First of all, I think it is rather unwise to try "balancing" the words of the prophets with "good science," because frankly, that is a subjective term. There are many thousands of scientists who simply don't think evolution is good science. And really, evolution is not at all essential to the field of biology, not the living sciences anyway. Sorry, but many of the leading botanists, ethologists, chemists, etc. of the world do not believe in evolution. Clearly, it hasn't hindered their careers any, so it must not really make a big difference what you feel about it. My biggest issue with the notion of evolution is not the obvious (yep, I said it) religious conflict, but rather the scientific flaws and irregularities which make evolution a theory - not a law. Was that clear? Some appear more than happy to discredit the words of a prophet or two; so be it. My problem is the scientific improbability of evolution as a biological process. Can that be cleared up, if it really is such good science?
Clearly, some people are prepared to take this subject to task on their free-thinking 'religious' grounds, perfectly willing to take on the prophets and give way for a new, more "advanced" mode of thought than they had. How very progressive, and easy to fit into popular theory. So be it, if you know more than the prophets than who am I to dissuade you? But I am not really seeking such ideas. I am too familiar with the Lord's ways to really care if people are going to pick apart the words of his messengers, and frankly, nobody seems to be doing a very good job of making it persuasive anyway, so I won't bother trying to point out the inconsistencies since religiously I don't believe there really is anything to debate.
No, my issue with evolution is not actually spiritual at its core. Gasp! It is the fact that scientifically, it is so WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE AS A THEORY. I mean, sheesh, you people are all bickering over the morality of evolution, but what about the massive, gaping holes in the SCIENCE of the theory that simply can't be explained? I want to know how the fossil record is so utterly devoid of evolutionary indicator species despite being so full of millions of individual species themselves. I want to see an example of a living species that is clearly in the process of becoming another, different species, with genetic markers distinct enough to warrent some kind of new identification - show me a new species, with a complete taxonomy to match. I should like to find one single example of a vertebrate that can be traced simply and logically back to invertebrate lifeforms. Where is a fossil indicating invertebrate species slowly getting bits 'o bone coating their spinal cords? I want zoological evidence. You say this is good science, so, where is the science? An idea with no demonstrable proof to which we can point and say 'behold, it evolves!' but nothing more than 'hey, it may have at some point!' is not much of an idea at all. No marker of evolution has been found in anything more complex than the most rudimentary organisms that can barely be called a lifeform. So then explain to me how the bumblebee managed to evolve so utterly opposite the laws of physics that it can still maintain flight even though it is built like a fat watermelon. How can evolution demonstrate to me the process that took a land-dwelling animal the size of a goat and turned it into the blue whale as the theory supposes? What theory can yet accurately explain thousands of past species which flicker in the fossil record then disappear without a trace, leaving no sign of whence they came nor what they could become? Honestly, if I were going to start questioning a prophet, I would at least try to find a more complete or believable theory to stand with, something with substantial scientific evidence I could cling to. But biologically speaking, the theory of evolution is often grasping at straws, only to find that they only exist in some microbial form that isn't even a classified species yet.
The theories currently indicate that we are conveniently frozen in a moment of 'non-evolution' as it were, where no species seems to be making any substantial movements towards becoming something new; yet evolutionists keep plugging away at the thought that they can see it in the past as though it were irrefutable. We can see it then, but not now? This is not good science. Hence why it is the theory of evolution, not the law. The idea is not worthy of that title, and obviously the scientific community accepts that, or they would change it. There is simply no proof substantial enough to merit such a claim, and anybody who feels otherwise is as blind in his devotion to that belief as he claims those who are creationists are to theirs. They'll shake their sticks at those who refuse the idea on religious grounds, but take it on a scientific platform and see how slippery their foundation becomes. It must be easy to stand by evolution on religious grounds since you can always throw out the religious terms which shield the idea from doubt with lofty ideas of open-mindedness, mysteries, and balance. Whatever. This idea is scientific, and I want science. So far I haven't come across any that is sufficiently convincing to me on the zoological level. So how in the world could I possibly accept this theory from a religious point of view when the science of it makes even less sense than the religious? I mean, really ...
Evolution
Re: Evolution
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Evolution
I do however think this illustration is hysterical. This is as close as I get to believing in evolutionary theory, hehehe.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Evolution
it's true that evolution is a foundational component of modern biological science. for over one hundred years, evolutionary theory has been required learning for any biology student. so long as evolution is still in vogue, it should be taught anywhere people want to learn modern biology, including byu. similarly, byu philosophy classes teach various philosophies of men that are incongruent with gospel doctrine. personally i don't take much interest in these subjects, but i have done some studying and these subjects can be beneficial in certain ways (for example they can teach us about history, and help us to understand the context of other modern scientific theories).
byu has an advantage over other schools because it is led by members of the church, so teachers are expected to teach evolution as a theory, not as "conclusive and demonstrated truths." in the past, a few professors at byu taught evolutionary theory in a way that was inconsistent with the scriptures and with modern revelation (perhaps they taught these theories as though they were facts). they were dismissed, of course.
scientific understanding is always changing. two hundred years ago, people weren't calling evolution the foundation of all biological science. what will people say about evolution one hundred years from now? none of us knows the answer to that. if history is any indication, people won't say the same thing they're saying now.
we do know that one hundred years from now, as throughout history, the scriptures will say the same thing. the scriptures say that adam was the first man, literally descended from God, and that he brought death into the world. evolutionary theory says that man evolved from animals, which evolved from microscopic creatures, which evolved from something lifeless. this would mean that death was in the world before the time of adam (if one believes that adam existed). this would also mean that adam was not a literal child of God, but a child of another creature. this would also mean that adam was not the the primal parent of our race, but that something else was our primal parent.
the scriptures cannot be reconsiled with these evolutionary theories. why do we point to modern revelation? because modern revelation confirms the fact that the scriptures and evolutionary theories are irreconsilable.
some have said that the general authorities are imperfect men. this is true. but all general authorities that have spoken on this matter have spoken against evolutionary theory. i have seen no instance where a general authority admitted to even a kernel of truth in organic evolutionary theory. on the other hand, i have read countless statements by general authorities clearly stating that evolutionary theory is false. when you say that these men are imperfect or fallible (or in other words, when you say that they are all wrong), you speak of not one or two general authorities of the church, but of many general authorities of the church, including many prophets and apostles. you are saying that all of these inspired men -- not just a few inspired men -- are flat-out wrong.
call it an appeal to authority, if you will, but we all appeal to authority. maybe your authority is your textbook, or your science teacher, or wikipedia. you listen intently as your teacher explains evolutionary theory, and like a good student, you accept what your teacher says. you believe your teachers when they say that evolutionary theory is supported by a wealth of evidence. you believe the textbook when it says that evolutionary theory is logical and self-evident. you believe wikipedia when it says that the general authorities have conflicting views on the matter, and that there is no clear revelation that evolutionary theory is false. you believe. we all believe something.
byu has an advantage over other schools because it is led by members of the church, so teachers are expected to teach evolution as a theory, not as "conclusive and demonstrated truths." in the past, a few professors at byu taught evolutionary theory in a way that was inconsistent with the scriptures and with modern revelation (perhaps they taught these theories as though they were facts). they were dismissed, of course.
scientific understanding is always changing. two hundred years ago, people weren't calling evolution the foundation of all biological science. what will people say about evolution one hundred years from now? none of us knows the answer to that. if history is any indication, people won't say the same thing they're saying now.
we do know that one hundred years from now, as throughout history, the scriptures will say the same thing. the scriptures say that adam was the first man, literally descended from God, and that he brought death into the world. evolutionary theory says that man evolved from animals, which evolved from microscopic creatures, which evolved from something lifeless. this would mean that death was in the world before the time of adam (if one believes that adam existed). this would also mean that adam was not a literal child of God, but a child of another creature. this would also mean that adam was not the the primal parent of our race, but that something else was our primal parent.
the scriptures cannot be reconsiled with these evolutionary theories. why do we point to modern revelation? because modern revelation confirms the fact that the scriptures and evolutionary theories are irreconsilable.
some have said that the general authorities are imperfect men. this is true. but all general authorities that have spoken on this matter have spoken against evolutionary theory. i have seen no instance where a general authority admitted to even a kernel of truth in organic evolutionary theory. on the other hand, i have read countless statements by general authorities clearly stating that evolutionary theory is false. when you say that these men are imperfect or fallible (or in other words, when you say that they are all wrong), you speak of not one or two general authorities of the church, but of many general authorities of the church, including many prophets and apostles. you are saying that all of these inspired men -- not just a few inspired men -- are flat-out wrong.
call it an appeal to authority, if you will, but we all appeal to authority. maybe your authority is your textbook, or your science teacher, or wikipedia. you listen intently as your teacher explains evolutionary theory, and like a good student, you accept what your teacher says. you believe your teachers when they say that evolutionary theory is supported by a wealth of evidence. you believe the textbook when it says that evolutionary theory is logical and self-evident. you believe wikipedia when it says that the general authorities have conflicting views on the matter, and that there is no clear revelation that evolutionary theory is false. you believe. we all believe something.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Evolution
I just want to state my belief, so there is no confusion to my silence. I fully believe the many statements from our beloved prophets and quorum brethren that, simply put, the evolutionary theory is false.
also, this thread has been very interesting to read how much really has been said on the subject by our church leaders.
I find this theory far more entertaining than the monkey/ape to human one. the mockumentary claimed some of our apelike forefathers were forced into the sea due to volcanoes and evolved into MERMAIDS! I found it hilarious that so many people thought this to be legit. The masses were so entranced they made a second mockumentary a year later.
also, this thread has been very interesting to read how much really has been said on the subject by our church leaders.
I find this theory far more entertaining than the monkey/ape to human one. the mockumentary claimed some of our apelike forefathers were forced into the sea due to volcanoes and evolved into MERMAIDS! I found it hilarious that so many people thought this to be legit. The masses were so entranced they made a second mockumentary a year later.
Re: Evolution
You all realize that this thread is heading down a path straight to...
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
How long shall i wait before it's too soon? What a vibrant violet...oh no no no no, do not be so shocked- i will be the first to believe in you. Who is that again? Ah, yes...tea time at midnight; you sweet thing! I will always say hello. Farewell!
Re: Evolution
the scientific method:
1.) is NOT a good way to define your faith in God, prophets, etc.
2.) is hardly an appeal to authority. A theory is an idea that is constantly tested and scrutinized. We don't 'believe in evolution'. We understand it to be the best explanation that has been discovered so far.
1.) is NOT a good way to define your faith in God, prophets, etc.
2.) is hardly an appeal to authority. A theory is an idea that is constantly tested and scrutinized. We don't 'believe in evolution'. We understand it to be the best explanation that has been discovered so far.
Re: Evolution
I agree. I was trying to demonstrate a similar logic to show how we can experiment with the Lord's word, but I agree that it is NOT a good way to define your faith in God, prophets, etc.Betsy wrote:the scientific method:
1.) is NOT a good way to define your faith in God, prophets, etc.
I disagree. It is not the best explanation that has been discovered so far.2.) is hardly an appeal to authority. A theory is an idea that is constantly tested and scrutinized. We don't 'believe in evolution'. We understand it to be the best explanation that has been discovered so far.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
...for why humans are mammals...like some of our animal friends...
Re: Evolution
What explanation better coincides with current observations? Please provide details.Steve wrote: I disagree. It is not the best explanation that has been discovered so far.
Re: Evolution
I think we are going in circles. The best explanation for how man came to be is explained in the scriptures, in modern revelation, and in the temple. It is, without a doubt, the best explanation because it tells us exactly what we need to know in this regard.micah wrote:What explanation better coincides with current observations? Please provide details.
I will post President Harold B. Lee's quote again for your reference.
Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand.
Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure [Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 29].
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Evolution
Circles, as in circumventing the question?
Re: Evolution
are you asking for an explanation of "why humans are mammals...like some of our animal friends"? not sure what the question is.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests