We welcome thoughtful, reasoned comments here on the FAIR blog. On 2 August you left a series of comments on various posts that were rude and, in some cases, inappropriate. I’ve removed most of these, and invite you to tone down your comments when you participate here. Further snarky comments or obnoxious behavior will get you banned.

—Mike, admin

You forget–the Bible dictionary is not cannon; it is a study guide.

And, yes, despite what you think, there was death in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve ate something, did what they ate die in the process? How about when the animals in the Garden ate something; did what they eat die?

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair? How about fingernails? Those are both made up of dead cells, are they not?

Of course there was death before the fall, unless you say that nobody ate anything in the Garden–although God said that they should eat–and nobody had hair or nails.

(I speak for myself in these comments; not for FAIR. Don’t try to say that FAIR believes this; we are not a monolithic organization.)

-Allen

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2

“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.”

No death. Get it? Death is the keystone to the Theory of Evolution. No death, no evolution. Survival of the fittest implies non-survival of the weakest or death.

I don’t think you sound “sad” about it at all Michael.

This means that probably all Native Americans are Lamanites regardless of where they now live or whether the Book of Mormon was local or hemispheric or whether or not the hemisphere was populated when Lehi arrived

The “descendant” argument is probably the weakest part of the hemispherical/local debate. In fact, it isn’t even part of it. Modern Prophets and Apostles assumed that the Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were “Lamanites” because they also assumed that all of these peoples’ lineages originated with the Book of Mormon populations.

Obviously, apologists have to believe that there were other populations with many people already in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites (and Mulekites) arrived. Science and anthropology demand it.

But if we go by what the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles have said, the obvious (and to some, inspired) reading is that the land was vacant when the Jaredites arrived (being the first group after the flood), and the Lehites found a land that was vacant (or “preserved”) for them, with the exception of the Jaredite remnant. Frankly, I can’t see how to argue strongly for either position witout feeling a tad silly, so I’m content to let the Sorensenites and Meldrumites battle it out for the hearts and minds of the few LDS who actually care.

The Lehites landed in a continent already filled with millions of people and the Book of Mormon describes only a tiny fraction of the western hemisphere population between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400

What evidence do you have to support your above assertions?

Theodore

The points you make are valid considerations. However, the calculations are not mine but, as I mentioned, they are the calculations of astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. I don’t know how he selected his range of possibilities. That these constants are fixed is true, but why are they fixed at the exact levels that are favorable to life? If the only element in the universe was hydrogen, if there was no life it wouldn’t matter. No one there to care. The whole point is that these forces are fixed at the exact levels that are favorable to life. This would not be possible by random chance. Only if the universe was designed for life.

Even if we did not consider these astrophysical conditions in the calculations the other considerations still make it impossible for life to come about by chance. DNA alone is impossible by chance. One cell stores all the design information necessary to build and entire human being, cell by cell. It also includes the software program, and the communications capability to interact with all subsequently produced cells. As Bill Gates said, “DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.” Programs are developed by intelligence. Information is only stored and used by intelligence. This does not happen by chance from big explosions.

Theodore

If the Book of Mormon is historical, ALL Native Americans in the western hemisphere are almost certainly Lamanites regardless of any assumption about geography or demographics.

If we apply the same statistical extrapolation to the question “Which members of the Church in 1900 had an ancestor of African origin?”, the implications for the priesthood ban are catastrophic.

So what? That is irrelevant to THIS issue. The fact remains that if Lehi has descendants 2600 years later, the probably is close to 100% that all the people in the population are his descendants. This means that probably all Native Americans are Lamanites regardless of where they now live or whether the Book of Mormon was local or hemispheric or whether or not the hemisphere was populated when Lehi arrived.

In theory it is quite simple. You identify all of the factors that are necessary for life on the planet, calculate their individual probability of randomly occurring, and then multiply these probabilities by each other.

Yes, you can multiply the probabilities if the events are independent. That is the easy part.

The hard part is determining the probabilities in the first place. Consider the first factor you mentioned:

What is the probability that the force of gravity is just what it is? If the force of gravity was weaker stars would not be compacted tight enough for fusion to occur. If gravity was stronger stars would burn so hot they would burnout in short time.

Although you may be right about the consequences of a different value for the gravitational constant, you have not demonstrated that the gravitational constant could be different than it is. One could argue that G is not a random variable but a universal constant that has the only value it can have.

Even supposing that G could take on a different value (in a different universe perhaps?), you still do not have enough information to compute a probability for it. What range of values could G take? Are some values more likely than others? What determines the value of G?

Similar questions can be raised for the other fundamental constants you mentioned. There seems to be no way to know what range of values are permissible or which are more likely. We cannot even be sure that the fundamental constants are independent of each other.

So your probability calculation appears doomed from the start.

I am not saying that you should refrain from such calculations; however, be aware that the results may not convince anyone that God created all things in the heavens and earth.

Moreover, there is a danger that your efforts could backfire. A spurious “proof” can damage your credibility and raise questions about the other things you say.

If the Book of Mormon is historical, ALL Native Americans in the western hemisphere are almost certainly Lamanites regardless of any assumption about geography or demographics.

If we apply the same statistical extrapolation to the question “Which members of the Church in 1900 had an ancestor of African origin?”, the implications for the priesthood ban are catastrophic.

Does “kind” mean “species”?

Gen 1:11 “kind” – From the Hebrew noun “miyn” meaning kind or species (usually of animals)

Theodore

(1) the Lehites landed in a continent already filled with millions of people and the Book of Mormon describes only a tiny fraction of the western hemisphere population between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400

and

(2) every Native American in the western hemisphere in A.D. 1492 had Lehi as a genetic ancestor.

Any statement is false that claims there is some kind of discrepancy or problem with “assuming a limited Book of Mormon geography in a vastly populated hemisphere” and “having ALL Native Americans be literal descendants of Laman (i.e., genetic Lamanites).”

As for which of a person’s ancestors is the “principal” ancestor, one can just as well point to the most important or most significant as to any other criteria. (One could pose the question of which is Prince Charles’ “principal ancestor.” The answer has no uniquely true answer—Queen Victoria works as well as any despite the fact that she has no more genetic importance to Prince Charles than any other of his 32 ggg grandparents.) If the Book of Mormon is historical, and if all Native Americans are descended from Lehi and Laman regardless of the New World population at the time of Lehi’s arrival, then it is clear, at least to me, that Lehi is the principal ancestor of both North American Indians and all other Native Americans in the western hemisphere.

Lineages in patriarchal blessings are thus entirely irrelevant in the discussion of either Book of Mormon geographies or New World population histories. Similarly, statements that some particular Native American tribe or tribal area is “Lamanite” is equally irrelevant. If the Book of Mormon is historical, ALL Native Americans in the western hemisphere are almost certainly Lamanites regardless of any assumption about geography or demographics.

1) I am not an apologist for the Church. I have posted a number of comments throughout Fair which clearly demonstrate that I am largely skeptical of much of what the Church teaches. So, I take credit for nothing regarding Church policy. President Kimball effected Church policy governing the Priesthood ban, but I would argue that apologists have led the charge in effecting ideology. You will notice that the 1978 revelation is often coined the revelation on Priesthood, not the revelation on race. It simply allows for all worthy males to fully participate in the Priesthood regardless of race, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, independant intellectuals and groups such as Fair were the first to address the the former racist notions taught by early Church leaders. A position which Church leaders are finally willing to openly address now.

2)”Interesting how you fail to address the link at FAIR which attempts to alter the LDS history and revelation.”

Seeing as I am not a Fair apologist, it is not all interesting. The fact that I addressed revision, which you even critiqued, should demonstrate my views on the matter, which makes that observation even more uninteresting.

I find it interesting that you chose not to defend the absurd conclusion that Fair, among others, is headed down a slippery slope to discounting the humanity of American Indians.

3) “D&C 28 identified who the Lamanites were. FAIR is preaching false doctrine on this. Your ridicule of the American Indian while taking great care to prevent offense to blacks is disgusting.”

No one has ridiculed the American Indian in this discussion, unless perhaps you are an American Indian, in which case I have ridiculed a single American Indian. But this on account only of the absurdity of your comments, and not all due to your ancestry of which I am not even certain. You have made blanket accussations against those you term to be apologists, attacking no less their faith and integrity. This on account of being in disagreement with you. You apparently see yourself as the gold standard for truth and right.

The revision came through revelation, not by the apologetics. So you take credit for the revelation of the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball?

Interesting how you fail to address the link at FAIR which attempts to alter the LDS history and revelation.

Jude’s words of contending for the faith were in reference to members within.

My experience with apologetics are that they are liars, deceivers, and non-belivers. My patron saint for lost causes leads me to the idea that his words can be applied to some apologetics found at FAIR.

Let’s be realistic here. You really do not believe the LDS doctrine, and have no faith. As a cowboy, I suppose your horse is a tapir? How do you round one up when it is at the bottom of the river hiding? Spaniards found five or six dogs were often killed by the tapir while trying to capture it. One even bit off the arm of a zoo keeper.

You may believe that you are doing good for the church, but it becomes obvious that like Thomas S. Ferguson, there are many who really do not believe but because they think it is the best fraternal organization on earth, choose to remain and defend it.

D&C 28 identified who the Lamanites were. FAIR is preaching false doctrine on this. Your ridicule of the American Indian while taking great care to prevent offense to blacks is disgusting.

Have a nice day.

Yes, and in that spirit let me reply to the rest of your comment.

“Again Cowboy, you have misunderstood me. I was not talking about the Church and it’s members, I was talking about the so called apologetics as those found at FAIR.”

Vs.

“…a disregard toward the American Indian can and does occur with some in the general LDS membership.”

So is it the “so called apologetics”, “the general membership”, or “some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation” which are classifying American Indians as subhuman? I understand the general concern some people have with innovation in LDS apologetics. The Church for a long time has made some pretty bold claims regarding the broad range of American Indians including South/Central American peoples. LDS Prophets and apostles have alluded to “the children of Lehi” while speaking in South American conferences. To all of the sudden change the tune would cause confusion, particularly for members who fall into those classifications of people.

These conflicts between LDS teachings regarding heritage and modern science have been, as you have noted, a stumbling block for many which has led to the conclusion that The Church is not true. I would argue that this is the most common response, “The Church said I am a descendant from Book of Mormon peoples, science clearly shows ancestry which would pre-date that. The Prophets must have been wrong, therefore the Church is not true.” This is where the “apologetics” come in. In order to address these disputes between science and LDS claims, apologists theorize potential, sometimes even extreme, possibilities which give LDS claims plausibility. That is the best that they can do given that many of the claims which they are defending are unsubstantiated in the first place. Even so, I can assure you (though I am not a spokesperson for any apolgist organization) that in spite of this agenda to intellectually defend The Church, no legitimate apolegetic organization (Fair, FARMS, etc) is ever going to adopt and circulate theories which rank any class of people as subhuman. That is the concern you ultimately raise, and given your prior comment to me (about wasting your time) it is now the point which I now freely ridicule. As for the general membership, I do not see any such theories there either. So you are left with possibly “some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation”.

Lastly, on a few occassions you seem to lament the belief that you are misunderstood by the hyped up intellectuals on fair. I wonder if you are misunderstanding them. Recognizing the concern that some apolgetic theories could be ultimately damaging, perhaps you might try and understand to difficulty in defending formerly held world views, anchored in a religion, against modern evolving anthropology, physics, etc. If we did not have revisionism in the Church, it would still be commonly circulated that Africans descended from Cain, and were marked for being “less valiant” in the pre-existence. Ultimately what these intellectuals do is good for the Church.

Again Cowboy, you have misunderstood me. I was not talking about the Church and it’s members, I was talking about the so called apologetics as those found at FAIR.

The speculations of evolution and the flood even on this blog seem ridiculous. As far as your statement about prophets and revelation, according to FAIR, “Lamanites” to describe the American Indians was Joseph’s word choice in D&C 28.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Lamanites_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants

This goes against the history of the LDS church, the first mission of Oliver Cowdery to the Lamanites, as well as Joseph Smith’s words to the Sac, Fox and Pottawami.

In other words, FAIR pulls the plug on revelation and becomes free to speculate, even in disregard to the Doctrine and Covenants which most LDS consider revealed teachings.

I understand fully what church and what members, I was talking about the wild speculations made by some at FAIR, who claim to be LDS.

Some of these ideas are quite popular, and of those concerning Central America theories, a disregard toward the American Indian can and does occur with some in the general LDS membership.

As I have found no anchor to teachings of the prophets by some at FAIR, I simply was pointing out how far ungrounded ideas have run in the past.

Do you make it a habit to ridicule what you do not understand?

I’m genuinely always impressed with responses.

I’m sorry that I have wasted your time. I didn’t think you were talking about aliens, but I found the rest of the concern mostly ridiculous, so I postulated that perhaps it was completely ridiculous. First, I think you fail to understand what Church, and therefore members you are talking about. The premise of the Church is Prophets, revelation, etc. The current attitude, and overt teaching from the Church (largely to make up for the past) is that we are all children of our Father in Heaven, regardless of race. I am not accusing the members of not thinking for themselves with what I am about to say, but what goes hand in hand with the Prophets is that they speak for God, and the current Prophet is always the most correct. They establish doctrine, it is sustained, and thing’s move forward. It is very unlikely for any wild theory, such as what you are suggesting, to get any type of recognizable traction independent of the Church’s current teaching’s clearly to the contrary. Book of Mormon geography debates such as whether main events took place in either North, South, or Central America do not challenge fundemental doctrines of the Church, so they are allowed to continue. You better believe however, the Church would immediately address and put an end to any discussion with even a minor foothold, which taught that on account of race some people or lower life forms. If not out of decency, then out of public relations. Can you imagine the PR nightmare of what you are proposing.

I would be very interested in seeing a proof that evolution is “mathematically impossible.” I cannot even imagine how one might set up the mathematics. Do you?

In theory it is quite simple. You identify all of the factors that are necessary for life on the planet, calculate their individual probability of randomly occurring, and then multiply these probabilities by each other. (In practice it would probably take a team of researchers and a supercomputer)

Start with astrophysical conditions:
What is the probability that the force of gravity is just what it is? If the force of gravity was weaker stars would not be compacted tight enough for fusion to occur. If gravity was stronger stars would burn so hot they would burnout in short time. What is the probability that the strong nuclear force is just what it is? If it were much weaker protons and neutrons would not stick together and the only element we would have in the universe would be hydrogen. If it was a little stronger the protons and neutrons would bind too tightly together and we would have no hydrogen, and therefore no life. What is the probability of the electromagnetic force being just what it is? If the electromagnetic force were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other. If the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. Dr. Hugh Ross at California Institute of Technology calculated the probability of a combination of just eight such required conditions at 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power. (Hugh Ross, “The Creator and the Cosmos,” 1995)
There are about 10 to the 84th power sub-atomic particles in the universe, so the probability of these eight items occurring by chance is like picking one sub-atomic particle at random out all the particles in 100,000 universes.

Then one has to multiply this by the probability that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, in not too elliptical orbit, not too much larger or smaller, the right amount oxygen, carbon dioxide and water. We need a moon about the right size and distance to stabilize the axis and tides. Etc, Etc. (Incidentally, what is the probability that the sun and the moon both appear the same size from the surface of the earth and give us perfect eclipses?) Then multiply these probabilities by each other and by 10 to the 92nd power above.

Now start multiplying in the probability of life developing. Some scientists have measured the chance of a replicating molecule occurring by chance at 10 to the 450th power. Biochemist Dr. Frank Salisbury has calculated the probability of a typical DNA chain arising by chance to be 10 to the 600th power.. Etc, etc, etc. (see “How Did the Universe Begin?” by Ralph Epperson, http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html )

If each particle in the universe could participate in a thousand billion different events every second, then the greatest number of events that could ever happen in all of the universe throughout its entire history is only 10 to the 110th power. Most mathematicians consider a probability of 10 to the 50th power as impossible and therefore zero. Even if we extend that to 10 to the 110th power life is still absolutely impossible from chance arising from a horrendous explosion of the Big Bang. Biologist Edward Conklin stated that, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop.” Someone else has compared the probability of life happening by chance to an explosion in a junk yard randomly producing an airworthy 747. Or, as my father once told me: “That life was created by a supreme intelligence can be proven by the theorem of “ridiculosus absurdum.” Any other explanation is ridiculous and absurd.”

Theodore

I have not suggested that the Church is headed that way, but the possibility of individuals becoming misguided in a series of logical deductions can occur.

The general membership does seem to be headed in a direction of disregard for the North American indigenous people, due to the popularity surrounding Meso-America and the DNA theory of a small group introduced into a much larger gene pool. FAIR links contribute to this.

Those considered not to be Book of Mormon descendants then can become objects of curiosity concerning their origin. With the merge of science and religion, some theorists will likely consider them outside of Adam and Eve in their ancestoral origins.

This can set up an new set of prejudices among some, such as the opinion that certain indigenous groups mixed with the seed of Adam and Eve, and are therefor not as pure a race, etc. Harmful ideologies found in the historical past had beginnings such as this.

I am not suggesting the church is headed that way, but influences from intellects carry and spread.

There are individuals with prejudices that we can only wish were antiquated. The American Indian experiences things that those unaffiliated with them have no idea of.

Cowboy said: “Are you suggesting that “some whites” along the Navajo reservation are advocating that some American Indians are either, a lower species of human, or aliens?”

I used the Navajo has an example that LDS in Utah might not be aware of. There are whites who even today consider that the American Indian is not human. The rationale is certainly not “alien”, but rather a primate species.

I really think I have wasted my time with you on this, what with “alien” comments, and your misunderstanding my first comment of white directed prejudice toward non-white, in the way you turned it around in your question, “You are suggesting that the theories among the Navajo membership entail that the American indians must be “subhuman”. This is a view they hold regarding themselves then?”

Sadly, it is my experience that LDS “intellects” are blind and far too often wrong.

I think I am still misunderstanding you however. I am aware of some antiquated prejudices where those who supposedly descended from Cain are perhaps substandard humans. Or at least they represent a seperate caste of mortals per conduct and designed in the pre-existence. These as far as I am aware, never challenged a human populations genus, perhaps excepting the early Church history description of Cain. Are you suggesting that “some whites” along the Navajo reservation are advocating that some American Indians are either, a lower species of human, or aliens?

No, you have misunderstood me. This is an attitude among some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation.

Cowboy said: “I don’t see the tendecy of thinking to lean to entirely new perspectives on man’s orgins, rather just a give and take marrying of the two schools of thought.”

This is my concern. It is not a new perspective to consider other people as less than human. The give and take to marry two schools of thought is risky.

I already listed: The D&C is given off as not our Savior’s words, but instead Joseph Smith’s word choice concerning the word “Lamanite”. This unhinges what is regarded as revelation. Does the name of the LDS church then become Joseph word choice also?

Compromising the revelations and scripture to marry them with current scientific thoughts is not something to consider lightly. The philosophy of Kuhn might suggest this, but Pascal provides a different view.

Indigenous peoples of both North and South America have lost their LDS faith over the DNA issue. There are numerous news sources which can be found by google. Why play with the flood, the origin of races, etc.?

Can no one see the harm resulting from playing with “intellectual” ideas as a hobby? There are living indigenous individuals who are feeling they have been lied to.

Cowboy said: “I am not familiar with this type of rational.”

Please try to see how theories can be harmful to faith of others different from you, and dangerous to other humans. History has shown what has occurred concerning race.

As I understand it, life probabilities theories have been largely abandoned given the perceptual distortions such models lead to in the context of the universe. I have read reasonable arguments which challenge such calculations when considered in light of the expansiveness of time and space. In other words, when you compare the probability of a dog mutating in a kennel, to planets and life appearing over the breadth encompassed by time and space in the universe, randomness seems improbable. When placed in proper context, ie billions of years over the full spectrum of matter and space randomness seems less absurd.

For the record, I actually believe creation was divine, though I will not try and explain the mechanics behind the matter.

Scientifically speaking, life on earth is so amazingly complex that for it to happen by random chance is mathematically impossible.

I would be very interested in seeing a proof that evolution is “mathematically impossible.” I cannot even imagine how one might set up the mathematics. Do you?

So your question then becomes, did God use the process of evolution to create the life we know, or did He use some other method? We then must turn to God to find the answer to that question rather than to science.

I agree that only God can answer the question.

God specifically stated that He did not use evolution because He commanded every living thing “to multiply each after its own kind in its own sphere and element,” and He observed that they all obeyed.

Does “kind” mean “species”?

Science has a long way to go before we can understand scientifically how God does things.

Agreed.

You are suggesting that the theories among the Navajo membership entail that the American indians must be “subhuman”. This is a view the hold regarding themselves then?

There is a FAIR link that attempts to state “Lamanites” in D&C 28 was Joseph Smith’s word choice and not our Savior’s words.

Another link at FAIR suggests the idea that the American Indian being Book of Mormon people is only a tradition among church members and not necessarily true. When coupled with the previous link, some individuals could arrive at the opinion of excluding the American Indian.

