Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[zerinus]

For you perhaps, but my comment was not directed specifically to you. Some (especially historically speaking) see it as degrading humans to describe them as coming from "monkeys" or from scum on a pond, etc. I have never understood why they are offended by that idea and yet not offended by the idea that man is described as being made from "dust" (I am talking about nonLDS as well as LDS).

That is a polemical parody used for effect, and it is permissible in debate. It was one of the common forms of engagement with Darwin when he first proposed his theory. See here. In the Bible man is given special dignity by being made in the "image of God," and given "dominion" over all the rest of God's creation. The suggestion that man descended form lower life forms tends to rob man of that dignity by suggesting that man's descent or ancestry was not directly from God.

[Calm]

The suggestion that man descended form lower life forms tends to rob man of that dignity by suggesting that man's descent or ancestry was not directly from God.

As I said, "some see it....".

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not offended by God when he uses the materials of this world to make our physical bodies.

[CV75]

That is a good question. Science by its nature is amoral but can make pronouncements against moral action. I would point to how scientists were in favor of euthanasia for those they believed to be weak in the early 20th century. I would not accept the action science suggests if it goes against morality and doing what is right. If science has a theory that seems to go against God, and makes such pronouncements, I will wait until it corrects itself, and not agree with it.

I don't see the idea of evolution doing that.

Here's how the sceince of evolution might be doing that: in its amorality, it limits the identity of man to element, when we know he is in reality spirit and element (D&C 93:33). Other “amoral” sciences don’t necessarily take the conclusion specific to the nature of man this far.

Art, religion and science are traditionally classified together as the same special faulty of the human mind. Medicine, for example, does a good job of integrating art, religion and science. But when art and religion are divorced from science, the resulting disintegrated view of man cannot contribute to a correct understanding of him.

The idea that “the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation” conflicts with the idea that the original human being was co-eternally one with all other forms of life (and all things), just as God is. For the sake of discussion, this oneness is why Adam and Eve constituted all of paradise, set apart as a complete entity with them as the head, having been rolled out in a certain order according to the periods described in scripture (and under Adam’s delegated oversight), and why all creation depended on them, and fell when they did.

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

Science has no ability to deal in the supernatural. The Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Jew can pray to any God they choose. However as science doesn't invoke any of the Gods, or lack there of, it rests just on what can be demonstrated.

[CV75]

CV75:

Science has no ability to deal in the supernatural. The Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Jew can pray to any God they choose. However as science doesn't invoke any of the Gods, or lack there of, it rests just on what can be demonstrated.

I’m specifically picking on the weight placed on pegging man as a material organism whose emergence and conclusion are strictly bound to genetic processes and their precursors/sequels. This is all man can demonstrate. Attributing these mechanisms to God’s hand, and identifying a “first” man (Adam) takes its application out of the realm of science and I think this what the Church opposes (it’s not how God did things). But I think these aspects of the discussion have already been covered quite a bit.

What hasn’t been addressed much (understandably) is exactly what man is in relation to what can be demonstrated (and how).

[cinepro]

CV75:

Science has no ability to deal in the supernatural. The Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Jew can pray to any God they choose. However as science doesn't invoke any of the Gods, or lack there of, it rests just on what can be demonstrated.

What if people make supernatural claims that can be tested? Granted, that's a rookie mistake, but it does happen.

Can science "deal" with the "supernatual" then?

[Jeff K.]

Here's how the sceince of evolution might be doing that: in its amorality, it limits the identity of man to element, when we know he is in reality spirit and element (D&C 93:33). Other “amoral” sciences don’t necessarily take the conclusion specific to the nature of man this far.

Art, religion and science are traditionally classified together as the same special faulty of the human mind. Medicine, for example, does a good job of integrating art, religion and science. But when art and religion are divorced from science, the resulting disintegrated view of man cannot contribute to a correct understanding of him.

The idea that “the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation” conflicts with the idea that the original human being was co-eternally one with all other forms of life (and all things), just as God is. For the sake of discussion, this oneness is why Adam and Eve constituted all of paradise, set apart as a complete entity with them as the head, having been rolled out in a certain order according to the periods described in scripture (and under Adam’s delegated oversight), and why all creation depended on them, and fell when they did.

I would disagree. If God uses a tool we understand, it does not reduce the finished product to an element. Science may not understand the spiritual aspect and therefore only know a portion of the tool used. I do not think in evolution science has claimed to have the whole answer to the process. We will leave such claims to the weakminded who claim that it does. I believe that man and his spirit was eternally one with God and at the correct time was given a body for the species called man. And yes, in pairadice. We rolled a 7 on that one.

[dtorge26]

I believe that man and his spirit was eternally one with God and at the correct time was given a body for the species called man. And yes, in pairadice. We rolled a 7 on that one.

This belief seems in direct contradiction with the doctrine that God was once man Himself. How do you reconcile that?

[zerinus]

That is a good question. Science by its nature is amoral but can make pronouncements against moral action. I would point to how scientists were in favor of euthanasia for those they believed to be weak in the early 20th century. I would not accept the action science suggests if it goes against morality and doing what is right. If science has a theory that seems to go against God, and makes such pronouncements, I will wait until it corrects itself, and not agree with it.

I don't see the idea of evolution doing that.

Evolution does that by teaching a doctrine of creation that is a variance with what God has revealed. In the revealed doctrine of creation, species do not evolve. Their essential characteristics are fixed at birth, and remain unchanged through successive generations. They can only reproduce after their own kind, and not after another kind. This is taught most clearly in the Book of Abraham:

Abraham 4:

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or great waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

This doctrine is also taught, though with less clarity, in Genesis and the Book of Moses:

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Moses 2:

11 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good

21 And I, God, created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.

22 And I, God, blessed them, saying: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth;

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so

25 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and I, God, saw that all these things were good.

"Speciation" is not permitted under the revealed doctrine of creation. Species are permanently fixed in their essential characteristics. They can only reproduce "after their own kind," not after another kind. That means that they cannot evolve into another kind either. Their "kind" is fixed by a permanent and eternal decree. It cannot change or evolve.

Edited January 16, 2012 by zerinus

[Jeff K.]

Still don't see the contradiction boys. I see no constraints to speciation for animals. And we aren't sure of the literal versus metaphorical terms in both books. "After its kind" does not mean we do not evolve, nor does bringing for the same since it could just as easily mean that dogs cannot be born of cats on a less esoteric sense.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Zerinus clearly has not read the link I provided earlier to Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface by Duane E. Jeffrey, which deals with the "fixity of species" argument (which results from an unclear use of the word "kind") beginning on page 50.

[zerinus]

Still don't see the contradiction boys. I see no constraints to speciation for animals. And we aren't sure of the literal versus metaphorical terms in both books. "After its kind" does not mean we do not evolve, nor does bringing for the same since it could just as easily mean that dogs cannot be born of cats on a less esoteric sense.

I thought the Book of Moses made it clear enough:

"whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind;

If it could ONLY produce the same in itself after his kind, that means that there can never be a time when it stops reproducing after its own kind, and starts reproducing after another kind. A gradual reproduction after another kind is still reproduction after "another kind". It is still a violation of the divine decree. The decree does not allow for any exceptions.

[zerinus]

Zerinus clearly has not read the link I provided earlier to Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface by Duane E. Jeffrey, which deals with the "fixity of species" argument (which results from an unclear use of the word "kind") beginning on page 50.

Okay, I had a look at that article, and all that it says is that "kind" does not mean "kind". Well, I think that it does, end of the story.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thereby ignoring the entire historical context surrounding the ambiguous use of the particular word.

[Bikeemikey]

I thought the Book of Moses made it clear enough:

"whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind;

If it could ONLY produce the same in itself after his kind, that means that there can never be a time when it stops reproducing after its own kind, and starts reproducing after another kind. A gradual reproduction after another kind is still reproduction after "another kind". It is still a violation of the divine decree. The decree does not allow for any exceptions.

Zerinus,

I dont think that it can be a violation of divine decree if it happens. We also don't have a divine definition of "Kind". You might want to be careful you aren't placing a more limitation on the notion of "kind" than the author intended, especially when the author is God.

