Why Mormons should embrace evolution

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

Your thoughts?

I would not embrace any concept that has a goal of taking God's hand out of the whole process even if it doesn't say that specifically. The explanation of evolution is an attempt to explain how these things occur "naturally" and on their own. I agree that explaining how something is done and explaining who did it may be two different things with the exception of the fact that evolution could not take place without the hand of God.

The premise of the article you posted comes across as suggesting that the power of "evolution" is a power or an entity that exists on it's own and that we need that power to become like God. I believe that notion is false. I believe that God created "evolution" or at least what a lot of people are calling evolution and does not and cannot exist on its own. It is not a tool that God picked up along the way. It is His creation as well as everything we see in this world with our Earthly eyes.

We have to be careful about "trying" to explain forces that exist separate from God because to do so is a denial of God's hand in everything. To admit to God's hand in everything good in this world is "Mormon" but to try to embrace a concept that there is a force or power of creation separate from God's power is not "Mormon".

To me it is like discussion how paint dries on a canvas and how colors mix together to try to explain how the Mona Lisa was painted. If all one is talking about is the science of how the colors and the materials are mixed together and how they dry etc. that does not explain who painted the picture and who had enough knowledge to put the materials together that way or if they happened to be mixed altogether spontaneously. As much as posters have tried on this thread to say those are two separate ideas, I don't think we can deny that the "theory of Evolution" is an attempt to explain how we became what we are as well as other life on earth. ... in other words, who or what painted the painting. If you want to talk about genetic drift or adaptation etc (i.e - metaphorically, the science behind "how the paint dries" or "mixes"), than call it that, don't call that "evolution."

[rameumptom]

I bellieve that God is cleaning up a mess He did not make, which means He is not the hypocritical author of of unequally endowed, imperfect, humans. To each their own though.

I also believe that we have agency - which would not exist if we had a beginning. (If we had a beginning, everything we do could be traced back through a cause/effect net to how we were created. Only an eternal being without beginning has an independant will.)

Sorry, this is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from your argument. It is just assumption, not even based on scripture. Scripture tells us that matter has always existed. There is a big difference between matter and life. Even in Abraham 3, it teaches us that spirits are "organized intelligences" which to me means they were non-life matter (named intelligence) that was formed into a level of intelligence that had individuality, self replicating, and therefore, life.

Agency does not require life. It requires matter. In Abraham, we read that the Gods commanded the matter, and then waited for it to obey. The matter, not living, obviously had agency in that they awaited it to obey them. So, unless you are trying to say that every piece of rock in space has life and a spirit prior to the creation being accomplished, then you are wrong in your assumption.

Scientists have shown we can replicate many of the processes necessary to create life from matter. It is just a matter of time before we find the other processes necessary to make life from non-living matter.

I have my beliefs, not because someone taught them to me, but because I have studied the scriptures and science, and seen how they work together. I've read all the scriptures dozens of times, the Book of Mormon over 75 times. When you've read them to such an extent, you notice things that most people miss. So, you are welcome to your opinions, but please do not throw out "the scriptures clearly teach", when they clearly do not teach what you suggest.

I also suggest you read my blog on Chaos and Order, which ties in closely with this. Matter = chaos. God takes chaotic material and creates intelligences, some with life, and give it all agency to determine whether it will obey him or not. His purpose is to create order and life from matter which chooses to obey. This is key to all of God's purposes, including the atonement of Christ, its purpose to cleanse us of chaos and raise us to order and light.

Joel's Monastery: Gospel Scholarship: Order out of Chaos

Edited October 6, 2010 by rameumptom

[Intrigued]

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.

It has not been observed in nature due to.. well.. the fast paced environment it takes place in. It has been observed in labs, though. The wiki article itself is not a solid source, unless references are listed (which they are, they're just clunky).

Just one thing to point out.. you do not know that you come from said creator, you believe it. I tossed that link about the immortal hydra out there because it is interesting and it showed that in perfect conditions it is not necessary for a being that had a beginning to have an end.

Matter? Sure. I know that LDS believes that spirit is matter which I have no issue with. If I take some object X and reorganize it into object Y I still gave object Y a beginning.

[captmoroniRM]

Interesting comment from Elder Christofferson. Note that he still makes no comment to completely rule out the possiblity of evolution as the means of how our bodies were created for the majority of those who believe in evolution, remove God entirely from the pictures. "Evolutionary chance" as Elder Christofferson; the idea that mankind just happened to evolve enough to be sentient beings.

His point here, I feel, was to remind us that God created our bodies, and that they are holy. Remove God completely from the picture, and who are we accountable to regarding what we do with our bodies? We still have to acknowledge the revealed truth that God created mankind in his image. What process he used, whether it be some form of evolution, or another method, we cannot say.

[Fourth_Horseman]

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?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ozzy]

I don't know if anyone has said the following as yet, but I doubt it.

To believe that evolution is utterly false is ignorance. We as men ourselves have brought about the evolution of things. My favorite example is corn. Corn did not exist longer than 1500 years ago in its current form. It used to be a grass with a couple dozen seeds until native americans bred it into what it is now. As it stands, this is what most people consider to be evolution. My second favorite example is house pets. Most breeds of house pets are far newer than the world and display a drastically varied physiology from their ancestors, again as a result of men breeding them.

On the other hand, to claim that evolution as we presently see it is the end all be all of creation is foolish and blind. The ideas surrounding the evolutionary ancestry of living species change enough that no evolutionist in their right mind can think we have it nailed down.

Finally, there has never been any doctrinal statement made surrounding evolution. The closest things we have are isolated statements by a couple apostles which cast a disbelieving shadow, and a couple of statements by presidencies claiming basically that we have no idea what happened when. On the subject of those 2 instances that I am aware of wherein apostles spoke against evolution, there are a few issues to consider.

First of all, apostles aren't always right. Proof is in the statements by a number of them concerning blacks. Most, if not all of such statements were later apologized for by the speakers. Evolution will probably not share that specific trait, but that does not mean that those statements may be taken as doctrine.

Second, looking specifically at President (then Elder) Packers statement, he follows his anti-evolution statement with an almost counterargument. He says that when we understand the workings of God, our perception of evolution will alter immensly (not a quote). But he does not say in that statement that it does not happen in any form.

Thirdly, looking specifically at Elder Christoffersons (I think? may have been Cook) talk this last conference, his statement was that those who believe in evolution would not respect their bodies as they should (again, not a quote). This is clearly an opinion as I personally believe in at least some form of evolution and know many who believe in the current theory, who are as respectful to their bodies as the prophet himself.

Fourth, I have noticed a couple of threads denounce evolution as a theory. Technically this is incorrect. A scientific theory is a current idea and understanding of a series of observations surrounding a subject, which idea has not been proven irrevocably false by counterobservations. Evolution is exactly this. The idea morphs, but does not fall. The only true arguments against it are grounded in a few interpretations of doctrinal/scriptural implications. Such interpretations have led to what we now observe in the world as a complete lack of unity of doctrines and therefore cannot be even remotely accepted by science as proof that evolution is thoroughly incorrect. As a side note, even Elder Packer, in the middle of thrashing evolution, stated that it was a theory. What should be understood is that evolution is not a law. The theory has not been (nor can be in this life) perfect to be irrevocable and so remains a theory.

Thats my 2 cents worth.

[Bluejay]

from the last GC:

sat Morning session, Todd Christofferson

Watch LDS General Conference Live Online

time ~ 8:40

"Those who believe that our bodies are nothing more than the result of evolutionary chance will feel no accountability to God or anyone else for what they do to or with their body... We who have a witness to the broader witness of premortal, mortal, and postmortal eternity however, must acknowledge that we have a duty to God with respect to this crowning achievement to this physical creation..."

I'm a little disappointed in this statement, to be honest. I know non-Mormons and non-Christians who would seem to defy the sweeping generalization here.

For example, I'm pretty sure Mormons rank rather low on the "eat healthy and take care of your body" curve. Certainly this, alone, suggests that other people at least feel some accountability about some aspects of taking care of their bodies (even those who believe that their bodies evolved naturally).

Furthermore, I'm upset about his choice to use "chance" as the descriptor for evolution, when chance is only one part of it.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Ozzy.

I have noticed a couple of threads denounce evolution as a theory. Technically this is incorrect. A scientific theory is a current idea and understanding of a series of observations surrounding a subject, which idea has not been proven irrevocably false by counterobservations.

While I applaude your efforts to promote an understanding of science, I'm afraid you've set the bar inappropriately low for what counts as a scientific theory. There are a lot of things that have not been irrevocably falsified, but are not scientific theories (God is one).

In reality, it's more than just an explanation that hasn't been rejected: it's an explanation that we can use to make predictions about the outcomes of experiments that we haven't run yet, or that can be used to successfully guide future research.

Evolution has succeeded in this quite remarkably.

-----

What should be understood is that evolution is not a law. The theory has not been (nor can be in this life) perfect to be irrevocable and so remains a theory.

Thats my 2 cents worth.

In science, "laws" are not really all that spectacular. In physics, the word "law" is often used for a “theory” that has a mathematical formula attached to it, or to one of several mathematical formulas that comprise an overarching “theory” (thus rendering “law” a subordinate concept to “theory”).

In biology (my field of expertise), the word "law" was once popular, but it doesn’t get used much anymore. The term “theory” is used in its place.

But, in no science is a “law” actually considered something greater than a “theory.” In fact, if anything, it’s quite the reverse: “laws” are often seen as subordinate components of the greater “theory.”

There is no rung on the scientific ladder higher than “theory.”

[dorave]

I'm a little disappointed in this statement, to be honest. I know non-Mormons and non-Christians who would seem to defy the sweeping generalization here.

For example, I'm pretty sure Mormons rank rather low on the "eat healthy and take care of your body" curve. Certainly this, alone, suggests that other people at least feel some accountability about some aspects of taking care of their bodies (even those who believe that their bodies evolved naturally).

Furthermore, I'm upset about his choice to use "chance" as the descriptor for evolution, when chance is only one part of it.

Maybe you should've wrote his talk for him.

[ozzy]

Bluejay: Good point, I did dumb down the definitions quite a bit. I personally place laws above theory partially because here at BYUI they have taught us that a law is greater, and partially because to me the generalized definitions of the two suggest that laws are greater.

In any case, I still find the absolutist arguments for and against evolution to be fundamentally flaud. Anyway, it is nice to meet a fellow biologist. Whats your field? I am a microbio major so I guess I am not quite there yet but up and coming anyway.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Ozzy.

I personally place laws above theory partially because here at BYUI they have taught us that a law is greater...

I don't know what reason they would have to teach you that: I don't think this has ever been true in scientific lingo.

Incidentally, I read the Wikipedia article on "scientific law," and found that whoever wrote the Wiki article thinks a law is something even less spectacular:

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia: it isn’t authoritative.

But, I suggest reading the discussion page about that article: you can read a good handful of comments there that will give you an idea about how "law" is used in science, and about the state of the debate on how “law” should be used.

Anyway, it is nice to meet a fellow biologist. Whats your field? I am a microbio major so I guess I am not quite there yet but up and coming anyway.

I’m just over halfway through a PhD in entomology, but my training and expertise is in arachnology (spiders) and ecology.

[Bluejay]

Maybe you should've wrote his talk for him.

Maybe so.

[ozzy]

Bluejay: Thanks, I will have to check that out. BYUI probably gets the idea that laws are greater from the fact that God only has laws and no theories. As with most things though, they don't tend to recognize that the world views things quite differently, even in the realm of science. I was quite impressed to find any evolutionists there at all.

Bugs huh? Thats pretty awesome stuff. I'm from Oklahoma and we have some pretty wierd ones. It was always unnerving to find out that I had brown recluses under my dresser again. :) Say, do you happen to know what those ones are that are shaped like ants but are huge, black and orange, and have a sting of fire?

[TimothyL]

*edit link removed*

13. You will not use this site to solicit the sale of any product, service or website. If appropriate, you may post a link to your business on your profile, in your forum signature, and you make create one post in the web link section of the forum. Do not post any link or discuss any business, service, or website that violates any rule of LDS.net. LDS.net is not responsible for the content of any site linked on LDS.net.

Edited January 30, 2011 by pam