Anti-Evolution and the Church

[LDS Guy 1986]

As an aside, evolution never has been an explanation for the origin of life, but rather for the diversity of life.

Not this nonsense, the men that support evolution near unanimously agree that evolution happens by chance, that life originated on this planet not by the design of God but by the total chance.

Yes if you twist and lie you can claim evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life, but this is falsehood because the entire premises and agenda behind the theory is that there is no creator to life.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "you must believe one or the other." Brigham Young said we should seek truth wherever it is to be found.

Yes, key word is he said to seek truth, not man made theory that deny the divine hand of God in the creation of this world!

[bu11fr0g]

If you believe that God created man from dust (meaning "fine dry particles not including long megabase intact stretches of animal DNA") then you ARE stuck with the mental gymnastics required to explain why human DNA looks the way that it does in comparison to all of God's other creations.

What is there to interpret?

dust of the ground is dust of the ground.

[WalkerW]

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

"I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys...Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys...The essential idea of common ancestry is that ultimately all living things on this planet share common ancestors if we go far enough back into the past...We share a common ancestor with all primate species. This means that we're related, by having a single ancestor somewhere in the past, to monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. But the idea of common ancestry goes way deeper than simply saying we're related to monkeys. We're in fact related to all mammals. You go farther back, we are related to all vertebrates. And, ultimately, we are related, if you go far enough back, to every living thing on this planet. The almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time." (Ken Miller, "In Defense of Evolution," NOVA, Interview by Joe McMaster, April 19, 2007; emphasis mine)

[LDS Guy 1986]

Actually, if you read the link in my siggy regarding doctrine, the Church thinks it does matter. In this case, if it's doctrine it will be officially published. It wouldn't matter if it were in this case. Since evolution does not imply that man (a spirit child of God in combination with a physical body) cannot be a direct descendent of God, Elder Bowen misses the mark.

You are wrong here because to miss the big picture here, to believe in evolution one must believe that man is not made by the hand of God in God's image. If man is the mutant descendant of another unknown common ancestor of apes then the entire validity of the scriptures is destroyed.

No creation means no Adam and Eve, no Adam and Eve, means no Garden of Eden or fall, no fall means we are not here to become more like God we are just here!

Also as Luigi stated earlier, if you believe in evolution one must also believe that God is simply a part of that evolution. That man made God to help him though things he couldn't understand till he evolved enough to figure things out on his own.

Evolution (as a whole) can never be compatible with religion, it destroyed the basis of the Plan of Salvation and mortal life as professed by all religions.

[LDS Guy 1986]

"I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys...Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys...The essential idea of common ancestry is that ultimately all living things on this planet share common ancestors if we go far enough back into the past...We share a common ancestor with all primate species. This means that we're related, by having a single ancestor somewhere in the past, to monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. But the idea of common ancestry goes way deeper than simply saying we're related to monkeys. We're in fact related to all mammals. You go farther back, we are related to all vertebrates. And, ultimately, we are related, if you go far enough back, to every living thing on this planet. The almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time." (Ken Miller, "In Defense of Evolution," NOVA, Interview by Joe McMaster, April 19, 2007; emphasis mine)

And this is not compatible with the inspired words of God as revealed to his Prophets!

[WalkerW]

For those interested, I strongly suggest

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Cliff Street Books, 1999).

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation and also recently edited Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith (HarperOne, 2010).

Simon Conway Morris, "Evolution and the Inevitability of Intelligent Life" in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010) as well as his 2005 Boyle Lecture entitled "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation."

[WalkerW]

And this is not compatible with the inspired words of God as revealed to his Prophets!

I wasn't aware that the majority of prophets had a profound knowledge of or gave detailed accounts of human biology.

[WalkerW]

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.

...

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.

Richard Dawkins is actually quite brilliant in his biological field. Where he gets into trouble is his philosophical and social critiques.

[WalkerW]

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:

Evolution takes life for granted. It doesn't explain where it came from, which is what everyone gets upset about.

[Rivers]

And this is not compatible with the inspired words of God as revealed to his Prophets!

Well Prophets don't know everything. They don't know all the mysteries of the universe. The prophets have designated scientific matters to the scientists.

Here is a first presidency statement following debate about Pre-Adamites

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

The prophets themselves have left science to scientists. When it comes to spiritual matters, I'll listen to the prophet. When it comes to scientific matters I go to a scientist. If I want to learn how to scuba dive, I'll go to someone who knows how to scuba dive. etc etc.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I agree. So you seem to have missed the point which is that doctrine is more important than scripture, hence the illustration of John 3:5. Without the interpretation of the prophets of the LDS Church, we would not necessarily know what John 3:5 means and could end up like, heaven forbid, evangelicals. Neither you nor I is qualified to determine for the Church or the world what LDS doctrine is but we can point to the official publications as to what is official doctrine. And speaking of which, you don't seem to be aware of all them when trying to make the ccase for your erroneous antievolution argument.

I disagree, you do not need a prophet to understand the eternal truths of the Gospel, remember that a prophet is still a man he is not more or less wise or intelligent than the man next to him. In fact in many cases prophets are under educated by the standards of there peers.

So assuming that a prophet has this super ability to understand the scriptures is not logical or scriptural, each of us can find these truth out without the prophets, in fact each of us are required to find these truths out for ourselves. Look to Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor they both had come to accept that there was a Great Apostasy on the Earth long before they received the Restored Gospel.

I admit having a prophet to help guide you makes it much easier but it is not a requirement by any means, those who seek the truth humbly will receive the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, this is a guarantee. They cannot receive all the truth at once but if you study the Bible diligently and humbly one discovers the truth, regardless of the presence of a prophet.

I have seen this personally in missionary work, I have personally spoken with a person that believe that the world is in a state of spiritual darkness and that there is a need for prophets and apostles to be restored to the Earth. This person had never before heard about the LDS Church or our message of the Restoration.

So like I said earlier there isn't a need for a prophet to find truth, a prophet is here to help us find truth but it is up to us to find it.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Richard Dawkins is actually quite brilliant in his biological field. Where he gets into trouble is his philosophical and social critiques.

I never disputed his as a biologist, he is a very knowledgeable person, but he is also a major hypocrite and a extremely proud and vain man. He would viciously attack someone who believed in ID or creationism if he feels that they are not as educated as he is, but when he meets a suitable opponent he quickly retracts such arrogant tactics and admits that life has a distinct signature that implies it was created by design instead of happening by chance.

IMO hypocrites have no credibility regardless of how much the know in there field of expertise, if you have no morals and operate under no ethics your have no credibility.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Well ProphetsPr don't know everything. They don't know all the mysteries of the universe. The prophets have designated scientific matters to the scientists.

The prophets themselves have left science to scientists.

I think you need to reread the quote you posted, there was no mention of leaving science to the scientist, it said that many of these scientific issues have no impact on salvation so the Church has no care since it's mission from God is to win souls to Christ and save mankind. You really take this out of context and ignore the various times that the Church has made stances on this that science refutes (such as homosexuality and same sex marriage) but the Church still steps in and says this is the will of God.

Believe me if the Church left science to the scientists like you said there would be no controversy in our Church, but yet you are wrong and the Church does take stances on issue of scientific matters when it enters there domain. Almost every time this happens it causes much controversy for the Church but as we are taught the Prophet reveals the will of the lord, and we put our faith in that even if man refutes is, if we hold to the will of the Lord do we will eventually be vindicated, God promises us this!.

[WalkerW]

I never disputed his as a biologist, he is a very knowledgeable person, but he is also a major hypocrite and a extremely proud and vain man. He would viciously attack someone who believed in ID or creationism if he feels that they are not as educated as he is, but when he meets a suitable opponent he quickly retracts such arrogant tactics and admits that life has a distinct signature that implies it was created by design instead of happening by chance.

IMO hypocrites have no credibility regardless of how much the know in there field of expertise, if you have no morals and operate under no ethics your have no credibility.

He is a hypocrite. But you were saying that him being a hypocrite zaps his credibility when it comes to talking about evolutionary biology. I'm afraid it doesn't. Anyone remotely interested in the merits of evolution should read his The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, 2009).

[WalkerW]

As for the Bible (specifically Genesis 1) being a science book, Babylonian science is not modern science.

Creationism is largely influenced by the fundamentalist movements of the early 20th century. Presupposing the biblical literalism born out of the Protestant Reformation and the secularized nature of science, fundamentalism was the panicked reactions to Darwinism, the Social Gospel, and German higher biblical criticism.

Speaking on biblical imagery (particularly in the creation stories), Methodist scholar Margaret Barker writes, "These [images] are specific to one culture, that of Israel and Judaism, and until they are fully understood in their original setting, little of what is done with the writings and ideas that came from that particular setting can be understood. Once we lose touch with the meaning of biblical imagery, we lose any way into the real meaning of the Bible. This has already begun to happen and a diluted

[semlogo]

Bold

Maybe, but facts are facts. We can't change them just because we don't like them.

[LDS Guy 1986]

He is a hypocrite. But you were saying that him being a hypocrite zaps his credibility when it comes to talking about evolutionary biology. I'm afraid it doesn't. Anyone remotely interested in the merits of evolution should read his The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, 2009).

I disagree, if you are a hypocrite then you are a liar, and I have no trust in liars. It doesn't matter what you are taking about, or how much you know on the subject. If you publicly argue one view and privately disagree with it, but are willing to insult and tear apart those who disagree with you then you can never ever be trusted on anything.

Look what happened to Dan Rather's with his false report about Bush's military service in 2004, it ended his career in broadcasting, he couldn't be trusted because he didn't verify his sources, all it takes is one lie to ruin a lifetime of success.

Dawkins has spent a good portion of his career attacking Intelligent Design and calling its supporters ignorant, stupid, and uneducated. To admit that those claims were a lie, destroys his credibility as a scientist.

[LDS Guy 1986]

As for the Bible (specifically Genesis 1) being a science book, Babylonian science is not modern science.

Creationism is largely influenced by the fundamentalist movements of the early 20th century. Presupposing the biblical literalism born out of the Protestant Reformation and the secularized nature of science, fundamentalism was the panicked reactions to Darwinism, the Social Gospel, and German higher biblical criticism.

Speaking on biblical imagery (particularly in the creation stories), Methodist scholar Margaret Barker writes, "These [images] are specific to one culture, that of Israel and Judaism, and until they are fully understood in their original setting, little of what is done with the writings and ideas that came from that particular setting can be understood. Once we lose touch with the meaning of biblical imagery, we lose any way into the real meaning of the Bible. This has already begun to happen and a diluted

[WalkerW]

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'm a bit embarrassed by this, to be frank. It's one thing to attack the positivist philosophes that underpine atheistic Darwinism. It is another to completely embrace the caricature of evolutionary biology.

This is just irresponsible.

It is stuff like this that makes it hard for me to take General Conference and the like seriously.

[LDS Guy 1986]

As for the Bible (specifically Genesis 1) being a science book, Babylonian science is not modern science.

Also your history is a bit rusty, Mose grew up in Egypt not Babylon! It would be an Egyptian science book not a Babylonian science book by your standards.

Of course to the faithful it is the record of the creation of this world revealed to the prophet Moses by Jehovah!

[Loran Howard Blood]

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.

Which is precisely the problem with evolutionary theory. Were the theory to simply stop its explanatory ministrations at the development and increasing diversity of organic life on earth, the problems would be relegated to the empirical/philosophical gaps in the theory per se, which could be handled as matters of theoretical difficulty the way all gaps/problem in scientific theories are handled.

However, the theory has traditionally been extended from the development of organic life to its ultimate origins, as well as to the ultimate origins of everything, from the cosmos itself to the emergence of mind, culture, art, religion, philosophy and all other aspects of the human condition. Everything is understood to be nothing more than epiphenomena of evolutionary development.

The philosophical, social and cultural costs of this belief have been nothing short of catastrophic. Without God, everything is, indeed, permitted.

[WalkerW]

Dawkins has spent a good portion of his career attacking Intelligent Design and calling its supporters ignorant, stupid, and uneducated. To admit that those claims were a lie, destroys his credibility as a scientist.

How exactly? We're all hypocrites to some degree. But being arrogant doesn't suddenly make your work void. The mistake would have to be with his research (e.g. falsifying information), though science allows rooms for mistakes.

[LDS Guy 1986]

How exactly? We're all hypocrites to some degree. But being arrogant doesn't suddenly make your work void. The mistake would have to be with his research (e.g. falsifying information), though science allows rooms for mistakes.

If that arrogance make you a liar it does!

Added by edit:

The mistake would have to be with his research (e.g. falsifying information), though science allows rooms for mistakes.

You are totally wrong if you falsify information, you are done in the scientific community. You lose all credibility and you will never be published or receive any funding for research again.

Also ethics and morals go far beyond the workplace, look at Freud. He was a very unethical man, he consistently lied about his research and falsified his results, even threatened those who lied for him if they retracted there statements. His finding are widely and deeply disputed, and the only reason why he his mentioned in modern psychology is he contribution to the idea that your upbringing has lasting and permanent effects on your mental health.

His theories are for the most part rejected across the board, there is still some out there that teach psychoanalysis but it is becoming rarer each year. His obsession that everything could be explained with sex, that women wished they had a penis, and that everything you thought of some how related to sex, penis, or vagina, was tossed out in his days by the majority of the academic community. How parts of it manage to survive this long is a mystery to me.

[WalkerW]

Biblical imagery in Genesis is a crock made up by those who seek to fit in with modern thinkers, just like the leaders of the RCC sought to fit in with the popular thoughts of the time (the Greeks) and made up false doctrines like the trinity to fit in with the popular ideas of the day.

The scriptures are inspired of God he doesn't deceive us, only proud and "knowledgeable" theologians do that.

Seriously? There is no ancient Near Eastern imagery in the biblical creation accounts?

You're taking on a very Protestant literalism.