Comments about ‘Evolution, dinosaurs and faith: Navigating the world of discovery’

Actually there is a scientific theory for the Flood, developed by Dr.John Baumgardner, a geophysicist in plate tectonics. He developed a computer model that predicts and graphically illustrates the rapid breakup and submersion of an original, less mountainous single land mass into colliding continents through runaway subduction of the ocean floor. According to his model, the gradual continential drift of today is just a faint echo of that cataclysmic event. It kind of helps one visualize what may be meant by "were all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11. There really are scripturally sound alternatives out there if you're willing to look beyond the scientific dogma of the academic establishment.

I find it interesting that many faithful people base their world view on text written to an illiterate people that lived 4 to 5 thousand years ago who probably did not have a word for science. The way God created the world has nothing to do with Christian or Mormon Christian salvation, it simply is not part of any saving principles. Mormons may state that the specifics of the creation are very important to them but none of the saving covenants rely on a person taking an anti evolution stance. God just doesn't care what you think about the logistical details of creation.

As for us Mormons who actually have had substantial training in physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics and the rest of the natural sciences, we will continue to advance SCIENCE and modern medicine using principles that allow us to make better drugs and treatments using methods based on evolutionary principles. When creationist can mathematically model the creation to exactly 6000 years ago then this could be a real discussion. Currently evolution can mathematically be modeled in the fields of biology, biochemistry, geology, physics, and about every natural science field and those models match up with observable facts.

@Ron Hilton
Even if the study you cite is accurate and such a thing could happen... it is categorically impossible to have happened anywhere close enough to the last 10,000 years to have been plausible to have occurred during the time of Noah. Plus rapid submersion would be insufficient since for Noah's story to be accurate you need a mountain to come back out of it, so you'd also need rapid land emergence.

I am troubled (a little--just a little) that several commentators have lumped Mormons in with creationists. I don't think Mormon ideas of the Creation and the ideas of creationists--as I understand them--are compatible.

As I understand it, creationists (and some evolutionists, ironically) seem to believe in ex nihilo creation (creation out of nothing), whereas Latter-day Saints are taught explicitly that the Creation used previously existing matter (the form of the matter is not stated; merely that matter was used).

By the same token, orthodox evolutionists believe that everything happened by chance, and life began spontaneously by accident.

Mormons, therefore, fall between the two.

I see a pattern….

Those who are admit Evolution deniers,
Also tend to also be Global Warming deniers, and Birth Certificate deniers.

The Bible is the final defining source of any and all truth in the world –
All Science is all fake and a lie, and Reasoning can be checked at the front door.

If The Glory of God is Intelligence –
And a man can not be saved in ignorance –
then denying facts and data [intelligence] is self imposed damnation.

R Hilton: "Actually there is a scientific theory for the Flood, developed by Dr.John Baumgardner, a geophysicist in plate tectonics...."

Isaac, An Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CH430.

Keep trying.

LDS Liberal,

You had me in your camp until you went the global warming route.

Weather forecasters have a VERY hard time predicting the next 7 days let alone the next 7 years or 7 decades.

If you have a cell phone with a Global Positioning Satellite function, you are using the theories of Relativity and of radioactive decay. The same science of astronomy and cosmology that produces that device also tells us that the farthest galaxies are billions of light years away, and that the unvierse is 14 billion years old. The science that allows us to produce nuclear weapons and nuclear power also tells us that the earth is over 4 billion years old. The same nuclear science tells us that human remains in the Americas are over 10,000 years old, and the cave paintigs in Europe are two and three times that age. The facile interpretation of Genesis as meaning 7 24 hours days or even 7,000 years does not fit the ovserved facts we know in so many ways. Once you understand that, then you know that Genesis Chapter 1 is not meant to be a literal and complete acocunt of the universe. For that matter, it does not even mention the planets, which were known to the ancients.

I love the scripture Isaiah 42:5. That tells me of a God who created bodies and breathed life into them and then allowed spirit children to inhabit human bodies that already existed and were animated. That certainly allows for evolution to be the means of forming those bodies. My own view is that Adam and Eve were the first 'humanoid creatures' to house spirit children but were not necessarily the only similar looking beings on the face of the earth.
Incidently, I think that this scripture also holds truth about the origins of life (emerging from the ocean) and about the expanding universe.

During my PhD studies in Zoology at the University of Wisconsin I too went through a period of wrestling with my LDS beliefs and evolution. After many hours of study, prayer, discussion with friends and colleagues I came to the conclusion that there is a God whose ways and thoughts are not yet mine and that there are some items I must take on faith until I am prepared to understand how He creates. I have spent the last 50 years in study of this earth and its living creatures and every day am filled with joy at learning a little more about His glorious intelligence and creativity. I hope to have lived a good enough life to be a junior member of His world creation team some time in the future. One last thought, what if evolution is but a telestial law?

I'm quite amazed at this article and comments. If you believe the scriptures and the modern-day prophets, there should be no question. If you don't, well...you believe what you want.

"...their Church does not dispute evolution?" From the Church's website:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34)...all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father." (see lds.org/ensign/2002/02/
the-origin-of-man?lang=eng)

Does that give us all the details? No. The LAW of Adaptation is fact. The THEORY of evolution is not. Does that contradict the scientific evidence? No. Science is not absolute until it is proven true. (continued...)

Remember, scientists thought the world was flat for a long time, until they were proven wrong.

I think a lot of you have forgotten the definition of faith - some things don't make sense, but we have to believe that they some day will. Scientific discoveries that seemingly contradict revealed truth do not negate that truth, and, as has been stated, truth is truth wherever it is found. We just don't have all of it yet.

"Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles...The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed."
(Boyd K. Packer, Oct. 1984 conference).

Of course, if you don't have a Gospel basis for your beliefs, than everything above doesn't matter...

"Of course, if you don't have a Gospel basis for your beliefs, than everything above doesn't matter..."

Yep, you are right, what you said doesn't matter, at least as far as science and evolution goes.

Assuming men evolved as science States what does that tell us about Adam and Eve of which the scriptures state were the first people on the planet. Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam not the fall of pre Adamites. If God does use evolution then He must have decide this was not working out and went with Adam and Eve to begin the program of the Gospel plan. Species have been completely wiped out in the past and the survivors start anew.

Bluviking,

Thanks for clarifying the church's stance on evolution. I'm sure that the biology professors at BYU appreciate it.

As an organism adapts it changes from the original. When this continues for a few million years, the two adaptations become farther apart until they cannot produce offspring together. At that point, one may declared a different species than the other, although they had the same ancestor. Geological, biological, anthropological, genetic evidence all support evolution, and new evidence just strengthens evolution as an explanation of global diversity. Your "flat earth" example was interesting. The strength of scientific method is that everything can be questioned. Theories are advanced and other scientists test them and add to them and we slowly advance toward the truth. The Greeks around 600 BCE determined that the Earth is a sphere. Religious leaders debated against that for centuries before finally accepting it as truth. Which sounds more effective to you, a process wherein truth is slowly uncovered with an admission of incomplete knowledge, or a system based on ancient documents interpreted by men who claim it to be the source of all truth?

Brigham Young had an interesting theory on the origins of man that is found in the Journals of Discourses which means there is a third option to consider. He even went on to spurn the idea that man was created like an adobe brick and likend the creation of men to mothers answering a young childs question about where they came from and the mother replying, "from the cabbage patch."

I wonder why the author(s) of this article didn't mention the discovery of DNA and its' use today to separate fact from faith only issues.DNA makes the faithful more reliable when it sciencetifically supports articles of faith that have renmained points of contention(s) betweeen the hard scientist and the hard faith only adherents. Surely everyone knows that the tracking of man across our land and other lands have now been documented so that we have a firmer knowledge of the evolutionary process of man since the invention of the wheel and the use of the horse. So I wonder why the author left that out?

For the LDS, the answer to this debate is patience. Apparent conflicts will be resolved when Christ returns, SOON. In D&C 101:32-34 we read,

"Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things —
"Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof —
"Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven."

My faith is built on revelation. I know God made this world, that it didn't happen by chance. The interesting thing is that, in the scriptural accounts, things seem to become hazy before Abraham. It'll be fascinating for me to find out the details about fossils, etc., whe God reveals them. Many take the apparent conflict between Scriptural protology and the scientific exegesis of physical evidence as a reason to throw away religion altogether, and become atheistic materialists. They'll be mightily disappointed by the results of their choice.

Any religious person who accepts Evolution does not understand Religion; any scientist who accepts Religion does not understand Science. (This is chiasmus, so it must be true)

RE: atl134

I NEVER said the earth was 6000 thousands years old. never said it.

The earth was organized (the meaning of "created") 600O years ago plus however long it took to organize, plus the time adam and eve were in the garden of eden.

The earth was organized for man about 6000 years plus.

What earth was before that, and what lived on earth before that, all while interesting is not relevant to our existance or salvation.

Man did not evolve.

I refer you to Helge's comment above.

-
-
RE: LDS Liberal

Progression is not evolution.

An individual Progresses from one existance to a higher existance if that individual passes the previous existance, according to a plan or design to progress that individual to a higher existance, in any case the individual is eternal,

in evolution an individual is nothing, the individual does not progress, it dies and ceases to exist other than passing something on to next generation, which is "supposedly" slightly different in some way, it cares nothing for the individual, it is random and improbable and has no set direction, it is going nowhere in particular.