Byu Professor Says Mormons Can Believe In Evolution

[halconero]

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).

 

Heh...the more I study that overview the more I realize that it's primarily related to the spiritual creation and planning of the earth. Both the Pearl of Great Price, the Hebrew scriptures, and the Endowment (if you listen closely) indicate that the 6 day period has almost nothing to do with the the physical creation of the earth. Our overview with that is actually much more limited to what is essentially "God did it."

[Gray]

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?

 

Well, it sounds like your problems with evolution are at least partially philosophical. Shouldn't the question be, what does the evidence say? 

 

Maybe God is what God is, regardless of what we think God should be. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Gray

[Zakuska]

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

 

Pretty much everything they sited as proof and overlapping evidence has been proven to have been fabricated. The main scientists themselves studying the fossils and fabricated the "evidence" no longer think this proves whale evolution.

 

Brief Summary:Two scientists supplied the top museums in the world (AMNH, Carnegie, Smithsonian, NHM London, National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, Paris Natural History Museum, Naturalis Museum, Netherlands, Museo Storia Naturale di Pisa and many more) with “fossils” of walking whales, but it has now been revealed in television interviews that these “fossils” were made up. In exclusive interviews with these two scientists, they admitted (on camera) they attached whale body parts (flukes, blowholes, or fins) to land animals and supplied these altered fossils and diagrams to museums.

...

Finally, according to Dr. Werner, Dr. Thewissen also retracted his statement that Ambulocetus had a key feature, a whale-like ear bone called a sigmoid process. For scientists, this important part cinched the idea that Ambulocetus was a whale in the first place. Dr. Werner: “The ear bone of Ambulocetus looks nothing like a whale ear bone. What he called a sigmoid process does not look like a whale sigmoid process. Surprisingly, in our interview, Dr. Thewissen changed his position and suggested that the ear bone of Ambulocetus looked more like a mole rat ear bone. You see, all eight characters he reported as whale features are disturbingly non-whale characters.”

...

He then created a walking-whale skull with a blowhole from these few fragments found and supplied this full skull to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, The Natural History Museum in London and to the television producers of the 2009 National Geographic special When Whales Had Legs. He also supplied artistic drawings of this animal with flippers and whale ears and neck. According to Dr. Werner, “The fossil casts of the skull and the drawings of Pakicetus had substitutions of a blowhole, flippers, and whale ears on the skull models and paintings currently used by museums.” These institutions did not make clear to the public what parts of the skull (American Museum of Natural History and the London Museum) or full body paintings (Natural History Museum London) were made up. Later, in a turn of events of which few museum curators seem to be aware, a full skeleton of this animal was later found in 2001. Contrary to what Dr. Gingerich had imagined, there was no blowhole on the nearly complete skull (only a nose like an ordinary land mammal); there were no flippers (only hooves); and there was no whale neck (just a long skinny neck typical for land mammals). Even so, the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the false skull with a blowhole.

 

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

Edited October 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Dr. Carl Werner is a minister in Creation Ministries.

[jkwilliams]

Pretty much everything they sited as proof and overlapping evidence has been proven to have been fabricated. The main scientists themselves studying the fossils and fabricated the evidence) no longer think this proves whale evolution.

 

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

I hesitate to make a judgment based on a single youtube video, but assuming you're correct about this one piece of evidence being fabricated, I again ask if you think that invalidates all the evidence in favor of evolution. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I sometimes get the feeling you're a young-earth creationist, but then I honestly don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it would have to take a lot more than some faked whale bones (again, assuming your assessment is correct) to call into question the overwhelming and consistent evidence in favor of evolution. That said, I'm not going to debate evolutionary theory and evidence with you, just wanted to know where you're coming from.

[Zakuska]

Dr. Carl Werner is a minister in Creation Ministries.

 

Yes that he is but the man in the video (Dr. Thewissen who has been studying Ambulocetus for years) is not a creationist and he admitting he fabricated evidence on video and gave these fraudulent fossils to Museums all over the world. And now these fabricated fossils are enshrined in High School and College textbooks the world over. The 8 things he said were distinctly Whale Characteristics in Ambulocetus no longer are. He no longer thinks Ambulocetus fits in the "whale" family tree and is closer related to Mole rats than whales.

 

Looks like they are going to have to rename the "Walking Whales" DOH!

 

I hesitate to make a judgment based on a single youtube video, but assuming you're correct about this one piece of evidence being fabricated, I again ask if you think that invalidates all the evidence in favor of evolution. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I sometimes get the feeling you're a young-earth creationist, but then I honestly don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it would have to take a lot more than some faked whale bones (again, assuming your assessment is correct) to call into question the overwhelming and consistent evidence in favor of evolution. That said, I'm not going to debate evolutionary theory and evidence with you, just wanted to know where you're coming from.

 

 

No I'm not a young earth creationist but I'm no evolutionist either. (Keeping my options open in search of the truth)

Edited October 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[phaedrus ut]

I know many faithful member of the church that believe in evolution.  Most take a non-literal view to the creation narrative from the scriptures and the temple to reconcile any conflicts.  I don't believe a literal view of the LDS creation story is compatible with evolutionary biology.

 

 

Phaedrus

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Pretty much everything they sited as proof and overlapping evidence has been proven to have been fabricated. The main scientists themselves studying the fossils and fabricated the "evidence" no longer think this proves whale evolution.

 

wow you converted me to creationism. Good job with your brilliant arguments. You are a man of great wisdom. 

Hallelujah I am born again 

 

 

You are out of line with the personal jabs. - Ares

Edited October 29, 2015 by Ares

[Zakuska]

St. Louis Missouri April 7, 2014. Whales with four legs, walking on land, are currently considered one of the best fossil proofs of evolution 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, (click on numbers to see footnotes) but now this evidence has collapsed according to science documentary maker Dr. Carl Werner. After interviewing the two scientists who reconstructed the fossils of the three famous walking whales, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, Dr. Werner has concluded that scientists created false models of these skeletons and skulls and passed them off to museums. The made-up models are currently on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo, the Paris Natural History Museum, the Naturalis Museum in Leiden, Netherlands, the Museo Storia Naturale di Pisa, the Canadian Museum of Nature, and the Melbourne Museum in Australia. Also, the website of the Natural History Museum of London currently displays a false skull and model, painfully reminding British scientists that they have another Piltdown in their midst.

Dr. Werner documented that blowholes were added to skeletal models of the walking whales Pakicetus and Ambulocetus even though fossil evidence of the blowhole region had not been found; a whale’s tail (fluke) was added to the walking whale Rodhocetus except no tail fossils had been found; and front fins were added to the walking whales Rodhocetus and Pakicetus when fossils of fins did not exist. According to Dr. Werner, “The two scientists who found the lion’s share of walking whale fossils essentially created the best fossil proof of evolution using plaster models and drawings and supplied these to museums and science magazines. In each case, they started with incomplete fossils of a land mammal. Whenever a fossil part was missing, they substituted a whale body part (blowholes, fins and flukes) on the skeletal model or skull that they distributed to museums. When these same scientists later found fossils negating their original interpretations, they did not recall the plaster models or drawings. Now museums are full of skulls and skeletons of ‘walking whales’ that are simply false.” Dr. Werner went on to say, “I suspect some curators are not aware of the significance of these substitutions nor are they aware of the updated fossils. Museums should now remove all of the altered skeletons, skulls and drawings since the most important parts of these ‘walking whales’ are admittedly made up. Museums will also have to delete these images from their websites as they are misleading the public.”

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is a fact. The exact lines of how it proceeded is open to discussion. IE; For years Piltdown man was considered an early ancestor of modern man. This proved to be false, and a fraud.

[Zakuska]

Evolution is a fact. The exact lines of how it proceeded is open to discussion. IE; For years Piltdown man was considered an early ancestor of modern man. This proved to be false, and a fraud.

 

So has the Walking Whale "Evidence".

Edited October 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Specific incidents and evidences don't prove or negate evolutionary theory.  (It is a theory not a law).

 

Trying to put spiritual truth, historical truth, and scientific truth in opposition demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the whole truth.

 

I don't ascribe inerrancy to man's understanding of anything.  I also don't think we are required to swallow whole any mortal interpretation of anything, or assume the knowledge we have now is complete or entirely accurate.

[Maestrophil]

It's one of the things I love about my faith - or my membership in the Church, rather - that I can believe in evolution or not, a global flood or not, etc. and still retain my temple recommend.  I have not seen very many (if any) active, organized faiths that allow for such mental freedom as Mormonism.  Especially when I look at statements of the founder and early leaders, I see a lot of room for personal theories and pet ideas, as long as you do not try to claim that you have gained knowledge others should adopt...

 

Edited to add - to keep this on topic - I really do not see a lot of problems with believing that evolution of some kind was part of a Heavenly Scientist's plan to create life on Earth

Edited October 29, 2015 by Maestrophil

[Bomgeography]

I don't believe that humans can from monkies

[Buckeye]

I don't believe that humans can from monkies

 

Of course not. We can because we learned it from Home, Family, and Personal Enrichment Night (or whatever it's called these days). Now, the "can can" - that we probably got from monkeys. 

[cinepro]

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.

 

Well, to be fair, Elder Holland also believes this:

 

America is such a place, but of course it wasn’t always called America nor has it always been identified by a distinctive continental shape. Originally it was simply a portion of that large, single land mass which God in his creative process called “Earth” and which, when completed, was pronounced “good.” (Gen. 1:10.) Whatever its name and geographical configuration, however, it was from the beginning a land of divinity as well as a land of destiny.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

 

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

 

 

A Promised Land

[Buckeye]

Well, to be fair, Elder Holland also believes this:

 

In fairness, Elder Holland was not an apostle at the time he wrote that. He was only the Church Commissioner of Education.

[jkwilliams]

In fairness, Elder Holland was not an apostle at the time he wrote that. He was only the Church Commissioner of Education.

 

But it was approved by correlation, meaning that the church considers it consistent with doctrine.

[cinepro]

In fairness, Elder Holland was not an apostle at the time he wrote that. He was only the Church Commissioner of Education.

 

You say that like it's a good thing that the Church Commissioner of Education believed the continents split sometime in the scriptural time frame of the history of mankind.

 

But yes, I'm sure the moment he was ordained an Apostle, his scripturally-based views on the history of North America suddenly changed to become more aligned with secular theories and he just hasn't thought to mention it in the last 20 years, or even ask LDS.org to take down his heartfelt but mistaken theories expressed in 1976.

Edited October 29, 2015 by cinepro

[Avatar4321]

I didn't realize I needed anyone's permission to believe or disbelieve evolution.

The Lord hasn't shown me how life was created. In fact He has revealed very little information about the creation process to me. The little He has revealed is just a drop in the bucket of what there is and what He someday will show me. It doesn't matter to me what we believe in regard to that as long as we have faith in Christ and repent.

Because when we do we get the Spirit to show us more and more and someday we will all agree.

[HappyJackWagon]

Regarding the poll; I'm pretty darn surprised that at this point with more than50 people taking the poll over 90% say that a faithful member can believe in evolution.

 

I'm not arguing. That's how I voted. But I am surprised for this board.

[KevinG]

Regarding the poll; I'm pretty darn surprised that at this point with more than50 people taking the poll over 90% say that a faithful member can believe in evolution.

 

I'm not arguing. That's how I voted. But I am surprised for this board.

 

Why does this surprise you?

[CV75]

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 can understand why they would, from this teaching, also feel the Gospel and evolutionary theory simply serve two different purposes, and only a disproportionate credulity in the conclusions of the arm of flesh imposes doctrinal connections that aren’t necessarily there.

 

But like not eating meat sparingly, “misprioritizing” beliefs and even truths might only result in less “wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures” than otherwise might be enjoyed (hence “adequately appreciate”). There is no expectation or condition for worthiness in connection with beliefs about Adam’s actuality or evolutionary theory’s role in his actuality – what we do with the light and knowledge we possess is strictly the Lord's call.

[HappyJackWagon]

Why does this surprise you?

Because if I were to poll my ward I'd likely get 90% the other direction.

[strappinglad]

To follow jks color palate analogy, I certainly agree that a slow drop by drop adding of one color will eventually change the original. The problem is that evolution is presented as an " unguided " process, and therefore there will be forces that add other colors to the original and mess up the slow movement sited. What force is constantly making only a specific choice of color to be added ? Natural selection you say? Sorry, but natural selection is insufficient to hold a pattern of change over eons that would make a flipper a foot. What is needed is new information in the genome, and if you think that bacteria/virus can transfer foot making DNA into a flippered creature, I would need to see the actual documentation.