Jump to content

Anti-Evolution and the Church


kolipoki09

Recommended Posts

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Elder Shayne M. Bowen of the First Quorum of the Seventy made a devotional address at BYU-Idaho that took a decidedly "anti-Evolution" worldview. Among other things, Elder Bowen noted:

I know that when we understand who we are, we are empowered to act differently. We rise and act in accordance with the potential that is within us. As we talk today, please bear in mind that the father of all lies
Link to comment

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Elder Shayne M. Bowen of the First Quorum of the Seventy made a devotional address at BYU-Idaho that took a decidedly "anti-Evolution" worldview. Among other things, Elder Bowen noted:

Should I simply ignore this and dismiss it as an opinion of one of hundreds of fallible GA's in the past, or should I seriously reconsider my position that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life?...or perhaps another option I'm not aware of?

You're free to do either, but take note to be careful of the venues at which you choose to actually voice either option.

Link to comment

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Elder Shayne M. Bowen of the First Quorum of the Seventy made a devotional address at BYU-Idaho that took a decidedly "anti-Evolution" worldview. Among other things, Elder Bowen noted:

Should I simply ignore this and dismiss it as an opinion of one of hundreds of fallible GA's in the past, or should I seriously reconsider my position that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life?...or perhaps another option I'm not aware of?

One of our instructors in my Elder's Quorum is a biologist and he too used to struggle with this as well. For years he felt that God created us through evolution, he tried hard and long to reconcile the differences from the scriptures and what he felt was the facts of science.

He decided to prayerfully study the scriptures, and while doing so his testimony was strengthened that God created the world as he told us he did in the scriptures. He decided to dig deeper into the "facts" behind evolution and began to see the numerous assumptions, flawed theories, and poor science used to prop up this political ideal that man is not the creation of Heavenly Father but the is the result of millions of years of mutation of other animals.

Now, in the end there is not proof either way, both take faith and both require deep study and pondering.

This brother is still a very successful biologist and he is sure of this convictions, I as well am sure that the scriptures are correct that the man has man walked the Earth for 6,000 years and was created in the image of our Heavenly Father.

Now this position took much study and ultimately required a personal decision to be made, ultimately I highly doubt one of the things Christ will care about is if one thinks evolution is real.

It isn't a subject that one must accept or reject to receive exaltation, the only danger of evolution is if one denies the existence of God because they think evolution "disproves" (which any competent scientist knows that science never proves or disproves, it simply collects data to be analyzed, people say they prove or disprove but people are biased) that God ever existed.

Link to comment

I can't tell you how to believe, but I really like Elder Russell M. Nelson's take on this. He was a gifted heart surgeon and certainly had his share of schooling in the merits of Darwinism, which he rejects outright.

"Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a

Link to comment

He is right. Men evolving from monkeys is a lie. This is not what evolution teaches.

The only lie is your statement, twisting words and declaring it false is not truth. Evolution teaches that Man and monkey (or specifically primeapes) have an unknown common ancestor that both descended from over millions of years of separation and mutation.

To back this claim up they present ZERO evidence, they simply make claims and draw diagrams without a single piece of evidence to support the idea. All you need is show these transitional forms or show the common ancestor, you have all these fossils where is the common ancestor that both man and primeape evolved from?

Link to comment

kolipoki09:

You, of course can believe anything you like. But me and my house will follow the facts. God exists, he knows each and everyone of us in the most deeply and personal way, and he used evolution to create everything.

Once again there is no such thing in science as a fact! Only data and how that data is analyzed!

I don't see why you insist on repeating the same false statement again and again?

Not only are your "facts" incorrect they are also heretical according to most if not all Churches. Evolution (as a theory that man is a product or biological mutations of other extinct and unknown creatures) cannot coincide with the scriptures that say repeatedly that man was made by the hand of Jehovah in the image of the Gods.

Added by Edit:

This is even more in conflict with LDS doctrine because we have even more scriptures that also reinforce and add more testaments that God made man with his hand, separate from the rest of the animals of Earth.

Link to comment

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Elder Shayne M. Bowen of the First Quorum of the Seventy made a devotional address at BYU-Idaho that took a decidedly "anti-Evolution" worldview. Among other things, Elder Bowen noted:

Should I simply ignore this and dismiss it as an opinion of one of hundreds of fallible GA's in the past, or should I seriously reconsider my position that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life?...or perhaps another option I'm not aware of?

I am split on the issue; I do not discount the earth having gone through and evolutionary stage (in fact that is evident). But the actions of the sixth day in the creation narrative, I believe to be a singular event

Link to comment

You're right Chris.

First off Richard Dawkins is about anti-god/religion as you can get so your "witness" is so biased that he testimony wouldn't stand any cross examination.

Also note how he can't tell us who this common ancestor is from 6 million years ago and that the diagram has no picture of this common ancestor. This is poor science folks the only way he could know such things is by observation of the events 6 million years ago (which to the the faithful is a silly number since we know through the scriptures that man has only walked the Earth for 6,000 years and the Earth had only existed for 12,000 years) and I am going to assume that he wasn't there 6 million years ago.

This is the ultimate case of the pot calling the kettle black, we are accused of using rhetoric over data, yet right here you have your expert witness using rhetoric and making assumption based on no data whatsoever.

Also your expert witness has also admitted on camera that intelligent design is possible as long as aliens who are the designers not God. (the evidence for my first claim that Dawkins is anti God)

Your expert is not only a hypocrite (since he denies ID and attacks the supporters of it without mercy calling them ignorant and stupid, then admits on camera that ID is possible) but he is so biased against the concept of a God that anything that comes out of his mouth when it comes to the origins of life cannot have a drop of credibility.

Link to comment
Should I simply ignore this and dismiss it as an opinion of one of hundreds of fallible GA's in the past, or should I seriously reconsider my position that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life?...or perhaps another option I'm not aware of?

You can ignore it (or heed it if you feel so inclined) as a BYU devotional is not official doctrine. I would certainly take issue with Elder Bowen as evolution does not preclude man from being created in the image of God or descended directly from Him. Whether Elder Bowen knows it or not, agrees or not, he is actually responding to the atheist assumption that evolution shows that God is not the source of life or involved in the creation.

Link to comment

You can ignore it (or heed it if you feel so inclined) as a BYU devotional is not official doctrine. I would certainly take issue with Elder Bowen as evolution does not preclude man from being created in the image of God or descended directly from Him. Whether Elder Bowen knows it or not, agrees or not, he is actually responding to the atheist assumption that evolution shows that God is not the source of life or involved in the creation.

But the Ensign is official doctrine and the Ensign says the Evolution is wrong: http://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Link to comment

Your expert is not only a hypocrite (since he denies ID and attacks the supporters of it without mercy calling them ignorant and stupid, then admits on camera that ID is possible) but he is so biased against the concept of a God that anything that comes out of his mouth when it comes to the origins of life cannot have a drop of credibility.

Carrying a bit of bias yourself??

Link to comment

I am sure you still have some; I am no longer allowed to receive them. But thanks for agreeing. I would give you one, but I can't do so.

No, you can only give so many points per day and i've reach my limit. It has nothing to do with you. I'll give you one tomorrow to make up for it. :P

Link to comment

LDS Guy 1986:

Only YOUR interpretation of Scripture is at issue. Nowhere does evolution state that man evolved from monkey's. We're two separate biological lines with a common ancestor.

And the scriptures say this is a falsehood, God made man by his hand from the dust after he made the beast of the earth, air, and sea. We do not have a common ancestor, our only common link is we were all made by the hand of Jehovah.

As I have continually explained (and so far you have ignored) stating we have a common ancestor and not having any evidence to support his claim makes your argument invalid you need evidence to support the claims. Show me fossils of transitional forms, show me fossils of the common ancestors!

Show me something, you show nothing not a single shred of evidence and the scientist who argue this admit they have no evidence as my previous video post shows.

In case you didn't watch your expert admit he has no evidence then admit the possibility of Intelligent Design (as long as it isn't God doing it) here is a repost:

Link to comment

To say that mankind was created independently of the animals requires heroic mental twistings to accommodate findings. Francis Collins book The Language of God goes into some detail from a theist who deeply understands genetics.

The presence of pseudogenes, color vision (gene duplication), loss of vitamin C metabolism, ordering of genes, locations of viral inserts, etc., are facts. I can't see how it is possible to conceive of an independent origin other than to say that God was intentionally doing things to fool us or that God Himself evolved from animals.

First off Richard Dawkins is about anti-god/religion as you can get so your "witness" is so biased that he testimony wouldn't stand any cross examination.

Also note how he can't tell us who this common ancestor is from 6 million years ago and that the diagram has no picture of this common ancestor. This is poor science folks the only way he could know such things is by observation of the events 6 million years ago (which to the the faithful is a silly number since we know through the scriptures that man has only walked the Earth for 6,000 years and the Earth had only existed for 12,000 years) and I am going to assume that he wasn't there 6 million years ago.

This is the ultimate case of the pot calling the kettle black, we are accused of using rhetoric over data, yet right here you have your expert witness using rhetoric and making assumption based on no data whatsoever.

Also your expert witness has also admitted on camera that intelligent design is possible as long as aliens who are the designers not God. (the evidence for my first claim that Dawkins is anti God)

Your expert is not only a hypocrite (since he denies ID and attacks the supporters of it without mercy calling them ignorant and stupid, then admits on camera that ID is possible) but he is so biased against the concept of a God that anything that comes out of his mouth when it comes to the origins of life cannot have a drop of credibility.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...