Quantcast
Utah

Mormonism allows Huntsman, Romney to embrace science, article says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    As an LDS person who accepts the findings of climate scientists and believes in evolution, I am relieved that Mitt and Jon have not lost their minds like Mr. Perry of TX.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    How refreshing.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    This is good to hear. I'm getting tired of listening to politicians trash science for their own gain.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:18 a.m.

    As a believing LDS person who also accepts Science - I see no contridiction either.

    The Global Warming deniers are both ignoring not only the facts and data, BUTY ignoring their Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as well.

    Sad to see so many good LDS people choosing the far-right-wing extremeists of the GOP -- while rejecting not only our Mormon Leaders and our doctrines, but proven facts, data, and Science...all conscious reasoning as well...for political posturing.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    Watch the Ben Stein DVD "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed". It is an amazing fit to Mormonism. Is not God truth as well as love?

  • Admiring Gentile Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    There's a very simple explanation for why Mormons can easily embrace concepts like evolution and climate change without feeling, unlike traditional Christians, that these are a threat to their faith.

    Ask a traditional Christian the first thing that comes into his or her mind when you say the word "human," and they'll most likely answer "sinner," "depraved," or a similar negative.

    Ask a Mormon the same thing and they'll most likely answer "progression."

    In short, traditional Christianity is a closed book, with everyone playing a part, and nothing outside of that can be allowed to even be considered, much less accepted.

    And though Mormonism suffers from the same syndrome in part, its foundation is one of eternal expansion for us humans. As such, nothing can really be a threat to a Mormon's faith, because he and she are constantly looking forward, not backward to the "Garden of Eden."

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    The title is all that is needed to sink them with the far right.

    And I applaud them for their stance.

    Huntsman seems to be the most level headed candidate in the GOP field.

    Sadly, while he would have a chance in the general, he is not "right" enough to get the GOP nod in the primaries.

  • klove Roy, Utah
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    I think Mormonism will thrive in our modern age because we have always accepted science as a big part of Gods creation. We have never seen science as a competitor against faith. And whether you choose to believe or not in God, those laws will be beneficial to all mankind.

  • Matteo Orem, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:39 a.m.

    The "Human-Causality" of climate change is what is in dispute by most people - not the fact that the climate is changing. I can show evidence and a theory to show that the earth used to be much warmer than it is now and that the ice caps are just a temporary phenomenon in geological history. What makes my "theory" any stronger than "human-causality climate change"? Nothing. Neither has been proven, which is the very definition of a "theory".

    Climate change (human-caused), like Evolution, is a theory used to try and explain the observations scientists have made about the world they see. Until theories can be proven to be fact, they remain theories. You will not find a scientist alive who is willing to go out on *that* limb.

    I see no incongruity with either Romney (whom I support) or Huntsman (whom I don't) stating that they agree with these theories. If I don't agree, I just have to remind myself that there are theories, and that until something better comes along, something that can be proven with the scientific method, it is simply someone's attempt to explain their observations of the world.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    All well and good, and perfectly nice political speech. I am well inform about both evolution, and man-made global warming. Both are expanding areas of scientific inquiry. It is important, however, to destinquish between the use of scientific inquiry and theory that can inform and improve policy decisions from when it is used to quell all other thoughts, theories, or different policy decisions. Science's use in the former is helpful, used in the latter way harmful. In fact, in the latter way it becomes no better than reliqious or any other dogma. Basically, I believe therefore it is so, and anyone who does not is a fool or worse. BTW with regard to man-made global warming or non-made climate change the interesting new research is in the arena of why collected data is often so far off from the prediction models. This is an exciting area of inquiry which offers the prospect of improving the models. Lets hope "the settle nature" of this science does not quell the funding for or perceived need for this further research.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    I am also an LDS person who accepts science. For me it's easy -- science postulates how things happened; religion says who made the things happen. They are two parts to a whole understanding of how we, our planet, and our galaxy came into being.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    Don't they mean eugenics? There is a big difference between actual science and eugenics which Romney and Huntsman apparently believe in. Anything about population reduction is eugenics period.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:59 a.m.

    Did they check with Hannity and the conservative core of tea party radicals? They are in the wrong party for this heretical position.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    Romney's stance on climate change (which is more or less mine) is being grossly oversimplified.

    The best evidence we have is that the Earth's temperature is slightly warmer now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. It is also take-it-to-the-bank proven that all things being equal, adding more carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere makes it warmer. About a half-degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2, in fact. You can calculate this on a single piece of paper.

    Where we differ from the anti-science people on the Left, is that we insist on holding our beliefs with only that degree of certainty as the evidence justifies. And the evidence for the prospect of *catastrophic* global warming -- Al Gore's shtick, and all the scenarios for which their proponents have had to resort to manipulated research and sleight of hand -- is minimal. It depends on assumptions about strong positive feedbacks that are not justified, based on what we know about how feedbacks work. (Right now, the Earth is much cooler than it would be if greenhouse warming were not affected by strong negative feedbacks.)

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:03 a.m.

    LDS TREE HUGGER.

    Quote me a verse that supports eugenics or global warming for the ingnorant person? So basically it's ok to say that god made a mistake when he created the earth? is that what your saying? Are you saying that we are not commanded to multiply and replenish the earth and partake in gods work and his glory? As far as I know the commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth did include the exception of this overpopulation eugenics garbage.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:06 a.m.

    Romeny and Huntsman support wiping out 6/7 of the worlds population. Al gore made a bogus claim last week that if we don't believe in Global Warming and pay our carbon taxes, that space aliens will attack us. Are you serious?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:06 a.m.

    "BUT ignoring their Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as well."

    Groan. Point me to the scripture passages that discuss how a Christian should think about black body radiation, the infrared absorption spectrum, and convection.

    Left-liberals seem to jump from general religious concepts about stewardship of the earth, to a commandment "Thou shalt jump on the most extreme environmental bandwagon of the day." As your math teacher said -- show your work.

    Generally speaking, liberals overstate the likely extent of human-caused global warming (for political reasons), and conservatives tend to discount it (ditto). Scientifically literate conservatives and liberals try to figure out where the actual, apolitical truth actually lies -- which tends to get them flak from both sides.

    Global warming -- as in, the Earth is probably a bit warmer than it was a few decades ago, and human-caused CO2 emissions are partly responsible -- is the best scientific theory we have. !!GLOBAL WARMING!! -- the apocalyptic scenarios of liberal rhetoric -- is a fraud.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:08 a.m.

    My great granfather wasn't a fish and neither was yours.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    "We have never seen science as a competitor against faith."

    Wasn't there an Ensign article in '98 that endorsed a literal understanding of Noah's flood? Which is just about as scientifically disproven as anything can be, including "rocks fall upwards when dropped"?

    Don't we spin and obfuscate the science of genetics, when it forces us to cull Lehi's descendants down from "all of the Indians and Polynesians" to "some guy in the Guatemalan backwoods named Manuel, who's never had his DnA sampled?

    Everybody -- evangelical Christian, Mormon, Catholic, secular liberal -- has his sacred spaces that are walled off to thorough, honest scientific reasoning. (Liberals believe in evolution as holy writ -- yet oddly insist that the genetic mechanisms that drive evolution stopped applying significantly to human development thousands of years ago. Because if genes affect personality, then the whole liberal project of improving man by improving his environment loses much of its force.) Ask Lawrence Summers if there's any difference between a Creationist and a Harvard-faculty feminist, in the "fearlessly follow the science wherever it leads" department.

  • ProudUtahn St. George, Utah
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    LDS Tree-Hugger
    "As a believing LDS person who also accepts Science - I see no contridiction either." I agree, I believe in science as well.. I also believe God knows all and that our scientists are still learning and that you can't get two scientist to agree.

    "The Global Warming deniers are both ignoring not only the facts and data, BUTY ignoring their Prophets, Apostles, and Scriptures as well." what are the facts? are we responsible for the polar ice caps on mars dwindleing as well? or could it all be part of Gods plan moving towards the end?

    "Sad to see so many good LDS people choosing the far-right-wing extremeists of the GOP -- while rejecting not only our Mormon Leaders and our doctrines, but proven facts, data, and Science...all conscious reasoning as well...for political posturing." I could say to same about the far left! only I will say lets agree to disagree. It takes both ends for us to come to the middle.

  • ProudUtahn St. George, Utah
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:16 a.m.

    continued.....
    Please do not accuse me of rejecting our Mormon Leaders and doctrine. Lets go back to the 1800's and science then, whos to say todays science and in 50 or 100 yrs wont be the same difference. Scientist are still learning and changing only God knows all.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    I think evolution is becoming more accepted among Mormons but I would say the majority of active Mormons still reject it. In fact 70% of Mormons surveyed in a recent Pew Forum Survey on religion in America rejected evolution as the best explanation for human origins. I would also note that what little mention of evolution is made in Church publications is almost entirely negative.

    However, in a way I can see why. The reality is that if evolution is true it not only gives some explanation for where we came from but also explains who we are. It also can be used to effectively explain why humans would have come up with an idea of a God in the first place and how such an idea could have evolved from a way of explaining the unexplained to an elaborate means of creating and maintaining social groups.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    Faith aside, having a President with a firm grasp of science would be a great thing for this nation. There was a time when America led the way in scientific discovery and technological advancement. Now we have passed the torch to nations like Japan, China, Russia and India. That is something we need to get back.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    Quote from Hugh Nibley: "What we do claim is that the words of the prophets cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed.
    The last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in Heaven speaks it; and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he speaks the language of eternity."
    "The Prophets and the Open Mind," CWHN 3:134

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:49 a.m.

    Being a faithful, practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, despite any imperfections, is no vice.

  • JustMyView South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:51 a.m.

    I'm one of those Mormons who don't believe in evolution. I don't know how God created us, but I don't believe He used evolution. I don't believe there was any death before the fall of Adam, just as the Book of Mormon scripture states in 2 Nephi 2:22, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."

  • MVH Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:53 a.m.

    To those LDS who think they are going to be liked by accepting the theory of evolution as fact, you may want to go back and study the core doctrines of your faith.

    There was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution REQUIRES multiple cycles of death for evolution to occur. According to doctrine, ADAM and Eve appeared on earth as fully developed human beings.

    The days when supposed Christians will not endure sound doctrine have arrived.

    That Romney and Huntsman supposedly believe in evolution & man-caused "global warming" makes them much less appealing.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    Bottom line - opinion does not determine truth. Truth is independent of opinion and in fact opinion has no power to change or alter truth. Having said that it is important to understand that evolution is a "theory" and not a law and there is a BIG difference. A theory in short is just an educated opinion. The earth was considered to be flat hundreds of years ago and the science of the day taught this "theory" but there was no law proving the earth to be flat. At the same time that science was falsely teaching that the earth was flat the earth continued to be round - not flat. Evolution is one of those ideas that have been championed and distorted by atheists to somehow wish away God. Evolution has areas of truth - no doubt - and areas of gross error and exaggeration.

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:59 a.m.

    And the correct answer is: We don't know.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 11:59 a.m.

    Evolution --

    And as to the "un-believers" of Scientific truths, who claim to believe in rigid Religion to explain Reality I ask....

    How many Dogs did Noah put on the ark?

    If it was only 2 [per the Bible] then Evolution is in fact Real and does in fact happen.

    If Noah put 324 to account for all the worlds dogs - then you can't read the Bible.

    And you truely believe that the "earth is full, and there is enough and to spare" per D&C 104:17 -- then you should also know and beleive that all blessings are contingent of obedience...and that only can only be true if we are good stewards of the Earth.

  • MVH Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:12 p.m.

    "How many Dogs did Noah put on the ark?

    If it was only 2 [per the Bible] then Evolution is in fact Real and does in fact happen."

    That is not evolution. That is ADAPTATION.

    Nobody seems to know the difference between evolution and adaptation.

    Evolution is saying a fish becomes a mammal.

    Adaptation is entirely different and explains the differences in species.

    There is no such thing as evolution. End of story.

  • bikeboy Boise, ID
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:19 p.m.

    Hugh Nibley said it best. (See SSMD's 11:37am post.)

    Perfect science and perfect religion are one and the same; truth is truth.

    Any valid scientist readily acknowledges that "every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed." That is beautiful!

    We should embrace scientific understanding, while recognizing that as it continues to expand, many of today's theories will be disproven and supplanted.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    @Patriot: The very fact that God exists is a theory, and boils down to one thing: Faith. The fact that you bash athiests as trying to champion or distort evolution to wish away God - both theories and not proven - seems hypocritical. Why is it that you can believe in a god, but others cannot believe in evolution, in your opinion? In fact, you indicate that evolution actually has some truth, but God, at the moment, has no evidence of existence.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:27 p.m.

    The black or white, tea party positon that they are one-hundred percent right on every issue and everyone needs to submit to their point of view is an easier sale in Utah.

  • Gr8bald1 San Diego, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    For me, "Evolution" is not the same as how the earth was formed, developed, and populated, neither agreement, nor disagreement with the common Darwin dogma. It is a possible answer. Is it the only one? Is evolution alone the answer? Will more information/discoveries come forth? I think so.

    Global Warming, perhaps. There is too much variable and questionable data from an extremely small sample size over time. Temperatures have admittedly been framed and fudged. I would prefer to call it very poor science.

  • Big Red '93 The High Plains of, Texas
    Aug. 23, 2011 12:49 p.m.

    As an LDS scientist myself and having received my training at a liberal, Ivy League school, I have personally seen evolution occur in my lifetime, both through natural selection and those manipulated by man. Many of my classmates refused to believe in anything but science. Why should we limit ourselves to only one method? I'm still on the fence with global warming, or climate change. With our current limited knowledge of how this earth works (and we understand so very little), much less about the universe, I can only imagine with God's unlimited spiritual and scientific knowledge and power, what He can do and what He can create! I believe, and it may sound crazy, that as we learn more about science, we become closer to what God is, and understand His eternal ways more. Just a thought for MVH: who says God didn't clone Adam and Eve, then place them as perfect beings on this earth, after which he instilled their spirits within them through His divine power? Then he gave them the ability to choose. Just a thought.

  • MVH Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:02 p.m.

    Big Red, I doubt very much you have seen a fundamental change such as a fish evolving into a mammal in your lifetime.

    You may have seen adaptations, but not evolution.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    @matteo
    "Climate change (human-caused), like Evolution, is a theory used to try and explain the observations scientists have made about the world they see. Until theories can be proven to be fact, they remain theories"

    The scientific definition of a theory is not what you think it means.

  • MVH Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:10 p.m.

    Again, should I be surprised or just discouraged that people who declare themselves LDS or Christian are willing to believe that God, who created man in His image, would not be able to create children in His image, but instead begin with something completely out of his image first, only to watch it "evolve" into His image? No, the most simple answer is the correct answer: God the Father, according to your scriptures, created man in His image.

    The Proclamation on the Family confirms that man was created after the image of God - as fully developed human beings, whose spirits were also in the image of God - fully developed spirit beings that look every bit as human as we do in the flesh. Gender was also part of our eternal spiritual identity.
    Don't claim to be a true believing LDS without knowing your doctrine.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:11 p.m.

    @MVH
    "There was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution REQUIRES multiple cycles of death for evolution to occur. According to doctrine, ADAM and Eve appeared on earth as fully developed human beings. "

    Let us know when belief in evolution becomes a way to fail a temple recommend interview.

    @patriot
    "Having said that it is important to understand that evolution is a "theory" and not a law and there is a BIG difference. A theory in short is just an educated opinion."

    Gravity is a theory, one I do not recommend you test with a jump off a bridge.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:14 p.m.

    Why is climate change caused by man so hard to believe anyway? We're the ones who made an acid rain problem and an ozone hole. We also used cap and trade to combat the acid rain problem, and the Montreal Protocol went a long way to slowing and hopefully reversing the ozone hole problem.

  • fran246 West Roxbury, MA
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:20 p.m.

    Admiring Gentile said : Ask a traditional Christian the first thing that comes into his or her mind when you say the word "human," and they'll most likely answer "sinner," "depraved," or a similar negative.

    I am a "traditional Christian." If you should ask me that question, the first thing that comes to my mind is "made in the image and likeness of God."

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    JustMyView and MVH

    Context matters:

    Lehi is not giving a discourse on the physical nature of the world. He is explaining our purpose here in life. Additionally, he is speaking to his children, many of whom were disobedient, and he is concerned for their spiritual well-being, he is speaking of spiritual death.

    Had Adam not transgressed he would not have died spiritually, he would have been in God's presence indefinitely.

    Lehi is not teaching his children about physical death, they all know they are going to die physically, but he is worried about Laman and Lemuel from being cut off from God (spiritual death) forever.
    __
    What is to say that God did not use evolution as the PROCESS of creation (allowing death), but then when everything was finally created, the world became immortal?

    Lastly, a Hebrew study of Genesis implies that the Garden of Eden was not the whole earth, but only a part of the earth. Immortality in Eden, death on earth.

    I wouldn't be so categorical in denying evolution.

    "There is no such thing as evolution."

    You simply have not looked at the evidence.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    MVH
    "...should I be surprised or just discouraged that people who declare themselves LDS or Christian are willing to believe that God, who created man in His image, would not be able to create children in His image"

    God did not create us as He is. It takes this whole probationary life, and more, to grow and develop and "be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect."

    Becoming like him does not happen in an instant, why should the creation of our bodies?

    Everything is a type of Christ. Everything symbolizes Him. Evolution is the perfect symbol of line upon line, precept upon precept.

  • Enola BOUNTIFUL, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:55 p.m.

    "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

    This is from the Bible Dictionary provided in Mormon scriptures and on the official LDS website. It is taught as a fundamental reason for a need for Christ's atonement. Perhaps they will act to correct this apparently incorrect doctrine before the election.

  • BoomerJeff Saint George, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    I believe I am a Child of God, not a child of a monkey. Seems like the world is upside down now-a-days . . . accepting evolution, believing someone who steals a social security number to work is still honest . . . where or where can I find truth?

  • joy Logan, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 2:33 p.m.

    True religion and True Science is one and the same. God is the master scientist. I do not believe any true LDS believes man evolved from some ameba in the middle of the mud in the middle of a swamp. God makes it clear that he created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden. Evolving and progression both require some form of intelligence. So in that fact I can agree.
    The headline that the church ALLOWS Huntsman and Romney to embrace science is insane. They both have freedom of choice and neither needed the Churches permission.
    I believe what their definition of evolved and those of another may be of a total different mind set.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 23, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    Would you be surprised Talmage, Widtsoe, B.H.Roberts and other GAs were all okay with, some even actively advocated, evolution as an explanation for HOW God created the world?

    Do you even know why some authorities (JosephFieldingSmith, BruceR.McConkie) took a position against evolution?

    Until you understand where your own beliefs come from, you should be a little more teachable. Dig a little deeper.

    It is also more likely that the whole Adam/Eve Garden of Eden account is a metaphor for our own relationship with God and not a literal account of the beginning of the natural world. (Otherwise, why the four different variations?) We all started in innocence; we have all sinned and have fallen away from His presence. Our own works (apron of fig leaves) will not cover us; we all need a savior to make a sacrifice (coats of skin) to cover our sins (nakedness). The social organization of the family is set-up, etc.

    The Garden of Eden accounts contain A LOT more symbolism, which will help you work out your salvation, than if you read it for a literal explanation for the origin of the natural world.

  • Montana Mormon Miles City, MT
    Aug. 23, 2011 2:45 p.m.

    The most valuable class I took at Ricks College in the spring of 1974, and I would extend this comment to my subsequent BYU years, was a 200-level genetics class. Because of that science class, the New Testament is so much clearer in helping me understand the dual nature of Christ as the Son of a Divine Father and of a mortal mother. That scientific fact (the duality of Christ's divinity and mortality) alone has unlocked numerous statements that help me understand Christ's ability to die, but His power over death; His ability to be tempted, but His absolute power over temptation; His ability to experience pain, but His ability to suffer infinite (unquantifiable) pain for the sins and infirmities of all humanity. Thank you, Professor Oldham, for strengthening my testimony of LDS theology by teaching me science!!

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Aug. 23, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    As a Mormon and an applied scientist, evolution does not bother me one bit. I also don't believe it.
    If one were able to prove that we evolved I would simply say; "So That is how God did it."

    The theory of evolution postulates that order came out of chaos and progressed to higher and higher levels of order without outside direction.
    The law of entropy states that all things tend to go from a state of order to a state of chaos unless you maintain it. The maintenance requires that energy be expended and that energy must be directed by an intelligence. Simply injecting energy, even organized energy does not maintain things any more than a tornado (highly organized energy) maintains a trailer park.

    It takes even more energy and greater intelligence to improve things.

    The theory of evolution and the law of entropy are 180 degrees opposed to each other. When a law and a theory have a head on collision, the law wins.

    Evolutionists dismiss intelligent design because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. Just what part of evolution can be tested in a laboratory in less than 500,000 years?

    Evolution is false.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 3:29 p.m.

    I come from a strong mathematical background. Mathematicians laugh at how other sciences "prove" things. E.g. how a physicist proves that every odd number is prime - 3 - prime, 5 - prime, 7 - prime, 9 - error of the experiment, 11 -prime, 13 - prime, etc. To a mathematician every other science is alchemy.

    Yet even math itself is not as exact of a science as you would hope. Physics is the next most precise and then it goes down the chain. Computer science is simplified math, and is perhaps the most precise science at our hands. Yet almost everyone has been affected at one point or another by a computer bug.

    So I laugh at the "evidences" for evolution. It amazes me how somebody could put so much confidence in their explanation of what happened several million years ago. The honest scientific answer is we still have no clue but that does not earn government grants and journal publications.

    My personal opinion is that God told the matter to organize and it did. He did not have to wait for millions of years. That, and time did not work back then the same way it does now.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 23, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    VST

    "... gravity is NOT a theory - it's a proven scientific law"

    Actually, Newton's Universal Law of Gravity has been updated. Even the THEORY of gravity has changed over time. The geometric theory of gravitation was published by Einstein in 1916 and provided a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. General relativity isn't the only theory of gravity, there's also the theory of quantum gravity.

    ___
    "... I am a Child of God, not... a monkey."

    Evolution DOES NOT mean we came from monkeys.

    You do not understand evolution, you do not understand gravity, how can you have an opinion on the subject?

    ___
    The purpose of the scriptures is to explain WHY we exist, not HOW. Any attempt at using scripture to describe the natural world is folly. It was never meant to do that.

    ___
    what part of evolution can be tested in a laboratory...?

    Actually, a lot. One example: Comparing sequenced genomes of related-species is very enlightening. You can map out how different closely-related species diverged by comparing genomes and rates of variation in their genes. Interestingly, it's in harmony with the fossil record.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    Science tells us HOW things happen.
    Religion [and God] tells us WHY things happen.

    God is only interested in Salvation - you know, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man.

    Science never even starts to compete with that one.

    Well, maybe in the persuit of better health and possibly immortality -- but I'll leave that one for another day....

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:35 p.m.

    Nice to hear these boys believe in what the majority of major scientists worldwide believe. The majority of major scientist worldwide also don't believe in God though so there's still some learning to do.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:36 p.m.

    i know what i have heard from the media. the media is liberal most of the time.
    our church does not support evolution from what i have known since i was a young girl.
    i am not voting just because-i am voting for the one that is the less of the worse of the evils in government.
    i listen to the prophet for vocal inspiration not the media.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    We can't be surprised that the same people who fear change also don't believe in evolution.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:52 p.m.

    The enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is not the birth of children, said Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could teach them to do if only they would ask and then obey.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 4:58 p.m.

    MVH | 11:53 a.m. Aug. 23, 2011
    Farmington, UT
    To those LDS who think they are going to be liked by accepting the theory of evolution as fact, you may want to go back and study the core doctrines of your faith.

    There was NO DEATH until Adam fell. The theory of evolution REQUIRES multiple cycles of death for evolution to occur.

    ======================

    Oh, really?

    Then how do you account for fossils and bones?

    Better yet, how do you acocunt for all those dinosaurs painted in the Creation Room in the LDS Manti Temple?

    I don't have any conflict, better yet -- my testimony never be shaken by any new scientific discoveries.

    Oh ya, a couple other things to remember...

    A man can not be saved in ignorance,
    The Glory of God is Intelligence.
    &
    We believe all that God has revealed [including Science],
    all that He does now reveal [including Science],
    and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God [including Science].

    Good Luck

  • mream Parker, CO
    Aug. 23, 2011 5:14 p.m.

