The idea of organic evolution and how it could possibly work is intriguing, but then on the other hand, special creation where species only come from their mother species in a divine way is also so intriguing!

It is truly hard to say exactly how we all came about. I see unanswered questions both with evolution and special creation. I am however firmly in the special creation camp as i see it not only in regards to my personal faith, but also from a logic standpoint. One of the more interesting developments as of late is the Christian scientist movement to prove the biblical flood. All intelligent people know that if the great flood did happen as recorded in the scriptures, then it serves as a mighty blow to uniformatarianism and also how that evidence impacts evolution science.

So the question I have is this- If science goes on to prove that the biblical global flood did happen some 4000 yrs. ago or so, how would that impact your views on evolution?

Mormonism is a pretty flexible religion when it comes down to it. Although you wouldn’t know it at first glance.

The lack of outrage over evolution is probably due to the fact that, unlike evangelical parents, we don’t rely on the public school system to do our religious teaching for us.

Rob – Most scientists have moved beyond uniformitarianism as a theory. But, people have looked (both creationists and other scientists) for evidence of a global flood and found nothing. I think the issues are – if it happened 4000 years ago it would have left some serious marks, but none of our current scientific tools find any evidence, there are over 30M species alive today and Noah’s boat was pretty small, the number of species that exist in the Mid East is a small drop in the bucket of total species – how did the Australian and American animals get there, there is not enough water in the Earth to flood the 29,000 ft mountain tops… The arguments against the flood are numerous, while the arguments for the flood are only in Genesis. Would evidence of a worldwide flood 4000 years ago affect my views on evolution – no. Is anyone going to find that evidence – probably not. Do I think that there was a man named Noah – probably, and he probably built an ark and there was probably some type of flood in his area, but I cannot buy the whole earth flood idea.

Excellent. I totally agree. Any minor inconsistencies between the two will someday be worked out. Right now, it’s difficult to see how, but truth is truth, so I believe it. :D

Devyn,

I agree that Mormons can have heated internal debates about this topic. Perhaps the fact that there are internal debates is part of what keeps it from spilling into areas of public policy, Utah State Senator Buttars excepted.

Yeah, I’m aware of the history of hostility towards evolution in the Church, and I’m sure there’s a lot of continued hostility among the membership, I’m just saying I haven’t encountered it personally.

NDBF Gary does a very good job of documenting what he considers continued anti-evolution teaching among Church leadership. It is true that there have been some recent General Conference addresses that could be interpreted as teaching no death before the fall, which could be interpreted as ruling out evolution, but as a practical matter, the Church itself is not currently hostile to evolution, which is the main reason I think there isn’t a push among Mormons to ban teaching of evolution in public schools. I think if the prophet were to rail against evolution (which I don’t see happening), there might be more activism among members in that arena.

Devyn,

You speak as if the things you say are established facts and yet at the same time seem to be ignorant of the “real facts”. I do not mean to be harsh here, eh eh, what I am trying to say however is that actual and credible scientists do not say that the water had to cover MT Everest, that is a very common misconception and is used as a clever trick to spring amongst the unknowing. All creation scientists believing in the global flood know that the Mt. Everest and like mountains and chains were produced (uplifted) as either a direct result of the flood or other geologic events soon after the flood. This means then that all of the evidence of uplifted sedimentary rocks making up the mountain chains were laid down during the flood and then rose to levels we now see them at.

There is no scientific methods available to tell when these mountains were uplifted. Some might say that they could tell by how much they have eroded, but the truth is that usually mountains grow faster than they descend!

Where is the truth? Start in the scriptures and then all shall be unfolded.

Rob – I have heard all of the arguments from creationists of theories of how the flood could have occurred. Frankly, these credible scientists are not that credible. They don’t publish their research in peer reviewed journals, nor are they at the top institutions in this country. Therefore, I would say that they are not credible scientists. As for the facts – there are none, they are building the case based on a few verses in Genesis. It is a house of cards right now – there is no science to back it up. Perhaps they will generate some data, but they have nothing right now. The age of the earth is older than 6000 years – Joseph Smith acknowledged it was in the billions of years old. So I would encourage you to read some of the evolution textbooks to understand the vast amount of data that has been generated over a hundred years by thousands of scientists. It is very compelling.

I get where the dinosaur skeptic could be coming from. The only dinosaurs she or anyone else has seen are models in museums. Every other decade someone drums up interest by overturning previous conceptions. (Such as: Tyranosaurus Rex didn’t stand upright and was a scavenger.) To some bystanders it may feel like being asked to believe in Bigfoot. Speaking of which . . . Devyn S., did you ever talk with your mentor about his writing partner’s primate research?

For your gee wiz collection, check out this Nova episode on a cataclysmic Ice Age flood that covered a vast swath of present day Washington state with a thousand foot wall of water in the course of mere hours:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/

Devyn, I don’t think John disagrees with you. I think his point is that due to poor science education and even worse science journalist it appears to the average lay person that science is much, much less sure of things than it appears. This primarily occurs because the news only reports when something significant is disproven (neglecting how minor this is in overall scheme of things). The issue within health of what is or isn’t healthy also contributes to misunderstanding of science. The recent trend of more activist scientists engaging in polemics also doesn’t help. And of course a sizable portion of the blame rests on the lay public who are more interested in sensational news than real science education. (We can’t put all the blame on journalists)

My geology professors at Utah State all said that it is surprisingly easy to teach about concepts like evolution and an old earth to students in Utah. Whether or not the students actually believed it was a different matter, but they were willing to learn the material and respond appropriately on tests, unlike many students in other areas (I’m looking at you, bible belt) who would simply refuse to learn anything about evolution or the scientific evidence for an old earth.

Devyn S. (#25)

The story you’re thinking of is the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, which includes a flood story that is based on the older Akkadian story of Atrahasis. Both stories share some interesting parallels with the Genesis Flood, enough, in fact, that many biblical historians consider the Genesis Flood story to be based at least in part on the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both stories also include accounts of the creation.

I don’t hate evolution, but I also don’t understand at all why a loving God with a plan would choose it as his creation method.

There’s a massive amount of “collateral damage” in believing in the Flood.

As the account in Genesis is clearly cribbed from a Mesopotamian myth (and really, there is absolutely no doubt about this — if the biblical writer were a student he’d be expelled for plagiarism), if you insist on the Flood then you are also saying something about scripture that is quite unorthodox.

You can’t have Genesis as a pristine revelation to Moses AND a global Flood.

Matt – I can’t speak for Trent, but I had a lot of conversations with him on the topic. This was when he was formulating his ideas on the book he and Meldrum wrote. Back then (mid 1990s), he was a strict evolutionist with some role for God in the creation – what that role was is unclear, but probably more of a caretaker role than an active role in creation. I don’t know if that has changed since then. As for I.D., it is really a repackaged method of creationism by pseudo creation scientists to claim science in their ideas. I think it is bunk.

Rob, I don’t see how belief in speciation by descent with modification and natural selection has anything to do with pre-mortal creation. My beliefs about the latter are not influenced in the least by my beliefs about the former. I don’t know the mechanims of how we came into existence as spiritual children of our Heavenly Parents, but I believe we were created by them.

To clarify, Clark is right; I was not questioning the previous existence of dinosaurs yesterday. I was just trying to imagine why someone would doubt them, and also I was reaching for a way to bring up Bigfoot.

Anna (#28) brought up an interesting point. What’s so beautiful about evolution? The core of evolution is competition and death for the loser and his third and fourth generation. Not very Zionish. If someone came up with a rock solid, coherent theory that within two hundred years there will be no remaining descendents of current Japanese, would that be a beautiful theory?

Meldrum says “Bigfoot exists.”

I don’t love evolution. It’s vaguely interesting, at most, to me. On the other hand, when I can get to a point where I understand it (not the mathematics, just the abstract imagining part), some physics theory is very interesting.

I suppose if the mathematics side of physics didn’t completely outclass and overwhelm me, I would be able to say that I love physics. But what am I talking about? I have only read some books designed for the pedestrian masses – never took a class on the subject.

Devyn, John Mansfield understands my point. I can see your reasons for finding evolution beautiful, but it just doesn’t seem that beautiful to me. It seems violent and impersonal. Yes, death is part of the cycle of life, but with evolution we are talking about not just the death of one organism but the loss of an entire species (sometimes, killed off by other species)–how does the God who notices the fall of every sparrow feel about that?

Also, natural selection seems like an amoral process to me. Mercy, truth, doing good simply for its own sake–it’s hard even to talk about such concepts from within an evolutionary framework. To the extent that values such as altruism are incorporated at all, they are cast in consequentialist terms–say, that it benefits the species for one bird to give a warning call, even if that one bird dies as a result.

Note, I’m not saying I disbelieve in evolution, or that I think it precludes God from involvement. It’s just that it’s not aesthetically appealing to me.

I just realized that evolution really falls apart under theologic scrutiny. I guess if I were to believe in evolution, God really must take the back seat!

Oh yea, one other thing. If evolution science is correct, there will be no resurrection- because there is no God! (sorry, but you cant believe in one belief while holding dearly to the contrary)

Rob, it’s not a choice between evolution and God, it’s a choice between evolution and certain rigid understandings of nitty gritty theological issues. I don’t have a problem letting go of certain rigid understandings of nitty gritty theological issues and still believing in a literal God who exists and loves me.

Devyn S. (#5): You can love evolution if you want to, but you can’t claim Talmage, Widtsoe, or Roberts was an “advocate.” Not one of the three was even a supporter of the theory.

James E. Talmage

“Though [James E. Talmage] was sympathetic to science, his religious convictions prevented him from becoming an unqualified supporter of evolution. Ultimately he retreated into the world view of Bishop Ussher and the coming of Adam at 4004 B.C.E.” (USU Professor Richard Sherlock in The Search for Harmony, 1993, p. 71.)

“Man is the child of God…. He is born in the lineage of Deity, not in the posterity of the brute creation.” (James E. Talmage, “The Earth and Man,” 1931, pp. 13-14; emphasis added.)

John A. Widtsoe

“Clearly the theory of evolution has added nothing to our understanding of the beginning of things. The ancient view that God is the creator of all things is still the best, because it is true.” (Improvement Era, July 1951, p. 531.)

B. H. Roberts

“The theory of evolution as advocated by many modern scientists lies stranded upon the shore of idle speculation…. it is destructive of the grand, central truth of all revelation.” (The Gospel and Man’s Relationship to Deity, 7th edition, 1928, pp. 265-267).

Rob Osborne’s comments were so cartoonish that I wondered for a moment if he was just being facetious.

Well, if he was being serious, it’s apparent he hasn’t really read much of the discussion and probably not much of the original post either.

The problem Rob, is not that evolution attacks God. Evolution does however undermine and contradict the golden idols that Evangelicals and many Mormons have raised up in God’s image and worship instead of the true and living God.

Are you so cocksure you know exactly what Genesis means? Or that you know exactly what God was trying to say in having Genesis written? Are you so certain that God has to be exactly the way you’ve always imagined Him to be?

There’s a really reprehensible arrogance that runs throughout the creationist movement. As if the Southern Baptist Convention is trying to build their own Tower of Babel and force God to conform to their own parameters and requirements. Pride and enmity toward God.

Evolution does not deny there is a God. It denies certain rigid understandings of some nitty gritty theological issues. It denies some notions of creation, i.e. that all living things were created at one time and are all currently in the same form in which they were created. But it does not deny that God is the Creator. Indeed, it could be seen as a tool used by God in His act of creation.

It’s just a simple fact that when mutable self-replicating entities must compete with other mutable self-replicating entities for resources that make self-replication possible, those entities which find themselves with traits that enhance self-replication will outcompete those that don’t. That’s just the way things work. We can turn a blind eye to simple facts if we want, but I see no reason to do so. The mechanisms by which God created us and the world is irrelevant. What’s important is that we understand that God is our Father, that He has a purpose in sending us here, and that obeying His commandments is the way to fulfill that purpose. That is the big picture message of Genesis, not that the Earth was created six thousand years ago in six days and that there was a big flood that covered the earth. Even if those things were true, they would be mere factoids, not important knowledge. The important knowledge is the spiritual truths relating to man’s relationship to God.

Eve – thanks for your comment – I would agree wholeheartedly.

Rob – I think that you are doing a big disservice to the thousands of scientists who spend millions of hours studying things like fossils. There are quite a few fossils of pre-homo sapiens that exist and they can make a lot of inferences based on a few bones – not unlike the CSI type people do with human crimes today. There is no conspiracy – scientists do not get together to think how to dupe society. They are smart people who are trying to understand how the world works.

The reason you don’t see God mentioned in any biology textbood (or math or any other science) is because God is not a testable hypothesis – one cannot do the experiment from a science perspective. Therefore, science is quiet on the subject. There are a few very vocal anti religionists out there like Dawkins, but he does not represent the bulk of scientists. Francis Collins (head of the Government Human Genome Project) wrote a nice book last year called “The Language of God”. He writes of his own journey from atheist to believer and how the science has caused him to believe in God. I feel the same way – as I have studied the complex world we live in, it is amazing how beautifully constructed each organism is and yet, all are interrelated. To me, it shouts that there is a God and that, for me, evolution is merely a mechanism for explaining how the creation occurred. Evolution does not tell me who or why the creation occurred, merely how it could have occurred. Religion tells us why we were created and who created us. They are related and there is no real need to throw one out if one believes in the other.

Tom,

I think one of the big stories in Genesis is why the entire earth was flooded. It’s interesting to me that people can discount the flood and say it really did not happen according to hos the bible says it and at the same time not show with credible evidence why they believe the way they do. Like I said before- we have no knowledge of when the earth’s surfaces uplifted, only that they did. Thu uplifted surfaces show massive evidence of a point in history of catastrophism of watery laid sediments where multitudes of creatures met their death.

It’s not that there is a lck of evidence for a global flood, just a lack of belief in recognizing and interpreting the evidence. If the flood was true, then all of the evidence contained in the fossil record tells a story of a global catastrophe and the basis for evolution falls flat on it’s face. This is what I propose-

1. The flood did not happen and evolution is true.
or-
2. The flood did happen and evolution is false.

If one is true then the word of God is false, but, if two is true then the word of god is true.

Rob – I am not sure where we find data that it was a global flood? All we know is that it seemed like a worldwide flood to Noah. In addition, all of your comments on geology and mountain formation are not scientifically accurate. You should read some basic geology textbooks first and not creationism textbooks which are very biased, inaccurate, and, I think, morally wrong in that they teach wrong science.

Rob, are you saying that if there are any, I repeat, ANY mistakes in the Bible, no matter how small, that God must therefore be false?

Seems to me that you aren’t worshiping God. You seem to be worshiping a book.

Rob – This statement is completely false “we have no knowledge of when the earth’s surfaces uplifted, only that they did.” Yes, we do, that is the whole point of geology, it uses isotopes to date things. I know the creationists think that all the various dating methods are bunk, but they have no credible rationale, but just argue they are bunk.

This one is also false – “The uplifted surfaces show massive evidence of a point in history of catastrophism of watery laid sediments where multitudes of creatures met their death.” I have never heard this before. There is evidence in areas of various catastrophic events like large meteors hitting the earth, but there are at least 5 major extinction events that occurred in the fossil record, not one caused by water. Care to share your sources?

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways. The second is integration; this is when the cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher life form. From a single cell of one kind or type will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life.

The point that I find interesting is that many believe that Adam was created differently than you and I but I cannot find any thing in scripture to suggest such a thing. If G-d had a hand in creating you and I, then we know that evolution has a hand in G-d’s method of creating.

jonathan M

I would say something about the failed principles of creationism. First off; creation does not mean make something from nothing. Even the scriptures tell us that such a thought is a false interpretation of creation. Man was created (Genesis1:27). In creating man G-d used materials that already existed (Genesis 2:7). In addition there are many scientific principles concerning this planet earth that indicated that it is made up of things that already existed and that are not common to this current solar system. For example, we have a 2nd generation star that burns hydrogen. The sun is at the center of our solar system which represents the center of gravity of the solar system. Yet there are on earth heavy medals that are generated in 5th generation stars of which there are non in our solar system or within a distance that makes sense. This indicates that the earth (as well as other objects in our solar system) had birth for some of its basic elements elsewhere else. Now, you may think this proves that G-d created the earth as it is, but the problem is that the heavy medal elements are somewhat older than the earth which would then indicate that G-d is a deceiver in the manner or order he said he performs his works – that is unless you understand that G-d creates from pre-existing matter.

jonathan m

Devyn S. (Re #s 5, 50, & 57):

“The Way, The Truth, The Life” is not the name of any book by B. H. Roberts.

The Truth, The Way, The Life is the Roberts book you are probably talking about. It was published by BYU Studies in 1994. Creatures in the book that lived and died before the fall were not the evolutionary forefathers of any creatures that inhabit the earth today. In fact, they were not the products of evolution at all. According to the BYU scholars who prepared the book for publication, its theories are “not those of an evolutionist.”

Widtsoe wrote an entire chapter on “What Is the Origin of Life On Earth?” and another one on “To What Extent Should the Doctrine of Evolution Be Accepted?” (available free online here).

Of course, it’s “all in the interpretation.” So it probably doesn’t matter what Widtsoe and Roberts actually said they believed. What matters is your interpretation and your belief that “if these men lived today, they would certainly be evolutionists.”

And the other two spectacular theories to come out of science besides evolution are (a) gravity (the Newtonian brand — it is simply staggering how much it explains with such a simple equation) and (b) quantum mechanics, which unlocks the very secrets of matter.

DKL – you are correct that that type of event could lead to speciation. There are many who claim that the current economic disparity seen in the world today could led to separate species as like marries like. It is an interesting thought – you have the wealthy species who is served by the poor species. Funny we both came up with evolution, gravity and Einsteinian physics – all wonderful concepts that have revolutionized everything.

Devyn S.  (#73) asks,

“How do you reconcile the dinosaurs and the millions of other fossils that took thousands of years to form?”

This is a good question.  It is answered in The Truth, The Way, The Life by Elder B. H. Roberts using arguments from Geology, Biology, Archeology and Anthropology.

Members of the Quorum of the Twelve assigned by the First Presidency to review the Roberts book included:

George Albert Smith,
Joseph Fielding Smith,
David O. McKay,
Stephen L. Richards, and
Melvin J. Ballard.

Raising one of its main objections to the book, this group of five Apostles unitedly wrote:

“We feel that the arguments as given contradict the accounts given in all our scriptures, and more especially in the temple ceremonies.  As we understand it the term  ’ first flesh also,’  does not have reference to Adam as being the first living creature of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the  ’ fall ’  became the first  ’ flesh,’  or mortal soul.  The term  ’ flesh ’  in reference to mortal existence is of common usage.  We find it so used in the scriptures.  Adam having partaken of the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not the condition until that time.  We are taught in the Temple as well as in the scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death was introduced.  Adam was the first to … become subject to the flesh.”

Instead of changing his manuscript, Roberts appealed to the 1931 First Presidency, who sided with the Apostles and said:

“Leave Geology, Biology, Archeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”

In other words, don’t use geology, biology, archeology and anthropology to interpret the gospel.  As a result, The Truth, The Way, The Life remained unpublished until more than 60 years after its author’s death.

President Stephen L. Richards, as quoted by President Thomas S. Monson, once said: “My faith did not come to me through science and I will not permit science to destroy it.”  President Monson seems to have adopted this as a motto for LDS youth.

And don’t forget, Stephen L. Richards was one of the five Apostles who reviewed the Roberts book.  He concurred with the others in reminding Roberts that there was no death on this earth before the fall of Adam.

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

I’ve always liked this scripture from Moses 6:63. One possible interpretation I like to give it is that astronomy and it’s corresponding branches of physics (“in the heavens above”), anthropology, biology, and other natural sciences (“on the earth”), geology, archeology and paleontology (“in the earth, and…under the earth”) all, ultimately, “bear record of [God],” and shouldn’t present any real problems to a faithful member. Those who still insist on seeing science, evolution in particular, as a threat to their faith are confusing the envelope with the letter, the gift with the wrapping paper, the doctrines of salvation with the cultural forms they have acquired while traversing the millennia, passing through diverse, pre-scientific societies. Rather than lessen our sense of our own divinity, the lessons that evolution and the other sciences teach us should deepen our understanding of the divinity of the creation as a whole.

There is something to these comments about Talmage and Roberts that disturbs me. Both sides seem guilty of borrowing the personal opinions of the apostles (expressed in or about non-canonical texts) in order to delineate the limits of their own thinking: “Talmage thought such-and-such, so it’s OK for me, too,” or, “McKay said never-never, and I concur.” These men obviously think for themselves. Why can’t we?

Bravissimo, Devyn.

Clark – amen – you are correct. I think the troubling part of the creationist approach is that it throws out all of the science such as isotope dating, fossil evidence, geologic evidence/timing, DNA evidence. If you discount everything then posit these theories that cannot and should not be tested via a scientific experiment then you have a house of cards…

DKL-

Maybe we should expand our missionary efforts?

DKL,

You forget that Jesus was 50% immortal. We have no idea to what degree that immortal DNA resembles our DNA. It is possible only 47% of the DNA in question has anything to do with chimps.

Re #81,

Some of the apostles and prophets have been more pro-science than others.  But none have published pro-evolutionary views and I find it truly frustrating when they are misrepresented that way.

Thank you, Clark.

Devyn S. (#89) asks again,

“How do you reconcile the Dinosaurs and other pre-human fossils?”

Again, this question was answered by Roberts in his rejected book as explained in #76 above.  But let’s go ahead and expand on what happened in 1931. Regarding creation, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“The word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.  Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory.  Element had an existence from the time he had.  The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed.  They had no beginning, and can have no end.”  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352; italics in original.)

Notice the words “chaos—chaotic matter.”  A current view about the universe is that chaos represents “the disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed … to have existed before the ordered universe.”  According to this view, the earth also began as a chaotic nebula cloud or “diffuse mass of interstellar dust or gas or both,” containing particles so small as to be termed “unformed matter.”  (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000; see also here.)

But notice also the words “the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.”

Assuming the Prophet meant building the ship with chaotic matter and applying the current scientific view of earth’s origin, we must conclude that the first step in building a ship would be to gather large amounts of saw dust with which to make particle board for the major parts of the ship, the stern post, keel, and rudder, etc.

It is highly doubtful this is what the Prophet Joseph had in mind because at the time the Prophet made this statement, ships were made of timber.  Therefore, it is much more likely that the Prophet Joseph Smith had in mind using large trees to build a ship.

Let’s go back to the words “chaos—chaotic matter.”  Another meaning of chaos is “1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion. 2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.

Now notice the Prophet’s words “organized and re-organized.“  Joseph Smith’s private secretary reported him as saying in 1841:

“This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.”

This was quoted by Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch in “The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation,” (Ensign, Jan. 1989, p. 32; emphasis added.)

In his introduction to The Truth, The Way, The Life, BYU law professor and editor of BYU Studies,
John W. Welch expresses his opinion that

“Roberts pushed too far when he postulated that a great pre-Adamic cataclysm had occurred on this earth.”

Welch then points out that

“Nineteenth-century LDS writers (including Roberts himself) had commonly suggested before 1929 that this earth was created from pieces of other worlds recycled by God in organizing this planet.  Under that theory, evidence in the rock record of prehistoric life did not imply that death had occurred on this sphere before the fall of Adam and Eve.”  (The Truth, The Way, The Life, xiii-xiv; italics in the original.)

Thus, the Church’s 1931 rejection of The Truth, The Way, The Life was rooted in part in the Church’s acceptance of the Prophet Joseph’s teaching that “this earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.”

Using “Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology” to suggest otherwise was simply unacceptable to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in 1931.

The argument is not circular because the discussion is limited to what happened on this earth and doesn’t apply to the totality of God’s creations. The argument seems acceptable to me because I found the core of it in the Church’s Jan. 1989 Ensign magazine.

Also, I personally find it unnecessary to always reconcile scripture with science. As Elder James E. Talmage said in 1931, “Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries.” (“The Earth and Man,” p. 6.)

I’ve wondered if dinosaur bones/fossils were part of matter taken from other worlds. That sounds like one possibility, though there’s no question it’s speculative.

The one thing I don’t completely understand though is that some scientists are saying that some dinosaurs are ancestors of today’s birds. So that is an issue that has to be somehow figured out, digested and integrated into whatever story we’re trying to put together. If there’s a strong case to be made about this, then it may be that living dinosuars were a crucial link in evolutionary history for some of today’s existing creatures.

Yeah, but if God told Abraham to intentionally deceive the pharaoh about his wife, then why couldn’t God tell the scientists to intentionally deceive us about evolution?

Hey you guys,

Just so you know, I am slowly gaining an appreciation for those who immerse themselves in the study of science, especially evolutionary biology. There is obviously a strong pull toward the prevailing theories that are used as the basis for their research. I know it would be troubling for me if a doctrinal problem surfaced with one of the computer programming languages that I use every day.

On the other hand, I prefer the teachings and theories (D&C 88:78) of the Living Apostles over the theories of men when it comes to the study of things like the origin and fall of Adam and Eve.

By the way, ARJ, according to its original intent and according to its current use by the First Presidency, the statement (#77) does not “cut both ways.”

2006 — President Boyd K.  Packer

Eleven months ago, as he has often done in the past, President Packer again asserted that man is not the product of biological evolution:

“ ’ Children are an heritage of the Lord ’  (Psalms 127:3).  Each is a child of God.  He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors.”  (BYU Women’s Conference, May 5, 2006.)

Now you claim one of the best books on evolution for Mormons is Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001; hereinafter E&M) by Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum.  This book flat out disagrees with President Packer.  It claims man’s body was “prepared through the process of evolution.” (E&M, p. 10.) The book claims only one of 282 LDS biologists felt that “man’s body did not evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them.” (E&M, p. 12.) The book states that humans are “related to the animals of this planet,” and that, in fact, “as proposed by the theory of evolution, humans are closely related to all life on this planet.” (E&M, p. 29; emphasis added.) .) After thousands of tests, the book says, “the data overwhelmingly indicate that humans are not unique but are related to other animals.” (E&M, p. 30.) And on and on and on it goes.  Either this book is wrong or President Packer is wrong.

But there is nothing wrong with me or anyone else who chooses to believe President Packer on this subject.

Once again Gary, you are avoiding the central issue. Why would God intentionally decieve people by making all the rather abundant evidence testify of continuous life for billions of years? Why make it seem like evolution took place. Merely quoting others who believed it doesn’t address the central problem.

The analogy to computer science is not a good one since everything in computer science is man made. Science is about finding objective truth. To the limited extent computer science is about truth in that sense it is mathematics and not physical science. The closest analogy would be if Pres. Packer told you that Bill Clinton had never been President of the United States, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Gary, Boyd Packer’s practice of relentlessly raging in impotent fury against evolution says more about him than it does about evolution. Specifically, it tells me that he should grow up and stop using the Bible as a comfort blanket.

Being, as he is, a special witness of Christ, Boyd Packer is just going to have to find it in his heart to forgive me for thinking that his forays into creationism-as-doctrine are just plain nutty.

Gary – I read our posts both on here and on your blog. First, you have not ruffled my feathers as I rather enjoy this type of discussion as it helps me learn other’s perspectives as well as test where my perspective’s need to be altered if they are not correct. So thank you for the discourse. With that said, I think the fundamental issue is that I (and others) are attempting to discuss the science with you, while you are using quotes from non-scientist GAs to counter our arguments. It is a pointless exercise on both our parts since your quotes from Elder Packer (for example) are meaningless to me. They are akin to President (then Elder) Benson’s rantings in the 1960s about the civil rights movement and his pro-John Birch views. They are just things that they do personally that I don’t believe are inspired for how can you be inspired on something you know nothing about. I will grant that your stance is fine based on what GAs have said, but I don’t buy it. Therfore, I would like to hear some scientific rationale for your stances.

Also the quote below that you cite on your blog – I have one point:

“The key question all of us must face is whether science carries us as deeply into the mystery of life as we truly wish to go. For many people, I am sure that it does. But people of faith, myself included, would argue that it does not. It is important to understand that this is not a rejection of science so much as a recognition of its limitations, limitations that are generally recognized by people regardless of their religious views.” I submit that it’s time for LDS evolutionists to accept the validity of recognizing the limitations of science, “limitations that are generally recognized by people regardless of their religious views.”

I guess the problem I have is how can a religous person who knows little about the science recognize the limitations? I realize there are limitations, but despite these the overwhelming amount of evidence points to evolution. So this quote makes no sense to me. It is like me asking you to disregard all of your computer knowledge because I don’t understand it. It does not jive.

By the way, Thanks for the lively discussion.

R. Gary,

I really don’t understand why if that statement is taken at face value it doesn’t put an end to apostolic comments on evolution, the age of the earth, and other questions of science. At the very least it means that statements on the merits of scientific theories are not to be made. Leave criticism of science to the scientists, right? If they want to state their own beliefs without reference to science it seems to me that is ok, but given the overlap in the areas being covered that is a pretty tough balancing act.

You seem to be saying that the statement means that apostles that agree with science are not allowed to say so but that those that do not can say whatever they want. Am I correct?

Gary – thanks. I would say that Science can define the resurrection and immortality given even the knowledge of current research. For example, stem cells have the promise to cure people of diseases as well as swap out organs. Therefore, it is not entirely impossible to envision a future where one could be immortal via the use of stem cells to make you immortal. Or one could use gene therapy to change our DNA to be immortal via moving genes around. None of this is out of the realm of science to me at all. As long as you have the DNA, you can do pretty much anything (cloning, etc.). Therefore, the resurrection is entirely within the realm of science today, not to mention in another 100 years when we will have that much more knowledge. So given that, I see all science and religion being compatible, particularly if we believe that science is merely getting a glimpse into how God creates. Numerous GAs have mentioned that all truth should be compatible. Therefore, the science tells me that there could have been death before the fall and, honestly, besides some GAs that have made statements about no death before the fall, there is no other evidence. Since I don’t buy all that comes out of the GAs mouths until I have gained a personal testimony of it, I discount most of these statements on science by non-scientists. This is, I believe, our fundamental disagreement, which I am willing to call a draw.

I agree with ARJ in that I don’t understand how opposition to science can come from a non-science perspective. You and I cannot discuss computer programming because I have no clue about it, although I could make statements about it that had no credibility. I see the same analogy to the religious leaders commenting on science.

I am a believer of evolution. I believe it is fact. There are some problems with our current understanding of evolution. Some of the answers create more questions. There are things that evolution does not explain very well. Like the shark and the bat. Such hick ups tend to indicate there is more going on in evolution than we are currently capable of understanding.

jonathan m

Devyn S: I loved the way you talk about sharks filling an niche. Sharks evolved before the dinosaurs. I think we can safely say that niches have evolved somewhat since the sharks reached their evolved state. Sharks have survived several major extinctions and evolution explosions but have not continued to evolve while everything around them has; yet they still fill a niche to day that did not exist during the dinosaurs. They have evolved more than filing a niche. Their immune system has also not evolved and still works quite nicely in modern environments. Surviving newly evolved diseases is an enigma.

The bat is a separate problem. In order for bats to evolve, fill a niche and survive they had to simultaneously evolve four distinct characteristics. They had to independently evolve the ability to fly. They had to evolve the ability to make high pitch sounds not heard by most animals. They had to evolve the ability to hear the high pitch sound’s echoes and they had to evolve a brain that could process the sonar information into 3 dimensional images. If evolution depends on random possibilities with the permutations needed in order to have all four characteristics at the same time – Bats become a mathematical impossibility.

BTW this does not in any way disprove evolution – like the atom we just do not know how all the pieces really fit.

jonathan m

Thanks for the insight Lynne. I like the idea of changing survival of the fittest. I agree that most Mormons would love the concept if they understood. This brings up something that does disturb me. Not counting Mormons and other religious folk who have many children, it seems that the most genetically fit persons often have the fewest offspring. This is forcing the human species down a path in which evolution can not truly occur as we are biasing it to select for the least fit individuals. It will be interesting to see where it ends up…

There are two people’s comments which I wanted to respond to:

1) Anna “I can see your reasons for finding evolution beautiful, but it just doesn’t seem that beautiful to me. It seems violent and impersonal.”

There are two things about this comment which seem problematic. First, all scientific laws are impersonal; that is what it means to be a scientific law. Second, all the competition, suffering, etc. still exists whether evolution by natural selection is true or not; the only question is whether all these things have beneficial side effects as the evolutionists claim or not.

2) Rob “Evolution absolutely attacks God in every way! When was the last time you picked up a science book that ever even mentioned god and if it did, did it speak positively of him? That’s the problem with evolutionary science- there is absolutely no room for God!”

This is not a problem with evolution so much as it is a problem for all of science, because science presupposes methodological adaptationism. In any book, as soon as you read “and then a miracle happens” that is a sure indication that science is no longer being done. Newtonian physics appeals to God no more than does evolution by natural selection; where are all the tirades against the former?

Devyn (re #105 and #108),

We are talking about the resurrection of the dead, not the prolonging of life for the living.

“Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in a perfect, immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death (see Alma 11:42–45).” (True to the Faith, 139)

But, behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth—yea, even all.  (D&C 29:26.)

Science doesn’t even attempt to explain this.

Thanks Gary – although creating immortal living is certainly different from resurrecting, but if we have the DNA from the dead and we know how to clone then resurrecting the dead does not seem that outlandish to me. The key missing piece is putting the right spirit into the right body – science does not address this yet, but physically, it is certainly not impossible to “bring” the dead back to life…

Anna – a great read on this is by Francis Collins-”The Language of God.” He talks about a lot of these issues in a very thoughtful way – he was the scientific leader of the human genome project. By the way my view is that by including suffering we are allowed free will – without suffering I am not sure how free will would fit in. As to the world without carnivores, then you would need some mechanism in place to prevent the herbivores from overpopulating the world and all starving to death. For me the reality is that the world as it is created is wonderful given the delicate balance between creation, destruction, and the wonderful interplay between species…

Gary – Thanks for the sarcasm. FYI – I have a PhD from Harvard Medical School in Molecular Biology in which I cloned animals, so, don’t give me sarcasm until you understand the biology. Nonetheless I will give you a brief description of what I mean. First to clone an individual you need DNA from that individual and an egg from some other individual – OK, the eggs are no problem, but the DNA is a problem for many dead persons. However, one can get over this problem because God is omniscient, therefore, he should know the DNA component for every individual. We can take the DNA sequence from God and create the DNA. Ok, so far so good we can clone that individual – and using fancy molecular biology we can make that persons form “perfect” eliminating any imperfections. Problem is we need to match that persons body with the proper Spirit. Here again, God can do that and voila you have a resurrected being using technology that is available today. This does not even presume to know or have the technology that God has, but it shows me that science gives us an insight into how God could create and resurrect – just like evolution gives us insight into how the world and its multitude of species could have been created.

