Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?


DennisTate
 Share

Are LDS open to the idea of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Latter day Saints open to some variation of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    • No
      4
    • Yes
      5
    • Perhaps... but that will depend on the wording for the explanation.
      5


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, person0 said:

I have said this before and I will say it again:  Even if it were that macro-evolution of species is a true principle, at best, it is no longer a necessary characteristic of the creation process and, in fact, would be an inefficient mechanism in the creation of an earth.  Why?  Since evolution requires death and gradual adaptation over millions of years, once the process is completed a single time, why would you start it all over again?  If we agree that God has created 'worlds without number' and that Moses did indeed see the vast expanse of his creations, would it not be more efficient for God to simply relocate plants, animals, and all manner of living creatures - including mankind - from one planet to another?  If so, then while evolution may have been used at one point in eternities past, it was not needful or prudent to begin it anew for the creation of our world.  Would a perfect God not also be perfectly efficient?  I believe he would!

Let us consider another perspective:  Suppose for a moment that you were tasked to create something new; however, this something new would already have many similarities to something that already exists.  Would you not use your knowledge of what already exists to create this new thing?  If God created man, could he not decide to create monkeys with similar features?  If God knows that an animal will need a heart, lungs, kidneys, mouth, eyes, etc, could he not have simply designed his own creatures using this knowledge?  Do we not have artists in our world today who have taken what they know of our earth and designed fictitious creatures in the likeness of other creatures?  Of course we do.  If we, as imperfect and fallen man, are capable of such designs, surely God is capable of so much more.

I return to my original premise.  Regardless of whether or not macro-evolution is ultimately revealed as a true principle, it was certainly not necessary for the creation of man on this earth because man already existed.

I am sorry but I am struggling with your logic - For all the "macro" variety that we seen in current fauna and flora that exist on the earth - What did G-d cause to be on the Ark of Noah that would account for the variety we now see is there is no macro evolution?  How many moths, butterflies, bees, birds, dogs, marsupials, and so on and so on were necessary - especially if there is no macro evolution.  Is it possible that this may be an answer to how G-d populates worlds with life?

And here is another question - why after creation would G-d command all life to only reproduce after their own "kind"?  It this is not something that is possible - why command that something that cannot happen ever be able to happen to not happen?  And with all this in mind - what is a hybrid?  Is it a kind that exist or is it a new "kind"?

One problem I see with many in the religious community is that they claim something cannot be and then science proves that it can be.  If scientist are ever able to clone a mastodon - it will make a some of declarations of truth in the religious community to be proven false.  This play into your reference to designing fictitious creatures - with a caveat. 

With all the evidence of macro evolution - I would be careful in implying G-d is not involved.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am sorry but I am struggling with your logic - For all the "macro" variety that we seen in current fauna and flora that exist on the earth - What did G-d cause to be on the Ark of Noah that would account for the variety we now see is there is no macro evolution?  How many moths, butterflies, bees, birds, dogs, marsupials, and so on and so on were necessary - especially if there is no macro evolution.  Is it possible that this may be an answer to how G-d populates worlds with life?

These questions are more plausible as an argument for a 'local flood' than they are for macro-evolution.  You are suggesting that biological macro-evolution has occurred at-least since the Great Flood, and yet, you give examples of micro-evolution to attempt to validate it?

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

And here is another question - why after creation would G-d command all life to only reproduce after their own "kind"?  It this is not something that is possible - why command that something that cannot happen ever be able to happen to not happen?  And with all this in mind - what is a hybrid?  Is it a kind that exist or is it a new "kind"?

Because living things reproduce the same kind of living thing. . . which is obvious.  :confused:  I don't understand why you are asking that question.  A hybrid is a mix of two different of the same kind.  You can mix two different breeds of dogs, but you cannot breed a dog and a monkey to create a new creature; I'm not sure how you thought this argues against my perspective and for yours.

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

This play into your reference to designing fictitious creatures - with a caveat. 

Okay so then we don't disagree on this; got it.

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

 With all the evidence of macro evolution - I would be careful in implying G-d is not involved.

So this is an interesting statement. You state that there is evidence for macro-evolution, and then on the basis of these evidences jump to the conclusion that it must be true, and then based on that conclusion, you imply that I have indicated somewhere that God would not be involved.  I wouldn't consider that an effective argument.

While I don't accept organic macro-evolution from one kind to another, if it were someday revealed to be true, God most certainly would be involved in the process.  Such is not in conflict with anything I have said.

I don't see how anything within your response here is a real counterpoint to my position.  That said, since I have answered all your questions, would you please go back and answer the ones I asked in my previous posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

The issue for me with macroevolution is it's not observable, it's not repeatable, it's not testable. It also defies logic and reason, for me at least, that a fish could ever evolve into a mammal. 

We descended from humans, right? No other species was ever involved. And we can create new races, such at Latinos, a mixture of European and Native American blood. But, our ancestors and descendants will always be humans. The same goes for canines. Dogs and wolves can have a wide range of variation between them - and inevitably we'll see more breeds over time.  But, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population can only vary so much. This is consistent with Mendel's Laws.

And there really aren't any positive mutations that can form into complex entities, is there? At least I'm not aware of any that have been observed.

You still haven't drawn a line about where you would say that such a change is impossible.  What changes specifcally?  Or, if you prefer, are you saying Orders? Families? Genera? Species?  Sub-species?  Where are you saying A is understandable change, but B is not understandable change?

If it is not a bold line, then at least describe a grey area in a sufficiently specific manner that we can actually discuss it.  What do you accept as a "reasonable" amount of change to believe in?

