Interview of Nelson & Wickman re LDS in American Society

[_Coggins7]

I was taught that God used materials from other worlds to make ours, and that's how we happen to have stuff over 6,000 years old.

That's nice. Its also irrelevant. Its not official Church doctrine and never was.

[_Runtu]

I was taught that God used materials from other worlds to make ours, and that's how we happen to have stuff over 6,000 years old.

That's nice. Its also irrelevant. Its not official Church doctrine and never was.

How do you define "official" church doctrine?

[_Coggins7]

Sounds to me as if Nelson is taking the temple film a bit too literally. ;)

Since you know as little about LDS doctrine and philosophy as you do, it sounds to me as if your fudging the entire argument. Nelson's statement is quite literally true. Dogs have always been dogs. If you accept marcoevolution, then there was a time when there were creatures that would become dogs, but these were not dogs. They were other creatures. There may have been "proto dogs" and creatures prior to this that had no canine morphology or physiology whatever, but none of them were dogs, as we know them. Dogs, as a stable species, have always been as they are, in their various varieties. The wolves from which they descended were always as they were, except of course, when they weren't, in which case, "they" weren't wolves at all but creatures that would become them in time. There may have been a time when a certain reptilian line branched out that would, in time, become dogs. But they were not dogs, but reptiles. Further, marcoevolution as yet has no empirical basis other than highly speculative evidence and a great deal of rather circular extrapolation, and serious conceptual and probabilistic problems still obtain.

Accepting the more radical changes claimed by marcroevolutionary theory imposes as many mysteries and unanswered questions upon the mind as does divine organization and creation. Of course, in the church, the question, as far as official doctrine goes, has never been between creation and evolution but between teleology and blind, unmediated random chance, which is the real problem, not so much with evolution, as with the scientism that lies behind it.

[_silentkid]

I find Nelson's remarks interesting and sad. He is/was a medical doctor, not an evolutionary scientist. When I had my appendix removed last month, I talked to my surgeon a little bit about my work, dealing with molecular evolution. He had no experience with the field. I find this is the case with many medical doctors. They focus on their specialties (which is good...I'm glad my surgeon was good at his job). They are not authorities on evolution. Nelson seems to believe that microevolution can occur, while discounting macroevolution. It amazes me that so many people still discount speciation based on their adherence to their creation myths. While the church has no "official stance on evolution", its leaders have made many opiniated remarks (i.e. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith) that uninformed members hold to be doctrine.

[_silentkid]

There may have been a time when a certain reptilian line branched out that would, in time, become dogs. But they were not dogs, but reptiles. Further, marcoevolution as yet has no empirical basis other than highly speculative evidence and a great deal of rather circular extrapolation, and serious conceptual and probabilistic problems still obtain.

What?!? Dogs were derived from a reptilian line? This makes absolutely no sense. Do you understand the basic differences between mammals and reptiles? Do you understand basic phylogenetics? Coggins, please stick to your political posts. Your uniformed foray into evolutionary theory is baffling.

[_Coggins7]

I find Nelson's remarks interesting and sad. He is/was a medical doctor, not an evolutionary scientist. When I had my appendix removed last month, I talked to my surgeon a little bit about my work, dealing with molecular evolution. He had no experience with the field. I find this is the case with many medical doctors. They focus on their specialties (which is good...I'm glad my surgeon was good at his job). They are not authorities on evolution. Nelson seems to believe that microevolution can occur, while discounting macroevolution. It amazes me that so many people still discount speciation based on their adherence to their creation myths. While the church has no "official stance on evolution", its leaders have made many opiniated remarks (I.e. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith) that uninformed members hold to be doctrine.

A good, working understanding of evolutionary theory such that one can critique it from a philosophical and basic scientific standpoint does not require any deep, highly specialized knowledge of it. This is the old credentialist canard that allows scientists (or those who support specific positions claimed to be based in scientific fact) to hide behind the curtain of a special scientific gnosis that the common run can't penetrate and have no business objecting to on any grounds. In any case, you have no reason to believe that Nelson, just because he is a Medical Doctor professionally, has no advanced knowledge of evolutionary theory. He may, for all you know, have studied it extensively during his lifetime. Upon what basis do you make the claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

In any case, the problems of the concept aren't really related to speciation, but to the much more radical changes at the more fundamental divisions of nature.

This is a poor alternative to actually engaging the problems of the theory.

[Guest]

Coggins, your above post is the perfect example of an uninformed individual making critiques of evolutionary theory. You showed your ignorance of the theory in your short paragraph. Why should I take anything you say about it seriously?

[_silentkid]

Nelson's comment that he believes that mankind could not have evolved from a lower species reveals to me that he hasn't studied macroevolution.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins, your above post is the perfect example of an uninformed individual making critiques of evolutionary theory. You showed your ignorance of the theory in your short paragraph. Why should I take anything you say about seriously?

You should take him seriously because he has culled his entire knowledge of this subject from the Internet.

[_silentkid]

You should take him seriously because he has culled his entire knowledge of this subject from the Internet.

LOL!