Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Grace de Maya]

It isn't my story, but rather the explanation I'm getting from people who both believe in Mormonism and evolution. I'm trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and it seems you're having the same trouble.

OK. So you don't believe it. Are there really any LDS who believe it, or are you just having a laugh?

Because I have never heard anything even close to that in Church (or the TEMPLE), and the scriptures sure don't talk about anything like that.

So I would like to know where LDS get this new version of the story....?

I HAVE heard LDS who believe science can be used by Satan to deceive the elect. If "science" can get LDS to believe that Adam and Eve evolved from other humans, and that they weren't our first parents, and that there were mortal men and women other than Adam and Eve even before the Fall...? That sounds very different from anything I've ever learned in Church, or heard from a Prophet, or read in the scriptures, or seen in the Temple, so I wonder what the source of this new version of the story could be??

[jmhughes]

Funny enough, I got on to apologize for my tone. Telling someone they don't understand something is no way to get what I want (which is a better understanding of science, especially from religious folk).

I never claimed to understand Quantum physics. I don't really. I only know as much physics as I learned in two semesters at my University. However, I have a mother who uses "Quantum healing" and takes quite a bit of money from people for doing nothing at all. This bothers me, and it bothers me when I see people talking about the term. Perhaps it is a bit of unwarranted personal bias. I apologize again.

Before I go into some of your claims about Evolution (something I know quite a bit about...) I wanted to talk about my "understandings" of religion. I was raised religious, and was an avid believer. I am by no means a theology major, but I read both the Bible, the standard works of the church, and was well on my way to serve a mission right before leaving. Indeed, I am sure there is much we disagree on, but I by no means want to come across as misunderstanding you. If I make a claim about religious people, it is because it was what I once believed (as a religious person) typically. If this is not what you personally believe, then by all means, correct me. I will fully admit ignorance when it comes to the specifics what Mormons believe, despite me being raised in the church. I have found that beliefs vary within Mormons just as much as they vary between Mormonism and classical Christianity sometimes. I do not want to be guilty of painting Mormonism, or religion for that matter, with a wide brush and thus knocking down a straw man.

Now onto evolution:

" there is a massive gap between the fossil record and what we have now and no connection has been made. "

I don't know what you expect the fossil record to have/not to have. We are rather lucky to have the number of fossils we do. Fossils are not easily made, and I will be the first to say that fossils are not enough evidence for me. Darwin used them a lot when he laid down the theory, but honestly, if we only had fossils, I would probably be right there with you doubting the evidence. However, fossils do not contradict, or disprove, evolution in any way. They help us understand a great deal of things we would never understand. However, they are not necessary to prove common ancestry between all living things (which I think is what many people have trouble understanding. If this isn't the case, then let me know). I strongly recommend the books. I really think they would clear up everything you could have. The Blind Watchmaker is especially great at showing how evolution reveals a world without design, and also has a wonderful chapter on miracles and luck when it comes to the origin of life. The book is pure gold as a starting point for understanding evolution, and has very little religious rhetoric. The Ancestors Tale, takes it in an entirely different direction. Dawkins talks about our ancestors, on an evolutionary level. It reminds me of the excitement I had (and still have) for researching my dead human ancestors, but in this case, you are looking at the ancestors of mankind, and what they teach us. It is a long book, but both are incredibly easy reads. If you have any more specific issues/questions that you want an answer on, feel free to ask.

Here is a video to get you started, by David Attenborough.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...ab=wv&dur=3

I am uncomftorable with how you equate a understanding of science as a religion. Perhaps I could understand you better if you defined what you feel science is, and what your definition of religion is, before I attempt to try and answer. I was at one point very religious. While I admit that an understanding of the scientific method, and especially evolution, is what shaked my belief in the first place, I do not feel like I have replaced one religion with another.

When I grew up in the church, I never questioned anything. Stories I heard and read in the bible, BOM, and heard in Sunday school, I just assumed to be true. At some point, it really started to bother me, especially when I started making friends who believed OTHER religious stories just as fervently. I wanted a way to know who was right, mainly so I could convince them that my church was right. A learning of science showed me just how. While you technically can't prove anything with scientific theories (which is where the word comes from) by disproving null hypothesis's you can statistically come close enough for me.

The problem of evolution and god comes probably from the following idea, and is the reason many say they are not compatible. Evolution elegantly explains how complex organisms (whether its humans, an animal cell, or DNA) come to exist. If you use god to explain evolution, then you are essentially creating a circular argument. If god set up evolution in the first place, then you are invoking the very thing you are trying to explain, as the cause of your conclusion. And saying, "well god was always there" is not a good answer to the problem. You may as well say that "DNA was always there" or "Life was always here".

In closing, I wanted to touch on one statement you made in a post further down:

"I haven't read the book in it's entirety and won't until I can find a good counter argument."

I think this sentence sums up at least partly a fundamental difference between you and I. I could never imagine ignoring a book until I found a good counter-argument BEFORE I even read it. Imagine if you were a missionary, and someone said, "Yes I will read the Book of Mormon, but only after I have read every argument against it out there, after all, I wouldn't want to take the chance that I would believe it". To me, this is what you are saying, and it is a rather sad state of affairs. Perhaps I misunderstand you though, or you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it.

I appreciate and accept your apologies along with what I perceive as a much more understanding tone. I want to understand. I'm trying to figure out how people like you, who may have lost their faith due to their understanding of evolution, and how believing LDS can still see God in the process. They seem diametrically apposed. I can't give up my faith so easily. May faith in God's existence is strong but I struggle with the amazingly supernatural stuff.

Quantum or what I've heard it called "energy" healing is something I question also. I have a friend that does it and is very convinced it works. I'm not yet, even though some claim scientific instruments can measure it. I believe that ultimately we are all vibrating energy, but some people, like my friend and maybe your mother, take it too far. That part of the problem I have with Dawkins recent approach to Evolution, or maybe more appropriately anti-creationism. I don't blame you for your bias, but I have to find a way to resolve issues in my own head, which I'll get to a little more in a minute.

The reason I brought up religious understanding is because I think there are different types of religionists, one type may include some scientists. One type are the blind religionists, I think most people fall into this category. They either blindly believe what they've been taught or the develop an ideology that reaches a point where they become blind. This is where I see similarities with elements of the scientific community. Once they are convinced that the Bible is inerrant, that a prophet is infallible, that global warming is the consensus or that Godless evolution is the only logical explanation they become blind to anything that contradicts their end-game. In the case of evolutionists it's the Intelligent Design debate. I'm not saying that you're that way, it's just how I perceive many in these aggressive scientific movements. There is a lot of politics involved in this religionist type also. I don't want you to be comfortable with my association with religion and science, it's just how I see it. I'm not saying you don't believe in the theories without backing it up with everything that is important to science. I also believe that the facts behind evolution are extremely strong, at least as far as I've gotten. I'm just trying resolve aspects of the God relationship because some LDS say there's plenty of room for God, but leading evolutionists don't. The Intelligent Design concept is how some believing scientists are dealing with it and from what I can tell I think it's tough to completely discount it, but Dawlins and his ilk are doing everything they can to kill that line of thought for no good reason - just burn the ID guys at the stake. That's how I see it relating to the blind faith of some religionsts.

Let me help you understand where I'm coming from. Prior to my mission I was a blind believing LDS cheerleader. I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong as long as it's not used to put others down. Or say one is better than the other, even though that happens a lot. On my mission I got clobbered with anti-Mormon tracts and information that was very difficult for me to counter. After some time, looking at both sides I found enough information to counter the claims of the antis where my blindness went away and reason started taking over. I don't believe the church is true or that there is a God because my mom said so any more, I've actually done enough research to reason most of the problematic stuff in my mind. My background and education is in computers and I have to have some logic in my understanding. Questioning and looking to alternate views has increased the strength of my beliefs. As far as the Book of Mormon goes, the test is spiritual due to it's claims and must be tested that way. It's not the same test that would be valid with Dawkins. Man's understanding should be tested against man. Gods understanding should be tested with God. That's why asking a new member to read counter Book of Mormon claims isn't the same, even though I did. To equate the search for truth in Dawkins book to the Book of Mormon is exactly how I see the modern evolution movement becoming very similar to a religious movement.

[John Williams]

OK. So you don't believe it. Are there really any LDS who believe it, or are you just having a laugh?

Because I have never heard anything even close to that in Church (or the TEMPLE), and the scriptures sure don't talk about anything like that.

