Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Creationism holds that true scientific principles will never contradict correct interpretations of scripture and revelation.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT JOSEPHSMITHFORUM.ORG.

Darwinian Evolution, Creationism and the Gospel

Darwinian Evolution and Neo-Darwinism hold to the following principles:

  1. All life originated and diversified through chance
  2. All organisms are descended from a single common ancestor in the distant past
  3. An unguided process of natural selection has the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life through random mutations
  4. Uniformitarianism or the principle that the present is the key to the past should be used in understanding the earth and all things in the universe
  5. There is no purpose or design in the universe

Each of the above assertions clearly contradict scripture and are therefore opposed by Creationists.  Contrary to what many believe, neither Creationism nor the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in any way anti-science or anti-scientific.  The prophets of God were not anti-science as many today attest, but they held to scripture first, and knew that revelation comes from God and is without error.

Creationism holds that true scientific principles will never contradict correct interpretations of scripture and revelation.  The Gospel is not separate and distinct from the real world. While Brigham Young taught the truth that we do not oppose true science, he also taught that the earth has a temporal existence of 6,000 years, that the Fall of man was literal, that there was no death on this earth prior to the Fall, and so on.  As mentioned, Brigham Young strongly opposed Darwinism and endowed Brigham Young Academy to refute these false scientific theories.  Why has every President of the Church in this dispensation been a supporter of the principles of Creationism?

Why did President Harold B. Lee say “There is a great effort on the part of so-called modernists to change religious beliefs and teachings of the past to conform to modern thought and critical research. . . . I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned.”?

lds-view-creationism-002-image

Modern Ridicule of Creationism

Those holding a Creationist perspective are often mocked and ridiculed because of there support for scripture and the writings of prophets. It is curious that even those who claim to be LDS and religious can often be found in the large and spacious building pointing their fingers at men like Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, Harold B. Lee, Joseph F. Smith and others that are well known for there positions on this matter.  President Boyd K. Packer noted this mocking behavior has been applied to Creationists.  Read President Packer’s comments.

Differences between LDS Theology and Creationism

With that said, there are some areas that although well intentioned, Creationists without modern day revelation err. Creationists, who are not Latter-day Saints, do not have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and writings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Prophets.  Some of these misunderstood areas are addressed in this article.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT JOSEPHSMITHFORUM.ORG.

2 COMMENTS

  1. The Church is not anti-science it is anti-bad-science or lies.
    By their fruits ye shall know them.
    1) On the title page of the first edition of “The Origin of Species
    by means of natural selection (I forget the connector) preservation of favored racesin the struggle for life” FAVORED RACES. Is it any wonder that Darwinism is a recognized philosophical bulwark of Nazism?
    2) Ernst Haeckle published drawings of various embryos show their distinct similarities. In 1874 a group of fellow German scientists forced Haeckle to confess that the drawings were wrong. Haeckel gave a very weak confession in which he said that the errors were the fault of the draftsman. He confidently omitted the fact that the draftsman was nonother than himself. Despite this confession Haeckel continued to use the drawings. Late in the 19th century they were redrawn by someone else. These drawings are still used in current textbooks despite Haeckle’s admisdion that they were false.
    3) Why drawings and not photographs?
    In 1997 Dr. Michael K. Richardson published photos taken by him of the sames types and phases of embryos used by Haeckle. These photos show how much Haeckel had distorted the truth to support Darwinism. Darwinists are still vilifying Dr. Richardson. Stephen Jay Gould, a very prominant pro Darwin scientist, accepted the truth of Dr Richardson’s evidence, yet still accepted Darwinism, wrote a scathing article about the dishonesty of Haeckle’s drawings.
    So let’s recap some of the fruits of Darwinism. They gave philosophical impetus to Hitler and his Nazi Party. They lied from the beginning and continue to lie despite the lies being proven.
    I almost forgot that it has been proven that Darwin plagiarized at least 30 people’s work including his own father.
    We are told that Darwin developed his theories on his own when the truth is that he grew up on them.

  2. I’ve found it interesting the way that the belief in evolution can change someone so drastically. A great example of this is the great Charles Darwin himself, who started out Christian. Note the shift in his views on Christianity and religion itself. Now, while I use him as an example, keep in mind the principle illustrated therein:

    He writes:
    I remember in the early part of my school life [1818–1825] that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to prayers and not to my quick running, and marveled how generally I was aided.”

    He also said:
    “I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that [Christianity] must be fully accepted.”

    Now we see his ideas changing…
    “The old argument of design in nature, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”

    “…by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

    “I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

    ‘[The writers of the New Testament] were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us.”

    This one is quite clear on his stance. Darwin’s letter to a young barrister named Francis McDermott, November 24, 1880
    …”that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.”

    In all of the above, we see that the disbelief in the literal Creation can lead to something much more dramatic, if it continues to grow. Thank you, LDS Answers for addressing the issue in the above article.

LEAVE A REPLY