mormonsandscience

These quotes and polls are all just for fun, and their going to reflect the perceptions of those of us curious enough to click the button, but in reality shouldn't there be an "all of the above" option with space for a short answer? I guess we call it the comments section. For the record I vote "all of the above" on both counts.

As an aside, heart surgery expertise on Elder Nelson's part is as relevant to evolutionary biology as President Packer's EdD. In my experience in biological academia premeds understand evolution least of all, and I doubt they get any better at it in med school cramming for boards.

Okay, Dave, it's posts like this that make me wonder how you can be someone trained rigorously in science, especially one trained in statistical analysis of data just like what these polls produce. You have to know how loaded these questions are. You also have to know that most of your evolutionist readers believe these men are inspired apostles who are expressing their own opinions about evolution. You've phrased the questions to imply that selecting the second item indicates that they do not believe they are inspired. Do you really not understand this? Or do you think people just won't notice? The third item isn't even a question.

If you were being honest about finding what people believe rather than simply making a statement that evolutionist stand apart from church leaders, you would have had an option stating that these are inspired apostles expressing their personal opinions about a complex scientific topic they may not understand well.

It never fails me how contless prophets and apostles have taught us about our divine parentage and yet LDS evolutionists still will say that man evolved from a lower order of animals. Even our own scriptures teach about mans divine parentage and yet even still this is not good enough for the evolutionists.

The official stance put out by the church regarding mans origins are that man is the literal offspring of deity. And yet...evolutionists still do not believe!

To Rob: agreed that man is the literal offspring of God. But the church does not say the physical body of man came from God. The scriptures teach that he was formed from the dust of the earth. But what does that really mean? While some may consider it completely against the doctrines of the church that the body evolved as claimed by evolutionists, one cannot blindly look at their evidence without some respect of credibility. Perhaps it is possible God used evolution as his process of creating the body of man. It does not diminish the atonement or the plan if such a path was chosen.

On then flip side perhaps it was all done literally as the scriptures say. Perhaps god is allowing these evidences to be discovered t that sport the theory of evolution in a trial of our faith. Either way, be not shaken, and don't despise or belittle those that believe the theory.

Dave C.:

As a scientist I feel obligated to accept the world as it presents itself. My religion asks me to be honest. Thus, I try to be.

If evolution did not happen, then why does the geological/fossil record lie? If evolution did not happen, then why does our genetic record lie? If evolution did not happen, the why does comparative anatomy lie? If science is this highly flawed, then science should NOT be promoted in any form of education, and maybe we should just declare science to be a failed enterprise.

If the Church has a clear position on evolution, then it should indicate to all LDS life scientists that they should resign from their positions. Such a stance would be necessary, since it would not possible to operate as a modern scientist using pre-1859 ideas in a fundamentally flawed field.

So, no, I cannot reconcile Elder Nelson's stance on evolution with my own. But, I do hope I can otherwise sustain him in his priesthood calling. My support of Church leaders has never required turning off my brain. Besides, for some reason my brain did not come with an "off" switch. Sorry, I don't believe in blind obedience. I believe in collecting data and then coming to my own conclusions. That is the best I can do.

I just want to be clear about that last bit where I said "no matter how literal you want to be about it." As I understand it, evolution, when it comes to the origins of mankind, does not exclude views such as those expressed here: http://loyaltotheword.synthasite.com/the-manner-of-adams-creation.php, except to the degree that individuals holding such views intend to make the extensions of their views mutually exclusive with evolution. The above link is as detailed an explanation of Adam's origins as I can find, yet the anti-evolution arguments are built on already speculative assumptions about ideas that can hardly be said to be settled, certain, or well-understood doctrines of the gospel. So I mean that in this sense it's easy to find room for evolution and this kind of a view, which in my mind is the most fundamentalist and difficult for people to find reconciliation for.

Aharon,

I guess it all depends upon how one interprets "literal". What does it mean to be created fromt he dust of the earth?

You and I both and all of mankind- yea, all living things are made from the dust of the earth. How did you get here? Procreation. Your parents ate food that came from the dust of the ground. That food became the physical sperm and egg that was formed to create you. You thus literally became the literal offspring of your parents.

Tracing back the lineage, all mankind on the earth is traced back to Noah, and then from him back to Adam, and from him directly to God. We are the literal seed of God.

There really is not a lot of evidence as evolutionists claim for manevolving from a lower order of species. The evidence they do have are just bones. Some look like monkey bones and others look like human bones. We know from forensics that the human skull can varry greatly from one type of people to another. It is true that some peoples skulls look more like a monkey than anothers.

But what does any of that prove? All it shows is that there are bones discovered that either look similar to a monkey or similar to a human. There really is no factual evidence put forth. It doesn't even represent a challenge to ones faith. God created us, and, he created monkeys and apes. Big deal? No, not really.

Science would have to actually prove biologically that we evolved from a lower order of animals. Just holding up partial skull fragments and guessing its age doesn't really cut it.

Rob -
"The evidence they do have are just bones."

Not anymore. Not for a long time, actually. If you haven't yet had a chance, give a read to "Relics of Eden" by LDS scientist Daniel Fairbanks, a former prof in my old program and a great individual. The book is very accessible, and a quick read that can be done piecemeal.

We are now way past "just bones" and have been for a few decades. For example recent work (google Svante Paabo) identifies the signature of and estimates the amount of gene flow between early modern human populations and relict Neanderthals. Next generation genome sequencing technology is poised to make some revolutionary discoveries in the recent evolutionary history of humankind. It's cutting edge and fraught with methodological questions, but ancient DNA is the new frontier in bioanthropology and human evolution. Even with what the next 20 eyars will discover, I have a nagging suspicion many will simply see it as all circumstantial, trivial, unfounded, etc etc.

Your own personal evidentiary standards aside, I simply can't tell why anybody wouldn't find this kind of stuff just completely and mindbogglingly fascinating! Not only that but what a great challenge to readdress, refine, and reaffirm our individual faith in the Creator's grand design!

Evolution is perhaps the most remarkable scientific theory in history because it seeks to explain all that we observe in the biological world solely based on what we observe about it. Pleading that evolution doesn't explain immortality seems a little ridiculous to me. It does not purport to explain what has not been observed.

I believe in the doctrine of the resurrection, the fall of Adam and Eve from an immortal state (whatever that means in a material world), and other similar doctrines. Why should evolution have to provide a mechanism for those things? Can't evolution be totally true and yet have no bearing on all of the highly speculative theories about who or what Adam really was? Evolution says nothing about gravity. So what? No peer reviewed article I've read tries to disprove the existence of an ancient immortal being, though the fact remains that we modern mortal humans absolutely share a genetic heritage with even more ancient mortal beings.

Now, admittedly in pop science books many evolutionists have basically said they think the Adam idea is just myth, but what do I care what they think? Evolution doesn't disprove Adam, especially not the uniquely Mormon conceptions of him. He rises entirely above the fray.

I will ask anyone reading and/or commenting here point blank: how exactly was Adam's body created? What are we to believe here? No recent general authority has given it to us in direct terms. I have read the personal interpretations of many other Mormons who parse their words very carefully, but many come to differing conclusions. Early church leaders were more forthright, but not only contradicted each other but even themselves! I will say I think the best and most consistent explanation is that Adam was born in an immortal state to immortal parents. He and Eve were placed here and their posterity intermarried with neolithic humans. He is the not the most recent universal ancestor of all living humans. that ancestor is much much more recent, say circa Abraham. This is the least problematic in terms of evolution writ large. Case closed.

Speaking of problems, Adam can't have been the first man of all men because God was a man before Adam, so your argument clearly relies on a post hoc restriction of the meaning of "first." First EVER? First on this planet? First on this phase of this planet? First to be physically born of God the Father and a Heavenly Mother? First to get translated and put into Eden? First in priesthood? First to become saved? It doesn't even matter what the most common or most typical or standard or correlated answer is to this, because no matter how tame or wild the answer its still. just. speculation. Evolution, however, is not. Never the twain shall meet.

Excuse me, but I was just wondering out of honest curiosity how evolution could be compatible with the scriptures. My whole family is adverse to the idea, but I am open to believing in evolution if there is a reconciliatory factor between the two. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Sean,

There is a blog (now inactive) where many of these same topics have been discussed, and there is an extensive archive that you can search through. The authors and most of the commenters are Mormon, so if that is the particular vantage point you are coming from that may be helpful. Look especially at the "Reconciliation Notebooks."

http://evolution.nfshost.com/

Another site which details a lot of issues that make evolution problematic for some (again from a Mormon view) can be found at http://ndbf.blogspot.com/. R Gary Shapiro, the site admin is a meticulous student of gospel teachings and he makes some compelling cases for why evolution has not been fully accepted in the Mormon theology.

These two ought to offer a fair counterbalance.