    Global warming is nothing more than an excuse to line the pockets of companies and individuals who will gain from a "cap and trade" policy.

    Does the Earth get warmer? Sure! It also gets cooler. It all depends on what time period your data covers. The fact that they even changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change indicates they are trying to cover all their bases.

    I believe we should be good stewards over the Earth we live on. Let's keep our home clean, but let's not go nuts about it.

    I also believe in the process of evolution, but not that we descended from apes.

    And gravity? That's only a suggestion...

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 5:24 p.m.

    Good to see that Mitt & Jon have not buckled under the weight of the loons.

    Great string. I especially liked the bit about "Ever the pragmatists, many Mormons tend to eschew the culture war"...apparently they are not that familiar with gay marriage. Pretty much in the thick of that culture war.

    @ProudDuck - certainly oversimplifying the facts. "Apocalyptic end" not an irrational conclusion if we simply ignore the problem altogether.

    @ProudUtahn - could be god's plan but relying on that as your reasoning is pretty weak. Was it "god's plan" to exterminate jews with a horrific war? One could argue. Does god get the blame for events as well as the glory?

    @LDSTreeHugger - I'm not sure your position is officially endorsed. I'm told that homosexuality doesn't exist (not acknowledged as real) in the mormon faith. The scientific literature & community says that it does. It even exists in nature. I will grant you that I don't know if this position is official doctrine or just widely-held belief. I do know that men in power have said that you would be better off dead than gay. Sounds like doctrine. If not, correct me and I apologize for getting that wrong.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Aug. 23, 2011 5:43 p.m.

    I don't see anything in LDS doctrine that precludes the possibility that this earth could have gone through several cycles of creation and destruction before the Adam and Eve from whom we are descended came about.

    The specific animals on the earth at the time of the Garden of Eden were placed there by God and could not reproduce until after the fall, but why wouldn't they have been the descendants of other animals?

    I think we read "In the beginning" and we tend to think that it means the beginning of everything. But if we believe in the concept of eternity, there is no beginning, so "In the beginning" must refer to the beginning of one particular period of time. It doesn't mean there weren't other periods of time that came before it, or will come after it. And why couldn't this planet have become organized and disorganized several times over, with God taking some lifeforms in their partially evolved states and placing them on newly organized worlds, in Gardens of Eden to begin a new line and evolve some more. Why wouldn't God use the laws of nature? How could he not?

    Out there, I know.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Aug. 23, 2011 5:46 p.m.

    I'm just trying to say that there are endless possibilities of how doctrine and scientific evidence can eventually be reconciled. In the grand scheme of things we know relatively little about doctrine or science. What we will come to know in either field a thousand years from now would blow us away, so it's just best to withold judgement.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 6:00 p.m.

    Gravity is NOT a theory,
    is is a namr of an observable force,

    there may thoeries about is properties,

    What vcn be observed is adapataion. NOT evolution.

    evolution has never been observed, nor reproduced in lab,

    Evolution is decidedly and clearly unscientific in its laguage,

    bult on indefinitiveness, and speculation,

    it is filled and built on totatally with assumings, supposings, may haves, might haves, could haves, possibly haves, imagined relationshsips, etc.

    It is a total failure scientificly, it is NOT true science.

    Adapatation, which is what darwin observed, has some merit,

    but no creature has ever adapted outside its sphere.

    -
    -
    It's sad the use of rationalization in trying to accept popular theories,

    God, a perfect being would not nor could ever use an imperfect method for creation,

    especially for an intended and purposed creation,

    or he'd cease to be perfect, and cease to be God,

    A God capable of controlling the forces of nature, indeed nature itself, raise the dead, heal the lame, the blind the diseased, make fish and bread muliply,

    is clearly capable of direct creation,

    While we are tobe good stewards, God isin control of his creations, man can't control the climate of earth.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    How many people who mock religious literalists for their "unscientific" beliefs, are really equipped to have an informed opinion about science?

    How many people are just appalled that anyone could doubt global warming -- and yet couldn't tell you exactly how greenhouse forcing works, or how much warming to expect for each incremental increase in CO2 concentrations, or how and what feedback mechanisms interact with greenhouse warming?

    (Speed66, I'm looking at you; the "apocalyptic" AGW scenarios aren't supported by science even if we "do nothing" about the issue.)

    How many proud "believers" in evolution know enough about the subject, to refute the intelligent-design arguments (which can, in fact, be refuted)?

    Scripture speaks poorly of people who, when they are learned, think they are wise. Frankly, at this point, I'd prefer even that much over what we've got. What we now have, is "when they parrot the conventional wisdom without remotely understanding it, they think they are learned."

    You may well be right. On evolution, you are. But that doesn't make you smart, thoughtful, or educated, if you aren't prepared to give a reason you think as you do.

    Finally, we're monkeys' uncles, not their kids. Or cousins, depending on age.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 6:25 p.m.

    RE: speed66

    It is God's plan to allow the agency of man, to even to do terrible things,

    And the agency of others to stop them.

    Whether, scientificilly, homosexuality exists, (and there is no real hard scientific proof)

    the control of the behavior, your agency, also exists.

    we are not animals, we have the ability to exercise our agency.

    We did not evolve,
    nor is evolution reproducible or observable,
    it is imagined,
    and those who profess belief in it, are dogmatic,
    they deny any alternative beliefs, and mock and belittle anyone who does not believe as they do.

    What was going on on earth before man, before its current state, we do not know, but it was not evolution.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Aug. 23, 2011 6:49 p.m.

    Uh....both Romney and Hunstsman accept "mainstream" evolution?

    Really?

    From what I've read, the "mainstream" (ie, 'most commonly accepted') theory of evolution is that we descended from monkeys.

    Sure, there's a perfect blend of science and religion, but isn't that stretching it a bit to say that these 2 guys (particularly Romney) believe that we descended from monkeys? Or did I miss something in the article?

  • spudlydoright McCammon, Idaho
    Aug. 23, 2011 6:55 p.m.

    It is important that we understand that God is truly the greatest of all scientists. When we understand that there is no difference between scientific truth and theological truth, but that there is only truth, it will be much easier for us to see how God works. Elder Maxwell said that when we see all things through the lens of the Gospel, what we see will be much clearer.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:01 p.m.

    It must be a full moon, there is a lot of baying at the moon going on.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    Evolution doesn't contradict the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (in a closed system entropy always increases). The earth isn't a closed system. Energy pours onto it's surface every day. Entropy can decrease in such cases.

    Evolution is:
    1. Variation: All life forms vary genetically within a population.

    2. Inheritance: Genetic traits are inherited from parents and are passed on to offspring.

    3. Selection: Organisms with traits that are favorable to their survival and reproduction are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.

    4. Time: Evolutionary change can happen in a few generations, but major change, such as speciation, often takes many thousands of generations.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:31 p.m.

    Ah, it's just so easy that way, isn't it, The Truth?

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:36 p.m.

    @TheProudDuck - I disagree with your conclusions and/or interpretations of other's conclusions. I don't profess an apocalyptic end but I also don't believe that painting the worst-case scenario is equivalent to denying science because of a reliance on ancient texts and mythology. Trying to paint the worst case scenario as being impossible sounds more like a personal position than a scientific conclusion.

    I understand your argument of ignorance and share much of your frustration. That said, I can't accept the premise entirely. It's impossible to be literate in all areas. As such, it is reasonable and prudent to rely on experts in their fields without having to be able to answer all questions personally. Of course, the degree and intensity with which someone defends their position should be in direct proportion to personal knowledge or the source of the knowledge. I could vehemently defend the use of medication prescribed by a physician over prayer prescribed by a christian scientist. On the other hand, it would be much harder to defend one physicians choice of medication over another's without competent expertise.

    The fact that you quote scripture as authority is rather ironic.

  • rsatinfun Provo, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:42 p.m.

    Imperfect I am. even below the dust of the earth.

    3rd Nephi 11:30
    Behold this is not my doctrine to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another, but this is my doctrine that such things should be done away.

    I see that there is a given acceptance of climate change, but in the days of Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball there is producing a climate change one might wonder if the statement of all nations shall call you blessed is the blessing of producing climate change for the better.

    Have a Great day and Bless you

    Randy Hanson

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 7:56 p.m.

    @thetruth - funny name given your post.

    Asserting that evolution doesn't exist displays a clear lack of scientific literacy. You don't believe that people used to be shorter? You don't believe that penguins used to have feathers? I recommend that you get yourself a little basic education - reading "Greatest Show on Earth" is a good start.

    Your self-sealing argument about god and god's will is a wonderful argument that protects you either way. Everyone is eager to claim a miracle by god but when children are starving by the thousands in Africa, they give god a free pass. All the glory with no responsibility. Personal accountability? Where is the agency in a child starving to death?

    Homosexuality not having a scientific basis is news to the scientific community. Controlling our actions...you mean like not casting the first stone? This position will be viewed with the same dismay and ire as defending/promoting slavery. Pure bigotry. Nothing less.

    @mream - changing the name to climate change was to help those who think that bigger snow storms in the winter disprove the theory even though the opposite is true. Cap and trade conspiracy? Thanks for the laugh!

  • Big Red '93 The High Plains of, Texas
    Aug. 23, 2011 8:01 p.m.

    I agree with MVH about adaption (better suited to environments through biotype selection)and evolution (better suited to environments through genetic inheritance). I disagree that we have not seen evolution in our lifetime. Since the days of Gregor Mendel, scientists have mechanically manipulated and "evolved" plants to change their characteristics without the influence of the natural environment, and to be resistant to diseases and insects. Within the past 15 years, resistance of non-resistant crops to herbicides through genetic manipulation has occurred. These are forced and rapidly enhanced methods of evolution (by the transfer of pollen from male flower parts to the female parts) or through insertion of genetic material. While this selection may have eventually occurred in nature (though I doubt it in the case of herbicide resistance), it is expedited by man. Unfortunately, we are also now seeing the negative results of that manipulation with herbicide-resistant weeds. Thankfully, I don't think we have seen evolution of man in our lifetime, though news clippings of "stupid criminals" makes a sincere case for it. My only question about the fall of Adam is this: Were the lions and tigers "vegans" like Adam and Eve before the fall?

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Aug. 23, 2011 8:07 p.m.

    Great comments on this topic. But again, it just reminds me that in the end it will not matter one iota what we BELIEVED about anything. But I have a feeling that what we chose to DO in this life will matter a great deal.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 8:16 p.m.

    There are some really good thought provoking comments on here. The issue I have is with those who make such an issue of teaching evolution, especially in public schools. If a student is grounded in the gospel and the scriptures let some high school biology teacher teach what they consider science. Students are intelligent enough to form their own conclusions. If someone lets whats taught in a high school or college class weaken their faith then they never had much of a testimony. Politicians are to quick to politicize issues to promote their own agenda. The reason the far right makes such an issue of climate change is they don't like government regulating business. You have get past the political rhetoric and try to understand what is really going on. Way to much political spin coming from political extremists on the left and right.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Aug. 23, 2011 8:39 p.m.

    Obviously Mormons are pretty diverse except for politics. Prominent Mormon Democrats are as rare as hen's teeth. Whenever one becomes wealthy he converts to Republicanism, so I guess we can never see a Mormon Democrat running for President.

  • Bereal MADERA, CA
    Aug. 23, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce 'after their own kind.' (See Moses 2:24)...Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles...If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage...This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Quote from Boyd K. Packer)

    May I add, God is all knowing and did not experiment in a laboratory when creating us in His image! The theory of evolution is of man not of God!

  • weedeater Murray, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 9:29 p.m.

    Whatever the history of the churches' past views on science, both Romney and Huntsman will come out on the right side of this issue for the large moderate center of the nation. Huntsman is positioning himself there and I hope he can generate enough enthusiasm among the middle to take a stand against the herd of crazies the GOP have lined up now. That the lunatic fringe controls the primary elections should tell you something about the GOP. I think it's not good.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:48 p.m.

    Tonight, Fox Right-Wing talk show maven Laura Ingraham, evening endorser of all things Limbaugh, told listeners Huntsman should jump on that motorcycle and just keep on "ridin".

    The quickest way for Mitt and Jon to disappear off the Right-Wing radar is to support anything opposed to the Limbaugh Orthodoxy.

    Oh well, Mitt can get a head start on his new mansion and Jon...well he can just keep on "ridin".

  • DavidNL Holladay, UT
    Aug. 23, 2011 10:54 p.m.

    The interesting part of the climate change debate is the direct correlation to pollution. Everyone alive now knows that our air, water and land are dramatically more polluted than they "used to be..." Of course, we all read the signs on the beltway, or hear the news casts about our our red and yellow pollution days (a lot lately), so does anyone really believe that "we" aren't responsible for that? Is it really a big stretch for us to think these correspond with the consumption of fossil fuels and also contribute, even a little, to warming? I posit that anyone that can't or won't make the connection is merely doing so in defense of their current lifestyle choices (consumptive and wasteful).

    Let's face it: we Americans are a fat and slothful people when it comes to changing our ways. Forget climate change... we're going to kill ourselves with pollution long before the icecaps melt and drown us!

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 12:16 a.m.

    I can't wait to meet Adam's dad and mom. Evolution as the means of creating man is not science. Never has there been scientific evidence of one specie evolving into a different specie. That is bogus science, and is rightly called a theory.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    Aug. 24, 2011 12:38 a.m.

    The time has long since come for a public debate on the issue of Man Made Climate Change. Pick responsible representatives from both sides and let us hear what they have to say. I am tired of this being portrayed by advocates from each side as settled and agreed upon science which is just another way of saying that their opinion has been validated and no more discussion is necessary!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 6:01 a.m.

    "Organizing matter" Is a key element in understanding "creation".
    All matter is eternal.
    Joseph Smith said that spirit is matter but that it is more refined.

    Science has a long way to go to catch up and learn the truths that Joseph taught as an "uneducated" farm boy from New York state in the 19th Century.

    Joseph demonstrates to you that he received his education from " Alpha and Omega" when you read his publications, " Doctrine and Covenants", "Pearl of Great Price" and the translation of the plates of Gold called the Book of Mormon.

  • dbfox Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 6:38 a.m.

    Science has nothing to do with who has a consensus or a majority. I'd be willing to change my mind if the science indicated that I should. But the science doesn't suggest that.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 24, 2011 6:51 a.m.

    The only phenomina is that nearly the entire GOP was on board with the theory of man-caused global warming in 2007 and then changed 180 degrees after Obama was elected.

    Even the oil comapanies were putting out billions of dollars of comercials saying how green they are going to be (in the future).

    Propaganda is the only thing convincing all these GOP sheeple that we have no effect on the climate.

  • slugworth Hyrum, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    Global warming is a fact. What is under dispute is whether or not we humans are causing it by polluting the earth. The right wing wants fewer (or no) environmental controls, so that they can more freely pollute the earth. They say it will create jobs. Which in a way is truly laughable, but in another way is quite sad.

    To the right wing religious folk who "don't believe in global warming", I ask you, is it a good thing to pollute and destroy the earth that God created?

    If you believe in any form of spiritualism or even none at all, I think it is clear that the clean, natural beauty of our earth is something uplifting, wonderful, and worthy of our protection. And if you believe that it was created by a higher power, that's even more reason to protect the earth. Not poison and abuse it as Rick Perry et al. would have us do.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    What type of evolution do they believe in?

    I believe in Evolution--to a point. The fact that we came from monkeys the way Darwin suggests is complete blasphemy and 100% ungodly. I doubt that Romney believes that.

    I believe evolution occurs to adjust to new circumstances. That's natural. But not this godless doctrine of monkeys.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    @Brian

    "The time has long since come for a public debate on the issue of Man Made Climate Change. Pick responsible representatives from both sides and let us hear what they have to say. "

    So you'll turn it into a debate where whoever is the better speaker regardless of accuracy will win? (if you're conservative think of it as Obama winning the debates last election) That's not how science should be dealt with. How about just reading the scientific literature on the subject of climate? Yes that requires a lot more effort but do you care about accuracy or flashy presentations?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    Theism versus Evolution. Evolution is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus. He should have not healed the lame and sick if progress is measured by the survival of the fittest. He taught self- sacrifice ,but evolution is necessarily based on self-preservation in the struggle for existence.

    Evolution is also the most inefficient and cruel method for creating man that could be conceived. IF God is a God of love and wisdom and power, as the Bible teaches, the how could He ever be guilty of devising such a scheme as evolution?

    Evolution is not only the basic premise of all atheistic and humanistic religions but also various pantheistic ,animistic, Buddhism, Confucianism and other such faiths are all essentially based on some form of evolution and denying any really transcendent Creator of the Cosmos.

    Even those religions that are basically creationist(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have liberal wings committed to Evolution.

    The phrase, after it Kind(s) is used no less than ten times in Genesis 1. Every created kind was to produce after its own kinds and not to generate some new kind. Horizontal evolution not vertical.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    Mr. Slugworth,
    The "right wing religious folk" do not believe that it is a good thing to pollute and destroy the earth that God created. But they, as represented by me, do not believe that carbon dioxide is poison, as edicted by the EPA and sustained by the courts. Carbon dioxide is, and always has been, a major percentage of the air we breathe. We expel it with every breath. All the green and leafy plants of the earth depend upon it for their life, and animal and human life depends upon the green and leafy plants for the healthy supply of oxygen we depend upon. We "right wing religious folk" believe in "green" for the health of the planet and for our own health. But green can only be preserved if we provide every green and leafy plant a healthy supply of carbon dioxide, which has been declared poison by the "left wing non-religious folk."

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    Prominent mormon democrats are rare but many mormons and GOP's in general are liberal for themselves in wanting thier first amendment rights, they love thier SS and MC and they want the government to fix thier potholes, just not anyone else's.

    The GOP vote on strawman issues of "those" people that getting free checks from the government and "those" people that think a woman can choose for themselves.

    The phenomina of why people vote for the GOP has nothing to do with what they want for themselves it what they DON'T want for others.

    So why so many mormons in the GOP? Most mormons are sheeple that pay more attention to mormon culture than theology which clearly teaches that YOU ARE YOUR BROTHER'S KEEPER. Many are called but few are chosen.


    I can't remember any lessons or talks that tell me to ignore science, hate unions or despise the poor. Ever, but that is the GOP. All the lessons taught in church sound liberal yet I have to endure people ad libbing Glen Beck into lessons that don't include any such opinions. Last week the lesson book was never even opened. "Many will be led away".

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:28 a.m.

    "We believe all things,we hope all things." To me that means that we don't live with stiff-necks because He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

    And not say "nothing is true until you prove it and I may still not believe if it contradicts my understanding."

    Instead we may say,"all things are possible until it is proven false and I may still believe as we search for higher understanding."

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:44 a.m.

    Evolution as a concept is demonstrable fact. However, that does not mean we come from monkeys.

    That the earth is warming is a demonstrable fact. However, that does not mean we humans have caused it, or more than slightly exacerbated it, nor that it is something we need to act to reverse, nor that we have the means or science to affect a reversal.

    Romney and Huntsman have spoken well, reasonably, and in accordance with LDS teachings. While the Church does not acknowledge Evolution as the source of all life, as a tool it is completely acceptable.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 8:50 a.m.

    Folks - evolution, i.e., random mutation and natural selection is a simple provable fact, regardless of whether or not you believe in.

    The evidence for the reality of biological evolution is simply overwhelming and grows exponentially every year.

    Observing that evolution conflicts with the bible is a compelling reason to question the validity of the bible, not the proven reality of evolution.

    Huntsman is merely expressing a sane and rational position regarding scientific realities.

    It's about time someone did! The inanities on this subject coming from the likes of Perry and Bachmann make me despair for our nation.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    Huntsman and Romney give vague talking points, but the truth is that neither one of them would know good science if it bit them in the petri dish.

  • JRH2 FARMINGTON, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    For whatever reason, some of the spacing and punctuation didnt show up correctly on my first post. Sorry about that, and I hope it doesnt happen again. Heres one more quote.
    From Elder Russell M. Nelson, The Magnificence of Man, New Era, 1987 It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved. By the Spirit, we perceive the truer and more believable wisdom of God.
    Another good doctrinal source on this topic is Elder Boyd K. Packers Oct. 1984 General Conference address, The Pattern of Our Parentage. There is currently a great video on the lds.org homepage I recommend watching, titled Our Divine Creator, which features the words of a renowned scientist who believes that God created the universe.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    The argument that humans came from monkeys is absolute blasphemy.

    To what point do these two candidates believe in evolution? I believe that creatures evolve to adapt to circumstances, but not to the extent that one can evolve into a different species.

    The Bible is very clear that God created man in his image. He did not create us the way Darwin suggests.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    Global warming facts do not change my behavior. When God gives dominion, it is a responsibility and a privilege...and it can be taken away. I believe in unrighteous dominion too.

    I can clean my child's room, but that does not mean she can mess it up without consequences.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 24, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    @Linus, too much CO2 IS poison, just like too much of anything, including oxygen and water, is poison.

  • smitxxx Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    Post no. 1. Some comments on the comments:

    1. some posters imply that if you don't believe in man-made global warming, you don't care about the environment. False. Two different issues. I hate pollution and believe that we are stewards of the earth, commanded by God to care for it.

    It is clear that climate changes, but I am not convinced by the arguments and computer models of the IPCC that man is causing it. Scientists say we are going into a cooling period for at least the next 30 years or so. How does that square with the theory? Many scientists--including actual climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen from MIT who are smarter than anybody on this board--don't believe it.

    Lindzen believes that the earth has a cooling mechanism and recent studies suggest that heat is escaping out to space. If true, a real blow to the "greenhouse" theory. Who is right? Time will tell. But there is no consensus.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    JRH2, neither Elder Nelson nor Elder Packer are biologists - their opinions on the reality of biological evolution are irrelevant to the reality of biological evolution.

    TOO: "The argument that humans came from monkeys is absolute blasphemy."

    No one is saying that humans "came from monkeys." What is beyond dispute is that humans and monkeys have a distant, common ancestor.

    Blasphemy? Seriously? What is this, the Middle Ages?

    Is the Earth flat? Is the Earth the center of the universe?
    Are diseases caused by evil spirits? Are lightning and earthquakes due to the gods' displeasure with the quality of our animal sacrifices?

    Let's live in the real world together, OK?

  • Matteo Orem, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    @Xscribe - I beg to differ. In fact, it is the Atheists who have the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. They have their word (as individuals) and their word only. I have the collective word of all the Believers.

    An Atheists' proof is in his word only, whereas the Believer has all of creation, the whole of the universe to attest that there is a God, as well as the collective witness of other Believers. In court, a single witness is *never* sufficient to give rise to proof or conviction. It is the same in all areas of study.

    A believer has their proof because it is borne of an outside source (the Spirit), and that combines with others' testimonies to convincingly prove God is real. An Atheist has his personal word only, which word can not be combined with other Atheists' word because each individual has no outside corroborating evidence. Therefore, each Atheist stands alone in their testimony.

    An Atheist says, "Prove to me there is a God", while the real burden of proof is on them to prove there *isn't* a God, due to the overwhelming evidence to support His existence.

  • smitxxx Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    Post no. 2

    2. the language of the evolutionists is very imprecise, which allows them to employ a false tautology. They use evidence of micro-evolution (adaptation within species, which is what Darwin observed and is clearly proven), as proof of macro-evolution (jumping from one species to another, for which proof is lacking). They say, "evolution (micro) is proven, therefore evolution (macro) is proven." Two entirely different things. Proof of one does not prove the other.

    In order to account for the variety of different species of plants and animals we have today, wouldn't this species jumping have to occur countless billions and even trillions of times? If this happened, the fossil record would contain little else but examples of these in-between creatures. It doesn't. Where are the millions of creatures that show the evolution from fish to, say, dog?

    And, one would suppose, if this macro-evolution is constantly occurring (totally randomly, as they claim), a fish of 200 million years ago would not exist in any similar form today. But we see fish and other creatures in the Cambrian fossil fields--multiple hundreds of millions of years old--that are virtually the same as today.

  • smitxxx Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    Post no. 3.

    Reading I have done suggests that support for evolution in some scientific circles is crumbling. Oh yes, we will always have the true believers. Indeed, advocacy of macro-evolution, as currently used to explain our existence today, is similar to religious belief. Most just take it on faith.

    Acceptance of a theory of continuous and relentless (though, of course, completely random) macro-evolution, or species jumping, to explain our existence simply requires more faith than I can muster. I need some more evidence--not of micro-evolution, which explains the variety within species, but of macro-evolution. Macro-evolutionists will rely on occasional evidence of mutations. But they also rely on survival of the fittest. When mutations occur, it makes the organism less fit to survive. And, if it is going to continue, where is it able to find another similar mutation in order to reproduce? A cross of a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but the mule can't reproduce.

    What troubles me is that, just as religious powers of former times used their power to crush heterodoxy, scientists of the prevailing view are doing the same thing today.

    This isn't science; it's dogma.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    Two good men, and if they just weren't Mormon they might have a slim chance.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    Blue

    Blasphemy isn't a word just limited to the Middle Ages...Sorry pal.

    Evolution suggests we came from monkeys. Let's educate ourselves on theory shall we?

  • smitxxx Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    Post no. 4

    I believe in a God who created all things, including species, who were commanded to multiply and replenish after their kind. God gave his creatures the ability to adapt, but I don't believe he needed to employ such a clumsy process as macro-evolution to create the crown of his creations--man. I don't think it is consistent with being created in the image of God.

    I certainly don't think that the flimsy evidence of continuous macro-evolution justifies faith in that theory.

    It seems obvious to me that there is an obvious disconnect between macro-evolution as the explanation for our existence, and what we know from the scriptures.

    There are many things yet to explain. Certainly there were dinosaurs and other extinct species. Extinction is understandable and proven, but macro-evolution is not proven to my satisfaction.

    Whether I believe in God, and follow his teachings, is essential to my salvation. Whether I believe in the current science is not. Where science appears to conflict with the revealed word of God, then I will stick with the word of God. In the "big movie," we will see a reconciliation of faith and science.

  • slugworth Hyrum, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:14 a.m.

    Linus:

    The CO2 issue is definitely one for further research and study. There have been shenanigans on both sides of the issue, but the jury is still out. However I'm not as concerned with carbon dioxide emissions into the air as I am concerned with releasing toxic chemicals and known carcinogens into our air and water.

    When you get people like Rick Perry publicly praying for the EPA to go away, when our own politicians in Utah hand out EPA exemptions like candy to anyone who asks, when my congressman Rob Bishop wants a fire-sale of public lands to oil, gas, and mining interests, and when I can't step outside without burning my lungs... those are the things that cause me deep concern.

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:24 a.m.

    I'm just shaking my head. Why are so many people giving giving such forceful statements on evolution when it's obvious they have never studied it? Why do so many people have strong opinions on global warming when they haven't made any effort to understand the science behind it?

    Please at least read "On the Origin of Species." It's not that difficult. Please read the report from the International Council on Climate Change. It's written for the layman. You still may not agree with everything, but you will have a clearer understanding of the position you're taking.

    True science is not a matter of faith. I don't trust politicians and talk show hosts as far as I can throw them. Why should I trust them on matters of science?

    Evolution is the best theory for explaining the variety of living species. Human causation is the best theory for explaining the earth's current temperature changes. Why is this so hard to accept?

    "Truth is truth wherever found,
    On heathen or on Christian ground."

  • OKWalker Duncan, OK
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    Umm, excuse me.

    Neither Romney nor Huntsman have a clue about the science of weather patterns. Why? Because neither of them understands the difference between causation and association. Just because two phenomenon are associated in time does not mean that one or the other is the cause. And real scientists have shown decisively that changes in the radiation from the sun causes the oceans to warm which releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the air. Just because that may be associated with the increase of cars and SUVs proves nothing. Association is not, and never will be, proof of causation.

    This is basic science. It is basic statistics.

    And both Romney and Huntsman, and many on this forum, are falling for the highly manipulated fallacy.

    And oh, I almost forgot, much of the data used to "prove" the fallacy was faked or riddled with errors (such as putting sensors next to a heat source).

    If members of the Church want to be true to the spirit of section 88 on this issue, they need to actually learn some real science and basic statistics.

  • John44 DALLAS, TX
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Many religions consider Mormons a "cult" and cite The Bible to "prove" it.

    So be careful citing religious texts to "prove" your own feelings on science.

    Amazing how many people -- of all faiths -- say they know "The Truth" so don't dare expose themselves to other points of view.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 24, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    %Smitxxx: The point is that it doesn't matter what you believe; you may believe that the world is flat, it doesn't change reality. What matters is reality and truth; and science is the road to discovering both. If what one believes is not consistent with the laws of nature then it is silly non-sense.

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    A lot of you guys seem to know more about science than the scientists do.

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    Aug. 24, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    The Church has nothing to do with how people view science. To suggest otherwise is just plain gobbeldygook. These so called professional journalists should do some minimum amount of fact checking before they make such uninformed comments.

  • bknabe BAKERSFIELD, CA
    Aug. 24, 2011 1:28 p.m.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has made an official statement regarding the Origin of Man. Go to the LDS website, and search evolution. Under the recommended results you will find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints official position on the Origin of Man, published in 1909 and republished in 2002 in the Ensign. There is no way you can be a Mormon and accept evolution, it is in total contradiction with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. See Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation V.2 Ch. 9.

    It would be much appreciated if those who talk of church support for evolution would reference their ideas, but of course, there is no evidence to support the claim that apostles and prophets have ever supported evolution. And believing in science does not mean one must accept every branch of science. There is truth in many branches of science and mere speculation in others. One must remember science takes known facts and fits theories to them. Science does not however, take into account the unknown, and rightfully so. Just as Ptolemy theorized to the best of his abilities, scientists today do likewise.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 1:58 p.m.

    I just looked at the LDS Church website and searched evolution. I didn't find anything to contradict Huntsman and Romney.

    The problem of this argument is that too many people have an all or nothing approach to science and theology. If evolution exists than man came from apes is a far cry from the facts. But, don't throw the baby out with the dish water yet. Adam may not have evolved but that does not mean it does not exist.

    I think that many Mormons are comfortable with evolution as some believe that God evolved. "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become"

  • B-727 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    Perhaps Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman should take a look at the article "Cloud Formation May be Linked to Cosmic Rays" published today in "Nature."

    Svensmark (a longtime AGW skeptic) and his team at CERN are world-class physicists, not Bible-thumping hacks. If confirmed and extended by other research, these results are Nobel-caliber and a potentially devastating blow to alarmist claims that CO2 exerts a dominant influence on climate.

    If nothing else, this episode demonstrates the potential hazards of politicians opining about matters that are far beyond their expertise.

  • bknabe BAKERSFIELD, CA
    Aug. 24, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    Razzle2,

    I believe you made an excellent point. While there is nothing to refute Huntsman or Romney, there is also nothing supporting them either. Maybe the reason is that individuals who want to know what is true or not must find out for themselves through personal study. Thank you for your insight, I really appreciate it.

  • Kazbert VAIL, AZ
    Aug. 24, 2011 3:32 p.m.

    Our church is neutral towards the theory of evolution in general, but our church is very far from neutral regarding the origin of man. Adam is the father of all now living on the earth, and Adam was created in the image of God. Saying that God used evolution to create Adam is illogical. If Adam was created on the earth via evolution, then Adam must have had a human father on this earth, and then Adam could not be the first of all mankind on the earth because then Adams fathers fathers father, etc, would be.

    Before I joined the church, I was agnostic. Back then I believed that evolution is mistaken, and I still believe that it is mistaken. I am an engineer. It is the nature of everything we observe that the universe, left to itself, proceeds from order to disorder. You might convince me that an amoeba spontaneously devolved from an ape, but never the other way around not without an external, intelligent influence. Is the fossil record evidence of spontaneous evolution, or is it evidence that "Someone" has been tinkering with our very old planet for a very long time?

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    Aug. 24, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    @ bknabe | 1:28 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011

    Yes... "If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel... and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?" Joseph Fielding Smith

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 4:48 p.m.

    I'm pretty certain Henry Eyring (Senior) believed in Jesus Christ, despite what he believed about evolution. And certainly James E. Talmage (a prominent member of the 12 and a scientist) believed in death before "the fall." Also, I learned a lot about evolution in my Evolution courses at BYU, including details about human evolution--I'm pretty sure that if the church was against evolution, they wouldn't allow BYU to teach it. BYU teaches and does research on evolution.

    There's room for the Henry Eyrings and BYU biology professors (as well as Romney and Huntsman) in the church, and there's room for the Elder Packers and no-death-before-the-fall types in the church. I've spoken to plenty of local church leaders who accept evolution (including the evolution of man). Their level of acceptance generally has more to do with how much science education they have than how faithful they are.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    Aug. 24, 2011 4:59 p.m.

    @ Timj | 4:48 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011

    "And certainly James E. Talmage (a prominent member of the 12 and a scientist) believed in death before 'the fall.'"

    Please, provide a reference.

    Thank you!

  • bknabe BAKERSFIELD, CA
    Aug. 24, 2011 5:01 p.m.

    Timj,

    Could you list some sources where I could find what Henry Eyring has said about the topic of evolution, as well as sources for Talmage believing in death before the fall? It would be much appreciated. But I would like to quote Moses 6:48 "And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe." That scripture seems pretty clear on when exactly death came into the world, doesn't it?

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 5:10 p.m.

    Dinosaurs, ice age mammals, and Neanderthals, have all left their mark on the earth. But, we still say they existed so long ago, we only know when they lived in relationship to one another. ...Give or take 10 thousand years or 5-6 million years for dinosaurs. That is a huge discrepancy. We have a lot to learn still.
    But, I do believe they died before Adam.
    For those that say the fossils were left over elements from prior matter. Um, they're still dead.

    Another thought, the missing link isn't just between apes and humans but between ancient human-like fossils and Homo-Sapiens. Perhaps there is no link.

  • Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 5:38 p.m.

    Quotes from LDS religious scholars and leaders can be interpreted many ways. So, be careful. However, I found this quote that I find interesting

    1910 Christmas message, the First Presidency made reference to the church's position on science:

    "Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. ... Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense."

    First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund), "Words in Season from the First Presidency", Deseret Evening News, 1910-12-17, sec. 1, p. 3.

  • bknabe BAKERSFIELD, CA
    Aug. 24, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    Canyontreker,

    I don't know, Joseph Fielding Smith was pretty explicit throughout his writings, I don't believe that it could be interpreted differently by different people. And thanks for citing sources.

    For anyone interested, If you go to the BYU College of Life Sciences homepage and under "Department Info" click the link "Forms" you'll see a handout called "Evolution and the Origin of Man" which consists of First Presidency Statements on the subject, which I found to be quite informative.

    And after all, it still is just the Theory of Evolution. "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy" as we certainly should, but there is many parts of evolution that need further findings to demonsrate whether it is indeed true.

    But no matter what someone might or might not believe about evolution, it won't matter in the long run. Heavenly Father will reveal all truth eventually, and arguing what the truth is before we have all the facts is pointless, because what is really important is the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. Anything else is only an appendage, and while important to study about, it shouldn't take focus away from what really matters.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 24, 2011 6:53 p.m.

    Henry Eyring's position on evolution, the age of earth, etc. is linked to in the original article here. Due to DN rules, I can't provide direct links in my comments.

    James Talmage said, "The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation." As a geologist, he could hardly ignore pre-human fossils...

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Aug. 24, 2011 7:17 p.m.

    It's been established that the cradle of life is what is now known as the African continent. When people migrated north, away from the equator, the pigment in their skin became lighter. So, if Adam and Eve existed, they were black. Oh, and that throws a wrench into the story of the 'mark of Cain', doesn't it?

    Also, we all know the Bible doesn't mention creatures like the dinosaurs, but we have proof they existed. Just as we have proof that bi-pedal creatures, certainly resembling modern humans, existed.

    Faith is fine. But science isn't blasphemous.

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    Aug. 25, 2011 6:00 a.m.

    @ Timj | 6:53 p.m. Aug. 24, 2011

    WHERE did Talmage say that? Please provide the source.

    Remember, matter is neither created nor destroyed. He may have been referring to the fact that, as the Lord pointed out in Moses 1:35, 38.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 25, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    The Talmage quote is from his talk (which the church later published in pamphlet form and in "The Instructor") entitled "The Earth and Man." In addition to quite a bit of language concerning fossils, the age of the earth, etc., he states, there, "The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, earth-science or man-science...We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation."

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Aug. 25, 2011 8:43 a.m.

    Evolution is merely an attempt to explain the origin of things without God with naturalism and chance. God by definition is the uncreated creator of all else (Aseity).
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1,14) God becomes man, not man become God.(kenosis)
    We(Mormons) believe in A God who himself progressive[exaltation, evolving].(The articles of faith.
    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.(Hebrews 13:8).

  • John Adams Miami, FL
    Aug. 25, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    @ Timj

    Thank you for the reference.

    Considering what Talmage said and considering what the scritpures say, that the fall of Adam introduced death into the world, I can only choose the scripture's teachings over Talmage's. This is why we are told not to focus on any others than the first presidency, and THE prophet specifically.

    Indeed, Talmage is entitled to his opinion, but that is all it is, and nothing more. We have been given the scriptures--the Standard Works--for a reason.

    "All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scripture... We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures... We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works.... If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation.... and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth." (Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church: Harold B. Lee, p.59)

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Aug. 25, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    "If Adam was created on the earth via evolution, then Adam must have had a human father on this earth, and then Adam could not be the first of all mankind on the earth because then Adams fathers fathers father, etc, would be."

    Who is to say the evolution occurred on what we now call "the earth?" Moses 1 includes some very interesting verses regarding "lands," "earth," "Adam(s),"and "worlds." There are so many possibilities. If worlds without number have passed away, or now exist, we can't really assume that the Adam from whom we are descended was the very first man ever to exist in the universe or the first man to die. I don't think we quite understand how our world fits in to the grand scheme of things. Does it mean just our planet, or does it mean our period of time and space on this planet? Archeology and Geology clearly show that our planet has been around with life on it much longer than 6,000 years. Does the physical planet alone define the words "earth" and "world", or is it possible that multiple worlds have existed/exist on the same planet?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 25, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    Mormonism is at once rich and flexible. For that reason I can be both a Marxist and a Mormon. Mormonism is powerful! I hope Brothers Romney and Huntsman get a chance to demonstrate.

  • Bereal MADERA, CA
    Aug. 25, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    The theory of evolution is atheistic and implies there is no God. Korihor, the anti-Christ, was a strong proponent of evolution, thus no God, thus no consequences for doing wrong. Darwin was attempting to replace Christian doctrine with a belief in nature. Evolution cannot explain that we are dual beings, first created spiritually before created physically by God. The theory claims when we die that's the end of our existence because we have no spirit and our intelligence comes only from our DNA, therefore no need for an atonement.

    The whole claim of evolution is based on a series of accidents and since Christ died he no longer exists which is in direct opposition of LDS doctrine. Huntsman and Romney are spiritually walking on thin ice ascribing to evolution theory that we are an accident of nature and thus have no purpose and are nothing more than evolved animals.

    The theory of evolution is utter science nonsense and since the discovery of DNA a large body of anti evolution science exists, research it!

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Aug. 25, 2011 9:35 p.m.

    Bereal, the theory of evolution is based on science. The theory wasn't created in order discount the idea that we were 'created spiritually before created physically'. It doesn't mean to upend the idea that there is no need for 'the atonement'.

    Also, people don't have to be religious or even believe in God to be moral, decent, law-abiding, good (and even happy, well-adjusted) people.

  • Matteo Orem, UT
    Aug. 26, 2011 10:18 a.m.

    @atl134
    Gravity is a theory only insofar as scientists can explain *what* causes it. Dropping something off a bridge and watching it fall does not, however, explain *why* it falls. No one doubts the existence of gravity.

    It is the same for Human-caused Global Warming. I can see rising changes in the temperature (or is it a chilling of the temperatures - scientists can't agree as to which or if both are being caused by humans...) and seek to find a reason behind the change. This is the "theory* aspect of the equation. I can try to attribute it to humans, or I can look for another explanation (of which there are legion). Human-caused global warming is a theory, and will be until it is definitively proven. I know what a theory is, it is a step in the development of factual scientific law, not the end result of scientific inquiry.

    Go review your high school science - all inquiry starts as observation, then moves through the stages of conjecture, deduction, testing and challenge. Until it can withstand the challenges of peers, "no theory can ever be seriously considered certain if new evidence falsifying it can be discovered." -Wikipedia

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Aug. 26, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    Religion poisons everything, but most of all science and the pursuit of truth.