Back To The Garden: Eden In Mormonism

[Stone holm]

I think you have a point here, where human beings are exceptional in that they are born to covenant with God, and it is also by covenant that they are spiritually re-born, and again by covenant as they are born by way of the “continuation of the seeds.” And as far as we know, there is only one approved way to make them, which is through marriage.

I do not think it is much of a stretch to view all forms of life in the same light. While they do not make covenants as we do, they are subject to the Light of Christ and the powers of procreation, which are also eternal principles.

This covenant might make the difference between genetic changes that properly fall under a divine stewardship and those that do not. At the same time, those "fundamental principles" that have to do with the physical makeup of human beings (or any life form for that matter) may not be subject to those forces that might be considered to be "evolution" simply because of relatively superficial changes observed in the expression (or kind of expression) of the genetic material in their systems.

Although the evidence suggests that we are wrong, I believe that there is plenty of room in Mormon doctrine and teachings for us to cling to the exceptionality of Adam and Eve and reconcile that with the fossil evidence without doing violence to either the scientific record and observations or our doctrine. It seems the Church only draws the line at Adam and Eve, I can intellectually live with that.

[CV75]

Although the evidence suggests that we are wrong, I believe that there is plenty of room in Mormon doctrine and teachings for us to cling to the exceptionality of Adam and Eve and reconcile that with the fossil evidence without doing violence to either the scientific record and observations or our doctrine. It seems the Church only draws the line at Adam and Eve, I can intellectually live with that.

Yes--and I think even the fossil evidence can be reconciled with scripture by a very lengthy, sequential departure of life forms (from "least" to "greatest," or Adam) from the Garden of Eden. In good faith and without distraction from the essentials, people have to beleive what they need to with what they have to base it on in order to make sufficient sense of the world (spiritual and physical) around them.

[danielwoods]

Not limited to or in no particular order.

1. Modern medicine.

2. Modern biology.

3. Extended human lifetimes.

4. Modern agriculture.

5. Inhabitable cities.

6. Exploration of space.

7. Exploitation of natural resources such as gas, oil, and coal.

8. Deep time.

9. Evolution of the Cosmos.

10. Germ theory of disease.

11. Embryology.

12. Ecosystem management.

13. The Industrial Revolution.

Thanks though I don't want to derail this thread, I couldn't disagree more. Nothing you have stated was held up because of creationist beliefs or has terrible consequences because many early scientists were in fact creationists - Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler.

[thesometimesaint]

Depending on how loosely creationism is defined I'm a creationist. I firmly believe God did it, I just disagree on the mechanism(s) he used. Part of being a scientist is the ability to incorporate new ideas into the existing theory. Great as those men were they each were limited in the amount of knowledge they had. IE; Newton had no idea about the quantum world. We don't fault him for it, but we also don't dismiss quantum mechanics either.

[ERayR]

Not limited to or in no particular order.

1. Modern medicine.

2. Modern biology.

3. Extended human lifetimes.

4. Modern agriculture.

5. Inhabitable cities.

6. Exploration of space.

7. Exploitation of natural resources such as gas, oil, and coal.

8. Deep time.

9. Evolution of the Cosmos.

10. Germ theory of disease.

11. Embryology.

12. Ecosystem management.

13. The Industrial Revolution.

Let's look at them one by one. According to one of the clips you posted to watch, evolution is separated into macro and micro. Micro being changes within species and macro as being transformation into new species. So lets look at these points that way.

1. Modern medicine. - micro

2. Modern biology. - micro

3. Extended human lifetimes.- micro

4. Modern agriculture.- micro

5. Inhabitable cities. - Don't know what you mean here.

6. Exploration of space. - Don't know what you mean here.

7. Exploitation of natural resources such as gas, oil, and coal.- Don't know what you mean here.

8. Deep time - I can't see how this supports evolution in any way as it is a concept derived from evolution. Circular reasoning.

9. Evolution of the Cosmos. If you mean the cosmos is constantly changing it is inly micro evolution on a cosmic scale.

10. Germ theory of disease. - Don't know what you mean here.

11. Embryology. - Don't know what you mean here. Explain please.

12. Ecosystem management. - micro

13. The Industrial Revolution. - Don't know what you mean here. Explain please.

[ERayR]

Depending on how loosely creationism is defined I'm a creationist. I firmly believe God did it, I just disagree on the mechanism(s) he used. Part of being a scientist is the ability to incorporate new ideas into the existing theory. Great as those men were they each were limited in the amount of knowledge they had. IE; Newton had no idea about the quantum world. We don't fault him for it, but we also don't dismiss quantum mechanics either.

Depending on how loosely evolution is defined I'm an evolutionist. I am certain that things change (evolve) but only in the micro sense and not in the macro sense. I think that evolution in the macro sense is an extrapolation of micro evolution beyond its valid bounds.

Edited June 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

Depending on how loosely evolution is defined I'm an evolutionists. I am certain that things change (evolve) but only in the micro sense and not in the macro sense.

I believe the whole thing was intelligently designed by God, but I do not go with the "intelligent design" that the fundamentalists are peddling.

[ERayR]

I believe the whole thing was intelligently designed by God, but I do not go with the "intelligent design" that the fundamentalists are peddling.

If you have read any of my posts on this you know that I am in as much disagreement with the fundamentalists as with the evolutionists.

[danielwoods]

Depending on how loosely creationism is defined I'm a creationist. I firmly believe God did it, I just disagree on the mechanism(s) he used. Part of being a scientist is the ability to incorporate new ideas into the existing theory. Great as those men were they each were limited in the amount of knowledge they had. IE; Newton had no idea about the quantum world. We don't fault him for it, but we also don't dismiss quantum mechanics either.

Indeed. The attack on creationists as having terrible consequences or effects is vacuous and empty. The attack that creationists hate science is equally baseless. There are many disagreements, but I think there are greater negative effects when one attempts to shut another down by way of ad hominem attacks rather than refutation.

You disagree with a certain type of creationist, young earthers probably. That's fine. But it doesn't equal terrible consequences does it? People aren't going to go out and kill and rob their neighbor as a result of said beliefs are they? People won't be hindered from being healed of their ills or aliments as a result will they? No one will lose the ability to go to the Moon or Mars as a result will they?

Now, I will agree with you (if you hold this position) that young earthers probably wouldn't support more investigation of Mars, because almost every visit there has had one goal - to find life. And the reason they are under the belief that Mars has life is based on their belief in abiogenesis. A belief that most creationists don't share with evolutionists.

But just because they wouldn't support such missions to mars does that mean that teaching creationism results in terrible consequences?

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed. The attack on creationists as having terrible consequences or effects is vacuous and empty. The attack that creationists hate science is equally baseless. There are many disagreements, but I think there are greater negative effects when one attempts to shut another down by way of ad hominem attacks rather than refutation.

You disagree with a certain type of creationist, young earthers probably. That's fine. But it doesn't equal terrible consequences does it? People aren't going to go out and kill and rob their neighbor as a result of said beliefs are they? People won't be hindered from being healed of their ills or aliments as a result will they? No one will lose the ability to go to the Moon or Mars as a result will they?

Now, I will agree with you (if you hold this position) that young earthers probably wouldn't support more investigation of Mars, because almost every visit there has had one goal - to find life. And the reason they are under the belief that Mars has life is based on their belief in abiogenesis. A belief that most creationists don't share with evolutionists.

But just because they wouldn't support such missions to mars does that mean that teaching creationism results in terrible consequences?

That is the distinction between Atheists and Theists. I'm pretty sure that the Creationists would strongly object to having the Hindu version of creation taught in the science classroom of the public schools. I'm fine with teaching all the creation myths as literature. Heck we should teach the Christian Bible as literature. But keep it well away from my science classes.

As a scientist I can't posit any God or Godlike force in my science. IE; I can't claim that gravity was made by God, or that gravity is a Godlike force that draws two material object together. Though I'm sure someone at some time believed it.

One of the biggest proponents of Creationism is the Discovery Institute. Sadly they aren't about discoveries in science, but in deceptively teaching to the controversy. IE; They actively push the idea of Irreducible Complexity. An idea that has thoroughly been debunked.

Yes they do go out an kill people. A perfect example are antibiotics. If those organisms don't evolve there is no point in developing new drugs to cure increasingly antibiotic germ caused diseases.

I think there are technological problems with man going to Mars right now. Can we overcome those problems? I'm reasonably confident we can. But those problems are big enough that I don't see a short term solution. Maybe in another 50 years, hopefully less. Mostly the missions to Mars we've had so far haven't been to directly find life. But to find the organic compounds that make life as we know it possible.

I have even less use for the young earther's. To put it as kindly as I can The Flat Earth Society has a better track record.

But it really does real harm not only physically to our bodies, but our ability to correctly analyze complex biological systems such as ourselves.

Edited June 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

That is the distinction between Atheists and Theists. I'm pretty sure that the Creationists would strongly object to having the Hindu version of creation taught in the science classroom of the public schools. I'm fine with teaching all the creation myths as literature. Heck we should teach the Christian Bible as literature. But keep it well away from my science classes.

I have no problem with evolution being taught in school if they would make it plain that once they get past micro evolution the conclusions are extrapolations that may not be valid.

As a scientist I can't posit any God or Godlike force in my science. IE; I can't claim that gravity was made by God, or that gravity is a Godlike force that draws two material object together. Though I'm sure someone at some time believed it.

That is probably the way it should be as long as you refrain from making godlike pronouncements beyond the limits of validity for your observations.

One of the biggest proponents of Creationism is the Discovery Institute. Sadly they aren't about discoveries in science, but in deceptively teaching to the controversy. IE; They actively push the idea of Irreducible Complexity. An idea that has thoroughly been debunked.

I have a bit of a problem with them myself

Yes they do go out an kill people. A perfect example are antibiotics. If those organisms don't evolve there is no point in developing new drugs to cure increasingly antibiotic germ caused diseases.

Again you dodge the question and answer with irrelevancies. the question was: People aren't going to go out and kill and rob their neighbor as a result of said beliefs are they? You answer with something about diseases and drugs.

I think there are technological problems with man going to Mars right now. Can we overcome those problems? I'm reasonably confident we can. But those problems are big enough that I don't see a short term solution. Maybe in another 50 years, hopefully less. Mostly the missions to Mars we've had so far haven't been to directly find life. But to find the organic compounds that make life as we know it possible.

Okay goals as long as they don't go beyond the bound of validity with their conclusions.

I have even less use for the young earther's. To put it as kindly as I can The Flat Earth Society has a better track record.

I don't have much in common with them but your ridicule is uncalled for.

But it really does real harm not only physically to our bodies, but our ability to correctly analyze complex biological systems such as ourselves.

.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. I just can't relate it to the post you are answering.

[Stone holm]

Indeed. The attack on creationists as having terrible consequences or effects is vacuous and empty. The attack that creationists hate science is equally baseless. There are many disagreements, but I think there are greater negative effects when one attempts to shut another down by way of ad hominem attacks rather than refutation.

You disagree with a certain type of creationist, young earthers probably. That's fine. But it doesn't equal terrible consequences does it? People aren't going to go out and kill and rob their neighbor as a result of said beliefs are they? People won't be hindered from being healed of their ills or aliments as a result will they? No one will lose the ability to go to the Moon or Mars as a result will they?

Now, I will agree with you (if you hold this position) that young earthers probably wouldn't support more investigation of Mars, because almost every visit there has had one goal - to find life. And the reason they are under the belief that Mars has life is based on their belief in abiogenesis. A belief that most creationists don't share with evolutionists.

But just because they wouldn't support such missions to mars does that mean that teaching creationism results in terrible consequences?

The problem with teaching Creationism in the public schools is right now there is no objective evidence to support it, so what you are really doing is teaching religion in school. Although, you could teach it as some kind of Von Daniken approach with "aliens" in the traditional sense of "aliens" as opposed to the LDS sense. So when you start teaching Creationism in the classroom the textbooks start becoming bizarre stuff that you would expect coming out of the old Confederacy. With education in the old Confederacy already behind most of the United States do we really want to participate in further crippling the ability of the Southern children to get real education?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Stone holm

[CV75]

A perfect example are antibiotics. If those organisms don't evolve there is no point in developing new drugs to cure increasingly antibiotic germ caused diseases.

A fine (mayube not so fine) point: While mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming antibiotic-resistant, this variation already exists in the population and is not the product of evolution. Mutation and natural selection express defective proteins which keep the antibiotics from working, and are not gains in functional systems, and so are not examples of evolution. The existing variation within the population, which in the presence of antibiotics becomes the new defining feature of the population, is what allows the bacteria population to adapt and survive in its own way in the fallen world. It is not evolution; the bacteria haven’t evolved, they just express a certain feature more commonly.

[Ahab]

A fine (mayube not so fine) point: While mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming antibiotic-resistant, this variation already exists in the population and is not the product of evolution. Mutation and natural selection express defective proteins which keep the antibiotics from working, and are not gains in functional systems, and so are not examples of evolution. The existing variation within the population, which in the presence of antibiotics becomes the new defining feature of the population, is what allows the bacteria population to adapt and survive in its own way in the fallen world. It is not evolution; the bacteria haven’t evolved, they just express a certain feature more commonly.

Basically, the bacteria are still bacteria, rather than becoming some other kind of being.

I'm not exactly sure where the line is between a bacteria and a virus, but there is a line between them based on the kind of being that each of them is.

[CV75]

Basically, the bacteria are still bacteria, rather than becoming some other kind of being.

Yes, and a population expressing a pre-existing (abeit rare or minority) characteristic more commonly as the generations pass by is not a process that makes their descendants into other beings, and so is not an example of evolution.

[Stone holm]

Yes, and a population expressing a pre-existing (abeit rare or minority) characteristic more commonly as the generations pass by is not a process that makes their descendants into other beings, and so is not an example of evolution.

Really? Are you sure about that?

[ERayR]

Really? Are you sure about that?

With the way micro and macro evolution have been conflated that statement can be taken as true or false. I assumed CV75 was referring to the macro sense.

[Ahab]

Really? Are you sure about that?

I am. Thus the idea behind survival of the fittest doesn't equate to one kind of being becoming another kind of being. It just means the fittest among a kind of being are most likely to survive.

Now, back to Eden, can we get together on the idea that the condition of Adam and Eve when they entered the garden of Eden and were still without sin is the same as the condition of our Lord after he was resurrected? The "Fall" happened after they sinned, and when they fell they became mortal like us. Through the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ we can be restored to the same condition as Adam and Eve were in before they fell.

Who will be the fittest among us to enter into the celestial order of heaven? Will those of us who do become another kind of being, or simply the fittest among all of us who are our kind of being? And what of the lower orders of heaven? Will the people who live there be some other kind of being than we are now? What are we, and what will we become? And what were we before the Fall happened?

I know the answers because they have been provided by prophets of God, but sometimes it helps others to hear the questions.

[CV75]

Really? Are you sure about that?

Yes, I am sure that the process for bacteria becoming drug/antibiotic-resistant is an example of natural selection and not of evolution. Of course, if you have an example of a drug/antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolving into something more complex, with more complex functional systems, I would be less sure.

[Stone holm]

Yes, I am sure that the process for bacteria becoming drug/antibiotic-resistant is an example of natural selection and not of evolution. Of course, if you have an example of a drug/antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolving into something more complex, with more complex functional systems, I would be less sure.

I see, so you would discount macro evolution because you have not actually seen something caught "in transition" from one type to another as a result of natural selection. Would you actually know it if you did see it?

[danielwoods]

That is the distinction between Atheists and Theists. I'm pretty sure that the Creationists would strongly object to having the Hindu version of creation taught in the science classroom of the public schools. I'm fine with teaching all the creation myths as literature. Heck we should teach the Christian Bible as literature. But keep it well away from my science classes.

As a scientist I can't posit any God or Godlike force in my science. IE; I can't claim that gravity was made by God, or that gravity is a Godlike force that draws two material object together. Though I'm sure someone at some time believed it.

One of the biggest proponents of Creationism is the Discovery Institute. Sadly they aren't about discoveries in science, but in deceptively teaching to the controversy. IE; They actively push the idea of Irreducible Complexity. An idea that has thoroughly been debunked.

Yes they do go out an kill people. A perfect example are antibiotics. If those organisms don't evolve there is no point in developing new drugs to cure increasingly antibiotic germ caused diseases.

I think there are technological problems with man going to Mars right now. Can we overcome those problems? I'm reasonably confident we can. But those problems are big enough that I don't see a short term solution. Maybe in another 50 years, hopefully less. Mostly the missions to Mars we've had so far haven't been to directly find life. But to find the organic compounds that make life as we know it possible.

I have even less use for the young earther's. To put it as kindly as I can The Flat Earth Society has a better track record.

But it really does real harm not only physically to our bodies, but our ability to correctly analyze complex biological systems such as ourselves.

You stated, "Yes they do go out an kill people. A perfect example are antibiotics. If those organisms don't evolve there is no point in developing new drugs to cure increasingly antibiotic germ caused diseases."

Please tell me who believes that organisms don't evolve on a micro level? I've never heard any creationist claim this.

You also stated, "Mostly the missions to Mars we've had so far haven't been to directly find life. But to find the organic compounds that make life as we know it possible."

Right, that is what I stated. The missions occur because they believe in abiogenesis, a belief.

You then concluded, "But it really does real harm not only physically to our bodies, but our ability to correctly analyze complex biological systems such as ourselves."

False. Creationists (who are also scientists), such as yourself, don't deny how biological systems work, and micro level evolutionary changes.

[danielwoods]

The problem with teaching Creationism in the public schools is right now there is no objective evidence to support it, so what you are really doing is teaching religion in school. Although, you could teach it as some kind of Von Daniken approach with "aliens" in the traditional sense of "aliens" as opposed to the LDS sense. So when you start teaching Creationism in the classroom the textbooks start becoming bizarre stuff that you would expect coming out of the old Confederacy. With education in the old Confederacy already behind most of the United States do we really want to participate in further crippling the ability of the Southern children to get real education?

I didn't say it should be taught in public school. I disagree that it has terrible consequences, even if it is taught somewhere. Where? I don't honestly know. It is simply the baseless attack that I disagree with, it serves no purpose.

[Stone holm]

I didn't say it should be taught in public school. I disagree that it has terrible consequences, even if it is taught somewhere. Where? I don't honestly know. It is simply the baseless attack that I disagree with, it serves no purpose.

My apologies. I have no problem with Creationism being taught in churches and other forums, it just does not belong in public schools. "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" have become terms of art in the educational field and have to do with teaching religious views in the biological sciences. We of course believe in Creationism in the Church -- but we have a much different take on it that than the rest of Christianity.

[ERayR]

I see, so you would discount macro evolution because you have not actually seen something caught "in transition" from one type to another as a result of natural selection. Would you actually know it if you did see it?

Yup.

[ERayR]

My apologies. I have no problem with Creationism being taught in churches and other forums, it just does not belong in public schools. "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" have become terms of art in the educational field and have to do with teaching religious views in the biological sciences. We of course believe in Creationism in the Church -- but we have a much different take on it that than the rest of Christianity.

You mislabel intelligent design as creationism. It is really macro evolution packaged to make it more palatable to creationists.