Evolution And Mormonism

[mfbukowski]

Here's an article from they BYU Daily Universe (official BYU Student Newspaper) from 2009.

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.

Ah, at last they see I have been right all along.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

You are imposing a Supernatural being on a Natural being. Science can not do that.

So far we have absolutely no physical/science based evidence for any life on any planet other than our own. But the universe is really big. Maybe one day ET will come to visit, or better yet, we become the ET's to them.

While it is certainly possible, maybe even probable, that life as we know it exists on other planets. Evolution on this planet doesn't concern itself with it.

[thesometimesaint]

To the broader question why is that some members of the Church feel it is important to question other faithful members of the Church that happen to know science?

[ERayR]

To the broader question why is that some members of the Church feel it is important to question other faithful members of the Church that happen to know science?

To me an even better question is: Why do some members who "know" science feel it is important to question the intelligence of those who don't agree with the current scientific interpretations?

[thesometimesaint]

To me an even better question is: Why do some members who "know" science feel it is important to question the intelligence of those who don't agree with the current scientific interpretations?

I don't know why. But I've never questioned their intelligence, just some of their conclusions.

[semlogo]

I don't know why. But I've never questioned their intelligence, just some of their conclusions.

Intelligent people can believe some very silly things. It's a question of willful ignorance for many evolution deniers.

[thesometimesaint]

Intelligent people can believe some very silly things. It's a question of willful ignorance for many evolution deniers.

I agree that even very intelligent people can have some very silly idea's. Newton among them. But I consider it bad manners to publicly question the intelligence of those I've never met, let alone done a psychological evaluation on. What we do within the privacy of our own minds is another question.

Edited March 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

I don't know why. But I've never questioned their intelligence, just some of their conclusions.

And they question some of your conclusions. It all depends on which data each considers more important. Isn't it great?

[ERayR]

Intelligent people can believe some very silly things. It's a question of willful ignorance for many evolution deniers.

And that truism can be just as valid coming from the other side of the debate. It is amazing how willfully ignorant some can be.

[thesometimesaint]

And they question some of your conclusions. It all depends on which data each considers more important. Isn't it great?

I have no problem with that.

While all data is inherently of unequal importance when discussing the same subject it is best to stick with verifiable empirical evidence over some Supernatural explanation.

It is great to have discussions on a variety of subjects. But I find little value in arguing over the imposition of the Supernatural on the Natural. It is one thing to believe in God, and quite another to claim this is how God did it, without considerable natural evidence.

[Nofear]

You are imposing a Supernatural being on a Natural being. Science can not do that.

You must be using some funny definitions of supernatural or something. The God I worship is very much a natural being.

So far we have absolutely no physical/science based evidence for any life on any planet other than our own. But the universe is really big. Maybe one day ET will come to visit, or better yet, we become the ET's to them.

I invite you to read Selections from the Book of Moses. (For the record, I do know that you've read it multiple times, but the comment still stands.)

While it is certainly possible, maybe even probable, that life as we know it exists on other planets. Evolution on this planet doesn't concern itself with it.

/yawn

Anyway, I'll chalk this post up to one your frequent not-quite-fully-lucid posts.

[ERayR]

I have no problem with that.

While all data is inherently of unequal importance when discussing the same subject it is best to stick with verifiable empirical evidence over some Supernatural explanation.

Yet very much of the evidence used to support evolution is neither empirical or verifiable.

It is great to have discussions on a variety of subjects. But I find little value in arguing over the imposition of the Supernatural on the Natural. It is one thing to believe in God, and quite another to claim this is how God did it, without considerable natural evidence.

It would be nice to have some verifiable natural evidence instead of the extrapolated evidences filtered through someones biased interpretation.

Edited March 1, 2013 by ERayR

[semlogo]

Yet very much of the evidence used to support evolution is neither empirical or verifiable.

It would be nice to have some verifiable natural evidence instead of the extrapolated evidences filtered through someones biased interpretation.

The vast majority of the evidence is both empirical and verifiable. You are, of course, free to insist that the world is flat.

[ERayR]

The vast majority of the evidence is both empirical and verifiable. You are, of course, free to insist that the world is flat.

Snide remarks uncalled for. I did not insult your intelligence. This is exactly the attitude I mentioned earlier. I have not posted my beliefs one way or the other except to say I think that the evolution of humans is contrary to the doctrine of the fall and atonement.

Contrary to your statement most of the information, on macro evolution, is not empirical nor verifiable. It is postulated to have happened so long ago that it could not have been observed by any living being and its presentation is through the biases of the presenter.

Edited March 2, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Yet very much of the evidence used to support evolution is neither empirical or verifiable.

It would be nice to have some verifiable natural evidence instead of the extrapolated evidences filtered through someones biased interpretation.

The bones in the ground indicate otherwise.

http://nationalacade....org/evolution/

http://www.aaas.org/...room/evolution/

http://www.deseretne...ery.html?pg=all

BTW. I would never insult your intelligence. Further Macro-evolution is a misnomer. It is all Micro-evolution just over a longer period of time.

Edited March 2, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

The bones in the ground indicate otherwise.

http://nationalacade....org/evolution/

http://www.aaas.org/...room/evolution/

http://www.deseretne...ery.html?pg=all

BTW. I would never insult your intelligence. Further Macro-evolution is a misnomer. It is all Micro-evolution just over a longer period of time.

No you have not but semlogo seems to find the need to do so. I have looked at the data, probably much more than you know, and still come away not being convinced that it does not add up to the ultimate conclusions that you and others find convincing. That leaves me to wrestle with that problem. One of my consolations is that some very learned and intelligent people are also unconvinced. Thus the discussion continues.

[thesometimesaint]

No you have not but semlogo seems to find the need to do so. I have looked at the data, probably much more than you know, and still come away not being convinced that it does not add up to the ultimate conclusions that you and others find convincing. That leaves me to wrestle with that problem. One of my consolations is that some very learned and intelligent people are also unconvinced. Thus the discussion continues.

I'm in no position to convince anyone. Nor would I do so if I was in that position. I'm more along the lines of teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

With every recognized scientific organization accepting and promoting evolution as established science. It takes more than a few outliers to debunk evolution.

Many have tried, but so far all have failed. I've offered an open challenge to anyone whom wants to debunk evolution as science. By doing it using the methods and tools of science. All you need is a good shovel, and a method of recording what you find. All the critic of evolution has to do is dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

My conclusion is in line with what the Church teaches. That by whatever means/method God created this earth. It was God that did it. That I individually will be held accountable for what I did during my mortal life, and not what some previous species did or did not do.

Until everything is known the discussion will continue. We know enough to conclude that evolution is a fact. The exact nature and circumstances of that evolution will continue to evolve as we know more.

[ERayR]

I'm in no position to convince anyone. Nor would I do so if I was in that position. I'm more along the lines of teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

With every recognized scientific organization accepting and promoting evolution as established science. It takes more than a few outliers to debunk evolution.

Many have tried, but so far all have failed. I've offered an open challenge to anyone whom wants to debunk evolution as science. By doing it using the methods and tools of science. All you need is a good shovel, and a method of recording what you find. All the critic of evolution has to do is dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

My conclusion is in line with what the Church teaches. That by whatever means/method God created this earth. It was God that did it. That I individually will be held accountable for what I did during my mortal life, and not what some previous species did or did not do.

Until everything is known the discussion will continue. We know enough to conclude that evolution is a fact. The exact nature and circumstances of that evolution will continue to evolve as we know more.

Yep and it goes on and on.

Digging up the bones is only a start. After that comes the interpretations and imagination.

[bcuzbcuz]

Yep and it goes on and on.

Digging up the bones is only a start. After that comes the interpretations and imagination.

Yes, digging up the bones IS only the start. While I'm not a paleontologist, I have many colleagues who are. I'm just a historian with a very serious archaeological bend. And I love digging up bones.

But current digs, whether for historical time periods or for many millions of years before humans ever entered into the picture, is not simply collecting bones or throwing them into heaps to be looked at later. It is tedious, back breaking work with very careful documentation. I would seriously recommend you find a dig you can participate in or spend some time cataloguing previous finds. It is not all guesswork and imagination as you seem to imply.

[ERayR]

Yes, digging up the bones IS only the start. While I'm not a paleontologist, I have many colleagues who are. I'm just a historian with a very serious archaeological bend. And I love digging up bones.

But current digs, whether for historical time periods or for many millions of years before humans ever entered into the picture, is not simply collecting bones or throwing them into heaps to be looked at later. It is tedious, back breaking work with very careful documentation. I would seriously recommend you find a dig you can participate in or spend some time cataloguing previous finds. It is not all guesswork and imagination as you seem to imply.

I never said it was easy. I am well aware of what digging up bones entails. but the cataloging is very much guess work and imagination much of which has happened a long time ago and has become institutionalized.

[thesometimesaint]

You must be using some funny definitions of supernatural or something. The God I worship is very much a natural being.

I invite you to read Selections from the Book of Moses. (For the record, I do know that you've read it multiple times, but the comment still stands.)

/yawn

Anyway, I'll chalk this post up to one your frequent not-quite-fully-lucid posts.

The word Supernatural means pertaining to God.

[bcuzbcuz]

I never said it was easy. I am well aware of what digging up bones entails. but the cataloging is very much guess work and imagination much of which has happened a long time ago and has become institutionalized.

I'm going to refer you back to a statement by SomeTimeSaint. All that is needed to disprove evolution is to find bones of a modern mammal buried amongst PreCambrian, undisturbed dirt. Easy.

[Rivers]

There's more to the evidence of evolution than bones. It comes from a conversion of different bodies of evidence. When all the evidence is put together, the theory of evolution coincides with the evidence. This isn't absolute proof but provides heightened probability. The theory of evolution is strengthened by the fact that it is falsifiable but has not yet been falsified. Maybe it will be falsified someday and maybe it won't. But whether its true or not, I don't think it has any bearing on the truthfulness of the core doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm going to refer you back to a statement by SomeTimeSaint. All that is needed to disprove evolution is to find bones of a modern mammal buried amongst PreCambrian, undisturbed dirt. Easy.

And yet that will never happen because the powers that are will always look the other way on all geologic and fossil anomalies

[bcuzbcuz]

And yet that will never happen because the powers that are will always look the other way on all geologic and fossil anomalies

Even were I to believe there was some conspiracy, I can still go out and look for myself. If you live in or around Utah there are an abundance of excellent fossil sites. Living in Scandinavia, as I do, I must travel a fair distance to find readily available sites, but German shale deposits are a good starting point. It is not all that hard to gain access to good fossil sites where an amateur can whack away to their hearts content.

And when you do, you will find other avid amateurs more than happy to share experiences and good "fishing"spots. I met an old retired professor who gladly shared insights and an uncany eye to spot what I might have just wallked past. It's all there for the picking.