Evolution and the Gospel

[Dravin]

I was wondering if we might get a thread started on the topic. I realize this is prime flame bait if there ever was such, so some ground rules (and this thread will get closed if things get out of hand):

1. No accusing others of lacking faith because they aren't interpreting the scriptures the same way you are. This applies to the whole, "It's allegorical!""No! It's literal!" flame wars that sometimes happen on such subjects.

2. No accusing people of being stupid or otherwise intellectually challenged because they don't agree with you.

3. The main purpose is to foster understanding (selfishly mostly for myself, other may benefit as they see fit), not so much to prove people right or wrong. I realize that questions are going to be asked (I'm gonna ask them myself), but lets try to keep the goal as understanding where the other person is coming from, not to see how much of a battering their world view can take.

4. Be nice and don't be a jerk.

Enough of that:

This topic tends to come up quite a bit, personally I'm kinda conflicted on the whole thing. Drives my mother nuts sometimes when I sit down and watch National Geographic or what have you, particularly about evolution or long dead critters. Thing is I recognize that's the science true or not and thus see some value in learning it, additionally if the whole idea was fiction is relatively well written fiction and thus of interest, at least to me.

Basically for me the problem with evolution (as a theory for how God created man and various other species, but man is mostly the issue) is thus:

1. Scriptures describe condition that are at odds, at least as I understand them.

We have things such as Adam and Eve wouldn't have had children had they not fallen (2 Nephi 2:22-23), reproduction is a critical component of evolution. Is this understanding incorrect? Was this a state the first two humans were in but not others? Basically we have proto-human, they have the first human, God puts on of his Spirit Children in that tabernacle and they then experience the event depicted in the garden? Same as the beginning but the events in the garden are highly allegorical (perhaps of said first humans reaching a state to understand right and wrong)? There are probably other well thought out and consistent explanations (not claiming mine is among them, we tend to be horrible with forming consistent arguments for positions we don't personally hold).

2. There are also articles like this:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Pattern of Our Parentage things such as this create a sizable block to believing evolution. That said I realize that technically the church does not take a stance on evolution (IIRC), which means even if not true its certainly not a pernicious untruth for members to believe as long as they accept such statements as LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man . Interestingly enough after reading that a couple times it doesn't disagree with evolution (it does state Adam was a man, not a proto-human or what have you), it just affirms that we are children of God.

I'm probably not expressing myself well, and I'm people are probably going to cry straw man, my only defense is if straw men exists its from a lack of understanding and not because I'm trying to create a caricature to attack.

Now for things that don't cause any issues:

1. Evolution (not as an origin of man), seems pretty observable, just look at pets, livestock and most of our crops, testaments to when subjected to selective pressures things will change.

2. Creation taking longer than 168 hours. I've no issues with this, days is representative of periods.

3. Earth older than 7,000 years old. Even if one takes the line that from Adam and Eve to now is 7,000 years that doesn't preclude the Earth being much older than that (though it does cause conflicts between carbon dating and non-Garden of Eden dwelling people). Strangely enough I don't have a problem with time from Adam and Eve and now being longer than 7,000 years as well.

For the record (and I imagine this may make some think less of me), when it comes down to a conflict between scientific observation of the world we live in and things I've gained a testimony of the testimony will win, all available evidence suggest that Jesus was not the Christ (resurrection and the available scientific evidence don't get along all that well) yet I believe it still (I'd say know but it wouldn't surprise me if Snow shows up ). Note I'm not saying I have a testimony that Evolution is false, if I did that'd settle the issue quite satisfactorily (for me if not others).

Edited August 10, 2009 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

Sorry Drav, but haven't we already had this conversation? Seems like we have had some recent ones that really hit all the depths.

[Dravin]

Sorry Drav, but haven't we already had this conversation? Seems like we have had some recent ones that really hit all the depths.

