As an LDS person who accepts the findings of climate scientists and believes in
evolution, I am relieved that Mitt and Jon have not lost their minds like Mr.
Perry of TX.
This is good to hear. I'm getting tired of listening to politicians trash
science for their own gain.
As a believing LDS person who also accepts Science - I see no contridiction
either.The Global Warming deniers are both ignoring not only the
facts and data, BUTY ignoring their Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as
well.Sad to see so many good LDS people choosing the far-right-wing
extremeists of the GOP -- while rejecting not only our Mormon Leaders and our
doctrines, but proven facts, data, and Science...all conscious reasoning as
well...for political posturing.
Watch the Ben Stein DVD "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed". It is an
amazing fit to Mormonism. Is not God truth as well as love?
There's a very simple explanation for why Mormons can easily embrace concepts
like evolution and climate change without feeling, unlike traditional
Christians, that these are a threat to their faith.Ask a traditional
Christian the first thing that comes into his or her mind when you say the word
"human," and they'll most likely answer "sinner,"
"depraved," or a similar negative.Ask a Mormon the same
thing and they'll most likely answer "progression."In
short, traditional Christianity is a closed book, with everyone playing a part,
and nothing outside of that can be allowed to even be considered, much less
accepted.And though Mormonism suffers from the same syndrome in
part, its foundation is one of eternal expansion for us humans. As such,
nothing can really be a threat to a Mormon's faith, because he and she are
constantly looking forward, not backward to the "Garden of Eden."
The title is all that is needed to sink them with the far right.And
I applaud them for their stance.Huntsman seems to be the most level
headed candidate in the GOP field. Sadly, while he would have a
chance in the general, he is not "right" enough to get the GOP nod in
I think Mormonism will thrive in our modern age because we have always accepted
science as a big part of Gods creation. We have never seen science as a
competitor against faith. And whether you choose to believe or not in God, those
laws will be beneficial to all mankind.
The "Human-Causality" of climate change is what is in dispute by most
people - not the fact that the climate is changing. I can show evidence and a
theory to show that the earth used to be much warmer than it is now and that the
ice caps are just a temporary phenomenon in geological history. What makes my
"theory" any stronger than "human-causality climate change"?
Nothing. Neither has been proven, which is the very definition of a
"theory".Climate change (human-caused), like Evolution, is
a theory used to try and explain the observations scientists have made about the
world they see. Until theories can be proven to be fact, they remain theories.
You will not find a scientist alive who is willing to go out on *that* limb.I see no incongruity with either Romney (whom I support) or Huntsman
(whom I don't) stating that they agree with these theories. If I don't agree, I
just have to remind myself that there are theories, and that until something
better comes along, something that can be proven with the scientific method, it
is simply someone's attempt to explain their observations of the world.
All well and good, and perfectly nice political speech. I am well inform about
both evolution, and man-made global warming. Both are expanding areas of
scientific inquiry. It is important, however, to destinquish between the use of
scientific inquiry and theory that can inform and improve policy decisions from
when it is used to quell all other thoughts, theories, or different policy
decisions. Science's use in the former is helpful, used in the latter way
harmful. In fact, in the latter way it becomes no better than reliqious or any
other dogma. Basically, I believe therefore it is so, and anyone who does not
is a fool or worse. BTW with regard to man-made global warming or non-made
climate change the interesting new research is in the arena of why collected
data is often so far off from the prediction models. This is an exciting area
of inquiry which offers the prospect of improving the models. Lets hope
"the settle nature" of this science does not quell the funding for or
perceived need for this further research.
I am also an LDS person who accepts science. For me it's easy -- science
postulates how things happened; religion says who made the things happen. They
are two parts to a whole understanding of how we, our planet, and our galaxy
came into being.
Don't they mean eugenics? There is a big difference between actual science and
eugenics which Romney and Huntsman apparently believe in. Anything about
population reduction is eugenics period.
Did they check with Hannity and the conservative core of tea party radicals?
They are in the wrong party for this heretical position.
Romney's stance on climate change (which is more or less mine) is being grossly
oversimplified.The best evidence we have is that the Earth's
temperature is slightly warmer now than it was at the beginning of the 20th
century. It is also take-it-to-the-bank proven that all things being equal,
adding more carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere makes it warmer. About a
half-degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2, in fact. You can calculate this
on a single piece of paper. Where we differ from the anti-science
people on the Left, is that we insist on holding our beliefs with only that
degree of certainty as the evidence justifies. And the evidence for the
prospect of *catastrophic* global warming -- Al Gore's shtick, and all the
scenarios for which their proponents have had to resort to manipulated research
and sleight of hand -- is minimal. It depends on assumptions about strong
positive feedbacks that are not justified, based on what we know about how
feedbacks work. (Right now, the Earth is much cooler than it would be if
greenhouse warming were not affected by strong negative feedbacks.)
LDS TREE HUGGER. Quote me a verse that supports eugenics or global
warming for the ingnorant person? So basically it's ok to say that god made a
mistake when he created the earth? is that what your saying? Are you saying that
we are not commanded to multiply and replenish the earth and partake in gods
work and his glory? As far as I know the commandment of multiplying and
replenishing the earth did include the exception of this overpopulation eugenics
Romeny and Huntsman support wiping out 6/7 of the worlds population. Al gore
made a bogus claim last week that if we don't believe in Global Warming and pay
our carbon taxes, that space aliens will attack us. Are you serious?
"BUT ignoring their Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as well."Groan. Point me to the scripture passages that discuss how a Christian
should think about black body radiation, the infrared absorption spectrum, and
convection.Left-liberals seem to jump from general religious
concepts about stewardship of the earth, to a commandment "Thou shalt jump
on the most extreme environmental bandwagon of the day." As your math
teacher said -- show your work.Generally speaking, liberals
overstate the likely extent of human-caused global warming (for political
reasons), and conservatives tend to discount it (ditto). Scientifically
literate conservatives and liberals try to figure out where the actual,
apolitical truth actually lies -- which tends to get them flak from both sides.
Global warming -- as in, the Earth is probably a bit warmer than it
was a few decades ago, and human-caused CO2 emissions are partly responsible --
is the best scientific theory we have. !!GLOBAL WARMING!! -- the apocalyptic
scenarios of liberal rhetoric -- is a fraud.
My great granfather wasn't a fish and neither was yours.
"We have never seen science as a competitor against faith."Wasn't there an Ensign article in '98 that endorsed a literal understanding of
Noah's flood? Which is just about as scientifically disproven as anything can
be, including "rocks fall upwards when dropped"? Don't we
spin and obfuscate the science of genetics, when it forces us to cull Lehi's
descendants down from "all of the Indians and Polynesians" to
"some guy in the Guatemalan backwoods named Manuel, who's never had his DnA
sampled? Everybody -- evangelical Christian, Mormon, Catholic,
secular liberal -- has his sacred spaces that are walled off to thorough, honest
scientific reasoning. (Liberals believe in evolution as holy writ -- yet oddly
insist that the genetic mechanisms that drive evolution stopped applying
significantly to human development thousands of years ago. Because if genes
affect personality, then the whole liberal project of improving man by improving
his environment loses much of its force.) Ask Lawrence Summers if there's any
difference between a Creationist and a Harvard-faculty feminist, in the
"fearlessly follow the science wherever it leads" department.
LDS Tree-Hugger "As a believing LDS person who also accepts Science -
I see no contridiction either." I agree, I believe in science as well.. I
also believe God knows all and that our scientists are still learning and that
you can't get two scientist to agree."The Global Warming
deniers are both ignoring not only the facts and data, BUTY ignoring their
Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as well." what are the facts? are we
responsible for the polar ice caps on mars dwindleing as well? or could it all
be part of Gods plan moving towards the end?"Sad to see so many
good LDS people choosing the far-right-wing extremeists of the GOP -- while
rejecting not only our Mormon Leaders and our doctrines, but proven facts, data,
and Science...all conscious reasoning as well...for political posturing."
I could say to same about the far left! only I will say lets agree to disagree.
It takes both ends for us to come to the middle.
continued.....Please do not accuse me of rejecting our Mormon Leaders and
doctrine. Lets go back to the 1800's and science then, whos to say todays
science and in 50 or 100 yrs wont be the same difference. Scientist are still
learning and changing only God knows all.
I think evolution is becoming more accepted among Mormons but I would say the
majority of active Mormons still reject it. In fact 70% of Mormons surveyed in
a recent Pew Forum Survey on religion in America rejected evolution as the best
explanation for human origins. I would also note that what little mention of
evolution is made in Church publications is almost entirely negative.However, in a way I can see why. The reality is that if evolution is true it
not only gives some explanation for where we came from but also explains who we
are. It also can be used to effectively explain why humans would have come up
with an idea of a God in the first place and how such an idea could have evolved
from a way of explaining the unexplained to an elaborate means of creating and
maintaining social groups.
Faith aside, having a President with a firm grasp of science would be a great
thing for this nation. There was a time when America led the way in scientific
discovery and technological advancement. Now we have passed the torch to nations
like Japan, China, Russia and India. That is something we need to get back.
Quote from Hugh Nibley: "What we do claim is that the words of the prophets
cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for
them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in
court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom
have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed.The
last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our
Father in Heaven speaks it; and if it were in perfect agreement with the science
of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us
not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he
speaks the language of eternity.""The Prophets and the Open
Mind," CWHN 3:134
Being a faithful, practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, despite any imperfections, is no vice.
I'm one of those Mormons who don't believe in evolution. I don't know how God
created us, but I don't believe He used evolution. I don't believe there was any
death before the fall of Adam, just as the Book of Mormon scripture states in 2
Nephi 2:22, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things
which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after
they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."
To those LDS who think they are going to be liked by accepting the theory of
evolution as fact, you may want to go back and study the core doctrines of your
faith. There was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution
REQUIRES multiple cycles of death for evolution to occur. According to doctrine,
ADAM and Eve appeared on earth as fully developed human beings. The
days when supposed Christians will not endure sound doctrine have arrived.That Romney and Huntsman supposedly believe in evolution &
man-caused "global warming" makes them much less appealing.
Bottom line - opinion does not determine truth. Truth is independent of opinion
and in fact opinion has no power to change or alter truth. Having said that it
is important to understand that evolution is a "theory" and not a law
and there is a BIG difference. A theory in short is just an educated opinion.
The earth was considered to be flat hundreds of years ago and the science of the
day taught this "theory" but there was no law proving the earth to be
flat. At the same time that science was falsely teaching that the earth was flat
the earth continued to be round - not flat. Evolution is one of those ideas that
have been championed and distorted by atheists to somehow wish away God.
Evolution has areas of truth - no doubt - and areas of gross error and
And the correct answer is: We don't know.
Evolution -- And as to the "un-believers" of Scientific
truths, who claim to believe in rigid Religion to explain Reality I ask....How many Dogs did Noah put on the ark?If it was only 2 [per
the Bible] then Evolution is in fact Real and does in fact happen.If
Noah put 324 to account for all the worlds dogs - then you can't read the
Bible.And you truely believe that the "earth is full, and there
is enough and to spare" per D&C 104:17 -- then you should also know and
beleive that all blessings are contingent of obedience...and that only can only
be true if we are good stewards of the Earth.
"How many Dogs did Noah put on the ark?If it was only 2 [per
the Bible] then Evolution is in fact Real and does in fact happen."That is not evolution. That is ADAPTATION.Nobody seems to
know the difference between evolution and adaptation.Evolution is
saying a fish becomes a mammal.Adaptation is entirely different and
explains the differences in species.There is no such thing as
evolution. End of story.
Hugh Nibley said it best. (See SSMD's 11:37am post.)Perfect science
and perfect religion are one and the same; truth is truth.Any valid
scientist readily acknowledges that "every time men in their wisdom have
come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed." That
is beautiful!We should embrace scientific understanding, while
recognizing that as it continues to expand, many of today's theories will be
disproven and supplanted.
@Patriot: The very fact that God exists is a theory, and boils down to one
thing: Faith. The fact that you bash athiests as trying to champion or distort
evolution to wish away God - both theories and not proven - seems hypocritical.
Why is it that you can believe in a god, but others cannot believe in evolution,
in your opinion? In fact, you indicate that evolution actually has some truth,
but God, at the moment, has no evidence of existence.
The black or white, tea party positon that they are one-hundred percent right on
every issue and everyone needs to submit to their point of view is an easier
sale in Utah.
For me, "Evolution" is not the same as how the earth was formed,
developed, and populated, neither agreement, nor disagreement with the common
Darwin dogma. It is a possible answer. Is it the only one? Is evolution alone
the answer? Will more information/discoveries come forth? I think so.Global Warming, perhaps. There is too much variable and questionable data
from an extremely small sample size over time. Temperatures have admittedly
been framed and fudged. I would prefer to call it very poor science.
As an LDS scientist myself and having received my training at a liberal, Ivy
League school, I have personally seen evolution occur in my lifetime, both
through natural selection and those manipulated by man. Many of my classmates
refused to believe in anything but science. Why should we limit ourselves to
only one method? I'm still on the fence with global warming, or climate change.
With our current limited knowledge of how this earth works (and we understand
so very little), much less about the universe, I can only imagine with God's
unlimited spiritual and scientific knowledge and power, what He can do and what
He can create! I believe, and it may sound crazy, that as we learn more about
science, we become closer to what God is, and understand His eternal ways more.
Just a thought for MVH: who says God didn't clone Adam and Eve, then place them
as perfect beings on this earth, after which he instilled their spirits within
them through His divine power? Then he gave them the ability to choose. Just a
Big Red, I doubt very much you have seen a fundamental change such as a fish
evolving into a mammal in your lifetime. You may have seen
adaptations, but not evolution.
@matteo"Climate change (human-caused), like Evolution, is a theory
used to try and explain the observations scientists have made about the world
they see. Until theories can be proven to be fact, they remain theories"The scientific definition of a theory is not what you think it means.
Again, should I be surprised or just discouraged that people who declare
themselves LDS or Christian are willing to believe that God, who created man in
His image, would not be able to create children in His image, but instead begin
with something completely out of his image first, only to watch it
"evolve" into His image? No, the most simple answer is the correct
answer: God the Father, according to your scriptures, created man in His image.
The Proclamation on the Family confirms that man was created after
the image of God - as fully developed human beings, whose spirits were also in
the image of God - fully developed spirit beings that look every bit as human as
we do in the flesh. Gender was also part of our eternal spiritual identity.Don't claim to be a true believing LDS without knowing your doctrine.
@MVH"There was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution
REQUIRES multiple cycles of death for evolution to occur. According to doctrine,
ADAM and Eve appeared on earth as fully developed human beings. "Let us know when belief in evolution becomes a way to fail a temple recommend
interview.@patriot"Having said that it is important to
understand that evolution is a "theory" and not a law and there is a
BIG difference. A theory in short is just an educated opinion."Gravity is a theory, one I do not recommend you test with a jump off a bridge.
Why is climate change caused by man so hard to believe anyway? We're the ones
who made an acid rain problem and an ozone hole. We also used cap and trade to
combat the acid rain problem, and the Montreal Protocol went a long way to
slowing and hopefully reversing the ozone hole problem.
Admiring Gentile said : Ask a traditional Christian the first thing that comes
into his or her mind when you say the word "human," and they'll most
likely answer "sinner," "depraved," or a similar
negative.I am a "traditional Christian." If you should ask
me that question, the first thing that comes to my mind is "made in the
image and likeness of God."
JustMyView and MVHContext matters: Lehi is not giving a
discourse on the physical nature of the world. He is explaining our purpose here
in life. Additionally, he is speaking to his children, many of whom were
disobedient, and he is concerned for their spiritual well-being, he is speaking
of spiritual death. Had Adam not transgressed he would not have died
spiritually, he would have been in God's presence indefinitely. Lehi
is not teaching his children about physical death, they all know they are going
to die physically, but he is worried about Laman and Lemuel from being cut off
from God (spiritual death) forever. __What is to say that God did
not use evolution as the PROCESS of creation (allowing death), but then when
everything was finally created, the world became immortal?Lastly, a
Hebrew study of Genesis implies that the Garden of Eden was not the whole earth,
but only a part of the earth. Immortality in Eden, death on earth. I
wouldn't be so categorical in denying evolution. "There is no
such thing as evolution."You simply have not looked at the
MVH"...should I be surprised or just discouraged that people who
declare themselves LDS or Christian are willing to believe that God, who created
man in His image, would not be able to create children in His image"God did not create us as He is. It takes this whole probationary life,
and more, to grow and develop and "be perfect like our father in heaven is
perfect." Becoming like him does not happen in an instant, why
should the creation of our bodies?Everything is a type of Christ.
Everything symbolizes Him. Evolution is the perfect symbol of line upon line,
precept upon precept.
"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for
any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a
direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."This is
from the Bible Dictionary provided in Mormon scriptures and on the official LDS
website. It is taught as a fundamental reason for a need for Christ's
atonement. Perhaps they will act to correct this apparently incorrect doctrine
before the election.
I believe I am a Child of God, not a child of a monkey. Seems like the world is
upside down now-a-days . . . accepting evolution, believing someone who steals a
social security number to work is still honest . . . where or where can I find
True religion and True Science is one and the same. God is the master scientist.
I do not believe any true LDS believes man evolved from some ameba in the
middle of the mud in the middle of a swamp. God makes it clear that he created
Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden. Evolving and progression
both require some form of intelligence. So in that fact I can agree. The
headline that the church ALLOWS Huntsman and Romney to embrace science is
insane. They both have freedom of choice and neither needed the Churches
permission. I believe what their definition of evolved and those of
another may be of a total different mind set.
Would you be surprised Talmage, Widtsoe, B.H.Roberts and other GAs were all okay
with, some even actively advocated, evolution as an explanation for HOW God
created the world?Do you even know why some authorities
(JosephFieldingSmith, BruceR.McConkie) took a position against evolution? Until you understand where your own beliefs come from, you should be a
little more teachable. Dig a little deeper. It is also more likely
that the whole Adam/Eve Garden of Eden account is a metaphor for our own
relationship with God and not a literal account of the beginning of the natural
world. (Otherwise, why the four different variations?) We all started in
innocence; we have all sinned and have fallen away from His presence. Our own
works (apron of fig leaves) will not cover us; we all need a savior to make a
sacrifice (coats of skin) to cover our sins (nakedness). The social organization
of the family is set-up, etc. The Garden of Eden accounts contain A
LOT more symbolism, which will help you work out your salvation, than if you
read it for a literal explanation for the origin of the natural world.
The most valuable class I took at Ricks College in the spring of 1974, and I
would extend this comment to my subsequent BYU years, was a 200-level genetics
class. Because of that science class, the New Testament is so much clearer in
helping me understand the dual nature of Christ as the Son of a Divine Father
and of a mortal mother. That scientific fact (the duality of Christ's divinity
and mortality) alone has unlocked numerous statements that help me understand
Christ's ability to die, but His power over death; His ability to be tempted,
but His absolute power over temptation; His ability to experience pain, but His
ability to suffer infinite (unquantifiable) pain for the sins and infirmities of
all humanity. Thank you, Professor Oldham, for strengthening my testimony of
LDS theology by teaching me science!!
As a Mormon and an applied scientist, evolution does not bother me one bit. I
also don't believe it.If one were able to prove that we evolved I would
simply say; "So That is how God did it."The theory of
evolution postulates that order came out of chaos and progressed to higher and
higher levels of order without outside direction.The law of entropy states
that all things tend to go from a state of order to a state of chaos unless you
maintain it. The maintenance requires that energy be expended and that energy
must be directed by an intelligence. Simply injecting energy, even organized
energy does not maintain things any more than a tornado (highly organized
energy) maintains a trailer park.It takes even more energy and
greater intelligence to improve things.The theory of evolution and
the law of entropy are 180 degrees opposed to each other. When a law and a
theory have a head on collision, the law wins.Evolutionists dismiss
intelligent design because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. Just what part
of evolution can be tested in a laboratory in less than 500,000 years? Evolution is false.
I come from a strong mathematical background. Mathematicians laugh at how other
sciences "prove" things. E.g. how a physicist proves that every odd
number is prime - 3 - prime, 5 - prime, 7 - prime, 9 - error of the experiment,
11 -prime, 13 - prime, etc. To a mathematician every other science is
alchemy.Yet even math itself is not as exact of a science as you
would hope. Physics is the next most precise and then it goes down the chain.
Computer science is simplified math, and is perhaps the most precise science at
our hands. Yet almost everyone has been affected at one point or another by a
computer bug.So I laugh at the "evidences" for evolution.
It amazes me how somebody could put so much confidence in their explanation of
what happened several million years ago. The honest scientific answer is we
still have no clue but that does not earn government grants and journal
publications.My personal opinion is that God told the matter to
organize and it did. He did not have to wait for millions of years. That, and
time did not work back then the same way it does now.
VST"... gravity is NOT a theory - it's a proven scientific
law"Actually, Newton's Universal Law of Gravity has been
updated. Even the THEORY of gravity has changed over time. The geometric theory
of gravitation was published by Einstein in 1916 and provided a unified
description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.
General relativity isn't the only theory of gravity, there's also the theory of
quantum gravity. ___"... I am a Child of God, not... a
monkey." Evolution DOES NOT mean we came from monkeys. You do not understand evolution, you do not understand gravity, how can
you have an opinion on the subject? ___The purpose of the
scriptures is to explain WHY we exist, not HOW. Any attempt at using scripture
to describe the natural world is folly. It was never meant to do that. ___what part of evolution can be tested in a laboratory...? Actually, a lot. One example: Comparing sequenced genomes of related-species
is very enlightening. You can map out how different closely-related species
diverged by comparing genomes and rates of variation in their genes.
Interestingly, it's in harmony with the fossil record.
Science tells us HOW things happen.Religion [and God] tells us WHY things
happen.God is only interested in Salvation - you know, to bring to
pass the immortality and Eternal life of man.Science never even
starts to compete with that one.Well, maybe in the persuit of better
health and possibly immortality -- but I'll leave that one for another day....
Nice to hear these boys believe in what the majority of major scientists
worldwide believe. The majority of major scientist worldwide also don't believe
in God though so there's still some learning to do.
i know what i have heard from the media. the media is liberal most of the
time.our church does not support evolution from what i have known since i
was a young girl.i am not voting just because-i am voting for the one that
is the less of the worse of the evils in government.i listen to the
prophet for vocal inspiration not the media.
We can't be surprised that the same people who fear change also don't believe in
The enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is
not the birth of children, said Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles. It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could
teach them to do if only they would ask and then obey.
MVH | 11:53 a.m. Aug. 23, 2011 Farmington, UT To those LDS who think
they are going to be liked by accepting the theory of evolution as fact, you may
want to go back and study the core doctrines of your faith. There
was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution REQUIRES multiple cycles
of death for evolution to occur. ====================== Oh, really?Then how do you account for fossils and bones?Better yet, how do you acocunt for all those dinosaurs painted in the Creation
Room in the LDS Manti Temple?I don't have any conflict, better yet
-- my testimony never be shaken by any new scientific discoveries.Oh
ya, a couple other things to remember...A man can not be saved in
ignorance,The Glory of God is Intelligence.&We believe all
that God has revealed [including Science], all that He does now reveal
[including Science], and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and
important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God [including Science].Good Luck
Global warming is nothing more than an excuse to line the pockets of companies
and individuals who will gain from a "cap and trade" policy. Does the Earth get warmer? Sure! It also gets cooler. It all depends on what
time period your data covers. The fact that they even changed the name from
Global Warming to Climate Change indicates they are trying to cover all their
bases. I believe we should be good stewards over the Earth we live
on. Let's keep our home clean, but let's not go nuts about it.I also
believe in the process of evolution, but not that we descended from apes.And gravity? That's only a suggestion...
Good to see that Mitt & Jon have not buckled under the weight of the
loons.Great string. I especially liked the bit about "Ever the
pragmatists, many Mormons tend to eschew the culture war"...apparently they
are not that familiar with gay marriage. Pretty much in the thick of that
culture war.@ProudDuck - certainly oversimplifying the facts.
"Apocalyptic end" not an irrational conclusion if we simply ignore the
problem altogether.@ProudUtahn - could be god's plan but relying on
that as your reasoning is pretty weak. Was it "god's plan" to
exterminate jews with a horrific war? One could argue. Does god get the blame
for events as well as the glory?@LDSTreeHugger - I'm not sure your
position is officially endorsed. I'm told that homosexuality doesn't exist (not
acknowledged as real) in the mormon faith. The scientific literature &
community says that it does. It even exists in nature. I will grant you that I
don't know if this position is official doctrine or just widely-held belief. I
do know that men in power have said that you would be better off dead than gay.
Sounds like doctrine. If not, correct me and I apologize for getting that wrong.
I don't see anything in LDS doctrine that precludes the possibility that this
earth could have gone through several cycles of creation and destruction before
the Adam and Eve from whom we are descended came about.The specific
animals on the earth at the time of the Garden of Eden were placed there by God
and could not reproduce until after the fall, but why wouldn't they have been
the descendants of other animals? I think we read "In the
beginning" and we tend to think that it means the beginning of everything.
But if we believe in the concept of eternity, there is no beginning, so "In
the beginning" must refer to the beginning of one particular period of
time. It doesn't mean there weren't other periods of time that came before it,
or will come after it. And why couldn't this planet have become organized and
disorganized several times over, with God taking some lifeforms in their
partially evolved states and placing them on newly organized worlds, in Gardens
of Eden to begin a new line and evolve some more. Why wouldn't God use the laws
of nature? How could he not?Out there, I know.
I'm just trying to say that there are endless possibilities of how doctrine and
scientific evidence can eventually be reconciled. In the grand scheme of things
we know relatively little about doctrine or science. What we will come to know
in either field a thousand years from now would blow us away, so it's just best
to withold judgement.
Gravity is NOT a theory, is is a namr of an observable force, there may thoeries about is properties,What vcn be observed is
adapataion. NOT evolution. evolution has never been observed, nor
reproduced in lab,Evolution is decidedly and clearly unscientific in
its laguage, bult on indefinitiveness, and speculation,
it is filled and built on totatally with assumings, supposings, may haves, might
haves, could haves, possibly haves, imagined relationshsips, etc.
It is a total failure scientificly, it is NOT true science.Adapatation, which is what darwin observed, has some merit, but no
creature has ever adapted outside its sphere.--It's sad
the use of rationalization in trying to accept popular theories,God,
a perfect being would not nor could ever use an imperfect method for
creation, especially for an intended and purposed creation, or he'd cease to be perfect, and cease to be God, A God capable
of controlling the forces of nature, indeed nature itself, raise the dead, heal
the lame, the blind the diseased, make fish and bread muliply, is
clearly capable of direct creation,While we are tobe good stewards,
God isin control of his creations, man can't control the climate of earth.
How many people who mock religious literalists for their
"unscientific" beliefs, are really equipped to have an informed
opinion about science? How many people are just appalled that
anyone could doubt global warming -- and yet couldn't tell you exactly how
greenhouse forcing works, or how much warming to expect for each incremental
increase in CO2 concentrations, or how and what feedback mechanisms interact
with greenhouse warming? (Speed66, I'm looking at you; the
"apocalyptic" AGW scenarios aren't supported by science even if we
"do nothing" about the issue.) How many proud
"believers" in evolution know enough about the subject, to refute the
intelligent-design arguments (which can, in fact, be refuted)?Scripture speaks poorly of people who, when they are learned, think they are
wise. Frankly, at this point, I'd prefer even that much over what we've got.
What we now have, is "when they parrot the conventional wisdom without
remotely understanding it, they think they are learned."You may
well be right. On evolution, you are. But that doesn't make you smart,
thoughtful, or educated, if you aren't prepared to give a reason you think as
you do. Finally, we're monkeys' uncles, not their kids. Or
cousins, depending on age.
RE: speed66It is God's plan to allow the agency of man, to even to
do terrible things, And the agency of others to stop them.Whether, scientificilly, homosexuality exists, (and there is no real hard
scientific proof) the control of the behavior, your agency, also
exists. we are not animals, we have the ability to exercise our
agency.We did not evolve, nor is evolution reproducible or
observable, it is imagined, and those who profess belief in it, are
dogmatic, they deny any alternative beliefs, and mock and belittle anyone
who does not believe as they do.What was going on on earth before
man, before its current state, we do not know, but it was not evolution.
Uh....both Romney and Hunstsman accept "mainstream" evolution?Really?From what I've read, the "mainstream" (ie,
'most commonly accepted') theory of evolution is that we descended from
monkeys.Sure, there's a perfect blend of science and religion, but
isn't that stretching it a bit to say that these 2 guys (particularly Romney)
believe that we descended from monkeys? Or did I miss something in the article?
It is important that we understand that God is truly the greatest of all
scientists. When we understand that there is no difference between scientific
truth and theological truth, but that there is only truth, it will be much
easier for us to see how God works. Elder Maxwell said that when we see all
things through the lens of the Gospel, what we see will be much clearer.
It must be a full moon, there is a lot of baying at the moon going on.
Evolution doesn't contradict the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (in a closed system
entropy always increases). The earth isn't a closed system. Energy pours onto
it's surface every day. Entropy can decrease in such cases. Evolution is:1. Variation: All life forms vary genetically within a
population.2. Inheritance: Genetic traits are inherited from parents
and are passed on to offspring.3. Selection: Organisms with traits
that are favorable to their survival and reproduction are more likely to pass on
their genes to the next generation.4. Time: Evolutionary change can
happen in a few generations, but major change, such as speciation, often takes
many thousands of generations.
Ah, it's just so easy that way, isn't it, The Truth?
@TheProudDuck - I disagree with your conclusions and/or interpretations of
other's conclusions. I don't profess an apocalyptic end but I also don't believe
that painting the worst-case scenario is equivalent to denying science because
of a reliance on ancient texts and mythology. Trying to paint the worst case
scenario as being impossible sounds more like a personal position than a
scientific conclusion.I understand your argument of ignorance and
share much of your frustration. That said, I can't accept the premise entirely.
It's impossible to be literate in all areas. As such, it is reasonable and
prudent to rely on experts in their fields without having to be able to answer
all questions personally. Of course, the degree and intensity with which someone
defends their position should be in direct proportion to personal knowledge or
the source of the knowledge. I could vehemently defend the use of medication
prescribed by a physician over prayer prescribed by a christian scientist. On
the other hand, it would be much harder to defend one physicians choice of
medication over another's without competent expertise. The fact that
you quote scripture as authority is rather ironic.
Imperfect I am. even below the dust of the earth.3rd Nephi 11:30Behold this is not my doctrine to stir up the hearts of men with anger one
against another, but this is my doctrine that such things should be done
away.I see that there is a given acceptance of climate change, but
in the days of Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball there is producing a climate
change one might wonder if the statement of all nations shall call you blessed
is the blessing of producing climate change for the better.Have a
Great day and Bless you Randy Hanson
@thetruth - funny name given your post.Asserting that evolution
doesn't exist displays a clear lack of scientific literacy. You don't believe
that people used to be shorter? You don't believe that penguins used to have
feathers? I recommend that you get yourself a little basic education - reading
"Greatest Show on Earth" is a good start.Your self-sealing
argument about god and god's will is a wonderful argument that protects you
either way. Everyone is eager to claim a miracle by god but when children are
starving by the thousands in Africa, they give god a free pass. All the glory
with no responsibility. Personal accountability? Where is the agency in a child
starving to death? Homosexuality not having a scientific basis is
news to the scientific community. Controlling our actions...you mean like not
casting the first stone? This position will be viewed with the same dismay and
ire as defending/promoting slavery. Pure bigotry. Nothing less.@mream - changing the name to climate change was to help those who think that
bigger snow storms in the winter disprove the theory even though the opposite is
true. Cap and trade conspiracy? Thanks for the laugh!
I agree with MVH about adaption (better suited to environments through biotype
selection)and evolution (better suited to environments through genetic
inheritance). I disagree that we have not seen evolution in our lifetime.
Since the days of Gregor Mendel, scientists have mechanically manipulated and
"evolved" plants to change their characteristics without the influence
of the natural environment, and to be resistant to diseases and insects. Within
the past 15 years, resistance of non-resistant crops to herbicides through
genetic manipulation has occurred. These are forced and rapidly enhanced
methods of evolution (by the transfer of pollen from male flower parts to the
female parts) or through insertion of genetic material. While this selection
may have eventually occurred in nature (though I doubt it in the case of
herbicide resistance), it is expedited by man. Unfortunately, we are also now
seeing the negative results of that manipulation with herbicide-resistant weeds.
Thankfully, I don't think we have seen evolution of man in our lifetime, though
news clippings of "stupid criminals" makes a sincere case for it. My
only question about the fall of Adam is this: Were the lions and tigers
"vegans" like Adam and Eve before the fall?
Great comments on this topic. But again, it just reminds me that in the end it
will not matter one iota what we BELIEVED about anything. But I have a feeling
that what we chose to DO in this life will matter a great deal.
There are some really good thought provoking comments on here. The issue I have
is with those who make such an issue of teaching evolution, especially in public
schools. If a student is grounded in the gospel and the scriptures let some high
school biology teacher teach what they consider science. Students are
intelligent enough to form their own conclusions. If someone lets whats taught
in a high school or college class weaken their faith then they never had much of
a testimony. Politicians are to quick to politicize issues to promote their own
agenda. The reason the far right makes such an issue of climate change is they
don't like government regulating business. You have get past the political
rhetoric and try to understand what is really going on. Way to much political
spin coming from political extremists on the left and right.
Obviously Mormons are pretty diverse except for politics. Prominent Mormon
Democrats are as rare as hen's teeth. Whenever one becomes wealthy he converts
to Republicanism, so I guess we can never see a Mormon Democrat running for
No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord
commanded in the Creation. They reproduce 'after their own kind.' (See Moses
2:24)...Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not
become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles...If a species
ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the
pattern of the parentage...This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an
ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could
believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Quote from Boyd
K. Packer)May I add, God is all knowing and did not experiment in a
laboratory when creating us in His image! The theory of evolution is of man not
Whatever the history of the churches' past views on science, both Romney and
Huntsman will come out on the right side of this issue for the large moderate
center of the nation. Huntsman is positioning himself there and I hope he can
generate enough enthusiasm among the middle to take a stand against the herd of
crazies the GOP have lined up now. That the lunatic fringe controls the primary
elections should tell you something about the GOP. I think it's not good.
Tonight, Fox Right-Wing talk show maven Laura Ingraham, evening endorser of all
things Limbaugh, told listeners Huntsman should jump on that motorcycle and just
keep on "ridin".The quickest way for Mitt and Jon to
disappear off the Right-Wing radar is to support anything opposed to the
Limbaugh Orthodoxy.Oh well, Mitt can get a head start on his new
mansion and Jon...well he can just keep on "ridin".
The interesting part of the climate change debate is the direct correlation to
pollution. Everyone alive now knows that our air, water and land are
dramatically more polluted than they "used to be..." Of course, we all
read the signs on the beltway, or hear the news casts about our our red and
yellow pollution days (a lot lately), so does anyone really believe that
"we" aren't responsible for that? Is it really a big stretch for us to
think these correspond with the consumption of fossil fuels and also contribute,
even a little, to warming? I posit that anyone that can't or won't make the
connection is merely doing so in defense of their current lifestyle choices
(consumptive and wasteful).Let's face it: we Americans are a fat and
slothful people when it comes to changing our ways. Forget climate change...
we're going to kill ourselves with pollution long before the icecaps melt and
I can't wait to meet Adam's dad and mom. Evolution as the means of creating man
is not science. Never has there been scientific evidence of one specie evolving
into a different specie. That is bogus science, and is rightly called a theory.
The time has long since come for a public debate on the issue of Man Made
Climate Change. Pick responsible representatives from both sides and let us
hear what they have to say. I am tired of this being portrayed by advocates
from each side as settled and agreed upon science which is just another way of
saying that their opinion has been validated and no more discussion is
"Organizing matter" Is a key element in understanding
"creation".All matter is eternal.Joseph Smith said that
spirit is matter but that it is more refined.Science has a long way
to go to catch up and learn the truths that Joseph taught as an
"uneducated" farm boy from New York state in the 19th Century.Joseph demonstrates to you that he received his education from "
Alpha and Omega" when you read his publications, " Doctrine and
Covenants", "Pearl of Great Price" and the translation of the
plates of Gold called the Book of Mormon.
Science has nothing to do with who has a consensus or a majority. I'd be willing
to change my mind if the science indicated that I should. But the science
doesn't suggest that.
The only phenomina is that nearly the entire GOP was on board with the theory of
man-caused global warming in 2007 and then changed 180 degrees after Obama was
elected. Even the oil comapanies were putting out billions of
dollars of comercials saying how green they are going to be (in the future). Propaganda is the only thing convincing all these GOP sheeple that we
have no effect on the climate.
Global warming is a fact. What is under dispute is whether or not we humans are
causing it by polluting the earth. The right wing wants fewer (or no)
environmental controls, so that they can more freely pollute the earth. They say
it will create jobs. Which in a way is truly laughable, but in another way is
quite sad.To the right wing religious folk who "don't believe
in global warming", I ask you, is it a good thing to pollute and destroy
the earth that God created?If you believe in any form of
spiritualism or even none at all, I think it is clear that the clean, natural
beauty of our earth is something uplifting, wonderful, and worthy of our
protection. And if you believe that it was created by a higher power, that's
even more reason to protect the earth. Not poison and abuse it as Rick Perry et
al. would have us do.
What type of evolution do they believe in?I believe in Evolution--to
a point. The fact that we came from monkeys the way Darwin suggests is complete
blasphemy and 100% ungodly. I doubt that Romney believes that.I
believe evolution occurs to adjust to new circumstances. That's natural. But
not this godless doctrine of monkeys.
@Brian"The time has long since come for a public debate on the
issue of Man Made Climate Change. Pick responsible representatives from both
sides and let us hear what they have to say. "So you'll turn it
into a debate where whoever is the better speaker regardless of accuracy will
win? (if you're conservative think of it as Obama winning the debates last
election) That's not how science should be dealt with. How about just reading
the scientific literature on the subject of climate? Yes that requires a lot
more effort but do you care about accuracy or flashy presentations?
Theism versus Evolution. Evolution is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.
He should have not healed the lame and sick if progress is measured by the
survival of the fittest. He taught self- sacrifice ,but evolution is necessarily
based on self-preservation in the struggle for existence.Evolution
is also the most inefficient and cruel method for creating man that could be
conceived. IF God is a God of love and wisdom and power, as the Bible teaches,
the how could He ever be guilty of devising such a scheme as evolution?Evolution is not only the basic premise of all atheistic and humanistic
religions but also various pantheistic ,animistic, Buddhism, Confucianism and
other such faiths are all essentially based on some form of evolution and
denying any really transcendent Creator of the Cosmos.Even those
religions that are basically creationist(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have
liberal wings committed to Evolution.The phrase, after it Kind(s) is
used no less than ten times in Genesis 1. Every created kind was to produce
after its own kinds and not to generate some new kind. Horizontal evolution not
Mr. Slugworth, The "right wing religious folk" do not
believe that it is a good thing to pollute and destroy the earth that God
created. But they, as represented by me, do not believe that carbon dioxide is
poison, as edicted by the EPA and sustained by the courts. Carbon dioxide is,
and always has been, a major percentage of the air we breathe. We expel it with
every breath. All the green and leafy plants of the earth depend upon it for
their life, and animal and human life depends upon the green and leafy plants
for the healthy supply of oxygen we depend upon. We "right wing religious
folk" believe in "green" for the health of the planet and for our
own health. But green can only be preserved if we provide every green and leafy
plant a healthy supply of carbon dioxide, which has been declared poison by the
"left wing non-religious folk."
Prominent mormon democrats are rare but many mormons and GOP's in general are
liberal for themselves in wanting thier first amendment rights, they love thier
SS and MC and they want the government to fix thier potholes, just not anyone
else's.The GOP vote on strawman issues of "those" people
that getting free checks from the government and "those" people that
think a woman can choose for themselves. The phenomina of why people
vote for the GOP has nothing to do with what they want for themselves it what
they DON'T want for others.So why so many mormons in the GOP? Most
mormons are sheeple that pay more attention to mormon culture than theology
which clearly teaches that YOU ARE YOUR BROTHER'S KEEPER. Many are called but
few are chosen. I can't remember any lessons or talks that
tell me to ignore science, hate unions or despise the poor. Ever, but that is
the GOP. All the lessons taught in church sound liberal yet I have to endure
people ad libbing Glen Beck into lessons that don't include any such opinions.
Last week the lesson book was never even opened. "Many will be led
"We believe all things,we hope all things." To me that means that we
don't live with stiff-necks because He will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. And not say "nothing
is true until you prove it and I may still not believe if it contradicts my
understanding."Instead we may say,"all things are possible
until it is proven false and I may still believe as we search for higher
Evolution as a concept is demonstrable fact. However, that does not mean we
come from monkeys.That the earth is warming is a demonstrable fact.
However, that does not mean we humans have caused it, or more than slightly
exacerbated it, nor that it is something we need to act to reverse, nor that we
have the means or science to affect a reversal.Romney and Huntsman
have spoken well, reasonably, and in accordance with LDS teachings. While the
Church does not acknowledge Evolution as the source of all life, as a tool it is
Folks - evolution, i.e., random mutation and natural selection is a simple
provable fact, regardless of whether or not you believe in.The
evidence for the reality of biological evolution is simply overwhelming and
grows exponentially every year. Observing that evolution conflicts
with the bible is a compelling reason to question the validity of the bible, not
the proven reality of evolution.Huntsman is merely expressing a sane
and rational position regarding scientific realities.It's about time
someone did! The inanities on this subject coming from the likes of Perry and
Bachmann make me despair for our nation.
Huntsman and Romney give vague talking points, but the truth is that neither one
of them would know good science if it bit them in the petri dish.
For whatever reason, some of the spacing and punctuation didnt show up correctly
on my first post. Sorry about that, and I hope it doesnt happen again. Heres one
more quote.From Elder Russell M. Nelson, The Magnificence of Man, New Era,
1987 It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help
overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that
man simply evolved. By the Spirit, we perceive the truer and more believable
wisdom of God.Another good doctrinal source on this topic is Elder Boyd K.
Packers Oct. 1984 General Conference address, The Pattern of Our Parentage.
There is currently a great video on the lds.org homepage I recommend watching,
titled Our Divine Creator, which features the words of a renowned scientist who
believes that God created the universe.
The argument that humans came from monkeys is absolute blasphemy. To what point do these two candidates believe in evolution? I believe that
creatures evolve to adapt to circumstances, but not to the extent that one can
evolve into a different species. The Bible is very clear that God
created man in his image. He did not create us the way Darwin suggests.
Global warming facts do not change my behavior. When God gives dominion, it is
a responsibility and a privilege...and it can be taken away. I believe in
unrighteous dominion too. I can clean my child's room, but that
does not mean she can mess it up without consequences.
@Linus, too much CO2 IS poison, just like too much of anything, including oxygen
and water, is poison.
Post no. 1. Some comments on the comments:1. some posters imply
that if you don't believe in man-made global warming, you don't care about the
environment. False. Two different issues. I hate pollution and believe that
we are stewards of the earth, commanded by God to care for it. It
is clear that climate changes, but I am not convinced by the arguments and
computer models of the IPCC that man is causing it. Scientists say we are going
into a cooling period for at least the next 30 years or so. How does that
square with the theory? Many scientists--including actual climate scientists
such as Richard Lindzen from MIT who are smarter than anybody on this
board--don't believe it. Lindzen believes that the earth has a
cooling mechanism and recent studies suggest that heat is escaping out to space.
If true, a real blow to the "greenhouse" theory. Who is right? Time
will tell. But there is no consensus.
JRH2, neither Elder Nelson nor Elder Packer are biologists - their opinions on
the reality of biological evolution are irrelevant to the reality of biological
evolution.TOO: "The argument that humans came from monkeys is
absolute blasphemy."No one is saying that humans "came
from monkeys." What is beyond dispute is that humans and monkeys have a
distant, common ancestor.Blasphemy? Seriously? What is this, the
Middle Ages?Is the Earth flat? Is the Earth the center of the
universe?Are diseases caused by evil spirits? Are lightning and
earthquakes due to the gods' displeasure with the quality of our animal
sacrifices?Let's live in the real world together, OK?
@Xscribe - I beg to differ. In fact, it is the Atheists who have the burden of
proof regarding the existence of God. They have their word (as individuals) and
their word only. I have the collective word of all the Believers.An
Atheists' proof is in his word only, whereas the Believer has all of creation,
the whole of the universe to attest that there is a God, as well as the
collective witness of other Believers. In court, a single witness is *never*
sufficient to give rise to proof or conviction. It is the same in all areas of
study.A believer has their proof because it is borne of an outside
source (the Spirit), and that combines with others' testimonies to convincingly
prove God is real. An Atheist has his personal word only, which word can not be
combined with other Atheists' word because each individual has no outside
corroborating evidence. Therefore, each Atheist stands alone in their
testimony.An Atheist says, "Prove to me there is a God",
while the real burden of proof is on them to prove there *isn't* a God, due to
the overwhelming evidence to support His existence.
Post no. 22. the language of the evolutionists is very imprecise,
which allows them to employ a false tautology. They use evidence of
micro-evolution (adaptation within species, which is what Darwin observed and is
clearly proven), as proof of macro-evolution (jumping from one species to
another, for which proof is lacking). They say, "evolution (micro) is
proven, therefore evolution (macro) is proven." Two entirely different
things. Proof of one does not prove the other.In order to account
for the variety of different species of plants and animals we have today,
wouldn't this species jumping have to occur countless billions and even
trillions of times? If this happened, the fossil record would contain little
else but examples of these in-between creatures. It doesn't. Where are the
millions of creatures that show the evolution from fish to, say, dog? And, one would suppose, if this macro-evolution is constantly occurring
(totally randomly, as they claim), a fish of 200 million years ago would not
exist in any similar form today. But we see fish and other creatures in the
Cambrian fossil fields--multiple hundreds of millions of years old--that are
virtually the same as today.
Post no. 3.Reading I have done suggests that support for evolution
in some scientific circles is crumbling. Oh yes, we will always have the true
believers. Indeed, advocacy of macro-evolution, as currently used to explain
our existence today, is similar to religious belief. Most just take it on
faith. Acceptance of a theory of continuous and relentless (though,
of course, completely random) macro-evolution, or species jumping, to explain
our existence simply requires more faith than I can muster. I need some more
evidence--not of micro-evolution, which explains the variety within species, but
of macro-evolution. Macro-evolutionists will rely on occasional evidence of
mutations. But they also rely on survival of the fittest. When mutations
occur, it makes the organism less fit to survive. And, if it is going to
continue, where is it able to find another similar mutation in order to
reproduce? A cross of a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but the mule can't
reproduce. What troubles me is that, just as religious powers of
former times used their power to crush heterodoxy, scientists of the prevailing
view are doing the same thing today. This isn't science; it's
Two good men, and if they just weren't Mormon they might have a slim chance.
BlueBlasphemy isn't a word just limited to the Middle Ages...Sorry
pal.Evolution suggests we came from monkeys. Let's educate
ourselves on theory shall we?
Post no. 4I believe in a God who created all things, including
species, who were commanded to multiply and replenish after their kind. God
gave his creatures the ability to adapt, but I don't believe he needed to employ
such a clumsy process as macro-evolution to create the crown of his
creations--man. I don't think it is consistent with being created in the image
of God. I certainly don't think that the flimsy evidence of
continuous macro-evolution justifies faith in that theory.It seems
obvious to me that there is an obvious disconnect between macro-evolution as the
explanation for our existence, and what we know from the scriptures. There are many things yet to explain. Certainly there were dinosaurs and
other extinct species. Extinction is understandable and proven, but
macro-evolution is not proven to my satisfaction. Whether I believe
in God, and follow his teachings, is essential to my salvation. Whether I
believe in the current science is not. Where science appears to conflict with
the revealed word of God, then I will stick with the word of God. In the
"big movie," we will see a reconciliation of faith and science.
Linus:The CO2 issue is definitely one for further research and
study. There have been shenanigans on both sides of the issue, but the jury is
still out. However I'm not as concerned with carbon dioxide emissions into the
air as I am concerned with releasing toxic chemicals and known carcinogens into
our air and water.When you get people like Rick Perry publicly
praying for the EPA to go away, when our own politicians in Utah hand out EPA
exemptions like candy to anyone who asks, when my congressman Rob Bishop wants a
fire-sale of public lands to oil, gas, and mining interests, and when I can't
step outside without burning my lungs... those are the things that cause me deep
I'm just shaking my head. Why are so many people giving giving such forceful
statements on evolution when it's obvious they have never studied it? Why do so
many people have strong opinions on global warming when they haven't made any
effort to understand the science behind it? Please at least read
"On the Origin of Species." It's not that difficult. Please read the
report from the International Council on Climate Change. It's written for the
layman. You still may not agree with everything, but you will have a clearer
understanding of the position you're taking. True science is not a
matter of faith. I don't trust politicians and talk show hosts as far as I can
throw them. Why should I trust them on matters of science?Evolution
is the best theory for explaining the variety of living species. Human causation
is the best theory for explaining the earth's current temperature changes. Why
is this so hard to accept?"Truth is truth wherever found, On heathen or on Christian ground."
Umm, excuse me. Neither Romney nor Huntsman have a clue about the
science of weather patterns. Why? Because neither of them understands the
difference between causation and association. Just because two phenomenon are
associated in time does not mean that one or the other is the cause. And real
scientists have shown decisively that changes in the radiation from the sun
causes the oceans to warm which releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the
air. Just because that may be associated with the increase of cars and SUVs
proves nothing. Association is not, and never will be, proof of causation.This is basic science. It is basic statistics. And both
Romney and Huntsman, and many on this forum, are falling for the highly
manipulated fallacy. And oh, I almost forgot, much of the data used
to "prove" the fallacy was faked or riddled with errors (such as
putting sensors next to a heat source).If members of the Church want
to be true to the spirit of section 88 on this issue, they need to actually
learn some real science and basic statistics.
Many religions consider Mormons a "cult" and cite The Bible to
"prove" it.So be careful citing religious texts to
"prove" your own feelings on science.Amazing how many
people -- of all faiths -- say they know "The Truth" so don't dare
expose themselves to other points of view.
%Smitxxx: The point is that it doesn't matter what you believe; you may believe
that the world is flat, it doesn't change reality. What matters is reality and
truth; and science is the road to discovering both. If what one believes is not
consistent with the laws of nature then it is silly non-sense.
A lot of you guys seem to know more about science than the scientists do.
The Church has nothing to do with how people view science. To suggest otherwise
is just plain gobbeldygook. These so called professional journalists should do
some minimum amount of fact checking before they make such uninformed comments.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has made an official statement
regarding the Origin of Man. Go to the LDS website, and search evolution. Under
the recommended results you will find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints official position on the Origin of Man, published in 1909 and republished
in 2002 in the Ensign. There is no way you can be a Mormon and accept evolution,
it is in total contradiction with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. See
Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation V.2 Ch. 9.It would be
much appreciated if those who talk of church support for evolution would
reference their ideas, but of course, there is no evidence to support the claim
that apostles and prophets have ever supported evolution. And believing in
science does not mean one must accept every branch of science. There is truth
in many branches of science and mere speculation in others. One must remember
science takes known facts and fits theories to them. Science does not however,
take into account the unknown, and rightfully so. Just as Ptolemy theorized to
the best of his abilities, scientists today do likewise.
I just looked at the LDS Church website and searched evolution. I didn't find
anything to contradict Huntsman and Romney.The problem of this
argument is that too many people have an all or nothing approach to science and
theology. If evolution exists than man came from apes is a far cry from the
facts. But, don't throw the baby out with the dish water yet. Adam may not have
evolved but that does not mean it does not exist.I think that many
Mormons are comfortable with evolution as some believe that God evolved.
"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become"
Perhaps Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman should take a look at the article
"Cloud Formation May be Linked to Cosmic Rays" published today in
"Nature." Svensmark (a longtime AGW skeptic) and his team
at CERN are world-class physicists, not Bible-thumping hacks. If confirmed and
extended by other research, these results are Nobel-caliber and a potentially
devastating blow to alarmist claims that CO2 exerts a dominant influence on
climate. If nothing else, this episode demonstrates the potential
hazards of politicians opining about matters that are far beyond their
Razzle2,I believe you made an excellent point. While there is
nothing to refute Huntsman or Romney, there is also nothing supporting them
either. Maybe the reason is that individuals who want to know what is true or
not must find out for themselves through personal study. Thank you for your
insight, I really appreciate it.
Our church is neutral towards the theory of evolution in general, but our church
is very far from neutral regarding the origin of man. Adam is the father of all
now living on the earth, and Adam was created in the image of God. Saying that
God used evolution to create Adam is illogical. If Adam was created on the
earth via evolution, then Adam must have had a human father on this earth, and
then Adam could not be the first of all mankind on the earth because then Adams
fathers fathers father, etc, would be.Before I joined the church, I
was agnostic. Back then I believed that evolution is mistaken, and I still
believe that it is mistaken. I am an engineer. It is the nature of everything
we observe that the universe, left to itself, proceeds from order to disorder.
You might convince me that an amoeba spontaneously devolved from an ape, but
never the other way around not without an external, intelligent influence. Is
the fossil record evidence of spontaneous evolution, or is it evidence that
"Someone" has been tinkering with our very old planet for a very long
@ bknabe | 1:28 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011Yes... "If life began on the
earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel... and others of this school,
whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church
are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If
there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures
declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view
you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not
the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the
sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead!
Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be
taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?"
Joseph Fielding Smith
I'm pretty certain Henry Eyring (Senior) believed in Jesus Christ, despite what
he believed about evolution. And certainly James E. Talmage (a prominent member
of the 12 and a scientist) believed in death before "the fall." Also,
I learned a lot about evolution in my Evolution courses at BYU, including
details about human evolution--I'm pretty sure that if the church was against
evolution, they wouldn't allow BYU to teach it. BYU teaches and does research
on evolution.There's room for the Henry Eyrings and BYU biology
professors (as well as Romney and Huntsman) in the church, and there's room for
the Elder Packers and no-death-before-the-fall types in the church. I've spoken
to plenty of local church leaders who accept evolution (including the evolution
of man). Their level of acceptance generally has more to do with how much
science education they have than how faithful they are.
@ Timj | 4:48 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011 "And certainly James E.
Talmage (a prominent member of the 12 and a scientist) believed in death before
'the fall.'" Please, provide a reference.Thank you!
Timj,Could you list some sources where I could find what Henry
Eyring has said about the topic of evolution, as well as sources for Talmage
believing in death before the fall? It would be much appreciated. But I would
like to quote Moses 6:48 "And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we
are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and
woe." That scripture seems pretty clear on when exactly death came into the
world, doesn't it?
Dinosaurs, ice age mammals, and Neanderthals, have all left their mark on the
earth. But, we still say they existed so long ago, we only know when they lived
in relationship to one another. ...Give or take 10 thousand years or 5-6 million
years for dinosaurs. That is a huge discrepancy. We have a lot to learn still.
But, I do believe they died before Adam.For those that say the
fossils were left over elements from prior matter. Um, they're still dead.Another thought, the missing link isn't just between apes and humans but
between ancient human-like fossils and Homo-Sapiens. Perhaps there is no link.
Quotes from LDS religious scholars and leaders can be interpreted many ways.
So, be careful. However, I found this quote that I find interesting1910 Christmas message, the First Presidency made reference to the church's
position on science:"Diversity of opinion does not necessitate
intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against
each other. ... 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."First Presidency
(Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund), "Words in Season from
the First Presidency", Deseret Evening News, 1910-12-17, sec. 1, p. 3.
Canyontreker,I don't know, Joseph Fielding Smith was pretty explicit
throughout his writings, I don't believe that it could be interpreted
differently by different people. And thanks for citing sources.For
anyone interested, If you go to the BYU College of Life Sciences homepage and
under "Department Info" click the link "Forms" you'll see a
handout called "Evolution and the Origin of Man" which consists of
First Presidency Statements on the subject, which I found to be quite
informative.And after all, it still is just the Theory of Evolution.
"That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy" as we certainly
should, but there is many parts of evolution that need further findings to
demonsrate whether it is indeed true. But no matter what someone
might or might not believe about evolution, it won't matter in the long run.
Heavenly Father will reveal all truth eventually, and arguing what the truth is
before we have all the facts is pointless, because what is really important is
the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. Anything else is only an appendage, and while
important to study about, it shouldn't take focus away from what really matters.
Henry Eyring's position on evolution, the age of earth, etc. is linked to in the
original article here. Due to DN rules, I can't provide direct links in my
comments.James Talmage said, "The oldest, that is to say the
earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains
of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the
world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and
chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits and
many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These
lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human
habitation." As a geologist, he could hardly ignore pre-human fossils...
It's been established that the cradle of life is what is now known as the
African continent. When people migrated north, away from the equator, the
pigment in their skin became lighter. So, if Adam and Eve existed, they were
black. Oh, and that throws a wrench into the story of the 'mark of Cain',
doesn't it?Also, we all know the Bible doesn't mention creatures
like the dinosaurs, but we have proof they existed. Just as we have proof that
bi-pedal creatures, certainly resembling modern humans, existed. Faith is fine. But science isn't blasphemous.
@ Timj | 6:53 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011 WHERE did Talmage say that? Please
provide the source.Remember, matter is neither created nor
destroyed. He may have been referring to the fact that, as the Lord pointed out
in Moses 1:35, 38.
The Talmage quote is from his talk (which the church later published in pamphlet
form and in "The Instructor") entitled "The Earth and Man."
In addition to quite a bit of language concerning fossils, the age of the earth,
etc., he states, there, "The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures
related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology,
earth-science or man-science...We do not show reverence for the scriptures when
we misapply them through faulty interpretation."
Evolution is merely an attempt to explain the origin of things without God with
naturalism and chance. God by definition is the uncreated creator of all else
(Aseity).In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God, 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John
1:1,14) God becomes man, not man become God.(kenosis)We(Mormons) believe
in A God who himself progressive[exaltation, evolving].(The articles of
faith.Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.(Hebrews
@ TimjThank you for the reference. Considering what
Talmage said and considering what the scritpures say, that the fall of Adam
introduced death into the world, I can only choose the scripture's teachings
over Talmage's. This is why we are told not to focus on any others than the
first presidency, and THE prophet specifically.Indeed, Talmage is
entitled to his opinion, but that is all it is, and nothing more. We have been
given the scriptures--the Standard Works--for a reason. "All
that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scripture... We ought to
choose our texts from the scriptures... We call these the standard Church works
because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four
standard Church works.... If it is not in the standard works, you may well
assume that it is speculation.... and if it contradicts what is in the
scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the
standard by which you measure all truth." (Teachings Of Presidents Of The
Church: Harold B. Lee, p.59)
"If Adam was created on the earth via evolution, then Adam must have had a
human father on this earth, and then Adam could not be the first of all mankind
on the earth because then Adams fathers fathers father, etc, would be."Who is to say the evolution occurred on what we now call "the
earth?" Moses 1 includes some very interesting verses regarding
"lands," "earth," "Adam(s),"and
"worlds." There are so many possibilities. If worlds without number
have passed away, or now exist, we can't really assume that the Adam from whom
we are descended was the very first man ever to exist in the universe or the
first man to die. I don't think we quite understand how our world fits in to the
grand scheme of things. Does it mean just our planet, or does it mean our period
of time and space on this planet? Archeology and Geology clearly show that our
planet has been around with life on it much longer than 6,000 years. Does the
physical planet alone define the words "earth" and "world",
or is it possible that multiple worlds have existed/exist on the same planet?
Mormonism is at once rich and flexible. For that reason I can be both a Marxist
and a Mormon. Mormonism is powerful! I hope Brothers Romney and Huntsman get a
chance to demonstrate.
The theory of evolution is atheistic and implies there is no God. Korihor, the
anti-Christ, was a strong proponent of evolution, thus no God, thus no
consequences for doing wrong. Darwin was attempting to replace Christian
doctrine with a belief in nature. Evolution cannot explain that we are dual
beings, first created spiritually before created physically by God. The theory
claims when we die that's the end of our existence because we have no spirit and
our intelligence comes only from our DNA, therefore no need for an atonement.
The whole claim of evolution is based on a series of accidents and
since Christ died he no longer exists which is in direct opposition of LDS
doctrine. Huntsman and Romney are spiritually walking on thin ice ascribing to
evolution theory that we are an accident of nature and thus have no purpose and
are nothing more than evolved animals. The theory of evolution is
utter science nonsense and since the discovery of DNA a large body of anti
evolution science exists, research it!
Bereal, the theory of evolution is based on science. The theory wasn't created
in order discount the idea that we were 'created spiritually before created
physically'. It doesn't mean to upend the idea that there is no need for 'the
atonement'. Also, people don't have to be religious or even believe
in God to be moral, decent, law-abiding, good (and even happy, well-adjusted)
@atl134Gravity is a theory only insofar as scientists can explain *what*
causes it. Dropping something off a bridge and watching it fall does not,
however, explain *why* it falls. No one doubts the existence of gravity.It is the same for Human-caused Global Warming. I can see rising
changes in the temperature (or is it a chilling of the temperatures - scientists
can't agree as to which or if both are being caused by humans...) and seek to
find a reason behind the change. This is the "theory* aspect of the
equation. I can try to attribute it to humans, or I can look for another
explanation (of which there are legion). Human-caused global warming is a
theory, and will be until it is definitively proven. I know what a theory is,
it is a step in the development of factual scientific law, not the end result of
scientific inquiry.Go review your high school science - all inquiry
starts as observation, then moves through the stages of conjecture, deduction,
testing and challenge. Until it can withstand the challenges of peers, "no
theory can ever be seriously considered certain if new evidence falsifying it
can be discovered." -Wikipedia
Religion poisons everything, but most of all science and the pursuit of truth.