Thanks for the recommendation, Devyn. I’ve heard of the Francis Collins book, and it does sound very interesting.

ARJ (#106) says:

“You seem to be saying that the statement means that apostles that agree with science are not allowed to say so but that those that do not can say whatever they want.  Am I correct?”

No, that is not correct.  The 1931 First Presidency excerpt (#77) means that Church members and leaders should not stretch the gospel to make it fit scientific theories, specifically in the fields of Geology, Biology, Archeology and Anthropology.

ARJ says further:

“I really dont understand why if that statement is taken at face value it doesnt put an end to apostolic comments on evolution, the age of the earth, and other questions of science.”

Almost any statement can be stripped of its intended meaning (“taken at face value”) and used to convey some other message.  But according to its original intent and according to its current use by the First Presidency, the 1931 First Presidency exerpt (#77) does not “put an end to apostolic comments on evolution, the age of the earth, and other questions of science.”

Acting in full accord with what the 1931 First Presidency said, the most recent six Church Presidents and thirty one Apostles have have demonstrated a remarkable unity in their public teachings regarding evolution and the origin of man.  Many examples of this are found on my blog (click here).

Anna,

In that case you raise interesting and difficult questions to which I do not have an answer.

Devyn,

Cloning by way of DNA can only created and identical twin of me, not the resurrected me. Very roughly, “I” am my neural circuitry, not my DNA and the former is not preserved in any way at all.

As for Gary,

I pretty much disagree with him on every point concerning evolution. Concerning the views of the brethren have about evolution, on the other hand, I think he is spot on. I just wish that he wouldn’t endorse the really, really bad ideas which some leaders have had about evolution and what it entails.

Science will eventually explain everything as God is the ultimate scientist. He understands the eternal principles of science completely including the principles, like faith, that man can’t completely explain yet. I have no doubt that walking on water and turning water into wine each have scientific explanations even if I can’t do it. I have no doubt that resurrection and immortal bodies have scientific explanations, even if we can’t replicate the exact process ourselves. Resurrection will become a scientific fact when we learn how it is accomplished.

I think those on both extremes of the science vs. God debates really miss out. The study of science and the study of God should each testify of the other. God and science are integral as utilizing scientific principles (including those we don’t know about like faith) is the method by which God carries out his miracles. Neither science nor God are enemies to man.

Annegb: “Sometimes we sit there in class listening to absolute crap in silence because it seems to represent spirituality and righteousness.”

Sometimes, the proper and mature response to hearing crap is to remain silent. Like when someone passes gas, the adult thing to do is just pretend it didn’t happen.

Devyn S: I agree 100% with what you say about a G-d of the gaps. When we talk about echolocation at inaudible frequencies there must be independent evolution in the minimum of three different traits. My point is that the anyone that pretends science and dismisses this fact with a “wave of the hand” and speculation is as foolish as the uneducated religionist that waves their hand and says that G-d must of done it. I am just saying that as of now it is not explained with what we understand of evolution.

jonathan m

I hope I am not breaching etiquette by resurrecting this topic, but I stumbled across this post and thought I should post my view. This is a soap box of mine, so I’ll try (but most likely will fail) to keep the post short.

For any person (scientist or not), when trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with science, there appears to be a spectrum of positions that can be taken with two extremes. On one extreme you have someone who has utter confidence that the scientific community has a handle on how the universe works, and the only work left is to hammer out the details. They believe that when those details are discovered, it won’t really change the whole picture much (these can tend toward atheism). On the other extreme you have someone who has very little trust in science or scientists, and claim that we have very little understanding of how the universe really works. These people believe scientists are wrong on most theories (these tend to be religious in a very strict sense).

In the middle you have three options that I can see (there are probably more). One option (leaning toward the science trusting end of the spectrum) is to pick and choose only theories that appeal to your religion, or try to conform your interpretation of religion to fit science. The second one (right in the middle of the spectrum) is to just become a “two hat” person, putting on your science hat when discussing science, and your religion hat when discussing religion. The third option (leaning toward the science distrusting end of the spectrum) is to understand that science is really only in the business of predicting outcomes of experiments, and it is not in the business of saying whether God exists or not (metaphysics), or whether fundamental concepts of religion are valid or not. It can’t even guarantee that it is discovering fundamentally how nature works, although it would appear that nature seems to work by mathematics and some of the laws we have discovered, but this is just the simplest possibility from our perspective. A metaphysical elephant can easily hide in any uncertainty in scientific theory or experiments. As you can tell, I consider myself somewhere near this description.

I am a physicist, so I don’t claim to be an expert in biology, but I am surprised at the large amount of confidence in science that scientists here are showing, especially when discussing things that happened long ago, or far away. I have always assumed that the lay person tends to be on the extremes of the spectrum, and the scientists tend toward the middle. I still remember the day in graduate school when I had an epiphany that science really is just a bunch of educated guesses, and that we really have no idea if anything we assume is valid. I have always thought that all scientist must receive this idea at some point in their careers, but maybe it is just me.

If one of the fundamental assumptions made in science is shown to not be right all the time, then the sky is the limit. You could even argue scientifically that the Earth is really only 6,000 years old. For example, (I am only using the following as an example, I don’t necessarily believe it, although it is surely a possibility) all you would have to do is say that when Adam partook of the fruit and the Earth was cursed to its telestial state, time was changed fundamentally, or that some universal constant was changed somehow. If this were the case, that singularity would cause all scientific theories to break down beyond 6000 years ago. Anything could happen, one second at or before that point could look like millions of years to us when looking back.

I guess I’m just saying that science is good and all, and we need to keep making educated guesses, but we must be extremely careful when bending our religion to accommodate it, because (in my opinion) science could easily be classified as “the blind leading the blind”.

What bothers me is that those espousing a container model of knowledge are so inconsistent on it. So, if I have Gary right, we keep scientific knowledge and religious knowledge separate even if they explicitly contradict. It just isn’t clear to me how one can do this and claim, in any fashion, that one has knowledge. More significantly though it seems to me that this isn’t adjudicated equally.

Most problematic to me is that it seems a return to the (somewhat mythical) notion of a double truth that many saw in late Islam. There Islamic philosophers would say one thing in religious talk and then something completely different (and usually contradictory) in their intellectual talk. It would be as if Renaissance scientists just had to say, “well scientifically we’ll say that the earth circles the sun but religiously we know the sun actually orbits the earth.” Is that what some are seriously committed to?

Clark,

I agree. I don’t think that we should become a “two hat” person and ignore the areas where science and religion overlap, although I hold much more caution when extrapolating beyond the bounds of what science can authoritatively discuss.

I guess the whole point I’m trying to make with these last few posts, is that when Science and Religion explicitly contradict, it is because science is way outside of its bounds. I feel no guilt deferring to religion at that point, and calling a foul on science. I think I set more stringent bounds on science than others here, but I feel it is definitely merited.

Is it really possible for all scientific theories to break down beyond 6000 years ago?  I think the answer is, “Yes!”  Thank you, PhysicsGuy, for a cogent comment.

Clark,

Why do you assume religion is out of bounds and not science?

PhysicsGuy,
Thanks for the comments, they are interesting. However, I really don’t see how science if out of bounds. It is merely a bunch of data to which we place interpretations. If the interpretation is wrong it will be corrected by the next science experiment. I think that the key to evolution is that over 100 years of experiments have supported the hypothesis. Does it preclude the possibility that God is tricking us and the earth is 6000 years old? Maybe, but I believe, like Kyle, that God is not deceptive like this. Therefore, I have to put the established data and truths into my current understanding of religion. I disagree that the no death before the fall is an established doctrine – again that is interpretational. So I don’t think I am bending either science or religion but trying to find how science informs my religion. There are areas where science and my religion are not compatible today, but they will likely be more compatible as I understand and learn more.

Oops, I guess I have shown my ignorance of the italic button.

Our evolutionist friends seem to reject outright the possibility suggested by PhysicsGuy that time itself could have been changed fundamentally, or that some universal constant might have changed somehow.  Yet his proposal is entirely consistent with the following narrative which, if true, would allow for a lot of things we see and God not be a trickster or deceiver.

————– quote ————–
“The view taught by modern prophets shows that the order of nature is not simply a given, as scientific naturalism would claim. Instead, it explains that such order exists because of certain laws which God has established and upholds:  ’ He hath given a law unto all things, by which they move ’  (D&C 88:42). His power—or the light of Christ—’ proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space,’  and  ’ is the law by which all things are governed,’  for  ’ there is no space in the which there is no kingdom,’  and  ’ all kingdoms have a law given’  (D&C 88:12–13, 36, 37).

“The laws which maintain the natural order constitute  ’ truth,’  which is  ’ independent ’  only  ’ in that sphere in which God has placed [them] ’  (D&C 93:30). Thus, as Latter-day Saints we understand how science can discover truths about our present order. In other words, as Latter-day Saints, we recognize that there are some limitations about the extent of uniformity in our present mortal order of nature.

“The first limitation is that the same order or set of laws does not necessarily extend to other  ’ spheres.’  A sanctified, millennial world, or a glorified celestial world, or a pre-Fall paradisiacal world obviously functions under a different order of nature. Its order—perfectly  ’ natural ’  to it—would seem  ’ unnatural ’  to our mortal world. Imagine, for instance, the biology of a world in which there is no death. Or try to fit the second law of thermodynamics (which states that all energy processes of the universe are  ’ running down ’ ) into a world of eternal progression. Clearly, God has placed us in one  ’ sphere,’  but there may be many other types of  ’ spheres ’  for us to learn about at some future time.”  (Ensign, Sept. 1980, pp. 67-72.)
————– end quote ————–

There *is* the possibility that “if this were the case, that singularity would cause all scientific theories to break down beyond 6000 years ago. Anything could happen, one second at or before that point could look like millions of years to us when looking back”—not because of deception, but because of the operation of natural law.

Devyn thinks “the key to evolution is that over 100 years of experiments have supported the hypothesis.”  But I agree with PhysicsGuy on this point also:  I don’t think unchanging truth is established by the number of years of experiments.

I think unchanging truth comes only from Him who is “the same, yesterday, today, and forever” (2 Ne. 2:4; 27:23; 29:9; Alma 31:17; Morm. 9:9; Moro. 10:19; D&C 20:12; 35:1).  It is found in “the scriptures and the words of modern prophets” (Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, May 1993, p. 14).  “And if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow.” (Of All Things!: Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley, comp. Gary P. Gillum, 1993, p. 245.)

Gary – Thanks for referring to me as the “evolutionist” as if it is some type of disease – I am proud that I have studied and learned about the world I live in. I feel that it has taught me much about God who as you say is the source of all truth. For me, the simple answer is that Evolution and all science that we have learned are merely glimpses into the truth that God has used to create the world. We are put on this world to learn all we can and, to me, this includes science and evolution. For me evolution is a mechanism whereby God created the world, while you quote GAs, but have not quoted any science or rational explanations for what the science actually means besides that it is not of God and that the GAs have spoken against evolution. I am glad that approach works for you, but it does not work for me. So I guess we will continue to agree to disagree on this point.

Devyn,

Thanks for the response. I agree with you in that if you think that “no death before the fall” is not a fundamental doctrine, then you have no problem with any repercussions of evolution on religion. I just think the case for NDBF is not insignificant, so there may be a problem in my opinion.

It is interesting that you mention Gravity. As I have mentioned before, even though gravity holds a hollowed place in physics, I would be just as willing to ditch the religious repercussions of gravity. I guess the whole point (that I’m not sure I’m getting across) is even the theory with the best track record of all is entirely out of bounds when discussing the metaphysics of how that theory effects religion.

You said, “I don’t believe you can have that level of evidence in physics, but I could be wrong”. I was going to say the same thing about Biology, but maybe that is just because we don’t know each other’s field. I have always assumed Biology is based on Chemistry, and Chemistry is based on Physics, and Physics is based on Math. Thus, any change in Physics will have large ramifications in Biology. I’ve always thought that Biology studies such a complex system (life), that any data or evidence could have all sorts of stuff hiding in it. Physics studies things that are quite a bit more simple (fields and particles). I respect Biologist for this, I think I would go crazy thinking about all the fundamental thinks I could be missing.

I think the stance that you have taken about how evolution and religion mesh is a perfectly fine stance. I guess I am just pointing out that it is not the only option you could take. It is perfectly fine for evolution to speculate about the metaphysical ramifications of the theory, but we must realize that it is just speculation among many (most of them unknown) options.

R. Gary,

Your quote reminded me of another example of different theories predicting same results, but very different fundamental viewpoints.

A while back, I encountered a small group (extremely small group) of people that claim the sun doesn’t generate its own light through fusion, but that the sun is actually a plasma arc between two or more enormous interstellar electrical currents. I think they call the theory the Electric Universe or something like that. This is quite laughable when compared to solar physics of today, and is classified as pure pseudoscience, but there are a couple of physicists who think they might have something. Especially when there is possibility that their theory seems to predict some parts of comet behavior better then our current one (this is highly suspect of course).

Anyway, when I first heard this, it was quite intriguing to me (and should be to LDS). The Book of Abraham claims the exact same thing, that the sun receives its light from other sources, and doesn’t generate its own. This has always been one of the things scientists laugh at in the Book of Abraham.

Of course the theory is far from being called a science, but if some of its tenets were to be incorporated into modern theories, it would really change the perspective of our universe (For the Sun to be darkened at the second coming, all God would have to do is turn down the current). In fact the Electric Universe people claim that when people finally accepted Birkeland Currents (that was a big mess) in plasma physics, it was this same fundamental idea. I think they even call Birkeland one of the founders of their theory (although I suspect he wouldn’t agree with some of the tenets).

How is “time” even relevant to the discussion? Time was different then, or represents a period of time other than a literal day. That’s something non-literalists had to conclude right away in reconciling the creation account with the evidences supporting evolution/old earth. I don’t for a second believe that a “day” in the creation account is equal to the time it takes my atomic clock to count 24 hours. I’ll freely admit that the earth is only 6,000 years old if 6,000 years ago a day wasn’t a day and they kept counting days in the “celestial” manner for a while. That doesn’t explain the evidence of pre-Adamites and death before the fall.

PhysicsGuy – Once again, nice response.

“I guess the whole point (that I’m not sure I’m getting across) is even the theory with the best track record of all is entirely out of bounds when discussing the metaphysics of how that theory effects religion.” Interesting thought, but I think that, for me, I have a harder time with the religious implications of gravity (not sure what they are), compared to a fundamental concept like evolution which has tremendous religious implications. I am not sure in the case of evolution or biology in general you can escape the religious implications given the sometimes apparent “clash” with religion (at least in some persons minds).

Funny that we both thought that the other did not have a deep level of evidence – for me, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and inescapably points to its validity – next step for me is to integrate it into my religious views. The beauty about biology is that one can focus on individual pieces of the puzzle and not get lost in the forest until there is enough evidence to even know what the forest looks like.

Is evolution the only option? No, I am sure there could be other explanations and many have been posited. However, no other explanations (at this point) have the overwhelming evidence that evolution has. Gary likes to bring in creationist rhetoric, but it is all scientifically unsound and invalid which, I think, actually hurts religion in many ways.

We could also, and some people do, believe that time is still variable. Better yet, with a flux capacitor, random access!

Thanks for the chat.

I graduated from BYU and am now a physician and have been for 22 years. I find the theory of evolution to be untenable. In my experience, those who embrace it filter the evidence and believe what they want to believe. They are not interested in objective truth, but in proving evolution true. Evolution has many serious flaws. First of all, laws of probability absolutely prohibit onward and upward progression of a species. The sheer number of favorable mutations that would have to have occurred in just the right loci, sequentially is simply too great to ascribe to chance. Favorable mutations are exceedingly rare, and in order for something like a vertebrate eye to evolve literally thousands would have to occur sequentially. This is simply not possible by laws of probability. Implicit in all discussions of evolution is atheism. Although not explicitly stated as such, the implication is always there. Evolutionary theory has done incalculable harm to humanity in terms of its affect on morality. It has done absolutely nothing for the advancement of science.

John,

As long as we’re throwing credentials around, my wife graduated from Stanford, is a Harvard trained physician, and thinks evolution is peachy-keen. Clearly her credentials trump yours. I’m sure there are others here with even fancier credentials. Maybe we should leave them to the side and let your words speak for themselves.

Your inability to grasp the mechanism of evolution happening over geologic time scales and with untold trillions of organisms is evident from your comment. It is no wonder that you don’t believe in it. You seem to think there is some set sequence of mutations that has to happen to a set sequence of individual organisms in order for any progress to be made. In fact the situation is that any advantageous mutation will quickly propagate through a population and that additional mutations can occur in any of billions of offspring. Things don’t have to line up neatly as you imply.

John, I’m a college dropout, though I was smart enough not to go to BYU. I did get an A in biology while I was in school, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Any $1,000/mo ranch hand knows your understanding of favorable mutations and probability need improvement.

To my real peeve with your post: The only ones here implying that evolution is godless are those decrying it. Yes, there are some atheists who subscribe to evolutionary theory, but atheism is hardly a prerequisite. I think you need to reevaluate who really is after “objective truth” and who is filtering evidence to try and prove something they already believe.

I used to be, but not any more. I’m just another of the nameless IT guys scattered through the Seattle eastside. Maybe again when I retire and it’s my own place.

I don’t blame your wife a bit. ;-)

Dr. John -

Your qualifications notwithstanding, I know several faithful, trained, LDS scientists who actually *work* in the fields impacted by evolutionary theory who believe in evolution.

One of them is a very passionate defender of the idea of natural selection and also of the idea that in the end, we don’t know how the Lord created our bodies and until we know otherwise, we shouldn’t exclude evolution as one of the tools in the toolset.

(And while we’re throwing out credentials – I don’t see practicing medicine as a credential that is necessarily geared toward being able to understand/comment on evolution. Note – I am a computer scientist, so my hands-on involvement with the subject is with artificially constructed genetic algorithms and evolution therein. So my ability to talk is zero. Except I do have personal contact with two faithful LDS scientists who are adamant in their support of natural selection as a valid principle.)

So, I am a total believer in evolution as the way in which life formed on this earth – the evidence is just too overwhelming at this point to be argued away. I do not find it incompatible with most points of the Gospel. But I am very confused and hazy on how Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden fits in there. Did one day God say “OK, now we have a person” where before there was a “pre-human”. So what happened to Adam’s father and mother? Do they have the potential to become Godlike also, as we are told Adam and Eve are?

Oops, forgot to give the URL’s. The Journal of Discourses is at:

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/

The “adobies” quote is on this page:

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_07/refJDvol7-44.html

Devyn: Why do you say that Adam and Eve’s birth parents perhaps didn’t have eternal life? Why couldn’t they have been resurrected and/or glorified and/or deified people from a previous “batch” of Heavenly Father’s children?

Or, if our (you, me and Adam and the rest) “batch” is Heavenly Father’s first “batch” of children, Heavenly Father may have “borrowed” some glorified/deified people from somewhere outside of our (His) universe/dominion.

Or, maybe Adam and Eve are the physical offspring of Heavenly Parents in addition to just being spiritual offspring. And if that’s the case, then maybe the term “only begotten in the flesh” which is applied to the Savior, has an unspoken qualifier of “mortal flesh.”

What sort of being would be the product if two _Heavenly_ Parents begat physical-bodied children (as opposed to a Heavenly Father, and an earthly mother as in the case of the Savior) ? Would the offspring be immortal as were Adam and Eve prior to The Fall?

(By the way I have a comment in moderation on thsi thread. There were 3 links in it, so it got held.)

I, too, have not read every entry here yet but it seems as though a lot of assumptions are made by pro-evolution advocates such as this world was “created” in its current telestial state.

My thoughts are a mixture of both science and theology and that one cannot be without the other such as the natural laws of physics govern this telestial realm and that advanced or different laws govern terrestrial spheres and those celestial.

I believe there are seperate accounts in scripture. Almost all coming from Genesis or the Pearl of Great Price. Almost all questions arise with regards to the 2nd creation epoch. The first being the spiritual creation of the Earth which some believe Genesis alludes to and the third being the modern epoch where man was placed upon this Earth. Almost nothing is said of the second creation epoch which, more than likely, was the longest of the three. Such a thing is quite logical and linear in it’s thinking when applied and quite fascinating. Eric N. Skousen makes a very good case for this in his book, “Earth, In the Beginning”.
It might be worth picking up if you’re interested.
BTW, I am not against evolution as a whole. I believe species adapt to their environments but I have a problem with a species adapting from one to another such as apes to humans.

#179 Aren’t people who reconcile evolution with the existence of a supreme being really creationists. Supreme being triggered evolutionary process if you will…