I've seen the occasional one spread out crossed various threads but I don't recall anything to particularly recent (depends on what you mean by recent I suppose and we can't rule out me simply having missed it) with a thread dedicated to it. Besides, if we didn't get to rehash that'd pretty much kill this forum in a hurry. :)

[Misshalfway]

Besides, if we didn't get to rehash that'd pretty much kill this forum in a hurry

Good point. :)

[Gatorman]

I, for one, do not believe that Evolution and Creation have to be mutually exclusive. I believe that man was created by Heavenly Father and Christ, etc. However, I have yet to find the manual on what process they used. 'Evolution' is one possible answer. So, I do not feel a need to disprove or prove either one. I believe they can coexist. I believe that it was Heavenly Fathers will. And, I believe, at that day, I will learn for sure. But, until then, it is not important for me to know. There are other things more pressing and important than that for me.

[Wingnut]

4. Be nice and don't be a jerk.

Forget it -- I'm not playing.

[Dravin]

I, for one, do not believe that Evolution and Creation have to be mutually exclusive. I believe that man was created by Heavenly Father and Christ, etc. However, I have yet to find the manual on what process they used. 'Evolution' is one possible answer. So, I do not feel a need to disprove or prove either one. I believe they can coexist. I believe that it was Heavenly Fathers will. And, I believe, at that day, I will learn for sure. But, until then, it is not important for me to know. There are other things more pressing and important than that for me.

Oh I don't think they have to be exclusive either, when I was talking about evolution as the origin for man in my post I was talking about a guided evolution (or even not guided but stacked deck evolution or however you want to 'verbalize' God having a hand in it), not a abiogenesis style we just happened to happen. Such a view on evolution doesn't mean we weren't created in various senses of the word.

Forget it -- I'm not playing.

[Misshalfway]

We don't know how God created people. He just told us that he did and he has given glimses into the process. But it wouldn't surprise me if science is just slowly revealing many of the tools in the creating universes tool belt. I really think we humans get too hung up on it sometimes. Maybe it is because we think our religious assumptions are true and we can't let go of things when new information arises. I don't think the principle of evolution challenges the existence of God or the fact that He is indeed the father of all of us. I just think we see in a glass darkly. How great it is that we have as much information as we do, wherever the source, to really try to comprehend better how all these things happened.

[KrazyKay]

I haven't read the articles you linked yet, this is just my personal testimony and feelings.

We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden... it could be just a few hours to a few thousand years... we don't know. I have yet to see a place where it was revealed to a prophet of God how long they were in the Garden of Eden. Saying that, it is highly possible that carbon dating is correct as far as the age of the Earth itself and man since the fall of Adam has only been on the Earth the last 7,000 years.

I do not believe that man evolved from apes or chimpanzees or any other life form. In my high school biology they said apes and in the college biology they said chimpanzees, lol. As for the animals... we are told that every kind of animal was in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, so I do not believe those animals evolved; however, I believe variations of those animals have evolved from those original animals. This is the same with humans to some extent - I'm talking about minor variations in humans, for example, one person has a big nose while someone else has a small nose, or one person is 5'3'' and another is 6'1''.

[hordak]

I do not believe that man evolved from apes or chimpanzees or any other life form. In my high school biology they said apes and in the college biology they said chimpanzees, lol.

(Since Godless hasn't posted yet.)

They should be fired. Evolution does not teach man came from apes but that man and apes came from the same ancestor.

Think of your family now.

You didn't come from your cousin, but you and your cousin came from the same people back down the line. Stretch this out over a long period of time and voila. That is what evolution teaches.

[Dravin]

(Since Godless hasn't posted yet.)

They should be fired. Evolution does not teach man came from apes but that man and apes came from the same ancestor.

Think of your family now.

You didn't come from your cousin, but you and your cousin came from the same people back down the line. Stretch this out over a long period of time and voila. That is what evolution teaches.

Aren't humans considered a type of ape? Would our progenitors (evolutionaily speaking) have been considered apes? If so we did descend from apes evolutionarily speaking. If such is the case then saying we descended from apes is one of those cases where a statement is true but conjures up images that aren't (namely that modern apes such as chimpanzees gave birth to a human somewhere along the line as opposed to us having evolved in parallel from a common ape ancestor or what have you.).

Or is man is a type of ape (I know we're primates) and us getting monikers such as "hairless ape" one of those 'facts' that is often repeated but not actually true?

[HEthePrimate]

Evolution is true. So is the Gospel. :)

This is a case where Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" helps put things into perspective. Religion is not about how life came to exist, but about the meaning of life.

HEP

[Guest]

It is a blog so take it not as doctrine but as... a blog...

But this expresses in a very nice manner my views on the matter.

Did God Create the Earth in Seven Days? | LDS Blogs

So, in conclusion, Science helps us understand and interpret scriptures better and at the same time Religion helps us understand and interpret scientific discoveries better. And when science is lacking, religion fills the gap and when religion is confused, science fills the gap...

To me, both go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly.

[DigitalShadow]

Aren't humans considered a type of ape? Would our progenitors (evolutionaily speaking) have been considered apes? If so we did descend from apes evolutionarily speaking. If such is the case then saying we descended from apes is one of those cases where a statement is true but conjures up images that aren't (namely that modern apes such as chimpanzees gave birth to a human somewhere along the line as opposed to us having evolved in parallel from a common ape ancestor or what have you.).

Or is man is a type of ape (I know we're primates) and us getting monikers such as "hairless ape" one of those 'facts' that is often repeated but not actually true?

Yes, humans are a type of ape, but ape is a rather ambiguous term to begin with. The main significance of clarifying that we did not evolve "from" the apes that exist today (which is what many people assume when they hear we evolved from apes) is that it helps answer the common question of "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

[Guest Godless]

I

1. Scriptures describe condition that are at odds, at least as I understand them.

We have things such as Adam and Eve wouldn't have had children had they not fallen (2 Nephi 2:22-23), reproduction is a critical component of evolution. Is this understanding incorrect? Was this a state the first two humans were in but not others? Basically we have proto-human, they have the first human, God puts on of his Spirit Children in that tabernacle and they then experience the event depicted in the garden? Same as the beginning but the events in the garden are highly allegorical (perhaps of said first humans reaching a state to understand right and wrong)? There are probably other well thought out and consistent explanations (not claiming mine is among them, we tend to be horrible with forming consistent arguments for positions we don't personally hold).

Whether or not the Eden story contradicts science really depends on how you interpret it. The statement that I bolded seems to be the most popular one for those who take the allegorical stance. Personally, I think the allegory is fascinating. Modern hominids evolved from a far more primitive ancestor, an ancestor that would have had roughly the same cognitive capacity of a modern day chimp (pre-Fall innocence). Over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, this specimen evolved both physically and cognitively. At some point, it became self-aware (the Fall). Not long after, these hominids started seeking explanations for the way the world around them worked, and religion was born. So do Adam and Eve actually have to exist in order for the Genesis story to work? Not necessarily. They could just as easily be symbolic of those first humans who had just emerged into conscious thought.

2. There are also articles like this:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Pattern of Our Parentage things such as this create a sizable block to believing evolution. That said I realize that technically the church does not take a stance on evolution (IIRC), which means even if not true its certainly not a pernicious untruth for members to believe as long as they accept such statements as LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man . Interestingly enough after reading that a couple times it doesn't disagree with evolution (it does state Adam was a man, not a proto-human or what have you), it just affirms that we are children of God.

Elder Packer appears to be making the same mistake that many evolution skeptics make by stating that one species of animal cannot beget another. That statement is correct, and it's also a very gross misinterpretation of how natural selection works. New species don't just pop up from one generation. It takes a very long period of gradual genetic manipulation through natural selection to create a new species. To put it another way, a homo erectus female didn't just give birth to a homo sapien one day. Our species developed over a period of thousands of years.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that you and Elder Packer are wrong for being skeptical. And I'm also not saying that a purely allegorical interpretation of Genesis is the correct one to adhere to. I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

[Dravin]

Yes, humans are a type of ape, but ape is a rather ambiguous term to begin with. The main significance of clarifying that we did not evolve "from" the apes that exist today (which is what many people assume when they hear we evolved from apes) is that it helps answer the common question of "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Oh I understand why the clarification, you are answering what people are really asking (or at least what you perceive them to be really asking) instead of a literal reading. Kinda like if you asked somebody if the food is good at a restaurant you aren't asking if it isn't rotten or otherwise food poison fodder (not the perfect example but I hope you can get at what I'm saying).

If I'm asking if you believe I'm descended from an ape I understand why you say no (I am not a descendant of a modern ape), even though in several senses saying yes is not false. The aforementioned common ape ascendant or if you want even more fun, if humans are apes and my ascendants (Mother, Father, Grandparents and so on) were human (and thus apes) I am descended from apes, quite recently. And while I may not be a monkey's uncle I am arguably an ape's uncle. :)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that you and Elder Packer are wrong for being skeptical. And I'm also not saying that a purely allegorical interpretation of Genesis is the correct one to adhere to. I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

I didn't think you were, though to a degree anyone who holds a belief opposed to any I hold thinks I'm wrong on some level (else they'd share my idea ), I like to think I'm mature enough to handle that. Life is too short to get upset because somebody thinks green not blue is the best color to paint a house.

P.S. I appreciate you taking the effort to try to be sensitive to mine (and others) feelings on the subject.

[HEthePrimate]

What's wrong with apes, anyway? I rather like them...

[bmy-]

The allegorical interpretation is the only one that has merit IMO. It's plain as day that the order of events in the scriptures are wrong when we look at the fossil records, etc. To me.. it's obviously allegorical. The creation story in the Bible/BoM would not differ form the temple version if it was not.

[tubaloth]

We have things such as Adam and Eve wouldn't have had children had they not fallen (2 Nephi 2:22-23), reproduction is a critical component of evolution.

Going along this line, and these scriptures is death. For this evolution to take place you need this change to happen over many many years, which means many less perfect versions, have to die off.

That does bring in the idea of when was “Man” really formed? Are all of these in-between levels also going to be resurrected someday, did the fall affect them?

Interestingly enough after reading that a couple times it doesn't disagree with evolution (it does state Adam was a man, not a proto-human or what have you), it just affirms that we are children of God.

I use this to bring up my second point, which is spiritual Creation. Why would God need Evolution to create man (or animals) when he already did the “dry run” or “practice” round in pre-mortal life? If you don't belive in anything before this life, then Evolution is your pre-mortal life.

We believe that MAN was created spiritually before he came down to this earth. So no need to go through different versions (Maybe we are #7, like Windows is). That really Evolution happens also spiritually (different versions of Man) before the final Version took place? But the laws or reasons for Evolution don’t fit in a spiritual world.

Be we know fully God knows how to make man, because we are made in His image. There is no need for the lab, because God is the final product. To assume that God needs evolution to get us to a point to be like him seems kind of absurd? That God can't create a man unless it Evolves?

Last, because as it has been stated we just don’t know enough about how creation happen or evolution, is how can I help my Children Evolve. How does Evolution happen now days? Can I think hard enough to pass something onto my children? Can I pass on (even to the smallest) degree some trait to my children? Can I allow them to run faster, jump higher, see better?

Edited August 11, 2009 by tubaloth

[Snow]

I haven't read the articles you linked yet, this is just my personal testimony and feelings.

We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden... it could be just a few hours to a few thousand years... we don't know. I have yet to see a place where it was revealed to a prophet of God how long they were in the Garden of Eden. Saying that, it is highly possible that carbon dating is correct as far as the age of the Earth itself and man since the fall of Adam has only been on the Earth the last 7,000 years.

The issue is that there are human Adams supposed got out of the garden 7000 or so years ago but there are human fossils that are 100,000 years old. That is - humans existed that did not descend from Adam.

I do not believe that man evolved from apes or chimpanzees or any other life form. In my high school biology they said apes and in the college biology they said chimpanzees, lol.

They? Who is they? The ones that hadn't read the text book? The theory of evolution does not hold that man descend from apes.... besides which chimpanzees are apes.

As for the animals... we are told that every kind of animal was in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, so I do not believe those animals evolved; however, I believe variations of those animals have evolved from those original animals. This is the same with humans to some extent - I'm talking about minor variations in humans, for example, one person has a big nose while someone else has a small nose, or one person is 5'3'' and another is 6'1''.

Then how do you account for the proof of evolution?

[Gatorman]

Then how do you account for the proof of evolution?

There is no proof. There is only that which Heavenly Father allowed to be created. Or, put another way, how do you 'know' that your 'proof' is an accurate assessment of the item being tested. If Heavenly Father created the Heaven's and the Earth, then the laws which surround it, including the laws upon which science stands, are his creations as well. In other words, carbon dating can not date Heavenly Father or his actions/creations, if he so chooses not to allow it.

[Snow]

There is no proof.

Well that's untrue. You should read what the National Academies of Science says on the matter. Check it out.

There is only that which Heavenly Father allowed to be created. Or, put another way, how do you 'know' that your 'proof' is an accurate assessment of the item being tested. If Heavenly Father created the Heaven's and the Earth, then the laws which surround it, including the laws upon which science stands, are his creations as well. In other words, carbon dating can not date Heavenly Father or his actions/creations, if he so chooses not to allow it.

You make it really hard to follow the rules of this thread. You would have us believe that God magically alters the results of carbon dating to confuse us. What can can be said to that?

[Snow]

It may be useful to understand who believe what

Belief that humans developed from an earlier species:

High school or less... 32%

Some college... 35%

College grad... 46%

Post grad... 60%

If you subtract the people who do not believe in evolution because of the way they were told to interpret the anonymous author(s) of Genesis 3000 years ago and only an extreme minority (at least in the Christian world) believes that evolution is incorrect.

[Traveler]

There is no proof. There is only that which Heavenly Father allowed to be created. Or, put another way, how do you 'know' that your 'proof' is an accurate assessment of the item being tested. If Heavenly Father created the Heaven's and the Earth, then the laws which surround it, including the laws upon which science stands, are his creations as well. In other words, carbon dating can not date Heavenly Father or his actions/creations, if he so chooses not to allow it.

Be very careful when you say there is "no proof". There is a growing preponderance of evidence that evolution is the most accurate explanation based on the evidence to the variations of life and ever shrinking evidence of any other possibility. And I personally think it most foolish to argue that G-d deliberately and deceitfully stacked the deck, so to speak, to deceive anyone that honestly considers the evidences presented by nature. Such would hardly qualify for the kind of G-d most Christians say that we must all have faith and believe in.

People keep implying that it is most demeaning if mankind was to have come from a creature like apes. But yet the ancient meaning of “dust” is intended to imply that man came from stuff far more demeaning than a noble creature like an ape.

Adam was the first man. It is interesting to me that during the Dark Ages there was almost a war over whether or not Adam had a belly button. But not included in this discussion is – why anyone thinks that Adam was created any differently than you or I. Because we were born does that mean that G-d did not create us? Can anyone show me any proof from scripture that Adam was created differently than the rest of mankind. I would point out that the scriptures do not say anything about the creation of Adam – the scriptures address the creation of man. I think the scriptures are very clear that G-d created man – all of us. What in the blazes convinces anyone that Adam was created in a different manner?

A zygote evolves in every sense of the definition of evolution from a single cell to a complex multiple cells human creature. What is not to believe about evolution? There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that there has ever been a creature to have ever been or is that has not come into existence from any other means other than this method of creation utilizing evolution. Why anyone would argue that evolution disproves G-d is beyond rational to me – it is a stand of ignorance and foolishness.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

Folks, I thought I was very clear. I can not prove or disprove the most important link. No one can until that day. My point is, any time science goes so far as to prove God doesn't exist, then, science proves it is flawed. Heavenly Father is not. So, the proof that Heavenly Father is is flawless. Science is not. I don't have 'faith' in science.

That said, do I believe some of the evidences science provide to us? Yes. And, where neither side can 'prove' the truth, IE: How old is the earth, I have faith that I will find out later. I don't have proof that the Earth is trillions or whatever of years old. But, I know it is possible if that is how Heavenly Father chose to create the Earth. It is not important to me how old the Earth is. It is important that Heavenly Father created it, regardless.