Article re lack of consensus in evolutionary theory

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?  If the origin stories/theory isn’t compatible with fossil evidence, isn’t that problematic?

Not really. The odds that we find all the exact fossil species in our line (pre Australopith) are pretty low. We have a handful of candidates. DNA evidence tells us we’re related. Fossils just fill in gaps. 

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Boyd K. Packer maybe doesn't sound so crazy after all? 

 

Quote

The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.  (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/10/the-pattern-of-our-parentage?lang=eng)

 

[katherine the great]

6 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

Boyd K. Packer maybe doesn't sound so crazy after all? 

 

 

Of course he doesn’t sound crazy—just ignorant of what evolutionary theory is. He seems to think evolution is a chicken hatching a horse. 

[Duncan]

I have a snippet of a March 1935 Deseret News article and it was a talk given by then Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Twelve, at the end of it there was a QA. A Brother Romney asked him "The process of generation by which Adam received his body is shrouded in mystery. The story of creation as applied to man we are told is symbolic. I remember President Joseph F. Smith said that Adam came into the world just the same as the rest of us; that he had a father and a mother who begat him just as we have fathers and mothers who begat us. Joseph Fielding Smith. If the Lord wanted us to know; if we had the faith that we ought to have in order to understand, the Lord might have made it known; but he has shrouded it in mystery. I think the best thing to do is leave it in that status until Christ shall come to reveal all things." Then he talks about the "world of wealth" there is regard to the atonement.

[Fair Dinkum]

I disagree with your premises.  Evolution is not in dispute at all, in fact it is the one thing that science is in agreement on.  It is the glue that connects and explains the diversity of life and biology as a whole. Now to be fair there my be some of unknowns and details regarding evolution that are in dispute, still being studied and investigated but not the fact that evolution is real and IS the process that we humans came to be.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

disagree with your premises. 

To whom are you responding and what premises are you referring to?

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

To whom are you responding and what premises are you referring to?

Scrac or Slac that lawyer cobber 

[The Nehor]

Some Mormons drink caffeinated soda. Others do not. This clearly shows that no one understands the whole Word of Wisdom and the two paradigms show that the whole religious enterprise is built on a pretty shoddy foundation.

[longview]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

. . . and the two paradigms show that the whole religious enterprise is built on a pretty shoddy foundation.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.  17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.  17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

Did you think I was serious?

[Jamie]

23 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I disagree with your premises.  Evolution is not in dispute at all, in fact it is the one thing that science is in agreement on.  It is the glue that connects and explains the diversity of life and biology as a whole. Now to be fair there my be some of unknowns and details regarding evolution that are in dispute, still being studied and investigated but not the fact that evolution is real and IS the process that we humans came to be.

Have you never met anyone who believes all life forms are eternal and that the way we get more of each kind of living being is by each kind reproducing itself?  I believe that, in contrast to what you believe.  

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quote

Quote

I disagree with your premises.  Evolution is not in dispute at all, in fact it is the one thing that science is in agreement on.  It is the glue that connects and explains the diversity of life and biology as a whole. Now to be fair there my be some of unknowns and details regarding evolution that are in dispute, still being studied and investigated but not the fact that evolution is real and IS the process that we humans came to be.

To whom are you responding and what premises are you referring to?

Scrac or Slac that lawyer cobber 

Are you referencing me here?  I accept the concept of evolution in broad parameters.  I find your statement above to largely coincide with my own.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Fair Dinkum]

15 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Have you never met anyone who believes all life forms are eternal and that the way we get more of each kind of living being is by each kind reproducing itself?  I believe that, in contrast to what you believe.  

Yes I have met many people like you who have been misled by institutions teaching falsehoods. I was once like you, ignorant and uneducated. Evolution is real, it happened and yes even you are here, the consequence of that evolution whether you accept it or not.  But what I also find interesting is that the overwhelming evidence to support the truth of evolution is freely available to you at any local library.  All you have to do is reach out and set your fears of the truth aside and become educated.  There is NO doubt, the evidence is overwhelming, Evolution is real, it happened and we are here as a result of it actually taking place.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Have you never met anyone who believes all life forms are eternal and that the way we get more of each kind of living being is by each kind reproducing itself?  I believe that, in contrast to what you believe.  

I don't believe that the idea that God created all life and that species evolve over time are mutually exclusive.  God is the creator, but he has not revealed all the tools that he uses.

 

"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood."

Isaiah 10:15

 

Evolution is the axe (or saw, or rod, etc).  God is the one who "heweth therewith."
 

[longview]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did you think I was serious?

It is hard to tell.  You forgot to append the emoticon.  

[Jamie]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yes I have met many people like you who have been misled by institutions teaching falsehoods. I was once like you, ignorant and uneducated. Evolution is real, it happened and yes even you are here, the consequence of that evolution whether you accept it or not.  But what I also find interesting is that the overwhelming evidence to support the truth of evolution is freely available to you at any local library.  All you have to do is reach out and set your fears of the truth aside and become educated.  There is NO doubt, the evidence is overwhelming, Evolution is real, it happened and we are here as a result of it actually taking place.

 

I was once like you in some ways too, thinking all I needed to know could be learned from some book.  I have no doubt that what God has taught me is true and what he'll tell me when I see him again.

[Jamie]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't believe that the idea that God created all life and that species evolve over time are mutually exclusive.  God is the creator, but he has not revealed all the tools that he uses.

 

"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood."

Isaiah 10:15

 

Evolution is the axe (or saw, or rod, etc).  God is the one who "heweth therewith."
 

The fall and evolution are incompatible, as far as I know.  And then there is all of that talk about seeds reproducing after their own kind.  I hope the best for you with your studies and prayers.  

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Jamie said:

The fall and evolution are incompatible, as far as I know.

If nothing else, you're in good company. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and others believed this. Enough of curriculum writers believed it strongly enough to include these kinds of teachings in our manuals for several decades in the late 20th century. I'm not certain if this belief was something they independently came up with or if it was imported (so to speak) from broader Christian Creationist teachings.

The problem I see is that not everyone in the Church believes this, and I'm not convinced that "The Church" (whatever that really means) officially believes that the fall and evolution are incompatible. I know that I reject the idea that the fall and evolution are incompatible (or a gulf separating them is too wide to be bridged as JFS put it in his Doctrines of Salvation), but I'm not sure what to do with that disagreement. It was probably one of the first steps I took towards becoming a cafeteria Mormon.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If nothing else, you're in good company. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and others believed this. Enough of curriculum writers believed it strongly enough to include these kinds of teachings in our manuals for several decades in the late 20th century. I'm not certain if this belief was something they independently came up with or if it was imported (so to speak) from broader Christian Creationist teachings.

The problem I see is that not everyone in the Church believes this, and I'm not convinced that "The Church" (whatever that really means) officially believes that the fall and evolution are incompatible. I know that I reject the idea that the fall and evolution are incompatible (or a gulf separating them is too wide to be bridged as JFS put it in his Doctrines of Salvation), but I'm not sure what to do with that disagreement. It was probably one of the first steps I took towards becoming a cafeteria Mormon.

One thing I wonder if how much of evolution did Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie actually know, I wonder if they studied it at any great length. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Jamie said:

The fall and evolution are incompatible, as far as I know.  And then there is all of that talk about seeds reproducing after their own kind.  I hope the best for you with your studies and prayers.  

Disagree- that point of view only makes sense if one believes that the bible is a science text.

It is not.

And then it is also possible that it is all figurative - as was actually stated clearly in the preface to the endowment before 1990.

In fact- the church takes no official stand on evolution, and yes, it is taught at BYU.    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

One CAN see it as metaphorical as well- each of us is "Adam" - which virtually means "Everyman" as I have been told- and so we may all have our own personal falls into sin, which, just as in the case of A&E, result in natural consequences.

I am not about to limit God in the natural way He might have chosen to create man-  I am perfectly fine scientifically and intellectually with the idea that He used natural forces to his own advantage to accomplish his purposes.

I think saying that God could NOT have done that- that he does not have sufficient power to tweak the enviroment in ways he desires- limits his ability.

If Jesus calmed the storm, he could have started one.   If God wanted to cause environmental warming or cooling or whatever- I believe he has the power to do so.

I am not about to say that the Lord of the Universe does not have the ability to tweak natural forces.

I also think that that view would be incompativle with the idea that God "caused" the great flood if that was his purpose.   If God cannot control nature--- that idea is just irrational in my opinion.

Edited May 14, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One thing I wonder if how much of evolution did Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie actually know, I wonder if they studied it at any great length. 

Clearly we do not believe in infallible prophets.

They are not yet exalted, they are not Gods.

They are the best MEN I think for their callings, I am certain, but they are still men.  They are not automatically experts in economics, science, music or other branches of human endeavor just because they have been called- but imo they ARE the best men availaible for their positions, unless and until they run astray.

[Jamie]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If nothing else, you're in good company. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and others believed this. Enough of curriculum writers believed it strongly enough to include these kinds of teachings in our manuals for several decades in the late 20th century. I'm not certain if this belief was something they independently came up with or if it was imported (so to speak) from broader Christian Creationist teachings.

The problem I see is that not everyone in the Church believes this, and I'm not convinced that "The Church" (whatever that really means) officially believes that the fall and evolution are incompatible. I know that I reject the idea that the fall and evolution are incompatible (or a gulf separating them is too wide to be bridged as JFS put it in his Doctrines of Salvation), but I'm not sure what to do with that disagreement. It was probably one of the first steps I took towards becoming a cafeteria Mormon.

When I said the fall and evolution are incompatible as far as I know, what I had in mind is how the fall is thought of as a regression and evolution is believed to be a progressive advancement of species.  They are opposites, rather than processes that work together. And before the fall we are told things would have stayed the way they were forever if there had been no fall.  And the state of no change isn't compatible with evolution either.  Without death evolution is not possible, as evolution is understood.

[Fair Dinkum]

5 hours ago, Jamie said:

The fall and evolution are incompatible, as far as I know.  And then there is all of that talk about seeds reproducing after their own kind.  I hope the best for you with your studies and prayers.  

Not necessarily...one of those is a metaphor and the other is a fact.  Can I ask you a sincere question?  Do you also believe the earth is 6,000 years old as claimed in scripture and that an actual Adam and Eve left a garden in Missouri 6,000 years ago and that there was no death before the fall?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[longview]

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

One thing I wonder if how much of evolution did Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie actually know, I wonder if they studied it at any great length. 

I don't know how much JFS or BRM studied evolution. In my recollection, a significant chunk of the BYU evolution packet (from the early '90s when I was there) consisted of the written "debates" between JFS and B H Roberts and James E Talmage. From what I can gather, JFS was arguing for his young earth creationist views for decades, and, as far as my limited knowledge goes, never admitted to not understanding evolution well enough to speak against it. If he truly had not studied it, then it illustrates one of the concerns I have with prophets and apostles in our dispensation -- sometimes it seems that they speak with greater certainty than their knowledge and study and revelation truly warrant. Are these men whom we sustain as prophets and apostles aware when their knowledge is uncertain on a subject?