Evolution Vs God

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So I figured I would start this as these debates always get interesting. I recently watch a video about this. I have to say that for the most part I agree with what the interviewer was saying. I specifically want to talk about macro evolution or Darwinian evolution, were there is a change in kinds of animals, as I think and agree with this movie that there is not much evidence for it.  What do you guys think?

 

I don’t want to see comments such as “This guys is just a creationist nut job he is stupid”. Those comments don’t really further dialogue. 

 

Watch the movie below to get familiar with what he is saying.  I have to say that I was very skepitical of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Edited August 29, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So I figured I would start this as these debates always get interesting. I recently watch a video about this. I have to say that for the most part I agree with what the interviewer was saying. I specifically want to talk about macro evolution or Darwinian evolution, were there is a change in kinds of animals, as I think and agree with this movie that there is not much evidence for it.  What do you guys think?

 

I don’t want to see comments such as “This guys is just a creationist nut job he is stupid”. Those comments don’t really further dialogue. 

 

Watch the movie below to get familiar with what he is saying.  I have to say that I was very skepitical of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Evolution vs God is a false dichotomy.  There is nothing about evolution that limits belief in God.  People used to think that rain was a result of the physical opening of the windows of heaven. Do we talk about the water cycle vs God? As we understand more and more about the world around we can better appreciate God's handiwork.  The catholic church supports theistic evolution.  Francis Collins (head of the human Genome project) is an outspoken Christian.  Why the divide?

 

The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.  I watched the first five minutes of the video, but perhaps you could elucidate what you think is acceptable as evidence? For example, do you accept the idea that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? What evidence do we have for conclusion? We certainly haven't been able to replicate the process here on earth. No one has ever been to the sun. How do we know?

[Freedom]

This is another example of drawing an argument from a false premise. Evolution is a theory (not a fact) that explains the observable evidence. No, we cannot prove that a fish turned into a cow because we cannot literally observe this change, nevertheless we see a gradual change in the fossil record that grows from the simple to the complex. He is demanding to be able to see the change from the fish to the cow. Because evolution takes such a long time, it is not possible to provide a current example because of how animals are classified. The challenge for the man with the camera is to provide an alternative theory to explain the fossil record.

 

I find it ridiculous that he is basing his argument by interviewing young university students that have barely begun their investigation into their areas of academic research. If he wants to have a reasonable discussion, he needs to talk to qualified experts who will tear his arguments to pieces.

[Freedom]

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4yR5iYwiA

 

Here is one response to the documentary. The creationist asks for changes in kinds. The only 'kinds' we have today are based on what currently exists, and they certainly are not without debate on where some animals or plants should be placed.

[BCSpace]

See my siggy for what evolution actually is.

[Questing Beast]

So I figured I would start this as these debates always get interesting. I recently watch a video about this. I have to say that for the most part I agree with what the interviewer was saying. I specifically want to talk about macro evolution or Darwinian evolution, were there is a change in kinds of animals, as I think and agree with this movie that there is not much evidence for it.  What do you guys think?

 

I don’t want to see comments such as “This guys is just a creationist nut job he is stupid”. Those comments don’t really further dialogue. 

 

Watch the movie below to get familiar with what he is saying.  I have to say that I was very skepitical of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Editing is everything. I found the cutting off to be annoying. It certainly is going viral, and that's interesting in itself.

 

Pushing Christian exegesis is one way of stumping. It isn't exclusive though. Einstein's "ecumenical" stance is the better way, it is open-minded and eschews any trace of an "us and them" attitude.

 

"The knowledge of God is clearly seen by all mankind". Not just Christians, or Mormons, or whathaveyous....

 

ETA: "The creation museum"??? You've got to be kidding me....

Edited August 29, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

See my siggy for what evolution actually is.

You realize, I suppose, that BRM defines you as a heretic?...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You realize, I suppose, that BRM defines you as a heretic?...

I for one embrace the label!

[BCSpace]

See my siggy for what evolution actually is.

You realize, I suppose, that BRM defines you as a heretic?...

 

Only in a non doctrinal sense at best.  In his Seven Deadly Heresies speech, he basically said if you can reconcile it, more power to you, but that he himself couldn't.

 

In addition, ETB gave a Conference talk in the 1970's about how the BoM was good for combating all sorts of falsehoods including evolution.  However, in the 1980's when he became the prophet, he gave the same talk and left evolution off of the list.

 

The are other good examples of why evolution is not in opposition to or conflict with the Church's doctrine.  I can list those too if you'd like.

Edited August 29, 2013 by BCSpace

[ERayR]

The evidence for common descent is overwhelming. 

 

I consider myself to be a rational, sane person (of course there are others who may not think so) and I do not see the evidence for common descent as being overwhelming.  In addation I see it as being in serious conflict with the doctrine of the fall and the atonement.

Edited August 29, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I consider myself to be a rational, sane person (of course there are others who may not think so) and I do not see the evidence for common descent as being overwhelming.  Un addation I see it as being in serious conflict with the doctrine of the fall and the atonement.

How much time have you spent actually trying to study the evidence for evolution? Have you taken a college course? Discussed the matter with an expert in the field? We have "spoken" before about the evidence for evolution on the DNA level / protein level and ended up speaking past each other.  Due to communication issues a message board like this one is not the ideal location for study.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I consider myself to be a rational, sane person (of course there are others who may not think so) and I do not see the evidence for common descent as being overwhelming.  In addation I see it as being in serious conflict with the doctrine of the fall and the atonement.

There is a reason why BYU biologists believe in evolution.  It's because modern biology only makes sense when viewed from an evolutionary framework.  I've said before that either God used evolution, or he created us in a way completely consistent with evolution (and contrary to a strictly intelligent design).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

How about one evidence for macro evolution that we can currently still examine.  Fossilized genes. Genes are are large stretches of DNA that code for a protein in an organism.  Decades ago scientists cracked the genetic code for genes.  Given a certain DNA sequence, we can know the exact amino acid sequence in a given protein.  This knowledge has been used to treat and diagnosis diseases, and all other sorts of neat things.  Since we have sequenced the entire genetic code of many different species, we have found something that can best be described as fossil genes.  Remnants of proteins in our DNA that have degraded over time due to the relaxation of natural selective pressure to keep the genes intact. 

 

For example in old world primates and humans that have trichromatic vision, we see large quantities of fossilized olfactory genes. Genes in the same location as functioning genes in mice dogs etc. Species that rely on their sense of smell to survive. Why did God put non-functional genetically degraded genes into our DNA? Take the ice fish found in the antarctic.  It has no hemoglobin in its blood. Yet right where we would expect to find the two genes which would encode the hemoglobin protein, we find a degraded, nonfunctioning version of this gene. If I was going to design an icefish that wasn't going to use hemoglobin, why would I stick in a non-functioning gene for hemoglobin? These types of genes abound in nature.  The closer related two species are that have non-functioning genes, the more closely these genes mimic each other.  This is just a tiny example.  Evolutionary theory explains this perfectly.  Why under a creator design us with non-functioning genes unless he used evolution as a means to create us?

Edited August 29, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Brian 2.0]

Why under a creator design us with non-functioning genes unless he used evolution as a means to create us?

 

 

"I don't know why God included non-fuctioning genes in certain species... but that doesn't prove macro-evolution.  

 

Perhaps God used 'templates' of sorts while creating.  He turned on and turned off specific genes to create variety in his creations.  Why reinvent the wheel everytime you create a new species!  If a pianist knows he's going to play a number of different songs, should he build a new piano for each song that has just the keys needed in that specific score?  Or is it better for the pianist to make a full piano, and just play the notes he needs for each song?  The unused keys on the piano during each song aren't "wasted" they are just remnants of an effecient desgin process where the pianist didn't have to make a new piano from scratch everytime he wanted to play a new song. 

 

Again... your example is not evidence for macroevolution."

 

I put all that in quotes because I actually don't believe it.  I actually believe in macro-evolution but we've had enough of these discussions in this forum that I felt like trying to argue the other side.  How'd I do?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

Watch the movie below to get familiar with what he is saying.  I have to say that I was very skepitical of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Apart from the poor editing and "aggressive" nature of the questioning (the microphone-close-to-the-face tactic is meant to make the interview subject nervous), I thought the interviewer made a key mistake.

He kept equating "observation" as being a key part of the Scientific Method, as if not being able to see something happening means it can't be part of a scientific inquiry. While being able to see something is obviously really, really helpful, we are still able to conduct scientific tests based on processes and things that we can't see. It happens all the time. We see data or evidence for an event or process having occurred in the past, and we formulate a hypothesis on what that event or process was.

If Ray Comfort really believes what he is saying, then he would be the worst detective and/or Defense Attorney of all time.

"Sorry folks. You can't see what happened, so you're only making a decision based on faith. Are you really going to send my client to prison based on faith?"

Edited August 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Flyonthewall]

If God is involved with evolution, does that make it intelligent design?

[Freedom]

If God is involved with evolution, does that make it intelligent design?

Intelligent design has a whole set of perimeters. It is not just a simple matter of believing that God is the creator. It fundamental rejects natural selection and evolution, stating that every aspect of living organisms was planned by God. It is unable to explain evolution in bacteria. It requires a supernatural explanation for all phenomena and relies on long disproved arguments such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

[ERayR]

How much time have you spent actually trying to study the evidence for evolution? Have you taken a college course? Discussed the matter with an expert in the field? We have "spoken" before about the evidence for evolution on the DNA level / protein level and ended up speaking past each other.  Due to communication issues a message board like this one is not the ideal location for study.  

 

 

I might turn the question back to you.  How much time have you spent really trying to get an understanding of what the fall really means and how it connects to the atonement?

 

I know it sounds patronizing but no more than your own post. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I might turn the question back to you. How much time have you spent really trying to get an understanding of what the fall really means and how it connects to the atonement?

I know it sounds patronizing but no more than your own post.

Not at all. I'd count my two year mission, 16 religous credit hours at BYU, Weekly church since birth, and countless hours of personal reflection and study. Now your turn.

[ERayR]

Not at all. I'd count my two year mission, 16 religous credit hours at BYU, Weekly church since birth, and countless hours of personal reflection and study. Now your turn.

 

You could do all that and still not spend much time on the fall/atonement relationship.   That is not the point however, I do not question your ability to reason the way you have questioned mine.  Please cease insinuating that I am an ignorant, unlearned oaf just because my opinion and evaluation of the data does not coincide with yours.

 

I would count my 50 + years of gospel study, my time spent getting a graduate degree and also countles hours of personal reflection and study. 

 

Now we have beat the drum and patted ourselves on the back what is next?  Do we start deciding who has a superior degree?

Edited August 30, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You could do all that and still not spend much time on the fall/atonement relationship.   That is not the point however, I do not question your ability to reason the way you have questioned mine.  Please cease insinuating that I am an ignorant, unlearned oaf just because my opinion and evaluation of the data does not coincide with yours.

 

I would count my 50 + years of gospel study, my time spent getting a graduate degree and also countles hours of personal reflection and study. 

 

Now we have beat the drum and patted ourselves on the back what is next?  Do we start deciding who has a superior degree?

I'm sorry that you are always reading me as insinuating that you are ignorant or unlearned.  I really do not mean to come across as such.  Since you have taken it that way multiple times in almost all our interations, perhaps the best way is to stop communicating.  You said you do not consider the evidence for common consent to be overwhelming.  I am merely trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion.  50+ years of gospel study, and a graduate degree and countless houes of personal study and reflection do not necessarily translate into even one hour of looking at the evidence for evolution.  Being unaware of all the evidence for common consent doesn't mean that you are dumb, unlearned, incapable of learning.  It just means that you haven't studied evolution.  There is no crime in not studying evolution.  I'm sure it has no bearing on your day to day life.  However when you say you don't find the evidence for evolution compelling, I just want to understand what you've looked at and from what sources.  Again if you find this insulting, I will bow out of future conversations with you. I'm not trying to be insulting in the least.  

