Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[oremites]

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

[Teancum]

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".

Evolution borders on fact.

[Meadowchik]

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

Yup, good point

[janderich]

My Dad had a library of books written by Apostles and Prophets. One of the topics he occasionally commented on was evolution. He referred to the book by Joseph Fielding Smith, "Man: His Origin and Destiny". As most know, the book was heavily opposed to evolution. For my Dad, this decided the issue. As a teenager I read a fair portion of the book and assumed it was the church's stance on the matter and the word of the Lord. 
 
While in the MTC I had a companion who believed in evolution and we had a number of discussions about it. We couldn't agree, and I thought he did not listen to the Brothren as he should. Not until after my mission did it really enter my thinking again. From the internet I learned that the church was not opposed to evolution, but rather took no stance. I decided it merited more research. I read a little book entitled, "Why Evolution is True". It provided an overview of the evidence and I found it compelling. I pondered on the issue and after consideration changed my stance. I now believe in evolution. I don't know exactly how it fits with the Adam and Eve story but I know we will find out one day. 
 
I have since found what David O. McKay once said compelling, "‎I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 46).

[strappinglad]

Evolution is change over time , ie. a fully functioning land animal becomes a fully functioning sea animal in about 15 million years.

Evolution is no change over time , ie. fossils of turtles and others are found in rocks dated 200 million years old and are essentially the same as those found today, even though they have been subject to random genetic mutations and environmental forces like every other species.

Evolution is the development of such complex features as eyes and wings in many different creatures, by chance mind you, and in very different environs, because evolution is ' convergent' .

If evolution is the ability of a species to adjust beak form to compensate for food changes , fine. If it has everything to do with changing a rodent into a chimp, well, I lack the faith.

[Rivers]

I actually grew up with the idea that evolution was part of God's creation process.  The issue never bugged me until I became familiar with the views of McConkie and JFS that I heard a lot in seminary.  I remember having a lot of cognitive dissonance between the history of the earth that I learned in church and the history of the earth that I learned in science class.  This evolution issue almost kept me from going on my mission. It drove me nuts for several years.  But I think I have finally moved on.  I have enough faith in the important aspects of the gospel that I don't need to worry too much about evolution.

 

I definitely believe that a faithful mormon can believe in evolution.  Many mormons believe in evolution. I do, however, believe that it is not something that should be preached as doctrine.  The 1909 statement called evolution the "theories of men."  That's is exacly what evolution is.  It is theories of men that have a lot overwhelming evidence.  So I embrace evolution and remain agnostic as to how exactly Adam and Eve fit into everything.  But I have my hypotheses.

 

I feel mormon theology does provide room to accept evolution. The rejection of creation ex nihlo and the teaching that creation is the organizing of chaotic matter fits perfecly with an old earth and evolution.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Rivers

[Buckeye]

My Dad had a library of books written by Apostles and Prophets. One of the topics he occasionally commented on was evolution. He referred to the book by Joseph Fielding Smith, "Man: His Origin and Destiny". As most know, the book was heavily opposed to evolution. For my Dad, this decided the issue. As a teenager I read a fair portion of the book and assumed it was the church's stance on the matter and the word of the Lord. 

 

While in the MTC I had a companion who believed in evolution and we had a number of discussions about it. We couldn't agree, and I thought he did not listen to the Brothren as he should. Not until after my mission did it really enter my thinking again. From the internet I learned that the church was not opposed to evolution, but rather took no stance. I decided it merited more research. I read a little book entitled, "Why Evolution is True". It provided an overview of the evidence and I found it compelling. I pondered on the issue and after consideration changed my stance. I now believe in evolution. I don't know exactly how it fits with the Adam and Eve story but I know we will find out one day. 

 

I have since found what David O. McKay once said compelling, "‎I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 46).

 

I've read this too. A very good book. And an appropriate title for LDS - though we're not uniquely the target audience.

[jkwilliams]

If evolution is the ability of a species to adjust beak form to compensate for food changes , fine. If it has everything to do with changing a rodent into a chimp, well, I lack the faith.

I think of it this way: Imagine a color palette, such as this one:

http://www.rapidtables.com/web/color/RGB_Color.htm

If I start at red (RGB value 255/0/0) and add a little green (say, 255/1/0) I can't tell the difference between the two just by looking at it. In fact, if I keep adding 1 to the green value, I don't really notice a difference until it reaches about 20-25, and even then, it's a pretty small difference. If we keep adding 1 to the green value, it eventually turns an orange. At a green value of 50 or so, it doesn't look red anymore. Most people understand that red can change to orange over time. This is analogous to "microevolution," or the "adjustment" of traits within a species.

But we're not done with our palette. If we keep increasing the green value, by 90 we have a lighter orange that seems less saturated with red, even though red is still at its maximum value. Increasing the green to 150 yields a color like that of a school bus. By 180 or so, we have a shade of yellow. Maximizing the green value to 255 yields a primary yellow, and indeed the value for "true" yellow on the RGB scale is 255/255/0. But, wait a minute: the red value is still at its maximum, as is the green value, yet we see no visible red or green. It's hard for our brains to understand how we got from red to yellow, but we saw the whole process. Each incremental change followed another, and we can see exactly how red turned to yellow. This is the same as "macroevolution," or the supposed "leap" between species.

It's not that difficult to understand, though. Just as red can turn to yellow, lobe-finned fish, which have two pairs of fins in the same position as a tetrapod's legs, can evolve into tetrapods. Along that evolutionary path, however, the changes may be no more significant than incrementally adding 1 to the green value in the example I gave. For example, Acanthostega used its fins to paddle through shallow water, but they are still fins. At some point, however, enough differences have accumulated that it is obviously not the same as the fish we started with. Tiktaalik is still a fish, but it has some features, such as a primitive wrist joint and a stronger rib cage, that suggest it was able to crawl onto land. Next comes Ichthyostega, which had joints in both pairs of limbs, suggesting it could fully support its weight. The rib cage is big and strong, suggesting it could breathe out of water. Finally, we see true terrestrial tetrapods, such as Hynerpeton, Greerpeton and Tulerpeton. These animals looked very much like big salamanders, with limbs able to support their weight and drive locomotion, ribcages strong enough to prevent the lungs collapsing, and neck joints which increased the mobility of the head.

As we look at it incrementally, we can see how the changes occurred. We might ask at what point the fish is no longer a fish, but that's irrelevant. It isn't that a fish magically macroevolved into a tetrapod. No, it's that a fish incrementally evolved over millions of years, and when we put what we began with beside the end result (well, there's no end to creation or evolution, is there?), one is a fish, and one is a tetrapod.

[mfbukowski]

Evolution borders on fact.

Northern or Southern border?

I vote for east myself.

[ERayR]

Northern or Southern border?

I vote for east myself.

 

How about the borders of outer darkness.

[jkwilliams]

How about the borders of outer darkness.

Some people say I am a borderline personality, so I can't vote on this.

[ERayR]

Some people say I am a borderline personality, so I can't vote on this.

 

That goes for me too.  They just can't figure out which line I border.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

Elder Holland says that a person must believe in an actual Adam and Eve and an actual garden and and actual fall to have a true testimony of the atonement of Christ. So we can argue about what each of those "actual" things are but to Holland, even though he acknowledges he doesn't know exactly how the creation worked for him it culminates in a literal origin story for the beginning of mankind. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but his talk is less than a year old and seems to take a pretty hard line on it.

 

With recent teachings like this I can certainly understand why members would feel the gospel and evolution are incompatible.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Elder Holland says that a person must believe in an actual Adam and Eve and an actual garden and and actual fall to have a true testimony of the atonement of Christ. 

 

and why do you have to point that out? That helps creationism, it stops progress. 

 

It is possible for Christians to believe in Adam and Eve and Homo sapiens before Adam. 

[Buckeye]

Elder Holland says that a person must believe in an actual Adam and Eve and an actual garden and and actual fall to have a true testimony of the atonement of Christ. So we can argue about what each of those "actual" things are but to Holland, even though he acknowledges he doesn't know exactly how the creation worked for him it culminates in a literal origin story for the beginning of mankind. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but his talk is less than a year old and seems to take a pretty hard line on it.

 

With recent teachings like this I can certainly understand why members would feel the gospel and evolution are incompatible.

 

I'm not sure that we should assume the other apostles take the same view. Consider that just as recently Elder Oaks spoke to female ordination and said that the brethren cannot change the current restriction because doing so would require the bestowal of additional keys currently lacking. Fast-forward to the new essay on women and priesthood and we see no mention of that teaching (or any other explanation for the restriction other than 19th century culture) - even though the essay cites to Elder Oaks' address for other points.

[Zakuska]

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

 

Did you watch the first video?  The "Scientists" completely made the supposed transition up out of whole cloth. Since the initial claim that they had found the missing link which definitively proved whale evolution (even though the entire tail section and arms were missing from the fossils that they had) they went ahead and made the claim anyways. Since that time more fossils have been found and the Animal they said proved the transition, instead of having fins like they had assumed, actually turned out to have paws and claws instead of flippers and a tail with no fluke like they had drawn on the plaque in the museum of Natural History.

[jkwilliams]

Did you watch the first video?  The "Scientists" completely made the supposed transition up out of whole cloth. Since the initial claim that they had found the missing link which definitively proved whale evolution (even though the entire tail section and arms were missing from the fossils that they had) they went ahead and made the claim anyways. Since that time more fossils have been found and the Animal they said proved the transition, instead of having fins like they had assumed, actually turned out to have paws and claws instead of flippers and a tail with no fluke like they had drawn on the plaque in the museum of Natural History.

So, that totally invalidates all the evidence of evolution? Are you suggesting that all the other overlapping evidence is fraudulent? Really?

[HappyJackWagon]

and why do you have to point that out? That helps creationism, it stops progress. 

 

It is possible for Christians to believe in Adam and Eve and Homo sapiens before Adam. 

1- I pointed it out because I wanted to

2- No, it doesn't really help creationism but it does lend an apostles weight to the idea

3- Sure. Can you explain how this works? Here's my best shot. Homo sapiens evolve to the point where God is willing to call them his children so he takes the 2 hottest & strongest to begin populating the planet with his children and sticks them in the garden. All the pre-adamites die off, probably from the ice age or something while Adam and Eve live blissfully in the protected garden until 6000 years ago. So we can see that evolution and a literal Adam and Eve fit perfectly together within the gospel context.

 

OR...

Adam, Eve, Garden, Fall are allegorical.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2- No, it doesn't really help creationism but it does lend an apostles weight to the idea

 

LDS that already believe in creationism will increase their faith in creationism after reading your comments. 

You are helping creationism. 

 

3- Sure. Can you explain how this works? 

 

I don't care how it works for the person, there are thousands of possibilities. All you need is a creative mind.   

I am simply saying that it is not good to keep repeating creationist ideas taught by LDS leaders, they need to go away. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

I let the Restored Gospel tell me why God did it, and science to tell me how he did it.

[jkwilliams]

I let the Restored Gospel tell me why God did it, and science to tell me how he did it.

That's the right answer, IMO. The inability to reconcile organic evolution with the teachings of the church is a result of a fundamentalist, strictly literal reading of the scriptures. Except for my youthful infatuation with Joseph Fielding Smith's views, that never made sense to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

LDS that already believe in creationism will increase their faith in creationism after reading your comments. 

You are helping creationism. 

 

 

I don't care how it works for the person, there are thousands of possibilities. All you need is a creative mind.   

I am simply saying that it is not good to keep repeating creationist ideas taught by LDS leaders, they need to go away. 

If it works for them I have no problem with it. I'm merely bringing up Holland's talk. I don't fool myself into thinking my opinion will help or hurt anyones testimony. I don't have that kind of pull.

I also don't feel the need to require everyone to believe the same way I do

[longview]

I let the Restored Gospel tell me why God did it, and science to tell me how he did it.

God has given us a great overview (although He has chosen NOT to give us all the details so that we can walk in faith).

 

Science gives us many tantalizing clues in addition to the great improvements in bettering our quality of life (but it is still stumbling around in the dark on some topics and we are still struggling mightily with choosing among many possible interpretations of the data in many fields).

[CV75]

Having a biology degree myself, and making my living among clinicians and scientists my entire career, I’ve found that a belief in and use of evolutionary theory has a practical role in some aspects of mastering the physical world.

 

Also having a testimony of the Gospel, my view is that the theory’s proper place in one's life has to be managed individually so as not to supplant faith, whether mine or someone else’s. I take the LDS official statements against it in the context of preventing the undermining of spiritual truths, which may be conveyed literally or figuratively with equal legitimacy and confirmation of the Holy Ghost, and which for all we know play out in the actual, physical world as well as in our hearts and minds.

 

The Church and the Gospel are so big, and a mortal is so limited, that there is plenty of room for a person to be a faithful member in some areas and not others, but I think the point is to progress so as to become faithful in all things in which the Lord will judge us.

Edited October 29, 2015 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Longview:

I agree. However what little we do know we do know.

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/