Man, The lineal and literal offspring of deity

[Rob Osborn]

As everyone knows, I am a harsh critic against evolution. The crown jewel of evolutionary theory is to be able to show how man has evolved from a lower order of animal. On the other hand, the crown jewel of the church has been to show that man is of divine heritage and as such can claim glorious and eternal blessings. The two remain at odds with each other. In this post I want to put forth the official doctrine put forth by the church and discuss it a bit further. The prophets have published as official doctrine of the church the following-

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.

To me this presnets us with the most pleasing and relevent truth in our dispensation. Regardless of what some of the greats in science have said and propose about our origins, prophets have revealed to us the truth concerning man's true origins. In the above statement, part of a much larger address, reveal that man is the "direct and lineal offspring of deity".

For most this is a simple open and shut case of coming to know that Adam and Eve's physical parents were the Gods themselves and that through Adam and Eve, they carry on the direct and lineal line of deity in their physical seed. This is what the scriptures refer to an eternal blessing of carrying on the seeds eternally for married Gods.-

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them

[44Foxtrot]

For a few others though who believe so strongly in evolution, they do not accept this doctrine as "official" or even state that it is only referring to our spirit and not our flesh. I disagree though. How could God's seeds comntinue on forever if he wasn't in fact the direct lineal Father of all mankind?

For me it's pleasing to know that my DNA (seed) has been handed down from one generation to the next and that my geneology can be traced back to God himself just as the scriptures state!

You have God's DNA in your cells and (therefore) his blood coursing through your veins? Really?

If Jesus were to provide a saliva sample, it would show that his father was also in your family tree?

Do you show God as your literal ancestor on your Family Pedigree Chart? If not, why not?

Your post is another example of why Mormon apologists do more harm than good to the Mormon Church.

At least the Scientologists have the good sense not to preach their "advanced technology" unfounded beliefs (think Xenu) on public forums.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

[Vance]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT.

Oh, please!

Evolution is a THEORY!

[LDSGuy]

Oh, please!

Evolution is a THEORY!

I'm not a pro-evolutionists, but the whole "evolution-is-a-theory" argument is not a good one. Gravity is a THEORY as well. Cell Theory is taught. Theories are based on established fact, and because we never cease to learn about these things, we call them theories. We know gravity exists, but the study of it is still a theory; and cells exist, but their study is called a theory. Evolution also exists, and its study is ongoing and therefore it is a theory. It is true that a theory is not a fact, but a theory is based on a series of facts that leads to a conclusion that has been tested.

I don't know to what extent evolution has played a role in the world or how God may have used it, but it does exists as witnessed in the natural world. One day we will know these things, but until then we must continue to learn as God has commaned us to do.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Evolution is a FACT. The explanation of that FACT is a Theory. In all sciences beyond mathematics a Theory is the highest state an explanation of the FACTS can have.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

[erichard]

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

That was a somewhat decent youtube video about the matter. But as this video says, the theory of evolution is about natural selection AFTER life exists. Evolution does not explain how life exists.

Not all anti-evolution writings fall into the foolish arguments this video exposes. In fact, trying to make it look like that is deceptive itself. There are very good argments against evolution by very scientific and intelligent persons.

For natural selection to happen, the selections must first exist.

And no matter how they try to spin it, it is a valid argument that dna will not mutate into more successful traits without a creator involved except "by accident". That is what "by accident" means: there is no intelligent being doing it. The two are mutually exclusive: "accidents and someone doing it".

Richard

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

I am interested in your feelings regarding the revealed truth to the prophets that man is the direct and lineal offspring of deity. What do you make of that statement given by the church in regards to our origins revealed to the prophets? The church has made it clear that Adam is the son of God and not of a lower order of animal life. What are your thoughts in regards to this revelation

[Questing Beast]

...

For me it's pleasing to know that my DNA (seed) has been handed down from one generation to the next and that my geneology can be traced back to God himself just as the scriptures state!

And for me (and my forgetfulness, i.e. mortal leaky brain), that doesn't matter a bit. I do not intend to worship some former-mortal. Period. And I don't expect my "Father", if such relationship even exists, to want worship. My worship is now directed at the Necessary Cause of Existence in the First Place. Nothing less will do for me.

On the topic of evolution: I prefer to assume that ALL biological life in this galaxy (and probably the universe) is more or less alike, that is, sharing the same elements and therefore genetic patterns. So pointing to the similarity of homo sapiens to the rest of earth's animal denizens is a non subject for discussion, vis-a-vis "we're only mammals and nothing special".

In fact, we are special in one specific way: our sapience is utterly unique, and so far beyond anything else in the higher mammals that our thinking is like a "skyscraper" compared to the mere "cement footprint of the skyscraper" (Marc Hauser) that is the thinking of every other species this planet has ever seen. I like the way Marc Hauser put it in his article in Scientific American, September 2009:

"Not too long ago three aliens descended to Earth to evaluate the status of intelligent life. One specialized in engineering, one in chemistry and one in computation. Turning to his colleagues, the engineer reported (translation follows): 'All of the creatures here are solid, some segmented, with capacities to move on the ground, through the water or air. All extremely slow. Unimpressive.' The chemist then commented: 'All quite similar, derived from different sequences of four chemical ingredients.' Next the computational expert opined: 'Limited computing abilities. But one, the hairless biped, is unlike the others. It exchanges information in a manner that is primitive and inefficient but remarkably different from the others. It creates many odd objects, including ones that are consumable, others that produce symbols, and yet others that destroy members of its tribe.'

"'But how can this be?' the engineer mused. 'Given the similarity in form and chemistry, how can their computing capacity differ?' 'I am not certain,' confessed the computational alien. 'But they appear to have a system for creating new expressions that is infinitely more powerful than those of all the other living kinds. I propose that we place the hairless biped in a different group from the other animals, with a separate origin, and from a different galaxy.' The other two aliens nodded, and then all three zipped home to present their report."

I am deeply impressed by the hoops, the gyrations, that unbelievers weave through trying to make homo sapiens into some single-cell creature once-upon-a-time in the oceans of Earth. There is no connection to any creature where our sapience is concerned. That, not biology, is the true "missing link". Our first evidence of this high level of cognitive thought emerges in "an evolutionary eyeblink" (ibid) c. 800K years ago, reaching a "crescendo" c. 45-50K years ago. This evidence is the fashioning of "multipart tools; animal bones punctured with holes to fashion musical instruments; burials with accouterments suggesting beliefs about aesthetics and the afterlife", etc. There is no link to any other species, or even earlier hominids that remained primitive and animal-like in their thinking. Our sapience just suddenly IS. As if "we" were suddenly here: or, like 2001 A Space Odyssey, an artificially rapid genetic development of our brain was inserted into the evolutionary cycle.

I prefer the notion that Marc Hauser proposes with his little fiction: "we" came from the stars....

[BCSpace]

As everyone knows, I am a harsh critic against evolution.

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT.

Oh, please!

Evolution is a THEORY!

A theory is based on facts by definition.

On the other hand, the crown jewel of the church has been to show that man is of divine heritage and as such can claim glorious and eternal blessings. The two remain at odds with each other. In this post I want to put forth the official doctrine put forth by the church and discuss it a bit further. The prophets have published as official doctrine of the church the following-

So how does LDS doctrine conflict with evolution? You didn't seem to make that case.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

Its still very much a theory, in point of fact. It may indeed be the best and most satisfying (scientifically) explanatory framework for understanding the mechanics of the development of our physical forms, but macroevolution is still very much a theoretical construct, with much of its primary claims virtually immune to empirical verification.

The term "fact" does essentially what Darwinian fundamentalists have been dong for a century and a half: locking evolutionary theory into a box of rigid orthodoxy from which it can never be moved or modified by the discovery of further truths and evidence.

That, however, is contrary to both the spirit and reality of the scientific enterprise. There are a number of significant theoretical, empirical, and philsophcial gaps in evolutionary theory and its understanding of the development of organic life. I'm not saying its fundamentally incorrect in form, but only that it very likely has a long way to go before it its inconsistencies, large gaps in basic knowledge, and empirical problems are substantially reduced.

I am deeply skeptical, based in both the gospel and a philosophical/scientific analysis of the theory, that any part of its major dynamics were in any way "random" in the sense most secularist supporters believe, or that natural selection was the only, or perhaps even the primary mechanism of evolutionary development and proliferation.

[Loran Howard Blood]

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

Intelligent design and "Creationsim" are, to a great extent, as far apart as two theories dealing with the same phenomena can possibly be. Much "intelligent design" thought, dating all the way back to Arthur Eddington, Alfred Whitehead, and James Jeans at Cambridge were, indeed, decidedly non-religious, or theistic, in nature, and remain so today (while others accept theism as a matter of principle).

Unfortunately, simply labeling intelligent design as "creationism" has been the favorite debate avoidance tactic most favored by the Darwinian fundamentalists on the secularist Left, and achieves the same effect as calling skeptics of AGW "deniers" or "anti-science."

A theory is based on facts by definition.

Theory is derived from the observation of phenomena in nature, from which inferences are drawn, from which experiments are constructed (and further observation) in an attempt to verify (and/or falsify) the inferences made. Theories are larger, more inclusive explanatory frameworks built up from a body of hypothesis, inference, and the knowledge derived from attempts at empirical verification. Between the concept "fact" and the concept "theory," we must interpose the phenomenon of human interpretation. There is rarely, if ever, just data, but only interpretation of data, and that, more than anything, becomes the warp and woof of "theory."

So how does LDS doctrine conflict with evolution? You didn't seem to make that case.

It doesn't, necessarily. It does conflict seriously with a number of inferences or conclusions extrapolated from it, however.

[BCSpace]

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

Intelligent design and "Creationsim" are, to a great extent, as far apart as two theories dealing with the same phenomena can possibly be. Much "intelligent design" thought, dating all the way back to Arthur Eddington, Alfred Whitehead, and James Jeans at Cambridge were, indeed, decidedly non-religious, or theistic, in nature, and remain so today (while others accept theism as a matter of principle).

Unfortunately, simply labeling intelligent design as "creationism" has been the favorite debate avoidance tactic most favored by the Darwinian fundamentalists on the secularist Left, and achieves the same effect as calling skeptics of AGW "deniers" or "anti-science."

Kitzmiller has already proven otherwise.

A theory is based on facts by definition.

Theory is derived from the observation of phenomena in nature, from which inferences are drawn, from which experiments are constructed (and further observation) in an attempt to verify (and/or falsify) the inferences made. Theories are larger, more inclusive explanatory frameworks built up from a body of hypothesis, inference, and the knowledge derived from attempts at empirical verification. Between the concept "fact" and the concept "theory," we must interpose the phenomenon of human interpretation. There is rarely, if ever, just data, but only interpretation of data, and that, more than anything, becomes the warp and woof of "theory."

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary,

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

"That was a somewhat decent youtube video about the matter. But as this video says, the theory of evolution is about natural selection AFTER life exists. Evolution does not explain how life exists.".

I never said that Evolution is about the origins of life. That is another Theory called Ambiogenesis. While still not definitive it does go a long way towards explaining how simple compounds formed and reformed into complex peptides and amino acids.

"Not all anti-evolution writings fall into the foolish arguments this video exposes. In fact, trying to make it look like that is deceptive itself. There are very good argments against evolution by very scientific and intelligent persons.".

I can not address their intelligence, but I can address their science which is riddled with errors.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

Behe himself makes fundimental errors in his "Irreducible Complexity" arguments.

"For natural selection to happen, the selections must first exist."

No, all that is needed is ability to sexually reproduce. Time, natural selection, and relative isolation will do the rest.

"And no matter how they try to spin it, it is a valid argument that dna will not mutate into more successful traits without a creator involved except "by accident". That is what "by accident" means: there is no intelligent being doing it. The two are mutually exclusive: "accidents and someone doing it".

Were you paying attention in science class? Any time you feel as you need to invoke the supernatural for your argument to succeed it is not science any more, it is religion.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Howard Blood:

Of Panda's and People is not a Evolution handbook.

You are very good at calling names but you can not escape the fact that it is the Creationist/IDer's that let the cat out of the bag with http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html and cemented their modus operandi with http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

[Lareliw]

The LDS church does not believe in Intelligent Design?

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

A theory is based on facts by definition.

So how does LDS doctrine conflict with evolution? You didn't seem to make that case.

[BCSpace]

The LDS church does not believe in Intelligent Design?

No, it does not. LDS often do use the term to show that God was involved, but that is not the same I.D. that's typically debated which is Creationism.

[Rob Osborn]

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

A theory is based on facts by definition.

So how does LDS doctrine conflict with evolution? You didn't seem to make that case.

The case I have made. To clarify-

I made the case that the church is in the official position that man "did not evolve" from a lower order of animals. I also stated that the church's official position on man's origins is that he in fact is the direct and lineal offspring of deity and not from an animal.

You bring up ID and creationism from the angle that it shouldn't be a part of LDS doctrine. But, I have to ask- what part of ID or Creationism is not compatible with LDS doctrine? Personally I see no disagreements in general between ID theory and LDS doctrine- We both believe that life is not a mistake. We both believe that someone or something intelligent designed life into existance. We both agree that randomness in nature does not create complexity. So where is the dispute?

[Obiwan]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

Evolution of our bodies doesn't mean we "evolved from Apes".

Remember what the Temple states? "After it's own kind" sound familiar?

Some aspects of Evolution is correct, but certainly not all.

[Obiwan]

You have God's DNA in your cells and (therefore) his blood coursing through your veins? Really?

If Jesus were to provide a saliva sample, it would show that his father was also in your family tree?

Do you show God as your literal ancestor on your Family Pedigree Chart? If not, why not?

Your post is another example of why Mormon apologists do more harm than good to the Mormon Church.

At least the Scientologists have the good sense not to preach their "advanced technology" unfounded beliefs (think Xenu) on public forums.

You clearly don't know a thing about "mormon apologists" if you think this.

NONE of us make "wild" claims like this. Rob is his OWN person. We don't speak for him and he doesn't speak for us.

LDS theology is clear that our bodies is matter formed and then our spirits were placed in them.

It's further clear in LDS Theology that of all the Sons of God that Christ is the ONLY Begotten Son..... IN THE FLESH. Begotten "used" to mean that, but other Christians having changed the theology, further revelation made clear that Christ was the only son to be born "literally" of the Father.

Further, Rob is correct in one small way. "Israel" was quite possibly a "separate" genetic line from the children of men. Of this and whatever else he said or personally believes is simply speculation. If you claim to know "LDS Apologists" and Mormonism so well you would know this. Mormonism AND most mormons are quite "separate" from every idle speculation. Further, you don't know mormons at all to think we actually believe "crazy" things. It sound's like you believe anti-mormon lies over who were actually are and what we believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

I am well aware of the Temple drama and nothing in Evolution contradicts it.

[BCSpace]

I made the case that the church is in the official position that man "did not evolve" from a lower order of animals.

Since "man" is a spirit combined with a physical body, and evoluton only explains the creation of the physical body, and it is the spirit that is the direct offspring of God, evolution in no way implies that man evolved from lower life forms.

I also stated that the church's official position on man's origins is that he in fact is the direct and lineal offspring of deity and not from an animal.

And this conflicts with evolution how?

You bring up ID and creationism from the angle that it shouldn't be a part of LDS doctrine. But, I have to ask- what part of ID or Creationism is not compatible with LDS doctrine?

I don't think I said the Creationism is incompatible with LDS doctrine. But unlike evolution, it is problematic in several areas. The age of the earth for one. Also, LDS doctrine is quite friendly with science and science and creationism don't mix.

We both believe that life is not a mistake. We both believe that someone or something intelligent designed life into existance.

Yes. And Evolution does not address cosmogenesis and abiogenesis and so cannot be used to discredit those things.

We both agree that randomness in nature does not create complexity.

I don't think we agree on that.

So where is the dispute?

The only thing I debate in this regard is that Evolution is compatible with LDS doctrine and that Creationism is not LDS doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Remember what the Temple states? "After it's own kind" sound familiar?

Evolution teaches exacly that. An excellent illustration of this is found in the link in my siggy from about 5:30 to 6:22.

[Nathair/|\]

Science vs. Intelligent Design

Moderator:We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)Moderator:Hey, what are you doing?(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design Advocate's kneecap.)Intelligent Design Advocate:Yeaaarrrrrrgggghhh! You broke my kneecap!Scientist:Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.Intelligent Design Advocate:Aaaaah! The pain!Scientist:Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!Intelligent Design Advocate:You jerk! You know you did it!Scientist:I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.Intelligent Design Advocate:That's a load of bull sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!(Scientist turns to audience.)Scientist:And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form garbage; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

I am the Imp of the Perverse Perverse

Knowing this won't help you, either

[Rob Osborn]

Since "man" is a spirit combined with a physical body, and evoluton only explains the creation of the physical body, and it is the spirit that is the direct offspring of God, evolution in no way implies that man evolved from lower life forms.

? The text states that man is the "direct lineal offspring of deity". I take this literally to mean that man as a physical body is the direct offspring of God.

I don't think I said the Creationism is incompatible with LDS doctrine. But unlike evolution, it is problematic in several areas. The age of the earth for one. Also, LDS doctrine is quite friendly with science and science and creationism don't mix.

The age of the mortal earth according to the scriptures is right in line with Creation. What gives? LDS doctrine concerning te origin of man is completely incompatible with science on this matter. LDS doctrine concerning man's origins is all about the "creation" event.

Yes. And Evolution does not address cosmogenesis and abiogenesis and so cannot be used to discredit those things.

Every biology text I have ever read regarding evolution starts by going over the theory of abiogenesis and shows how chemical evolution is part of Darwinian evolution. That much is fact.

The only thing I debate in this regard is that Evolution is compatible with LDS doctrine and that Creationism is not LDS doctrine.

You honestly can't be serious can you? Show me one single evolutionary text that supports the essential need for an intelligent Creator and I will believe you. Evolution is godless while the creation is all about God. You are trying to turn the tables on an issue that absolutely cannot be this way. Creationism is all about God and creating while evolution is all about random acts of nature void of any god or intelligence. I win on this one!