If by evolution you mean natural selection, where the fittest members of a species survive to pass their genes on the next generation, and we see evidence of gradual specification, then yes--I believe that's one of the many tools used by our Creator.

If by evolution you mean that all life came from a single-cell entity and species somehow "morphed" into new species, then no--that seems an express violation of the Creator's command to all life:  Each to multiply "after its kind" in the respective sphere and element in which it was placed.

Ditto ditto.

I believe that the earth is several billion years old, and that over time life has changed, branched, and progressed to to point it is now.

However I don't think that it was completely random with no purpose. In the Book of Abraham account of the creation it is constantly stated that things were organized, prepared, set up, ordered and watched until it was obeyed, etc...

In Genesis it states that Adam was created from the dust of the earth, in the Book of Moses it it is more specific, stating that the dust of the earth is water, blood, and the spirit. Symbolic of physical birth, and the spiritual birth we have through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

There are many, many things I do not know or understand, but I won't let that effect my faith. The principles we are discovering in science God probably used in the method of creation, we don't know everything, and God does.

The problem arises when people try to use Evolution as an excuse for their atheistic beliefs, thinking that they have explained everything away and that there is no room for God. I find this attitude pretty prideful, and sadly is prevalent with many in the biological sciences.

-- Edited by Pt314 at 12:01, 2007-05-11

Cat, while it may not determine how you run family home evening, or drive to work, or whatever, it is still an important topic. At some point you teach your children how everything in this world came to pass. They'll want to know at some point. What's important is the right to teach your children your beliefs.
Of course, there isn't even unity amongst homeschoolers on this topic, so it's not like you're going to find a group with a homogeneous opinion on this.

Mahonri, the church has stated that they don't have a position on the theory of evolution.

One thing I have thought about, the possibility that the Fall effected and encompassed the past as well of the future of this Telestial world, just as Christ's Atonement effected the entire history of mankind.

The church doesn't have an official position on the flat earth society either, as far as I know. Just because they don't have an official position on it doesn't mean that there's no right or wrong on the issue, though. I'd think that a better rebuttal to Mahonri's post would be to show why you believe that the verse he posted doesn't mean what he thinks it does.
Obviously none of us have perfect understanding, but we still hold opinions

So you (or McConkie) are saying that scripture is to be interpreted to mean that "all things" were created a certain way, and that they stayed that way--no evolving--just creation ex nihilo and then statis?

Then how do you explain the fossils of species that date back so many thousands and millions of years, and are not in existence during the short historical period of the last six thousand? How do you account for the myriad number of species? Do you think that Noah had representatives of each of the more than 350,000 species of beetles on the ark?

fear of shiz... I can't even explain your monikier "fear of shiz"....

but, someday we will know and understand it all and all of it will make sense.

MY "Theory" is that this sphere that we call earth and that has been used for the past 6 thousand+ years has been used multiple times as a place for mortal probations for different subsets of our Heavenly Father's children....as well as other planets like our earth in our galaxy.

Someday we will also understand the flood etc... I'm not too concerned with it at present because I realize that now is the time that we walk by faith and prepare to meet our Maker. If Heavenly Father wanted us to know, he would have revealed it. So for now, we take what we have been given on faith and move forward knowing that someday, in the Lord's due time we will understand all of it.

What I find most interesting and amazing is that I'm included in the group of this six thousand years that would actually crucify the Son of God. We aparently are a part of the most wicked group of our Heavenly Father's children, the group that would be least likely to walk by faith and to question everything...

of course that's all MY "theory"... just like the "theory" of "evolution.

BTW, There are multiple explanations more than the one I've given above.

Until we know, we continue to seek ask GOD to understand and we continue to walk by faith.

Ether Chapter 14:

18 And there went a fear of Shiz throughout all the land; yea, a cry went forth throughout the landWho can stand before the army of Shiz? Behold, he sweepeth the earth before him!

arbilad wrote:

---

Cat, while it may not determine how you run family home evening, or drive to work, or whatever, it is still an important topic. At some point you teach your children how everything in this world came to pass. They'll want to know at some point. What's important is the right to teach your children your beliefs.
Of course, there isn't even unity amongst homeschoolers on this topic, so it's not like you're going to find a group with a homogeneous opinion on this.

---

Still doesn't do anything as to indicate how any of this really has a significant impact on life. Does the fact that squirrels on the north side of the Grand Canyon adapted to a different climate than the squirrels on the south side of the Grand Canyon really change how I live my life?

Does the fact that humans in North America are genetically inclined (and perhaps due to better nutrition) to average 6 ft tall whereas in the Phillipines it may be 5 ft tall change how I treat others?

Does a theory that over time, disparate species evolve from a common ancestor really change the fact that God created the universe, even if we don't understand how?

Any attempt to solve life's great questions is a religion. Chief among those questions are: who are we, where do we come from, and where do we go when we die?

The LDS answers to those questions is that we are the spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father. We came from a divine preexistance where we dwelled with Him, and if we live worthily, we will return to live with Him someday.

The atheist's answers to those questions are I don't know; I don't care; and don't bother me -- I'm trying not to think about it. But silly as it sounds, those are their answers.

Evolution answers those questions by saying we are essentialy worthless blobs of protoplasm, no different from thousands of other random arrangements; that we came from pure chance, and that anything that made us unique vanishes when we die. Probably the most depressing answers you can come up with, but that's what it offers.

The purpose of life is another of those great questions. The LDS answer is that life is a test. We are here to acquire physical bodies and learn by our own experience to distinguish good from evil so that we can be prepared to accept all that the Father can give us, including worlds without end.

The atheists try to answer that question by saying they don't know either and would you please leave them alone. While evolution claims that an organism's only purpose in life is to breed or to "leave viable offspring" according to my last biology teacher.

Probably no wonder that our society has so many moral problems when our kids are taught that sex is the only reason for living. We have sin because our children are taught to sin.

(note from historian - this post is a direct quote from my #3 son, given because I asked him to repeat what I'd heard him say earlier.)

-- Edited by historian at 19:05, 2007-05-14

Ray,

I agree that we have limited information about the process or method of our creation -- although I think "fingersnapping miraculous" is a little snide.

The crucial question is who or what caused the creation - drove it - saw it through. Was it our Father or was it some dark unknowable or was it random chance?

Let me try to clarify my position, and please realize that this is jut my opinion, I am not trying to teach doctrine.

I know that God our Father and his son Jesus Christ have a plan for our eternal salvation, exaltation and happiness. That there is purpose to this life. I believe that this plan is shown to us through the holy scriptures and prophets we have today.

I agree with Elder McConkie that the Creation along with the Fall and the Atonement are "The Three Pillars of Eternity". If it weren't for any of these the plan of salvation couldn't have been put into motion.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but Elder McConkie wasn't perfect, not everything he wrote in Mormon Doctrine is actually Mormon Doctrine. When the revelation on the priesthood was given, Elder McConkie told people to ignore anything he wrote on his view on the restriction of the priesthood based on lineage.

Joseph Smith consistantly taught against the idea of Creation Ex Nihilo, or creation out of nothing, but that God organized matter that was unorganized. The same with our spirits, that certain things cannot be created or destroyed.
See D&C:93, Abraham:3

About 2 Nephi:22-23, I agree that everything was created in a state of innocence, and that if they hadn't fallen everything would still be in a state of innocence. Personally I feel that interpreting the scripture as everything would be completely unchanging and static, without the fall, to be too literal. I feel there is too much evidence in the contrary. There are plenty of other scriptures that can me misinterpreted. But maybe I am the one in the wrong.

And D&C 101:32-34, when it is describing what things are like in the Millenium
"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."

I find this very comforting. Someday we wont worry about stuff like this, although I must admit I have a hard time being patient. Sometimes I wish I wasn't the type that analyses everything, and could always be faithful.

-- Edited by Pt314 at 13:37, 2007-05-15

Add to all that (what PT said) the fact that the Pearl of Great Price makes reference to TWO creations, a Spiritual and a Physical creation...

--Ray

Hi all, I'm going to try putting this in a different light.

Let me say first that I am a science nut, have a degree in it, study it a lot & so on.

Stop and consider science for a moment. It is, generally, an attempt to understand and codify underlying rules based on what we observe.
We make hypotheses, test them and see if they are right, and either accept them (if they were right) or start over (if they were wrong).
We may have to come back later and adjust those hypotheses we previously accepted, as new information is learned. For instance Newtonian physics needed to be adjusted to take into account quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics was and is sound by all the tests performed on certain scales, but things changed at very small scales. You could say that they broke the laws of Newtonian Physics, but that would be absurd: Newtonian Physics are not laws, but merely our best attempt to describe what we have observed. When we observed new things that Newtonian Physics could not explain, we added Quantum physics and reconciled the two.
That is an example of how science works. It is useful in many ways, a long as we remember that what we "know" of science is merely our best guess at observing things and understanding them.
It is Not infallible. Not only has it made many mistakes in the past (Phlogiston, the aether, and a very long list of other theories which were later proven incorrect), it will make many mistakes in the future. In fact, the very Scientific Method (make a hypothesis, test it & see if you were right) assumes that many hypotheses will be wrong & acknowledges and even incorporates that.
Science, when you remember what it is and don't get confused by what it is not, is very useful.

But, frequently, and very unfortunately, science is perverted into a religion. By that I mean that people start accepting, unquestioningly, whatever some scientist says. They also start thinking that science is infallible (and so are scientists), and can explain everything.
What is worst is when a favorite theory is not thrown out (or at least adjusted), when it is tested and found to be inaccurate.
Then it is clearly no longer science, which requires the adjustment or rejection of inaccurate theories. Then it is clearly a religion.
That is what has happened with the theory of Evolution.

There are many holes in the theory of evolution: gigantic, gaping holes. I won't go into them here, as that is not the point I'm driving at. If you are intellectually honest enough to face such ideas, I refer you to the book "Tornado in a Junkyard" for just one overview of some of the major holes.
Yet despite the problems with the theory of evolution, they do not adjust it or throw it out.
Why?
Because it gives them an excuse to not believe in God.
People, animals, plants etc had to get here somehow. Ultimately, the possibilities come down to either Creation or evolution. Those who want to not be accountable to a God for their actions, cling to the theory of evolution, despite its flaws, because it gives them an out: they don't have to believe in a God.


Is the theory of evolution relevant to your basic salvation? Yes, in several ways.
One, buying into it can erode your faith in the existence of God, and your faith in his power. If things created themselves, what need do we have for a God, and if he exists, what power does he have, if he needed evolution to do all the work for him?

Two, to the extent that the theory of Evolution is a false god (or a false religion), it is a Big problem. Think of the ten commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Obviously God thinks that false gods are a threat to your salvation. If you disagree, you may want to re-think your position.
Here is an idea that may help: read the old testament: false gods were perhaps The major problem that kept bringing Israel down. It is a recurring theme. When people accepted false gods a little, they gradually encroached more and more, performing a subtle erosion of their faith and leading them into diverse errors. In the Books of Kings and Chronicles, when they have something nice to say about a king, most often it was that he removed the false gods. When those books have bad things to say about a king, very often it was that he did not purge the false gods, or, worse yet, embraced them.
Think about that. It strongly implies that it is our duty to challenge such errors when they attempt to creep in and subtly lead us astray.

Third, challenging the theory of Evolution can lead to conversion opportunities. How? If you can get someone to question evolution, you may open them up to considering the need for a God (we got here somehow, and if not by evolution, then how?) That could give you an opportunity to share the gospel.
Sure, it's not the usual direct approach, but different people are amenable to different approaches. It is profitable to know more than one.

Fourth, the theory of evolution is a "poison brownie". What do I mean by that? A little bit of poison in some otherwise perfectly good brownies changes the nature of the whole thing. From being wholesome, it becomes deadly dangerous. In fact the good (non-poisonous) components of the brownies get shanghaied into working for bad purposes, to the extent that they induce you to eat the poison, and mask its presence.
How is the theory of Evolution a poison brownie? Because despite the things it does predict or describe accurately, it contains subtle yet potent errors (see above) which are integrated into it and masked as harmless, yet which have the potential to destroy you. Worse, they will not just destroy you physically, like a poison would. They will destroy you spiritually, if you let them.
The most common way that works (though there are many others) is for those who buy into this theory to start choosing between it and religion when they come into conflict. In other words, it subtly erodes your loyalty to, and faith in, certain fundamental gospel truths, and makes you question them whenever someone digs up a new "piltdown man".
Almost as insidious as that, is when you start trying to merge truth and error to try to reconcile them. Truth merged with error just becomes a different error, probably a more subtle one, and therefore a more dangerous one.

Finally I will say "choose ye this day whom ye will serve..."
If science came out tomorrow with something that absolutely contradicted religion, where would you stand? What if the science was irrefutably strong, accepted by everyone & so on?
Remember that science is a useful too, and try not to let it be your master.
Scientists make errors, have to change their theories, sometimes get fooled by false evidence, and sometimes, hold on to your hats here, use their position of public trust to push theories that are weak or in error because the theories appeal to them. They are human just like we are. They have agendas as often as anyone else. So look carefully at science before swallowing everything scientists say.
And remember that we have a higher standard (revealed truth) to judge science by. Don't get it backwards and judge religion by science.

If you doubt what I just said, here is something to think about. An article in NewScientist magazine titled "Most scientific papers are probably wrong", and citing a study of such papers which found exactly that.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

-- Edited by Beldar at 17:15, 2007-05-16

Personally this could be a big reason why I went into mathematics. It's much less potentially damaging to my faith. No, I think my faith is stronger than that. I think its just because I enjoy it.

Welcome Beldar... Feel free to introduce yourself in the Introductions area.

Is the theory of evolution relevant to your basic salvation?

Though you answered this question with an affirmative, I counter it with a no.

I understand my stance and comments are making some of you , but hear me out.  The basis of my stance is quite simple, as illustrated in Moroni 7.

Basic salvation (in the Gospel sense) comes from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one holding the proper authority, and receiving the gift of The Holy Ghost.  Upon that is implied life long obedience to the commandments.  The failure to obtain this salvation hinges solely on the exercise of one's agency.

Even more basic than that, if we want to talk about salvation from death, it's all been done.  Salvation from death is universal.  We who are here can't lose that by sin of commission or ommission -- whether we believe in it or not.

So, the theory of evolution in and of itself is neither an instrument of salvation, nor is it a catalyst for loss thereof.  The adversary can use many different things, perhaps as varied as each of us is unique, to distort and cause misperceptions that will open up avenues for the unwary to stray along.

Is the theory of evolution one of your personal potential stumbling blocks?  If so, then be aware of it and do what needs to be done to assure it won't be turned into one.  If it isn't, then move on and spend time working on your spiritual armor where your chinks may actually be.  Don't be so concerned about where other's chinks are if you haven't defined your own, and don't assume that others have the ones you have identified in your own.

We develop and walk by true faith in spite of all the distractions, not because we believe differently than the distractions or those who adhere to distractions.

I'm very curious, Cat, why you feel this topic shouldn't be discussed. By your limited definition, we shouldn't even discuss blessings over graves. After all, they're not a commandment.
As stated by an apostle, the creation is vital to our understanding of the gospel.
We have been told to avoid even the very appearance of evil. Well, by definition, anything that draws us away from the Lord is evil. Evolution distorts and poisons our understanding of the Lord.
And the gospel is true for all people. There isn't an individual gospel for each individual - that is counter to the very nature of God, and would make him an unfair God, which we know is impossible. We have been told that it is incumbent upon each of us who have been warned to warn his neighbor. If Beldar has been warned about the danger of science becoming someone's religion, then it is incumbent upon him to warn others, when the opportunity comes up. It is a common failing to believe science religiously, instead of scientifically.
Methinks thou dost protest too much, Cat.

-- Edited by arbilad at 16:40, 2007-05-16

rayb wrote:

---

I think the creation story is only relevant to man in revealing the state of man. True scientific evolution could never answer this, for it has no frame of reference in terms of what is "not fallen"...

--Ray

---

Interesting.

As I've understood it, "true" scientific evolution is essentially nothing more than the concept that over time, an organism adapts to it's surroundings in order to survive, and this can be observed.  So, in that sense, it would indeed have a before and after state.  It doesn't result in something new and incompatible with the original organism.

So, are we as beings in a state of evolution?  Did we not have a before state and will we not have an after state?  Will we be incompatible in the end state with what we had the potential for in the before state?  Is our adaptation observable?

arbilad wrote:

---

I'm very curious, Cat, why you feel this topic shouldn't be discussed.

...

As stated by an apostle, the creation is vital to our understanding of the gospel.

...

Methinks thou dost protest too much, Cat.

---

I have not stated that the topic should not be discussed.  What I have stated is that there is little utility in essentially brow beating one another over something that all The Lord has revealed to us about can be found pretty much in Genesis and The Pearl of Great Price.

Where is the edification from delving into this sort of discussion?  There is little to be had, in all honesty, because folks quickly take sides and it is turned into some sort of fake litmus test of faithfulness... just as the question supplied to / or created by and then asked by Chris Matthews as mentioned in the opening post was to simply paint targets on or give an inspector's "passed" stamp on candidates.

Understanding that Christ created everything is essential to understanding His true nature.  But, buying in or giving creedence to even a portion of the "traditional" evangelical rhetoric of Creation Ex Nihilo (thank you pt for providing that term) is as dangerous as the buy in the evangelicals put on darwinism.

Nay, methinks thou (and a couple others) dost protest too much... 

Very well said, Cat. I agree with you that this topic too easily becomes something that we use to beat each other up over. I think we can have differences of opinion about this. The Church does not require any particular stance on evolution for baptism, or for a temple recommend. Creation is a "pillar of eternity" because we recognize that God is the Creator, and that all things flow from Him. It tells us that there is a point to this existence. It is the foundation upon which the Atonement can be based.

You know, I'm not going to say anything more than I have.  It isn't worth the headache, time, or effort, because a certain set of you are only reading / hearing selectively.

I am personally put off this discussion now if folks are going to start parsing into the words I explicity posted with great care and thought things I didn't state or infer.  Sorry, but that is bad form to do that to another.  If you want or need clarification of what another has said, ask for it.  Don't change what another says to suit your own next posting opportunity.

The discussion has gone way off topic, and as predictable, turned into a "us vs. them" debate of psuedo science-politics-religion.  By way of reminder, here is the topic of discussion as originally framed within the framework of politics:

How do you react to the question, "Do you believe in Evolution?"

Here is the link to the debate transcript in which Ray mentioned the question was ostensibly originally asked.  I have perused it, and perhaps I missed it, but I did not see Chris Matthews asking it.

FWIW, for clarification... my dare -- which was my response to Ray's initial topic -- was not an invitation to question my testimony or to prove your understanding of things as relevant to my faith.  The dare was to prove or disprove a scientific theory's relevance to anything beyond the philosophical.  My dare was a bold statement that I can't be swayed one way or the other, and that my view on the subject is not a political position on a political issue.  That is the sort of answer I would have found admirable of a political candidate in a debate if this sort of question were asked.

While nobody here has specifically said that Man came about via evolution, many have implied that he may have, and so I want to address that.

Heavenly Father does not change the basic rules, and one of those rules is honoring your parents, and seeing that they receive opportunities for salvation. Heavenly Father is also "not a respecter of persons," so we all get the same fair judgment.

If Adam came from a long line of animal die-offs, then his parents would have been one tiny step (because evolution works in tiny steps, per the theory) away from being human. Would a fair and loving Heavenly Father have simply ignored them and their hope for salvation? They were almost human, but neener neener, they do not count, and Adam was the first man.

Worse, we learn in Genesis that the Lord God gave Adam dominion over every living creature (before Eve was there) and in Moses 3 we read:
"and commanded that whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that should be the name thereof." Now, is it reasonable that Heavenly Father would give Adam dominion over his parents and give them names like he was to do with all the other creatures?

Moreover, we parents cannot give something physical to our children that we don't have, so Christ was born of an immortal Father.

Ooops, that's what evolution teaches, though, isn't it? That the child can have a little more progress than the parents. Well, bearing a child that would be the first human would be a big change. Having a child that would not only be human, but would be an immortal human would be a huge change -- and that's not what evolution claims -- as a rule (sometimes their claims slide around).

You do believe in the Fall, don't you?

-- Edited by historian at 20:20, 2007-05-16

It was more than Pres. BY and the Apostles Pratt.

God came here with his wife or wives, partook of the dust of this earth in its terrestrial state, children were conceived and Adam and Eve were born. (They could have been twins...that's why I put 'wife')

It all goes back to the question, "Did Adam have a belly button?" The answer is yes.

Some will counter, "But Jesus Christ was his only begotten!"

And the answer to that is, Jesus Christ was His Only Begotten IN THE FLESH!... not His ONLY Begotten.

The Bible teaches us that Heavenly Father 'fathered' Adam just like Adam 'fathered' Seth.

When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, their immortal terrestrial bodies became mortal. There were no 'pre-Adamites'.

(Corrected from Abel to Seth.)

-- Edited by Mahonri at 06:47, 2007-05-17