Where Did Adam's Body Come From?

03/23/2011

I thank everyone who wrote comments on the previous post. The discussion was spirited yet largely civil. I think the discussion appropriately represents both sides. Regardless of what side of the debate you’re on, the exchanges are informative!

And now for something new.

I used to say that I didn’t know how Adam’s body was formed. My best guess was that the Lord somehow formed his body from the elements of the earth. (A potter gathering clay from the earth and forming it into a pot is a helpful analogy.) However, after studying the issue of Adam’s creation, I have come to an unexpected conclusion about how his body was created.

He was born, just like you and me.

The Lord taught us that Adam was “born into the world by water, blood, and the spirit (Moses 6:59). Joseph F. Smith taught us that Adam was “also born of woman, the same as Jesus and you and I.” Brigham Young taught us that “mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet.” He also taught that Adam “was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” And BH Roberts taught that “we are brought forth by the natural laws of procreation, so also was Adam and his wife in some older world.”

For a more thorough coverage of the evidence regarding Adam’s birth, see Ryan’s article on this issue at his Loyal to the Word website.
http://loyaltotheword.synthasite.com/the-manner-of-adams-creation.php

I have not yet formed an opinion on who his biological parents are. Some have suggested God, but I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten child of the Father in the flesh.

Comments

Rob Osborn

03/23/2011 22:39

This is how I have long felt about it. Personally I think that Adam was the very literal son of God. The geneology of the scriptures points to Adam's father being God himself. One of th easpects of this is that we are told in the D&C that resurrected eternally married couples will have a continuance of the seeds forever and ever. Is not the seed of man in his loins? It tells me that our procreative powers carry beyond the grave and into eternity.

Another part I have always thought about this was that Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This meant that God and his wife came to this planet on the seventh day, caused it to rain which caused the plants to grow. Then they partook of the fruits of the plants which enabled their seed to flourish in their bodies and then through procreation Adamd and Eve were both born. God planted a garden in Eden then and raised Adam and Eve from birth into adults.

As for Jses being the only begotten in the flesh, this had to do with being born into mortality. This is why the words "flesh" may be used here. This goes back to Lucifer also wanting to be born in the flesh in mortality. Only "one" was chosen and he would be the "only begotten" in "the flesh".

Joseph Smidt link

03/24/2011 00:01

Of course Adam had to be the Son of God. How else could the Fall be infinite in the ways I discussed earlier? :)

Joseph Smidt link

03/24/2011 00:12

People can look at Moses 6:22 and Luke 3:38 lest they be confused:

"And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed"

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Rob I think gives the right understanding why Christ is called the only begotten *of the flesh*.

Infinite Atonement and the Infinite Fall, both wrought by the Sons of God. (The first and second man Adam.)

davidmmorris@hotmail.com

03/24/2011 00:18

I will list a couple of a quotes that I have found helpful:

(James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 4: 266.)
An excerpt of a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, President of the Central States Mission

Salt Lake City, Utah February 20, 1912 Prest. Samuel O. Bennion Independence,

Dear Brother:
Your question concerning Adam has not been answered before because of pressure of important business. We now respond briefly, but, we hope, plainly….

President Young went on to show that our father Adam,-that is, our earthly father,-the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being "Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days," and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38)….

Your brethren, (signed) JOSEPH F. SMITH, ANTHON H. LUND, CHARLES W. PENROSE, First Presidency.

David

03/24/2011 00:20

(“A Message from a Woman of the Latter-Day Saints To the Women in All the World.” Susa Young Gates. Improvement Era, 1907, Vol. X. March, 1907. No. 5 .) Emphasis added

I have listened in fancy to the questions asked seventeen hundred years ago, by cultured and haughty Roman matrons, of the lowly Christian women who chanced to cross their way. I think I hear some Roman princess exclaim in soft, sarcastic tones, "So? And are you a Christian? Aren't those Christian people very unfortunate and degraded?.....

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world?" The answer contains the foundation stone of all my faith. We believe that he was the very Son of God, the Only Begotten, in this world, of the Father. All others had human fathers as well as mothers, always excepting Adam, who was a being brought from another world. We worship God as our very eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ as the Mediator, the one only link between God and man. He is the author and finisher of our faith, and our elder brother.

David link

03/24/2011 00:22

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954], 346.)

Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon the earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him; and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys, as gardens are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveler. From this source mankind received their religious traditions. (See also JD 9:148)

David

03/24/2011 00:25

(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 15.)
ADAM
For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27:11; 29:26), archangel (D&C 88:112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138:38).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Michael, spoken of in the Bible (Dan. 10:13; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7), is Adam. In his premortal life, Adam received the priesthood (TPJS, p. 157), was taught the plan of God (TPJS, p. 167), and was appointed to be the head of the human family (TPJS, p. 158). He participated in the creation of the earth and occupied a position of authority next to Jesus Christ (TPJS, p. 158), under whose direction he at all times functions (D&C 78:16). He led the forces of righteousness against the devil "and his angels," who were overcome and expelled from heaven (see War in Heaven).

Latter-day scriptures attest that Adam is a son of God, that his physical body was created by the Gods in their own image and placed in the Garden of Eden (Moses 6:9, 22; Abr. 5:7-11; TPJS, p. 345-53; cf. 2 Ne. 2:14-19). In this physical-spiritual state in Eden, Adam was called the "first man" (Moses 1:34) and given responsibility to dress the garden and "open the way of the world" (TPJS, p. 12). He was given dominion and responsibility over the earth, and he gave names to its creatures (Moses 3:19). He was joined with Eve in marriage (Abr. 5:4-19), but in their premortal condition "they would have had no children" (2 Ne. 2:23). Adam received the grand keys of the priesthood (Abr., Facsimile 2, Fig. 3), and its ordinances were confirmed upon Adam and Eve (cf. TPJS, p. 167).

Paul 2

03/24/2011 08:37

In light of how the topic is discussed, you might wish to change the title of the blog to "Mormons ignoring science". This is not meant to be critical, just that the post has everything to do with prooftexting religious authorities and nothing to do with science its self or a discussion of research results.

Brad

03/24/2011 08:49

Dave,

Great post. I believe you can carry this a step further with Eric Skousen's statement that the simple explanation to the origin of life on earth and the complex undertaking to prepare an earth for modern life is that when God needs to introduce new life into a developing planetary system, he simply transplants this life from older stock that is already flourishing on other planets.

He goes on to say that this interplanetary transplantation of life is not difficult to accept if we consider that God and his Son came from their glorified planet located at an immense, cosmic distance from our earth to the young Joseph Smith. Similarly, life forms, both preparatory (dinosaurs) and modern (cows), can also be transported across space from solar system to solar system.

This means that the family of the Gods are not required to create "new" life each time an earth is made. It is also not necessary to require increasingly complex life forms to somehow gradually change from "kind" to "kind" throughout the various stages of a planet's crustal preparation.

Even Brigham Young said that among the "natural principles" of earth building is the Creator's capacity to bring "animals and the seeds from other planets to this world."

J. Stapley

03/24/2011 09:39

Adamgodilicous!

Dave C.

03/24/2011 09:57

Paul 2,

"In light of how the topic is discussed, you might wish to change the title of the blog to "Mormons ignoring science"."

Show me a controlled experiment where natural selection acting on random mutations across generations produces an entirely new lifeform, until then the certain scientific evidence for common descent is seriously lacking.

Given the inability of science to produce undeniable evidence, I will go with the inspired words of spiritually enlightened men.

Steve

03/24/2011 13:03

Dave C. --

The evidence you are looking is laid down in considerable detail in the fossil record.

You can see layer on layer species changing over time. A great example is dinosaurs. They become more and more complicated and diverse as you move up the fossil layers.

Mammals are much the same way. Those 65 million years ago were relative small. Then, after the dinosaur extinction, they get much larger and far more complex. And, that pattern continues to today.

Nathan link

03/24/2011 13:39

>>>
People can look at Moses 6:22 and Luke 3:38 lest they be confused:

"And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed"

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
>>>

A question I still have on this is why Joseph Smith in the JST specifically changed Luke 3:38 from "... which was the son of God." to "... who was formed of God"

Why specifically make that change?

Brad

03/24/2011 13:56

Steve,

I think we are actually discussing two different things here: the age of the earth and Darwin's theory of evolution.

As earth scientists have carefully studied the preparatory life forms in various strata, it has become fashionable to presume that one type of life form found in a deeper stratum was ancestral to a life form found in the strata above.

It has been pointed out however, that if this theory is true there should be more evidence of the continuous development of life in the earth's crust, from the simple to the complex. However, despite an intensive search for confirming data, as of yet, earth scientists freely admit that a detailed sequence of evolution is not evident in the rock record.

In fact, evolutionist, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University was more specific:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary 'trees' that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Talmage, Widtsoe and probably several other GAs have openly expressed their belief that the earth is very old. Eric Skousen in his book explains that it obviously took a great amount of time for the Lord to prepare the earth to receive modern life forms, including Adam and Eve. It is during this preparatory period that dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were brought to the earth to prepare it with mineral and energy resources that would later be used by man when the modern life forms were brought to the earth. I agree therefore with those general authorities that say that the earth could be several billion years old.

So, I believe the gist of Talmage's, Widtsoe's and Henry Eyring's argument was over the age of the earth and not Darwinian evolution because the two are not necessarily connected.

Joseph Smidt link

03/24/2011 14:19

Nathan,

Two things:

1. Moses also came from Joseph Smith and calls Adam the son of God so if the Bible was somehow wrong Joseph Smith wouldn't have "been inspired" to add that inaccuracy to the Book of Moses. (This is why there is so much wisdom in requiring "Out of the mouth of two witnesses")

2. If you look in the Gospel Principles manual you will find not all JST changes meant what was written in the Bible was wrong. Much of is was adding to it so we see better more than one possible interpretation.

The JST lets us know that not only was Adam Gospel's son but apparently emphasizes God formed Adam. (I'm sure to counter all the people who want to believe Adam was God's figurative Son. If God forms you your are not only His figurative Son.)

Steve

03/24/2011 14:38

Brad --

I think many don't understand how detailed and intricate the fossil record is.

For instant, triceratops. It doesn't just appear in the record. The first and oldest are protoceratops. Then, there are myriad of transistional forms over millions years, all with increasing complexity. That is one variety.

I can show you the same for various sea creatures, many dinosaurs and lots of mammals. The record is extraordiarily detailed.

Finally, the lack of transistional canard is silly. There are huge number of intermidiary forms. Many of the dinosaur species have dozens.

Nathan link

03/24/2011 15:09

@Joseph Smidt:

Thanks for your insights. I'd considered these points but they seem unconvincing for the reasons explained below. Perhaps you have further insight?

>>>
"1. Moses also came from Joseph Smith and calls Adam the son of God so if the Bible was somehow wrong Joseph Smith wouldn't have "been inspired" to add that inaccuracy to the Book of Moses."
>>>

Was it an inaccuracy? I assume most of the Christian world interprets "son of God" in this context to be a figurative expression. Perhaps Joseph Smith clarified the actual meaning in the NT but chose not be quite so specific in the Book of Moses. I'm not saying that this is what happened--I'm only pointing out that it is a real possibility.

>>>
(This is why there is so much wisdom in requiring "Out of the mouth of two witnesses")
>>>

But there have been multiple witnesses for a lot of things, including the necessity of communism, the notion of a flat earth, the idea that black individuals would not hold the Priesthood until the Millennium, etc. Evolutionary theory has many witnesses. I've had several Christian neighbors witness their faith to me. Multiple witnesses are important, but plainly the fact that multiple witnesses exist does not in and of itself make something true.

>>>
2. If you look in the Gospel Principles manual you will find not all JST changes meant what was written in the Bible was wrong. Much of is was adding to it so we see better more than one possible interpretation.
>>>

I can accept this as a general principle, but it doesn't seem to follow that this principle applies specifically here. Joseph Smith didn't only add another interpretation, he also intentionally removed the original rendering--an action which is unnecessary if the only motivation is an alternative translation.

>>>
The JST lets us know that not only was Adam Gospel's son but apparently emphasizes God formed Adam.
>>>

Again, if the intent of the JST was to make both points, why specifically erase the first one?

Thanks for your comments.

Dave C.

03/24/2011 16:34

Rob & Joseph,

It makes sense that the person responsible for the Fall and the person responsible for the Atonement were both literal sons of God. Two essential events in the salvation of humankind involved two literal sons of the Most High.

Rob,
"God planted a garden in Eden then and raised Adam and Eve from birth into adults."
Couldn't Adam and Eve have been born and raised on another world and then placed in the garden when they reached adulthood?

Joseph Smidt link

03/24/2011 17:18

@Nathan.

Thank you for thoughts. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Moses which directly refers to Adam as God's son. Do you think the JST translation of Luke was meant to revise that too? If not, Moses' claim of Adam being God's son stands.

@J. Stapley,

Speaking of Adamgodilicous, I'm put on my "we as Mormons love to speculate because it is assume and I hope never changes" hat and will throw out there:

1. If I transgress the entire fabric of eternity doesn't get altered. But if you could get a Son on the Most High possessing attributes from His Father like Christ did to transgress, you might get something catastrophic. (Like the Fall.) Speculation... Speculation... Speculation....!

2. Christ is God's Son and the Son is so much like the Father (especially when the scriptures talk about Him) much of the Christian world gets Christ confused with the Father.

If Adam is a Son in a similar way, little one some of even our own leaders have confused Adam with the Father. Speculation... Speculation... Speculation....!

Few things bring as much joy to my soul as speculating about crazy Mormon doctrines. We've got the coolest religion ever!

Joseph Smidt link

03/24/2011 17:21

Wow, the number of typos I make never ceases to amaze me.

"it is assume" should be "it is awesome"

"little one" should be "little wonder"

I'm sure there's more.

Rob Osborn

03/25/2011 08:49

I was reading over on PBS about their evolution and man's origins section and it spoke of the improbability that another life-from could eventually evolve into a human. It stated the path that we took with all of it's twists and turns would make it highly unlikely that another life-form could ever take a path similarto ours and end up like us. This brought up a good point within evolutionary theory that I wanted to bring up.

If it was highly improbable that a life-form could evolve into us, then it is also highly improbable that we as humans ever evolved in the first place. But, that isn't really my point. My point is that if we are created in God's image, then it would be highly unlikely, if evolution were true, that God did not guide and direct evolution. Evolutionists always speak of these "transitionals". If evolution is true and For us to be made in the image of God, the various transitionals leading up to man would have a guided and directed path that did not deviate from an intelligent plan.

Scientists have no idea how the male and female reproductive organs evolved. The whole process of human creation is extremely complex. Even scientists working in the lab have yet to design synthesized human life with the best technological tools. So, if trained scientists can't bring this to pass, how can something undirected such as evolution do such a perfect job?

To me this tells me that there must be a God- there must be a plan. If it were God's goal to bring to pass human life and it was perfectly within him to do that naturally (through procreation) and get exact results, why would he waste so much time and energy and "chance" to bring it about in some evolution process that took billions of years?

I work on cars for a living. I have specific tools and processes for every different job. When I need to change out a spark plug I do not go and reinvent the ratchet and socket when I already have it in my possession. neither do i take the plug out and take it to the drawing board and draw it out and make a parts list to remanufacture that plug when i know I can go to the local auto parts store and get an exact replicate. Is God, who we are made in his image any different? If he already has seed within his body to replicate an exact replica of his body, why would he choose any different path?

If I myself want a child I do not go down to the local chemical shop and buy all the necessary ingredients and take them to the lab and tell them to take the ingredients and mix up a human. No, I procreate. If Adam is made in the image of God then we can be rest assured that God and his wife themselves have reproductive organs perfectly capable of producing life naturally.

Anyways, you can start to see the ridiculousness of evolution from this standpoint alone.

Dave C.

03/25/2011 10:25

Rob,

Nicely put. Orthodox evolutionary common descent is inconsistent with a purposeful and divinely directed creation of mankind. I will add that even if mankind could evolve through evolutionary means (i.e., natural selection acting on random mutations), the number of possible permutations is so astronomical that the Adam that was to be created in God's image would not have evolved (i.e., Adam's body was one outcome in more than a billion, I am sure).

Several scholarly latter-day saints accept the common descent of Adam's body. They may choose to believe what they want on this matter. However, I would like to see them at least acknowledge that their theistic evolution deviates somewhat from orthodox evolution, especially with regard to the issue of random mutations in the genome. This would make a good blog topic.

Rob Osborn

03/25/2011 12:35

Dave C,

I agree, LDS evolutionist scholars cannot answer why or how evolution somehow shaped life to create Adam to be in the direct image as God. The different possibilities make it improbable without some guiding hand. This "guiding hand" they refuse to accept however because to admit that is to admit that the theory of Intelligent Design" would be correct after all. So, they are stuck between a rock and a hard spot. I mean- how does one explain Adam's body in the direct image of God through evolution without some intelligent plan/design in place to ensure Adam forms in God's image? They point and say that we always bringt he "supernatural" in to explain things but in reality it's the other way around- they have to invoke the supernatural to make Adam appear after billions of years to be a replicate of God's body. What happened- did the Gods have to keep waving the magic wand over countless transitionals so that the right mutations and copy errors happened? This they cannot answer. They search in vain trying to find some plausible way to include God into evolution without there ever being any intelligent plan or design involved in the process. They create their own pit- their own paradox from which they cannot overcome.

Steve

03/25/2011 13:25

Dave C. & Rob,

What if intelligence can only evolve in a manlike form? If so, then human beings would be the natural outcome with enough time.

The critical issue with Adam is what was he? Was he an actual person? Did he exist independent of other pre-existing humans? Why was he unique?

I know many think they have the answer but it is far fuzzier than one might think. For instance, when I took out my endowments, the temple president read a statement that he said had been approved by the First Presidency that the representation was symbolic and not literal. Does that apply to the entire account of creation?

The history in the fossils and in the workings of mankind show a sudden burst when agriculture was introduced (sophisticated religion seems closely associated as to larger communities).

Could God have provided that knowledge and propelled mankind forward? Could that be where the Adam story ties in?

