Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures


semlogo

Recommended Posts

I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution. It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within. "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.

We don't know that at all. All we know is that there is not currently any evidence that we would typically recognize as such.....

...however, I do tend to settle on a local flood.

I don't think there is any serious doubt that there was no global flood. We have thousands of civilizations that did not suddenly disappear ~4,000 years ago. There are trees surviving that are much older than the date of the flood. No disrespect

Link to comment
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Taken literally, they are completey incompatible. Taken metaphorically, they can have a much deeper and spiritual significance. Too bad the LDS leaders chose the first option, it is a bit difficult to unwind the doctrinal implications. Adam may have been the "first man" in the sense of Whom God made his covenants with, but that still contradicts the LDS interpretation that Adam was the literal first man in a paradisicial glory before physical death existed. LDS doctrine is that the fall of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death.

Recently I visited the Chicago Field Museum and saw a recreation of "Lucy", the 3 million year old hominid. She was hairy and stood about a meter tall. I gazed for five minutes utterly transfixed at my ancient ancestor, in awe of the scope of history and hominid evolution laid before my eyes. I think I even let a tear slip (was that the spirit?) as I felt immense gratitude and a sort of affection.

The worst part was realizing that most mammal species go extinct after only a few million years. Humans probably won't fare much better.

Link to comment
The theory of evolution has been shown to be a fact, the evolution of man has not been shown 100% to be true. I can doubt a little. It is possible that apes evolved to a near human physiology and then to discourage our breeding with them they were halted, perhaps even put to extinction. There are number possibilities, and while I am skeptical of both, I will side with religion in that there is no benefit to leaning to either side of the debate and I enjoy my religious delusions, if that is what they are.

I have some corrections that are not crucial to the points you make, but need to be touched on.

The Theory of Evolution has not been, and will not be shown to be a fact. In the applied sciences, theories are not â??provenâ?, they simply gain confirming evidence so confidence in their correctness increases. Important parts of the Theory of Evolution have been observed, and can be thusly called facts, but the overall explanation (the â??Theoryâ?) is always open to challenge should a more satisfactory theory arise.

With that in mind, the evolution of man will never be shown 100% to be true. But the same is true for all other species. Man is just one among a huge variety of products of evolution.

Not having an emotional need to protect a religious dogma, I see no justification for ignoring the same evidence in man that in animals shows common ancestry. I am actually a bit bothered by peopleâ??s willingness to propound scientifically sterile scenarios - such as apes evolving up to a point, then suddenly man being supernaturally introduced to the earth, even though genetically we are first cousins to the apes.

It is that kind of religiously compromised rationalization that has grated on every scientist that had to confront evidence that did not fit with the prevailing religious dogma of his day. As you say, you might enjoy your religious delusions, but that same intellectual amorality would have set you against Galileo in the 1600s.

Man evolved from lower forms.

Link to comment
I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution. It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within. "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.

But why would you take it to be metaphorical? Do you take the statements of the First Presidency on chastity or abortion to be metaphorical? If not, why do you treat the two differently, when both purport to be messages from you Creator, and to come from the same epistemological source?

Link to comment
Taken literally, they are completey incompatible. Taken metaphorically, they can have a much deeper and spiritual significance. Too bad the LDS leaders chose the first option, it is a bit difficult to unwind the doctrinal implications. Adam may have been the "first man" in the sense of Whom God made his covenants with, but that still contradicts the LDS interpretation that Adam was the literal first man in a paradisicial glory before physical death existed. LDS doctrine is that the fall of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death.

Recently I visited the Chicago Field Museum and saw a recreation of "Lucy", the 3 million year old hominid. She was hairy and stood about a meter tall. I gazed for five minutes utterly transfixed at my ancient ancestor, in awe of the scope of history and hominid evolution laid before my eyes. I think I even let a tear slip (was that the spirit?) as I felt immense gratitude and a sort of affection.

The worst part was realizing that most mammal species go extinct after only a few million years. Humans probably won't fare much better.

Yes, that does create a dilemma, doesn't it?

Still, I can't shut my eyes and pretend that evolution isn't real. It's the only plausible theory there is, and while it's impossible to prove everything about it conclusively, it IS based on solid evidence.

Take the presence of the Jacobson's organ. In snakes it's used to smell the air brought into the mouth by the flicking of the tongue. Humans have it too, but it's just a vestigial organ - it doesn't do anything. It's a leftover product of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomeronasal_organ

Link to comment
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Ah, my favorite topic.

The Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. Moreover, it is an eyewitness account. Evolutionists weren't present for the history that they purport to explain. There are huge gaping holes in evolutionary history AND theory. There are contradictions and gaps. There is counterevidence, for instance, the Cambrian explosion shows thousands of various life forms all originating AT ONCE, not over millions of years. There are no experiments proving evolution CAN happen, let alone DID happen. In fact, where experimentation has happened, it tends to prove the opposite of evolution.

One cannot make peace with evolutionary theory - one cannot say "God uses evolution to achieve his goals". The main driving point behind evolution is that it is an undirected, random, gradual process. This is directly counter to the concept of creation being purposeful and caused by an intelligent being.

Now they say they have overwhelming empirical data that proves evolution is true, and no one can dare to speak out against the data. This is simply false. The data are impersonal and imply exactly the opposite of what they are said to imply.

The Miller Urey experiment is NOT indicative of the primordial conditions under which the earth was formed, contrary to popular textbooks on the subject. Haeckel's embryo's are NOT representative of all things being descended from a common ancestore, they are fakes, contrary to the representations in modern textbooks. And microbiological experimentation seeking to find the limits of evolution have found, that when more than one change at a time is required, it CAN'T BE DONE on a biological level.

Neo-Darwinists have claimed much more intellectual ground than they can defend on a scientific basis. The claim that we are all descended from one simple common ancestor is entirely unfounded on the evidence. It is a sham and a fraud.

I refer you to books on the subject written by Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, and others, and I refer you to crsc.org, uncommondescent.com, and dissentfromdarwin.com for further details.

Link to comment
I believe you are mistaken. Even taken literally, our bodies are no more than dust, assembled by Jehovah. It's our spirits that are offspring of Deity.

I believe you are mistaken here. LDS beliefs do lead to a physical descent. When I have the time, I will look for a reference, until then if someone else has one feel free to post it.

Link to comment
He did. Gen 1. He spoke and came into existence.

If I say heat my food, and my wife places the food in the microwave and heats it, I could in fact write, "Heat my food, and it was heated" with full honesty. The text in the Bible does not necessitate method, nor do I believe that the Bible claims such. Please, if such is possible, provide some reference that shows a claim to method.

Safer than the word of God?

The word of God does not provide a claim to method. Given this, the scientific claim to method is safer than assuming that the Bible completely describes the creation.

Link to comment
I believe you are mistaken here. LDS beliefs do lead to a physical descent. When I have the time, I will look for a reference, until then if someone else has one feel free to post it.

As far as I know, the only being physically descended from the Father is Jesus.

Link to comment
As a substitute for scientific fact?
"Facts" come pretty cheap then. Which alleged fact disputes Gen.?
If I say heat my food, and my wife places the food in the microwave and heats it, I could in fact write, "Heat my food, and it was heated" with full honesty. The text in the Bible does not necessitate method, nor do I believe that the Bible claims such. Please, if such is possible, provide some reference that shows a claim to method.The word of God does not provide a claim to method. Given this, the scientific claim to method is safer than assuming that the Bible completely describes the creation.
You are still saying that "science" trumps God's word. That's fine, but just admit what you're doing.Gen is NOT allegorical, it is NOT symbolism - there is nothing in the text to justify those readings. When you take the alleged facts of science and require God's word to comply with those, then science becomes the final authority.
Link to comment
"Facts" come pretty cheap then. Which alleged fact disputes Gen.?You are still saying that "science" trumps God's word.

Actually facts are pretty expensive. They've taken a lot of research money and millions of man hours of study to come by.

Even setting aside the conflict with science, the OT contains a LOT of really offensive stuff, that conflicts with the nature of God as described by the NT, BOM, D&C etc. I have a hard time setting much store by the OT, especially the histories.

Link to comment
Actually facts are pretty expensive. They've taken a lot of research money and millions of man hours of study to come by.

Even setting aside the conflict with science, the OT contains a LOT of really offensive stuff, that conflicts with the nature of God as described by the NT, BOM, D&C etc. I have a hard time setting much store by the OT, especially the histories.

I haven't noticed that at all. What do you find offensive?

Link to comment
I haven't noticed that at all. What do you find offensive?

I don't know, I have a problem with genocide, infanticide, rape and human sacrifice. I'm funny like that.

[Ezek. 9:5] And the Lord said, "Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. SLAY UTTERLY OLD AND YOUNG, BOTH MAIDS AND LITTLE CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Numbers 31

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.

31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.

31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

Link to comment
I don't know, I have a problem with genocide, infanticide, rape and human sacrifice. I'm funny like that.

[Ezek. 9:5] And the Lord said, "Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. SLAY UTTERLY OLD AND YOUNG, BOTH MAIDS AND LITTLE CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Numbers 31

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Rebaâ??the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ??the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsâ??who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.

31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.

31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

And what are you looking for regarding this event that would set you at ease?

Link to comment
And what are you looking for regarding this event that would set you at ease?

It depicts an amoral, brutal tribal God, not much different from the various pagan Gods who have come and gone throughout history. Completely different from the God depicted by the NT, BOM & D&C. So, for me, the Old Testament starts out with a huge handicap - a lack of moral authority, despite some of the beautiful writings by Isaiah and the Psalms, etc. Add to that the conflicts with science, and I have to take the whole thing with a very large grain of salt.

I don't know if the problems are intrinsic to the original text, or if it's been altered over the centuries, or what.

Link to comment
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

I follow the 1 day / thousand year Kolob time for creation and the young earth theory.

In the day thou partakest thereof thou shalt surly die -- how old was Adam when he died?

930 ( not quite a day ).

2 Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,

that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abr. 3:4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord,

according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord,

after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest.

This is the reckoning of the Lordâ??s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

The Day the earth will rest is called the Millennium or 1000 years.

having said this here is a bit of info you might find interesting:

OLD TESTAMENT

STUDENT MANUAL

GENESISâ??2 SAMUEL

2-3) How Old Is the Earth?

Even when it is realized that chapter 1 of Genesis does not describe the beginning of all things, or even the starting point of mankind, but only the beginning of this earth, it cannot be said definitively when that beginning was. In other words, the scriptures do not provide sufficient information to accurately determine the age of the earth. Generally speaking, those who accept the scriptural account subscribe to one of three basic theories about the age of the world. All three theories depend on how the word day, as used in the creation account, is interpreted.

The first theory says that the word day is understood as it is used currently and therefore means a period of 24 hours. According to this theory, the earth was created in one week, or 168 hours. Thus, the earth would be approximately six thousand years old. (Many scholars agree that there were approximately four thousand years from Adam to Christ and that there have been nearly two thousand years since Christ was born.) Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial.

A second theory argues that Abraham was told through the Urim and Thummim that one revolution of Kolob, the star nearest to the throne of God, took one thousand earth years (see Abraham 3:2â??4). In other words, one could say that one day of the Lordâ??s time equals one thousand earth years. Other scriptures support this theory, too (see Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8; Facsimile No. 2 from the book of Abraham, figures 1, 4). If the word day in Genesis was used in this sense, then the earth would be approximately thirteen thousand years old (seven days of a thousand years each for the Creation plus the nearly six thousand years since Adamâ??s fall). Some see Doctrine and Covenants 77:12 as additional scriptural support for this theory.

Although the majority of geologists, astronomers, and other scientists believe that even this long period is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geologic clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earthâ??s history speeded up the processes that normally may take thousands of years. They cite evidence supporting the idea that thirteen thousand years is not an unrealistic time period. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval. Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. A short summary of the Cooksâ?? approach can be found in Paul Cracroftâ??s article â??How Old Is the Earth?â? (Improvement Era, Oct. 1964, pp. 827â??30, 852).

A third theory says that the word day refers to a period of an undetermined length of time, thus suggesting an era. The word is still used in that sense in such phrases as â??in the day of the dinosaurs.â? The Hebrew word for day used in the creation account can be translated as â??dayâ? in the literal sense, but it can also be used in the sense of an indeterminate length of time (see Genesis 40:4, where day is translated as â??a seasonâ?; Judges 11:4, where a form of day is translated as â??in the process of timeâ?; see also Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 130â??31). Abraham says that the Gods called the creation periods days (see Abraham 4:5, :P.

If this last meaning was the sense in which Moses used the word day, then the apparent conflict between the scriptures and much of the evidence seen by science as supporting a very old age for the earth is easily resolved. Each era or day of creation could have lasted for millions or even hundreds of millions of our years, and uniformitarianism could be accepted without any problem. (For an excellent discussion of this approach see Henry Eyring, â??The Gospel and the Age of the Earth,â? [improvement Era, July 1965, pp. 608â??9, 626, 628]. Also, most college textbooks in the natural sciences discuss the traditional dating of the earth.)

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77â??79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...