Based on the content of my previous posts dealing with evolution, you can tell I am not a fan.  I like to point out the weaknesses in the evolutionists’ arguments and show everyone that it is not the infallible theory that many would have us believe.  I don’t need to look at the so-called facts to accomplish this; it is done with basic principles in the philosophy of science.  Those principles allow us to ascertain whether some truth claims comprise certain or uncertain knowledge, based on the nature of the evidence.  

My disdain for evolutionary dogma has largely been fueled by atheistic, biological determinists who argue that there is no supreme creator and no spiritual existence; there is only matter-in-motion.  According to these folks, what is real in the world is physical matter that obeys the laws of nature – there is nothing else.  Humanity evolved through random, undirected processes, and because the mounting evidence seems to support the notion of common ancestry, there is no need for God.  They have filled all the gaps (questions) in nature and completely removed God from consideration.  

This sort of doctrine offends my Christian sensitivities.  It goes against what I have been taught and felt about the world for most of my life.  And it does not help that whenever I communicate with these people, I am accused of being an irrational “IDiot” (ID stands for Intelligent Design).  Many of them are so blinded by their dogmatic adherence to evolutionism that they are not willing to consider seriously opposing viewpoints.  Not very scholarly, is it?

Well, it seems as though there is some positive change in the evolutionary community – not a questioning of evolutionary beliefs, but an acceptance of deity.  A few are discovering that there is no joy and happiness in atheistic evolution.  They are longing for something more, something meaningful and lasting.  They are longing for God.  This longing for God among evolutionists has created a new belief system called “Theistic Evolution” or TE, for short.

TE combines belief in an active and caring God (theism) with evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.  One of TE’s biggest advocates is Francis Collins, a leading DNA researcher and former chair of the Human Genome Project.  He accepts the ‘compelling’ evidence for evolution.  Evolution, he believes, was used by God to create humanity.  He also claims that there is compelling evidence to believe in God.  His evidence for God comes from the moral code (Light of Christ) that is in all of us and the universal desire to seek out God.  Because of a recent spiritual experience, he has also come to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.  His is a wonderful story of atheist turned believer.

Despite our vastly different opinions of evolution, I consider Collins and others like him, brothers or sisters in the faith.  I would gladly sit down to lunch with a TE.  I feel the same way toward Latter-day Saints who embrace opinions on creation that differ from mine.  I believe that Mormon evolutionists, LDS creation literalists, and others like me who fall somewhere in between can all enjoy full fellowship with the saints.  This is only possible if we respect each other, notwithstanding our different views.  Respecting each other in spite of our differences is the Christian way.

 


Comments

Ryan Nilsson

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:05:52

Call it a personality defect, a misguided sense of self-righteousness, or just the right attitude; I cannot tolerate evolutionists within the Church as well as you, Dave. I think it is because I feel that they just ought to know better. The problem is that they subordinate the scriptures to Darwinism. It’s hard to fellowship with people like that. They figure, “What, the scriptures don’t align with the popular theory of Darwinism? Oh, then the scriptures must be inaccurate, not my pet theory.” While a Church member, albeit foolishly, has the right to take such a stance, I think there is little merit in arguing that such a position is not dangerous. Evolution naturally leads to doubting the scriptures (what others might consider “reinterpreting” the scriptures), which leads to doubting the gospel, and ultimately the very atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s that dangerous. I know of people who have lost their faith in this way. When dwelled on long enough, this course ultimately leads to atheism. Will every LDS evolutionist become an atheist? No. But they are in peril of doing so, if they follow the conclusions of evolutionary dogma.
This is a precarious situation for a Latter-day Saint to put himself in personally. But it becomes other people’s problem once the LDS evolutionist begins to preach their point of view. At that point they become a threat to the salvation of others. Consider this situation: A Bishop puts an LDS evolutionist in a calling teaching primary. As the evolutionist teaches the children, referring to the Creation accounts or the Flood of Noah, he tells the children, “Now kids, these are nice stories and all, but they didn’t REALLY happen.” How long do you suppose the Bishop would/should keep that evolutionist in that calling for? I would say not long. Why? Because the evolutionist’s ideas have become destructive to the faith of others. It is critical to have a foundation of a trust and belief in the scriptures. That is why kids in primary are taught the stories not as speculative “might have happened” scenarios, but as actual historical events.
People who accept evolution in favor of the scriptures are therefore a sort of quasi-believers. Can we fellowship quasi-believers? I think it is good to try, but to have respect for their points of view is akin to consideration for their points of view, which is akin to heresy. For these reasons, I feel compelled to take a fighting position against such ideas. Do I dislike Church members who believe in evolution? No. Some of them I like and respect very much. But all of them leave me disappointed when I find out their religious leanings.

