List Of Mormon Biologists That Believe In Evolution From Mormonscholarstestify

[thesometimesaint]

He's excluding someone directing our species from other species WE have created from other species, like how we can and have crossed various plant and animal species to make other species of plants and animals.

He tries very hard to keep God out of the big picture, or even the little pictures, don't cha know.

 

, Yes I do. The experiences of Bruno, Galileo, the Scopes Monkey Trial, the administration of Wilkinson at BYU, and the more recent Kitzmiller v  Dover Trials should be cautionary tales on the over involvement of religion in science.

[thesometimesaint]

It certainly presents some problematic areas for me.

 

Just like the theory of the solar system,  Micro-Evolution is a fact. The extrapolation to Macro-evolution becomes a bit more problematic.

Macro-Evolution is a fact. We observe it in nature, we observe it in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[ERayR]

but you cannot name a Mormon PhD Biologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, that agrees with you. 

 

Why should I?  I have fairly competent reasoning skills.  My understanding of the gospel is that I am responsible for my own salvation and as such I am not inclined to leave it to a consensus of scholars.

Edited June 6, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Macro-evolution faces the same hurdle.

 

No it does not. God is a non-falsifiable omnipotent being. Whether he exists or not is outside the realm of science. I could just as easily say that the invisible giant spaghetti monster living in my spare bedroom is the creator of the universe. There is nothing in science to falsify that belief.

 

Ps; I don't believe in any invisible giant spaghetti monsters.

[thesometimesaint]

Why should I?  I have fairly competent reasoning skills.  My understanding of the gospel is that I am responsible for my own salvation and as such I am not inclined to leave it to a consensus of scholars.

 

Let me tell you about a friend of mine who explained his advanced degrees in this way:

 

I have fairly competent reasoning skills.  My understanding of the gospel is that I am responsible for my own salvation and as such I am not inclined to leave it to a consensus of religionists.

[ERayR]

Ps; I don't believe in any invisible giant spaghetti monsters.

 

It was you who brought him up.

[thesometimesaint]

It was you who brought him up.

 

It a case in point of the  futility of positing any God onto science.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Why should I?  I have fairly competent reasoning skills.  My understanding of the gospel is that I am responsible for my own salvation and as such I am not inclined to leave it to a consensus of scholars.

 

The consensus of Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. 

 

Because Elder Oaks said, "I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method, which begins with faith in God and relies on scriptures, inspired teaching and personal revelation. There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge gained by these different methods" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

[cinepro]

Not that debate again, we had a similar debate on the Flood. 

It is interesting that you ignore the evidence that proves that Evolution is true. 

 

I suspect you've made the most common mistake for noobs who rush in to a long-established message board:  not taking the time to get to know who you're talking to and instead making assumptions as you go.

[ERayR]

The consensus of Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. 

 

Because Elder Oaks said, "I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method, which begins with faith in God and relies on scriptures, inspired teaching and personal revelation. There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge gained by these different methods" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

 

There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge truth gained by these different methods  I can accept that with the correction I have made. 

[katherine the great]

There is no ultimate conflict between knowledge truth gained by these different methods  I can accept that with the correction I have made. 

The scientific method does not claim to seek truth; only knowledge.

[longview]

but you cannot name a Mormon PhD Biologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, that agrees with you. 

 

You keep making this statement.  It is not very meaningful.  It takes a major effort to survey a large group of people.  If such a survey was taken, some members would want to retain their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk.  Most universities are radicalized to the extent that professors will not tolerate dissent among their ranks.  This is true for fields of evolution, sociology, "global warming scam", and various "soft" sciences.

 

There is no last word in any theories, there are many more unknowns that there are "facts", those facts are subject to multiple interpretations, lots of extrapolating and conjecturing and speculating.  How do we know if earth was not cobbled together with fragments of other dead planets?

 

Here is a thought.  If there has been "uncountable" generations of the Gods.  Each with their planets in their creation process, maybe going thru an evolutionary phase, then made into Terrestrial state, then falling to the Telestial.  Would every planet have gone through the evolutionary process?  Or maybe only one planet needed to be the "seed" for all other planets.  It sounds like an extremely tiresome chore, numbing to the brain and very time consuming.  And to repeat the whole thing every generation?

 

I think it makes far more sense for the Priesthood which contains the ordinances for various offices, creative templates, rules and regulations, and all kinds of databases for required Godly knowledge.  We know from the scriptures that the very dust responds to the commands of God.  Surely it would be a simple matter for God the say the "word" and dust would leap to form the "clay tabernacles" for occupancy by spirit beings.  Yeah, I know, it sounds magical, not scientific.  But should you not agree that all science is a subset of the truths of God?

[Ahab]

The same science that gives us that data also confirms evolutionary theory. Independently confirmatory lines of evidence make the theory very, very strong

Just understand that it is still only a theory, which means the evidence can be understood in such a way that the theory is rational and reasonable but still not necessarily true.

