List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[Judd]

They all receive the same schooling. That said, there are plenty of scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution so whats the point?

He seems to have already spoken regarding those:

The few scientists that reject Evolution is because their parents and pastors told them that Evolution is a lie, and they simply couldn't give up that belief.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The problem with trying to find LDS biologists who disbelieve in evolution is that I am not aware of any structured lists of them stating such. I am not quite sure how one would go about the task besides asking each one his or her personal beliefs on the matter. Besides that, there is no difference between someone who is LDS and someone who is not LDS. They all receive the same schooling. That said, there are plenty of scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution so whats the point?

 

I found several that said they believe it just from MormonScholarsTestify alone, what can't you find just one in the world?

 

If there was a controversy in the scientific community, there would be many Biologists that would deny it. 

But almost all Biologists believe the evidences are strong, except for few Evangelicals. 99% of Biologists believe the evidences are strong.  

 

Even Dr. Salisbury now believes that the evidences are strong. So where is the controversy? Where are the Mormon Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists that don't believe it? Like Dr. Salisbury was saying in 1976? 

 

Dr. Salisbury wrote,"they present strong arguments for evolution as the mechanism of creation, including humans as well as all other living things... as I got into the volume, my attitude toward it became increasingly positive. This is not to say that I agree with everything they say, but the book presents a strong case for evolution in creation...I agree with the authors that the case for evolution is so strong that many aspects are now well established...it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth's surface...Because of the amazing progress of science during the past thirty years, if I were writing my 1976 book now, it would come much closer to the book written by Stephens and Meldrum"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=15

Edited June 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Judd]

I found several that said they believe it just from MormonScholarsTestify alone, what can't you find just one in the world?

I don't want to speak for Rob, but I'd have to presume that it's because nobody really feels the need to as nobody is really making the claim. I think, at most, people have stated that LDS biologists' opinions on evolution are varied, which your original quotes show, though I'm not certain you realize this.

 

But almost all Biologists believe the evidences are strong, except for few Evangelicals. 99% of Biologists believe the evidences are strong.

I think what you may be finding is that people aren't so much debating evolution in the recent posts in this thread, but instead have been disputing some of the conclusions you've reached through a very non-scientific approach and conflating many different issues. I believe you've misperceived this as people questioning that there's a general concensus in the scientific community on the theory of evolution as a whole, or that people believe there's strong evidence to absolutely refute the theory of evolution. I don't really seen anyone making those arguments.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you may not have enough exposure to people's opinions on this matter to realize the nuances of what's being discussed is not being done so in a black-and-white fashion to which your responses seem to indicate.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Judd

[ERayR]

He seems to have already spoken regarding those:

 

 

And when MFT has spoken on the subject the thinking is done.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't want to speak for Rob, but I'd have to presume that it's because nobody really feels the need to as nobody is really making the claim. I think, at most, people have stated that LDS biologists' opinions on evolution are varied, which your original quotes show, though I'm not certain you realize this.

 

 

They do have different opinions, but they all agree that the evidences for "common descent and natural selection" are  strong. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

 

I think what you may be finding is that people aren't so much debating evolution in the recent posts in this thread, but instead have been disputing some of the conclusions you've reached through a very non-scientific approach .

 

I am not a scientist, and I don't have the tools to do my own research, but I can cite many peer-reviewed papers that prove Evolution. 

 

or that people believe there's strong evidence to absolutely refute the theory of evolution. I don't really seen anyone making those arguments.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you may not have enough exposure to people's opinions on this matter to realize the nuances of what's being discussed is not being done so in a black-and-white fashion to which your responses seem to indicate.

 

Well, many like Rod believe that ID creationism is science, and many think that Macro-Evolution is just a speculation. 

 

It wouldn't make any sense if Mormon scientists believed in Macro-Evolution without strong evidence. 

The only reason why faithful Mormon scientist believe in Macro-Evolution is because the evidence is strong. 

 

The "there is no Black and White" argument is like saying that there is "no Black and White" for the Theory of the Solar System. 

I agree that there is no Black and White for many things, but the truth is the Evolution is the most successful theory in science,

whether you like it or not.

 

Rob,

 

If I find name 10 more Mormon biologist that Believe in Evolution, will you change your mind? 

Perhaps I can try looking for some in the BYU website. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

They do have different opinions, but they all agree that the evidences for "common descent and natural selection" are  strong. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

 

 

I am not a scientist, and I don't have the tools to do my own research, but I can cite many peer-reviewed papers that prove Evolution. 

