Stance on Evolution?

[Vort]

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

Actually, this process is "mitosis". Not to belabor the point, but "evolution" means something entirely different. I'm not completely sure what your point is -- it might well be valid -- but evolution refers to intergenerational change, not individual change.

[Revolution]

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.

HiJolly

You're correct in that there isn't any tangible evidence, but does that discount the widely accept theory? Certainly there isn't any evidence whatsoever for even the idea of an existence of god.*

"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"

You can't honesty say its logical to discount scientific theories that don't leave room for a god? Surely everyone can have their own opinion on gods, but not on facts.

*If you were merely stating a fact as opposed to making an argument against the "ideas" of how life began, ignore that.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Revolution

[Revolution]

Actually, this process is "mitosis". Not to belabor the point, but "evolution" means something entirely different. I'm not completely sure what your point is -- it might well be valid -- but evolution refers to intergenerational change, not individual change.

:thumbsup:

[Rico]

I found it interesting what Bruce McConkie had to say about it:

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Bruce R. McConkie

Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?

Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled "The Origin of Man" as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Nephi 2:22*26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

[HiJolly]

Actually, this process is "mitosis". Not to belabor the point, but "evolution" means something entirely different. I'm not completely sure what your point is -- it might well be valid -- but evolution refers to intergenerational change, not individual change.

Maybe that's what it meant back in Darwin's day, but today things have gone much farther. I agree with Traveler.

Some people have gone so far as to say there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution, but it's all the same thing, just a different time-frame.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

You're correct in that there isn't any tangible evidence, but does that discount the widely accept theory? Certainly there isn't any evidence whatsoever for even the idea of an existence of god.*

*If you were merely stating a fact as opposed to making an argument against the "ideas" of how life began, ignore that.

Right. I don't know how life began, though I do believe that God was directly involved. But that's not science.

I believe that evidence is a very good thing. I differ from formal science in that I believe in accepting the subjective experiences of my own life, in terms of feelings, emotions, and revelations from god.

For work, I use science (except for how to deal with people). For my personal life, I use ALL evidence.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I found it interesting what Bruce McConkie had to say about it:

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Bruce R. McConkie

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement;

I love Elder McConkie. I shook his (huge) hand and looked into his eyes in 1980, and felt his great spirit as almost tangible. His last talk in General Conference, April 1985 was incredible. (Elder Bruce R. McConkie died thirteen days after giving this testimony.)

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Purifying Power of Gethsemane

Elder McConkie, though, had a few things going on that are good for us to know. First - he spoke with a mannerism of absolute authority. This, mixed with his large stature and Church calling, caused many to believe and never question his reasoning. His writing and speaking styles were identical. Usually, this was not a problem, but at least twice that we know of, it did cause difficulty, both for individuals and for the Church as an institution.

I want to repeat here, that I love Elder McConkie. I do not mean to denigrate or lessen this great man. But he, as all our General Authorities, is a man, and has flaws just as any other man has. And there is much I could bring up, but I will try to limit it out of respect, and only to show the point I make is justified and proper.

His authoritative tone caused problems when he published his best known work, Mormon Doctrine. Even the name of the tome, was a problem, because it most certainly was not, and IS NOT, Mormon doctrine. But it certainly fit Elder McConkie's style to be titled that. This book in it's first edition (I have a copy) had literally hundreds (actually over 1,000) errors in it, identified by Elders Marion G. Romney & Mark E. Peterson, at President McKay's request. So, authoritative tone does NOT make accurate statements. That's item #1.

Two: Elder McConkie relied heavily upon former Church leaders' speeches and writings for his Gospel knowledge. While this may be denied by noting that this actually put him in conflict with some leaders who taught, at the pulpit, his "heresy" #1 in the speech above referenced, it at the same time caused him to accept these same former leaders' comments concerning blacks and the priesthood. After President Kimball's 1978 revelation granting the priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church, Elder McConkie showed his wonderful humility and dedication to the truth by saying:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

In light of these things, I think it is not good practice for a member to take this speech in 1980 and assume that it means anything other than Elder McConkie's opinion and best gospel understanding. To believe that his REASONING was not entirely correct is NOT HERESY. It is very clear that Elder Mcconkie was not able to conceive of a reconciliation of evolution and atonement. Others clearly have (Widtsoe, Talmage -- both apostles; Also Henry J. Eyring and B.H.Roberts).

It makes a lot of sense to me that Elder McConkie got much of his thinking on this from his father-in-law, President Joseph Fielding Smith, who was seriously taken with the writings and ideas of a Seventh-Day Adventist author named George McCready Price. Read here: http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-creationism.pdf and, if still interested, here: The Mormon Faith and Black Folks: Questions 45

Again, I know that Elder McConkie was a wonderful man, one I met personally, and I know that he did a marvelous job in leading the Church. I hope that is clear. I don't mind if you disagree.

HiJolly

Edited August 2, 2008 by HiJolly

[tubaloth]

Don’t you hate it when you don’t jump in soon enough…

First lets go through HiJolly on her beefs with Elder McConkie… (I had a similar opinion about Elder McConkie).

Really the conclusion I get from this, is if Elder McConkie teaches anything a little off (I guess it depends on who we are compare this to) then Elder McConkie must be wrong, because of his pass history. Really we can never trust anything Elder McConkie taught because it wasn’t late enough in his life.

I feel that is a really slippery road to go down. What if I can prove that Pres. Monson made some claim “as a man” does the void everything else he ever taught…?

Elder McConkie was right on this matter, not because of any former books, but because of the Doctrine of the LDS church.

We learn from 2 Nephi 2

(2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

We learn two big points that do not fit with Evolution.

1. Death had not entered the world until after the fall.

People twist this doctrine any way they can, they say this only is happening in the Garden of Eden, but the rest of the world is still in some “fallen state” there is no doctrine to support that.

Also people say this only affected humans and not all the other animals. The animals were always dyeing and evolving for a millions of years, while Adam and Eve did not.

That doesn’t make sense.

2. We learn that Adam and Eve had no Children (A doctrine restored because of the book of Mormon). How does evolution happen when you can’t have any children? It doesn’t!

Elder McConkie understood this doctrine. If there was death and birth and all of these things happen BEFORE the fall, then the FALL didn’t need to happen! (the two things I have sited are the reasons why the fall needed to happen)

If the Fall didn’t need to happen, then there was no reason to overcome to effects of the Fall! We already were in a stated that I guess was some paradise of Garden of Eden, but there was death and children were being born. If no fall happened then there was no reason to send Jesus Christ to overcome the effects of the Fall! No reason for the Atonement. I guess that could be argued, but there was no reason for a Resurrection.

This is what McConkie was teaching! He is spot on! These questions can not find a middle ground! There was death around before the Fall or there wasn’t! Either Adam and Eve had Children before the fall, which goes against the LDS doctrine!

Elder McConkies last book (so it was later in his life states this)

Heresy 3: Organic evolution is the process whereby all life on earth came into being, and man, as now constituted, is the end product of this process.

Commentary: This is the false view of many self-designated scientists. The tendency among them is to present Darwinian theories as established realities. These theories postulate the evolvement of all forms of life from lower orders over astronomically long periods of time. They assume death has always been present and that there never was a fall, and they make no provision for a plan of redemption and a resurrection of all forms of life.

Heresy 4: Evolution is the process God used to create all forms of life except Adam, who came by special creation; or Adam was the end product of an evolutionary system used by the Lord for his own purposes.

Commentary: These false notions, together with whatever variations of them happen to be in vogue at any given time, are simply an attempt, on the part of those whose faith falls short of the divine standard, to harmonize the specious theories of men with the revelations of the Lord. They pledge a superficial allegiance to religious truth and allow for a form of divine worship without forsaking the theories of men. They, of necessity, assume that death has always existed on earth, that it did not have its beginning with the fall of Adam, and that there must be some other explanation for all the revelations which say that the atonement ransoms man from the effects of the fall. When those who espouse this view talk of a fall and an atonement, they falsely assume such applies only to man rather than to the earth and all forms of life, as the scriptures attest.

(Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], 99.)

I’m not saying Elder McConkie is right on everything he teaches. What I am saying is his Views of Evolution are in line with the rest of the teachings of the LDS church and more with the Scriptures. If people want to debate that more then feel free. If there was something specific that Elder McConkie taught about Evolution that doesn't go along with scripture then we can talk about that!

One other doctrine that doesn’t go well with Evolution is the doctrine of Pre-mortal life!

In the LDS church we believe there was a spiritual creation before there was a physical creation. (that’s what the book of Abraham teaches). This would lead to the idea that Spirits had to evolve also? Or only our physical body had to go through evolution to reach the point to where our spirit could enter it. But this then means that there had to be different stages of spirits that filled all these bodies for these millions of years? If somebody wants to fit this doctrine in with Evolution I would be happy to hear it!

Also the idea of Evolution suggests that God can't create our bodies the why he wanted them to be. That in a way God need Evolution so our bodies would reach the "state" they needed to be in so they could get a spirit? Really the Doctrine of Evolution cuts God short on his power! He really can't create a human the way he wants us to be created. That idea if false!

One last thing, a couple of people have said they have never heard the LDS church take any “official” stances on Evolution. I hope they realize reading through this; the Church has taken a stance on it a number of times. It has even been linked to in that article “Origin of Man” if they still don’t feel the church has taken a stance then they are ignoring the sources.

Other topics about Noah's flood and the age of the earth goes down a different path (Science vs religion) for the sake of this thread I won't go down that path.

Edited August 2, 2008 by tubaloth

[HiJolly]

Hey, tubaloth, does this mean you disagree with me? (heh)

First lets go through HiJolly on her beefs with Elder McConkie… (I had a similar opinion about Elder McConkie).

I'm not a 'her', and I'm thinking that a few other assumptions you've made here might not be on target, also. Does that mean I toss your opinons out carte blanch, as you seem to think I have done with Elder McConkie? No, not at all. I am comfortable with ambiguity, especially when it comes to truth, the Gospel, and leaders of the Church.

"Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don't know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God."

-- Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

Really the conclusion I get from this, is if Elder McConkie teaches anything a little off (I guess it depends on who we are compare this to) then Elder McConkie must be wrong, because of his pass history.

This is really why I am responding to your post. I think nothing along these lines. It seems to me that you are overreacting a bit, possibly reading ill intent into my comments when none exist. It is true that we tend to ignore those who are consistently wrong in their views and opinions. I do not see Elder McConkie in that light at all, but see him as a man with opinons that may or may not be correct, depending on many factors that are both secular and spiritual.

We find as we live our lives, that we simply don't have enough time to carefully investigate and learn about EVERYTHING. So, we have to narrow our investigations to things that make sense, and simply trust other people when it comes to the things we don't have time for. There's no fault in that, we all do it. It is a neccessary condition of mortal life.

This has no bearing on whether we should or should not listen to an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie is ALWAYS worth listening to. My intent was to make it clear that, as President Young said, we should not simply accept whatever we hear when it comes to what the brethren say. He's right.

Really we can never trust anything Elder McConkie taught because it wasn’t late enough in his life.

Where did THAT come from? "late enough" in life?

I feel that is a really slippery road to go down. What if I can prove that Pres. Monson made some claim “as a man” does the void everything else he ever taught…?

I think it's only slippery if people think like you do. Ouch. Where is the nuance? Where is the reasonability in your comments? You are speaking like a fundamentalist, do you see it?

Ok, I'm going to step away from blow-by-blow remarks now. You are horribly mangling my views into unrecognizabilty by over-stating the case. I object.

HiJolly

Edited August 2, 2008 by HiJolly

[FernRL]

I agree I may have opened a can of worms by bringing up the issue of the Great Flood, however, I am quite prepared to open up a few more cans of worms:

1. As far as I know and have ever been taught, having been a lifelong Latter-day Saint, that the Flood was universal covering the whole earth, representing baptism (by complete immersion), and that the Garden of Eden was really on the North American continent, with the ark in its travels having drifted to the eastern hemisphere before settling on Mount Ararat. In short, yes, I really believe in the flood.

Is there any overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that there could not possibly have been a world-wide flood?

2. My understanding of "Creation" is that living creatures were made to appear on the already existing earth. (Just how that occurred is obviously not explained in any degree of detail.) This impression I get through several sources, one of which is the Martin Luther bible in German, which I would translate as follows: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was deserted and empty...."

3. The term "Day" as used in the creation story is often deemed to be equivalent of a thousand years. I don't think that is really absolute doctrine either, but it could really mean "era" or "eon" for all I know. The only thing that seems obvious to me, is that it does NOT mean 24 hours. Otherwise God would have been a liar when he said that "in the day thou eatest thereof (of the forbidden fruit) thou shalt surely die." Since Adam and Eve reportedly lived at least long enough to have several children.

[Revolution]

The theory of evolution is not the only scientific theory on the origin of life. Nor is evolution a "fact" it is only a theory. I don't know why so many people treat it as a fact when it is not.

While the Theory of Evolution as for the origin of man certainly isn't a law of science, evolution is shown in the AIDS virus as well as throughout the world during certain natural disasters. As far as the origin of life is concerned, if you bring the idea of it not being 100% fact into the argument, the alternative, creationism, is so incredibly ridiculous as to be quite laughable indeed. There is no such volume of evidence for creationism as there is evolution. If indeed creation is the alternative, going by the argument that matter cannot just be, and there of course must be some sort of beginning, evolution is infinitely more feasible than creation. It is, in addition to having to basis whatsoever in science, true that in order to have intelligence capable of creating the universe, there must have been something to create this intelligence. It is much more of a leap of faith, that is to say fantasy, to say there can't have been matter since the beginning of time, but its perfectly plausible to assume that some supreme intelligence just 'is.'

And naturally you cannot say Evolution is a fact, just as one can't disprove there is a god, or that I am Napoleon, or that this salt shaker here is the creator of the universe. You cannot prove the speed of light or any other 'theory' simple because of the nature of many of them. Mind you the discussion in this case is concerning observable reality as you bring up the scientific validity of Evolution.

link“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure - former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

That is just ridiculous. I really don't have a response for that, if you truly believe Evolution to either be a fairy tale or possess no scientific significance, you either have no knowledge of Evolution outside of the myth of the theory boiling down to random chance or are simply ignoring volumes of evidence and literature, in which case there really isn't any point in debate is there?

Encyclopedia Britannica - "modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation"

Given the obvious lack of evidence of spontaneous generation, I do not know why more people do agree with Pasteur in concluding that all life comes from life, never from non-life.

Well, let me say there are some misconceptions as to the statements of Pasteur as well as point out he was born in 1822. Since then I would propose to you that we have made some at least modest advances, wouldn't you say? Either way, he did accept Evolution and that fact that the Earth is at the very least millions of years old, which is of course more than the creationist ten thousands or so, but indeed less that the actual age of the planet.

Outside of that, its correct to say that Abiogenesis is not entirely figured out so to speak. However, doing even the most preliminary reading, it is hardly as simple as no life one day, life the next.

On a strictly personal note, I myself find Abiogenesis so much more fantastically amazing and beautiful than "six days and it was good."

"mutations are generally random copying mistakes in the reproduction of the genetic code (DNA), and as such, tend to be harmful."

Has a "good" mutation" ever really been observed?

Is there ever an addition of new information?

"no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions” for building a new physical trait). All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether. "

link

Thats actually false. Such an idea is not considered to be valid, again, in plain, its just wrong.

Once more, any reading from actual up to date scientific resources will show that new traits have been observed. Remember, DNA is comprised of no more than a few letters, as there are no more than a few musical notes or on a much larger scale, twenty-six letters in the alphabet. However, these can, as the quote goes, give rise to more melodies than could ever be written or more books than could ever be imagined.

As far as mutations only being harmful, there are considerably more neutral mutations than either positive or negative, most of the human genome is in fact useless information. Trait altering mutations are rare, with some being helpful, an adaptation, and some being negative depending on the environment.

In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.

Such is a common argument, but fundamentally arising from a misunderstanding of the sciences. Of course its natural that when we look at a computer or a magnificent building its impossible to imagine such wonder if it were not for a designer. The fact is life is much more complex, and the fact that it wasn't by design is somewhat hard to grasp. People naturally feel secure in finding patterns to the way things are, however unlikely. Thinking this is all for the incredible probability of so many elements and conditions coming together without a plan is difficult to accept.

I rather enjoy this analogy. Imagine you drive a golf ball some two hundred or so meters. A relatively small object, the ball, lands on a group of even smaller objects, a few blades of grass. Now, out of the millions upon millions of blades of grass that tiny ball could have landed on, it landed in this handful here. Imagine all the forces at play. Your drive, the club, the weight of the ball, its size, wind, the weather, all of physics. You could try to repeat that exact shot for your entire life and never make it again, the odds are so great against it, but it did happen that one time and it wasn't hard. Now the forces at play in the golf course we can understand easily.

The amazing, truly unimaginable number of forces at play in the universe, the conditions needed for life, the amazing process of events that bring us to you and I sitting here debating the merits of a scientific theory on the internet. If you look at the beginning and the end, the end being the world as it is today, and look at our present situation as a goal or objective to arrive at from the beginnings of the universe, it seems impossible. Indeed, had you picked ten blades of grass you wish to land your ball on and make your drive with that goal in mind, you'll likely never achieve your goal. Such is not the correct way to view the origin of life. The universe didn't start off trying to get to where we are, where we are is but one of truly infinite possible outcomes. Of course this means we aren't the centre of the universe, and this is quite a scary proposition.

why are transitional forms “entirely lacking,” ?

World-renowned evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould further acknowledged, “New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region...

Again you've found another incredibly common creationist argument against Evolution. Unfortunately, this argument is a misconception based on, again, fundamentally misunderstanding how Evolution works and is sadly for creationists, simply not so. Again. This idea is categorically based on ignorance of the process of Evolution.

If you set out to find the arguments for creation for one reason or another you will be able to find misinformation of any sort. Of course the reason here is obviously religion. I understand wanting to believe in what you've been raised to, but ignoring and knowingly twisting facts to make such a case I think is disrespectful to the truth as well as your religion. Surely you would rather base your religious views on ideas you that you don't have to lie to yourself concerning in order to render said views non-contradictory to your religion. There are religious people that accept reality and don't see a conflict, and I don't think there needs to be. Either way, you can have your own religion but there is only one reality, one set of facts.

flood link

Today most of the earth’s surface (80 to 90 percent) is in fact composed of sedimentary rock,[88] consistent with the expected results of a biblical global flood. And many fossils highly resemble today’s creatures — that is, fossil bats look like today’s bats, and fossil turtles like today’s turtles.

etc. etc.

anyways, a good read I thought.

The story of a the flood as it is in the Bible is pure fiction. One man building a boat roughly half the size of Titanic (Bible's dimensions, not the size needed to house the proposed passengers) out of wood mind you, and I'll ignore the structural integrity of the boat for want of space, if you have a question let me know, is absurd. Then, this same man rounds up some ten billion species unto said boat, properly takes care of them all nutritionally and so on, for some extended duration. A great flood of water covers the entire Earth for some time, then the water just leaves. Having all the plant and animal life needed as a source of energy for the tremendous task of repopulating the Earth utterly destroyed, this man lands his boat and proceeds to redistribute all ten billion species about the globe, and keeps them from eating each other as of course, there is the concept of a carnivore even in the Bible, while at the same time finding some way to meet the energy needs to the herbivorous keeping in mind the floods outcome relating to plant life.

Sure thing.

Anyway, thats rather long for a single post and there is bound to be a volume of spelling as well as grammatical errors. Pay no attention to the lack of English proficiency behind the curtain.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Revolution

[NateHowe]

The realm of faith takes over precisely where things cannot be explained by the natural laws we currently understand. God does all things according to law, but He understands laws higher than we can comprehend.

Casting doubt upon Biblical events is not an effective method of finding the truth. As a Church, we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That is not to say that figurative and symbolic representations do not exist in the Bible, but we must be cautious about dismissing the words of Scripture.

On evolution, we understand that it is a natural process which is currently occurring. That is not a disputed issue. However, the idea that Darwinian evolution was the source of all life on this Earth is in conflict with Scripture and the words of latter-day prophets. Does this mean evolution is not a tool of God? No. But Darwin's understanding of this principle is not completely compatible with revealed truth.

One way in which many people's views of evolutionary theory are incompatible with the Gospel is that humans - men and women - are actually children of God. God is not a goat or a paramecium or a peach tree. He looks like us, although His glory far surpasses ours. Other forms of life are His creations, but we are His children. Evolution misses the mark on this one. God placed the human race on the Earth and gave him self-awareness, spiritual knowledge, and rational thought for a purpose. Other life forms do not have these qualities. They are not acquired by evolution.

Let's put this another way. Statistically, is it more likely that a lightning bolt hits a pool of amino acid sludge, resulting in Albert Schweitzer eons later? Or is it more likely that a supremely intelligent being could exist, even God, who placed His children here intentionally by a mode of travel we do not now understand? To me, the latter is more logical.

[Revolution]

The realm of faith takes over precisely where things cannot be explained by the natural laws we currently understand. God does all things according to law, but He understands laws higher than we can comprehend.

Casting doubt upon Biblical events is not an effective method of finding the truth. As a Church, we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That is not to say that figurative and symbolic representations do not exist in the Bible, but we must be cautious about dismissing the words of Scripture.

On evolution, we understand that it is a natural process which is currently occurring. That is not a disputed issue. However, the idea that Darwinian evolution was the source of all life on this Earth is in conflict with Scripture and the words of latter-day prophets. Does this mean evolution is not a tool of God? No. But Darwin's understanding of this principle is not completely compatible with revealed truth.

Well, strictly in a scientific sense, supposed prophets and holy books don't have any weight as far as how life began any more than a Jule Verne book does. There are Muslims who believe in their truth as revealed by their prophet just as strongly as you do. In science you can't let religion give you any suggestion, as I could found a religion today and five hundred years later it could very well be a prominent religious group.

One way in which many people's views of evolutionary theory are incompatible with the Gospel is that humans - men and women - are actually children of God. God is not a goat or a paramecium or a peach tree. He looks like us, although His glory far surpasses ours. Other forms of life are His creations, but we are His children. Evolution misses the mark on this one. God placed the human race on the Earth and gave him self-awareness, spiritual knowledge, and rational thought for a purpose. Other life forms do not have these qualities. They are not acquired by evolution.

Its not Evolution missing the mark, its the people who wrote the bible some years ago who did. As far as rational thought and awareness, indeed they are acquired by evolution. The statement that animals don't and we do is, like many others, based on ignorance of the theory.

Let's put this another way. Statistically, is it more likely that a lightning bolt hits a pool of amino acid sludge, resulting in Albert Schweitzer eons later? Or is it more likely that a supremely intelligent being could exist, even God, who placed His children here intentionally by a mode of travel we do not now understand? To me, the latter is more logical.

A lightening bolt striking sludge? If thats your idea of the proposed idea for Abiogenisis, I really don't have anything to say.

Also, as I said, if you look at the formation of the planet and use where we are now as a sort of goal or endpoint that must be achieved, of course it seems impossible. The same can be said of you and I. Of all the possible combinations of DNA that go into a child, you and I came to be. If you look at it in the sense of one specific DNA makeup being the goal, it once more seems impossible, but thats entirely the wrong way to think of things. If you look at all the possible children that weren't born, or indeed the number of failed planets and stars, one planet supporting life is nothing.

If you're going to bring the supernatural into science, everything goes out the door. Thinking logically, as there has never been any evidence whatsoever for a supernatural god, logically its not to be considered. How is it any more feasible that the christian god created humans and planted all this evidence of Evolution just to throw us, than the idea that I indeed created the universe? You cannot prove or disprove either, but that does NOT make them equal in terms of feasibility.

It is impossible to disprove that plants grow because of ghosts of gnomes magically influencing them. That fact does not make the magical gnome theory as feasible as the scientifically accepted idea.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Revolution

[Over43]

I think of most of the religions out there, LDS folks are quite tolerant of the Theory of Evolution. I had a BYU professor who stood up one day and said he believed in evolution. No one really "batted an eye" as posted above.

He also made sure he stated he was a full tithe payer...

I have also think I have heard President Hinckley (And I am so sorry I do not have a citation) state that "The Church" takes no official stance on the subject.

Jon

[Vort]

If you look at it in the sense of one specific DNA makeup being the goal, it once more seems impossible, but thats entirely the wrong way to think of things.

Why? Because it doesn't lead to the answer you want to provide?

If you look at all the possible children that weren't born, or indeed the number of failed planets and stars, one planet supporting life is nothing.

A brave statement from someone who has never made a planet before.

If you're going to bring the supernatural into science, everything goes out the door.

That's because "supernatural" and "science" are opposite in meaning. Note, however, that one could well say the same thing about "supernatural" and "LDS religion".

Thinking logically, as there has never been any evidence whatsoever for a supernatural god, logically its not to be considered.

Your statement is false on several points. First, logic dictates no such thing. Second, and part of the reason for the first falsity, there has been plenty of evidence for a "supernatural" (your word) God.

How is it any more feasible that the christian god created humans and planted all this evidence of Evolution just to throw us

Why did you invent such a fanciful scenario? Just to discredit it? That's straw man argumentation.

[FernRL]

Well, Revolution, I think you have revealed yourself as a fraud--or else you are incredibly stupid. If you were honest in your initial post, interested in what we believe about evolution, you should have known that we would believe in God either way. If you cannot accept the possibility that God used evolution as a tool in creating life on earth, then you must have just wanted to argue for the sake of argument, and I for one will have none of it.

Here is a link to an article written by Mormon Science Fiction author Orson Scott Card, entitled "Real Faith, Science, Unafraid", which, in essence, represents some of what I believe.

Mormon Times - Real faith, science unafraid

As I may have indicated before, I don't see the conflict necessarily between the Bible, taken as a religious and not a scientific work, and basic evolution. I do consider, however, that not everything that scientists would have us believe is 100% accurate. I consider it to be a huge lie, for example, when scientists devised what they call "Geologic time". They deliberately invented that term to refute the idea many people get from the Bible that the earth was literally created out of nothing in 7 24-hour days. Then they claim that "geological events" take place incredibly slowly. What? Isn't an earthquake a geological event? How about a volcano which grew from a Mexican cornfield overnight? Erosion, then? I saw Levan canyon before and after the Flood of '83, and the creek bed was approximately 30 feet lower after that flood than it was before, an example of just one of many land changes at the time.

Geology would be further ahead if it emphasized geological size rather than time. So, yes, I can see why scientists would be skeptical about a flood that covered the whole earth. It is not impossible, though. There is much more water on earth than land, so if the real miracle is that there are any parts of the land that are above water. (People readily discount that, because it is so obvious that we are on dry ground and that there are some mountains which are extremely high above sea level.)

We all rely a lot on our personal experiences. That is why I believe in God. I pray. I get answers. I not only believe in God, but in a Heavenly Father who loves me. I believe He knows all things, and compared to Him the smartest person on earth is like a two-year old. 60 years of experience has taught me this. I am as sure of the existence of God as I am that my mother lived. You would not dispute the fact that I had a mother, not because of any actual facts at your disposal, but merely because of your experience that everyone has a mother, or they wouldn't be alive. So you are being unreasonable if you refute other people's experience.

My experience is that bacteria evolve to the point where the whole community of them can be resistant to drugs meant to kill them. I also observe that different kinds of animals have different levels of promiscuity, which may explain why they may diverge into separate groups and then separate species. Is it not so that dogs and wolves have been known to breed and produce fertile offspring? And are they not considered separate species? And do you insist that birds are not usually very careful not to interbreed with other birds which have different colors of plumage or a different song? (Even if genetically they were capable of producing offspring with the parent species?)

Now, I am no scientist, or even college graduate, and I don't know how many species are alive on earth today, or even less, how many were on earth 3 or 4 thousand years ago, but are there not more species that can survive in the ocean than on land? And are there not more species that could float on a leaf, a log, or a coconut, than would require a specific boat to save them from The Flood. I also suspect that the differences between the Asian elephant and the African elephant were able to develop from one set of progenitors (probably baby ones) aboard the Ark, especially after some of them moved their habitat to the southeast and some to the south west. Is that so far-fetched? Certainly no more so than going from an asexual type of organism to a bisexual one.... And I am not saying it didn't happen, just that it is more far-fetched and I reserve judgment as to the actual history of it all. If you disbelieve that there was a world-wide flood merely on the basis of it being far-fetched, then you should at least accept that others have a right to disbelieve some or all of evolution on the same grounds. That is enough for me.

[DigitalShadow]

I know this has already been responded to, but I would like to offer my own responses, because I think there are a lot of misconceptions that need to be cleared up here.

The theory of evolution is not the only scientific theory on the origin of life. Nor is evolution a "fact" it is only a theory. I don't know why so many people treat it as a fact when it is not.

I don't know why so many people have no idea what the word "theory" means when used in scientific context. It's not as if once there is more evidence, the scientific community will upgrade it to a "fact." Everything in science is only a theory, since nothing is beyond question.

Also, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it only describes how organisms change over time. As far as I know, it is the only scientific theory supported by evidence that explains the changes in organisms observed in the fossil record. If there are other scientific theories that you know of, please cite them, as I would be interested to hear about them.

If you're referring to Intelligent Design, don't bother though because very few scientists even consider it science:

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.

The whole Intelligent Design propaganda was a thinly veiled ploy to get creationism into schools and has since been debunked many times over.

link“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure - former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

And the opinion of the director of a museum is somehow better than the opinions of many thousands of scientists?

Encyclopedia Britannica - "modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation"

Given the obvious lack of evidence of spontaneous generation, I do not know why more people do agree with Pasteur in concluding that all life comes from life, never from non-life.

Abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Conflating the two and then claiming evolution is a false theory because abiogenesis is not feasable is rediculous. If you want to debate how the first life form came to be, it is a completely different argument, with much less scientific evidence one way or the other. The result of that argument however, has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

"mutations are generally random copying mistakes in the reproduction of the genetic code (DNA), and as such, tend to be harmful."

Has a "good" mutation" ever really been observed?

Is there ever an addition of new information?

"no one has ever been able to point to a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information (new genes or “instructions” for building a new physical trait). All mutations appear to scramble the already-existing information (instructions), either by the reshuffling or duplication of existing genes, or simply by damaging the genes altogether. "

link

In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.

I'm sorry, but your information is flat out wrong. First of all, the vast majority of mutations are nuetral. They happen all the time. A small portion of mutations beneficial and increase the chance of survival, increasing the probability that they will be passed on. A small portion of mutations are harmful and decrease the chance of survival, decreasing the probability that they will be passed on.

Useful information can be added through mutation, and this has even been observed in the lab: Bacteria make a majory evolutionary shift in the lab

why are transitional forms “entirely lacking,” ?

World-renowned evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould further acknowledged, “New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region...

flood link

Today most of the earth’s surface (80 to 90 percent) is in fact composed of sedimentary rock,[88] consistent with the expected results of a biblical global flood. And many fossils highly resemble today’s creatures — that is, fossil bats look like today’s bats, and fossil turtles like today’s turtles.

Another appeal to authority?

Some recommended reading for you: Transitional Fossils

Edited August 4, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[NateHowe]

Well, strictly in a scientific sense, supposed prophets and holy books don't have any weight as far as how life began any more than a Jule Verne book does. There are Muslims who believe in their truth as revealed by their prophet just as strongly as you do. In science you can't let religion give you any suggestion, as I could found a religion today and five hundred years later it could very well be a prominent religious group.

Its not Evolution missing the mark, its the people who wrote the bible some years ago who did. As far as rational thought and awareness, indeed they are acquired by evolution. The statement that animals don't and we do is, like many others, based on ignorance of the theory.

A lightening bolt striking sludge? If thats your idea of the proposed idea for Abiogenisis, I really don't have anything to say.

Also, as I said, if you look at the formation of the planet and use where we are now as a sort of goal or endpoint that must be achieved, of course it seems impossible. The same can be said of you and I. Of all the possible combinations of DNA that go into a child, you and I came to be. If you look at it in the sense of one specific DNA makeup being the goal, it once more seems impossible, but thats entirely the wrong way to think of things. If you look at all the possible children that weren't born, or indeed the number of failed planets and stars, one planet supporting life is nothing.

If you're going to bring the supernatural into science, everything goes out the door. Thinking logically, as there has never been any evidence whatsoever for a supernatural god, logically its not to be considered. How is it any more feasible that the christian god created humans and planted all this evidence of Evolution just to throw us, than the idea that I indeed created the universe? You cannot prove or disprove either, but that does NOT make them equal in terms of feasibility.

It is impossible to disprove that plants grow because of ghosts of gnomes magically influencing them. That fact does not make the magical gnome theory as feasible as the scientifically accepted idea.

Science cannot measure religion, but religion can measure science. Science cannot approach that which cannot be empirically observed. True religion encompasses all truth, including the invisible, unmeasurable, and unprovable. Since your evolutionary origin theory has not been proven scientifically (it is still a theory), my view, based on words of prophets combined with undeniable experience with God, is no less rational or defensible than yours. If you make such a radical statement as, "there has never been any evidence for a supernatural God," you should know that it is scientifically nearly impossible to prove a negative, and that only a small portion of the scientists throughout the ages have been atheist. Rational men can still accept an authority higher than themselves, and those who cannot may eventually be memorialized as presumptuous at best.

[bmy-]

Science cannot measure religion, but religion can measure science. Science cannot approach that which cannot be empirically observed. True religion encompasses all truth, including the invisible, unmeasurable, and unprovable. Since your evolutionary origin theory has not been proven scientifically (it is still a theory), my view, based on words of prophets combined with undeniable experience with God, is no less rational or defensible than yours. If you make such a radical statement as, "there has never been any evidence for a supernatural God," you should know that it is scientifically nearly impossible to prove a negative, and that only a small portion of the scientists throughout the ages have been atheist. Rational men can still accept an authority higher than themselves, and those who cannot may eventually be memorialized as presumptuous at best.

Gravity is still a theory.. evolution is much the same. Overwhelming evidence points towards it being both theory and 'fact'.

Yet you never hear the word 'theory' thrown around with the word gravity. It apparently only applies to evolution?

[Elphaba]

Since your evolutionary origin theory has not been proven scientifically (it is still a theory),

I read this thread very quickly, and saw this explained, but I don't think you saw it.

So many people believe a theory, as the word is conventionally understood, applies to scientific theories, when it does not. In fact, I wish scientists had developed a different word for them, because when people don't believe in the theory, they think they can dismiss it because of how the word is used in the common vernacular.

This is incorrect. Theories have been proved--it is the components of the theory that scientists observe and tweak--but not the theory itself.

Dismissing a scientific fact because it is only a theory is especially effective when people do not want to believe in the theory. The "Theory of Evolution" seems to be the most controversial, though there are so many scientific theories I am unaware of, I can't say for sure which one is the most controversial.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.

So when scientists talk about the "Theory of Evolution"--or the "Atomic Theory" or the "Theory of Relativity,"--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

For example, without the Law of Gravity, Einstein would never have been able to develop the "Theory of Relativity." This is because the Law of Gravity is only one of many components that make up the "Theory of Relativity." Scientists can tweak the components of the theory, but the theory remains an accepted fact.

Therefore, claiming a theory is not really a theory in the scientific world is incorrect. All scientific theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

and those who cannot may eventually be memorialized as presumptuous at best.

Why? If their science is sound, then they will be acknowledged for such. Not because of their belief in a god or not.

It is true most scientists have not been atheists throughout the history of the western world, though I would argue history would not have been kind to most of them if they had admitted such.

However, there are more scientists who are atheists today, in the scientific world, than in the past. And again, I don't think anyone will care about that one way or the other if his/her science is sound.

Elphaba

[FernRL]

I like your definition of "theory," but I think there is also a misuse of the word "fact."

Dismissing a scientific fact because it is only a theory is especially effective when people do not want to believe in the theory.

To me a "fact" is a single piece of accurate information, potentially used as evidence in a theory. So this quote you used is using that word accurately, in my opinion:

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

So a theory can never be said to be a "fact" because of the other components of the theory: "laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Or, I would say "conclusions based on the evidence.")

Anyway, calling a complex theory "a fact" demeans it and reduces it to something so simple as something that can still be brushed away quickly.

Scientists can tweak the components of the theory, but the theory remains an accepted fact.

To me it would be better to say: "remains factual and thoroughly accepted scientifically."

So I think it would really help us non-scientists to understand things better if the correct terms are used all around.

[Moksha]

I like both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Religion.

:)

[HiJolly]

I like both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Religion.

:)

Excellent! (insert air guitar here)

HiJolly

[Elphaba]

I like your definition of "theory," but I think there is also a misuse of the word "fact."

Thank you for the clarification. I did a Google search, and discovered you are correct: a theory is not a fact. The facts are technically a component of the theory.

The correct term for the proven theory would be a “model.” Thus, a theory is a model composed of “laws, inferences and tested hypotheses," as you wrote.

I am opposed to using Wiki as evidence of anything, but I think the following excerpt explains your point well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Example: Special Theory of Relativity

As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena which had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light.

The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more commonly: the speed of light is a constant). It is the model that is not in dispute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope I have that right, as I only did a Google search to try and discover the proper terminology. If someone knows better, I would appreciate it if you would post it.

So, thank you again for your clarification. I am always glad to learn new information about these things.

Elphaba

Edited August 7, 2008 by Elphaba
Because I can be really dumb sometimes.