Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[semlogo]

How condescending of you, similar to something, the Dude might respond with.

Yes, I am quite aware of the fancy doubletalk scientists employ in a blatant attempt to describe as factual and truthful, things that are mere suppositions and conjectures, and totally intellectual conclusions with little proof out there in the real world.

FACT - no species ever has been proven conclusively to have descended from other species. When you ask for such proof, you get far less than what is required - you get meaningless statements about how DNA is similar, or how morphology is similar, or how bacteria have been taught to metabolize citrates for crying out loud.

Until you or the DUDE can show in your own words how the variety of species on this planet all came from one single common ancestor - with PROOF of this most absurd conclusion - then I say you are all fanatic believers in a fantasy THEORY - which by MY definition is just a working hypothesis, intended as an interim conclusion with no objective PROOF of the TRUTH of the claim.

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

[chonguey]

Darwin never states that God is not a part of the process.

Darwin also didn't state that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not part of the process. It doesn't follow that it is safe to assume that there is room in the theory to inject the Invisible Pink Unicorn back in to the explanation. It's simply unnecessary to do so since the natural forces were sufficient to explain speciation. That was the whole point of the work.

Indeed, he seems to leave God's involvement open as a possibility.

My personal opinion is that he tried to let the evidence speak for itself by showing ample proof that a purely natural explanation could account for diverse species. Most responsible scientists will not venture in to commenting on the God Hypothesis since a solid scientific theory should have no need to venture in to such territory.

Also, based on the religious sensibilities of the day, his work was controversial enough as it was. He was smart enough to avoid that can of worms by leaving those who want to retain their God beliefs to do so and avoid commenting definitively one way or another.

Sure, that's not science

Precisely my point.

I think you've done him a disservice.

I think it is a greater disservice to the man to ignore his enormous contribution to biological science by reverting to the previous ad hoc theories of the day, a simplistic and non-explanatory "God mysteriously did it." Darwin's insight was tremendous and to inject an omniscient super creator back in to the theory is to truly disrespect his lifetime of work.

[Tarski]

- evolution does have gaps, and they fill those gaps with conjecture and guesses that naturalism is the ONLY explanation for those processes.

You are like the bad detective that sees a long clear isolated trail of footprints on a beach leading to a beach house. You see that between each print is a gap and declare that perhaps nobody walked to the beachouse but rather each footprint was created by a separate person or angel who came down from the sky and made just one footprint to line up with the rest? And why? To save/protect some bronze age creation stories.

Darwinism is largely a personality cult, not a true science.

I've seen (and more importantly comprehended) tons of evidence. Evolution explains countless things in biology that have no other explanation available to us (other than unmotivated ad hoc explanations).

By the way, when are you going to take up my challenge? I claim that there is zero evidence that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion (it was created intact, as is, by God!). Try to prove me wrong and I will give you some of your own (silly) medicine.

[The Dude]

I guess you don't realize the fine line between ad hominem responses and responses with substantive data upon which to base your conclusions.

The minimal depth you show here, and the inability to grapple with the implications of the discussion, lead me to believe you are not sincerely engaged in an exchange of ideas ...

It seems that somehow you got the idea that you would get great mileage out of Dr. Seelke's recorded interview, and now it has run out of gas, and you want to blame me. But he hasn't published the experiment. There are no detailed methods, no controls described, no way for me to respond with greater depth than what I have given you. You are left holding an anecdote, essentially a rumor that there are experiments "out there" showing that evolution is bunk. Not much for me to engage, I'm afraid.

I understand why you are frustrated.

[Teancum]

Yes. Doctrines of Salvation is not considered by the LDS Church to be a doctrinal work. Period. End of story. Statement addressed.

Perhaps not. Yet members used it for many years, just like Mormon Doctrine, as a guidance for what was doctrine. Both McConkie and Smith were viewed as doctrinal experts. Now, because we do not like what they said, apostles not with standing, we want to brush away their words.

Now are your pontifications. And while DOS may not be considered a doctrinal work of the Church it is from an apostle. What is your ranking in the LDS Church?

Of no matter. If not doctrinal, then an Apostles words are only as good as anyone else.

Just like your speculative position that Adam's mother was a human with out a spirit child from God in her.

.

I believe there was a garden. I believe there was an Adam and Eve placed in the garden. I believe there was a Fall. I believe Adam brought death into the world through the Fall. I believe God created man in his own image. I believe animals and humans reproduce after their own kind, etc. etc.

I believe I have demonstrated a scenario in which the full blown evolution of animals and man as understood by the scientific community in general can co-exist with all LDS doctrine and scripture. Of course I do not teach that scenario as doctrine or absolute truth.

JFS does not allow this for you in his comments. Not one whit.

So? He doesn't explain why in the section you quoted.

Yes he did. He said you destroy the need for a savior because you create a situation where there was death before Adam and thus Adam could not fall.

