Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Speaking as a scientist) 

Evolution is a process on how the genetics of life forms change over time, which can result in the change of existing species or divergence into new species.    The idea of a creator is that the assemblage of species on the Earth is not the result of random chance, but is purposefully guided.  It does not speak to the how the different species came to be.  The existence of a creator is not a testable hypothesis, and hence cannot be investigated with the scientific method.  Hence, there is no conflict between the two ideas: one speaks just about the how, the other doesn't speak about the how at all.  

Some common misunderstandings about this:

- "For it to be evolution, it can't have an ultimate creator guiding the process" -- that is not correct.  The theory of evolution has no comment on the existence of an creator (let alone any guidance), because science in general has no comment on that subject-- it is not a testable question, and hence cannot be commented on.

- "Well, if God uses natural laws to do something, then it's no longer a miracle" -- ... just no.  Especially coming from a LDS perspective.  This is like saying a baby's birth is less miraculous because we understand a tiny bit about sperm, eggs, and fetal development.  

 

(Now speaking from my LDS perspective)

Obviously we LDS do believe in the existence of a creator.   We do not believe this because of the scientific method (which cannot test such ideas), but based on revelation.   And on how the physical world (including our physical bodies) came to be are very symbolic, and don't give much anything on the scientific "how".  So there's no conflict with the idea of evolution (which is all about how), and there are no official church stances on the issue.  And as I said, they BYU's require courses in evolution.

Now, that's thus far I've talking about our physical bodies.  I will now talk about our spirits.  The scientific idea of evolution has nothing to do with spiritual things-- because spirits are not testable by the scientific method, and hence science cannot comment on the subject.  We LDS believe that each of us have a spirit, and that spirit is the literal offspring of God and not just a random fluke (as stated in the 1909 article, the Proclamation, the Bible, and so many others).  We are spiritual His sons and daughters in a very literal sense.  

In summary: LDS do God is the creator of our bodies.  We also believe the Father is the literal Father of our spirits.  Our spiritual and physical existence here is not just something of random chance, but of His design.  And none of this conflicts with the scientific idea of evolution.  

Thanks for your perspective, I think you have a very good approach to the subject! I agree with you about the idea that the creator guides the evolutionary process. Creation and evolution do not conflict in my mind either. 

I'm not concerned about the idea of evolution in general, I'm curious specifically about human evolution. Did modern humans evolve from lower order organisms as is the scientific consensus, and if so, where do Adam and Eve fit in? 

Perhaps all humans were innocent until Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden, partook of the fruit, and fell. Perhaps they were the first to become "as one of us [a God] to know good and evil" (Moses 4:28), and it is in this sense that they are the primal parents of all God's spirit children. 

I don't know what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zlllch said:

I'm not concerned about the idea of evolution in general, I'm curious specifically about human evolution. Did modern humans evolve from lower order organisms as is the scientific consensus, and if so, where do Adam and Eve fit in? 

(All of these answers are my personal opinion)

God created human bodies were crafted using natural laws (including evolution).  Adam & Eve come into play in that they were the first of these bodies to be temples for God's spirit children.  Harboring such a spirit is a critical component of being "human", and the genetic forbearers of Adam and Eve were not human---  cause they did not have such a spirit, despite the genetics involved.  

13 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Perhaps all humans were innocent until Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden, partook of the fruit, and fell.

 

All humans = the 2 of them (Adam and Eve).  Again, other creatures may have had the same genetics, but did not harbor a human spirit.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, zlllch said:

As in, what's the relationship between them, and how do Adam and Eve fit in with the current scientific theories about the history of the human race? Are Adam and Eve evolutional descendants of the pre-adamites? Or are they a different species than humans entirely, despite their similarities to us? I don't know. 

There are a great many possibilities. Perhaps Adam and Eve were inserted into a world with genetically similar humans who developed the ecological/evolutionary niche for them. Perhaps Adam and Eve were created physically by that evolutionary process, and their spirits inserted into the bodies at the correct time. Perhaps this earth, being several billion years old, has hosted the human species in its past -- modern humans are thought to have been around for at least 200,000 years, while the scriptural history of mankind covers no more than about 7000 years -- and our first parents are a remnant of a past humanity. Perhaps (probably) all of these are incorrect or at least incomplete, and the truth is something else. In any case, the fact that we don't understand the relationship between the humans found in fossil evidence and our first parents does not imply that either (or both) are fictitious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun homeschooling story that unfortunately may reinforce a negative stereotype:

My wife was homeschooling our young daughters.  Part of that experience was going to a homeschool Co-op run by our local mega-church.  Various mommies would teach various subjects, and the kids had group experiences, and it was a nice supportive environment for everyone.  They reacted favorably to us Mormons, and while it was clear our theological differences made it so we'd never teach, they were mostly content to love-bomb us and show us their best.  State and US history, music, math, how weather works - all good deals.  Architecture of the earth, geology, creation science - we tended to pass on those.

Anyway, it was time for a nature field trip to a local nature center!  Wife was busy that day, so I went with all the mommies and kids and did all the nature things and learned from the park attendant people and all that.  As he was describing different types of river rocks, he pointed out several that contained fossils.  I saw one mommy visually react, and as the group moved down the river bank a bit, I was close by and heard a kid ask her what the man meant by fossil.  She was staggering and stuttering through an explanation, looking half embarrassed, half afraid she was committing an offence against God.  She looked at me with an expression that said 'help', so I tried to say something that wouldn't offend their creationist sensibilities.  

"From what they tell me, it works like this.  Some critter died a long time ago, and was covered in mud.  Over time, the mud became rock, and also the critter's tissues and bones and stuff was replaced by various minerals and stuff that also be came rock, just rock that looked different enough to still look like critter bones.  It happens with trees and leaves and stuff too sometimes."

The poor mom's nodding head and face was a symphony of conflicting emotions.  Relief, fear, anxiety.  She closed her eyes nodding for most of my explanation, she honestly was reacting like I'd expect someone to react if they had to accept some random stranger explaining nookie to her children using descriptive and detailed language.   When I was done, she let out a big breath, lifted her shoulders and thanked me.  We all went to join the main group.

A few hours later as we were heading back, I saw that mommy, her kids climbing over some downed logs.  She closely examined where the log was entering the water, and said "look kids - this log is fossilizing!"   She was trying so hard to be a good mommy.  

Anyway, if I was to summarize my thoughts on the whole experience, it would be this: Scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue.  Not everyone believes that. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

"From what they tell me, it works like this.  Some critter died a long time ago, and was covered in mud.  Over time, the mud became rock, and also the critter's tissues and bones and stuff was replaced by various minerals and stuff that also be came rock, just rock that looked different enough to still look like critter bones.  It happens with trees and leaves and stuff too sometimes."

That's a pretty good kid friendly explanation :)

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anyway, if I was to summarize my thoughts on the whole experience, it would be this: Scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue.  Not everyone believes that. 

Amen.  On the other side of the fence: I will also say that I do also hear negative stereotypes of religious people from my scientists friends -- those are equally false and harmful.

We all have a lot to learn from each other, learning which brings much good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year."

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity."

This quotation doesn't explicitly disavow the theory of evolution, it merely states that it and the idea that Adam was not the first man are the "theories of men." It then asserts that Adam was the "first man of all men," and the primal parent of our race, which I mentioned is an official position of the church at the beginning of my original post. 

So my question is, if a person does believe in the theory of evolution, (human evolution specifically) where do Adam and Eve fit in with their point of view? I agree that Adam and Eve are the primal parents of our race and the first of God's spirit children, but I'm also inclined to accept the theory of evolution, and I'm wondering how these are compatible. I believe they could easily be compatible, but I'm not sure exactly how, and that's what I want insight on.

The purpose of my original post was to seek others input about how human evolution could theoretically be compatible with a historical Adam and Eve, not to debate the official position of the church. 

Thanks anyways for your comments though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

1) That is a very narrow definition of evolution.
2) What I read in Jane's posts was of a broader field of study.
3) Where did you get that from?  Let me be clear.  I agree with this aspect of what you're saying.  But it is because of a personal conviction.  The idea that the official position of the Church clearly and specifically states this... I haven't seen it yet.  And, yes, I'm familiar with the quote you just offered.

Have you read:

 

The 1909 statement, republished again in 2002 is the authoritive clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zlllch said:

This quotation doesn't explicitly disavow the theory of evolution, it merely states that it and the idea that Adam was not the first man are the "theories of men." It then asserts that Adam was the "first man of all men," and the primal parent of our race, which I mentioned is an official position of the church at the beginning of my original post. 

So my question is, if a person does believe in the theory of evolution, (human evolution specifically) where do Adam and Eve fit in with their point of view? I agree that Adam and Eve are the primal parents of our race and the first of God's spirit children, but I'm also inclined to accept the theory of evolution, and I'm wondering how these are compatible. I believe they could easily be compatible, but I'm not sure exactly how, and that's what I want insight on.

The purpose of my original post was to seek others input about how human evolution could theoretically be compatible with a historical Adam and Eve, not to debate the official position of the church. 

Thanks anyways for your comments though.

Human evolution isnt compatible with the teachings of the church. We are the literal and physical offspring of deity. We thus carry the very seed of God within us- we have the same DNA. It is thus how Gods seed continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Human evolution isnt compatible with the teachings of the church. We are the literal and physical offspring of deity. We thus carry the very seed of God within us- we have the same DNA. It is thus how Gods seed continues.

Ok, I respect your opinion. How then, in your view, does the archaeological evidence of intelligent human-like creatures predating the time of Adam and Eve fit in with this truth? Are these creatures human? Did they die out before Adam and Eve? Did they even exist at all? Were the records of their existence placed on the earth by God as a test? I don't know, what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The 1909 statement, republished again in 2002 is the authoritive clarity.

So, nothing then.  Ok, so we agree there is nothing upon which you base your premise.

Notice that was said with exactly the same certainty and attention which you gave my previous post.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zlllch said:

Ok, I respect your opinion. How then, in your view, does the archaeological evidence of intelligent human-like creatures predating the time of Adam and Eve fit in with this truth? Are these creatures human? Did they die out before Adam and Eve? Did they even exist at all? Were the records of their existence placed on the earth by God as a test? I don't know, what do you think?

The explanation is simple really.

The devil put dinosaurs here.

:eek:

(You may laugh but this is actually a widely accepted explanation for fossils in West Texas)

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The 1909 statement, republished again in 2002 is the authoritive clarity.

In exactly what way do you believe the 1909 First Presidency statement doctrinally disallows evolution? It merely states that evolution is a "theory of man", a self-evident proposition. Germ theory, heliocentricity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are also "theories of men". Which of them do you think are doctrinally disallowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Human evolution isnt compatible with the teachings of the church.

I disbelieve this. Please show convincing evidence that this is so.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We are the literal and physical offspring of deity. We thus carry the very seed of God within us- we have the same DNA.

Please cite authoritative doctrinal teachings about us having the physical DNA of God within us. As far as I know, the Church hasn't taught much doctrine about our divine inheritance of deoxyribonucleic acids.

Rob, you seem often to confuse your pet theories and personal understanding with actual Church teachings. You may wish to be more guarded about doing this. It can lead you to a bad end, and can also mislead others who cannot yet distinguish between a man who offers divine teachings and a man who is simply insisting on his own opinion or incomplete model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fun homeschooling story that unfortunately may reinforce a negative stereotype:

Negative stereotypes can go hang. The only thing that demonstrates is that people teach their children based on their own knowledge, and no one knows everything. Duh.

Homeschooling results speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zlllch said:

Ok, I respect your opinion. How then, in your view, does the archaeological evidence of intelligent human-like creatures predating the time of Adam and Eve fit in with this truth? Are these creatures human? Did they die out before Adam and Eve? Did they even exist at all? Were the records of their existence placed on the earth by God as a test? I don't know, what do you think?

There really isnt evidence of intelligent human like creatures predating Adam and Eve. Science relies on so much conjecture that its not really evidence at all. Few fragments of bones do not qualify as evidence. Science created a story then went out to prove it. Their mountains of evidence they claim is actually less than a wheelbarrow full and questionable at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, nothing then.  Ok, so we agree there is nothing upon which you base your premise.

Notice that was said with exactly the same certainty and attention which you gave my previous post.

The 2002 publishing remains in force as the official position of the church. There really isnt much to argue there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

In exactly what way do you believe the 1909 First Presidency statement doctrinally disallows evolution? It merely states that evolution is a "theory of man", a self-evident proposition. Germ theory, heliocentricity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are also "theories of men". Which of them do you think are doctrinally disallowed?

In regards to the wuestion if Adam evolved from a lower species the church is firm that Adam was the first man of all men and did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

I disbelieve this. Please show convincing evidence that this is so.

Please cite authoritative doctrinal teachings about us having the physical DNA of God within us. As far as I know, the Church hasn't taught much doctrine about our divine inheritance of deoxyribonucleic acids.

Rob, you seem often to confuse your pet theories and personal understanding with actual Church teachings. You may wish to be more guarded about doing this. It can lead you to a bad end, and can also mislead others who cannot yet distinguish between a man who offers divine teachings and a man who is simply insisting on his own opinion or incomplete model.

Please read my quoted material from the 2002 Ensign. Please show some resect, dont be ignorant.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We are the literal and physical offspring of deity. We thus carry the very seed of God within us- we have the same DNA. It is thus how Gods seed continues.

Since you didn't seem to catch it....  Scripture teaches that we are the spiritual offspring of God, not physical.  Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh - not Adam, not the rest of us, only Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

Since you didn't seem to catch it....  Scripture teaches that we are the spiritual offspring of God, not physical.  Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh - not Adam, not the rest of us, only Christ.

Jesus Christ is the only begotten offspring into "mortality". That is what is meant. Christ had that title before even being born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

(All of these answers are my personal opinion)

God created human bodies were crafted using natural laws (including evolution).  Adam & Eve come into play in that they were the first of these bodies to be temples for God's spirit children.  Harboring such a spirit is a critical component of being "human", and the genetic forbearers of Adam and Eve were not human---  cause they did not have such a spirit, despite the genetics involved.  

 

All humans = the 2 of them (Adam and Eve).  Again, other creatures may have had the same genetics, but did not harbor a human spirit.  

Ah ok, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! I was actually sort of thinking along those same lines, but you connected the dots for me. Of course it's a personal opinion as you said, but I think it's a very sound one that I will likely adopt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share