 

 

Well, many like Rod believe that ID creationism is science, and many think that Macro-Evolution is just a speculation. 

 

It wouldn't make any sense if Mormon scientists believed in Macro-Evolution without strong evidence. 

The only reason why faithful Mormon scientist believe in Macro-Evolution is because the evidence is strong. 

 

The "there is no Black and White" argument is like saying that there is "no Black and White" for the Theory of the Solar System. 

I agree that there is no Black and White for many things, but the truth is the Evolution is the most successful theory in science,

whether you like it or not.

 

Rob,

 

If I find name 10 more Mormon biologist that Believe in Evolution, will you change your mind? 

Perhaps I can try looking for some in the BYU website.

I am not going to believe in Darwinian evolution if you found a 100 from the BYU website. I am not sure why you are making a big deal out of LDS evolutionists. LDS evolutionists are no different than Catholic evolutionists. And Catholic evolutionists are no different than Southern Baptist evolutionists. Personally I do not like the BYU zoology department at BYU. I have went the rounds with several of the professors in that department and let me just say- they are some of the most stubborn hard headed, close-minded knuckleheads on the planet. I have often questioned their Christianity (yeah, its really that bad!). When you do not agree with them they intentionally snub you, discredit you and then mock you. I would never recommend that any of our young adults attend a BYU course on evolution. Its a damaging proposition!

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am not going to believe in Darwinian evolution if you found a 100 from the BYU website. I am not sure why you are making a big deal out of LDS evolutionists. LDS evolutionists are no different than Catholic evolutionists. And Catholic evolutionists are no different than Southern Baptist evolutionists. Personally I do not like the BYU zoology department at BYU. I have went the rounds with several of the professors in that department and let me just say- they are some of the most stubborn hard headed, close-minded knuckleheads on the planet. I have often questioned their Christianity (yeah, its really that bad!). When you do not agree with them they intentionally snub you, discredit you and then mock you. I would never recommend that any of our young adults attend a BYU course on evolution. Its a damaging proposition!

 

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?

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[jkwilliams]

Interesting piece from an Evangelical Christian who believes in evolution.

http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

[thesometimesaint]

1. You keep using the phrase "believe in evolution." Could you please clarify what you mean, rather than generalities regarding micro and macro evolution? The phrase is too vague to have any meaning.

2. Has anyone implied that there are LDS biologists who deny the whole of the theory of evolution?

3. Is anyone making the argumet that the scientific community doesn't accept macro evolution?

 

To deny so called Macro-Evolution is to deny the whole Theory of Evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with trying to find LDS biologists who disbelieve in evolution is that I am not aware of any structured lists of them stating such. I am not quite sure how one would go about the task besides asking each one his or her personal beliefs on the matter. Besides that, there is no difference between someone who is LDS and someone who is not LDS. They all receive the same schooling. That said, there are plenty of scientists who disbelieve Darwinian evolution so whats the point?

 

Not plenty. The rare outlier is just that rare. Like the number of scientists that don't believe smoking tobacco causes disease.                                                                                                                           

[jkwilliams]

To deny so called Macro-Evolution is to deny the whole Theory of Evolution.

I like this analogy:

At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very large changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not going to believe in Darwinian evolution if you found a 100 from the BYU website. I am not sure why you are making a big deal out of LDS evolutionists. LDS evolutionists are no different than Catholic evolutionists. And Catholic evolutionists are no different than Southern Baptist evolutionists. Personally I do not like the BYU zoology department at BYU. I have went the rounds with several of the professors in that department and let me just say- they are some of the most stubborn hard headed, close-minded knuckleheads on the planet. I have often questioned their Christianity (yeah, its really that bad!). When you do not agree with them they intentionally snub you, discredit you and then mock you. I would never recommend that any of our young adults attend a BYU course on evolution. Its a damaging proposition!

 

Ostrich meet sand.

[thesometimesaint]

I like this analogy:

 

 

Agreed.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Rob Osborn,

 

What if I name 10 Mormon Biologist that believe in Evolution and have a testimony of the Gospel, and are outside Utah.

Will that change your mind? 

 

What would change your mind then? 

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn,

 

What if I name 10 Mormon Biologist that believe in Evolution and have a testimony of the Gospel, and are outside Utah.

Will that change your mind? 

 

What would change your mind then? 

