Why Mormons should embrace evolution

[carlimac]

It might be interesting to point out that we tend to revere people who pursue enough education to obtain a PhD. And what does PhD stand for? It's an abbreviation for "Philosophiæ Doctor," or Doctor of Philosophy.

Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It is not, nor should it be, mutually exclusive of the Holy Ghost and spiritual inspiration. Philosophers are responsible for almost all of the greatest advances of our species.

Just sayin'

2 Ne. 9: 28

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

[PrinceofLight2000]

2 Ne. 9: 28

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

That's only applicable to the ones who cast God aside for temporal knowledge.

[Dravin]

2 Ne. 9: 28

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

Let's not cut it short for our own purposes shall we?

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Your scripture is not a rebuttle of MoE's point*, particularly since he's pointing out that God and learning are not exclusive but can be pursed in tandem and that it is a good thing. The scriptures don't condemn MoE's point, they agree with it.

* It does however apply to Dawkins, but I don't think anyone has been proposing Dawkins is on good terms with the Lord, he'd probably be the first one to tell you he isn't.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Dravin

[carlimac]

Let's not cut it short for our own purposes shall we?

Your scripture is not a rebuttle of MoE's point*, particularly since he's pointing out that God and learning are not exclusive but can be pursed in tandem and that it is a good thing. The scriptures don't condemn MoE's point, they agree with it.

* It does however apply to Dawkin's, but I don't think anyone has been proposing Dawkin's is on good terms with the Lord, he'd probably be the first one to tell you he isn't.

Wasn't meant to be a rebuttle. I was just putting it out there for consideration.

Edited October 1, 2010 by carlimac

[Moksha]

Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It is not, nor should it be, mutually exclusive of the Holy Ghost and spiritual inspiration. Philosophers are responsible for almost all of the greatest advances of our species.

Just sayin'

So you are saying these "Doctors of Philosophy" are responsible for great advances, yet they are not certified to remove hang nails. How do you reconcile that discrepancy? Is it not due to having sworn allegiance to solid state capacitors rather than the Holy Ghost???!!!

If you do have an answer, would it not tend to indicate evolution is proceeding in a positive direction?

[Traveler]

....

Philosophers are responsible for almost all of the greatest advances of our species.

Just sayin'

Look again - you will find engineers far more prominent in advancing mankind than Philosophers.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

Look again - you will find engineers far more prominent in advancing mankind than Philosophers.

The Traveler

To follow this to it's happy conclusion - a philosopher, an engineer, and a lawyer were comparing God with their own occupations. The philosopher said, "God is a Philospher. 'In the beginning was the Logos' - and from that thought-word was everything created." The engineer spoke up, "Sure, but what was he creating? Just like an Engineer, God created order out of chaos."

The lawyer then piped up, "Who do you think creates chaos?!" - Lawyers, FTW.

[Dravin]

see the wiki on it - lots of "might have's"

I tend to find some folks see some horrible flaw in evolutionary and abiogensis theory* if it isn't described in a "thus saith the Lord" attitude. And when it is described that way they hop up and down about how it's a theory and they don't know 100% for sure that there is no exceptions or possible other explanations based on knowledge they don't have. Kinda darned if you do, darned if you don't for a biologist not speaking to their peers (seems to be evolution or other theories that have some degree of lay controversy, nobody^ seems to get upset when a geologist says, "What we think may be drivinng plate tectonics is...").

Of course it's all kinda moot, how some guy online decided to couch his explanation doesn't really mean anything. I could write a wiki article about how Joseph Smith may have been a prophet and something tells me if some anti strolled on here and quoted that as evidence he'd be laughed out of town. There are certainly reasons to doubt various theories out there (for instance waiting for successful replication doesn't seem unreasonable for me before one starts buying into abiogenesis), but come on, the language used in a wiki article?

* Anyone know if abiogensis is actually a theory? Or is it a hypothesis?

^ Well, maybe the Flat Earth Society.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

From where I'm sitting you've just typed up a wonderful non-sequitur.

