Sign up for our newsletter


Signed up, but still not getting our newsletter? Click here.


December 1, 2020

Comments | Return to Story

Terry AndersonMay 26, 2014

I think it's very simplistic of "an actual scientist" to state that those posting only need to attend a basic biology class, even at BYU and they will soon be convinced of the efficacy of "evolution". I think most of us who take an interest in this issue are well aware of the text book propaganda of Darwinists. None of us are denying evolution, but we are putting a limit to it's efficacy in biogenesis, for example and its ability to generate the complexity seen in nature. Human mtDNA mutates, but the species remains human. E-coli mutates, but it is still e-coli at the end of the day. There is no increase in the Complex Specified information which Millet lauds in this article. By the definition of science, evolution is not science because it cannot be repeated. I have yet to see anyone recreate the procession of life from a pre-biotic soup of monomers, via blind mutations and natural selection, to anything close to even simple reproductive organisms. All the literature I've studied shows mere copying and re-engineering of existing cells, cells full of nano-technology and CSI. BTW, in order for mutations to become the engine room of evolution, there had to be self replicating entities capable of passing on the mutation. Evolutionists propose an RNA world for biogenesis, but this also faces the uphill batlle of conjuring up the CSI needed, let alone the unfavorable climate of an aqueous pre-biotic soup, hostile to RNA. My take has always been, if the Big Bang was no accident, then anything after it is likewise no accident, which rules out Darwinism. Another possibility that marries the transcendental to the material is the idea of spiritual evolution, which can be linked to reincarnation. As consciousness evolves, then the biological forms capable of housing that consciousness also evolve. This is an idea spoken about by those who have experienced elevated levels of consciousness, either through an NDE of high level meditation. This is the next frontier of science.

Rob OsbornMay 25, 2014

What a wonderfully written article! I thoroughly enjoyed it! As I get older and see more and more how technology advances us to make greater with knowledge of things that are I am astounded at just how extremely complex Gods creations truly are. As humans we have been able to create some of the most ingenious inventions that allow us to do many great featsand set up massive communication abbilities. When you compare all of that together though with even just one body of life it still doesn't compareto what are bodies do every second of the day.Our bodies run programs and control a system of life that surpasses every computers ability on the planet! And, it does all this without us having to do very much besides- eat, sleep, exercise, etc. To think- there are billions upon billions of individual intelligent factories inside our bodies that work for the most part in grand unison to fix and repair, replenish and direct actions that have intelligent purposes. There is so much intelligent actions taking place within every split second within our bodies and yet we seemingly take it all for granted that its just "nature". This is where I really love the LDS religion because we learn that God is an intelligent designer and it also showcases his grand ability and intelligence. Perhaps he is not the author of life itselfbut nevertheless, he is the authour or "creator" of creating the system for which life can go on. How challenging would that be- assignment #1- create a solar system with all the right parts in all the right places to end up with a world capableof bringing to pass his goal- the immortality and eternal life of man. #2- next is to fill it with all manners of life that gladen the heart and liven the mind. I am truly left in awe! And then- we have the eye- there is no way that nature, by itself, could create the eye which has so many complex nuances and then in the end have it end up "randomly" just like Gods eye. If you believe in God and believe he too has eyes and we are created in his image, then there is no way that some process, undirected in nature, could reproduce it identicle to God! I have better luck flipping a coin on its heads up side a billion times in a row!

PopsMay 18, 2014

As explained by Richard Feynman, the best that science can ever say is, "I'm not wrong yet.". There is no way short of omniscience to know if or when one has arrived at absolute truth using the scientific method. One can only know whether a theory matches the current data set, even for something as accepted as gravity. Some "scientists" exploit this aspect of science by proposing theories for which there is not or cannot be any data, thus they can never be shown to be wrong. But if a theory is not falsifiable, then it isn't very good science. A lot of the contention between science and religion falls into this category. The probably of random mutations creating life as we know it is indistinguishable from zero, and yet there are many who claim it is fact. Well, you should know right off the bat that when a scientist claims something is unconditional truth, they have left the realm of science and have entered the faith-based realm of scientism even if it's taught in a BYU biology class.

An actual scientist May 18, 2014

As a follow up, I recommend taking a biology class or two at a local college. There is very little understanding of science in these comments. Evolution is real, and fits quite well with lds theology. It is taught at BYU, because it is true.

An actual scientistMay 18, 2014

For whatever reason, the comment I attempted to post did not show up. I'll make this short. Evolution is not "conjecture" it is observable, and with any knowledge of genetics, undeniable. I recommend going to the biology department at BYU, and talking to a biologist.

GreatScotMay 16, 2014

I like to categorize evolution theories as: Organic evolution - no creator necessary Directed evolution - creatures evolve under ongoing creative supervision Programmed evolution - the creatures were programmed to evolve by a creator then allowed to progress organically without further intervention. These latter two would not seem to be in conflict with the biblical teachings that the creators watched and saw that all things were good.

MoormanMay 16, 2014

I have enjoyed the debate. Albert Einstein said " God doesn't play dice

Ron Millett (Author)May 14, 2014

>>> Kam: Y'all seem to have forgotten that the LDS church takes no position on organic evolution, a policy that dates to at least the 1960's. Any opinion you express on this subject is your own and nothing else. <<< Isn't it great to have many things where there is no official catechism from the Church? But, is that "correct principles and they govern themselves" to put a muzzle on our thinking and not strive to understand the creation and progress of life? Please read the quotes from James E. Talmage at the end of the article, which I take as my guide. --RM


The idea that the theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity is nonsense. The theory of gravity does not postulate the existence of gravity. Gravity is an observable force. There is no question about its existence. We can measure it, calculate its affects on objects, etc, The theory of gravity has nothing to do with proving that gravity exists. On the other hand the theory of evolution postulates that a process exists in nature that has never been observed, measured, or demonstrated. Nor can any observable predictions be made from the theory of evolution.

Harold RustMay 13, 2014

This article is a reminder that although scientists want to define certain ideas as "fact", the reality is there is faith imbedded all throughout scientific development. It requires "faith" that molecules have always behaved the way they are today; it requires "faith" that F = ma and not F = m(a to the 9999/10000)th power) just because so far all our calculations have only needed accuracy within the precision we have been able to measure. It certainly requires "faith" to believe that evolutionary forces have always worked the same way throughout the long life of this earth. Einstein made clear that some things accepted as fact--such as the definition of time--aren't always what they first seem. If scientists are as open as they claim to be, then they should be open to the reality they are accepting a lot of "facts" based on "faith". That doesn't diminish their role; in fact, it just ensures there will be plenty for scientists to do in coming decades and centuries.

jennywightMay 12, 2014

But LoneDrifter, things that are not compatible with eternal truth are the philosophies of men. I used to believe in evolution and thought those who believed in creation were idiots. Now I know I was the idiot. The world makes perfect sense now that I know who the Creator is. Man's understanding compared to God's understanding is nothing, which is why all scientific theories must be compatible with God's revealed truth. To dismiss God's truth because it is not compatible with man's truth is folly.

Terry AndersonMay 12, 2014

Darwinian evolution is a theory because it cannot be reproduced . We cannot wind the clock back and observe random, unguided mutations accounting for the origin of self replicating cells and the proliferation of species. Darwinism draws a conclusion from historical evidence, based on an assumption. It is actually not scientific because it is not testable. It is an inference. Mutations can be generated in laboratory conditions, such as mutagenesis experiments, but they are always fatal and would not help an organism to survive,

kamMay 12, 2014

Y'all seem to have forgotten that the LDS church takes no position on organic evolution, a policy that dates to at least the 1960's. Any opinion you express on this subject is your own and nothing else.

TasRogolicMay 12, 2014

@LoneDrifter: I think that what the article is saying is that calling the Creation random is false and that evolution could not have 'randomly' created the complexities of life we have today. He's not criticizing science. He's criticizing those who profess there is God-less science.

Robert StarlingMay 12, 2014

If the theory of evolution were a "scientific finding" it would not still be called a "theory". There is no way to submit that theory to the scientific method of an assertion proved by repeatable experimentation, etc. Of course the earth "can only sustain a finite population", but mankind has never reached a tiny fraction of that finite number. Anyone who doubts that has never been outside big eastern cities. Overpopulation is a myth that has been scientifically debunked many times. It does occur in pockets like India and China but those are localized conditions. Europe's biggest problem now is under-population. Sorry Lone Drifter but you need to get your facts straight.

JW HauckMay 12, 2014

There is good science and there is bad science. Some aspects of our physical world are irrefutable. We see gravity in effect all around us. There are thousands of other examples, including natural selection, but natural selection does not prove evolution. The two are very different animals. The belief that all living things came from a single organism is bad science stretching to fill a gap. Rather than accept the possibility of intelligent design, this faulty belief system chooses to overlook all of the evidence to the contrary. The Cambrian Explosion, for example. I examine human eyes for a living. They are an engineering marvel which would have taken impossibly long to form through

WiikwajioMay 12, 2014

Dear LoneDrifter Scientists pick and choose which theories to believe. So does everyone. This does not mean those scientists reject ALL science just that science that disagrees with their theories. A law of science today is a myth of the future if history repeats. The problem with people that totally refuse any idea of evolution is that they reject the idea that God COULDN'T set up a system that can adapt ON ITS OWN. If God did want to set up a self adaptive system then He would not even need to update that system as it would work perfectly. Deism on that actually works in theory. That is a religious theory that I reject but that does not mean I reject all religious theory. I don't eat hotdogs or drink soda either but that does not mean I don't eat GOOD food. I take what I see as good and reject the bad. Do you have a problem with that? I don't believe there was only one Noah or that there were no men before Adam and yet I am LDS. Amazing!

KathrynMay 12, 2014

LoneDrifter, you are so wrong about what the Church teaches. The church doesn't have an official position on evolution except God created the world and all that is in it. How He created it isn't important for our salvation. People are to do their own studying to learn what they are interested in learning. Within the church there are people who believe in evolution and people who don't believe in evolution. Neither position puts your membership or salvation in jeopardy.

JohnMay 12, 2014

Brother Millet- Your readers should be cautioned that evolution is an extremely volatile topic. And heavily emotional as well. Even BYU has issued: Mormonism and Evolution" co-authored by William E. Evenson & Duane E. Jeffery. Much of the emotion initiates from the almost infinite amount of definitions and how one "aligns" with that definition. Each is specifically tailored and determined by the professor, scientist, author, university, and organization. We need to ask about and "nail down" that definition before any real exchange can begin.

Ken WrightMay 12, 2014

"Science" and "scientific theory" are not the same thing. Scientific theories are made of two parts: (1) the discoveries of science utilizing the scientific method, and (2) the hypotheses of what the discoveries mean. It is certainly a fact that things fall. The explanation of why things fall is what constitutes the theory. It isn't the discoveries of science that the church disputes. It is the naturalistic philosophies that counter the revelations from God -- or worse, deny that there is a God. And then, there are theories that have no evidence whatever such as 'string theory' and the 'multiverse.' The first is pure mathematics, the latter is pure conjecture. The scientific method is the pursuit of empirical evidence. All the evidence indicates that our amazing universe was designed! -- which, of course, implies a Designer.

Cuddy WhiteMay 12, 2014

Darwin stated one time "that to suppose the eye could have evolved by evolution is I freely admit,absurd to the highest degree.".

Tom JohnsonMay 12, 2014

Lone Drifter, true science distinguishes between good science and junk science.

DavidDMay 12, 2014

LoneDrifter, the LDS Church takes no position on evolution. John A. Widtsoe suggested: "Latter-day not deny that an evolutionary process, a reflection of the gospel law of progression, may be one of the methods of the Lord's labor in the universe." Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 159-165, 1960.

Grandpa ClydeMay 12, 2014

@LoneDrifter, did you even read the article? He very clearly discusses some of the reasons not to "have faith" in the theory of evolution. Never does he "dismiss" science, just shows how the theory of evolution is based on faith not science.

CharlieBrown2292May 12, 2014

Dear LoneDrifter: Where did you find that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims that science is a philosophy? The relatively high number of LDS Church Leaders who are also men of science* should stand as evidence that such is not the case. The Church only points out that science and religion disagree only when either makes statements that will later prove to be false. The Theory of Evolution, that teaches that an extraordinary complex world came out of chaos by pure chance is nothing more than pure theory that was never validated by reliable scientific evidence. The theory does however serve the interests of unbelievers who find it convenient to deny the existence of a Supreme Intelligence standing behind the creation of this world. *One of the current Church

StefanieMay 12, 2014

The Church makes no such claims. Individual Church leaders through the years may have had strong opinions about science and evolution, but they are not church doctrine. I've never heard the prophet or other authorities call evolution 'of the devil'. Science and religion are perfectly compatible. But there are some scientific theories that don't even meet the burden of logic.

LoneDrifterMay 11, 2014

The LDS Church believes that only useful things, or ideas useful to the Church, can be true. The theory of gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics are allowed to be true, but other scientific findings, such as the theory of evolution or the idea that the earth can only sustain a finite population are dismissed as the teachings of the secular world and of Satan himself. The Church can't have it both ways. It can't applaud science for making possible the live streaming of General Conference around the world, while at the same time dismissing science as "the philosophies of men" when it comes to evolution.



    Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.