Mormonism and Evolution

[_bcspace]

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 hubris in this statement is simply amazing.

No. the absolute rightness of it is simply breathtaking in scope.

JFS and BRM ( and many others) actually read the scriptures as well as the revelations and words of the latter day prophets and believed them.

JFS and his young protoge BRM also argued against James E Talmadge, BH Roberts and the Heber J Grant presidency and lost. David O McKay did a lot to uphold that ruling.

And along comes BC and he sweeps it all away as private and non doctrinal interpretation. Wow.

BC has merely put it all together for you in plain language and even now you still refuse to accept reality.

Well BC show us the official teachings that there was death before the fall of adam

I have always stated in my hypothesis that there was no death before the Fall.

as well as pre Adamite humans and maybe you have a leg to stand on.

I've merely claimed that there is no doctrine against it, not that there was any for it.

Till you have more something more than the official "We really don't know" you are on shaky ground.

You've come close to LDS doctrine here in that there is no doctrine for or against evolution.

[_Darth J]

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

And? That section of the D&C, and official LDS doctrine, say that there was no death, nor reproduction, before the Fall for any form of life on this planet.

You are still failing to explain how the Earth was "prepared as a dwelling place for man" via evolution with no death or reproduction for any form of life, which is absolutely required for evolution to have happened.

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?

Non sequitur. I haven't asked anyone to believe it nor have I said this is how creation happened. I have merely hypothesized a situation that is not in conflict with science or LDS doctrine.

I see. So why do we care, exactly?

I mean, it is interesting that you assert that your heresy is not conflict with either, when in fact it is in conflict with both, but other than the sociological value of watching it unfold in real time the delusional fantasies a person has to invent to believe that LDS doctrine is scientifically sound, why else do we care?

If LDS teachings and evolution are so obviously consistent, why do you need to present a "theory" that purports to reconcile the two?

Because there are LDS who erroneously accept nondoctrinal statements as doctrine and there are critics who erroneously assume the LDS Church has a creationist doctrine.

Perhaps they erroneously assume the Church punting with "we don't known" means we don't know the exact mechanism by which the world and the things on it were created. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand by internet Mormons and Mopologists, however, because official doctrine is that we do know what DID NOT happen: evolution. Official doctrine is that evolution is incompatible with the Plan of Salvation.

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .

“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

Old Testament Student Manual, Genesis--2 Samuel, "Genesis 1-2---The Creation" (the above quote is under Points to Ponder (2-18))

Or perhaps they erroneously assume the LDS Church has a young Earth creationist doctrine because they are reading official LDS Sunday school manuals that have young Earth creationist talking points in them. E.g., the same manual quoted above, under Points to Ponder (2-19):

But what of the scientific evidence that supposedly contradicts these statements? Isn’t the evidence that all life evolved from a common source overwhelming? Harold G. Coffin, Professor of Paleontology and Research at the Geoscience Research Institute, Andrews University in Michigan, presented one scientist’s view of how life began. The following excerpts are from a pamphlet on the Creation written by Dr. Coffin.

“The time has come for a fresh look at the evidence Charles Darwin used to support his evolutionary theory, along with the great mass of new scientific information. Those who have the courage to penetrate through the haze of assumptions which surrounds the question of the origin of life will discover that science presents substantial evidence that creation best explains the origin of life. Four considerations lead to this conclusion.

“1. Life is unique.

“2. Complex animals appeared suddenly.

“3. Change in the past has been limited.

“4. Change in the present is limited.

“Anyone interested in truth must seriously consider these points. The challenge they present to the theory of evolution has led many intelligent and honest men of science now living to reevaluate their beliefs about the origin of life.” (Coffin, Creation: The Evidence from Science

"The Flood and subsequent cataclysms drastically changed the topography and geography of the earth. The descendants of Noah evidently named some rivers, and perhaps other landmarks, after places they had known before the Flood. This theory would explain why rivers in Mesopotamia now bear the names of rivers originally on the American continent. It is also possible that some present river systems are remnants of the antediluvian river systems on the one great continent that existed then."

[_Franktalk]

.......I see. So why do we care, exactly?

I mean, it is interesting that you assert that your heresy is not conflict with either, when in fact it is in conflict with both, but other than the sociological value of watching it unfold in real time the delusional fantasies a person has to invent to believe that LDS doctrine is scientifically sound, why else do we care?.......

You were addressing BCspace with this comment. I find that many try and bring scripture and science together. Which it can IF we knew for sure how everything happened. I believe this as a matter of faith in scripture. But we do not know for sure how the past unfolded and we have many assumptions attached to the theories of science. So for me I had to decide if I had faith in scripture or in the assumptions of man. I chose scripture as the message from God. Notice I did not say truth. Truth comes from God not some interpretation of scripture by man.

As time moves along I think that many things will be uncovered that will break down the theory of evolution. Just the gathering of defects in species with low birth rates was enough for me to toss the theory. Many just ignore that situation because they have faith in science. But isn't that the real choice that people make? They either have faith one one or the other. I have made my decision and am very happy with it. Others have embraced science as their god because the natural conclusion of evolution is that man is top dog. So it does come down to beliefs and attitudes. If one thinks that the assumptions of scientific projections into the past are valid then that becomes their truth. If however one feels that God has directed the past then that person rejects the assumptions of science. In that case they feel that science is mistaken in their theories. I sat on the fence for a short while after I found God. But I dug down deep into the sciences to examine its foundation before I tossed some of its conclusions. Many people don't have the time or ability to make that journey. So they either listen to the experts or go with their heart.

[_Buffalo]

"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.

If god intervened like that, science wouldn't work.

And I know that 99% of mopologetic arguments rely on an argument from ignorance, but i the real world that's a fallacious line of reasoning.

[_Buffalo]

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

You are confused.

"Random" just means unpredictable in this sense. Unpredictable to us. Theoretically, every random mutation that ever has happened has been predestined since the Big-Bang through the inevitable motion and flux of the bits of energy that make up our universe. And if you knew enough about the preconditions, you could predict with perfectly accuracy the results.

"Undirected" just means not requiring direction beyond the physical forces at play. It is of course possible that a god-being is sitting behind the quantum curtain directing each event. This idea isn't incompatible with evolution. It's just superfluous.

Prediction ≠ direction. I hope this helps.

[_Buffalo]

Above i have read several times that evolution must employ only random changes. I would like to ask why. Is there any reason beyond doctrinal purity to exclude all non ramdom changes?

EAllusion mentions the view that God could be behind all the events which happen but reasonably suspects that God could be seen as superflous in this view.

My own view is that God created the ground materials which evolution uses. However I am enough of a Biblicist to picture God cultivating his vinyard growing on that ground. I see a role for diversified (random) changes along with intentional changes. This picture would be a hypothetical view of how the facts of evolution could fit with creation. Certainly it is a view of evolution with some differences from one which excludes a role for God. On the other hand I am unaware of any facts or observations which contradict this sort of view.

Obviously humans have directed the evolution of several species. But what we observe in the natural world is undirected environmental forces driving natural selection.

[Guest]

Buffalo noted
"If god intervened like that, science wouldn't work"

I can understand a meaning to this sentence if what is intended is that If God intervened then science would find it more difficult to know everything.

On the other hand what i see is that science knows stuff because things that exist can be influenced and how they are influenced displays some characteristics about the thing, its enviroment, and the force effecting it. I cannot imagine how God effecting some situation would alter or harm this arrangement. True it would be a mess if God was willy nilly tossing stuff around. I don't think God suffers from such tantrums. On the other hand if God gardened those ancient seas to bring forth bacteria I doubt our observations of regularity would be disrupted.

Remember, being open to influence is a basic characteristic of all matter and energy we know of.

[_bcspace]

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

Prediction ≠ direction. I hope this helps.

Doesn't help your case at all. How "random" evolution might be has nothing to do with the fact that neither you nor all the combined wisdom of science can detect any nudges or even blatant changes made by God. In fact, since even randomness is governed by laws, such is guarantee you'll never be able to detect it.

[_huckelberry]

Above i have read several times that evolution must employ only random changes. I would like to ask why. Is there any reason beyond doctrinal purity to exclude all non ramdom changes?

Obviously humans have directed the evolution of several species. But what we observe in the natural world is undirected environmental forces driving natural selection.

I understand that Mr Darwin observed situations where a species alters chacteristics over time to fit into a different enviroment or take advantage of specific living opportunities. That has been seen as natural selection directing which changes survived and altered the reproducing group. I believe Darwin made the hypothetical observation that this process could proceed effectively with random changes. It was the natural selection making the guidance.

I think that fits evidence well enough to believe that is a common pattern of events. I cannot image how one would observe or that it has ever been observed that random is the only kind of change.

I realize that some people feel strongly that random is the only needed kind of change. I think that attitude is a coherent reading of the evidence. there is no need imagine that a condition of, all random, has ever been observed. Myself I strongly suspect that despite random change being very useful and frequent it is not adaquate. I realize that my suspicion is not proven. I do not see any way of generating a proof one way or the other on the question of whether all changes in genetic reproduction are random.

[_Sethbag]

God micromanaging at the molecular level to "guide" evolution requires such an involvement and miracles at such a dramatic scale over such a long period of time that one must truly wonder why he wouldn't just create homo sapiens ex nihilo like the Young Earthers believe he did, and be done with it.

God micromanaging evolution is one of those things that on the one hand cannot be proven not to have happened (cuz God made sure that his guided evolution looked exactly like unguided evolution, just to throw those dastardly scientists off the trail), and on the other hand is so damned stupid it's hard to exaggerate how funny it is that theories like this are even invented.

There's no good reason at all for a person to suspect, much less believe that such a thing actually occurred. Unless one counts as "good reason" that someone's cherished belief system has been blown out of the water by science, and therefore one has to find a way to reinterpret the belief system so that it looks exactly like the science that destroyed it, in order to co-opt it.

It's a good thing that the LDS Church has BCSpace to tell it what it really believes, in order to save it from itself. Heaven forbid the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have to figure out what is revealed truth on their own.