Poll: Evolution

[DigitalShadow]

Pick the statement that best represents your viewpoint regarding evolution and if you would like post on why you feel that way. I am curious what most people (especially LDS) think about evolution and why. Comments and questions are also welcome.

Edit: I feel like an idiot, I didn't realize the forum automatically put Poll: in front of the title if there is a poll so now the title looks stupid when browsing

Edited October 21, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Elgama]

my viewpoint is Evolution happens thats a fact and I firmly believe it is capable of all Darwin and others since have supposed - however I don't believe it is how our particular group of humans and organisms on our planet now came into being.

-Charley

[DigitalShadow]

my viewpoint is Evolution happens thats a fact and I firmly believe it is capable of all Darwin and others since have supposed - however I don't believe it is how our particular group of humans and organisms on our planet now came into being.

-Charley

Interesting, I don't think I've ever heard it put like that before. Just to make sure I understand your viewpoint, you believe that evolution could have created all the species on the earth, but didn't?

[Elgama]

Interesting, I don't think I've ever heard it put like that before. Just to make sure I understand your viewpoint, you believe that evolution could have created all the species on the earth, but didn't?

yes if left alone I believe it could - I don't believe it has had long enough, but I am not against the idea its how creation happened on other planets or done by other Gods

-Charley

[Elgama]

basically I believe when scientists have their big ideas its flashes of inspiration - men like George Gordon, Hugh MIller, Charles Darwin appear to have been decent good men mostly what would be called God Fearing I believe what they have discovered and written about is of use to us,

-Charley

[HiJolly]

I want to vote twice!! (because *I'm* special!)

FIRST: I believe that all the diverse species we see today are related and a product of evolution

-----

Yup - I do!

SECOND: I believe that evolution is the tool by which God guided the creation of all species.

----

Totally!

...and I totally despise ID theory. Not because I don't think God is involved in evolution, but because ID tries to sneak out from the Religion 'sandbox' and into the Science 'sandbox' without getting caught. Bad boy!!

God's influence, power, spirit, etc. is completely in and through all (ALL) creation. SATURATES it all. We just don't have the scientific tools to detect it, and I rather doubt that we ever will. Maybe someday.

HiJolly

[DigitalShadow]

I want to vote twice!! (because *I'm* special!)

FIRST: I believe that all the diverse species we see today are related and a product of evolution

-----

Yup - I do!

SECOND: I believe that evolution is the tool by which God guided the creation of all species.

----

Totally!

...and I totally despise ID theory. Not because I don't think God is involved in evolution, but because ID tries to sneak out from the Religion 'sandbox' and into the Science 'sandbox' without getting caught. Bad boy!!

God's influence, power, spirit, etc. is completely in and through all (ALL) creation. SATURATES it all. We just don't have the scientific tools to detect it, and I rather doubt that we ever will. Maybe someday.

HiJolly

There, I put in your second vote as mine :)

[Guest ceeboo]

yes if left alone I believe it could - I don't believe it has had long enough, but I am not against the idea its how creation happened on other planets or done by other Gods

-Charley

Hi Charley, :)

I take it you are one of the LDS that listened to the " KFD " sermon and subscribe to it .

Peace,

Carl

[HiJolly]

There, I put in your second vote as mine :)

Woot! (I don't care what anyone else says, *I* think you're a good egg!)

HiJolly

[Elgama]

Hi Charley, :)

I take it you are one of the LDS that listened to the " KFD " sermon and subscribe to it .

Peace,

Carl

no never listened to it why should I have? tbh don't read an awful lot of church material outside of the scriptures and lesson manuals. I came up with my views through working in a museum that specialises in fossils - when I found new information I prayed about it - I am of no illusion that I am right just its my level of understanding right now based on university study and in the days before disability and kids work I worked with a lot of letters written by Charles Darwin many people have never seen or are even aware exist they are personal letters and I found I liked the guy

-Charley

[Guest ceeboo]

I want to vote twice!! (because *I'm* special!)

HiJolly

Now that is the understatment of the year !!!!!! :):)

BTW, I thought the only ones who were allowed to vote twice were gingerbread cookies and guys on a horse.

Peace,

Carl

[DigitalShadow]

Woot! (I don't care what anyone else says, *I* think you're a good egg!)

HiJolly

Yay! At least someone here likes me

[HiJolly]

no never listened to it why should I have? tbh don't read an awful lot of church material outside of the scriptures and lesson manuals. I came up with my views through working in a museum that specialises in fossils - when I found new information I prayed about it - I am of no illusion that I am right just its my level of understanding right now based on university study and in the days before disability and kids work I worked with a lot of letters written by Charles Darwin many people have never seen or are even aware exist they are personal letters and I found I liked the guy

-Charley

I was raised dogmatically believing that evolution was of the devil ("I ain't no descendant of no monkey!") in the LDS church (you know, the age of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie). Then I got in with a crowd of scientists ("HiJolly, I don't think you should hang with that kind of people!") and my internal struggle began.

It finally got to the point where I actually read Darwin, and I had almost a spiritual experience as I did so. The man is right. He has limited light, but then, so do all the rest of us, to one degree or another. JFS had limited light too, at least in the sciences, and he was wrong about what I call 'real' evolution. So sad.

So what's 'false' evolution? Anything that dogmatically requires the abolition of God. I understand that science cannot deal with God or His involvement, and haven't got a problem with that. I think Gould's NOMA is a teensy tad flawed but generally quite useful in a practical sense. IE, I like it.

HiJolly

[Maureen]

I want to vote twice!! (because *I'm* special!)

FIRST: I believe that all the diverse species we see today are related and a product of evolution

-----

Yup - I do!

SECOND: I believe that evolution is the tool by which God guided the creation of all species.

----

Totally!

...HiJolly

I agree with HiJolly and see it both ways. :)

M.

[funkymonkey]

I agree with HiJolly and see it both ways. :)

Ditto.

[Elgama]

I was raised dogmatically believing that evolution was of the devil ("I ain't no descendant of no monkey!") in the LDS church (you know, the age of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie). Then I got in with a crowd of scientists ("HiJolly, I don't think you should hang with that kind of people!") and my internal struggle began.

It finally got to the point where I actually read Darwin, and I had almost a spiritual experience as I did so. The man is right. He has limited light, but then, so do all the rest of us, to one degree or another. JFS had limited light too, at least in the sciences, and he was wrong about what I call 'real' evolution. So sad.

So what's 'false' evolution? Anything that dogmatically requires the abolition of God. I understand that science cannot deal with God or His involvement, and haven't got a problem with that. I think Gould's NOMA is a teensy tad flawed but generally quite useful in a practical sense. IE, I like it.

HiJolly

My belief is we can but gather all the information we have right now - I firmly believe in Adam and Eve but also that the science is not wrong either I am not sure how I marry the two ideas yet but believe an understanding of evolution will aid my eternal progression.

I am sorry your experience in your early years was like that - have you read much of Hugh Miller and Rev. George Gordon's work ?? Hugh Miller was a contemporary of Darwin who studied the fossil record, George Gordon was earlier - fascinating men and work but mostly forgotten now

-Charley

[Moksha]

I think evolution is one of the prime tools on God's utility belt.

[bytor2112]

I was raised dogmatically believing that evolution was of the devil ("I ain't no descendant of no monkey!") in the LDS church (you know, the age of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie). Then I got in with a crowd of scientists ("HiJolly, I don't think you should hang with that kind of people!") and my internal struggle began.

It finally got to the point where I actually read Darwin, and I had almost a spiritual experience as I did so. The man is right. He has limited light, but then, so do all the rest of us, to one degree or another. JFS had limited light too, at least in the sciences, and he was wrong about what I call 'real' evolution. So sad.

So what's 'false' evolution? Anything that dogmatically requires the abolition of God. I understand that science cannot deal with God or His involvement, and haven't got a problem with that. I think Gould's NOMA is a teensy tad flawed but generally quite useful in a practical sense. IE, I like it.

HiJolly

Was JFS and Bruce R wrong..... or just referring to life since the creation of Eden? Perhaps, we might allow that they believed in pre-edenic evolution? Or the idea that evolution occurred and was designed by God to bring about the creation and ultimately the fall?

[Guest Godless]

The fossil records may be incomplete, but we have more than enough to justify species emergence, hence I voted for the first option.

[Islander]

Interesting. Somebody stated above that scientists had "flashes of inspiration" which I find rather amusing since such could have been labeled "speculation" if uttered by a "non-scientist".

Let's not forget that it is still a theory, evolution, that is. It has many supporters but it is nevertheless a theory. Based in great measure on quantum leaps in theorizing, highly controversial speculation and bone fragments that now and again are discredited by newer testing techniques.

Long ago I found useful not to make up my mind to quickly about any "discovery." Peer reviews, new technology, other discoveries and even random event have proved to play a significant role in the interpretation and validity of prior claims.

[threepercent]

no offense intended but:

I think its totally silly to think that god waited around on evolution. If we terraformed mars today we would bypass that entire process. We would start by separating the land and waters, then we would seed algae and so on following the Genesis model. God ORGANIZED the earth, and that is beyond our technological abilities, but evolution is not. We "play god" with dna and gene splicing, so how does God "play god"?

It also seems very compartmentalized and arrogant to think of the many things the Savior has done and then to put His creation into the box of evolution.

Do I believe in Evolution, sure, in micro-evolution. Macro? I don't know, as there is not near enough evidence to take an account of, and it doesn't match with "spheres". Not that it matters. Evolution could be true, and it still does not mean life evolved from a common ancestor on this earth.

I also believe in worlds without end. If you owned (and were capable of managing) worlds without end, would you wait till evolution produced a body in your express image to place your spirit children in?

[Misshalfway]

I guess that I kinda wanted to vote multiple times too....:)

I view evolution as a tool. I don't always agree with the breadth that some take and interpret the idea, but I do see that there is evidence....valid evidence but I have a hard time believing that it is the only process that helps creation along.

I am a lover of mountains and canyons. If I go to the North and East of my house, I will find the most majestic and beautiful mountain roads. Thanks to a little volcanic activity, I have my Sunday afternoons filled. If I go South, I can view the most interesting and picturesque canyons made from wind and rain that sculpt the sandstone into breathtaking shapes.

I think that there are many processes that bring about and continue creation of the earth and the inhabitants in them.

When I hear some views on evolution, it feels sometimes like the "gospel of evolution". I guess I wonder what it is that makes people adopt this one process as if it is the only one.

[walterkellar]

What 'fun' would there be if a god 'popped' a world into existence in a matter of a few days? I like to think that it is like those who grow gardens. The fun and beauty is to watch things grow. If you are eternal, what's the hurry. Where you gots to go?

[HiJolly]

no offense intended but:

I think its totally silly to think that god waited around on evolution.

No offense taken. I think it's silly to think that God is in a hurry of some kind (like what walterkellar posted).

If we terraformed mars today we would bypass that entire process. We would start by separating the land and waters, then we would seed algae and so on following the Genesis model. God ORGANIZED the earth, and that is beyond our technological abilities, but evolution is not. We "play god" with dna and gene splicing, so how does God "play god"?

Very differently, is my guess...

It also seems very compartmentalized and arrogant to think of the many things the Savior has done and then to put His creation into the box of evolution.

There is no doubt in my mind that evolution requires God's involvement, BUT since the study of evolution is primarily done under the guise of science, there is a very good reason that God's involvement is not included --- that being, we have no tools in the empirical world to measure or even detect God's involvement. So the scientist doesn't engage in God's involvement, since that can't be made a part of the experiemental or measurement process.

It is true that a few scientists take it too far, saying really ignorant things like we don't need God, but that is a minority, IMO. They give the rest a bad name.

Do I believe in Evolution, sure, in micro-evolution. Macro? I don't know, as there is not near enough evidence to take an account of, and it doesn't match with "spheres". Not that it matters. Evolution could be true, and it still does not mean life evolved from a common ancestor on this earth.

The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is the perspective of time.

I also believe in worlds without end. If you owned (and were capable of managing) worlds without end, would you wait till evolution produced a body in your express image to place your spirit children in?

So do I, and YES, I would wait. As President Monson said just this month, we should find "Joy in the Journey".

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Interesting. Somebody stated above that scientists had "flashes of inspiration" which I find rather amusing since such could have been labeled "speculation" if uttered by a "non-scientist".

True enough.

Let's not forget that it is still a theory, evolution, that is. It has many supporters but it is nevertheless a theory.

That is an abuse of the word 'theory'. Much like the theory of gravity, it is real, observable, and billions of dollars are spent yearly in research and development using the theory of evolution. And billions more are made in profits from the real-world applications of it.

Based in great measure on quantum leaps in theorizing, highly controversial speculation and bone fragments that now and again are discredited by newer testing techniques.

"now and again" is very infrequent, in practice, actually.

Long ago I found useful not to make up my mind to quickly about any "discovery." Peer reviews, new technology, other discoveries and even random event have proved to play a significant role in the interpretation and validity of prior claims.

I agree. In the world of science, there is never the "last word", only the latest word.

HiJolly