Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[Cold Steel]

Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 

On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 

Can anyone help me out?

 

 

 

[sunstoned]

I just reviewed the material, and I have to agree with you.  There is not much real content that supports the title.  BTW, there are many quotes from prophets and apostles that state very clearly the the gospel as understood by the LDS church is incompatible with evolution.  The only people that have problems with that are the apologist.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Cold Steel said:

Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 

On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 

Can anyone help me out?

 

 

 

All good questions with IMNSHO no solid answers.  Personally I have found answers that satisfy me and that is enough for now.  And no my answers do not deny science.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Can anyone help me out?

 

Yes.  I also believe that Evolution is fully compatible with LDS doctrine on the Creation. 

Start with the notion that Evolution was the way that God created our physical bodies and when all was ready, He placed Adam and Eve into the Garden.

That Adam is the first man can be reasoned in a variety of ways.  The first to be born with a spirit that was a literal child of Heavenly Father (my personal favorite).  The first to be subject to the Fall and Atonement.  Etc.  See also the OT Institute manual on what it means to be "first flesh".

2 Nephi 2:22 does not apply the state of no death to the creative period but only to the state after the creation was finished.

Thinking of the timeline: Death and evolution during the Creation, Garden state of no death, The Fall, resumption of death and Evolution.  Notice that the statement "There was no death before the Fall" is true in this timeline.

Evolution does NOT address or preclude the existence of God or that He had a hand in the Creation.

Evolution does NOT teach that one species gives birth to another species.  It teaches that like produces like (see my siggy).

The 1931 First Presidency statement makes it clear that the notion of pre-Adamite races of man is not in opposition to doctrine.

The current Institute OT manual (which is official doctrine) makes it clear that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth. C.f. also the BoA in which the Gods waited for the elements to obey during the creation.

The 1909 (repeated in 2000 or 2001 or so) statement does not come out against Evolution.

One could go with Ussher's chronology like the Church does and think of a 4004 BC Fall.  But I see no actual revelation that this is the correct chronology.  I personally place the Fall at around 8-10,000 BC, the time of the rise of the first civilization; Sumer.

Etc. etc.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by BCSpace
Addition, grammatical

[BCSpace]

Quote

BTW, there are many quotes from prophets and apostles that state very clearly the the gospel as understood by the LDS church is incompatible with evolution.

Almost none that are doctrinal. And most of those don't actually address Evolution, but various atheistic conclusions about Evolution.

[PeterPear]

FAIRLDS does not speak for the Church. It speaks for itself. 

FAIRLDS is a cult. LOL!

Maybe it is time to try out Limited status.

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

 

Evolution does NOT teach that one species gives birth to another species.  It teaches that like produces like (see my siggy).

 

This point is lost on a lot of creationists. There is this misconception that evolution requires a duck to give birth to a fox. Although my mother-in-law gave birth to a real fox and although other members of my wife's family are all warm blooded, my wife is real hot. 

[thesometimesaint]

Science is Agnostic on the question of God.

SEE

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[flameburns623]

Has no one tried to adapt Teilhard de Chardin to an LDS POV.

[ERayR]

Does anybody realize that the conclusions of the practitioners of the doctrine of evolution are not as solidly supported as they would have you believe.  There are other interpretations of the data that fit equally well, and no they do not include a young creation model, that leaves a unique creation of man intact.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Does anybody realize that the conclusions of the practitioners of the doctrine of evolution are not as solidly supported as they would have you believe.  There are other interpretations of the data that fit equally well, and no they do not include a young creation model, that leaves a unique creation of man intact.

There is no "doctrine of evolution" in science. Evolution is a well substantiated scientific theory.

[ERayR]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no "doctrine of evolution" in science. Evolution is a well substantiated scientific theory.

This is what it always boils down to.  A quibble of semantics and I am not here to quibble semantics with you.  If what you believe works for you, well here is three cheers for you.  I don't happen to see things the way you do and I and others consider me a somewhat intelligent fellow, so see no need to change or argue with you at this time.  So to reiterate; If it works for you hang on to it but don't be so insistent that you are right and the rest of us need to change.

[Freedom]

24 minutes ago, ERayR said:

This is what it alway boils  down to.  A quibble of semantics and I am not here to quibble semantics with you. 

I dont think that word means what you think it means. A scientIfic theory is not a doctrine. 

[ERayR]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I dont think that word means what you think it means. A scientIfic theory is not a doctrine. 

It means exactly what I think it means or I know exactly what it means.  As I stated I do not have the time nor inclination to get in a quibbling match over meanings.

[thesometimesaint]

34 minutes ago, ERayR said:

This is what it always boils down to.  A quibble of semantics and I am not here to quibble semantics with you.  If what you believe works for you, well here is three cheers for you.  I don't happen to see things the way you do and I and others consider me a somewhat intelligent fellow, so see no need to change or argue with you at this time.  So to reiterate; If it works for you hang on to it but don't be so insistent that you are right and the rest of us need to change.

Science doesn't care what you or I believe.

Science is Agnostic on the question of God(s).

SEE https://www.quora.com/Is-science-agnostic

1/4 adult Americans believe our sun revolves around the earth. There just is very little to no Empirical Evidence to support that belief.

SEE http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

I am right, and I have the Empirical Evidence to support it, but I don't insist anyone needs to change. Believe in/whatever you want.

[Freedom]

23 minutes ago, ERayR said:

It means exactly what I think it means or I know exactly what it means.  As I stated I do not haveane nor inclination to get in  a quibbling match over meanings.

There is and difference between semantics and making up your own meaning to words that has no basis in fact. Perhaps it would help if you provided a link to  a scientific journal that presents alternative theories.         

 

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 

On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 

Can anyone help me out?

Let’s assume that “man” has been here for millions of years, that Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child are somehow related to us, that “writing” and “language” have  existed for more than 6,000 years, etc.

We can still assume that Adam and Eve lived on this paradisaical earth before the Fall and that all Creation fell, as follows:

The Fall obliterated all paradisaical Creation, initiating all the events and processes that science can explain to reconstitute that Creation and that life in the telestial form(s) that we see in, and with which we view and understand, the Universe today. In the same way that paradise was patterned after the spiritual world, this world is patterned after paradise.  But instead of an “adding upon” to translate from the spirit existence into the paradisaical, we have a reconstitution of the destroyed paradisaical into the temporal. Such a reconstitution of life and this planet, or the entire Universe for that matter, is no different in principle than Jesus raising Lazarus from the tomb or the resurrection, but instead of restoring one grade of life back to its own state, or bringing telestial / mortal life into immortality, the Lord brought terrestrial / paradisaical life into “telestiality” / mortality.

Eventually, Adam, Eve and all the other inhabitants of Eden came on the scene either “naturally” (“evolution”) or through some other “translation” from another place they were taken after the Fall. Either way Adam and Eve were reconstituted as mortal beings by the power of God. Adam’s time was 6,000 years ago. All other life prior to Adam, no matter how it got here (translation or evolution), is no less precious to God, and He has a plan that they are following as well.

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, ERayR said:

Does anybody realize that the conclusions of the practitioners of the doctrine of evolution are not as solidly supported as they would have you believe.  There are other interpretations of the data that fit equally well, and no they do not include a young creation model, that leaves a unique creation of man intact.

"Practitioners of the doctrine of evolution"? Why not just say "quacks" and get it done with. Your qualified definition barely hides your contempt.

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data". 

[longview]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"Practitioners of the doctrine of evolution"? Why not just say "quacks" and get it done with.

I am sure ERayR did not intend that.  I agree with him strongly that many more possible "narratives" can be made on the data.  There are thousands of questions and unknowns for every "fact" that is discovered.  This "narrative" is the only one that will be accepted by academia.  All others will be destroyed (even the ones that are not even "creationist" hypothesis).

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Your qualified definition barely hides your contempt.

It is sad that there is little tolerance for discussions on different scenarios.  This refusal amounts to unscientific behavior.  We must always be on guard against "priest-craft" in any profession.

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data".

I have provided a few.  Such as "photon decay" as a possible alternative to the apparent "red shift" which could negate the "expanding universe" model and also the "Big Bang."  And the possibility that this earth could have been "constructed" with fragments of other dead planets.  All discussed in previous threads.

Sometimes scientists misuse their office.  Such as Carl Sagan's dire warnings of a "nuclear winter" based on contrived estimates (colored by political objectives).  And anthropologist Margaret Mead's lack of rigor in her observations of Samoan culture and the inappropriate contrasts she tried to make with the "mores" of Western Civilization.  ETC.

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"Practitioners of the doctrine of evolution"? Why not just say "quacks" and get it done with. Your qualified definition barely hides your contempt.

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data". 

I meant what I said and I did not say quacks but you are entitled to your own self evaluation.  This is exactly the kind of discussion that I am trying to avoid.  I would ask that in the future you refrain from accusing me of saying things I did not say.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science doesn't care what you or I believe.

Science is Agnostic on the question of God(s).

It's too bad that scientists can't be equally unbiased, pure, and unadulterated, because science only exists in the mind of the scientist. 

Just so we are clear, science doesn't make conclusions based on the evidence, scientists do.  While the findings may be pure (sometimes), the interpretations are limited to human perspective and yes, bias. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It's too bad that scientists can't be equally unbiased, pure, and unadulterated, because science only exists in the mind of the scientist. 

Just so we are clear, science doesn't make conclusions based on the evidence, scientists do.  While the findings may be pure (sometimes), the interpretations are limited to human perspective and yes, bias. 

All good points.

Having said that, there is no theory today that competes with evolution. No other falsifiable theory to date can account for the evidence. 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

I meant what I said and I did not say quacks but you are entitled to your own self evaluation.  This is exactly the kind of discussion that I am trying to avoid.  I would ask that in the future you refrain from accusing me of saying things I did not say.

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data" (your words).

[ERayR]

25 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data" (your words).

 

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

All good points.

Having said that, there is no theory today that competes with evolution. No other falsifiable theory to date can account for the evidence. 

See above post by Longview.

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Having said that, there is no theory today that competes with evolution. No other falsifiable theory to date can account for the evidence. 

The truth is that there is no falsifiable theory period, that can account for the evidence - including evolution. 

There is new evidence that the theory of evolution cannot account for.  There is no theory to date that can account for this natural phenomenon that I will explain.  The theory of evolution states that through random mutation, the divergence of genes over time is expected.  Meaning that two separately evolving species would be expected (due to random mutation) to become less alike, genetically speaking, and not more alike over time.  This accounts for the diversity of life.  Given this understanding of divergence through mutation over time, "the probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small (see link)."  In other words, it should be next to impossible, under the theory of evolution, for two organs of different species to be convergent in genetic expression rather than divergent. Yet a team of researchers have found that to be the case in nature.  They have found that in two different species, "the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes (see link)."

The likelihood of this happening would be equal to having two different people rolling thousands of dice, thousands of times, and having each person role the same thing every time.

This simply does not fit the model of evolution and random mutation.

It does support my belief in guided evolution however.  

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014453/let-there-be-light

Edited March 23, 2016 by pogi