mormonsandscience

Brad,

I'm curious. Which science books have you read written by LDS scientists?

I'm also interested in the difference between your definition of "scholar" (which you admit you are not) and your definition of "serious student" (which you seem to imply you are).

Oh! I just noticed the MLS/MBA. What's your MLS in, doesn't that usually come with a disciplinary specialty? Like, library science (humanities), for example?

I have heard all sorts of ways to reconcile early "caveman" with Adam's emergence. What I find truly interesting though is the pure lack of real physical evidence on the matter. Either they find skull pieces that look like man or they find skull fragments that look like an ape or monkey. Then, the dating process they use is laughable at best. I don't buy any of it. I believe how the church believes on this matter-

That Adam was the first man of "all men" and that Adam was the literal offspring of deity.

I also believe, according to the scriptures, that Adam was the first of all the living creatures to walk the earth- that all the animals were created and placed on the earth after Adam and not before.

raedyohed,

"Joe - Your general reasoning that if the atonement is temporally transcendent then by extension the fall must also have been. I have mused on that myself over the years. Have you found any thorough treatment of this idea anywhere, either in Mormondom or elsewhere?
"

Unfortunately Not. People seem fine dreaming up all kinds of ideas like "the garden was on another planet" or whatever but nobody seems to have taken this idea and carried it through properly.

If I fall into a pit a finite distance, I only need to be lifted up a finite distance to escape the pit.

However, we believe the atonement had to be infinite to save us from all the effects of the fall right? So I have a hard time seeing the Fall wouldn't need to to be infinite in the same way the atonement is. (Hence the need for the atonement to be infinite.)

But if the Fall is infinite in a similar way than all the "transcends time" effects should apply to the fall.

People receive forgiveness from sin, diseases cured, etc.... even before the atonement is preformed due to it's infinite nature. So why not death, disease and the devil existing before an infinite fall?

To bad Elder McConkie isn't around to respond. :) Why would one of his "3 Gardens of God" that depend on each other be finite when the others aren't? And if they are all infinite, why wouldn't they all have effects that transcend time?

Rob,

You have science all wrong. Naturalism, inasmuch as it can even be clearly defined, is not an assumption of science, but rather a conclusion.

This conclusion follows from the two inviolable rules of all liberal science:

1. No one has the final say in that no person or idea is exempt from criticism.
2. No one has personal authority in that nobody or their ideas get special treatment due to who they are or what kind of person they are.

Neither of these premises presuppose nor entail atheism. They do, on the other hand, disqualify all supernatural claims as being scientifically admissible. Again, they do not disprove the supernatural; they merely disallow it.

Perhaps you'd like to attack one of those two rules but be forewarned, that is the mother of all uphill battles.

"Some major assumptions underlying naturalism are universal laws, determinism, and physical reductionism."

But, Dave you completely missed or ignored the point of my comment. To repeat, those things are NOT assumptions but conclusions.

Those are all ideas which are open to falisification and/or revision. However, such revisions must come in accordance with the rules of skepticism and empiricism that I listed above.

The rule of skepticism is the first rule, the one which declares those "assumptions" (as you misleadingly call them) to be open for debate. The second rule, that of empiricism, is the one which declares HOW those assumptions are to be debated.

I'm not convinced that naturalism actually entails the things you attribute to it, but inasmuch as it does, it has survived this process better than any competitor has.

"The truth of the matter is that we will find God at the center of all purposeful existance."

Surely you see, however, how this statement runs square into trouble with both of the rules of science. The proposition is taken to be beyond question, and this science cannot allow. Furthermore, the statement cannot be supported by any publicly accessible facts. If science can't find God, it isn't science's fault.

Of course nobody should believe only those things which are publicly accessible. People are free to believe all sorts of things beyond what science says. However, if your privately accessible beliefs are in conflict publicly accessible beliefs, then you really should have to give a reason why the former should be given privilege over the latter.

Gentlemen,

The anti-science rants get old.

Science explains the how. It doesn't deal the question of why.

I know it is fun to dismiss evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy and modern physics. But, when all is said and done, I suspect that our modern understanding of the physical world will prove far more accurate than something based on Biblical literalism.

This same attitude led religious leaders to denounce Copernicus and his followers as heretics.

It leads to those who put their trust in magic juices, herbs and chiropractic care rather than modern medicine.

And, is results in silly predictions like Man will never explore space, that population growth will create worldwide suffering, and that the future will be a dark existence.

Before you continue down this path, commit this summer to spend two or three days on a college fossil dig. Many universities have programs. I'd encourage one of the BYU dinosaur digs.

Then, come back -- if you want -- and claim that the science is all false. But, at least do so with some first hand knowledge of where it comes from.

Steve,

I am not dismissing science as a whole. Go back and read my previous post to Jeff. I said-

"BTW, I am only using "science" as it applies specifically to certain issues like evolution and the origins and purpose of man, nature, and the universe."

This is the area that attempts to explain the "why" or "how" we came into existance.

Trust me- the anti-God rant gets pretty old too. It goes both ways. Just ask yourself this- Where exactly does the Creator fit into how we came into existance. If you believe in both God and science you should be able to at least aknowledge that the Almighty did something within the bounds of science to bring us into existance.

Rob,

Steve hasn't used an anti-God rant. You're imagining things.

Jeff--you're not alone. Brad completely ignored the questions I asked a couple of days ago, in the first comment. Kind of disappointing, really.

Rob,

You are still being evasive. You still haven't address either one of the questions or either one of the rules that I have brought up. Merely contradicting me does not amount to an argument.

Let me show you how ID breaks the rules of science in a way that has nothing to do with (a)theism:

Let's start with rule 2: ID has given us no publicly available data to work with. Show us the research and then we'll decide if it follows this rule or not.

As for rule 1: The only reason why you accept all of science except evolution, etc. is because you are breaking the first rule. To take creation of some kind to be a belief which is beyond question.

ID flagrantly break both rules. Again, I ask you, why should we NOT follow either of these rules?

Steve,

Call it what you want but you know that there is no place in your mind for God in the requirement for life to exist. You believe totally in naturalism in explaining how we came into existance. In your view, God just sits on the sidelines and basically does nothing. To me, that speaks heavily against a Creator.

You use words like "allow" when it comes to having to place God somehwere in the mix. It stinks of atheism if you ask me- displacing our very God from his own works.

Tim,

Steve displaces God from his own works. To me that is anti-god rant. Sorry, but that is how I see it.

Jeff,

It is clear that your rules you posted are set up with bias. Evolutionary claims are complete assumptions that end up as the rule of supposed truth by which all other things are based and judged. ID doesn't stand a chance because evolutionists make their own rules and have their own agendas. What is that agenda- "Atheism"!

Steve,

I don't know why we keep going over this- it's a non-issue. I have no problems with science as it applies to the observable and testable. Even as it applies to medicine and technology and space exploration- I embrace that science. But that is not what we are discussing. I am asking specifically about God's role in our origins.

We both know that you do not need to explain where God fits in when adding 2+2 or even the properties of steel. Again, we both agree with that science. But, that is not the areas of science in particular we are discussing. We are discussing God's role in our existance. Something you have yet to aknowledge other than he just "allows" it. How does that even fit into LDS beliefs?

Steve,

Let's cut right to the chase. Do you believe that our existance here on this planet is entirely dependant upon the Creator doing something? Is God essential in our existance?

Steve,

Well at least we can both agree that our existance isn't based of of anything random in nature- that God is fundamental in our existance.

So, how does this mesh with Darwinian evolution that states random nature is the cause of our existance void of any intelligent cause such as God?

What is that supposed to mean?

Jeff,

Let's see, you posted these two rules-

"1. No one has the final say in that no person or idea is exempt from criticism.
2. No one has personal authority in that nobody or their ideas get special treatment due to who they are or what kind of person they are."

Taking this to evolution and naturalism the questions do not pan out because the evolutionists have already assembled their own rules to judge all other things by. This is why it is so easy for them to dismiss ID theory because it doesn't follow what they have already set up as their own valid critisism. They look to their own prophets of evolution such as Darwin and place him in the position of him actually getting the special treatment because of who he was.

Evolutionary theory thus uses those two rules as their own standard in which they are thus exempt from but then they dictate all other claims by these same rules.

That is why I asked earlier as to why ID theory is not recognized by mainstream science. Why? Because Evolutionary theory is exempt from it's own standards it judges other theories off of based entirely off of who they are and as an official theory that can't be critisized.

Rob ---

Does God trigger the sunrise each morning or the tides twice a day? No.

With respect to your everyday life, I doubt very much God determines the weather you experience each day, nor decides whether you are a success or failure in your business activities. He allows your free agency and that of others to drive your daily life.

Similarly, I think with respect to man that he has intervened only when he deems necessary. Perhaps rechanneling evolution at key points.

Rob --

The reality is that no one knows. Why? Because no one with the ability to record was there.

But, I do know -- based on the physical evidence of the long history of life of this planet -- that the idea of traditional creationism is not viable.

Rob,

I can only assume that at least one of us is misunderstanding the other.

Before I try to disentangle what I think you are saying, let me get a couple things out of the way. First, the theory of evolution is a product of those rules, not the other way around. All enlightenment thinkers followed those two rules long before Darwin ever wrote a single word.

Second, no particular part of evolution is taken to be the final word. HOWEVER, so much publicly available data has been accrued in its favor, that it's going to take an awful lot for somebody to overturn it. Again, the falsification of evolution is certainly open is principle. It's just going to be a very difficult (practically speaking) feat for anybody to accomplish.

The same cannot be said for ID. At all. Period. I cannot emphasize this point enough.

But I don't really see anything important turning on whether you accept or reject any of the above. I'm more interested in your response to what follows.

With regard to your take on the two rules of liberal science, which one of the two theses are you arguing for:

A: Those two rules of liberal science are fine, but they do not, in fact, lead to naturalism or evolution.
B: Those two rules of liberal science are not fine but should be rejected altogether.

I can't figure out which one you are really going with. To anticipate both responses, if you choose A then you should show how those two rules lead to something other than naturalism (of the methodological stripe, mind you) and evolution.

If you choose B then you should explain why we should trust any science at all, as well as demonstrate how ignoring these rules is in fact a better guide to truth.

God's influence is required more than people think. I cannot accept deistic notions that the Lord put the world in motion and only needs to check in once and a while as world goes on according to natural laws. While he does not micromanage the natural world, His presence is required for nature to function as it should.

Case in point:

D&C 88:12-13
The light of the Lord "is in all things...giveth life to all things [and] is the *law* by which all things [including the natural world] are governed."

Interpretation: The divine medium known as the Light of Christ, which emanates from the presence of the Lord, carries the laws of nature throughout all His creations. Without the Light of the Lord all the natural world would return to matter unorganized.

Rob ---

Sigh . . .

Science looks at evidence. There is no physical evidence of life after death. Thus, neither biology or medicine has anything to add on the topic.

As to the age of the Earth, I assume you consider Elder Talmadge a heretic because he thought it obvious that life had existed on the Earth for millions of years.

As to the flood, that is an old discussion but, again, the issue is evidence. There is absolutely not one ounce of evidence in the geology of the Earth of a recent worldwide flood event.

You are just incessantly repeating arguments that could have been made against Galileo. And, like then, you are simply flat out wrong.

Steve,

I know you are all too familiar with this official statement by the church-

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

It seems kind of funny that the church owns and runs BYU and has stated officially that man has not evolved and yet the church owned and ran school teaches otherwise!

Perhaps you just chalk up official statements from the prophets as heresy anyway so what does it matter?

Rob --

BYU and the other church don't only teach evolution. They actively study it -- using tithing funds. And, they hire professors with expertise in modern biology, geology, etc.

Guess who is behind all this "evil"? The Board of Trustees -- including all three members of the First Presidency.

Surely you believe that they are all apostates, leading our youth astray. Time to call for their ouster!

Or, is it possible that they don't interpret things the way you do? That, they see no conflict between modern science and the gospel?

Rob --

You are misrepresenting the BYU evolution packet.

Here is a quote from the last page of the packet: "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 . . . ."

Moreover, the last statement is a post from Heber J. Grant & his Counselors: "Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world.
Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which
has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research . . . . "

Both are from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and were approved by the First Presidency for inclusion in it and in the BYU packet.

I would suggest that you are explicitly not in conformity with the prophets. They don't know the how of man's origin -- though you seem to.

Steve,
Several prophets have told us us where Adam and Eve came from:

Joseph Smith: "Where was there ever a son without a Father? Wherever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."

Brigham Young: "mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet."

Brigham Young: "Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."

Joseph F. Smith: "Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman, the same as Jesus and you and I."

Steve,

The 1909 statement was reprinted in 2002 in the Ensign. The intro says specifically that the 1909 statement regarding evolution and man's origins represents the "official doctrine" of the church. The message then goes on to say specifically that man is not the byproduct of evolution from animals and that in fact man is the direct and lineal offspring of God.

So, I thus challenge you in that I know that I am in conformity with the prophets in regards to man's actual origins.

Steve,

What matters is where exactly the church stands on the issue. I see the 2002 reprinting of the 1909 first presidency statement as the "official" doctrine of the church on the matter. the Ensign is the general and official platform that the first presidency uses to express doctrinal issues to it's members.

So, When I read the intro to the 2002 Ensign reprint of the "Origin of Man" which states--

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

I am left to deem that the Origin of man article in it's fulness is the current official stance regarding evolution and man's origins on the matter.

Perhaps what we may have overlooked is one of the principle facts of the article which reads-

"Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain."

This is an important paragraph because it states specifically that without involving "God" into the equation man will never find the truth of the origins of Adam's race. It then states that some "truths" have already been revealed and that it is "our duty to receive and retain". The very next paragraph is the one I posted earlier which indeed states some of these "facts" and "truths" regarding the "how" of the origins of Adam's race. It states specifically next that-

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

Now I do not care how one attempts to interpret this in any strange way but it does in fact literally state that the origin of Adam's race is the lineal and direct offspring from deity himself.

I have seen many an LDS evolutionist dismiss this statement by the church as not binding or unofficial but the truth is that the church has officially staed where Adam's race originated and it has made it very clear that our race (Adam's parents) did not come through any process of evolution from a long line of animals. You should know that the "origin of Man" statement makes this very very clear.

raedyohed,

The scriptures have some bearing as to being official in the capacity of beliefs. This means that our beliefs can be structured from what the scriptures state. Whether you then take those beliefs to be true or false is up to each individual. That said, the Old Testament genologies trace the ancestory of all mankind back to Noah and then from him back to Adam and from Adam to God. The scriptures actually say that Adam is the son of God when discussing the geneology portion of their history.

So you can take it for what it is worth but the scriptures, and thus, our doctrine, state that Adam is the son of God in his physical line of geneology.

As for the origin of man, our doctrine specifically states that Adam was the first man of all men. It means this in the literal physical body sense. That is official doctrine. Now, as this relates to evolution, certainly Adam could not have been born by anything other than another man and women. In evolutionary speaking, Adam's physical father would have to be a "man" also. He could not possibly have been born of anything less than a man. So, how does one reconcile Adam being the "first man" in evolutionary terms if it is required by evolutionary theory that Adam would have to not be the first man?

Jeff G,

See that is the big difference. I do not see even a tiny bit of evidence pointing to macro-evolution. The strongest testimony I have that evolution didn't occur is the level of intelligence between me and the animals- they are so completely different. Monkeys and apes intelligence is not even on the same scale as humans.

Then you have the flood- so much overwhelming evidence that the flood happened it just completely destroys the evolutionary tale in the rocks!

The "tiny bit of evidence pointing to macro-evolution":

* Fossil layers worldwide which show primitive organisms in the older layers and more complicated ones in the younger layers. For instance, older beds show primitive sea creatures. Younger ones show dinosaurs. Most recent layers have creatures like sloths, mammoths, etc.

* Some beds preserve records in a particular region of particular species becoming more and more complicated as one moves up the beds. For instance, in Eastern Montana, one can see changes in herbivores like the ceratopsians ending with Triceratops.


"[O]verwhelming evidence that the flood happened:

* Uh, no.

* No worldwide sediment layers of similar complexity, thickness and age.

* No evidence of fossils being jumbled, ie. complex with primitive. So, no man with dinosaurs. No pelicans with crinoids. No trilobites with bears.

* Deposits show multiple depositional environments -- some are ancient desert, others flood plains, some windblown, etc.

* No evidence that civilization worldwide disappeared for awhile. The cradles of civilization don't all of a sudden end or restart simultaneously.


The science on these issues is overwhelming and systemic. Those who choose to ignore it have not spent anytime in the field.

I reissue my challenge. Before someone claims that evolution didn't occur or a worldwide, they should spend at least a day on a college fossil dig or, perhaps, an archeological excavation. Otherwise, their claims lack credibility.

brad,

I'm guessing steve has read every book you have referenced in this thread. I know I have. In fact, I used to be an IDer of sorts thanks in large part to those books.

That didn't last very long once I actually started learning about evolution from biologists rather than lawyers and mathematicians.

I challenge you to look past all analogies, quote mining, arguments from authority and rhetorical questions and try to figure out what science they have to offer. They talk a lot about science but they never actually DO any science. For all the funding the creationists have they never do any research outside of the library. To be sure, they produce some interesting philosophy of science, but that is not science.

Oops.

"None have anyone with credibility who can deal with the fossil record or biology."

Quick correction and clarification:
The transliteration of the original Greek from the verse in question (Luke 3:38) would be rendered "of the Enos of the Seth of the Adam of the God." It is actually the phrase "the son" which is the parenthetical addition of the English translators, and not "son of" as I had incorrectly indicated above.

Steve,

What can I say- we shall never agree! It's just around and around we go.

I find it interesting that you fail to aknowledge anything in the scriptures if it interfares with your precious evolution. That's fine I guess, each to their own.

I sure am glad though that I can sleep at night knowing the truth, and that gives me peace.

And me? What of my question about the imaginary world where evolution is utterly undeniable? I think we'd all like to know how wide and deep our disagreements may or may not run!

Rob,

"If I lived in a world where evolution was absolutely undeniable and was observable on the macro scale I would accept it."

This is exactly where I am with macroevolution. If it were absolutely undeniable in an empirical sense, I too would accept it. Just claiming that macroevolution is microevolutionary processes over a long time doesn't cut it for me, especially in light of religious convictions which tell me that the creation of humanity was purposeful and directed.

However, given the abundant inductive evidence *supporting* macroevolution, I honestly don't have a problem with other members accepting macroevolution as the way God created humanity. I do have a problem, however, when people say that macroevolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, like gravity and Relativity. This is a falsehood, IMO.

Rob,

"If I lived in a world where evolution was absolutely undeniable and was observable on the macro scale I would accept it."

Perfect. Now, I'm assuming that in this imaginary world in which you accept evolution, you wouldn't abandon the gospel because of it. Am I right? If so, how would you interpret all of the Adam scriptures?

Jeff,

If I lived in this hypothetical world and the case for evolution on a macro scale was solid and observable, then I would also assume that on this hypothetical world that our scriptures would be different. Our scriptures would probably state something like-

1. And the Gods went down and formed the earth and caused lightning which is the breath of life to strike the elements.
2. And the Gods watched and saw that life was beginning to form on the planet they had thus created and formed.
3. And the Gods said amongst themselves "Let us go down and oversee the various forms of life that are beginning to form and watch them until they obey and begin to make life that will begin to form in our image.
4. And so the Gods went down to the earth they had previously formed and caused to start life into existance.
5. And they watched Until the elements obeyed and began to form life resembling their image.
6. And all the while on the earth the Gods had caused the life forms which began to diversify, they had caused it to rain and for death to reign generation after generation until after many generations the Gods were pleased that the life they had caused to begin had formed all of the different animals and man was also found amongst the creation.
7. And so the Gods were pleased and said- "let us take the man which we have caused to be formed and place him and all of the creation into a state of immortality and take the spirit of our image and place him in the man and we shall call him "Adam".
8.And so the Gods went down and placed the creation into a state of mortality and placed the spirit of God who was in the image of God and placed it inside the man they had caused to form from the breath of life which was in the beginning that begat life into existance.


As you can see, we both see the world drastically different. You have to reinterpret the scriptures to fit your evolutionary ideals while I do not. You live in a world where evolution seems to be a fact more strong than any words of a bible. I do not. You live ina world where you believe that you can reshape the bible to fit in harmony with evolution. I do not. And on and on and on...

Rob --

Please show me where the Bible shows that matter breaks down to atoms, that nuclear fission & fusion are some of the key processes in the universe, that plate tectonics explains earthquakes and continental movement, that gunpowder or rockets are possible, that the earth is round or that stars are balls of hydrogen and helium?

None are there. Yet, all are accurate representations of the physical world.

The Bible talks about the sun standing still (which it cannot), describes the edge of the world (of which there is none) and indicates that God shakes the Earth (he doesn't). It misclassifies animals, outlines treatments that have no foundation and many other factual areas.

Point being is that scriptures written by those who don't understand the world will reflect their biases and misunderstandings. And, frankly, ignorance.

But, that doesn't undermine the scriptural messages of how we should treat one another, or our relationship with God.

Jeff,

I have very different view on the creation which most members do not agree with. As to your A,B,C, I believe most strongly in A and then in B I have some serious issues that need worked through and then in C I believe partially in it on the micr-evolutionary side just not in the macro side.

In discussing "B", I believe that no life was actually placed on the earth until the seventh day. I believe the Abraham account here where the Gods formed and created the earth during the six days to be able to support life. Perhaps some plant seeding of the earth was also done during the 6 days. Then, on the seventh day God caused it to rain and the plant life came into existance. Next, God formed man, planted a garden and placed the man into the garden, The, after that, God formed all of the living animals both in the sea and on the land and air.

Because of this view, if it is true as I think the scriptures state they are, then this deals a serious blow to evolution.

Rob --

You are dodging.

My point above was simple. The Bible is a poor scientific text that is inaccurate on scientific matters.

Yet, you continue to treat it as if it is a biology textbook.

Will you acknowledge that it is widely wrong on issues unrelated to creation?

Steve,

I agree that the bible text is wrong on some things. And yes I agree that man does put his opinion in the scriptures from time to time. So how is that different than a science book? I have a science encyclopedia from the 50's era and there are a lot of things in it that are wrong. All this tells me is that man does make errors. And, they are even found in both biology books and the bible alike. Science is wrong a lot of the times, especially when it tries to decipher man's origins. You and I both know that- science has changed their directions for finding man's origins all the time- and, they debate it to no end amongst themselves. It is hardly an "fact" at all.

But, there are some things in wehich the Lord has revealed as truth. One of those is that Adam was the first man and that he did not evolve. That much is true.

Mark ---

Very thoughtful comment. I think many of us will be surprised how tightly pieces of knowledge fit together.

Rob,

That was an interesting post.

What I can't figure is why you have such disdain for scientists. There must be something in your past that drives this.

But, with respect to your posting . .

Essentially, you are saying that folks who have undergone extensive training and who spend their life working on the fossil record are stupid, engaged in a massive fraud and tools of the devil. And, the key reason for that determination is that their findings don't square with your reading of the scriptures. Yet, you've never spent time at a fossil dig nor dealt firsthand with the evidence.

The best analogy I can derive is that maybe I should start blasting lacrosse. Clearly, it is an evil sport because it is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures. More particularly, even though I have never played it, my understanding is greater than that of any coach or player. My observation, in the 15 minutes I have spent watching a match, is that it utterly evil because it doesn't conform to the rules of true game like American football. Of course, anyone who disagrees with me or advocates for lacrosse is secretly a spawn of Satan because such a game fosters his purposes.

Just about as logical. . ,

Oh, and by the way, these experiments were done by real scientists doing real science.

Rob - I realize you are carrying on several conversations with different people here, so I apologize for the increasing length of my comments in our conversation. I'll also hazard a guess that you're not really open to considering points of view that favor evolution after the whole "the devil laughs" comment. But for the sake of continued cordial dialogue, and for the sake of anyone else reading the discussion I'll forge ahead. I apologize that this is not brief at all, but I want to sacrifice brevity for clarity here. The quotes reference the paragraphs from your last comment to me, and I'll mostly respond in order of your main points.

"One absolutely denies a Creator..."
Evolutionary theory need not deny a Creator (though many evolutionists might choose to.) Neither, for instance does astrophysics, even though it can explain the formation of the solar system without invoking a Creator. CreationISM and the material evidence are contradictory. Neither the physical sonship of Adam nor Creationism in general is an inevitable conclusion from a faithful reading of the scriptures and other doctrinal statements. I happen to believe in the physical sonship of Adam and that he is our common ancestor. I also accept biological evolution as the best scientific explanation of the diversification of life on earth, as well as the origins of humanity at large. The two do not conflict for me.


"Adam and Eve would have to be..."
Your standard argument about what evolution does or doesn't require about the Adam story sets up a false dichotomy. The only thing that population genetics (not even evolutionary theory mind you, just basic math and genetics) requires of Adam is that he either have lived 100-200 thousand years ago, or that he not be the exclusive ancestor of the modern human race. He can still be a universal ancestor and the "primal parent". So could Noah or Abraham for that matter. It's a mathematical simplicity to prove this, and assuming Adam is a historical person it's quite likely. In this sense population genetics and evolution in general is OK with the notion of Adam as the universal father of mankind.


"evolutionists will try every way conceivable to try to shoehorn the words of the prophets as recorded in scripture into their paradigm..."
I'm not sure what you mean by 'evolutionists.' If you mean me, then I resent the implication. I'm not trying to shoehorn anything. I'm trying to follow inspiration from the Spirit which I have a covenant right to, and to be as faithful to the teachings of the prophets as I can. Your personal interpretations of the prophet's teaching may be more "plain", but more literal or more obvious is not the same as more faithful.


"When the scriptures refer to Adam being the first man of all men it is as plain and simple as that- There was no race of humans on this planet before and leading up to Adam. It is that simple."
It is manifestly not that simple. There have been several people who I sustain as prophets and apostles who would have disagreed with you about there being death before the fall of Adam, as well as there being living and dying human beings on this earth before Adam. I haven't read any compelling argument, either doctrinal or scientific that would lead me to reject that as a possibility. Given the evidence, especially recent genome sequencing from ancient human remains, it is clear to me that humans have lived on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years and that we are descended from them.


"...being official it at that point becomes the doctrine..."
As far as I am aware all of the "acknowledge this" points you raise as official are not actually points of settled doctrine. As I have pointed out several times here the statements and scriptures you have referenced have not been expounded officially. Though you may insist upon a simplistic reading of them you cannot enforce a simplistic interpretation as official. Just calling your personal views official doesn't make it so.

Your argument states in essence, that first we need to take revelations at their word, but then you apply your own chosen definitions to those words, finally you reference your own personally defined words in support of your interpretation. That's circular logic. If you want to take "first" to mean "chronologically initial" as opposed to other ancient idiomatic meanings it can have, then by all means, feel free. But you can't assume a definition from a reading of the scriptures or other doctrinal statements, take it as universally definitional, and then read it back into the scriptures as if they support your position ab initio.

Admittedly, what I'm doing is similar, with a critical difference. I don't make any ab initio claims from my own readings of the scriptures. I'm starting from an assumption, or rather a question: is it possible Adam was not the chronologically first Homo sapiens? Could this view fit with a faithful reading of the scriptures and doctri

raedyohed,

So, if the fruit fly scientists got it wrong, can you give me a certified example of real scientists doing real science that has observed and confirmed that macro-evolution is the source of all the varied life forms found on the earth. Specifically, if you could give me an example of this occurring among the higher animal life forms that has resulted in new structures or major changes to the organism. Also, if you could give me an example where this new animal was able to mate and reproduce a new species such as itself.

I know that macro-evolution has been observed in e-coli, bacteria, etc. But I would like an example that does more than just "point" to evolution happening in the higher animal life forms. Thank you.

raedyohed,

Look, if you want to twist the words of "first man" around to fit your view you are perfectly entitled but you are not going to convince me. It is as plain and simple as can be and there is absolutely no need to make a rocket science out of it.

Whether people like it or not, the official stance of the church on the question of if man evolved is- no, he did not.

Brad - You're asking for two different things here: "give me a certified example of real scientists doing real science that has observed... macro-evolution" and "give me an example of this occurring among the higher animals." I'm not clear what burden of proof you have set. I don't know what kind of evidence it would take to convince you. Is there any evidence that would convince you that is within the realms of observable science? It sounds like you've dismissed a priori all theoretical science as a sufficient means to truth, and simultaneously set the evidentiary bar above the impossible.

First we need to dispense with the false dichotomy of macro and microevolution. At what point does microevolution become macroevolution? We may talk of macroevolution as applying to that which happens across long time frames, but the observable discrete differences between diverged species are the accumulation of events occurring at the population and species level. Ernst Mayr was one of the few biologists who continued to use the term after its initial coinage by Yuri Filipchenko in 1927. Mayr explains further: "...all macroevolutionary processes take place in populations and in the genotypes of individuals, and are thus simultaneously microevolutionary processes." Choosing not to believe in macroevolution until it has been observed in higher animals either in nature or in the lab is logically equivalent to refusing to believe that the Milkyway galaxy is a rotating spiral until you've personally seen it go around at least once. I'll get back to you in a billion years! ☺

Second we need to realize that the macro-micro non-issue doesn't even come to bear on the Adam question and the interesting issues which you take a peak at in your OP. Several ancient human genomes have been sequenced (does that count as direct observation?) ranging from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis samples about 60-80ky old, a contemporary Siberian subspecies Homo sapiens Denisova ~ 40ky old, to a more recent paleo-eskimo from about 4kya. (I just had a pleasant conversation with Ed Green, a key researcher on much of the Neanderthal work. He'll be coming to give a keynote for us this Fall. Nice chap. Take a look at the stuff he did in Svante Paabo's lab the last few years.) Analyses of all of these and more have confirmed common descent and genetic admixture of ancient and disparate human populations down to our present state. The common descent of modern humans from ancient human populations hundreds of thousands of years ago IS microevolution since it all appears to be happening within a large common admixing gene pool with relatively little anatomical divergence. When fundamentalists start in on macro-micro they have effectively given up the Adam-as-exclusive ancestor argument. Same with ID by the way; it has nothing to do with resolving the question of common human ancestry since there's nothing irreducibly complex about going from H. habilis to H. sapiens.

Thirdly, if you have been kind and patient enough to read this far, I'll briefly discuss some evidence of observed macroevolution (though I caution against the misuse of the term as creating some false dichotomy – it’s simply a matter of time scale). Doug and Pam Soltis (a very nice husband and wife team if you ever chance to meet them) have done some very interesting work on Tragopogon, a weedy plant found in the intermountain west. You can find a particularly useful paper here: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/short/91/7/1022. Also just try a Google Scholar search on: Soltis tragopogon evolution. The take away from their research is many-fold. For one they have found an example of genome duplication in a newly formed species of native plant. They have found that this has happened on a number of independent occasions. They have found that the genomes of these incipient species undergo intense reorganizational phases where genome rearrangements, downsizing, regulatory adjustment of duplicated genes, and so on occurs. This has been reproduced in genetically engineered plants in labs for decades. For some other work on laboratory induction of polyploidization and the adaptive genomic response of organisms under those circumstances see Keith Adams' work at UBC. Also another stand up fellow I've had the chance to meet.

Induction of similar genomic reorganization has been performed in laboratory settings in mice. Recent comparative genomics studies of mammalian genomes has highlighted the pervasive nature of this kind of molecular evolution and has given us a window into understanding how rearrangements at the genome level are tied to species divergence often accompanied by drastic phenotypic change. By inference we conclude that this has occurred over the entire evolutionary history of mammalia. The occurrence of rearrangements and other genomic reorganizational events at the population level and their accumulation over long periods of time is a w

Rob - "evolution is a great tool for the removal of God from our faith and beliefs. Evolutionary theory in the overall picture is atheism in action. I am firmly standing by that."

I am with you in the "culture war" sense. But in fairness all of scientific inquiry, if overly relied upon, threatens faith, because faith requires that we believe things that seem impossible based on our experience and observation. The resurrection of our Lord has been assailed as non-sense from the beginning, it didn't start with Huxley. So you shouldn't single out evolutionary science, you should single out scientists or philosophers who use their intelligence to undermine faith.

We can't throw the baby (reason) out with the bathwater (militant atheists) just because they abuse their scientific knowledge for the sake of belittling those of faith. While evolutionary theory is clearly challenging to some fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, if studied faithfully and with care it can enlarge and strengthen one's faith in God as the Creator, the effects of the Fall, and the need for the Atonement.

I am most certainly not being led around by the adversary; I have God's confirmation of that. I am actively seeking to gain understanding to increase my personal faith. I hope to empathize with and strengthen others who strive to balance faith and reason.

raedyohed,

The most up to date doctrine on evolution from the church is the reprinting of the 1909 statement. The forward in the Ensigen states specifically that the statement represents the doctrine of the church on the matter. This in my opinion trumps any other past statement. The article states that man is the direct lineal offspring of deity. Now, I do not know how one could reconfigure that to include evolution. If Adam was born through evolution from a long line of men preceding him then he obviously can't be the direct lineal offspring of deity he would instead be the direct lineal offspring of animals. I say "animals" here because we both know that Adam was the first man of all men.

There is no proof of macro evolution to date! That is a fact. Beetles have been observed to always be beetles even if they vary significantly within their species. Flys have always been observed to be flys, fish have always been observed to be fish, etc, etc..

In order to prove evolution one must show how, when and why a species changed and have biologic evidence to support it, otherwise it is just a vague theory.

At the genuine heart to all of this, evolutionists must show how life first evolved- it is part of evolution. This means that they must be able to support the theory of abiogenesis with evidence and observation. As of date, no single observation in both a controlled environment and in nature have given us an instance of this supposed process. In fact, time after time, expriments have shown that without intelligence existing first, nothing intelligent can be formed itself. Intelligent life must first exist in order to produce or create life. This of course is a paramount problem for evolutionists because they have already stated that they must reject God from explaining nature. So, they are left with only one option. And what is that? To defy every known law in biology and assume that the laws of nature are somehow able to produce life in an undocumented, unobservable and scientifically incorrect manner.

Do you get that- they must bend and warp their own known laws around to fit the supernatural literalness of scince-fiction into their theory!

Rob --

Why couldn't God have zapped some primeval pool?

Or, triggered the conditions (volcanic/meteor strike) that lead to the Permian or Cretaceous extinction? Both were key developments in the evolution of plants and animals on our planet.

Or, instructed ancient man on the key elements of civilization --- agriculture and religion?

I see all as possibilities. None are provable by science without a time machine. But, all are possible given the evidence.

A few examples of BYU's involvement with evolutionary research . . .


Daily Universe story: Teaching of Evolution at BYU
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097


A few BYU evolution studies (Out of over several hundred)
http://crandalllab.byu.edu/Portals/20/docs/publications/Porter
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/372.short
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2442217

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote a 540 page scathing rebuke of the theory of evolution in his book "Man, His Origin and Destiny." He later became the Prophet of the LDS Church.

In light of this, President Benson in a talk at BYU said, "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing."

In the same talk, he went on to say, But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. “Even in the Church,” said President Kimball, “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.)

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

President Harold B. Lee said in a Conference talk, “You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.”

Finally, President Benson said "The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

“Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …

“In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, ‘Ye Elders of Israel, … will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?’ Not one of them could do it …

“I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.” (Journal of Discourses, 10:363–64.)

Steve,

I think there's a difference between making a prediction about a future event (such as Pres. Monson maybe predicting that BYU will win the NCAA championship)and writing a lengthy and thoroughly researched critique of an existing theory.

I would suggest that the moon prediction was a bit more than a NCAA prediction:

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith in 1961 at a stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Dave C. ---

What I would hear when I was an undergraduate is that there is clear evidence man evolved but we don't know how that interacted with the story of Adam & Eve.

Brad --

Let me clarify your position.

Should BYU hire faculty for biology & paleontology that are evolutionists or should they round up intelligent design folks?

Should BYU professors and students be publishing hundreds of scientific papers supporting human, plant and animal evolution? They've had national attention in national scientific journals. Haven't seen one contesting evolution either humans, plants or animals.

Should BYU being doing dinosaur digs (which are terribly expensive) to show the evolution of dinosaur species?

Steve,

I believe the Darwinian theory of evolution should be taught at BYU because that is the predominant theory that the world holds as to how life began and has flourished here on the earth. And for the students at BYU to be competitive with graduates from other academic institutions around the world, they need this knowledge. However, I believe that because BYU is a private school funded by sacred tithing money, it is in a unique position to also teach the competing theories concerning the origin of life on the earth such as those that have been revealed to prophets, and those coming out of the intelligent design movement. It appears that you have not read much of their writings because I have found their ideas and arguments very compelling, erudite and exceptionally well researched. They are definitly not the wild-eyed "folks" coming out of the creationist movement that evolutionist's paint them as. And, yes I would like to see some of them teaching at BYU because the Y should be more open-minded than the rest of the academic world, and we are not under the same governmental restrictions that they are.

Really, the only part of "evolution" that I have a problem with is macro-evolution which is really the crux of Darwinian evolution. I firmly believe that when the earth was formed the Lord commanded plant and animal life to only produce "after their kind."

Brad -
"Really, the only part of "evolution" that I have a problem with is macro-evolution"
I'm interested to know, assuming you accept evolution within species, and presumably all the science that supports it, whether that poses doctrinal problems for you similar to the ones Rob has expressed? Do you accept or reject the evolution of humans evolving within the species level for the last several hundred thousand years? This is about as micro as you can get since we're talking on the order of less than 100 thousand years, no speciation, just migration and population fragmentation and so on. Fossil and DNA-based studies have almost unanimously supported something like a 50-100kya out-of-Africa expansion. Is that something you feel compelled to reject? Why?

Steve,

I have a book I have in my possession in which you are well aware of. It is called "Darwins Black Box". You know the book, you know the scientist Behe who wrote it. If you have even glanced through his book and I am sure you have you have to aknowledge that it is full of scientific endeavors ond not some Tom-foolery.

Real scientists in ID theory work with real scientific findings to support their theory. All you evolutionists do is bash ID to death without ever listening to them. It's called basic arrogance!

Rob,

Read this:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/kitzmiller-v-dover-michael-behes-testimony/

There's no reason anybody should hold Behe's book in high esteem, regardless of his religious inclinations.

Steve and rae,

As I see it, the real problem with scientists who embrace intelligent design is that they fear getting tenure in their jobs and ostracism from their colleagues. So, if they want to pursue a career in academia in a science field, they practically have to "stay in the closet" as it were. And this is really not unfounded since the government and the courts have practically dictated that only Darwinian evolution can be taught in science classes in our public schools.

Graduate science students, even at BYU, are bright enough to see that to pursue intelligent design studies is a career killer at practically every level of science education in America. It would be like a Jew trying to get a job at the University of Berlin during the Nazi era. It's ironic that the source of all truth is excluded from the search for truth in the science classroom.

Brad -
I agree with you there. I am not happy to have Judge Jones deciding on legal definitions of science, and I'm happy to let people pursue avenues of research, but I'll stick to peer-review, though it has it's own problems. We could go on for yet weeks more talking about all the issues plaguing science culture.

But on one point I must take issue.
"It's ironic that the source of all truth is excluded from the search for truth in the science classroom." God is quite present in evolution courses at BYU, as well as being with me in my personal and professional study of the subject. In fact, I would venture to guess that He has played a role in keeping evangelical fundamentalism masquerading as ID out of His University, at least out of any biology curriculum (I've never encountered it anywhere else either).

If there turns out to be any useful truth to it, either doctrinal or scientific I hope He'll lead us to embrace it. So far the more substantial parts of the ID paradigm which I have reviewed for myself (Behe's work included), I have discarded as both doctrinally and scientifically unsound.

Jeff,

Is it true that ID theory requires some pre-existing intelligence in place for life to begin? Yes it is true, no one denys that. Is it true that this pre-existing intelligence can in fact be God in ID theory? Yes it is true- He can be the intelligent designer.

Do LDS believe that God existed before the creation event? Yes we do believe that to be true. Do we as LDS believe that God is responsible for intelligent life to be placed on this plante? Yes LDS believe in the creation of the which Christ was in charge and placed life here under his direction and plans.

It is true that it is not hard to put two facts together. Now let's look at Darwinian evolution-

Is it true under evolutionary theory that life was intelligently planned, placed, or designed in the beginning? No, that is false, evolutionary theory is not about organization, plan, or intelligence. So then, does evolutionary theory support that view that life here on this planet is a completely random event that took no intelligent plan in the beginning? Yes evolutionary theory demands that. So, in essence, evolutionary theory cannot allow a god or any other intelligence to be the essential makeup for life on this planet? Yes that is true, evolutionary theory is all about "nature" producing life through a series of unguided and unplanned sequences. Evolutionary theory is all about "nature" and this natural selection process to choose how life is brought into existance in a purely random and otherwise unorderly environment.

So why is evolution afraid of approaching God? Because if the theory approaches God then it loses it's essential theorim. Evolution is all about complexity arising out of disorder and unplanned sequences that supposedly happen at random in nature. Once one includes any form of guidance from any intelligent process or entity it loses it's whole theorim of it happening "naturally". Even if God were proven to be true in a scientific manner, evolutionary theory must still denounce that He has anything to do with the theory. The theory itself rests upon the principle that no intelligence started or helped guide evolution. Evolutionary theory rests entirelt upon the principle of "nature" as the sole mechanism drive. In evolutionary theory, no "supernatural" process or entity can exist or be part of of this "natural process". Evolutionary theory in this case would even classify any intelligence as "supernatural" and thus automatically dismissed from the picture. This means that God can never have a seat in evolutionary theory. To do so would be the cause for the rapid deteriation of the very principles of it's theory upon what it is based upon in the first place. In this regards, evolutionary theory is prejudice against God and against intelligence itself. In evolutionary theory the only chance for God to even exist, dare I say, is if evolution itself created Him also and He is a part of a much broader natural mechanism in the universe. In this sense, evolutionary theory replaces God himself as the ultimate cause and thus evolution is worshipped over the Father. But, evolution would never aknowledge this. Why? Because evolution is all about atheistic principles in action. This is now why we see the leader of modern evolutionary theory- Richard Dawkins coming out against religion based entirely off of "natural" reasoning of which as he states the sole sum of evolutionary processes that have shaped the way we think and act.

Do the math yourself, evolution is godless and always will be and ID theory is all about accepting God and ultimately- finding the truth to man's origins. It is true that without knowing and understanding God, man will never find out the true origins of our race. Evolution cannot answer the ultimate question of how we came into existance and it never will. Isn't science about finding the truth? If God is true, then science will support God. But can evolutinary theory accept the reality of a god? No. And that is why evolutionary theory is on a one way crash collision with fate. The tides are a turnin and ID theory supports and looks towards the real destination of truth. And science will readjust and align with the path of truth. Mark my words, science will lead directly back to God everytime!

Rob,
"Is it true that this pre-existing intelligence can in fact be [the] God [of] ID theory?" No, because God as posited by ID falls short of the majesty of his true nature as revealed in the restoration. While ID may look compatible with gospel truths, the God of ID theory is insufficient.

"Is it true under evolutionary theory that life was intelligently planned, placed, or designed in the beginning?" Yes, it is possible, given that we believe that God's will infuses and upholds all of material reality. Material reality must therefore be a reflection of Him. This accounts for the beauty, symmetry, and self-organizing principles inherent in nature. There is no need for a tinkering inerventionist deity. The LDS God doesn't need to intervene to create (though He can, as for example in Adam's case), because He is in and through all things.

By the same token the destructive aspects of our natural world can be, and in the scriptures are, chiefly ascribed to the adversary, who's power and influence over the material world is given effect because of the fall of Adam. As part of God's plan this material fallen universe is shaped and influenced (dare I say created?), under the opposing influence of God and the adversary.

"Evolution is all about complexity arising out of disorder." So is the gospel. That's why they are compatible.

"Mark my words, science will lead directly back to God everytime!" Yes!

Brad --

No science explicitly recognizes God. Not medicine. Not geology. Not chemistry. Not astronomy.

Does that make all invalid? No.

But, a religious person, though, can see each as reflecting his order and complexity.

The same applies to evolution.

Steve,

Do you believe God even exists? I ask this because you seem so resentful of Him having anything to do with the truth in all things. You seem to want to push him entirely out of the picture in every aspect of our physical existance and reason for being.

We shall find that God does exist. That the laws we proscribe as "nature" are in fact His laws- ones he himself is the author of. We shall find that all biologic beings are subject to the laws of preservation dependenat wholly upon his guidance and his hands. All truth leads back to God. Yes it is true that we do not need to know how God fits to understand basic logic. But, we must aknowledge that the mind that gives us reason to understand logic itself is the master craftmanship of God Himself. We must aknowledge that the precise placement of our earth and sun, moon and planets is not the random chance cause of nature but in reality the precise and deliberate actions of deity. We must not fear that "God" infilitrates the truth where it needs to. When we do find how life came into existance, we shall indeed know and understand God as being the true cause.

You should rephrase your statement to "my science does not embrace God". Guess what? My science actually does embrace God. We can choose how we want and I choose God. My God can be a part of my destination for truth even if it includes putting him center stage as an explanation for how I came into existance. That to me is "science"- to live, know and understand the hand of God in all creatures great and small. What science does the great master God himself have? I can guarentee that it embraces all things godly.

How did Christ our elder brother perform such miracles and feats of mystery? What science does he understand? I can gaurentee that he breaks no physical laws. I can also guarentee that his understanding of the sciences is directly attributed to placing his Father on the center stage.

We can all make choices. And I have no issue with including an all-powerful intelligent desginer at the helm to assist inmy understanding of how to properly interpret all the faculties that science illuminates. Your science- the science of man, the science of naturalism will never find God and never embrace him and ultimately will fail because it does not recognize the truth where it matters most. It is godless, tasteless, and most of all- it is destructive to the spiritual natures of our understanding.

Rob --

Yes, I believe in God. He has repeatedly played a key role in the life of mankind, my family and in my own.

But, I don't feel that he requires us to adopt the literalistic approach of the evangelicals -- or, we are demeaning him by failing to do so.

You've attacked and attacked and attacked claiming that unless a particular branch of science says directly that God at its center, it is evil. I find that plain silly.

Science and religion do different things. I don't think they are incompatible. You do.

My approach leads to progress in the human condition -- better health, longer lives, greater prosperity.

Your approach historically led to the inquisition, witch burnings, and, I think, is manifest today in the intellectual and economic poverty of the Islamic world.

Embrace which approach you will. I'm very comfortable with mine. And, I'm confident I am in good company in the LDS community, including at the very highest levels of the church.

Rob,

I don't understand why you are so unwilling to look outside your own perspective.

Science doesn't ever allow talk of God for reasons we discussed earlier in the thread. This doesn't mean that He couldn't have been involved.

All it means is that you have to take it on faith. Remember faith? The evidence of things not seen? ID as science, is the exact opposite of faith.

Scientists can't have a problem with people having faith in some form of creationism. But when people try to say that science shows that some form of creationism is necessary, that is where they go wrong, wrong, wrong.

Brad --

This is an essay by Henry B. Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1983:


When President Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was published, someone urged it as an institute course. One of the institute teachers came to me and said: "If we have to follow it exactly, we will lose some of the young people." I said, "I don't think you need to worry." I thought it was a good idea to get this problem out in public, so the next time I went to Sunday School General Board meeting, I got up and bore my testimony that the evidence was strongly in the direction that the world was four or five billion years old. That week, President Smith called and asked me to come see him. We talked for about an hour, and he explained his views to me. I said, "Brother Smith, I have read your books and know your point of view, and I understand that is how it looks to you. It just looks a little different to me." He said as we ended, "Well, Brother Eyring, I would like to have you come in and let me talk with you sometime when you are not quite so excited." As far as I could see, we parted on the best of terms.

I would say that I sustained President Smith as my Church leader one hundred percent. I think he was a great man. He had a different background and training on this issue. Maybe he was right. I think he was right on most things, and if you followed him, he would get you into the celestial kingdom.


The scriptures record God's dealing with his children back to a "beginning" some six thousand years ago, but dismiss the long prologue in a few short paragraphs. The scriptures tell us of six creative periods followed by a period of rest. During these periods the earth was organized and took essentially its present form. In the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase "creative periods" is rendered as "days." The use of this term has led to at least three interpretations. In the first, the "days" are construed to mean the usual day of twenty-four hours. In the second, the days of creation are interpreted as thousand-year periods following such statements as occur in 2 Peter 3:8: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The third interpretation accepts "creative periods" as times of unspecified length and looks to a study of the earth itself to give added meaning to the exceedingly brief scriptural accounts.

In earlier times some variation of the first two interpretations was all but universally held by the Christian world. This is no longer true. In school and in secular publications, the third interpretation is the generally accepted one. Accordingly, whatever our own point of view may be, we need to know the viewpoint presented to our children if we are to be effective counsellors to them.

The cumulative thickness of rocks laid down as sediment is about four hundred fifty thousand feet [128 000 m] or about 80 miles [130 km]. The rate of deposition varies enormously with the time and the place, but a not unreasonable average rate is one foot [30 cm] every 250 years. This leads to a very rough estimate of 112 million years for the time required to deposit all the known sediments.

Also, in my opinion, the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds.

A quantitative way of getting at the age of strata and other earth structures is by use of the radioactive decay of various elements. An analogy of how radioactive decay works may be helpful. If one should look at a fire and note that half the wood is burned the first hour and that an hour after that, half of what was left had burned, he could say the fire obeys the radioactive decay law. This law states that in a given length of time the same fraction of the fuel is burned, independent of the circumstances. Conversely, by measuring the fuel remaining as a fire and the amount of ashes already produced, one can deduce the fraction of the fuel consumed and so estimate how long the fire has been burning.

All the radioactive elements behave like our hypothetical fire in that, independent of the existing conditions, the same fraction of the radioactive elements is always transformed to another element in a given interval of time. The new element is the ashes of the radioactive fire; for example, half of the potassium (atomic weight forty) present to begin with changes into argon forty in a period of 1,300 million years, and half of what remains is changed in the next 1,300 million years, and so on. This period of 1,300 million years is called the half-life of potassium forty.

When a potassium-containing mineral crystallizes, it is ordinarily free of all gaseous argon. As time goes on, the potassium forty changes to argon forty at a rate determined by its half-life. If the crystal doesn't leak so that the liberated argon is retained inside the crystal, one can me

Brad --

Since I found it yesterday, I have fallen in love with David O. McKay's quote on the topic:

"Milliken is right when he says 'Science without religion obviously may become a curse rather than a blessing to mankind.' But, science dominated by the spirit of religion is the key progress and the hope of the future. For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind."

Notice his term: "[E]volution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world . . . ."

Very inspiring.

Steve,

You are using the "[E]volution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world . . . ." quote completely out of context. Here is the context in which he gave it in 1952 at BYU (notice his use of the words "intelligent" and "design":

"There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored...For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought ... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth. He is the Father of our souls and spirits. No question about it. You have your testimony—if you haven't you shouldn't be on the faculty—that God lives and Jesus is the Christ, and the purpose of creation is theirs."

And in a 1954 talk at BYU, Pres. McKay said:

The stern fact of life is that animals, as other living things, can grow and produce their kind only in accordance with fixed laws of nature and the divine command, "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and the beast of the earth after his kind." (Genesis 1:24)

Brad --

In doing some quick research, it is clear the President McKay personally supported evolution. He chose not to publicly make the point because he didn't want to create conflict with some of his brethren who felt otherwise.

A quick Google search of the terms "David O McKay and evolution" will show what I mean.

Steve,

President McKay may have privately supported evolution but I believe it is quite telling that he didn't express this support in any of his official speeches or writings. I will leave it to others to surmise why he didn't.

Brad - Yeah, I think I agree with all of that there. I don't mean to imply that all or even most of the Church leadership believes in evolution themselves, just that the actions of the Board, knowing full well that evolution is being taught as accurate, by individuals who think it's accurate, tells me that they are comfortable with this viewpoint within a Church institution. Thus it seems OK to believe in as a member of the Church. Thus whatever we might say the Church's official position may or may not be, it of necessity can't exclude at least some form of evolution as a possibility, which I think is probably about where you are on this too, so yeah.

"writings of general authorities in favor of Darwinian evolution being the source of life"
Talmage's 'Earth and Man' is supportive of what I would call amended Darwinism. He outlines certain things which he thinks stand as certainties in the face of scientific theory, and also carves out space for evolution as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. McKay's private communications have provided a number of statements, each only suggestive on it's own, but which together paint a picture of an individual who finds evolution favorable.

Another great one is Elder Oaks quoting Dinosaur Jim Jensen to the BYU Board: "The interpretation of fossils should not go by default to those who are aggressively atheistic in their conclusions." Jim was a preeminent paleontologist and in 1963 he designed a museum whose central feature was a ramp around which the whole building was wrapped, and which depicted the evolution of life on earth. Jim was an evolutionist, and I think his advice is insightful. BYU's Museum of Paleontology, for which he is largely responsible for laying the groundwork, has this as it's subscript (at: http://cpms.byu.edu/ESM/index.html): "This museum showcases many fossils from the Jurassic Period, which spans a period from approximately 210-140 million years ago. The museum houses one of the top five collections from the Jurassic Period in the world..." We're proud of our dinosaurs!


Steve - Just now finding gems from President McKay on evolution? Here's a good one, mind you it's anecdotal and third-hand, I believe from Sterling McMurrin, I don't know the whole story, but it finds it's way into McKay's biography. "I would like to know just what it is that a man... is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." Admittedly, this doesn't really say much of anything about what President McKay thought evolution was, or why or what exactly he believed about it. But he is generally viewed as having been far more tolerant, and perhaps even in agreement with much of what is now a more moderate pro-evolutionary view.

Eyring was another fascinating character. A nice summary of his involvement in things related to natural history, including age of the earth, abiogenisis, and the science/religion conflict can be found here: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/harmony/chapter8.htm#chapter%208


Rob - in light of reflection I have been doing today I want to recant, or amend, an earlier statement. O quoted you saying: "Mark my words, science will lead directly back to God everytime!" to which I replied: "Yes!" While I do believe that science can uncover truth, and I believe that all truths point to God, yet science by definition, by its own structural nature, is not equipped to find out God. I am often over-enthusiastic about uncovering new knowledge as a matter of applied reasoning and observation, but I must more consistently ask myself "can man by searching find out God?"

I'd like to re-explain my reasoning about ID, since I think this is relevant to the general question of whether science can directly lead to God. Assume two alternate universes. In Universe 1 (U1) God exists. In Universe 2 (U2) there is no God. Consider two different events A and B that exist in their same respective states in both U1 and U2. We hypothesize that A has the hand of God in it (D&C 59:21). If we are in U1, we are correct. If we are in U2 we are incorrect. In order to test our theory we observe A and by comparison to B it appears to have been affected by God. We conclude that God exists, and that his hand is in A. If we are in U2 our observation of A is flawed. If we are in U1 our observation of B is flawed. In either case our science has failed since the necessary scenario of A being affected by God and B being unaffected by God cannot exist in either of U1 or U2 without violating D&C 59:21. ID, not realizing this problem, posits this middle scenario in its a priori assumptions. Thus ID cannot fulfill the injunction of D&C 59:21.


Jeff G - "Science doesn't ever allow talk of God." I'm a philosophical and logical greenhorn, but I'd submit that my argument above partly explains why that is. Thoughts?

Raedyohed,

That's actually a pretty interesting take on the particular passage. I think that one would have to really spell out what it means for "God's hand to be in *everything*" (does it have to be in the same way and to the same degree?) before I think most would be willing to take it as anything more than that though.

My basic take on God in science is this:

There is no fundamental reason or assumption for God no being available for scrutiny by science. Science studies all that is made publicly available, and there is the rub: God simply hasn't made himself available. It is God, not the scientists who have kept Him out of science. In my opinion, the best way for the believer to respond to this is to say, "Of course He doesn't reveal himself publicly! We never said otherwise. That is why faith is so important." And then carry on their merry way.

Science can never, ever show that God didn't have anything to do with creation. It simply doesn't have the tools for this. It can, however, show that He wasn't necessary in creation. But so what? When did we ever need proof or to show that He is "necessary"? Just have faith that He was involved and go on your merry way.

I was thinking that God's "hand" might be pretty active or passive, in that he might actively engage in something vs sitting back and knowing that something is happening that isn't going to interfere in His purposes.

I think Steve is saying that we can still believe that God's hand was in the creation, just in a fairly passive manner, while Rob and other creationists want to emphasize a more active role for God. I think both would say that they are comfortable with the passage you are dealing with.

"The advancement of Darwinian theory has no effect on medical or technological advances."

Rob, this statement merely confirms to me your ignorance about evolution. Advances in the treatment of contagious diseases, something that even you would agree is a big part of medical advances, depends on understanding (and advancement) of "Darwinian theory."