 

Dave

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:29:23

Ryan,
Thanks for your comment. I am in agreement that TE (theistic evolution) is an untenable position. I also agree that there is the potential for harm in the sense of trying to pass those ideas onto others, expecially in a classroom setting.
Yesterday I had a student come up to me after class on BYU campus and tell me that she was enjoying T&S (Truth & Science) because it does not compromise LDS doctrine in the same way some of her professors have. She mentioned that some professors have been teaching evolution without attempting to reconcile those teachings with LDS theology.
I know a TE professor at BYU. His name is Steve and he runs a blog titled mormon organon (listed on the links page). He is a TE. I am concerned that people like him are telling BYU students that it is possible to harmonize the doctrines of the gospel with evolution. I strongly disagree and hope that this is not happening.

The positive things about LDS Theistic Evolutionists, however, is that they believe in God and accept the basic doctrines. In fact, TEs look like angels compared to the rabid evolutionary atheists that I have associated with. The dogmatic evolutionary atheists make anyone who believes in God look saintly by comparison.
I don't want to alienate LDS TEs, but I secretly hope that they will eventually see the light, so to speak, when it comes to the creation.

 

Matt W.

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:23:11

My favorite TE is Henry Eyring. For a good protestant approach, I'd try Allister McGrath, though Francis Collins is good as well.

It is possible to reconcile evolution and the doctrines of the Gospel. We had a discussion of ways to do such <a href= "http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/08/evolution-and-no-death-before-the-fall-working-together/423/"> here</a> a while back. I am aware of other alternatives since then, but am short on time.

 

Ryan Nilsson

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:29:21

Matt,
I have read your post and your theories don’t offer anything that actually reconciles. All of the 4 theories you had listed ignored or discounted scriptures. No matter how you try to stuff, bend, and twist things, evolution and the gospel mix like oil and water. Let me illustrate with your 4 theories:
#1: The idea of a retroactive fall ignores Lehi’s assertion that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end” (2 Nephi 2:22). It takes away the meaning of God’s warning to Adam, that if he should partake of the fruit then “thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17), since he was already going to die anyway. Besides, if death existed before the fall, then so did sin, since “the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal” (Alma 42:9). This makes repentance before the Fall necessary, and the whole idea of a Fall meaningless.
#2: This wild theory has no basis in scripture and is simply a desperate metaphysical attempt to make the fall the triggering event while allowing for millions of years of evolution. The scriptures indicate that before Adam partook of the fruit, the earth was finished (Moses 3:1), it was good (Moses 2:31), and Adam lived on it (Moses 2:26-28). Immediately after the Fall, Adam left the Garden to till the earth (Moses 4:28-30). There is no indication of a time gap, which would be a concoction made purely out of convenience for this idea. Besides, you’re still forgetting that life cannot bring forth except after its own kind (Moses 2:11, 21, 24, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 197-198). This precludes macroevolution in any case.
#3: Another idea that allows for death before the fall. This is the “everything evolved except people” idea some try to use to get around statements like the 1909 “Origin of Man.” It fails scripturally, since when the Lord prepared the earth for Adam, it was very good according to his standard (Moses 2:31), not full of death, with carnal animals killing and eating each other. Paul says “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12) meaning that death was a consequence of Adam’s transgression, and this is the reason that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:22). Besides, if Christ’s atonement affected the whole earth, then how could that be, seeing that all death except human death is not a product of the Fall? We know that “by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son” (Mormon 9:12). There are many other scriptures indicating that death did not precede Adam (Moses 6:48; Romans 5:12- 17; Moses 6:59; 2 Nephi 2:22, Alma 42:9, 1 Corinthians 15:21) and that macroevolution does not happen (Moses 2:11, 21, 24, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 197-198).
#4: If I’m understanding this one right, it is really just a variation, almost a restatement, of #3. If that’s the case, then it’s already been rebutted. The phrase “the only common ancestor of Man and the other primates is God, and that he is not really a common ancestor to both, in truth” is curious and a little obscure. The idea that God is ancestor to both man and ape does not hold well. According to evolution, all life is descended from a single-celled organism and therefore related. This would require God to be ancestor to willow trees just as well as ape or man. Is God a willow tree? No, he is a Man (Moses 6:57), and so all his descendents will be men. We are told that “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Cor. 15:39). And, of course, it is not possible for creatures to bring forth other than their own kind (Moses 2:11, 21, 24, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 197-198).
The real question, Matt, is why make pains to subscribe to a belief that requires disbelief in the scriptures and has never been observed by science (referring to macroevolution)?

P.S. The claim that Henry Eyring was a TE is common, but I would question that premise. Do you have any documentation for it?

 

Matt W.

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:34:31

Ryan:
For Eyring, a Good Summation is here:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Another Good source is here:

http://www.byui.edu/perspective/v4n2pdf/v4n2_williams.pdf

In Eyring's own words:
http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html

As to your points:

" Besides, if death existed before the fall, then so did sin"

The scriptures clearly teach that Sin existed before the fall, otherwise their could not have been a war in heaven, there could have been no Sons of Perditions, and Satan could not have tempted Eve, so your reasoning fails for #1. So if sin not existing before the fall makes your understanding of the fall meaningless I suggest you rethink your understanding.

For #2, You Quote Moses 2 and 3. THe problem is Moses 3 continues.

Check it out

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3/5,7,9#5


"For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth"

"For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it"

And don't try to pull out some sort of "no indication of a time gap". I mean, look at Alma 7
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/7a

"the time is not far distant that the Redeemer liveth and cometh among his people"

Keep in mind this is a gap of 83 years.

In Mormonism we accept, from the Temple, that the creation story has several symbolic elements (that I won't go into here.) Also, Spencer W. Kimball clearly taught some parts of the creation are symbolic (Adam's rib, made from dust, breathed into nostrils)

So I don't think this is as out of the question as you think.

#3- I don't see any scriptures that say Death never happened, just that it began when Adam fell, this gives the possibility that it could have happened, been stopped and restarted. This does not mean everyone evoled except people. It means everything evolved up to the point human bodies were capalbe of having human spirits, and then God created the edenic space and "turned off" death.

#4 This is the idea that animals evolved but men did not. Some say it requires a rejection of evolution in that it limits to micro evolution and not Macro. This is what James Talmage taught in "the Earth an Men"

Elsewhere, he said:
"Undoubtedly true evolution is true, meaning progress from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the more complex. We cannot sweep aside all the accumulated knowledge in geology, archeology or any other branch of science simply because our interpretation of some isolated passage of scripture may seem to be opposed thereto. I do not believe that Adam derived his mortal body by evolutionary processes from the lower animals. The adamic race of men are of an entirely different order"
-Talmage to F. C. Williamson, 22 Apr. 1933, Talmage Papers. (88)

Finally, I don't disbelieve the scriptures, I just have a different understanding than you of them. I believe in the Scriptures and Evolution(even macroevolution).

Science isn't just about making observations. It's about postulating hypothesis and testing them. So far, evolution hasn't failed any tests.

Anyway, I am grateful for a church where we are able to have a diversity of opinions when truth has not been revealed.




 

Ryan Nilsson

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:07:20

Matt,
Allow me to reply to your rebuttal of my rebuttal.
#1: I know that sin existed (in the existential sense) before the Fall. But it was not found in the earth, that is, there was no spiritual death on planet earth, prior to Adam’s Fall. I thought that I had made that clear enough. Your appeal to the war in heaven, etc. was irrelevant to my point. I was talking about spiritual death on planet earth. In such a case, my original argument is still valid. Also, you skirted around the other points that I made, which were even better, in my opinion.
#2: Thanks for the advice about reading ahead in Moses, but it does nothing at all for your argument, like you thought it would. It continues by describing the resting period before at the end of Creation, not a mysterious time gap that allows for some metaphysical pre-existent Fall of Man. The story of the forbidden fruit appears after this resting period (Moses 3:7-8). The part about the spiritual Creation in v. 9 is an after-thought reference, a mention, not a description of what’s happening. We know this because Adam was flesh at this point in the narrative (Moses 3:7). And Matt, if you want to quote Church Authorities, you know that Joseph Fielding Smith taught that this was not an account of the spiritual Creation (DS 1:75-76). And yes, I will “pull out some sort of ‘no indication of a time gap,’” and I’ll do it again, because your exegesis of the scripture is flawed. Alma 7 is completely irrelevant. 83 years is not really incompatible with the phrase, “not far distant,” anyway. You’re trying to put something into the text that isn’t there. That’s the problem with this theory #2. And yes, I know what Pres. Kimball said about Adam’s rib being figurative. It’s interesting that he labeled it specifically as such. Why would he have to do that if the whole story was a figurative fable like you believe, Matt? Wouldn’t it just be assumed?
#3: All those scriptures tie death directly to Adam and only to him. Again, you’re putting something into the text that isn’t there at all (death before Adam, and then a reboot on paradise). There is no basis in scripture for theory #3, and no indication in scripture that death came to the world in any other way than Adam. Did God start the death before Adam, or was there another Adam before Adam who did? If God started the death himself, then you have a big scriptural/philosophical problem because that makes God the initiator of corruption (2 Ne. 2:14-17). Plus you still run into the problem of life not keeping within the bounds of its own kind (Moses 2:11, 21, 24).
#4: Thank you for clarifying the distinction between this and theory #3. My rebuttal to #3 will do just fine for theory #4, then. It deals with the idea that evolution applies to everything except mankind, an assertion not supported by scripture or the evolutionists of the scientific community.
You still didn’t explain how life evolves when the scriptures say life can’t do that (Moses 2:11, 21, 24). You also never explained 2 Ne. 2:22. But the thing is, you really can’t, unless you deny the plain meaning of that scripture. It seems that it is meant to be taken plainly (2 Ne. 25:4, 25:20).
You appeal to many people’s authority, like Henry Eyring. I don’t so much care what Dr. Eyring felt about the issue. In debates like this, I’m interested in what the scriptures have to say, as well as Joseph Smith, and also official declarations of the Church. It gets too messy otherwise, and turns into some kind of he-said –she-said thing.
Matt, I know this is going to sound offensive, and I don’t want you to feel as though I dislike you, but yes, you do disbelieve the scriptures. They say that life cannot come forth except after their kind (Joseph Smith also taught this). You believe otherwise. If you think that the main events of the Creation story (excluding the Adam’s rib thing) or the Flood story was not real, then I would say that you definitely do disbelieve the scriptures, and that your beliefs are potentially dangerous.
I’m puzzled by what you mean about “So far, evolution hasn't failed any tests.” Actually, the idea that all life evolved from a single-celled organism is completely unverifiable. That’s part of the problem with evolution – it’s entirely unfalsifiable, just like a religious claim. However, attempts to create life in the laboratory have been a failure. No breeding experiment has ever produced a marcoevolutionary change, and mutations are almost exclusively detrimental to organisms. It looks like the cards are stacked against evolution. Let’s not believe in it out of fear of ridicule. We don’t have to. We’ve got something better, Matt.

 

Matt W.

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:29:51

Ryan:

Thanks for your response. No reason for me to have a rebuttal to your rebuttal of my rebuttal of whatever.

As a summary of the Church's official comments on Evolution:

· Men and women are created in the image of God and are the
spiritual offspring of God.
· Adam was the first man.
· God organized the earth from preexistent elements.
· The fall of Adam made the atonement of Christ necessary for
mankind’s salvation.
· "The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again"

Available Here: http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf

Nothing here denies Evolution. In fact, the official statement of the first presidency explicitly says that the scriptures, which you have quoted do not tell How we were created. So I do not disbelieve the scriptures. I do disbelieve your interpretation thereof.

And for the record, I don't think the creation is a figurative fable. I believe all the points above. And I believe in Evolution. Even Macro-Evolution. And I'm not afraid of ridicule, even though I live on the tale of the Bible belt with tons of anti-science types about. I'm also not offended. I've been around the blocks a few times.

Parting Shot: Scientific observation does show that procreation sticks to it's own kind. Natural Selection actually relies on a concept of random mutation that causes changes in kind. It doesn't actually require anyone to leave their "kind". It does call for speciation. There is plenty of evidence of that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.roberts-publishers.com/price/

http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/research/publications_files/Speciation2005.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=413889

Anyway, I'm not trying to convery you to my point of view. I don't want you to believe in evolution. I actually don't care if you do or do not. I just do want you know there is room in our church for people who do believe in Evolution, and they are not any more "dangerous" in their beliefs than when people become dogmatic and exclusivistic about Young Earth Creationism or any other concept. In a church of continuing revelation, I think it behooves us to be open to a myriad of possibilities, and open to people who's point of view is different than our own. I am open to the possibility there was no evolution. I believe there was evolution, but I'm not going to sell the farm if I'm wrong.

 

Ryan Nilsson

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:57:47

Matt,

You have raised some very interesting points. You say that the Church has said that the scriptures do not say how we were created. This is true, in the sense that there are details left unknown, just as we can't pretend to know the details of the mechanism Christ employed to turn water into wine. But we have enough information that we can categorically deny that it was by an evolutionary process, both based on the scriptures I have cited, and also on the official statement by the First Presidency:

"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 declares 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. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father." (Origin of Man, 1909)

Now, when Pres. Smith said, "These, however, are the theories of men," he was denying the veracity of such ideas. Especially when read in its context, in which it talks about how truth comes from God in contrast to the opinions of man, you cannot escape this conclusion: The 1909 "Origin of Man" document denies evolution as a process responsible for the human race. Any interpretation to the contrary would be considerably dishonest. And for the First Presidency to come out with a position specifically on evolution and make a statement like the one above, but really mean for it to be saying that evolution is true, seems absolutely bizarre.

I think the assertion that Young Earth Creationism is just as dangerous as evolution is absurd. Evolution has implications toward atheism, and may result in atheism if someone careens down that path too far. What negative implications does Creationism carry? That God is real? That he did things the way he said he did in scripture? That Darwin should not be set up as some kind of prophet? No, there's certainly no comparing the two as far as level of danger or potential for apostasy.

I'm a little confused by your admittance that life brings forth after its kind (as in Moses 2:11, 21, 24) but then you still insist on macroevolution. The very definition of macroevolution is that life brings forth something that is a different kind of creature (for example, ape-like creatures bringing forth humans). You seem to be saying that even though macroevolution was taking place, they were still considered to be of the same kind – only the kind categories were expanding with brand new innovative life forms. A strange compromise. But by your logic, if all life started as a single-celled organism, then there is only ONE kind. But the scriptures indicate that there are lots.

I am a little concerned about your label of "anti-science types." Who would that be? Is that someone who doesn't believe in evolution? If that's the case, I think you are terribly blinded. Many people, myself included, have a strong interest in science and a sound understanding of its fundamentals, yet have chosen to reject evolution. We're not rejecting science, Matt, just evolution. Evolution is not science. Evolution, like I said earlier, is unfalsifiable, just like a religious claim. You have to believe that it happened. You should really understand that about evolution – it requires belief. Science is not like that; science is based on knowledge that is received by demonstration and experimentation. You can't design an experiment to demonstrate that we all evolved from a single-celled organism. You just have to take that idea on a sort of "faith."

 

Matt W.

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:36:57

It's pretty apparant that you and I have different understandings of the church's statements on evolution, especially regarding the statement of us not having scripture on how man was created. I would say that precludes the use of scripture even to determine how he wasn't created. Also, in my view, and from context it seems that the First Presidency was speaking more to the idea of Adam and Eve as First people, which I have never denied, nor do I now deny.

In any case, it doesn't say "Evolution is True". It does say it is not heterodox to believe Evolution is True, or Young Earth Creationism, or Old Earth Creationism. It says "We don't know how" and recommends with holding judgment.

Young Earth Creationism is just as dangerous as a dogmatic view of evolution in that it is a myopic point of view which tends toward pride, arrogance, and pushing one's views on others. I know more people who have left the church because of dogmatism than I do have left because of atheism.

To be perfectly honest, I personally see a major issue of Young Earth Creationism is that it tries to put the beautiful teachings of Mormonism in a nice tidy protestant box, and trends towards worshipping a false concept of deity, a vending machine God, rather than the divine person who really is. The problem thus comes that people have false expectations of God and when their expectations are disproven by reality (say for example the fact of evolution) they lose faith, throw the baby out with the bath water and leave the church, because they lack the flexibility to change their views as new information comes in. This issue happened with Polygamy, then again with Blacks and the Priesthood, and has happened over such trifles as evolutionary science. Overpushing a doctrinal point that we are not clear on is much more dangerous than saying there is a possibilty of evolution.

Just so you know, evolution is evolution. The whole Macro vs Micro thing is kind of an artificial barrier. In any case, let's take an example as a thought experiment. Two Horses, we'll call them phil and susan, fall madly in love. They have kids. One of their horses is slightly stronger and healthier than the other. Due to natural instincts, the healthier horse breeds with another healthier horse, and the mix of their healthy genetics produces, a healthier stronger horse. The less healthy horse mates with another less healthy horse and they produce, yep, a less healthy horse. So they produced after their own kind, but if you multiply that case by a trillion, eventually, the super healthy offspring and the very unhealthy offspring are going to be different enough for their to be speciation, or for the weaker animal type to completely die out, as often happens. Kind is big enough to include a few degrees in either direction of variation. It's when you multiply kind by trillions of years and people that the scope gets big enough to see radical swings in type.

Evolution is science. Tons of observable phenomena have been recorded. I linked to some likes of them earlier. Here are some more links, all from BYU:

http://mmbio.byu.edu/faculty/bja43/

http://biology.byu.edu/faculty/dam83/Reprints/MBEAdvAccess.pdf

http://mlbean.byu.edu/home/Research_and_Collections/Crandall4.pdf

http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/SvensonWhiting-Mantodea.pdf

http://biology.byu.edu/Faculty/kac/crandall_lab/docsdata/pdf_files/1999/ai9904.pdf

http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd361.pdf

http://biology.byu.edu/Faculty/kac/crandall_lab/docsdata/pdf_files/2008/Losada-Crandall_MPE08.pdf

http://biology.byu.edu/Faculty/jbj59/Lab/Publications/Evolution%202002.pdf

By the Way, Joseph Smith taught that our spirits are eternal, and I believe that, so I don't think we all evolved from single-celled organisms. I think there is a strong possibility that our bodies did.

Thanks for your continued interst and dialogue.



 

Ryan Nilsson

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:04:51

Matt,
You’re playing games with words. You say, “evolution is a fact.” Here are the facts, Matt:
MICROevolution, which is variation within the different kinds of animals, is a fact, because it is observable. This is not where the argument is. Everybody accepts this principle.
The question is, does microevolution go farther than that, and turn into macroevolution over time? This has never been demonstrated, and perhaps is beyond the ability to demonstrate. That’s why macroevolution fails to be qualified as science. Unless it can be demonstrated, it’s just your belief.
The barrier between micro and macro is not artificial, as much as you would like it to be. In fact, it is the entire issue. If macroevolution exists, then I am wrong. If it isn’t possible, then you’re wrong. So far, it hasn’t been demonstrated. So don’t pretend that it has. We’re both arguing based on beliefs. You can’t claim superiority because you’re more connected to demonstrated science than I am. That’s simply inaccurate. I recognize microevolution just as much as you do. I just don’t think it can do what it hasn’t been demonstrated to do.
You say that you’ve known more people apostatize because of pride than evolution, but how many members do you know of have apostatized specifically because of Young Earth Creationism (as opposed to those who have because of evolution)? I would guess very few or none. Young Earth Creationism is not the only source for pride. In fact, I would guess it could account for only an extremely minuscule fraction of the pride among members.
You said, “I don't think we all evolved from single-celled organisms. I think there is a strong possibility that our bodies did.” Here you just basically said that you indeed believe that we all evolved from a single-celled organism.

 

Matt W.

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:02:56

WEll now we're almost there. Since "Microevolution is a fact", then we can go to:

"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor - macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation. One of the most significant applications of this is found in the evolution of the vertebrates, which was mediated by duplications of the hox gene complex."

from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Basically, you think that there is some sort of static range in which a being can evolve, based on "kind."

I've already provided plenty of links which go over examples of speciation(which you call macroevolution), or beings crossing their kind.

Here's a list of transitional fossils as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Finally, here is a BYU fireside by Michael Whiting on this topic I want to whole heartedly recommend:
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Whiting_Michael_052005.mp3

It seems to me we are basically disagreeing on the range of variation within the scope of either random Mutation or caused genetic direction.

I know 3 members who left the church over issues with Young Earth Creationism. That represents ~30% of the people I personally know who have left the church. That's anecdotal though. You are right that YEC is not the only source of pride, but dogmatism around it can be and is an issue.

 

Neil

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:37:01

Matt and Ryan,

I find it prudent to point out a couple of minor semantic items regarding your arguments. First off, I will say that you both make some very good arguments, and some that are not so good.

Firstly, I'd like to start off with the argument about the feasibility of macroevolution. You spoke, Matt, of speciation, or "the process of biological species formation" (www.m-w.com/dictionary/speciation) with your example of the horses. Your argument has merit, with empirical evidence observable today, embodied by the Liger - a cross between a male lion and a female tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger). This is an example of two species joining to create a third species. However, this fully conforms to "of its kind," as they are of the same Genus (Panthera), and so speciation is evidently a result of microevolution. Contrast this with trying to mate two felines of different genera (say, a cat and a tiger) which quite clearly doesn't work. For humans to have come from primates, we'd have to look not one, but two levels up the biological hierarchy, past the scopes of genus and family, to the scope of primate, within which scope both ape and human reside. It's not sufficient to say that because microevolution exists, and is provable, that macro evolution does as well. To paraphrase Ryan, Macroevolution is no less a religious belief than Atheism or Christianity. Mixing macroevolution with either of these theologies does not make either one scientific, but religious in nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Ryan, you've certainly pursued interesting studies since our childhood :D. As a friend since childhood, I'd like to lovingly point out that Matt does have a point about the dogmatic views that YEC sometimes has a tendency to create. This does have some truth to it, and to illustrate this point, I will give the example of the Judeo-Christian movement. There is much hostility towards people outside of any particular faith, be they Christian or not. On the other hand, it is simple to see that many MANY people have dogmatic views, whether they're evolutionists, old earth creationists, or young earth creationists. I will add that those who are *properly* following their Judeo-Christian faith will not be so dogmatic in their views. So, to sum it up in one sentence, I'll say this: Matt has a point about YEC being dogmatic, because even the best of us LDS are not immune to this pride-driven mindset; however, The point is somewhat moot because Mormons, like everyone else, are equally as subject to dogma as anyone else.

 

Ryan Nilsson

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:15:39

Matt,
You must not be very familiar with non-evolutionary stances. I didn’t just suddenly confess a belief in microevolution based on your persuasion. I’ve been open about it the whole time, but you’ve just missed it, apparently. Creationists readily admit microevolution, because it is observable.
However, the fantasy begins in your second paragraph of your last posted comment. What you’re telling people is that microevolution provides sufficient evidence that we came from ape-like creatures. Hardly. How long do we have to go around the merri-go-round on this? The fact that we can breed a large variety of dogs in no way proves that we are related to dogs, or that we are descended from a single-celled organism. What an extreme leap in logic. By the way, wikipedia is hardly the kind of source you want to make an appeal to.
I have looked at the abstracts of the BYU links. All the reports simply assume macroevolution and/or talk about how it might have occurred long ago and far away. Nowhere is it actually demonstrated. Not very impressive. And was the fact that they are from BYU supposed to establish the credibility of their subjects for me? Just because something is being researched at BYU it doesn’t follow that it’s true. I’m sure the Psychology department there teaches Freud’s ideas, but this can hardly be construed as Church endorsement of Freud.
Interesting that you mention “species,” which has quite an elusive meaning (see http://www.icr.org/article/227/ and http://www.icr.org/article/338/). Personally, I don’t much like applying the term “species” to a discussion such as this. It is quite an arbitrary distinction and it really doesn’t necessarily correspond well with the scriptural idea of “kind”; they’re not necessarily the same, I don’t think. If animals can “bring forth,” (ie. procreate) together, then that is one indication that they are of the same kind (Moses 2:11, 21, 24). A wolf and a dog are obviously the same kind of animal, since they may interbreed and are obvious relatives, yet they are a different species. But you want me to believe that my dog is related to me, and that we’re both related to the vegetables in the lunch I ate today. Those are all obviously different kinds of things.
Determining the distinctions among the kinds and how that relates to species, I think, is worthy of study. But the idea that I’m related to the banana I ate yesterday is silliness and it is ultimately beyond the power to verify scientifically.
You mentioned “transitional fossils.” Do you really think that is definitive evidence? Consider that when you go dig up old bones from the dirt, there is no way to establish that you are related to the thing, or even that it had any offspring at all. All you know is that it’s dead, and a little bit about what it looked like. Trying to establish relationship based simply on that is extremely tenuous.
Well Matt, it has been interesting discussing things with you, even though neither of us has budged an inch. As interesting as this discussion is, I have more important things to attend to (and I promised my wife I’d quit playing around on the computer like this). You can leave another closing comment if you wish, but don’t expect my reply. If you have more questions about the science side of this issue, I would refer you to www.icr.org or www.creationontheweb.org, websites where I get a lot of information.

 

Matt W.

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:28:48

No worries Ryan. I don't need any sort of closing argument. All I'd ask is that in the future, don't be so quick to dismiss or judge people just because they believe in evolution as "dangerous" people who "don't believe in the scriptures".

Neil: Out of respect to Ryan's wish to discontinue, I will not address your comment. See ya'll around, and don't be afraid to stop by over at newcoolthang.com

 



Leave a Reply

Google Analytics