Now the issue of evolution and religion. Where did these people come from before the BoM times? The idea of science and dating 50,000 years or more places individuals in the Americas before Adam and Eve, unless one considers the first humans much later than science suggests.

As I said, the stage is being set. Yes, most people cringe at the suggestion, but in all of this is confusion. When an LDS member accepts that not all or possibly even no American Indian are Book of Mormon people, the indigenous ones face exclusion from the scriptural history.

Next, the reasoning is where did they originate? This same issue of origination was argued from the time of the first discovery of the Americas.

The one thing the LDS faith has had in strength for the American Indian was that they were a unique people with great promised blessings.

None of these logic stages are open, direct and spoken as I have here. Instead they remain clouded in the backs of peoples minds. Most non-indigenous LDS members do not see the outcome or realize their own words and actions.

As an example, my wife (25 years married) stated in a relief society class that the Book of Mormon was about her people, and the lands mentioned were her ancestoral lands as well as all other indigenous ones. She was questioned afterwards by a priesthood leader for making statements outside of the teachings of the Church. My wife is an enrolled tribal member of a South Dakota reservation. The ward as a whole follows the Meso-American theory.

As far as considering some groups less than human, this is not seen by most LDS members in larger stakes, but it does get expressed in small communities bordering the Navajo reservation in Southern Utah.

Could you be more specific, I am not aware of any LDS born ideaology which suggests that some groups people are not human. I am familiar with some fringe theories which tie Brigham Young’s comments of moon inhabitants with the lost tribes of Israel. Even still, the best source for those types of claims have been from members of no consequence in local sunday school settings. This notwithstanding, even generally uninformed members appear to cringe at these type of comments. You seem to be stressing the concern that this type of thinking may recieve broader traction amongst the general membership, but I just don’t see it happening. In what venues are you observing this line rhetoric?

I like your position. There are others who do not see it as you do. Some go so far as to suggest that a patriarchal blessing lineage for an American Indian (North America indigenous) is adoption only, in spite of the key words such as outlined in the January 1991 Ensign.

The problem with the intro change to the BoM is that those who do not see it as you do on the time line also forget that the flood would destroy all human life except those on the Ark. Hence, the Jaredites are the best explanation, as the indigenous ones found in North America had to have come after the flood.

Those who speculate otherwise (including some LDS apologetics) are not participating in a paradigm shift, they are bringing up old prejudices concerning the origins of races.

There are LDS apologetics whose ideas set the stage for a return of a very harmful and destructive concept of some races being less than human. I know you would never go along with this, but it is happening.

I am very familiar with Kuhn, and many non-LDS writers who use his philosophy are aethiest. Pascal makes it clear that at the end of our reasoning begins the realization of how little we really know. Not all can be revealed to us in mortality or there would be no need to live by faith.

Faith is a belief in things unseen, and to have all things revealed destroys the need for faith. Kuhn’s philosophy can and has been used in very faith destructive ways.

First of all, I have not been aware of any Latter-Day Saints seriously proposing the absurd thought that the natives of North America are somehow subhuman. I hesitate to even respond to the concept for fear of lending it respectability.

The revealed word of God is clear that Adam was the first man. It is also clear that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. He lived on what is now the American Continent, which has been inhabited (almost continuously) from that time. Based primarily on radiocarbon dating, the current scientific view is that America was inhabited by humans for 40,000 to 50,000 years. There are several basic problems with radiocarbon dating that make these time periods highly questionable. As I mentioned above, when there is a conflict between revelation and current scientific thought I will side with the revelation every time. Others will attempt to adjust the revelation to coincide with the current consensus.

As for the heritage of the American Indian, I do not subscribe to the theory of the Book of Mormon events being confined to Mesoamerica, but find that the geographical evidence within the pages of the Book of Mormon itself is a perfect fit across the North American Continent, from Costa Rica to Cumorah. (see “A North American Setting For The Book Of Mormon,” http://brandley.poulsenll.org/ )

I also do not agree that there were others in addition to the Book of Mormon people living in North America at that time. They were not required by the text and the text specifically states there weren’t any others. (see my discussion with Steven Danderson on his topic Deus ex machina on the FAIRBlog http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/18/deus-ex-machina/ )
There was another 1,000 years after the Nephite period of which we have no historical record and the Lord could have brought any number of immigrants from wherever to settle in America during that time.

Incidently, how can the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn be used and justified by some LDS apologetics? Blaise Pascal is much more substantial concerning faith and reason.

Kuhn’s philosophy of “paradigm shifts” in scientific thought is actually a strong argument for hanging onto the revealed view when science and revelation do not agree. The scientific consensus will one day change, but the revelation will hold fast. I agree with you about Pascal. He tried to find new truths by building on established truths. Sort of like “line upon line.” But Pascal was concerned about his own method because he thought it impossible to find rock-bottom truths on which to base everything else. That problem is solved when we rely upon the bedrock truths of revelation. “Upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18) That is the rock of revelation.

Theodore

My concern, as I have stated, is that evolution not be used in conjunction with religion to declare a specific race to be non-human.

This idea concerning the American Indian could take root with some LDS because of the ideas flying around concerning the origin of North American indigenous people before the Book of Mormon events.

I am not arguing, rather simply trying to remind religious members of the LDS faith of the harm which can originate from ideas.

Incidently, how can the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn be used and justified by some LDS apologetics? Blaise Pascal is much more substantial concerning faith and reason.

Opinion and speculation concerning religion and science is dangerous when such ideas of the past return.

.

The Theory of Evolution has had a far too detrimental effect on religion to be immune from religious scrutiny.

Theodore

With Meso-American theories, living individuals there are considered childern of Lehi, but North American indigenous people are being excluded by many crazy ideas. I just want to point out the harm of this, and the atrocities that have occurred when some regard another group as not human.

I expect it to be incorporated in the next update of the Gospel Doctrine class guide for the Old Testament, as it (or something similar) is logically required to correlate the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Divine Creation.

For example, the change to the Book of Mormon introduction allows for people to be in the America’s before the arrival of BoM people.

Science tells us that the America’s were inhabited as recently as the end of the last ice-age, possible as long ago as more than 50,000 years.

The harm comes when people consider the Bible chronology, then question the story of the flood, and arrive at a conclusion that the North American Indian is not human because they were indiginous before Adam and Eve.

Dehumanizing other living persons has been the source of atrocity and genocide, slavery, etc.

The possibility that this rationale can occur among LDS must be addressed and stopped.

The Mormon Wiki attempts to define D&C 28, etc as Joseph Smith’s word choice for “Lamanite”, and not the Savior’s words. Such things will lead in the minds of flawed thinkers to “racial groups who are not human”.

Opinion and speculation concerning religion and science is dangerous when such ideas of the past return.

…wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; (Moroni 7:16-17)

Darwinism has led many away from Christ. As evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr emphasized, “The real core of Darwinism is natural selection which permits the explanation of adaption…by natural means, instead of by divine intervention” (Forward to “Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse, 1982). Or as Law professor Phillip Johnson, author of “Darwin on Trial” stated, “The whole point of Darwinism is to show that there is no need for a supernatural creator, because nature can do the creating by itself” (quoted in “World,” July/August 2002). Time magazine summed it up this way. “Charles Darwin didn’t want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did.” (Charles Darwin, “Time” December 31, 1999)

It is unreasonable that God would use a process that would turn his children away from him.

I will try and be a little more specific (as for references the net is full of them). One example in the fossil record is the “Cambrian Explosion.” This is where millions of new species suddenly come into existence. Below this fossil layer are lower forms of life such as single celled and soft bodied creatures, such as worms. As P. K. mentioned, Darwin knew about it and noted that this would be the main objection to his theory. Since then there have been various hypothesis developed to try and explain how this could be and still support the theory of evolution. As you mentioned, “punctuated equilibrium” is one these. It was promoted primarily by Eldredge and Gould beginning in a published paper in 1972. They suggest what are obvious “bursts” in evolutionary change but do not have a good explanation as to why. Their theory has since been criticized by other scientists who offer their own alternative explanations. The bottom line is that this question has not been resolved by the scientific community.

This Cambrian Explosion more clearly matches the revealed record that details creative periods, where new species are created at each period and commanded to multiply “each after their own kind.” These periods are of indeterminate length and do not require a young earth.

P.K.

Some people look at the natural world and see everywhere the handiwork of God; others see nothing but atoms and void. The same evidence is available to all, yet disagreement remains as to what the evidence means.

