Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Eldwynn]

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.

That is just a flat out lie. It certainly isn't historically true, and it's definitely not true now. Unless by accept you mean "allows for" in which case the Catholic church has you beat.

Evolution? Yeah god did it.

Physics? Yeah god did it.

Chemistry? Yeah god did it.

etc. etc.

What would make us happy (not fear) is a religion that was *supported* by science. The LDS religion certainly isn't one, since they are always making the claim that god can not be proven by science (sort of like Zeus and Wotan).

[jmhughes]

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.

I'm not sure how to put this but I'll do my best.

The one thing that always brings me back to my faith is the Book of Mormon. But it's certainly not a blind faith. I've done enough test on that one thing to know that the best explanation is what it claims to be. Tests like wordprints that are very scientific. Evidences that are starting to show up that corroborate at least portions of the book (intense trail and the land of bountiful.) There is often specific criticisms, but the collective is difficult to refute using even scientific methods. Often elements arguments used against the Book of Mormon are second hand, like those that that take David Whitmers account over that of Joseph or Oliver.

While church leaders and members alike are not perfect and may speak in ways that are more harmful than helpful, the scientific community is no different. One of the reasons I somewhat agree with leaders discouraging anti-Mormon material is most, if not all is just garbage, similar to pornography. At the same time the church has encouraged people to challenge and study things out in their mind. Most don't and won't. They are content to go with the flow and spiritual tests are good for them. I think some atheists are the same way, they see religion as the source of everything or they can't comprehend how a loving God would allow starvation and war, so they profess their atheism. This process is very similar to the spiritual test of believers. They just choose not to believe in God based on their own set of reasons.

I really try not to take data and smash it to fit with my religious view. Some on this board do and I don't agree or follow it. I just can't put my trust in the "arm of flesh" until I have some justification. Science has been wrong before, it will be wrong again. The biggest problem I have with Dawkins approach isn't so much him professing he doesn't believe in God, it's his brazen attempt to make believers look so foolish. He's almost absolutely certain, as you also state, that there is no God. First, you know as well as I do that you can't prove that, so why would he say that. You can't prove negitives so why try so hard to do so.

I hope to get a significant block of time soon to really look at this subject like I want. I will read Dawkins, including the God Delusion because I'm truly interested in truth. I would hope though that you and others of your persuasion would at least respect my effort and open mindedness, even if it isn't as complete and doesn't come to the same conclusion. Ultimately, I'll probably always leave some room for God because I just don't think I can overcome what I already think is true, not do I think I'm smart enough to think I know more than He does or that there isn't some perfectly reasonable way of working with what is known.

I love the challenge, especially when it's respectful.

[Eldwynn]

I'm not sure how to put this but I'll do my best.

The one thing that always brings me back to my faith is the Book of Mormon. But it's certainly not a blind faith. I've done enough test on that one thing to know that the best explanation is what it claims to be. Tests like wordprints that are very scientific. Evidences that are starting to show up that corroborate at least portions of the book (intense trail and the land of bountiful.) There is often specific criticisms, but the collective is difficult to refute using even scientific methods. Often elements arguments used against the Book of Mormon are second hand, like those that that take David Whitmers account over that of Joseph or Oliver.

While church leaders and members alike are not perfect and may speak in ways that are more harmful than helpful, the scientific community is no different. One of the reasons I somewhat agree with leaders discouraging anti-Mormon material is most, if not all is just garbage, similar to pornography. At the same time the church has encouraged people to challenge and study things out in their mind. Most don't and won't. They are content to go with the flow and spiritual tests are good for them. I think some atheists are the same way, they see religion as the source of everything or they can't comprehend how a loving God would allow starvation and war, so they profess their atheism. This process is very similar to the spiritual test of believers. They just choose not to believe in God based on their own set of reasons.

I really try not to take data and smash it to fit with my religious view. Some on this board do and I don't agree or follow it. I just can't put my trust in the "arm of flesh" until I have some justification. Science has been wrong before, it will be wrong again. The biggest problem I have with Dawkins approach isn't so much him professing he doesn't believe in God, it's his brazen attempt to make believers look so foolish. He's almost absolutely certain, as you also state, that there is no God. First, you know as well as I do that you can't prove that, so why would he say that. You can't prove negitives so why try so hard to do so.

I hope to get a significant block of time soon to really look at this subject like I want. I will read Dawkins, including the God Delusion because I'm truly interested in truth. I would hope though that you and others of your persuasion would at least respect my effort and open mindedness, even if it isn't as complete and doesn't come to the same conclusion. Ultimately, I'll probably always leave some room for God because I just don't think I can overcome what I already think is true, not do I think I'm smart enough to think I know more than He does or that there isn't some perfectly reasonable way of working with what is known.

I love the challenge, especially when it's respectful.

I respect all forms of open-mindedness, even if you end up at a different conclusion. People thinking differently than me does not bother me much, as long as they aren't hurting me or people I care about.

A few points:

"Science has been wrong before, it will be wrong again. "

Most certainly! That is what science is about, and it's the only thing you can really be sure of. However, that does not at all imply science is worthless (I don't think you implied this). Science has given us modern life, no doubt about it. religion on the other hand, I do not think can be proven wrong, because it won't allow itself to be. Disproving god is just as difficult (as Dawkins points out) as disproving anything! Both myself and Dawkins agree that nothing can be "disproven" to a 100%. however, there are things that are very improbable indeed. Things like the Zues, Thor and Wotan, and the christian god etc. Dawkins devotes a large amount of time explaining this.

"it's his brazen attempt to make believers look so foolish."

Imagine that you were dropped in the middle of classical greece, and everyone was raving about "Apollo this" and "Aphrodite that". Someone comes up to you and tells you that the sun is flown by carriage through the sky. Is there anyway to tell these people they are wrong, without making them feel foolish? It is a hard thing to do, and I don't fault Dawkins in not being able to do it. He obviously views religion as a delusion, and responds to it as such. yes, sometimes it's harsh, but as some say:

"The truth hurts" (at least from his point of view). I have witnessed many missionaries and such deal with other religions the same way, so it is hardly unique to him.

One more thing:

"While church leaders and members alike are not perfect and may speak in ways that are more harmful than helpful, the scientific community is no different. "

While that is true, at least the scientific community has no issues with criticizing even the most prominent scientists for wrong-doings, or errors in thinking. From my understanding, members are encouraged NOT to criticize church leaders. This is a very large difference in my mind.

I do not think the Book of Mormon can be held up to scientific scrutiny, in the end, it comes down to faith (and to me, it is blind faith in this case). I could go into issues I have with the BOM, but that has been done over and over again in this board I would imagine. However, if the BOM were scientific, why is it not used as such? Modern Archeology rejects it, including the Smithsonian. These people are not just a bunch of mormon-haters. They have done the tests, and see no reason to believe the story as historically accurate. I am not sure how "Tests like wordprints" are very scientific. Do you mean that you can find other documents from the time period, that translate similarly to the writing style in the Book of Mormon? I would love to see them!

And to close, I wanted to talk about atheists. Atheism differs from religion in a important way. We differ with each other just as much as we differ with theists. I would agree that it is wrong for an atheist to stop believing in god because he is mad, or he hates him, or he wants to live in "wickedness" etc. To me these are not good reasons. I personally don't know an atheist who claims such things, though that does not mean they do not exist. The point is, you must be very careful when you generalize atheists under any sort of belief or reason (other than a lack of belief in a deity) because atheism does not have an "official" book to explain itself, unlike say your church does. This means that when speaking with any atheist, you pretty much have to start from the beginning (so, what do you believe?). Then again, the same can be said in many ways for mormons. There are a few members who don't believe in ANY of it, yet still just attend for cultural reasons, and on the other extreme... you have the incredibly active religious ones who get upset when you don't shave and have hair past your ears (personal experience )

[Grace de Maya]

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.

INteresting...

So why did we need a whole "Garden of Eden"? God just needed to put his spirit into the mortal humans who were here.

I've also spent some time reading the Church website and my old CES manuals. It seems to be pretty solid teaching that the fall of Adam and beginning of the Bible was sometime around 4,000 BC (based on the geneaologies in the Bible). Is this "change" in humans you are referencing something that happened around 4,000BC, or much earlier?

[BCSpace]

So why did we need a whole "Garden of Eden"? God just needed to put his spirit into the mortal humans who were here.

2 Nephi 2 answers this for me.

I've also spent some time reading the Church website and my old CES manuals. It seems to be pretty solid teaching that the fall of Adam and beginning of the Bible was sometime around 4,000 BC (based on the geneaologies in the Bible). Is this "change" in humans you are referencing something that happened around 4,000BC, or much earlier?

My personal opinion is that the traditional 4000 BC date is incorporated for lack of revelation otherwise. It could be then, but the first civilization, Sumer, arose, depending on how you think of civilization, around 6-8000 BC. A factor of two is not bad.

[BCSpace]

That is just a flat out lie. It certainly isn't historically true, and it's definitely not true now.

No lie. It's the only logical explaination for some of the antireligious posts I see on occaision.

Evolution? Yeah god did it.

Physics? Yeah god did it.

Chemistry? Yeah god did it.

etc. etc.

What would make us happy (not fear) is a religion that was *supported* by science. The LDS religion certainly isn't one, since they are always making the claim that god can not be proven by science (sort of like Zeus and Wotan).

Religion itself is science, especially the LDS religion. John 7:17 itself is a testable scientific principle.

[Analytics]

Why 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.

The concept that "evolution" naturally results in humans is not the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is inherently stochastic, which necessarily leads to stochastic results, not forordained outcomes.

Your post reminds me of what Carl Sagan said about how TV often causes misperceptions about scientific reality,

Other shortcomings are evident in television science fiction programming. Star Trek, for example, despite its charm and strong international and interspecies perspective, often ignores the most elementary scientific facts. The idea that Mr. Spock could be a cross between a human being and a life-form independently evolved on the planet Vulcan is genetically far less probable than a successful cross of a man and an artichoke. The idea does, however, provide a precedent in popular culture for the extraterrestrial/human hybrids that later became so central a component of the alien abduction story. There must be dozens of alien species on the various Star Trek TV series and movies. Almost all we spend any time with are minor variants of humans. This is driven be economic necessity, costing only an actor and a latex mask, but it flies in the face of the stochastic nature of the evolutionary process. If there are aliens, almost all of them I think will look devastatingly less human than Klingons or Romulans (and be at wildly different levels of technology). Star Trek doesnâ??t come to grips with evolution.

(Demon Haunted World page 375)

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

I agree that evolution is random. But not as undirected as the Atheists believe. It does appear that over time it does favor the more intelligent over the less. Smarter, faster bugs eat the less so.

[Eldwynn]

Analytics:

I agree that evolution is random. But not as undirected as the Atheists believe. It does appear that over time it does favor the more intelligent over the less. Smarter, faster bugs eat the less so.

Even Richard Dawkins in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, says that it would not be unreasonable to expect intelligence given enough time. It does seem to be a rather inevitable conclusion to natural selection, however, that may just be because we take it for granted. The cost of our intelligence is incredibly high when you look at it, and it may be a very improbable thing indeed, and thus might simply be a "fluke".

This is not to say it is directed at all by a supernatural being, in fact it does not suggest any sort of direction, but just an inevitable conclusion. Take eyes for example. They have independently evolved several times. Does something guide evolution to create eyes? No, it just so happens that on this planet, if you live where the sun shines, eyes are incredibly useful things to have. Thus eyes have always carried with it an advantage that was worth the cost of making them. Sight is an incredible advantage, so it's not unusual to see it evolve the same way.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

The only life we know anything about is on this planet. So Mr. Dawkins is arguing from silence, but then so am I.

But I find it very hard to believe that evolution, and or God would not favor the more intelligent. Especially given the size of the universe.

[Grace de Maya]

This whole idea of the Lord creating the world with things "evolving" totally changes the way I have to look at the story of Adam and Eve. Instead of the Fall being Adam and Eve "FALLING" from their immortal created state- they are just RETURNING to their original state! You're saying they were just temporarily taken from a mortal state to a temporarily immortal one just so they could revert back to their mortal state that they were born in???

I'm trying to sort this out, but it's just not making sense when we look at what the Prophets and Apostles teach us (in the scriptures and in OUR DAY!)

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

A&E were immortal before partaking of the fruit. There was no "Return".

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

The only life we know anything about is on this planet. So Mr. Dawkins is arguing from silence, but then so am I.

But I find it very hard to believe that evolution, and or God would not favor the more intelligent. Especially given the size of the universe.

You should really read The Blind Watchmaker. He really does a superb job explaining the argument, if you are interested in it. He has a chapter on chance, luck, and miracles and what are really meant by the three (in regards to the origin of life or the origin of anything), I would be surprised if anyone read that book and did not take away a greater understanding and awe for evolution. That goes for all his biological work.

If I went anymore into the topic, I would just be quoting what I've read from the book anyways. It's a 10 dollar paper back, and is probably available at every public library in the USA. And who doesn't love a good English man?

But if you have no intention on reading it, then I will very well outline the argument briefly, because I think it is a powerful explanation.

[Grace de Maya]

Grace de Maya:

A&E were immortal before partaking of the fruit. There was no "Return".

Oh...I thought someone had said they were born Mortal, and then made Immortal when they were put in the Garden. Are you saying they were born as Immortal to Mortal parents?

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Mr. Dawkins is too polemical of an atheist for my tastes, and overstates his thesis.

Evolution is an awesome tool, but I'm not going to hang my soul on it.

Just depends on what part of England. Cockney anyone.

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

There is no Scripture on that. All we do know is that in the Garden they were immortal.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

Mr. Dawkins is too polemical of an atheist for my tastes, and overstates his thesis.

Evolution is an awesome tool, but I'm not going to hang my soul on it.

Just depends on what part of England. Cockney anyone.

It seems to be a common theme to reject an authors writings on one subject, because of his writings on another. I think that is sad, especially when talking about a book you have never read. As a former member, I do like to think that I at least in part understand why you think this way, even if it seems so alien to me. I think it is indeed your loss though, as evolution is the only explanation for life that does not rely on large amounts of improbable chance (at least that I know of) which is what makes it most appealing in my eyes.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Everyone accepts or rejects authors and their writings based on some formula which usually includes other writings, public comments and the like by that author. It's just human nature.

When I do my science I try to exclude my notions of God from that work. It makes it a whole lot easier to understand than to say that "God did it", and leave it at that. My life's ideals , and what is important to me, is very dependent on my notions of God. My beliefs give me meaning, and comfort to an otherwise hectic, and sometime frantic life in the 21st Century. I appreciate and respect the good works of science community. We need more. However I'm not going to give up my spiritual side just because it makes someone else(Mr. Dawkins) uncomfortable.

[jmhughes]

I respect all forms of open-mindedness, even if you end up at a different conclusion. People thinking differently than me does not bother me much, as long as they aren't hurting me or people I care about.

A few points:

"Science has been wrong before, it will be wrong again. "

Most certainly! That is what science is about, and it's the only thing you can really be sure of. However, that does not at all imply science is worthless (I don't think you implied this). Science has given us modern life, no doubt about it. religion on the other hand, I do not think can be proven wrong, because it won't allow itself to be. Disproving god is just as difficult (as Dawkins points out) as disproving anything! Both myself and Dawkins agree that nothing can be "disproven" to a 100%. however, there are things that are very improbable indeed. Things like the Zues, Thor and Wotan, and the christian god etc. Dawkins devotes a large amount of time explaining this.

"it's his brazen attempt to make believers look so foolish."

Imagine that you were dropped in the middle of classical greece, and everyone was raving about "Apollo this" and "Aphrodite that". Someone comes up to you and tells you that the sun is flown by carriage through the sky. Is there anyway to tell these people they are wrong, without making them feel foolish? It is a hard thing to do, and I don't fault Dawkins in not being able to do it. He obviously views religion as a delusion, and responds to it as such. yes, sometimes it's harsh, but as some say:

"The truth hurts" (at least from his point of view). I have witnessed many missionaries and such deal with other religions the same way, so it is hardly unique to him.

One more thing:

"While church leaders and members alike are not perfect and may speak in ways that are more harmful than helpful, the scientific community is no different. "

While that is true, at least the scientific community has no issues with criticizing even the most prominent scientists for wrong-doings, or errors in thinking. From my understanding, members are encouraged NOT to criticize church leaders. This is a very large difference in my mind.

