I couldn't believe how much latitude they gave him at BYU. He was basically able to teach what he wanted. I remember my roommate, who was taking the course with me, coming out of class one day and basically stating, "wow, we evolved from monkies".
Was he teaching it that badly?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Tarski wrote: We are ugly slimy booger filled bags of guts squirming around selfishly on a ball of mud to which we are partially adapted. Matter has bumbled its way to this point.
I guess I'd call that a glass half empty approach. I was a Human Biology major and I am absolutely amazed at the complexity of the systems of the body. I remember sitting in Physiology class and being mesmerized at the complexity of just bending my finger up and down. The systems of the body....immune, endocrine, nervous, reproductive, etc. are really unbelievable. The development of the fetus is miraculous. And there is still so much where science is just scratching the surface.
I couldn't believe how much latitude they gave him at BYU. He was basically able to teach what he wanted. I remember my roommate, who was taking the course with me, coming out of class one day and basically stating, "wow, we evolved from monkies".
Was he teaching it that badly?
Jeffery didn't actually say that. I think it was the fact that my room mate was having his eyes opened to new concepts that he always thought were false and just trying to process what the information meant.
It was interesting. These fellows seem like these fellows are pretty bright scientists. Yet they seem to be able to reconcile LDS teachings with evolutions. One absolutely gushed about how the two compliment each other, how we believe we evolved from intelligences to spirit children of God to mortals and eventually to gods. I have to think they have considered some of the valid arguments some of you raised here. They are after all evolutionary biologists. One commented on what he called Evangelical Atheist that are as forceful on their view of either taking science or religion but not both as are very fundamental Christians. He said he was dogmatic and about being anti dogmatic and apparently feels some scientists are very dogmatic.
It was interesting that they briefly touched on Genesis being not literal. They commented that we should never read it as literal and that it was never meant to be such. They even implied there was not a literal Adam but then when confronted with the apparent problem Church teachings have about a literal Michael who became Adam they really just seemed to shelve it and said we don't know.
They also talked about how they handle issues in a Church setting where members may be insistent on the literal read and anti-science and all. Basically they don't confront much because as one said it risks the feeling of community. They will offer careful comments if someone is over the top dogmatic. But it sounds like they keep quiet. And this makes me wonder why they are the ones that have to be quiet.
Honestly and I do not mean to be rude to the fellows on the podcast or anyone here. But I kept feeling like my BS meter was spiking many times during the podcast.
It was interesting. These fellows seem like these fellows are pretty bright scientists. Yet they seem to be able to reconcile LDS teachings with evolutions. One absolutely gushed about how the two compliment each other, how we believe we evolved from intelligences to spirit children of God to mortals and eventually to gods. I have to think they have considered some of the valid arguments some of you raised here. They are after all evolutionary biologists. One commented on what he called Evangelical Atheist that are as forceful on their view of either taking science or religion but not both as are very fundamental Christians. He said he was dogmatic and about being anti dogmatic and apparently feels some scientists are very dogmatic.
It was interesting that they briefly touched on Genesis being not literal. They commented that we should never read it as literal and that it was never meant to be such. They even implied there was not a literal Adam but then when confronted with the apparent problem Church teachings have about a literal Michael who became Adam they really just seemed to shelve it and said we don't know.
They also talked about how they handle issues in a Church setting where members may be insistent on the literal read and anti-science and all. Basically they don't confront much because as one said it risks the feeling of community. They will offer careful comments if someone is over the top dogmatic. But it sounds like they keep quiet. And this makes me wonder why they are the ones that have to be quiet.
Honestly and I do not mean to be rude to the fellows on the podcast or anyone here. But I kept feeling like my BS meter was spiking many times during the podcast.
It's too bad that the Book of Mormon, D&C & POGP take Genesis so literally. Otherwise they might have had something.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Jason Bourne wrote:One absolutely gushed about how the two compliment each other, how we believe we evolved from intelligences to spirit children of God to mortals and eventually to gods. I have to think they have considered some of the valid arguments some of you raised here. They are after all evolutionary biologists.
I think you are giving them WAY too much credit. The claim that evolution supports Mormon doctrine because we "evolve" from intelligences to gods is asinine, especially coming from evolutionary biologists. Its like saying pizza evolves into feces as it passes through my intestine. Or a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly when it incubates in a cocoon. Okay, a child might misuse the concept of evolution that way, but not the guys whose profession is to teach evolutionary biology. It's absolutely shameful. This example of their thinking shows how little they should be trusted to come up with halfway-decent answers to the valid arguments in this thread that, apparently, they don't even discuss. Don't give them a pass they don't deserve.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
I listened to this podcast some time ago. I was very disappointed. I can't come to any other explanation other than that they are lying. I think they know exactly what evolution is, and isn't. I think they have thought it through. I don't think the experts on this thread are any smarter than those professors, either.
For some reason, and we will probably never know why, they have chosen to suppress what they truly know.
I think it is sad in a way to watch it. I think the same way about Dr. Peterson. And other smart people in the church.
Everyone has to make difficult choices in life.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
It looks like Jason Bourne came away with a pretty similar feeling to mine from this podcast.
Dude, you have to remember that although these guys are real biologists who (presumably) understand evolution, they are also guys who have decided to proclaim continued belief in the LDS Church. This requires some accomodations on their part. They are obviously big fans of the idea of parallels and metaphors and symbolism and such; their attitude toward Genesis and the whole Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story betrays this much. Given the precedent set by Nibley and so many apologists before and since of latching onto whatever parallels they can find, can we really be too surprised that they see a strained parallel between evolution and eternal progression, and milk it for all it's worth? Hey, if the little intellectual sleight of hand required to pass this one off is the price for continuing to believe and maintain their lifelong Mormon identity, relationships, and associations, it is apparently worth it to them.
My BS meter was pinging as well during parts of the interview. The bottom line is they made far too much of the church's claim to be neutral on evolution, as if that settled it, while ignoring all of the ramifications of evolution on LDS doctrine that they, of all people, should have been painfully aware of. The only conclusion I can make from this is that they mentally throw any LDS doctrine under the bus that they have to in order to keep their faith. Like Jason said though, why are they the ones who have to keep silent in church? That they are betrays the fact that these guys are in the minority in church. Like my dad, BCSpace, and many others who ought to know better, they have invented their own private versions of Mormonism, while apparently the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators they sustain just don't get it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
gramps wrote:I listened to this podcast some time ago. I was very disappointed. I can't come to any other explanation other than that they are lying. I think they know exactly what evolution is, and isn't. I think they have thought it through. I don't think the experts on this thread are any smarter than those professors, either.
I don't think they're lying. It doesn't sound to me like they are modifying their scientific understanding in order to accomodate their religion. They are modifying their religious views in order to accomodate the science. Where the intellectual dishonesty comes into play is when they try to say, or convince themselves or others that their version of the religion is actually the real one, when in fact the LDS Church teachings simply don't agree.
They shrug and say "we just don't know" about Adam/Michael being real in LDS doctrine, and not real in their view of the Genesis story as metaphorical or symbolic. This is really intellectual sleight of hand. They do know - they just don't want to accept what they know, so they try to shelve the issue with an "I don't know", and act like that makes them intellectually or morally courageous. It would be a lot more courageous to acknowledge what they know, and let the consequences follow.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Of course, Seth, I prefer to have some evolutionary biology taught at BYU than have it denounced campus-wide. The compromised evolution they teach at BYU is like the thin edge of a wedge.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond