The evolution debate: Scientists, seminarians engaging in gracious dialogue on website

Scientists, seminarians engaging in gracious dialogue on website

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • George Bronx, NY
    July 24, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    @the "truth"
    "I have studied evolution and understand it quite well." clearly not true otherwise you would understand just how far off your claims are.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 24, 2012 5:44 p.m.

    RE: Emajor

    I have studied evolution and understand it quite well.

    I also understand how slickly it is presented.

    Oh...and those bacteria are still bacteria, and will never any but bacteria, it's adaption within its own sphere and nothing more.

    And population increase is exponential so it is very much possible, and in fact it did happen.

    I understand your concerns, Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, so incest was a NOT a problem genetically, population increase was a necessity and inevitability, it was a natural thing. Incest has existed in many cultures, and when you live in small world, a small village or community, unavoidable.

    If that's what happened, it was an unavoidable necessity, and it doesn't bother me. But perhaps that is my faith and trust in God.

    More importantly, we do not have all details of what happened in those days, or all that God did.

    I do know in this state of earth man has not evolved, and no creature has ever change outside it's own kind.

    You can believe in God or in monkey tales the choice is yours.

    But we need "gracious dialogue" on the matter.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    July 23, 2012 10:15 p.m.

    the truth,
    OK, you don't buy the mountain of rational evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution. We'll never convince you of it, and your language suggests you have made little honest effort to understand the actual concept, empirical evidence, and logical structure of evolution. No biggie, I don't get how my radio works either. But it does, and other people get it. Oh, you know those antibiotic resistant bacteria that pop up? That's evolution.

    I want to get to the statement in the article above that the human population could never be as small as 2 people. So do you believe the literal story of Adam & Eve is more plausible than "silly monkey stories"? And are you comfortable with the rampant incest that would be needed to generate a whole human population from just 2 original parents? A literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no other possibility. I don't see how that fits in with Biblical morality. This is an honest question, not an attempt to insult or flame. I just really can't understand how people can believe in the story of Genesis but think evolution is implausible.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 23, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    RE: A Scientist

    Your dogmatic belief in silly and ridiculous monkey stories, while simultanously mocking and attacking and castigating those who choose believe differently, who believe in other "theories", those who believe in a higher superior intelligence, shows there will be no honest dialogue.

    Which should not be a surprise since you base nonbelief in God on assumption, so why not belief similarly in silly monkey stories.

    Even the animal world demonstrates there is always a higher superior intelligence to every creature that exists.

    So why should we be any different?

    All of Nature is evidence there is a "God"!

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 23, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    RE: Sensible Scientist, studying the Hebrew and Greek original texts where we can learn much about meanings, contexts, and intent?

    Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation of the Bible. Christians study Greek for that reason.
    Mt 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn… . The reason for this theological construction used often in Mt called divine passive. It’s obvious from the context that Jesus means God will comfort those who are mourning. The answer lies in in the commandment that the follower of Israel’s God should not take his name in vain. During the period scholars call “Second Temple Israel Judaism “, the fear of taking God’s name in vain was much greater than today.

    (Luke 22:70)Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them, You say that I am.
    “I am” is the same as the saying used by God when asked by Moses(Exodus 3:14) about his name. Jesus was expecting these Jewish rulers to know this, To answer a question about one’s own deity in their minds blasphemy upon blasphemy.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    July 22, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    the truth,

    You lose all credibility when your comments make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Good luck with that.

    In the mean time, until this alleged god shows his face to all mankind, we must presume absence is evidence of... nonexistence (or apathy, you choose).

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 22, 2012 6:13 p.m.

    RE: A Scientist

    There is no real scientific evidence.

    There is supposition, assumption,, imagings, made-up relationships, made-up evolutinary trees of life, theory composed completely of phrases like "may have" or "might have", "possibly could have" "can possibly" and so forth (all highly indefinte and unscientific), all to satisfy a theory.

    It knows nothing, but supposes everything!

    when you suppose everything of course to the weak minded it seems plausible.

    Wwther you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible or not, man did not evolve.

    The earth was "Organized" (the real meaning of "create") from existing matter, the current state is approximately 6000 years old, earth's earlier states are irrelevant to us.

    You lose all credibility when compare thousands or years of belief in God, to modern created and known to be fiction for children.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    July 22, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    It is hardly a "sensible" position to assert that one not only must, but can, distinguish between the parts of the Bible that are to be taken literally, from the parts that are to be taken figuratively.

    And it is even more unreasonable to suppose that there will not be violent disagreement among religious sects over which parts are which... That is the current status of religious interpretation that has brought us the Inquisitions, fundamentalist movements, and all the other irrational nonsense foisted on civil societies by religion.

    Is there no genuine "sense" in Idaho?

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    July 22, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    I completely disagree that the Bible has to be always taken figuratively. It has clearly figurative parts, like the "days" of creation, and clearly historical parts. This distinction is usually more clear in the Hebrew text than modern translations. One sweeping generality does a great disservice to this discussion and to intelligent, well-educated religious people.

    In the discussion of evolution, the LDS view that truth is truth no matter its source is a useful starting point that other Christians ought to consider. Bible literalists should also re-evaluate their position by studying the Hebrew and Greek original texts where we can learn much about meanings, contexts, and intent.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    July 22, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    In the face of scientific evidence, the only way any intelligent person can take the Bible is as metaphorical, figurative, symbolic - in other words, not true, just like Aesop's fables or any number of fictional stories.

    The sooner religious people acknowledge that, the sooner religion can be formally recognized as such, and it can be relegated to its proper place alongside Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Jack Skellington.