Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[BHodges]

When I was on my mission I was assigned to train a new missionary who had gone to BYU a bit before his mission. When he told me he was a biology major I was interested to find out how the church goes about debunking evolution at BYU. I'd read Joseph Fielding Smith's Answers to Gospel Questions and Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and I knew evolution was false. So I was shocked when he told me they didn't debunk it; they taught it straight forwardly. I grabbed my books and showed him the quotes saying evolution is false, evil, etc. and he said he's seen those, but that he disagreed and so had other church leaders. My mind was pretty much blown. That was the beginning of my change of heart on the issue. I'm interested to hear stories from people on the board if they've had similar experiences. 

 

Some members still believe evolution and Mormonism can't mix at all. I've had friends leave the church over the issue, thinking they had to choose one or the other. That's one of the reasons I was glad to see Steve Peck publish his book with the Maxwell Institute. It's called Evolving Faith: Wanderings of a Mormon Biologist, and it just came out yesterday.

 

 

Steve has taught biology at BYU for about fifteen years and he's met a lot of young Latter-day Saints who have been told they can either believe in the gospel, or in evolution, but they can't believe both. His book is intended to let people know that's a false choice. The book is actually about more than evolution. There are essays about the environment, sacred spaces, human consciousness, death, and other issues that bear on our theology. I can't recommend this book enough. 

 

But here I'm especially interested to hear your stories, if you used to disbelieve in evolution but now you believe it, if you still don't believe, if you know people who say evolution is false, how you handle those conversations, etc. 

[jkwilliams]

I took Biology 100 at BYU way back in 1982. The professor explained the first day of class that he would be teaching evolution because that is what the science supported. Later in the semester he informed us he had been called as a mission president.

Edited October 28, 2015 by jkwilliams

[rockpond]

For me there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions about evolution.  I'm not willing to deny it.  And I'm certainly not willing to have it be a litmus test for "faithful Mormons".

[bluebell]

For me there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions about evolution.  I'm not willing to deny it.  And I'm certainly not willing to have it be a litmus test for "faithful Mormons".

 

What rockpond said.

[rockpond]

I took Biology 100 at BYU way back in 1982. The professor explained the first day of class that he would be teaching evolution because that is what the science supported. Later in the semester he informed us he had been called as a mission president.

 

Sounds like Dr. Bradshaw.

 

If not, then there are two BYU biology professors who were mission presidents and support evolution.

[jkwilliams]

For me there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions about evolution. I'm not willing to deny it. And I'm certainly not willing to have it be a litmus test for "faithful Mormons".

I used to think that, too. But after doing my homework, I am satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming.

[jkwilliams]

Sounds like Dr. Bradshaw.

If not, then there are two BYU biology professors who were mission presidents and support evolution.

His name was Tipton.

[rockpond]

I used to think that, too. But after doing my homework, I am satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming.

 

Probably true... but I'm a math guy.  Never really had a desire to study evolution.  Instead of saying "for me there is insufficient evidence" I should have said: "I don't care enough to study the evidence."  I hope that doesn't make me seem like a loser.  I studied enough to decide (for myself) that the Adam & Eve story was allegorical and then I moved on to other topics that grabbed my attention.

[Meadowchik]

I don't see a dillemma.  However, I'd be hesitant to take any wholesale version of such a broad scientific theory in all its presumed ramifications.  We have a whole bunch of the science, but that doesn't mean science tells the whole story.

[Meadowchik]

Probably true... but I'm a math guy.  Never really had a desire to study evolution.  Instead of saying "for me there is insufficient evidence" I should have said: "I don't care enough to study the evidence."  I hope that doesn't make me seem like a loser.  I studied enough to decide (for myself) that the Adam & Eve story was allegorical and then I moved on to other topics that grabbed my attention.

 

I'm a math guy, too. I love it. And I love how it makes everything including science more accessible.

[BHodges]

I don't see a dillemma.  However, I'd be hesitant to take any wholesale version of such a broad scientific theory in all its presumed ramifications.  We have a whole bunch of the science, but that doesn't mean science tells the whole story.

 

That's similar to Steve's point in the book. Some of the essays address scientific dogmatism, where people like Richard Dawkins try to use science to destroy faith. For Steve, life is about learning and growing, and that goes for science and faith both. 

[filovirus]

Microbiology major here. Dr. Greg Burton spent an entire class one day in one of my upper level micro courses explaining how he understood evolution to be perfectly compatible with church doctrine. We opened our scriptures to the books of Moses and Genesis and read quite a bit.

I don't remember most of the lecture but I do know it prompted me to study it out on my own. I firmly believe in both the church teachings and in evolution. I still get hung up on a few doctrinal questions and how is fits with evolution, but I believe in time it will all make sense.

[jkwilliams]

Probably true... but I'm a math guy. Never really had a desire to study evolution. Instead of saying "for me there is insufficient evidence" I should have said: "I don't care enough to study the evidence." I hope that doesn't make me seem like a loser. I studied enough to decide (for myself) that the Adam & Eve story was allegorical and then I moved on to other topics that grabbed my attention.

I read a few books about evolution, and to me, the evidence is overwhelming. I didn't care much about it (English and Latin American Studies here), but when my kids' school was having them read an anti evolution book, I decided it was time to do some research. Case closed, at least for me.

[Zakuska]

Whale Evolution is often touted as the best documented evidence for evolution.  To bad the fossils were faked.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQtwIwBGoVChMIqLCf_5TmyAIVAdZjCh1AQgeJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5G5vAc5_VJo&usg=AFQjCNGr5eRKguEtvG3-oQoUTUBkfeVeiA&sig2=8wM5N6molujnApB1RBwzxQ

 

And the supposed common ancestor has now been found to predate its supposed predecessor.

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

Whale Evolution is often sited as the best documented evidence for evolution. To bad the fossils were faked.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQtwIwBGoVChMIqLCf_5TmyAIVAdZjCh1AQgeJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5G5vAc5_VJo&usg=AFQjCNGr5eRKguEtvG3-oQoUTUBkfeVeiA&sig2=8wM5N6molujnApB1RBwzxQ

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/

Lots of overlapping evidence, but it doesn't matter if your mind is made up.

ETA: I thought Joseph Fielding Smith was right back in my youth. My dad, however, said JFS was an idiot where science was concerned. I thought my dad was a heretic. LOL

Edited October 28, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Gray]

All Mormons should accept evolution. It's encoded right there one of the fundamental underpinnings of Mormonism.  "All truth, no matter what the source" (paraphrased)

Edited October 28, 2015 by Gray

[Jeanne]

I was a  very faithful mormon girl ..engaged to be married in the Temple when I was  a high school senior.  My very devout science teacher  of Prehistoric Life explained it so easily to include evolution and God's hand in the universe  This is one thing I have never questioned because it made so much sense.  It all has to do with TIME.

 

Hugs..Jeanne

Edited October 28, 2015 by Jeanne

[Calm]

I'm a math guy, too. I love it. And I love how it makes everything including science more accessible.

Math rules.

Never occurred to me to question it when I was younger. When I got to college and realized there were intelligent, educated people who rejected evolution, I studied the opposing arguments (they weren't very good then, they seem to put more effort into trying to deal with actual science these days but there is no conflict for me because I don't believe in infallibility and I have other stuff drawing my attention now so not up on the most recent anti arguments).

I still believe it, but I don't think less of people who don't and only judge them a bit (hopefully) in the case where they put lots of energy into teaching the evils of evolution while refusing to learn the science or choose to deny that reasonable, faithful people can believe in it as a tool of God or something else.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

All Mormons should accept evolution. It's encoded right there one of the fundamental underpinnings of Mormonism.  "All truth, no matter what the source" (paraphrased)

The issue is whether the accept theories about evolution are actually correct.  I don't dismiss in entirely but there are still many things about it I have problems with.  I also have a problem that God creates things by a trial and error method of what evolution really is and the inefficiency and time period that it requires.  I understand that time is not a big deal for God but really it took God a few billion years to finally get man here?

[mfbukowski]

Evolution as a concept is integral to an open canon.

What survives,survives, as a doctrine, a church, a corporation, a practice, or belief.

That which doesn't work, doesn't work and "dies" and cannot carry on.

It's pretty much common sense when you think about it.

Think of the extinct Edsel.

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand questions about God's existence have nothing to do with science.

If they did we could prove God's existence scientifically. We cannot. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us and is what gives meaning to our lives. Meaning cannot be measured scientifically

To me whether or not God had anything to do with evolution is irrelevant and unknowable anyway.

Edited October 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mapman]

I for some reason believed evolution was against my religion until I was in the middle of high school, which is odd because my parents never taught me that. In fact I'm pretty sure my dad at least believes in it. I must have picked it up in Sunday School or something. In any case, I was early on exposed to Mormons who also believed in evolution, so it was people like Steve Peck who helped me realize that revelation and science are both valid pursuits of truth. My philosophy now is to consider the natural world as a kind of book of scripture. Since the light of Christ is through and in all things, any truth we can get from observing the natural world is divine truth and I should accept it. I actually bought Peck's book today at the BYU Store, and I'm excited to read it.

Edited October 28, 2015 by mapman

[cinepro]

I voted "Other", because it depends entirely on your definition of "faithful Member."

 

To me, a faithful member is someone who goes to Church, tries to fulfill their calling(s), sustains the leaders, believes Joseph Smith and President Monson are "prophets" as they claim, believes Jesus died for our sins and is the Son of God, and so on.

 

I admit there are tons of such people who also  believe in the theory of evolution to some degree.

 

That being said, the theory of evolution just isn't compatible with the teachings of the scriptures and Church leaders regarding Adam, the Earth's creation, the existence of physical death during the creation, and so on.

 

So while I have a great deal of respect for all of the "faithful" members who have found exceedingly creative and intricate ways to try and harmonize the teachings (and doctrines) of the Church with the theory of evolution (or have just written off the contradictory Church teachings), I have nothing but pity for those members who try and insist that there is no such conflict.   That's just willful ignorance.

 

The day may come when Church leadership steers a new course on the subject and reject past teachings about Adam and the fall, physical death entering the world, the spiritual creation, and so on, but that day is not now.

Edited October 28, 2015 by cinepro

[ERayR]

I am ever so glad he has given his permission and approbation.

[CA Steve]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "faithful".