Depending on where you draw that line, your first statement may be correct or incorrect.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think the difficulties in accepting macro-evolution on that type of scale is that we have not yet actually had an observation of it occurring (that I know of).  We have not seen the evolution of a Bird to a Tiger, or even greater, of a plant to an animal.

I'm not sure this is entirely true -- though I guess it depends on exactly what kind of observation or experience you will accept here.

If we will only accept a "forward looking" observation (starting today, I observe and document a species, then monitor the variations among the descendants for a suitably long time until I decide that the descendants have diverged into 2 different "types), then let's say that we will only accept such an observation/experiment.

However, I think many evolutionary biologists would point out that nature has already run this experiment many times in the past and has left the record of that experiment in the fossil record, and in the similarities and differences in anatomy and physiology, and in our DNA. These "backward looking" observations have been made and have been interpreted in light of evolutionary theory.

We can reject these backward looking observations because there are too many gaps, or because they are too speculative, or because they are biased, or because we will only accept a forward looking observation, or whatever reason we want to give. But I don't think we can simply say that we have not made these observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will start here and hope to answer your questions.

Quote

That directly validates my point that if macro-evolution were a true principle, it would have needed only to happen once, hence there is no reason to believe that our earth's inhabitants were generated via the process of evolution.

Part of evolution is an adaptation to the environment.  This was what Darwin published initially as the primary engine of evolution for change.  That the same species will acquire different attributes based on their environment - this has been so well demonstrated there is hardly dispute.  However, in some way we are speculating about the economy of G-d and his methods.  Isaiah defines the economy of G-d as line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  He did not say micro line upon micro line upon micro line only and never macro line upon macro line.

In addition there is growing evidence that dinosaurs did not go instinct but evolved into birds.  Do you agree that historical evidence indicate this is a growing possibility for the notion that birds were not created uniquely and had no possible previously living ancestor?   For the record I see no evidence that any life is spontaneously created without anything coming from anything previously that was living.  I am also under the impression that this earth has living things unique to this planet in the same manner that various islands and continents have life forms that are unique.  I find evolution the best answer to creation and the variety of creation.

Quote

A mutation occurs by 'chance' and that mutation turns out to be beneficial; those with the mutation thrive and in many cases, those without it, die.  Hence the mutation doesn't die out, only because it is advantageous.  Mutations that lack advantage die out, because the mutation is not desirable to the population.  Modern medicine works to overcome this.

I do not believe that anything happens by chance.  The only reason anyone would think such a thing is because they are ignorant or confused as to the cause.  The second law of thermodynamics in essences implies that there is not only a cause but in essence a pre established direction in all events.  To me, saying, by chance is akin to waiving one's hand and saying "and them magic happens" - I have never encountered even a hint of chance - including in quantum physics - probabilities prove the universe is both ordered and isometric.  A virus is a player in evolution and can be used to genetically engineer man made evolutionary changes but there are other methods that man can use to directly effect and cause evolution.  Most certainly G-d can do much more than man.

Quote

Without mortality, mutation would not occur.

Not 100% true - I stated previously that a virus (disease) is an engine of evolutionary changes - even if the host does not die from the disease or mutation.  Every living person that is alive today is a combination of a living cells from something that was previously living.  The assumption that since all things on this earth are mortal - only mortal things evolve is speculation without any evidence.  We have no empirical evidence of immortal life from which to draw a conclusion - however we are told that even as mortals we are in the image and likeness of G-d.  Since I have blue eyes - does G-d have blue eyes or brown eyes?  If all humans are children of G-d then by the notion of different eye color proves that evolutionary changes can and do come from immortal physical life.

Quote

You are using the word evolution to represent what is colloquially referred to as growth.  No one is arguing against growth.  The embryo already has within it all information about what it will grow into; a human embryo doesn't change into some creature other than human.

How do you know what a human embryo is capable of?  The scriptures says the Eve is the mother of all living.  If G-d can create some other creature from a human embryo then your statement is false.  The scriptures say that with G-d all things are possible - I also submit (speculation) that without the intelligence of G-d a human embryo would not nor ever could evolve any more than the embryo that it is.

Quote

Yes, most people know that; It has been repeated often and is essentially the same as your position on an embryo growing into a human.  Not what anyone else in this thread talking about when referring to evolution

If macro-evolution were real in the eternal sense without mortality being needed, why would evolution stop?  Why do we identify glorified man as the ultimate perfection?  Are there more advantageous mutations that will occur?  Our scriptures indicate that God is a man.  You would have to suggest that there could be beings greater than God either now or in the future eternities; that is not something I am willing to believe.

We are now into some very interesting parameters and speculations - especially concerning time and the effect of time on eternal beings.  I would ask for the definition of eternal progression in contrast to Damned.  One aspect of Celestial is unbounded and without limits - which implies evolution.  Those that are Damned are limited and are bounded - a meaning of bondage - which implies the end of evolution.  Why are you unwilling to believe evolution can be eternal?  What else can we do for eternity? I find that remaining forever stagnant and never changing or acquiring any more knowledge insights as rather boring.  😎

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You still haven't drawn a line about where you would say that such a change is impossible.  What changes specifcally?  Or, if you prefer, are you saying Orders? Families? Genera? Species?  Sub-species?  Where are you saying A is understandable change, but B is not understandable change?

If it is not a bold line, then at least describe a grey area in a sufficiently specific manner that we can actually discuss it.  What do you accept as a "reasonable" amount of change to believe in?

Depending on where you draw that line, your first statement may be correct or incorrect.

