Lds & The Evolution/creation Debate

[larsumms]

Brigham Young said: Mankind are here because because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet. (JD, BY, V7:285)

Mormons beleive in Terraformation - planet building. This is quite different than mainstream Christianity, who believe in life generation from raw materials. We believe that also, in a sense. This is how the resurrection will be done. But birth is different. Brigham Young said that nothing comes into existance except by birth.

Evolutionists have stopped adding to the fossil record because they feel that they have found enough evidence to refute the "Life Generation" believers. This leaves us in a weird position. Comparing similarities in anatomy or genome between species, Phylum and Kingdom could only show that evolution happened, but it can never prove that it happened HERE. This can only be done with the fossil record.

We have had over 100 years to find the missing links. There are about 10 million species on earth. So there should be 5 to 10 million evolutionary links to be found. After a hundred years, you would think we would have found a million evoltuionary lniks in the fossil record. But we haven't. The number of fossils that are considered plausible links is very very low. You will not find a count or inventory on the web. It has been buried because it is embarrasingly low - less than 1000. This is why they make such fanfare in the media when someone finds a fossil which may be an evolutionary link - because it is so rare.

The Terraformation Model of Origin is the best model to explain the current data (or lack of it). We should promote it. People need to be made aware of it. It is interesting to note that Brigham Young made his comments about planet building around the same time that Charles Darwin published his "Origin of the Species".

[JohnBirchSociety]

Brigham Young said: Mankind are here because because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet. (JD, BY, V7:285)

Mormons beleive in Terraformation - planet building. This is quite different than mainstream Christianity, who believe in life generation from raw materials. We believe that also, in a sense. This is how the resurrection will be done. But birth is different. Brigham Young said that nothing comes into existance except by birth.

Evolutionists have stopped adding to the fossil record because they feel that they have found enough evidence to refute the "Life Generation" believers. This leaves us in a weird position. Comparing similarities in anatomy or genome between species, Phylum and Kingdom could only show that evolution happened, but it can never prove that it happened HERE. This can only be done with the fossil record.

We have had over 100 years to find the missing links. There are about 10 million species on earth. So there should be 5 to 10 million evolutionary links to be found. After a hundred years, you would think we would have found a million evoltuionary lniks in the fossil record. But we haven't. The number of fossils that are considered plausible links is very very low. You will not find a count or inventory on the web. It has been buried because it is embarrasingly low - less than 1000. This is why they make such fanfare in the media when someone finds a fossil which may be an evolutionary link - because it is so rare.

The Terraformation Model of Origin is the best model to explain the current data (or lack of it). We should promote it. People need to be made aware of it. It is interesting to note that Brigham Young made his comments about planet building around the same time that Charles Darwin published his "Origin of the Species".

Yes, it is interesting. It seems Satan always has a counterfit proposal to the truth.

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

Brigham Young said: Mankind are here because because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet. (JD, BY, V7:285)

Mormons beleive in Terraformation - planet building. This is quite different than mainstream Christianity, who believe in life generation from raw materials. We believe that also, in a sense. This is how the resurrection will be done. But birth is different. Brigham Young said that nothing comes into existance except by birth.

Evolutionists have stopped adding to the fossil record because they feel that they have found enough evidence to refute the "Life Generation" believers. This leaves us in a weird position. Comparing similarities in anatomy or genome between species, Phylum and Kingdom could only show that evolution happened, but it can never prove that it happened HERE. This can only be done with the fossil record.

We have had over 100 years to find the missing links. There are about 10 million species on earth. So there should be 5 to 10 million evolutionary links to be found. After a hundred years, you would think we would have found a million evoltuionary lniks in the fossil record. But we haven't. The number of fossils that are considered plausible links is very very low. You will not find a count or inventory on the web. It has been buried because it is embarrasingly low - less than 1000. This is why they make such fanfare in the media when someone finds a fossil which may be an evolutionary link - because it is so rare.

