Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Grace de Maya]

Wow. I haven't read all the responses! But it seems like more LDS believe in Evolution than I thought.

I had always heard that Evolution couldn't be true because it required DEATH (physical death) before Adam and Eve fall and leave the Garden of Eden (which is when physical death enters the world).

Does evolution require (physical) death, or am I thinking of something else? Do the scriptures (and prophets) teach that there WAS physical death before the Fall (in order for evolution to happen), and I've misunderstood?

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

For me it's not a matter of belief. Evolution is what the evidence shows. I don't believe we know near enough about the GoE to make such grand pronouncements about what it was actually like.

I personally have no problem with God using Evolution to Create everything.

[Jeff K.]

I agree with the sometimesaint on this. I think that eventually the issue will resolve itself.

[Grace de Maya]

Grace de Maya:

For me it's not a matter of belief. Evolution is what the evidence shows. I don't believe we know near enough about the GoE to make such grand pronouncements about what it was actually like.

Are you saying that we don't know whether or not there was physical Death before the Garden of Eden, or we don't know if there was physical death for evolution to happen? Doesn't it have to be one or the other?

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

A&E were formed then introduced into the garden. The GoE seems to be by all accounts a very special place, quite apart from the world. IIRC is was that A&E were kicked out of it into the lone and dreary world.

[John Williams]

Grace de Maya:

A&E were formed then introduced into the garden. The GoE seems to be by all accounts a very special place, quite apart from the world. IIRC is was that A&E were kicked out of it into the lone and dreary world.

But this still poses problems, at least for hard-hearted me. The scriptures tell us that death came through sin (presumably Adam's transgression), but if in the pre-Edenic world, dinosaurs and proto-humans were living and dying and evolving, who sinned to introduce death to them?

[HiJolly]

Grace de Maya: A&E were formed then introduced into the garden. The GoE seems to be by all accounts a very special place, quite apart from the world. IIRC is was that A&E were kicked out of it into the lone and dreary world.

Yes! The Garden was in a different 'sphere' of existence. LDS teachings call this the 'terrestrial' world. When Adam & Eve 'fell', they fell to the mortal, physical (telestial) world where death had been happening all along. The 'no death' paradigm was only applicable in the sphere in which the Garden existed. That's my take on it for today, anyway.

But this still poses problems, at least for hard-hearted me. The scriptures tell us that death came through sin (presumably Adam's transgression), but if in the pre-Edenic world, dinosaurs and proto-humans were living and dying and evolving, who sinned to introduce death to them?

Sin moved A&E to the sphere where death was. Then they partook of the same effects as everything else had been. Until the Fall, they were in a different sphere where death did not have effect. Again, my view.

HiJolly

[Jeff K.]

But this still poses problems, at least for hard-hearted me. The scriptures tell us that death came through sin (presumably Adam's transgression), but if in the pre-Edenic world, dinosaurs and proto-humans were living and dying and evolving, who sinned to introduce death to them?

Death to humans or death to all? In the world or just the Garden of Eden?

[John Williams]

Death to humans or death to all? In the world or just the Garden of Eden?

According to 2 Nephi 2, death came to "all things which were created," not just humans:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

[Grace de Maya]

Death to humans or death to all? In the world or just the Garden of Eden?

This is really interesting to learn. I had no idea members of the Church believed this way. Does anyone have references to scriptures that support the idea that there was only IMMORTALITY inside the Garden of Eden?

How does that reconcile with 2 Nephi chapter 2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2 ) that says:

"22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. "

How does this scripture work with the theory of evolution?

[HiJolly]

According to 2 Nephi 2, death came to "all things which were created," not just humans:

Things that were created were first created spiritually. IE, the the sphere of the Garden. A&E came late onto the mortal scene, IMO.

HiJolly

[cjcampbell]

According to 2 Nephi 2, death came to "all things which were created," not just humans:

I think your problem arises from what constitutes a "world." Christopher Columbus discovered the "New World," yet he did not discover a new planet. You can buy books with titles like "The World of the Ants," yet we know that ants are not from another planet (well, my wife thinks they might be). Our world is the world that began with the creation of Adam, the first man, however he was created and whenever that creation took place. If there was a pause in time during the period that Adam was in the Garden, how would we know it? If there was no death, how would we know it? We do know that this was not the first world that God created, nor will it be the last. Is it reasonable to say that there was no death among any of all God's creations, even on the worlds that were created before ours, until Adam? In fact, we know that Adam was not even the first Adam.

Further, we do not know whether time has remained constant during the whole history of the world. Things that appear to have taken place tens of thousands of years ago might actually have occurred in less or more time than that. We know that there are living things on the earth that appear to be more than 7,000 years old. In what worlds have they lived? So I am not sure that Nephi should be taken in the context in which you have placed him.

[John Williams]

I think your problem arises from what constitutes a "world." Christopher Columbus discovered the "New World," yet he did not discover a new planet. You can buy books with titles like "The World of the Ants," yet we know that ants are not from another planet (well, my wife thinks they might be). Our world is the world that began with the creation of Adam, the first man, however he was created and whenever that creation took place. If there was a pause in time during the period that Adam was in the Garden, how would we know it? If there was no death, how would we know it? We do know that this was not the first world that God created, nor will it be the last. Is it reasonable to say that there was no death among any of all God's creations, even on the worlds that were created before ours, until Adam? In fact, we know that Adam was not even the first Adam.

I'm confused. When did I even mention the word "world"?

Further, we do not know whether time has remained constant during the whole history of the world. Things that appear to have taken place tens of thousands of years ago might actually have occurred in less or more time than that. We know that there are living things on the earth that appear to be more than 7,000 years old. In what worlds have they lived? So I am not sure that Nephi should be taken in the context in which you have placed him.

What context have I placed him in? The Guide to the Scriptures agrees with my interpretation. Good enough for me.

[cjcampbell]

I'm confused. When did I even mention the word "world"?

What context have I placed him in? The Guide to the Scriptures agrees with my interpretation. Good enough for me.

You mentioned "world" in post 306. You asked who sinned to cause the dinosaurs to die. Well, again -- pay attention to what you are taught in the temple. This is not the first world that had an Adam and an Eve. Was there no death on those worlds before our Adam and Eve? I think not. We also know that God created this world from matter that was already there "unorganized." Is it possible that there were living things on that matter -- perhaps the "unorganized" matter was actually a planet that was made over to the liking of God?

I fail to see any conflict between my interpretation and the Guide to the Scriptures. I do see some conflict in yours. For example, the Guide to the Scriptures says that the Fall of Adam was "The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth." It does not say that this was the process by which everything else became mortal. Neither does it say that this is the process by which things on other worlds (even though those "other worlds" might have been on this planet) became mortal.

I think people make way too much of this issue. As Ford Prefect was so kind to point out, time is an illusion. It only exists while we are mortal and post-mortal spirits. It does not exist for God. It will end at the final judgment when the earth receives its celestial glory. In that context, whether something happened 4 years ago, 4 seconds ago, or 4 billion years ago is simply a matter of our perception. For God, it all happens now.

[jmhughes]

The only thing indisputable about evolution is that the Math indisputably shows that the mechanisms proposed to bring about change in an organism ie. natural selection and mutation, are so inadequate as to make it IMPOSSIBLE. Few will argue that a finch beak can be found in several forms depending on the environment.Most will agree that the genetic information to make such forms was already in the DNA of the finch. Showing how new genetic information can be accumulated so that a dinosaur can eventually change to a bird is a task beyond the realm of chance and must lead one to consider a "mind" behind it all. The Cambrian Explosion of life forms in what is a snap of time geologically also forces one to consider other theories(emphasis on "theo" ) besides evolution.

Admittedly I don't have an advanced degree or have even spent much specific time on the subject, but this statement makes sense to me. My understanding is extremely superficial at best. But based on the little things I've read, viewed or heard there are a couple of major holes. First, there is no good explanation for how everything even started. Good old Richard Dawkins will believe it's aliens before God mostly because God doesn't fit how he things things should work. Second, many open minded genetic scientists seem to think that our understanding of DNA is still very basic and that certainly Darwins understanding dwarfs our current knowledge.

No one seems to be able to give a good explanation of how mutations jump species. I read about an LDS professor at either BYU or BYU-I that was able to develop a new "species" of a particular plant. First how are species defined? Second, I'd be pretty impressed if he was able to re-engineer a bug using plant DNA. I apologize if I seem extremely stupid to you PhDs out there but I'm trying to formulate some semblance of an opinion.

I don't have a problem with environmental mutations within species. I don't have a problem with natural selection, within that same context. In Jesus the Christ Talmage stated the there was no evolution outside of species, I believe him. And the fact that this is still a gaping hole in the theory helps to confirm, at least in my mind, he's right. I remember when the greatest scientists used to believe that the earth was flat.

Modern day science, whether it's global warming or Darwinist evolution seem to be as religious as anything else I've seen. We see so much concerning academic and professional pressure to align themselves with the "consensus" that it's becoming hard to ignore. Just the other day I picked up an issue of Scientific American with an article on creationism that sounded more like name calling that good science. They complain that it's an effort to teach religion in the schools, well the school systems will never be with out some form of religion, it's just a matter of who's.

[thesometimesaint]

My only advanced degree is in Social Work. But I do read A LOT.

The ONLY explanation that fits all the available evidence is the Theory of Evolution. Whether God was involved in it or not is not the provenance of science but of religion.

[Grace de Maya]

Things that were created were first created spiritually. IE, the the sphere of the Garden. A&E came late onto the mortal scene, IMO.

HiJolly

?? I don't understand what your first sentence has to do with the second. Or the third?? How could Adam and Eve come "late onto the mortal scene"? Who was here before them?

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

Life as we know it originated about one billion years after creation of the earth. Making it about 3.5 billion years old. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) are about 250,000 years old. A&E lived here about 10/6,000 years ago.

To answer your question. All the creatures that came before A&E.

[BCSpace]

Wow. I haven't read all the responses! But it seems like more LDS believe in Evolution than I thought.

I think it's not unreasonable to try and reconcile science and the gospel. In fact, according to LDS doctrine, they should be reconcilible.

I had always heard that Evolution couldn't be true because it required DEATH (physical death) before Adam and Eve fall and leave the Garden of Eden (which is when physical death enters the world).

The only thing that is required is no death before the fall. There is nothing precluding no death before Adam and Eve were placed in the garden.

Does evolution require (physical) death, or am I thinking of something else? Do the scriptures (and prophets) teach that there WAS physical death before the Fall (in order for evolution to happen), and I've misunderstood?

Evolution requires physical death. However, it appears to me that 2 Nephi 2:22 clearly distinguishes between the state of creation (where evolution occurs) and the finished created state (the garden). The property of no deat is only applied to the latter. Notice that Adam and Eve are placed into a state of no death only after they were created.

Therefore, evolution up until Adam and Eve are placed in the garden is possible. And I believe it happens after the fall too. How is Adam the first flesh? Homo sapiens, begining with Adam is the first species finished being created. Either homo sapiens are no longer subject to macro evolution or we won't exist long enough as a species in this mortal state to be affected significantly by it.

[HiJolly]

?? I don't understand what your first sentence has to do with the second. Or the third?? How could Adam and Eve come "late onto the mortal scene"? Who was here before them?

I suppose I was too cryptic.

In the creation, first there was nothing physical. But there was a spiritual world, animals, people. This is where the Garden was, in a terrestrial state. But not physical. But to those animals/people, everything seemed tangible enough, for they were in the same sphere.

Then, in my view, the physical light was brought forth by the Word of God. Call it the "big bang", just to humor me. Before that in a physical sense, there was 'nothing'. But God appeared in 'nothing' and said "let there be light". This began the 'manifest' universe. God formed everything from his Glorious light. By covenant forming all matter from the light. Suns came to be. Suns lived out their lives and went Nova. Our sun and solar system is a 3rd generation product of this creative process (at least).

Meanwhile, back at 'the terrestrial ranch', we were growing, learning, a Garden had been created, and Adam & Eve had been placed there and a veil had been placed over them to create a state of forgetfulness, or innocence. Yet there was nothing we know as physical, 'coarse', or telestial matter in that sphere. Not that it mattered. (joke)

Back to the manifest universe, or the Telestial sphere. Our earth formed from the previous Nova. Life began, again, under God's careful direction. Scripture does not say how this happened, other than to say it was done by God's Word. Evolution is driven by eternal law in the telestial sphere, and though we cannot see (usually) the incredible energies that permeate our physical existence, yet they are there, and no life would continue without it. Physical life forms came and went. Death was everywhere, just as life was. But only in the Telestial sphere.

When a physical, telestial form of life developed that fulfilled the needs of God's spirit children, God sent down his children to take part in Telestial life, via a set of circumstances we consider the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent, in the Garden.

These first children, the parents of the celestial race, were Adam and Eve. They 'moved' from terrestrial spirit form, via the 'breath of life', into the telestial physical tabernacles prepared for them. And the rest is history.

As you can probably see, the lines between literal and symbolic are not always easy to pick out. This is my view.

HiJolly

[Eldwynn]

Admittedly I don't have an advanced degree or have even spent much specific time on the subject, but this statement makes sense to me. My understanding is extremely superficial at best. But based on the little things I've read, viewed or heard there are a couple of major holes. First, there is no good explanation for how everything even started. Good old Richard Dawkins will believe it's aliens before God mostly because God doesn't fit how he things things should work. Second, many open minded genetic scientists seem to think that our understanding of DNA is still very basic and that certainly Darwins understanding dwarfs our current knowledge.

No one seems to be able to give a good explanation of how mutations jump species. I read about an LDS professor at either BYU or BYU-I that was able to develop a new "species" of a particular plant. First how are species defined? Second, I'd be pretty impressed if he was able to re-engineer a bug using plant DNA. I apologize if I seem extremely stupid to you PhDs out there but I'm trying to formulate some semblance of an opinion.

I don't have a problem with environmental mutations within species. I don't have a problem with natural selection, within that same context. In Jesus the Christ Talmage stated the there was no evolution outside of species, I believe him. And the fact that this is still a gaping hole in the theory helps to confirm, at least in my mind, he's right. I remember when the greatest scientists used to believe that the earth was flat.

Modern day science, whether it's global warming or Darwinist evolution seem to be as religious as anything else I've seen. We see so much concerning academic and professional pressure to align themselves with the "consensus" that it's becoming hard to ignore. Just the other day I picked up an issue of Scientific American with an article on creationism that sounded more like name calling that good science. They complain that it's an effort to teach religion in the schools, well the school systems will never be with out some form of religion, it's just a matter of who's.

Your suspicion was correct: You really don't know anything about it.

"First, there is no good explanation for how everything even started."

Not true. Now, there are plenty of explanations, but no way to prove how it REALLY happened, because, after all, no one was there.

"Richard Dawkins will believe it's aliens before God mostly because God doesn't fit how he things things should work. "

Richard Dawkins has never really suggested it was aliens.

"Second, many open minded genetic scientists seem to think that our understanding of DNA is still very basic and that certainly Darwins understanding dwarfs our current knowledge. "

The beauty of evolution is that Darwin came up with it, without knowing a single thing about genetics. Genetics confirms our findings by thousands. With the discovery of DNA, we have a roadmap. Just like you can prove your cousin is your cousin with DNA, you can prove a relation with other species with DNA, and even give very accurate dates with it. The science is there... whether you understand it or not, is something entirely different. Depending on what you mean by our understanding of DNA, you may or may not be correct.