I do not think the Book of Mormon can be held up to scientific scrutiny, in the end, it comes down to faith (and to me, it is blind faith in this case). I could go into issues I have with the BOM, but that has been done over and over again in this board I would imagine. However, if the BOM were scientific, why is it not used as such? Modern Archeology rejects it, including the Smithsonian. These people are not just a bunch of mormon-haters. They have done the tests, and see no reason to believe the story as historically accurate. I am not sure how "Tests like wordprints" are very scientific. Do you mean that you can find other documents from the time period, that translate similarly to the writing style in the Book of Mormon? I would love to see them!

And to close, I wanted to talk about atheists. Atheism differs from religion in a important way. We differ with each other just as much as we differ with theists. I would agree that it is wrong for an atheist to stop believing in god because he is mad, or he hates him, or he wants to live in "wickedness" etc. To me these are not good reasons. I personally don't know an atheist who claims such things, though that does not mean they do not exist. The point is, you must be very careful when you generalize atheists under any sort of belief or reason (other than a lack of belief in a deity) because atheism does not have an "official" book to explain itself, unlike say your church does. This means that when speaking with any atheist, you pretty much have to start from the beginning (so, what do you believe?). Then again, the same can be said in many ways for mormons. There are a few members who don't believe in ANY of it, yet still just attend for cultural reasons, and on the other extreme... you have the incredibly active religious ones who get upset when you don't shave and have hair past your ears (personal experience )

Quickly

Don't misunderstand, I am very grateful for science. We owe all of our technology and comforts to the benefits of science. But I also believe all knowledge comes from God. And like I've said before, I ultimately don't believe that true science and true religion will be at odds.

If I was dropped in the middle of, as you say, classic Greece I wouldn't go around telling people they were wrong in a manor similar to Dawkins. Actually my missionary experience was similar on a much smaller scale. I had strong beliefs that were counter to almost all who surrounded me. But calling the idiots because they believed in the trinity would have defeated the purpose I was there for. I just think his God Delusion book does more harm than good if his cause is for people take a closer look at his point of view.

Again, as you've said religion and science are and should be treated differently. Religion is primarily faith based and so once your faith test has been satisfied, being critical for the sake of criticism is bad form. That's not to say you can't, in your own mind, challenge things that are said, but if you openly challenge them and expect to retain your membership then that's different. Science on the other hand is not faith based and because new ideas are the ideas of men, they should be challenged vigorously. I see most ideas coming form anointed leaders being messages from God and as a result shouldn't be challenged the same way. But in order for that to work, you have to believe in God and believe the the leadership is ordained to speak on behalf of the God.

As for the Book of Mormon, while it's not meant to be a scientific work, elements can be tested scientifically. Faith is the primary requirement. Wordprints for example can be held up to scientific scrutiny. Wordprints are like fingerprints and are used regularly in crime labs to prove the same things as fingerprints could. This is one way to show that the Book of Mormon wasn't/couldn't have been written one person or that it could have been written by Joseph Smith. Just one example of one of many scientific tests. There is too much politics in the Smithsonian and in anything associated with the Government for me to take their word for it. But much is coming to light.

I try not to generalize anyone. I just see two types of atheists. Those come to the non-belief like you have reluctantly with much study and research and others that don't see why God doesn't think like they do.

[Grace de Maya]

Grace de Maya:

There is no Scripture on that. All we do know is that in the Garden they were immortal.

Wow. I'm still looking at the scriptures, but there are TONS of references at LDS.org.

Here is what Elder Nelson says:

Adam and Eve were the first people to live upon the earth. 18 They were different from the plant and animal life that had been created previously. Adam and Eve were children of God. Their bodies of flesh and bone were made in the express image of Godâ??s. In that state of innocence, they were not yet mortal. They could have had no children, 19 were not subject to death, and could have lived in Edenâ??s garden forever. 20 Thus, we might speak of the Creation in terms of a paradisiacal creation.

If that state had persisted, you and I would still be stranded among the heavenly host as unborn sons and daughters of God. 21â??The great plan of [happiness] would have been frustratedâ? (Alma 42:5). 22

Elder Nelson, Constancy Amid Change

October 1993 Conference

What did Elder Nelson mean when he tells us "Adam and Eve were the first people to live upon the earth."?

Elder Nelson also says:

The Creation culminated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were created in the image of God, with bodies of flesh and bone. 3 Created in the image of God and not yet mortal, they could not grow old and die. 4 â??And they would have had no childrenâ? 5 nor experienced the trials of life. (Please forgive me for mentioning children and the trials of life in the same breath.) The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children 6 and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.

Elder Nelson, The Atonement

October 1996 Conference

Was Elder Nelson talking about the same thing you're talking about?

This article is also really interesting:

Others have concluded that the whole story is a myth and that Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Still others speculate Adam and Eve were cave people whose descendants evolved into more advanced specimens.

In contrast, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ makes it abundantly clear that Adam and Eve were children of God just as we are. They were placed on earth as immortal beings. We are told they could read and write (see <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/5,46#5" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6//5,46#5')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Moses 6:5, 46), and they knew and understood the plan of salvation, having been taught it in the Garden of Eden.

[thesometimesaint]

Grace de Maya:

There probably is a difference between what man calls man, and what God calls man.

[BCSpace]

The concept that "evolution" naturally results in humans is not the Theory of Evolution.

Only because we have one planetary model to draw information from.

Evolution is inherently stochastic, which necessarily leads to stochastic results, not forordained outcomes.

Relative to man's understanding, this may be true. The fact that evolution theory doesn't address the existence of God precludes using it as evidence that He was not involved.

Your logic here is like using the laws of motion to show I didn't build and launch a rocket.

Your post reminds me of what Carl Sagan said about how TV often causes misperceptions about scientific reality

Here, Carl Sagan's atheism is rising above his normally scientific mind.

[littlechild]

It seems to be a common theme to reject an authors writings on one subject, because of his writings on another. I think that is sad, especially when talking about a book you have never read. As a former member, I do like to think that I at least in part understand why you think this way, even if it seems so alien to me. I think it is indeed your loss though, as evolution is the only explanation for life that does not rely on large amounts of improbable chance (at least that I know of) which is what makes it most appealing in my eyes.

Then you are not aware of the great deal of improbable chance that evolution DOES rely on. Study homochirality. This is a show stopper for evolution. One of many.

[Grace de Maya]

Then you are not aware of the great deal of improbable chance that evolution DOES rely on. Study homochirality. This is a show stopper for evolution. One of many.

Homochirality:

Homochirality is a term used to refer to a group of molecules that possess the same sense of chirality. Molecules involved are not necessarily the same compound, but similar groups are arranged in the same way around a central atom. In biology homochirality is found inside living organisms. Virtually all active forms of amino acids are of the L-form (d-serine being a notable exception) and most biologically relevant sugars are of the D-form. Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even toxic to living things. The origin of this phenomenon is not clearly understood. It is even unclear if homochirality has a purpose. One suggestion is that it reduces entropy barriers in the formation of large organized molecules. It has been experimentally verified that amino acids form large aggregates in larger abundance from enantiopure substrates than from racemic ones ^[1].

Homochirality is said to evolve in three distinct steps: mirror-symmetry breaking creates a minute enantiomeric imbalance and is key to homochirality, chiral amplification is a process of enantiomeric enrichment and chiral transmission allows the transfer of chirality of one set of molecules to another.

It is also entirely possible that homochirality is simply a result of the natural autoamplification process of life -- that either the formation of life as preferring one chirality or the other was a chance rare event which happened to occur with the chiralities we observe, or that all chiralities of life emerged rapidly but due to catastrophic events and strong competition, the other unobserved chiral preferences were wiped out by the preponderance and metabolic, enantiomeric enrichment from the 'winning' chirality choices.

?

[Eldwynn]

Then you are not aware of the great deal of improbable chance that evolution DOES rely on. Study homochirality. This is a show stopper for evolution. One of many.

Who are you learning your evolution from? Homochirality is a product of evolution, and there are a great many ideas on how it could come to pass.

Natural selection is NOT a theory of chance. It is the very opposite actually. I am not sure how to continue this discussion if you are unwilling to go to any length to learn more.

Anyways, you mentioned it was one of many, so why don't you name the "many"? Or was that just empty rhetoric?