Sure I have. Look at my previous posts. I mentioned that zebras, donkey, and horses all derive from the equidae family. And I said that none of their offspring will ever change families. 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:56 PM, ldsguy422 said:

So, when I mentioned zebras,  donkeys, and horses, they all come from equidae family. None of their offspring, IMO, will ever change taxonomic families. Can you create new breeds? Sure, of course. That is a part of microevolution. It happens all the time. But, all of those new breeds are confined to the equidae family. Macroevolution is something wildly different. It is crossing over from one taxonomic group to another. Although, I'm not on board with all of the classifications for taxonomic families. Humans, for example, are considered to be a part of the same family as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and apes. I don't believe in the least bit that we share a common ancestor with the other species in the hominidae family.

So yes, I believe in evolution. But there are restraints to how far a species can evolve. A fish, for example, will never evolve into a monkey, or anything like unto it. 

What I have stated I believe is consistent with the statements found in the Old Testament Institute Manual. Here are a few notable excerpts.

 

“Scientists who study fossils have discovered another interesting piece of information. Not only did complicated animals appear suddenly in the lower Cambrian rocks, but the basic forms of animals have not changed much since then. … To put it more plainly, this is the problem of the missing links. It is not a case of one missing link. It is not even a case of many missing links. Evolutionists are confronted with the problem of whole sections of the chain of life missing. …

“G. G. Simpson, quite aware of this problem also, says, ‘It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.’ [The Evolution of Life, p. 149.]

“Thus we see that not only is the sudden appearance of complete and intricate animals a problem for evolution, but the absence of change from one major type into another is equally serious. Again we can say that this is no new problem. Soon after collectors started accumulating fossils, it became obvious that fossils belong in the same major categories as do modern animals and plants. A number of scientists have commented in recent years about the lack of change and the absence of connecting links for specific kinds of animals. …"

And one more excerpt from that creation chapter:

“The word itself merely means ‘change,’ and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolution—if we understand the word evolution to mean ‘change.’ But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past. …

“Yes, new species of plants and animals are forming today. The almost endless intergradations of animals and plants in the world, the fantastic degeneration among parasites, and the adaptations of offense and defense, lead to the inevitable conclusion that change has occurred. However, the problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of the earth if we take the fossil record at face value.” (Coffin, Creation, pp. [13, 15].)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ldsguy422 A couple of years ago, I recall pulling up that particular lesson in the  OT institute manual interested in a variant of the OP's question -- were/are the authors in the Church's curriculum department open to theistic evolution. I was a little surprised when I saw that the lesson in question gave equal air time to the question of young earth creationism and old earth creationism and concluded that we don't know, but then went on -- through statements by Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. Coffin -- to only present arguments in favor of creationism and against evolution. Even in the '80s (I believe that is when the manual in question was originally written), they should have been able to find someone (if not at BYU someone in broader Christianity -- maybe [gasp] Catholicism) who could write something to balance Coffins creationism with a theistic evolution viewpoint, but did not.

I think I would be more impressed with a reference to the old OT manual if they had not seemed so biased towards creationism. I wish they had presented both sides of the creationist vs theistic evolutionist debate (much like they did the young vs. old creationism), or maybe even something like the so-called BYU evolution packet, or similar. Then I could take the manual more seriously on this topic.

Some of the confusion could be, as @Vort noted in another thread, maybe we are using the term "creationism" differently than Dr. Coffin would use it -- in a way that includes theistic evolution as a type or form of creationism. However, it seems that you, like me, read this particular manual as saying that creationism does not include theistic evolution as a variant. If Vort is right, then we have not been consistent in using the term creationism to include theistic evolution.

All that said, though, I think the now outdated OT manual you cite is evidence that some in the Church curriculum department were not open to theistic evolution in their day (as noted, I think it was originally published in the '80s and retired within the last few years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

 

@ldsguy422 A couple of years ago, I recall pulling up that particular lesson in the  OT institute manual interested in a variant of the OP's question -- were/are the authors in the Church's curriculum department open to theistic evolution. I was a little surprised when I saw that the lesson in question gave equal air time to the question of young earth creationism and old earth creationism and concluded that we don't know, but then went on -- through statements by Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. Coffin -- to only present arguments in favor of creationism and against evolution. Even in the '80s (I believe that is when the manual in question was originally written), they should have been able to find someone (if not at BYU someone in broader Christianity -- maybe [gasp] Catholicism) who could write something to balance Coffins creationism with a theistic evolution viewpoint, but did not.

I think I would be more impressed with a reference to the old OT manual if they had not seemed so biased towards creationism. I wish they had presented both sides of the creationist vs theistic evolutionist debate (much like they did the young vs. old creationism), or maybe even something like the so-called BYU evolution packet, or similar. Then I could take the manual more seriously on this topic.

Some of the confusion could be, as @Vort noted in another thread, maybe we are using the term "creationism" differently than Dr. Coffin would use it -- in a way that includes theistic evolution as a type or form of creationism. However, it seems that you, like me, read this particular manual as saying that creationism does not include theistic evolution as a variant. If Vort is right, then we have not been consistent in using the term creationism to include theistic evolution.

All that said, though, I think the now outdated OT manual you cite is evidence that some in the Church curriculum department were not open to theistic evolution in their day (as noted, I think it was originally published in the '80s and retired within the last few years).

There absolutely is not equal time given to young earth creationism. I don't believe in that either. And the manual actually tends to show little credence towards an earth that is 6,000 years old. Here is the only paragraph in that section regarding young earth creationism:

The first theory says that the word day is understood as it is used currently and therefore means a period of 24 hours. According to this theory, the earth was created in one week, or 168 hours. Thus, the earth would be approximately six thousand years old. (Many scholars agree that there were approximately four thousand years from Adam to Christ and that there have been nearly two thousand years since Christ was born.) Very few people, either members of the Church or members of other religions, hold to this theory, since the evidence for longer processes involved in the Creation is substantial.

When I read the manual, it sounds like the authors are in favor of the belief that God created/formed the animals. And over time, those animals often evolved into other species. They are explicitly endorsing microevolution. Of course everyone should believe in evolution to a certain degree, because the Ark couldn't possibly contain 8 million+ species. 

The word evolution, by itself, is such a broad term. So what do you mean by evolution? Do you believe in cosmic evolution, where origin of time and space came from a Big Bang? Do you believe in chemical evolution, where all of the natural elements of the world derive from hydrogen? Do you believe in stellar evolution, where all of the stars evolve from gas clouds? Do you believe in organic evolution, where the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur because of environmental changes? Do you believe in evolution by natural selection? Do you believe that animals can evolve into different orders? Do you believe there are natural limits to evolution? I think there's merit to some parts of evolution, yes, absolutely.

I believe God created (formed from living matter) a certain number of animals. And over the course of time, those animals have evolved into millions of different kinds of species. But again, I believe there are limits to how far something can evolve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

The word evolution, by itself, is such a broad term. So what do you mean by evolution? Do you believe in cosmic evolution, where origin of time and space came from a Big Bang? Do you believe in chemical evolution, where all of the natural elements of the world derive from hydrogen? Do you believe in stellar evolution, where all of the stars evolve from gas clouds? Do you believe in organic evolution, where the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur because of environmental changes? Do you believe in evolution by natural selection? Do you believe that animals can evolve into different orders? Do you believe there are natural limits to evolution? I think there's merit to some parts of evolution, yes, absolutely.

Up until now, I did not like the term "theistic evolution" because it implied that we were only talking about life on earth. You have shown me that the term theistic evolution can encompass all of that. With the caveat that my cosmology likely does not reduce down to simple yes/no answers to each of those simple questions, I would answer yes to most of that as a simple summary. I waffle between a view where God pushes the right buttons, pulls the right levers, enters the right constants, and presses "GO" and then let's the evolution play out with minimal to no further intervention or a view with Him getting the process started and then constantly shepherding the process along towards His goals (without looking to us like it is trending towards a specific set of goals).

 

1 hour ago, ldsguy422 said:

They are explicitly endorsing microevolution. Of course everyone should believe in evolution to a certain degree, because the Ark couldn't possibly contain 8 million+ species. 

At this point, we are back to @Carborendum's question of what a "type" is and where we draw the line between micro and macro evolution. We talked about horses, and maybe called that microevolution from eohippus to modern horses. But horses are also classed as odd-toed ungulates, along with tapirs and rhinos. Evolutionary biologists would say that all odd-toed ungulates share a common ancestor. In your view, does that make them the same "type"? Is this evidence of microevolution or macroevolution? I introduced whales, which are said to be evolved from land based even-toed ungulates, and even-toed and odd-toed ungulates all share a common ancestor. Does that mean that horses and rhinos and cows and giraffes and camels and hippos and whales are all the same "type" and evidence of microevolution? Where do we draw a line (however vague) between "types" and/or between micro and macro evolution?

 

1 hour ago, ldsguy422 said:

But there's a lot of documented evidence that carbon dating is flawed.

If I understand the stories correctly, Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. Henry Eyering had at least one "meeting" to talk about radiometric dating, and they both failed to convince the other of accuracy/inaccuracy of radiometric dating. As near as I can tell, there are examples of "outliers" like you describe, but there don't seem to be enough of these outliers to convince very many in the field that the entire principle of radiometric dating is flawed. As near as I can tell, these kind of examples have convinced them that care must be taken in performing the measurements (to avoid sample contamination, etc.) to get them right, but the theory is still considered sound and these kinds of examples are outliers that likely include some element of careless or incorrect methodology. I get the impression that it will take a lot of "outlier" data to convince the establishment that radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

And I have no idea how old the earth. But there's a lot of documented evidence that carbon dating is flawed. I don't think anyone could reasonably track that when the rate of decay isn't constant.  Here are a couple of snap shots.

14570487_10209701781174183_7906694019775

14604859_10209701759573643_6457698317362

carbon dating is only accurate to a small distance of time.  Once you hit the several thousand year span, carbon dating becomes rather unreliable.

In that aspect, you are right, carbon dating is only accurate to a point.

However, there are other forms of radiometric dating that are utilized in dating materials and other methods.  There is Uranium-Lead dating, Potassium-Argon dating, and others.  In addition, sometimes the age of fossils can be extracted from the soil layer or geological layer it is part of.  For example, if a bunch of mud pits can be dated to have formed at various times and their dating is found to be, for example, 100 million years ago, fossils caught in that layer can also be hypothesized to also be from that same era.

Carbon dating is only one of the forms that they utilize in dating fossils and other items from the past.

In many cases, they use several different methods to try to estimate the age of items they discover or find.  Carbon Dating is generally more useful for those who study history and archaeological areas of the more recent past, though even then we also use other methods to feasibly and logically consider how old it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

carbon dating is only accurate to a small distance of time.  Once you hit the several thousand year span, carbon dating becomes rather unreliable.

It's a bit more than that. Carbon dating is quite accurate up to 50,000 years ago, and in some circumstances can be accurate out to twice that length. So we won't be using 14C dating for dinosaur fossils, but for everything within modern human history, it's a great and very accurate tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Up until now, I did not like the term "theistic evolution" because it implied that we were only talking about life on earth. You have shown me that the term theistic evolution can encompass all of that. With the caveat that my cosmology likely does not reduce down to simple yes/no answers to each of those simple questions, I would answer yes to most of that as a simple summary. I waffle between a view where God pushes the right buttons, pulls the right levers, enters the right constants, and presses "GO" and then let's the evolution play out with minimal to no further intervention or a view with Him getting the process started and then constantly shepherding the process along towards His goals (without looking to us like it is trending towards a specific set of goals).

 

At this point, we are back to @Carborendum's question of what a "type" is and where we draw the line between micro and macro evolution. We talked about horses, and maybe called that microevolution from eohippus to modern horses. But horses are also classed as odd-toed ungulates, along with tapirs and rhinos. Evolutionary biologists would say that all odd-toed ungulates share a common ancestor. In your view, does that make them the same "type"? Is this evidence of microevolution or macroevolution? I introduced whales, which are said to be evolved from land based even-toed ungulates, and even-toed and odd-toed ungulates all share a common ancestor. Does that mean that horses and rhinos and cows and giraffes and camels and hippos and whales are all the same "type" and evidence of microevolution? Where do we draw a line (however vague) between "types" and/or between micro and macro evolution?

 

If I understand the stories correctly, Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. Henry Eyering had at least one "meeting" to talk about radiometric dating, and they both failed to convince the other of accuracy/inaccuracy of radiometric dating. As near as I can tell, there are examples of "outliers" like you describe, but there don't seem to be enough of these outliers to convince very many in the field that the entire principle of radiometric dating is flawed. As near as I can tell, these kind of examples have convinced them that care must be taken in performing the measurements (to avoid sample contamination, etc.) to get them right, but the theory is still considered sound and these kinds of examples are outliers that likely include some element of careless or incorrect methodology. I get the impression that it will take a lot of "outlier" data to convince the establishment that radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed.

Well, whatever kind is meant to be, we can be certain that we're talking about a group that shares similar characteristics, right? And I would say that every kind shares a common ancestor. There are wide ranges of variation within each kind. There's no question about that. I think a HUGE distinction between mainstream evolutionary beliefs and my own,  is I don't believe all animals are linked together. They don't all have common ancestors.

I believe Heavenly Father created a certain number of animals at some point. That is what should be meant by kind. And heck, it's even stated in Genesis 1.  "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And 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."

So what are the primitive animals that He created in the beginning? I don't know exactly, but there are clearly different classes. And I don't think it was just a couple things. The Cambrian explosion details how the vast majority of animal life started showing up in fossils. That to me sounds like a creation period. So these complex animals that suddenly appear - they can't be linked to other animals that were around in the Cambrian Period. They were separate creations. And each kind branches off and has hundreds of variations. There is no crossing over into others kinds. 

... Chemical and Stellar Evolution seem like a bit of a stretch to me. 93 other natural elements derived from hydrogen? How did the chemicals evolve? And stars are formed from gas clouds? Nobody has ever observed the formation of a star. And yet there are enough stars in the Milky Way where every person on earth could own over a trillion stars each. Certainly evolution has played a part in the world we see today, but I think God played a heavy part, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, how many different species do you suppose Noah had on the Ark? A thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? Whatever the number was, it would seem that evolution has played a pretty big hand in just the past 4,400 years - seeing how there are close to 9 million species in the world today. That's obviously on a microevolutionary scale, as 4,400 years couldn't even allow enough time for macroevolutionary processes to occur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

Well, whatever kind is meant to be, we can be certain that we're talking about a group that shares similar characteristics, right? And I would say that every kind shares a common ancestor. There are wide ranges of variation within each kind. There's no question about that. I think a HUGE distinction between mainstream evolutionary beliefs and my own,  is I don't believe all animals are linked together. They don't all have common ancestors.

I believe Heavenly Father created a certain number of animals at some point. That is what should be meant by kind. And heck, it's even stated in Genesis 1.  "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And 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."

So what are the primitive animals that He created in the beginning? I don't know exactly, but there are clearly different classes. And I don't think it was just a couple things. The Cambrian explosion details how the vast majority of animal life started showing up in fossils. That to me sounds like a creation period. So these complex animals that suddenly appear - they can't be linked to other animals that were around in the Cambrian Period. They were separate creations. And each kind branches off and has hundreds of variations. There is no crossing over into others kinds. 

... Chemical and Stellar Evolution seem like a bit of a stretch to me. 93 other natural elements derived from hydrogen? How did the chemicals evolve? And stars are formed from gas clouds? Nobody has ever observed the formation of a star. And yet there are enough stars in the Milky Way where every person on earth could own over a trillion stars each. Certainly evolution has played a part in the world we see today, but I think God played a heavy part, too. 

So your objections to organic evolution are not primarily scientific, but religious. In my view, religion (at least our religion) says nothing about God's mechanics in creation. The Church takes no position on scientific questions. There is nothing in the theory of organic evolution that contradicts revealed truth. Nothing. The only contradictions are in beliefs people infer about evolutionists, including some evolutionists themselves. Organic evolution does not disallow God or require nonintentional occurrences determined solely by chance.

You may believe as you choose, of course. But saying you don't believe evolution because of your religion is a deeply unconvincing argument, far moreso to anyone who actually understands the rudiments of organic evolution and/or scientific thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

So your objections to organic evolution are not primarily scientific, but religious. In my view, religion (at least our religion) says nothing about God's mechanics in creation. The Church takes no position on scientific questions. There is nothing in the theory of organic evolution that contradicts revealed truth. Nothing. The only contradictions are in beliefs people infer about evolutionists, including some evolutionists themselves. Organic evolution does not disallow God or require nonintentional occurrences determined solely by chance.

You may believe as you choose, of course. But saying you don't believe evolution because of your religion is a deeply unconvincing argument, far moreso to anyone who actually understands the rudiments of organic evolution and/or scientific thought.

I think it depends on whether you see the scriptures as LITERAL or SYMBOLIC or FIGURATIVE.

For those who see it as literal, we actually have a timeline of how long the world has been around with men on it.

The math supposedly equals around 6000 years at this point. 

That does not enjoin the evolutionary record in any way, shape or form in regards to macroevolution and men.

Furthermore, if ALL creatures except for those on the ark and who could live in water DIED during the flood, there are several problems with this.  First, an Ark would have to be of such tremendous size that it would be the largest sea faring vessel to ever be constructed (and the largest man made structure ever created) if it were to hold all the animals alive (according to secular thought) at the time it was built as there is not time enough for all the variations of creatures to have evolved since then into what we have now.  We are given the dimensions of the ark to a degree, and it isn't large enough by a long shot.  It's not even a 10th or 100th large enough.  The only other excursion would be to think that somehow the numbers were fudged or we got the wrong information currently in our Bibles in regards to how large the Ark was.

Many of the problems come in regards to what we find in Genesis.

On the otherhand, what we read in Genesis could largely be seen to accommodate the ideas of the Big Bang and evolution in the order of which it is written in Genesis 1. 

Questions come up in regards to our Church's interpretations of the Scripture regarding Genesis and the Pearl of Great Price.  In this we see two creations, that of the spiritual creation prior to that of the physical/temporal creation.  In this, we see that all things were created before they were.  This can also raise questions regarding macro-evolution and the record.

In fact, over half of the book of Genesis brings up things that really do not agree with our geological, secular, or even historical records (historically, the Biblical stories are seen more as a cultural religious offshoot from other nations/empires that held the Jews captive and thus have origins in such notions as Babylonian mythology and other such ideas).

The Bible may not say much about the mechanics, but there are things that, if taken literally, does not currently agree with our secular knowledge of things.

I suppose if one feels the bible is a false history, a false record, a myth, or not literal, or is purely symbolic or figurative, they would not have any of these concerns. 

For those who do, it creates a conundrum of what you say or do in various situations.  For example, in my secular life, the Bible can be a useful document for a specific cultural background and mythology, but it is not really accepted as something that is "true."  In my faith and belief, I actually am a literalist in my belief in the Bible (and Book of Mormon as well).  I can see it also has symbolism and figurative writing while relating true and historical events in regards to my religion and belief.  However, my secular and worldly job and studies say very different things about the origins of the Bible than my faith and belief do currently.

I expect that some day in the future (could be a far future looking at the current conflicts between the two) that as we learn more on science and history that the two will conjoin and be one in understanding, but I don't think it has reached that point yet.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

So your objections to organic evolution are not primarily scientific, but religious. In my view, religion (at least our religion) says nothing about God's mechanics in creation. The Church takes no position on scientific questions. There is nothing in the theory of organic evolution that contradicts revealed truth. Nothing. The only contradictions are in beliefs people infer about evolutionists, including some evolutionists themselves. Organic evolution does not disallow God or require nonintentional occurrences determined solely by chance.

You may believe as you choose, of course. But saying you don't believe evolution because of your religion is a deeply unconvincing argument, far moreso to anyone who actually understands the rudiments of organic evolution and/or scientific thought.

Do you have any distinctions from mainstream evolutionary beliefs? Evolution is such a broad concept. I mean, do you believe all animals, for example, descended from a common ancestor? Do they all essentially evolve from a rock? Do you believe modern humans have been around for 200,000 years? Take religion out of it, and I could still enumerate a filthy long laundry list of objections I have with mainstream evolution. Religion only helps to strengthen the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think it depends on whether you see the scriptures as LITERAL or SYMBOLIC or FIGURATIVE.

For those who see it as literal, we actually have a timeline of how long the world has been around with men on it.

The math supposedly equals around 6000 years at this point. 

That does not enjoin the evolutionary record in any way, shape or form in regards to macroevolution and men.

Furthermore, if ALL creatures except for those on the ark and who could live in water DIED during the flood, there are several problems with this.  First, an Ark would have to be of such tremendous size that it would be the largest sea faring vessel to ever be constructed (and the largest man made structure ever created) if it were to hold all the animals alive (according to secular thought) at the time it was built as there is not time enough for all the variations of creatures to have evolved since then into what we have now.  We are given the dimensions of the ark to a degree, and it isn't large enough by a long shot.  It's not even a 10th or 100th large enough.  The only other excursion would be to think that somehow the numbers were fudged or we got the wrong information currently in our Bibles in regards to how large the Ark was.

Many of the problems come in regards to what we find in Genesis.

On the otherhand, what we read in Genesis could largely be seen to accommodate the ideas of the Big Bang and evolution in the order of which it is written in Genesis 1. 

Questions come up in regards to our Church's interpretations of the Scripture regarding Genesis and the Pearl of Great Price.  In this we see two creations, that of the spiritual creation prior to that of the physical/temporal creation.  In this, we see that all things were created before they were.  This can also raise questions regarding macro-evolution and the record.

In fact, over half of the book of Genesis brings up things that really do not agree with our geological, secular, or even historical records (historically, the Biblical stories are seen more as a cultural religious offshoot from other nations/empires that held the Jews captive and thus have origins in such notions as Babylonian mythology and other such ideas).

The Bible may not say much about the mechanics, but there are things that, if taken literally, does not currently agree with our secular knowledge of things.

I suppose if one feels the bible is a false history, a false record, a myth, or not literal, or is purely symbolic or figurative, they would not have any of these concerns. 

For those who do, it creates a conundrum of what you say or do in various situations.  For example, in my secular life, the Bible can be a useful document for a specific cultural background and mythology, but it is not really accepted as something that is "true."  In my faith and belief, I actually am a literalist in my belief in the Bible (and Book of Mormon as well).  I can see it also has symbolism and figurative writing while relating true and historical events in regards to my religion and belief.  However, my secular and worldly job and studies say very different things about the origins of the Bible than my faith and belief do currently.

I expect that some day in the future (could be a far future looking at the current conflicts between the two) that as we learn more on science and history that the two will conjoin and be one in understanding, but I don't think it has reached that point yet.

It's estimated that 99% of all species that have ever lived, have died out. Seems much more likely that a giant flood would be responsible for mass extinction, more so than anything else. Especially when you consider that these ancient, primitive animals wouldn't have been sharing the earth with humans, often considered the greatest threat to animal life. There are well over 200 accounts of a great flood in just about every culture and nation under the sun. Seems a little too big to simply be a coincidence.

And you know what else coincides with the flood? The continents and the people dividing. In Genesis 10:25 we find, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided." Science tells us that this super continent broke apart 175 million years ago. Yet, a document only a couple thousand years old suggests that it happened in their days. 

Edited by ldsguy422
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Do you have any distinctions from mainstream evolutionary beliefs? Evolution is such a broad concept.

Yes, it is very broad, indeed. And though I am reasonably well educated in the fundamentals of modern evolutionary theory, I do not pretend to have a deep enough grasp on it that I can give a thoughtful critique. It's like asking if I have any disagreements with the foundational elements of quantum chromodynamics or jet combustion chamber design or CAD modeling for civil engineering or the fabric texture gradations in fashion or use of dynamic camera perspective in modern filmmaking. I may or may not have thoughts on any of those areas, but no, I don't have any great insights pointing out obvious problems in them.

2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

I mean, do you believe all animals, for example, descended from a common ancestor?

Sure. Seems a reasonable extrapolation to me.

2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Do they all essentially evolve from a rock?

Of course, the idea that life originated once and living things evolved from a single common ancestor is distinct from the idea of "biogenesis". The latter attempts to answer the question, "How did life arise originally?" That is not a question of organic evolution, and cannot be examined with the same toolset as evolution.

But fundamentally, God did create life, somehow. Do you know how? (Hint: No, you don't.) So the question of mechanics—"How did God do thus-and-such?"—is separate from the more meta question of reality—"Did God do thus-and-such?" Religion addresses primarily the latter meta question, and rarely or never the former.

2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Do you believe modern humans have been around for 200,000 years?

Sure, if that's what current scientific types (anthropologists or whatever) claim. (I'm actually pretty unimpressed by much anthropology I've encountered. Way too much like sociology.) From what I know of the fossil record and how the ice ages have occurred, somewhere in the 50,000—200,000 year range seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'd have difficulty believing that essentially modern humans have been around for, say, 8,000 years or less, and equally hard to believe that they had been around for, say, a million years. The first is way too short, and the other way too long. Right around the 100,000-year mark makes sense to me.

2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Take religion out of it, and I could still enumerate a filthy long laundry list of objections I have with mainstream evolution. Religion only helps to strengthen the argument.

Perhaps you could, friend. But that doesn't make those objections valid.

Look, maybe you actually have valid objections to organic evolution. I very seriously doubt it, just as I very seriously doubt you have insights to erode the foundations of Maxwell's equations governing electromagnetic interactions. But what do I know? Just this: If you couch your objections to organic evolution based on religious grounds, you immediately lose my belief. Organic evolution is a scientific model, not a religious creed. Using the tools of religious inquiry to investigate a scientific model makes about as much sense as using the tools of literary critique to examine the nanoscale solid state dynamics of a computer chip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ldsguy422 said:

And you know what else coincides with the flood? The continents and the people dividing. In Genesis 10:25 we find, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided." Science tells us that this super continent broke apart 175 million years ago. Yet, a document only a couple thousand years old suggests that it happened in their days. 

Come on, ldsguy. Do you really believe the ancient Hebrews knew the planetary nature of the Earth and had a grasp of the rudiments of continental drift? The division of the earth in the days of Peleg obviously refers to a political division: In Peleg's days, the earth was divided up between the various factions or races that at that time inhabited the known world. Equating Peleg's earth divisions to modern models of continental drift is an obvious misapplication of what the Bible was saying. It's like reading that "light is truth" and then saying, "See? This is talking about quantum cryptography!" No, it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

Come on, ldsguy. Do you really believe the ancient Hebrews knew the planetary nature of the Earth and had a grasp of the rudiments of continental drift? The division of the earth in the days of Peleg obviously refers to a political division: In Peleg's days, the earth was divided up between the various factions or races that at that time inhabited the known world. Equating Peleg's earth divisions to modern models of continental drift is an obvious misapplication of what the Bible was saying. It's like reading that "light is truth" and then saying, "See? This is talking about quantum cryptography!" No, it's not.

Certainly the divisions among the people was part of it. But, it seems possible that a catastrophic event like a great flood could have completely changed the landscape of the earth and accelerated the division (and again, almost every ancient culture in the world has its own version of a great flood). It's not like this scripture is discussing plate tectonics or any complex principle. It's speaking in simple terms - the earth divided. A 10-year old could write that. I don't know that this happened. I'm simply speculating. But, in Genesis 11 we see the story of the Tower of Babel. In the book of Jasher, it's stated that Nimrod sought to build a tower because he didn't trust in the Lord's covenant that he would never again flood the earth. Shortly after, the people were dispersed all around the world. So, perhaps the lands were already divided. But the displacement had a wide range in geographic relocation. I'm guessing at least Far East Asia, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Seems like dividing the lands would be an easier way to separate people, as opposed to physically transplanting someone to another land. I guess you could argue that they simply wandered off in the wilderness and traveled for many miles and many years... This is just a thought. Not going to bet the farm against this idea, but it seems somewhat sensible. 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Yes, it is very broad, indeed. And though I am reasonably well educated in the fundamentals of modern evolutionary theory, I do not pretend to have a deep enough grasp on it that I can give a thoughtful critique. It's like asking if I have any disagreements with the foundational elements of quantum chromodynamics or jet combustion chamber design or CAD modeling for civil engineering or the fabric texture gradations in fashion or use of dynamic camera perspective in modern filmmaking. I may or may not have thoughts on any of those areas, but no, I don't have any great insights pointing out obvious problems in them.

Sure. Seems a reasonable extrapolation to me.

Of course, the idea that life originated once and living things evolved from a single common ancestor is distinct from the idea of "biogenesis". The latter attempts to answer the question, "How did life arise originally?" That is not a question of organic evolution, and cannot be examined with the same toolset as evolution.

But fundamentally, God did create life, somehow. Do you know how? (Hint: No, you don't.) So the question of mechanics—"How did God do thus-and-such?"—is separate from the more meta question of reality—"Did God do thus-and-such?" Religion addresses primarily the latter meta question, and rarely or never the former.

Sure, if that's what current scientific types (anthropologists or whatever) claim. (I'm actually pretty unimpressed by much anthropology I've encountered. Way too much like sociology.) From what I know of the fossil record and how the ice ages have occurred, somewhere in the 50,000—200,000 year range seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'd have difficulty believing that essentially modern humans have been around for, say, 8,000 years or less, and equally hard to believe that they had been around for, say, a million years. The first is way too short, and the other way too long. Right around the 100,000-year mark makes sense to me.

Perhaps you could, friend. But that doesn't make those objections valid.

Look, maybe you actually have valid objections to organic evolution. I very seriously doubt it, just as I very seriously doubt you have insights to erode the foundations of Maxwell's equations governing electromagnetic interactions. But what do I know? Just this: If you couch your objections to organic evolution based on religious grounds, you immediately lose my belief. Organic evolution is a scientific model, not a religious creed. Using the tools of religious inquiry to investigate a scientific model makes about as much sense as using the tools of literary critique to examine the nanoscale solid state dynamics of a computer chip.

Let me just touch on one of the issues which I believe can reasonably be challenged. Humans haven't been around for 100,000 years or 200,000 years. No way. Basically all of progression in human history has happened in the past 2-4 thousand years. What were they doing the previous 100-195k years? 

The real issue, however, is a population paradox. No sensible statistical model could support the data that humans have been around for 200,00 years. This would mean that the human population was doubling, on average, every 6,250 years (at the current rate, we’re doubling every 75 years). That sort of population increase is simply not sustainable – you can’t have your population double every couple thousand years without the threat of imminent extinction. Remember that 99% of all species have gone extinct. 

Imagine if you had a moderate tribe of 100 early humans nearly 200,000 years ago. 6,250 years later that tribe would then have a population of 200. The balance that would be necessary to sustain that kind of razor sharp growth is unimaginable. If our imaginary tribe had, say, an annual birth rate of 10 newborns, or 62,250 in 6,250 years, the deaths would have to number 62,050. The death rate for that 6,250 year times span would have to be 99.7% of the birthrate. Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 14.9 per 1000. That is not even close to being in the same ballpark. 

Edited by ldsguy422
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ldsguy422 > This topic comes up at least twice a year and it is always the same people defending macro-evolution without any factual evidence to provide for macro-evolution (all provided is always speculation and conjecture of what exists).

Just maybe, if they would actually start providing some evidence for macro-evolution it might stop this continual argument. But, as you can see, anyone arguing for macro-evolution could not provide a single shred of evidence for it (that is observable, repeatable, or testable).

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

@ldsguy422 > This topic comes up at least twice a year and it is always the same people defending macro-evolution without any factual evidence to provide for macro-evolution (all provided is always speculation and conjecture of what exists).

Just maybe, if they would actually start providing some evidence for macro-evolution it might stop this continual argument. But, as you can see, anyone arguing for macro-evolution could not provide a single shred of evidence for it (that is observable, repeatable, or testable).

There is a vast quantity of evidence in the fossil record that establishes the idea of organic evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

There is a vast quantity of evidence in the fossil record that establishes the idea of organic evolution.

Fossil records are not evidence for macro-evolution. They are only evidence that an animal existed, nothing more, nothing less. You cannot prove the fossil record is a past ancestor of any creature or that another creature stemmed from it without conjecture.

But let's be clear I said "macro" which you changed to "organic". I have no problem with organic evolution. I see it from my wife and I to our children. They are not a clone of me or her.

Edited by Anddenex
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