Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Evolution And The Restoration: Can They Be Reconciled?

thesometimesaint

By thesometimesaint
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted (edited)

Imho, question one needs to be changed to "reconcilable" in order to grammatically fit the selections. Here they are from the thread:

Quote


    1. Is Darwinian evolution irreconcilable with revealed religion?
        Yes, evolution is a creative process like the formation of stars and planets.
        No. No matter how one tries to force it, it's still a square peg in a round hole.
        I don't know.
    2. If Darwinian evolution is FACT, does it negate the existence of Adam?
        Yes. Adam and Eve is a myth.
        No.
        I don't know.
    3. If Adam and Eve and the fall of man are a myth, does this negate the need for a Savior and Redeemer?
        Yes, if Adam did not fall, there is no need of a Redeemer.
        No, man is still in a corrupt state and is in need of salvation.
        Yes. The idea of a fallen man and a fallen world is all religious drivel.
        I don't know.

My answers:

1) Evolution is completely and thoroughly reconcilable with LDS official doctrine on the creation.  It fails with a global Flood circa 2400-3000 BC.  I personally accept a local Flood whereas the official doctrine of the LDS Church is a global Flood.

2) Evolution does NOT negate Adam and Eve or the Fall.  The Church even accepts the possibility of pre-Adamite races of man in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement.

3) Adam and Eve and the Fall cannot be a myth else the LDS Church (and most christianity) is not true.  Details about the whole Adam and Eve/Garden/Fall can be mythological or allegorical though.  LDS doctrine even has the rib story as being figurative.

Edited by BCSpace
Correction and Clarification
strappinglad Grand Master

strappinglad

Posted
Posted

A couple of thoughts. In the second question I would prefer a straight Yes , no, don't know, answer choice. We often equate myth with LIE. I suspect that much myth and legend is based on reality to some extent .( yes mfb I know about reality's fuzziness). I find evolution as presented by Darwinians as a purely materialistic , unguided process that happens by random mutation and sustained by natural selection to be wholely inadequate to explain the world of life .For me it is statistically impossible. Variation within a species or perhaps a genus I can see. Changing a cow-like beast into a whale in 10 million years  requires way too much faith on my part.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

A couple of thoughts. In the second question I would prefer a straight Yes , no, don't know, answer choice. We often equate myth with LIE. I suspect that much myth and legend is based on reality to some extent .( yes mfb I know about reality's fuzziness). I find evolution as presented by Darwinians as a purely materialistic , unguided process that happens by random mutation and sustained by natural selection to be wholely inadequate to explain the world of life .For me it is statistically impossible. Variation within a species or perhaps a genus I can see. Changing a cow-like beast into a whale in 10 million years  requires way too much faith on my part.

Myth doesn't necessarily mean lie. King Arthur, of round table fame, more than likely existed. The stories that grew up around him not so much.

Science is materialistic. We can't posit any thing other than matter and energy onto science and still have it be science.

Speciation has been demonstrated in nature and in the lab. Get over it.

No scientist claims that cows evolved into whales. They both have a common ancestor.

BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

Now in a certified place of learning like BYU, should Darwinian evolution be taught as a theory, a fact, or both? And if taught as fact, should or professors of religion also be teaching that Adam and Eve and the fall of man also is FACT?

I've watched the FairLDS videos of Steven Peck on evolution and am unclear as to his views. Certainly he has expertise in this field, but as a priesthood holder, he's also a priest of the Most High. Does he have to wear one hat during his lectures at school and another hat when he addresses the saints in his latter capacity, or can he wear both at the same time? 

Man was made in the image of GOD. It's a proven design that doesn't need working up to. It just is. If Darwin began with a premise of intelligent design as we LDS understand it, would his theory still have been workable? And today, if we interject God into the equation, can we explain the findings of anthropologists that are currently used to sustain Darwinian evolution? 

What are your thoughts?

Evolution should be taught as a Theory, which means it's backed up by scientific facts.  If so taught, then yes, LDS professors should still teach LDS doctrine that Adam and Eve were real people and the Fall is a fact.  Evolution does not preclude it and there is no conflict between them.

I've not seen or read anything by Steven Peck, but I am secure and confident in my own explanations/interpretations to the point that I believe am I in harmony with any Gospel teachings on the matter except for the aforementioned local vs global Flood and I believe I can rationally explain that as well.  Whatever Peck says, an LDS acceptor of Evolution does not have to wear a different hat on Sunday.  He or she can proudly stand up and proclaim "I believe in and have a testimony of the LDS God, His Church, I accept all doctrine on the creation, and I accept or believe that Evolution/Big Bang was the process He used to create us."

Of course man is made in the image of God.  How does that preclude Evolution?  Hopefully you are aware that Evolution itself teaches that like produces like and that one species does not beget another species?  Why can't God have used Evolution to create our physical bodies?  The BoA itself even teaches that the gods themselves waited for the elements to obey (Abraham 4:18).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BCSpace
Typos
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted

I think they can be reconciled by anyone who decides it is important to do so (and with all that has come forth since its inception, "Darwinism" and "evolution" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people). We all make choices about what is important and more or most important to do with our time, talents and testimony.

strappinglad Grand Master

strappinglad

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

No scientist claims that cows evolved into whales. They both have a common ancestor.

OK , maybe tapir -like but still.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=whale+evolution&view=detailv2&qpvt=whale+evolution&id=D0298AC94C1A53B22B045D56482BC8B908975360&selectedIndex=1&ccid=PkGPXT0h&simid=608038649841651544&thid=OIP.M3e418f5d3d21b123b0cb42e7a50b5f8dH0&ajaxhist=0

Again, I reiterate, all of the supposed changes are not to be guided by anyone or anything . Evolution is not to be taught as having any outside interference. It is totally random , and by that random happenstance genetic changes occur which are fixed in place by natural selection and passed on to succeeding generations. God is to be EXCLUDED , because to include Him is not material and not science.

For those who feel God can be included with evolution instruction, I think they can argue with Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins.

Edited by strappinglad
jboy Newbie

jboy

Posted
Posted

I have no problem reconciling evolution with the gosple.  I also realize how shallow and limited is the knowlegde and understanding of man.  Gods purposes for this life require our full agency, meaning nothing will be absolutely provable for or agaist the existance of God etc.  The gold plates were kept from the world for a reason.  I don't doubt that the evidence of the flood has been hidden from man for the same reason.  We are absolutely required to use faith.  Thats such a central purpose for our being here in this "inbetween" place that was dedigned for our testing.   It is my opinion that most of the debates on this site could benefit from keeping this perspective in mind.  

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

OK , maybe tapir -like but still.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=whale+evolution&view=detailv2&qpvt=whale+evolution&id=D0298AC94C1A53B22B045D56482BC8B908975360&selectedIndex=1&ccid=PkGPXT0h&simid=608038649841651544&thid=OIP.M3e418f5d3d21b123b0cb42e7a50b5f8dH0&ajaxhist=0

Again, I reiterate, all of the supposed changes are not to be guided by anyone or anything . Evolution is not to be taught as having any outside interference. It is totally random , and by that random happenstance genetic changes occur which are fixed in place by natural selection and passed on to succeeding generations. God is to be EXCLUDED , because to include Him is not material and not science.

For those who feel God can be included with evolution instruction, I think they can argue with Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins.

No not a Tapir.

It doesn't matter to science if you want to believe in God, that he/she/it wanted certain results, just that there is change over time.

Here is what Eugenie Scott herself says about it.

SEE

 

PeterPear Rising Star

PeterPear

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.byui.edu/Documents/instructional_development/Perspective/V4n2/v4n2_ott_s.pdf

I repeat:

The First Presidency has rejected it as theories of men:

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

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain."

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

Sorry, Charles Darwin and all the Evolution scientists combined, have not discovered how man was created. Only God can reveal it.

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

15 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

I repeat:

The First Presidency has rejected it as theories of men:

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

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain."

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

Sorry, Charles Darwin and all the Evolution scientists combined, have not discovered how man was created. Only God can reveal it.

Oh I'm sure they do. Adobe is stronger than granite. The earth is just 7,000 years old. The earth is hollow, and the Lost ten Tribes live there.  :P

I repeat everyone is entitled to believe anything they want. Unfortunately reality gets in the way sometimes.

SEE http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1072023

There is nothing in science that proves or disproves any God. 

Evolution of humans. Here is how it was done. By God if you so believe.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

1
PeterPear Rising Star

PeterPear

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

 

Oh I'm sure they do. Adobe is stronger than granite. The earth is just 7,000 years old. The earth is hollow, and the Lost ten Tribes live there.  :P

I repeat everyone is entitled to believe anything they want. Unfortunately reality gets in the way sometimes.

SEE http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1072023

There is nothing in science that proves or disproves any God. 

Evolution of humans. Here is how it was done. By God if you so believe.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

You think me ignorant?

Have you read Chapters 6 & 9 of Origin of Species written by Darwin himself, where he explains the problems with his own theory?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Chapter 6 - Darwin states - for a start - his theory should predict confusion everywhere with innumerable trasitional forms. But instead nature is not and has well defined species. Bwah ha ha!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Chapter 9 - Darwin has based his theory of evolution on the geological record. Then he claims in Ch 9 the Geological record is imperfect. Bwah ha ha ha!

He then rambles on in explaining these problems away -which means his theory is not scientific and doesn't fit with with observed facts - the very facts he observed himself - making his theory nothing more than a philosophical argument.

As the First Presdency stated, and as anyone can see, it is a theory of man.

BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

As the First Presdency stated, and as anyone can see, it is a theory of man.

The article doesn't say this.  In the article (which is the 1909 statement actually) you reference, it says:

Quote

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.

Evolution is not referenced here, just some conclusions some people make about Evolution.

What works well with LDS doctrine is Evolution being used to create our mortal bodies for our spirits to inhabit.  That means even though Evolution is involved, man is still a literal child of God, created in His image, and not developed from lower orders of the animal creation.

Notice also that these "theories" of men are NOT necessarily considered to be wrong by the article.  In fact, if you were to take the statement "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man on this earth" to mean that for sure, there were no homo sapiens on the earth before Adam, then you would be contradicting the 1931 First Presidency statement which, besides coming after the 1909 statement, explicitly allows for the possibility that there were homo sapiens on the earth before Adam, or, "pre-Adamite races of man".

 

Edited by BCSpace
Clarification
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

You think me ignorant?

Have you read Chapters 6 & 9 of Origin of Species written by Darwin himself, where he explains the problems with his own theory?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Chapter 6 - Darwin states - for a start - his theory should predict confusion everywhere with innumerable trasitional forms. But instead nature is not and has well defined species. Bwah ha ha!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Chapter 9 - Darwin has based his theory of evolution on the geological record. Then he claims in Ch 9 the Geological record is imperfect. Bwah ha ha ha!

He then rambles on in explaining these problems away -which means his theory is not scientific and doesn't fit with with observed facts - the very facts he observed himself - making his theory nothing more than a philosophical argument.

As the First Presdency stated, and as anyone can see, it is a theory of man.

I never said you were ignorant, but if you want to claim it I won't stop you.

Any good scientist will always discuss the limits of his/her theory.

At the time Darwin had no knowledge of genetics which is one of the mechanism driving natural selection.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

Evolution is a well established FACT the explanation of that  fact is the Theory of Evolution.

NAS on Evolution as Theory

SEE http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

AAAS on Evolution

SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450w

You seem to believe that a theory can only come from your God. Sorry that just isn't how science works.

1
DJBrown Rising Star

DJBrown

Posted
Posted

I have a graduate degree in molecular biology.   I have never come across evidence I considered truly compelling for the theory of evolution as taught in universities today.  I am open to such evidence.  I have read many opinions and perspectives on the topic.  I am just not convinced.  And the condescending and self-righteous tones from those teaching evolution in the university environment certainly reinforced my perception of the theory..  

DJBrown Rising Star

DJBrown

Posted
Posted

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is “the express image” of His Father’s person (Heb. 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to Him: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. The conclusion is irresistible, that if the Son of God be the express image (that is, likeness) of His Father’s person, then His Father is in the form of a man; for that was the form of the Son of God, not only during His mortal life, but before His mortal birth, and after His Resurrection. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of 14 years, he received his first vision. Then if God made man—the first man—in His own image and likeness, He must have made him like unto Christ, and consequently like unto men of Christ’s time and of the present day. That man was made in the image of Christ is positively stated in the book of Moses: “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. …"

" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity."

This appeared in statements from the First Presidency in 1909 and in 1925.  It was again published in the Ensign in 2002.  I do not understand how a person could come away from these statements thinking that man evolving from more primitive species is a concept that can be reconciled with the restoration.  

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Evolution is an established fact. The explanations of that fact is the Theory of Evolution. More to the point what other Theories of Man do you have problems with? Germ Theory of Disease, say goodbye to sanitation; Electron Theory, say goodbye to your electronics; The Theory of Gravity, say goodbye to much of the 20th Century; DNA Theory, say goodbye to modern medicine. How many more Theories of Men do you want to get rid of? Please let us know that you want to live in the 5th Century CE.

I'm fine with God using Evolution to Create our bodies in his image. Because that is what the physical evidence shows.

DJBrown Rising Star

DJBrown

Posted
Posted

thesometimesaint,

I assume your post is directed at me?  If so, this is precisely the attitude I was talking about.  Evolution is certainly not an established fact.  Plenty of condescending rhetoric.  No real answers, explanations, or data.

Your comparison doesn't work with germ theory, electron theory (which has evolved very significantly, by the way), and theory of gravity.  What, exactly, has evolutionary theory contributed to modern life that could compare to the others?  

You are making your foremost truth science and God subservient to that.  The statements from the First Presidency are really quite clear- God is the direct, lineal parent of man.  

 

 

 

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The development of vaccines. In fact all of modern medicine is predicated on evolution.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

SEE http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050112

SEE

Ps:

"But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false."

Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Rivers Grand Master

Rivers

Posted
Posted

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121).

The parts of the gospel that conflict with evolution are only appendages.  So I try not to stress  too much about it anymore.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...