Another rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that there are similarities among different kinds of beings because that is just the way things are, with no need to assume or suppose that one kind of being evolved from another kind of being.

And God could have simply put different kinds of beings on this planet, with each having similarities to other kinds, much more quickly than having to wait for one kind to evolve into another kind, if God did indeed use evolution as the means for developing life on this planet, if that is even possible.

So those are 2 different explanations for how life developed on this planet, both of them reasonable, and both of them possibly true. The question now is, which one is true, and how can we know if either explanation is true. The opinion of the majority could still be wrong, so to just look at what people believe doesn't really get us anywhere.

[MormonFreeThinker]

You keep making this statement.  It is not very meaningful.  It takes a major effort to survey a large group of people.  If such a survey was taken, some members would want to retain their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk.  Most universities are radicalized to the extent that professors will not tolerate dissent among their ranks.  This is true for fields of evolution, sociology, "global warming scam", and various "soft" sciences.

 

CFR 

Don't tell me you got that information from the silly documentary called Expelled. 

There is another documentary that claims that AIDS is a scam, they say the same thing, they say "there is no last word in any theories" 

No last word, but don't deny the evidences because the consequences can be serious. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-2FGC2ZTlY

 

The reason why faithful Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution, is because the evidences are strong. 

They even wrote about the evidences in MormonScholarsTestify. 

 

Anyways, there is no need for a survey, just name one Mormon PhD Biologist (or related field)  that doesn't believe in Evolution. It shouldn't be that hard. I named about seven, why can't you name one? 

 

 

"their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk."

How about a retired Biologist?  There are some Evangelical biologists that are not afraid to say that they don't believe in Evolution. 

Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

 

Anyways, there is no need for a survey, just name one Mormon PhD Biologist (or related field)  that doesn't believe in Evolution. It shouldn't be that hard. I named about seven, why can't you name one? 

 

 

"their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk."

How about a retired Biologist?  There are some Evangelical biologists that are not afraid to say that they don't believe in Evolution. 

 

Can someone explain to me Elder Nelson doesn't qualify as being in a "related field" to "biology"?  Other than the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution, of course.

 

So while we're on the subject...can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution?  How about an emeritus one? 

 

No one's denying that there are a lot of LDS scientists who believe in Evolution.  What's interesting is how LDS doctrines and teachings relate to Evolution, and on that subject it's the LDS leaders who we need to listen to.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Can someone explain to me Elder Nelson doesn't qualify as being in a "related field" to "biology"?  Other than the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution, of course.

 

So while we're on the subject...can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution?  How about an emeritus one? 

 

No one's denying that there are a lot of LDS scientists who believe in Evolution.  What's interesting is how LDS doctrines and teachings relate to Evolution, and on that subject it's the LDS leaders who we need to listen to.

 

Elder Nelson "His professional work included the positions of research professor of surgery and director of the Thoracic Surgery Residency at the University of Utah and chairman of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City"

https://www.lds.org/church/leader/russell-m-nelson

 

It doesn't say that his professional work included the study of animal life, fossils, or genetics. 

 

"can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution?"

The church has no official position on Evolution, so it is unlikely that a General Authority would talk about it. 

 

"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

 

President Gordon B. Hinckley was quoted as saying, "What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635177399/Beliefs-on-Darwins-evolution-vary-from-religion-to-religion.html

 

His statement created room for Evolution. 

 

FAIRMORMON "Other Church authorities and members have seen much of value in evolutionary theory, even if they have not endorsed every aspect of it. Examples include James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and LDS chemist Henry Eyring"

Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[readstoomuch]

Most MD's have a biology degree and then take a high level genetics course in medical school. Embryology goes into depth about the branchial clefts which are the backbone of vertebrate strategies of evolution. I have never met a physician who didn't assume eviolution and the LDS MDs I meet believe God is involved in the process.

[longview]

You keep making this statement.  It is not very meaningful.  It takes a major effort to survey a large group of people.  If such a survey was taken, some members would want to retain their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk.  Most universities are radicalized to the extent that professors will not tolerate dissent among their ranks.  This is true for fields of evolution, sociology, "global warming scam", and various "soft" sciences.

CFR

 

I can quote you two different authors. Both have extensive knowledge of conditions in academia. One a former radical communist turned conservative by the name of David Horowitz. He maintains an great website called frontpagemag.com. Another is Adrian Vance who is very adept in many technical and scientific fields. His website adrianvance.blogspot.com. Here are a few examples:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/sara-dogan/defending-indoctrination-as-academic-freedom/

http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2014/02/99-phds-letter-to-un-sec-general.html?q=professor

http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2010/10/lewis-letter.html?q=professor

 

Don't tell me you got that information from the silly documentary called Expelled.

I assure you I did not. What is this one about?

 

There is another documentary that claims that AIDS is a scam, they say the same thing, they say "there is no last word in any theories" 

No last word, but don't deny the evidences because the consequences can be serious.

I suppose a few fringe elements believe that. But why do you slime me with their craziness? Just because I say evolution does not have the last word? Careful, you are hyperventilating.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I can quote you two different authors. Both have extensive knowledge of conditions in academia. One a former radical communist turned conservative by the name of David Horowitz. He maintains an great website called frontpagemag.com. Another is Adrian Vance who is very adept in many technical and scientific fields. His website adrianvance.blogspot.com. Here are a few examples:

 

 

 

The FrontPage Magazine is a political think tank, it is not nonpartisan, that is against the rules here, so I request that your comment gets deleted immediately.  

 

Andrew Klavan is a political commentator, not a climate scientist, that is against the rules. 

 

Linking to websites that have a political motives proves nothing, and again, that is against the rules here. 

Next time make sure you link to a respected nonpartisan website. 

 

and your websites have no more credibility than the anti-AIDSMedicine documentary called "House of Numbers"

It is extremely sad that there are many AIDS deniers now. That is what happens when you reject the scientific community. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers_(2009_film)

 

"House of Numbers" is an example of how extremely easy it is to make people reject obvious facts. 

Edited June 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Gray]

Macro-evolution faces the same hurdle.

 

It could have very easily been falsified by DNA evidence. Instead DNA evidence confirmed the fossil evidence. 

 

Finding a bunny rabbit in the same fossil layer as a T-Rex could also falsify the theory

Edited June 6, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

 

Can someone explain to me Elder Nelson doesn't qualify as being in a "related field" to "biology"?  Other than the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution, of course.

 

So while we're on the subject...can you name one LDS General Authority who does believe in Evolution?  How about an emeritus one? 

 

No one's denying that there are a lot of LDS scientists who believe in Evolution.  What's interesting is how LDS doctrines and teachings relate to Evolution, and on that subject it's the LDS leaders who we need to listen to.

 

Physicians are not scientists. 

 

Regarding GAs who believe in evolution - most don't comment. I would guess that most do not. I would also guess that President Uchtdorf does believe in evolution. Just a hunch

Edited June 6, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Just understand that it is still only a theory, which means the evidence can be understood in such a way that the theory is rational and reasonable but still not necessarily true.

Another rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that there are similarities among different kinds of beings because that is just the way things are, with no need to assume or suppose that one kind of being evolved from another kind of being.

And God could have simply put different kinds of beings on this planet, with each having similarities to other kinds, much more quickly than having to wait for one kind to evolve into another kind, if God did indeed use evolution as the means for developing life on this planet, if that is even possible.

So those are 2 different explanations for how life developed on this planet, both of them reasonable, and both of them possibly true. The question now is, which one is true, and how can we know if either explanation is true. The opinion of the majority could still be wrong, so to just look at what people believe doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

A scientific theory is significantly more robust than the colloquial meaning of the word theory. 

Edited June 6, 2014 by Gray

[DJBrown]

Most MD's have a biology degree and then take a high level genetics course in medical school. Embryology goes into depth about the branchial clefts which are the backbone of vertebrate strategies of evolution. I have never met a physician who didn't assume eviolution and the LDS MDs I meet believe God is involved in the process.

 

I am a surgeon and my undergrad degree was biochemistry and molecular biology.  I personally do not believe in evolution as taught.  There are too many unrecognized assumptions built into the theory and analysis of data.  

 

I imagine that I am biased by my own experience trying to engage the topic with molecular biology professors.  I cannot imagine more dogmatic and condescending responses to simple questions that should permeate any such field.  The most common response I received to specific questions regarding the evidence for the theory was essentially, "don't worry about it- everybody knows evolution is true."

 

gray- why do you say that physicians are not scientists?  

[thesometimesaint]

Just understand that it is still only a theory, which means the evidence can be understood in such a way that the theory is rational and reasonable but still not necessarily true.

Another rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that there are similarities among different kinds of beings because that is just the way things are, with no need to assume or suppose that one kind of being evolved from another kind of being.

And God could have simply put different kinds of beings on this planet, with each having similarities to other kinds, much more quickly than having to wait for one kind to evolve into another kind, if God did indeed use evolution as the means for developing life on this planet, if that is even possible.

So those are 2 different explanations for how life developed on this planet, both of them reasonable, and both of them possibly true. The question now is, which one is true, and how can we know if either explanation is true. The opinion of the majority could still be wrong, so to just look at what people believe doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

Please explain why the Theory of Gravity is just a theory.

 

God is omnipotent. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that our planet occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

 

The definition of "kind" is too general to be used in science.

 

Creationism is a religious belief of which there are many. Evolution is a scientific theory of how life changed after it got here.

Edited June 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

gray- why do you say that physicians are not scientists?  

 

Well, some medical doctors are scientists - those who conduct medical research into diseases, for instance. Most physicians are in the business of treating diseases and injuries, not running scientific experiments. 

 

That's my understanding. 

Edited June 6, 2014 by Gray