Evolution And The Church

[Log]

I see no evidence to support your contention that evolution is condemned by the Church.

Where did I contend that?

[Log]

In the century since the 1909 statement, the balance of the debate has quietly shifted to neutral acceptance of evolution as something to consider, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie notwithstanding.

I'm gratified that you saw your original formulation of this sentence as indefensible. As a matter of fact, statements which treat the issue, which can be culled from General Conferences, are decidedly anti-evolutionary in context.

Even Joseph F. Smith stated that the Church is neutral on the Lord's creative process.

As long as you concede the Lord created (ie, concede the fact of intelligent design, if not the theory), then you can be consistent with the Church. If you do not concede that the Lord created, then you cannot be consistent with the Church. It also appears one cannot hold to universal common descent with respect to mankind and be consistent with the Church.

[wenglund]

I ask myself the question whether, in the war for souls, the issue of "evolution" is a hill that I feel a need to stake the salvation of my life on one way or the other?

It appears that I have answered that question somewhat differently than some here--and that's okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Aquilifer]

I'm gratified that you saw your original formulation of this sentence as indefensible. As a matter of fact, statements which treat the issue, which can be culled from General Conferences, are decidedly anti-evolutionary in context.

My original formulation ("In the century since the 1909 statement, the balance of the debate has quietly shifted to acceptance of evolution") was decidedly untrue and an incorrect statement which I caught and corrected within seconds of posting it.

Talmage, Widstoe, and Roberts would disagree with the statements you vaguely reference, and are on record as doing so. For myself, I have seen nothing in my lifetime that would cause me to think that the principles of evolution are contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Indeed, eternal progression is evolution in action.

As long as you concede the Lord created (ie, concede the fact of intelligent design, if not the theory), then you can be consistent with the Church. If you do not concede that the Lord created, then you cannot be consistent with the Church.

Do I think the Lord created the Earth? Sure.

Do I think He did it through the general principles of science. Sure.

Do I agree with intelligent design? If defined as God working through the general principles of science, sure. If defined as that murky creationism posing as pseudo-science that some think should be taught in actual sciences classes, then no.

[Log]

I ask myself the question whether, in the war for souls, the issue of "evolution" is a hill that I feel a need to stake the salvation of my life on one way or the other?

It appears that I have answered that question somewhat differently than some here--and that's okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It all depends on whether one can have faith in a God which is a liar - one who says things that just are not so, such as "I created man." For some, that is a point which may weigh very heavily on their salvation indeed.

[Aquilifer]

I ask myself the question whether, in the war for souls, the issue of "evolution" is a hill that I feel a need to stake the salvation of my life on one way or the other?

It appears that I have answered that question somewhat differently than some here--and that's okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To be honest, it has very little, if anything, to do with that hill of Salvation. I just like arguing about it. (But don't tell Log that! )

[Log]

Talmage, Widstoe, and Roberts would disagree with the statements you vaguely reference, and are on record as doing so.

That would take some prophetic foresight indeed, for the statements I am referencing have happened within the last 3 years.

For myself, I have seen nothing in my lifetime that would cause me to think that the principles of evolution are contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Indeed, eternal progression is evolution in action.

These statements are only possibly true due to equivocation on the term evolution.

Do I agree with intelligent design? If defined as God working through the general principles of science, sure. If defined as that murky creationism posing as pseudo-science that some think should be taught in actual sciences classes, then no.

Since the resurrection is against the general principles of science, to say nothing of turning water into wine, and so forth, I suppose you reject it?

[Aquilifer]

That would take some prophetic foresight indeed, for the statements I am referencing have happened within the last 3 years.

Then let us see these statements which leave no doubt that for the Church and evolution, there is no neutral ground!

These statements are only possibly true due to equivocation on the term evolution.

Evolution doesn't necessitate the absence of God, no matter what Dawkins wants to argue. What the evolutionist calls 'random' and 'chance' isn't necessarily so.

Since the resurrection is against the general principles of science, to say nothing of turning water into wine, and so forth, I suppose you reject it?

Nice! God is the ultimate scientist, and just because I don't understand the scientific principles behind miracles doesn't mean that they don't have a scientific basis.

[wenglund]

It all depends on whether one can have faith in a God which is a liar - one who says things that just are not so, such as "I created man." For some, that is a point which may weigh very heavily on their salvation indeed.

I, too, believe the general notion of divine creation is essential to grasping the gospel of progression and salvations, In fact, our scriptural and temple narratives prominately feature it.

It is just that I, personally, see little value in fussing fruitlessly over non-essential details like how exactly the creation may have come about (i.e. "evolution"), and whether the Church has taken an official position on this specific point or that.

Besides, my comments weren't so much in objection to intellectual banter among those who are solid in their faith. Rather, it is was as a word of caution to those tettering on the precipice of loosing their faith, and kindly suggesting that there may be more appropriate issues upon which to stake ones faith--issues such as the verity of Christ as the Savior and the gospel of love he has restored. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Then let us see these statements which leave no doubt that for the Church and evolution, there is no neutral ground!

I can't find the most recent. Here are a few I have found.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c62b6e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

"The formation of the universe and of the world upon which we live was brought to passâ??not by

chance, but through the power of the priesthood. The great Creator spoke, and the elements

obeyed. The processes of nature that enable us to exist on this planet, the resources of this

world that sustain lifeâ??all were set into motion and continue their course through the power

of Godâ??s magnificent priesthood. While most of the earthâ??s inhabitants do not recognize this

priesthood power, all living creatures are its beneficiaries."

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3bf405481ae6b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

After Their Own Kind

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in

the Creation. They reproduce â??after their own kind.â? (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the

pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will

not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor â??do men gather â?¦ figs

of thistles.â? (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does

not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern

for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it.

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or

from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution

donâ??t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a

theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are

fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had

some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the

language of science, a different species than He is?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cfc76a4430c0c010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

The Creation Testifies of a Creator

I testify that the earth and all life upon it are of divine origin. The Creation did not

happen by chance. It did not come ex nihilo (out of nothing). And human minds and hands able

to build buildings or create computers are not accidental. It is God who made us and not we

ourselves. We are His people! 38 The Creation itself testifies of a Creator. We cannot

disregard the divine in the Creation. Without our grateful awareness of Godâ??s hand in the

Creation, we would be just as oblivious to our provider as are goldfish swimming in a bowl.

With deep gratitude, we echo the words of the Psalmist, who said, â??O Lord, how manifold are

thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.â? 39

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3c4b425e0848b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Before our mortal birth we had â??a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and

daughters of the Eternal Fatherâ? (statement of the First Presidency, Improvement Era, Mar.

1912, p. 417; also see Jer. 1:5). We were placed here on earth to progress toward our destiny

of eternal life. These truths give us a unique perspective and different values to guide our

decisions from those who doubt the existence of God and believe that life is the result of

random processes.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=938061cb2b86b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong

unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by

worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the

falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc.

Evolution doesn't necessitate the absence of God, no matter what Dawkins wants to argue.

No, what it does necessitate is the rejection of all revealed religion where a component of the revelation is that God created life.

What the evolutionist calls 'random' and 'chance' isn't necessarily so.

Thus the equivocation on your part. Science, so-called, does not equivocate - evolution is necessarily undirected, unplanned, unguided, and did not, and does not, involve intelligent agency, and this is precisely what is meant by "random" and "chance" and "natural."

Nice! God is the ultimate scientist, and just because I don't understand the scientific principles behind miracles doesn't mean that they don't have a scientific basis.

Since you are willing to let thorny issues go undefined and undecided, your statement doesn't have sufficient content to be criticizable even in principle.

[Log]

It is just that I, personally, see little value in fussing fruitlessly over non-essential details like how exactly the creation may have come about (i.e. "evolution"), and whether the Church has taken an official position on this specific point or that.

As I have noted, several times, the issue isn't what process God used to create, but whether he did the creating at all. Evolution, as defined and understood in science, so-called, says no God created life.

Besides, my comments weren't so much in objection to intellectual banter among those who are solid in their faith. Rather, it is was as a word of caution to those tettering on the precipice of loosing their faith, and kindly suggesting that there may be more appropriate issues upon which to stake ones faith--issues such as the verity of Christ as the Savior and the gospel of love he has restored. That's all.

Indeed, you have not understood my purpose here.

If God did not create life, as the Church and Scriptures clearly teach, then God is a liar, and what faith can possibly be exercised in a system founded upon a lie? It does not further the cause of truth to encourage equivocation as a way of vitiating the power of the claim that it is, in fact, a lie.

That it isn't your issue is fine. It is others' issue. Some, for whatever reason, even seem to care what some Mormon historians wrote about the Mountain Meadows Massacre (which, I admit, makes absolutely no sense to me - what does that have to do with the truth claims of the Gospel?).

[Log]

For the record, evolution, defined as the combined claims that life originated from non-living matter by purely material processes, and through an unbroken chain of lineal descent with random, heritable variation sifted by natural selection arrived at its present state of complexity and adaptedness, in all its variety, is false. I would encourage those who have doubts upon this subject to read Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by biochemist Michael Behe, and the sequel, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

[Changeling]

Sargon wrote:

"My great-grandfather was a biology professor at BYU many years ago. He specialized in botany. He worked there at a time when evolution was a very taboo, and was frowned upon by most. Because he himself had actually created a new species of plant, he was a firm believer of evolution during that time."

Changeling comments:

Your great-grandfather creating a new species of plant sounds to me like a demonstration of "intelligent design" rather than "evolution".

[Log]

Sargon wrote:

"My great-grandfather was a biology professor at BYU many years ago. He specialized in botany. He worked there at a time when evolution was a very taboo, and was frowned upon by most. Because he himself had actually created a new species of plant, he was a firm believer of evolution during that time."

Changeling comments:

Your great-grandfather creating a new species of plant sounds to me like a demonstration of "intelligent design" rather than "evolution".

I noted that too.

[Changeling]

Well that wouldn't be the first time I posted something redundant. Sorry 'bout that, Log!

[Aquilifer]

I can't find the most recent. Here are a few I have found.

I'm afraid that I cannot open your links. As you distrust the quotes that I have posted as "irrelevant" and "out of context", that puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to commenting on these.

I do not deny that there are many who in the Church who disagree with me, even some in high leadership. Subtle shots at evolutionary principles aren't the equivalent of "Since the prophets have definitively and bindingly declared that humans did NOT arise from something other than human..." as you said before. To say that is to ignore the historical tension that the issue has generated for a century, even among members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

No, what it does necessitate is the rejection of all revealed religion where a component of the revelation is that God created life.

No, it doesn't. My belief in the general principles of evolution does not force me to cover my eyes to the handiwork of God.

Thus the equivocation on your part. Science, so-called, does not equivocate - evolution is necessarily undirected, unplanned, unguided, and did not, and does not, involve intelligent agency, and this is precisely what is meant by "random" and "chance" and "natural."

To the scientist, they are random. That exposes the problem of science, that it is limited to the observable date. The observable data is random, and I would question the ability of a scientist who said otherwise as part of his professional work. But that doesn't mean that the same scientist can't personally see that God is in the details.

Your dogmatic mindset forces you to see the other side as equally dogmatic. I reject that in favor of a nuanced interpretation of the facts and scriptures before me.

Since you are willing to let thorny issues go undefined and undecided, your statement doesn't have sufficient content to be criticizable even in principle.

Now you're just being a jerk. And why would it need to be criticized? God understands all principles of science, therefore He is the ultimate scientist. I believe he works through scientific principles, even ones we don't comprehend. Why can't we classify the miracles in that category?

Some, for whatever reason, even seem to care what some Mormon historians wrote about the Mountain Meadows Massacre (which, I admit, makes absolutely no sense to me - what does that have to do with the truth claims of the Gospel?).

I hope this isn't aimed at the minor contributions that I made on another thread, for I see no relevance to the subject here. If so, you're becoming rather petty.

And like Mountain Meadows, evolution does not impact the truth claims of the Gospel.

[Log]

Subtle shots at evolutionary principles aren't the equivalent of "Since the prophets have definitively and bindingly declared that humans did NOT arise from something other than human..." as you said before.

No, that was the purpose of the First Presidency in issuing "The Origin of Man."

No, it doesn't. My belief in the general principles of evolution does not force me to cover my eyes to the handiwork of God.

Because you are equivocating on the definition of the word evolution.

To the scientist, they are random. That exposes the problem of science, that it is limited to the observable date. The observable data is random, and I would question the ability of a scientist who said otherwise as part of his professional work.

CFR - "The observable data is random."

You['re] dogmatic ... a jerk.... [and] rather petty.

Tell me how you really feel.

[wenglund]

As I have noted, several times, the issue isn't what process God used to create, but whether he did the creating at all.

Let's test your perception.

By raise of hand, have any of you believing members participating on this thread argued against whether God did the creating at all?

If not, then what have you been arguing against?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wenglund:

No raise of hand here.

[Eldwynn]

I can't find the most recent. Here are a few I have found.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3bf405481ae6b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cfc76a4430c0c010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3c4b425e0848b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?

vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=938061cb2b86b010VgnVCM100

0004d82620a____&hideNav=1

No, what it does necessitate is the rejection of all revealed religion where a component of the revelation is that God created life.

Thus the equivocation on your part. Science, so-called, does not equivocate - evolution is necessarily undirected, unplanned, unguided, and did not, and does not, involve intelligent agency, and this is precisely what is meant by "random" and "chance" and "natural."

Since you are willing to let thorny issues go undefined and undecided, your statement doesn't have sufficient content to be criticizable even in principle.

Just to add (this thread is growing too fast for me to really keep up with school starting next week) one thing. You misunderstand evolution and chance. While mutations are indeed random, and up to chance, Evolution via natural selection is definitely NOT random.

[Log]

Just to add (this thread is growing too fast for me to really keep up with school starting next week) one thing. You misunderstand evolution and chance. While mutations are indeed random, and up to chance, Evolution via natural selection is definitely NOT random.

Astounding. By what magic have you read my mind?

Let's test your perception.

By raise of hand, have any of you believing members participating on this thread argued against whether God did the creating at all?

If not, then what have you been arguing against?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have been arguing A) the Church officially denies universal common descent, as the OP points out, and B) I argue against the compatibility of the Gospel with what is understood in the scientific community as evolution, which by definition excludes intelligent agency from whatever process by which life arose. Others wish to affirm evolution is somehow yet compatible with the Gospel. Aquilifer is one.

[Douglas Hunter]

Growing up in the church, being active most my life (And graduating from seminary, something I am still proud of, since I felt I was one of the few that really applied myself). So now that the 15 seconds introduction is over, I wanted to see how church members reconcile evolution. It has been a while since discussing the issue, but I found a rather double standard in the church on the topic. Many I spoke to had no problem accepting it, but did not know what it actually meant. They were fine with saying "oh yeah, of course it's a correct scientific theory" without really giving it much thought after that.

The real conflict (as with most christians) is not admitting that evolution occurs in the natural world, but is that humans are indeed a product of evolution. The proof of this is undeniable (something I am more than willing to spell out if someone really wants to talk about the subject). On this topic, I feel it really has to be one or the other. Either evolution is true, or a former prophet, Joseph F. Smith (and his whole first presidency) was WRONG, and thus God should have removed them (according to that D&C scripture I don't feel like looking up right now).

Common ancestry is a fact. It's as valid as gravity(or relativity), Germ theory etc. Either common ancestry/ evolution is false, or Joseph F. Smith, a prophet, was totally wrong, not only with his entire book, but the letter he wrote (with the first presidency) for the church.

Eldwynn,

I actually really like the comparison to gravity. Yes gravity is a fact but we have no idea how it works. A friend in our ward was on a research team working on gravity a few years ago, talking to him about the issue was wonderful. Gravity is so fundamental to the universe and to our very existence and we are still working on the most basic questions about it, for example what is it? A particle, a wave, something else? we don't know. So the comparison is a good one because it points out that we can observe facts without knowing very much about them other then our ability to observe them.

As you describe the conflict I think the problem is not between science and religion but the view of religion you were raised with. The prophets of the Church are not without flaws in their opinions, views of doctrine, teachings etc. Do some research on the views of Church leaders during the civil rights era. Some of their statements are downright chilling, and its clear that some sought theological justifications for their personal politics and bias against African-Americans. Pragmatically speaking it should be expected that they would do so.

So the question is: Do we allow our leaders their human flaws or not? I think we must allow them their humanity, to expect everything they say to be inspired, to be doctrine, to be theologically, socially, and scientifically correct is too much of a burden for anyone to bare. This is one reason why agency and close personal contact with the spirit are so important, the burden is on us as members as much as it is on them as leaders. And in some cases the burden may even be more on the members than the leaders. Try thinking of the words of church leaders and your role in hearing them as dynamic and non-linear.

[Log]

Eldwynn states that he is an ex-Mormon atheist, in another thread.

[katherine the great]

Your dogmatic mindset forces you to see the other side as equally dogmatic. I reject that in favor of a nuanced interpretation of the facts and scriptures before me.

It's no use Aqua. You might as well be talking to a wall (but this wall doesn't have ears...)

[Aquilifer]

Let's test your perception.

By raise of hand, have any of you believing members participating on this thread argued against whether God did the creating at all?

If not, then what have you been arguing against?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excellent and level-headed question. My hand is firmly by my side as I duck out of this conversation.

Eldwynn, I wish you the best of luck as you navigate this one. You are not the first, and no doubt not the last, to struggle with these issues, but I leave you with the wisdom of Henry Eyring's father:

The significant thing about a scientist is this: he simply expects the truth to prevail because it is the truth. He doesn't work very much on the reactions of the heart. In science, the thing is, and its being so is something one cannot resent. If a thing is wrong, nothing can save it, and if it is right, it cannot help succeeding.

So it is with the gospel.