But I will allow you have jumped through some hoops it get it to work. Still you word only. The church is not willing to take a stance on this one.

And I would tell him it does not and show him how.

Oh you bet. I am sure you would.

However, that said, from an LDS view of trying to make the doctrine of a literal Adam and Eve and the Fall work I do not find your position unreasonable. I just find it highly speculative.

There is only one small area of speculation, the distinguishing of the creative and the created period and where no death fits. Scripture only places the state of no death in the created period. Therefore, this state may or may not exist in the creative period.

It is all highly speculative. Totally.

This I think is a rather large issue. Why do not prophets and apostles reveal the truth about this?

Why doesn't God reveal all about everything anyway?

One would think how the world was created and an idea that seems to refute what seemed to be held as doctrine for quite some time would be fairly important for God to take a position on.

And you tell me. Why doesn't God reveal more about lots of stuff? Seems we have a thin amount to go on and that it often is contradictory and chages based on outside influences.

Rather it seems members are left to formulate their own opinion and those opinions are crafted forcing religious dogma to work with science.

What is wrong with that?

Because they may get it wrong like you may be here. Maybe Smith and McConkie are right.

Modifications are seemingly made as science seems to demonstrate that what scripture says may or may not be the case.

It doesn't seem to me that the Church has established any doctrine at all on the matter. Hence no such modifications are being made. No doctrine and no scripture has been modifed. The modifications being made are how we fill in the gaps where there is no doctrine.

The doctrine of the Church about creation is found in its scriptures and other works. Do any of them discuss how evolution might fit like you speculate? Nope. Thus we are left to conclude that the Church is either afraid to take a stand or the doctrine is as explained in scripture. God created the world and species like the bible says. No evolution.

Why should I believe you more than JFS or BRM?

The only thing I ask belief in is the fact that the Church has no doctrine, no preference on the question of evolution vs creationism.

The scripture teaches creationism.

They seem to be the only modern church leaders that take a position on this. The rest seem silent.

Their position doesn't matter if not sanctioned by the Church.

Nope. They were after all only apostles. Somewhere you mention that BRM and JFS published their works when DOM did not want them too. You are correct. One then wonders why Mormon Doctrine and Smith's book on evolution were not denounced by the Church. But rather than embarrass two church leaders the books stood and members were left to conclude that they were quite fine resources especially Mormon Doctrine which was even quoted in lesson manuals in the 70s and 80s.

[Peg_In_FL]

I voted; "I am LDS and believe in evolution but I believe that man is from Adam and not primitive man." However I do believe that Adam was a primitive man (possibly before Eve showed up, HE HE HE)." I don't believe we evolved from animals, but that we evolved in progressing individualy with our minds.

[littlechild]

There is nothing built into science that precludes any and all ideas of God. A scientist can be a theist of course. However, in practice, the success of science depends on employing, not atheism as such, but at least a methodological atheism. This simply means that we assume that there are no invisible supernatural beings who are messing with our experiments.

The further atheistic aspect of science is to eschew adopting beliefs about the world for which there is no publicly available evidence.

Can you imagine a scientific journal with the following sentences?

"The authors find that the rate of bacterial growth is initially approximately exponential but due angelic influence, ultimately follows a logistic curve. The authors offer as evidence of this, their inner convictions derived from fasting and prayer. Indeed, one author had a vision of the angelic forces influencing the growth rate"

As far as assuming that the visible material universe defines the absolute boundary of reality, I think you misrepresent scientific thinking (or even atheistic philosophy). Plenty of invisible things are admitted but only things that fit into a rational and robust theoretical framework and are supported by sufficient evidence. What else would you expect?

Even you reject the majority of supernatural explanations that have been offered in history. On what basis? Can you avoid hypocrisy?

If a posited entity is sufficiently supported by evidence of the appropriate kind, then it isn't supernatural anymore. The notion of "material" is conceptually underdetermined and informal anyway. How would you clarify the distinction between material and non-material entities?

Finally, we tend to reject elaborate entities that are introduced by religion to explain things that already have better explanations.

You have explained quite nicely the materialistic assumptions underlying Western scientism. The modernist world and scientific materialism in particular are the first in history to completely ignore Aldous Huxley's Great Chain of Being, which describes the hierarchy of body, mind, spirit, and is found in virtually all cultures everywhere throughout all history and in all the world's great wisdom traditions in one form or another - except in the modern West where it was decided to focus solely on the lowest part of the Chain. It's like saying, "The physiosphere and biosphere is all there is, maybe, and we can forego inquiries into the noosphere and theosphere." There's in interesting discussion of this in Ken Wilber's book, "A Theory of Everything".

I think people have been so indoctrinated with this materialistic explanation, that they believe it has a great deal of probability, and some even say certainty, but when you look at the facts on your own, unpressured by the scientific elitists, you can see clearly that the probability of inanimate objects spontaneously bursting into life, and evolutionary forces combining simultaneously to produce quantum leaps in the emergence of new life forms, is ridiculously remote, far remoter than the likelihood, let's say, of an angel appearing and speaking to you.

At least we have eyewitness accounts of the latter. All the evidence we have of evolution is the word of "learned" men insisting it is so. They don't even claim to have witnessed the events they are insisting happened.

[Tarski]

At least we have eyewitness accounts of the latter. All the evidence we have of evolution is the word of "learned" men insisting it is so. They don't even claim to have witnessed the events they are insisting happened.

They haven't witnessed canyon creation by erosion either.

Are you so far gone that you don't believe in that either?

Please address my challenge about evidence for erosion as the cause of canyon formation. Where is the evidence? Answer it so I can make my point------yes, it is a socratic question.

[spinner]

You have explained quite nicely the materialistic assumptions underlying Western scientism. The modernist world and scientific materialism in particular are the first in history to completely ignore Aldous Huxley's Great Chain of Being, which describes the hierarchy of body, mind, spirit, and is found in virtually all cultures everywhere throughout all history and in all the world's great wisdom traditions in one form or another - except in the modern West where it was decided to focus solely on the lowest part of the Chain. It's like saying, "The physiosphere and biosphere is all there is, maybe, and we can forego inquiries into the noosphere and theosphere." There's in interesting discussion of this in Ken Wilber's book, "A Theory of Everything".

Scientism??? Is that meant to be derogatory???

Western Culture has been very well served by its adherence to scientific principles, despite your apparent longing for a return to medieval piety and mysticism. Unless I'm mistaken, science, not prayer, eradicated polio and smallpox, personal revelation didn't reveal the design and manufacture of airplanes and computers, and all the fervent prayers ever said still failed to put a man on the moon.

I think people have been so indoctrinated with this materialistic explanation, that they believe it has a great deal of probability, and some even say certainty, but when you look at the facts on your own, unpressured by the scientific elitists, you can see clearly that the probability of inanimate objects spontaneously bursting into life, and evolutionary forces combining simultaneously to produce quantum leaps in the emergence of new life forms, is ridiculously remote, far remoter than the likelihood, let's say, of an angel appearing and speaking to you.

Give me a single FACT to support creationism--this thread is full of facts supporting evolution, which you of course dismiss with thoughtful responses such as "hahahahahah".

At least we have eyewitness accounts of the latter. All the evidence we have of evolution is the word of "learned" men insisting it is so. They don't even claim to have witnessed the events they are insisting happened.

You have eyewitness accounts of the creation??? Give me a break, you have a story that even the most ardent biblical literalist would have to admit was not even recorded until thousands of years after the event. Let's see, a rock solid scientific theory, backed up by mountains of evidence, or the superstitions of a few bronze age Middle Eastern shepherds.

I find the former more credible.

[talisyn]

I believe I have the ultimate answer to this burning question.

There is no such thing as Evolution,

Just animals Chuck Norris allowed to live.

Glad I could help.

[Brade]

They haven't witnessed canyon creation by erosion either.

Are you so far gone that you don't believe in that either?

Please address my challenge about evidence for erosion as the cause of canyon formation. Where is the evidence? Answer it so I can make my point------yes, it is a socratic question.

Tarski, don't you know? The grand canyon was created around 33AD durring the cataclysmic events described in the Book of Mormon. Doy! Erosion? Where do you scientists come up with this nonsense?

[Hoops22]

Tarski, don't you know? The grand canyon was created around 33AD durring the cataclysmic events described in the Book of Mormon. Doy! Erosion? Where do you scientists come up with this nonsense?

Actually, try Ps 108. That will clear it up for you.

[Jeff K.]

I like the way people who hate Mormons attempt to create a false dichotomy. Evolution may or may not be true. To Mormons in general the view is not doctrinal one way or another. Of course that doesn't matter to some.

Kind of stupid really. Now if you wanted to argue for or against evolution purely on the level of the theories short comings. Then that is fine, but to use it as an attempt to prove or disprove a religion is, well, kind of stupid really. Not to be redundant, but beating such is the reflection.

[Brade]

Actually, try Ps 108. That will clear it up for you.

My heart is steadfast, O God!

I will sing and make melody with all my being!

Awake, O harp and lyre!

I will awake the dawn!

3 I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;

I will sing praises to you among the nations.

4 For your steadfast love is great above the heavens;

your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.

5 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens!

Let your glory be over all the earth!

6 That your beloved ones may be delivered,

give salvation by your right hand and answer me!

7 God has promised in his holiness: [2]

â??With exultation I will divide up Shechem

and portion out the Valley of Succoth.

8 Gilead is mine; Manasseh is mine;

Ephraim is my helmet,

Judah my scepter.

9 Moab is my washbasin;

upon Edom I cast my shoe;

over Philistia I shout in triumph.â?

10 Who will bring me to the fortified city?

Who will lead me to Edom?

11 Have you not rejected us, O God?

You do not go out, O God, with our armies.

12 Oh grant us help against the foe,

for vain is the salvation of man!

13 With God we shall do valiantly;

it is he who will tread down our foes.

Oh, yeah, there it is. I see now.

[Jeff K.]

Scientism??? Is that meant to be derogatory???

Western Culture has been very well served by its adherence to scientific principles, despite your apparent longing for a return to medieval piety and mysticism. Unless I'm mistaken, science, not prayer, eradicated polio and smallpox, personal revelation didn't reveal the design and manufacture of airplanes and computers, and all the fervent prayers ever said still failed to put a man on the moon.

I would say that science has served western culture well (lets forget that most of the science originally came from easter culture). But for every so called benefit, that same science has created efficiencies in pain, destruction, death, and war. Western science serves those areas too. Your worst medievel despot is a rank amateur compared to what our scientists can and have done for the destruction of peoples and society today.

Loved the invention of planes. Whether they are flying into buildings or called "the Enola Gay".

I wouldn't be too proud of western science. Anymore than I would claim that any criticism of western science is the same as a longing for medievel piety.

Give me a single FACT to support creationism--this thread is full of facts supporting evolution, which you of course dismiss with thoughtful responses such as "hahahahahah".

I would say this thread is full of well founded theories that reflect facts as we see them. Creationism is open to different definitions. So whether it is creationism in the sense that someone created or initiated the process or creationsim along the lines of literal biblical interpretation. Simply saying creationism is more reflective of the ignorance of the poster than the person he is attacking.

[katherine the great]

I would say that science has served western culture well (lets forget that most of the science originally came from easter culture).

I assume you mean "Eastern." What do you mean by this?

[semlogo]

I assume you mean "Eastern." What do you mean by this?

No, it's Easter. Most useful technological innovations are rooted in Easter traditions. The cream-filled chocolate egg, for instance.

[Jeff K.]

I assume you mean "Eastern." What do you mean by this?

You are correct. The word should be Eastern and not Easter. Normally this would be contextually obvious when answered by the issue of "western science". I am sure you just wanted to make it clear for the intellectually challenged.

[katherine the great]

You are correct. The word should be Eastern and not Easter. Normally this would be contextually obvious when answered by the issue of "western science". I am sure you just wanted to make it clear for the intellectually challenged.

No. I want to know what you mean by saying that Western science originated in Eastern culture.

[Jeff K.]

Paper, gunpowder, astrolabe, magnetic compass, declination of true north, block printing, paper money, rudders,

stuff in general.

[The Dude]

Paper, gunpowder, astrolabe, magnetic compass, declination of true north, block printing, paper money, rudders,

stuff in general.

Oh, you mean technology. I thought you said science.

[katherine the great]

Paper, gunpowder, astrolabe, magnetic compass, declination of true north, block printing, paper money, rudders,

stuff in general.

I certainly would never "pooh pooh" the innovation of the Chinese people (there's no doubt they had some brilliant technology), but I think the origins of Western science go far beyond the invention of gadgets. I guess it isn't really pertinent to this thread though.

[Ipso Facto]

I have yet to be persuaded by Darwinism or its more recent transmogrifcation, neo-Darwinism.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of "evolution" from lower, ancient forms to higher, modern forms.

I have seen evidence that species are capable of amazing adaptations to their specific environments, and that those adaptations are capable of inheritance. But I have not seen persuasive evidence that these kinds of adaptations can explain the variety of species on the Earth.

I am extremely skeptical of radiometric dating methodologies. I believe they assume constants that may not be.

I am extremely skeptical of DNA-related dating methodologies. I believe they assume constants that may not be.

I believe that the basic human, animal, insect, and plant forms predate their living analogues on this earth.

I believe in a superior class of cosmic beings who exist in time and space in human form. I believe a group of them collaborated to organize and populate this planet. I think they are often amused at how a large segment of their creation has come to believe "He made me not."

[Jeff K.]

Oh, you mean technology. I thought you said science.

Yes, technology has a habit of appearing without any scientific basis.

I certainly would never "pooh pooh" the innovation of the Chinese people (there's no doubt they had some brilliant technology), but I think the origins of Western science go far beyond the invention of gadgets. I guess it isn't really pertinent to this thread though.

See my previous post.

[talisyn]

You are correct. The word should be Eastern and not Easter. Normally this would be contextually obvious when answered by the issue of "western science". I am sure you just wanted to make it clear for the intellectually challenged.

No, I think that's a good point. There is no proof more proofier of intelligent design than the Cadbury egg. Only the hand of a Supreme Being could have enabled simple humans to create such heavenly bliss.