<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What do you think about Evolution?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/</link>
	<description>A weekly podcast exploring Mormon culture and current events.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mormon Heretic &#187; Science and Religion: Compatible or Not?</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-91211</link>
		<dc:creator>Mormon Heretic &#187; Science and Religion: Compatible or Not?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-91211</guid>
		<description>[...] but he didn&#8217;t know me then (My blog was very new.)  However, it was quite lively over at Mormon Matters! This current post can also be considered a follow-up to my previous post on Science and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] but he didn&#8217;t know me then (My blog was very new.)  However, it was quite lively over at Mormon Matters! This current post can also be considered a follow-up to my previous post on Science and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90233</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90233</guid>
		<description>I agree with MH.  Furthermore, the Genesis creation story, if it indeed is just some sort of metaphor, is still a parable in the same sense that &quot;the foolish man built his house on the sand&quot; is a parable.  Nobody worries about whether there really was an idiot who tried to build his house on sandy soil, or whether there&#039;s historical proof of said idiot or if we can find the house, and how convenient that the house was built on sand, the evidence disappeared so we&#039;ll never have empirical evidence of the house, so how are we supposed to prove whether this guy really did try to build his house on the sand?

I guess that&#039;s just sort of missing the point perhaps.  But that&#039;s just my opinion.  Other parts of the scriptures aren&#039;t meant to be taken metaphorically, I realize that.  Anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with MH.  Furthermore, the Genesis creation story, if it indeed is just some sort of metaphor, is still a parable in the same sense that &#8220;the foolish man built his house on the sand&#8221; is a parable.  Nobody worries about whether there really was an idiot who tried to build his house on sandy soil, or whether there&#8217;s historical proof of said idiot or if we can find the house, and how convenient that the house was built on sand, the evidence disappeared so we&#8217;ll never have empirical evidence of the house, so how are we supposed to prove whether this guy really did try to build his house on the sand?</p>
<p>I guess that&#8217;s just sort of missing the point perhaps.  But that&#8217;s just my opinion.  Other parts of the scriptures aren&#8217;t meant to be taken metaphorically, I realize that.  Anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MH</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90214</link>
		<dc:creator>MH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90214</guid>
		<description>Wayfarer, the purposes of Sunday School are spiritual in nature.  Therefore, it is important to focus on the spiritual aspects of the creation and fall.  I don&#039;t think it is necessarily productive to get into all the nitty gritty details of how evolution is involved at Church.  However, it is certainly fair game here.  I&#039;m certainly no expert on evolution, so I&#039;m sorry I can&#039;t help.  Hopefully some BYU biologists will explain it to you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wayfarer, the purposes of Sunday School are spiritual in nature.  Therefore, it is important to focus on the spiritual aspects of the creation and fall.  I don&#8217;t think it is necessarily productive to get into all the nitty gritty details of how evolution is involved at Church.  However, it is certainly fair game here.  I&#8217;m certainly no expert on evolution, so I&#8217;m sorry I can&#8217;t help.  Hopefully some BYU biologists will explain it to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AndrewJDavis</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90213</link>
		<dc:creator>AndrewJDavis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90213</guid>
		<description>&quot;God did it.  How do we enjoy crea---? (sorry creation is 3 syllables) How do we act as stewards for it?&quot;

That&#039;s my attempt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;God did it.  How do we enjoy crea&#8212;? (sorry creation is 3 syllables) How do we act as stewards for it?&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s my attempt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90196</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90196</guid>
		<description>&quot;I don&#039;t know.&quot;  

How&#039;s that?  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t know.&#8221;  </p>
<p>How&#8217;s that?  <img src='http://mormonmatters.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wayfarer</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90191</link>
		<dc:creator>wayfarer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90191</guid>
		<description>So,am I getting this right when I look at it as currently irreconcilable because our knowledge is limited? I think I&#039;m OK with that,but what bugs me is all the people who seem to know how it all works,who feel that what they have learnt in the temple and Book of Abraham has explained everything to their satisfaction.Makes me feel like the dunce in the back of the math class,at church.And-how do I teach the lesson on the creation in gospel doctrine? Man,I studied that lesson till my head hurt,and still couldn&#039;t make sense of what I was supposed to teach.Someone,tell me how I&#039;m supposed to tell what is literal and what is figurative. Throw me a line.Preferably in words of two syllables.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So,am I getting this right when I look at it as currently irreconcilable because our knowledge is limited? I think I&#8217;m OK with that,but what bugs me is all the people who seem to know how it all works,who feel that what they have learnt in the temple and Book of Abraham has explained everything to their satisfaction.Makes me feel like the dunce in the back of the math class,at church.And-how do I teach the lesson on the creation in gospel doctrine? Man,I studied that lesson till my head hurt,and still couldn&#8217;t make sense of what I was supposed to teach.Someone,tell me how I&#8217;m supposed to tell what is literal and what is figurative. Throw me a line.Preferably in words of two syllables.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-90173</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-90173</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m late to the party, but I have something to contribute. You wanted to know what BYU teaches in its biology classes. I am glad for the link to Dr. Peck&#039;s blog, which I plan to devour.

I took the &quot;everybody&quot; Biology class at BYU in 2003 or 2004 (along with several hundred other BYU students, and that was just one section in one semester). I also took a Geology class a year or two before that. At the time I was staunchly opposed to evolution. To my recollection, they didn&#039;t mince words about it. They (my professors) were unapologetically believers and teachers of evolution. I got the vague impression that there were other professors who held different views, but that the majority had no problem with reconciling evolution and Mormonism.

They didn&#039;t ram it down our throats, I recall that although I held a different opinion I was not offended. And by the end of the semester I had begun to come around. Now I, too, take the scientific evidence at face value without feeling that it threatens my religious and spiritual beliefs (though it has helped to mold them).

Required reading in one of those courses (I don&#039;t remember which) was the book &quot;Finding Darwin&#039;s God&quot; which I recommend reading. I need to go back and read it again, too, now that I find myself on the other side of the fence. http://tinyurl.com/nsfflb</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m late to the party, but I have something to contribute. You wanted to know what BYU teaches in its biology classes. I am glad for the link to Dr. Peck&#8217;s blog, which I plan to devour.</p>
<p>I took the &#8220;everybody&#8221; Biology class at BYU in 2003 or 2004 (along with several hundred other BYU students, and that was just one section in one semester). I also took a Geology class a year or two before that. At the time I was staunchly opposed to evolution. To my recollection, they didn&#8217;t mince words about it. They (my professors) were unapologetically believers and teachers of evolution. I got the vague impression that there were other professors who held different views, but that the majority had no problem with reconciling evolution and Mormonism.</p>
<p>They didn&#8217;t ram it down our throats, I recall that although I held a different opinion I was not offended. And by the end of the semester I had begun to come around. Now I, too, take the scientific evidence at face value without feeling that it threatens my religious and spiritual beliefs (though it has helped to mold them).</p>
<p>Required reading in one of those courses (I don&#8217;t remember which) was the book &#8220;Finding Darwin&#8217;s God&#8221; which I recommend reading. I need to go back and read it again, too, now that I find myself on the other side of the fence. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/nsfflb" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/nsfflb</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-73687</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 00:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-73687</guid>
		<description>#113 - Amen, Greg.  Social Darwinism can be frightening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#113 &#8211; Amen, Greg.  Social Darwinism can be frightening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-73684</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 23:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-73684</guid>
		<description>Great question. I don&#039;t know if I really have much to say about evolution vs. creationism and instead wish to point out that the theory of evolution appears to have been crafted into a social theory. For example, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.believeallthings.com/2944/brigham-young-darwin-huxley-miall&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brigham Young on Darwin, Huxley, and Miall&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.believeallthings.com/2845/charles-darwin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charles Darwin&lt;/a&gt;. This was applied by humanists &quot;without blinking, the strictly biological scheme of the evolution of organisms to the cultural history of the single species Homo sapiens.&quot;

According to Giorgio de Santillans, &quot;In later centuries historians may declare all of us insane, because this incredible blunder was not detected at once and was not refuted with adequate determination. Mistaking cultural history for a process of gradual evolution, we have deprived ourselves of every reasonable insight into the nature of culture. It goes without saying that the still more modern habit of replacing &#039;culture&#039; by &#039;society&#039; has blocked the last narrow path to understanding history. Our ignorance not only remained vast, but became pretentious as well.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great question. I don&#8217;t know if I really have much to say about evolution vs. creationism and instead wish to point out that the theory of evolution appears to have been crafted into a social theory. For example, see <a href="http://www.believeallthings.com/2944/brigham-young-darwin-huxley-miall" rel="nofollow">Brigham Young on Darwin, Huxley, and Miall</a> and <a href="http://www.believeallthings.com/2845/charles-darwin" rel="nofollow">Charles Darwin</a>. This was applied by humanists &#8220;without blinking, the strictly biological scheme of the evolution of organisms to the cultural history of the single species Homo sapiens.&#8221;</p>
<p>According to Giorgio de Santillans, &#8220;In later centuries historians may declare all of us insane, because this incredible blunder was not detected at once and was not refuted with adequate determination. Mistaking cultural history for a process of gradual evolution, we have deprived ourselves of every reasonable insight into the nature of culture. It goes without saying that the still more modern habit of replacing &#8216;culture&#8217; by &#8216;society&#8217; has blocked the last narrow path to understanding history. Our ignorance not only remained vast, but became pretentious as well.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveP</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-71820</link>
		<dc:creator>SteveP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-71820</guid>
		<description>I always arrive late to the party. Evolution at BYU is taught straight up as it would be taught at any university. In fact we just finished Darwin Days with a slew of talks on evolution for the general public. All of the faculty (and I&#039;m on the faculty by the way) believe fully in evolution. Those that are LDS are temple recommend holding, testimony baring,  believers in the restoration. As  am  I. As #21 Geoff J pointed out I have a blog specifically devoted to exploring evolution (and science in general) and LDS faith. 

http://sciencebysteve.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always arrive late to the party. Evolution at BYU is taught straight up as it would be taught at any university. In fact we just finished Darwin Days with a slew of talks on evolution for the general public. All of the faculty (and I&#8217;m on the faculty by the way) believe fully in evolution. Those that are LDS are temple recommend holding, testimony baring,  believers in the restoration. As  am  I. As #21 Geoff J pointed out I have a blog specifically devoted to exploring evolution (and science in general) and LDS faith. </p>
<p><a href="http://sciencebysteve.net" rel="nofollow">http://sciencebysteve.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-66739</link>
		<dc:creator>DB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-66739</guid>
		<description>MH - thank you for that quote.  I especially like the line &quot;there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.&quot;  We should all realize that the answers are there, we may not have them, but they are there.  We should also be smart enough to realize we&#039;re not going to find these answers by contridicting science or scripture in order to make them fit our own limited view of the truth.  Once we&#039;ve done that, we&#039;ve done nothing more than put on blinders that prevent us from ever seeing the truth.  Then we start coming up with really crazy ideas like dinosaurs came from other planets and Adam wasn&#039;t a real person (honestly, if you&#039;re not going to believe that Adam was a real person then why believe that anything in the scriptures is real).  Do science and scripture fit together without changing either of them?  Of course they do.  Those who say that science is correct and scripture can&#039;t be literal just isn&#039;t smart enough to figure out how they work together.  Those who say that scripture is currect and science is hogwash just doesn&#039;t have a strong enough testimony to accept scientific truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MH &#8211; thank you for that quote.  I especially like the line &#8220;there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.&#8221;  We should all realize that the answers are there, we may not have them, but they are there.  We should also be smart enough to realize we&#8217;re not going to find these answers by contridicting science or scripture in order to make them fit our own limited view of the truth.  Once we&#8217;ve done that, we&#8217;ve done nothing more than put on blinders that prevent us from ever seeing the truth.  Then we start coming up with really crazy ideas like dinosaurs came from other planets and Adam wasn&#8217;t a real person (honestly, if you&#8217;re not going to believe that Adam was a real person then why believe that anything in the scriptures is real).  Do science and scripture fit together without changing either of them?  Of course they do.  Those who say that science is correct and scripture can&#8217;t be literal just isn&#8217;t smart enough to figure out how they work together.  Those who say that scripture is currect and science is hogwash just doesn&#8217;t have a strong enough testimony to accept scientific truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mormon Heretic</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-66538</link>
		<dc:creator>Mormon Heretic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-66538</guid>
		<description>Yes DB, There is a great quote from a book called &quot;DNA and Tradition&quot; by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman.

&lt;i&gt;“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ &lt;b&gt;Guide for the Perplexed&lt;/b&gt;.”&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes DB, There is a great quote from a book called &#8220;DNA and Tradition&#8221; by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman.</p>
<p><i>“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ <b>Guide for the Perplexed</b>.”</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-66379</link>
		<dc:creator>DB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:21:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-66379</guid>
		<description>Regarding #106 - isn&#039;t this the great riddle that we are all trying to solve?  To be able to understand science and scripture without having to change one to fit the other.  Despite our many differing opinions we are all essentially the same because we&#039;re all trying to answer the same question.  Where is the answer?  Is it in science?  Is it in scripture?  I say that the answer is in scripture.  The source of the riddle is in scripture, therefore the solution must also be there.  

Science claims that the earth has been around for billions of years and organisms have lived and died for millions of years.  Is this true?  I think the physical evidence is overwhelmingly yes.

Scripture claims that all organisms on the earth (including man) were created by God in an immortal state and that death did not enter the world until the Fall of Adam which occurred around 6,000 years ago.  Is this true?  The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is.

Now, the great paradox is not that they contradict each other but that they don&#039;t.  The answer to this great riddle is not how to change one to fit the other but how to change neither.  Neither side should ridicule the other because neither side has yet to solve the riddle.  Once it is solved, there will be no more sides.  Look to the scriptures, for there is the answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding #106 &#8211; isn&#8217;t this the great riddle that we are all trying to solve?  To be able to understand science and scripture without having to change one to fit the other.  Despite our many differing opinions we are all essentially the same because we&#8217;re all trying to answer the same question.  Where is the answer?  Is it in science?  Is it in scripture?  I say that the answer is in scripture.  The source of the riddle is in scripture, therefore the solution must also be there.  </p>
<p>Science claims that the earth has been around for billions of years and organisms have lived and died for millions of years.  Is this true?  I think the physical evidence is overwhelmingly yes.</p>
<p>Scripture claims that all organisms on the earth (including man) were created by God in an immortal state and that death did not enter the world until the Fall of Adam which occurred around 6,000 years ago.  Is this true?  The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is.</p>
<p>Now, the great paradox is not that they contradict each other but that they don&#8217;t.  The answer to this great riddle is not how to change one to fit the other but how to change neither.  Neither side should ridicule the other because neither side has yet to solve the riddle.  Once it is solved, there will be no more sides.  Look to the scriptures, for there is the answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MH</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65994</link>
		<dc:creator>MH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65994</guid>
		<description>So you are happy with this paradox in your theory?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you are happy with this paradox in your theory?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R. Gary</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65941</link>
		<dc:creator>R. Gary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65941</guid>
		<description>MH (#106), I don&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MH (#106), I don&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MH</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65875</link>
		<dc:creator>MH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65875</guid>
		<description>I have the same question as Aboz.  I&#039;ll direct this to R Gary, but anyone else is free to answer.  If there was no death before the fall of Adam 6000 years ago, how do you explain the dinosaurs, and the settlement of 10000 BC in Turkey?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have the same question as Aboz.  I&#8217;ll direct this to R Gary, but anyone else is free to answer.  If there was no death before the fall of Adam 6000 years ago, how do you explain the dinosaurs, and the settlement of 10000 BC in Turkey?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aboz</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65823</link>
		<dc:creator>Aboz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65823</guid>
		<description>I definitely don&#039;t think they are infallible, because I liken it to myself.  what if I were called to be prophet, God forbid.  That wouldn&#039;t change my beliefs, only my keys and responsibility.  I would be just as fallible as I am now, and I would still be a Talmage-ite.

I view the creation narratives as representations of something literal, but not being literal.  But I take Michael the archangel as a literal pre-existent being that had dealings with Jehovah, and Adam is his mortal identity.  And I cannot invoke &quot;gap&quot; theology in the timelines of the bible, or in modern revelation.  I must assume since I&#039;m a literalist in this sense, that Michael the archangel came 6000 years ago to start this &quot;probationary&quot; time period.  therefore, the probationary time period did not exist before Adam, theologically.  Therefore, I must conclude that the people before Adam were not here for a probationary state, but were in a state much like people with handicaps are in our day, who cannot sin or comprehend things to know good from evil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definitely don&#8217;t think they are infallible, because I liken it to myself.  what if I were called to be prophet, God forbid.  That wouldn&#8217;t change my beliefs, only my keys and responsibility.  I would be just as fallible as I am now, and I would still be a Talmage-ite.</p>
<p>I view the creation narratives as representations of something literal, but not being literal.  But I take Michael the archangel as a literal pre-existent being that had dealings with Jehovah, and Adam is his mortal identity.  And I cannot invoke &#8220;gap&#8221; theology in the timelines of the bible, or in modern revelation.  I must assume since I&#8217;m a literalist in this sense, that Michael the archangel came 6000 years ago to start this &#8220;probationary&#8221; time period.  therefore, the probationary time period did not exist before Adam, theologically.  Therefore, I must conclude that the people before Adam were not here for a probationary state, but were in a state much like people with handicaps are in our day, who cannot sin or comprehend things to know good from evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65821</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65821</guid>
		<description>Fwiw, Aboz, I believe strongly that one of the problems with this issue (and many others that are less obvious) is that we tend to interpret scripture based on how others have interpreted scripture before us.  I accept the need for that, but I also understand the limitations with that.  

I don&#039;t see prophets as infallible in any way, but that is true especially outside the scope of their callings - as the Church&#039;s own statement I referenced at the end of comment #75 says.  Scriptures give us the understanding of the ages about the &quot;why&quot;, and they give us a very sketchy overview of the &quot;how&quot; outline, but those &quot;how outlines&quot; are very rough sketches, imo - painted in very broad brush strokes based on the scientific understanding of those times.  I think, with few exceptions, God speaks to His children in words and images they can understand - and I accept the limitations inherent in that construct.  

If this is true for me with regard to some of our collective, mistaken views of what the Book of Mormon says, it is true even more fundamentally for me with regard to the OT and the creation narratives - especially when I view the Garden narrative as figurative anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fwiw, Aboz, I believe strongly that one of the problems with this issue (and many others that are less obvious) is that we tend to interpret scripture based on how others have interpreted scripture before us.  I accept the need for that, but I also understand the limitations with that.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see prophets as infallible in any way, but that is true especially outside the scope of their callings &#8211; as the Church&#8217;s own statement I referenced at the end of comment #75 says.  Scriptures give us the understanding of the ages about the &#8220;why&#8221;, and they give us a very sketchy overview of the &#8220;how&#8221; outline, but those &#8220;how outlines&#8221; are very rough sketches, imo &#8211; painted in very broad brush strokes based on the scientific understanding of those times.  I think, with few exceptions, God speaks to His children in words and images they can understand &#8211; and I accept the limitations inherent in that construct.  </p>
<p>If this is true for me with regard to some of our collective, mistaken views of what the Book of Mormon says, it is true even more fundamentally for me with regard to the OT and the creation narratives &#8211; especially when I view the Garden narrative as figurative anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65819</link>
		<dc:creator>DB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65819</guid>
		<description>Aboz,

I would just like to add some encouragement to you as you seek the answers to your questions.  I encourage you to ask the Lord for guidance but look for your answers in the scriptures.  Remember that the scriptures are true and science is also true and changing one truth to seemingly fit another will only create a truth and a fallacy.  The answers are there and I wish you luck in finding them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aboz,</p>
<p>I would just like to add some encouragement to you as you seek the answers to your questions.  I encourage you to ask the Lord for guidance but look for your answers in the scriptures.  Remember that the scriptures are true and science is also true and changing one truth to seemingly fit another will only create a truth and a fallacy.  The answers are there and I wish you luck in finding them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aboz</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65818</link>
		<dc:creator>Aboz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:31:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65818</guid>
		<description>GBSmith, this is my point.  You say that Adam is stretched to fit.  I see a 6000 year time period so far of our species fitting +within+ something far bigger.  It isn&#039;t a stretch to say that that 6000 year time period fits +within+ a grander scheme.  I think your point of stretched to fit is a good one.  I don&#039;t have to stretch either set of evidence to fit.  I just have to see how they fit together.  If +both+ are true, which I believe, the question then really is, do the genealogies between sets of humans intersect.  That is the real question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GBSmith, this is my point.  You say that Adam is stretched to fit.  I see a 6000 year time period so far of our species fitting +within+ something far bigger.  It isn&#8217;t a stretch to say that that 6000 year time period fits +within+ a grander scheme.  I think your point of stretched to fit is a good one.  I don&#8217;t have to stretch either set of evidence to fit.  I just have to see how they fit together.  If +both+ are true, which I believe, the question then really is, do the genealogies between sets of humans intersect.  That is the real question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65817</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65817</guid>
		<description>#99 - GB, the reason I qualify &quot;first man, Adam&quot; is because I really don&#039;t feel comfortable taking it further than that.  I just don&#039;t have any idea when that first &quot;man&quot; (defined narrowly as a RELIGIOUS term, meaning a child-of-God spirit in a mortal body) lived.  Remember, the temple used to be explicit about the creation of &quot;the man and the woman&quot; as depicted being figurative.  

#100 - Aboz, you said: 

&quot;God would not tease us with science. He would expect us to pay attention to what is revealed through it. He would expect us to pay attention to Darwin and archaeology just as much as we do to Newton and gravity.&quot;  

I agree totally.  Science can&#039;t tell us the &quot;why&quot; - and science can&#039;t tell us with absolute certainty the &quot;how&quot; of lots of details, but I believe God gave us (or clothed us in pre-existent) intelligence in order to learn exactly those details eventually.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#99 &#8211; GB, the reason I qualify &#8220;first man, Adam&#8221; is because I really don&#8217;t feel comfortable taking it further than that.  I just don&#8217;t have any idea when that first &#8220;man&#8221; (defined narrowly as a RELIGIOUS term, meaning a child-of-God spirit in a mortal body) lived.  Remember, the temple used to be explicit about the creation of &#8220;the man and the woman&#8221; as depicted being figurative.  </p>
<p>#100 &#8211; Aboz, you said: </p>
<p>&#8220;God would not tease us with science. He would expect us to pay attention to what is revealed through it. He would expect us to pay attention to Darwin and archaeology just as much as we do to Newton and gravity.&#8221;  </p>
<p>I agree totally.  Science can&#8217;t tell us the &#8220;why&#8221; &#8211; and science can&#8217;t tell us with absolute certainty the &#8220;how&#8221; of lots of details, but I believe God gave us (or clothed us in pre-existent) intelligence in order to learn exactly those details eventually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aboz</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65816</link>
		<dc:creator>Aboz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65816</guid>
		<description>Ray, I wouldn&#039;t call these things heterodox.  I would call them Talmage-BHRobers-esque, not McConkie-JFSmith-esque.  There has always been those two strains of &quot;orthodoxy&quot;.  Since I cannot rationally side with the McConkie-JFSmith-ites, on this one, I&#039;m seeking rational harmonization with the scriptures that I can personally feel good about.  God would not tease us with science.  He would expect us to pay attention to what is revealed through it.  He would expect us to pay attention to Darwin and archaeology just as much as we do to Newton and gravity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray, I wouldn&#8217;t call these things heterodox.  I would call them Talmage-BHRobers-esque, not McConkie-JFSmith-esque.  There has always been those two strains of &#8220;orthodoxy&#8221;.  Since I cannot rationally side with the McConkie-JFSmith-ites, on this one, I&#8217;m seeking rational harmonization with the scriptures that I can personally feel good about.  God would not tease us with science.  He would expect us to pay attention to what is revealed through it.  He would expect us to pay attention to Darwin and archaeology just as much as we do to Newton and gravity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GBSmith</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65815</link>
		<dc:creator>GBSmith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:17:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65815</guid>
		<description>Ray, thanks for your response and thoughts.  My personal opinion is pretty simple.  I think the biblical account was the best people could do with explaining the origin of man but it&#039;s only allegorical.  As for me to have to believe in Adam as a real person and Eden as a real place is asking too much. It&#039;s like Aboz above pre-adamite humans.  If something has to be stretched to fit, it probably doesn&#039;t fit in the firs place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray, thanks for your response and thoughts.  My personal opinion is pretty simple.  I think the biblical account was the best people could do with explaining the origin of man but it&#8217;s only allegorical.  As for me to have to believe in Adam as a real person and Eden as a real place is asking too much. It&#8217;s like Aboz above pre-adamite humans.  If something has to be stretched to fit, it probably doesn&#8217;t fit in the firs place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65812</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65812</guid>
		<description>Aboz, your questions are examples of the heterodox stuff that I am willing to leave open as possibilities.  I do NOT advocate that stuff, since I am totally fine with &quot;I don&#039;t know&quot; as my ultimate answer (and since some of the ideas that have been advocated in relation to these questions are truly abhorrent to me), but there are all kinds of interesting questions for science to tackle in this arena.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aboz, your questions are examples of the heterodox stuff that I am willing to leave open as possibilities.  I do NOT advocate that stuff, since I am totally fine with &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; as my ultimate answer (and since some of the ideas that have been advocated in relation to these questions are truly abhorrent to me), but there are all kinds of interesting questions for science to tackle in this arena.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aboz</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/#comment-65810</link>
		<dc:creator>Aboz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4695#comment-65810</guid>
		<description>Jeremy Harrison,

You invoke the fact that modern revelation establishes the 7000 year time period.  I would agree.  As does the biblical timeline, establishing adam as round about 4000 BC.  That isn&#039;t the point really, that I&#039;m getting at.  The point is, how does one harmonize the fact that intelligent humans were constructing things around 10000 BC, such as the new megalithic site in Turkey that is carbon dated to that date, with this revelatory information?  How do we harmonize the cave paintings from France with this.  I don&#039;t want to play games with this.  Are we going to suppose that non-Adamic humans constructed these things?  I&#039;m not bashing you.  I want a good answer, since I dont have one, and I&#039;ve been looking for one for a long time.  And invoking the idea that carbon dating is inaccurate is not the answer I&#039;m looking for.  If we say Adam was the first of our species, does this or does this not force use to admit that these pre-Adamic humans had real minds that were actually technologically capable?  Furthermore, do our genealogies intermingle with these &quot;people&quot;, even if Adam was the first &quot;man&quot; from 4000 BC, whatever that means?  I guess what I&#039;m saying is that I&#039;m looking for revelation from God on this one, not man, and I&#039;m searching for some bit of feedback from people before I take these things to the Lord, because I&#039;m not really bothered by these things, but I do want to know the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeremy Harrison,</p>
<p>You invoke the fact that modern revelation establishes the 7000 year time period.  I would agree.  As does the biblical timeline, establishing adam as round about 4000 BC.  That isn&#8217;t the point really, that I&#8217;m getting at.  The point is, how does one harmonize the fact that intelligent humans were constructing things around 10000 BC, such as the new megalithic site in Turkey that is carbon dated to that date, with this revelatory information?  How do we harmonize the cave paintings from France with this.  I don&#8217;t want to play games with this.  Are we going to suppose that non-Adamic humans constructed these things?  I&#8217;m not bashing you.  I want a good answer, since I dont have one, and I&#8217;ve been looking for one for a long time.  And invoking the idea that carbon dating is inaccurate is not the answer I&#8217;m looking for.  If we say Adam was the first of our species, does this or does this not force use to admit that these pre-Adamic humans had real minds that were actually technologically capable?  Furthermore, do our genealogies intermingle with these &#8220;people&#8221;, even if Adam was the first &#8220;man&#8221; from 4000 BC, whatever that means?  I guess what I&#8217;m saying is that I&#8217;m looking for revelation from God on this one, not man, and I&#8217;m searching for some bit of feedback from people before I take these things to the Lord, because I&#8217;m not really bothered by these things, but I do want to know the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