[ERayR]

I'm sorry that you are always reading me as insinuating that you are ignorant or unlearned.  I really do not mean to come across as such.  Since you have taken it that way multiple times in almost all our interations, perhaps the best way is to stop communicating.  You said you do not consider the evidence for common consent to be overwhelming.  I am merely trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion.  50+ years of gospel study, and a graduate degree and countless houes of personal study and reflection do not necessarily translate into even one hour of looking at the evidence for evolution.  Being unaware of all the evidence for common consent doesn't mean that you are dumb, unlearned, incapable of learning.  It just means that you haven't studied evolution.  There is no crime in not studying evolution.  I'm sure it has no bearing on your day to day life.  However when you say you don't find the evidence for evolution compelling, I just want to understand what you've looked at and from what sources.  Again if you find this insulting, I will bow out of future conversations with you. I'm not trying to be insulting in the least.  

 

 

OK so that we do not have to go over my education in this area again.  I have spent mny hours of personal study in this area.  I do not have a degree in any of the science disciplines that deal with evolution or genetics.  However I was for a few years involved with animal husbandry and herd improvement through genetics.  For a short time I even supported the God used evolution idea.  Yes I have spent more time on this than the average layman.  I could not begin to remember materials I have studied over the last 50 + years.  What I do know is that no one has been able to tie micro evolution to macro evolution without resorting to biased interpretation of the data.

 

". . . years of gospel study, and a graduate degree and countless houes of personal study and reflection do not necessarily translate into even one hour of looking at the evidence relationship for  of evolution". the fall to the atonement. 

 

I would like to know what compelling evidence you have that points to evolution as being a fall.  Warning, I have listened to numerous explanations, none of which were convincing to me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

ERayR, on 29 Aug 2013 - 8:31 PM, said:

". . . years of gospel study, and a graduate degree and countless houes of personal study and reflection do not necessarily translate into even one hour of looking at the evidence relationship for of evolution". the fall to the atonement.

Ha and touche. I'll say that of what I've listed a significant small fraction was devoted to this aspect. My mission president was a staunch defender of no death before the fall and had us read much literature to that regard.

I would like to know what compelling evidence you have that points to evolution as being a fall. Warning, I have listened to numerous explanations, none of which were convincing to me.

Here you are in very good company. I am unaware of any church published statement from any general authority supporting evolution and many many to the contrary. Bruce R McConkie considered irreconcilable and even a deadly heresy. I will also concede that I would be ill equipped to debate with you on such a topic. Though I am very observant in practice, in thought I have a very heretical, symbolic, and liberal interpretation of most things. I have found many approaches to the fall that include an evolutionary framework that work for me.

[Rob Osborn]

Through much study, I have came to the conclusion that evolutionists tend to sway increasingly to an anti-Creator point of view. I have noted how impossible it is for an evolutionist to place the Creator into the mix. I have spoke with biology professors at BYU and whereas they believe in the Creator, they cannot place him within the framework of nature. This brings up an interestong point about the Intelligent Design movement- I find it troubling that many notable Christians outright reject intelligent design but yet believe wholeheartedly in the creation. Just to be sure- that is a contradiction of beliefs. One absolutely cannot deny intelligent design in nature if he calls himself a "Christian".

 

Do not question others' Christianity.

[ERayR]

ERayR, on 29 Aug 2013 - 8:31 PM, said:

". . . years of gospel study, and a graduate degree and countless houes of personal study and reflection do not necessarily translate into even one hour of looking at the evidence relationship for of evolution". the fall to the atonement.

Ha and touche. I'll say that of what I've listed a significant small fraction was devoted to this aspect. My mission president was a staunch defender of no death before the fall and had us read much literature to that regard.

Here you are in very good company. I am unaware of any church published statement from any general authority supporting evolution and many many to the contrary. Bruce R McConkie considered irreconcilable and even a deadly heresy. I will also concede that I would be ill equipped to debate with you on such a topic. Though I am very observant in practice, in thought I have a very heretical, symbolic, and liberal interpretation of most things. I have found many approaches to the fall that include an evolutionary framework that work for me.

 

I understand that you have found approach(s) that work for you.  I have not.  In my experience most of those approaches tend to treat the fall and or the atonement as symbolic to a greater or lessor degre.  I do not.  I believe the fall was very real and the atonement is very real. It is my fear that a great many are going symbolize themselves right out of exaultation.

 

I too consider macro evolution as irreconcilable with the fall and indeed may well be a deadly heresy.