Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[ERayR]

Well that's just plain silly.  Homo erectus was an extremely successful and long-lived species.  I suppose they may have looked "deformed" to us if we ran into one on the street because their faces were so big and their brains were significantly smaller than ours, but we probably would have looked similarly "deformed" to them. (of course that would never happen since they died out long before we came along)  Homo floresiensis (nicknamed the Hobbit) was interpreted by a published scientist as being a microcephalic modern human.  So, silly hypotheses can happen on either side, although usually the peer review process weeds out the unsound ones.  Somehow this one slipped by.  

 

Don't put too much credence in what Skeptic says is the creationists view.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Don't put too much credence in what Skeptic says is the creationists view.

 

For example 

http://creation.com/deformed-humans-exploited-as-apemen

[katherine the great]

For example 

http://creation.com/deformed-humans-exploited-as-apemen

Well, I doubt that there is a single, coherent creationist view of all Homo fossils.  I imagine that individual creationists have their own explanations of various premodern-human fossils.  But...yes, that was a very weird article that did not contain a valid argument of any kind.  I didn't see anything in there about Homo erectus--just a bunch of jibberish about Barnum and Bailey freak shows.

[ERayR]

Well, I doubt that there is a single, coherent creationist view of all Homo fossils.  I imagine that individual creationists have their own explanations of various premodern-human fossils.  But...yes, that was a very weird article that did not contain a valid argument of any kind.  I didn't see anything in there about Homo erectus--just a bunch of jibberish about Barnum and Bailey freak shows.

 

It is from Creation Ministries which is evangelical and looks at things from an evangelical point of view. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by ERayR

[Faithful]

Evolution is simply the process God used to form the body.

[ERayR]

Evolution is simply the process God used to form the body.

 

With all his numberless creations you think he needed to leave the formation of the human body to chance when all he needed to do was transplant from one of his other creations?

[TheSkepticChristian]

It is from Creation Ministries which is evangelical and looks at things from an evangelical point of view. 

 

Please explain 

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Evolution is simply the process God used to form the body.

That is probably the approach taken by most Mormon professors of biology.  It is the approach taken by a close friend of mine who is an anthropologist and LDS.  The LDS Church takes no stand on the issue one way or the other.

[katherine the great]

With all his numberless creations you think he needed to leave the formation of the human body to chance when all he needed to do was transplant from one of his other creations?

Why do you assume that what appears to us to be "by chance" actually has no purpose when viewed from Deity's vantage point?  Natural selection has created bodies for us that are perfectly suited to our earthly environment.  It gives us advantages that we could not possibly have by a foreign invasion.  We became human with the capacity for love, hate, religious thought, art, language, paternal care, conscious choice and on and on.  Our evolutionary ancestors gave us these things through their own adaptive histories.  Yes, there are evolutionary trade-offs like the problems bipedalism cause for childbirth, low back pain, feet, etc, but the benefits far outweigh the cost to our species.  It also ties us biologically to every other life form that originated on this planet making us a big, dysfunctional (but remarkably functional) family.  This could not be accomplished by "transplanting" a foreign creation.  We are part of the planet Earth and this was the origin of our species' bodies.  This in addition to absolutely no evidence that modern man just popped up at a given time from some other planet.  DNA evidence points towards a continuity of life on this planet.  There may be an argument to be made on the origin of life on this planet, but not with humans.  Earth is our mother planet (at least physically).

[ERayR]

Why do you assume that what appears to us to be "by chance" actually has no purpose when viewed from Deity's vantage point?  Natural selection has created bodies for us that are perfectly suited to our earthly environment.  It gives us advantages that we could not possibly have by a foreign invasion.  We became human with the capacity for love, hate, religious thought, art, language, paternal care, conscious choice and on and on.  Our evolutionary ancestors gave us these things through their own adaptive histories.  Yes, there are evolutionary trade-offs like the problems bipedalism cause for childbirth, low back pain, feet, etc, but the benefits far outweigh the cost to our species.  It also ties us biologically to every other life form that originated on this planet making us a big, dysfunctional (but remarkably functional) family.  This could not be accomplished by "transplanting" a foreign creation.  We are part of the planet Earth and this was the origin of our species' bodies.  This in addition to absolutely no evidence that modern man just popped up at a given time from some other planet.  DNA evidence points towards a continuity of life on this planet.  There may be an argument to be made on the origin of life on this planet, but not with humans.  Earth is our mother planet (at least physically).

 

I have considered all the things you bring up and find they are applicable to micro-evolution without the complications when applied to macro-evolution.

 

A transplant from Gods other creations provides all the advantages you list for macro-evolution and doesn't have the problem of being in opposition of a fall and atonement.

[longview]

Why do you assume that what appears to us to be "by chance" actually has no purpose when viewed from Deity's vantage point?  Natural selection has created bodies for us that are perfectly suited to our earthly environment.  It gives us advantages that we could not possibly have by a foreign invasion.  We became human with the capacity for love, hate, religious thought, art, language, paternal care, conscious choice and on and on.  Our evolutionary ancestors gave us these things through their own adaptive histories.  Yes, there are evolutionary trade-offs like the problems bipedalism cause for childbirth, low back pain, feet, etc, but the benefits far outweigh the cost to our species.  It also ties us biologically to every other life form that originated on this planet making us a big, dysfunctional (but remarkably functional) family.  This could not be accomplished by "transplanting" a foreign creation.  We are part of the planet Earth and this was the origin of our species' bodies.  This in addition to absolutely no evidence that modern man just popped up at a given time from some other planet.  DNA evidence points towards a continuity of life on this planet.  There may be an argument to be made on the origin of life on this planet, but not with humans.  Earth is our mother planet (at least physically).

It is apparent that you have not thought through the implications of your statement.  Man was formed in the image of God.  Physically in the Garden of Eden.  Also, in the pre-existence, we were formed spiritually in the image of God.  In the Sacred Grove Joseph Smith saw two beings who were (and always will be) in the form of MAN.  Even the Brother of Jared (and many other prophets) saw the spirit body of Jesus (this before His first coming to earth to take on flesh).  Our physical bodies are referred to as Clay Tabernacles in the scriptures.  Our spirits (our "real selves") occupy Clay Tabernacles with some kind of very sophisticated interfaces.  When I was about 13, my grandmother had me get a Patriarchal Blessing in which the LORD assured me that my body will grow up to the full size of my spirit body.  I think there is way too much discounting of the power of God to form earth out of fragments of dead planets, to control the organization of ANY kinds of entities.

 

Moses 1:35

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

[mfbukowski]

Despite our differences, we have a similar outlook. I appreciate your words, thanks. 

You know I would rather discuss stuff with you than somebody LDS with whom I supposedly "agree" because I know that your arguments will be good ones, and even though we will eventually disagree on our basic assumptions that's ok because they are basic assumptions.

 

I think starting from your (horribly erroneous ) assumptions, your logic is always pretty darn impeccable. 

 

Many LDS posters have no idea what their basic assumptions even are!  I just appreciate and respect a good, well-thought through case for one's beliefs.  It shows that that individual has something going on upstairs

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[katherine the great]

It is apparent that you have not thought through the implications of your statement.  

The implications of a strictly literalist view of scripture are much more concerning to me.  The God I believe in would not defy His own natural laws and then plant false evidence all over the earth in the form of a fossil record that points towards evolution and then throw in DNA science for good measure in order to trick His children (a la Cleon Skousen).  That makes no sense to me at all.  Believing in evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God chooses to appear to humans in the form of a man or allows humans to use metaphor for greater spiritual understanding.

[ERayR]

The implications of a strictly literalist view of scripture are much more concerning to me.  The God I believe in would not defy His own natural laws and then plant false evidence all over the earth in the form of a fossil record that points towards evolution and then throw in DNA science for good measure in order to trick His children (a la Cleon Skousen).  That makes no sense to me at all.  Believing in evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God chooses to appear to humans in the form of a man or allows humans to use metaphor for greater spiritual understanding.

 

You have inserted a couple of straw men.  You are right I do not consider the fall and the atonement as metaphors.  Per revelation God is human or rather humans are the image of God.

[katherine the great]

You have inserted a couple of straw men.  You are right I do not consider the fall and the atonement as metaphors.  Per revelation God is human or rather humans are the image of God.

Actually, I was responding to longview's comments to me but now that you mention it...I consider the fall and the atonement as literal events as well.  The stories concerning the fall, I consider metaphors.

[danielwoods]

You know I would rather discuss stuff with you than somebody LDS with whom I supposedly "agree" because I know that your arguments will be good ones, and even though we will eventually disagree on our basic assumptions that's ok because they are basic assumptions.

 

I think starting from your (horribly erroneous ) assumptions, your logic is always pretty darn impeccable. 

 

Many LDS posters have no idea what their basic assumptions even are!  I just appreciate and respect a good, well-thought through case for one's beliefs.  It shows that that individual has something going on upstairs

 

I feel the same. And thanks again. What I have found interesting and difficult to understand is how really smart people can be blind to their own assumptions. Just getting them to admit what those are is sometimes impossible. That is amazing to me. 

[mfbukowski]

I feel the same. And thanks again. What I have found interesting and difficult to understand is how really smart people can be blind to their own assumptions. Just getting them to admit what those are is sometimes impossible. That is amazing to me. 

Likewise.

[longview]

The implications of a strictly literalist view of scripture are much more concerning to me.  The God I believe in would not defy His own natural laws and then plant false evidence all over the earth in the form of a fossil record that points towards evolution and then throw in DNA science for good measure in order to trick His children (a la Cleon Skousen).  That makes no sense to me at all.

I appreciate your concerns. I have explored those thoughts on an on-going basis for several decades. But I am confused. What natural laws would God be defying? Why would the evidence appear to be falsley planted? As I have tried to explain to mft, tss, and others, you may have your "evidence" but you really should consider the possibility of more than one interpretation on a given set of "facts".

I think it is possible that age estimations could be off by orders of magnitude. Scientists cannot posit a "Terrestrial State" in which there was no death nor decay nor chaos. Adam and Eve started out in a pristine state as immortals before partaking of the forbidden fruit. It would not make sense for God to take evolutionary imperfect mortal homo-whatever and insert Adam and Eve's spirits into male and female bodies and make them immortal. The "narrative" just does not wash from the scriptural perspective.

 

Believing in evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God chooses to appear to humans in the form of a man or allows humans to use metaphor for greater spiritual understanding.

The only reason I referenced the appearance of God is because your post # 309 mentioned something about bipedalism. The implication being of all the innumerable worlds, some planets could have Adam/Eves hopping about on single legs. Or if the planet is large or dense enough, they would need five legs to get around. I still believe God has a certain appearance, that our pre-existant spirit bodies had the same appearance. That our mortal and eventual resurrected bodies will continue to have the same appearance. Different worlds also the same. The many scriptures I have read point to this precept.

 

Actually, I was responding to longview's comments to me but now that you mention it...I consider the fall and the atonement as literal events as well.  The stories concerning the fall, I consider metaphors.

Your response to ERayR should highlight difficulty of maintaining the "evolution narrative". You believe in the Fall. What did we "fall" from? Immortal Terrestrial beings? Or mangy ape creatures already subject to death?

[katherine the great]

 

Your response to ERayR should highlight difficulty of maintaining the "evolution narrative". You believe in the Fall. What did we "fall" from? Immortal Terrestrial beings? Or mangy ape creatures already subject to death?

No.  I believe the "fall" involves our leaving a heavenly home for a temporary "natural" one.  Everything else you said I pretty much completely disagree with. I do look at evidence and I look at it in context.  I don't doubt that the material to form the proto-earth came from other parts of the universe and gravity pulled the particles together.  But...the whole idea of this earth being chunks of older creations from other parts of the universe with fossil life forms layered throughout the surface is completely unsupported by all of the earth sciences.  It is completely nonsensical to me.  I am not willing to toss out everything we know from science to enable myself to try to fit my mind into a strict, narrow view of scripture.  I just don't and can't think that way (and don't even want to).  I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy.

[longview]

No.  I believe the "fall" involves our leaving a heavenly home for a temporary "natural" one.  Everything else you said I pretty much completely disagree with. I do look at evidence and I look at it in context.

I very much appreciate your response and willingness to patiently engage in this "mini-debate." I would like to present to you a sequence of events based on my understanding of the scriptures and ask for your impressions and perspectives on the following:

1- we were "intelligences" of some kind. Already "eternal" without a beginning.

2- we agreed to become spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Called the pre-existence.

3- we all progressed in different ways and in different degrees with different talents but eventually we came to a point where we could no longer progress as fast as before. Then God presented to us a "Plan of Happiness/Redemption/Atonement/Judgement/Exaltation" in a fantastical laboratory called "Earth" where we can learn and prove ourselves. At that stage we only had spirit bodies.

4- After having prepared this "laboratory" (Earth in the "Terrestrial State"), God chose Adam and Eve to be the First Parents and provided physical immortal bodies for them. Since God could not directly initiate the Fall without violating the Law of Justice, He gave a set of commands such as (a) be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth, (b) "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." A&E could not keep both commands without breaking one or the other.  Mutually exclusive.  It was up to them to make that choice. They would have remained in "paradise" forever and unchanging if they had not partaken of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In order for them to be able to have children, gain new knowledge, etc, they had to eat of the fruit.

5- With their choice to partake of the fruit, the "Fall" was initiated. This entailed the transformation of their physical bodies from the "Terrestrial State" to the "Telestial" so that they could begin to bear children with mortal bodies. All creation fell from a condition of "utopia" to the chaos, decay, violence of the "natural" world. This enabled the remainder of the host of spirit children to come into the world through the process of "natural birth."

 

I don't doubt that the material to form the proto-earth came from other parts of the universe and gravity pulled the particles together.  But...the whole idea of this earth being chunks of older creations from other parts of the universe with fossil life forms layered throughout the surface is completely unsupported by all of the earth sciences.  It is completely nonsensical to me.

Completely? Absolutism scares me. We should expect "science" to be open to new interpretations, new evidences, new technology with which to probe deeper into the "unknowns." Numerous questions remain such as the following:

how to explain a supermassive black hole at the distance of over 13B light years where there should only be new star formations:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/25/ancient_fatty_surprises_astroboffins/

"Carbon 14 doesn't lie. Yet 14c is everywhere it shouldn't be. Unless from a secondary source, like contamination or neutron capture, anything millions of years old should have NO Carbon-14. However diamonds are virtually impervious to contamination, and the world's vast fossil fuel deposits are not radioactive. Therefore neutron capture and contamination cannot explain the significant quantities of radiocarbon in such specimens. (Confused? See rsr.org/14c.) Yet scientists consistently find C-14, as reported in 2011 in the journal PLoS One for an allegedly 80-million year old mosasaur, and as reported elsewhere in natural gas, limestone, fossil wood, coal, oil, graphite, marble, ten dinosaurs, and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds."

 

I am not willing to toss out everything we know from science to enable myself to try to fit my mind into a strict, narrow view of scripture.  I just don't and can't think that way (and don't even want to).  I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy.

I am NEVER unhappy with science. I just know that science is ALWAYS progressing and new knowledge should always come to light.

[katherine the great]

 

 

I very much appreciate your response and willingness to patiently engage in this "mini-debate." I would like to present to you a sequence of events based on my understanding of the scriptures and ask for your impressions and perspectives on the following:

1- we were "intelligences" of some kind. Already "eternal" without a beginning.

2- we agreed to become spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Called the pre-existence.

3- we all progressed in different ways and in different degrees with different talents but eventually we came to a point where we could no longer progress as fast as before. Then God presented to us a "Plan of Happiness/Redemption/Atonement/Judgement/Exaltation" in a fantastical laboratory called "Earth" where we can learn and prove ourselves. At that stage we only had spirit bodies.

4- After having prepared this "laboratory" (Earth in the "Terrestrial State"), God chose Adam and Eve to be the First Parents and provided physical immortal bodies for them. Since God could not directly initiate the Fall without violating the Law of Justice, He gave a set of commands such as (a) be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth, (b) "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." A&E could not keep both commands without breaking one or the other.  Mutually exclusive.  It was up to them to make that choice. They would have remained in "paradise" forever and unchanging if they had not partaken of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In order for them to be able to have children, gain new knowledge, etc, they had to eat of the fruit.

5- With their choice to partake of the fruit, the "Fall" was initiated. This entailed the transformation of their physical bodies from the "Terrestrial State" to the "Telestial" so that they could begin to bear children with mortal bodies. All creation fell from a condition of "utopia" to the chaos, decay, violence of the "natural" world. This enabled the remainder of the host of spirit children to come into the world through the process of "natural birth."

Yes.  I believe that is the standard interpretation of LDS scripture.  I don't claim to know the mind of God and heavenly phenomena are a mystery to me, but I don't think it is nearly as simple as all that.  Natural phenomena are much easier for me to deal with and I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans (although perhaps the first covenant humans) or that there was no death in the world before 6000 bc or that they literally ate a piece of fruit that caused them miraculously to become human.  Frankly, I don't believe in a literal Noah's ark either.

 

 

Completely? Absolutism scares me. We should expect "science" to be open to new interpretations, new evidences, new technology with which to probe deeper into the "unknowns."

What I said is that the scenario you proposed is completely unsupported by earth science and it is.  This is not "Absolutism". Science is open to new evidence, but it has to be subjected to the scientific method. I can't think of any way to do that with such an idea but maybe someone can figure it out.

 

 

how to explain a supermassive black hole at the distance of over 13B light years where there should only be new star formations:

I have no idea.  I'm not an astrophysicist.  (Are you?)

 

 

"Carbon 14 doesn't lie. Yet 14c is everywhere it shouldn't be. Unless from a secondary source, like contamination or neutron capture, anything millions of years old should have NO Carbon-14. However diamonds are virtually impervious to contamination, and the world's vast fossil fuel deposits are not radioactive. Therefore neutron capture and contamination cannot explain the significant quantities of radiocarbon in such specimens. (Confused? See rsr.org/14c.) Yet scientists consistently find C-14, as reported in 2011 in the journal PLoS One for an allegedly 80-million year old mosasaur, and as reported elsewhere in natural gas, limestone, fossil wood, coal, oil, graphite, marble, ten dinosaurs, and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds."

If I could see the actual journal article I might be able to respond to this.  What is the name and the author of the article and I can look it up.

 

 

I am NEVER unhappy with science. I just know that science is ALWAYS progressing and new knowledge should always come to light.

I agree.  All scientists agree with that.  But I don't think it works in the way you seem to think it works.

[longview]

Yes.  I believe that is the standard interpretation of LDS scripture.  I don't claim to know the mind of God and heavenly phenomena are a mystery to me, but I don't think it is nearly as simple as all that.  Natural phenomena are much easier for me to deal with and

I guess we will part ways here. Different perspectives.

 

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans (although perhaps the first covenant humans) or that there was no death in the world before 6000 bc or that they literally ate a piece of fruit that caused them miraculously to become human.  Frankly, I don't believe in a literal Noah's ark either.

Your perspective on the "Fall" does not make sense to me.

 

What I said is that the scenario you proposed is completely unsupported by earth science and it is.  This is not "Absolutism". Science is open to new evidence, but it has to be subjected to the scientific method. I can't think of any way to do that with such an idea but maybe someone can figure it out.

I have no idea.  I'm not an astrophysicist.  (Are you?)

No, just someone that had a very enjoyable 30-year career in computer programming. I love to read. Science is one of my favorite topics. I am sure you have the brainpower to mull over the question of a mature giant black hole appearing so soon after the Big Bang.

 

If I could see the actual journal article I might be able to respond to this.  What is the name and the author of the article and I can look it up.

I agree.  All scientists agree with that.  But I don't think it works in the way you seem to think it works.

I had trouble zeroing in on the article in the journal. This is the best I could do. May not be the right one.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020834

[TheSkepticChristian]

your perspective on the "Fall" does not make sense to me.

 

It is okay, the evidence does not care about what makes sense to you. The evidence for common descent  is clear and irrefutable.  

[longview]

It is okay, the evidence does not care about what makes sense to you. The evidence for common descent  is clear and irrefutable.  

That is the problem you are having.  You think everything is "cut and dried" not realizing that most of cosmology, earth sciences, planet formations, etc are dependent on a tremendous amount of assumptions and conjectures.  There are a LOT more unknowns than certainties.  Your "evidence" is only being interpreted very narrowly.  You are unwilling to admit that there could be many more ways of interpreting the "facts".  The fossil record is actually pretty sketchy and discontinuous.

 

Are you willing to consider the question of why there is a mature giant black hole over 13 billion light years away?  So soon after the supposed Big Bang?

[ERayR]

It is okay, the evidence does not care about what makes sense to you. The evidence for common descent  is clear and irrefutable.  

 

Clear and irrefutable?  Is that like as in 'my mind is made up and nothing can change it'?  Does that seem like a scientific method or answer to you?