evolution....

[SoCalCoug]

what is the debate with evolution, and how do dinosaurs fit into the equation?

I've heard a lot of theories, but I think that the one thing to remember is that the story of Adam and Eve, especially as addressed in the temple, is highly symbolic. How much is symbolic and how much is literal, I don't know.

I don't think there are two "competing," mutually exclusive theories - evolution and creation - I think there are two ways of looking at or understanding the origin of the earth - scientifically and spiritually. I don't thing the Lord expects us, in teaching us of the creation, to understand the Ph.D level of what happened. I think we've been given the Kindergarten level.

[MikeWaters]

I agree with Socalcoug. I think it was Joseph Smith who said that true religion and true science are the same thing.

[Brian]

I personally have no idea how god made the earth and how people got here. It certainly didn't happen in 6 days nor did it begin 6000 years ago. There are a lot of bones that indicate that life has been here for millions of years. Evolution seems to make the most sense, but it might be something else. I don't know. Do I mind that I might have origins as an ape? No. Natural man is pretty animal like anyway. I have a divine soul, perhaps man evolved to the point where a divine soul could exist. I don't know.
Genesis, I believe tells us a very deeply symbolic story, a story of me, of you, of everyone. Of my creation, my fall and how that fall can be overturned. I don't really how care about another Adam, Adam is me, Eve is me, the whole story is about me and you and everyone.
I think the important issue in Genesis is not what it says, but what it means.

Regards,
Brian

[MikeWaters]

don't forget that later on Genesis has some parts that are about me. And you. And everyone. For example: making everyone get circumcised, then killing them all as they lay in their beds.

When I first read that in Genesis, I was like. whoa, interesting stuff they used to tell around the fire back a couple thousand years ago.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I've heard a lot of theories, but I think that the one thing to remember is that the story of Adam and Eve, especially as addressed in the temple, is highly symbolic. How much is symbolic and how much is literal, I don't know.

I don't think there are two "competing," mutually exclusive theories - evolution and creation - I think there are two ways of looking at or understanding the origin of the earth - scientifically and spiritually. I don't thing the Lord expects us, in teaching us of the creation, to understand the Ph.D level of what happened. I think we've been given the Kindergarten level.

The Adam and Eve story is a perfect allegaory for evolution. I submit that we have always understood intuitively our kinship with the animals since it's fairly obvious; we have similar physical processes and procreate similarly as mammals; we look similar to the apes, live in similarly organized social units etc. But we differ in a key respect: animals are essentially inocent; anyting they do is instinctual, and they therefore live in a sort of comotose state. We are hard wired to believe there was a beginning point to man's existence on earth. Man (and woman) were once a part of the animal kingdom even in this sense of being comotose, but at some point a watershed event occurred--they "woke up," i.e., they perceived their own conciousness, became aware of their own capacity to act upon their envioronment and one another for good or evil, thus structurally separating themselves from the animal kingdom.

Now why doesn't this describe evolution as well as the Adam and Eve story? This would be only one of many examples in mythology in which humans have developed myths and allegories to explain to themselves and teach to newer generations a fact of life that if they didn't understand with the benefit of science at least intuited with their god-given faculties. The power of myth to literally give rise to whole civilizations is a facinating subject.

If this is what MikeWaters meant in saying religion and science are the same I agree with him. Outside this limited extent, the statement is absurd.

[Brian]

You remind me of something that BY said:

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.6, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853
Look for instance at Adam. Listen, ye Latter-day Saints! Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay, out of the same kind of material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God made the pattern of a man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobie to this day. He would not have known anything. Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please--that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

[MikeWaters]

Catblue, your opinion that the phrase "true religion and true science are the same" is silly, comes from what I believe is your bias.....

True religion is a description of truth. Of reality. So is true science, to the best of our ability to sense and measure.

How can one believe in the possibility of intelligent life in the universe outside ourselves but wholly discount the existence of God?

[SoCalCoug]

Just a thought that came to me about the relationship of religion and science. Perhaps science is the "how" of the truths of the universe, and true religion is the "why" of those same truths.

[Archaea]

not much different, but most advanced science is expressed in symbols representing relationships.

Religion teaches the what for, and why things are.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Catblue, your opinion that the phrase "true religion and true science are the same" is silly, comes from what I believe is your bias.....

True religion is a description of truth. Of reality. So is true science, to the best of our ability to sense and measure.

How can one believe in the possibility of intelligent life in the universe outside ourselves but wholly discount the existence of God?

Religion is the service and worship of God or other supernatural force, through an insitutionalized system of attitutudes, beliefs and practices. Religion derives its vitality from a discimpline knowns "faith." Faith in this context means a firm belief in or conviction as to something of which there is no proof: complete trust.

Science does not purport to be a "description" of any truth or of anything at all. Science, like faith, is a discipline, but in contrast to faith, it is essentially a system for obtaining knowledge through the application of the scientific method, i.e., establishing the truth or falsity of propositions strictly through empirical testing and observation. In the realm of science, there is much trial and error, but no room for faith that is not subject to rigorous empirical scrutiny.

Hence, contrary to being the the same thing as religion, science is often at war with religion.