Does Evolution Manifest Gospel Principles?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- Cwic Media Website: www.cwicmedia.com
Cardio Miracle, Learn More! - cwic.qwkcheckout.com
In his book Purpose: What Evolution and Human Nature Imply About the Meaning of Our Existence, Dr. Samuel Wilkinson, an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Yale University, says that evolution works to fulfill God's purposes. It produces a system for the "natural man" and for altruism.
We discuss the hot points between evolution and religion as well as the cooperation between the two. How does randomness play into the plan, if at all? If Free Will (Agency) is real, where does it come from?
I want to thank Jacob Hansen at Thoughtful Faith for helping to set this up.
Purpose: What Evolution and Human Nature Imply About the Meaning of Our Existence - amzn.to/44FfnUu
********************
➡️ Cwic Show relates real-world, current events through commentary and conversations. We address topics such as politics, pop culture, and religion in a faith-based manner.
Cwic Media - like "Quick Media" Cwic is an Old English word that means "Intelligent" and "Alive."
********************
Disclaimer
The products and content offered by Cwic Media are neither made, provided, approved nor endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All content and products are solely those of Cwic Media and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
********************
#CwicShow #lds
There are many willing to teach you the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Man and all of creation did not evolve from something lesser, but rather fell from something greater.
Why is this such a difficult principle to accept for those in the Church studying science - the philosophies of men? Nothing in all of scripture to any degree suggests that what is was not created by divine intelligence. And nowhere in revealed scripture is it ever suggested that God waits upon chance and circumstance to fulfill His purposes. Agree 100%!
@@anthonyjames4478 Yes, in fact the theory of evolution can be dismantled with a mere 3 verses:
1) Ether 3:15 ...all men were created in the beginning after mine own image
2) 2Nephi 2:22 (before the fall) 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.
3) D&C 77:6 ...this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance,or its temporal existance. (obviously evolution requires millions of years whereas the earth's temporal existance will not surpass 7000 years.)
Genesis, Book of Abraham, & Book of Moses (creation account)
Each animal and plant creation was commanded to produce seed of IT'S OWN KIND.
If he has read the scriptures, he does not understand them, or does not believe them.
@@jarenthompson915 Exactly how I read the scriptures. Nowhere in all of scripture does the idea of "randomness" or "Let's wait and see what happens over millions of years" ever surface.
Many struggle with the theory of evolution, often because they've not been fully exposed to the other side of the argument - to the really extremely compelling evidence that supports a fairly face-value interpretation of the Creation. Many Prophets have spoken out against the theory (including President Nelson) yet we find the warnings go unheeded and in order to try and fit this theory into the gospel all manner of mental gymnastics are entertained. To this day not a solid shred of compelling evidence has been put forward that supports the idea of evolution, yet many continue to believe it almost like a religion.
I'd highly recommend you interview some scientists from the other side of this. Dean Sessions would be a good interviewee - he has spent over 30 years on the topic and written a great deal on it.
There is a great apologetics organization called Answers in Genesis. They're awesome!
I truly think that is the problem. When only given one answer, what else do you believe?
The fossil records are interesting in this debate. When you have fossil records of a given group of organisms, and in the next strata of material and fossils, you see these leaps in completely different organisms. This suggests to me more introduction of species, than an evolution.
I believe in adaption, but the idea that my eyes came from squids or bodies from apes or whatever. That requires just as much a leap of faith.
It requires way more faith in my opinion. Intelligent design is far more believable and logical.
I have struggled with evolution since starting my college education in 2011. The evidence for evolution is compelling, so for years i was stuck in limbo beleiving that both evolution and church doctrine are literal and true, but opposed each other. In 2015, I was seriously considering letting go of my religous obligations. Not leave, just take a break, but in hindsight i realize that is the first step to leaving. I couldn't find any answers from church leaders/teachers. In fact, the more that I dug, the further that i distanced my heart from the church. Later that year i had the opportunity to talk with a Seventy, who was also an MD. I asked him, "is evolution true", and he simply said, "of course"... we talked only breifly on the matter, but my mind was already at ease. I have since discovered that my crisis wasnt necessarily evolution (that is reconcilable) , it was with church leaders/teachers. Prominent people in the church either ignore or oppose evolution as a scientific theory. I have since discovered that most church leaders simply dont know how to address evolution, and thats ok. We may all disagree on the role of this specific issue, but i have adopted an attitude of open mindedness on the "details" of God's work, and not let that distract me from the basics.
great comment.
There's very little evidence for evolution.
What we have is evidence that some things that used to exist that no longer do, and evidence that things now exist that didn't used to exist. The leap that they evolved from one to another is patently false, and has never been duplicated.
If you've been through biology classes, you know that when two species mate, at best they produce a hybrid. But that hybrid is incapable of reproducing. This is why we don't have prides of Ligers prowling around. You'll get one Liger, and it is incapable of reproducing, and so it dies off.
We have NEVER witnessed another species evolve from another... and this after millions of generations of selective breeding of some creatures like flies, mice, and other things that have an accelerated lifespan. They have NEVER produced a single hybrid that could reproduce.
It hasn't happened even once, even under the most controlled situations, and yet we're supposed to believe that this somehow happened enough times throughout the geological period that those hybrids successfully reproduced to create a thriving new species on their own?
Didn't happen.
Just because we don't know the answer to why things once existed that no longer do, and things now exist that didn't used to, doesn't mean we have to put all of our eggs in one basket with the failed theory of evolution.
Yes - you have the correct perspective. I personally do not see evolution (scientific method) and a divine creation as mutually exclusive. We do not know how God created this world or the life present on it. Our scriptures and religious faith tell us why, but not how. We don’t have all the answers. Therefore, this can be an unpleasant discussion, especially in a religious setting. Religion and science each have their place in our understanding of this amazing world that we live in. I am a practicing physician (MD) with additional academic degrees in engineering and computer science. I grappled with this debate for years, until I gave up pitting my academic education against the truths of the gospel. I am now 61 years old and I love and respect both my testimony of the gospel and the amazing knowledge that comes through the scientific method. Don’t let anyone tell you that it is impossible to embrace both your religious beliefs and scientific knowledge at the same time. The amazing thing about our religious belief is that we have a living prophet providing us God’s mysteries line upon line and scientific knowledge that is also always evolving through the scientific method. I cannot tell you how many things that I learned in medical school 35 years ago that are currently incorrect. They were just the best we knew at that time. This is the essence of living by faith. We have to learn to live with ambiguity and incomplete knowledge, by God’s own design. That is our exact purpose for being here on earth.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey " Don’t let anyone tell you that it is impossible to embrace both your religious beliefs and scientific knowledge at the same time"
Amen, although both scenarios needs be at equal levels of comprehension lest one or the other can be hard to accept.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey Why do you equate evolution with the scientific method? One of the essential steps of the scientific method is to test the hypothesis. Can you provide a source for an experiment or direct observation of a speciation event? And why would the scientific method be in conflict with divine creation? Also, are you suggesting that the prophet's prophetic knowledge is predicated upon the scientific method? Would that not make God's mysteries subjective and subordinate to the scientific method?
One of the funniest classes I took at BYU-I was Atoms to Humans and we had a course on evolution from a faithful standpoint. That is when I was convinced that God is an evolutionary biologist
No evidence in favor of intelligent design. Have you seen the human body?! 😂
Their is a whole field of Biomimicry in engineering. It's like saying nature is dumb and only man is smart while also going "Hey that was clever how that was done."
Thanks, Greg and Jacob for setting up and doing this interview. I think this is a very pertinent topic and I found it very enlightening. I like Dr. Wilkinson's approach, and his take on evolution from the perspective of one who believes in God.
As a member of our faith, I came to grips with evolution gradually over a period of a few years, roughly about 20 years ago. I grew up in a very anti-evolution environment, in common with most members of my baby boomer generation, so I grew up very much against the theory, even though it was taught in biology and other related science courses. I used to be annoyed by articles such as those in National Geographic that were evolution-oriented. Then about 20 years ago or so, and continuing into the period when dna science was uncovering revolutionary information regarding our genetic heritage going back thousands of years, I began to realize that there really is very good compelling evidence for the theory. As a result, I went through a mini faith crisis over that and other things related to the entire set of various science vs religion questions. I looked for answers from scientists who were also faithful Latter-day Saints, and got some very helpful insights from them, from articles which they had written on evolution and how it can mesh with our religious doctrine, in a similar fashion to the ideas that Dr. Wilkinson presents here, but I also find that Dr. Wilkinson presents some novel ideas here as well that I found resonated with me, so I am interested in reading his book :)
I love ClayCB's and JeffreySmith-if6ey's comments and also agree with what they said. I am convinced that it's very important to be patient with other LDS members (and other Christians) who have a hard time with evolution and to be understanding with regards to their positions. After all, many of us (including me) were in a similar quandary years ago, so I can totally understand their reluctance. However, it is also important for them to understand that a person can still be a faithful Latter-day Saint and a good Christian while still believing in the theory of evolution. After all, our current church leaders are neutral on this topic.
I am also certain that both science and religion are both avenues to truth and that both are important. Science for information about our mortal physical world and bodies, and religion for the meaning of it all and for more information about our past (before mortality) and our future (post-mortality). I also found it very liberating intellectually once I embraced the science behind the idea of evolution and the natural history of our earth. Now I am fascinated by new scientific discoveries in this regard. Currently I have a deep fascination with ancient European history and all the cool new scientific discoveries, from both dna analysis and archaeological findings, going back thousands of years to the various cultures that intermingled throughout Europe thousands of years ago, where they originated, what they may have been like, the languages they may have spoken, their physical characteristics, which groups I have shared dna from, etc., etc.
Excellent comments. I actually started reading Dr. Wilkinson’s book yesterday. I was excited to see others successfully dealing with this issue. I agree completely that we need to be patient with other members of our church, as well as Christians in general, that struggle with this debate. We don’t have to prove our point of view on this issue with every gospel discussion regarding the creation. I taught gospel doctrine for 4 years in my ward and I remember refraining from diving into a deep discussion about the origin of life, but also showing open-mindedness when I taught about the creation in the Old Testament section of the curriculum. We are all familiar with the Galileo affair, where he was condemned by the Catholic Church for proposing heliocentrism, which is now proven scientific knowledge. Religion and science will gradually come to agreement over time. We just need to be patient. We shouldn’t condemn each other for personal beliefs in unproven religious dogma and scientific theory. We should just continue to live by faith until we have all the answers someday.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey - A few years ago in the ward we were in at that time, we had a pair of Gospel Doctrine teachers that would alternate every week (this was before the 3 hour block was changed to 2 hours). One of them was very anti-evolution and the other was pro-evolution (looking back, I think there was inspiration in that choice of teachers). This was a year when we were studying the Old Testament. The first couple of lessons for the year, when the topic of the creation was covered, the teacher who was anti-evolution was giving the lesson, expressing his views against evolution, thinking that it was basically a given that everyone in the class would agree with him. He got quite a bit of pushback from the other instructor, and after a little bit of mild surprise on his part, they resolved the differences quite quickly and basically came to an agreement to leave evolution out of the discussion and just focus on the whys rather than the hows of creation. I thought that was pretty cool how they resolved it quickly and thought it was a good example of how to treat each other with all of our differing views on this and other related topics (such as worldwide vs local flood of Noah's time, etc.).
My first comments are addressing evolution from a doctrinal stance, then I’ll address it scientifically in a separate post. On human origins, here are some quotes from church authorities and/or the Church.
1. John Taylor: “When a little boy I used to ask myself, Who am I? Where did I come from? What am I doing here? And why am I here?” “If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God, for the simple reason that he is a son of God, and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father-a God, being indeed His offspring.” (1)
2. Orson F. Whitney (1882): “The recent death of Professor Charles Darwin (4/19/1882) the famous author of the “Origin of Species,” and of the ablest enunciators of the theory and doctrine of evolution, brings vividly to mind the lamentable condition of the modern world, with its scientific vagaries and religious absurdities, and the many unscriptural and unreasonable ideas so widely prevalent concerning man’s origin and eternal destiny.” He continued, “There is no instance in record where a baboon ever evolved into a human being, and science in attempting to unearth a “missing link” which it is claimed will connect mankind with monkeykind, is like a blind man hunting through a haystack to find a needle which isn’t there. For man is the child of God, fashioned in His image and endowed with His attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable in due time of becoming a God.” (2)
3. George Albert Smith (1905): “Man is the offspring of God. The Latter-day Saints are believers in the words contained in the Holy Scriptures. We believe that God created the heavens and the earth; and the same God that created the heavens and the earth declared that he made man in his own image; male and female created He them. No matter if scientists and great men of the world shall proclaim that we have evolved from the lower order of animals, the witness of the Spirit to you, my brethren and sisters, is that you are the offspring of the Lord, that the spirits which inhabit your bodies are immortal, and that in due time, if you are faithful, you will go back to the presence of that God who gave you life.” (3)
4. Joseph F. Smith (1909): “We did not spring from spawn. Our spirits existed from the beginning, have existed from the beginning, have existed always, and will continue forever. We did not pass through the ordeals of embodiment into the lesser animals in order to reach the perfection to which we have attained in manhood and womanhood, in the images and likeness of God.” (4)
5. The First Presidency, “The Origin of Man” (1909): “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” and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that 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. (5)
So, when the BYU Bean Life Science Museum has a plaque on the wall stating, “The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution…. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution” I would humbly suggest that BYU, and those of us Saints who follow Christ, dig a little deeper into His teachings. (6) I would suggest that scripturally, and by the voice of the prophets, evolution has been addressed. But I understand that many struggle with evolution, scientifically speaking, versus the doctrinal stances. I'll mention a few scientific issues with evolution in a separate post.
References:
1. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng
2. Man’s Origin and Destiny. Contributor, Vol 3:9 (June 1882), 268-70
3. Elder George Albert Smith, Conference Report, April 1905
4. Improvement Era Vol. 12, p. 591, June 1909, Gospel Doctrine, p. 32
5. Joseph F. Smith - The Origin of Man (1909). Retrieved from the church website: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng#subtitle1
6. New Era Oct. 2016 (You can also Google the image of the plaque)
"And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." Abraham 4: 18, is interesting to contemplate in regard to evolution. Other interesting discussions or videos to watch are: Origin: Probability of a single protein forming by chance. Also: Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
At what point did an ape birth a human in the image of God? Where the parent is a mere animal but the child can become like God himself? How does that fit with Genisis 4:11, 21, 24, 25? How can we birth something that, in the end, is not after our own kind? That's where I can't reconcile any part of evolution with creation.
Amen humans have evolved but we didn't come from a monkey
Species don't evolve into a new species.
They do, however, evolve within the species, aka epigenetic adaptation. We were children of God before mortality, we remain so in mortality, and hopefully will fully grow up to be like God after this life. At no point do we 'evolve' into a new, or different, creature.
So great you talked about a book at 48:30 that’s right behind you called free agents. I loved this discussion. 😅 Thank you for tackling this topic. ❤
This was a fascinating conversation. I am intrigued to learn about how evolution and the gospel work hand and hand. Great interview and can’t wait to have Sam back.
I just received this book as a gift for Mother’s Day. Can’t wait to read it.
When it comes to electricity, all I need to know is when I flip the switch, light comes on. Knowing the in and outs of evolution. I know that God, the Father, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, has a perfect plan.
8:45, 9:18, 9:41, 14:22, 22:42, 23:08, 32:55, 34:08, 41:14, 41:30 Best quotes that support the theory of evolution
excellent Greg!... very hard hitting... and super meaty!!
One truth I've come to realize. "No God. No science. Know God. Know science. "
Love your channel, Greg. Your intro to Dr. Wilkinson stated: "This conversation assumes at a minimum 'Intelligent Design'." I hope you noticed in your interview that such a "minimum" does not apply at all to his work. Did you see how fast he ran from anything to do with the "Discovery Institute" or any association at all with "Intelligent Design"? He wants nothing to do with anything that deviates in the least from the pure, exclusively naturalistic and material Darwinian party line.
And a huge "Thank You," Greg, for your superb and prescient questions to Dr. Wilkinson.
Sorry, way too long, so here's a SUMMARY of everything that follows:
* The greatest harm--and prime target--of most worldly philosophies is the erasure of all elements of human agency.
* When you lose human agency, you also lose--and therefore deny--the role of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
* Pure, naturalistic theories of Evolution by definition deny human agency.
* Dr. W states his unwavering commitment to naturalistic evolution.
* The latest scientific studies demonstrate an exciting evidence of pre-planning in the deep physical laws--as shown by an otherwise inexplicable similarity in basic anatomical structure across species (and therefore, put a big dent in purely naturalistic models of evolution)
* Dr. W notes evidence for such pre-planning in physical laws, and seeks to somehow weave them into an exclusively naturalistic theory of evolution
* His theories invite us to accept and even celebrate evolutionary naturalism as the "beautiful" machinery that ingrains within us--for its purposes of preservation of our species and natural selection--such characteristics as love and sacrifice and family loyalty.
* By doing so, Dr. Wilkinson also preserves the anti-agency foundation of all such theories and misses a chance to instead articulate the additional evidence against such theories.
And now the more detailed version here:
I find Dr. Wilkinson a breath of fresh air as a scientific voice who wants to show how faith and science need not be opposed. And so I don't want my comments to seem like a swipe on his noble efforts to do so. But we should all be concerned with embracing strict naturalism as the well=spring of our spiritual characters.
I really appreciated, Greg, how you zeroed in on asking how Dr. W's approach to evolution affects or defines the presence (or lack) of agency in humans. Indeed, that is the core issue. And naturalistic evolutionary theory by definition denies the possibility human agency--If we are just a chemical lab reaction, we don't choose make free-will choices. End of story).
And I find Dr. W's response to that issue very problematic in this interview. He says he wants to preserve human free will and agency, but yet he also wants to maintain allegiance to a pure naturalistic theory of evolution. I don't think he can have both and he chose the latter.
For example, when discussing the uber-essential role of family relationships to our happiness and well-being, Dr. W realizes an objection many will raise in his effort to wed evolution with this love. "Many will say--'okay, so I only love for my kids because of my genes.'"
But then Dr. W essentially agrees with this statement by saying:
* "Well, that is how God made you [genetically? using evolution?].
* God made you such [via evolution and genetics?] that you have a deep love for your family ... that is the way you are psychologically and evolutionarily engineered [by our genetics?].
* God made us [via evolution?] so that our families are utmost importance to us for our well-being. Evolution is very pro-family."
Dr Wilkinson seems like a nice guy, but make no mistake: he is a fully committed Darwinian naturalist, embracing whole-cloth the standard evolutionary notions of natural selection as the only acceptable explanation for the origin and essence of human beings.
* Dr. W hopes, in his theory, to preserve naturalistic, Darwinian evolution by removing the odious and lately indefensible notion of randomness from its foundations and instead radically interweaves into such evolution the new discovery of observable, identical, consistent structures across species (such as eyes, limbs, sexual dynamics) that indicate apparent apparent planning and inevitability in physical, biological laws and processes.
* A much simpler explanation for these deeply imbedded laws that produce anti-random (i.e. planned) congruences among various organs and physical structure across species screams at us: maybe the divine being Himself, who initially created various species and placed them on the earth, gave identical eye, limb, and mouth structures to these distinct species--because He knew they would be, and have been, throughout eternity--the most effective and efficient structures available.
But not for Dr Wilkinson.
* Instead of conceding and celebrating such clear planning as evidence of the hand of God----Dr W and other scientists find a way to blend such discoveries into naturalistic evolution (natural selection and "survival of the fittest") to imbue within the advanced mammalian species of mankind such notions as love, faith, family bonds, and "morality" as just more biologically-programmed evolutionary tricks to keep this wacko species from imploding in a bloodbath.
* And so, the Macro Evolutionary model propounded by Dr. W is simply the same old Darwinian fairy tale that insists all human physical, mental, social, religious, and even "moral" dimensions originate solely from chemical and biological processes.
How and why are two different questions with the first not requiring intelligence and the second requiring it.
Interesting discussion. With evolution I’ve always had to grapple with where the rubber meets the road questions, rather than dabble in broad sweeping implications. This pursuit requires some answers we don’t really have and is harder in terms of juxtaposing faith with science.
For example, the 7 seals (thousand year periods) starting from Adam. “Science” claims Neanderthals are our closest related species and that our evolutionary track diverged from a common ancestor about 550,000 years ago, and came from apes millions of years before that. Could the 7 seals be figurative much like the 7 creationary periods referred to as days? I suppose so. But more importantly, what did Adam and Eve look like? Accepting evolution whole scale as it pertains to humans would be to claim Adam and Eve were part of the evolutionary progression and have direct lineage back to apes or something. It would claim that somewhere along the timeline from apes to homo erectus, etc. God decided a humanoid animal was close enough to “His image” to place the first spirit in one of those bodies. To my knowledge, animals have intelligences/spirits too and all things were created spiritually before they were physically, so that theory would require replacing an animal spirit with Adam’s, or something. Another option would be to say Adam and Eve WERE apes and close enough to constitute having been created in Gods image. I can’t believe either of those two are correct.
And if either of them are, what of the garden of Eden, the fall, being thrust out of the garden into the fallen world? Accepting either of the prior theories would seem to reject previous prophets/church leaders teaching of a direct bodily creation at the time of Adam and Eve.
And to accept Sam Wilkinson’s theories regarding evolution’s role in developing our social/familial relations/skills would seem to indicate Adam was some form of underdeveloped early homo sapien from 50,000-100,000 years ago, as such traits would likely take thousands if not 10’s of thousands of years to develop. But it would seem those skills/adaptations would come much more naturally/instinctively to a spirit entering this world from the pre-existence, and given spiritual instruction by God, his messengers, and the spirit.
The theory I’ve been drawn to is that evolution of animals/plants could certainly have been part of God’s process over however many hundreds of thousands of years the creationary period took, but that humans are different. Perhaps a number of evolutionary lines developed in close relation, but distinct from, our modern human species through natural selection. Perhaps those lines were purposely prodded along by God as a test from an omniscient Heavenly Father who knew we’d develop radiocarbon dating and uncover a long history of fossil records. If the humanoid fossil record appeared out of nowhere with no seeming connection/lineage/pattern as observed with other species, the biblical proposition of our creation would appear too obvious and require less faith. I don’t know. I guess we’ll all find out one day
Even if we remove the religious aspect, from a purely scientific standpoint the theory of macroevolution is objectively non-scientific. In order to call something a science, you either need direct firsthand access to the entire process, or you need the testimony of somebody who had firsthand access to the process. Utterly unfeasible when your process allegedly began billions of years ago, and took billions of years to unfold.
It is one of the biggest running jokes that the people who demand evidence for God, simultaneously blindly embrace macroevolution on pure faith, and with hilarious arrogance. It is a modern fairytale brought to us by the same types of people who can't distinguish men from women, and who think racism is the solution to most mathmatical calculations.
Darwin was evil. The father of racism.
On point. Well said
I rarely see someone who writes something which is entirely factually incorrect. And to boot, it's a reasonably long statement, as well. Bravo!
@@rodneyjamesmcguire Then it should be trivial for you to come up with an implement of our modern prosperity which came to us as it is, via stories rather than direct physical testing. . .
My claim, based on science, is that the theory of macroevolution isn't just worthless, but if it had never even been thought of, mankind would be no less advanced technologically. It contributes literally nothing to actual science or the prosperity of mankind.
@@cognitiveresonance339 WOW! 2 for 2, factually incorrect.
About the origin of man
“ According to the teaching of President Joseph F. Smith, the man Adam was “born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.”21 Brigham Young was just as straightforward on this matter. God, he said, “created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or ever that will be. . . . There ”
exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned . . . and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting.”22 Thus, we may conclude that the accounts of Adam’s creation from the dust and Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib are figurative, or symbolic, and designed to teach us certain truths about the first man and first woman.23
[18. Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 62. Elder McConkie wrote on another occasion that with God “there are two creative events that are his and his alone. First, he is the Father of all spirits, Christ’s included; none were fathered or created by anyone else. Second, he is the Creator of the physical body of man. Though Jehovah and Michael and many of the noble and great ones played their assigned roles in the various creative events, yet when it came time to place man on earth, the Lord God himself performed the creative acts” (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985], 63; hereafter cited as NWAF).]
[19. Luke 3:38 says exactly the same thing. In the Joseph Smith Translation of this passage (JST Luke 3:45), the Prophet modified this passage to say that Adam “was formed of God.”
[20. Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 1:95.
[21. Deseret Evening News, 27 December 1913, section 3, Church News, 7.
[22. JD, 11:122. Heber C. Kimball taught that we were all “born and begotten by our Father and our God before we ever took these bodies; and these bodies were formed by him, and through him, and of him, just as much as the spirit was; for I tell you, he commenced and brought forth spirits; and then, when he completed that work, he commenced and brought forth tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. I came through him, both spirit and body” (ibid., 6:31). The First Presidency of the LDS Church once published the declaration that mankind is “the direct and lineal offspring of Deity” (Improvement Era, November 1909, 81; hereafter cited as IE).
[23. On the dust and rib explanations being figurative, see Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 15; Vivian M. Adams, “Our Glorious Mother Eve,” in Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, eds., The Man Adam (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990), 95-99.”
“The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple” by Matthew B. Brown
Evolution is not consistent with our doctrine. Everything reproduces in its kind. Adaption happens, but one species turning into another has never happened.
Interesting conversation
The position set forth by Dr Wilkinson that evolution provides a path for both altruistic and selfish human behavior gels completely with what we learn in the Book of Mormon: there must needs be an opposition in all things.
Selfishness itself isn’t necessarily evil (I mean, some people describe Eve’s act of eating the forbidden fruit as “selfish,” since they see if as her wanting to “be like God,” and that’s all they see), but neither is altruism always good/for the best (anything can be taken to unhealthy extremes; even Jesus took time to himself to “recharge” after being around the masses and healing and such), but depending on the circumstances, one may be “better” than the other.
“Evil” didn’t have to be a part of the story of mortality, I think, but it is because Lucifer and his cohorts fell and serve to twist human nature to its extremes through temptation, confusion, and obfuscation.
Divinely guided inflection points is the phrase you are looking for…
Just like the grand divinely guided inflection point that is about to unveil the heavens
In addition to epiphonanaltsm (sp) there is a gentalman, Greg Bradon (sp), who says his discovery is that the foundation of growth, change, etc is all a mind to brain, body, environment direction not the other way
Just another thought. The bible was Written approx. 3500 years ago But Modern Humans were here 150.000 to 200.000 years ago. Something to think about.
Even Darwin knew there were flaws in his theory:
"His thesis of the origin of species by natural selection Darwin supported by reference to (1) variations in domestic animals, especially when the breeder deliberately develops a certain desirable feature; (2) the anatomical similarity of many related species; and (3) the geological record.
However, though breeders have created new races or variations, they have created no new animal species. In the anatomy of living creatures “the distinctness of the specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty” (Darwin); and thus the entire weight of proof was placed on the geological record.
The geological record presents evidence that in the past animals lived that do not live any longer; and also that, of the forms living today, many did not exist in the past. The how did they come into being?
The animal and plant kingdoms are subdivided into phyla, and these into classes, orders, families, genera, and finally species. A species can be recognized this way; the mating of members of two different species generally does not produce offspring, and when it does, such offspring is sterile (horse and ass, and their offspring, the mule). Thus all the human race is but one species; and all races of dogs, so dissimilar in their body structures, are members of one species. There are hundreds of thousands of species in the animal kingdom and also in the plant kingdom.
In the theory of evolution all forms of life evolved by gradual emergence from the same most primitive one-cell living beings. Chance variations occur in members of every species - no two individuals are entirely identical. These variations are inheritable. As already explained, the favorable variations - those that are helpful in the struggle for existence - may accumulate to such a degree that, according to Darwin, a new species originates, the members of which can have no fruitful progeny with the members of the parental species.
Since the first scientific observations were made, no truly new animal species has been observed to come into being. The year after the publication of The Origin of Species, Thomas Huxley wrote: “But there is no positive evidence, at present, that any group of animals has, by variation and selective breeding, given rise to another group which was, even in the least degree, infertile with the first.”
A few years later Darwin wrote in a letter (to Bentham): “The belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations… when we descend to details… we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory.”
And at the end of the century Huxley found himself compelled to make the statement: “I remain of the opinion… that until selective breeding is definitely proved to give rise to varieties infertile with one another, the logical foundation of the theory of natural selection is incomplete. We still remain very much in the dark about the causes of variation…”
Immanuel Velikovsky - Earth in Upheaval
The problem i see with this whole discussion on evolution is that it is not what we are taught. We are taught that God specifically created the animals and plants spiritually before he created them physically. I do not know why this is difficult to understand, if he did that then evolution would have no bearing on any of our doctrine. I know we were trying to understand difficult concepts without a lot of information, and we tend to rely on our own knowledge or interpretation of the evidence that is at hand. We have been indoctrinated by the scientific community, not that they are wrong in everything, but the scientific Community has taken God out of a massive portion of what we call science. Most people are just fine trusting people that are atheists, I do not share that same enthusiasm. If you take God out of the creation or science than you are left with a lot of information that's cannot be used, because it directly conflicts with evolution. Personally I think we have very much overly complicated this whole science. we are trying to understand something that is not provable. In fact the more research that they do into genetics the more evolution becomes impossible. Even guided evolution through an intelligent designer doesn't really make sense either. I think the reason why we have so much variety is because the information was already there. You don't get mutations that are beneficial. We do observe changes, but I believe those changes are so recessive that it takes special circumstances to bring them forward in the genetics. This explains how you can have so much diversity come from Noah and the ark.
How does free will and the Holy Ghost experience fit in with evolution?
Are some folk driven by free will by the Holy Ghost to God and if so, is the Holy Ghost used by God as an agent of evolution?
My conversion story in Chiasmus
I never wanted to get married or bring a child into this world
I had tonsillitis many times and one time it was so painful I thought I would die
I smoked my first cigarette at age 12
I started getting drunk at age 15 and often drank alcohol and got drunk
I smoked marijuana for 12 years and loved the smell of it
I had back pain for 10 years and several times my back went out and I had to take time off work
I used to have trouble getting to sleep and grinded my teeth in my sleep
I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, hospitalized 3 times and told I would be on medication for the rest of my life.
I tried reading the bible but couldn’t get past Genesis
I had stomach pain for a year
I rarely spoke to my mum
I wasn’t happy with where my life was going
My mum told me I had to get right with God
I felt bad about wasting my life and sinning against God
I was baptized by full immersion and buried my old life in the water
2 brothers prayed with me to receive the Holy Ghost
I burst out speaking in tongues as I was filled with the Holy Ghost
God raised me up and gave me a new life
I was forgiven of my sin and given a new life walking with the Lord
I shared in the victory of Jesus and was reconciled with God
I’m looking forward to where my life is going
I call my mum everyday
My stomach was healed
I read the whole New Testament in a few weeks
I was healed of bipolar disorder; it’s now been 24 years since I was last in hospital and have been off medication for 19 years.
I can fall asleep straightaway and my teeth grinding stopped
My back was healed and has never caused me to take time off work again
I couldn't stand the smell of marijuana and never had it again
I lost the desire for alcohol
The cigarettes tasted off and it's 24 years now since my last smoke
I still have my tonsils and have never had tonsillitis again
I got married in the Lord and our son has now turned 16.
Ok, I listened to the whole thing and I cannot say I learned anything:
1. Evolution (or nature?) made us this way _______(fill in the blank with any human characteristic).
2. We don’t know how evolution did it (some kind of constraint that prevents random mutation)
3. God used evolution to make us this way ______.
Once you have an answer to number 2, let me know.
We differ from God by degree.
We differ from apes in kind.
We differ from apes in kind AND degree. :>)
Forget return to monkey, return to God
@@godsoffspring4195 Technically, true. It depends on how particular you want to be with differentiation. Humans and chimpanzees are both apes. Humans and dogs are both mammals. Humans and lizards are both animals. Humans and plants are both eukaryotes, etc. Humans and God are the same species, and are thus more closely related in that sense than humans and other apes. However, the difference in degree between humans and God are so vast that I would argue we are technically more closely related to apes (until resurrection and perfection occur, at least). That means that humans are in a weird relational position between God and other apes. And also leads to the question of how God and other apes are related. Is it a difference in kind? Degree? Both? Neither?
@@michaelanderson6484 Hi Michael. "Humans and chimpanzees are both apes."... "Humans and God are the same species," Oops :>)
@michaelanderson6484 Hi Michael. "Humans and chimpanzees are both apes."... "Humans and God are the same species," Oops :>)
This video should be titled- “Do the philosophies of men mingled with scripture manifest gospel principles?”
Haha
"God can take these stones and make children unto Abraham", see evolution.
Not what this verse means at all. Nice try!
Not referring to literal stones.
The stones in that instance reference base people. There are different categories of people in mortality just like in the resurrection, metals, stones, gems are often used in the scriptures as symbols for these categories of people.
Common stones would be the basest level of humans with various gems being semi precious and precious categories.
When he said God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones he was saying that God has the power to save and adopt even base level people into the covenant as adopted children of Abraham.
That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
It wasn't a serious statement, wow.
@@Mike-rt2vp Thanks. I get it now.
I see it this way: God created man and woman, and all other species, and evolution works separately within each species.
......uh....you're mistaking evolution with the concept of adaptation. Yes within species, there are many kinds and those kinds develop out of adaptations. Evolution is creating a whole new species from another species which is false.
Adaptations is not the same as evolution. Within kinds, the same species, adaptations occur. Evolution is when a new species evolves from another species.
Was there death before the fall?
Yes, outside Eden was/is a wilderness. It had been in a Telestial state since its creation. Were Adam and Eve immortal? Possibly, and there is reference to death in connection to the commandment concerning the fruit of the tree if knowledge of good and evil, BUT it also says that Satan is cursed all the days of his LIFE, so does Satan live and therefore die?
Perhaps these words should be looked at as symbolic with dual meaning embedded in the text...
Where does it say that in the scriptures? @@ClayCB
@@ClayCB There is no evidence of this scripturally nor by way of doctrinal exposition.
@@ClayCB The fall affected the entire earth, i really dont get where you got the idea that there was a wilderness outside of eden. The entire planet was in the presence of God. God had just taken 6 days to create the earth. It would have looked stunning. If you had been in the presence of God and got turned out into the natural world i too would probably think of the rest of the earth as a wilderness. Dont forget telestial is better than what we have now. This is our probation. We have no glory yet. As for death, it came about because of disobedience. Adam and eve would still be here and you and I not here if they hadnt been disobedient. There is no death in Gods presence. I have heard it said many times by members, of entertaining the idea of evolution. The scriptures are really quite clear about all of this not to mention you can confirm the truth to yourself through the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
I feel in the grand context of Gods creation, the system of evolution is arbitrary. The fine tuning is clear. Randomness doesn't produce anything productive.
Micro evolution over millions of years equals macro evolution.
Two people that would be good to talk about the subject are Dr Ogden who is a biology professor at UVU. I had him and he’s great. Also Clint from Clint’s reptile house. Both are members and have CZcams channels
And the purpose of this discussion is.........................??????? I listened for 15 minutes and simply lost interest. Lo siento.
Think Battlestar Galactica. 😆
Painful listening/watched this interview. When a quality question was adked, he had no answer.
There was no discussion of epigenetics, the intelligent design of DNA (recent scientific admission), no comment on God following the natural order of creation events like dipole creation with electricity (ALL embyonic stages follow the dipole swirl, even galaxies).
As a prior post commented, it sounded like the philosophy of man mingled with scripture.
*Each creation account in scripture clearly says to make seed after it's own kind, not make seed for a new kind.
*Apostles Taage and Joseph Fielding Smith had this same debate as apostles. Talmage passed away and as Prophet Smith wrote a book about creation, not evolution: Man His Origin and Destiny
Epigenetic is fascinating!
@@CwicShow Had he delved into adaptations *within* a species due to environmental conditions & epigenetics, I could get on board with that part.
I've taught science including Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc. Knowing about epigenetics and the carbon dating of dinosaur blood, evolution as taught in the 'standard model' we call 'science' is impossible.
Look up the dozens of carbon dated dinosaur soft tissue samples. The millions of years old dinosaurs are only 20,000 to 40,000 years old. Carbon 14's half life is so small there would not be any measurable C14 left in a dinosaur bone (law of chemistry), but there is.
Comparing this video with several others that you have done showed me that not a great number of people were / are interested in this topic. Just sayin'.
I appreciate that Sam was interviewed and hopefully it leads to some reasonableness in the viewers of this channel. However, looking at many comments people want to live in delusion.
No
If you imagine a God who created worlds without number and populated them, why would you need to believe in an unproven statistically impossible process to introduce, plants, animals and humans to the earth? By the way, I gave up believing in evolution not because of my religious beliefs (in fact, you can't have evolution without a higher power), but because I have yet to see undeniable proof of evolution that can't be explained by more logical reasoning. God is very effecient, evolution is anything but.
I am a member and I believe in evolution
I am still waiting on the evidence for evolution. I have tried to be open minded about it, and I do not care if God used us to create us. I just don’t find it compelling or even reasonable, and it seems to me that the evidence is against it.
Lost me on this one.
I think evolution is need to have our imperfect bodies and for there to be any real trial of temptation. Nearly all sin comes from our desires that nature and evolution produced. It’s the only way to have life be a trial, especially if you don’t want to say that Satan has to exist and end up in deterministic theology