What’s the Matter with BYU

Evolution has lots of explanatory power. Yay evolution. But I want room in the church for the people who don’t like it. Most people who say ‘they believe in evolution’ don’t get it or understand it or believe in it except when its useful to dunk on people who are objectively better and more religious people than they are, but also lower class.

*believes in evolution*
*doesn’t have any kids*

I have a friend who is a successful tech journalist.

One day we were talking about how he and his department try to get their articles linked on a reddit-like sharing site.

“Yeah,” he said. “The problem is that the moderators don’t like good headlines.”

“I think they’re trying to avoid sensationalism,” I said.

“[Bah, humbug,” he said. “That’s missing the point of a headline.”

“I don’t think you’re seeing this from the point of a reader—” I started, but backed off.

Journalism, man. I don’t know.

Place seeds and animals, etc
The same as has been done in other worlds…

The life on this world is a continuation of what has been done in the past.

Life progressed across the eons elsewhere and was placed here by Adam and His Father’s Son (I assume it likely others were involved), where it is yet further progressing and will be placed elsewhere when this world’s mortal probation comes to a close by another future Adam.

It’s all there to be understood, but people like to argue about things that don’t matter.

I never liked the phrase “believing in evolution”, it seems too dogmatic.

I’ve had people shove that 1909 message down my throat to prove evolution is false, which I think drives some of the over-corrective animus. Personally, I think people should be searching for truth instead of regurgitating in-crowd idea worship (but I fail at that myself).

On a related note, if you haven’t seen this discussion regarding evolution, intelligent design, and mind, I highly recommend it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDSpLBNQk5I

In defense of the author of the Daily Universe piece, I can only guess that he or she was in way over his or her head. This is a topic that has been thought and written about by way smarter people than me for a long time. It is a poor choice for a topic to tackle as an undergrad journalism student. At least, that’s what it looks like to me from that facile sentence that is highlighted in yellow.

Also cites Signature Books as an authority. Oh, dear.

Ignorance of the history of ‘evolutionary theory’ is usual, even/ especially among professional scientists. In 1909 genetics had been discovered only a few years, but was regarded as being *opposed* to Darwinian evolution by natural selection. They were rival theories.

It took several decades of work, extending into the 1940s, before the ‘modern synthesis’ brought together genetics and natural selection.

So natural selection in 1909 was ‘wrong’ by mainstream modern standards, because anti-genetics.

But – as I have often written about – mainstream modern belief about Darwinian evolution believes that the metaphysical *assumptions* concerning the origins of life and species as ‘facts’ (to doubt which is insane or idiotic) – while regarding massively data-driven empirical facts of (ongoing) human natural selection as ‘racist’.

The whole public discussion has long-since degenerated into incoherent posturing and is best ignored.

(Best book on the history of the theory of evolution I’ve encountered is the superb – Science as a Process by DL Hull, 1988.)

I just have to plug this excellent article that talks about scientific truth and revealed truth. I don’t know how to make links work in the comments, so here is the title:
Seeking Truth through Science and Religion: Being Disciple Scholars, by Dan Moore, Brian Tonks, and Alan Holyoak.

JRL, just copy/paste the URL in the comment. the blog automagically makes it a link. Easier than when composing a post.

http://www.byui.edu/Documents/university-relations/education-week/Class%20PDF's/Moore_Dan_Pre_Seeking%20Truth%20through%20Science%20and%20Religion%20-%20Being%20Disciple%20Scholars%202012.pdf

To neglect Nibley at this point is academically unforgivable.

“Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins.”

The entire article is worth reading.
https://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/z-Scholarly%20Articles/NibleyH_BeforeAdam.html