LDS view of Creation

[Traveler]

Another question I have:

Where dinosaurs are said to have become extinct millions of years ago, but there is the Komodo Dragon today--what is the distinction between it and dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs were warm blooded and thus birds are the most likely their closest decedents in our time period. The Komodo Dragon is a reptile. Reptiles interestingly evolved before the dinosaurs as did sharks and rays. All of which have not done much evolving while other classes evolved through such drastic changes they are hardly recognizable from their ancestors.

The Traveler

[prospectmom]

Thank you o learned traveler....... its so cool to learm more about this stuff.

[Justice]

We don't believe that God created everything instantly from nothing. For those who truly understand the Bible, you see where it is plainly taught. Even God says it took Him 6 days (or time periods) to create the "Heaven and Earth." 6 days is not "instantly."

In fact, no where in Genesis does it even sound like God is bringing anything into existence from nothing. "Created" does not mean bring into existence from nothing. It never has, and it never will. If a sober mind ponders intently on this word and what it means, you will see that nothing is ever brought into existence from nothing, and in fact, you cannot get something from nothing.

The worldly definition of create means "to bring about something new," meaning something that did not exist before. But, that is because we do not know all things. But, just because we learn something or think of something, that does not mean it was not already known by God. That information was revealed to us by someone who already knew it. This is "intelligence" and it has always existed.

So, if you believe the Bible, that it happened over a 6 "day" period, then you believe there was some "evolution," or evolving or progressing creation. To what extent and over how long of a period we really don't know. But, one thing I do know is that Genesis describes this process in a lot more detail than most people realize.

The first 10 verses of Genesis are an extraordinary description of what happened. I read those verse for 30 or more years, and missed it each and every time. Then, one day, it opened up to me like a movie. As I read them I saw what happened. Those first 10 verses, when read slowly and studied carefully, and prayerfully, describe in great detail the process God used.

Very amazing.

[Traveler]

Isn't it climate events and loss of food supply which caused the dinosaurs demise? Komodo Dragons as well as some others who were from that era were just lucky ... needed less food were in the right place>>> just guessing on my part

The dinosaurs disappeared off the earth over a 2 million year period during the same time we lost most of the large animals in the shallow seas. It is interesting that during the same time mammals flourished as did life in fresh waters. 2 million is actually a long time – especially considering that modern man has been on the scene about 20,000 years or about 1 /100th of that time. During which the climate has changed (including an ice age).

One of the theories concerning the extinction of the dinosaurs is that all the land mass came together to form one continent and that the migration of large animals (dinosaurs) spread disease among the species that weakened them allowing other factors to come together to end their dominance.

I believe all this data encourages the LDS concept that the creation of earth involved a divine preparation rather than G-d creating things from nothing in one step. Although the scriptures talk about the “days” of creation many Christians (including some LDS) I have conversed with think that each individual thing was a separate “creation” in and of itself from nothing to each individual species. I guess this is possible but personally I see almost no evidence from a scientific stand point and from a personal spiritual stand point I have not experienced this method. My experience with G-d is that his teachings and dealings are a process – line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept and not a single event and done kind of thing.

The Traveler

[boyando]

As a scientist and a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I am not sure that you have a good grasp of science or scientific theory.

For example all mathematics is based on number theory of which there are several. There is the integer number theory, the rational number theory, the real number theory and the complex (or imaginary) number theory. One could say that there is an ongoing list of “holes” in number theory in the same manner that you say there are holes in evolution theory. The problem that I see with you thinking is that you are jumping to a conclusion that because of what you call a “hole” in a theory you think that the theory is disproved or rendered inclusive. That is the wrong point of view – what it means is that there is still something about the principle that we scientist (humans) do not have full understanding. What is important to note is that there is no other theories that can be demonstrated to any credible degree that number theory or evolutionary theory is capable of demonstrating.

The point is that if you are anyone else is interested in offering any alternate theories to evolution you better come prepared to demonstrate that your theory has less “holes” than evolution. What you need is hard consistent data that can be duplicated by anyone willing to perform experiments or examine data. By definition science is demonstrable and reproducible. If something is not demonstrable and reproducible it cannot be taught as science. So if you are going to teach science you must be prepared to demonstrate and reproduce your theory.

I will tell you now that you will have a most difficult time demonstrating and reproducing anything associated to the theory of intelligent design. The concept of ex nihilo Creationism including any kind of intelligent design that includes ex nihilo Creationism is not demonstrable or reproducible at any scientific level. Criticizing science is not justification for another theory – you must be able to justify any theory on its own against all the data available and this intelligent design with ex nihilo Creationism has never done nor has anyone been even remotely successful at attempting it.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Although I am very jealous that you can call yourself, scientist, on your resume, I am confused by your mild tung lashing, when most of what you said was in agreement with my point of view.

My point was that some (not all) scientist belief that the theory of evolution has move past theory and on to fact, without changes on information on the subject.

Although I am not a defender of ID, because I don't know enough about it, the name intelligent design evoke images of a parallel theory to evolution.One with some one to guide the evolution and the other to have it happen by chance.

Because of the complexity of a single cell, let alone the most complex living being (that would be Women) I would like to think that I would opt for the guided evolution, if I did not have a personal relationship with my Father in Heaven.

I do have a relationship, and that may cloud my feelings about the theory of evolution, seeing that I am related to the designer.

In the book of Alma we learn that all things show there is a God. And yet those who don't want to see, see what they want to see.

I can admit that I see what I want to see, also. And yet, there can only be one truth, no matter how many theory's.

To sum up, the theory of evolution, as presented in our schools today, can neither be demonstrated or repeated, when it comes too the origin of life. The same can be said of ID.

But if I see a painting of my beautiful bride, my first thought will not be that the canvas fell on the frame, nails fell on the frame and the canvas shrunk tight, then paint fell on the canvas and by chance, the image looks like my wife. Even if the painting is unsigned.

Thanks for your insight. boyando

[LittleWyvern]

To sum up, the theory of evolution, as presented in our schools today, can neither be demonstrated or repeated, when it comes too the origin of life

Yes it can. Why do you think flu medicines stop working after a while? Only those flu viruses with a chance genetic mutation that give them immunity survive, and this dna is passed on when these viruses replicate. Eventually, you get an entire population immune to the flu medicine. It's a crude form of evolution, but it's one where its fast enough to observe over a period of a few years.

[FernRL]

As far as I can tell, it is not an either/or situation between belief in God and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. I believe God created the evolutionary process. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is more than one fact--it is a collection of facts with assumptions and opinions and conclusions tying all of these together. But Evolution only offers an explanation that does not depend on the existence of God to work.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

Although I am very jealous that you can call yourself, scientist, on your resume, I am confused by your mild tung lashing, when most of what you said was in agreement with my point of view.

My point was that some (not all) scientist belief that the theory of evolution has move past theory and on to fact, without changes on information on the subject.

Although I am not a defender of ID, because I don't know enough about it, the name intelligent design evoke images of a parallel theory to evolution.One with some one to guide the evolution and the other to have it happen by chance.

Because of the complexity of a single cell, let alone the most complex living being (that would be Women) I would like to think that I would opt for the guided evolution, if I did not have a personal relationship with my Father in Heaven.

I do have a relationship, and that may cloud my feelings about the theory of evolution, seeing that I am related to the designer.

In the book of Alma we learn that all things show there is a God. And yet those who don't want to see, see what they want to see.

I can admit that I see what I want to see, also. And yet, there can only be one truth, no matter how many theory's.

To sum up, the theory of evolution, as presented in our schools today, can neither be demonstrated or repeated, when it comes too the origin of life. The same can be said of ID.

But if I see a painting of my beautiful bride, my first thought will not be that the canvas fell on the frame, nails fell on the frame and the canvas shrunk tight, then paint fell on the canvas and by chance, the image looks like my wife. Even if the painting is unsigned.

Thanks for your insight. boyando

Thank you for your input. My understanding of ID is not about guided evolution but that G-d creates without using evolution. That each "kind" spoken of in scripture was created separately and then commanded reproduced as G-d created that individual species.

