Having spent time in some of the science teaching circles, both inside and outside Utah, most teachers DO present evolution as a scientific theory, based on evidence, and are not trying to destroy any students fundamental belief in whatever form of spirituality they believe in. It is not generally taught as a "belief", as it's not a belief. It's a theory that is supported by evidence. Most teachers try to strictly adhere to the evolution as science idea, in part because they don't want to be accused of "brainwashing" students. Another misheld belief is that teachers are teaching human evolution. Basically what most teachers present is the process of natural selection and how different species can emerge over time. This involves an understanding of genetics and ecological evolution as well. It is not the goal of science teachers to destroy the faith of their students and turn them all into little atheists. We want them to think, and use reason. Some of these messages remind me of the old adage - There are none so blind as those who will not see. By the way, I think it is quite presumptuous of people who believe in an omnipotent God to say that evolution could not be a means to an end. Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn't make it impossible. Who do you presume to be putting limits on God?? Wendy Madsen Biological Quality ICU Medical SLC (801)262-2688 ext. 5039 -----Original Message----- From: uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Cavendar Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:38 AM To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association Subject: RE: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine Ok, this is a topic that I can actually discuss, so here goes... My wife is an evolutionist and LDS. I am a creationist and LDS. She is a biophysicist, I am a lawyer. Both of us are educated and both of us have different (albeit rational) views on the subject. Our ultimate conclusion is that it doesn't matter, and we will ask the Lord how he really did it when we get up there (assuming we make it up there). There is the kicker, though. If we are only discussing evolution in the sense of discussing "how it was done" then I believe the evolution debate is harmless at worst and an enjoyable intellectual exercise at best. But evolution is NOT being used for that purpose. Evolution and Darwinism has been piggy-backed by materialism, atheism, and agnosticism. When teachers in most of the country (maybe not so much in Utah) teach evolution they are in fact teaching romantic secularism. That is the greatest concern (I believe) in the way evolution is being taught. If we could add language to the teach of evolution to the effect of "Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is ill-suited to either prove or disprove the existence of Deity. Darwin and other supporters were strongly religious men, still other supporters were atheist or agnostic. Ultimately, the question of the existence of Deity is a question outside the scope of Darwinism to answer." So if you don't want religion to enter the evolution debate, get evolution out of the religious debate. You cannot have it both ways. Just my two cents... Jonathan ________________________________ From: uvaa-bounces+jonathan=cavender-group.com@mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Steven Goodwin Sent: Tue 1/24/2006 6:16 PM To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association Subject: Re: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine Rich, let's get one thing straight- I do not agree with President Bush or Chris Buttars on any form of teaching ID or Creationism or whatever in our public schools at all. Do not confuse me on this point whatsoever. I only stated that the Darwin's theory of the origin of man was in direct conflict LDS doctrine, but I do support some of Darwin theories of evolution. If you find the two incompatible then maybe that is where we differ. Teaching my faith in values belong in my home to be taught to my children not in public school. To think God inserted his spirit in Adam as man evolved to a certain point has been rejected by LDS leaders- this idea of "theological evolution" as it has been sometimes been coined has been rejected. Do a search of Elder Packard's General Conference talks within the last two years (I can't remember which). I also refer you to the "official" statement on the Origins of Man by President Joseph F Smith and his Counselors in 1909 (found recently in Feb 2002 Ensign). Here is an excerpt from that: "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 (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race." It is wrong to say the LDS Church has never made a statement about Darwin's origin of Man. They have avoided the mean-spirited rhetoric that many extreme christians group have taken though. As whether creation of man = magic I'm not sure where you are coming from there. Adam did not just appear- he was created like any other of God's creations. Saying God formed Adam from the dust of the earth doesn't equate "magic" but it involves a process we do not understand of at the present time. We are just trying to understand where man was created from- According to modern evolution it was from Homo Erectus and other hominids that we evolved. Adams progenitors were not Hominids- Adam was the first man and how he was created wasn't magic but it wasn't from a lower species. I don't understand why some of you evolutionary-mormons can not have faith in a creation process and why are you so willing to jump on board with the rest of world because "it makes sense". "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It is interesting that because I have expressed an opinion that is contrary to the "hard core" evolutionists that I must be in the camp with the right-wing extremists. I simply believe in the creation story of man and I also believe in some of the theories of evolution-- this may sound like they are in conflict but they aren't. Faith binds it together. On Jan 24, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Richard Tenney wrote:
I find it interesting Mark, that considering yourself and the biology staff at BYU devout Mormons when embracing Darwin's theory on the origin of man is in direct conflict with LDS church doctrine.
On this point you are flat wrong Steve. The LDS Church (of which I too am an active HP) CONTINUALLY REFUSES TO TAKE A DOCTRINAL POSITION ON HOW HUMANS WERE CREATED. However, commonly held LDS belief that God somehow created humans (completely separate from all other life forms) with a magic wand in a puff of hocus pocus, or from a literal lump of clay is simply pure ignorant superstition (from a literal reading of the creation myth in Genesis/Moses) that flies in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a position in fact paints a doctrinal picture in which either God is a capricious, wicked prankster that loves to decieve his curious children, or one in which He is laughing His head off (or shaking it in amazed disbelief) at our gross myopia and willful ignorance of what He has placed here all around us to discover and learn for ourselves.
Can someone please tell me why there are seemingly so many of you (fellow Mormons) that insist that creation == magic?
Why is (creation == evolutionary_process) such a bitter, difficult pill to swallow? I simply do not/cannot understand it.
-Rich
PS, As to any political overtones you might object to, Pres. Bush opening his politically-motivated mouth on the subject of ID is in fact the very ammunition Butters cites to pursue this ridiculous bill of his, and citing that is relevant to such a discussion, unfortunately. So fault him and his fundamentalist "christian" supporters, not folks like Mark that object to what is clearly political hay-making by the president (and one has to believe Buttars, who doesn't have a doctrinal leg to stand on).
Any politician that insists on micro-managing professional science educators should first be forced to pass a basic HS science exam, which Buttars would clearly fail to do.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa