Views on Evolution

The subject of Darwinian evolution is a controversial one. I hesitate to raise it. I wanted my blog to be faith-inspiring. Yet, somehow I find the topic of evolution to be very inspiring, just as I do with most aspects of scientific teaching. Perhaps my point is that LDS people can be believers or non-believers on this topic. I know many LDS believers (mostly scientists) in evolution. Admittedly, there are probably more LDS non-believers than believers.

The concept of evolution has been a theme of my life. Things change. This is true for life, society, species, and religion. Yes, I know God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

World English Bible: Hebrews 13:7-9
7 Remember your leaders, men who spoke to you the word of God, and considering the results of their conduct, imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
9 Don't be carried away by various and strange teachings, for it is good that the heart be established by grace, not by food, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.

But, even Jesus grew into manhood.

KJV: Luke 2: 40
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Things change, and change is a natural part of this beautiful universe. Change is central to the topic of evolution, and I guess I have a strong need to educate others on it.

Here is a portion of an electronic dialogue I had with a creationist on the Internet:

From: My Friend:
The next time you're discussing evolution in science class you might want to spend a moment to get that term defined. There are five definitions of that term that popular science expects us to accept as reality, however only one of these definitions can be supported by actual science.

Cosmic evolution: Origin of matter from nothing
Chemical evolution: evolution of all chemicals from hydrogen
Organic evolution: Life originating from non-living material
Macroevolution: evolution of one kind of animal to another
Microevolution: variation within a kind
Only the last one happens; the first four do not happen and could have never happened.

From: Faux:
You indicate being against the following, except microevolution.

To be against cosmic evolution is to be against Einstein's E = MC-squared, meaning energy and mass have an equivalence.
To be against chemical evolution is to deny cyclotrons, atomic reactors, and the existence of the atomic bomb.
To deny organic evolution is to deny the well-known mutability of DNA. You do believe in DNA?
To deny macroevolution requires denying microevolution, because macroevolution is just a long duration of microevolutions. Do you really want to believe the HIV-virus was around since Adam? Do you really want to believe bacteria cannot change to become antibiotic resistant?

It is fine with me if people do not want to believe in "evolution." But, please realize that scientific concepts of "evolution" have real world consequences!!!!

Scientists don't believe in evolution because they want to slam religion. They believe in evolution because it teaches them how to control nature in both applied and experimental circumstances.

We can stick our head in the sand, or we can wake up and see the world with our eyes open! It's called empiricism.

From: My Friend:
No, to be against cosmic evolution is to be against the idea that nothing can produce everything all by itself. I'm fine with the idea of interchangeability of matter and energy once something exists to begin with.

No, to be against chemical evolution is to deny hydrogen could randomly and unpurposefully be changed into every element on the periodic table.

No, to deny organic evolution is to deny that life came from a rock. Where does DNA come from? LIFE !!!

Denying macroevolution is common sense. No series of mutations could have ever changed a prokaryote into an eagle. Time does not make things better. The principle is called entropy. I do suspect that viruses have been around since the days of Adam (about 6000 yrs.) I believe that the hostile relationship between man and creation is a result of the fall.

[You said,] "Do you really want to believe bacteria cannot change to become antibiotic resistant?"
Here's a perfect example of someone trying to pass off an example of microevolution as a prove-all for the other four. In the example we have a bacteria changing into a bacteria? The resistant bacteria was already present in the population. It's resistant trait was therefore "selected" because of the presence of the antibiotic. Before the antibiotic was present the resistant bacteria was not the most fit organism in the group; no new genetic information was created.

I'm not aware of any examples of beneficial mutations. Mutations are always damaging.

From: Faux
You are tossing out a whole lot of red herrings.

Cosmic evolution: It is religion NOT science that claims "creatio ex nihil" [creation out of nothing]. [By the way, Mormonism does NOT claim the universe was created out of nothing]. The big bang theory just claims that the universe began as a singularity. No one in science really knows how the singularity got started. Call it God if you like. I have heard scientists say that off the cuff.

Chemical evolution: The atomic physics of making elements is well worked out. Electron flow is a big part of that picture. Since you don't believe in chemical evolution, unplug your TV and turn off your lights. You are in the dark anyway (a friendly joke).

Organic evolution: Darwin worked out the basic principles of organic evolution without understanding either the origin of life or DNA. Look at the sphynx cat on the [figure below: Deseret Morning News (5/8/06)]. Would you even know it was a cat unless someone told you? Darwin made the simple observation that if humans could create artificial breeds, then nature could create natural ones -- and given enough time and isolation would become what we call a "species." Note: Nature "knows" nothing about species. The concept of species is just a convenient cataloging system for human beings. Biologists are constantly arguing whether some group of critters should be considered a new species or not. Why? Because evolution is constantly producing new gradations of animals that don't neatly fit our definitions of species.




Macroevolution is the study of evolution over long stretches of time. Microevolution is just on a shorter time scale. Objectively, that is the only difference between the two!!! You can't believe in one without believing in the other -- unless of course one denies the existence of time. Whoops! Creationists sort of do that, don't they? [Earth's age:} 6000 years. Hmmmm.

Some of your misunderstandings -- Entropy: Yes, things tend to go from order to disorder, but that principle changes when energy is added to a system. In any energetic system there is both order and disorder. Empirical fact: there are pockets of order in the universe. Crystals are very orderly. Organic molecules are orderly. Until the universe goes cold, there will be pockets of order.

Big misconception: "Mutations are always damaging." We are learning more and more about the mechanisms of change. Mutations are not just caused by "X-rays." There are transcription errors, division errors, and a whole long list of possible errors-- growing by the year. Some changes, by chance, are "beneficial" -- such as the antibiotic resistant TB bacterium. The term "beneficial" is always relative [because TB causes a very bad human disease].

Creationists are fighting a battle in a war that has been already LOST. In the end, it is a pointless a battle. Religion can make all the claims its wants about nature, but nature, my friend, will speak for itself.

I will let the reader determine who won that debate. As far as I am concerned, evolution has everything to do with science and nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. I am sorry that some religions have made evolution a big issue. I think this controversy is nothing but a big distraction from the truth.

We Mormons are sometimes accused by outsiders of being narrow in our views. If so, why can I believe in the science of evolution???




Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****