My 180 On Evolution

[blooit]

As an anthropology student, I spent my first 6 or 7 years in college resisting all the evolutionary theories we were taught. I find it funny that since then, I have completely changed my stance.

I know that the "evidence" has been discussed ad nauseum. I think the evidence that humans evolved is undeniable. But well beyond that, think about this:

One of the big controversies among Christians is the question of why God would create man with evil desires, only to punish him for following those desires. IMHO, evolution answers this question, especially within Mormon doctrine.

• God is bound by laws - particularly mercy and justice. Even an omnipotent God operates within natural laws.
  
• Like God, "evolved man" operates under natural laws. Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God.
  
• God then places a divine spirit in that body, and directs us to "overcome the natural (evolved) man.
  

Under this design, God did not place the evil desires of the natural-man in us; they were a natural outgrowth of the creation process. God intervenes so that they can be overcome.

To me it just makes sense.

[CASteinman]

I will mention a conversation I had with a scientist, an expert in DNA and molecular chemistry in the cell who is also LDS. I will not give his name as this conversation was explicitly not for attribution.

He pointed out that he believes in Evolution and he also believes in Adam and Eve.

I asked him about this and he told me that whenever he talks about ancient humans he describes the old ones as "anatomically correct human beings". He does not refer to them as "Man". While he would not hazard a guess as to the exact time, he would say that the spirit of "Man" came into anatomically correct human beings, not all that long ago -- and quite a bit after their first appearance on the earth.

He also indicated that the Garden was a type of Temple Environment where these more refined humans could feel more comfortable.and could make covenants with the Lord -- the first Humans to have the capacity to covenant with the Lord. And the fall of Man was where some of these covenants were violated.

This is a well respected man and I enjoyed hearing his views.

[Spammer]

Those who doubt the fact that we're mammals and that our species evolved need only consider that fact that we have vestigial tails and share 98% of our DNA with chimps.

[Storm Rider]

and yet there is no "missing" link. Frankly, I don't care one way or another; I just shy away from anyone and any group that attempts to use science to definitively prove their own idea. Science is a field that is in a constant state of flux; it is ever learning and always expanding. There are always exceptions and new ideas found. In so many ways evolution makes sense and for many it does not conflict with religion. For others evolution conflicts in every way with their perception of religion.

I guess it is preferrable for me to separate the two; a kind of separation of science and religion. On that great day when science can declare to the world that they possess absolute truth about something, I am not holding my breath for science to answer my questions about life.

[bu11fr0g]

The main problem I have is reconciling

1. A discrete time for the creation of man

2. God being the father of our spirits

The theory leaves a bunch of humans as nonchildren of God?

[mercyngrace]

Regarding #2, if you see being a child of God as a facet of covenant rather than creation, the whole contradiction becomes irrelevant.

We become Christ's seed by covenant, why would becoming God the Father's children indicate a different process?

Any pre-covenant humans would have been no different than higher order animals, evolution itself setting the bar for the "creation" of children of God by determining when these creatures were capable of the level of thought and communication required for a covenant based relationship.

[CASteinman]

The theory leaves a bunch of humans as nonchildren of God?

If we are speaking biologically, that would not seem to be currently true. However, it may not be a biological issue. I don't reject the idea that it is biological, but I do not know that it is obviously clear.

Edited May 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Monster]

and yet there is no "missing" link. Frankly, I don't care one way or another; I just shy away from anyone and any group that attempts to use science to definitively prove their own idea. Science is a field that is in a constant state of flux; it is ever learning and always expanding. There are always exceptions and new ideas found. In so many ways evolution makes sense and for many it does not conflict with religion. For others evolution conflicts in every way with their perception of religion.

I guess it is preferrable for me to separate the two; a kind of separation of science and religion. On that great day when science can declare to the world that they possess absolute truth about something, I am not holding my breath for science to answer my questions about life.

Science may be changing but the scientific method is by far the best tool we have for understanding our universe. To shy away from science is naive. It is the process that has brought us everything we have. The very fact that you can visit this board is due to science inventing the computer and the internet. I find it amusing when people say science can not prove anything. It has proved many many things. Science is not an idea it is a process where by we arrive at the truth by repeated observations and experimintation. Science does not operate on fiction it delivers the facts whether we like them or not. I always think of Edison who tried thousands of elements before he landed upon the one that would last as a filament in his light bulb. That was science.

I agree you should separate scieince and religion. religion is just an idea and has never been able to deliver anything to prove its position. It is more of a concept of the nature of the universe than anything. It may serve a purpose in the scheme of humanity but it by no means delivers fact or truth that is reliable.

I find it interesting that religion has a story to tell but when science comes along and makes that story invalid it is religion that must adapt. Now we adapt the creation story to fit into our common understanding of evolution. WE may say as stated here that the spirit enters the body after we have evolved enough. That is is a nice thought but it would have been blasphemy 50 years ago. I am glad religion can adapt to current information, but it is just an indication to me that religion knows nothing about the nature of the planet or the universe.

[CV75]

Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God.

I would counter that these drives are indeed placed in the body by God, to be mastered by our spirits in mortality to the degree we allow ourselves to be influenced by Him. Even as an exalted being, it could be said that God posseses these same drives and masters them in a divine manner.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Actually, CS Lewis resolved this for me in his Narnia books. There were the regular normal critters, and then there were the critters that Aslan had breathed on, who could talk and posessed souls.

The last book contained a very touching take on the final judgement. Every talking animal approached Aslan and looked him in the eyes. Those who had accepted him turned to the path leading to the Narnian heaven where Aslan lived. Those who rejected or hated him had a momentary reaction of anger or fear, then they turned back into regular critters as their 'light' left them. They took the other path leading to wherever the regular critters go when they die.

[mercyngrace]

Actually, CS Lewis resolved this for me in his Narnia books. There were the regular normal critters, and then there were the critters that Aslan had breathed on, who could talk and posessed souls.

The last book contained a very touching take on the final judgement. Every talking animal approached Aslan and looked him in the eyes. Those who had accepted him turned to the path leading to the Narnian heaven where Aslan lived. Those who rejected or hated him had a momentary reaction of anger or fear, then they turned back into regular critters as their 'light' left them. They took the other path leading to wherever the regular critters go when they die.

This line of thinking is echoed in The Great Divorce. Lewis has characters becoming more real and tangible as they approach God and less real as they move further from Him. He, Lewis, believed that one could cease to be human (formerly human, I've heard it described) if they eventually were completely devoid of connection to God.

[Buzzard]

This line of thinking is echoed in The Great Divorce. Lewis has characters becoming more real and tangible as they approach God and less real as they move further from Him. He, Lewis, believed that one could cease to be human (formerly human, I've heard it described) if they eventually were completely devoid of connection to God.

FWIW, The Great Divorce is my favorite C.S. Lewis book. While allegorical, it could almost have been written by an LDS author.

[thesometimesaint]

Both science and religion change.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[mfbukowski]

I will mention a conversation I had with a scientist, an expert in DNA and molecular chemistry in the cell who is also LDS. I will not give his name as this conversation was explicitly not for attribution.

He pointed out that he believes in Evolution and he also believes in Adam and Eve.

I asked him about this and he told me that whenever he talks about ancient humans he describes the old ones as "anatomically correct human beings". He does not refer to them as "Man". While he would not hazard a guess as to the exact time, he would say that the spirit of "Man" came into anatomically correct human beings, not all that long ago -- and quite a bit after their first appearance on the earth.

He also indicated that the Garden was a type of Temple Environment where these more refined humans could feel more comfortable.and could make covenants with the Lord -- the first Humans to have the capacity to covenant with the Lord. And the fall of Man was where some of these covenants were violated.

This is a well respected man and I enjoyed hearing his views.

I've posted a lot on these threads, so I'll spare everyone the long story, but you're kinda new so I will let you know that I agree with your friend completely.

I think the change between the "old ones" and Adam happened at the time we got a sophisticated language and Adam started naming things and with the development of modern human culture. You see again and again the idea that God "called" something into existence- the first creative period they "called" (defined) as the "first day" etc. I think the fall happened when there was the first fully developed concept and words for "sin" which included the word "death" as we understand it, as the death of say, a parent which is quite different for us than it is for those beings we call "animals"

Just as a tiger eating a person would not be prosecuted for "murder" because he is just doing what comes naturally, so with us- those who are not accountable for their actions would not be prosecuted either.

But it is that moment of accountability wherever it is on the continuum between understanding what a sin is and what it is not, that I think the change happened. At that same moment, "death" with the full implications of that word- the cessation of being of someone exactly like us, with all the hopes needs and love we have, and have shared with that person, at that same moment "death" as human death was fully defined.

So with sin, we have death- both understandings clicking like turning on a light- and therefore a change between being as animals and being as we are now- to me THAT was the fall. The minute Adam understood sin and death, and therefore "evil" that definition brought those things into existence, where there had only been innocence there was now the possibility of sin. Where there had only been animals eating each other and doing what was natural- suddenly there was that possibility of making the choice to rise above "the natural man" to become godlike.

To me that is the nature of knowledge of good and evil- the choice to sin, remaining in our natural state, or become godlike. THAT is the moment that changed everything.

[mfbukowski]

I am glad religion can adapt to current information, but it is just an indication to me that religion knows nothing about the nature of the planet or the universe.

Certainly true if you are saying that religion knows nothing about the scientific nature of the planet or the universe. But that's not what it's about.

What you're missing is that science knows nothing about religion either, and those who think that only science explores "reality" really need to learn what is important in life, and a whole lot more about the true nature of "reality".

[mfbukowski]

The main problem I have is reconciling

1. A discrete time for the creation of man

2. God being the father of our spirits

The theory leaves a bunch of humans as nonchildren of God?

The whole problem seems to be about definitions, doesn't it?

[KevinG]

The main problem I have is reconciling

1. A discrete time for the creation of man

2. God being the father of our spirits

The theory leaves a bunch of humans as nonchildren of God?

Lesser spirits would not be condemned for they would have fulfilled the measure of their creation.

[mfbukowski]

Another instance of the creation of science by definition- from another thread:

The tally of planets in our solar system would jump instantly to a dozen under a highly controversial new definition proposed by the International Astronomical Union.

Eventually, there would be hundreds of planets, as more round objects are found beyond Neptune.

The proposal, which sources tell Space.com is gaining broad support, tries to plug a big gap in astronomy textbooks, which have never had a formal definition for the word "planet." It addresses discoveries of Pluto-sized worlds that have in recent years pitched astronomers into heated debates over terminology.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14364833/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/plan-boosts-solar-system-planets/#.T7KDvFKBro0

Please tell me, someone, what a "fact" is, and what facts have to do with "reality"?

And while you are at it, define (note that word again) precisely what is "human" and not?

I rest my case. Adam was the first "human".

[Whiskeypete]

and yet there is no "missing" link. Frankly, I don't care one way or another; I just shy away from anyone and any group that attempts to use science to definitively prove their own idea. Science is a field that is in a constant state of flux; it is ever learning and always expanding. There are always exceptions and new ideas found. In so many ways evolution makes sense and for many it does not conflict with religion. For others evolution conflicts in every way with their perception of religion.

I guess it is preferrable for me to separate the two; a kind of separation of science and religion. On that great day when science can declare to the world that they possess absolute truth about something, I am not holding my breath for science to answer my questions about life.

When I hear people talk about not trusting science because science is always changing... It's not so much that things are changing as they are being refined. Example:

Which of these images is an incorrect representation of Nefertiti:

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

I can see someone saying look at the difference between the first one and the last one. They were obviously wrong when they depicted Nefertiti as being a bunch of multicolored blocks.

Newton wasn't "absolute[ly]" correct when he defined his Laws of Motion. Einstein's Relativity blows Newtonian physics out of the water when in a massive gravity field or near light speed velocity, But that doesn't mean that we don't teach Newton in High School physics classes. Nor should we say "well since Newton was wrong, and we still don't have a Grand Unified Theory, I won't believe in that gravity stuff, because we can't say that we possess absolute truth about it.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Whiskeypete

[mfbukowski]

I can see someone saying look at the difference between the first one and the last one. They were obviously wrong when they depicted Nefertiti as being a bunch of multicolored blocks.

And in fact- is the last one a good "representation"? How do we know that? I bet she did not look that good!

Our feelings and needs and wants, and yes even politics color all of what we see as "reality"! Ignoring those deliberately- as science does, does not give us "truth" at all!

[JAHS]

Actually Joseph Smith solved the problem when he allegedly said:

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

Therefore animals may have evolved on this planet but not humans. Anybody buy this?

Edited May 15, 2012 by JAHS

[thesometimesaint]

Nope.

[BCSpace]

As an anthropology student, I spent my first 6 or 7 years in college resisting all the evolutionary theories we were taught. I find it funny that since then, I have completely changed my stance.

I know that the "evidence" has been discussed ad nauseum. I think the evidence that humans evolved is undeniable. But well beyond that, think about this:

One of the big controversies among Christians is the question of why God would create man with evil desires, only to punish him for following those desires. IMHO, evolution answers this question, especially within Mormon doctrine.

• God is bound by laws - particularly mercy and justice. Even an omnipotent God operates within natural laws.
  
• Like God, "evolved man" operates under natural laws. Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God.
  
• God then places a divine spirit in that body, and directs us to "overcome the natural (evolved) man.
  

Under this design, God did not place the evil desires of the natural-man in us; they were a natural outgrowth of the creation process. God intervenes so that they can be overcome.

To me it just makes sense.

There must needs be opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2). Since God Himself is a homo sapiens, I think He merely followed the existing pattern rather than actually making us this way as if it were something new.

I will mention a conversation I had with a scientist, an expert in DNA and molecular chemistry in the cell who is also LDS. I will not give his name as this conversation was explicitly not for attribution.

He pointed out that he believes in Evolution and he also believes in Adam and Eve.

I asked him about this and he told me that whenever he talks about ancient humans he describes the old ones as "anatomically correct human beings". He does not refer to them as "Man". While he would not hazard a guess as to the exact time, he would say that the spirit of "Man" came into anatomically correct human beings, not all that long ago -- and quite a bit after their first appearance on the earth.

This is how I hypothesize in my reconciliation of LDS doctrine with evolution. The spirits first found in homo sapiens were lesser, more animal-like spirits rather than literal spirit children of God. I hypothesize that the change could be marked and dated to the rise of civilization.

[mfbukowski]

Therefore animals may have evolved on this planet but not humans. Anybody buy this?

Can you imagine North Korea becoming democratic? (Or even republican? )

I was talking to my daughter who is 22 the other day about the way "East Germany" was before the wall came down. She brought up the analogy of North Korea herself.

To answer your question, I might not admit to buying it, but none of us were there and saw any of this with our own eyes.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

This is how I hypothesize in my reconciliation of LDS doctrine with evolution. The spirits first found in homo sapiens were lesser, more animal-like spirits rather than literal spirit children of God. I hypothesize that the change could be marked and dated to the rise of civilization.

This gets the Official Gospel According to Bukowski Stamp of Approval.

I think.