Recommended Posts

Hello, I'm doing a good amount of online research on various prominent religions in the world today, and I find this site is a perfectly adequate source for the Mormons, being frequented by active adherents.

Anyway, I was wondering what is the general consensus within the the community and the church itself as far as the plausibility of the various creation stories out there as opposed to the Theory of Evolution? I've found, obviously, that the Theory of Evolution is rejected by the majority of religious people, and I assume to see a similar trend within the LDS community.

Anyway, personally as well as far as doctrine goes, how do LDS view the Theory of Evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if the church has an official stance on creation other than we were made in the image of our father.In my ward there was a talk given a few weeks ago where the speaker was talking about a locale rock formation that took millions of years to form and no one batted an eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by saying in the image of your father, your cannon doesn't specify how that came about, as in it doesn't contradict or support creation stories in the traditional sense or the Theory of Evolution?

I haven't read anything however i don't read nearly as much as i should. I started a similar thread, on another LDS forum. If you can get through the arguments you might find something useful. But be advised it isn't a civil over there as it is here.

Creationism - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board

just like to add you would probably get better knowledge by going to the official LDS site,

Edited by hordak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Revolution,

Basically, you can be a good Mormon, and believe all sorts of different stuff in this area. I've met staunch creationist mormons who tell me the earth is 5000 years old. They are getting sort of rare as the decades roll by. I personally have been to Brigham Young University and attended an anthropology class where the professor laid out the 'evolution of man' stuff with the different size skulls. It was not taught as gospel truth, but it was more about "here's what people think, and here's why they think it". It included a good presentation on how the different dating techniques work.

Hope this helps.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much you know about the LDS church-----

The First Presidency (of the church) includes the President and two councelors. Henry B. Eyring is the First Councelor. His father Henry Eyring was a preeminent scientist of his era -- his era included Einstein and Heisenberg. He was also a believing and practicing Latter-day Saint. To Henry, science and religion were not opposites -- they were part of one unified picture that God would ultimately reveal. The biography of this man is called, "Mormon Scientist."

It's a fabulous book and has brought peace to my mind to how science and faith can be anything other than opposing. I like his answer about "early man" -- one of Henry's scientific colleagues recalls a time when he was in Salt Lake discussing some problems of early man and he asked Henry: "How do you believe it was?" And Henry replied, "I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been."

That's how I feel and my sense of how the Church believes. We don't have all the answers right now -- God will reveal how it all came about when He does.

It hurts my head to think on it too long, LOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked this question before a while ago. I will sum up what I learned:

Most Mormons believe that evolution happens, but do not believe that humans are a product of evolution. LDS doctrine requires the literal interpretation of the story of Adam & Eve to be true because the fall of Adam is a crucial part of the plan of salvation.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a statement made by the First Presidency of the Church in 1909 concerning evolution:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

Here's the whole article, it's interesting reading -> LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man

We are taught that God placed plants and animals on the earth and commanded them to multiply and replentish the earth, each after it's kind.

It is the official doctrine of the Church that Adam was the first man on this earth. I would ask the question, if God created man through a process of evolution, then what species was the parents of Adam's body, if not man? What species could give birth to a human?

The way humans are created of the dust of this earth is quite simple, actually. There's no mystery there, and we don't need a revelation to know it. My wife and I have participated in this miraculous process four times already. Check out my children -> Vanhin’s Profile » LDS Mormon Network. It's not any more complicated than that.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard an official stance on the matter. I for one believe that evolution was an agent used by the lord to create life forms. No Mormon i've ever met seemed to have the same two opinions on evolution. I don't know what to tell you, as I haven't read anything by the church to give specifics.

*EDIT* Thanks vaughn. I thought somebody could give us some more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LDS doctrine requires the literal interpretation of the story of Adam & Eve to be true because the fall of Adam is a crucial part of the plan of salvation.

LDS doctrine requires that Adam and Eve be literal people, and that the fall be a literal event. Presentation of events in the Garden of Eden are almost certainly symbolic to some degree; for example, no Mormon thinks that Satan was actually a snake slithering around the Garden.

Many faithful, believing, committed Latter-day Saints think that evolution is a perfectly reasonable and possible explanation for the creation of man. The Church itself has no official stance on the matter aside from the fact that "Adam was the primal parent of our race". I would guess, though, that DS's statement is correct that the majority of Latter-day Saints who have an opinion on the issue probably think the evolution of man is false. I have no evidence of that, but that's my impression from a lifetime in the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the subject of evolution is: to have no official stance.

Personally, I have no problem with the concept that God created the evolutionary process; and I think that is what is meant by the "commandment" to reproduce after their "own kind". We want to look at the evolution of man because it affects us directly, but it is much easier to see in bacteria. But we can't see bacteria with the naked eye, so I like to look at birds. I think birds are the best example we can see of evolution. If a mutation occurs in a bird such that the plumage is a different color, that bird will not likely be able to mate with any other of its kind unless there is another bird in the same predicament--hence the phrase: "Birds of a feather flock together." To my mind, the only way we could have so many species of birds on earth today is that they evolved from the various pairs of birds Noah had on his ark.

The next question that will probably come up, is whether there has been enough time elapse since the Flood for any species (other than bacteria) to evolve. The easy answer is that with God involved, all things are possible. Another answer involves the whole definition of Natural Selection. The reason it is called "natural selection" is to contrast it with deliberate selection by humans in practicing animal husbandry, or controlled breeding of animals. So, depending on circumstances, usually involving widespread death and the utter destruction of species without the right genes to survive, the ones with a survivable genetic makeup have had to have the full potential in just one generation.

Science is mostly based on fact with some assumptions and some interpretations of the facts being necessary.

The question of when one species actually is said to have evolved to be a different species is one that science must also address.

This is especially confusing when the second species has a different number of chromosomal pairs than the first, and needing in bisexual reproduction to find another of the same species with which to mate.

As far as Adam goes, I believe he was the first man on earth. I might also define the turning point between a prior species of ape and man to be when he started wearing clothes. As far as I know, man is the only creature who ever deliberately and independently thought to wear clothes.

Is that enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thank you all for your responses. Judging from the people here, you seem a good amount more reasonable than some of the other religious people out there. A surprising amount of people really do think the Earth is a few thousand years old and reject overwhelmingly evidence.

A few quick points.

The question of when one species actually is said to have evolved to be a different species is one that science must also address.

Not really, it is so when it can no longer reproduce with the parent species. The seemingly impossible odds of finding another similarly mutated mate are actually much more reasonable when you understand how such mutated organisms survive to sexual maturity. Indeed, the whole idea of natural selection makes it quite likely that there are similarly mutated specimens in the local area, this is the concept of evolution itself, that the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce.

And you don't really believe the story about the flood do you?

"Not really evolution, not really creationism, option #3... Life from Life

life is eternal, the origins debate is pointless - there is no origin. Everything that now exists has always existed, changing from one form to another, but eternal. Laws of thermodynamics - conservation principles. You do not get something from nothing. Something has always existed. Life has always existed."

Not according to either the Bible or science.

Edited by Revolution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thank you all for your responses. Judging from the people here, you seem a good amount more reasonable than some of the other religious people out there. A surprising amount of people really do think the Earth is a few thousand years old and reject overwhelmingly evidence.

A few quick points.

Not really, it is so when it can no longer reproduce with the parent species. The seemingly impossible odds of finding another similarly mutated mate are actually much more reasonable when you understand how such mutated organisms survive to sexual maturity. Indeed, the whole idea of natural selection makes it quite likely that there are similarly mutated specimens in the local area, this is the concept of evolution itself, that the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce.

And you don't really believe the story about the flood do you?

"Not really evolution, not really creationism, option #3... Life from Life

life is eternal, the origins debate is pointless - there is no origin. Everything that now exists has always existed, changing from one form to another, but eternal. Laws of thermodynamics - conservation principles. You do not get something from nothing. Something has always existed. Life has always existed."

Not according to either the Bible or science.

I don't recomend going down this road. I had a discusson here just like this that started by asking the same question and then went into correcting some misconceptions about science and evolution. 50 pages later I don't think anyone had learned anything and there was a lot of frustration :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recomend going down this road. I had a discusson here just like this that started by asking the same question and then went into correcting some misconceptions about science and evolution. 50 pages later I don't think anyone had learned anything and there was a lot of frustration :)

Go down that road? I answered the question, made a statement, and asked another question. Everyone else posting here seems to be level headed, and I would like to think I won't start frustrating people soon.

Just looking for the truth like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, it is so when it can no longer reproduce with the parent species.

So are horses and donkeys the same species? Lions and tigers? There are humans whose DNA is dissimilar enough that they cannot reproduce, or only do so with difficulty. (Ask around at fertility clinics.) Does this mean they are of different species?

The whole concept of "species" is an ill-defined delineation of limited utility. Really, it's just verbal shorthand for a much more complex reality. As long as evolution is thought of in terms of speciation, this will exist as a problem.

Indeed, the whole idea of natural selection makes it quite likely that there are similarly mutated specimens in the local area, this is the concept of evolution itself, that the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce.

Not really. The odds of a male and a female organism just happening to have the same mutation at the same time and then reproducing is infinitesimal. Mutations happen in one individual, who then propagates that mutation through his/her progeny. If the mutation is beneficial, then eventually it becomes common in the population. If it is sufficiently beneficial, it may supplant most or all other alleles, or may lead an isolated population to become a (sorry for the terminology) new species.

And you don't really believe the story about the flood do you?

Of course I do. Noah was a real prophet; there is no reasonable doubt of that.

Do I believe that the entire globe was covered by water? No, of course not. Please note that the Bible makes no such claim, either. I do not believe that the ancient Hebrews had any idea of a spherical earth. When they heard "the whole earth was covered", they didn't think of the globe being coated with water. They simply thought of the land being covered. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Something has always existed. Life has always existed.

Not according to either the Bible or science.
Unless I'm mistaken, science makes no claims on whether life has always existed. Science isn't philosophy.

The Bible may not make such a claim, depending on how you interpret it. But fortunately, we are blessed with modern prophets who teach us that our own existence is eternal, in both directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go down that road? I answered the question, made a statement, and asked another question. Everyone else posting here seems to be level headed, and I would like to think I won't start frustrating people soon.

Just looking for the truth like everyone else.

You can read my old thread for reference if you like: Doctrine regarding evolution?

There is a lot of disagreement even between members on this subject that I inadvertantly brought out last time. Perhaps it's time for another good discussion on the topic though. My warning was mostly jokingly, I do love talking about these topics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are horses and donkeys the same species? Lions and tigers? There are humans whose DNA is dissimilar enough that they cannot reproduce, or only do so with difficulty. (Ask around at fertility clinics.) Does this mean they are of different species?

The whole concept of "species" is an ill-defined delineation of limited utility. Really, it's just verbal shorthand for a much more complex reality. As long as evolution is thought of in terms of speciation, this will exist as a problem.

I can see your point. As far as I've always though, when two organisms could reproduce offspring that could in turn reproduce, you have a species.

As far as the human issue, there are more or less sterile organisms in any population.

Not really. The odds of a male and a female organism just happening to have the same mutation at the same time and then reproducing is infinitesimal. Mutations happen in one individual, who then propagates that mutation through his/her progeny. If the mutation is beneficial, then eventually it becomes common in the population. If it is sufficiently beneficial, it may supplant most or all other alleles, or may lead an isolated population to become a (sorry for the terminology) new species.

Ha, :) don't worry. I'd like to think I know my terms. Actually I think we both agree but we're misunderstanding each other a bit. From your response, I think my response of "the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce," takes place after the description of events you've just given, if that makes sense.

So, you have a mutation. Its beneficial. You survive, you reproduce and perhaps pass that mutation along. Natural Selection. I suppose we're both on the same page?

Of course I do. Noah was a real prophet; there is no reasonable doubt of that.

Do I believe that the entire globe was covered by water? No, of course not. Please note that the Bible makes no such claim, either. I do not believe that the ancient Hebrews had any idea of a spherical earth. When they heard "the whole earth was covered", they didn't think of the globe being coated with water. They simply thought of the land being covered. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Seems reasonable enough. Assuming the account of Noah is indeed literal and took place as you account for it in your description, that being a localized flood of say, the Euphrates, it wouldn't really have a terribly evident impact as far as Evolution, would it? No more than the average severe flood anyway, wouldn't you say?

Unless I'm mistaken, science makes no claims on whether life has always existed. Science isn't philosophy.

The Bible may not make such a claim, depending on how you interpret it. But fortunately, we are blessed with modern prophets who teach us that our own existence is eternal, in both directions.

Well, for the sake of argument, life on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is an observable fact that can be demonstrated by the existence of any living human. All humans began as a single cell zygote life form that evolves into a complex human life form. I would also point out that a zygote life form is a much lower (less complex) life form than other primates, including apes. To deny evolution is to disbelieve one’s own existence; a rather silly thing to do, especially for the religious. We LDS are in the process of finding and utilizing truth – some struggle with this process more than others. I think the struggle might be a faith issue – but that is my opinion – that difficulty with truth is in essence a faith issue in the G-d that created this universe.

Many in religion would rather create their G-d in their image and in the image that they think they understand rather than face the truths of evolving man in the image of G-d.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is an observable fact that can be demonstrated by the existence of any living human. All humans began as a single cell zygote life form that evolves into a complex human life form. I would also point out that a zygote life form is a much lower (less complex) life form than other primates, including apes. To deny evolution is to disbelieve one’s own existence; a rather silly thing to do, especially for the religious. We LDS are in the process of finding and utilizing truth – some struggle with this process more than others. I think the struggle might be a faith issue – but that is my opinion – that difficulty with truth is in essence a faith issue in the G-d that created this universe.

Many in religion would rather create their G-d in their image and in the image that they think they understand rather than face the truths of evolving man in the image of G-d.

The Traveler

What you're saying then, is that you accept the fact of Evolution, and are in the process of working god into the origin of life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is an observable fact that can be demonstrated by the existence of any living human. All humans began as a single cell zygote life form that evolves into a complex human life form. I would also point out that a zygote life form is a much lower (less complex) life form than other primates, including apes. To deny evolution is to disbelieve one’s own existence; a rather silly thing to do, especially for the religious.

But this is not at all what evolution means. Evolution does not refer to the individual development of an organism. In fact, a single organism cannot "evolve", because the term only has meaning when applied to a group through time. Evolution happens between generations, not within an individual organism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your point. As far as I've always though, when two organisms could reproduce offspring that could in turn reproduce, you have a species.

These is actually quite a bit of debate on this point, currently, amoung biologists. Bit of an issue, not resolved at all. But, when everyone is tired of arguing, reproduction does seem a fairly reasonable place to compromise. Too bad we can't use that measure with all the old fossils lying around!!

Seems reasonable enough. Assuming the account of Noah is indeed literal and took place as you account for it in your description, that being a localized flood of say, the Euphrates, it wouldn't really have a terribly evident impact as far as Evolution, would it? No more than the average severe flood anyway, wouldn't you say?

Actually, the Flood is a bit of a sticking point, in the Church. We have many members (the clear majority) that still do believe in a global flood. Our official magazine, the Ensign, had an article just 10 years ago that clearly supported a global flood, all physical evidence notwithstanding. See LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Well, for the sake of argument, life on Earth.

Right. And as far as I know, there is zero evidence so far on exactly how life on earth first began. Lots of ideas, no evidence.

I posted this before, but I think now is a good time to repeat it:

History of the Official Position of the LDS Church on Evolution

David H. Bailey

14 August 2006

With regards to the Church's "official" stance on evolution and related scientific matters, I have prepared the following summary of this history, which as far as I am aware covers the important facts. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from this information.

In 1909, the first presidency published a lengthy statement on the "Origin of Man," which dealt with several topics including, for instance, the existence of a Heavenly Mother. The following text appeared in this

statement:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

A few months later, the April 1910 issue of the Improvement Era commented as

follows:

"Origin of Man. 'In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?' This question comes from several High Priests' quorums. ... Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere .; whether they were born here in mortality, . are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."

Pres. Joseph F. Smith (with Edward H. Anderson) was listed as editor of the Era, so it is highly likely that he personally reviewed this doctrinal comment, which appeared in the Priesthood Quorums Table (a forum for official instructions to local Priesthood leaders), although there is no way to know for certain.

In December 1910, the First Presidency wrote, as part of their annual Christmas message:

"Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found."

In an April 1911 article in the Juvenile Instructor, Pres. Joseph F. Smith addressed the controversy that arisen at BYU regarding the teaching of evolution. While Pres. Smith thought it unwise for BYU instructors "to introduce controversies relative to evolution" at the time, he added "The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world."

In 1925, during the period of the Scopes Trial, a national news organization requested the LDS Church's position on evolution. The First Presidency chose to send a shortened version of the 1909 statement as "Mormon View of Evolution." In this version, the above-mentioned passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") was dropped.

Evolution, pre-Adamic life and related issues continued to be a source of controversy among general authorities. Elder B. H. Roberts, for instance, argued that we should accept the reality of life and death on earth for millions of years, including a race of "pre-Adamites" (see for example his book "The Way, the Truth, the Life"). Elder James E. Talmage taught that simple forms of plant and animal life were succeeded by others more complicated over eons of time, in accordance with the findings of geology (see for example his article "The Earth and Man," published by the Church in 1931). On the other hand, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith argued against the possibility of evolution or any pre-Adamic life (see for example his book

"Man: His Origin and Destiny"). Details of this debate are given in Richard Sherlock's article, "'We Can See No Advantage to a Continuation of the Discussion': The Roberts/Smith/ Talmage Affair," Dialogue, vol. 13 (Fall 1980), pg 63.

This debate was ended in 1931, when the First Presidency sent a letter to all general authorities stating that none of the competing points of view was to be taken as the Church's doctrine, and concluding:

"Leave geology, biology, archaeology, 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 1954, in the wake of the publication of Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man: His Origin and Destiny," Pres. David O. McKay sent letters to several private individuals who had inquired, saying (in one typical letter):

"On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book 'Man, His Origin and Destiny' was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible."

In 1959, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his book "Mormon Doctrine," concluded at the end of a lengthy discussion that there was "no harmony" between evolution and revealed religion. However, this material was specifically listed among examples of controversial material by Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney, two apostles whom Pres. McKay assigned to review the book after its publication. They recommended that the book not be republished due to these problems (although a few years later it was republished).

In 1988, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU on the creation that was openly critical of evolution. However, when this talk was finally published by BYU (in 1990), it was preceded by a strongly worded disclaimer, including the text: "The author alone is responsible for the views set forth therein. They do not necessarily represent the Church."

In 1992, when the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being compiled, three drafts of an article on evolution had been proposed, one of which was 4500 words long. These drafts disagreed markedly on how the topic should be approached. The oversight committee, consisting of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, referred the matter to the First Presidency. After some consideration, Pres. Hinckley personally sent to the editorial committee the excerpt mentioned above from the 1931 First Presidency letter, together with a few items highlighted from one of the drafts, which he wanted in the final article. The resulting EOM article thus briefly mentions the 1909 and 1925 statements, and then concludes with the passage from the 1931 letter: "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research ..."

At about the same time (in 1992), there was debate among BYU faculty and officials as to what material should be given to students at BYU who inquired about the Church's official view regarding evolution. After much discussion, a number of statements were included. This packet was then reviewed by the BYU Board of Trustees (including the First Presidency). They decided to limit the packet to four items from the First Presidency:

(1) the 1909 statement,

(2) the December 1910 statement,

(3) the 1925 statement, and

(4) the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on evolution.

The Encyclopedia article was included because of its quotation from the 1931 First Presidency letter. The packet is available online at either of these URLs:

Statement of the BYU Board of Trustees on Evolution

http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf

Subsequently the packet was distributed to all teachers in the Church Education System, with the instruction that they were to refer students to this material when questions were raised as to the Church's official view on evolution.

The general topic of the creation and/or evolution has been mentioned occasionally in articles and talks by various LDS Church leaders in the past two or three decades, but usually only in brief references of a sentence or two. A more detailed recent treatment was in the April 2000 general conference, where Elder Russell M. Nelson declared "Whether termed a day, a time, or an age, each phase was a period between two identifiable events -- a division of eternity." Nelson added, "The Creation did not happen by chance. It did not come ex nihilo (out of nothing)."

In 2000, the Priesthood/Relief Society manual mentioned the 1909 statement, and quoted the passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") mentioned above. In 2002, the Ensign published the entire 1909 statement, as "the Church's doctrinal position on these matters." In neither case was there any mention of the more recent statements. However, I have learned that in both instances, the material was prepared by staffers and editors with minimal oversight by general authorities, certainly not by anyone in the Quorum of the Twelve and/or the First Presidency, and so it is not clear that either of these articles, as they stand, had official imprimatur.

In 2005, during the debate in Utah over proposed legislation for high school biology instruction, the Church again referred to the BYU packet, specifically mentioning both the 1909 statement and the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism article:

"According to Randy Hall, assistant superintendent of the LDS Church Educational System, seminary teachers are told to refer to church statements included in what is known as the 'BYU packet,' a collection of four official statements on evolution made between 1909 and 1992. The statements are somewhat vague but do include sentences such as 'Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes,' and 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.' The packet does not include more clearly anti-evolution -- and oft-quoted -- unofficial statements such as those made by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1988. 'We ask our teachers not to go beyond those (official) statements,' Hall says, 'because then it gets into private interpretation, and that could as easily be misunderstood as understood.'" [Deseret News, 19 March 2005].

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're saying then, is that you accept the fact of Evolution, and are in the process of working god into the origin of life?

I see no logic in evolution that excludes G-d - the master of the universe - from utilizing the observable laws of the universe that he created. We know from scripture that all things provide insight and understanding of G-d.

It is not up to us to define how G-d operates - it is up to us to learn how he operates.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is not at all what evolution means. Evolution does not refer to the individual development of an organism. In fact, a single organism cannot "evolve", because the term only has meaning when applied to a group through time. Evolution happens between generations, not within an individual organism.

At some point the DNA within a cell will begin to unwind and separate. As this occurs the cell will begin to split and will eventually become two separate cells of life; each cell as different from each other as they were from the single original parent cell. This process is evolution and takes place millions upon millions of times every day in each person. Sometimes we call evolution growth and sometimes we call it aging but it is still the same process. All life that exists is evolving. Evolution is change and everything is changing. It is the nature of the physical universe.

Granted there are many other way to apply the principles of evolution – I am only trying to help you understand why evolution has become such a powerful scientific tool for defining the life process.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share