The other thing I hope that you understand is that evolution is a process that can be observed in the reproduction and creation of every life form that exist. You began as a single cell (zygote) and very literally evolved into a very complex human being of an extremely vast variety of cells – all of which evolved in every sense of the meaning from that initial single cell.

It appears that you and I agree on a great many things. Thank you for considering my posts. I understand the scientific methods and I have worked in the field (physics) for a very long time. I am not a bio-scientist. You have sound ideas and contribute well. If you believe that G-d is capable of genetic engineering and manipulating evolution as a process of creation – then you and I have a lot in common. Statistically I can demonstrate there have been some evolutionary processes that are impossible by random chance.

I do not know for sure the method that G-d uses to create the various living creatures that populate this earth but I consider the method by which life is born as we observe; does demonstrate G-d creation power and methods. I believe that every living thing has followed the same pattern of creation. If someone can demonstrate or show any exception – you have my full attention and interest.

Those that think the scripture can and should only be interpreted to mean that G-d created each species from nothing – I am inclined to think that they made up their mind and came to a conclusion before considering any evidence – either from the world we all observe or from scripture.

I would however be interested in having a conversation – especially with someone like you that has ideas they are willing to try out in an open forum.

BTW - I was razed to reject evolution and believe the earth is 6000 years old. It was not until I began to study the evidence that I began to realize the problems such a belief had to obvious things that I could study for myself. So after much study and prayer I came to the conclusion that we do not have all the answers but that evolution is a sound principle and that evolution even if it was the only possible truth of creation did not exclude G-d. I could discuss how I came to such a conclusion but that is a long story and may not be all that interesting. Also several of my friends independently have gone through the same process and came to the same conclusion. And as I have said; it does appear that those that have come to alternate conclusions did so before they studied the data.

The Traveler

Edited February 9, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

As far as I can tell, it is not an either/or situation between belief in God and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. I believe God created the evolutionary process. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is more than one fact--it is a collection of facts with assumptions and opinions and conclusions tying all of these together. But Evolution only offers an explanation that does not depend on the existence of God to work.

I think you are spot on in you thinking except that evolution does not depend on the existance of G-d to work. Some may believe such a thing but it has never been scientifically demonstrated - if someone has the scientific proof I would very much like to see the data.

The Traveler

[bmy-]

Just thought I'd share this.. not sure if many are aware.

"I wouldn't call these molecules alive," he cautions. For one, the molecules can evolve only to replicate better. Reproduction may be the strongest - perhaps only - biological urge, yet even simple organisms go about this by more complex means than breakneck division."

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

We're (not so) slowly getting there.

[Guest Godless]

Thank you for posting that, bmy-. Fascinating stuff!

[Hemidakota]

Over the last few months I've engaged in discussion with a few posters over the evolution/ID debate. It seems that there is a very diverse range of LDS beliefs on the matter. I've read BYU's Evolution Packet, which includes statements by past First Presidencies in regard to the origin of man. I'm also aware of the fact that several of the professors in BYU's science department are very critical of Creationism/ID. I'm interested in learning what common threads you share in your beliefs about our origins. Out of my own curiosity and independent research, I've been able to learn a few things already.

1. Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo Creationism.

2. Nor do they believe in a literal translation of the 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (see Abraham 3:4 for scriptural basis).

3. There is a strong doctrinal and scriptural basis for the belief that Adam and Eve existed as the first humans.

What other scriptures or points of doctrine are there to support your view of our origins (whatever that view may be)? I'm sure many of you are aware of my stance on the matter. I'm not here to debate who's right and who's wrong. I just want to learn more about what you believe so that both sides can have some sort of understanding if/when these debates come up in the future.

The first thing to learn is why GOD is telling us or revealing it to the prophets and what form, literal or symbology...

[Hemidakota]

Just thought I'd share this.. not sure if many are aware.

We're (not so) slowly getting there.

Artifical? More like the real deal.

[Traveler]

For one, the molecules can evolve only to replicate better. Reproduction may be the strongest - perhaps only - biological urge, yet even simple organisms go about this by more complex means than breakneck division.

This is a very interesting quote in light of the claims of those that think alternat life styles is both natural and a right.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

I think you are spot on in you thinking except that evolution does not depend on the existance of G-d to work. Some may believe such a thing but it has never been scientifically demonstrated - if someone has the scientific proof I would very much like to see the data.

The Traveler

Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear: What I was saying is: Evolution does NOT depend on God to work, which is precisely why it can appeal to science, which can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Hemidakota]

Concur since this is the general consensus of the community.

[Traveler]

Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear: What I was saying is: Evolution does NOT depend on God to work, which is precisely why it can appeal to science, which can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

I am trying to be very clear. The statement "Evolution does NOT depend on G-d to work" is pure speculation and unverified speculation has no place in true science. If one were to say "Evolution does depend on G-d to work" - that also is speculation and has no place in true science.

For a statement to "appeal to science" there must be a demonstration process. There are many things in science fiction that are not science but just speculation. For example: traveling faster than the speed of light. String theory is also an example of unproven speculation.

Often when science considers speculation we begin:

First: With the concept of possibility

Second: With the factors of probability.

Third: With the tests of measurements to verify speculation.

Let me explain if I can.

First: When we consider possibilities we do so by transitivity. This is basically a relationship of the things that are already known or already disproven. If one was to consider possibilities preceding the theoretical Big Bang we can calculate the amounts of energy and mass to be present at a point of singularity based on what we understand of the universe. What we find is that unless the energy and mass was “contained” the big bang would have taken place to create a much smaller universe. Now we can consider the “possibilities” of what could have contained the big bang but is now rendered un-observable. Most scientists I know when presented with this data will admit G-d or a G-d like is a possibility.

Second: With factors of probability: When considering all known possibilities and then considering which is more probable. I admit that this has a lot to do with opinions but never-the-less is considered and may vary as various factors become available or better known.

Third: Tests of measurements. The simple point here is that anything that can be tested and measured can be evaluated and determined. If we say all objects will fall to earth at the same speed inside of a vacuum then we must be able to measure various objects falling in a vacuum. Without the test we cannot say what factors alter the speed of an object falling.

Until we know how to measure G-d’s involvement in evolution we cannot say his involvement is not needed. One argument I have used with many of my scientifically based friends is the concept of the evolution of life. As much as we can perceive the universe, life appears to be the exception rather than the rule. In fact, earth harbors the only known life in the universe. There is no indication (currently) that life exist anywhere else. Until we know and can demonstrate the cause of life and also demonstrate that it does not require any intelligent (including our own) preconditions as a cause – no one can say that scientifically G-d is not required.

Some have argued that given enough time anything can happen. Granted that some events can take a very long time but the opposite has been demonstrated. That is that given a large enough sample that time become less of a factor in determining what can happen or if time becomes large the sample can become very small. This is a most important principle in probabilities demonstrated in quantum mechanics.

Sorry this turned out to be such a long post.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

Until we know how to measure G-d’s involvement in evolution we cannot say his involvement is not needed.

The Traveler

Ok, that is clear. The only other thing is: that I doubt most scientists agree. I read in Discover magazine (a year or two, or maybe longer, ago) where some scientists were saying that Evolution actually proves there is no God. I have thought that was certainly going overboard, but even so, I have read many things that seem like scientists are saying that because they can show that evolution is factual, that there is no need to believe in a god, creator, or intelligent designer--that it all works, or could work, without divine intervention.

[Guest Godless]

Ok, that is clear. The only other thing is: that I doubt most scientists agree. I read in Discover magazine (a year or two, or maybe longer, ago) where some scientists were saying that Evolution actually proves there is no God. I have thought that was certainly going overboard, but even so, I have read many things that seem like scientists are saying that because they can show that evolution is factual, that there is no need to believe in a god, creator, or intelligent designer--that it all works, or could work, without divine intervention.

It all depends on how you interpret the Creation stories and the role God is supposed to have played in it all. God's existence aside, evolution is meant to provide an explanation for our origins that does not include God. There are many who accept evolution and still believe in God. This is a perfectly reasonable stance since his existence cannot be disproven by science. So long as you keep science and theology more or less separate (a concept known as NOMA, fairly controversial in the science community), the two worldviews are compatible. Once you try to put God into the scientific explanation, however, the fact that you can neither prove nor disprove his existence becomes a problem.

[Hemidakota]

True science and the gospel are one, not separate at all. When you read Genesis, Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham together, understanding evolution of creation becomes clearer. This is where the former claim residence of worldly science, Darwin made a fatal mistake.

As we look at the Sun, our logical academic training would say, man cannot survive this type of environment when true science or gospel of Christ states, worlds when glorified will become like the Sun and made as a eternal abode for man habitation. Meaning, man can inhabit that planet what our science community calls, a Star.

As the astro-science community will tell you that the universe is infinite in size and true science will tell you that the universe has a boundary and not infinite.

[Traveler]

One interesting component of the discussion of genesis or beginning is how ideas are presented in the scientific and religious community. To be honest I find the religious community all over the map with little or no conscious on macro or micro details. For religious thinkers there is no common authority. I find this most curious because G-d should be the common authority.

In the scientific community there are experiments that define details and demonstrate interpretations. If one disagrees with a scientific paradigm all is settled by a demonstration of experiments. In the religious community few have any concept of how to distinguish an outlandish and completely ridiculous claim from a valid or true claim.

Many in religion claim that scriptures are the common authority. But this has never been demonstrated at any time of history – ever. Even within a single enlightened G-d believing covenant family we find variant claims to speak with authority and interpret scripture as a birth right in dispute.

In the scientific community we seem to go through cycles of curiosity in divine enlightenment. As a society driven by science we tend to measure our progress based on our technology rather than on our brilliance in knowing how best to utilize our technology and other rationales. As a result we become uncertain about inventing and using thermal nuclear capacities; especially in resolving social and political conflicts.

I have stated many times that religious instruction, including morals and ethics and reason to hold to morals and ethics is central to the progress and survival of the human race. I submit that we very much need and depend on G-d. We cannot speak of fairness or rights without a dependency on G-d or divine authority. Yes, I realize that there are nut jobs making claims about divine approval and rewards based on ascribing to a “religious party line” rather than by developing divine attributes and enlightened attitudes.

So I submit that there is a method to experiment with the value of religious thought concerning an all powerful G-d. If a person can dispense power and authority with compassion then their interpretation is valid but if they cannot then either their religion is false or they are apostates to it. (See D&C 121:36-37):

“That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled or handled only upon principles of righteousness.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the L-rd is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

It is not just a debate of the creation of things that G-d is necessary – it is in the existence and preservation of human society that G-d is necessary – our survival in an age of atomic warfare depends on G-dly understanding and compassion.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

Because Godless mentioned NOMA I searched for it and found this article, which, though rather lengthy, and I have not read more than half of it, I found to be interesting in some major points.

Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?

[threepercent]

Can someone explain this to me:

1. Science in general will not entertain the idea of ID. yet evolution itself predicts life so advanced from us that they would be indistinguishable from gods, opening the possibility of ID (on this earth).

2. how can abiogenesis be excluded from evolution, with the related questions of how does life become "more" complex, if that life form is a simple as say, a prion, and if as complex as a single cell, then really you are saying it started with all the building blocks of all life.

[Traveler]

Can someone explain this to me:

1. Science in general will not entertain the idea of ID. yet evolution itself predicts life so advanced from us that they would be indistinguishable from gods, opening the possibility of ID (on this earth).

2. how can abiogenesis be excluded from evolution, with the related questions of how does life become "more" complex, if that life form is a simple as say, a prion, and if as complex as a single cell, then really you are saying it started with all the building blocks of all life.

1. ID rejects evolution. The two theories are not compatible and each rejects the other.

2. Abiogenists is the study of how life may of or can be generated. Evolution is the explanation of how life can change through generations. The two are different fields of study. Currently man is incapable of generating a life form but we can impact evolution through genetic engineering - however, it is my personal belief that science and experimentation will at some future time render the secrets necessary for man to cross the threshold and generate new life.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

In my previous post I included a link to "Who's really pushing 'bad Science'?"

One thing covered in the article was the question of how we define evolution, or the distinctions between evolution, biological evolution, and the General Theory of Evolution (GTE). The author made a very good case for the need to specify what we are talking about when we use any of those terms, such that I think reading at least the first part of that article is essential to any further discussion.