So I would like to know where LDS get this new version of the story....?

I HAVE heard LDS who believe science can be used by Satan to deceive the elect. If "science" can get LDS to believe that Adam and Eve evolved from other humans, and that they weren't our first parents, and that there were mortal men and women other than Adam and Eve even before the Fall...? That sounds very different from anything I've ever learned in Church, or heard from a Prophet, or read in the scriptures, or seen in the Temple, so I wonder what the source of this new version of the story could be??

No, I'm not "having a laugh" (for some reason I'm hearing Andy Millman saying that). But earlier in this thread, some people were trying to explain to me that, although evolution is true, Adam and Eve were brought in separately into a pre-existing world at the right moment when homo sapiens appeared.

I don't get it either, which is why I'm asking the proponents of these ideas to help me out.

[Analytics]

OK. So you don't believe it. Are there really any LDS who believe it, or are you just having a laugh?

As of right now, 68 (78%) of the Mormons who have responded to the survey in this thread say they believe in Evolution.

Because I have never heard anything even close to that in Church (or the TEMPLE), and the scriptures sure don't talk about anything like that.

So I would like to know where LDS get this new version of the story....?

I HAVE heard LDS who believe science can be used by Satan to deceive the elect. If "science" can get LDS to believe that Adam and Eve evolved from other humans, and that they weren't our first parents, and that there were mortal men and women other than Adam and Eve even before the Fall...? That sounds very different from anything I've ever learned in Church, or heard from a Prophet, or read in the scriptures, or seen in the Temple, so I wonder what the source of this new version of the story could be??

Clearly, Evolution contradicts what ancient and modern revelation has stated about the nature of the Creation and the Fall.

I think what happens is that if you study the methodology and evidence with an open mind, then it is really, really hard to deny the reality of Evolution with any degree of intellectual integrity. If that happens and you are a Mormon, you either accept that ancient and modern revelation on the topic has been wrong, you compartmentalize and believe in evolution 6 days a week, or you go into a mental gymnastics mode where you try to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable paradigms.

[BCSpace]

Clearly, Evolution contradicts what ancient and modern revelation has stated about the nature of the Creation and the Fall.

Now that a way has been found scripturally to differentiate between the creative and the created states, this is not clear at all. The problems of first flesh/first man and no death before the fall have been resolved. Thus, it is possible for one to accept evolution theory and not be in conflict with any LDS doctrine or scripture.

I think what happens is that if you study the methodology and evidence with an open mind, then it is really, really hard to deny the reality of Evolution with any degree of intellectual integrity. If that happens and you are a Mormon, you either accept that ancient and modern revelation on the topic has been wrong, you compartmentalize and believe in evolution 6 days a week, or you go into a mental gymnastics mode where you try to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable paradigms.

I accept both LDS doctrine and evolution theory 7 days a week. I even express my opinion on the matter in GD as the teacher. A couple of people initially howled and called for my head, but the bishop and stake pres. set them straight.

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

I don't believe that God sat back and waited for anything. If I'm building a house the last thing I would do is sit back and wait, with the possible exceptions of waiting for the concrete footings to dry, and the paint drying. But it still is going to take considerable time to finish my house.

[jmhughes]

Now that a way has been found scripturally to differentiate between the creative and the created states, this is not clear at all. The problems of first flesh/first man and no death before the fall have been resolved. Thus, it is possible for one to accept evolution theory and not be in conflict with any LDS doctrine or scripture.

I accept both LDS doctrine and evolution theory 7 days a week. I even express my opinion on the matter in GD as the teacher. A couple of people initially howled and called for my head, but the bishop and stake pres. set them straight.

BCSpace - help me with my unbelief. I really want to see your point, do you have any material that I can read that would back up you ideology? I don't feel at risk of loosing my faith, but the anti-God arguments of the science community is loud and compelling.

You do see where I was coming from before. There have been many posts since you and I that show how the science point of view doesn't feel like they need a creator and thus there isn't one. Anything that could shed some light would be helpful. Thanks.

[Analytics]

Now that a way has been found scripturally to differentiate between the creative and the created states, this is not clear at all. The problems of first flesh/first man and no death before the fall have been resolved. Thus, it is possible for one to accept evolution theory and not be in conflict with any LDS doctrine or scripture.

