Evolution, The Gospel, Science

[Snow]

There is another healthy thread going on the topic of people prior to the time of Adam but the conversation has broadened to include more concepts. I like to understand the opinions of those on the board and focus back on the crux of the matter:

1. The evolution of mankind,

2. what the Gospel has to say about it, and

3. what Mormons believe about it.

Interesting side issues include:

4. death or no death before the fall,

5. the age of the earth, and

6. the commitment that Mormons do or don't have to truth.

To start, please read the poll statement:

Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them.

Answer YES or NO.

Your particular answer is not publicly shown.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Snow

[Traveler]

There are so many things I do not agree with in the statement - for example I have no idea what a simpler species is.

We know evolution is a fact - even as a person ages the process of evolution occurs; so is the fact that ever man alive today evolved from a single cell zygote.

Part of the problem is that many have such prejudice with the scientific community that as soon as they see the word evolution they reject it in complete ignorance how broad the meaning of evolution can reach.

The Traveler

[MormonMama]

I didn't vote because I really don't know the answer. The Bible states that God formed man from the dust of the earth. That's pretty vague. Does it mean that God literally formed man from dirt? Does it mean that God formed man over eons beginning with single-celled organisms found in soil? For that matter, is the use of the word "man" in this context referring specifically to Adam, or to all mankind? If it refers to mankind, then Adam could simply be the first organism we would recognize as a human being today.

Without doing research into what our prophets have said on the matter, I just can't claim to know one way or the other.

[Elgama]

I don't know is the answer so couldn't answer:) I don't believe it is how our paritcular group of humans came into existence. However I am not willing to say evolution is not how a human somewhere in our past came into being, we do not know how the humans that became Gods created humans etc happened and its all part of us.

FACT evolution occurs it an be reproduced in a lab with fruit flies. But I do believe we came from Adam and Eve and they were created by God as they are.

[JohnnyRudick]

I guess I am the other guy:(

Yeah, I think the Scriptures are very straight forward and I have

no trouble understanding the meaning of the words found there in.

I believe that makes me a "simpleton" in the eyes of many and. . .

But "Here I stand"

That is, until I learn otherwise.

But He said it, and the prophets wrote it down. . .

[not_ashamed]

Dang, you couldn't have put a maybe on that poll for us simple minded people???

[Snow]

Without doing research into what our prophets have said on the matter, I just can't claim to know one way or the other.

The Church has made several official statements on the matter.

The Church is officially neutral on the matter of the evolution of man, saying that God and the scriptures do not address the specifics on how man came into being and that such matters should be left to scientists.

[JohnnyRudick]

The Church has made several official statements on the matter.

The Church is officially neutral on the matter of the evolution of man, saying that God and the scriptures do not address the specifics on how man came into being and that such matters should be left to scientists.

So now that he has told you what he said they said God's word is on the matter,. . .

[mrmarklin]

I believe that some of you may have evolved from monkeys etc., but I didn't.

[Snow]

I guess I am the other guy:(

Yeah, I think the Scriptures are very straight forward and I have

no trouble understanding the meaning of the words found there in.

If that is so, have you wondered why the Church said in it's 1910 First Presidency Statement on Evolution that evolution was one possible explanation for man's origin and that such matters - how mortal man came to be - are questions not answered in the revealed man of God?

Moreover, why is it so "very straight forward" to you but it is not clear to numerous prophets and apostles? Do you have some sort of gift of interpretation that our prophets lack?

[Snow]

So now that he has told you what he said they said God's word is on the matter,. . .

English please.

[Snow]

This same question: Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them... agree or disagreed was poised to LDS Utah-born or Utah-educated scientists. 1400 scientists responded to the survey question. Of those that responded, 282 were specialists in the field - biologists.

Of the 282 biologists, only ONE agreed with the statement. That is, of those most educated on the topic, all but a tiny fraction understand the reality of evolution. The Utah scientists were most all "strong Mormons."

It should be noticed that the survey was done years ago - before the explosion of proof about evolution that has burst on the scene in recent years.

Sadly, when you get away from the experts, acceptance of evolution plummets from nearly 100 percent to much lower among the rank and file membership.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This same question: Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them... agree or disagreed was poised to LDS Utah-born or Utah-educated scientists. 1400 scientists responded to the survey question. Of those that responded, 282 were specialists in the field - biologists.

Of the 282 biologists, only ONE agreed with the statement. That is, of those most educated on the topic, all but a tiny fraction understand the reality of evolution. The Utah scientists were most all "strong Mormons."

It should be noticed that the survey was done years ago - before the explosion of proof about evolution that has burst on the scene in recent years.

Sadly, when you get away from the experts, acceptance of evolution plummets from nearly 100 percent to much lower among the rank and file membership.

I think the reason only one agreed is because that question is very vague and leaves a lot of room for doubt and interpretation. The words "in any fashion" and "not biologically related to them" leaves open many possibilities and makes me want to choose 'I disagree' with that statement. I think those words still make it possible to have God's hand in the process.

If you were to take a poll on a statement like; "Man's body did NOT evolve from a single original organism formed by random mixing of elements and through random genetic mutations and alterations spawned all life as we now know it without any interference from outside sources or manipulation by God or His servants." ... then maybe I would agree with that.

Isn't it possible that there is evidence for evolution as God had to create suitable conditions for human life before putting Adam here? Like putting down organic material before you plant a garden. I'm sure there are many steps to get to that point and we see evidence of the steps and try to fill in the blanks and call it evolution. But that doesn't necessarily mean that our bodies came from some original single cell organism. After having some organic base to work with, God could have taken the material, "dirt" lined up a lipid bilayer, taken organelles from even other species and lined up nucleotides in the correct order to form the right DNA to make perfect man but by using the elements of this Earth ... or something like that. And in that sense we would be "biologically related" to other species (that is why that statement is vague) and evolution "in any fashion" was necessary to form some kind of organic basis to work with (making that statement a little vague) and yet, in that sense God could have made the first man. ... Of course, I don't know how it was done any more than any of you, but I am proposing at least one method that could use components of evolution as a preparatory part of mans creation and yet man as we are now would not be without God's manipulation of the process.

I think most would agree that "evolution" requires random changes that are divergent and not manipulated by some outside-of-the-system source. But when you say "in any fashion" I am not sure what is meant by that.

[JohnnyRudick]

English please.

You had to of been there:p

[Snow]

I think the reason only one agreed is because that question is very vague and leaves a lot of room for doubt and interpretation. The words "in any fashion" and "not biologically related to them" leaves open many possibilities and makes me want to choose 'I disagree' with that statement.

It was a question designed by a scientist directed towards other scientists. You can parse it and try and spin it but everybody knows what it means - it's the theory of evolution based on Darwinian ideas and Mendels work on genetics... that man was preceeded by earlier forms of hominds that descended from yet earlier hominids that descended from yet earlier life forms all the way back to the simplest life forms.

I think those words still make it possible to have God's hand in the process.

You won't find me or any believing Mormon that thinks that evolution does not involved God.

If you were to take a poll on a statement like; "Man's body did NOT evolve from a single original organism formed by random mixing of elements and through random genetic mutations and alterations spawned all life as we now know it without any interference from outside sources or manipulation by God or His servants." ... then maybe I would agree with that.

Evolution doesn't appear to be random. There is randomness within certain constraints:

https://richarddawkins.net/articles/2141

Isn't it possible that there is evidence for evolution as God had to create suitable conditions for human life before putting Adam here? Like putting down organic material before you plant a garden. I'm sure there are many steps to get to that point and we see evidence of the steps and try to fill in the blanks and call it evolution. But that doesn't necessarily mean that our bodies came from some original single cell organism. After having some organic base to work with, God could have taken the material, "dirt" lined up a lipid bilayer, taken organelles from even other species and lined up nucleotides in the correct order to form the right DNA to make perfect man but by using the elements of this Earth ... or something like that. And in that sense we would be "biologically related" to other species (that is why that statement is vague) and evolution "in any fashion" was necessary to form some kind of organic basis to work with (making that statement a little vague) and yet, in that sense God could have made the first man. ... Of course, I don't know how it was done any more than any of you, but I am proposing at least one method that could use components of evolution as a preparatory part of mans creation and yet man as we are now would not be without God's manipulation of the process.

Okay - what's the evidence?

[JohnnyRudick]

If that is so, have you wondered why the Church said in it's 1910 First Presidency Statement on Evolution that evolution was one possible explanation for man's origin and that such matters - how mortal man came to be - are questions not answered in the revealed man of God?

Moreover, why is it so "very straight forward" to you but it is not clear to numerous prophets and apostles? Do you have some sort of gift of interpretation that our prophets lack?

I am not sure how a statement of neutrality on the subject can be

construed as a statement of it as a possibility.

[Snow]

I am not sure how a statement of neutrality on the subject can be

construed as a statement of it as a possibility.

Read David O, McKay's official letters stating that the Church is neutral on evolution and read the 1910 First Presidency statement that lists evolution as one of the possible explantions for the evolution of man. When you read that statement, pay attention to the sentences that explain, contrary to your claims, that the revealed word of God does not answer the question.

[JohnnyRudick]

Read David O, McKay's official letters stating that the Church is neutral on evolution and read the 1910 First Presidency statement that lists evolution as one of the possible explantions for the evolution of man. When you read that statement, pay attention to the sentences that explain, contrary to your claims, that the revealed word of God does not answer the question.

Not sure it reads exactly that way:confused:

I believe it list several possibilities for man being here.

The Scriptural account being one.

I know you wish to rest on the last of the statement of a "We don't know" statement, but if you will note -

They say in effect, you have been told, why keep asking?

See the talking ass event in Numbers 22:1-35

"In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?" This question comes from several High Priests' quorums.

Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1: 26-27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of Abraham 5: 7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject.

[1]

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God;

[2]

whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time;

[3]

whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been,

are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."

I know.

You really like that last sentence.

Edited May 16, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought:-)

[Moksha]

This same question: Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them...

Of the 282 biologists, only ONE agreed with the statement.

Perhaps this one guy borrowed a scientist uniform for the day to get the free lunch.

[Snow]

Not sure it reads exactly that way:confused:

I believe it list several possibilities for man being here.

Read what I posted. I specifically said is was one of the listed possibilities.

The Scriptural account being one.

That's untrue. It lists three possibilities:

1. Evolution

2. Transplantation from another planet

3. Adam and Eve being born here just as other humans are born

It says nothing of the two different and contradictory Bible accounts of the creation.

I know you wish to rest on the last of the statement of a "We don't know" statement, but if you will note -

They say in effect, you have been told, why keep asking?

See the talking ass event in Numbers 22:1-35

Here's a hint. Donkeys don't talk.

[Snow]

Perhaps this one guy borrowed a scientist uniform for the day to get the free lunch.

No doubt. Science deniers don't do very well as scientists.

[Snow]

In 1979 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, then President Oaks faced the question of whether BYU ought to teach evolution.

Convinced by this time of the need for a stronger statement, Oaks responded decisively to Hinckley: ‘If we stopped teaching this theory, within a few years students from BYU would not be admitted to…graduate schools. At that point we would cease to function as a recognized university and would, in the eyes of the world (especially the world of higher education), be little more than a seminary with added courses in the humanities. I have no doubt whatever that our accreditation as an institution of higher education would be lost. The issue is that loaded.’”

... that is, ignore evolution and the "Lord's University" would become a joke and laughing stock.

[Justice]

I believe there was evolution. It's hardly possible to deny it as all evidence suggests there was/is. The Bible even describes the creation process much like scientists claim evolution took place. God spoke; elements obeyed; and over time they became what God commanded. Evolution.

However, the question that should be asked, and I think the one being presented, is "Did man evolve also (from apes or monekys)?"

I believe the answer to be no. My belief is that man was born of immortal parents.

So, yes I believe in evolution. But, I voted yes, that man's body did not evolve from simpler species.

I am not saying that it is impossible that God's intended method of getting man's body ready for their spirits was by evolution. It is a possible method. I'm saying I don't believe it. I'm saying I believe Adam was born of immortal parents.

I take the end of Christ's ancestoral chain as literal:

Luke 3: 38

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It was a question designed by a scientist directed towards other scientists. You can parse it and try and spin it but everybody knows what it means - it's the theory of evolution based on Darwinian ideas and Mendels work on genetics... that man was preceeded by earlier forms of hominds that descended from yet earlier hominids that descended from yet earlier life forms all the way back to the simplest life forms.

You won't find me or any believing Mormon that thinks that evolution does not involved God.

Evolution doesn't appear to be random. There is randomness within certain constraints:

https://richarddawkins.net/articles/2141

Okay - what's the evidence?

The evidence is in the scientific fact that humans now, even in our limited understanding of the natural sciences can manipulate DNA and 'create' new forms of life that didn't exist before and are not part of Mendelian inheritance or Darwinian natural selection.

Even Richard Dawkins cannot prove that if the tape was rewound and all the random events like mass extinction at the right time were made again random events that humans would look and have the same body structure that we have now. His arguments suggest only that if you were to take all the exact events at the right time into account that one could eventually predict the outcome of evolution. But, (to me at least), you would have to say that our resulting appearance, i.e two eyes, nose, mouth, weight, height etc., have no importance as to our purpose here or that the human body exactly as we have it now is the result of evolution every time, even if the tape was rewound.

So how do you see it Snow? Do you think our body was made to appear this way and this way only or do you think that evolution, every time it is run on its own (like the atheist Dawkins suggests) results in the same human form every time? Or I suppose another view is that when it says in scripture that we are made in the image of God that one takes that loosely, that we are just roughly made in the image of God, mammalian, reptilian etc. ... it wouldn't matter.

Even Dawkins view of evolution is that there is no outside influence on events that led to our creation, meaning it is a purely contained process. He suggests this happens without any supreme being's assistance. And yet you say that you believe God has a hand in it. So, you don't really believe his view then? How do you reconcile the two? ... I gave you one possible way, but then you shoot it down by saying where is the evidence. Where is the evidence that God did not manipulate the environment, these so called natural events that result in mass extinction that change the direction of genetic drift, natural selection?

[JohnnyRudick]

Read what I posted. I specifically said is was one of the listed possibilities.

That's untrue. It lists three possibilities:

1. Evolution

2. Transplantation from another planet

3. Adam and Eve being born here just as other humans are born

It says nothing of the two different and contradictory Bible accounts of the creation.

Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1: 26-27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of Abraham 5: 7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject.