Of Evolution And Eden

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I always find this topic interesting, and would like to know what you all think, if you have an opinion at all. This is a question about LDS beliefs, so I'd appreciate it if we can avoid "the church isn't true/is true" tangents in this thread.

In essence, the theory of evolution is dependant on death. Natural selection would propose that if there are three ducks, one with short wings, one with no wings, and one with long wings, and that the only source of food for these ducks was on an island requiring a long flight, and that only the duck with long wings could make that trip, then the other ducks would die of starvation and the long-winged duck would survive, and so on. If the ducks were immortal, their inability to find food wouldn't matter and there'd be no elimination of species via the natural selection theory.

However...doctrinally speaking (and it is a rather key doctrine), we are taught that there was no death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and started the roller-coaster ride we call mortality.

So I'm interested in knowing if any LDS members out there believe in evolution, and if so, how do you reconcile it (and it's reliance on death) with the fact that there was no death in Eden before the Fall of Adam, when everything already existed/lived that was supposed to have evolved?

I'd absolutely love it if anyone would care to include references as part of their responses, so I understand your premises and authorities.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Nov 2 2005, 09:24 PM

I always find this topic interesting, and would like to know what you all think, if you have an opinion at all. This is a question about LDS beliefs, so I'd appreciate it if we can avoid "the church isn't true/is true" tangents in this thread.

In essence, the theory of evolution is dependant on death. Natural selection would propose that if there are three ducks, one with short wings, one with no wings, and one with long wings, and that the only source of food for these ducks was on an island requiring a long flight, and that only the duck with long wings could make that trip, then the other ducks would die of starvation and the long-winged duck would survive, and so on. If the ducks were immortal, their inability to find food wouldn't matter and there'd be no elimination of species via the natural selection theory.

However...doctrinally speaking (and it is a rather key doctrine), we are taught that there was no death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and started the roller-coaster ride we call mortality.

So I'm interested in knowing if any LDS members out there believe in evolution, and if so, how do you reconcile it (and it's reliance on death) with the fact that there was no death in Eden before the Fall of Adam, when everything already existed/lived that was supposed to have evolved?

I'd absolutely love it if anyone would care to include references as part of their responses, so I understand your premises and authorities.

←

1. Most everybody, including Mormons, believe in evolution (at least most everybody that understands natural selection and survival of the fittest). What they may not believe specifically is evolution of man from something pre-man.

2. If you believe in the evolution of man from something pre-man, then you have to understand the Garden of Eden as part of a creation myth and therefore not historically accurate or real, at least as described.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Is twinkling the same as death? Maybe the Lord emplyed some form of evolution for the creation.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 3 2005, 12:32 AM

1. Most everybody, including Mormons, believe in evolution (at least most everybody that understands natural selection and survival of the fittest). What they may not believe specifically is evolution of man from something pre-man.

←

My question was very broad. Snow's point allows me to clarify my question. Change in species over time is a fact and is observed (insects growing resistant to insecticides).

In particular, when I say "evolution" I mean the belief that complex organisms evolved from simple ones, that snails became elephants over millions of years...speciation, that sort of thing.

Please's comment is worth pondering. We know that during the Millenium people will not "die" in the traditional "six feet under" sense, but will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. What I'd like to know, then, is what did the Lord mean when he said that there was no death before the Fall.

Did he mean no one's spirit had been separated from their bodies? Or did he mean that no one had gone from a mortal to immortal state? Interesting possibilities, but for now, I'm ruling out "twinkling" (I like the term Please :) ) and sticking to the general meaning of "death." Besides, how would using "twinkling" help the Lord create complex organisms from simple ones?

Any thoughts?

[Jason]

The real problem you have, LeGrand, is whether or not creation and the story of Adam and Eve are factual accounts, or simple allegories.

Here's why:

-If they are factual accounts (as Jewish and Christian fundamentalists still maintain) then your account flies in the face of the strongest theory of science. Fair enough, but the likelyhood that you're right, and the most brilliant minds on earth are collectively wrong is very, very, very slim. You don't care? Well, have a nice life.

-If, however, the creation story is taken as a simple allegory, you have a much more serious problem. We all know, for example, that Jesus used allegories to get a point across. Nobody believes that the "Good Samaritan" or the various tales relating to vineyards were actual events. Yet, if the tale of Adam is also but an allegory, then the fall is pure myth. If the fall never occured in actual history, then there is no need of a redeemer. No fall, no Jesus.

In other words, if you don't accept the creation myth of Genesis as a literal event, then you've eliminated the need for a Savior-god like Jesus. You wouldn't need him.

So you have no choice but to believe that the myth of Genesis is an historical account. Without it, you've got nothing but a few sagely words of wisdom. And that's why you, and others like you, will never face the reality of evolution. Because it is totally incompatible with your religious tradition.

[Traveler]

First off I will state that evolution is a fact. Every human evolves from a zygote to a child at birth and continues to evolve through various stages of aging. It is not entirely necessary for death in the normal sense to occur for evolution to take place. We also know that life has been evolving on our planet for a very long time, many times longer than the time given in scripture for Adam to have existed.

Part of the LDS doctrine is that during Eden, Adam and Eve historically existed at a different level or state of being that was in the presents of G-d. It is here in a state of being with G-d in which there was no death. Some believe that the entire earth existed in this state for that time period and following the fall of Adam and Eve that the earth was moved to its present location. Although I see this as a possibility, I am not completely convinced.

I see another possibility is which both the heaven of spirits, home to the children of G-d and the Eden which was the habitation for Adam and Eve were in a place that was considered part of the vast dimensions of where G-d the Father acknowledges as a place of his presents. When Adam and Eve were cast out there was a great change and even the heaven habitation for spirits was separated from the Father’s presents and Jesus or Jehovah became the singular G-d king of that entire state and the only mediator (with access to the Father’s presents). Adam and Eve were cast out as physical mortals and resided from that time forward on the planet known to us as earth. This entire episode has become known as “The Fall of Man” in which all man were separated or cut off from the presents of the Father but were given the Mediatory as the only G-d that could act in the name of in with the authority of the Father.

The Traveler

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 2 2005, 11:41 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 3 2005, 12:32 AM

1. Most everybody, including Mormons, believe in evolution (at least most everybody that understands natural selection and survival of the fittest). What they may not believe specifically is evolution of man from something pre-man.

←

My question was very broad. Snow's point allows me to clarify my question. Change in species over time is a fact and is observed (insects growing resistant to insecticides).

In particular, when I say "evolution" I mean the belief that complex organisms evolved from simple ones, that snails became elephants over millions of years...speciation, that sort of thing.

Please's comment is worth pondering. We know that during the Millenium people will not "die" in the traditional "six feet under" sense, but will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. What I'd like to know, then, is what did the Lord mean when he said that there was no death before the Fall.

Did he mean no one's spirit had been separated from their bodies? Or did he mean that no one had gone from a mortal to immortal state? Interesting possibilities, but for now, I'm ruling out "twinkling" (I like the term Please :) ) and sticking to the general meaning of "death." Besides, how would using "twinkling" help the Lord create complex organisms from simple ones?

Any thoughts?

←

Adam was one person and then became two... first and only man I know to have the privelege of working with God to 'conceive' or evolve from one to two very different kinds... (JK)

More seriously though.... no death before the fall meant... possibly no spiritual death... no separation from God...

and then the physical death ... was a time of body and spirit separation... I don't believe there was such before Adam and Eve on this earth....

Some have speculated that before they partook of the fruit they were in a Celestial state and place... and then were cast to this earth (as Satan though with a body)... into a telestial state... having to prove themselves worthy to return ...

as for the evolution of such... it is both a spiritual and physical evolution... after we first went backwards and became a lower species.... needing to evolve back into a higher one... spiritually and physically.... so I believe in both forward and backward evolution...

now I ramble...

[Serg]

Again brothers, Jason just brought up the " fact or false" things of the Church(Christianity), i guess people cant stand a discussion without touching faith matters...lol.

Now, the Church has never supported evolution, and most known books are The origin of Man, and Doctrines of Salvation. We cant believe in animal evolution without accepting man's evolution. And as we DONT believe in man's we cant accept animal's neither. There was as you said ApotleKnight, no death in the Garden, and biology requires death to evolutionate. Although we dont know how much time Adam and Eve were there(and could be a day or centuries), we anyways cant sustain evolution for there was no blood nor necessity of food.

Now as to " changes" in animals, well, yes. We ourselves have lost hair from our body, and so on. There are ducks that happen to have different "props" than others depending on their enviorment. There are lizards(female), than we yet dont know how, can fertilze their selves alone and have almost erradicated the whole male production...

Still, these changes can be thrown upon God's plan for such animals to adapt, or us too. Or it can be that because of mortal beings' condition of detirioration bodies can alter their components and so on, but as to ADMIT or BELIEVE that ALL around us is result of evolution is to deny the christian faith. Many studies have shown how science and faith can be together, for example , when noone believed that womem and men appeared at the same time, not having come by any other gradual change, the mithocondria's dna showed that both "appeared" at the same time, with the SAME vital characteristics that now have....

Anyways, is just a theory.LOL.

Best regards,

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 3 2005, 11:13 AM

Again brothers, Jason just brought up the " fact or false" things of the Church(Christianity), i guess people cant stand a discussion without touching faith matters...lol.

          Now, the Church has never supported evolution, and most known books are The origin of Man, and Doctrines of Salvation. We cant believe in animal evolution without accepting man's evolution. And as we DONT believe in man's we cant accept animal's neither. There was as you said ApotleKnight, no death in the Garden, and biology requires death to evolutionate. Although we dont know how much time Adam and Eve were there(and could be a day or centuries), we anyways cant sustain evolution for  there was no blood nor necessity of food.

      Now as to " changes" in animals, well, yes. We ourselves have lost hair from our body, and so on. There are ducks that happen to have different "props" than others depending on their enviorment. There are lizards(female), than we yet dont know how, can fertilze their selves alone and have almost erradicated the whole male production...

            Still, these changes can be thrown upon God's plan for such animals to adapt, or us too. Or it can be that because of mortal beings' condition of detirioration bodies can alter their components and so on, but as to ADMIT or BELIEVE that ALL around us is result of evolution is to deny the christian faith.  Many studies have shown how science and faith can be together, for example , when noone believed that womem and men appeared at the same time, not having come by any other gradual change, the mithocondria's dna showed that both "appeared" at the same time, with the SAME vital characteristics that now have....

        Anyways, is just a theory.LOL.

  Best regards,

←

Indeed it all depends upon how extreme a view we are talking about. No, birds did not evolved from fish... and we did not come from apes...

adaptations are not evolution as you have stated... but we must admit there is evolution on the God plane... we do not stay as mortals... we evolve into imortals... through a process only God knows.

[Serg]

Thats the reasoning of a latter day saint. That is my reasoning as a person of both historical and faith passions. I agree with you.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 3 2005, 11:13 AM

Again brothers, Jason just brought up the " fact or false" things of the Church(Christianity), i guess people cant stand a discussion without touching faith matters...lol.         

Since the debate on evolution centers around those who are trying to maintain the status quo (Christians) verses those who accept the facts as they are (the rest of the intelligent world) I think it was appropriate.

[Serg]

Wow Jason, the "e" is very far from "u" , so while you were spelling "versus"but indeed did "verses"i guess you were in a hurry, just the very mind hurry you go into when treating faith matters...lol.

I just mentioned it because ApostleKnight said that please dont mention anything about true or false church, etc..LOL.

Best regards,

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 02:30 PM

Since the debate on evolution centers around those who are trying to maintain the status quo (Christians) verses those who accept the facts as they are (the rest of the intelligent world) I think it was appropriate.

←

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[in a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—Charles Darwin, quoted in N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [university of Chicago book].

As you have objected elsewhere, Jason, to my "cutting and pasting" I'll forbear from any more quotes from scientists with problems with evolution. I don't want to get into a debate about whether evolution is a scientific fact between a pro-LDS and non-LDS standpoint. As I stated, I'm more interested in what LDS think of the Eden experience and the theory of evolution. Because it isn't fact, scientifically speaking, no matter how many times you chant it.

And while your explanation of the clash between Eden and evolution was complete, it was implied in my question about how they contradict each other so it wasn't really necessary. But in case anyone wasn't sure, thanks for the clarification.

While I understand your context, Please, in comparing the Fall and exaltation to evolution of a sort, in that instance both changes are controlled by God. Whereas the theory of evolution stipulates chance as the creator and god of existence. Serq, thanks for your post above. Actually thanks to everyone for your posts...I've been extremely ill the past few days (flu or something nasty), having trouble falling asleep and hence waking up later than usual (11am or 12pm). So when I logon to LDSTalk I see lots of replies that are interesting to read. It's great.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 3 2005, 11:24 AM

Thats the reasoning of a latter day saint. That is my reasoning as a person of both historical and faith passions. I agree with you.

←

Gee whiz, Serg, I assume you actually meant to say "Latter-Day Saint", instead of the uncapitalized and non-hyphenated "latter day saint"?

We all know that the Strangites and the the Fundamentalist Church omits the hyphen. Also the church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did not use a hyphen. However, please take care to hyphenate your Church title in the future to avoid any unnecessary complications.

B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 03:31 PM

We all know that the Strangites and the the Fundamentalist Church omits the hyphen.  Also the church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did not use a hyphen.  However, please take care to hyphenate your Church title in the future to avoid any unnecessary complications. 

←

Since you're the only one who likely checks for such things, I think it'd be fair to say Jason, that if you're willing to overlook the occasional spelling mistake of latter day saints like me, no one else will mind.

[Serg]

"Latter-Day-Saint" vs "latter day saint":

You know the difference? I never use the term capitalized, only when it requires it. I believe its how i (personally) can humble before the Lord gramatically. For only He is Saint, He is Holy.

But thats different from the hurry you got in your mind Jason.

[Jason]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 3 2005, 02:48 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 3 2005, 03:31 PM

We all know that the Strangites and the the Fundamentalist Church omits the hyphen.  Also the church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did not use a hyphen.  However, please take care to hyphenate your Church title in the future to avoid any unnecessary complications. 

←

Since you're the only one who likely checks for such things, I think it'd be fair to say Jason, that if you're willing to overlook the occasional spelling mistake of latter day saints like me, no one else will mind.

←

Only two times have I ever pointed out someone's bad spelling. And that was only when it was really bad. Im simply replying in kind to our little Puerto Rican buddy.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 3 2005, 03:17 PM

"Latter-Day-Saint" vs "latter day saint":

        You know the difference?  I never use the term capitalized, only when it requires it. I believe its how i (personally) can humble before the Lord gramatically. For only He is Saint, He is Holy.

            But thats different from the hurry you got in your mind Jason.

←

Um....there's only one hyphen there Serg, not two.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 3 2005, 03:34 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Serg@Nov 3 2005, 03:17 PM

"Latter-Day-Saint" vs "latter day saint":

         You know the difference?  I never use the term capitalized, only when it requires it. I believe its how i (personally) can humble before the Lord gramatically. For only He is Saint, He is Holy.

             But thats different from the hurry you got in your mind Jason.

←

Um....there's only one hyphen there Serg, not two.

←

Oh for pity sakes!

[Guest Member_Deleted]

ApostleKnight : While I understand your context, Please, in comparing the Fall and exaltation to evolution of a sort, in that instance both changes are controlled by God. Whereas the theory of evolution stipulates chance as the creator and god of existence.

Yet according to string theory... chaos or chance is an organizational thing.. on the sub---- sub--- level... of micro science...

So maybe evolution really isn't all that far off... but just really really misunderstood and used to distract... with only partial truth...

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 12:08 AM

The real problem you have, LeGrand, is whether or not creation and the story of Adam and Eve are factual accounts, or simple allegories. 

Here's why:

-If they are factual accounts (as Jewish and Christian fundamentalists still maintain) then your account flies in the face of the strongest theory of science.  Fair enough, but the likelyhood that you're right, and the most brilliant minds on earth are collectively wrong is very, very, very slim.  You don't care?  Well, have a nice life. 

-If, however, the creation story is taken as a simple allegory, you have a much more serious problem.  We all know, for example, that Jesus used allegories to get a point across.  Nobody believes that the "Good Samaritan" or the various tales relating to vineyards were actual events.  Yet, if the tale of Adam is also but an allegory, then the fall is pure myth.  If the fall never occured in actual history, then there is no need of a redeemer.  No fall, no Jesus. 

In other words, if you don't accept the creation myth of Genesis as a literal event, then you've eliminated the need for a Savior-god like Jesus.  You wouldn't need him. 

I think that is a valid point for Christians that believe in "The Fall" as "Original Sin"...which requires Jesus to save us. As you said, if Adam never fell, there is no sin.

But the LDS do not believe in Original Sin...they believe "The Fall" caused Free Agency. It is Free Agency that allows us to sin. Although I am not a believer in the LDS Church, I do believe that much is true. We have Free Agency, and we can use it to oppose God's laws.

So I think LDS could believe that Genesis was a myth to teach them about Free Agency, while believing that God really created us using evolution.

The problem is that other LDS doctrine...outside of Genesis...depends on a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve...doesn't it?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 3 2005, 06:42 AM

First off I will state that evolution is a fact.  Every human evolves from a zygote to a child at birth and continues to evolve through various stages of aging.  It is not entirely necessary for death in the normal sense to occur for evolution to take place.  We also know that life has been evolving on our planet for a very long time, many times longer than the time given in scripture for Adam to have existed.

←

Great. We all understood that AK was referring to the evolution from one species into another species but then you define evolution (to be aging process) in a way totally irrelevant to the discussion and declare it to be a fact.

Well don't you just win the prize for irrelevancy?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 3 2005, 01:17 PM

"Latter-Day-Saint" vs "latter day saint":

        You know the difference?  I never use the term capitalized, only when it requires it. I believe its how i (personally) can humble before the Lord gramatically. For only He is Saint, He is Holy.

            But thats different from the hurry you got in your mind Jason.

←

It's Latter-Day Saint and its only necessary to capitalize every time you write it... if you want to be correct.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 3 2005, 10:06 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 3 2005, 06:42 AM

First off I will state that evolution is a fact.  Every human evolves from a zygote to a child at birth and continues to evolve through various stages of aging.  It is not entirely necessary for death in the normal sense to occur for evolution to take place.  We also know that life has been evolving on our planet for a very long time, many times longer than the time given in scripture for Adam to have existed.

←

Great. We all understood that AK was referring to the evolution from one species into another species but then you define evolution (to be aging process) in a way totally irrelevant to the discussion and declare it to be a fact.

Well don't you just win the prize for irrelevancy?

←

I just pointed out that the process from which a single cell protozoa (zygote) eventually becomes a human child is the same process as aging in adult humans. If a single cell protozoa can (evolve) into a human child in about 9 months how difficult would it be for G-d to establish all living things from a single life source? Are you saying single cell protozoa and humans are the same species?

The Traveler

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 4 2005, 10:55 AM

Are you saying single cell protozoa and humans are the same species?

←

Snow was pointing out my original definition of evolution for the purposes of this thread. Mammals don't become reptiles, fish don't become humans, cows don't become snakes, etc...

My question wasn't really, "Does anything in any way, shape or form 'evolve' from one state to another," but in the traditional evolution of species sense, did every life form we see today evolve from a single-cell, self-replicating, photo-synthesizing ancestor somewhere in a goopy swamp of primordial sludge? And if so...how does that align with the Eden experience?