Are you aware that no President of the Church has ever in their long lives made any clear supportive statements for Darwinian evolution? Additionally, nearly every President of the Church has taught that Darwinism is destructive to faith and contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Here are five frequently asked questions (FAQs) that show what leaders of the Church have taught in the past, and more importantly, why it matters.
- Does what a person believes about organic evolution influence the way he/she lives? Will those who promote the theories of organic evolution stand accountable before God? (Read more)
- Have Church authorities made comments on the theory of organic evolution in recent years? Has the Church changed its position? Are we embarrassed by the statements made by early leaders and the scriptures? (Read more)
- Are there many conflicting opinions with diversity of viewpoint among the previous presidents of the Church on the theory of organic evolution? Have some spoken for, some against and others in between? (Read more)
- Were there “pre-Adamites” or pre-human beings prior to Adam being placed upon the earth? Was Adam a cave-man? Are the world’s teachings about how language and civilization progressed accurate? (Read more)
- Was there death on earth prior to the Fall? Has the Church changed its position on this? (Read more)
What do you think? Is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints evolving when it comes to Darwinian Evolution or can we still believe in the nearly countless statements made in the past?
Read the top 40 Frequently Asked Questions regarding the theories of organic evolution and the age of the earth as they pertain to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Darwinian evolution is one of the most destructive pseudotheories of our time! I’m so happy to read articles like this!
Thank you Joseph Smith Foundation for the good work you are doing in providing evidence against and exposing the dogma that our kids are being exposed to.
I love this latest website of Joseph Smith Foundation. What a wonderful resource to ensure our elect youth are not deceived by the philosophies of men. So important for all of us to know what the prophets and the scriptures teach on these critical timely issues.
Thanks so much for this! The belief Darwinian evolution is so prevalent in our day. Virtually everyone believes it-even in the LDS culture- which makes it even more important for us to be educated on this and help others understand its dangers that have been warned about for years from prophets. If only more people would study out the so-called “evidence” for this theory. Sadly, it’s very common among our young adults. One talk that addresses this is Boyd K. Packer’s “Snow White Birds” I encourage all who are concerned about what’s going on to read this.
Oh, no. Nooooo no no no. This makes me cringe so hard. Are we really going to pull this card? “It was a church leader’s opinion, so it must be doctrine!” Yikes. Considering all the outlandish opinions Brigham Young has had on various issues, that would mean we’re basically doomed. And by the way, we HAVE had many prominent Mormons who were also scientists. We have many intelligent, faithful Mormons who are happy to accept Darwinism as one of God’s tools.
Church leaders, including prophets, are allowed to have their own opinions on issues. We do NOT have all the answers yet. If we did, we would have official doctrine on this issue. Clearly, we do not, so stop pretending that YOUR opinion on the matter is morally superior, and should be EVERY church member’s opinion. Personal opinions are not doctrine. Don’t pretend they are, because that’s a dangerous game.
We know that many believe that this is a “done deal”. They declare that the prophets and scriptures have been proven to be in error and that we should limp away and try to pretend like this never happened. In the next several months, we will be publishing and re-posting material that scientifically supports the position held by the prophets and scriptures.
Also, you may be surprised how Brigham Young’s “opinions” on things align with Joseph Smith’s “opinions” and the scriptures. Coming soon, we will be doing an analysis of some of those “opinions”.
This official and most recent First Presidency statement trumps literally all of the personal opinion content in the above article.
“Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.”
Improvement Era 13:570, April, 1910.
Assuming official Church statements from the First Presidency are more important than unofficial musings that were never declared as official Church stances or doctrine, this is a pretty important one to not ignore or miss.
From it, we can clearly see that the Church and the scriptures are only “in error” when we incorrectly interpret what they say in a literal or fundamentalist way.
The scientific theory of evolution, which again, has never gone against the scriptures or official statements of the Church, can at this point only be denounced with pseudo-science and conspiracy theories.
You may want to be aware that the spurious 1910 “First Presidency Message” (quoted in your comment) was not signed or published by the First Presidency. This is a rumor promoted by many Darwinian Evolutionists, but is easily contradicted by the evidence. http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/10-1910-message-was-there-a-1910-first-presidency-message-that-taught-that-man-may-have-evolved/
This statement appeared in the “Priesthood Quorums’ Table” with no attribution and it has never been known who the author was. The Priesthood Quorums’ Table was the method by which the General Priesthood Committee communicated with the local quorums. One thing we know for certain is that the article was not written by Joseph F. Smith or the First Presidency as claimed by Evenson and Jeffery. The first evidence is that, as I mentioned above, there was no signature on the article. Realize that the Improvement Era contained numerous anonymous comments and articles on various religious and secular topics. The articles that were written by the First Presidency, by President Joseph F. Smith or by other leaders such as “The Origin of Man” published in 1909 and “The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve” published in 1916 are clearly distinguishable as to who the author or authors are. Some believe that the article that you mentioned was written by someone on the General Priesthood Committee, but we will probably never know in this life as articles were published by many who were not members of the General Committee. It could have been written by any member of the Church. Realize that the articles that President Smith or others wrote always bore their names, where this 1910 message was unidentified.
The next evidence that President Joseph F. Smith did not write the statement as you have indicated is that at that very time, the years 1910 and 1911, President Smith removed three BYU faculty members for their persistent teaching of organic evolution and higher criticism. http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/13-3-byu-professors-why-did-president-joseph-f-smith-dismiss-three-professors-from-brigham-young-university-for-teaching-organic-evolution/ It would be very inconsistent to make the statement you have attributed to him while acting in this way.
Another evidence that President Smith did not write the statement is that it is inconsistent with everything that President Smith ever taught on the subject. President Smith taught repeatedly that Adam was the physical son of God as taught in Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22. Note this statement made by President Smith and the First Presidency in 1912:
“Our father Adam—that is our earthly father—the progenitor of the human race of man, stands at the head being ‘Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,’ and…was not fashioned from earth like an adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven.” — President Joseph F. Smith, President Anthon H. Lund, and President Charles W. Penrose. (The First Presidency, Letter to Samuel O. Bennion, February 26, 1912)
President Smith taught consistently that Adam was the literal son of God (as clearly stated in the scriptures) as did Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. This is probably why the First Presidency in 1909 said:
“Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.”
President Smith also taught: “We did not spring from spawn. Our spirits existed from the beginning, have existed always, and will continue forever. We did not pass through the ordeals of embodiment in the lesser animals in order to reach the perfection to which we have attained in manhood and womanhood, in the image and likeness of God. God was and is our Father, and his children were begotten in the flesh of his own image and likeness, male and female.”
This doctrine that Adam was the literal son of God through his physical body was consistently taught by Joseph F. Smith and other of the Presidents of the Church, and it is spelled out in the standard works of the Church. In fact, Joseph Fielding Smith said that it was a fundamental doctrine of our Church. Note that it is in direct conflict with believing that man came from lower forms of life.
There is still more evidence that this 1910 statement is not authentic. Please see the following article for additional information and supporting evidence. http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/10-1910-message-was-there-a-1910-first-presidency-message-that-taught-that-man-may-have-evolved/
While I don’t have the time to respond to your claim that the First Presidency statement of 1910 is not legitimate, I will say that there is no official position from the Church on evolution.
This article — which was published by the Church owned Deseret News — may be helpful to you:
Maybe this document would be helpful. Published in 1909 and reaffirmed by the First Presidency in 2002. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man.p18?lang=eng
Evolution is only at odds with the Church’s doctrine that Man was created in the image of God, and that Adam was the first Man, to those who do not understand evolution.
We don’t have to be afraid of science. I highly recommend this article to you and the author of this site as it will be extremely helpful:
Then there’s Gordon B. Hinckley, “What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest.”
And a nice book of quotes by Members of the First Presidency, supporting evolutions possibility “Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements”
You can read more statements by President Hinckley here. For more information and an excellent review of that book I highly recommend following the links on this page.
The compilation you are recommending I would be wary of. More than several quotes are omitted and other statements are included that don’t meet the leaflet’s own professed criteria for “authoritative”. The co-author Duane Jeffrey, a serious advocate of evolutionary dogma, wrote Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface in 1973 subtlety backhanding the integrity of President Joseph Fielding Smith. President Benson publicly rebuked Duane Jeffrey, in front of the entire student body at BYU in 1976 and made it clear it is unwise to trifle with the words of a Prophet of God. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1025283-one-of-our-church-educators-published-what-he-purports-to Additional details of this story can be found in the following article. http://ndbf.net/sse.htm
Matthew re that the Church has made no official pronouncements about darwinism/evolution.
We are not to be commanded in all things. D & C 58:26.
Joseph Smith “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
This is presupposing that those being taught will recognize correct principles. Darwinism is anti-God. Genesis 1:27 & Moses 1:27-41 state clearly that man was created in God’s own image. What more definitive statement do you need from God that Darwinism is a satanic perversion? Every time that we are taught that God is our Father it is as plain a declaration as can be made, to those who have ears to hear, that we did not evolve from rocks through a progression of accidents. When God has revealed the truth and truth is constantly confirmed from the pulpit WHY WOULD YOU DEMAND THAT GOD MUST GIVE A COMMANDMENT? Either you belive that the scriptures are the word of God, or you don’t. If they are true accept what they say.
I agree with Joseph’s quote and that we are not to be commanded in all things, though I’m not sure what that has to do with evolution. I’ve never mentioned Darwinism, so we don’t have to worry about that, but as far as evolution is concerned I was not aware that the theory of evolution was seen as a religious principle by anyone. I personally don’t believe it’s a religion principle, (nor do I believe that *any* scientific theory is a religious principle, and if you’d like to know what I mean by principle of the gospel I’m using it the same way the Church uses it, e.g. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng), though I do believe that the scientific theory of evolution is correct.
Evolution, like the rest of science, is not anti-God, as the Church has recently made clear in this article that you may find helpful:
In reference to your statement on what Genesis and Moses are saying, I find Elder James E Talmage’s statement quite relevant:
“The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a textbook of geology, archaeology, earth-science, or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation.” (John R. Talmage, The Talmage Story: Life of James E. Talmage–Educator, Scientist, Apostle , p.232)
Unfortunately there are some in the Church who still, like many Evangelicals, take a fundamentalist approach to the creation scriptures, even though the Church has taught from its inception that such scriptures are not to be taken literally and are open to interpretation (for example, “In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular…whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in *as many millions of years*…” Brigham Young, May 14, 187 Journal of Discourses 14:116, asterisks added for emphasis).
I agree that God is our Father. Who is demanding that God must give a commandment? What is this desired commandment that you are eluding to?
In response to your statement “Either you belive that the scriptures are the word of God, or you don’t. If they are true accept what they say.” I say — I, like Joseph Smith, believe the Book of Mormon to be the world of God, but only believe the Bible to be the word of God *as far as it has been translated correctly*.
Are you a creationist? Do you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Do you take the creation account to be entirely literal, and do you believe that earth saw no death before Adam and Eve? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then this article has much bigger scientific problems than that of Darwinian evolution. If you do not subscribe to those literal notions, then you probably believe in cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. Darwinian evolution applies to all forms of life, not just humans. Are you suggesting that Darwinian evolution might accurately describe the progress of all forms of life except that of homo sapiens? Why can’t God work with evolution to produce Adam, our “first parent”? How is Darwinian evolution destructive to the gospel or mission of Jesus Christ?
Hey Roo, how are you today? Anyways I would like to answer ‘yes’ to all of your questions. Now I am not here to argue, I am here to have a discussion. I see your point; You are coming from a side of “maybe it happened” and you’re right, God is all powerful, He could have done it that way. But let us look at what we have. One, is Joseph Smith a prophet of God? If he is, then we are to look at the words of God that were revealed unto him.
Moses 2:27 “And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.”
Now, using that as my base, let us break it down. We all know right off the bat who the “Only Begotten” is right? Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. “In the image of mine Only Begotten created I him”. So we know that our first parents are indeed man like us. What does this mean? Well, when we look earlier in the chapter of Moses, we also see that God created the birds and the fish and the beasts of the field. We can only accurately propose that God (who is unchanging and who made the first man as a man) created everything exactly as they are and in the order which they are. Adam and Eve lived in the presence of God, They could not die.
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”.
In this, we learn of God’s perfection. He, being perfect in all things and having great love for them, knew everything that Adam and Eve could ever need. He, however, being all knowing also knew that they must leave the garden. Which is why He allowed Satan to come in and tempt Adam and Eve. They could feel no pain or illness, nor could they die until they gave in to temptation and were forced to leave the garden of Eden. Then, pain, sickness and death came into the world.
All in all, it comes down to this: Is Joseph Smith a Prophet of God, and is the Book of Mormon true? As for me, I believe it with all my heart and I have prayed about it many times. If it is true then God created, not evolved, Evolution is a tool to confuse the children of men; A way to convince them that there is no God. And if there is no God, there is no Gospel, no mission for the Savior, and no need for the Atonement.
I close with Moroni 10:3-5 “3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” I long with Moroni invite you.
Yes, discussion on these issues is great. Your view on how I see evolution is ironic because that is precisely how I see your view of creation. Specifically, I think to hold a creationist point of view, as you do, one is required to view God precisely as you stated, “God is all powerful, He could have done it that way.” But that would require him to violate natural law as we understand it. I don’t see the need to invoke this violation to keep God consistent with the Gospel. I believe that God can (in fact, must) obey natural laws. This requires one to take aspects of scripture as allegory or nonliteral, and there is no reason why we can’t.
It is interesting to see how the Church’s views on this subject has vacillated and evolved over the years. A recent comment found here (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/02/to-the-point?lang=eng), in the New Era, suggests that the Church acknowledges the evidence of science, and admits that despite all of the spiritual evidence you suggest above, there has been “no revelation” about Dinosaurs. Well, dinosaurs can be a place holder for the age of the earth, the age of the universe, death before Adam, etc.
There are many ways of interpreting scripture, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated that prophets and apostles are fallible and have personal opinions. So it is hard to extract anything but personal belief and personal opinion from Church sources as they personally appeal to you. That is why testimonies are personal, that is why we are encouraged to study by faith, and so on. We come to truth via a spiritual vehicle rather than a scientific one. This is a very powerful and effective method for coming closer to Christ. However, science and the pursuit of knowledge is heavily encouraged and also is a valid vehicle for discovering truth. There are many paths to truth, and they will all one-day merge. I believe in scriptures and prophets, but I also believe in the scientific process. I have yet to see any evidence that precludes God from using natural laws to bring about his works. In fact, it seems very cruel and ungodlike to let us learn natural laws that work perfectly for so many applications (medicine, technology, etc.), but really mislead us because they are all actually fundamentally false according to the Creationist view.
Roo Phillips, your question, “Are you a creationist” is an interesting question. Are you not a creationist? If you ascribe to the modern science view of a 13 billion year old Universe, then you, like your Christian counterparts believe in a creation from nothing, differing only in the amount of time. Both the modern evangelical and the modern science versions profess a creation ex nihilo – everything from nothing – and both are wrong scientifically and scripturally. The truth is that the Earth came about by a process of organization that remains largely unknown, especially by today’s science professors. As to the age of the Earth, science again relies wholly on conjectural opinion. Every method of determining the Earth’s age fails, including the recent and widely accepted radiometric version, but the supposed age of 4.5 billion years comes from a claim opined by famous geologists, Eugene Shoemaker while examining a rock from Meteor Crater in Arizona. But he and all of today’s geologists are dead wrong about that – and they know almost nothing about the actual origin of the crater itself.
The historical narrative of the Earth’s creation (yes, the Bible) is quite precise in its scientific alliteration, but only if you have the proper facts about the Earth’s composition. Darwinian evolutionists frequently deflect attention from direct questions about speciation because they have absolutely no evidence of it. While there are dozens of examples showing adaptation, there is no trans-species evidence. But this quarrel has been argued on stages bigger than this blog, so lets not spend too much time there. Instead, lets answer the question you pose about God being able to work evolution to produce Adam, our first parent.
The fact that you ask this question suggests to me that you either disagree with the overarching point of the restored gospel or you don’t understand it. There is something meaningful and deep about the concept of eternal – that it is without beginning of days or end of years. Did God evolve on his planet? Did his God evolve on his planet before him? What purpose would God have to re-evolve that which had already evolved? Furthermore, why did God issue figurative directives to the animals when he evolved them on the Earth to multiply within their sphere? In the hands-on practice of animal husbandry, why do we encounter the absolute boundaries placed between species, as if their was a message meant for us to understand clearly: animals can adapt, but they will remain within their sphere, period.
Darwinian evolution is absolutely destructive to the gospel of Jesus Christ because it denies the eternal nature of God and the plan of salvation. It destroys the majesty of God by reducing the processes of life’s proliferation to a construct invented by men contemporary with but opposed to the restoration of the gospel. And it denies God’s purpose for creating the Earth, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
I’m afraid that your understanding of science (cosmological, biological, biblical, etc.) is so off base that it would be impractical to address it in this forum. You make some pretty definitive and bold statements against all scientists and their every claim, and yet you claim to know the truth? How do you know all scientists are “dead wrong,” have “absolutely no evidence,” rely “wholly on conjectural opinion,” fail at “every method,” know “almost nothing”? Of course you do not want “to spend too much time” on this part. Your obtuse claims are clear evidence of your general ignorance on all of these well-established, researched, documented, and widely accepted scientific subjects. I don’t mean to be demeaning or argumentative, but people truly pondering these issues have a right to accurate and sound data from both sides, not just catchy phrases and misinformation.
An entertaining yet very educational debate on creationism with Bill Nye and Ken Ham can be found at the link below. This will provide a nutshell of the two sides of the argument to help people understand the evidence and claims of each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Maybe God created the earth in six days, but all natural laws would be violated for this to occur. Yet we are encouraged to study natural laws, and the Church (even all mankind) thrive on our understanding and use of natural laws. But you are suggesting that God is really deceiving us in believing that we are making progress, when in reality we are studying lies, the real laws are wholly different from what we have learned. That is very ungodlike in my opinion. In the end, this is of course my opinion, but it is widely accepted in and out of the Church in various gradations. Nothing is as black and white as you paint it. I have studied the spiritual and the scientific evidence extensively and see no reason to claim that they contradict each other.
I pointed out in my comment above this note from the Church’s magazine, the February 2016 New Era. Something to think about…
Most of what I wrote is pretty simple really. Through Joseph Smith we know the Earth was organized, not created out of nothing. Modern science does not know how that happened. They claim the proto-Earth came from accretion from the Solar disk, but THIS IS CONJECTURE; they do not know it, they cannot demonstrate it, therefore it is merely OPINION.
As far as evolution goes, evolution’s adherents have no examples of speciation they can point to.This is the problem and it has always been the problem, so why discuss it? There very best and only examples they ever offer only describe adaptation, or micro evolution. By their OWN WORDS, they have no proof. (See a recent example in December 2007 Scientific American, Evolution in a Petri Dish) In that article they claim proof of evolution “for the first time” but then go on to say it “hasn’t actually happened but it seems close.” Even if it did happen – it was a nematode worm becoming a nematode worm with slight differences. 40,000 generations of E-Coli bacteria produced great excitement and new claims of proof of evolution…all because a bacteria began to eat citrates. Wow – a bacteria gets a new diet and that proves evolution. Now 60,000 generations have passed and still NO NEW SPECIES. I invite anyone anywhere to show simple, plain proof of evolution where one species becomes another. It isn’t there. And it never will be because it just isn’t true. WHY waste time discussing it further? It’s just a badminton game of theory. There is no ambiguity in the words about the creation of life in the temple ceremony; they specify “within their sphere.” Those are not my words, so your quarrel is not with me.
Science really does know almost nothing about the Meteor Crater in Arizona. Again, the offer conjecture. The claim a 300,000 ton meteorite excavated the crater 50,000 years ago. Yet they can’t find 299,000 tons. Daniel Barringer went broke trying to find the meteorite because it IS NOT THERE. While there are metallic fragments there, they are of two different compositions, leading the chief researcher there to proclaim there were TWO different meteorites, but no actual proof of that one either. Bottom line – they DO NOT KNOW.
My ignorance of…well-established, reTsearched, documented, and widely accepted scientific subjects. If you are referring to the magic of Harry Potter, I accept your censure. But if you are referring to modern science, I reject many of their theoretical claims because they cannot prove them. Consensus does not mean proven. Well-established does not mean proven. Documented – what is documented? peer-reviewed simply means “in agreement with the establishment’s doctrine”
It’s time for a revolution in science. Lets return to the method where we seek to discover natural law through experimentation and observation. Lets knock of the constant defense of modern science’s blatant anti-God agenda. Are you really interested in knowing the truth? Just ask how do they really know…I mean question the big things – the assumptions that everyone accepts. Like, how does science know the core of Earth is hot and molten? Do they really know what causes the magnetic energy field? Do all rocks really come from a melt? Does melting rocks really reset the radiometric clock? These are a few, and there are hundreds more, and there are answers, but they are not all in modern science.
One final comment. It is not unGod-like to allow people to study lies. People have done that for millennia. We know that God allowed the true gospel to fade into oblivion for a time. The early Christians did the best they could, but God saw fit to let them remain without much of the truth. There are numerous examples where we can see this. The great conflict that began in the premortal spirit world was a battle between truth and the lie promoted by Lucifer. That battle continues today. There are many good men and women in science and they have done much good, but there untruths throughout the sciences, and its time to begin to change that. IMHO.
“…wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.”
1. I would stop at knowing that all our prophets have taught against evolution as a theory.
2. But…. Because science teaches evolution as fact/truth….Let’s get to the real “evidence” that prophets of evolution spout. Those evidences are – dating of rock layers and dating of dinosaur bones. Do church members know that there is circular reasoning involved in this dating method? Do we know that only about century ago the dinosaur ages were only thousands of years? Why would the prophets of evolution need to change that to millions of years and even billions for the earth’s age? Do they need to push those numbers out in the theory to make the impossible look more possible? Do they need to have a time frame that negates God from the picture and “proves” that “God is dead”? When will church members see that this theory is satanic and only placed before us so that we have no reason to follow God? What if we have had generation upon generation fed the lie that dinosaur bones are millions of years old. What would happen if this were disproven?.. How would fossilised (permineralised) dinosaur bones that are only hundreds and thousands of years old affect that theory of evolution? It would blow it out of the water, thats what it would do. If anyone is interested in science… Real observational science that actually proves a young earth (which fits perfectly with genesis)…. Google these people… Ken Ham – answers in genisis (yes he may not like our church, but he has all the science which disproves evolution on one website) …. And mark Armitage – a Christian microbiologist who has found soft tissue in more dinosaurs, also “ICR” the institute of creation research. Also… Do your own research on the history of the word “dragon”. And look in early newspapers online… You may be surprised to see stories and descriptions of animals that sound very much like dinosaurs. That old serpent (or dragon… Or dinosaur) Satan has his finger prints all over this theory…. The theory of evolution begs the question posed to all of us “believe it not? “… Meaning…. Don’t believe God… Do what you want. Also… Consider this… The most atheistic dictatorships in the 20th century (socialism/communism) we’re able to be preached and became palatable as they used Darwin’s theory to preach that there is no God and some races were higher than others through evolution. Think about it and stop believing your programming.
Looks like I’m late to this discussion. I’m a geologist and a Creationist. I believe the earth is young, Adam was the first man and the first flesh on the earth. From what I’ve read over the years Evolution is a terrible dogma that has caused a real deteriatipn of society. Planned parenthood, abortion, sterilation are all traced to Evolution. As far as I’m concerned no Christian or L D S members should believe this terrible heresy.