You believe in our Articles of Faith. One of them says, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Do you believe there was an Adam, described in the scripture as the first man? Do you believe there was such a thing as Adam's transgression, sometimes called the Fall? Now I ask you, can you believe in Adam and in Darwinian evolution at the same time? Our religion teaches that there was no death in the world before the Fall. Do you believe that? And if you do, how can you accept Darwinism, which says there was death before Adam—or before the first human being, as some will accept it? This then becomes one of the great hurdles for LDS anthropologists, doesn't it?
Elder Mark E. Petersen, We Believe in God, the Eternal Father, BYU Speeches, September 2, 1973
Evolution
Re: Evolution
i'm not pursuing a career in anthropology, but james might, so this subject is of particular importance to him.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Evolution
Last night I wrote a long post and saved it for today now that I am able to access the internet. I respond to Ian and Steve's first comments. Now there are three pages. Thanks for your thoughts.
I feel we are talking past each other a bit. Steve posted a GB Hinkley quote stating that we should believe that Adam was the first member of what we know of as the human race and that scientist can speculate about the rest. I have absolutely no problem with that.
I have no problem with studying science. Evolution is not pseudoscience. here is what I wrote last night.
I enjoy science but am not a big science guy. I believe science is just like any other philosophy. It is useful to a degree however also limited. I do not think it is as easy as you have made it by saying evolutionary theory is bad science and that basic chemistry is enough to effectively criticize the theory. Sure, the theory is imperfect (theory is I believe imperfect by definition, unlike “pure truth” as ER Snow said). I would like to learn more about how basic chemistry is applied here, Ian. How is basic chemistry at play with processes like natural selection?
The reason I used the word ignorant in reference to the things that president smith said is for 2 main reasons. 1. Cavemen, because I am a snooty anthropology student. 2. The half-breed monkey comment. I do not think he was an ignorant person however it was obvious to me that me misunderstood evolutionary theory (at least parts of it). But he still published very strong statements on the subject. I respect all the prophets, even if I disagree with some of the things they say.
I have been exposed to evolutionary theory in several classes and have been intrigued by much of what I learned. We know what God has done through the scriptures but we do not know everything about how things were done. For me, and many of my classmates the theory of evolution does not replace the scriptures or explain exactly how things were done. It does provide claims and evidence. There are numerous ways in which God’s work could be brought to pass. These ways do not have to oppose the scriptures. The theory of evolution, for me, does not fully answer the questions concerning just how we got here and how it all fits together. Wasn’t it Talmage who said, “The body is not the man?” The man is a spirit united with a fleshy tabernacle. It seems impossible for our spirits to be descended from “lower” life forms, or made from the dust of the earth (but according to professor Klaus our bodies are).
Of course the natural man does not have access to things discerned spiritually. The little glimpses of truth we find in science (and other places) can enhance our lives and be a part of discerning things spiritually.
Steve,
You quote the saying I posted saying it is a blanket statement. It is just a saying that has circulated in lds circles at times that elucidates parts of lds culture. Catholic doctrine claims papal infallibility but Catholics hardly ever take the pope as infallible whereas lds are opposite. We do not claim prophetic infallibility but lds people tend to treat prophets words with such high esteem that they seem to accept them as infallible.
You then asked me what I intend to accomplish with the light I received by rejecting president Smith’s “theories.” My goal is to find truth. By rejecting the claims like “there is no truth in the theory of evolution”, “you can not accept evolution and the gospel,” etc., I open myself to observing very strong evidence of things that happen (like natural selection). I have never thought of evolution as much of an issue. Many of my professors were so passionate in the position that one can believe in both. Evolution does not have to oppose religion. My bio 101 professor said several times that byu has one of the top evolutionary biology programs in the country. There are devout Mormons studying evolution for a living. I know what the scriptures say. I am also open to examining and learning about the evidence and things observed by scientists in the natural world.
You mention my frustration with cavemen. The reason this bugged me is because I am slightly picky. But I do not think my pickiness is totally unjustified. If you want to have an intelligent and productive conversation about a topic it is worth doing so in a more professional manner. It is not super horrible that he used to word caveman, but it does show that he is somewhat of an outsider to evolutionary theory and other fields. Humans have never lived in caves. Professional literature/ethnography (including my buddy Talmage) does not use the word caveman. ‘Caveman’ also has a progressivist and somewhat negative connotation (it is a stock word associated with low intelligence, big blundering oafs, etc.). It could be used rhetorically to give more strength to the comparison of the children of god vs. lower, less lofty forms of life. It is not like bugs vs. insects because of the things that the word caveman implies. The difference between caveman and neandertol, homo sapien, is greater than the difference between insects and bugs. Bugs does not imply much meaning different than insects, it is just less formal. But caveman has a different meaning, and is found in fiction, not ethnography or archaeology.
The famous Einstein quote came next. You claim that mysterious things do not ever inspire us. I disagree and am saddened that you think this. I once heard a recording of Xaver Varnus playing beautiful music. This inspired me to write an old friend in Missouri, to study music again, to have the courage to not worry about money and to follow my dreams, among other things. Was it the music or the spirit that inspired me? This question was prompted by your statement that we are inspired by the spirit and not the mysterious. Does the spirit work through things like, literature, music, astronomy, quantum physics, mathematics, parents, conference addresses, yoga, meditation? Or does it just inspire us all by itself. What was the source of my inspiration when I listened to that music? I claim that the spirit may move us in many ways and that any number of topics/experiences can inspire us to do good. And, mathematics, astronomy, the origin or earth and her life forms, the nature of consciousness, the puzzle of human experience, are all topics showered with the mysterious. I know many people who have been confronted with the mysterious, the unknowable, the thing we only experience indirectly, and who have been inspired by this to learn more, to seek more truth, knowledge, and also to do good in the world. The mysterious is beautiful and a few people have been shown some of the mysteries of God (I heard once that mystery is related to ritual, but I think the usual definition would work in many cases). The mysterious inspires me in the quest for truth. None of us have so much truth that we are incapable of being humbled and deeply moved by the mysteries, the paradoxical etc. You tried to use H.F. to destroy Einstein’s quote. His quote applies to us, whereas H.F. is in an exalted sphere, transcendent to this life and world. Therefore the quote does not apply to H.F.
I shared the two stories because evolutionists themselves do not claim that we are “half-breed monkeys.” And I shared the story from Dr. Klaus class because it instructs us that we are the dust of the earth (or the stardust if you trace it far enough because matter is not created or destroyed). Instead of degrading supposed lower life forms it admits their miracle and mystery. Even if the Klaus story is not perfectly accurate it still contributes to the meaning of stars symbolically, and gives us something to think about, something to learn from.
I am sorry if the majestic 12 references put you out. In a conversation about stars and origins, a reference to extra terrestrials came out. The children of Israel were told to separate the clean from the unclean, the holy from the everyday. I suppose I can spend some time thinking about whether or not is was inappropriate to make the connection (we were talking about cosmic stuff, church stuff, and there happen to be 12 in the majestic group) I did not mean anything serious by it, just wrote it down because my mind made the connection and I thought it was a tad clever. I will decide on my own if I neglected to appropriately separate the sacred from the profane. If I decide that I acted inappropriately I will avoid such references in the future.
Why did I not write out the word president in front of Smith? Why did you refer to Dr Klaus as Mr.? In another topic Paul ekamn was refered to by Dad as Mr. as well. Both of these men are professionals (i.e. dr. Klaus, Dry Ekman). You don’t have to call them dr but why add Mr???
But that really has nothing to do with why I did not refer to him as president. Since Margaret and I are temporarily internet-less I have been working from her iPhone. The touch screen keypad, my fingers, and that tiny screen do not get along yet so I was trying to use as few words as possible while still getting a point across. I did not write James E Talmage, though I did use jf Smith a few times. I am sorry if this bothered you. I am now writing from a computer so I can communicate more professionally and more quickly and with all the deserved drs and presidents inserted. I think that you calling it “flippancy” is, as you wondered, just you.
You mentioned “so many other forum topics” and wondered how my investigations have made me a better man. I can think of three that I have commented considerably on namely Jung, evolution, Hebrew. If you would like to continue talking about Hebrew ask me a question in the Hebrew discussion. I will not discuss Jung here. Learning about evolutionary theory allows me to learn about observable phenomena backed up by evidence. It allows me to feel appreciation for the universe, the earth, life, and the plan of salvation. “God moves in mysterious ways.”
I feel we are talking past each other a bit. Steve posted a GB Hinkley quote stating that we should believe that Adam was the first member of what we know of as the human race and that scientist can speculate about the rest. I have absolutely no problem with that.
I have no problem with studying science. Evolution is not pseudoscience. here is what I wrote last night.
I enjoy science but am not a big science guy. I believe science is just like any other philosophy. It is useful to a degree however also limited. I do not think it is as easy as you have made it by saying evolutionary theory is bad science and that basic chemistry is enough to effectively criticize the theory. Sure, the theory is imperfect (theory is I believe imperfect by definition, unlike “pure truth” as ER Snow said). I would like to learn more about how basic chemistry is applied here, Ian. How is basic chemistry at play with processes like natural selection?
The reason I used the word ignorant in reference to the things that president smith said is for 2 main reasons. 1. Cavemen, because I am a snooty anthropology student. 2. The half-breed monkey comment. I do not think he was an ignorant person however it was obvious to me that me misunderstood evolutionary theory (at least parts of it). But he still published very strong statements on the subject. I respect all the prophets, even if I disagree with some of the things they say.
I have been exposed to evolutionary theory in several classes and have been intrigued by much of what I learned. We know what God has done through the scriptures but we do not know everything about how things were done. For me, and many of my classmates the theory of evolution does not replace the scriptures or explain exactly how things were done. It does provide claims and evidence. There are numerous ways in which God’s work could be brought to pass. These ways do not have to oppose the scriptures. The theory of evolution, for me, does not fully answer the questions concerning just how we got here and how it all fits together. Wasn’t it Talmage who said, “The body is not the man?” The man is a spirit united with a fleshy tabernacle. It seems impossible for our spirits to be descended from “lower” life forms, or made from the dust of the earth (but according to professor Klaus our bodies are).
Of course the natural man does not have access to things discerned spiritually. The little glimpses of truth we find in science (and other places) can enhance our lives and be a part of discerning things spiritually.
Steve,
You quote the saying I posted saying it is a blanket statement. It is just a saying that has circulated in lds circles at times that elucidates parts of lds culture. Catholic doctrine claims papal infallibility but Catholics hardly ever take the pope as infallible whereas lds are opposite. We do not claim prophetic infallibility but lds people tend to treat prophets words with such high esteem that they seem to accept them as infallible.
You then asked me what I intend to accomplish with the light I received by rejecting president Smith’s “theories.” My goal is to find truth. By rejecting the claims like “there is no truth in the theory of evolution”, “you can not accept evolution and the gospel,” etc., I open myself to observing very strong evidence of things that happen (like natural selection). I have never thought of evolution as much of an issue. Many of my professors were so passionate in the position that one can believe in both. Evolution does not have to oppose religion. My bio 101 professor said several times that byu has one of the top evolutionary biology programs in the country. There are devout Mormons studying evolution for a living. I know what the scriptures say. I am also open to examining and learning about the evidence and things observed by scientists in the natural world.
You mention my frustration with cavemen. The reason this bugged me is because I am slightly picky. But I do not think my pickiness is totally unjustified. If you want to have an intelligent and productive conversation about a topic it is worth doing so in a more professional manner. It is not super horrible that he used to word caveman, but it does show that he is somewhat of an outsider to evolutionary theory and other fields. Humans have never lived in caves. Professional literature/ethnography (including my buddy Talmage) does not use the word caveman. ‘Caveman’ also has a progressivist and somewhat negative connotation (it is a stock word associated with low intelligence, big blundering oafs, etc.). It could be used rhetorically to give more strength to the comparison of the children of god vs. lower, less lofty forms of life. It is not like bugs vs. insects because of the things that the word caveman implies. The difference between caveman and neandertol, homo sapien, is greater than the difference between insects and bugs. Bugs does not imply much meaning different than insects, it is just less formal. But caveman has a different meaning, and is found in fiction, not ethnography or archaeology.
The famous Einstein quote came next. You claim that mysterious things do not ever inspire us. I disagree and am saddened that you think this. I once heard a recording of Xaver Varnus playing beautiful music. This inspired me to write an old friend in Missouri, to study music again, to have the courage to not worry about money and to follow my dreams, among other things. Was it the music or the spirit that inspired me? This question was prompted by your statement that we are inspired by the spirit and not the mysterious. Does the spirit work through things like, literature, music, astronomy, quantum physics, mathematics, parents, conference addresses, yoga, meditation? Or does it just inspire us all by itself. What was the source of my inspiration when I listened to that music? I claim that the spirit may move us in many ways and that any number of topics/experiences can inspire us to do good. And, mathematics, astronomy, the origin or earth and her life forms, the nature of consciousness, the puzzle of human experience, are all topics showered with the mysterious. I know many people who have been confronted with the mysterious, the unknowable, the thing we only experience indirectly, and who have been inspired by this to learn more, to seek more truth, knowledge, and also to do good in the world. The mysterious is beautiful and a few people have been shown some of the mysteries of God (I heard once that mystery is related to ritual, but I think the usual definition would work in many cases). The mysterious inspires me in the quest for truth. None of us have so much truth that we are incapable of being humbled and deeply moved by the mysteries, the paradoxical etc. You tried to use H.F. to destroy Einstein’s quote. His quote applies to us, whereas H.F. is in an exalted sphere, transcendent to this life and world. Therefore the quote does not apply to H.F.
I shared the two stories because evolutionists themselves do not claim that we are “half-breed monkeys.” And I shared the story from Dr. Klaus class because it instructs us that we are the dust of the earth (or the stardust if you trace it far enough because matter is not created or destroyed). Instead of degrading supposed lower life forms it admits their miracle and mystery. Even if the Klaus story is not perfectly accurate it still contributes to the meaning of stars symbolically, and gives us something to think about, something to learn from.
I am sorry if the majestic 12 references put you out. In a conversation about stars and origins, a reference to extra terrestrials came out. The children of Israel were told to separate the clean from the unclean, the holy from the everyday. I suppose I can spend some time thinking about whether or not is was inappropriate to make the connection (we were talking about cosmic stuff, church stuff, and there happen to be 12 in the majestic group) I did not mean anything serious by it, just wrote it down because my mind made the connection and I thought it was a tad clever. I will decide on my own if I neglected to appropriately separate the sacred from the profane. If I decide that I acted inappropriately I will avoid such references in the future.
Why did I not write out the word president in front of Smith? Why did you refer to Dr Klaus as Mr.? In another topic Paul ekamn was refered to by Dad as Mr. as well. Both of these men are professionals (i.e. dr. Klaus, Dry Ekman). You don’t have to call them dr but why add Mr???
But that really has nothing to do with why I did not refer to him as president. Since Margaret and I are temporarily internet-less I have been working from her iPhone. The touch screen keypad, my fingers, and that tiny screen do not get along yet so I was trying to use as few words as possible while still getting a point across. I did not write James E Talmage, though I did use jf Smith a few times. I am sorry if this bothered you. I am now writing from a computer so I can communicate more professionally and more quickly and with all the deserved drs and presidents inserted. I think that you calling it “flippancy” is, as you wondered, just you.
You mentioned “so many other forum topics” and wondered how my investigations have made me a better man. I can think of three that I have commented considerably on namely Jung, evolution, Hebrew. If you would like to continue talking about Hebrew ask me a question in the Hebrew discussion. I will not discuss Jung here. Learning about evolutionary theory allows me to learn about observable phenomena backed up by evidence. It allows me to feel appreciation for the universe, the earth, life, and the plan of salvation. “God moves in mysterious ways.”
Re: Evolution
Unfortunately, like just about every controversial subject on this forum, this has turned into contest of appealing to authority. Who can find the most general authorities that agree with his viewpoint? Well, if these are the rules, the anti-science folks win by a large margin. As mentioned, there are some very influential general authorities, like President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder McConkie, who were vehemently against evolution. Even the very few science-minded general authorities strongly questioned it or even disagreed with it.
It is understandable why there is much written in the church against evolution—one can make conclusions from the theory of evolution that question the foundations of our beliefs. This is challenging and can be frightening.
Despite these opinions and worries, there is not clear revelation or official church doctrine that the theory of evolution is false, just as there is not clear revelation that just about any other scientific theory is false. One can make arguments from personal interpretations of scriptures that support his view, but this does not revelation make.
Personally, I find the theory of evolution be an elegant, logical theory that has a wealth of evidence to support it. Evolution is not “bad science,” and I challenge any who believes this to explain yourself. The theory of evolution is one of the most brilliant ideas in history. It is based on simple, seemingly self evident principles, yet has enormous ramifications. Evolution is the foundation of all of the biological sciences. It is the framework that we use to understand life--and so far it works darn well. Although you will probably judge me a heretic for thinking so, I feel that God’s inspiration and influence was involved, as it has always been in driving us closer and closer toward truth.
Do I believe in Evolution? Believe is not the right word. I find the theory of evolution to be the theory that best fits with current observations. It does seem to work so well, however, that I would not be surprised if it was somewhat close to the truth. That said, the minute solid evidence that contradicts evolution is found, it needs to change, it needs to improve. This is not belief, this is the scientific method.
At the same time, do I believe that Adam was the first man upon the Earth and was created in the image of God? Absolutely. I don’t need evidence for this. I don’t need scientific skepticism for this. I believe.
It is understandable why there is much written in the church against evolution—one can make conclusions from the theory of evolution that question the foundations of our beliefs. This is challenging and can be frightening.
Despite these opinions and worries, there is not clear revelation or official church doctrine that the theory of evolution is false, just as there is not clear revelation that just about any other scientific theory is false. One can make arguments from personal interpretations of scriptures that support his view, but this does not revelation make.
Personally, I find the theory of evolution be an elegant, logical theory that has a wealth of evidence to support it. Evolution is not “bad science,” and I challenge any who believes this to explain yourself. The theory of evolution is one of the most brilliant ideas in history. It is based on simple, seemingly self evident principles, yet has enormous ramifications. Evolution is the foundation of all of the biological sciences. It is the framework that we use to understand life--and so far it works darn well. Although you will probably judge me a heretic for thinking so, I feel that God’s inspiration and influence was involved, as it has always been in driving us closer and closer toward truth.
Do I believe in Evolution? Believe is not the right word. I find the theory of evolution to be the theory that best fits with current observations. It does seem to work so well, however, that I would not be surprised if it was somewhat close to the truth. That said, the minute solid evidence that contradicts evolution is found, it needs to change, it needs to improve. This is not belief, this is the scientific method.
At the same time, do I believe that Adam was the first man upon the Earth and was created in the image of God? Absolutely. I don’t need evidence for this. I don’t need scientific skepticism for this. I believe.
Re: Evolution
Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience, and charity.
Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found.
Source: "Words in Season from the First Presidency," Deseret Evening News (17 December 1910), part 1: 3.
Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam's race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.
Joseph F. Smith,
John R. Winder,
Anthon H. Lund,
First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Source: Improvement Era 13 (Nov 1909) :75–81
That's another blanket statement. I disagree with it both because of its blanket nature, and I disagree that lds people always tend to treat prophets' words with such high esteem. I think many tend to treat the prophets words with indifference or worse. Many latter-day saints dismiss the words of the prophets...too many. I think if we held them in higher esteem, we would be much better off.James:We do not claim prophetic infallibility but lds people tend to treat prophets words with such high esteem that they seem to accept them as infallible.
Do you believe that those who accept a prophet's words as truth will be worse off for it in the hereafter? Someone who trusts President Smith's "controversial" remarks will be punished for his trust? Or at the very least, will be not as far along the path of eternal progression? What do you think God will do to the man who puts his faith in this prophet? You feel that such a man is less righteous? Less intelligent? What are the negative repercussions of rejecting organic evolution in this life?
So you believe that President Joseph F. Smith should have behaved more professionally?If you want to have an intelligent and productive conversation about a topic it is worth doing so in a more professional manner.
So do you believe that the language used by church leaders should always be found in scientific literature?But caveman has a different meaning, and is found in fiction, not ethnography or archaeology.
Correct. Mysterious things do not ever inspire us. D&C 84:45 - "For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ." D&C 93:26 - "The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth" D&C 93:36 - "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." Moroni 7:12 - "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God"You claim that mysterious things do not ever inspire us.
These things come from the Spirit of God—all good things come from God. Just as science reflects the constraints of mankind, mysteries are merely reflections of a lack of understanding. When I am motivated to seek answers to mysteries, that is through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the mystery itself. "Lack of understanding" is not the good thing. Only God inspires us toward that which is good and true. As D&C 50:19 states, "And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? If it be some other way it is not of God." All truth and goodness and worthy inspiration comes from the Spirit of truth, not from mystery itself. Things like music can invite the Spirit, but the music isn't the thing that inspires. The Spirit does. Mysterious things do not ever inspire us.
I would ask that you not take His name in vain. We are children of Heavenly Father. When you say, "He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle," I say Heavenly Father is not a snuffed-out candle, though nothing is a mystery to Him. If that quote doesn't apply to Heavenly Father, then I don't want to apply it to me.You tried to use H.F. to destroy Einstein’s quote. His quote applies to us, whereas H.F. is in an exalted sphere, transcendent to this life and world. Therefore the quote does not apply to H.F.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would.I will decide on my own if I neglected to appropriately separate the sacred from the profane. If I decide that I acted inappropriately I will avoid such references in the future.
The prophet's title is not a worldly honor. It is a sacred calling. A graduate degree does not make one holy. These are different issues. I didn't intend anything when I used the title Mr.—it's a simple form of address to a man whose name is not known to me.Why did I not write out the word president in front of Smith? Why did you refer to Dr Klaus as Mr.?
I could present additional quotes to demonstrate that it is not just me, but I will refrain.I think that you calling it “flippancy” is, as you wondered, just you.
So you believe that not learning about evolutionary theory would prevent you from feeling appreciation for the universe, the earth, life, and the plan of salvation? In other words, those who do not study it to the degree you do cannot appreciate those things to the extent you do?Learning about evolutionary theory allows me to learn about observable phenomena backed up by evidence. It allows me to feel appreciation for the universe, the earth, life, and the plan of salvation.
Only to those for whom the mysteries have not been revealed by the Holy Ghost. "God is his own interpreter, And he will make it plain."“God moves in mysterious ways.”
--------------------
If a general authority agrees with my viewpoint, that means I agree with his. Why would that ever be a bad thing?micah: Who can find the most general authorities that agree with his viewpoint?
Who are the anti-science folks you're referring to?Well, if these are the rules, the anti-science folks win by a large margin
Challenging and frightening to whom?one can make conclusions from the theory of evolution that question the foundations of our beliefs. This is challenging and can be frightening.
It's not heretical to propose that God's inspiration and influence are involved in driving us closer and closer toward truth. That's exactly what I've been trying to communicate to James as well.Although you will probably judge me a heretic for thinking so, I feel that God’s inspiration and influence was involved, as it has always been in driving us closer and closer toward truth.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
i like to quote prophets and other general authorities, even though people belittle me for it (i’m insecure, arrogant, anti-science (that’s funny), holier-than-thou, combative, frightened, worried, etc.) i quote them because i like reading what they have to say and because they speak the truth. they talk about lots of things, including “scientific” topics. a lot of people in our family like to know what they have said about these topics. some people don’t seem quite so interested in knowing what they have said, but that’s okay. maybe they’ve already heard it all. i’m not the only one quoting scriptures and general authorities and i’m grateful for those who do this. it’s not that i’m not interested in your personal opinions (of course i am) but really the prophets are much smarter and wiser than you are. they are mere mortals, yes. but some have witnessed the entire history of the earth. prophets know much more than any of the greatest scientists could ever imagine. by virtue of their calling alone, i would think that we would be nothing but fiercely loyal to all of the prophets. so yes, i pay more attention and spend more time studying the words of, say, president joseph fielding smith, than say, an assistant professor at a local college. i don't think that's disrespectful to the assistant professor.
with regard to "hard" evidence, how about i quote a professor of philosophy, rather than a general authority. professor chauncey riddle called it “a matrix of presuppositions” (link). isn’t that the truth?
with regard to chemistry, here’s an example (of course, most scientists would disagree with this, but scientists disagree about everything). sorry, this is a lengthy quote from a general authority.
with regard to "hard" evidence, how about i quote a professor of philosophy, rather than a general authority. professor chauncey riddle called it “a matrix of presuppositions” (link). isn’t that the truth?
with regard to chemistry, here’s an example (of course, most scientists would disagree with this, but scientists disagree about everything). sorry, this is a lengthy quote from a general authority.
There has been much attention in the media about the teaching of the theory of evolution. While serving as dean of the University of Utah’s College of Mines and Mineral Industries, I had interesting discussions with fellow faculty members in the departments of geology, geography, and geophysics about the theory of evolution and the misunderstanding many people have about the scientific method.
In the process of discovering scientific truths, it is essential to develop theories that relate experimental observations to each other and suggest additional tests to determine the validity of those theories or to modify them, which is generally the case.
Competent scientists recognize that theories are not laws but serve the function of testing ideas and pursuing new relationships. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed: “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.” (In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930, pp. 41, 46, 110.)
The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.
This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.
An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.
One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.
A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.
Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.
We are in the very fortunate position of understanding that the Lord is in charge of the universe and that positive genetic changes can in fact occur under his direction. On the other hand, spontaneous improvements of the type hypothesized by devotees of current evolutionary theory remain an unsupported supposition.
Elder George R. Hill III, Seek Ye Diligently, Ensign, June 1993
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Evolution
With regard to the the word "anti-science," by denying evolution without any evidence, one is being "anti-science" in that matter. The anti-evolution views expressed in this forum have nothing to do with the scientific method. Now this doesn't mean they can't be true, but these views are based on faith and belief and not the scientific method. If I am incorrect in this supposition, please prove me wrong and show how your beliefs about biology are based on the scientific method.
I am sure that most of you are not "anti-science" in general, and do agree with the scientific process, in general. My question is why do you selectively agree with the scientific method? What is it about biology and life that makes you disagree with science?
I personally find the idea of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be somewhat confusing, and not always intuitive. It is often portrayed incorrectly as "everything moves toward disorder." This is not correct. The second law of thermodynamics actually says that in a closed system, entropy never decreases.
More order can occur spontaneously in one part of a system, as long the entropy in the total closed system does not decrease. Evolution does not violate this fundamental law.
I do like Elder Widstoe's quote-- I agree that "One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution." Why would you base your faith on any scientific theory? The process of the scientific method is one of skepticism and doubt--always subject to change. I don't go around stating that I believe or disbelieve in the gospel because of quantum dynamics or string theory (both of which may or may not be compatible with gospel truths). Why would we do this because of any other theory, like evolution?
I am sure that most of you are not "anti-science" in general, and do agree with the scientific process, in general. My question is why do you selectively agree with the scientific method? What is it about biology and life that makes you disagree with science?
This is a common creationist argument and represents a misunderstanding of the second law of law of thermodynamics. You are right that most scientists would disagree with this quote. But more than simply disagree, you can use observed evidence to show that the ideas in this quote are blatantly incorrect.Ian wrote: The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.
This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.
I personally find the idea of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be somewhat confusing, and not always intuitive. It is often portrayed incorrectly as "everything moves toward disorder." This is not correct. The second law of thermodynamics actually says that in a closed system, entropy never decreases.
More order can occur spontaneously in one part of a system, as long the entropy in the total closed system does not decrease. Evolution does not violate this fundamental law.
I do like Elder Widstoe's quote-- I agree that "One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution." Why would you base your faith on any scientific theory? The process of the scientific method is one of skepticism and doubt--always subject to change. I don't go around stating that I believe or disbelieve in the gospel because of quantum dynamics or string theory (both of which may or may not be compatible with gospel truths). Why would we do this because of any other theory, like evolution?
Re: Evolution
Here is how I have utilized the scientific method when determining whether or not to trust prophets or trust scientists on a given issue.
1) I formulate the question. Are prophets telling the truth?
2) I hypothesize. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by prophets who receive revelation from the Lord. I think they're telling the truth.
3) I predict. If latter-day prophets are telling the truth, I should draw closer to the Lord when I place my trust in their words. I should receive greater light.
4) I test this theory every day. I see what happens when I follow the prophets. I see what happens when I don't follow the prophets. I pray to Heavenly Father to know if these things are right.
5) I analyze the test results, recognizing that there is a distinct pattern that always presents itself. I draw closer when I trust in their words, and I receive greater light. Heavenly Father answers my prayers and I know these men are speaking for Him.
6) I conclude that prophets are telling the truth. I determine to trust in them when they speak out on a subject. I am happier when I do that.
1) I formulate the question. Are prophets telling the truth?
2) I hypothesize. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by prophets who receive revelation from the Lord. I think they're telling the truth.
3) I predict. If latter-day prophets are telling the truth, I should draw closer to the Lord when I place my trust in their words. I should receive greater light.
4) I test this theory every day. I see what happens when I follow the prophets. I see what happens when I don't follow the prophets. I pray to Heavenly Father to know if these things are right.
5) I analyze the test results, recognizing that there is a distinct pattern that always presents itself. I draw closer when I trust in their words, and I receive greater light. Heavenly Father answers my prayers and I know these men are speaking for Him.
6) I conclude that prophets are telling the truth. I determine to trust in them when they speak out on a subject. I am happier when I do that.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
evolutionary theory is different from many other scientific theories in at least two ways: 1. it directly contradicts revealed truth, and 2. it has been addressed by many prophets and general authorities.
i wouldn't say that i selectively agree with the scientific method, but i would say that for the above reasons i treat evolutionary theory differently than many other theories. what better evidence is there, than the inspired words of God's prophets?
i wouldn't say that i selectively agree with the scientific method, but i would say that for the above reasons i treat evolutionary theory differently than many other theories. what better evidence is there, than the inspired words of God's prophets?
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Evolution
As a sidenote, someone's ears must have been itching.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
I am very much enjoying this vigorous debate. As good will continues to sustain it, I am feeling stimulated and invigorated. I look forward to the conversation continuing untrammeled.
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: Evolution
President Ezra Taft Benson:
President John Taylor:The precepts of man have gone so far in subverting our educational system that in many cases a higher degree today, in the so-called social sciences, can be tantamount to a major investment in error. Very few men build firmly enough on the rock of revelation to go through this kind of indoctrination and come out untainted (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson).
Elder Dallin H. Oaks:The world profess to know a little about what they call science, literature and the arts. Where did they get their knowledge of these things from? And what is it they really do know? They know something about the laws of Nature. Who made those laws? God made them; and he knows how to govern them; and it is by his almighty power that they are governed (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21).
Elder Quentin L. Cook:Some...pursue their searchings beyond the fringes of orthodoxy, seeking answers to obscure mysteries rather than seeking a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel (Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall).
President Ezra Taft Benson:Obsessive focus on things not yet fully revealed, such as how the virgin birth or the Resurrection of the Savior could have occurred or exactly how Joseph Smith translated our scriptures, will not be efficacious or yield spiritual progress (In Tune with the Music of Faith).
The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
...
The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men—between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).
Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay, and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6-7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river? Yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kings 5.)
...
The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
...
The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
...
The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet).
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
just wanted to add that i don't think the ideas expressed by elder hill are "blatantly incorrect." you might say that evolution doesn't violate the second law in theory, because more order can occur locally, so long as the overall entropy in the system doesn't decrease. but, evolutionary theory also says that this increase in order can occur spontaneously, even though observed cases of decreased entropy require a "guiding hand." a lot of scientists seem to have no problem with this, but some scientists consider it a major problem with evolutionary theory.
to me the big problem with evolutionary theory is that it contradicts revealed truth. so, i dismiss it, even though it was in my textbooks and taught by my science teachers. this might appear close-minded, but i think it's the smartest approach.
to me the big problem with evolutionary theory is that it contradicts revealed truth. so, i dismiss it, even though it was in my textbooks and taught by my science teachers. this might appear close-minded, but i think it's the smartest approach.
Men of understanding have left on record, as the fruit of their experience and their observation of mankind, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Psalm 111:10.) It is the sure foundation upon which all true knowledge is based. Men may acquire extensive information and learning; but unless accompanied by faith in and fear of God such acquirements are not so profitable unto them as they might be. A knowledge of the truth as revealed by the Lord furnishes men who obtain it a sure foundation on which to stand; it is also a standard by which all man-made systems, theories and opinions can be measured.
A most excellent illustration of its value for this purpose can be found in judging what is known as the Darwinian theory. According to this theory, man has gradually ascended, through a process of evolution covering ages of time, from some low form of animal life; he stands today as the product of a long period of development. . . .
But to the Latter-day Saints who understand the principles of truth, it is the greatest absurdity and folly to state that man has been evolved from an inferior form of animal life, and has progressed step by step through the ages until he has reached his present stage of development. They do not need to spend any time to examine such a proposition for they know better.
God has revealed in these last days, as well as in former times, that He is the Father of mankind, that we are descended from Him, that he "created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27.) The theories of all the philosophers in the world, however cunningly framed or speciously argued, cannot shake the faith of a man or woman of God in this immutable truth.
Here, then, is seen the value of the fear of God. It "is the beginning of knowledge." (Proverbs 1:7.) He who fears God and receives the truths He reveals can safety trust them; he can test men's opinions and systems by them without a doubt as to the result. Building upon these truths, he can go on from knowledge to knowledge until he enters into possession of a fullness.
But "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms 14:1; 53:1.) He seeks no light from heaven. He gropes in search of it by his own wisdom. He builds theories and systems of philosophy which only exhibit his own folly. Calling himself wise, and proud of his acquirements, he fails to recognize the truths of heaven and measures Divinity by his miserable little yardstick.George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, ed. Jerreld L. Newquist, Deseret Book 1957 (pp. 281-289)Fortunately for the Latter-day Saints, the Lord has not left us to be carried about by every wind of doctrine or the cunning craftiness of men. He has given unto us a sure word, upon which we can rely, and from which, if we are faithful, we cannot be moved. There are certain immutable truths which the Lord has revealed in our day to His Church and to every member of it, if they will seek for them. First, that God our Eternal Father is a personal Being. Second, that man was created in His image and likeness. Third, that we are His offspring, and that we have not been evolved from some low order of creation.
These are important truths. No amount of scientific assertion or argument can disturb these. Therefore, we can permit people to go on with their theories, and publish volume after volume in support of them, and pay no attention to them, because if they attempt to attack these truths, we know that their arguments are not worth listening to or spending time upon.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Evolution
I am not a scientist, and so I know little about chemistry or thermodynamics or whatever. The only science I can claim to know much about is that of zoology. And based on what I know about that science, evolution is only possible as a theory at best, and it is hotly debated among those who are familiar both with the fossil record and evolutionary exectations.
Most simply put, there has never been a discovery of a TRUE "missing link." Science has found many species that could certainly connect two others, but there is no fossil known to science in which one species has taken on the beginnings of becoming something else. There are feathered dinosaurs, but no dinosaur with semi-evolved feathers. There are seals which walked on land, but no animal with feet suddenly becoming flippers. We only have examples of one species or another, and there is no such thing as a fossil indicating an animal in the midst of an evolution. Yet if evolution really was happening all the time, there would have to be far more examples of this than there would be even of the more "established" species. And yet there is not a single one. Find it for me and we can discuss. And please, don't come to me with the tired old compromise so many cling to, that 'perhaps (if only they would be so humble as to at least say perhaps), perhaps God used evolution as a means of creation! Maybe they are both right!" Please. Don't stand in the middle trying to balance both sides. There are so many more possibilities that just God and evolution. But God at least is real. Evolution is an idea, and a very sketchy one at that.
Now, I am not a fan of the scientific method being used as some great measure of truth. It has great value, but no certainty of the validity of its findings. Richard G. Scott wrote:
I used to accept evolution as a fact because I have read so many hundreds of thousands of articles and journals and papers on zoology that I never thought it could be wrong. But when I started to learn what the doctrine was, I had to rethink my views. I only know the animal sciences, and so I can only really understand the theory of evolution from the point of view of living things under the taxa of the Animal Kingdom. And within that small sphere of my knowledge, I have seen that evolution cannot sufficiently explain animal life and diverisity to be credible. Maybe you others may think it explains something else, but I know animals better than any other person who visits this forum, without exception, and from that point of view, I know that evolution is, at best, a mildly logical but insufficient theory, and nothing more. Add to that what I have learned from God's servants, and I can brush off evolution as a scientific impossibility. Anybody who can disprove that to me from a zoological standpoint is free to share, but I have been involved in this study for twenty years now. I doubt my conclusions are wrong.
Most simply put, there has never been a discovery of a TRUE "missing link." Science has found many species that could certainly connect two others, but there is no fossil known to science in which one species has taken on the beginnings of becoming something else. There are feathered dinosaurs, but no dinosaur with semi-evolved feathers. There are seals which walked on land, but no animal with feet suddenly becoming flippers. We only have examples of one species or another, and there is no such thing as a fossil indicating an animal in the midst of an evolution. Yet if evolution really was happening all the time, there would have to be far more examples of this than there would be even of the more "established" species. And yet there is not a single one. Find it for me and we can discuss. And please, don't come to me with the tired old compromise so many cling to, that 'perhaps (if only they would be so humble as to at least say perhaps), perhaps God used evolution as a means of creation! Maybe they are both right!" Please. Don't stand in the middle trying to balance both sides. There are so many more possibilities that just God and evolution. But God at least is real. Evolution is an idea, and a very sketchy one at that.
Now, I am not a fan of the scientific method being used as some great measure of truth. It has great value, but no certainty of the validity of its findings. Richard G. Scott wrote:
People have come to regard evolution almost as though it were the only possible explaination for life on earth, and that to disregard it is to reject all logic and reason. As a scientist, this approach would be intellectual suicide; it presumes that an answer has been found, and that acceptance has become more important than discovery. No true man of science would ever make such a definite statement, not even Darwin himself. Yet people are more defensive of the possibility of evolution than they are of the leaders of the church. How woefully we have looked beyond the mark. Those who cry out, almost as though it mattered, that we should hearken to the theory of evolution, that would should 'open our minds' to it, as though it were some great truth, only prove to me that they find it a comfortable explaination, and are not scientifically knowledgeable enough to handle anything that might disprove it. It is the same as those who are afraid to change religions because they know it means they have to change.There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method. It can require analysis of data to confirm a theory or, alternatively, establish a valid principle through experimentation. The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth. However, it has two limitations. First, we never can be sure we have identified absolute truth, though we often draw nearer and nearer to it. Second, sometimes, no matter how earnestly we apply the method, we can get the wrong answer.
The best way of finding truth is simply to go to the origin of all truth and ask or respond to inspiration.1 For success, two ingredients are essential: first, unwavering faith in the source of all truth; second, a willingness to keep God’s commandments to keep open spiritual communication with Him.
I used to accept evolution as a fact because I have read so many hundreds of thousands of articles and journals and papers on zoology that I never thought it could be wrong. But when I started to learn what the doctrine was, I had to rethink my views. I only know the animal sciences, and so I can only really understand the theory of evolution from the point of view of living things under the taxa of the Animal Kingdom. And within that small sphere of my knowledge, I have seen that evolution cannot sufficiently explain animal life and diverisity to be credible. Maybe you others may think it explains something else, but I know animals better than any other person who visits this forum, without exception, and from that point of view, I know that evolution is, at best, a mildly logical but insufficient theory, and nothing more. Add to that what I have learned from God's servants, and I can brush off evolution as a scientific impossibility. Anybody who can disprove that to me from a zoological standpoint is free to share, but I have been involved in this study for twenty years now. I doubt my conclusions are wrong.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Evolution
Is the debate on evolution veering to a debate on the degrees of prophetic fallibility? The appeal to authority micah mentioned? Is there much more to be said about evolution here? Micah said evolution is the foundation for all biological science. He said it is a theory so good that he would not be suprized if it is close to the truth. There was some back and forth about the common and faulty creationist argument againt evolution. The trump cards from steve edward and ian at this point are statements about following the prophet. The claim is that evolutionary theory directly contradicts revealed truth. What counts as revelation? Are president joseph f smith's words revelation just because they were signed and published? Or do we call it revelation because many Spoke about it? I take them as comments on revelation. And the scripturrs are not specific enough to contradict evolution. If an athiest aproached him and used evolitionary theory to argue that there is no god and no creation then sure we should defend the faith. But it is not that black and white. I have no problem with scientific study of things like natual selection, mutation (like solar radiation), gene flow, and genetic drift (4 causes of evolution). I try to seek truth and balance good science, and good social science, steve and your bensonquote, with comments of prophets.
prophets are incredible men, And many have seen the beginning from the end. However not all of them have. A general authority once told me that when God makes a man a prophet he does not make him not a man. This is why I seek to balance the Scriptures, the words of the modern prophets, as well as scientific study and other kinds of Academic study. Soon I will post some thoughts about the miracle of life.
prophets are incredible men, And many have seen the beginning from the end. However not all of them have. A general authority once told me that when God makes a man a prophet he does not make him not a man. This is why I seek to balance the Scriptures, the words of the modern prophets, as well as scientific study and other kinds of Academic study. Soon I will post some thoughts about the miracle of life.
Re: Evolution
Also, if evolution is essential to the study of biology, (which it is) then why does BYU even have a science department, that teaches biology, spends money on their programs, etc.?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest