My response:

Evolution is the only viable scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It is the very foundation of modern biology and genetics. It has been around for 150 years as a scientific theory because it has yet to be disproved.

Mormonism, on the other hand, is "Just a belief".

Mine is:

"You don't know how a scientific theory is different than a layman's theory, so shut it."

In fact, if you think it is just a hypothesis, you might as well give up on modern medicine.

Evolution is the basis for much of the new drugs, therapies and preventative measures of modern medicine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19147298

Folks, it's a theory that is proved out everyday we get vaccinated and take anti-biotics.

Gravity is just a theory but people don't test it by walking off of cliffs.

Actually, in some ways, we know less about Gravity than about evolution. There are some serious mysteries still in gravity.

So incredibly scientifically illiterate.

Gravity is a law....

Evolution is not yet a law though it should be...maybe one day

stormy

I understood that it was a law under Newton's work, but now with Einstein's general theory of relativity Newton's laws of gravity are only extremely close approximations.

Quote:

"A 2003 survey of North American medical school deans, 48% said evolution is important for physicians. However, not a single medical school teaches evolutionary biology as basic science, no medical school requires evolution as a prerequisite for admission, only 16% had PhD faculty in evolutionary biology, and schools devoted a median of 4 hours of curricular time on core topics in evolution."

Nesse RM, Schifman JD., Evolutionary Biology in the Medical School Curriculum., BioScience 2003;53:585-587.

See
http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=1670

My undergrad was molecular/cellular biology at a big state university. They didn't have to teach evolution. It taught itself as it was self-apparent in the mechanisms inside cells.
The cell became a world to me, the largest domain we usually discussed. Most of the time we were closer to the atomic level at some netherpart inside the cell.

Nevertheless, in their wisdom the school made me take a few macrobiology courses, so I could tie-in with the remote idea of a whole organsim. But I saw the organism as nothing but a way to replicate cells, which in turn are nothing but a way to replicate molecular arrangements.

TBM BIL blurted out once "we didn't evolve from no monkeys".
I held my peace, because I was about to say "you're right, we evolved separately from a common ancestor" and/or "heck, monkeys are CLOSE relatives, we evolved from bacteria bro".

It's no harder for me to accept that than it is to accept that I grew from a single-cell in the uterus. It's apparent.

And, in church my last year of TBMness, a guy professed in priesthood lesson that those wise-ass biologists can't get over the abiogenesis hurdle. I was puzzled by this, since the free-nucleotide-to-RNA hypothesis has been around since the 1950's. But I kept quiet.

LochNessie mentioned a rift in Mormon culture, which I noticed. There are plenty of TBMs that accept evolution, and BYU is a leader in anthropaleontology I understand. But I read an article once by a BYU professor expressing frustration that inevitably every term he had to answer questions about where Adam and Eve fit into this...answer: they don't. And, in church, who is it that makes the comments if it comes up in class? 9/10 anti-evolution.

Alas, I was too dumb for graduate school in the field, so I dumbed-down to a clinical degree. Now I'm a PA. BIG personality difference between the two. PA school was loaded with evangelical christians and mormons out to bless the sick, or driven by some other social consideration, if only prestige and money. I was there for money. Doctors are even worse. Evolution? Never mentioned. Science was just an overhead obligation, fine print below the stylized-font propaganda.

Does it matter? I'm reading Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell". He argues evolution is as strong a social force as it is a biological force. Maybe that's obvious. But religion, I think, is better approached as a phenomenon than a good or an evil. Why did it happen? Dennett says there's a biological reason.

amos Wrote:

-But religion, I think, is
> better approached as a phenomenon than a good or
> an evil. Why did it happen? Dennett says there's a
> biological reason.


Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. He argues for religion as, among other things, a process of group selection--a means by which groups regulate members and compete with other groups.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. He
> argues for religion as, among other things, a
> process of group selection--a means by which
> groups regulate members and compete with other
> groups.


I believe this is a good model for how religion came into existence as a dominant force.

Like in the movie Invention of Lying, just extended....Tribal warring left heroes dead. Family mourned their loss, missing their strong personality. Spurned by the sense that the dead hero still continued exerting a lot of influence on the tribe, at some point, someone created the idea that life continues in another form after death. Warriors were encouraged by tribe leaders to believe this. Those that believed in an afterlife fought harder and braver with less fear of death. Success of the hero that fought harder with this belief created a positive feedback and encouraged the belief as a positive attribute. The belief was accepted as tribe law. The tribe with these fierce warriors fought better than tribes without superstitions.

Hence Religion and War were married and selected for better survival. The religious tribes were more successful at surviving. Religion becomes dominant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2011 09:16AM by Jesus Smith.

I sure had for my molecular biology degree...and genetic evolution also...both were killers

stormy

My AB is in biology. In the early 60s I was confronted with Joseph Fielding Smith's condemnation of evolution. I chose to disregard. After all he was really old and what could one expect? Now I wish I had chosen that as my ticket out right then and there.

I'll give up all of the modern devices, tools, medicines, technologies and etc. that have been brought forth via Revelation, if they give up all the modern devices, tools, medicines, technologies, and etc. brought forth by the scientific method. So far no takers...

Ehggggcellent!

+1

I teach evolution as hard as I can get away with. I usually start it in Feb. or March and I've made sure to have already built up what a scientific theory is (very different from what people usually use the word theory of), DNA, mutations, etc. A fellow bio teacher gave me a qoute I really like, though I don't know who said it, "Children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they should believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease." Nothing makes sense in biology without the theory of evolution.

I started in biology at BYU, I have since gone on to get a masters in it, not at BYU, and have just started my docotrate work, also not at BYU, so I am very very passionate about evolution. An interesting thing, at BYU the professors taught evolution exactly like it should be. It was never hidden or only lightly touched upon. I remember a few students getting upset, but I heard this from more than one professor, "We believe man was divinely created, but we don't know how he was created."

I say that because I've heard some negative things about BYU and science, and though I now rather hate mormonism, my personal experience with the church and science was not a problem. Of course I graduated from BYU 11 years ago, and I've heard they've become a lot more strict so it may be different now or I just got really lucky with my professors.

When I believed in mormonism I never had a problem believing it and evolution and I was very TBM. So it really bothers me when my students agree that it seems to be true, but they just can't believe in it because they believe in Jesus. Grrr. I better stop now or I'll rant all night. Sorry this is long.

From what I've heard in the biology department they do a credible job of presenting the subject, and they've generally done so for some time.

Of course the religion department is a whole 'nother matter...

I did detail here, however, the early 20th Century controversy that led to three BYU professors--including the first PhD to come to the school--leaving over teaching the subject of evolution.

My guess is it's been an upsy-downsy affair, and it's pretty clear that LDS, Inc. has tried to maintain "plausible deniability" about the issue over the years.

Too, occasionally one professor or another--Keith Crandall is an example--will offer up a bit of LDS apologetics, usually involving DNA, and the resulting snow job sounds authoritative, but amounts to a lot of buzzword nonsense. Simon Southerton just e-mailed me, joking once again that he was "simply trying to be a 'forest geneticist'" (even though he had no formal training in "forest genetics" although he's a plant geneticist), and between us it's an inside joke on claims "Crandall is a population geneticist" and therefore to be believed on the DNA issue.

In my own case, during the 60's, I for one absolutely hated a BYU-educated/Master's Degree biology teacher I had in high school; very little of substance was offered, and there was considerable LDS crapola. A genetics class two years later was the last science class I took. I nevertheless tested out of the science requirements at the U (in the 99th percentile on the physical science portion which is where my appitude is), and I've managed to educate myself well enough on the subject that Simon sends me stuff to preview in order to assure that it is understandable to the average sophisticated layman.

Anyway, welcome aboard, and feel free to do any heavy lifting that presents itself on the science education front. Some of the worst who come here aren't and have never been Mormons, but they're on a mission nevertheless to bring enlightenment to the blackhearted reprobates, usually by singing the praises of "Intelligent Design." Worst part of that one is they generally use the same canned talking points the Creationists use against Darwin.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2011 10:24AM by SL Cabbie.

I always assume that TBM's who say they believe in evolution do not understand evolution at all, since it disproves Mormonism in a myriad of ways. Am i wrong?

It's a sticky thing and I doubt I will I explain it well. It's entirely true that most TBMs don't believe in evolution (and as a young mormon biologist this upset me) but if you look deeper, BYU science department for example, you will find many who do- I did. I think I understand evolution quite well. More so now then I did years ago, but I still think I had a very good grasp of it when I was still TBM. I believed both, though to be honest I had a lot of questions, mostly with human evolution and the age of the earth, 4000 years I think not. However, it's very easy to say you just don't understand how God works. That's the normal mormon reaction: we don't understand the mind of God or we'll understand in the next life. So yeah, I thought like that. Also, I don't see if there is a God, which I don't believe anymore, why he can't operate through evolution and still care about humans and our development. I couldn't deny that evolution was true (too much evidence), but at the time I couldn't deny that Joseph was a prophet either (my belief from birth). To me it wasn't a problem, but I know that is not normal.

If evolution is true, then human existence was never a fait accompli. Evolution is not directed, so how could HF use it for a tool? Doesn't the 'random' element in evolution rule out any Mormon version of HF?

...high school biology teacher. I had him for two years, regular bio and advanced bio. Nowadays I suppose the latter would be the AP class. He taught evolution without apology. Under the curriculum, he was also required to teach "Creation Science." He told us that he was required to include it, and he did present it as required, but it was clear nonetheless what he thought of it.

I was recently talking with an 8th grade science teacher. Her undergraduate major was in chemistry. She is diligent and has a good reputation, but she told me that she does not believe in evolution. She also believes that humans comprise the only intelligent life in the universe. Scary, no?

Here's basically what I say:
Evolution is not "just a theory", it is established scientific fact, it happens and there is solid evidence for it. The mechanics of evolution, the chemical processes by which it occurs, are still uncertain. True scientific inquiry into evolution seeks to understand how and why evolution is happening, not if it's happening at all.

The book is about human origins and provides a good primer on the evolution of humans and genetics. It's fascinating and I will be reading some more books along this line.

http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296180125&sr=1-1



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 09:08PM by robertb.

The 1925 words of Clarence Darrow in The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes are still applicable-

"You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/gorilla-walks-like-human_n_814994.html

I tell people I won't discuss science with you if you refuse to look at facts and evidence. It's a waste of my time and energy.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2011 12:07AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Dawkins has several great books on the subject.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There isnt any need for sciance or relegion to argue over this just teach both and be done with it!

I've posted this line from a song alot so here it is again.

"God made man but the monky supplied the glue."

There now everyone can be happy which ever way they look at it.

Here's a fun way to respond:

You don't believe in evolution--so you're with numbnuts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0DdgSDan9c#t=04m01s

I saw a t-shirt once that said, "evolution is not a fact"

and on the back it said, "it's millions and millions of facts"

lol!

What a suprise.

Look, evolution NEVER happened!

We all know it started with a talking snake in a tree.

You all think you are just sooooo smart because you went to "college" and read some "books" and have "evidence" and "facts" and "verifiable data" and "hypothesis" and "applications to theories."

But let me ax you something. If evolution happened, then we wouldn't have had two people start the human race-- Adam and Eve. And without Adam and Eve we would never had had the fall, we wouldn't need a redeemer and Jesus wouldn't be necessary.

Well, we do because the Bible says so. So there!

Then I could take my boa for a walk around the neighborhood. But NO Adam and Eve had to ruin that for me. They messed up everything.

"And you are just an idiot."

Then you've covered religion AND ignorance without wasting your breath.