The Terraformation Model of Origin is the best model to explain the current data (or lack of it). We should promote it. People need to be made aware of it. It is interesting to note that Brigham Young made his comments about planet building around the same time that Charles Darwin published his "Origin of the Species".

I don't know enough about the "science side" of this to comment much, but there are a few points I'd like to reiterate.

We don't believe in a "creation" but rather an "organization" of materials ALREADY PRESENT. God, Himself, is co-eternal with us. Eternal because the intelligences and elements that compose Him have always existed. We want to assume there had to be a beginning and an end. Why does that have to be the case? Has anyone wondered why many if not most of us feel this need for there to be a beginning and an end?

I hesitate to "bow" to science. Science produces many wonderful things, no doubt about it, but remember King Benjamin's address? We are fallen men and women. We tend to forget that. We have fallen minds that are trying to make sense of a fallen world. Science is an artifact of THIS existence. Any and all inspiration comes from God. The very God that science does not acknowledge (because it can't see Him) -- that self-same God is the one responsible for all of the breakthroughs that science claims as its own. How ironic.

[Doctor Steuss]

Science = How G-d does things.

Religion = Why G-d does things.

IMO, we should avoid mistaking one for the other.

[EricM]

Science = How G-d does things.

Religion = Why G-d does things.

IMO, we should avoid mistaking one for the other.

I would have to agree with you. I tend to find the greatest balance and understanding when I take both my theological beliefs and my scientific beliefs together. They actually mesh quite well, and things tend to make a bit more sense. That's not to say that I'm not completely in the dark with most things, because I most certainly am. I'm working on it, though.

[bunnzy]

I don't know who said it, but some time a go i read that someone said that true science and true theology are the same thing.

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't know who said it, but some time a go i read that someone said that true science and true theology are the same thing.

Dr. Eyring (the apostle's dad) said that "there is no conflict between true science and true religion."

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

Science = How G-d does things.

Religion = Why G-d does things.

IMO, we should avoid mistaking one for the other.

My question is, why can't Science sit down and have a conversation with the Author of it all? Just think of what could be accomplished THEN. By their "own" rules, they exclude Him, and yet (I believe) He is the one who breathes life into the efforts of science to begin with. No God means no inspiration or breakthroughs.

[Doctor Steuss]

My question is, why can't Science sit down and have a conversation with the Author of it all? Just think of what could be accomplished THEN. By their "own" rules, they exclude Him, and yet (I believe) He is the one who breathes life into the efforts of science to begin with. No God means no inspiration or breakthroughs.

I think that some scientists do "sit down with the Author of it all." Dr. Eyring often stated how much beauty (and G-d) he found while looking at science.

The problem (as I see it), is those who write scripture probably don't have the same "scientific" understanding that G-d has. He trains them in salvation, not in quantum mechanics. He teaches them righteousness, not botony. He shows them the way to heaven, not the way to biomolecular engineering. Therefore, we shouldn’t be offended if “science” doesn’t match “religion.” Although they are essentially two sides of the same coin, we shouldn’t try to force heads into tails.

Of course, this is just my opinion… and I’m often wrong when it comes to things divine.

[MAsh]

Yes, it is interesting. It seems Satan always has a counterfit proposal to the truth.

Evolution is not necessarily contrary to the Gospel and the Church doesn't have an official position on evolution. See: http://mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Mike

[HiJolly]

My question is, why can't Science sit down and have a conversation with the Author of it all? Just think of what could be accomplished THEN. By their "own" rules, they exclude Him, and yet (I believe) He is the one who breathes life into the efforts of science to begin with. No God means no inspiration or breakthroughs.

I like Doc S's response, but being a raving egotist, I must say that the problem is the methodology employed by the scientific method(SM). What fun about THAT, is that the father of the SM is Renee Decartes, who received it from AN ANGEL. I love to point that out to the scientific types, who then say, "aah, well, actually Popper is the father of SM..." ...sure, sure...

scientific method of gaining knowledge ("It's aliiiiivve!!" --Dr. Frankenstein)

PRO: Works really well to investigate assumptions about physical reality

CON: Cannot deal with subjective or personal reality; cannot explain spiritual experiences or 'God'.

Challenge: Must work on observation, measurement, experimentation, controlling environments, eliminating the unknown through testing. "God did it" is anathema and is not allowed. Science freely admits it is not capable of dealing with God.

While we as members of the Gospel know that "all truth can be circumscribed into one great Whole", nevertheless, scientific truth is never going to take us there (*I* don't think, anyway). It HAS taken us far, though, and I think it's pretty wonderful, myself. Just don't use a hammer to darn your socks, if you know what I mean...

HiJolly

[Doctor Steuss]

Evolution is not necessarily contrary to the Gospel and the Church doesn't have an official position on evolution. See: http://mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Mike

A must read! Thank you Mike (not only for posting a link to it, but for writing it…).

[...]

the father of the SM is Renee Decartes, who received it from AN ANGEL.

[...]

I never knew this. Groovy.

[bjw]

Evolution is not necessarily contrary to the Gospel and the Church doesn't have an official position on evolution. See: http://mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Mike

While the church does not believe in creation ex nihilo, it does reject contemporary evolutionary theory. It also believes in a literal global flood. From the official LDS church website: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

Also, a simple search at LDS.org for evolution will give many links opposing evolution. When I converted to the church, it was in fact one of the conditions I mentioned before joining, that I would not join if the church accepted evolution, and I was assured by the bishop and missionaries that it does not.

What the Mormons I've seen that claim to accept evolution actually believe seems closer to what is believed by Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe rather than modern evolution as taught by Gould, Johansen, Sagan, etc. The RTB model requires God in the evolutionary process, whereas the model taught by Gould and others is by chance, mutations, etc. and requires no god.

[rickg]

While the church does not believe in creation ex nihilo, it does reject contemporary evolutionary theory. It also believes in a literal global flood. From the official LDS church website: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

Also, a simple search at LDS.org for evolution will give many links opposing evolution. When I converted to the church, it was in fact one of the conditions I mentioned before joining, that I would not join if the church accepted evolution, and I was assured by the bishop and missionaries that it does not.

What the Mormons I've seen that claim to accept evolution actually believe seems closer to what is believed by Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe rather than modern evolution as taught by Gould, Johansen, Sagan, etc. The RTB model requires God in the evolutionary process, whereas the model taught by Gould and others is by chance, mutations, etc. and requires no god.

I'm so glad to read this. I'm not REAL intelligent in this topic(or many others), but this is exactly how I've thought for years. There's too many clear-cut examples of types of evolution to deny it. But that we came from monkeys, no.

While we're on this track, what's the belief in the time frame of, say, the old trestament? We're not stuck on Adam & Eve being created 5,000BC, ect are we? That's one of the biggest weapons the scientifically-minded use against "believers", that the general bible-believing concesus puts all the old testament events withing this time frame, when there's no way it could be so.

[HiJolly]

While we're on this track, what's the belief in the time frame of, say, the old trestament? We're not stuck on Adam & Eve being created 5,000BC, ect are we? That's one of the biggest weapons the scientifically-minded use against "believers", that the general bible-believing concesus puts all the old testament events withing this time frame, when there's no way it could be so.

I believe that the ages of the patriarchs (which Bishop Ussher used for the chronology that first placed Adam & Eve at 4004BC) is not meant to be taken literally, but is a result of the Hebrew/Jewish mystics embedding hidden meaning in their ages via gematria (a mystical numbering system that provides spiritual insights to those who know the code, and who meditate on the possible meanings). Many Christians, even most, are convinced that Ussher was correct and the ages were meant to be literal(even though most haven't even heard of him). I'm not stuck on it, though, myself.

Joseph guessed the earth was billions of years old, (at least 1.5b, if I recall correctly), which is much closer than Ussher, IMO.

HiJolly

[bjw]

I'm so glad to read this. I'm not REAL intelligent in this topic(or many others), but this is exactly how I've thought for years. There's too many clear-cut examples of types of evolution to deny it. But that we came from monkeys, no.

While we're on this track, what's the belief in the time frame of, say, the old trestament? We're not stuck on Adam & Eve being created 5,000BC, ect are we? That's one of the biggest weapons the scientifically-minded use against "believers", that the general bible-believing concesus puts all the old testament events withing this time frame, when there's no way it could be so.

As a creationist, I agree that there are many clear-cut examples of evolution, but they are always "change that occurs within a kind" and not apes changing to humans or "goo to you" evolution. I believe that God designed organisms with the ability to adapt to their environments and that mutations do occur. I personally believe the creation model that Answers in Genesis teaches (with the exception of the "ex nihilo" doctrine, which Mormonism disagrees with) and feel that their scientists have provided enough evidence against athiestic evolution. I know many good believers that believe the RTB model but I don't always agree with their line of reasoning.

A majority of creationists believe the Old Testament is a literal history and that the global flood aged the earth and created the fossil record when several major catastrophes were caused by God to cause the flood. You can read more about this here:

http://www.globalflood.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

While creationists admire the work of Ussher in "Annals" most are in agreement that he was too hasty in trying to find an exact date for creation. Most believe that, while the Old Testament is reliable, there may be some inaccuracies in the ages and histories that make the Old Testament insufficient to formulate an "exact" year, date, etc. of creation.

[bjw]

I believe that the ages of the patriarchs (which Bishop Ussher used for the chronology that first placed Adam & Eve at 4004BC) is not meant to be taken literally, but is a result of the Hebrew/Jewish mystics embedding hidden meaning in their ages via gematria (a mystical numbering system that provides spiritual insights to those who know the code, and who meditate on the possible meanings).

This thing about hidden meanings fascinates me. I always liked the idea of their being more than one interpretation of scripture. I've heard of things like this before but not about the dates. I'll definitely look into this.

[Tsuzuki]

I don't know who said it, but some time a go i read that someone said that true science and true theology are the same thing.

<blockquote>"Knowledge is the father of human intelligence, and faith is its mother.

There were two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.

It is knowledge which should and which can fertilize faith; otherwise she exhausts herself with monstrous abortions and gives birth to nothing but phantoms.

It is faith which ought to be the recompense of knowledge and the object for which he strives, without her he ends by doubting himself, becomes greatly discouraged and very soon despairing.

Thus the believers, on the one hand, who despise science and misunderstand nature, and the scientists, on the other hand, who insult, reject and would like to destroy faith, are both of them the enemies of the light and dash out to contend with one another in the outer darkness where Proudhon and Veuillot raise their voices turn and turn about, in a way which sounds worse than tears, and go on to grind their teeth.

True faith cannot possibly come into conflict with true science. Also, every explanation of dogma which science demonstrates as false ought to be rejected by faith.

We are no longer living in the days when it is the fashion to say: I believe it because it is beyond reason. We must say nowadays: I believe because it would be unreasonable not to do so;

Credo quia absurdum non credere.

Science and faith are not two engines of war set on a collision course: they are the two columns destined to support the pediment of the temple of peace. It is necessary to clean the gold of the sanctuary so often tarnished by the grime of priestcraft."

<div align="right">- Eliphas Levi, The Great Secret</div></blockquote>

[HiJolly]

This thing about hidden meanings fascinates me. I always liked the idea of their being more than one interpretation of scripture. I've heard of things like this before but not about the dates. I'll definitely look into this.

If you want to peruse an interesting text on the topic, a good introduction is found here: http://www.archive.org/details/texts

You might want to search for "Materials for the Study of the Apostolic Gnosis" by Lea & Bond. I have only read the first forty pages or so, but it's certainly interesting.

HiJolly