Evolution And The Church

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

The Church MANDATES universal common descent. They're called Adam and Eve.

The science community takes no position on God.

Don't confuse the tool with the tool user.

[Log]

Log:

The Church MANDATES universal common descent. They're called Adam and Eve.

Then you don't know what the phrase means.

The science community takes no position on God.

Don't confuse the tool with the tool user.

I never said it did.

[wenglund]

wenglund:

No raise of hand here.

I am tacitly taking the silence of others as unanimous in the negative (i.e. no believing member here is arguing against God as the creator, let alone the creator at all).

I wonder if this will register as a bump on the Log (pun intended) when discovering he has been arguing prodigiously against a point that is not in dispute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I will repost my reply.

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.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

[ryanelwood]

It's been a long time since I have really discussed why I believe what I do with any church members. This is rather odd, considering I live in Salt Lake City, in view of the University of Utah. I plan on majoring in Neurobiology (with a transfer to the University of Washington) and because of that, I feel fairly knowledgeable about evolution. 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).

What Joseph F. Smith thought about Evolution:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

For those that don't read links, here are the two most important paragraphs:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men."

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporallyâ??â??that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.â? He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its â??distinct order or sphere,â? and will enjoy â??eternal felicity.â? That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3)."

or, another anti-evolution treasure from the same:

http://www.amazon.com/ORIGIN-DESTINY-Josep...7377&sr=8-1

For a more recent example of Boyd K. Packer:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

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.

You are correct that the Church is not directly addressing itself to the issue. I do understand why. The church does not want to put its foot in their mouth as JFS did. It may be a bit embarrassing that JFS did take such a strong stance against evolution, especially now that the evidence is so strong in favor of the theory. If the church comes out and says that evolution is correct, they know critics will be all over the fact that leaders are contradicting JFS. Leaders also know that to endorse evolution they may alienate the fundamentalist members that take the book of Genesis literally, which I assume most active members do take Genesis literally. On the other hand, they know to come out and take a position against evolution they know that would be in the face of overwhelming evidence and that those educated Mormons would become alienated. Therefore they say nothing about it. However, it may be significant that Church owned BYU does teach evolution like any other university. Therefore, while current church leaders do not take an official stance on the issue, they do allow the theory to be taught. Of course, if the theory was not taught and endorsed by BYU the science department of BYU would not be an accredited institution. This certainly will not help the question concerning Mormon leaders inspiration, but it is something to think about.

[Sargon]

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".

The introduction of evolution into the scientific arena did away with the idea that every species was created in the beginning by God. It did away with the idea that something other than God could directly influence the spawning of a new species. It is this principle that my great-grandfather was an advocate of.

I don't see that "evolution" necessitates being a random occurrence. Indeed, that may be the technical definition that traditional scientists have adopted, but it is an arbitrary one. Evolution can be a "guided" process as well. We don't have to accept the theory exactly as described by Darwin in order to be "evolutionists."

What matters for our situation is that at least one of the billions of species that underwent evolution throughout the Earth's existence was guided by the hand of a power greater than natural selection. For me, accepting that Adam is the product of evolution is not offensive nor contrary to the gospel, although it may have been and still is for other LDS.

[Eldwynn]

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.

That is fine. I realize that mormons vary in their beliefs, and that is actually why I asked the question, to see how people responded in this instance. However, the facts are rather clear cut. Again, I quote something I quoted above, from the article:

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Churchâ??s doctrinal position on these matters. "

Did you get that?

"The First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Churchâ??s doctrinal position on these matters"

I cited the book not because it was an official church position (I knew it was not) but because it shows Joseph F. Smiths attitudes about it, which are no doubt reflected in the doctument "which expresses the Churchâ??s doctrinal position on these matters". Now, of course I recognize the prophets as fallible, because, after all, I do not believe they are getting any inspiration from god, and I think this supports this line of though (now of course, you would disagree). Let me remind you that Joseph F. Smith was a prophet. I know the church is MUCH more careful about their position on things (having to flip flop on issues kind of hurts the church's reputation, no matter whether it is justified or not).

The reason I am making a big deal about it being a prophet, is because of that scripture in D&C that says that the prophet can not lead us astray or he will be removed (I am too lazy to grab my scriptures and look it up) and if Evolution is true, Joseph F. Smith led people astray.

Then again, with your line of reasoning, if the prophet can be flawed, then the people that wrote the scriptures could be flawed... etc. etc. And then the church is truly free of criticism.

This was not a discussion about whether or not the church is true, it was a discussion (and an interesting viewing) of what the church and some of its members felt about evolution. At least a few of you haven't got a clue about what evolution says, and some of you have a nice middle ground, some saying they just don't know. The reason I feel it is so important is that we are talking about the origin of human life, and as far as we have writing, we have people making up stories on how we got here. But of course, yours is not made up, you tapped in and honed in on the truth... its just all those other cultures.

[Eldwynn]

The introduction of evolution into the scientific arena did away with the idea that every species was created in the beginning by God. It did away with the idea that something other than God could directly influence the spawning of a new species. It is this principle that my great-grandfather was an advocate of.

I don't see that "evolution" necessitates being a random occurrence. Indeed, that may be the technical definition that traditional scientists have adopted, but it is an arbitrary one. Evolution can be a "guided" process as well. We don't have to accept the theory exactly as described by Darwin in order to be "evolutionists."

What matters for our situation is that at least one of the billions of species that underwent evolution throughout the Earth's existence was guided by the hand of a power greater than natural selection. For me, accepting that Adam is the product of evolution is not offensive nor contrary to the gospel, although it may have been and still is for other LDS.

Ahh but if we are looking at the evidence, and that is why we are accepting evolution, we need to look at all the evidence that shows that evolution is blind, and had no goal. If our hypothesis is that humans were the end product, then you have to first explain all the useless biological evolutionary "baggage" we have leftover, AND THEN you have to explain what mechanism makes it so we just all the sudden stopped evolving.

[Eldwynn]

You are correct that the Church is not directly addressing itself to the issue. I do understand why. The church does not want to put its foot in their mouth as JFS did. It may be a bit embarrassing that JFS did take such a strong stance against evolution, especially now that the evidence is so strong in favor of the theory. If the church comes out and says that evolution is correct, they know critics will be all over the fact that leaders are contradicting JFS. Leaders also know that to endorse evolution they may alienate the fundamentalist members that take the book of Genesis literally, which I assume most active members do take Genesis literally. On the other hand, they know to come out and take a position against evolution they know that would be in the face of overwhelming evidence and that those educated Mormons would become alienated. Therefore they say nothing about it. However, it may be significant that Church owned BYU does teach evolution like any other university. Therefore, while current church leaders do not take an official stance on the issue, they do allow the theory to be taught. Of course, if the theory was not taught and endorsed by BYU the science department of BYU would not be an accredited institution. This certainly will not help the question concerning Mormon leaders inspiration, but it is something to think about.

I know that BYU has since changed, but my father went as an undergraduate. He said that not learning evolution hurt him in graduate school more than anything else. This was probably around 40 years ago, and I am sure they have since changed (since I have a few atheist friends who go to BYU that have told me so).

I do agree with your analysis on why the church won't take a stance though.

[Sargon]

I have been arguing A) the Church officially denies universal common descent, as the OP points out,

According to Wikipedia:

A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists, and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution, although for single cell organisms and viruses, single phylogeny is disputed (see: origin of life).

As I said in my previous post, I have no beef with this. Have past LDS leaders? Sure. Have they all? Absolutely not.

The real problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly a prophet is and is not.

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.

Noone here would deny that we reject the proposition that evolution excludes a intelligent agent. If that is the "on-the-surface" consensus of the scientific community, it wouldn't be the first time we disagreed. Fortunately, there are myriads of scientistis, evolutionary biologists included, who believe both in evolution and in God. They don't share the same dogmatic need you seem to have to narrow the definition of "evolution" to one that excludes the participation of an intelligent agent.

Could we really say that a professor of evolutionary biology who also believes in God is not really an evolutionist? It's starting to remind me of the Evangelicals who claim that Catholics aren't really really Christians. Perhaps you could claim that these Christian evolutionists "don't believe in the evolution of Darwin, they believe in a different evolution."

Sargon

Believer in a different Jesus

[Eldwynn]

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.

Another person that doesn't understand evolution... and laughably you cited michael behe. You had me fooled, I thought I was talking to a science major for a second there (because you sounded somewhat intelligent) unfortunately I just got another creationist with a different spin.

Michael Behe has no professional career. He does no biological research. He is among a tiny minority of people with a PHD in biology that actually challenges evolution. He uses things like the eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc. when ALL of those have been shown to be able to evolve. I could talk all day (and indeed I have tried with people like you) but I would be out of breath before you even got a clue.

If I am wrong, if you are interested in learning what evolution really says, the evidence, etc. I would recommend two wonderful books that helped me; The Ancestors Tale, and The Blind Watchmaker both by Richard Dawkins. The biology and evidence in there is undeniable, and I would be truly suprised if you put them down not learning a LOT.

Evolution is proven. If the church were to take your opinion, it would surely die out, just like if they still withheld the priesthood from african americans, it would surely die out (well... there are quite a bit of racist people anyways so maybe not). There is no academic debate, there never truly was. Evolution has not been falsified, and DNA has given us an enormous amount of evidence.

Here is a new TV series that explains it.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2925...wkins-Channel-4

[Eldwynn]

According to Wikipedia:

As I said in my previous post, I have no beef with this. Have past LDS leaders? Sure. Have they all? Absolutely not.

The real problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly a prophet is and is not.

Noone here would deny that we reject the proposition that evolution excludes a intelligent agent. If that is the "on-the-surface" consensus of the scientific community, it wouldn't be the first time we disagreed. Fortunately, there are myriads of scientistis, evolutionary biologists included, who believe both in evolution and in God. They don't share the same dogmatic need you seem to have to narrow the definition of "evolution" to one that excludes the participation of an intelligent agent.

Could we really say that a professor of evolutionary biology who also believes in God is not really an evolutionist? It's starting to remind me of the Evangelicals who claim that Catholics aren't really really Christians. Perhaps you could claim that these Christian evolutionists "don't believe in the evolution of Darwin, they believe in a different evolution."

Sargon

Believer in a different Jesus

No of course we would not say the believe in a different evolution. To me, if they are saying god "guided" evolution, they misunderstand what evolution is. Not that they don't believe in it, they just misunderstand the fact that it has no purpose. If they are saying that god had nothing to do with making humans, but exists nonetheless (which is a position that would be hard to find) then the only qualm I would have, is that they are accpeting evolution based on observable evidence, but not god. Also, evolution is the only process by which complex beings come to be. If god exists, he must have got "here" by evolution (and he can't defy any other laws of science). It begins to really be deism.

[Sargon]

Ahh but if we are looking at the evidence, and that is why we are accepting evolution, we need to look at all the evidence that shows that evolution is blind, and had no goal. If our hypothesis is that humans were the end product, then you have to first explain all the useless biological evolutionary "baggage" we have leftover, AND THEN you have to explain what mechanism makes it so we just all the sudden stopped evolving.

As someone whose interpretive framework includes the reality of God, you are asking me to describe why God's ways are higher than man's ways.

I don't know.

I have speculated that humans are the end product of only one specific branch that split from the common ancestor. If God allowed evolution to guide some parts of man's development, I believe He still kept a sharp on eye on where it was going and gave it a push in the right direction. Perhaps the "useless biological evolutionary baggage" you speak of is part of the fall/atonement doctrine.

At any rate, I don't expect you to see things my way. We view the available data through two different lenses, or interpretive frameworks.

[Changeling]

Sargon wrote:

"Evolution can be a "guided" process as well."

With that definition, Changeling agrees.

[ruski_canuk]

Sargon wrote:

"Evolution can be a "guided" process as well."

With that definition, Changeling agrees.

The idea of evolution is that it is not guided but random. Natural selection by random mutation. If the creationists are desparate for some relatively uncertain space to hide in, I would resort to the origin of life rather than the diversity of species as scientists are trying to decode that mystery and just how it happened is still somewhat of a mystery. You know, God of the gaps, it served people for years so why not adopt that rather than joining the evangelical crusade against reason itself.

[BCSpace]

I know I'm comming to the conversation late but here goes....

What Joseph F. Smith thought about Evolution:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

For those that don't read links, here are the two most important paragraphs:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men."

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporallyâ??â??that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.â? He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its â??distinct order or sphere,â? and will enjoy â??eternal felicity.â? That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3)."

How does any of this preclude evolution? How does stating that "these are theories of men" preclude evolution? I'm quite sure he was opposed to evolution, but he is relegated teaching only the actual doctrine of the Church which in no way precludes evolution.

or, another anti-evolution treasure from the same:

http://www.amazon.com/ORIGIN-DESTINY-Josep...7377&sr=8-1

A nondoctrinal work.

For a more recent example of Boyd K. Packer:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

There was no statement against evolution. There was a question "How can one believe....?" However, what BKP obviously did not know is that evolution does NOT teach that a reptile can beget a bird or that a monkey can beget a human etc. In evolution, like produces like, just as the scriptures teach.

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.

JFS and BKP are wrong about evolution. However, they are not doctrinally incorrect.

[Aquilifer]

You know, God of the gaps, it served people for years so why not adopt that rather than joining the evangelical crusade against reason itself.

I was reading an astronomy book by Neil De Grasse Tyson, who points out that the problem with God of the Gaps is that the gaps become smaller and smaller as science continues to expand. He argues that finding God in the gaps will eventually find God squeezed out of the situation entirely, so it's not a satisfactory solution in the long run.

[katherine the great]

Ahh but if we are looking at the evidence, and that is why we are accepting evolution, we need to look at all the evidence that shows that evolution is blind, and had no goal. If our hypothesis is that humans were the end product, then you have to first explain all the useless biological evolutionary "baggage" we have leftover, AND THEN you have to explain what mechanism makes it so we just all the sudden stopped evolving.

I don't think we do stop evolving. But, all of that evolutionary "baggage" may just be the by-product of a process that gives our species every possible advantage that evolution has to offer. Obviously, we are far from a perfect species with our back problems and enormous head to pelvis ratio in childbirth (which totally stinks for females.) But, I think our species is very well off and our numerous ancestors who didn't survive the rat race it made it possible for us to have a lot of characteristics that have made us into the wonderful (and terrible) species that we are today. Evolution may seem to have no "goal" to our human minds, but to those of us who believe in God, we don't know or understand His mind.