LDS view of Creation

[FernRL]

Just a thought, or two:

Evolution could be equivalent to "the law of Eternal Progression," by some definition, but an Evolutionary Scientist would probably not think so.

Sometimes too much emphasis is put on The General Theory of Evolution without talking enough about some of the specifics. I would like to see more emphasis put on the number of chromosomes various species have, and possibly how that change(d)(s) over the ages.

I agree with Gaspah regarding the importance of the creation story in its link to keeping the Sabbath Day holy. I also think that it is hardly important to be Pharisaical about it, but to realize that there is a value for both man and beast to rest every 7 days or so, and that it is good to meet together and worship with others on the same appointed day each week.

[Guest Godless]

It is not the disagreement that is ambiguous but whether or not, we can visually see it with our eyes to prove our case. Can they bear testimony of what they present as factual is true?

That's not the point of science. The purpose of science is to provide answers, not absolute truth. The theory of evolution provides answers to the question of how life reached its current state, just as Germ Theory, for example, seeks to explain why and how microscopic organisms make people sick. Every evidence-based scientific conclusion that has ever been reached by a scientist or team of scientists has still maintained the status of theory, not fact. Theories are supported by facts, but they can never become facts themselves without absolute proof, which is nearly impossible to come by in any field of science.

[Traveler]

great! but this didnt answer my question, and really no matter what you answer I will not be happy with it unless you stated that evolutions public definition is not even close to a scientific definition, and that very few scientific definitions will agree. for example

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

so even though you are talking about Biological evolution and not stellar evolution, you are still talking about cellular myosis vrs heritable changes in a population that require some sort of selection to take place. (not that i disagree)

so you also basic said the same thing as Dr. Futuyma, that really "evolution is merely change."

lets say that again: evolution is merely change.

its hard to argue with change, and change is readily observable, and change is also readily observable over large measures of time, so thats hard to argue against as well.

and here is a problem, evolution is merely change, but it claims more than change.

the next big claim it makes is on time. Im not talking about the relativity short time you posted, but vast amounts of time for their outcomes to take place, and thats stupid. Science has shown that millions of years go by with virtually no "change" then in a geological (i use this term because this is where the record is) blink of an eye, an entire change in the earths biodiversity. so time itself is not a mechanism.

the next thing equated with evolution is "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"

selection is easy to define, as it is the trait that continues.

"fittest" is impossible to define.

but how do we define natural? I see the process as being the pressures or vacuums of the environment.

Darwin called artificial selection things like selective breeding, well, how about ants that keep herds of aphids? is that natural or artificial?

anywho, I am getting sick of typing. the main point is that evolution morphs into whatever it needs to at the moment to say its true, and that if it is going to claim to be "truth" then it needs to be defined. Evolution has turned to the federal courts to protect itself, not to science, nor to answering questions. Evolution is guilty of the same things it claims are reasons creation science or cataclysm theory or ID are not scientific. its statements like this:To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation.

only with your personal definition of evolution.

I am not promoting any of those btw. I am just saying evolution has huge holes in it. like it cant be defined.

What you are speaking of is a specific type of biological evolution. We have learned that there is more than one engine to biological evolution. We know for example that the health of parents affects the genetic diversities of the children. Other factors include: availability of food, nutrition of available food, changes in climate, disease, stress and completion with other organisms and various other changes in the ecosystem.

Most of the current theories of evolution recognize that extreme environmental changes bring about the most dramatic evolutionary changes with direct correlations. The less the environmental change the less evolutionary change. Since many environmental changes take place over long periods of time so will the corresponding evolution but if the environmental changes take place over short periods of time the evolution during that time span is just as dramatic. The time factor as the single most identifiable factor for evolutionary change you speak of has not been so in vogue for at least 50 years.

What era are you claiming lasted for several million years without any evolution? Would you please provide beginning and ending dates? I would like to check out your claim.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Just a thought, or two:

Evolution could be equivalent to "the law of Eternal Progression," by some definition, but an Evolutionary Scientist would probably not think so.

Sometimes too much emphasis is put on The General Theory of Evolution without talking enough about some of the specifics. I would like to see more emphasis put on the number of chromosomes various species have, and possibly how that change(d)(s) over the ages.

I agree with Gaspah regarding the importance of the creation story in its link to keeping the Sabbath Day holy. I also think that it is hardly important to be Pharisaical about it, but to realize that there is a value for both man and beast to rest every 7 days or so, and that it is good to meet together and worship with others on the same appointed day each week.

There have been some very interesting studies of DNA sequences in the field of genetic engineering. For example, human DNS sequences for eyes have been substituted into the DNA sequences for the eyes of insects and guess what? The eyes of the insects were not changed.

One aspect I find very interesting is what some call the ghost in the machine. There seems to be something more to making live things come alive – beyond all the parts we identify. Another example is the human immune system and white blood cells. A healthy person does not just produce more white blood cells to combat various problems but the white blood cells seem to know where they are needed and have several magnitudes of higher concentrations where they are needed. Yet the same person distracted by stress and the white blood cells seem to be confused and not showing up as much as where they are needed. There are not great ideas why as of late.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

There have been some very interesting studies of DNA sequences in the field of genetic engineering. For example, human DNS sequences for eyes have been substituted into the DNA sequences for the eyes of insects and guess what? The eyes of the insects were not changed.

One aspect I find very interesting is what some call the ghost in the machine. There seems to be something more to making live things come alive – beyond all the parts we identify. Another example is the human immune system and white blood cells. A healthy person does not just produce more white blood cells to combat various problems but the white blood cells seem to know where they are needed and have several magnitudes of higher concentrations where they are needed. Yet the same person distracted by stress and the white blood cells seem to be confused and not showing up as much as where they are needed. There are not great ideas why as of late.

The Traveler

That is interesting, but it does not answer my question.

What I have read from a scientific point of view to refute ID is something along the lines of "a mouse has virtually the same DNA as a human" with no mention of the fact that a mouse has 20 Chromosomes and a Human has 46. When a horse and a donkey are mated to produce a mule the mule is usually sterile due to the different number of Chromosomes in the horse and the donkey. Obviously if the horse and donkey both evolved from some parent species the number of chromosomes they had would have had to change also. My question is: What is scientifically known about such changes?

[Traveler]

That is interesting, but it does not answer my question.

What I have read from a scientific point of view to refute ID is something along the lines of "a mouse has virtually the same DNA as a human" with no mention of the fact that a mouse has 20 Chromosomes and a Human has 46. When a horse and a donkey are mated to produce a mule the mule is usually sterile due to the different number of Chromosomes in the horse and the donkey. Obviously if the horse and donkey both evolved from some parent species the number of chromosomes they had would have had to change also. My question is: What is scientifically known about such changes?

One point I would like to make clear is that just because something has not been done yet does not mean that it cannot ever be done. We are at the very beginning of genetic engineering and I do believe that it is possible that all the things associated with the thousand years of peace with Christ will come about not just by G-d but also by man understanding things and making the needed changes.

Just as a side note and just for fun I was asked to consult on a Hollywood screen play about an intelligent species that had advanced intelligence somewhat like humans but instead of evolving the ability to create tools this species evolved in such a manner that they evolved biological abilities rather than the knowledge to use tools. For example instead of inventing the light bulb they evolved the ability to create biological light somewhat like fireflies. Anyway if the movie is ever produced I will encourage all to see it.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

I can accept it if science has not yet been able to explain how different species evolve with different numbers of chromosomes. I just wish they would even consider the number of chromosomes to be important--that it should be taught in biology classes, for example.

[Justice]

There is evidence for evolution, evidence for black hole formation, evidence for uniformitarianism, etc, but you're expecting some sort of mathematical proof for it that doesn't exist.

There's no doubt it exists, we just don't understand it.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just pointing out that the only reason any of this is a discussion is because we don't know. We will never know what's true unless we learn it from the spirit. Evidence can change. Studies evolve. Experiments only arrive at an acceptable percentage.

But, when God speaks, it's over. No more experiements, studies or evidence needed.

[Hemidakota]

I think this answers both of your questions. There is evidence for evolution, evidence for black hole formation, evidence for uniformitarianism, etc, but you're expecting some sort of mathematical proof for it that doesn't exist.

Then we should teach it as assumption, speculation, and so forth and not as hard facts when cases are not proven to be so.

Evidence of blackholes is one to see but explaining it is another problem.

[Hemidakota]

No scientist worth *anything* believes men come from apes. (unless they're mocking religionists)

But there are scientists that are really looking forward to observing that very thing. And we may have cases where we *are* seeing that very thing, and haven't realized it yet.

Speculation is part of the process of the mind seeking answers. It's a good thing. We do the same in the Church. We may have an absolute witness that the Book of Mormon is true. We take that and begin to make inferences, and then test those to see if they hold true in practice. Same as science, just the tools of investigation are different.

HiJolly

Then remove the speculation written in the academic text books. Holly, I do believe in progression but not at the whims of half-truths presented today.

Can a celestial world [star] die? Can a terrestrial world [star] die? Can a telestial world [star] die? Can it happen in our life time? Can we look into the far reaches of space and witness such an event? Questions....questions....

I agree with the last statement. What I assumed years ago are answered in time when we are ready to receive that information. Only in the last years of my life I now understand the progression of intelligence but when given a glimpse to others who are die hard members of the church, that is a different story. I do feel for Joseph in his last remaining years of his life when he tried to teach what he had learned. Only to be rejected....

[LittleWyvern]

There's no doubt it exists, we just don't understand it.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just pointing out that the only reason any of this is a discussion is because we don't know. We will never know what's true unless we learn it from the spirit. Evidence can change. Studies evolve. Experiments only arrive at an acceptable percentage.

But, when God speaks, it's over. No more experiements, studies or evidence needed.

Until God does speak, then, I submit we trust those who are experts in the field.

Then we should teach it as assumption, speculation, and so forth and not as hard facts when cases are not proven to be so.

Evidence of blackholes is one to see but explaining it is another problem.

Oh, it's much stronger than just assumption and speculation (you make it sound like scientists are just making stuff up as they go along). Most of what is taught in science (including evolution) is based off of years of study, experiment, and theory. It would not be accepted by the scientific community if there wasn't substance behind it. I suggest that if you're confused about a scientific principle, you should learn about it and study the rationale behind it before dismissing it offhand as simply assumptions.

[HiJolly]

Can a celestial world [star] die? Can a terrestrial world [star] die? Can a telestial world [star] die? Can it happen in our life time? Can we look into the far reaches of space and witness such an event? Questions....questions....

Questions I would love answers to as well, but I have more pressing questions just now. Someday...

I agree with the last statement. What I assumed years ago are answered in time when we are ready to receive that information. Only in the last years of my life I now understand the progression of intelligence but when given a glimpse to others who are die hard members of the church, that is a different story. I do feel for Joseph in his last remaining years of his life when he tried to teach what he had learned. Only to be rejected....

AMEN.

HiJolly

[Justice]

Until God does speak, then, I submit we trust those who are experts in the field.

Trust those who have told us the earth is flat? That man cannot fly? That we cannot break the sound barrier? That we cannot make it to the moon?

Trust is a strong word. I would never place your trust in something man-made.

An expert is only an expert until he is proven wrong.

[LittleWyvern]

Trust those who have told us the earth is flat? That man cannot fly? That we cannot break the sound barrier? That we cannot make it to the moon?

I'd like my red herring pickled, please.

Trust is a strong word. I would never place your trust in something man-made.

An expert is only an expert until he is proven wrong.

Do you have a better idea?

[Hemidakota]

Until God does speak, then, I submit we trust those who are experts in the field.

Oh, it's much stronger than just assumption and speculation (you make it sound like scientists are just making stuff up as they go along). Most of what is taught in science (including evolution) is based off of years of study, experiment, and theory. It would not be accepted by the scientific community if there wasn't substance behind it. I suggest that if you're confused about a scientific principle, you should learn about it and study the rationale behind it before dismissing it offhand as simply assumptions.

Actually, in some cases,it is a continuous perpetual lie.

[Hemidakota]

Trust those who have told us the earth is flat? That man cannot fly? That we cannot break the sound barrier? That we cannot make it to the moon?

Trust is a strong word. I would never place your trust in something man-made.

An expert is only an expert until he is proven wrong.

Wasn't it the claim scientist clerics who made that speculation?

[LittleWyvern]

Actually, in some cases,it is a continuous perpetual lie.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about what you think about evolution here, but I'll bite. Care to give some examples?

[FernRL]

My mom always said "give a man enough rope and he will hang himself."

I think scientists who should be very open-minded and able to question all previous studies and conclusions, fail to be able to do that when pressed against the wall by well-meaning non-scientists who doubt the same studies and conclusion.

When challenged by people who know less about it, even the most committed scientist can resort to merely defending what has been done without looking at it with fresh interest.

We need to back off and suspend disbelief in scientific things until they evolve their own thinking to come up with different conclusions where they may be wrong now.

[Dr T]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about what you think about evolution here, but I'll bite. Care to give some examples?

hahaha good luck with that

[rameumptom]

I do not believe in Intelligent Design, as expressed by Creationists. I do not believe that the earth was created in 7 short days of either 24 hours or 1000 years each. The earth is billions of years old.

I do believe God creates things in processes, which is what the creation stories describe. Each LDS creation story is slightly different from the other, suggesting that while there may be some actual truth in those stories, there is some myth involved, also.

While Adam and Eve are the "first parents", I keep an open mind as to what that means. Brigham Young suggested there were pre-Adamites. Science also suggests this. We see that the scriptures are filled with the concept of cultural/spiritual adoptions. In the Book of Moses, even, we find that Adam and Eve had several grown children prior to the birth of Cain, yet Eve exults in the idea that she was bearing a child "unto the Lord." Why such a difference, when there were kids before? Because Cain was born AFTER they received the fullness of the gospel, including an explanation of Jesus' atonement. Only then did they realize the blessings that came from the Fall. Only after the angel appeared to them, did they receive the fullness, and were able to teach their younger children of that fullness. Cain was their first hope, and he rejected it, so it fell to Abel, then Seth. A cultural/spiritual tie therefore starts the process, and we see it continue in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Younger children are called to be the leaders of nations (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Nephi). Other peoples join with them and become a part of cultural/spiritual Israel. Even Paul speaks about the adoption into Israel that occurs for the Gentiles. And Mormons today are proud to claim their right to the House of Israel through baptism and receiving a patriarchal blessing.

Several LDS scholars (BH Roberts, Nibley, etc), have suggested that the earth IS billions of years old, and has gone through a variety of creation/destruction cycles to prepare the earth for God's own children. Each of these cycles started with new species, and ended with mass extinctions. The Ice Age from 10,000 years ago would have been the last great creation/destruction period, and would have opened the door for Adam to the the "first" spiritual person to hold the fullness of the gospel. Abraham would later receive this same blessing and promise, to be the Father of Nations and through his Priesthood would bless all the nations of the earth (Abraham 1).

So, I keep an open mind on evolution. God could have used it or not.

[Traveler]

My mom always said "give a man enough rope and he will hang himself."

I think scientists who should be very open-minded and able to question all previous studies and conclusions, fail to be able to do that when pressed against the wall by well-meaning non-scientists who doubt the same studies and conclusion.

When challenged by people who know less about it, even the most committed scientist can resort to merely defending what has been done without looking at it with fresh interest.

We need to back off and suspend disbelief in scientific things until they evolve their own thinking to come up with different conclusions where they may be wrong now.

In general I agree with the tone and content of your post - Thanks. However, it has been my experience that the religious community has been far more closed minded on these issues than scientist. It does appear to me that it has been those with ideas tied to specific religious ideology that have stuck a stake in the ground and said, “I do not care what evidence there is – I will not move from this doctrine.”

The tone I find among scientist is: “Okay, then show me the hard evidence.” And when religionist resort only to spiritual evidence (argument) to describe a physical event – the scientist get the impression that such religionist are incapable of understanding the physical environment in which they practice their religion.

The Traveler

[FernRL]

I think it works both ways. In the 1800's a scientist was hiking over the countryside, and looked around and said to himself "It is rather obvious that these rocks are more than a few thousand years old, therefore, the Bible is not true, there is no God, etc." Then wherever science and religion have met there has often been either a cold-war situation or an "in-your-face" confrontation.

Geologists deliberately concocted the concept of "Geologic Time" to religiously refute any type of young earth philosophy. It doesn't matter that, in actuality, an earthquake can be over and done with in less than a minute and even long ones don't take an hour. It doesn't matter that a volcano can rise in a Mexican cornfield overnight, or that in one season, a flood can lower a creek bed by about 20 feet. I'm talking about real geological changes that don't conform to the accepted "Geologic Time" concept.

If scientists were really interested in accuracy and being open-minded they would drop that silly notion and emphasize "Geologic size" instead--then it would be easy to show that one little volcano in a cornfield makes no difference at all on the face of the whole earth, or even a major earthquake in Alaska, certainly not a 20 foot drop in the creek bed of Levan Canyon, a new lake being formed by a mudslide, and another canyon having it's mouth shifted a few miles one direction. That is reality.

[LittleWyvern]

I think it works both ways. In the 1800's a scientist was hiking over the countryside, and looked around and said to himself "It is rather obvious that these rocks are more than a few thousand years old, therefore, the Bible is not true, there is no God, etc."

Any scientist that gets into metaphysics like this has completely failed to understand the scientific method.

[Traveler]

I do not believe in Intelligent Design, as expressed by Creationists. I do not believe that the earth was created in 7 short days of either 24 hours or 1000 years each. The earth is billions of years old.

I do believe God creates things in processes, which is what the creation stories describe. Each LDS creation story is slightly different from the other, suggesting that while there may be some actual truth in those stories, there is some myth involved, also.

While Adam and Eve are the "first parents", I keep an open mind as to what that means. Brigham Young suggested there were pre-Adamites. Science also suggests this. We see that the scriptures are filled with the concept of cultural/spiritual adoptions. In the Book of Moses, even, we find that Adam and Eve had several grown children prior to the birth of Cain, yet Eve exults in the idea that she was bearing a child "unto the Lord." Why such a difference, when there were kids before? Because Cain was born AFTER they received the fullness of the gospel, including an explanation of Jesus' atonement. Only then did they realize the blessings that came from the Fall. Only after the angel appeared to them, did they receive the fullness, and were able to teach their younger children of that fullness. Cain was their first hope, and he rejected it, so it fell to Abel, then Seth. A cultural/spiritual tie therefore starts the process, and we see it continue in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Younger children are called to be the leaders of nations (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Nephi). Other peoples join with them and become a part of cultural/spiritual Israel. Even Paul speaks about the adoption into Israel that occurs for the Gentiles. And Mormons today are proud to claim their right to the House of Israel through baptism and receiving a patriarchal blessing.

Several LDS scholars (BH Roberts, Nibley, etc), have suggested that the earth IS billions of years old, and has gone through a variety of creation/destruction cycles to prepare the earth for God's own children. Each of these cycles started with new species, and ended with mass extinctions. The Ice Age from 10,000 years ago would have been the last great creation/destruction period, and would have opened the door for Adam to the the "first" spiritual person to hold the fullness of the gospel. Abraham would later receive this same blessing and promise, to be the Father of Nations and through his Priesthood would bless all the nations of the earth (Abraham 1).

So, I keep an open mind on evolution. God could have used it or not.

I like you attitude and approach to things – I hope we can have some deep discussions some day.

One thing that I believe has been missed in all this discussion is the fact that G-d is trying to communicate that the creation was no trivial snap of divine fingers and “Walla” everything happens like magic. I believe that G-d want us to understand that the creation was a substantial divine investment that included sacrifice, effort and time to complete.

The Traveler

[threepercent]

For those of you who were listening.

again, saying evolution is true is like saying "religion" is true. the next question is "what version"?

is it Christianity? is it Buddhism?

Just like the Gospel is true, Evolution is a true science. And just like, say, Christianity, there are different versions out there. One thing that never seems to happen though is an acknowledgment of the different facets of evolution or the preachers and high priests of this modern secular religion. One cannot say "Christianity is true" without begging the question, do you mean the white supremacist version or the Spanish inquisition version? Yet still, I hold out Christ as my personal Savior, who has nothing to do with either of those versions, and am willing to live and die on my testimony of the Gospel.

from March Discover:

here are some examples of truth found in Evolution....

Our team showed that the same common gene is critical to building limbs in humans and fruit flies. It turns out that this gene is critical to building virtually everything that sticks out of the body: antennae, legs, horns, whatever. These kinds of experiments shattered our preconceptions and forced people to think differently. Beneath these extremely diverse exteriors was a deeply shared common genetic tool kit.

in the Cambrian explosion, large and complex animal forms erupted. These forms in the Cambrian represent a lot of the major divisions of the animal kingdom we see today. The Cambrian explosion looks abrupt in the fossil record, but the surprising message from evo devo is that all the genes for building big, complex animal bodies long predated the appearance of those bodies. Most of what was needed to create this incredible complexity already existed.

When genetic potential met ecological opportunity, you got elephants and bison and giraffes. Think about ecology as corking the bottle; take the cork out and things explode.

quotes from DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

now some from a page previous to this article, showing how religion is just an example of Evolution, aka falsehoods:

"A given religion adapts it's members to their local environment, enabling them to achieve by collective action what they cannot achieve alone or even together in the absence of religion." Wilson writes. "the primary benefits of religion take place in this world, not the next." The religious emphasis on otherworldly beliefs evolved, Wilson says, because supernatural explanations seem to motivate human cooperation better than factual ones. From an evolutionary perspective, it does not matter what you believe in, as long as that belief works to give you a selective advantage.

emphasis added.

like it or not, when you promote or defend evolution, people will associate the above quote. Evolution explains religion as merely an example of survival of the fittest because it gave a selective advantage by organizing cooperative behavior.

so in logical terms,

truth + false = false.

trying to discuss the varied points of evolution that are true is like trying to discuss points of doctrine between Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals...... you get the picture.

I think this is why most people when asked will say they don't believe Evolution. not because they are stupid or uneducated, but because they associate to many falsehoods with this particular philosophy of men.

The problem is enhanced when jerks, who are so smug in their singularly myopic view of evolution that they cannot see they also have white supremacists and spanish inquisitors within their sects, look down their noses at the intellectually inferior flat earthers holding on to their guns and religion.

Edited February 22, 2009 by threepercent