Edit: On two levels now that I've read it again.

Edit 2: You'll probably miss this but I guess I should explain.

Non-sequitur one: I was discussing the tendency (and value) of using the language of certainty by which a theory is described as some sort of evidence as to its validity. I was not commenting on the validity of the theory in question. This would be the more common use of your response not relating to what you quote.

Non-sequitur two: The logical use.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

life was not created = life has no beginning = abiogenesis is not needed to explain life.

You have not demonstrated that that intelligence or the light of truth is equal to a living thing. By your logic presented here in the quote since my intelligence cannot be created then neither can my body, it has always existed. Actually it's not really presented, you've a whole host of assumptions and jumps you aren't clarifying, but the jump from intelligence not being created to life not being created does not follow. In fact I'm fairly sure I can find in the scriptures where it says God created life (Adam, Eve, beats, fowls, and the like), if life cannot be created how can this be? Your synonymy of intelligence with life is causing issues with your argument.

(Guide to the Scriptures | S Spirit.:Entry)

SPIRIT. See also Death, Physical; Man, Men; Resurrection; Soul

That part of a living being which exists before mortal birth, which dwells in the physical body during mortality, and which exists after death as a separate being until the resurrection. All living things—mankind, animals, and plants—were spirits before any form of life existed upon the earth (Gen. 2:4–5; Moses 3:4–7). The spirit body looks like the physical body (1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15–16; D&C 77:2; D&C 129).

Here you demonstrate that life has a soul/intelligence. Unless part of the theory in question stipulates that such life would be devoid of intelligence (and it won't since such is a philosophical question and outside of the purview of science) or you demonstrate that such life would be devoid of such you run into issues just claiming; life needs a soul, it couldn't have arisen within the constraints of the physical processes described by the theory. Now if you are going to complain that the scientific theory does not take into account religious implications (such as including a step: God inputs intelligence at moment of generation) I hope you also object to science's description of how human life is propogated as it fails to include the step (at some point) of quickened by the spirit.

Personally I'm disinclined to think life was spontaneously generated, but that's based on personal beliefs and inclinations not the logic you've presented above. For what it's worth as I believe in a creator I agree that abiogensis isn't need to explain life, but your logic presented (and it is entirely possible if fleshed out more it would) does not demonstrate that life could not have arisen (obviously the physical component) from natural processes as suggested (generation of organic compounds from inorganic compounds that formed into complex compounds and from thence into a cell-like structure that then qualifies as life) and imbued with the spiritual component, therefore explaining natural phenomenon and not explaining spiritual phenomenon (as with all scientific theories).

Yes, yes. I am aware the theory doesn't stipulate God's hand in it. As mentioned, explanations of how a human child is formed fails to include that as well but most don't complain that sperm meets egg becomes child fails to account for the quickening by the spirit and is contrary to the scriptures. The scriptures are silent on the physical processes by which physical vessels for intelligence or spirits was originally created, and I don't mean proximal cause created, I mean the scriptures tell us Adam (his physical body) was created from the dust of the earth, it doesn't tell us how.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Man exists upon the same principles as God, intelligence is equal to a living being, we were always alive.

You still haven't demonstrated what you are claiming. Once again, has my physical body always existed? No, but my body is alive (albeit animated by intelligence but it has not been eternally extant, unlike the intelligence, and yet classifies as life). You seem to be having trouble with the idea that intelligence being a requirement for physical beings does not mean that intelligence is a physical being, much in the same way that flour being a requirement for a cake does not make flour a cake. So the flour (intelligence) is eternal (as in always extant), the eggs are not (the eggs, being my body, did have a start (when my parent's bodies [mostly my mother's] through natural processes started the creation of my physical body).

And if your argument is that my body isn't alive, it's just a lifeless meat puppet animated by intelligence it seems weird that your great "aha!" is that without animation by intelligence it (abiogenesis) couldn't produce life. Without animation by intelligence my parents couldn't produce life. You don't see folks claiming two humans beings can't produce life, nor do I think you would take issue with someone claiming humans mating can result in life.

I can create a cake - that does not mean I created it out of nothing.

Who said anything about creating something out of nothing?

the propogation of human life includes the step of being quickened by the sprit - why would you think it does not?

My speaking about scientific theory failing to include the step of quickening would kinda indicate I believe it's part of the processes.

without a spirit, it would not be life. Robots are not alive as an example... our physical bodies are dead without a spirit....

You have yet to demonstrate that a physical vessel created by a process as is hypothesized could not be imbued with intelligence. In fact by your own supposition if life was created by such a process it would have to be imbued with intelligence.

You have a nice set-up :

1) Life cannot exist without intelligence.

2) It would be without intelligence.

3) It would therefore not be alive.

It's just you have yet to demonstrate #2. Until you do so your logic is flawed. You have yet to demonstrate how a cell can not be created through natural process and imbued with intelligence at the proper time and yet my body can be created through natural processes and imbued with intelligence and it's all peachy keen. Obviously intelligence can animate matter that has been set-up and arranged (by some process) to be conducive to such.

it is quite clear that life does not exist without a spirit

It's quite clear that banana cream pie is made with bananas.

Also, trying to insinuate that I'm somehow unfamiliar with doctrine doesn't get you anywhere. I am familiar with the doctrine, and I do not believe life just happened through random assembly of organic compounds in a primordial soup while God was busy elsewhere, nor do I believe human life happens without quickening, that intelligence is created, that God made things out of nothing, or that the process through which God created the physical vessels for the first intelligence to dwell on this earth consisted of him waiting patiently till the organic compounds aligned just the right way with him zapping it with (already extant) intelligence at just the right moment. You have just failed to demonstrate with your logic that life (as in a physical vessel) could not have been created by the combination of organic compounds with God giving it intelligence at the proper time.

And if this is all a misunderstanding because you are trying to argue that abiogensis is not how intelligences/souls could come to be, I just gotta point out that science does not create theories on the creation of souls/intelligences. Science creates theories on the natural processes by which physical vessels come to be, an intelligence/spirit being required to animate that vessel is outside of its purview. Just like it is outside of science's purview to stick "quickened by spirit" into its hypothesis on how humans reproduce.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

Do you disagree with:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

life was not created = life has no beginning = abiogenesis is not needed to explain life.

The problem is in interpreting the scripture. You think that Intelligence requires life. Not every one does.

Joseph Smith taught a form of materialism in his teachings of life, etc. GAs and LDS scholars have interpreted this in a variety of ways.

My personal belief is that the light of Christ (not a life form) fills the universe (D&C 88, 93). It organizes matter and gives each piece of matter a form of intelligence, living or not. Intelligence is the organization of matter to a specific level. So, quarks have intelligence on their level, which determines what they do in different things. Particles are brought together and form higher levels of intelligence (not yet life). Hydrogen atoms have specific properties and abilities that are distinguishable from Oxygen atoms. Yet, when the two are combined to form the H2O molecule, we suddenly get a new and higher level of intelligence. It innately retains the abilities of its parts, but now has greater capacity and ability that neither the hydrogen nor oxygen had alone.

Particles are formed into higher levels of intelligence. Finally, God creates, from lower non-life intelligence, a spirit. The spirit is a sentient and living life form. Yet it still is not complete, and is reorganized with a physical body that gives it yet more ability. Finally, in the resurrection, spirit and body reunite in an entirely new level of intelligence, hopefully accomplishing the full measure of its creation as a god.

All of this from non-sentient, non-living intelligences.

[Dravin]

My issue with abiogenesis - I do not think that life spontaneously arose from inanimate matter. Do you agree?

Okay now I know you aren't paying attention. I suspected as much from the get go from your consistent mismatch of responses (starting from the very beginning) but this time it's so blatant as to almost be impressive.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Funkytown.

As you probably know, I am an evolutionist. I think you’ve made some good points, but I don’t think any one of them is actually a point against evolution. Here’s why:

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?

There are three theories that are easily confused with one another, and all are lumped into one thing (called “evolution”) by their detractors. Only one of them actually is evolution, though. The other two are natural history and abiogenesis.

Evolution: the mechanism by which changes occur

Natural history: the record of the changes that have occurred over time.

Abiogenesis: the emergence of the first life form from non-life.

The development of life from organic molecules (abiogenesis), while currently hypothesized to have happened via an evolutionary mechanism, is not, strictly, evolution; nor does the Theory of Evolution rely on the emergence of life from organic molecules to be correct.

If God created the first cell, it could theoretically still have evolved into all the various forms life today in exactly the way the Modern Synthesis of Evolution hypothesizes that it did.

So, objections to Abiogenesis are not actually objections to evolution. They could be seen as an objection to an overall “naturalistic” worldview, but not to evolution itself.

-----

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

I think you’re wrong about this, but the website with a link to my alleged evidence is undergoing maintenance, so I’ll proceed as if you’re correct here. Note that this is a concern with natural history, and not with evolution, anyway.

There’s good evidence that the jump from single-celled to multi-celled isn’t a particularly big change, genetically.

Here’s a reference (my “link” code didn’t work, and I don’t know how to turn HTML on):

Prochnik, S.E., et al. (2010). Genomic Analysis of Organismal Complexity in the Multicellular Green Alga Volvox carteri. Science 329(5988):223-226.

-----

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.

If you accept this, it makes me wonder why you don’t accept that millions of years would be enough time to effect even larger changes.

Although I suppose you’re right that you can use the word “evolution” to describe any gradual change over time, development (ontogeny) is not evolution in the biological sense. Biological evolution deals with changes to the machinery behind development (which doesn’t really change during the course of an individual’s ontogeny), and only deals with changes between generations (the differences between you and your parents, which, by the way, in humans, research suggests number about 70/individual, one of which impacts a functional, protein-coding gene).

The evidence is pretty conclusive that the machinery used for development in different organisms is quite different (and that this pattern follows a nested hierarchy---a genealogical tree, essentially), so it makes little sense to think that what biologists propose (i.e. changes in this machinery) is in anyway analogous to what you describe here (i.e. ontogeny of a single organism over its lifetime without changes to the machinery).

-----

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.

Lifespan isn’t the issue. Individual cells do not have the foresight to see even a few minutes in advance, let alone a few years or centuries, so how can you claim that any “decisions” they make are based on an assessment of how many centuries they will live?

-----

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 haven’t shouted yet (though I acknowledge that it’s hard to convey that fact on the internet), and my passions haven’t gotten involved yet.

I am rather concerned, however, that you are attempting to slander evolution by calling it “religion.” My understanding is that religion is something you hold dear. So, I ask, why do you malign it so by using it as an insult?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Bluejay

[Intrigued]

The scriptures are not silent on spiritual matters, it is quite clear that life does not exist without a spirit, that life comes from life, it does not randomly form. (Did you catch that quote about evolution on the sat morning GC session? I hope so!)

What was the quote about evolution during general conference? I did not attend nor watch it, so I'd love to hear it. When you say spirit I assume you are speaking of intelligence, which is demonstrated by things that do not even have nervous systems.. so I have a hard time believing they have a 'spirit' in a religious sense.

Also, your definition of life is giving you quite a slippery argument which I think is unfair when dealing with the subject of evolution and the formation of life from 'nonliving matter'.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Intrigued

[Dravin]

I'm not sure why you are trying to argue then?

Hitler had a mustache.

People who had mustaches did horrible things.

Ergo Hitler, who had a mustache, did horrible things because people who had mustaches did horrible things.

Do you agree that Hitler did horrible things? Just because a conclusion is valid that does not mean all methods of arriving at that conclusion are valid.

P.S. I'm having a hard time not being snarky*. Your attack of my understanding of doctrine (implied by the do you disagree with scripture question) because I felt that people use the certainty language used to describe a theory as a catch 22 and made no comments on doctrine really rubbed me the wrong way. Your logic still has some gaps, but I'd probably have just went on my merry way if you'd responded to my post instead of using it to Death From Above me from your soapbox.

* I know, you're probably thinking, "This is him not snarky?" You should read my edits.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Dravin

[Bluejay]

Hi, EandLDOW.

fter 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.

Actually, I’m pretty sure it was Darwin himself who did this. The book he published was called “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection.” From the beginning, he theorized that one kind of animal evolved from another. That was the entire point of his research, at least from his perspective. He himself proposed that all animals are descended from a common ancestor.

-----

There are two sentences here that I find a bit disturbing, given that they are juxtaposed, one right after the other, in your post:

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.

...and...

Science originally operated from the presumption that God made everything, and the goal was to try to find out how He did it.

You seem to simultaneously advocate that science not assume that it knows anything, and that science assume that it knows God made everything.

Sadly, these two positions are not compatible with one another.

I personally advocate the former.

-----

...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"...

Do you support the free-market concept of economy?

If so, you already accept the premise on which science is founded: competition breeds strength. And, regulating competition makes it less capable of breeding strength.

A scientific theory must be accurate and useful in order for it to be successful in the scientific community. So, the nastiness of science (which, make no mistake, is real) is essential to the success of science, even if it feels horrible and unfair on its face.

My lab door has a saying posted on it: “There are no friends in science.” While it’s not entirely true, the essence is correct.

...[science] 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.

Not true at all. Science is founded on the belief that the natural world behaves in a way that lends itself to empirical study. There is no requirement that “everything came from nothing” (indeed, this isn’t an accurate characterization of what science concludes on the matter, either); and the idea that we think it all happened “through spontaneous accident and random chance” is over the top and inaccurate, as well.

And, I would love to see how you calculate the likelihood and possibility of everything coming about by chance.

-----

Also, your view on how speciation would have to have gone down are erronaeous.

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...

Nothing dramatic need happen. Divergence between two populations can start with small changes, and become completed when such small changes accumulate over time. There is no need for a major change to happen in one single organism that becomes the one single ancestor of an entire species.

-----

...then encounter and mate with another finch of the opposite sex which had undergone a similar dramatic change to it's DNA...

Again, not so. A new mutation can persist in a population for a long time without causing individuals who have it to become new species. New mutations are accumulating all the time. It’s the sum of all these little changes, not the amount of change that happens at one time, that results in evolution.

[HiJolly]

I am convinced that in the years to come, somebody is going to 'create' (what a poor word) life in a test tube.

They will match the conditions laid out in the Creation of the universe by our God that are required for the formation of life. And there it will be.

Good luck to the people that have placed their faith in the wrong things.

HiJolly

[Bluejay]

I want to lodge a general complaint here, and I want to be a bit blunt about it.

Several people on this thread are speaking about Darwin as if he is a grand destroyer of souls because of this repugnant and dangerous idea that he came up with.

Well, I'm sorry to say that he didn't invent evolution: he discovered it. Actually, he didn't even do that: he discovered natural selection. And, if he hadn't done it, somebody else would have. In fact, somebody else did (Google "Alfred Russell Wallace"). There was a whole community of scientists who had accepted evolution long before Darwin proposed his explanation for how it happened. In fact, there were a long slough of papers in the 1850's from numerous authors that were pointing towards the conclusion of evolution by natural selection, and it just happened that Darwin was the first to voice it directly.

If you feel that evolution is to blame for the destruction of many souls, then please at least recognize that Darwin is only the messenger (one of many thousands, actually, including myself), and that your real beef is with the theory and the evidence that supports the theory.

{Edited to Add: I intended this to be a direct response to the OP, but I forgot that I was in hybrid mode, viewing a specific post. My apologies for the confusion}

Edited October 5, 2010 by Bluejay
Addition (see note above)

[Dravin]

I am convinced that in the years to come, somebody is going to 'create' (what a poor word) life in a test tube.

