Conference Videos

The Interpreter Foundation sponsored a conference on November 9, 2013, entitled “Science & Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth & Man” in Provo, Utah.  It was filmed.  Videos of each of the presentations are now available for free viewing on The Interpreter Foundation’s YouTube channel, or here on embedded below.

Daniel C. Peterson introductory remarks at Science & Mormonism Conference

Scott Gordon’s introductory remarks at Science & Mormonism Conference

David H. Bailey on “Science vs. Religion: Can This Marriage Be Saved?”

Richard N. Williams on “Science, Religion, and Agency”

John S. Lewis on “The Scale of Creation in Space and Time”

Ron Hellings on “Joseph Smith and Modern Cosmology”

Jani Radebaugh on “The Outer Solar System: A Window to the Creative Breadth of Divinity”

Bart J. Kowallis on “From All Eternity to All Eternity: Deep Time and the Gospel”

Amy L. Williams on “Answering New Atheism and Seeking a Sure Knowledge of God”

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on “Science and Genesis: A Personal View”

Steven L. Peck on “Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible”

Life Sciences Panel Discussion

“The Search for Truth”

9 thoughts on “Conference Videos

  1. I have just watched Richard N. Williams lecture on Science, Religion, and Agency. I have a relative with Bipolar Disorder. When she is manic, it seems to me that she has no agency. Did she bring on her mania by yielding to falsity? The same question I guess could be asked in reference to other mental illnesses as well. I have tried to come to true conclusions about agency and mental illness for quite some time and would appreciate additional insight.

    • Many years ago, when my brother and I were teenagers, he suffered a concussion and amnesia after trying out for the high school football team. He wandered around for several hours before arriving home, not knowing what year it was or the fact that our parents were out of town for a few days. After a while, he appeared to be coming out of it. He said “Oh, now I remember! These are my pants; one leg is shorter than the other. This is my shirt. Wow, I have amnesia!” Then a few seconds later: “Oh, now I remember!” and he repeated everything verbatim. This went on repeatedly for a half hour. It certainly appeared that his experience of reality, as well as his words and actions, was not under his volitional control. He was not making choices, at least with all of the repeats. It certainly raises a question about how much of what we say in ordinary speech is really the result of conscious thought, versus some kind of program triggered by our environment.

  2. Interesting series. Some consideration might be given to the view that what is explored here are dimensions and characteristics of a ‘telestial’ universe characterised by the coming into existence and passing (death) of heavenly bodies and worlds. Given what we know about the nature of the ‘eternal’ the observations made clearly do not account for the celestial habitations of God but reflect telestial science at work in the telestial realm.

  3. A very timely series of lectures, thank you for posting, especially for us folk down under. I appreciate the work of Steven Peck, but was saddened by his characterization of the Discovery Institute.
    Well funded? They would be shocked to hear that.
    Do they believe in evolution? Yes, just ask Stephen Meyer. Do they challenge the neo-Darwninsts view of Evolution, that is, descent of all species from common ancestry via a blind, purposeless process of natural selection acting on random mutations. You better believe it!
    If you think Stephen’s answer to the missing fossils is a good one, then think again. The fossil evidence shows distinct leaps in DNA complexity and body plans, totally inconsistent with Darwin’s theory and under the sea, where rising and falling sea -levels had no influence on the continuity. The so called co-ordinated mutations are extremely unlikely. And if you think scientists have refuted Behe’s example of irreducible complexity, as exemplified by the bacteria flagellum, then read it for your self. They use terms such as “gene duplication” and gene co-option, as if this unguided process had a mind of its own. Stephen’s portrayal of the DI doing no research is nonsense. They have published papers on their research, which are there for all to read. It doesn’t help that mainstream science uses bully boy tactics to suppress anything associated with ID. Actually, I found Stephen contradicting himself. He said he can accommodate the idea of a God who presses the GO button, but not one who tinkers along the way. Well, guess what, that takes DESIGN. of the front end loaded type, which is a possibility explored at the Discovery institute. Is Stephen suggesting that everything just happened by chance after that? I don’t think so myself. There is a link between spiritual form and terrestrial DNA, but it’s not accepted “science” to say that, so I guess until “science” opens it’s minds to other possibilities, they will never get it. Take the the reductionist explanation of consciousness, as an example. Is Stephen also accepting the Darwinist explanation?

    • It seems that our scientist brethren are trying awfully hard to straddle a fence between believing in God and also embracing ideas that try to prohibit God from having any part in the process.
      I think we need to remember that any scientist today has to tread very carefully around evolution if they are to be taken seriously by their peers. This is especially true of scientists who believe in God. I can also understand that science can only deal with data from measurable phenomenon. With no data to show specifically where the “gaps” are for God to fill they can’t assume there are any gaps. Any scientist, including Mormon ones, will try to fill all the gaps. But when a scientist says he has filled a gap, has he? Only time and testing will prove this.
      So what if there are no “gaps”. Where does that leave God in this process. When God says he created man in his own image I accept that as true. I believe we are of the same species as God. To say this came about through some unguided random process with the end result a biological entity of the same image and likeness of God, I have to ask why must I assume God would do it that way. Laying aside the problem science has with putting God in the middle of anything, I would submit that God would have had to guide the process to get the result namely us. I personally don’t care about gaps. Even if there were none I have no problem assuming that God directed evolution particularly with respect to Man, especially if he expected a particular result.
      Trent Stevens made a statement about bounded chaos. Is it beyond God to set boundaries to steer the process in a desired direction.
      As for Adam and Eve, I can accept the possibility that both were the result of some GUIDED evolutionary process that resulted in a being in Gods image and capable of immortality even if assisted by some special fruit. I might add that with a vast variety of intelligences or spirits that can take on a physical body only those intelligent enough to become like God are born to this species. I believe pre-adamic men were inhabited by spirits of a lesser intelligence, worthy of some form of salvation and immortality. This is true of all animal life with all their various levels of intelligence. Adam and Eve were the first of our species with spirits having the capacity or intelligence to become like God.

        • I would agree with your comment. Over time I have come to believe that Adam and Eve were a special case and created apart from other life already on the earth. The reason being that it was essential that they were immortal in the garden before the fall. If not then their trangression could not have brought about the physical fall since they would essentially already be fallen.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged.