Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[Xander]

Then I would say you have got your "facts" wrong. Evolution is not a fact. Fossils are facts; DNA is a fact; carbon dating is a fact; even "natural selection" (or a limited form of it) is a fact; but Evolution isn't. Evolution is a way of interpreting those facts; and there are perfectly good reputable scientists who disagree with that interpretation

Yes, and usually for dogmatic reasons. The point is, there is no good reason to put dogma above science. Religion of all stripes has a horrible track record of telling us truths about the world around us.

Mormonism tells us to put faith in Church leaders no matter what. Anything else would be trusting the "arm of the flesh" or the "reasoning of men" which we are told, are not God's ways.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Xander

[Garden Girl]

I for one have always believed that a form of evolution was part of the creation process, and appreciate the scriptures that tell how the Gods "organized" the earth to bring forth various things such as grasses, herbs, fruits... each utilizing seed of their own kind... then the Gods sat back and watched those things that they had ordered to see that they were obeyed... and then the Gods prepared the waters to bring forth every living creature which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind... and the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and their plan was good.

And then the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creatures, everything after its own kind, and they saw that they would be obeyed.

IMO what they organized and ordered... what they waited and watched until they were obeyed, IS part of evolution.

And after all this oganizing and obeying of that which had been ordered, the Gods then "formed" man in their image... US, male and female... and gave man dominion over every living thing... and they planted a garden and placed man therein... in essence, the beginning of "us."

How long did each stage of the process take? For all that was organized and ordered to respond as they watched? Until the earth was ready for man?

So, I believe in an evolutionary process -- not Darwinism -- as part of creation. Someday we will understand how it was done (See D&C 101:32-34).

GG

[Xander]

I don't see how evolution can be realistically reconciled with creation. For one thing, according to evolution, we're still evolving. A million years from now we would necessarily evolve into a different species altogether, and yet we're told in Mormonism that we're created in God's image in the most literal sense; an image which happens to be anthropomorphic, as man exists in his current form. Both ideas cannot be true.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Xander

[Jeff K.]

When dogma contradicts fact, I feel morally and spiritually justified with letting fact trump dogma in my personal beliefs. I don't feel guilty about it all as a faithful, active Mormon. Mormonism doesn't constrain us to believe anything that isn't true, but it often will ask us to tolerate many who believe things that are not (Articles of Faith 11). That doesn't mean I have the right to teach anything speculative as fact in official Church settings in an official Church role, nor does it constrain me to teach something I don't personally believe to be true, or important - even if it is in a manual somewhere.

Some feel that the more unfounded, contradictory and unbelievable or unprovable or unexeperiencable the things they affirm (or a leader has asserted) are, the more holy or righteous their faith is. Some pride themselves on not reading any actual history or scientific studies. They view their intentional ignorance as a sign of devotion. That just may be.

As for me and my house, we don't buy it.

Faith is a believe in true things that can't be proven, not necessarily false things that can't be proven. If something can or cannot be proven then its merely the interpretation of facts by individuals.

[Jeff K.]

I don't see how evolution can be realistically reconciled with creation. For one thing, according to evolution, we're still evolving. A million years from now we would necessarily evolve into a different species altogether, and yet we're told in Mormonism that we're created in God's image in the most literal sense; an image which happens to be anthropomorphic, as man exists in his current form. Both ideas cannot be true.

Xander's quote is a perfect example of my post. He cannot imagine how creation and evolution can have a reconciliation or how the differences can be fully resolved. That is his interpretation. People have discussed it already, there is no ready proof one way or another. But it is beyond his ability to reconcile. The shortcoming in an ability to reconcile means of course to some that it simply cannot be. To others though, it means simply that it cannot be proven. Personal interpretation.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

My son is in my image, and yet does that mean he has not evolved or changed? Can anyone tell me what our image will be in say a million years and how that image will be distinct from God's? What if it remains relatively the same since we have learned to control our environment?

[Xander]

Faith is a believe in true things that can't be proven, not necessarily false things that can't be proven. If something can or cannot be proven then its merely the interpretation of facts by individuals

Huh? People have faith in things that have been proven false, all the time. But because of their faith, they refuse to accept what's reasonably been shown to be true. I've seen apologists on this forum tell me that no amount of evidence would ever be enough to convince them that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet. This proves that there really is no point in trying to have an evidence-based debate with some people. And in my experience, that's typical in Mormon thought, since to accept such evidence would be nothing short of placing one's trust in the "arm of the flesh."

[Kenngo1969]

BYU is an academic institution, and as such it teaches academic subjects according to the prevailing opinions and theories of the day. It does not take a theological position on scientific and academic subjects. The Church, on the other hand, does reserve the right to declare an academic or scientific theory false by revelation if it (or the Lord) chooses to. The Church is not an academic institution, and is not bound by scientific theories and opinions of men.

There are plenty of academic institutions sponsored by religous bodies which circumscribe (or prohibit) the teaching of evolution in those institutions. If such teaching were contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no reason why the Church would not (or at least, why it could not) do the same at the academic institutions it sponsors. It does not. One can believe in evolution without believing that men ascended (or descended, if you prefer) from primates. (There are those pesky missing links!) Evolution is a current, observable phonomenon. As for the humanoids which apparently populated the planet for billions of years, do you know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, or what was going on outside the garden while they were there? I don't. I don't see any conflict between the teaching of biology and the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, and none of what you say in response to my previous post undercuts that position.

[Jeff K.]

[Jeff K.]

Huh? People have faith in things that have been proven false, all the time. But because of their faith, they refuse to accept what's reasonably been shown to be true. I've seen apologists on this forum tell me that no amount of evidence would ever be enough to convince them that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet. This proves that there really is no point in trying to have an evidence-based debate with some people. And in my experience, that's typical in Mormon thought, since to accept such evidence would be nothing short of placing one's trust in the "arm of the flesh."

Not quite accurate. You will need to double check on the definition of faith versus your definition of faith.

[Xander]

Xander's quote is a perfect example of my post. He cannot imagine how creation and evolution can have a reconciliation or how the differences can be fully resolved. That is his interpretation. People have discussed it already, there is no ready proof one way or another. But it is beyond his ability to reconcile. The shortcoming in an ability to reconcile means of course to some that it simply cannot be. To others though, it means simply that it cannot be proven. Personal interpretation.

This isn't personal interpretation. Interpretation of what? If you think you can reconcile it, then do so. Just saying it is my interpretation makes no sense. We are still evolving, according to science. We evolved from a single cell organism. Yet, according to Mormonism, we were originally created in an anthropomorphic image shared by God himself. At which point in time did he create us in his image? In a few hundred thousand years, when human beings evolve into a completely different species, will we still be in the image of God? Of course not. If God truly looks like Joseph Smith said, then humanity shares that image only in its current state. It will not share that image in a million years and it certainly could not have shared that image "in the beginning."

[Xander]

Not quite accurate. You will need to double check on the definition of faith versus your definition of faith.

It isn't my definition. The definition of faith doesn't require your personal qualification that it only be a belief in "true" things. You're the one personalizing the word here and you're doing it for dogmatic purposes, apparently.

[Jeff K.]

Huh? People have faith in things that have been proven false, all the time. But because of their faith, they refuse to accept what's reasonably been shown to be true. I've seen apologists on this forum tell me that no amount of evidence would ever be enough to convince them that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet. This proves that there really is no point in trying to have an evidence-based debate with some people. And in my experience, that's typical in Mormon thought, since to accept such evidence would be nothing short of placing one's trust in the "arm of the flesh."

I have seen tons of people come up with "evidence" regarding one thing or another. Consider the Salamander Letters which some have grasped upon as ultimate proof. So when someone says to you "no amount of proof", they may be thinking of something that may have been presented to them as legitimate proof which turned out to be utterly false.

As to "your experience" being typical Mormon thought. You seem to have a limited experience, in my years I have yet to really know what is typical Mormon thought since this forum and others shows a diversity. If I might, your experience seems so limited, and so narrow, that perhaps you aren't really very familiar with Mormons.

[Xander]

One can believe in evolution without believing that men ascended (or descended, if you prefer) from primates.

This is like saying I believe in Astronomy, and I also believe people live on the sun. If you believe in Evolution, then you believe man evolved from other species, and that all species evolved from a single celled organism. Primates just happen to have a DNA signature most similar to our own, so it is widely accepted that they are our closest relatives.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Xander

[Jeff K.]

This isn't personal interpretation. Interpretation of what? If you think you can reconcile it, then do so. Just saying it is my interpretation makes no sense. We are still evolving, according to science. We evolved from a single cell organism. Yet, according to Mormonism, we were originally created in an anthropomorphic image shared by God himself. At which point in time did he create us in his image? In a few hundred thousand years, when human beings evolve into a completely different species, will we still be in the image of God? Of course not. If God truly looks like Joseph Smith said, then humanity shares that image only in its current state. It will not share that image in a million years and it certainly could not have shared that image "in the beginning."

Xander's quote is a perfect example of my post. He cannot imagine how creation and evolution can have a reconciliation or how the differences can be fully resolved. That is his interpretation. People have discussed it already, there is no ready proof one way or another. But it is beyond his ability to reconcile. The shortcoming in an ability to reconcile means of course to some that it simply cannot be. To others though, it means simply that it cannot be proven. Personal interpretation.

Your interpretation being the limit of what you can see meaning it cannot exist.

[Jeff K.]

This is like saying I believe in Astronomy, and I also believe people live on the sun. If you believe in Evolution, then you believe man evolved from other species, and that all species evolved from a single celled organism. Primates just happen to have a DNA signature most similar to our own, so it is widely accepted that they are our closest relatives.

Actually its not, but we understand that is the only interpretation you can grasp.

[katherine the great]

Then I would say you have got your "facts" wrong. Evolution is not a fact. Fossils are facts; DNA is a fact; carbon dating is a fact; even "natural selection" (or a limited form of it) is a fact; but Evolution isn't. Evolution is a way of interpreting those facts; and there are perfectly good reputable scientists who disagree with that interpretation.

Wrong Z. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next over time and can be observed. It is a fact.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

One can believe in evolution without believing that men ascended (or descended, if you prefer) from primates.

This is like saying I believe in Astronomy, and I also believe people live on the sun. If you believe in Evolution, then you believe man evolved from other species, and that all species evolved from a single celled organism. Primates just happen to have a DNA signature most similar to our own, so it is widely accepted that they are our closest relatives.

Are we the only life forms? Is our life form the only one that can possibly exist? I suppose if you cannot concieve of anything different then yes, there can indeed be a narrow perception of what life is and how it exists or interacts with its environment. Some scientists though, they seem to think that life and types of life may actually occur outside of a carbon based system. Silly I know.

[Xander]

I have seen tons of people come up with "evidence" regarding one thing or another. Consider the Salamander Letters which some have grasped upon as ultimate proof. So when someone says to you "no amount of proof", they may be thinking of something that may have been presented to them as legitimate proof which turned out to be utterly false.

So Mikey says his dream constitutes evidence that the world would end yesterday. But the world didn't end yesterday. Therefore, you're going to poo poo on the concept of evidence just because some people claim evidence for things that isn't really evidence? That is the same rationale atheists use for dissing God simply because they encountered a false religion.

Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to rationalize away the power of evidence with comments like these, instead of confronting valid evidence head on. You just proved the point I was trying to make in Mormon thought. You'll second guess evidence if it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but you'll never second guess proclamations by the "Lord's anointed."

As to "your experience" being typical Mormon thought. You seem to have a limited experience, in my years I have yet to really know what is typical Mormon thought since this forum and others shows a diversity. If I might, your experience seems so limited, and so narrow, that perhaps you aren't really very familiar with Mormons.

My experience is twenty-four years and counting. And besides, your comment above pretty much solidified my point. You'll second guess evidence by whatever mean necessary because you don't trust in the arm of the flesh. But if President Monson made a statement tomorrow claiming it was divine revelation, you'd accept it as true no questions asked.

[katherine the great]

I don't see how evolution can be realistically reconciled with creation. For one thing, according to evolution, we're still evolving. A million years from now we would necessarily evolve into a different species altogether, and yet we're told in Mormonism that we're created in God's image in the most literal sense; an image which happens to be anthropomorphic, as man exists in his current form. Both ideas cannot be true.

Sure they can. If we consider all forms before physically and behaviorally fully modern human to be part of the creative period and expect that the world will end before any future speciation, they can both be true. Also, a million years does not guarantee a speciation and even if it does, the entire species does not usually change--just an isolate of it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 January 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Not quite accurate. You will need to double check on the definition of faith versus your definition of faith.

It isn't my definition. The definition of faith doesn't require your personal qualification that it only be a belief in "true" things. You're the one personalizing the word here and you're doing it for dogmatic purposes, apparently.

Belief in things that are true. Though by your interpretation, you had or would have had great faith in the Salamander Letters.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

I have seen tons of people come up with "evidence" regarding one thing or another. Consider the Salamander Letters which some have grasped upon as ultimate proof. So when someone says to you "no amount of proof", they may be thinking of something that may have been presented to them as legitimate proof which turned out to be utterly false.

So Mikey says his dream constitutes evidence that the world would end yesterday. But the world didn't end yesterday. Therefore, you're going to poo poo on the concept of evidence just because some people claim evidence for things that isn't really evidence? That is the same rationale atheists use for dissing God simply because they encountered a false religion.

Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to rationalize away the power of evidence with comments like these, instead of confronting valid evidence head on. You just proved the point I was trying to make in Mormon thought. You'll second guess evidence if it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but you'll never second guess proclamations by the "Lord's anointed."

One is usually sure the argument is lost when one party decides to use demeaning language. I think that is as close as you will come to acknowledging defeat and I accept it as such. Not sure who your "Mikey" is and what "poo poo" you are attempting to give us. But it seems you haven't quite gotten out of the narrow niche you seem to keep putting yourself into.

[katherine the great]

One can believe in evolution without believing that men ascended (or descended, if you prefer) from primates. (There are those pesky missing links!)

Humans are primates.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But he's still an Apostle, speaking in General Conference (and the talk is still found on the Church website). As far as I know, a talk from a living apostle in conference is worth 4 unpublished memos from the First Presidency, 11 articles from the unoffical Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 14 Dialogue articles and 23 Sunstone articles.

Your argument rests on a fallacious appeal to authority. As President George Q. Cannon taught in Gospel Truth,"the First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible." Apostles are fallible, and not everything spoken in General Conference is binding doctrine. They, like everyone else, may teach only by persuasion, because it is impossible to coerce true belief.

Elder Packer did not form arguments which persuaded me in his talk, and I think that is based on his unfamiliarity with contradictory information which I have personally encountered. Moreover, he did not declare his talk to be a revelation from God. Every person on the planet has the right to receive personal revelation to confirm the truth of statements - the Book of Mormon specifically testifies that there may exist "wise men" that people who believe in God do not know. (Wise about what? Perhaps scientific questions?) As Joseph F. Smith said, "we talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never."

I do not judge the truth of any statement based on who said it, I judge it based on whether or not it makes sense. As Joseph Smith said, "all I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth." If it doesn't make sense to me, I am (quite obviously) incapable of believing it, which is why I was not a religious person until I became LDS, and would have no particular objection to withdrawing my membership if the religious claims we advance stopped making sense to me.

I believe, based on what evidence I have encountered, that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet. If I am shown evidence that he was not what he claimed to be, then I would want nothing to do with him - he would stand revealed as the monstrous hoaxer his critics have always claimed him to be. But based on what I've read of him - a fair amount of primary material, as well as that of anti-Mormons and tempered by "apologists" like Bushman, Givens, the Maxwell Institute guys, etc., I think he was what he said he was.

I'm not in this because all my friends or family are - quite the contrary. I'm not in this because it's an easy, comfortable religion. I'm in this because the religious paradigm that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's "Nauvoo theology" form the most expansive worldview that I have yet encountered - one which I find to be not only compatible with scientific findings such as evolution (as I understand them), but actively enriching, especially from a historical perspective (which is my field). I find that books such as Santillana's Hamlet's Mill, or Barrow's The World Within the World provide equally powerful "numinous" insights into the Great Drama we Uncreated Intelligences find ourselves in the midst of. Like Hugh Nibley said - "It is a situation in which I find myself: I am stuck with the gospel, I know perfectly well that it is true; there may be things about the Church that I find perfectly appalling - but that has nothing to do with it."

Many religious claims (especially those by Trinitarians) did not make sense to me. I doubted their veracity, regardless of whatever "authority" they claimed. Christ taught that it is the truth that will set us free - not the title of an office. As President Hugh B. Brown said, "doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self." And one of the things I like best about the Church is that we can be wrong and yet still be "true" to each other if our faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121)

As McConkie said after the Priesthood ban was lifted: "Forget everything I have said, or what [...] Brigham Young [...] or whomsoever has said [...] that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

That's what continuing Revelation is for. That's what eternal progression is. Learning.

We are not asked to turn our brains off when we join the Church. Talks are "worth" exactly as much truth as they contain, regardless of who the speaker is. As Joseph Smith said, "one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may." As Brigham Young said, "we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it."

As Apostle Charles W. Penrose said, "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord' comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191) George A. Smith said that "If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."

President Hugh B. Brown said that "[n]o one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within."

I'm flabbergasted when folks come up with these arguments from authority as if they have anything to do with truth. I don't care who said it - I care about if it's true! I believe in Joseph Smith because I think he was telling the truth! I also believe that if Dibble's account is correct and Joseph and Brigham did, in fact, believe in men who inhabited the moon, then as fallible men, I believe that while they were speaking truth so far as they understood it, that they were wrong.

This is not - or should not be - a difficult concept.

According to evolution, if there are no environmental constraints which necessitate adaptation, then there is no compelling reason for the current form of a given species to undergo further speciation. Despite outward appearances (levels of melanin, epicanthic folds, height and weight distribution, etc) humans have remained essentially stable in many ways for millions of years. Since we're supposed to be building Edenic Zions in which all the wants of the poor and hungry are taken care of because they are surrounded by a stable, nurturing environment, there is no reason to suspect that we'll suddenly mutate into something inhuman. It's not the individual who undergoes evolution, its the population - if we maintain the type of environment necessary to care for our current forms, we will have denied the external pressures which lead to reproductive innovation.

The Creation is a historical question. No where in scripture is it claimed that the only way to organize worlds is through God's power - only that he has done so in the past. Intentionality is notoriously tricky to spot. A tree can grow from a seed blown on the wind into a field, or I can buy a seed from the store and plant it in that same field. The first situation does not have, from this vantage point, an author - the second does. But they both involve utilizing natural processes. (There is no such thing as the "supernatural", only "the unexplained" - any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic to someone who doesn't understand how it works.)

I have no idea how the Creation was accomplished, but there is too much explanatory power in the evolutionary hypothesis to discount the data we have mined from it. I can come up with a thousand hypotheticals, but until we possess the technological capability to experimentally reproduce the circumstances surrounding the Creation, it's a moot point. There is no predictive value in it.

All I know - all I need to know - in order to give a religious structure to my life, is that in some way my life on earth was an intentional act. The best way to convey this information is not in a drawn-out scientific seminar, but in a Drama. A play. Something I can rehearse with others. A Template - a Temple. Call it wish-fulfillment, I don't mind - I choose to believe that there are actors out in the darkness of the sky who care about bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of my friends and family. (If I'm wrong, it's not like I'll be around to care one way or the other after we're all dead and the universe implodes.) With the concept that we can become like the Gods, it gives me hope that our medical advances and scientific findings will one day progress to the point where we no longer have to watch loved ones die.

So maybe the Gods saw that in order to "have seed" they needed more space, so they went down to a nice empty portion of the outer darkness, lit off a supernova, and watched it until the explosion had pushed the necessary elements into place, whereupon they coalesced into the planets. Send a few asteroids teeming with microbes into the primal waters, and the environment constraints would eventually lead, through a process of trial and error and false-starts and missteps to a form of animal life sufficiently sophisticated enough to send Uncreated Intelligences into to inhabit for a mortal sojourn. (Evolution is not "random" in the sense of having no reason for adaptation - similar conditions lead to convergent evolution.) So long as they were sufficiently "in the image of" the Uncreated Intelligence who did not have the power to create himself, as in the King Follett discourse, they could be adopted through the Atonement into the preexisting Family, having been newly empowered by binding with a physical body again.

Why would they do it this way, as opposed to some other hypothetically "more efficient" way? Who the heck knows? That's a historical question. And regardless, it's all just so much science fiction. (But nerds like me don't see "science fiction" as being a pejorative - imaginative dreams are the precursors to technological innovations.) But even in this cursory two-minute hypothetical, we've got the "let there be light" and everything else, which denies neither current scientific findings, nor the simplified Drama of the Temple.

Edited January 15, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[katherine the great]

According to evolution, if there are no environmental constraints which necessitate adaptation, then there is no compelling reason for the current form of a given species to undergo further speciation. Despite outward appearances (levels of melanin, epicanthic folds, height and weight distribution, etc) humans have remained essentially stable in many ways for millions of years.

Huh? I have to definitely disagree with you on this. Millions of years? Our species did not even arise before 200,000 ya. Before that, humanlike yes, but not human.