According to LDS doctrine, the earth, Adam and Eve, and the Garden were created as immortal objects — there was no death. Evolution obviously couldn’t have occurred then, since evolution requires death.

So, when could evolution have been used by God in the creation? After the earth was created with mortal matter, i.e. after Adam and Eve made their decision to have the earth become mortal.

I’ve written an essay to discuss this “hypothesis” in more detail. Those interested can download the essay at

http://www.leigh.org/sciencereligion/evolutionadam.html

Please note that I am not presenting this hypothesis as fact or as church doctrine. It is just one way to give a correlation between a scientific principle and the scriptural view of the creation.

A few years ago, we had this exact discussion. We were studying the Presidents of the Church manual (I believe John Taylor), and the person in the manuals mentioned that evolution is a theory of man. Others in the class automatically equated “theory of man” with being false.

I pointed out gravity as another theory of man. No one seemed to want to argue that theory was false.

First, I have both studied and taught evolution and many other scientific theories at the college level of many years. To my mind, as a theory of science, evolution is rock solid. I know of no other theory that is better supported among the biological sciences.

Secondly, I should point out that while the theory of evolution does not include God in its equation, neither does the theory of gravity – or any other scientific theory. Until we devise an experiment that provides evidence of the existance of God, we can’t include Him as a variable. And I don’t think it’s in His mind to let us do that right away.

Third, (excuse me for being a little personal here) when I was a young man I was informed that if I persisted in my outlandish thoughts I would place myself on the road to apostasy. Well, it’s been over half a century – so far so good.

I mostly keep my mouth shut in Sunday School – mostly that is. I’m rather tired of this one, frankly. We should think about growing out of it.

Ed

I rememeber shortly after I was baptized and I was asked to teach a Homemaking class on Simple Desserts. As I was teaching the class, I went to put Vanilla in the whatever I was making and one sister literally gasped out loud “You aren’t using that are you”? I said yes of course. She replied “Being a new member no one probably told you but we don’t use vanilla in our cooking as it goes against the Words of Wisdom.” Now this wasn’t even real vanilla to boot but plain old imitation 1.99 for a gallon vanilla.

I can not even begin to count how many times Dad and or I have been in RS, SS or Priesthood classes only to get a lesson about things that make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up as we think “where did that come from”.

I am thankful Kim that you are the type of person that does question what people say and that you get your own affirmations for what is right and wrong. I just don’t like it when I hear someone felt alone in a church meeting. It makes me think of all those who don’t say that but just quietly stay away.

The “Evolutionary” hypothesis as it is meant by its proponents does in fact conflict directly with the gospel. When scientists talk about the “Theory of Evolution” what they mean is Naturalistic Macro-Evolution; the idea that speciation is brought ot pass by purly materialistic and naturalistic means. The theory in the way it is formulated does not allow for any supernatural influence and excludes the possiblility of a Creator in its fundamental assumptions.

While micro-evolution, or adaptive evolution within a species, is a proven and observable fact, macro-evolution of one species into another is, to date, a completely unproven hypothesis. Evolutionists like to act as if micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one and the same because they only have substantial evidence for the micro evolution.

Most LDS members I know accept “Evolution” with the idea that God could have used it as the mechanism for creation. Yet the theory itself excludes that possibility.

The Church of Darwin

Nice post. That was very interesting and it’s sad that priesthood instruction sinks to such absurd levels in some places.

My understanding is that general authorities have disagreed on evolution and that the Church does not have any formal position on the matter.

There are documented cases of speciation, one species giving rise to a different species. In the biological sense, the definition of a species is a reproductively isolated creature. Species A cannot breed with Species B.

Most of the non-anecdotal cases of speciation (an anecdotal example being Darwin’s finches, in which they can all be traced to a common ancestor, yet vary in morphology somewhat) occur in the lab. Several single-cell and other simple organisms have transformed from one species to another through the manipulation of laboratory conditions. I could give specific examples, but just do a quick google for speciation and you’re sure to find enough.

Quite a leap from humans, but an observable phonomenon nonetheless.