Evolution And Mormonism

[Ahab]

Evolution has nothing to do with the placement of Adam and Eve into the garden state or the Fall There are no details as to how the physical body was created. Thus evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine. It does not preclude a Fall. It does not preclude God or man's creation in God's image by God. It does not conflict with the fact that there is no death before the Fall because the property of no death is not applied to the creative state prior to the garden state.

I am interested in actual data (doctrine/science) that would preclude or seem to preclude evolution so I can strengthen or change my hypothesis or abandon it altogether. But after 30 plus years of being a proponent of evolution within the Church, I have not seen a unique piece of data that I haven't already considered in almost that same amount of time.

Brigham Young talked about how our Father in heaven came here with his wife and incorporated elements of this Earth into themselves through food they ate from the plants they had placed on this Earth to create the physical bodies of Adam and Eve. We're also told that before they were created on this Earth, Man (meaning the kind of being we are) was not on this Earth. Thus they didn't evolve from another kind of being to become the kind of being they were, and were instead created from the dust (elements) of this Earth by God, both male and female. Now combine those teachings with the teachings, from several prophets, stating their spirits were begotten in heaven and how God put their spirits (breath) into their (other) physical bodies, and voila, you now know how they were created.

I don't memorize book chapter and verse, or page numbers, but if you're good at doing research you can find the doctrine I just mentioned.

Do you realize you're still trying to learn about the birds and the bees? This is something you should have learned in primary.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Ahab

[BCSpace]

If it works for you. I can't do the contortions.

What contortions?

Brigham Young talked about how our Father in heaven came here with his wife and incorporated elements of this Earth into themselves through food they ate from the plants they had placed on this Earth to create the physical bodies of Adam and Eve.

Yes. That is BY's Adam Sr. Adam Jr. theory commonly mistaken for an Adam-God theory. Either way, non doctrinal. I think you should check out the JST (in other words, the latest word) on the NT's genealogy of Christ. However it could fit within the realm of doctrine as well as evolution and creationism could. I'm merely showing how evolution does that.

We're also told that before they were created on this Earth, Man (meaning the kind of being we are) was not on this Earth.

Also non doctrinal.

Thus they didn't evolve from another kind of being to become the kind of being they were,

I've never postulated that Man (the scriptural definition of) evolved from another kind of being. In addition, the doctrine remains that we don't have any details as to the actual process of creation.

and were instead created from the dust (elements) of this Earth by God, both male and female.

Excellent figurative language for Big Bang Evolution imho.

Now combine those teachings with the teachings, from several prophets, stating their spirits were begotten in heaven and how God put their spirits (breath) into their (other) physical bodies, and voila, you now know how they were created.

That is exactly what my hypothesis supposes. The physical bodies those spirits were put into came about by, you guessed it, evolution.

I don't memorize book chapter and verse, or page numbers, but if you're good at doing research you can find the doctrine I just mentioned.

Do you realize you're still trying to learn about the birds and the bees? This is something you should have learned in primary.

You didn't quote any doctrine or cite any references to such that would preclude evolution.

Edited February 28, 2013 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

I am interested in actual data (doctrine/science) that would preclude or seem to preclude evolution so I can strengthen or change my hypothesis or abandon it altogether. But after 30 plus years of being a proponent of evolution within the Church, I have not seen a unique piece of data that I haven't already considered in almost that same amount of time.

I haven't seen anything that would preclude your view either. I have a different view but there is nothing I know of which would make your view untenable.

[canard78]

Before this, we were as Jesus Christ became after his resurrection.

You come up with some interesting stuff but... Really? If we were as Jesus Christ at his resurrection before we were born then there's really little point in being here, given 'here' is for becoming like him.

This life is a progression from the previous. We're better off here than there and will be better off next than now (under any of the 3 glories). Those that rejected this step are the only ones worse off.

And if evolution is a false teaching, why does the church allow room for belief in it, why not come out and declare it false from the pulpit.

You may have a few quotes from a few opinions of the past. But it's only their opinion.

There's plenty of room for a Master in evolution.

[ERayR]

You come up with some interesting stuff but... Really? If we were as Jesus Christ at his resurrection before we were born then there's really little point in being here, given 'here' is for becoming like him.

This life is a progression from the previous. We're better off here than there and will be better off next than now (under any of the 3 glories). Those that rejected this step are the only ones worse off.

Some are some are not.

And if evolution is a false teaching, why does the church allow room for belief in it, why not come out and declare it false from the pulpit.

For the same reason they don't take babies and program them to be good lockstep kids. There needs to be room for choice.

You may have a few quotes from a few opinions of the past. But it's only their opinion.

I am fine with that but I reserve the right to choose which opinions I incorporate into my paradigm..

There's plenty of room for a Master in evolution.

[canard78]

Brigham Young talked about how our Father in heaven came here with his wife and incorporated elements of this Earth into themselves through food they ate from the plants they had placed on this Earth to create the physical bodies of Adam and Eve. We're also told that before they were created on this Earth, Man (meaning the kind of being we are) was not on this Earth. Thus they didn't evolve from another kind of being to become the kind of being they were, and were instead created from the dust (elements) of this Earth by God, both male and female. Now combine those teachings with the teachings, from several prophets, stating their spirits were begotten in heaven and how God put their spirits (breath) into their (other) physical bodies, and voila, you now know how they were created.

I don't memorize book chapter and verse, or page numbers, but if you're good at doing research you can find the doctrine I just mentioned.

Do you realize you're still trying to learn about the birds and the bees? This is something you should have learned in primary.

I'm going to sound repetitive, but Brigham Young said a lot of things that are nothing more than speculation.

And in case you needed reminding:

Doctrine:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

While Evolution is not doctrine, neither is BY's theory. I find very little in doctrine to show how God created the earth (but plenty to show why). The how is left for speculation. If BY's speculation works for you, that's fine. But there's as much room for me to believe God used evolution as a creation process as for you to believe BY's.

And to say 'you should have learned this in primary' is pretty patronising to BCSpace. Many of the primary answers are adequate for a child's mind, but need more thought later in life. The BY theory is also evidence of your additional thought beyond primary (they certainly don't have that explanation in the primary manual).

[canard78]

ErayR, as a side note, it's quite hard to reply when you put your reply inside the quote. The board formatting deletes yours when replying.

Anyway, you said:

Some are some are not.

For the same reason they don't take babies and program them to be good lockstep kids.  There needs to be room for choice.

I am fine with that but I reserve the right to choose which opinions I incorporate into my paradigm.

I'm fine for people to believe whatever they want and support your right to. We may all be wrong on 'how' it happened. It probably doesn't matter too much.

Given some of the prophets are said to have seen 'the end from the beginning' I wonder if they know but aren't telling us.

Given the 'debate' between Joseph Fielding Smith and Talmage/Roberts (which I presume has been covered), it would suggest they haven't.

Or... They have, but have decided to not impose either on us by revealation as a gift. Perhaps one or the other as a required belief would be too big a trial of faith for some (whether as evolution or nor). A bit like still using the KJV, even though it's less accurate than the later translations or Joseph's inspired version.

[Nofear]

One of the most overlooked doctrines, I believe, when it comes to discussing evolution is the plurality of inhabited worlds -- worlds inhabited by humans. Random evolution does not lend itself easily to this observation. Does that mean evolution isn't a process for our world? No. But there is tension between the two concepts.

My resolution? Evolution is a process for devoloping a thriving, living world uniquely adapted to the circumstances of that planet. Our species is trans-planetary but for our mortal bodies to work with this planet our human, mortal bodies need time to adapt to the newly organized worlds. So while evolution describes some of what is going on but is far from a complete story.

A longer version below that I replaced with the briefer summary above.

My personal resolution?

1. Our physiology is intimately tied to this earth and this earth alone. The shared relationship between is our physical, mortal bodies and a host of bacteria is daunting. Were we to transplant directly to another world which evolved distinctly from our own I do not believe our mortal bodies could or would thrive.

2. Nonetheless, our species does thrive on a vast multitude of planets. Both in post-mortal states and mortal states. How can this be?

3. A world is designed. Life is allowed to adapt, develop, progess on the planet. These processes are roughly described by evolution. Through evolution an increased diversity and creative development of additional forms of life are generated.

4. Nonetheless, some life forms (e.g. humans and other choice animal forms) from other prior world are desired for this new planet. A straight panspermia would result in almost certain failure for the newly introduced life forms to thrive.

5. A transistory region is created to allow extraterrestrial life forms time to adapt to the intricate and uniquely evolved biosphere. While at it we can make this region safe and pleasant... like a garden.

[canard78]

No fear... it looks like you're whispering the second half, there's no need to be shy

(just a formatting glitch by the looks of it).

I agree that to believe in Evolution with Divine involvement it doesn't have to be random evolution.

[Nofear]

No fear...

No space in my moniker. That is deliberate. As general rule it's wise not to second guess those (just as it's wise not to take offense by carelessness found in the intertubes. )

it looks like you're whispering the second half, there's no need to be shy

(just a formatting glitch by the looks of it).

Nope. Deliberate. The summary says what I wanted to say. If one feels like it is interesting they are welcome to read the more involved version before my comment coalesced.

I agree that to believe in Evolution with Divine involvement it doesn't have to be random evolution.

I hear quite a few fellow Mormons say such words... involvement, etc. But what does that mean exactly? Not that I disagree, but by itself it's a rather vacuous statement that leaves one open to the entire spectrum: unguided atheism to overt and direct creation.

[Ahab]

You come up with some interesting stuff but... Really? If we were as Jesus Christ at his resurrection before we were born then there's really little point in being here, given 'here' is for becoming like him.

I was thinking of Adam and Eve as they were before they Fell. That is the same condition we are going to be restored to through the atonement of Jesus Christ. It redeems us from the Fall, or our Fallen condition, and puts us back in the condition of Adam and Eve before they Fell. We're not there yet, but we will be when we're resurrected. We'll still be distinguished by different degrees of glory, though, meaning we'll still have different levels of light and truth. The glory of God (as a kind of being) is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth, and God our Father is as intelligent as our kind of being can get.

This life is a progression from the previous.

Only from the standpoint of having more knowledge of good and evil, from personal experience. Other than that we're Fallen creatures, in a Fallen condition, rather than in the condition of those who have not Fallen or have already been redeemed from the Fall. Even our Lord Jesus Christ went through the Fall when he became mortal and corrupt in his form, and it wasn't until he was resurrected that he returned to the immortal and incorrupt form he had before he was born as a mortal. Try to realize I'm talking about our condition, from pre-Fall to Fallen to restored from the Fall. It's almost as if it would have been better if we had not Fallen, but then we wouldn't be learning as much about good and evil from direct and very personal experiences.

We're better off here than there and will be better off next than now (under any of the 3 glories). Those that rejected this step are the only ones worse off.

Our focus should be to get back there, though, after having learned a lot through experience. Sin is not good, and a world filled with people that sin is not good, but it can help us to understand more about sin and why we shouldn't ever want to even think about committing a sin. It's just not worth what we give up when we sin, and some of us are having to learn that the hard way.

And if evolution is a false teaching, why does the church allow room for belief in it, why not come out and declare it false from the pulpit.

It's been corrected often enough, and sometimes with some very strong language, but generally we're not a people who approve of brow beating. Those who really want to know the truth can find it without too much trouble. It's only the stubborn who refuse to believe it after they've been told the truth about where we came from, and how we got here, and what we were before we got here, and what we will be when we are done with this mortal probation. I mean, who really wants to believe we are anything other than what we really are?

You may have a few quotes from a few opinions of the past. But it's only their opinion.

Ah, yeah, and there is always that retort to fall back on, isn't there. Those who are open to the truth can still feel it when it's presented to them, though. All we really need is an idea to work with and from there we can ask God to assure us if it's true.

There's plenty of room for a Master in evolution.

We're done now, I think. Happy trails to you until we meet again.

[Rivers]

If the church is against evolution, why do they allow it to be openly taught at BYU?

[mfbukowski]

One of the most overlooked doctrines, I believe, when it comes to discussing evolution is the plurality of inhabited worlds -- worlds inhabited by humans. Random evolution does not lend itself easily to this observation. Does that mean evolution isn't a process for our world? No. But there is tension between the two concepts.

My resolution? Evolution is a process for devoloping a thriving, living world uniquely adapted to the circumstances of that planet. Our species is trans-planetary but for our mortal bodies to work with this planet our human, mortal bodies need time to adapt to the newly organized worlds. So while evolution describes some of what is going on but is far from a complete story.

A longer version below that I replaced with the briefer summary above.

My personal resolution?

1. Our physiology is intimately tied to this earth and this earth alone. The shared relationship between is our physical, mortal bodies and a host of bacteria is daunting. Were we to transplant directly to another world which evolved distinctly from our own I do not believe our mortal bodies could or would thrive.

2. Nonetheless, our species does thrive on a vast multitude of planets. Both in post-mortal states and mortal states. How can this be?

3. A world is designed. Life is allowed to adapt, develop, progess on the planet. These processes are roughly described by evolution. Through evolution an increased diversity and creative development of additional forms of life are generated.

4. Nonetheless, some life forms (e.g. humans and other choice animal forms) from other prior world are desired for this new planet. A straight panspermia would result in almost certain failure for the newly introduced life forms to thrive.

5. A transistory region is created to allow extraterrestrial life forms time to adapt to the intricate and uniquely evolved biosphere. While at it we can make this region safe and pleasant... like a garden.

Well then we have the question of how you resolve spirit bodies looking like our natural bodies, and the "finger of the Lord" question- our spirits must have fingers then, not webbing etc.

I don't really have that problem because I see most of these metaphysical questions figuratively anyway.

I suppose you could resolve it by saying that in order for our brains to evolve we had to evolve our hands which implies bipedal locomotion- so that broadly speaking all creatures capable of being God's children have to have bodies roughly like ours- bipedal locomotion, two eyes ears etc though perhaps seeing different wavelengths of light, frequencies of sound, etc, maybe some having feathers instead of hair etc.

Kind of like Star Trek I suppose but with more radical changes might be possible consistent with the theory-

But I have always thought that indeed all such creatures would have to look something like us just to have evolved the brain power to be completely adaptable to any enviroment- because of course that is what we are.

We can survive on the moon and under the sea because we have learned how to create our own environments which make us comfortable and when necessary can carry them around with us. So nearly infinite adaptability is what defines us as human.

It is also interesting to think about whales and dolphins which took the other evolutionary route- their brains are larger than ours, but yet they are perfectly adapted to only one environment and have had no need to create their own environments.

I often wonder what is happening in those huge brains and if they see us as primitives scurrying around like ants so preoccupied with building things they find useless

Who knows- maybe all they do all day is sing praises to their whale-embodied exalted being and that is what whale songs are all about

Edited February 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

If the church is against evolution, why do they allow it to be openly taught at BYU?

So that people can understand the theory of evolution. It doesn't mean the endorse it as the truth. It's just something that is taught in this world so it's good to be aware of what is being referred to.

[thesometimesaint]

Non Sequitur. By that reason BYU doesn't have medical school is that is opposed to medicine.

[Ahab]

Non Sequitur. By that reason BYU doesn't have medical school is that is opposed to medicine.

No, they just haven't chosen to devote any material resources to establishing a medical school.

[thesometimesaint]

But they sure do expend considerable time, effort, money to support evolution including one of the largest collection of dinosaur bones in the world and a museum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYU_Museum_of_Paleontology

[Ahab]

But they sure do expend considerable time, effort, money to support evolution including one of the largest collection of dinosaur bones in the world and a museum.

http://en.wikipedia....of_Paleontology

It helps to draw crowds and then all of the missionaries are supposed to swoop in.

[cinepro]

So that people can understand the theory of evolution. It doesn't mean the endorse it as the truth. It's just something that is taught in this world so it's good to be aware of what is being referred to.

Here's an article from they BYU Daily Universe (official BYU Student Newspaper) from 2009. I can't find it online anymore, but it sure sounds to me like they endorse the theory of evolution as "truth". I suspect they would be very surprised by your hypothesis:

Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

By Alicia Moulton - 9 Feb 2009

Most biology faculty and students do not have a problem reconciling faith with their study of evolution, and many even find it spiritually inspiring.

"Too often we assume a false dichotomy," said biology professor Jerry Johnson. "Yet one can accept evolution and still be a faithful follower of Christ."

Students study evolution every semester, whether in the senior capstone class Biology 420, evolutionary biology, or in Biology 100. Charles Darwin's theories are not a controversial side-topic for the sciences but a core, connecting theme.

Johnson and biology department chair Keith Crandall referred to a quote by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution."

BYU biology professors Johnson, Crandall, Michael Whiting and Jack Sites said they have had positive experiences teaching evolution and few problems. They are careful to teach evolution so students' concerns are addressed, and they spend time in class discussing the issues. Professors resolve religious questions by referring students to the packet of LDS First Presidency statements on evolution. They said they pay close attention to feedback on student ratings and that many students say taking the class strengthened their testimonies.

"We spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible," Johnson said. "We try to unburden students from the idea of either-or. That's baggage they don't have to carry."

"Faith-affirming" evolution

Johnson said his study of evolution has not diminished his faith, but has strengthened it by giving him a greater understanding of the creation.

"It gives me insight into the creator's mechanism," Johnson said. "I hope every student comes out of my class with a greater testimony of the creation God has made."

Whiting, who teaches a Book of Mormon class this semester as well as evolutionary biology, said he finds it much more impressive to view God creating species through the mechanism of evolution rather than individually.

"I find it very faith-affirming," Whiting said. "We learn about the nature of the creator."

Johnson said sometimes fitting together science and religion does create challenges, but students should not let this become a roadblock.

He gave an analogy of building a rock wall. When he finds a good rock, but it doesn't fit into the wall, instead of throwing it out, he sets it aside to see if it will fit later. Johnson said often in biology, religion and life, all the answers do not come immediately, but that does not mean we should discard good ideas, such as evolution.

"We need to be careful not to think that we understand everything, both from a science and religious perspective," Johnson said. "It's OK not to have all the answers."

Professors said it helped students to understand the view of the creation in LDS theology, which does not always align with traditional interpretations of the creation story in Genesis.

"The first thing is to realize we are not creationists the way the world understands it," Crandall said.

He said understanding this makes it easier to fit the two together.

Evolution at BYU

Professors do not avoid the topic of evolution at BYU or modify Darwin's theories in class.

"We're teaching a solid, rigorous evolution course," Johnson said.

Johnson said in national standardized exams, Biology 420 students score higher in evolution and ecology than the national averages.

Johnson and Sites completed their post-doctoral teaching at other universities before coming to BYU, and found that students of all faiths are interested in knowing how evolution fits in with their beliefs.

"You might be surprised to learn that I've had the exact same questions about evolution and religion asked of me everywhere I've taught," Johnson said.

Rather than finding greater conflicts at BYU, professors said there were greater opportunities.

"We have the best of both worlds," Whiting said. "We can teach in the light of the restored gospel. [When students have a] better understanding of evolution, they realize their faith isn't being challenged."

Johnson said evolution is his favorite class to teach and that he hopes every biology class will cover it. He said questions regarding evolution will come up wherever his students go after leaving BYU, and it is a benefit to be able to discuss these topics while they are here.

"I'd much rather have my students wrestle with hard questions here at BYU where they can be basked in [this] environment, than somewhere else," he said.

The distinction between science and religion

Most biology majors do not have a problem studying evolution and some tire of the religion-evolution debate.

"The constant debate wears you out after the first day," said Mike Streeter, a junior from Tucson, Ariz., majoring in physiology and developmental biology.

Many do not find a problem because they see science and religion as distinct spheres with their own unique functions.

"When we talk about evolution, it's just facts and what you can observe," said Aaron Fordham, a senior from Byron, Ill., majoring in biology. "I can view evolution as a very good mechanism to understand our natural surroundings and still have a testimony."

Fordham and other students said LDS First Presidency statements on evolution were helpful.

Caitlin Nichols, a sophomore from Orange, Calif., majoring in molecular biology, said she thinks it is important to learn about evolution as a science.

"I don't think science has to conflict with religion," Nichols said.

Sites said he is opposed to requiring public schools to teach religious views of the creation alongside evolution in science classes because religion is not science. He said religion has a separate place.

"Science can figure out the laws and how they work, but it can't ask 'where did the laws come from?'" he said. "Science is not equipped to do it. That's not its purpose."

He said if he put God as the one who orchestrated those laws, there is never any conflict.

Good from Darwin

While some may not know where Darwin fits in the rock wall, professors say his theories have many positive contributions.

"It's amazing to think of all the applications the theory of evolution has in daily life that we take for granted," Johnson said.

Among these are advances in medicine, agriculture, conservation, vaccine development and research to understand HIV and other diseases using knowledge of viral evolution.

"All these advances are firmly anchored in the theory of evolution," Johnson said. "To tout this as an evil thing is a paradox. I think it's the opposite. It is a blessing of knowledge that we know how evolution works."

Darwin's theories have not only benefited biology, but all the life sciences.

Geology professor Brooks Britt said Darwin's theories are integral to everything he teaches. Surrounded by an office with dinosaur bones and fossils, he studies and teaches what he calls "genealogy in deep time," the lineage and relationships of prehistoric species such as dinosaurs.

The concepts of evolution enable paleontologists to find how dinosaurs are related to birds, crocodiles and other species, through identifying common features on bones and fossils.

"This earth isn't static," Britt said. "Organisms have changed dramatically. [Evolution] is the glue that binds biology and paleontology together."

Whiting said much good comes from competent biologists who understand evolution. He said LDS biologists refuted claims that challenged the credibility of the Book of Mormon because they understood DNA signatures.

"I think that evolutionary biology has not only blessed humankind but the church and students," Whiting said.

Sites said the theories of Darwin and colleague Alfred Wallace are the landmark story of biology, followed only by the discovery of the DNA molecule in the 1950s.

"It's our story in biology," Sites said. "It has important lessons for us, so it ought to be taught."

[Ahab]

Here's an article from they BYU Daily Universe (official BYU Student Newspaper) from 2009. I can't find it online anymore, but it sure sounds to me like they endorse the theory of evolution as "truth". I suspect they would be very surprised by your hypothesis:

That article was written by one person named Alicia, and while I'm sure that at least some of the science professors at BYU accept evolution as something that really happened, they don't speak for all who are affiliated with BYU. There are some students who attend BYU, and some teachers who teach there, who don't accept evolution as the truth, don't cha know. It's just something that is taught there to help those who take those courses become familiar with the theory. And answering the test questions according to what is taught as the theory doesn't mean the student is accepting that theory as the truth, either.

[Ahab]

Considering how some people don't seem to see how Mormonism and Evolution are not compatible, I'd like to share some ideas from a Mormon and his/my understanding of what we are taught in Mormonism. At that point someone can then come along to share how my ideas are compatible or just assert that my ideas are not in harmony with Mormonism, even though I know they are.

Life doesn't begin, but instead is perpetuated as each kind of being reproduces after its own kind. And each kind of being needs a place to exist, since each kind of being occupies its measure of space. So when this Earth was formed from various elements in space, some of which were possibly parts of other planets or moons, it was prepared as a place where various kinds of beings would live. Many kinds of beings, as we can still see on this Earth, whether they would live in the water or on land and at various altitudes and atmospheres on the planet. So what do we have at one point? Just a place where various kinds of beings can live, but without any kind of life on this planet. Totally void of all life. And then what? According to teachings from people with keys of the kingdom of God, God transplanted plants from other planets to this planet, and not only plants, but animals too, of all kinds.

But was Man found on this Earth, at that time? No. We are told we were not here, and by people who would know if we were.

So what happened next? What are we taught by the people with the keys of the kingdom of God?

We're taught that the person we refer to as our Father in heaven came down here to this planet, along with his wife, and reproduced our kind of being on this planet after his own kind, both male and female. Adam and Eve were their first children here, and they were to be the people who we would descend from. Adam and Eve also became our Father and Mother. They were the first 2 persons placed on this planet from whom we would desend, having already been created as spirits of our Father and Mother in heaven.

So what's all this hubbub about Evolution? Why does anyone think that meshes in nicely with Mormonism?

Despite the assertions of many people who have written posts on message boards, and magazine articles, and books, and encyclopedias, and enough books to fill many libraries, the two sets of teachings don't mesh. They don't fit together. They are totally incompatible.

For some reason some people seem to want to think that at some point in history, whenever they think it was, there was nothing, and then gradually everything started to develop and evolve and become better and better until some thing(s) got to be totally perfect, and then BOOM! all that went away and then we started from nothing, again. How silly. How absurd.

Life has always existed, someplace, in all of its various kinds, and all we are doing is reproducing and helping other kind of beings to have other places to live. We are the ones creating the planets and transplanting the various kinds of life all over the place so they can reproduce after their own kind. Nothing new going on. It's all more of the same, and the best we can hope for is to be able to reproduce our own kind. And, well, puppies are nice, too. I like it when more puppies are born.

[Nofear]

Well then we have the question of how you resolve spirit bodies looking like our natural bodies, and the "finger of the Lord" question- our spirits must have fingers then, not webbing etc.

[snip]

Our spirit body and physical body are phenotypically similar. Very true. To what extent and how much we do not fully know. Lots of fun question such as does our spirit body have a coccxy? Or does it have a dna+cellular like structure? If I had "green" eyes in my spirit body can I be born with blue eyes in my mortal body? Are spirit bodies bio-homogeneous or is it like our mortal physical bodies which are chock full of foreign flora (same question extends to resurrected bodies)? etc. etc.

On a similar vein we can also ask how "human" looking do our bodies have to be to be "human"? Our kind inhabits a vast plurality of worlds. On all of them is our skin color the same? Would it be allowable for some to have a blue or green tint adapted to the different UV levels of that particular star? Do they necessarily have the same coccyx or number of ribs? Can their hair be more brittle or pliant or is it the same? Do their fingernails on average grow at the same rate? Is everybody lactose intolerant or just most people (such as our planet)? etc. etc.

With neither question, in my opinion, do we have sufficient information to disallow evolution as an involved process. Nonetehless, the very existence of the questions manifest the inadequacy of evolution as a sufficient explanation for our being.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Nofear

[cdowis]

Darwin's theories have not only benefited biology, but all the life sciences.

As Nibley points out, it has extended itself into such areas as anthropology and linguistics. Grunts and groans evolved into language, and has guided the research even when it is improperly applied.

I suggest that the damage has almost outweighed the benefit, cutting off promising avenues of research if it contradicts evolution. Evolution has serious problems with explaining certain observations and issues, but they basically become "faith issues" with little or no effort to explain them if they cannot be shoehorned into evolution. They are often dismissed as the "miracle of evolution", an actual phrase used in a documentary, for one of those unexplained things.

Yes, evolution has benefited science as long as you turn a blind eye to how it has seriously hindered scientific investigation. Scientists are human and have an eye to their reputations.

Sorry about that, Herr Professor Doctor at BYU. Nibley had some very unkind things to say to those who wear the robes of academia who spout nonsense.

Edited March 1, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Our spirit body and physical body are phenotypically similar. Very true. To what extent and how much we do not fully know. Lots of fun question such as does our spirit body have a coccxy?

Got it- excellent question/answer.

[cinepro]

That article was written by one person named Alicia, and while I'm sure that at least some of the science professors at BYU accept evolution as something that really happened, they don't speak for all who are affiliated with BYU. There are some students who attend BYU, and some teachers who teach there, who don't accept evolution as the truth, don't cha know. It's just something that is taught there to help those who take those courses become familiar with the theory. And answering the test questions according to what is taught as the theory doesn't mean the student is accepting that theory as the truth, either.

So you're saying the BYU biology department teaches evolution in the same way the economics department might teach communism? "Hey, this is out there, but we don't believe it"?