Mormonism and Evolution

[_The Dude]

Laugh out loud. That was a classic reply, BCspace.

I see that we are operating by totally different rules. I am arguing by what is scientifically plausible and consistent with knowns -- but you are arguing by whatever could be possible in your imagination, even reaching out to remote inventions that you admit are "very unlikely" and "difficult to argue". But if push comes to shove, you would go there too! Whatever desperate gambit to keep Mormonism from running through your fingers.

So why do you go to the same place by assuming there is no God?

For the sake of this argument an atheistic position is not relevant. Any kind of scientifically literate Christian would find my argument perfectly reasonable and non-threatening to his faith -- except for one that believes God has a human body. Only if you believe the teachings of Joseph Smith that God has a human body do you run into trouble with the positions I have argued in this thread.

[_Nightlion]

.....read my theological opus magnus, New Mormon Theology, which I have cited several times on this board, .....

Where can I find it, I would like to read it.

Frank

Yeah, thank, but sorry. My site keep going down. So I will have to PDF host it off my site. I will announce it when it gets up. I should go try to do it now.

ETA: Okay it should be on a PDF host site now.
New Mormon Theology by James Q. Muir

[_bcspace]

bcspace's proposition is not compatible with evolution, which relies on random mutation and undirected environmental conditions

Completely false since once cannot account for the motions of every molecule and atom at every instant in time.

[Guest]

mikwut wrote:
Hi BCspace,

The problem I have with your reconciliation attempt with Mormon belief frameworks and evolution is that it creates just as difficult of problems even if one concedes to you that you have provided a successful reconciliation, (which I don't).

For example, if you are successful, what need is there for a restored church with a revelatory leader to remain vague on the subject? Why would your leaders not sustain your construction outright and plain? For example the Catholic church with at least closely analogous leaders did just that.

BCspace replied: I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you my by "if you are successful"?

I simply meant if I conceded that your scriptural and doctrinal reconciliation is consistent at least in principle with the words from Mormon scripture, if your right about that you have created two (worse probably) problems. One, why don't the leaders of your church simply concede that? The Catholic church has.

Quote mikwut:
Second. If one understands how Genesis is understood as myth and understood in the time that it was authored (for example see, Nahum M. Sarna's Understanding Genesis - it's free on Kindle) its construction was purposeful in contrast to other myths. It historical can make sense. You have to accept that kind of history if your reading Mormon scripture in a symbolic manner. It would have been properly understood at that time. For example - see St. Augustine's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis and how he makes this point.

BSspace asked in response: Can you be more plain? I highly doubt I'll be reading these works any time soon.

There is a historical place and time for the Genesis type of writing. The biblical man didn't construct his worldview or base his views of the universe and its laws on empirical data. He hadn't even discovered the scientific method of inquiry, critical observation or analytical experimentation yet. Biblical man's thinking was imaginative, and his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic. So it is simply futile to make attempts to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science from a Christian pov. That approach to Genesis would ignore the actual intention, meaning and purpose of the Genesis narrative that reflect the time and place of its writing and would destroy its relevancy. So when Christians defend scripture and evolution like you are doing they have consistent historical reasons for doing so.

The Doctrine and Covenants comes from a certain historical place and time - a culture that did understand empirical observation and experimentation and was not steeped in the poetic framework that biblical man was in constructing its worldviews. It was post-enlightenment historically. So if you attempt to reconcile evolution with Mormonism you face the following dilemma. One, you are not doing so in a literal (six thousand years etc..) fashion. But the metaphorical doesn't fit culturally in the time and place of Joseph Smith and/or us today as it did for the ancients. So you would be defending some sort of scriptural writing that endures through all cultures and times and remains the same type of writing. But the Bible itself doesn't remain static like that, nor does the Book of Mormon - so why would 19th century scripture of the doctrine and covenants attempt to convey through scripture outside of its time and place?

I don't see how my hypothesis conflicts with either a mythical or a literal (because we don't know the details) reading of Genesis 1 except for the fact that I don't accept a global Flood (and therefore I don't accept the baptism of the earth doctrine as it stands).

You aren't necessarily conflicting with Genesis with your evolution ideas because you got your basic strategy for that from Christianity proper (or at least from Mormons who did), but you have forgotten while borrowing from Christianity to understand exactly what that entails, what 'myth' means. It doesn't mean your imagination can elastically go anywhere it wants. It means you are bound and have to understand the myth from the time and place from where it sprang.

For example, there are literal facets of Genesis. For example when you separate the Genesis creation myth from the other creation myth examples such as the Enuma Elish, Genesis is definitely saying some concrete things, i.e. that there was a beginning. That is an understanding of fact from the Genesis narrative whether it is understood literally or figuratively. It is one of the things that is so special and unique about the Genesis creation account. Other myths of the time have creation coming from forming chaos into order, from things coming from other things, but Genesis was different. It was subversive from those myths, it was contra, "In the Beginning" was a powerful way to start a creation myth. New ground is broken if you will. The Jews in the Torah took this same principled understanding of creation from Genesis and they incorporated it into their understanding of 'Law', coming from a divine authoritative source in a beginning.

I hope that clears up some of your confusions. You basically don't understand ancient scripture so you don't understand how your attempts at reconciliation will either conflict with evolution or they will conflict with scripture. There is no way out of this. You ignore the one when you claim a victory for the other.

regards, mikwut

_________________

[_Buffalo]

bcspace's proposition is not compatible with evolution, which relies on random mutation and undirected environmental conditions

Completely false since once cannot account for the motions of every molecule and atom at every instant in time.

Non sequitur. "Random environment conditions" is consistent with not being able to track the motion of every atom in the world.

[_Franktalk]

Non sequitur. "Random environment conditions" is consistent with not being able to track the motion of every atom in the world.

Are you admitting that at its core evolution is based on random events? Most I talk to think that evolution is guided. But the theory holds at its core random errors in the mechanism of change. Only after this is the environment allowed to select winners and losers. So does evolution wait for the happy accident before doing its magic?

I ask this because if you combine the waiting with the time needed for the environment to act on the new arraignment of molecules the theory does not have enough time to do what we are told it has done.

[_bcspace]

"Random environment conditions" is consistent with not being able to track the motion of every atom in the world.

Yes, scientists often chalk up unexplainable occurances to random events. But if God walked down a sandy beach and threw a pebble in the water billions of years ago, how do you know evolution was not affected? How do you know God didn't cause two molecules to combine out of which certain species arose thousands or millions of generations later? How do you know an asteroid wasn't nudged into eventually slamming in the earth precipitating an ice age which affected natural selection? How could you tell if initial conditions weren't purposefully set up such that some of these things occured on their own?

Since you only have faith that God does not exist, then you cannot know if these things did not occur.

[_bcspace]

I simply meant if I conceded that your scriptural and doctrinal reconciliation is consistent at least in principle with the words from Mormon scripture, if your right about that you have created two (worse probably) problems. One, why don't the leaders of your church simply concede that? The Catholic church has.

What problems would those be? Worst case senario, some apostles' and prophets' private (and nondoctrinal) interpretation of other doctrine and scripture is wrong. No harm, no foul.

The Doctrine and Covenants comes from a certain historical place and time - a culture that did understand empirical observation and experimentation and was not steeped in the poetic framework that biblical man was in constructing its worldviews. It was post-enlightenment historically. So if you attempt to reconcile evolution with Mormonism you face the following dilemma. One, you are not doing so in a literal (six thousand years etc..) fashion. But the metaphorical doesn't fit culturally in the time and place of Joseph Smith and/or us today as it did for the ancients. So you would be defending some sort of scriptural writing that endures through all cultures and times and remains the same type of writing. But the Bible itself doesn't remain static like that, nor does the Book of Mormon - so why would 19th century scripture of the doctrine and covenants attempt to convey through scripture outside of its time and place?

If you are referring to D&C 77, LDS doctrine on that section is clear enough not to preclude evolution.

For example, there are literal facets of Genesis. For example when you separate the Genesis creation myth from the other creation myth examples such as the Enuma Elish, Genesis is definitely saying some concrete things, i.e. that there was a beginning. That is an understanding of fact from the Genesis narrative whether it is understood literally or figuratively. It is one of the things that is so special and unique about the Genesis creation account. Other myths of the time have creation coming from forming chaos into order, from things coming from other things, but Genesis was different. It was subversive from those myths, it was contra, "In the Beginning" was a powerful way to start a creation myth. New ground is broken if you will. The Jews in the Torah took this same principled understanding of creation from Genesis and they incorporated it into their understanding of 'Law', coming from a divine authoritative source in a beginning.

I have no problem with there being an beginning.

I hope that clears up some of your confusions. You basically don't understand ancient scripture so you don't understand how your attempts at reconciliation will either conflict with evolution or they will conflict with scripture. There is no way out of this. You ignore the one when you claim a victory for the other.

If you feel there are flaws in my modus operandi, then feel free to point out what necessary part or parts of my hypothesis is wrong or in conflict.

[_Darth J]

Worst case senario, some apostles' and prophets' private (and nondoctrinal) interpretation of other doctrine and scripture is wrong. No harm, no foul.

Oh, of course! The apostles' and prophets' interpretation of LDS doctrine is wrong, and you are right!

The Church is true!!!

Just wondering, but given your emphasis that apostles and prophets so frequently give their personal opinions as if it were gospel truth, and they so often interpret doctrine and scriptures incorrectly, I wonder if you could explain the reason why we should listen to them.

If you are referring to D&C 77, LDS doctrine on that section is clear enough not to preclude evolution.

It sure doesn't! And all it takes not to preclude that is to ignore the plain meaning of ordinary words!

By the way, Sethbag asked a question a little while back that is begged throughout your theory of The Gospel according to the Planet of the Apes.

I wonder if you might be inclined to address it at any time:

What reason, other than to support a pre-existing belief system, is there to believe that such a scheme actually happened?

[_Sethbag]

Non sequitur. "Random environment conditions" is consistent with not being able to track the motion of every atom in the world.

Are you admitting that at its core evolution is based on random events?

Mutations are relatively random. I say relatively, because it's not like anything at all is possible when DNA codes are being copied and so forth. But yeah.

Most I talk to think that evolution is guided.

It is "guided" by natural selection, which is not random.

But the theory holds at its core random errors in the mechanism of change. Only after this is the environment allowed to select winners and losers. So does evolution wait for the happy accident before doing its magic?

Evolution doesn't wait for anything. Evolution is simply a process that happens, and it happens when it happens. It's not something that can wait for something else.

I ask this because if you combine the waiting with the time needed for the environment to act on the new arraignment of molecules the theory does not have enough time to do what we are told it has done.

That's just silly. The proof that there has indeed been enough time for evolution is all around us. You are relying on bad information if you think there hasn't been.