Interesting questions. But, I really think one needs to be careful in trying to treat the scriptures as historical or scientific accounts. They simply don't fit either category.

Brad

03/25/2011 15:01

Steve,

You raise some very interesting questions:

What was Adam? Was he an actual person? Was he brought to the earth from another planet or did he evolve from earlier hominids on this earth? Was he unique? Also, do you think that plant and animal life were brought to this earth from other spheres or did they evolve on this planet?

Is the endowment ceremony symbolic and does that symbolism apply to the entire account of creation?

Could God have provided the knowledge that propelled mankind forward? Could that be where the Adam story ties in?

I'm curious what your answers would be to these very important questions. Thanks.

Steve

03/25/2011 15:35

Brad --

My take, based on the fossil record, is that all discernible life evolved on this planet.

That does not mean that any particular individual or even whole species of animals were not "transplanted" or individually manipulated. I think the same applies to mankind.

As to Adam, I have absolutely no idea. I know lots of religious leaders (both in and outside the Church) who believe he was a specific individual. I have no problem with that. I know other who think otherwise. I had a religion professor at BYU who thought he might be a metaphor for mankind.

As mentioned above, I think it is not inconsistent with the physical evidence that God brought knowledge to mankind (or, as mentioned above he tweaked our makeup). As to the degree or the when or how, I think there is little evidence either way.

There are many questions where definitive answers are simply not there. I've always been intrigued by some the material in the BYU evolution packet that indicated we'll be surprised when we get the answers.

Jared* link

03/25/2011 20:20

For a different view on this topic, see <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/07/adam-and-eve-obscuring-plain-and.html">Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plan and Precious Truth</a> and <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2010/08/sons-of-god-smackdown.html">Sons of God Smackdown</a>. Briefly, I think there are legitimate interpretive arguments against this idea, and not all Church leaders have supported it. Also, Richard Draper <a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=165">surveyed Joseph Smith's teachings</a> and found no solid evidence that he taught such a thing. The reason for J. Stapley's reference to Adam-God is that that is the context in which this idea was introduced.

The history of evolution is inside us-<a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-separates-humans-from-animals.html">literally in our genes</a>. Maybe God has a genome that's over 50% broken virus sequences, broken genes, and other genetic oddities shared with other animals, but I doubt it.

Jared* link

03/25/2011 20:22

Oh shoot. I forgot this blog doesn't support links in the comments. Sorry.

Rob Osborn

03/26/2011 01:02

Steve,

You mentioned-

"What if intelligence can only evolve in a manlike form? If so, then human beings would be the natural outcome with enough time.
The critical issue with Adam is what was he? Was he an actual person? Did he exist independent of other pre-existing humans? Why was he unique?"

So are you saying that all life-forms (intelligence) will eventually evolve into humans? This sounds pretty far-fetched, especially in the Darwinian evolution model. I see way too much supernatural magic wand waving here. Where is the "law" or "principle" in science to back up this assumption? Irregardless, your what if's sound more like "intelligenct design" rather than random mutaions.

Who was "Adam"? Are you even serious? This is so extremely clear in our gospel- he was the first man of all men on this earth. He was an actual being and before him there were no race of pre-existing men. Our gospel is so extremely and absolutely clear on this issue one who is LDS shouldn't even question who Adam was or if he was real.

Yes he was "unique" because he was the first man of all men. How does that not make sense to you?

Tim

03/26/2011 05:35

"So are you saying that all life-forms (intelligence) will eventually evolve into humans?"

Sigh...

Take a course in biology already. Please.

Steve

03/26/2011 09:35

Rob --

Evolutionary theory indicates that life feels niches in the environment. A particular species will succeed if it has an advantage over its competitors. Mutations occur regularly but "take" if they are a competitive advantage.

As to Adam, I know you take virtually every scriptural phrase as a representation of an actual event. But, that is simply not so. The Good Samaritan didn't actually help the one who fell among thieves. There was never a worldwide flood. Nor, did Jonah get swallowed by a whale.

Some accounts use real events to teach lessons. Some portions are just poetry. Others sections are moral lessons. Still others are prophetic. The scriptures consist of many types of literature.

As to Adam, as I indicated above, I'm unsure whether he was or was not an actual individual. As I noted, I wouldn't be surprised if he was. But, I seriously doubt he played the role that you believe he did.

Steve

03/26/2011 09:36

Oops . .

"life fills"

Rob Osborn

03/26/2011 11:16

Steve,

You still cannot escape the reality that in order for Adam to form and be a perfect replicate of God there has to be planning and guidance. Randomness just doesn't happen the way you believe. You make it sound as if nature automatically creates an environment that is most perfectly fitted by a life-form that fits God's image. That is ridiculous! Show me the actual science here not some made-up supernatural magic wand-waving scenerio.

The church believes in Adam being the first man of all men. They also believe that there was no death beforte Adam fell. They also believe that Adam was a real individual. They also believe that the flood was global, not local.

As to your last sentence, it should read- "But, I seriously doubt he played the role that the church believes he did."

Steve

03/26/2011 12:00

Rob --

You are arguing in a circle.

Your argument basically says that mutation can't lead to a creature that God can work with to fulfill his purposes. I would suggest that is rather constraining.

As to what the Church believes . . You are simply overstepping.

Sure. Many assume that the flood was worldwide.

But, Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, noted: "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us."

I think the same principle applies to the creation and to Adam. We simply do not -- and cannot -- know.

Rob Osborn

03/26/2011 22:57

Steve,

It's your uphill climb to make, not mine. I can prove over and over again how to make a perfect replicate human and you still have a million answers to find. I'm sitting back in my lazy-boy here. It's you that have to make the climb up Mt. Improbable.

I don't really care what Elder Widsoe's opinion is on the manner- he doesn't represent the official doctrine of the church.

And finally- yes- we can know that Adam was a real individual, that he was the first man. You can believe whatever you want on the matter and you are entitled to it, but at least acknowledge that your opinions and the church's official doctrine are at odds.

Steve

03/27/2011 15:05

Rob --

What I found fascinating was your utter dismissal of Elder Widtsoe's take on the flood. I assume his fatal character flaw is his scientific background?

Let me test that thesis. What is your reaction to Elder Talmadge's point that fossils at the Adam-ondi-Ahman indicate that life lived and died --- before Adam and Eve came into being? Was he another ill-informed scientist?

Rob Osborn

03/27/2011 18:44

Steve,

You always bring up the same few individuals to support your position. Their opinions do not reflect the official beliefs of the church. We could fire back and forth quoting various apostles and prophets and we both know that the apostles and prophets have always had divided opinions.

Of course I dismiss elder Widstoe's opinions regarding the flood. I dismiss your opinions also. So what? Who cares? You dismiss other prophets and apostles like Joseph F. Smith. We both know that- what's to prove?

Jeff G

03/28/2011 00:52

Rob-

"...I dismiss elder Widstoe's opinions regarding the flood... You dismiss other prophets and apostles like Joseph F. Smith. We both know that- what's to prove?"

That seems pretty obvious.

You claim to follow the general authorities. And yet you reject some general authorities.

But we have seen that some general authorities rejected other general authorities. So maybe you are paradoxically following the general authorities in rejecting other general authorities.

The question becomes, by what standards do you follow some but reject other GA's? It seems that the only acceptable answer here has to be an appeal to some criterion independent of what the GA's say. But this is the exact opposite of what all your comment seem to presuppose.

In other words, your position seem fraught with inconsistencies. Perhaps you could clear them up for us?

raedyohed

03/28/2011 08:55

Man I actually try to get some work done for a week and I miss a great conversation!

Re: the main topic from the OP, I pretty much agree. I like Ryan Nilsson's site LoyalToTheWord, though I certainly take issue with certain details as they are laid out with respect to evolution in general. But then again I take issue with more than a few speculative things said by past prophets about a number of topics. No matter.

Adam is certainly, in my mind, a Son of God. Humans also evolved from more ancient hominid species. My only hang up is cosmic teleology vis a vis biological compatibility. That strays pretty far from any 'official' doctrine and any credible science, so I don't lose much sleep over it.

raedyohed

03/28/2011 09:14

Brad,

The Eric Skousen Theory (EST) which you reference in comments from Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:49:49, and Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:56:06 commits some logical errors.

First the EST only succeeds in moving the question back one step. If all living things were transplanted, whether as specially selected types which then proceeded to evolve here or having every single species specially placed here from a static stock, it begs the question, since no explanation is given for their origins. If they were created somewhere else, then why and how? Following this extra-terrestrial creation why were creatures placed in such a way as to reflect some evolutionary succession here in the fossil record? Why is there homology in the code of life, and in celular structure? The EST not only pushes the question back, but raises a host of problems. The EST first dodges the issue and then fails Occam's razor in the worst way.

Secondly the EST cannot be squared with our current data from comparative genetics. The molecular clock, phylogeography, phylogenetics, genomic rearrangements, and dating of fossil species all converge on a well supported time-tree of life which explains the evolution of current biodiversity in situ. In order to preserve the transplantation hypothesis in light of these data one would have to conceive of a parallel biosphere where life evolved and was constantly being transplanted here. One single transplantation either from a static living extra-terrestrial stock, or after evolution on another planet is incompatible with all of the above data. A continuous transplantation of extra-terrestrially evolving species seems pointlessly redundant.

While the EST may provide for stimulating speculation sessions, it is simply scientifically unsophisticated and untenable. Not that speculation is entirely unhelpful, if only to contrive impossible scenarios to help whittle down the truth of things.

raedyohed

03/28/2011 09:36

Rob,
Your comment from Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:49:22 expresses the problem of teleology well. I can so far only answer it with the riddle-like scriptures we find any time God or His prophets talks about His place relative to time, which is an essential component of evolution, and teleological design; eternal rounds and time not being measured and all of that stuff. It seems that teleological design (which is inherently linear and non-cyclical) and time-irreversible evolution both falter under the paradigm of a God who is unbound from time, or who describes himself in temporally circular terms. In tennis parlance that's Love-Love.

I am interested to hear how you frame your response to Jeff G's comment. I would add the 1910 statement to the mix as well. If you could explain your rationale for selecting or weighting some statements very heavily, while downplaying or dismissing others it would be enlightening for me to hear how you go about it.

Some in the past have made a case for certain guidelines, but ultimately rely on a fairly subjective set of criteria. Placing undue value on something because it's in a manual, correlated or not, or because the author became President of the Church while someone else did not, or because it's got First Presidency letterhead, or was printed privately instead of by Intellectual Reserve, etc etc seems like a contrived system.

The various approaches I have seen where folks try to sift through all of the various statements and come to a conclusion about this kind of stuff reminds me of the Frequentist-Bayesian debate in statistics. The problem with the Frequentist approach is that since there is a lot of potential information that is being ignored it has low power. But the upside is that it's easy and reproducible. The upside to Bayesian approaches is that they can take into account that additional information, and substantially increase power. But on the downside they are highly subjective and entirely rely on the researcher to set the priors for the parameters, so when they fail they fail miserably.

Rob Osborn

03/28/2011 09:40

Jeff G,

There is a big difference here with opinions versus doctrine. Apostles and prophets are entitled to opinions. But when they make a doctrinal statement life the 1909 statement regarding the origin of men and then in 2002 it gets reprinted and states it still represents the official doctrine then that is what I quote. You will note that I never quote an apostles or prophets opinion but rather that which is official doctrine. Steve on the other hand cites works and statements of "opinions" and not official doctrine.

Hope that clears that up for you.

raedyohed

03/28/2011 13:37

By way of clarification:
My Frequentist-Bayesian example may have made little or no sense without a bit more explanation! I think that the prior weighting of statements based on the various characteristics I listed is a bit like the Bayesian approach. It could lead to the right conclusion if the system for discerning is set up right. If not it will be spectacularly wrong.

********

In the OP Dave says "I have not yet formed an opinion on who his biological parents are." This strikes me as a bold statement. While I am also of the opinion that Adam probably had physical parents in a sense similar to the way we have in mortality, it's a bit overconfident to talk definitively about it (regardless of whatever GA quotes one can produce) since correlation seems to be at pains to disregard overt references to such a notion in Church-published materials over the last few decades. References made to the idea by current General Authorities have been indirect and ambiguous.

It's an even bigger stretch to frame the question in unequivocally biological terms, since everything we know about the Edenic state is a biological contradiction. While some speculations may or may not seem to correspond to scriptural verses (like Moses 6:59) ultimately we are counseled to remember that whether "the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes ... [or] whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God." (Priesthood Quorums' Table, Improvement Era no. 13, 1910, Joseph F. Smith, Ed.) As such we can't rely entirely upon the scriptures or the statements of our living prophets to answer this kind of thing.

Jeff G

03/28/2011 14:20

Rob,

I thought you would say something like that, but that is only a partial response. I understand that some GA statement are certainly more "official" than others. The point that Steve's quotes force is that some GA's have not found these more official quotes to be at all binding. In other words, even though Steve may not be toeing the official line, he is only following other righteous examples in doing so.

Put another way, how can you use the argument from authority against evolutionists without also arguing against those in authority who are evolutionists? Do you see the problem? Your appeal to authority seems to undermine itself.

Jeff G

03/28/2011 14:38

Rob again,

I think this will help clear up the issue a bit:

Suppose that Elder Talmage were alive and actually commented on this thread. He says something like "I believe in evolution and in death before the fall." He doesn't offer it as official or anything, simply as his own belief and backs it up with reasoning and the like. How do you respond?

Rob Osborn

03/28/2011 20:17

Jeff G,

Suppose if Talmage were alive and did comment on this post...hum, I would treat him just as any other human being who have opinions. Wouldn't make an ounce of difference if it were coming from Steve or from Talmage. Just because someone is a "General Authority" does not give them any more clout than Mr. John Doe down the street on the matter. Where it counts is where the rubber meets the road- where the church makes things part of their "official doctrine". I have a set of the journal of discourses on my computer desk right in back of my monitor. In it is the opinions mingled with doctrine. One must discern however what is opinion and what is doctrine.

My appeal is to "official doctrine" not "someone" in an "official position". There is a big difference there.

As it stands, the church's official teaching on the matter is that man was the first man of all men on this planet. The church's official position on if man evolved is- no, man is indeed the literal and direct offspring of deity.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Jeff G

03/29/2011 00:35

Rob,

"The church's official position [is]... man is indeed the literal and direct offspring of deity."

Here's how I think Talmage or Mckay would respond:

I don't think that this is what the church's official position is, and even if it were, I don't think the church officially interprets this as being inconsistent with evolution, and even if it did I would simply disagree with the church.

I think Steve, etc. are in good company on this one.

raedyohed

03/29/2011 07:08

Rob,

"One must discern however what is opinion and what is doctrine. My appeal is to "official doctrine"..."

What criteria for 'official' do you use personally, and why? (Sorry if you've explained this before).

In the disclaimer of President Packers' Law & Light essay a standard for 'official' is set forth. It states: "statements written under assignment of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered official declarations by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Law & Light didn't meet this criteria since it was a privately penned essay submitted without direction from the FP&Q12. But wouldn't the entire JD meet this criteria, since IIRC it's a collection of discourses by church leaders speaking by assignment? Or do the FP and Q12 have to be the current living ones? In this case wouldn't all statements from speaking assignments be void with the passing of any in these two quorums?

Using whatever criteria you've set you come to this conclusion: "The church's official position on if man evolved is- no" But my own criteria causes me to regard the following statement as inspired: "Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved ...[or] were transplanted from another sphere, ...[or] whether they were born here in mortality, ...are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God." This statement also seems to meet the disclaimer's criteria, since statements published in an editorial board of a Church periodical are by assignment of the First President as editor, and are presumably under the review of the Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as editorial board. (I wonder aloud that if that's not the case then what is left that meets this requirement?)

Dave C..

03/29/2011 10:08

Raedyohed,

"In the OP Dave says "I have not yet formed an opinion on who his biological parents are." This strikes me as a bold statement. While I am also of the opinion that Adam probably had physical parents in a sense similar to the way we have in mortality, it's a bit overconfident to talk definitively about it "

Indeed I am not 100% certain. I only know that the scriptures and teachings point in the direction of biological parents.

Here is an interesting thought. The Lord taught that Adam was “born into the world by water, blood, and the spirit" (Moses 6:59). I take "water" to represent the amniotic fluid, blood to represent the blood-borne nutrition and oxygen provided by his birth mother, and spirit to represent the spirit entering the physical body. However, questions linger about the blood part given that Adam was immortal at birth. Did he have blood as we know it while in the garden? There's a bit of uncertainty creeping in, eh?

Cheers.

raedyohed

03/29/2011 10:29

Dave C.,

Absolutely. The tricky bit is that it's hard to even talk about this kind of thing without making unintentionally declarative yet doctrinally suspect statements like: "given that Adam was immortal at birth" Hmmm... I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all, because the whole thing is enough to keep me up late pondering! But the point I was driving at is that as soon as we start trying to talk about possible answers to some of these questions our doctrinal framework and our very words begin to fail us. This is a challenge we all need to address, one which incidentally, harking back to Eric Skousen's book, I find is often thoroughly violated when discussing reconciliation theories. The EST as I dubbed it is full of "we-knows" when we just don't.

Brad

03/29/2011 12:40

raedyohed,

The "we knows" as you call them that are in Skousen's book are quotes from modern day prophets and apostles such as Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith and B. H. Roberts. Rarely does Skousen himself opine on these matters and he really doesn't need to when there is such a rich resource of apostolic quotes on these subjects.

And this brings up an interesting question: as believing Latter-day Saints, should we be more apt to accept statements about Adam's origin from prophets and apostles or from primarily agnostic or atheistic scientists? In other words, should we put more credence in revelation or science?

Now I know that some of you are going to come back and say that what Brigham Young or Joseph Fielding Smith said is only their personal opinion and what scientists say is based on facts. But, do you really think that in a book written about man and his origin and destiny, President Joseph Fielding Smith (who was then President of the Quorum of the Twelve) would take 540 pages to spout his own ideas and beliefs?

In other words, who do we REALLY believe, the Creator of all things through His inspired prophets and apostles, or the "philosophies of men" such as Darwin and Dawkins?

Rob Osborn

03/29/2011 13:33

Jeff G,

I know that LDS evolutionists such as Steve would continue to believe evolution at almost any cost even if it meant directly rejecting the prophets and official church teachings. So what does it matter?

Raedyohed,

The criteria I use is the most up to date from the most current statement by the church. The most up to date statement regarding evolution is the reprinting of the origin of man found in the 2002 ensign. There it states from the first presidency that the 1909 statement represents the church's official doctrine. Is that easy enough for you?

Now of course you can bring up any other document from a previous time and claim it is the most relevent but the fact remains that the reprinting of the 1909 statement is the most up to date and official position of the church in regards to evolution and if man evolved or not. That statement states that man did not evolve and that in fact he is the direct lineal offspring of deity. That, as far as the church is concerned, is "the official" doctrine regarding man's origins. If they were to come out later and state that they did not really believe that man was the literal offspring of deity then it would render the 1909 statement void. As of date, no statement by the presidencey of the church has stated anything of the nature and so the 1909 statement is what officially represnts the doctrine of the church.

Hope that helps.

Steve

03/29/2011 13:48

Brad --

The problem with that approach is that Church leaders have repeatedly been proven flat-out wrong when they opine on scientific matters.

I can outline a considerable number of examples but Joseph Fielding Smith's outright prediction that man would never reach the moon is a superb example. In making the prediction, he relied on his interpretation of the scriptures.

President Smith was later asked about his statement. He said: "Well, I was wrong."

On evolution, I suspect matters will play out the same.

Those who go down the literalistic rabbit hole find themselves blocked in by the evidence. They make kick and wiggle but the fact is that the evidence is overwhelming.

My fundamental concern is that those who try to make evolutionary theory a heresy are really driving away the large number of Saints of scientific bent, including many of our youth.

And, that is an outright shame.

Rob Osborn

03/29/2011 13:55

Steve,

Evidence for what evolution? I can't see any. All I see is a huge fairytale run by atheistic fortune tellers.

My fundamental concern is that there are plenty of evolutionists, including many mormons in teaching positions that have to lie about where evolution really stands. They lead our youth down dark paths.

And that, is an outright shame.

Steve

03/29/2011 14:03

Rob --

Obviously, you delight in dismissing the piles and piles of evidence. In contrast, there is none on the other side. None. Zip. Nada.

I take peace from the simple fact that the Lord is a God of truth and the truth is being manifest day by day by day -- fossil by fossil, DNA by DNA, etc. Truth eventually wins.

Brad

03/29/2011 14:44

Steve and radyohed

I'm curious. Why is it, do you think, that the vast majority of GAs who have spoken on evolution since the days of Brigham Young, have come out against Darwin's theory? The most recent I suppose might be Elder Russell M. Nelson (see Dave's post on this blog for Feb. 15) who, I'm sure you would agree, is no science dummy.

Why do you think Elder Nelson would say, “Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species or organic evolution from one form to another. To me, such theories are unbelievable. It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of those who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved.”

Being a world renowned heart surgeon, surely Elder Nelson must realize how much he is indebted to Darwin for the advances in modern medicine that benefited him during his career. Yet, why would he came out so forcefully against it? Could it be that he, and the other GAs, know something (received through personal revelation) that you evolutionists don't?

Rob Osborn

03/29/2011 15:15

Steve,

Piles of evidence? Are you referring to the handful of partial skull fragments and other ape-like fossils? I guess if you were the size of an ant it may appear to be "piles" high.

As for the other side there is 7 billion walking testimonies on the earth that humans only beget humans. God is a God of truth and he has already revealed it. It is sad though that the learning of man will never find God. Truth does eventually win and Christ is coming and He will reveal all things including the fact that man did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

Jeff

03/29/2011 18:29

Rob,

"Piles of evidence? Are you referring to the handful of partial skull fragments and other ape-like fossils? I guess if you were the size of an ant it may appear to be "piles" high."

What evidence do you have to back this assertion?

Jared* link

03/29/2011 20:41

Brad,

Unfortunately, General Authorities that have spoken publicly about evolution do not have a good track record of showing that they understand it on its own terms, Elder Nelson included. It has little to do with smarts and it's entirely possible to be a successful surgeon without being familiar with much of the evidence for evolution.

"Could it be that he, and the other GAs, know something (received through personal revelation) that you evolutionists don't?"

Certainly, but I don't think I've ever seen any of them claim that.

raedyohed

03/29/2011 20:53

Brad,
"Why is it, do you think, that the vast majority of GAs who have spoken on evolution since the days of Brigham Young, have come out against Darwin's theory?"

I think it helps to begin by asking why evolution and not some other science? The easy answer is that they are inspired to speak out against it. This I take as a given. But it is important to realize that any field of science could easily have come to inhabit the problematic position that evolution finds itself in today. All natural sciences derive from materialist philosophy, and to the extent that all seek to answer natural events by invoking natural causes any one of them could have been found to be applied by atheist interests to advance their causes. Physics' explanation of the origins of the solar system could just as easily be hijacked for nefarious anti-God purposes, but it isn't so the Lord's prophets do notfeel compelled to answer the equally materialistic roots of that science.

It is important to recognize that evolution finds itself in a more culturally critical position due to a host of historical factors. But it is also important to recognize a distinction between evolutionary biology, which is a science necessarily limited in scope, and evolutionism which is a pop-philosophy that runs contrary to many critical doctrines of the gospel. I am not actually an evolutionist (though I won't object to the casual use of the term now and then), I am an evolutionary biologist. There is a huge difference.

So I answer your initial question by saying that I think the prophets are inspired by the Lord to warn against evolutionism, because it does pose a real threat. 99% of their communication is focused on this, and about 1% focuses on picking at the science. I think I see eye to eye with them on the 99%, and patiently bear with and look for valuable insight in the other 1%. Generally I find that objections raised in that 1% which focus on the science usually stem from misconceptions of the science, or are about things that the science really can't definitively answer anyway, so we go from what seems like a huge divide to only about 0.5% of it being left. Namely certain mysteries which we wouldn't have been able to answer anyway, so I see little to no conflict in being an evolutionary biologist and a Mormon.

With regard to Elder Nelson's comments, I think that to an extent my comments have already shed some light on that. I'll add that no, being a surgeon does not qualify one to speak authoritatively about genetic evolution. With all due respect pre-meds are focused on quite a different set of questions and could generally care less about the unifying framework of evolutionary biology. Med school is the last place one would expect to receive a thorough evolutionary grounding and to the extent that evolutionary principles are covered, they are invoked superficially. What qualifies Elder Nelson to speak on evolution is his calling as an apostle of the Lord. In his capacity as such he has borne a powerful witness. With respect to the particulars of the quotation given here I would say it falls about half into the category of misconception and half into the category of stuff not answered anyway.

A member of the church who has spoken authoritatively about the genetic evidences for human-primate evolution is Dan Fairbanks in his remarkable accessible book "Relics of Eden." I highly recommend it.

Rob Osborn

03/29/2011 21:02

Jeff,

Because I do not actually see any real evidence of man evolving I am sorry to state that I couldn't point you in any direction. I do know that the physical evidence of man evolving in fossil form is controversial and few and far between. There are perhaps more hoaxes out there than actual relics.

I know that the list of actual claimed transitionals in the homo-sapien line is very rare. There are just not "piles" of this type of evidence. You could perhaps make "one pile" and it would be small at best. If we really did evolve, we should find mountains of physical bones and yet we find hardly any and when we do it is often times controversial. Skeletons and skull fragments alike can vary so much just within our own population. They still haven't figured out poor old neanderthal man.

raedyohed

03/29/2011 21:29

Rob,

I appreciate your explaining it again, as well as including your views on the meaning of the 1909 statement. I agree that the timing of statements is important. I view, for example, the BYU evolution packet as being the perpetually most recent statement, since it has the perpetual approval of and is perpetually distributed by the Trustees. It's particularly binding on me since I am an alum there and have ties to the University in the sense that I represent it in my professional activities, being an alum. It includes the 1909 statement and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article, among others.

I also look to additional instruction deriving from the First Presidency on the issue which has been disseminated and/or published with their approval. For instance the First Presidency added instruction to Stephens and Meldrum that "any attempt to interpret or elaborate upon the 1909 statement must be considered personal opinion and not the position of the church." The differing positions we have each expressed are arrived at in good faith, in an effort to appropriately sustain the instructions of Church leadership. It's easy to see why various LDS can arrive at differing conclusions on the subject, since many will make sincere appeal to a variety of criteria in weighing and synthesizing statements relevant to the topic.

Steve

03/29/2011 21:31

Rob ---

The bit on Neandertal simply can't stand.

First, there are not just a few skeletons. Far from it. A recent genetic study used over 70 separate skeletons alone. Hundreds have been found, many complete.

Second, Neandertal is distinctly different than a modern human. It is true that you will find some variation among humans. But, with Neandertal, entire groups of skeletons share common characteristics which are not common to modern man.

Their bones are more dense than modern humans. They were relatively short and stocky. Their leg bones are thicker. Their lower arm and leg bones are shorter than modern humans. Their skulls were longer than ours and the back of the skull section was oblong, not rounded like ours and had a distinctive bump called an occipital bun. The jaw was much heavier and they had the distinctive brow ridge.

Again, let me emphasize that entire groups found together share these characteristics.

Those skeletons are accompanied by stone tools that are far less complicated than modern man.

The Neandertal is found in Europe and parts of Western Asia.

In Europe during most of the time period, skeletons of modern man are lacking. If the Neandertal was just a variant, than the skeletons would be intermixed with modern man. With the exception of the very latest ones, they are not.

Neandertal was a separate species. The evidence is comprehensive and overwhelming.

Steve

03/29/2011 21:41

Brad --

The brutal truth is that those who oppose evolution are fierce in their advocacy (Joseph Fielding Smith) while the supporters (David O. McKay) tend to be quiet.

Part of the reason is because of the discussion we are seeing here. Opponents believe evolution is heresy. Supporters see it as a beautiful manifestation of God's power. Many Mormons are sensitive to the heresy/apostasy claim. I think that supporters decide that dynamic is not worth the battle.

But, I utterly believe that those claiming that the Church has a position of opposition are seriously overreaching.

I think the best indicator is the Board of Trustees embrace of evolutionary research using tithing money at BYU. If they thought it was evil, they could fire the professors, expel the graduate students and abolish the studies. Instead, evolutionary research at BYU is one of the programs most visible academic programs in the outside world.

raedyohed

03/29/2011 22:01

I have to chime in that I am so stoked we got Ed Greene as our keynote speaker for an event I'm organizing this Fall. I probably bragged about that elsewhere already. Ed was the lead author on much of the work done by Svante Paabo's group which sequenced the Neanderthal genome and did statistical analysis which confirmed gene flow between late Neanderthals and early modern humans. Traces of Neanderthal DNA are present in today's European population. Do a Google-Scholar search for "Svante Paabo" for the most recent developments in the genetic evolution of Neanderthals, and how it supports the theory of common hominid descent.

Jeff G

03/30/2011 03:19

Rob,

"I do know that the physical evidence of man evolving in fossil form is controversial and few and far between."

How do you know this? What evidence do you have?

raedyohed

03/30/2011 09:53

Rob,

"I do know that the physical evidence of man evolving in fossil form is controversial and few and far between."

I respect your efforts to develop your own carefully thought out standard for what is or isn't 'controversial' in an empirical sense. On the other hand, if, as it sounds to me, you solely rely on the naysayers for your information about what the present state of the evidence is you will continue to argue from a position of scientific ignorance. Don't fall into the trap of becoming a broken Berlinski record. Not that either you or Berlinksi aren't intelligent, just uninformed about what data is actually out there.

As a case in point, Berlinski appears to choose to remain ignorant, whatever his reasons are. I urge everyone else to not make the same choice. Not only is fossil evidence compelling, more compelling still is that phylogeographic, genomic, developmental, and paleontological lines of evidence are mutually consistent, independently converging on a single picture.

Rob Osborn

03/30/2011 14:12

Steve,

Perhaps my calculations are a bit off then on just how many skeletons there are in the line of homo-sapiens leading back through time. Perhaps if you wouldn't mind I would like a list of the "hundreds" of transitional skeletons in the homo-sapien line. All I could find on the internet was a small list with only a few skeletons.

Certainly there is a list of these hundreds showing the individual skeletons and where they fit leading up to modern man. Perhaps then I could study it out and see for myself what you are claiming.

raedyohed

03/30/2011 18:32

Complete, or even partial skeletons are rare. Here are a few good introductory sites with information on a broad range of early hominid fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Hominid fossils of 20 species by name.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#antecessor
Brief descriptions of known hominid species along with a graphic depicting the timeline generated from dating of fossils, color coded by major characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Wikipedia has a nice article catalogueing "a brief overview of several notable primate fossil finds." I counted 128 finds listed in this introductory overview.

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/disp.html
A decent introduction to distribution with a full color Nat Geo map (a little outdated) that shows fossil sites across a wide geography and temporal range.

One could Google this stuff all day. To get down into the details of how many fossils are known from each species, what their distributions are, what time period they are from, how reliable, etc, would require delving into the peer-review literature. Paleontological studies don't require a whole lot of background to understand, mostly just some familiarity with anatomical terminology.

Steve

03/30/2011 19:12

raedyohed --

Please clarify a point for me. My understanding as that many of the ancient man fossils are fairly rare.

But, Neandertal is the exception. I remember a presentation by a professor who specializes in hominid fossils and I have a distinctive that the total number of discovered fossils for that species is several hundred with several dozen nearly complete finds. I do remember that the genome sequencing used about 70 skeletons.

Is that your understanding?

Dusty R

03/30/2011 19:49

Rob,

Funny that I just mentioned this over on Steve's web site, but you can watch free PBS/NOVA documentaries on PBS' web site. There's a good three-part series on the subject of hominid evolution called "Becoming Human". It's a good introduction to the material, from what I remember. Here's the link to Part 1 --> http://video.pbs.org/video/1312522241/.

raedyohed

03/30/2011 21:08

Steve,

From the Neanderthal genome paper: "We analyzed a total of 21 Neandertal bones from Vindija Cave in Croatia that are of little morphological value... All samples were screened for the presence of Neandertal mtDNA by PCR, and three bones were selected for further analysis." I could find no mention of complete skeletons from the paper. (Green et al. "A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome." Science 328:710-722, 2010.)

Here's a link about the Vindija Cave. http://archaeology.about.com/od/vterms/qt/vindija_cave.htm
It does seem to be rich in Neanderthal finds, but I don't know enough about the fossils to comment on what exactly has been found. I would not be surprised if total near-complete skeletons of Neanderthal numbered in the several dozens.

I chanced upon this news article (http://www.livescience.com/6894-scientists-build-frankenstein-neanderthal-skeleton.html) googling. Pretty cool stuff. Seems like enough near complete skeletons have to be available for the researchers to have been able to fill in anatomical gaps to construct what is reported as "the first and only full-body reconstruction of the species." The peer-reviewed paper is (Sawyer, G. and Maley, B. (2005), Neanderthal reconstructed. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, 283B: 23–31.) Seven individuals are used in the reconstruction. I can't find any indication from the paper how complete each of them is except the first, La Ferrassie, which served as a near-complete template. The others were selected for their being of near identical size. Here is the list: La Ferrassie 1, Kebara 2, Spy, Feldhofer, Saccopastore, La Chapelle aux Saints, and Shanidar. I'm afraid that about as much help as I can be at the moment.

Also, the map from the http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/disp.html link shows the relative abundance of Neanderthal sites. This, plus their relatively recent age would suggest that they are in fact a more well preserved and thus more well represented species in the fossil record. I would say that cementing together modern humans, early Homo sapiens, neanderthalensis, heidelburgensis, and antecessor in a fossil-rich and genetically supported phylogeny is in the near future. It's amazing to me that we are on the cusp of actually doing POPULATION GENETICS ON NEANDERTHALS!!!! That's sci fi right there.

Dusty

03/30/2011 21:54

>>It's amazing to me that we are on the cusp of actually doing POPULATION GENETICS ON NEANDERTHALS!!!! That's sci fi right there.<<

Wow. You ain't lyin' about that. Very cool.

Rob Osborn

03/31/2011 00:14

Raedyohed,

I did find the wikipedia site yesterday. I found this sentence interesting-
"Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage'

Just how do they know who was or wasn't a direct ancestor? This I have always found puzzling. Most of the skull frgaments I have looked at from the various sites either look ape-like or human like and nothing really stands out to me as being a true "transitional.

Here is what one of the sites suggested at their summary-

"Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

A number of new genera and species have been discovered within the last decade (Ar. ramidus, Au. amanensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus) and no consensus has yet formed on how they are related to each other or to humans. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens."

That doesn't really sound like science but rather a great guessing debate. They leave it pretty unclear on what the actual tree of humans ancestors looks like.

I don't mean to be critical but what defines human ancestory or not? Obviously it is appearance but that to me is ridiculous. I can find people who look like caveman. What gives?

Rob Osborn

03/31/2011 12:38

Dusty R,

Thanks but no thanks for the link. I absolutely cannot take anything PBS says regarding evolution seriously. I do go there however when I want a good laugh.

raedyohed

03/31/2011 14:11

Rob,

"Just how do they know who was or wasn't a direct ancestor? This I have always found puzzling. ... I don't mean to be critical but what defines human ancestory or not?"

Ditto. Critical is good, and those are some good critical questions. A theoretical framework that can help with this includes a few parts. First is the concept of ancestry as defined in a pedigree. Second is the concept of ancestry in the genetic sense. Third is the morphological analysis of hominid remains. Fourth is the synthesis of genetic (where available) and morphological data into a geographic context. I'll probably burn out here after the first two, but bear with me.

First, ancestry as pedigree. It's mathematically straightforward to show that once you take the human population back ~5,000 years we converge on a single common ancestor, in the pedigree sense. This may sound surprising, but it is due to the fact that the pedigre ancestor converges at the point of log2(n) generations. In other words for a population of size n=6 billion the common pedigree ancestor would be at about 33 generations ago. Another few dozen generations back and everyone alive then is counted with near 1 probability as an ancestor of everyone alive today. The take home from Nature Sept 2004, News and Views: "had you entered ANY village on Earth in around 3,000 BC, the first person you would have met would probably have been your ancestor!" (Emphasis mine).

Second, ancestry as genetics. Given that pedigree ancestry converges so rapidly, why do we find such distant common ancestry through genetic studies? The genetic ancestry of the present population only converges at a rate of 2n. So for a population size of 6 billion wouldn't you expect a common ancestor 12 billion years ago? In actuality the genetic population size is calculated in terms of genetic variation, so in fact the total pool of theoretically unique individuals is much much smaller. We thus find the convergence of common genetic sequence at about 100,000ya give or take. It depends on the genes you use, since not all parts fo the human genome have the exact same history due to recombination, migration, rates of evolution, etc etc.

What does this have to do with the hominid family tree? It has to do with the first branch we will look at; H. sapiens--H. neanderthalensis. Recent studies (google Svante Paabo) have shown that there was significant gene flow between ancient populations of sapiens and neanerthalensis sometime about 50,000ya. Taking into account the two concepts of pedigree and genetic ancestry we can say by extension that all living modern humans have all ancient Neanderthals in their pedigree history. Similar findings for H. sapiens "Denisova", another ancient sister species to ourselves have also been reported.

Beyond this the reconstruction of the genus Homo relies on morphology and geography. Using multidimensional statistics we can cluster fossil remains based on morphology and correlate these clusters with genetic data (where available, in for instance some ancient H. sapiens remains) and with geography. We see a strong correlation between anatomical features, dating of the fossils, and the geography which gives some indication of what the relationships are among the species as we move back past sapiens-neanderthalensis and start to look for convergence with heidelburgensis, antecessor, habilis, ergaster, erectus, etc. This is only suggestive however, and to the extent that new data is added the picture can change in its details. We might find for example, if we sequenced some DNA from erectus that there was more genetic commonality than was apparent from the morphology. That might move them closer in to the base of our clade. So while there are still potential changes like this that could be made to the arrangement of the tree two things are still clear; we can count these near sister species among our pedigree (and in some cases our genetic) ancestry, and regardless of what shape the tree takes as more data comes in its still a tree.

I agree that getting out into the Australopithecines does seem like a lot like reading tea leaves, but then I'm not a paleontologist so what do I know?

Rob Osborn

03/31/2011 15:12

raedyohed,

It seems a lot like guesswork to me. You see- I look at some old fossil and ask myself- How do they know where this really fits in? I answer that they can only guess at this point based upon "how similar" it may be to humans. But does something being "similar" make it so? No, it is conjecture at that moment and remains conjecture from there on. I guess what I am saying is that there has to be some step by step hypothesis and some experimentation to actually show the relation beyond just guessing.

Dusty R

03/31/2011 17:09

>> I absolutely cannot take anything PBS says regarding evolution seriously. I do go there however when I want a good laugh.<<

Rob,

I'm sorry to have offended you by offering what I feel is a decent, accessible introduction to the latest (up to 2009) in hominid evolution.

I'd also recommend the book "Prehistoric Life" (DK Publishing, 2009) for a good introduction/overview. And, of course, Dan Fairbanks' book, "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" points to the literally millions of genetic "fossils" embedded in our DNA. It's very cool that a well-known, popular biology author happens to be LDS. And it might interest you to know, Fairbanks's grandfather is the sculptor who has done many of the statues of the angel Moroni for temples and many of the structures on temple square. Not that that means anything about Daniel, but that's still pretty cool. Doesn't sound like atheistic stock to me, though.

Just curious, but do you have a good reason for not taking what PBS says seriously, re evolution?

Of course, PBS aren't the scientists, but at least they interview the real scientists involved. Typically, these are tenured professors who have published in Science or Nature, which is many things, but is not laughable. What's more, it's programming funded by the people for the people.

Who (or what secular/scientific group) do you take seriously re evolution, Ben Stein? Just curious.

Dusty

03/31/2011 17:25

>>It seems a lot like guesswork to me.<<

Rob,

May I respond by quoting myself on a similar topic thread from a herpetology site:

Finding transitional species (i.e. predicted ancestors) is not guesswork.

You have to look in rock of the age, place, and type where you would predict that ancestor to be. This is how good paleontologists make a living; they don't just go looking in random places. The science behind WHERE you look for transitional/ancestral fossil species is everything. This is one of many reasons why evolution is a predictive science as all good sciences are. Whenever you get a chance, read about the predicted discovery of Tiktaalik, a fish with leg bones. Shubin et al predicted the EXACT rock type, rock age, and place where you would find a fish with legs. Read the book, "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. It tells you exactly the methodology behind the question you ask, i.e. about how far one goes back to find an ancestor, how do you know it's the actual ancestor, etc.

Have you ever seen the movie October Sky? Do you remember when those rocket boys found their rocket by using calculus to predict where their rocket would have landed? And they were right!! This saved those boys from the allegations made against them that they started a forest fire, and proved those allegations wrong.

Evolutionary biology has that kind of useful, predictive power. I love that movie, because it shows the usefulness, value, and predictability of science.

Need examples of how evolution is useful?

How is the flu vaccine picked every flu season? Evolutionary biologists predict which strain will be the most virulent, which then saves lives. Before this method, it was just a blind guess by a bunch of creationists. (Thank goodness we fired the creationists, right?) This is useful. All real science should be useful and should be able to predict.

From the CDC's web site:

"The seasonal flu vaccine protects against three influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. The 2010-2011 flu vaccine will protect against 2009 H1N1, and two other influenza viruses (an H3N2 virus and an influenza B virus). The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists' estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year."

For background on how they make those estimations, see Bush, R. M., C.A. Bender, K. Subbaro, N.J. Cox and W.M. Fitch. 1999. Predicting the Evolution of Influenza A. Science 2861921-1925. Link here --> http://rmbush.bio.uci.edu/science.pdf

One last thought, biology is not a belief system. I don't "believe" in biology. I accept the extraordinary amount of evidence that supports it, however.

I respect yours and all people's opinions. But allow me to add this: as someone who TAed evolution at a very religious university (BYU), I've yet to meet a student who has studied evolution in detail who did not accept it as a valid science. Many came into the class with your basic argument set, but none that I met walked away with it.

Please understand, I wish to be anything but disrespectful, and I know that I can be facetious (Sorry. I'm working on that), but know that I mean no disrespect and harbor no animosity towards persons whom I don't agree with. You could be right! (But the science is overwhelmingly telling us otherwise.)

In any case, there's a lot of emotional baggage tied to words like 'evolution' and 'creationism'. And the prevalence of scientific illiteracy in the USA bothers me greatly, I'll freely admit.

raedyohed

03/31/2011 18:05

Rob,

"How do they know where this really fits in?"

The dating and the geological/geographical placement are the fixed points which would indicate relative placement, while the morphology is analyzed as a free variable. If the morphology independently confirms a trajectory of variation over time which was suggested by placement in time and space then given the a priori assumption of common descent (Darwin, remember, assumed this a priori to all his arguments) one concludes that the specimens in question are part of the same evolutionary tree. This is why fossil trees get rearranged a lot, since morphological analysis in one branch can upset the topology of the tree. That's basically a mathematical property of hierarchical clustering, which is all a phylogeny is.

So, my non-paleontologist opinion is to empathize with your sense of befuddlement with the process. It's not easy to prove direct descent by fossils, but as I described above, it can be done more conclusively by combining paleontological data with genetics and population theory... if the data is available.

Dusty,
Did you TA for Johnson? I had him. Fun class. Carissa was my TA. I may have overlapped with you, I was a grad student there 06-08... TA'd genetics and genomics if you ever took them.

Dusty R

03/31/2011 20:20

I TAed for Byron, but Johnson was a cool guy too. He ran in the Boston marathon last year. I took genetics in '08, so you were probably my TA.

raedyohed

03/31/2011 20:35

Oh Byron Adams? Was he teaching it then? I took a special topics course from him on co-evolution. He was always telling stories about Antarctica.

Rob Osborn

03/31/2011 21:39

Dusty,

The reason I do not care for PBS is because of their left agenda. Is evolution a type of politics? You bet it is. The people who run PBS are definately left wing. Everything from the news to "NOVA" including all of the evolution topics they cover. Besides that, they seem to be so authoritive from all their conjecture into stating it as apparent fact. Once one gets past all of that and watches their material it just cracks one up! They level of science fiction they aadhere to is unbelievable. It's no wonder that the majority of it's viewrs are little children because they couldn't possibly fool grown-ups.

Rob Osborn

03/31/2011 21:51

raedyohed,

I guess I just do not see it the way you do. I look at the rocks as being the result of a flood with different animals that got trapped and buried rather quickly. I do not look at each layer being thousands or millions of years apart. I do know that there are a lot of problems with dating rocks and fossils alike.

As forpopulation models I doubt any scientific projection could come close to our biblical record. Back in OT pre-flood times people lived to hundreds of years old and probably had hundreds of children. We read of wars in the BoM that killed off tens of thousands to millions of peoples and yet science states that there were never wars like that on the America's. Whom am I to believe? Science also states that man has never lived in the hundreds of years range. Whom am I to believe?

I guess the point I am making is that either the scriptures are right and modern science is waaaay off or science is pretty close to being right on and the scriptures we have should just be chalked up as fables. Where does this place current prophest and apostles? For that matter, where does this place ancient prophets?

My assumption is that science is right on that which they can test and observe- that is the very definition of science in my book. But, science is usually wrong in a lot of areas where strict testing and observation are nonexistant such as the history of mankind- how long they lived, how many children they had, how healthy they were, their wars and contentions, and even their technology. The BoM states that the BoM peoples had precision technology to work metals and build buildings and even machinery and yet the history science books state nothing of the nature. My assumption here is that science is wrong and the scriptures are right.

So does this also apply to evolution? You bet. What I am looking for is the "testable" and "observable" because the cards have already shown that the prophets and scriptures are usually more correct than modern science.

Dusty R.

03/31/2011 23:35

As a scientist who does science, I'd have to disagree entirely that science is political. By it's nature, it is apolitical and amoral. And it has to be that way -- the minute it becomes otherwise, it ceases being science -- that is its strength. Certain portions of it are MADE political by people and parties, unfortunately, but that's not the same thing as being intrinsically political. My ideology does not decide my science. But science sometimes informs my conservation ethic, for instance. This is what many people on the right simply refuse to believe. I was raised conservative and still have many good conservative values, however, there is nothing sacred about a political party or an ideology. Both sides are corruptible and fallible, because they are movements led by people, who are fallible.

Just a few years ago, I used to listen to Glenn Beck all the time. Went and had him sign his book for me, and in general, was a fan. I think he says a lot of good things about the value of families and the disintegration of wholesomeness in our society. But when Glenn starts saying, "I'm not a scientist, but I am a thinker..." and goes into his spiel about how science is a conspiracy, or Ben Stein is fighting a good fight by unearthing a conspiracy/scheme among evolutionary biologists (like myself) to keep God out of science, or conservation is just a fad, or whatever -- as soon as he does that, I just have to shake my head, because that "I'm not a scientist, but I am a thinker" adage of his can only take someone so far. Eventually, to GET the science, you have to learn from the actual scientists. And, he is simply wrong on those counts. Remarkably, before I started studying science in college as a major, I bought into just about everything he and Rush and Hannity said about environmentalism, etc. Does me saying that mean I buy into some sort of leftist agenda? No. It just means that the conservative right, while well-meaning, does not have everything right. And neither does the other side. How could they?

Anyway, you have ignored my comments about paleontologists like Shubin predicting exactly where one would find transitional species and then doing it, about evolutionary virologists predicting the most virulent and prevalent flu strains every flu season which has revolutionized vaccine science, the general usefulness and predictability of evolution, and the millions of fossils in our DNA that show we are more related to great apes than all other organisms, as evolution predicts. I would be interested in hearing you address each of these points from a scientific point of view.

Also, as far as PBS or NOVA stating everything as fact, let's be clear about something. Scientists always make statements about what their data means...and so, when they say that some fact happened or that it is true, it is always with the implied (or at least well-acknowledged among scientists) caveat that we will get an even clearer picture with more data. In other words, the "fact that evolution (or any valid theory or fact of science) is true" means that it would be perverse to claim otherwise, given the data and evidence. No science is absolute truth. It's always open to falsifiability and further testing. Given this common knowledge among scientists and those who understand its nature, it would be extremely redundant and too obvious to constantly say, "Given the evidence, it's most likely that X, y, or z happened." Typically, it's just easier to say "X, y, or z happened", and assume that the audience understands the aforementioned caveats beforehand.

The problem is that we have failed to teach the people of America about the NATURE of science. Most people, I can tell you from what I know as a young biologist and educator, just have not learned what science is and is not. It's not ideology. It's not religion.

Consider this quote from a well-known religious evolutionary biologist...

"The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absence of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it."

-- from Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution", p. 267.

That quote, to me, is loaded with truths.

raedyohed

04/01/2011 07:53

Rob,

You've articulated pretty well what I think is a common view or approach to the inconsistencies between a prevailing scriptural world view and the prevailing scientific one. Many of the examples you gave would need to be worked out in terms of their own contexts. I don't have any easy answers, except to say that as I have read the scriptures more closely I have had the strong impression that much of the apparent inconsistency is due to us taking a more broad interpretation than is warranted, especially in that it often relies on loose translation and cultural decontextualization. I think we often read things into the records that aren't there, because it's difficult to telescope into the mind of a proto-semitic visionary that lived four thousand years ago.

"I guess the point I am making is that either the scriptures are right and modern science is waaaay off or science is pretty close to being right on and the scriptures we have should just be chalked up as fables."

Over a LDSScienceReview Jared* has posted some interesting stuff about concordance what we might expect out of the intersection of a scientifically all-knowing God revealing truth to scientifically illiterate, though spiritually brilliant individuals. Though some might say that scientific inconsistency in scripture might reduce their accounts to fables and the prophets to storytellers, I don't see it that way. Can't they just be spiritually meaningful, inspired, historical accounts of the way ancient prophets saw the world? Mightn't the flood account be an example of this? Aren't many revelations also read as metaphorical or symbolic? Mightn't Genesis 1 be an example of this? Can't they be fanciful or figurative with some details, yet still convey the truth of the gospel? I don't know if Genesis is right about all those patriarchs living until they were 900, maybe they were actually patriarchal dynasties. But I know the scriptures are right about at least one thing, that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of Mankind.

Dave C.

04/01/2011 11:08

Rob,

"I guess the point I am making is that either the scriptures are right and modern science is waaaay off or science is pretty close to being right on and the scriptures we have should just be chalked up as fables. Where does this place current prophets and apostles?"

I really like this, Rob. When science makes claims that differ with absolute truths in the restored gospel, I will always go with the gospel. In such cases I believe that science will progress toward the truth and eventually fall in line with the gospel.
For example, most people have heard of a recent study in genetics questioning the link between native americans and Jews. All the genetic scientific evidence in the world will not change the fact that the Lord himself said that at least some of the natives in this land are Lamanites, and that they are descendents of the House of Israel.

Genetic studies aside, here is the absolute truth of the matter from the God of the universe:

“I command thee that thou shalt . . . impart freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon . . . that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant” (D&C 19:26-27).

And who are the Lamanites that the Lord referred to?

When the Lord called Oliver Cowdery to preach, He said, “I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them (D&C 28:8). Oliver taught the natives.

There we have, folks. I will go with the absolute truth of what the Lord said and let the geneticists say whatever they will. All the scientific evidence will not change the fact that the Lord has said that the Lamanites are of the house of Israel and that they live among us.

Rob Osborn

04/01/2011 13:20

raedyohed,

I have made this argument before and perhaps it is my strongest argument- Do we need a sign that god exists, that his word is true? Why is it that we believe in such things as the resurrection, immortality and eternal life, none of which science supports and yet at the same time disregard such things as the creation and God's hand in such matters? Do I wait for scientists to tell me the BoM is a historical account to establish my personal witness for the truth? Do I wait for science to tell me that my lineage is traced back to God before I worship him as "Father"?

My point here is that we keep discounting sound intelligent men of God who are prophets and had access to the truth of all things in favor of men and a learninf system who for the most part are atheistic and seek nowhere to find out who God is or if he even exists. I am just unwilling to place my faith in a science that states I came from a long line of animals based off of guesswork and evidence that only states similarities not actual firm proof in any degree. Just because I may look like an animal does not mean we are related.

Science has its limits on what it can accomplish without placing God somwhere in the mix. Man will not find the truth to man's true origins without placing God at the forefront of thought. Man will search indefinately never finding the truthg to man's origins without placing God physically in the scene. What does this mean for science? It means that if they want to find the truth regarding how man came into physical existance, then they must insert God into the picture. Why will this not happen? Because science and the bodies who run major institutions like the NCSE, PBS, ACLU, NAS have already willed that God must stay out of science- they are atheistic. So the question really becomes- who are we to believe- the anti-godly or the godly?

raedyohed

04/03/2011 20:56

Rob,

I wholeheartedly agree that if we "want to find the truth regarding how man came into physical existance, then [we] must insert God into the picture." Although, within a strictly emprirical paradigm such as science is able to address, I don't think that injunction can be fulfilled in mortality, what with man not able to find God by searching and all that. Empirical evidences for the most important truths, THE TRUTHS as it were, about our origins (e.g. Adam being an actual historical individual, with a special, though not fully understood or revealed relationship to God the Father, his being placed at the head of the family of man, and all of us being spirit children of that same God) are not going to turn up in this dispensation. What would we even be looking for?

Nevertheless, accurate and important truths about the natural history of humankind have been and will continue to be discovered, supported by compelling evidence, such as the discovery of the exchange of genetic material between neanderthals and modern humans, the age and geographic origins of the modern human family, their migrations around the globe over the last tens of thousands of years, etc etc. I still don't see any of those various truths and THE TRUTHS as being mutually exclusive.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

mormonsandscience

Where Did Adam's Body Come From?

Comments

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives