Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[Log]

Bravo, Bro. Lenox.

For supporting material, see my signature.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

I like the Scriptures just fine, but I'm not fine with some of the interpretations of them.

I have no problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything.

[Calm]

the oft rehearsed caveat that God’s creationary processes may be more involved and take much longer than the scriptural record indicates.....for the most part I don’t buy it when most LDS toss that line of reasoning out.

Do you exclude Joseph Smith (possibly reported by WW Phelps, though it could be original from Phelps) from this group with his claim of the earth being 2.55 billion, Brigham Young who was comfortable with the claim of geologists of his day or David O. Mckay with his apparent belief that the earth took millions of years to prepare from this conclusion?

http://www.jefflinds...ience.shtml#age

PS: I hardly ever discuss evolution with nonLDS these days. How does your theory deal with debates among believers?

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Do you exclude Joseph Smith (possibly reported by WW Phelps, though it could be original from Phelps) from this group with his claim of the earth being 2.55 billion [years old]...

That was possibly Joseph's account of how long an eternity is - essentially, the age of the universe. He (or whomever) apparently got there by using this math: 7000 years for creation * 365 days per year * 1000 years per day.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

That was possibly Joseph's account of how long an eternity is - essentially, the age of the universe. He (or whomever) apparently got there by using this math: 7000 years for creation * 365 days per year * 1000 years per day.

Possibly.

What about the others?

[Log]

Brigham took no position on the age of the earth - and, is there any real doubt how he felt about Darwinism?

“We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall . . . this course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst. As a beginning in this direction I have endowed the Brigham Young Academy at Provo.”

BYU was founded, in part, to counter Darwinism with the Gospel. I wonder what Brigham might think of that aspect of BYU now.

As for David O. McKay, is it inconceivable that his beliefs in this matter were, indeed, an example of someone trying to have his cake and eat it too, as so many are wont to do, as evidenced by the existence of this thread?

Incidentally, I notice Lindsay pulled a lawyer's trick when discussing the meaning of the word "temporal" in the context of D&C 77:6 by intentionally deferring to an irrelevant authority on the matter. Not impressive. The forthright approach is to analyze what the word temporal means throughout the modern scriptures and the writings of Joseph Smith. Such an analysis, however, might not lead to the desired conclusion - so it is not performed.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Brigham took no position on the age of the earth..

Even so, he did not choose to debate the accuracy of the geologists of his time (and I am merely talking about the earth's creation here, not any life forms) and he seemed to think the science had validity to it even if he didn't personally care to pronounce on the age of the earth himself one way or the other.

You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has.

As to your quote, his main point was that the gospel should be taught, I don't see him saying that the theories shouldn't be or even that they were wrong (though I would assume he would debate at least the evolution of man as well as any part of a theory that denied the existence of God).

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

I don't see him saying that the theories [of Huxley, Darwin, and Miall] shouldn't be [taught]....

Even the devil gets to present his arguments in the temple drama.

Brigham's meaning is clear - he founded BYU, in part, to counter Darwinism with the Gospel.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Log

[SamIam]

Samlam:

I like the Scriptures just fine, but I'm not fine with some of the interpretations of them.

I have no problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything.

Try harder...I think you missed my point entirely. If you don't think so then give me something tangible to reply too.

[Calm]

Even the devil gets to present his arguments in the temple drama.

Brigham's meaning is clear - he founded BYU, in part, to counter Darwinism with the Gospel.

Which had nothing to do with my own point as I was talking about the age of the earth.....just to stay focused on what I was trying to convey in my response to Samlan in hopes that he will respond to my question.

Samlam made a comment about God's creationary processes and the timeline suggested by scripture...I focused that on where we have had obvious (imo at least) comments by prophets relating to the process taking longer than a literal interpretation, which is the age of the earth, not in regards to evolution. Prophets who I do not think were all that concerned about looking foolish.

PS: I have been fascinated by geology as long as I can remember, evolution has never really interested me all that much. I have no real inclination to discuss the latter, certainly not debate it.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[shalamabobbi]

This area has rapidly expanded over the last decade due to technological improvements.

http://www.sciencema.../5866/1100.full This paper "Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation"

provides the information I believe you are looking for.

A single "Adam" is not disproven. A single Adam 6000 years ago as the origin of man however is.

This paper from 2001 was the beginning of work that has markedly expanded over the past decade.

http://www.nature.co...%EF%BF%BD%C3%9C

http://www.nature.co...ature06862.html

http://www.nature.co...1a0.html?free=2 (layman's description)

Thankyou!

The work that I do looks specifically at timing and migration of certain disease causing mutations.

Awesome, a contributing member of society. I salute you.

Hey, could you direct me to a source that explains the model used with autosomal DNA to calculate timing/dating and any sesitivity analyses that have been done on the model?

I can't seem to locate anything on google scholar.

[blackstrap]

The concept of scientific knowledge is sort of like the concept of military intelligence.It depends.

Consider 2 statements: 1. A rock thrown into the air will return to the earth.

2. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Both statements are true but any scientist can give examples that show them to be false under some circumstances. Assumptions are always part of any theory.What is not stated in a theory or a scripture for that matter can reveal much about the truth of any interpretation thereof.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Samlam:

I find an extraordinary wealth of beauty in the complexity of the creation process. I think your attempt at characterizing the thought processes of those who accept evolution as literally being duped by Satan casts far more light on your personal views than it does on God's work and glory, and is very unfair.

"Usually the challenge is we can't see the forest for the tree, but in this instance I wonder if we shouldn't focus on the tree."

Okeedoke.

"There is little doubt that as explanations for the origins of man go, evolution really is a conundrum. There is no question that there is a story being told in the layers of rock and sediment that form this earth that lends credence to key aspects of the evolutionary theory. Many points that are problematic as well, but the evidence is compelling."

Thank you for the admission that the scientific evidence for evolution of some sort is compelling.

"I notice that it is this conundrum of circumstance that makes for difficult debate points for LDS minded folks. On one hand we want to accept the creation story, and on the other we have to concede some things just don't seem to mesh up with the science that sustains the theory. So in conversation with those that support the unquestioned validity of the theory we acquiesce and acknowledge the obvious so as not to look the fool in light of the multitude of problematic evidences that point to the evolutionary probability and the creationary conflict."

It has nothing to do with a superficial concern with looking foolish. It has to do with trying to account for the evidence. Your characterization reveals much about how you might approach the problem, but is inaccurate when claimed to be representative of folks who accept evolution.

"I thoroughly enjoy analyzing what side people will take in a debate when the subject matter is one in which we cannot know the actual truth but sufficient information is provided to polarize some debate participants on one side of the discussion while others find validation in the opposing viewpoint. The evolution / creation debate is such. Bottom line we simply do not have enough facts to put forth an absolute detailed explanation of how this earth came into being. Even as a creationist, I can hardly give one good piece of empirical evidence to sustain my perspective against the volumes of compelling evidence to an altered perspective of billions of years of creation processes. I realize there are those who want to claim creationist testimony while repeating the oft rehearsed caveat that God’s creationary processes may be more involved and take much longer than the scriptural record indicates. While that in truth may be the case, for the most part I don’t buy it when most LDS toss that line of reasoning out. Call me silly but I think we are usually just trying to have our cake and eat it too and keep from looking like totally lame brains for looking over the obvious mass of data indicating a lengthy time frame. - Lukewarm with a hint of conflict and doubt of which way to turn to find the truth."

Again, all you're saying is that you personally want to "avoid looking like a lame brain." This is an inaccurate characterization of those who accept evolution.

"Us creationists quite frequently like scriptures. They make us feel comfortable with our lack of definitive explanation because we can chalk everything up to one more mystery that we will have to wait and find the answers for. We can hunker down with a little Genesis or Pearl of Great Price anytime we feel threatened for the mass of conflict that the theory of evolution creates in our otherwise pristine and peaceful world."

This might describe your experience of reading scripture, but it has absolutely nothing to do with mine. I have exactly zero interest in handwaving data away and accepting pat, comfortable answers about the Mysteries that are just too darn difficult for my puny little human mind to grasp.

The glory of God is Intelligence, and God is an exalted Man. We certainly can't learn everything He knows in this life, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. D&C 130:18 states that "whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection." How else will we be able to take part in the work of Creation unless we know the intimate details of how to go about organizing preexisting matter?

"As a creationist, I’ve got a scripture too. I'm entitled because after all I am a creationist and that's what we do. It’s fabulous and I think for situations where I want to choose sides in a debate over something that has no real definitive answer it is the perfect compass for which way I will invariably choose…even if there are volumes of compelling evidence to the contrary.

My scripture:

Quote

Moroni 7: 16

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

So if we accept evolution we're evil? Such a charitable thought. What would stop me from using this exact same scripture to characterize all those who don't accept evolution as being dupes of Satan? And would it change your opinion one iota if I did?

(The answer is that there is nothing stopping me from using this scripture as a prooftext for my perspective except the fact that if I had come in here and busted it out to use against you, it wouldn't have changed your opinion one iota either. It's a complete non-starter, but very handy for justifying casting aspersions on others.)

As Hugh Nibley wrote: "All of us believe things that aren't true, things that will be proven false in time to come. Scientists like Galileo, Newton, Heisenberg, Planck, Hawking, and Penrose all had differing beliefs about the very nature of our existence, the most fundamental doctrines of reality. But they all respected each other and didn't damn each other for wrong ideas. Yet throughout history, men have damned and persecuted and banished and imprisoned and burned others on a vast scale, not for any crimes they committed, but purely for having the wrong ideas."

Furthermore: "Nothing is easier than to identify one's own favorite political, economic, historical, and moral [and I would add scientific] convictions with the gospel. That gives one a neat, convenient, but altogether too easy advantage over one's fellows. If my ideas are the true ones - and I certainly will not entertain them if I suspect for a moment that they are false! - then, all truth being one, they are also the gospel, and to oppose them is to play the role of Satan. This is simply insisting that our way is God's way and therefore, the only way. It is the height of impertinence."

"LDS and Christian creationists alike get overwhelmed by the forest of data when it’s the towering tree we should be focusing on. Why was this tree planted in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Should we as LDS compliment its lofty branches and swelling girth and continue to sustain its growth while basking in its light blocking shadow? Not me …as for me and my house… well you know the rest."

The implication that the theory of evolution was "planted in the first place" solely in order to dupe God's servants is silly conspiracy theory. It was "planted" to attempt to account for evidence rather than handwaving the problems away and just pointing to God to say "He did it." That some atheists use the theory to attempt to disprove God has nothing to do with accounting for the evidence. Indeed, I personally think there's a perfectly good chance Darwin was inspired himself, seeing as he so very conveniently associated his version of the theory with the Biblical imagery of the Tree of Life. Note, for instance, that he rejected the disembodied post-Apostasy paradoxical God of traditional Christianity for rather similar reasons as Joseph Smith.

"The point is, this theory is and was floated and sustained by brilliantly cunning minds, who at the top of the food chain generally have only one ax to grind – they are too smart to believe there is a God at all. They delight in how polarizing the discussion has become and how many have been persuaded by its compelling “evidences”."

Whereas you are clearly above those benighted souls who delight in polarizing the discussion. Yep. That's why you've implied that those of us who believe in evolution are dupes of Satan.

"This theory, when held up to Moroni’s standard is repulsive and evil for what it truly seeks to accomplish."

Only as interpreted by you.

"If I believe outright and embrace wholeheartedly the theory of evolution do I believe in Christ more or less?"

Personally, I believe in Him just about the same. On the other hand, the theory of evolution certainly gives me more respect for the utterly awe-inspiring vastness of the Plan of Salvation.

(Further quotes in green, since this board sucks at displaying too many quote boxes. Sigh.)

"Does it foster a belief that by doing good and being obedient I will advance God’s cause or does it open a view to no standard of right and wrong so live for today?"

These things have exactly nothing to do with the theory. For that matter, even if seven-day Creationism were flawlessly accurate in every detail, why does "God said so" somehow provide a "standard of right and wrong" in moral debates? God teaches us the eternal laws, but Latter-Day scripture asserts that the elements are just as eternal as we are. God is a citizen of the universe just like we are, though much wiser. This is pretty far from standard Creationist first-cause arguments about the "necessity" of God.

"Does the theory of evolution shine a light on anything or does is cast a pall of darkness over the minds of men who find their origins in the loins of apes as opposed to the kingdoms of God?"

Ah, the ever-popular impugning of apes. A rather odd stance to take, seeing as apes, according to strict Creationism, were specially created by God and therefore worthy of respect as one of His works. Personally, I find very illuminating similarities between us and chimpanzees, and absolutely nothing insulting about the comparison; we do, after all, share 99% of our DNA with our primate cousins. And for the record, at least the theory of evolution is attempting to use humanity's collective brainpower to shine a light rather than casting a pall of darkness over the minds of men who find their origins in a few quotes from the dead writer of Genesis rather than the living revelation sought by scientists.

Are scientists not allowed inspiration except where it agrees with the traditions of our fathers? President Hugh B. Brown said:

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration."

"Now, here’s the real rub for us smart folks who don’t want to look like big dummies."

You keep asserting this high school concern with social acceptance as a motive for those who disagree with you. Yet you keep failing to justify it as anything except a confession of your own thought processes.

"We work really hard at not being disagreeable when we chat with our evolutionary friends. We acquiesce on the obvious points and play down the 7 days thing."

So does the Pearl of Great Price, which has "times" rather than "days." Incidentally, read a great post here on the ritual symbolism of the "days" -- the Genesis Creation account is part of a beautiful symbolic Sacred Drama in which:

"The first day (Genesis 1:1-5) represented the Holy of Holies, where the High Priest would invoke the presence of God on the Day of Atonement. The Holy of Holies signified perfection and that all things originated from God. The second day (Genesis 1:6-8 ) represented the Veil, which divided man from the presence of God just as waters above and below the firmament were divided from one another. The third day (Genesis 1:9-13) represented the Table for the Bread, and was illustrated through God causing the dry land to appear (the table) and all manner of plant life coming forth (the bread). The fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19) represented the Seven-Branched Lamp, and was illustrated by God causing the lights in the firmament to appear. The fifth day (Genesis 1:20-23) represented the Altar and the Burnt Offering. This is illustrated in the text by the appearance of animal life. The sixth day (Genesis 1:24-31) represented the High Priest. This was illustrated by the appearance of man on the earth."

"We listen politely and except for the little twitch over our right eye when they forthrightly declare our Hominidae ancestry no one is the wiser for our evolutionary handicap. The point is this; more often than not the discussion is not about monkeys to men or amoebas to aardvarks … it’s about reason’s to deny the existence of God. It’s about justifying bad behavior because there is no accounting anyway. It’s about much, much, much bigger issues than the Origins of the Species – it’s about the souls of men. And when we play along with the game and let the debate gently flow by it is us that is being snookered."

I don't know who you're discussing evolution with, but this is not my experience with my atheist friends. It's certainly not representative of my views back when I was an atheist. If I were to lose my testimony and convert back to atheism, it wouldn't be because I'm trying to justify my sins; it'd be because I came to the conclusion that the evidence for belief in God was not as sufficient as it currently seems to me to be. You keep attempting to characterize scientists and those who are excited by their findings as a uniform mass of sinners and dupes. Why can't it be that these people are just as likely to be sincere and intelligent?

"When all is said and done, we weren’t polite or congenial, or pleasant – we were duped. Duped by Satan to support, albeit weakly in many cases, a position that most of the time we do not even realize we are taking."

Sigh. When all is said and done, it's never about evidence; it always comes back to "if someone disagrees with me, they were duped by Satan."

"Quite frequently when we engage those who sustain the theory we are not talking rocks, and fossils, and strata we are usually discussing why that person does not believe in God."

Not at my university we're not. Here, we're generally trying to make sense of data. Sure, I've seen atheists use the theory of evolution to "prove" why they don't believe in God. I've also seen religious people use the theory of evolution to expound on the glorious complexity of God's work. This is not a black and white issue.

"The reason I enjoy analyzing what side people will take in these kinds of debates is because it shows me a little bit of what’s under the hood. It can demonstrate what kind of thinkers they are and if they have clear perspectives. Sometimes we are so busy being smart that we aren’t very bright. Even in the circles of LDS academia this discussion is entertained and lofty and soaring missives are written to reconcile the justifications of our science with the pleadings of our faith."

Whereas some people enjoy attempting to analyze the data, not which side of the line we've drawn in the sand people are on.

"In a way, how we handle these types of discussions often illustrates valiancy and courage but more than anything else when we can’t really know the answer to the things we debate the side we choose illustrates most clearly, in the words of Boyd K. Packer, “which way we face.”

Everyone who chooses strict Creationism = Morally Good. Everyone who believes in some form of evolution = Morally Unclean. How nice to live in such a clear-cut world of Good Guys versus Bad Guys.

"I don’t choose to be a creationist because there is empirical data to support the decision ..."

Does anyone?

Look. It is perfectly possible to be a believing, fully-committed, sincere, well-meaning, morally upstanding believer in the Latter-Day Restoration while at the same time believing in some form of evolution. Discounting evolution based on nothing more substantial than "well, some atheists used it to try to disprove God" is like justifying disbelief in God by saying "well, some religious folks dressed up like indians and killed over a hundred people in 1857."

Incidentally, I have my fair share of problems with the strict Darwinist interpretation of evolution. The fact of biological evolution ("an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem, "unrolling (of a book)") is, I think, pretty indisputable; the mechanism is where things get sticky. I think there's a lot to consider in the panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry hypothesis, which is not "Creationism", nor God-of-the-Gaps "Intelligent Design" nor "Neo-Darwinism." I would think so even if I were an atheist, though I realize that some strict Darwinists will be just as eager to call me a heretic for doubting their paradigm as some religious folks are just because I believe in a form of evolution.

Indeed, it seems to me that Mormonism is rather uniquely situated theologically to accept both evolution and physically-embodied anthropomorphic Gods. The key is the doctrine of Uncreated Intelligences and Premortal Existence. We don't need God to explain the workings of the eye, and it would give us no particular moral insight even if Intelligent Design were correct in every particular. We need God, the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, and the Anointed One because they act on behalf of the Divine Council to uphold the Works of Justice and bring us the Gospel, the hope for things which are not seen, such as the Resurrection.

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael Ash

Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface by Duane Jeffrey

Edited April 22, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

Sometimes we are so busy being smart that we aren’t very bright.

Indeed.

Jeremy, wish I could give you more than one point. I will have to find some of your other posts to ensure you get the credit you deserve for this one.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[bu11fr0g]

This is crude but gives an idea of dating and the assumptions.

Genetic absolute dating based on microsatellites and the origin of modern humans

[PDF] from pnas.org

DB Goldstein, A Ruiz Linares… - Proceedings of the …, 1995 - National Acad Sciences

... Dating the Deepest Split in the Human Phylogenetic Tree. There is growing consensus that the

deepest split in the human phylogeny is indeed between African and non-African popu- lations

(18), a conclusion supported ... For this, we use (S)2 and an estimate of the mutation rate ...

Cited by 631 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 15 versions

The USH2A c. 2299delG mutation: dating its common origin in a Southern European population

 from nih.gov

E Aller, L Larrieu, T Jaijo, D Baux… - European Journal of …, 2010 - nature.com

... the 250 kb of the 5′ region. Our data confirm the common ancestral origin of the

c.2299delG mutation. Keywords: USH2A; c.2299delG; haplotype; dating. Top of

page Introduction. Usher syndrome type II (USH2) belongs to a ...

Cited by 8 - Related articles - All 14 versions

[bu11fr0g]

Just as has been noted, people can believe in an Adam 6000 years ago based upon many things: scriptural interpretation, comments of religious leaders, philosophizing, extrapolation from religious experiences ...

However, when predictions based upon this model are tested, they fail. Francis Collins book is excellent from a strong believer who knows this material as well as any other first tier scientist.

[Calm]

bu11, are you talking about the young earth creationist model, just to be clear?

I am trying to think how one can predict anything with it.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[changed]

(Old Testament | Genesis 6:2)

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Anyone else think the above is talking about Adam's family mixing in with the indigenous population? seems to be children of God, and children of men mixing around together in any event...

All the contemporary readers understood that to be in regards to gods from the Divine Council who chose to break ranks and interbreed with the mortal women, and give out heavenly secrets, thus being the original Origin of Evil. The writers of the Enochic literature took that understood story and expanded upon it, but turned it into a polemic against the Priests of their day (Fallen Angels = Fallen Priests).

Not at all in line with current LDS understanding of how the world/heavens work, but certainly part of the ancient worldview.

Inserting earthly pre-adamites into the story would be a fun re-interpretation and re contextualization for it, but would have had nothing to do with anything on radar of the ancients. Unless you consider the heavenly sons of god (the bene elohim)in the story as technically being pre-adamites

The explanation of Sons of God being Sethites and the sons of men being out-of-the-covenant was a much later tradition, once the appearance of henotheism et al needed to be explained away.

well, with the above scripture or not, I don't think there are any scriptures which say Adam and Eve were the only two people on the earth, or that when they were cast out there were not other people (correct me if I'm wrong?) Seems sort of like when everyone switched to the limited geography theory and deciding that the BoM was not an account of everyone who ever lived in the Americas - but was instead an account of a small area and a small number of people, similar to the Bible being the record of a small area / small number of people... in similar vein, I think Eden was a small area with a small number of people, who eventually branched out and started mixing with those (perhaps left over from a previous world that had become spiritually void)... jmo

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 29:3)

...many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

in any event, the tendency to think we have it all / can see the big picture / not wanting to add onto what we have already been given is a recurring theme...

