Evolution And Mormonism

[CV75]

that's not much, I would say.

I don't understand this--is that what you think of what you think?

[Alvino]

Of course an intelligent being of any kind would offer (come up with) better science than an environment. I'm sure this isn't what you meant.

?

The generally accepted science of the day would say that environmental mechanisms have a role in evolution and that God does not have a role in either.

Evolution disregards a God in the same way as studying the evolution of bacteria under controlled conditions disregards the scientists who is cultivating the bacteria. Still, what does God do in guided evolution? I asked a set of questions and you can start to address them if you want.

[thesometimesaint]

He provides the medium for us bacteria to survive in.

[CV75]

Evolution disregards a God in the same way as studying the evolution of bacteria under controlled conditions disregards the scientists who is cultivating the bacteria. Still, what does God do in guided evolution? I asked a set of questions and you can start to address them if you want.

This is like saying: “Evolution leaves God out of the process of evolution”, is just like saying “Observing tests for evolution leaves the observer out of the process of observation.” I can’t see how the latter could actually occur, as it is the scientist who is conducting the study. If this forms the basis of your poll questions, then I don’t see how they make any sense.

“A process defined by a scientist” = “ The scientist (or another scientist) observes said process without being there.” ???

I wanted to know what you think, but if this is it, that's enought! Thank you.

Edited August 26, 2012 by CV75

[Alvino]

This is like saying: “Evolution leaves God out of the process of evolution”,

There's nothing wrong with saying that. You do know "Evolution" can be used to mean the process and the theory... right? The theory of evolution does leave God out of the process of random mutation and natural selection (mostly because there is no evidence of a God in these biological systems) in the same way the theory of evolution leaves the scientist out of a specific Petri dish with bacteria that's under study (though for a different reason and that's because we are studying bacteria, not human behavior towards bacteria). You can say God put the Petri dish and the bacteria just as you can say that God introduced life on Earth, but that's different from saying God is aiding evolution.

is just like saying “Observing tests for evolution leaves the observer out of the process of observation.”

Correct, that was the point.

I can’t see how the latter could actually occur, as it is the scientist who is conducting the study. If this forms the basis of your poll questions, then I don’t see how they make any sense.

If you can imagine God planting the first self-reproducing organism on Earth and from then on the natural processes of evolution through natural selection and random mutation rule the game, and us studying (as we ACTUALLY do) the forces that act on life to motivate change without talking about how the first life came to Earth, then you can imagine what I'm talking about since it's the same type of idea.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Alvino

[CV75]

you can imagine what I'm talking about since it's the same type of idea.

yes, I can which is why i stated above, "if this is it, that's enough!" Thank you for sharing.

[mfbukowski]

If you can imagine God planting the first self-reproducing organism on Earth and from then on the natural processes of evolution through natural selection and random mutation rule the game, and us studying (as we ACTUALLY do) the forces that act on life to motivate change without talking about how the first life came to Earth, then you can imagine what I'm talking about since it's the same type of idea.

Oh, ok.

[BCSpace]

Did humans evolve through natural selection and random mutation from other primates and those primates from other non-primate species?

Absolutely. Why couldn't these details fit in with LDS doctrine? Why couldn't God use natural selection and random mutation to create?

[Alvino]

Absolutely. Why couldn't these details fit in with LDS doctrine? Why couldn't God use natural selection and random mutation to create?

I asked three questions because it is these questions that, given certain answers to them, might seriously put LDS theology in trouble.

1. If humans did evolve through evolution, what did God do? If we are made in the image of God, did God also evolve or why does he have the physical traits we have? The whole evolution thing starts to look like a very manipulated process by God, but yet no explanation of what he actually did? Did he start the ball rolling and created the mountain in such a way that he knew what way the ball was going to roll? Did he (and does he) kill some preys to predators can reproduce more or kills predators so the preys can reproduce more and affect the environment like that? Etc.

2. If Adam and Eve were NOT real people but symbols only for something else, what is one to make of the necessity of the Atonement and verses like 1 Corinthians 15:21,22? How did whatever-the-symbol-for-Adam-and-Eve-are create the necessity for a LITERAL Savior? Clearly, Jesus Christ's sacrifice is not symbolic so, what did he died for?

[shalamabobbi]

Not answering for BCSpace, but wish to share my thoughts..

1. If humans did evolve through evolution, what did God do?

What does it matter? At some level intentional activity occurred even if it only involved taking advantage of a fortuitous opportunity proffered by nature.

If we are made in the image of God, did God also evolve or why does he have the physical traits we have?

Certainly if we accept the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which physical tabernacles are prepared that would account for the process by which previous beings obtained physical tabernacles as well.

Though evolution depends upon random mutation it is not entirely random since we are dealing with chemistry and there are bounds and limitations as to what is chemically possible. It may be that repeating the experiment leads invariably to the same results. Until we can deal with this in the computational realm we can only speculate.

The whole evolution thing starts to look like a very manipulated process by God, but yet no explanation of what he actually did? Did he start the ball rolling and created the mountain in such a way that he knew what way the ball was going to roll? Did he (and does he) kill some preys to predators can reproduce more or kills predators so the preys can reproduce more and affect the environment like that? Etc.

Of course there is no answer to any of this as that would depend upon further revelation upon the subject, something promised in the D&C upon Christ's return to the earth.

2. If Adam and Eve were NOT real people but symbols only for something else, what is one to make of the necessity of the Atonement and verses like 1 Corinthians 15:21,22? How did whatever-the-symbol-for-Adam-and-Eve-are create the necessity for a LITERAL Savior? Clearly, Jesus Christ's sacrifice is not symbolic so, what did he died for?

Line upon line, precept upon precept. He died to bring about the resurrection and to provide means to be forgiven of our sins. Our choice to arrive in this mortal tabernacle may be symbolized by the "fall of Adam" and apply to each of us individually. Or one may adopt tighter views such as those of BCSpace.

Why the need to press the dichotomy? What then?

[bcuzbcuz]

What was man before he was a man? Is an oxymoronic question.

That goes back to whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes they did. But that debate is about as pertinent as how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

[bcuzbcuz]

"life with no meaning" and "lack of morality" etc are tired rhetoric from people who haven't taken the time to nurture an intellectual secularism seriously. Most philosophers, for example, accept morality is objective and are compatibilists with regards to free will.

Even if I accepted your naive dichotomy, I don't even know what would make a better religion and the reason is because humans have a talent for creating a whole bunch of humane, beautiful, and creative ideas to accompany unsavory beliefs given enough time, Nietzsche being the prime example.

First of all, that's irrelevant to whether it is an irrational set of beliefs or not. As I've heard Richard Dawkins state, the universe doesn't owe you a comfortable, cozy universe or meaning. Secondly, I find it somewhat confusing when folks mention the "meaning of life". You obviously don't mean atheist secularism is incompatible with the meaning of words or with the truthfulness of mathematics. It also isn't incompatible with there being intelligent beings in the Universe who can understand it more or less. "Meaning", then, just seems to mean a life you find fulfilling or worth living both of which are very much in tune with an atheist and secular worldview. Actually, most atheist I've seen agree that a life without dogmatic religion is more fulfilling and more worth living than a religious life since religion is founded on things that are not correct. And, to be perfectly honest, I think the easiest things to show to a religious person is that even if this is a finite life, life is still very much (or even more) worth living than if it is an infinite one.

Well stated. Not believing in a diety doesn't somehow give license to acts of violence or terror, instead religion has many times in the past and even today provided the impetus to such violence and terror. Morality is established in societies that do not have a belief in a diety, and equally as well, these same societies can establish nurturing environments and social norms.

[bcuzbcuz]

Yes they did. But that debate is about as pertinent as how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

42 (see Douglas Adams "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" meaning of life)

Edited August 27, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[thesometimesaint]

[Hamilton Porter]

I am through 3 chapters of Richard Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker and thus far, it's been a faith-promoting book. I'm not kidding. More on this later when I'm done.

[Hamilton Porter]

random mutation is random, natural selection is not. Evolution has both.

About the hand of God, what did God do? Did he purposefully knock a few molecules off a few specific organisms' DNA? Did God kill a few predators so the preys would reproduce more? Did God introduce a new predator in an ecosystem to kill what he didn't want reproduced? How come why some species survive becomes so predictable and precise if we understand the environment in which they try to survive? What does that leave God doing? What offers better science: a being, "God", who made some changes for who knows what reason (not counting that most species who ever lived are extinct), or the environment that explains the changes so well?

He set in motion the laws of physics and natural selection, duh.

[WorkingOnIt]

It's interesting that as of right now, there are slightly more people who don't believe in a historical Garden of Eden or who are undecided on the topic than there are who believe in a historical Eden. I'm not one who believes in a historical Eden as the first dwelling place of the first man, etc...I'm also surprized by the percentage that believes in organic evolution.

[Erin15]

random mutation is random, natural selection is not. Evolution has both.

About the hand of God, what did God do? Did he purposefully knock a few molecules off a few specific organisms' DNA? Did God kill a few predators so the preys would reproduce more? Did God introduce a new predator in an ecosystem to kill what he didn't want reproduced? How come why some species survive becomes so predictable and precise if we understand the environment in which they try to survive? What does that leave God doing? What offers better science: a being, "God", who made some changes for who knows what reason (not counting that most species who ever lived are extinct), or the environment that explains the changes so well?

In Mormon theology, science and religion are not enemies, they are companions. Mormons believe that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole. While other religions like Catholocism may have engendered a science vs. faith mentality, it simply has no place in LDS theology. Science explores the question of "How" and Religion answers the question of "Why."

I see no reason to choose between the two. I accept the truth in both.

[Hamilton Porter]

In Mormon theology, science and religion are not enemies, they are companions. Mormons believe that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole. While other religions like Catholocism may have engendered a science vs. faith mentality, it simply has no place in LDS theology. Science explores the question of "How" and Religion answers the question of "Why."

I see no reason to choose between the two. I accept the truth in both.

Erin, in all fairness the Catholic Church invented modern science. Science is based on the monotheistic worldview of a rational universe. The RCC and science have conflicted before but that has happened in our church too.

[ERayR]

In Mormon theology, science and religion are not enemies, they are companions. Mormons believe that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole. While other religions like Catholocism may have engendered a science vs. faith mentality, it simply has no place in LDS theology. Science explores the question of "How" and Religion answers the question of "Why."

I see no reason to choose between the two. I accept the truth in both.

A warning to be a little more circumspect what you are quoting publicly.

Who gets to interpret what is true. Some of what is accepted as truth by one is not self evident to another.

[Erin15]

Who gets to interpret what is true. Some of what is accepted as truth by one is not self evident to another.

The function of the Holy Ghost is to help us identify what is true and what is not. If we are living our lives according to the commandments we have the privilage of using it as a guide to help us distinguish truth from falsehood.

[ERayR]

The function of the Holy Ghost is to help us identify what is true and what is not. If we are living our lives according to the commandments we have the privilage of using it as a guide to help us distinguish truth from falsehood.

Yes and I am one who uses the Holy Ghost and personal revelation quite extensively in my life. I know, most of the time, what my path is. The problem is that there are others who use the same procedures in their life and we don't always agree on what is true. I must say that on the salient points we are usually in agreement. So tell me again just how does that work?.

[mfbukowski]

The entire problem is confusing the spiritual explanation with the scientific one. "What really happened" is unknowable anyway and pretty irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

Those LDS who want to adopt a scientific interpretation and make it compatible (not sure why) only need to assert that the process was not "random" but that the mutation process was guided by God.

But as far as I am concerned, there is no conflict because the spiritual process has little to do with the physical process. Christ's sacrifice allows us to forgive ourselves for what we have done, to free us from guilt and give us peace.

I don't believe for a minute that that did not actually happen "actually" but for me, since I cannot KNOW it did, it is irrelevant. It is my BELIEF that it happened- indeed my testimony which I take to be God given- which gives me peace and allows me to say that I now Christ as my savior.

It is the belief that cures me personally in my life - not some unknowable historical "fact". It is the personal testimony which allows me to forsake my sins- not some scientific belief in a story about something which allegedly happened 2 thousand years ago.

If I do not know Christ in my heart, it is all irrelevant anyway.