"No one seems to be able to give a good explanation of how mutations jump species."

This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean?

" First how are species defined? "

If you don't know this... then you really shouldn't be chiming in. You should be reading as much of Dawkins biology work as you can get your hands on.

"And the fact that this is still a gaping hole in the theory helps to confirm, at least in my mind, he's right."

There is no gaping hole in the theory. In fact, there is no academic debate about it anymore. There hasn't been for many many years. This has been settled in the lab, the courts, and the academic sector. Evolutionary theory is just as strong as any other theory in all of science, if not stronger.

"Darwinist evolution seem to be as religious as anything else I've seen."

You are obviously not a scientist. I do real science every day. It is nothing close to religion. The thought process, and logic behind it is nearly the opposite of religion.

Many religous people on these boards, start with a conclusion, and work their way backwards. Even when presented with the facts behind evolution, many religous people start with their conclusion (god created the earth) and just squeeze and spin the data. Evolution is so successful in science because it has real evidence for it.

Take a look at the whole creationist movement. Not once did they, or do they, offer evidence for Creationism, Intelligent design, or what have you. The logic is:

I believe A. Science is trying to show B to be true. If I show B is not true, then A must be true.

This is just faulty, and luckily science doesn't work this way, or we would still believe the earth is flat (as the bible suggests) or that spirits, not germs are the cause of disease.

Two books I would suggest reading if you are interested in Evolution.... and I mean really interested are:

The Blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins

They are my two personal favorite biology books, and don't worry, they are filled with biology, not an attack on religion as his more recent book is.

[jmhughes]

Your suspicion was correct: You really don't know anything about it.

It's comments like this and people like you that make wanting to understand difficult.

"First, there is no good explanation for how everything even started."

Not true. Now, there are plenty of explanations, but no way to prove how it REALLY happened, because, after all, no one was there.

Now come on, you have to have known the some spark or electrical accident had to be the catalyst, they spent many years trying to duplicate it in a lab with no success - and you accuse me of not knowing anything?

"Richard Dawkins will believe it's aliens before God mostly because God doesn't fit how he thinks things should work. "

Richard Dawkins has never really suggested it was aliens.

Yes, he has and I've seen the video.

"Second, many open minded genetic scientists seem to think that our understanding of DNA is still very basic and that certainly Darwins understanding dwarfs our current knowledge. "

The beauty of evolution is that Darwin came up with it, without knowing a single thing about genetics. Genetics confirms our findings by thousands. With the discovery of DNA, we have a roadmap. Just like you can prove your cousin is your cousin with DNA, you can prove a relation with other species with DNA, and even give very accurate dates with it. The science is there... whether you understand it or not, is something entirely different. Depending on what you mean by our understanding of DNA, you may or may not be correct.

I should have said that "...Darwin's understanding is dwarfed by our current knowledge."

You don't give Darwin enough credit, I think he did know something about genetics, especially by the time he'd completed the development of his theory.

As for your statement on DNA, I would have to refer back to the post I had in my original post. I just don't have the background to discuss anything about DNA, but others that do are the ones that question.

"No one seems to be able to give a good explanation of how mutations jump species."

This doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean?

If DNA had all the genetic code necessary for the organisms formation, then how could the parent cell of a dog become a plant also. The way I see it a dog, horse, rose or what ever will always be that way, fundamentally. A horse won't turn into a cactus over millions of years, it may look very different or not be around at all but it won't be what it's not. That's what I mean.

" First how are species defined? "

If you don't know this... then you really shouldn't be chiming in. You should be reading as much of Dawkins biology work as you can get your hands on.

Guess what, I want to understand where people are coming from. That gives me more than enough reason to "chime in." But again you seem to be selective in your own understanding since species qualification has had it's own evolution. It didn't take much reading to figure that out.

"And the fact that this is still a gaping hole in the theory helps to confirm, at least in my mind, he's right."

There is no gaping hole in the theory. In fact, there is no academic debate about it anymore. There hasn't been for many many years. This has been settled in the lab, the courts, and the academic sector. Evolutionary theory is just as strong as any other theory in all of science, if not stronger.

I think academia is squelching debate. I don't know if it's been settled in the lab, I need to do my own studying. I don't think the courts have any weight in this issue.

"Darwinist evolution seem to be as religious as anything else I've seen."

You are obviously not a scientist. I do real science every day. It is nothing close to religion. The thought process, and logic behind it is nearly the opposite of religion.

I don't think you understand my point. Since Evolution is still a theory, then there are still points unproven. But to those in the religion of evolution, there is no question. In order to fully embrace Darwinist evolution, you have to deny the existence of God. It's very similar to the advocates of global warming, disagreement is not allowed. By the way, anyone can say the do real science every day, so do I, just not in a biological discipline.

Many religous people on these boards, start with a conclusion, and work their way backwards. Even when presented with the facts behind evolution, many religous people start with their conclusion (god created the earth) and just squeeze and spin the data. Evolution is so successful in science because it has real evidence for it.

By the way, it's spelled r e l i g i o u s.

Aspects and understandings of evolutions have real evidence, but if it was complete it wouldn't be just a theory. I try very hard to understand where people are coming from, and I believe that the theory of evolution is a very respectable way for man to understand the world around him. But when men and science become so convinced that their right, it usually means their wrong or at least not completely right. I believe in God first and try to stay open minded to His, not my understanding. Science has been wrong too many times before to trust it blindly. It's become so political that it's hard to trust at all.

Take a look at the whole creationist movement. Not once did they, or do they, offer evidence for Creationism, Intelligent design, or what have you. The logic is:

I believe A. Science is trying to show B to be true. If I show B is not true, then A must be true.

This is just faulty, and luckily science doesn't work this way, or we would still believe the earth is flat (as the bible suggests) or that spirits, not germs are the cause of disease.

In the quote by Richard Dawkins professing a belief that aliens were more likely than a God in starting the process, he actually supports the idea of intelligent design. I believe that many scientists are starting to look to intelligent design due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

If I remember right it was science that also believed in the flat earth. Also, if you talk to a quantum physicist, he will tell you that spirits are energy and that there is negative and positive energy and that negative energy can make someone sick or at least feel sick. They are actually able to measure this in labs. There's some science for ya.

Two books I would suggest reading if you are interested in Evolution.... and I mean really interested are:

The Blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins

They are my two personal favorite biology books, and don't worry, they are filled with biology, not an attack on religion as his more recent book is.

I'm as interested as time permits. While I wouldn't mind reading Dawkins, and will at some point, I would want to find a good counter resource because I believe that Dawkins has an agenda. I'll start by picking up my son's college biology text, that's the most handy for now.

[jmhughes]

My only advanced degree is in Social Work. But I do read A LOT.

The ONLY explanation that fits all the available evidence is the Theory of Evolution. Whether God was involved in it or not is not the provenance of science but of religion.

If Evolution is the ONLY theory that fits, then how can you believe in God. Darwinist evolution does not allow for God.

[BCSpace]

If Evolution is the ONLY theory that fits, then how can you believe in God. Darwinist evolution does not allow for God.

CFR. Please state that part of evolution theory which addresses the existence of God or that man is or is not created in His image.

[jmhughes]

CFR. Please state that part of evolution theory which addresses the existence of God or that man is or is not created in His image.

Natural selection is the best case. "The origin of man" that is completely devoid of any reference of God as our creator, is another. But stop playing games. Almost everyone on this board that believes in Darwinist evolution knows that its an either or thing.