Hamilton Porter Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) 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 like this interpretation.I also have heard the "Adam = leader of a primal group of humans" interpretation, since being "raised from the dust" is a Biblical enthronement motif, and Adam was told to glorify God by gardening, as was King Hammurabi.http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=644 Edited June 21, 2012 by Hamilton Porter
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.My study has turned me the other direction. I have come from evolution to There are ample good reasons to believe otherwise.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I cannot reconcile this with what the Book of Mormon teaches about Adam & Eve.The Book of Mormon is not a complete text of Adam and Eve knowledge, so why is it necessary to equate and reconcile? The BofM is clearly a highly selective, extremely edited and changed book through its many authors handling of the ancient plates up to our day, even with Joseph Smith losing 116 of its original pages....... it obviously has the last word on very, VERY little........ 1
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Kenneth Miller's materials on describing his interpretation of God using evolution as a tool of creation is one of the absolute most intriguing themes I have ever read. His evidence in its favor is also quite amazing in my humble opinion......
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Link?Yes, sorry......http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
Bikeemikey Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) 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.I think the natural man was part of our spirits in heaven - how would we rebel against god in heaven with out it.I think the natural man is not part of the body at all but part of the spirit.The natural man is part of the preexisiting self that god did not create, rather it was with god in the beginning.Otherwise I agree with the bulk of you opening post. Edited June 23, 2012 by Bikeemikey
blackstrap Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Unfortunately the idea that God had any hand in evolution is anethema to the people who would educate our children. The latest educational guidelines from the "teachers of science" strongly affirms that evolution is mindless,random,and purposeless.Again I present this scenario: We human progress to the stage where we can exist off planet for long periods of time. We have learned how to travel vast space distances in relatively short time intervals(wormholes?). We find a planet in the hospitable zone that is ripe for exploit...er I mean exploration. We decide to colonize said planet. I wonder how we would do it. Would we contemplate transplanting life from Earth ? No ,never. We would just hang around for a few billion years until life evolved to our liking.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Unfortunately the idea that God had any hand in evolution is anethema to the people who would educate our children. The latest educational guidelines from the "teachers of science" strongly affirms that evolution is mindless,random,and purposeless.Yes, this is true...... it is their own spin on an interpretation, which is perfectly fine with me. I just happen to like Miller's particular spin......for now...... but please don't ask me to bear my testimony of the final truthfulness of it!
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Yes, this is true...... it is their own spin on an interpretation, which is perfectly fine with me. I just happen to like Miller's particular spin......for now...... but please don't ask me to bear my testimony of the final truthfulness of it! One solution is to re-define it in our own terms. I see it as a directed transformation of species, or an unfolding of a vast plan- almost an organic growth model like an Aspen forest unfolding itself from a single seed, but on the order of the entire universe itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_%28tree%29
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 The question quickly becomes which God(s) should we teach in a science class room? 1
ERayR Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 The question quickly becomes which God(s) should we teach in a science class room?Very true but should we default to the god of science? If so why? Think before you react.
blackstrap Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Intelligent design does not pick a 'god' per se even though some would insist on the Christian god. Personally ,I like Vishnu.A billion Hindus can't be that far off.
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 The question quickly becomes which God(s) should we teach in a science class room?Whichever ones have been written up in Nature.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Evolution is the best guess based on the data we have but ultimately we have such a small amount of data What is, in your estimation, a SMALL amount of data? Most large museums have millions of fossils and even complete skeletons. There are countless billions of fossils categorized throughout the world. If that is small, when does it become a Large amount of data, in your opinion?
blackstrap Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I love fossils. They tell us so much. Like ,how we come to have complete fossils of ichthyosaur mothers in midbirth and turtle fossils in mid coitus. Make one go ...hmmmm.
ERayR Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I love fossils. They tell us so much. Like ,how we come to have complete fossils of ichthyosaur mothers in midbirth and turtle fossils in mid coitus. Make one go ...hmmmm.All the neat pictures and the stories that go along with them are a nice touch too.
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 What is, in your estimation, a SMALL amount of data? Most large museums have millions of fossils and even complete skeletons. There are countless billions of fossils categorized throughout the world. If that is small, when does it become a Large amount of data, in your opinion?Unfortunately data does not interpret itself. We get to make up some story or other. It is not a question of how much data there is, the question is how well the interpretation works.How much data is there that Newtonian Mechanics works? And yet Quantum Mechanics works better. But guess what- everyone knows there is more even beyond that. Evolution is getting old and is less than perfect and is approaching the level of dogma. That means it's about time for something new. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I love fossils. They tell us so much. Like ,how we come to have complete fossils of ichthyosaur mothers in midbirth and turtle fossils in mid coitus. Make one go ...hmmmm.Don't ya just hate it when you are carrying on your private life and a landslide falls on you? Bummer, dude! 1
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 How much data is there that Newtonian Mechanics works? And yet Quantum Mechanics works better. But guess what- everyone knows there is more even beyond that. Evolution is getting old and is less than perfect and is approaching the level of dogma. That means it's about time for something new.Something new? Did you know that Darwin's ideas were mixed with Mendel's ideas and now we have what they call the Modern Synthesis?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesisDern scientists beat ya to the punch.
CASteinman Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I cannot reconcile this with what the Book of Mormon teaches about Adam & Eve.What is it, specifically, that the Book of Mormon says and which would not fit into that paradigm?
TomesD Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 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.That's a very interesting perspective! Did he have more to offer of this POV?
CASteinman Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 That's a very interesting perspective! Did he have more to offer of this POV?Not really. He was actually teensy bit hesitant to discuss it in detail. I could sort of guess why. Mainly ..... the issue of "PreAdamites" and so on.
TomesD Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I cannot reconcile this with what the Book of Mormon teaches about Adam & Eve.Well, since we do not consider that everything about these events have been revealed, it doesn't follow that one must reconcile anything. I do expect that at some point the fullness of these truths will be revealed, but does one need for this to happen for one's faith to be strong?
TomesD Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Not really. He was actually teensy bit hesitant to discuss it in detail. I could sort of guess why. Mainly ..... the issue of "PreAdamites" and so on.Yes, I can see why, certainly not wanting to get into deep speculation. But still an interesting POV.
Recommended Posts