List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[ERayR]

The problem, of course, is that the fossil record doesn't show any evidence of such a barrier, as transitional fossils are well-known.

 

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

 

Unequivocal transitional fossils are not well known.  Even your link is replete with dodge words such as perhaps and probably.

Edited June 12, 2014 by ERayR

[Nemesis]

Off topic posts removed

[MormonFreeThinker]

Unequivocal transitional fossils are not well known.  Even your link is replete with dodge words such as perhaps and probably.

 

Of course, only ID creationists are always 100% certain. 

 

So what would change your mind?

 

Is that a human or a chimp? (Please do not answer for ERayR or his ID friends)

 

Edited June 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

But I see that attitude in ID creationists as well, including Mormons. 

ID creationists do that same thing, they mock others. 

 

There are many humble Mormon Biologists that simply follow the evidence, like Galileo did.

 

Please answer two questions 

 

Would you be willing to change your mind, and now believe that there was death before the Fall? 

What would convince you that there was Death before the Fall? What will make you change your mind?

There is so much at stake just from the religious perspective on the doctrine of no death before the fall. Our church officially teaches there was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. Christ coming to the earth to redeem mankind from the fall is a paramount teaching based entirely off of the beginning cause for death entering the world. Adam and Eve's natural actions led them to sin which caused them and all of creation to become mortal. I am not sure exactly how this all happened on a scientific level but then again- no one does, its all opinions at this point.

In order for me to change my mind the church would have to come out and say officially that there was indeed death before the fall. They would also have to come out and say that the doctrine of Adam and Eve bringing death to the world was completely wrong and that God indeed created an imperfect creation from the beginning that was plagued with death and disease as part of their imperfect condition brought on by no cause other than God. The church would also have to change not only our own scriptures but change world recognized versions such as the King James edition of the bible to state that there was life before Adam and Eve that were dying and that Adam really wasn't the first man on this earth.

When you really add everything up it becomes rather apparent that the church isn't going to change all this doctrine just to fit the ideology of an atheist paradigm of Darwinian evolution. And I am just going to side with the church and its official teachings at this time.

[Tiki]

So did The Lord use Evolution (death) in the Spiritual Creation?

Were there transitional species in the Spiritual Creation that died off though Natural Selection?

Heading to Moses Chapter 3

"God created all things spiritually before they were naturally upon the earth—He created man, the first flesh, upon the earth—Woman is a help meet for man."

Darwin supposes his toeses were roses,

But Darwin supposes erroneously.

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

[Rob Osborn]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

Fairmormon isnt doctrine and it is already a group biased towards evolution. This is just one more area Fairmormon has got wrong. There actually is an official doctrine that there was no death before the fall anywhere on the earth.

[thesometimesaint]

Fairmormon isnt doctrine and it is already a group biased towards evolution. This is just one more area Fairmormon has got wrong. There actually is an official doctrine that there was no death before the fall anywhere on the earth.

 

Telling others what they believe again I see.

[Rob Osborn]

Telling others what they believe again I see.

Fairmormon is not an honest group. They are biased and often misrepresent the churches official teachings, especially regarding anything that doesnt jive with mainstream science.

[thesometimesaint]

How very sophomoric.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes I know, Fairmormon is very sophomoric.

[Calm]

Fairmormon is not an honest group. They are biased and often misrepresent the churches official teachings, especially regarding anything that doesnt jive with mainstream science.

You are free to write us and demonstrate where we are wrong, though we won't just take your word or private interpretation as proof.

PS: last I checked we have members who believe in a global flood, even more who are open to it (just don't see evidence but are willing to look at any) and at least a few that do not believe in evolution. It is not a topic we discuss much among ourselves (topics on this board are perfect demonstrations of the usefulness of such discussions). We all believe God is our Creator....we just don't know how he went about that (the mechanics).

Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

You are free to write us and demonstrate where we are wrong, though we won't just take your word or private interpretation as proof.

 

[Calm]

It is not unusual for us to change wording on subjects when people write in criticism, including using a more cautious language.

As far as honesty, I have never once heard anything close to 'this is against what the Church teaches, but we need to put it up anyway'.

Given we haven't had to change any of our articles based on the new Gospel Topics save to add links to the lds.org pages, I feel pretty comfortable we stay close to the line where the line exists.

Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

It is not unusual for us to change wording on subjects when people write in criticism, including using a more cautious language.

As far as honesty, I have never once heard anything close to 'this is against what the Church teaches, but we need to put it up anyway'.