This is exactly true. The evidence may be factual but the interpretation of the evidence is highly subjective. This is why I trust the Lord’s explanation when it seems to conflict with the subjective interpretation of others. He is in a better position to know the truth. And, yes, that is a matter of faith.

So I return to my previous question: If God is directing the process of evolution, how would we ever know? It seems to me that no scientific test can answer the question, because science as currently practiced does not deal with supernatural (or supranatural) processes.

Scientifically speaking, life on earth is so amazingly complex that for it to happen by random chance is mathematically impossible. So your question then becomes, did God use the process of evolution to create the life we know, or did He use some other method? We then must turn to God to find the answer to that question rather than to science. God specifically stated that He did not use evolution because He commanded every living thing “to multiply each after its own kind in its own sphere and element,” and He observed that they all obeyed.
Science has a long way to go before we can understand scientifically how God does things. Someday we will know. We will then say, “O yeah! Now I understand.”

Ray,

I like it!

Theodore

If there is only one percent DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees that is a testimony to the efficiency of His design. I think He gets “comic relief” from listening to us try and figure out how He did it.

Speaking of which, you might like this:

A little girl asked her mother:

‘How did the human race appear?’

The mother answered, ‘God made Adam and Eve;

they had children; and so was all mankind made.’

Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.

The father answered,

‘Many years ago there were monkeys from

which the human race evolved.’

The confused girl returned to her mother and said,

‘Mum, how is it possible that you told me the

human race was created by God,

and Dad said they developed from monkeys?’

The mother answered,

‘Well, dear, it is very simple.

I told you about my side of the family,

and your father told you about his.’

There is a significant difference in the fossil record from what would be expected from gradual evolution. There are several periods when millions of new species suddenly come into existence. This is consistent with the scriptural record.

The abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record has long been known: Darwin himself addressed the issue, and scientists have proposed various models to account for it.

As for consistency with the scriptural record, much depends on how one interprets scripture. For instance, I have difficulty reconciling a young-earth interpretation of the Bible with the physical evidence.

Some people look at the natural world and see everywhere the handiwork of God; others see nothing but atoms and void. The same evidence is available to all, yet disagreement remains as to what the evidence means.

So I return to my previous question: If God is directing the process of evolution, how would we ever know?

It seems to me that no scientific test can answer the question, because science as currently practiced does not deal with supernatural (or supranatural) processes.

There is a significant difference in the fossil record from what would be expected from gradual evolution. There are several periods when millions of new species suddenly come into existence. This is consistent with the scriptural record.

That has to be the most generally worded (and un-referenced) claim I have ever heard. But it pretty much has to be. If you were to get any more specific about “punctuated equilibrium” and what the “scriptural record” actually says, that claim would fall to pieces (or end up in published book form on the shelf at Deseret Book).

If we are to create we loose some control over what we create and so did God when he created the earth.

That must explain how Satan ended up in control of the waters.

I think it also is true for inanimate objects. If you have ever don’t a work of art or of writing or anything that takes creativity during the creative process it seems to take on a life of it’s own and turns out not exactly like you intended but some how better.

If we are to create we loose some control over what we create and so did God when he created the earth.

That is true for whatever is given agency to choose, like our kids. It is not so true for inanimate objects we might create such as a sculpture. However, it is still subject to the elements and outside forces that affect it and does not remain exactly the way it was created forever.

Some years ago I was teaching a gospel doctrine class on the subject of agency. A sister with four teenage boys, who was sitting in the back of the room, put up her hand and said, “I always believed in the principle of agency, until I learned that it also applied to your kids.”

Theodore

would God-directed evolution and undirected evolution produce results that appear significantly different in the fossil record?

There is a significant difference in the fossil record from what would be expected from gradual evolution. There are several periods when millions of new species suddenly come into existence. This is consistent with the scriptural record.

Theodore

If there is only one percent DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees that is a testimony to the efficiency of His design. I think He gets “comic relief” from listening to us try and figure out how He did it. As Gail said, “like kindergartners arguing over the correct proof of a calculus theorem?”

cinepro,

If you do not believe that God directed evolution, and you do not believe that it happened by chance, How do you then account for it? Was it programmed into the Big Bang? If so, what intelligence programmed it?

(To add: if God is directing it, is it really “evolution”?)

If the supreme intelligence of the universe programmed it then it is intelligent design.

Theodore