Macro-evolution

[rameumptom]

My friend Steve has a great blog post regarding macro-evolution and the controversy of Creationists not really studying the newest information regarding evolution. He compares macro-evolution to studying galaxies. Because of time lengths, we cannot see the full picture all at once. However, we can put together some serious theories and concepts from the varying stages of formation we can observe in the night sky. So it is with evolution: we may not be able to see millions of years of evolution immediately before us, but the fossil record and other evidence strongly points towards evolution.

Macroevolution and the argument from ignorance The Mormon Organon

[Dravin]

This thread will not end up in a nice place.

[ryanh]

I liked Hugh Nibley's thoughts on why there is often disparity between the scientific community’s and religion’s understandings.

The last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in Heaven speaks it; and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he speaks the language of eternity.

According to the "science" of today and yesterday, everything about the Savior – miraculous healings, His resurrection, and especially the atonement - is an impossibility. On matters of my faith, I am in no rush to attempt to merge my understanding of the two in many matters.

[Family_Man]

My friend Steve has a great blog post regarding macro-evolution and the controversy of Creationists not really studying the newest information regarding evolution. He compares macro-evolution to studying galaxies. Because of time lengths, we cannot see the full picture all at once. However, we can put together some serious theories and concepts from the varying stages of formation we can observe in the night sky. So it is with evolution: we may not be able to see millions of years of evolution immediately before us, but the fossil record and other evidence strongly points towards evolution.

Macroevolution and the argument from ignorance The Mormon Organon

So is the point of your thread to dredge up arguments? Ok, I will bite. I will play creationists advocate.

Let us start with an amazing claim

"The time scales are too vast. But we know a lot about how they evolve by catching varying stages of formation and piecing together what happens between"

So you are telling me we can't get to the next closest planet, but we can glimpse differing galaxies and GUESS (you said piece, which would seem like an educated guess) how they connect? This same principle applies to macroevolution?

So we take a bunch of fossils that are apparently from such a long and vast timespan that we can't possibly comprehend it, and then we say well, I guess these fit like this. Seems concrete, doesn't it? I guess that over billions of years, spanning eons when things we can not even fathom were occuring we crawled out of ooze and then one day said "you know, I think I can explain the entire story of how we came to be. Random chance and accidents!"

This would seem absurd in a different scenario; for instance let's say we wondered how large buildings like the pyramids were built. So we look at a child playing with legos, and go, hmm, well it applies there, so the pyramids MUST have been built by giant toddlers, because small lego pyramids are built by normal toddlers.

Just because something fits somewhere, it doesn't fit everywhere. Let's turn the clock back for a second, well more like several billion years. Just how did life start? One day, no discernable life, and the next, life. How? Why don't new simple lifeforms continue to randomly populate our world? How come no matter how hard scientists try, they are unable to generate life from nothing?

I guess the claim that "This is why you find the Creationists completely disengaged in the actual science of macroevolution and make the claim that it hasn’t been adequately explained. If you dissect their claim, what they are really saying is ‘We haven’t read any books on it (there are many), read any of the papers, engaged in the actual debate, examined the evidence, however, based on our ignorance of the arguments we say it’s a problem and so it is." is undoubtedly true. Evolutionists HAVE explained the origion of life. Wait, no, they haven't. Instead they have more guesses. Hm, well, back to the theoretical chalkboard I guess.

I hope that those who read this will see the humor I tried to inject. The truth is that I believe in Creation, but I also belive that evolution has occured, just maybe not on the same scale that most evolutionists think it has. Who is to say what Heavenly Father used to get us here? I guess we could sum it up with what my Mission President would always tell me "That is not necessary for your salvation. Take care of the things that are, and you can ask the Creator yourself someday"

[rameumptom]

The problem is, Creationists interpret the Bible in one of many ways. There are many evolutionists that also believe in the Bible. Yet, they (creationists) insist their interpretation is the correct one, even though they do not have any other evidence, except for their own interpretation of the Bible to support it. Even Joseph Smith believed the earth to be billions of years old, which kind of puts LDS Creationists in a bit of a quandary, since most believe the earth to only be 6000 years old.

The big problem with Creationism is that they do not have any theory whatsoever. A theory is a hypothesis that can be tested, if only indirectly. We can test the age of fossils by various methods: Carbon 14, Radioactive testing, sedimentary layer dating, tree rings, etc. All of these agree with one another - giving evidence that the theory holds up.

There is no way to test the Creationist hypothesis. It is a "by faith" or emotion alone event. Even the book of Mormon has evidence we can go to in testing it. Alma taught that the planets and stars in their cycles are evidence that God exists, and I believe this. That life (much less advanced life) can exist on our planet is such an amazing event that it suggests there is a God. However, a creation in 6 days or 6 thousand years just is not demonstrated in the fossil or planetary records.

The point is that the Creationists are asking us to disbelieve evolution simply on their word. They have no evidence beyond their interpretation of the Bible story that it is wrong. Now, if they had actual evidence we could test, that may be another thing. But they do not, and the truth always has evidence to back it up (evidence, not proof. There's a difference).

And comparing it to Jesus' miracles or resurrection are a non sequitur. No one disputes that such are a matter of faith that cannot be proven nor tested. We have just a couple claimed records, written decades after the matter, to testify of the events. Scientists are not interested in proving/disproving Jesus' resurrection, as there is nothing we can test. It is, in such a case, a thing of faith. Spiritual witnesses are not a scientific method. Telling someone to look in a microscope and they see an organism swimming about is very different than telling someone how to gain a testimony. All who look into the microscope can see the organism swimming. We can take photographs and video of it. Such is the evidence. With testimony, it is based upon spiritual evidence that does not affect people all in the same way, nor in the same moment. It is subjective, and some would say it is emotion rather than Spirit.

My point on this is that as Christians, we should not be so narrow-minded as to insist on Creationism as the answer. It has not been revealed by God exactly how or how long he took to create all things. But he has given us evidence in the dirt of how he has worked in the past.

Don't forget, the Bible also is earth-centric. It would have us think the earth flat and the Sun revolving around it. The Creationists of Galileo's day forced him to recant his science and accept their interpretation of the Bible as truth. Should we deny science's finds of the past 500 years regarding our earth's relationship to the Sun, solar system, galaxies, and universe(s)? I'm guessing pretty much everyone here accepts a round earth that revolves around the Sun. That means we reject the Bible's teaching on it as not true, but rather symbolic. If such is the case, why can't we also view the Creation as symbolic on at least certain concepts, and not be considered heretic?

God is trying to teach us His truth through revealed science and religion. We should not reject the one simply because of a long standing interpretation of scripture in the other.

Edited March 21, 2011 by rameumptom

[Guest]

So is the point of your thread to dredge up arguments? Ok, I will bite. I will play creationists advocate.

Let us start with an amazing claim

"The time scales are too vast. But we know a lot about how they evolve by catching varying stages of formation and piecing together what happens between"

So you are telling me we can't get to the next closest planet, but we can glimpse differing galaxies and GUESS (you said piece, which would seem like an educated guess) how they connect? This same principle applies to macroevolution?

So we take a bunch of fossils that are apparently from such a long and vast timespan that we can't possibly comprehend it, and then we say well, I guess these fit like this. Seems concrete, doesn't it? I guess that over billions of years, spanning eons when things we can not even fathom were occuring we crawled out of ooze and then one day said "you know, I think I can explain the entire story of how we came to be. Random chance and accidents!"

This would seem absurd in a different scenario; for instance let's say we wondered how large buildings like the pyramids were built. So we look at a child playing with legos, and go, hmm, well it applies there, so the pyramids MUST have been built by giant toddlers, because small lego pyramids are built by normal toddlers.

Just because something fits somewhere, it doesn't fit everywhere. Let's turn the clock back for a second, well more like several billion years. Just how did life start? One day, no discernable life, and the next, life. How? Why don't new simple lifeforms continue to randomly populate our world? How come no matter how hard scientists try, they are unable to generate life from nothing?

I guess the claim that "This is why you find the Creationists completely disengaged in the actual science of macroevolution and make the claim that it hasn’t been adequately explained. If you dissect their claim, what they are really saying is ‘We haven’t read any books on it (there are many), read any of the papers, engaged in the actual debate, examined the evidence, however, based on our ignorance of the arguments we say it’s a problem and so it is." is undoubtedly true. Evolutionists HAVE explained the origion of life. Wait, no, they haven't. Instead they have more guesses. Hm, well, back to the theoretical chalkboard I guess.

I hope that those who read this will see the humor I tried to inject. The truth is that I believe in Creation, but I also belive that evolution has occured, just maybe not on the same scale that most evolutionists think it has. Who is to say what Heavenly Father used to get us here? I guess we could sum it up with what my Mission President would always tell me "That is not necessary for your salvation. Take care of the things that are, and you can ask the Creator yourself someday"

The difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is that Creationists already know how God created life... whereas Evolutionists accept that what they know is just a theory and that further study is still needed to truly know it.

So that, the problem is not that Evolutionists believe one way while Creationists the other - the problem is that Evolutionists are open minded while Creationists are close-minded.

There is nothing in Evolution Theory that eliminates God from the equation unless you are an atheist. Because, evolution can be just a way of explaining how God created life on earth.

Religious folks can benefit a lot from science to help them understand God better. At the same time, science can benefit a lot from God and the scriptures to guide them on which interpretation of the experiment is more correct.

[marshac]

So is the point of your thread to dredge up arguments? Ok, I will bite. I will play creationists advocate.

Let us start with an amazing claim

"The time scales are too vast. But we know a lot about how they evolve by catching..."

Entering into a debate by constructing a strawman argument isn't usually an effective way to win a debate.

[Family_Man]

Entering into a debate by constructing a strawman argument isn't usually an effective way to win a debate.

Entering a "debate" where it starts out "OK, I will bits. I will play creationists advocate" usually indicates that there is a comical (or at least less than serious) bit of comentary following.

Not to mention when the post ends with "I hope that those who read this will see the humor I tried to inject" would further indicate that the preceding post was on the humorous side.

I guess we can see that some people are either not too good at reading, or are so devoted to their side that the meer questioning of their arguement makes them upset.

[Dravin]

Or they fall prey to Poe's Law. And infusing a presentation with humor doesn't preclude one trying to make a serious point. Particularly since ridicule is a rather popular debating tactic.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Dravin

[marshac]

I guess we can see that some people are either not too good at reading, or are so devoted to their side that the meer questioning of their arguement makes them upset.

No, I reed gud, I asure you.

I tend to skim-read these days- it's an annoying habbit that has been forced upon me by way way too many hours in class every day, and not enough time to fully read posts on LDS.net. Good thing that chat is gone- otherwise my grades would be in the can.

[w00dy931]

heres an interesting thing to think about, if you look into the original hebrew text for i believe the first 11 chapters of genesis, its actually hebrew poetry. so its quite possible it wasnt meant to take literal. Its possible we were meant to know God created everything, and thats what is important.

[MarginOfError]

So you are telling me we can't get to the next closest planet, but we can glimpse differing galaxies and GUESS (you said piece, which would seem like an educated guess) how they connect? This same principle applies to macroevolution?

I know you were just playing the other side on this one, but for the benefit of anyone who thinks this is a valid point, there is a difference between guessing and deductive reasoning. Critics of science would call deductive reasoning a guess in an attempt to discredit its validity.

On an entirely different note, Creationism is very good at explaining the why of creation but very poor at explaining the how. Evolutionism is very good at explaining the how, but very poor at explaining the why? Deductive reasoning (or is it guessing) would suggest that the two complement each other nicely.

[Guest Godless]

Deductive reasoning (or is it guessing) would suggest that the two complement each other nicely.

Unless there is no "why". Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Lost_one]

Even Joseph Smith believed the earth to be billions of years old, which kind of puts LDS Creationists in a bit of a quandary, since most believe the earth to only be 6000 years old.

Could you give a source for this please? I know an LDS creationist and would love to show him this. If it's from an official church source, all the better.

[sixpacktr]

My own opinion is that the earth is billions of years old. But I also think that Professor Nibley had a salient point when he stated that there is a difference in the world and the earth. Our world began 6000 or so years ago, with the fall of Adam and the records we have of God's dealings with His children. The earth, however, has been around for a long time, and could have been the stage for many of His children's histories. That is, he has placed many other civilizations and the like here for them to work out their salvation just as we are doing now, and then taken them off. It makes sense to me in working out some of the things we find such as Stonehenge, etc., that are dated as far older than the biblical record allows.

And then, I also hold that man knows about zilch out of nothing, and that we are too inflated in our 'findings' to hold on to those as correct. Science is the study of things and trying to work out how it happen(s) or happened. Evolution could give way to spontaneous generation tomorrow, and everyone would hold to it as the truth. Too often man's understanding or conjectures have been found wanting. Would hate to have to stand before the Lord and tell him the reason I rejected such and such was because of some finding that a man had made and it seemed to be right.

Evolution? I personally don't hold to it. But if I find out in the afterlife that that was the mechanism our HF used to get us here, I wouldn't fall down screaming that it went against my belief system. I'd be grateful for the new-found knowledge and ask Him why he didn't give me 3 arms to make working on cars easier??

[rameumptom]

Could you give a source for this please? I know an LDS creationist and would love to show him this. If it's from an official church source, all the better.

It comes to us indirectly from WW Phelps, who learned it from Joseph Smith as he translated the Egyptian papyri:

W. W. Phelps, in a letter to William Smith, refers to the age of the earth. He, from the context of the quote, apparently received his information from the papyri from which the Book of Abraham is also taken. So you can compare, most scientists teach that the earth is about 4.5 - 5 billion years old, with life being about 2.5 billion years old..

"Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother William [smith], when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;--it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!"

--Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845

http://www.tungate.com/GA_statements.htm

When Phelps states it is "not this world" in parentheses, he is believed to be referring to the Creation/Destruction cycles that this planet has been involved in, but that our current world since Adam is not that old. As noted, life on earth began 2.5 billion years ago, which fits perfectly with this teaching (and only determined by scientists in the last century).

[Lost_one]

It comes to us indirectly from WW Phelps, who learned it from Joseph Smith as he translated the Egyptian papyri:

When Phelps states it is "not this world" in parentheses, he is believed to be referring to the Creation/Destruction cycles that this planet has been involved in, but that our current world since Adam is not that old. As noted, life on earth began 2.5 billion years ago, which fits perfectly with this teaching (and only determined by scientists in the last century).

Ok, found it. Thank you for taking the time.