Why Mormons should embrace evolution

[Moksha]

Hey, don't blame me for the title. It is from the following article on Beliefnet. I am more than happy sitting right next to my brethren from the 10th Century on Sundays.

Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution: BYU Biology Professor Steven Peck

Read more: Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution: BYU Biology Professor Steven Peck - Flunking Sainthood

Mormon theology is uniquely positioned to embrace an evolutionarily-based theology. The first reason is that we believe in continuing revelation. We believe in updating our text. God continues to expand our views, deepen our understanding, and reshape and even radically change our current understanding.

Your thoughts?

[Saldrin]

I think darwin is a repugnant human being, a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory, and I will not embrace it. Just my personal view.

[Melissa569]

I think darwin is a repugnant human being, a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory, and I will not embrace it. Just my personal view.

Ditto.

[Guest]

I think darwin is a repugnant human being, a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory, and I will not embrace it. Just my personal view.

I disagree. I can't comprehend the seemingly limitless power of God. I sure wouldn't say with absolute conviction that God didn't cause evolution to create the Earth and even Man for that matter.

[FunkyTown]

Why is Darwin a repugnant human being?

He said what he thought based upon what he saw. Being wrong doesn't make you repugnant.

It just makes you wrong.

[Jamie123]

I think darwin is a repugnant human being, a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory, and I will not embrace it. Just my personal view.

You think that Charles Darwin himself is repugnant? (I think you mean was. He died in 1882.) I'll make the charitable assumption you're talking about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, not the person of Charles Darwin himself.

So you think it's repugnant. So what? Many things in nature are "repugnant" but nevertheless true. Darwin's own example was the wasp that lays its eggs inside a caterpillar; when the larvae hatch they eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. I find that repulsive. Does that mean it doesn't really happen?

Evolution is a scientific theory. No reasonable person assesses a scientific theory based on whether or not it's repugnant. Your attitude is equivalent to that of the global-warming sceptics who don't want to give up their powerful polluting cars. Scientific theories should be confirmed/refuted by scientific evidence or argument, not by whether their perceived implications are inconvenient or repugnant.

And yes, you're quite right that some people have used Darwin's theories to justify terrible acts of mass-murder. But other people have committed mass murder in the name of Jesus Christ. (If you don't believe me, read up on the Seige of Acre, 1189-91.) To say that evolutionary theory is therefore "evil" is to use precisely the kind of argument Richard Dawkins employed against religion in his documentary series The Root of All Evil?

Edited September 21, 2010 by Jamie123

[bcguy]

This is pretty much proof that humans has evolved from this species. It is a species that is separate from primates and walked on only its feed like us hominids. Also, the oldest known tools were found in Ethiopia. What I find ironic is also this is where the the Ark of the covenant is held. Interesting. Also want to make one more comment. Genetic engineers have traced today's DNA history all the way back to that part of Africa. Every human carries the genetic history of its ancestors. Seems that Ethiopia could very well be where humankind started from.

Ardi displaces Lucy as oldest hominid skeleton

Edited October 7, 2010 by bcguy

[Saldrin]

You think that Charles Darwin himself is repugnant? (I think you mean was. He died in 1882.) I'll make the charitable assumption you're talking about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, not the person of Charles Darwin himself.

So you think it's repugnant. So what? Many things in nature are "repugnant" but nevertheless true. Darwin's own example was the wasp that lays its eggs inside a caterpillar; when the larvae hatch they eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. I find that repulsive. Does that mean it doesn't really happen?

Evolution is a scientific theory. No reasonable person assesses a scientific theory based on whether or not it's repugnant. Your attitude is equivalent to that of the global-warming sceptics who don't want to give up their powerful polluting cars. Scientific theories should be confirmed/refuted by scientific evidence or argument, not by whether their perceived implications are inconvenient or repugnant.

And yes, you're quite right that some people have used Darwin's theories to justify terrible acts of mass-murder. But other people have committed mass murder in the name of Jesus Christ. (If you don't believe me, read up on the Seige of Acre, 1189-91.) To say that evolutionary theory is therefore "evil" is to use precisely the kind of argument Richard Dawkins employed against religion in his documentary series The Root of All Evil?

First of all as far as i know darwin espoused the use of eugenics, so yes that makes him repugnant. Eugenics was responsible for mass sterilization of people in America in the early 1900's. The idea was embraced by karl marx, and people who fall in line with his ideology and use that to exterminate people based on their worth to society(by breeding a better person). By adolf hitler and people who fall in line with his ideology and use that to exterminate people based on their worth to society(for racial purity).

Second evolution is a theory its not fact. Global warming caused by man is a hoax in itself all together with scientific data disproving that it happening. the EPA has stated in 2009 that the Earth is entering a 30 year cooling cycle. and why is it in this most current warming cycle, that Mars was experiencing a global warming also? because the sun has more to do with the planets warming and cooling cycles then man does, in fact mans contribution to those cycles can be compared to a fart in a hurricane.

Thirdly if they are using evolution like the people claimed to be following Christ, does that make evolution a religion? I think it does.

Fourthly I stand by what said which is "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" I never once said the theory is evil itself.

And please don't compare me to richard dorkins there's no need to be insulting (just a little joke)

Edited September 21, 2010 by Saldrin
spelling

[Saldrin]

Why is Darwin a repugnant human being?

He said what he thought based upon what he saw. Being wrong doesn't make you repugnant.

It just makes you wrong.

Too true but its his belief in eugenics that gets my goat!

[FunkyTown]

First of all as far as i know darwin espoused the use of eugenics, so yes that makes him repugnant. Eugenics was responsible for mass sterilization of people in America in the early 1900's. The idea was embraced by karl marx, and people who fall in line with his ideology and use that to exterminate people based on their worth to society(by breeding a better person). By adolf hitler and people who fall in line with his ideology and use that to exterminate people based on their worth to society(for racial purity).

No, Saldrin. The idea behind Eugenics is that strong people with fewer genetic diseases will tend to breed stronger offspring, thus it is in humanity's best interests to breed for intelligence, strength and health.

That's just a salient fact. It's not evil. What people did in the name of Eugenics had nothing to do with what the original theories were based on. And Darwin died in the late 1800s. He had nothing to do with the Nazis. In fact, Darwin said that helping the weak of humanity may cause a loss in the benefits of natural selection(True), but withholding that help would endanger our sympathies and humanity(Also true). Darwin believed the idea of breeding great qualities was a noble endeavor that was ultimately Utopian(That is - Great in theory, but simply won't happen due to human nature).

Arguing that he believed something that the Nazis happened to take to an absurd degree is akin to saying that food is evil because a fat man gorging is unhealthy.

Second evolution is a theory its not fact. Global warming caused by man is a hoax in itself all together with scientific data disproving that it happening. the EPA has stated in 2009 that the Earth is entering a 30 year cooling cycle. and why is it in this most current warming cycle, that Mars was experiencing a global warming also? because the sun has more to do with the planets warming and cooling cycles then man does, in fact mans contribution to those cycles can be compared to a fart in a hurricane.

Thirdly if they are using evolution like the people claimed to be following Christ, does that make evolution a religion? I think it does.

Fourthly I stand by what said which is "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" I never once said the theory is evil itself.

And please don't compare me to richard dorkins there's no need to be insulting (just a little joke)

Secondly, Darwin has nothing to do with global warming - Something that many scientists still believe and also something that doesn't make THEM evil, either. Mars... Global warming... Nothing to do with Darwin.

Third, Darwin was religious. He worried about coming forth with what he had observed for fear of shaking the religious faith. He did it anyway, despite HUGE pressure not to, because he believed it to be the truth.

Fourthly, you didn't just say the theory was evil. You said the man was repugnant. It's possible you didn't mean morally repugnant. You could have meant that you hate his big beard and found that repugnant. I don't think you did, but I could have been wrong.

[Guest Godless]

Thirdly if they are using evolution like the people claimed to be following Christ, does that make evolution a religion? I think it does.

Examples? I personally see nothing religious about the theory of evolution. It is accepted by many people, theists and non-theists alike. It is not worshiped or deified. It does not tell us how to live our lives. So how is it in any way a religion?

Fourthly I stand by what said which is "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" I never once said the theory is evil itself.

Germ theory has caused a lot of evil as well in the form of biological warfare. What's your point?

[FunkyTown]

Examples? I personally see nothing religious about the theory of evolution. It is accepted by many people, theists and non-theists alike. It is not worshiped or deified. It does not tell us how to live our lives. So how is it in any way a religion?

Theoretically? Because there is no proof of the very basic fundamentals that are required to be true for evolution, but disagreeing with it gets you shouted down. It has become an 'Old boys club' of people who accept something without a whit of evidence for the basics.

I will reiterate them:

1) Have any evolutionists ever been able to recreate the development of a living cell from an organic molecule in a controlled environment, where we could find out how it was done accidentally? No? It could take billions of years and a huge control group to create? Possible. That it hasn't been observed means that it can't be proven other than to state 'Life exists, so there had to have been a first life.'

2) We have no evidence of cells banding together that did not previously have a disposition to band together.

3) Cells specializing from generic cells occur all the time. It doesn't take generations - It happens within a single lifetime when stem cells specialize in to brain cells, bone structure, etc. That isn't evolution. That's hyper-evolution.

4) If evolution exists because creatures that successful mutations tend to live longer and pass on their traits more because of that life, Evolution is fundamentally flawed. Basic cells live forever and are functionally immortal. Your cells will not live forever. Specializing greatly reduced the lifespan, in fact.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Evolution has some real problems and holes in the theory. If you try to state that, people will shout you down and try to drown out your concerns. A lot of people, if you try to point out the flaws of evolution, will defend it with a passion that can only be called religious.

[MarginOfError]

Theoretically? Because there is no proof of the very basic fundamentals that are required to be true for evolution, but disagreeing with it gets you shouted down. It has become an 'Old boys club' of people who accept something without a whit of evidence for the basics.

I will reiterate them:

1) Have any evolutionists ever been able to recreate the development of a living cell from an organic molecule in a controlled environment, where we could find out how it was done accidentally? No? It could take billions of years and a huge control group to create? Possible. That it hasn't been observed means that it can't be proven other than to state 'Life exists, so there had to have been a first life.'

2) We have no evidence of cells banding together that did not previously have a disposition to band together.

3) Cells specializing from generic cells occur all the time. It doesn't take generations - It happens within a single lifetime when stem cells specialize in to brain cells, bone structure, etc. That isn't evolution. That's hyper-evolution.

4) If evolution exists because creatures that successful mutations tend to live longer and pass on their traits more because of that life, Evolution is fundamentally flawed. Basic cells live forever and are functionally immortal. Your cells will not live forever. Specializing greatly reduced the lifespan, in fact.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Evolution has some real problems and holes in the theory. If you try to state that, people will shout you down and try to drown out your concerns. A lot of people, if you try to point out the flaws of evolution, will defend it with a passion that can only be called religious.

No, they'll defend it with a passion that can only be called ideological. Unfortunately, we often confuse religion with ideology because religionists have a bad habit of being ideological about their religious beliefs. But the two are not quite the same.

Regardless, your point is well taken.

[FunkyTown]

No, they'll defend it with a passion that can only be called ideological. Unfortunately, we often confuse religion with ideology because religionists have a bad habit of being ideological about their religious beliefs. But the two are not quite the same.

Regardless, your point is well taken.

Touche and well-played, MOE.

Point won by MOE. But I'll be back.

[hordak]

If Darwin teachings were perverted by some and that makes him "responsible" for things like the holocaust...

Who is to blame for this

The improper use of a teaching by some down the road is NOT a negative reflection upon the teacher, or even the teaching itself.

[Traveler]

...

Fourthly I stand by what said which is "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" I never once said the theory is evil itself.

...

The same can be said of Jesus and the "Christian" cleansing of Northern Europe to establish the Holy Roman Empire that resulted in more deaths than the Black Plague or the genocide of entire peoples and civilizations in other places in the name of Christianity.

Please consider the following:

When we observe the mototic phase in a living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind it’s DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human.

Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways. The second is integration; this is when the cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which defining a higher life form.

From a single cell of one kind or type will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human. This process is evolution, pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture and method of life.

To deny evolution is to deny birth and new life. To say the evolution process exist to this, the arbitrary point defined by men as that of the species and then no longer occurs, is to me a mockery of what little knowledge the Almighty grants us. How silly are we to assume that the Almighty deceives us in what he shows us in nature or that we can make up in our own ignorant minds in better understanding than that which he openly displays to all that will look upon his wonders.

Has the creator ceased to create and put an end to his creative power? Does evolution disprove a creator or what the scriptures tell us? If people of faith allow this to become a definition we make a serious mistake. Is understanding or a principle a denial of the need for the Almighty? If we learn a thing - does that mean that the power of the Almighty is no longer active in that thing? Not to me - I believe we should acknowledge him for all his works, including what little we have learned, and then seek to learn more of him and his works.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Theoretically? Because there is no proof of the very basic fundamentals that are required to be true for evolution, but disagreeing with it gets you shouted down. It has become an 'Old boys club' of people who accept something without a whit of evidence for the basics.

The theory is built on the idea of natural selection, which has ample evidence to support it. There is also ample evidence to support the idea of hominids and apes sharing a common ancestor.

I will reiterate them:

1) Have any evolutionists ever been able to recreate the development of a living cell from an organic molecule in a controlled environment, where we could find out how it was done accidentally? No? It could take billions of years and a huge control group to create? Possible. That it hasn't been observed means that it can't be proven other than to state 'Life exists, so there had to have been a first life.'

Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate fields of study. The fact that some evolutionary biologists like Dawkins feel the need to comment on the origins of life is unfortunate.

3) Cells specializing from generic cells occur all the time. It doesn't take generations - It happens within a single lifetime when stem cells specialize in to brain cells, bone structure, etc. That isn't evolution. That's hyper-evolution.

Evolution has more to do with genetic mutation than cellular development. That's how complex organisms adapt to their ecosystems.

4) If evolution exists because creatures that successful mutations tend to live longer and pass on their traits more because of that life, Evolution is fundamentally flawed. Basic cells live forever and are functionally immortal. Your cells will not live forever. Specializing greatly reduced the lifespan, in fact.

So the fact that complex organisms have relatively short lifespans makes evolution flawed?

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Evolution has some real problems and holes in the theory. If you try to state that, people will shout you down and try to drown out your concerns. A lot of people, if you try to point out the flaws of evolution, will defend it with a passion that can only be called religious.

I've said it before on this board, and I'll say it again. There is no such things as a perfect theory. There will always be flaws and holes. The fact remains, however, that the basic principles of evolution (genetic mutation, natural selection, common ancestry, etc) have plenty of evidence to back them.

[Dravin]

I've said it before on this board, and I'll say it again. There is no such things as a perfect theory. There will always be flaws and holes. The fact remains, however, that the basic principles of evolution (genetic mutation, natural selection, common ancestry, etc) have plenty of evidence to back them.

People like to point out that evolution is a theory, to which my response is, so what? Gravity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Nuclear Fission is a theory.

So the fact that complex organisms have relatively short lifespans makes evolution flawed?

I think he's falling prey to the fallicy that evolution is guided to some sort of perfection instead of the reality: I can survive to adulthood and have more babies than you who then survive to adulthood and have more babies means I win. If you have a gene that makes you live for 100 years in perfect health but makes you only capable of having 3 offspring that survive to adulthood and I have a gene that makes it so I only live 30 years and then I get cancer and die horribly but have 10 offspring who survive to adulthood and reproduce themselves, guess who wins? Likewise same scenarioro except I'm capable of eating grass and bananas and you are capable of only eating bananas, not lets say we have the same number of offspring but the other conditions still exsist (you have a longer life and a better quality of life). Now have the bananas wiped out by a blight or over harvest but all the grass survives. Guess who wins?

And yes there can be an advantage to having older animals around, and if you have 3 kids but they all survive and I have 10 kids but only 2 survives then you win. Of course if that's the case when the bananas die out and I'm still around I flip from losing back to winning when all your children starve to death and mine munch grass.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

People like to point out that evolution is a theory, to which my response is, so what? Gravity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Nuclear Fission is a theory.

I think he's falling prey to the fallicy that evolution is guided to some sort of perfection instead of the reality: I can have more babies than you who survive to adulthood means I win.

If I inherited a gene that made me extremely attractive to women and extremely fertile to the point that I spent my entire life impregnating many woman and having many offspring but the side effect was I dropped dead at 21 _that_ is an evolutionary "sucess" (I am more reproductively fit than my fellows).

So how do I apply for that job?

[Dravin]

So how do I apply for that job?

From what I've always heard you need to become a rockstar.

P.S. Rereading my edit maybe I should have just stuck with what came out first, it's less convoluted and a little bit catchier.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Dravin

[pam]

From what I've always heard you need to become a rockstar.

P.S. Rereading my edit maybe I should have just stuck with what came out first, it's less convoluted and a little bit catchier.

Well there is an energy drink so you can party like a rockstar. Would that be close enough?

[NeuroTypical]

If I get to heaven and find out that the earth really is billions of years old, and species do evolve, I think I'll be so mad, that I'll refuse entry into the kingdom. Especially if that evil crackpot Darwin is there.

LM

(satire)

[pam]

If I get to heaven and find out that the earth really is billions of years old, and species do evolve, I think I'll be so mad, that I'll refuse entry into the kingdom. Especially if that evil crackpot Darwin is there.

LM

(satire)

I first read this as Dravin. I was going to say I agree.

Edited September 21, 2010 by pam

[HiJolly]

I was a teenager in the 70's. I witnessed the publishing of Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man, His Origin & Destiny", I head the sermons from Elders Mark E Petersen, Bruce R McConkie, Harold B Lee, Boyd K Packer and more, about evolution being impossible in light of the Gospel.

It took me decades of study to realize and accept their error. That realization caused a major change in my perception of who they are (or, were) and a lot more related to that.

I am grateful that I retain a testimony & love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church. I sometimes feel it was narrow thing.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I was a teenager in the 70's. I read President Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man, His Origin & Destiny", I heard the sermons from Elders Mark E Petersen, Bruce R McConkie, Harold B Lee, Boyd K Packer and more, about evolution being impossible in light of the Gospel.

It took me decades of study to realize and accept their error. That realization caused a major change in my perception of who they are (or, were) and a lot more related to that.

I am grateful that I retain a testimony & love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church. I sometimes feel it was narrow thing.

HiJolly

Edited September 21, 2010 by HiJolly