Why Mormons should embrace evolution

[pam]

HiJolly don't be deleting at the same time I'm deleting as a duplicate. :)

[Traveler]

In essence all that evolution means is change. What about change is so offensive to creation? Is not the very concept of repentance a change or evolution? Are we not changed in the process of salvation?

Was there not a change because of creation? Now we may not all agree on various elements of evolution or change but how can anyone be a Christian and not believe they have changed (evolved)?

The Traveler

[Saldrin]

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).

Yes Funky, the way its stated is they way I see it. You may feel the way I see it is wrong and that is okay. The basic of the idea behind eugenics is irrelevant, its what darwin and others advocated to bring about eugenics that is indeed evil. not just selective breeding but elimination of people who would have undesirable traits so they could not pass them on.

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.

Um what? okay you think is absurd that's your opinion, I used it as an example of "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" And it wasn't just Nazis it was Marxists and some Americans too. Why just pick up on the one group. one group we can dismiss out of hand but three would be hard to dismiss the claim that the theory itself gave rise to groups who used the theory to commit inhuman atrocity's. Another good example is the American birth control league, founded by Margaret Sanger who advocated the use of abortion to bring about the master race, (sounds like eugenics in action to me, also this organization became planned parenthood.)

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.

I didn't bring up global warming the first responder to my opinion did, and yes perpetrating a hoax to curtail peoples freedoms, and the scientist go along with this hoax do so to line their own pockets. So please take it up with the person who first brought it up, which was not me.

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.

No he was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution.

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.

No I totally meant morally repugnant. But again I will have to quote myself i did not say the theory was evil i said "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory."

These are my exact words, so I don't know where people get that I said the theory itself was evil. All in all i feel nothing was refuted from my original arguments and I stand by them.

[Traveler]

Here is the famiouls quote from Darwin's "Decent of Man":

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

I have bolded and underlined what I think is the most important part of Darwan's thought on this matter and I have colered an interesting phrase. What was it that Darwan called "the noblest part of our nature"? And what did he say would "overwhelming present evil"?

Since Darwan is not here to speak for himself - I thought I would speak for him.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

"I feel most deeply that this whole question of Creation is too

profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on

the mind of Newton! Let each man hope and believe what he can."

-- Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm gonna sum up the solution to this thread in one sentence:

How Heavenly Father chose to create man is NOT relevant to anyone's salvation.

SO STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT. Please?

We'll find out what went down in the afterlife.

[EandLDOW]

Pardon the intrusion of a newbie.

I think Darwin's theory has been over-extended by subsequent people to go far beyond what Darwin discovered or intended. As an example, Darwin found finches on the Galapagos Islands that had evolved to fill certain niches in the ecology of the Islands to the point they became different subspecies of finches. However, the facts remain that they were still identifiable as finches, and that their ancestors originally were finches which came from someplace else. It is notable that no finches evolved to become pigeons, parrots, hawks or anything else, and no finches were found that did not have identifiable ancestors from some other place but spontaneously appeared there.

After Darwin's publication of his observations and theory, others took his findings and stretched them to the enth degree, corrupting them to the point that they stated that the finches evolved from something else than finches. This is simply not true, and a sad corruption of some good scientific work on Darwin's part.

The truth used to be the goal of all scientific research, beginning with the presumption that science does not know the answer and should look for the truth with an open mind ready to accept whatever the evidence proves to be true. Science originally operated from the presumption that God made everything, and the goal was to try to find out how He did it. Now however, science is a competition to defend pet theories, no matter how rediculous on their face, and discredit those of competitiors in order to obtain more funding for more "research", and is founded on the belief that everything came of nothing through spontaneous accident and random chance. That on it's face is not possible, let alone likely.

For an organism, say one of Darwin's finches, to become something else, say a hawk, it would be necessary for a finch to experience dramatic changes to the DNA, then encounter and mate with another finch of the opposite sex which had undergone a similar dramatic change to it's DNA, and have their offspring mate with others similarly changed, until s population of the new species becomes large enough to be sulf-sustaining.

The experience of humans trying to intentionally manipulate change in species is exactly the opposite. Examples are the mule, superior in every way to it's parents, but sterile, and hybridized crops, which must be hybridized for each years seed planting as the seeds do not reproduce true to the hybrid but revert to the characteristics of one or another of the parents.

As for the "Church's opportunity to accept evolution", I guess it depends on how you define evolution. Yes, the Church does accept the reality of modern living current revelation. However, until the Lord initiates revelation to change things, I don't expect the Church's official doctrine to change any at all. I don't really expect the Lord to change our doctrine any at all because everything He has thus far revealed is the truth, and that is unchanging. We may receive new, additional doctrine, but I doubt there will be changes of existing doctrine.

Just my thoughts.

Edited September 21, 2010 by EandLDOW

[Traveler]

I'm gonna sum up the solution to this thread in one sentence:

How Heavenly Father chose to create man is NOT relevant to anyone's salvation.

SO STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT. Please?

We'll find out what went down in the afterlife.

I would see this differently. If a man cannot embrace simple truths placed before them to observe concerning the wonders of life – how can they think themselves the better to understand spiritual truths and not be mislead that cannot be observed but must be made on faith? In short I would exhort that the recognition of truth is the very essence of salvation.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Pardon the intrusion of a newbie.

I think Darwin's theory has been over-extended by subsequent people to go far beyond what Darwin discovered or intended. As an example, Darwin found finches on the Galapagos Islands that had evolved to fill certain niches in the ecology of the Islands to the point they became different subspecies of finches. However, the facts remain that they were still identifiable as finches, and that their ancestors originally were finches which came from someplace else. It is notable that no finches evolved to become pigeons, parrots, hawks or anything else, and no finches were found that did not have identifiable ancestors from some other place but spontaneously appeared there.

After Darwin's publication of his observations and theory, others took his findings and stretched them to the enth degree, corrupting them to the point that they stated that the finches evolved from something else than finches. This is simply not true, and a sad corruption of some good scientific work on Darwin's part.

The truth used to be the goal of all scientific research, beginning with the presumption that science does not know the answer and should look for the truth with an open mind ready to accept whatever the evidence proves to be true. Science originally operated from the presumption that God made everything, and the goal was to try to find out how He did it. Now however, science is a competition to defend pet theories, no matter how rediculous on their face, and discredit those of competitiors in order to obtain more funding for more "research", and is founded on the belief that everything came of nothing through spontaneous accident and random chance. That on it's face is not possible, let alone likely.

For an organism, say one of Darwin's finches, to become something else, say a hawk, it would be necessary for a finch to experience dramatic changes to the DNA, then encounter and mate with another finch of the opposite sex which had undergone a similar dramatic change to it's DNA, and have their offspring mate with others similarly changed, until s population of the new species becomes large enough to be sulf-sustaining.

The experience of humans trying to intentionally manipulate change in species is exactly the opposite. Examples are the mule, superior in every way to it's parents, but sterile, and hybridized crops, which must be hybridized for each years seed planting as the seeds do not reproduce true to the hybrid but revert to the characteristics of one or another of the parents.

As for the "Church's opportunity to accept evolution", I guess it depends on how you define evolution. Yes, the Church does accept the reality of modern living current revelation. However, until the Lord initiates revelation to change things, I don't expect the Church's official doctrine to change any at all. I don't really expect the Lord to change our doctrine any at all because everything He has thus far revealed is the truth, and that is unchanging. We may receive new, additional doctrine, but I doubt there will be changes of existing doctrine.

Just my thoughts.

Would it be possible to genetically engineer a new species of hawk from a finch? Are you aware that one of the primary means to deliver genetically altered DNA is by a virus? And yet the possibilities of genetically altering virus are most common during high pressures on a species in times of famine and other disasters - of which there has been many in the natural history of this earth.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

As for the "Church's opportunity to accept evolution", I guess it depends on how you define evolution. Yes, the Church does accept the reality of modern living current revelation. However, until the Lord initiates revelation to change things, I don't expect the Church's official doctrine to change any at all. I don't really expect the Lord to change our doctrine any at all because everything He has thus far revealed is the truth, and that is unchanging. We may receive new, additional doctrine, but I doubt there will be changes of existing doctrine.

Just my thoughts.

Following this line of reasoning, we see that the practice of the Church to not allow blacks of African descent the priesthood was indeed a policy, not a doctrine, just as President David O. McKay stated. Also, that the doctrine of adoption was not a doctrine after all.

Very good.

Open questions might be polygamy, gathering to Zion, and a few others. But I like your thinking!

HiJolly

[Guest]

No he was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution.

No I totally meant morally repugnant. But again I will have to quote myself i did not say the theory was evil i said "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory."

These are my exact words, so I don't know where people get that I said the theory itself was evil. All in all i feel nothing was refuted from my original arguments and I stand by them.

I was willing to give your argument credence until you wrote "No he was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution."

That statement alone proves you do not know Charles Darwin. Or maybe you know some other dude named Charles Darwin who you got confused with the dude who came up with the theory of Natural Selection...

Next time, before you judge somebody morally repugnant, at least know who you are talking about. I mean, you can always go through wikipedia for the basics.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I would see this differently. If a man cannot embrace simple truths placed before them to observe concerning the wonders of life – how can they think themselves the better to understand spiritual truths and not be mislead that cannot be observed but must be made on faith? In short I would exhort that the recognition of truth is the very essence of salvation.

The Traveler

How does caring (or not caring) about the technicalities pertaining to how Heavenly Father, through Christ, chose to create man and the earth stop one from obtaining a testimony of God, of Christ, that the LDS church is the true church of Christ, and that our prophets were indeed prophets?

Sure, it might be an important factor for you to understand, but some of us just plain don't care enough to find out right now, and would much rather wait till later to solve the more temporal mysteries of existence. This sort of knowledge would be rather trivial for us to possess. It's inconsequential to accepting the gospel as truth.

This is like saying I need to figure out all the holes in Newtonian physics myself, learn the logic of computers entirely, or learn the exact biology of insects or else I'm going to face spiritual doubt.

I think there are a lot of people who aren't physicists, programmers, or biologists who don't have a problem believing in the gospel. It's the same for anyone who doesn't choose to study the truths (and possibly un-truths) of evolutionary theory.

In short, not fully understanding the tools by which we were created doesn't mean we can't come to terms with the fact that we were created.

To all the people on the fence with this issue, again, don't worry about it. Whether we were made from an evolutionary process or literally from the dust of the earth, we're all still Heavenly Father's children.

Darwin's own words work well to illustrate my point. Thanks HiJolly!

"I feel most deeply that this whole question of Creation is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton! Let each man hope and believe what he can."

-- Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray

Edited September 21, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

Following this line of reasoning, we see that the practice of the Church to not allow blacks of African descent the priesthood was indeed a policy, not a doctrine, just as President David O. McKay stated. Also, that the doctrine of adoption was not a doctrine after all.

Very good.

Open questions might be polygamy, gathering to Zion, and a few others. But I like your thinking!

HiJolly

That's the first I've heard this line of thought, but this is for another thread. Now, just to clarify.

Polygamy was definitely doctrine, if only for its time. Those who engaged in it were called and commanded by God. Also, that's why it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it's also why the Manifesto is also in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[HiJolly]

Polygamy was definitely doctrine, if only for its time. Those who engaged in it were called and commanded by God. Also, that's why it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it's also why the Manifesto is also in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The original point of EandLDOW was that doctrines don't generally change. You make a good point. I would also point out that sealings in the temple still allow for eternal polygamy, so to speak. So it's an interesting thing, polygamy and the Church.

HiJolly

[Moksha]

No he was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution.

I know you didn't conger this out of thin air, but it never the less remains patently false. Darwin was not an atheist. As to the claim that Darwin reverted to a believer on his deathbed, that was part of the 1915 Lady Hope Story and has been repudiated by his children and historians. Darwin pointed out that, "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us...". Behind the veil as some would put it.

Sometimes events can change a man's life. Darwin was studying for ordination as a minister at the Christ's College of Cambridge University, when he was offered a chance to sail on the HMS Beagle. That lead him on an alternate path to becoming both a revered figure of science and an object of scorn (repugnance) on this board.

[bytor2112]

Way too much heresy on this thread for me......

[PrinceofLight2000]

Way too much heresy on this thread for me......

[bytor2112]

All this picking and choosing that goes on......heresy.

[carlimac]

I don't know much about "the man" Charles Darwin. But his theories have certainly captured the fancy of many aetheists- some of who I would say are...maybe repugnant is too strong, but I'm pretty put off by them. Listening to Mr. Dawkins on NPR one day made me itchy and frustrated and nearly nauseous. He's really a distasteful character.

[bytor2112]

I don't know much about "the man" Charles Darwin. But his theories have certainly captured the fancy of many aetheists- some of who I would say are...maybe repugnant is too strong, but I'm pretty put off by them. Listening to Mr. Dawkins on NPR one day made me itchy and frustrated and nearly nauseous. He's really a distasteful character.

Yep....and helped lead many away from Christ. That reason alone leads me to believe that his "work" was not "inspired"...at least not in the Courts of Glory.

[Therauh]

I have a hard time understanding how polygamy was abominable back in the time that this was written but acceptable none to long ago then back to abominable.

Jacob 2:23-26

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

-------------------------------------------

Alma 7:20 I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.

------------------------------------------

Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Evolution??? He that be a monkey, Let him be a monkey still.

[Moksha]

Yep....and helped lead many away from Christ. That reason alone leads me to believe that his "work" was not "inspired"...at least not in the Courts of Glory.

So are you speaking of Darwin or Dawkins from Carlimacs post?

Are these courts of glory really dependent on disbelieving science? I would think that a full understanding of God's methodology would be well received, especially if such an understanding was ultimately essential for eternal progression.

[PrinceofLight2000]

So are you speaking of Darwin or Dawkins from Carlimacs post?

Are these courts of glory really dependent on disbelieving science? I would think that a full understanding of God's methodology would be well received, especially if such an understanding was ultimately essential for eternal progression.

At which point there would be no denying the facts. Why not wait till then to worry about this?

[HoosierGuy]

Darwin was soooo right. I mean, yeah, we did evolve from monkees. It's true too. Americans even knew it was true not too long ago. If it wasn't for those intolerant irrational religious folks we would still be able to worship our ancestors one night a week on TV!

Hey, hey, we're the Monkees

And people say we monkey around.

But we're too busy singing

To put anybody down (and take science out of the class room)

[FunkyTown]

Yes Funky, the way its stated is they way I see it. You may feel the way I see it is wrong and that is okay. The basic of the idea behind eugenics is irrelevant, its what darwin and others advocated to bring about eugenics that is indeed evil. not just selective breeding but elimination of people who would have undesirable traits so they could not pass them on.

Incorrect. Eugenics as a word was only developed in 1883. Darwin died in April 19th, 1882.

Unless you're saying that Darwin time traveled to the future and advocated sterilization of whole swathes of peoples. Darwin did not 'advocate' anything to bring Eugenics about. You really should try to understand something before you argue it.

Um what? okay you think is absurd that's your opinion, I used it as an example of "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory" And it wasn't just Nazis it was Marxists and some Americans too. Why just pick up on the one group. one group we can dismiss out of hand but three would be hard to dismiss the claim that the theory itself gave rise to groups who used the theory to commit inhuman atrocity's. Another good example is the American birth control league, founded by Margaret Sanger who advocated the use of abortion to bring about the master race, (sounds like eugenics in action to me, also this organization became planned parenthood.)

You're right, and... Oh no! I just realized something! Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Hitler all used the theory of the Automobile for tanks and troops that they used to crush enemies. Tens of millions of people died thanks to that theory. So I'm guessing we should all find Karl Benz, the inventor of the Automobile, repugnant? Also Henry Ford, whose assembly lines allowed numerous dictators from Hitler to Josef Stalin to create everything from guns to ammunition with enough speed to maintain their power, was repugnant.

No he was an atheist until he was on his death bed. It was then he recanted evolution.

No. Please pick up any book on Darwin's life ever.

No I totally meant morally repugnant. But again I will have to quote myself i did not say the theory was evil i said "a lot of evil has come about in this world because of his theory."

These are my exact words, so I don't know where people get that I said the theory itself was evil. All in all i feel nothing was refuted from my original arguments and I stand by them.

You stand by statements made in ignorance, sir. I mean that in the strictest sense - You are ignorant of the facts of Darwin's life. You are ignorant of the Association Fallacy when you state Darwin is repugnant because some evil people took his ideas and made them theirs. You are ignorant of the history of Eugenics and ignorant of Darwin's association with them.

I would suggest before judging a man that you try to understand what he was about.

Edited September 22, 2010 by FunkyTown