Edited April 22, 2012 by changed

[bu11fr0g]

I am not referring to young earth.

The scriptural justification for 6000 year old Adam is much stronger: see d&c dispensations and millenia, ushers biblical timeline, mckonkie, etc.

[Calm]

Thank you for clarifying.

[bu11fr0g]

See d&c 107:41-56 as an example.

Adam is "father of all."

D&C 84:16. Perhaps view Adam as first with priesthood rather than first mortal?

[Log]

It is perfectly possible to be a believing, fully-committed, sincere, well-meaning, morally upstanding believer in the Latter-Day Restoration while at the same time believing in some form of evolution.

While it is perfectly possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and believe in something you term "evolution," all putative faithful Latter-day Saints who so choose are engaged in equivocation - because, whatever you mean by the word "evolution" is not what is meant by the academic / scientific community when they use the word "evolution." This equivocation on the word "evolution," universally practiced by putatively faithful Latter-day Saint who affirm with their mouths that "evolution is true," is evidence that the orthodox doctrine of evolution (without equivocation) is fundamentally contradictory to the Gospel.

There are four ways to reconcile the Gospel with evolution (without equivocation), and usually the preferred method is a combination of the first two of these.

1. Falsify the scriptures. Using "metaphorical" or "allegorical" readings as you will, the effect is to insert a "not" into the historical claims the scriptures make whenever these historical claims conflict with the claims of "scientists." The acids of allegory do not stop at Adam and Eve of their own accord, however, so you have to start engaging in special pleading to protect your preferred scriptural accounts from such readings.
   
2. Equivocation. The word evolution as used in the academic and scientific communities is logically incompatible with any form of intelligent action. Therefore, when LDS use the word, they usually have something in mind where God might have intervened to cause a particularly fortuitous mutation, or perhaps actively intervened to kill off something that otherwise would have been selected for. To be a faithful Latter-day Saint, it is necessary to affirm that God, at some point, actually did something to effect creation.
   
3. Rejection of the truth of the Gospel in preference to the truth of evolution. Similar to #1, this simply takes the falsification of the scriptures to its logical conclusion. This position has as its benefit consistency with the philosophies of men, rendering one immune to the scorn and mockery of those outside of the Church.
   
4. Rejection of evolution in preference to the truth of the Gospel. Unlike any of the previous three, refusing to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture leaves its adherent wide open to the scorn and mockery of both his co-religionists and the secular academic / scientific community.
   

Discounting evolution based on nothing more substantial than "well, some atheists used it to try to disprove God" is like justifying disbelief in God by saying "well, some religious folks dressed up like indians and killed over a hundred people in 1857."

If Nature is a closed system of material causes, then there is no God that makes any difference in Nature - including the bestowal of testimonies. Evolution (without equivocation) springs from, and supports, such a view. See my signature for details on some of the historical behavioral consequences of such a view. Examples might be multiplied ad nauseam.

There are a number of serious problems with straw-man argumentation spread throughout your post, but these two suffice for now.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Log

[Log]

And, if the purpose of this thread is merely to congratulate one another on the cleverness and spiritual truths contained in our denatured scriptural accounts rendered consistent with the philosophies of men in our age, may I point out that you are merely doing that which has been done in other worlds - such as when the literalistic primitive Christians confronted the philosophies of their age. We all know which one won that one.

Drive by insult = thread ban

[bu11fr0g]

All that is needed is selection not natural selection. We believe God does this now.

[Flyonthewall]

Science is man's best guess as to how things work. Sometimes we can be pretty close, other times we may be way off.

Those things we can observe and reproduce, I think we are very close on.

Those things we have to project backwards or forwards withtout being able to observe the actual process, we have a large margin of error.

This is how I see evolution. Evolution is man's best guess given the information we have.

We have scriptures that give us something to go on, but are extremely vague, and not really a "how to" book, so we need to take those statements with an open mind.

There are many miracles described in the scriptures that science cannot explain. Now we can write off those miracles as hyperbole because science cannot explain them, or we can accpet those miracles as actual, and that science is incomplete, or some combination of both.

I take what is in the scriptures and what science has come up with, but don't always try to make a hard connection between them.

This means I do not have to accept evolution as the only explaination, but can include it as a possibility....plus there are many other possibilities also.

I happen to lean towards the world we have now, or that was created for us, was created from a world that had already passed away.

This gives a possible explaination of an old world with new history.

Science cannot explain the details, and neither do the scriptures.