[zerinus]

Thereby ignoring the entire historical context surrounding the ambiguous use of the particular word.

Since you know more, tell us about it.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I dont think that it can be a violation of divine decree if it happens. We also don't have a divine definition of "Kind". You might want to be careful you aren't placing a more limitation on the notion of "kind" than the author intended, especially when the author is God.

God speaks so we can understand. The meaning of "kind" in, "whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind;" is clear enough for anyone who does not want to misunderstand it. If "kind" doesn't mean "kind," tell me what it does mean, and why?

[altersteve]

Okay, I had a look at that article, and all that it says is that "kind" does not mean "kind". Well, I think that it does, end of the story.

So, your opinion > everybody else's opinion.

Okay.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is so pointless.

[Jeff K.]

God speaks so we can understand. The meaning of "kind" in, "whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind;" is clear enough for anyone who does not want to misunderstand it. If "kind" doesn't mean "kind," tell me what it does mean, and why?

Was that for then in the 19th century or today in the 20th century? Or perhaps in an early time period? Languages change and evolve and often languages do not follow after their own kind, just ask any Brit what he thinks of the US use of "his" language.

[zerinus]

So, your opinion > everybody else's opinion.

Wrong. One opinion declared but not proved is as good as another opinion, including mine. That was the point.

Okay.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is so pointless.

It is comments such as these that causes people to lose their credibility with me. When you run out of arguments, you start attacking personalities.

[zerinus]

Was that for then in the 19th century or today in the 20th century? Or perhaps in an early time period? Languages change and evolve and often languages do not follow after their own kind, just ask any Brit what he thinks of the US use of "his" language.

You are not answering my question. If you don't think that is what it means, tell me what you think it does mean.

[CV75]

If God uses a tool we understand, it does not reduce the finished product to an element.

I agree, but I don't think anyone would say that man is the furthest evolution can go. If the tool is designed to produce sequentially more complex “element” that is never really finished, God would need to stop using it at the point where He can keep “man” within the limits of His own image, which doesn't really fit with God being "in and hrough all things."

[Jeff K.]

I did answer the question, but to be more clear, "kind" could be similar but not exact. You could argue that people should be cloned if you are too strict with the "kind" statement, if you accept changes upon birth, then where exactly does the change exceed the definition of kind? Think on it a bit.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The paper you just "looked at" contains plenty of historical context about

1. The undefined nature of the Biblical translation of the word "kind,"

2. appropriated during the Linnaean enthusiasm for taxonomy and systematics begun in the 17th century which

3. resulted in "kind" being taken to mean "species," despite

4. the fact that Linne himself later realized the concept was illusory, and

5. the lack of applicability to modern scientific findings.

Nowhere is it said that the word "kind" meaning "species" is some sort of divine decree. In fact, we emphasize that our scriptures contain "the errors of men", and are given "in their language, after their weakness", and are only correct "insofar as they are translated correctly." Since it is clear from this thread alone that belief in evolution does not weaken faith in God in any way, the common anti-evolution canard that acceptance of evolution leads inexorably to atheism is proved incorrect.

It's perfectly possible to use the word "kind" and yet maintain belief in evolution. If you watch the video I linked to earlier, you'll see that's it's a misunderstanding of evolution to think that animals reproduce with other "kinds"; cats cannot mate with dogs, which - though they are both mammals - are now, after evolutionary change, of a different "kind." A cat will produce a cat, after the manner of its "kind."

But this does not not deny evolution, because "kind" is a fluid and ambiguous word, as is "species". When does a cat turn into not-a-cat? It's actually something of an arbitrary linguistic formulation in some ways. Some animals are so distantly related that they can no longer mate to produce offspring "after their own kind" - but that does not deny the common genetic - evolutionary - ancestry they share. It does not deny that they can be independent branches which sprang off from the root of the Tree of Life.

I can read Genesis and Abraham (and other Creation stories) as being as strongly supportive of evolution as others can read them being against. As Nibley showed, our texts are essentially scripts for a simplified Temple drama - not a science textbook. The important thing is that they record the intentionality of the act.

Edited January 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith