific establishment. Now, the two movements have joined forces to some extent, as legislators in several U.S. states are introducing legislation to require that students be taught “all sides of evidence” on evolution and global warming [Kaufman].

We certainly do not intend, in this column, to launch into a full-scale analysis of the claims of either group. With regards to creationism and “intelligent design,” numerous scientists have amply demonstrated that their claims are either refuted by the findings of multiple peer-reviewed published studies, or, in any event, fail to rise to anywhere near the level needed to challenge existing theories of geology and biology [SMR-creationism; SMR-ID].

With regards to global warming, we see no reason not to accept the overall consensus of the climate science community, namely that the planet is warming, and that this warming is due, at least in part, to human causes and is likely to increase in the future. We note, for instance, the indisputable fact that COs is a greenhouse gas (this can be confirmed in simple laboratory experiments), that levels of CO2 have increased significantly in the past few decades as compared with previous centuries (this is well-established from analyses of ice core samples), and that the decade 2000-2009 had the highest overall average temperature of any decade since accurate measurements began (confirmed by recently-announced NASA satellite data) [RealClimate; Revkin; NASA]. Further, human effects on climate have been confirmed in peer-reviewed studies for [Marshall]:

• The rise in global surface air temperature;
• The rise in surface air temperature over every continent, including Antarctica;
• The rise in atmospheric humidity (caused by the higher air temperatures);
• The rise in precipitation (rain, snow, etc) around the world, as a result of the higher humidities;
• Shifts in precipitation: dry tropical regions are getting drier while wet regions closer to the poles are getting wetter;
• The huge losses of Arctic summer sea ice;
• The rise in surface ocean temperature;
• Increasing salinity in the Atlantic Ocean.

It is important to keep an open mind, since future findings might draw some of these conclusions into question, but we see no reason to doubt that the process of peer review in the climate science field is capable of resolving whatever issues arise.

We also note that leading figures in the global warming denial community have ties to conservative research institutes funded in large measure by large corporations and oil companies [Sachs]. Fred Singer, arguably the leading figure of the community, has only six peer-reviewed publications in the climate science field, and none since 1997 [Singer]. In a similar vein, several of the leading writers in the “intelligent design” community are funded by conservative research institutes closely connected to the evangelical world, drawing into question their claims that they are merely doing objective, secular science. Philip Johnson, a leading intelligent design writer, is a retired law professor with no scientific credentials or peer-reviewed scientific publications [SMR-ID].

In any event, it is clear to us that those who lead the currently trendy movement to deny global warming (or to deny human causation of global warming), like creationists, “intelligent design” writers and the many “mathematicians” who keep our mail boxes and Inboxes flooded with claims that pi is rational or other similar nonsense, are operating well outside the established boundaries of peer-reviewed science, and thus, from these reasons alone, are deserving of considerable skepticism.

To begin with, there is a proper forum for debating scientific controversies, one that has been established for centuries and is an essential part of what is properly known as modern science. This forum is most assuredly not lectures, blogs, twitters, do-it-yourself websites, newspaper columns, Fox TV News, or state, provincial or national legislative bodies. Instead the proper forum for scientific debate is the system of peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences sponsored by major scientific societies. If you see these issues being “debated” in any other setting, you can be assured that the discussion is decidedly “bush league” and not worth taking seriously as scientific debate.

Think of it this way: the next time you see a global warming denier or a creationist or an “intelligent design” writer or even some self-styled “mathematician” making a convincing-sounding argument in a lecture, blog, website or news column, ask yourself the following question: “If he/she really had a solid argument, why isn’t he/she back in the office furiously writing up this material for submission to a leading journal, thereby assuring him/herself future worldwide fame and glory?”

After all, overturning some long-held paradigm is what science and mathematics is all about. Much of the day-to-day work of a real scientist or mathematician is, frankly, somewhat tedious. Every mathematician dreams of being the first to prove (or, perhaps better, disprove) some long-standing conjecture or result. Every physicist dreams of being the first to uncover evidence that counters some decades- or centuries-old theory, or to publish a new mathematical theory that will, like Einstein’s papers on relativity, open up new realms of understanding. Every biologist dreams of finding a completely new species or biochemical feature that refutes some long-held assumption about how the natural world operates.

In many cases, those who attempt to grasp the public attention through other means are themselves well aware that they are short-circuiting this process, and, if pressed, further recognize that they do not really have an argument that could withstand the withering scrutiny of scientific peer review. They often allude to conspiracy or malign forces, or they latch onto underwhelming scientific constructionist arguments [Brown] to impute the scientific enterprise in toto. Thus, when they press their views in public — to a populace that for the most part does not understand how the scientific enterprise operates — they are either being more than a little bit dishonest or else are hugely ignorant (and thus unqualified to be pressing their case).

As mentioned above, some have claimed that various sectors of the scientific community are engaged in a “conspiracy” to silence critics and to keep the “truth” from the public. To a real scientist or mathematician, such claims are most absurd nonsense. How, in a worldwide community of hundreds of thousands of competitive researchers, from every nation on earth and from countless different cultural backgrounds, could a secret “conspiracy” be maintained? As Ben Franklin wrote in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Three can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead.” Or as one of us quipped, tongue-in-cheek, in response to a state legislator who was skeptical of evolution, “You have no idea how humiliating this is to me — there is a secret conspiracy among leading scientists, but no one deemed me important enough to be included!”

Here is another way to think about such claims: There are tens of thousands of senior scientists in their late 50s or early 60s who have seen their retirement savings decimated by the recent stock market plunge, and who now wonder if the day will ever come when they are financially well off enough to do their research without the constant stress and distraction of applying for grants (the majority of which are never funded). All one of these scientists has to do to garner both worldwide fame and considerable fortune (e.g., book contracts) is to call a news conference and expose the “truth.” Why isn’t this happening?

The system of peer-reviewed journals and conferences sponsored by major professional societies is the only proper forum for the presentation and review of new ideas, in any field of science or mathematics. It has been stunningly successful: errors have been uncovered, fraud has been rooted out and bogus scientific claims (such as the 1903 N-ray claim, the 1989 cold fusion claim and the more recent assertion of an autism-vaccination link) have been rapidly debunked. This all occurs with a level of reliability and at a speed that is hard to imagine in other human endeavors. Those who attempt to short-circuit this system are doing potentially irreparable harm to the integrity of the system. They may enrich themselves or their friends, but they are doing grievous damage to society at large.

1. [Broder] John M. Broder, “Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate,” New York Times, 2 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
2. [Brown] Richard C. Brown, Are Science And Mathematics Socially Constructed?: A Mathematician Encounters Postmodern Interpretations of Science, World Scientific Publications, New York, 2009.
3. [Kaufman] Leslie Kaufman, “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets,” New York Times, 3 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
4. [Marshall] Michael Marshall, “Which climate changes can be blamed on humans?” New Scientist, 5 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
5. [NASA] “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade,” 21 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
6. [RealClimate] “IPCC errors: facts and spin,” 14 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
7. [Revkin] Andrew C. Revkin, “Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming,” New York Times, 17 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
8. [Sachs] Jeffrey Sachs, “Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain,” Guardian, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
9. [SMR-Creationism] “Have creationist writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question established theories of geology and evolution?” 9 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
10. [SMR-ID] “Have intelligent design writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question the established theories of geology and evolution?” 16 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
11. [Singer] “S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.: Recent Professional Activities,” Mar 1998, available at Online article.
12. [Vanderhooft] Christian Vanderhooft, “Bill to freeze greenhouse-gas controls clears another hurdle in Utah Legislature,” Salt Lake Tribune, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article

Many have asked me for a list of good Internet filters and accountability programs. You can read Internet Filter and Parental Control Software Reviews, Top Ten Reviews, and Free Internet Filter Reviews.

Everyone has their favorites, but here’s my short list of filters:

• K9 Web Protection (free)
• x3watch.com (free and paid versions)
• OpenDNS (free and paid versions)
• Content Watch (offers a 25% discount to LDSMediaTalk readers)

Rather than just having a filter, you may want to consider a more comprehensive program with a filter and accountability software. For example, Covenant Eyes is a program that helps families stay clear of gambling, pornography, and other bad influences. Accountability software monitors and reports all Web activity to an Accountability Partner of your choice, thereby removing the temptation and secrecy of the Internet. The reports score Web sites to easily identify mature Web addresses, searches, and links. You can choose which services to use by each person in your family: accountability, filtering, or both. If you decide you want to try it, LDSMediaTalk readers can use the promocode saints to receive the first 30 days free.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark:

Sister Wrigley, who has treated many individuals with depression, shares her thoughts and testimony about how healing is possible through faith and study, through directly accessing the promises of the Lord through His atonement. A beautiful rendering of a sacred set of truths.

ConnectSafely (ConnectSafely.org) is a Web site for parents, teens, and educators interested in using the social Web safely. The social Web is a big part of young people’s lives, and this site is for learning about the safe, civil use of it. It has forums and social-media safety tips for teens and parents, the latest youth-tech news, and many other resources.

You may also want to check out SafeKids.com and NetFamilyNews.org.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark:

“Finding Online”: Columbia Convert Shares Mormon Testimony

Fabiola Sikes, manager of the More Good Foundation Spanish websites and ning community, under Giuseppe Martinengo’s direction, recently shared the story of this new Mormon convert in Colombia!

In his initial comment on one of our More Good Foundation sites, laiglesiamormona.com, our new friend told us that he thought that the missionaries were “med students” because of the way they dress. He wanted to know if the doors to our chapels were open to everybody. I invited him to attend and I gave this golden referral to the MTC: The missionaries taught him and now he´s a changed man. I´m very happy to share it with you. (Fabiola)

His testimony in Spanish follows this English translation:

My Mormon testimony. I started by wondering who the Mormons were and what duties they have. I wanted to have contact with them. I visited the site laiglesiamormona.com for the first time and contacted Mrs. Fabiola. She sent the missionaries to the Esmeralda area. They in turn sent the ones that go to a meeting house in Barranquilla where I live. They visited me until I decided to join the Church. I felt such peace and joy. They don´t smoke or drink or use drugs and don’t drink caffeine. I saw how they rejoiced with one another and are united in their families. I used to be like Joseph Smith; I was confused and didn’t know which religion was true. I didn’t think about it twice; I´m attending the Church each Sunday and attending a class. In fact, as a coincidence, my name is Joseph just like the prophet. For me this is a great honor. I testify that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the prophet Joseph Smith are true. In fact, I got baptized on February 15th at 5 pm. and on February 28 I turned 28 years old. I want to travel to other cities in Colombia first and then go to other countries to share my testimony and teach other brothers and families the change I had and how this religion changed my life and my soul forever.

Mi testimonio mormón es quienes eran los mormones cuales son sus deberes ,y tener contacto con ellos la primera vez entre a la pagina , de www.laiglesiamormona y me contacte con la Sra. Fabiola ella a su vez me contacto con unos Élderes del barrio de la esmeralda y luego ellos me contactaron con otros que ivan a una iglesia de la avenida murillo un barrio de barranquilla pues yo vivo en murillo estos estan en la ciudad de Barranquilla colombia,yo vivo en Barranquilla es una ciudad ubicada en colombia por lo siguiente ellos me visitaban hasta que yo decidi ir a la iglesia , senti una paz y un gozo no fuman no toman licor, no usan drogas y no toman cafeina entoce vi que ellos se regosijaban y son unidos como una familia , yo era anteriormente como jose smith estaba confundido no sabia a que religión era la verdadera yo no pense ni una ni dos veces estoy asistiendo a la iglesia todos los domingos y asistiendo a clase de echo que hay una casualida mi primer nombre es Jose aligual que el profeta y para mi es un gran honor pues yo testifico que el libro mormon ,doctrina y convenio, la perla del gran precio y el profeta jose smith son verdadero y doy fe lo atestiguo y que la IGLESIA DE JESUCRISTO DE LOS SANTOS DE LOS ÚLTIMOS DÍAS es la iglesia verdadera de hecho me bautise el 13 de febrero de 2010 a las 5 de la tarde y el 28 de febrero de 2010 cumpli 28 años quiero viajar primero en toda las ciudades de mi pais colombia y luego irme a otros paises para enseñar mi testimonio y enseñar a otros hermanos y familiares de otras personas el cambio que yo tube y que esta religión me cambio mi vida y mi alma por el resto de mi vida.

For more information on how you can become engaged in the online work as “lay members” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), please contact us at email@moregood.com, or respond to this post.

History of Hymns is an interesting program on the Mormon Channel (radio.lds.org) that investigates the inception and the evolution of the hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The episodes talk about the history and the progression of the music and the text. So far, they have produced espisodes about 20 of the most popular hymns, with interesting stories about the creators and others involved in the evolution of the hymns from the beginning to today.

See previous posts about other great programs on the Mormon Channel.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark:

Through full-time and Church-service missions, seniors can serve and bless others in many ways. Visit the redesigned senior missionary Web site to learn about opportunities, watch videos of missionary experiences, review frequently asked questions, and learn how to apply.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark:

“The larger the island of knowledge, the longer of the shoreline of the wonder.” -Ralph W. Sockman.”

Related posts:

1. Ostler Reading Club Schedule
2. Living in Sin Belt
3. The Idealistic Argument