I accept both LDS doctrine and evolution theory 7 days a week. I even express my opinion on the matter in GD as the teacher. A couple of people initially howled and called for my head, but the bishop and stake pres. set them straight.

I consider this going into mental gymnastics mode where you try to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable paradigms. You are reinterpreting the revelations, and talking about evolution as a "tool" of a designed creation rather than a natural, unguided process. If it works for you, then more power to you. But I hope you understand why McConkie thought, "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." What he thought were the truths of revealed religion and what you think are the truths of revealed religion seem to be two different things.

[John Williams]

John W:

I don't believe that God sat back and waited for anything. If I'm building a house the last thing I would do is sit back and wait, with the possible exceptions of waiting for the concrete footings to dry, and the paint drying. But it still is going to take considerable time to finish my house.

So, are you saying that God directed the evolutionary process so that the time would come when humans would develop that could therefore be His children genetically? Sorry, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this.

[Wants2know]

Haven't read the whole thread. Are LDS taught to consider evolution?

[BCSpace]

I consider this going into mental gymnastics mode where you try to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable paradigms.

No need. The possibility of co-existence with evolution is right before our eyes.

You are reinterpreting the revelations, and talking about evolution as a "tool" of a designed creation rather than a natural, unguided process.

Since evolution theory doesn't address the existence of God, it can be a tool. Even with the existence of God, it need not be an active tool either. It may be just a natural law that given a universe, homo sapiens will arise.

If it works for you, then more power to you. But I hope you understand why McConkie thought, "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." What he thought were the truths of revealed religion and what you think are the truths of revealed religion seem to be two different things.

I'm quite familiar with the non doctrinal statements of BRM including his capitulation to evolution (that it was okay to reconcile with it if you could) in the nondoctrinal "deadly heresies" speech. BRM's main thrust was a belief in the fall. He erroneously assumed that a belief in evolution automatically meant one does not believe in the fall.

[Grace de Maya]

BRM's main thrust was a belief in the fall. He erroneously assumed that a belief in evolution automatically meant one does not believe in the fall.

I guess what I don't understand is why God needed a "FALL" if things were created in a mortal, fallen state...?

According to the ideas your talking about, God put Adam and Eve in the Garden just so they could "fall" back to the state they were already in before he put them in the Garden (and the state that all of the other people were in outside the Garden).

If you're right, I can understand why the Church doesn't teach it, because it is way more confusing than the version that we learn in Sunday School!

[Eldwynn]

It may be just a natural law that given a universe, homo sapiens will arise.

.... This statement is to misunderstand evolution. We can rewind it, but if we were to play it again, there is no reason to think we would get the same result. While intelligent life may be inevitable given enough time and the right condition, homo sapiens certainly are not.

[BCSpace]

.... This statement is to misunderstand evolution. We can rewind it, but if we were to play it again, there is no reason to think we would get the same result.

Why not?

While intelligent life may be inevitable given enough time and the right condition, homo sapiens certainly are not.

Why not? 13 billion years is long enough and it may have happened numerous times previously. And what if the image of God is a little broader than we think? Klingons, Romulans, Humans, Cardassians could all be in the image of God.

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

The Fall of Adam was in disobedience, prior to A&E partaking of the fruit, there was no disobedience.

[Eldwynn]

Why not?

Why not?

Because, evolution of life was contingent on a variety of mechanisms. Random mutations and environmental pressures etc. would have to be the same. Back in the cambrean explosion, our ancestor was a tiny little worm. If that worm would have gone extinct, we wouldn't be here to ask the question, and something else would.

Now, intelligence may be inevitable given enough time, but there is no reason to think that Homo-sapiens, or anything that resembles it (hell, even Carbon-based life) would come again.

[BCSpace]

I guess what I don't understand is why God needed a "FALL" if things were created in a mortal, fallen state...?

According to the ideas your talking about, God put Adam and Eve in the Garden just so they could "fall" back to the state they were already in before he put them in the Garden (and the state that all of the other people were in outside the Garden).

I hypothesize that the homo sapiens prior to the fall did not have literal spirit children of God within them; something more like very intelligent animal spirits. Then Adam and Eve were born, the first to have spirit children of God within and placed into the garden into the state of no death. Therefore, they indeed needed the fall in order to continue their progression.

Btw, this could go a long way towards explaining why big-brained homo sapiens were around for hundreds of thousands of years before finally achieving civilization.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

If I am building a house from scratch, with no tools. The first thing I'm going to do is make the tools need. Obviously a hammer is not a house, but without the hammer it becomes very difficult to build that house.

[BCSpace]

Because, evolution of life was contingent on a variety of mechanisms. Random mutations and environmental pressures etc. would have to be the same.

Even randomness is governed by natural law. And no, I don't believe conditions have to be exactly the same each time one wants homo sapiens to arise. And this gets back to a possible broadening of what it means to be in the image of God. For example, a planet orbiting a different type of star might produce people who see best in different wavelengths of light than we do.

Now, intelligence may be inevitable given enough time, but there is no reason to think that Homo-sapiens, or anything that resembles it (hell, even Carbon-based life) would come again.

I think there is every reason given the great numbers of possible attempts in any given universe.

[jmhughes]

BC Space - Is there anyone else who believes the line of thinking besides you. I'd like to read something if there is, or is this just you sitting on a park bench with your fist under you chin thinking? Help me out.

[cjcampbell]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I'm also willing to do some legwork if there is some balances sources out there. I'm not convince that guys like Dawkins are balanced so in order for me to read his stuff, I want something that will take a different approach so I can see both sides. If you would be so kind as to list for me what you have read that brought you to this conclusion, I'd appreciate.

You'll have to agree with me though that the mainstream evolutionists are going to great lengths to push God out of the picture.

I think it is silly of them to do so. I do not think there are any balanced sources out there.

If anything led me to my conclusions, it would be Carl Sagan's explanation of Descartes' Consolation in The Demon-Haunted World. I have no doubt that he had no intention of proving that there is a God. In fact, he would have been shocked by the idea. Nevertheless, I think it is the inescapable conclusion of his argument.

[BCSpace]

BC Space - Is there anyone else who believes the line of thinking besides you. I'd like to read something if there is, or is this just you sitting on a park bench with your fist under you chin thinking? Help me out.

As far as I know, I'm the only one. However, I am by far not the only believing LDS person who accepts evolution. What I am doing is presenting a way to reconcile evolution with the doctrine.

There are others who hypothesize different systems. I think the notion of "preAdamites" is common to all. What I believe makes mine stand out is the use of scripture, 2 Nephi 2:22, to show a difference between the creative and created states.

[Eldwynn]

I appreciate and accept your apologies along with what I perceive as a much more understanding tone. I want to understand. I'm trying to figure out how people like you, who may have lost their faith due to their understanding of evolution, and how believing LDS can still see God in the process. They seem diametrically apposed. I can't give up my faith so easily. May faith in God's existence is strong but I struggle with the amazingly supernatural stuff.

The reason I brought up religious understanding is because I think there are different types of religionists, one type may include some scientists. One type are the blind religionists, I think most people fall into this category. They either blindly believe what they've been taught or the develop an ideology that reaches a point where they become blind. This is where I see similarities with elements of the scientific community. Once they are convinced that the Bible is inerrant, that a prophet is infallible, that global warming is the consensus or that Godless evolution is the only logical explanation they become blind to anything that contradicts their end-game. In the case of evolutionists it's the Intelligent Design debate. I'm not saying that you're that way, it's just how I perceive many in these aggressive scientific movements. There is a lot of politics involved in this religionist type also. I don't want you to be comfortable with my association with religion and science, it's just how I see it. I'm not saying you don't believe in the theories without backing it up with everything that is important to science. I also believe that the facts behind evolution are extremely strong, at least as far as I've gotten. I'm just trying resolve aspects of the God relationship because some LDS say there's plenty of room for God, but leading evolutionists don't. The Intelligent Design concept is how some believing scientists are dealing with it and from what I can tell I think it's tough to completely discount it, but Dawlins and his ilk are doing everything they can to kill that line of thought for no good reason - just burn the ID guys at the stake. That's how I see it relating to the blind faith of some religionsts.

Let me help you understand where I'm coming from. Prior to my mission I was a blind believing LDS cheerleader. I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong as long as it's not used to put others down. Or say one is better than the other, even though that happens a lot. On my mission I got clobbered with anti-Mormon tracts and information that was very difficult for me to counter. After some time, looking at both sides I found enough information to counter the claims of the antis where my blindness went away and reason started taking over. I don't believe the church is true or that there is a God because my mom said so any more, I've actually done enough research to reason most of the problematic stuff in my mind. My background and education is in computers and I have to have some logic in my understanding. Questioning and looking to alternate views has increased the strength of my beliefs. As far as the Book of Mormon goes, the test is spiritual due to it's claims and must be tested that way. It's not the same test that would be valid with Dawkins. Man's understanding should be tested against man. Gods understanding should be tested with God. That's why asking a new member to read counter Book of Mormon claims isn't the same, even though I did. To equate the search for truth in Dawkins book to the Book of Mormon is exactly how I see the modern evolution movement becoming very similar to a religious movement.

I didn't respond to you right away, because I wanted to take my time in responding. I would like to first thank you for accepting my apology. I sort of came these boards in full arms, criticizing, but I am glad to get in some meaningful discussion with someone. I grew up in the church, and struggle with my choice to leave from time to time. Not so much that I find reasons to believe, but when leaving the church (especially in Utah... though I am lucky to have friends that I made in other states when living there) I left behind a part of my life that I can't get back. My relationship with my mother, my relationship with many friends (all serving missions right now) and my relationship with a girl I deeply cared about. It wasn't easy, but clearly I think I made the correct decision, based on my experience. I was NOT convinced that the church wasn't true by some guy on a message boards yelling at my face. It was entirely a self-discovering process, and I read and researched both sides like crazy. I read a number of FARM's articles, and plenty of books, before making the decision. I read the Book of Mormon, prayed, thought about it, and contemplated a lot of things. Learning basic philosophy and first order logic was helpful as well, as I found I could reject many arguments from both sides by simple seeing the flaws in their reasoning. I obviously ended up choosing the path to atheism (I lack a belief in a god). I am about as sure there is not god as I am sure fairies don't exist, Santa doesn't live in the north pole, and Zeus is not the one behind lightning. This isn't 100%, but it is pretty close. If that technically qualifies me as an agnostic to you, then that is fine, I will roll with that. Now onto your post!

Science, at least, criticizes those that believe without hard fast evidence. I don't know how much you know about the peer review process, but it is absolutely ruthless. Things that you may think are obvious are criticized, and your results are repeated and verified by other people. Of course, some scientist still clutch to their theories, but good science continues nonetheless, mainly because you are rewarded for proving others wrong, it's a very "democratic" process. Religion has no such mechanism that I have seen, and in fact, belief without reason; "Blind faith" is typically a virtue and encouraged. Take a look at some people on these boards. They fully admit that Joseph Smith did not actually open the BOM the majority of the time he translated it. yet they continue to believe with nothing but face. Sometimes, even in the face of contradicting evidence.

I think science is more prone to getting "correct" answers (obviously). I think this is the heart of the difference between you and me. We are both passionate about what we are talking about, but ultimately, the difference lies in the following: You have your beliefs, and when presented with new data, you simply "smash" the data to fit what you would like. This is human nature, and you are by no means the only one that does this (even some scientists are guilty of this, but they are considered bad scientists) and in fact, I did this regularly as a believer. However, since majoring in science, I have started changing the way I think in this regard. When it comes to evolution, I do not believe just because I have blind faith in it. I believe it because the evidence has convinced me that it is the only explanation that explains how complex life comes to exist. However, I would not clutch to it. If proven wrong, I would gladly abandon it for another theory. This is very improbable, but possible, and it's important to me that ALL my beliefs are contingent merely on the evidence. Sure, I don't constantly think of everything this way (it would be tedious) but the important beliefs I hold (especially scientific theories) are only beliefs I hold inasmuch as the evidence supports them. This is incredibly different than the way I thought when I was religious, and I would imagine the way most religious think (in my opinion, religious beliefs are, by definition, not supported by evidence. If they were, then they would not be supernatural or theological; they would be scientific.)

While you claim that being a "blind believer" is not wrong, I would say blind faith in anything, is bad. I reject "spiritual" tests for good reasons. Every single religion claims the same thing. Is the Mormon church the one true church or not? If you think it is based on a "spiritual" test, then how can you put your religion above ANY other religion out there? That is the main reason I am actually not a believer. I had no reason to believe the mormon church was true, anymore than I did to believe that the Muslim faith was correct. They both even claim that their holy texts were brought forth by a illiterate prophet too

It goes further though. How can you say god created the earth (and say so because you prayed and got a feeling) when all past religions claimed the same thing for their god, using spiritual reasoning, yet they were (assumingly) all wrong. Homer believed Zeus influenced his life. He probably had no scientific evidence, but he had feelings, and they were probably very similar to yours. This is why Dawkins (and myself) reject the notion of "spiritual" evidence. It is not evidence of anything at all.

There are a bunch of experiments in Neuroscience that support my position as well, but this post is already turning pretty long.

To sum it up, I wish more religious people would ask more questions. Questions like:

Why am I christian, and not a Jain, Hindu etc. ? (or fit it with the religion you see fit)

How are my beliefs (if they are based on feelings) more valid than any other feeling-based belief?

Are all beliefs equally valid simply because people personally believe them?

and more and more. I have had lunch with Dawkins. I met him in September of 2007(where he signed a few books for me too!). He is a brilliant biologist. When it comes to religion (and especially Mormonism) there is a lot he does not know. However, how can you possibly write a book on religion to such a large audience, without a lot of them claiming that he misunderstand their religion. I think he tries and find what every religion has in common- theism, and tries to attack that. He also criticizes the form of Christianity he is most familiar with, because that's just what he knows. However, his arguments ARE generalizable to all gods.

He is not trying to be rude, or disrespectful, however, he does not don special gloves, he deals with religion as you or I would deal with politics, or who will win the world series. Maybe this seems rude to you, but I think we all should examine religions in the same way. The man is definitely more familiar with the bible, and Christianity, then a lot of people. He even tosses scripture that he grew up knowing in his biological books, as they are useful for proving a point.

He has no agenda to convert the whole world with his book. He simply wants to raise consciousness in a few ways:

1) Atheists exists

2) They have good reasons for doubting

3) Children should not be labeled the religion of their parents at such a young age

One thing I hated about the church growing up, is the encouragement not to read "anti-mormon" material. I am not sure what this term even means when people use it, but I think it's a style of controlling people that Hitler would be proud of. We should never be afraid to read the other sides opinion. If reading the God Delusion makes you doubt your faith- that is fine. It's what you believe, and you should not be afraid of it. If it doesn't- that is fine too; it would definitely make you come out with a stronger testimony than you had going in.

When it comes to evolution, I can not recommend his work enough. After talking to you, I picked up my <signed> copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" and skipped my class reading it. It is a wonderful book, and even if he isn't religious, or the most knowledgeable about the Mormon faith, I think we should give him credit for what he IS very smart at: evolutionary biology, and teaching it to people that desperately need to learn it (we all should learn it! It is after all how we got here! Even if you believe it is only part of the answer).

If you live in Utah, I would be more than happy to lend you my copy.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

If I am building a house from scratch, with no tools. The first thing I'm going to do is make the tools need. Obviously a hammer is not a house, but without the hammer it becomes very difficult to build that house.

You are making a common flaw in reasoning here. Houses are built by humans. They are designed. A pocket watch, is designed. These things all need designers. However, the question we are left with is: Does complex life need a designer? The answer, is no. Evolution by natural selection "makes" things that although they appear to be intelligently designed, they are indeed not. Biology is rich with evidence of this. That is the very thing that is being discussed in the thread, and there is a great deal written on it. I suggest you read it.

Natural selection isn't like a hammer. It doesn't do the job because it was built to. It is a concept, that explains the very simple idea. It's sort of like gravity in this respect (maybe this is a bad analogy):

Gravity is a product of large massive bodies in space. Similarly, evolution is a product of replicating machinery.

Not the best analogy, but it is a difficult thing to understand.

[BCSpace]

To sum it up, I wish more religious people would ask more questions. Questions like:

Why am I christian, and not a Jain, Hindu etc. ? (or fit it with the religion you see fit)

How are my beliefs (if they are based on feelings) more valid than any other feeling-based belief?

Are all beliefs equally valid simply because people personally believe them?

I think one of the greatest fears of nonreligious people is a religion that can accept all science. The LDS Church is such a one.