 

"I am not going to believe in Darwinian evolution if you found a 100 from the BYU website. I am not sure why you are making a big

deal out of LDS evolutionists. LDS evolutionists are no different than Catholic evolutionists. And Catholic evolutionists are no different than Southern Baptist evolutionists. Personally I do not like the BYU zoology department at BYU. I have went the rounds with several of the professors in that department and let me just say- they are some of the most stubborn hard headed, close-minded knuckleheads on the planet. I have often questioned their Christianity (yeah, its really that bad!). When you do not agree with them they intentionally snub you, discredit you and then mock you. I would never recommend that any of our young adults attend a BYU course on evolution. Its a damaging proposition!"

 

IOW Nothing.

[cinepro]

Rob Osborn,

 

What if I name 10 Mormon Biologist that believe in Evolution and have a testimony of the Gospel, and are outside Utah.

Will that change your mind? 

 

What would change your mind then? 

 

 

I can't speak for Rob, but I suspect if some LDS Apostles started acknowledging the possibility that God used evolution to create the different forms of animal and plant life, including the bodies of Adam and Eve (and as a result we know that there was physical death on the planet before Adam's fall), and they did so in General Conference or other official venues including the curriculum, it might go a long way towards warming up anti-evolution LDS to the idea.

 

[thesometimesaint]

And now LDS apostles and official Church publications teach otherwise.  It's not that hard to figure out (unless you don't want to figure it out).

 

I would love to "figure it out".  I just see no resolution until the lord comes to me, or I go to him.

[ERayR]

To deny so called Macro-Evolution is to deny the whole Theory of Evolution.

 

Absolutely Not so.  I  and others on this board have repeatedly affirmed  micro-evolution and you know it.  Tis not nice to bear false witness.

[ERayR]

Ostrich meet sand.

 

There is room for reasonable disagreement.  I am sure that somewhere the board rules allow for this without your ridicule.

[ERayR]

That very much reductionist thinking. IE; Prior to 1978 were African blacks inherently inferior to whites? Several LDS Apostles thought so.

 

Irrelevant to the topic at hand unless you are saying these people are at a different stage of evolution.  If you are I would disagree and warn you to be extremely careful with that one.

[jkwilliams]

Absolutely Not so.  I  and others on this board have repeatedly affirmed  micro-evolution and you know it.  Tis not nice to bear false witness.

 

I still don't understand why you think there is a difference between "macro" evolution and "micro" evolution. it's the same process.

 

At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very large changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Can someone name a Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe the evidences for Evolution are strong? Just one. 

 

Can someone cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal that challenges Evolution?

Nature Journal, Science Journal, and many more. 

 

and why do Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution if it is not because of the powerful evidence? 

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

Can someone name a Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe the evidences for Evolution are strong? Just one. 

 

Can someone cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal that challenges Evolution?

Nature Journal, Science Journal, and many more. 

 

and why do Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution if it is not because of the powerful evidence? 

 

Can someone name a Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe the evidences for Evolution are strong in tss flying pink elephants? Just one.

 

Can someone cite a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal that challenges Evolution tss flying pink elephants?

Nature Journal, Science Journal, and many more. 

 

And why do the not refute flying pink elephants if it is not because of the powerful evidence?

[Calm]

I still don't understand why you think there is a difference between "macro" evolution and "micro" evolution. it's the same process.

Perhaps one of the barriers is time, even the extremely long times given? I've seen some probability equations that suggest macro changes would be very unlikely to have taken place, ie one can walk to one's friend's house but it is impossible in the time limit given.

However, whether these are accurate assessments it would depend on how credible the probabilities chosen were and I don't know enough to evaluate the few I've seen.

On the other hand there may be some postulated barrier preventing change of species (perhaps a law---some sort of DNA that acts as a limiter on change perhaps if one wants to avoid God just stepping in to stop it when it occurs---of God requiring animals to produce in kind?) so that the analogy of simply extending the walk is wrong and it is more like attempting to walk to the sidewalk as opposed to walking to Europe across the Atlantic....one can theoretically draw the route but will never have the capability to actually do it on ones' own.

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps one of the barriers is time, even the extremely long times given? I've seen some probability equations that suggest macro changes would be very unlikely to have taken place, ie one can walk to one's friend's house but it is impossible in the time limit given.

However, whether these are accurate assessments it would depend on how credible the probabilities chosen were and I don't know enough to evaluate the few I've seen.

On the other hand there may be some postulated barrier preventing change of species (perhaps a law---some sort of DNA that acts as a limiter on change perhaps if one wants to avoid God just stepping in to stop it when it occurs---of God requiring animals to produce in kind?) so that the analogy of simply extending the walk is wrong and it is more like attempting to walk to the sidewalk as opposed to walking to Europe across the Atlantic....one can theoretically draw the route but will never have the capability to actually do it on ones' own.

 

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/