Evolution

[Tyler90AZ]

Could someone explain to me how evolution fits into the gospel? I am very curious..

Thanks everyone who has posted.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Guest]

Could someone explain to me how evolution fits into the gospel? I am very curious..

Thanks everyone who has posted.

Excerpts from Genesis Chapter 1:

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and amultiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

That's the scripture. It doesn't say HOW God "created great whales and every living creature that moveth". It just says he did.

As we gain more understanding of evolution, we can have a glimpse of how all this may have happened.

You might say, oh, but he did it all in "one day". So, you will need to look into what that day encompasses. Scripture says it's the evening and the morning was the day - which you can interpret as one solar calendar day... but, it also says evening and morning were a day when he created the plants/trees - and that happened before the day and night was organized - and even before the sun/moon/stars appeared in the sky. Therefore, the evening and the morning doesn't necessarily mean one solar calendar day. It could be that the creation of the firmament and all living things spanned millions of solar calendar years in preparation for the "dawn of man".

It could even be that God created the day and night - of the sun and moon - through a Supernova! A big bang, even.

Okay, so when everything was ready, Adam was created. How? There are tons of possibilities. He could have used the evolutionary process to progress from a neanderthal to a man in God's image. And when man was perfect, the spirit of Adam entered.

All speculation, of course. But all speculation that is still rooted in the gospel.

[HiJolly]

McKay, Talmage etc all accepted evolution to a certain extent but never admitted to believing that mankind had evolved.

Seriously? Words like "all" and "never" are honestly justifiable in your mind? How did that happen? Where is the evidence for such a massively sweeping judgment?

Man evolving from lower animal orders is not in harmony with the story of Adam.

That's because the two (scientific evolutionary concepts and "the story of Adam") are not of a kind. People who insist that they *are*, are often described as fundamentalists, because they don't understand the distinction nor the implications of such sloppy (or, imprecise) thinking.

Even today in our the fairly new gospel principles manual it says:

"When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death"

That's right, because they were not yet on a mortal earth. The Fall had not yet occurred.

The manual also states:

"Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death."

Yes, that would be after the Fall.

Science tells us that man evolved over billions of years. Mormonism tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that their bodies were immortal until they ate of the fruit.

Thus Adam and Eve being the first humans were made in a separate creation.

The Mormon scriptures and doctrine tell us that *man*, not "humans", were the first flesh. Kind of like Section 132, this can not be understood without the necessary background and contextual information that brings it all to a complete comprehensibility in the Spirit.

Those who do not accept the truth as it comes forth from the earth, due to dogmatic beliefs in false application of scripture, lose out in the end. It's too bad that Joseph Fielding Smith didn't realize the trouble that would emerge as he adopted the opinions and errors of George McCready Price.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Could someone explain to me how evolution fits into the gospel? I am very curious..

Thanks everyone who has posted.

Not very well, unless, like anatess, you take the long view. After all, man becoming god is quite evolutionary!

But of course, not in the scientific sense. But I don't see why so many religious faithful seem to feel they have to define their faith and beliefs in scientific terms. This gives birth to sentiments like "Intelligent Design is scientific" --- which of course it is not. It may be TRUE, but it's *not* science. As has been proven in the Kitzmiller et al. vs Dover case (er, the non-science part, not the 'true' part).

HiJolly

[Guest Godless]

It is your burden to disprove my argument..... Then I will promptly form a rebuttal....

I've already stated my counterargument, which is that humans are mortal organisms that perform the same biological functions as other organisms in the animal kingdom and therefore are subject to the influence of the same evolutionary processes as other animals. You have yet to prove otherwise, aside from stating that we're smarter than other animals. Higher intelligence doesn't make us biologically different. And in order for us to be immune from the forces of evolution, there would have to be major biological differences between us and other animals which, by your own admission, undergo evolutionary changes over time.

My argument is that animals and humans were created at two different times.

What is the scientific basis for this argument? It's hard for me to counter an argument for which no empirical evidence has been provided. Edited February 12, 2011 by Godless

[Tyler90AZ]

I've already stated my counterargument, which is that humans are mortal organisms that perform the same biological functions as other organisms in the animal kingdom and therefore are subject to the influence of the same evolutionary processes as other animals. You have yet to prove otherwise, aside from stating that we're smarter than other animals. Higher intelligence doesn't make us biologically different. And in order for us to be immune from the forces of evolution, there would have to be major biological differences between us and other animals which, by your own admission, undergo evolutionary changes over time.

I agree that we are biologically similar to animals. There is one thing that separates us from animals though is our intelligence. Humans intelligence is superior to all animals intelligence.

Why wouldn't God want us to have similar characteristics to animals? The main purpose of all animals is to reproduce. That fits into Gods plans because he wants all animals to stay alive, thus keeping the earth "alive."

What is the scientific basis for this argument? It's hard for me to counter an argument for which no empirical evidence has been provided.

The argument is that humans are far more intelligent then animals. Thus not being part of evolution. Thus being created at different times or different ways. There is much empirical evidence to prove humans are more intelligent then animals.

[Guest Godless]

I agree that we are biologically similar to animals. There is one thing that separates us from animals though is our intelligence. Humans intelligence is superior to all animals intelligence.

Why wouldn't God want us to have similar characteristics to animals? The main purpose of all animals is to reproduce. That fits into Gods plans because he wants all animals to stay alive, thus keeping the earth "alive."

Intelligence has no influence on the overall biological makeup of an organism, nor does it make us immune from the forces of nature.

The argument is that humans are far more intelligent then animals. Thus not being part of evolution.

How does intelligence alone make us immune from evolutionary mechanisms?

[HiJolly]

The argument is that humans are far more intelligent then animals. Thus not being part of evolution. Thus being created at different times or different ways. There is much empirical evidence to prove humans are more intelligent then animals.

Let's empirically measure the difference in intelligence between a sperm whale and a human. Go for it, Tyler90AZ. Good luck, you'll need it.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

Bibliography

Evenson, WIlliam E. Review of Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, by Edward J. Larson; Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, by Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum with Forrest B. Peterson. BYU Studies 45:1 (2006):182-189.

WILLIAM E. EVENSON

Evolution - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

http://mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

HiJolly

[NeuroTypical]

I have a very basic opinion about the whole matter.

Should I die and kneel before my Master, and there learn that the world is 5742 years old and evolution was wrong, I plan on wetting my savior's feet with my tears.

Should I die and kneel before my Master, and there learn that the world is millions years old and evolution and dinosaurs and all that happened, I still plan on wetting my saviors feet with my tears.

Is there a reason why I should do otherwise?

[dieublanc]

There *is* the problem, just so. Trust me, as you learn & grow, you can indeed accept both things. As you learn the history of this Church, you can find reason to trust & believe the prophets, AND accept that they are men that make occasional and even long-term mistakes of judgment, just like any of us do.

I testify that Heavenly Father allows it. It is a necessary condition of the veil and associated moral agency.

Yep -- just as the temple teaches us. And it's ok, because this is mortality, and that's what we all have to deal with.

HiJolly

I appreciate your comments. So let's say that I agree with you - that our prophets seers and revelators teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. how then does one determine when they in fact are telling the truth?

Edited February 12, 2011 by dieublanc

[HiJolly]

I appreciate your comments. So let's say that I agree with you - that our prophets seers and revelators teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture how then does one determine when they in fact are telling the truth?

By the power & gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is clearly taught in the endowment. The only truth you can fully depend upon BEING truth is that which is taught by special messengers from the Father. Like, the Holy Ghost.

HiJolly

[Backroads]

I have a very basic opinion about the whole matter.

Should I die and kneel before my Master, and there learn that the world is 5742 years old and evolution was wrong, I plan on wetting my savior's feet with my tears.

Should I die and kneel before my Master, and there learn that the world is millions years old and evolution and dinosaurs and all that happened, I still plan on wetting my saviors feet with my tears.

Is there a reason why I should do otherwise?

None that I can think of.

Though with me, after that, I plan on pulling out a long, long list of scientific questions. I can hardly wait!

[dieublanc]

By the power & gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is clearly taught in the endowment. The only truth you can fully depend upon BEING truth is that which is taught by special messengers from the Father. Like, the Holy Ghost.

HiJolly

Well what if the Holy Ghost told me that since our prophets haven't got a clue with regards to mans origin they most likely haven't got a clue with regards to his destiny?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Dravin
Wrong post... oops

[dieublanc]

our prophets understand man's "origin"

(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.

actually, the origins debate is moot...

there is no origin...

or don't you believe in the conservation laws?

here you go: The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

Hey I wasn't talking about that origin. Anyway all I'm saying is that I know at least 2 people that have left the church after concluding that evolution proved that our prophets were clueless. If they are clueless in one area then it is likely they may be clueless in others. I had no good argument against that conclusion.

[Dravin]

HGT is a completely different mechanism, and yet, they are calling it "evolution"... hmmmm....

Evolution is the changing of allele/gene frequencies in a population. Natural selection, artificial selection, gene flow, and mutations are mechanisms of evolution but often get confused (natural selection in particular) as being evolution. If HGT is a mechanism for changing allele frequencies in a population then it is mechanism for evolution. If isn't a mechanism for changing allele frequencies in a population then it'd probably be a misnomer to term it a mechanism for evolution.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Tyler90AZ]

Intelligence has no influence on the overall biological makeup of an organism, nor does it make us immune from the forces of nature.

How does intelligence alone make us immune from evolutionary mechanisms?

I am beating a dead horse because you still haven't addressed my argument.

and

em·pir·i·cal

   /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2.

depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.

provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

[Tyler90AZ]

21And God created agreat whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and amultiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24¶And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his akind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26¶And God said, Let aus bmake cman in our dimage, after our elikeness: and let them have fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and bfemale created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be afruitful, and bmultiply, and creplenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have edominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

After their kind=Evolution for animals

Animals be fruitful and multiply= Reproduction is an animal’s main purpose in life

Dominion= Humans have more intelligence

Humans be fruitful and multiply= Humans have similar biological makeup as animals

Humans and animals were made by the same designer, so it makes sense that they are similar.

Animals were created prior to humans; that would mean that animals have more time to evolve.

In Genesis there is a lot of symbolism namely breathe of life and taking rib from man. However, I do believe creation is similar to how it actually took place.

I need opinions and if it goes contrary to church doctrine.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Dravin]

What on earth are you talking about Changed? After your first word I can't find a connection at all with what I posted. Or did you just use me as a springboard (which is fine if you did)?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

I know at least 2 people that have left the church after concluding that evolution proved that our prophets were clueless. If they are clueless in one area then it is likely they may be clueless in others. I had no good argument against that conclusion.

Well of course our prophets don't stop being fallible mortal people who can have incorrect opinions on things. Sounds like the folks you know, somehow were resting their tesimonies on the falsehood that our prophets are infallible, and that every word that issueth forth from their mouths are authored by God. Then they discovered that was a bunch of hogwash (which it is), and their 'testimonies' died.

When folks figure our prophets are perfect and always right, they are 1- figuring stuff you can't find in scripture or doctrine, and are 2- heading for a rough learning curve. Access to divine inspiration doesn't make you never wrong.

And seriously, dieublanc, 'teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture'? Are you honestly feeling forced into that statement, or are you just attempting to stir the pot?

LM

Edited February 12, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Dravin]

I put in some ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ happy now?

I'd say your inclusion of a break to clarify you weren't responding to me with the entirety of your post has a neutral effect on my happiness.

[Traveler]

The scriptures may be unclear but our prophets, seers and revelators are crystal clear. I quote again from Packer in the 2008 Ensign:

We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall.

I am not sure that you are interpreting "a separate creation" correctly. Could we say that man was divinely genetically engineered? The very fact that there was a “change” with the creation by definition implies evolution. Evolution means change yet we are the same dust.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

Well what if the Holy Ghost told me that since our prophets haven't got a clue with regards to mans origin they most likely haven't got a clue with regards to his destiny?

If the Holy Ghost truly told you that, then you'd darn well better pay attention!

If you are wondering, He didn't say that to me. FWIW.

HiJolly

[Tyler90AZ]

or it could mean mortal begets mortal... immortal begets immortal...

Why wasn't it said after man then?

[Tyler90AZ]

It doesn't say that in the creation accounts though. The scripture you gave me is referring to baptism.

Animals were created 1000-2000 years before man. The saying after their own kind refers to procreation. In my opinion an intelligent designer could create animals to evolve/adapt to the changing earth. Then I believe man was created. Our intelligence sets us apart from animals in my humble opinion.

Now a question that troubles me is why do animals go extinct then??? The only explanation I can come up with is that man and earth didn't need them. They served their purpose.

This is just my opinion though and I am nobody.