Given we haven't had to change any of our articles based on the new Gospel Topics save to add links to the lds.org pages, I feel pretty comfortable we stay close to the line where the line exists.

 

I have no problems with carefully edited articles and books. Even JS used his scribe as one. The Church says if there are faults they are the faults of men.

 

I think you guy's and gals at Fairmormon do a wonderful job of helping member and nonmember alike to better understand what the Church actually teaches.With the proviso that it is just your ideas.

[Rob Osborn]

You are free to write us and demonstrate where we are wrong, though we won't just take your word or private interpretation as proof.

PS: last I checked we have members who believe in a global flood, even more who are open to it (just don't see evidence but are willing to look at any) and at least a few that do not believe in evolution. It is not a topic we discuss much among ourselves (topics on this board are perfect demonstrations of the usefulness of such discussions). We all believe God is our Creator....we just don't know how he went about that (the mechanics).

So you are probably well aware of R. Gary Shapiro's blog here http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2014/04/fairmormon.html

You would be well benefited to have him rewrite some of your articles because he actually truthfully researches the material. For Fairmormon to say there is no official doctrine concerning no death before the fall on the earth is an outright lie.

 

Or a different opinion.  You will be banned from the board instead of the thread if you cannot have a civil conversation. Do not use the L word when there are FairMormon members on this board.

[Calm]

I really want to get into this but just don't have the brain for it right now. Dogs are almost as vampiric for me as children, sucking out my brains along with life force and I currently have two who are attempting to play in my lap while i type plus there are several other things are being discussed at FM including our usual questions from others and getting conference ready...so if it is just me going over there and suggesting this and that for change, it is going to fall through the cracks. If you want to be treated seriously then you shoul post each contradiction you see one at a time so it can be easily handled and not just throw Shapiro at them (the wiki people).

[langbert]

Astrology is not a science. It is the conjecture that the ancient positions of distant wandering stars at the time of your birth have some measurable effect on your personality and actions today. The scientific method is based on objective tests against any given hypothesis. Of course it is always possible that further testing will falsify the hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is falsified it is no longer true.

Every single objective test against Evolution so far preformed for the last 155 years has failed to falsify the Theory of Evolution. If you really want to falsify the Theory of Evolution you need to come up with better evidence than the false dichotomy of Micro-evolution vs Macro-Evolution.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated Micro-Evolution is exactly the same as Macro-Evolution. It is the change in allele frequency. Morphological changes are simply the changes in the way an organism looks. IE; A dog will never be cat no matter how closely it looks like a cat.

SEE

That video was equally pretentious and obnoxious. I'm still not clear what his point was...every dull word sounded utterly condescending, which he sealed at the end by calling anyone who doesn't understand his point (his words) “ignorant.”

I have really enjoyed reading David Berlinski on the topic of evolution. He is a (big S) Secular (little j) jew who has written on a variety of topics, including the pretentious (overall) scientific view about evolution. His main thesis: we are made to feel stupid for not believing in evolution (or for believing in God). He has some really good things to say about this, including bringing good argument to bear on how the evidence for evolution really does have fantastic, gaping holes.

I don't think it can be overstated how Berlinski has nothing to lose, as he truly is agnostic about God. This isn't a walking advertisement for some random dude. I just think some who might be inclined to think there is fault with the science, but always feel put down by the scientific community might truly be interested in reading some of his material. He floats easily above the fray (his debaters don't see this because they are worked up) simply because it's clear to him; he doesn't feel threatened. His manner is almost cursory, as in, can't you see the emperor has no clothes?

My point? Why does an argument over whether evolution is true or not have ANY bearing on whether Mormons believe the science or not? It doesn't. For all we know, the world is flat to Mormon unenlightened scientists, those who are just as prone to make us feel stupid for not believing the science.

By the way, I used to have no skin in the game—it really STILL doesn't matter to me HOW God created woman and man. But—as noted in that obnoxious video—I take issue with a scientific community whose dominant disposition when it comes to evolution is one that states (whether explicit or implicit) you must really be dumb for believing that God created man in His own image, male and female.

[jkwilliams]

It is not unusual for us to change wording on subjects when people write in criticism, including using a more cautious language.

As far as honesty, I have never once heard anything close to 'this is against what the Church teaches, but we need to put it up anyway'.

Given we haven't had to change any of our articles based on the new Gospel Topics save to add links to the lds.org pages, I feel pretty comfortable we stay close to the line where the line exists.

 

FWIW, I obviously don't agree with Fair's conclusions about Mormonism, but I don't believe for a moment the contributors are dishonest, and I've had personal experience seeing Fair change something when I let them know there was an error on the web site. From what I can see, what Rob calls dishonesty is just Fair's unwillingness to interpret the scriptures in exactly the way Rob would like.

[langbert]

And you miss my point. Most scientific disciplines have had interpretations that were commonly accepted and later refuted and I have no doubt that many more commonly held beliefs will change.

It is all about interpretation. Some works. Some does not but make no mistake it is all about interpretation.

Don't accuse me of rejecting medical science or any other science. It is not science that I reject it is an understanding that today's interpretation are often discarded tomorrow.. It is not the science I have trouble with but the extrapolations in the gaps between micro and macro-evolution.

I completely agree.

[thesometimesaint]

That video was equally pretentious and obnoxious. I'm still not clear what his point was...every dull word sounded utterly condescending, which he sealed at the end by calling anyone who doesn't understand his point (his words) “ignorant.”

I have really enjoyed reading David Berlinski on the topic of evolution. He is a (big S) Secular (little j) jew who has written on a variety of topics, including the pretentious (overall) scientific view about evolution. His main thesis: we are made to feel stupid for not believing in evolution (or for believing in God). He has some really good things to say about this, including bringing good argument to bear on how the evidence for evolution really does have fantastic, gaping holes.

I don't think it can be overstated how Berlinski has nothing to lose, as he truly is agnostic about God. This isn't a walking advertisement for some random dude. I just think some who might be inclined to think there is fault with the science, but always feel put down by the scientific community might truly be interested in reading some of his material. He floats easily above the fray (his debaters don't see this because they are worked up) simply because it's clear to him; he doesn't feel threatened. His manner is almost cursory, as in, can't you see the emperor has no clothes?

My point? Why does an argument over whether evolution is true or not have ANY bearing on whether Mormons believe the science or not? It doesn't. For all we know, the world is flat to Mormon unenlightened scientists, those who are just as prone to make us feel stupid for not believing the science.

By the way, I used to have no skin in the game—it really STILL doesn't matter to me HOW God created woman and man. But—as noted in that obnoxious video—I take issue with a scientific community whose dominant disposition when it comes to evolution is one that states (whether explicit or implicit) you must really be dumb for believing that God created man in His own image, male and female.

 

None of us is born with all the correct answers. So you must have felt really stupid when you gave a wrong answer to a question in school. I've never felt that way. Just give me the correct answer and how you got there. I'll be fine. As I've said many times before I have no problem with God. Just what some mortals claim about him. It matters to me HOW I, and my world, were created. I want to know. How tells me the ways to help the sick to get better. I want to know how to build a better world for my children and myself. Now if that feels like condescending to you. I am sorry, but I'm still going to try to find out HOW God did it.

[thesometimesaint]

I completely agree.

 

I obviously don't. Science by definition is always tentative. It doesn't pretend to have the final answer to any question about our natural world/universe unlike religion. No I'm not down on God. Just what some mortals claim about him.

Edited June 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[langbert]

None of us is born with all the correct answers. So you must have felt really stupid when you gave a wrong answer to a question in school. I've never felt that way. Just give me the correct answer and how you got there. I'll be fine. As I've said many times before I have no problem with God. Just what some mortals claim about him. It matters to me HOW I, and my world, were created. I want to know. How tells me the ways to help the sick to get better. I want to know how to build a better world for my children and myself. Now if that feels like condescending to you. I am sorry, but I'm still going to try to find out HOW God did it.

 

There isn't anything particularly condescending about wanting a better understanding of how life came to be. Most people want to know such things. Specifically, the person in the video (the one about micro vs macro evolution) and the scientific community in general condescend when discussing evolution. (It is however duly noted that generalizations are only useful in a general sense.)

 

By the way, it's usually not useful when people make remarks about how well anyone may have done in school—this kind of condescension also isn't very helpful in conversation.

[thesometimesaint]

There isn't anything particularly condescending about wanting a better understanding of how life came to be. Most people want to know such things. Specifically, the person in the video (the one about micro vs macro evolution) and the scientific community in general condescend when discussing evolution. (It is however duly noted that generalizations are only useful in a general sense.)

 

By the way, it's usually not useful when people make remarks about how well anyone may have done in school—this kind of condescension also isn't very helpful in conversation.

 

Condescending like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I sure didn't see anything condescending about it. Believe me if you really want to see condescending get two or more scientists in a room talking about any science.

 

I never really liked school, still don't. But was pretty good at it. My daughter-in-law took a social work class at college. I seriously wanted to kick that professor's butt, from here to next Thursday and back.