They will match the conditions laid out in the Creation of the universe by our God that are required for the formation of life. And there it will be.

Good luck to the people that have placed their faith in the wrong things.

HiJolly

I didn't comment earlier about this because I didn't know what the quoted bit of Wikipedia considered a proto-cell, but my biology professor (LDS BTW) said that the barrier they are at now is self-replication. They've formed organic compounds from inorganic ones, had those form into complex polymers (such as nucleic acid) and gotten them into a cell membrane, they just can't generation a replication mechanism. Though he pointed out that if you take a DNA replicating mechanism from an extant organism that it then works*. I'm not sure if his explanation is suffering from being translated so that Bio 101 students can understand it and then being garbled by my memory though.

* I'm not sure if he means the replication or the cell in general.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Dravin

[curtishouse]

We are children of God, and have some of His creative abilities, no doubt. If we can mold dust into something suitable for a spirit? It willbe a beautiful thing.

I still believe that life requires a spirit. When we can finally see the spiritual world, then we will see what life really is...

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 131:7 - 8)

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All aspirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot asee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

I believe that evolution is true based solely on scientific fact and I do feel that it fits perfectly in with our faith as well. Our spirits were around long before creation and have actually been around longer than time itself. What helped me realize that quite a while ago is that anything that has a beginning has an end. Our souls do not have an end and so they couldn't have had a beginning either.

It doesn't matter to me if God created our earthly bodies in one second, six days, or 4.5 billion years. My feeling on it is this. In Genesis, there was an immense amount of time that accounted for evolution. Once we progressed into the image of God, then God turned our bodies into living souls. Just a little theory that makes sense to me.

[Intrigued]

I believe that evolution is true based solely on scientific fact and I do feel that it fits perfectly in with our faith as well. Our spirits were around long before creation and have actually been around longer than time itself. What helped me realize that quite a while ago is that anything that has a beginning has an end. Our souls do not have an end and so they couldn't have had a beginning either.

Turritopsis nutricula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[curtishouse]

Turritopsis nutricula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not here to debate and its up to you what you believe. It's interesting to note in that wiki article (which isn't a solid source imo), even it admits that it has never been observed in nature.

You can continue to believe that were here from a "blind watchmaker" (as I would surmise from posting that link) but I KNOW that we come from a creator who loves us and his love is written on the hearts of all who believe.

Edited October 6, 2010 by curtishouse

[captmoroniRM]

I have yet to read all the topic and I may be somewhat redundant, but the Church's official statement towards evolution leave the door open onto whether biological evolution is possible.

The first presidency statements in 1909 and 1925 simply say that all we know about the Creation and Origin of man is what the Lord has revealed via scripture and his living prophets, that Adam was the first man, created in God's image. The manner of that creation has not been revealed.

I can't find the quote, but one of the brethren reiterated those statements and said the mission of the Church is to call people to Christ and build the kingdom of God, and we should leave science to the scientists, while we focus on the Lord's work. So while I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution, we cannot fully disregard it, because "Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam's race --God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain."

The 9th article of faith is clear. There is much more to be revealed.

[Bluejay]

Hi, FunkyTown.

In my last post to you, I said the following:

I think you’re wrong about this' date=' but the website with a link to my alleged evidence is undergoing maintenance, so I’ll proceed as if you’re correct here.[/quote']

Well, my website with the link is back up, and, unfortunately for me, someone there has since shown that the evidence I had was not actually evidence of multicellularity arising.

So, please disregard this statement: I am retracting my claim.

[FunkyTown]

Hi, FunkyTown.

Well, my website with the link is back up, and, unfortunately for me, someone there has since shown that the evidence I had was not actually evidence of multicellularity arising.

So, please disregard this statement: I am retracting my claim.

It's okay. I'm GMT, so I don't really see anything post 1 PM Eastern Standard Time.