Joseph M. Smith said:
The theory of evolution has never claimed that we are apes. It simply describes a process of gradual alterations in the biology of various species such that some variants change, eventually, into new species. There are philosophical issues to be dealt with, to be sure, but the hard science of adaptation and alteration is rather obvious.
There is a conflict between faith and evolutionary theory only if you see faith as dependence on a set of ideas rather than on a relationship with God. Yes, my relationship with God is formed and guided by the Scriptures; but I need not force the beautiful poetry of Genesis into the rationalistic mindset of a modern logician.
Why would anyone want to believe in a god that lies? Who would want a relationship with that? We don't have a relationship with God.... until we have his words. Abraham, listened, and believed who he heard...when God spoke.... so did Moses. But before I could know God...some one had to tell me about him or I had to read and trust his Word.
Many have criticized the history of the Bible. For every archeological proof that's been found...another jumped up for the skeptics to point to as the exception which proved the question.... and each critic has proven a liar and God is true.
The Bible supports science although it is not written to be a scientific book: We feel the liberty to eat anything we wish... that's not poison... but the best nutrition and chemistry within the body supports the superiority and simplicity of the food laws given the people of the Book. In the NT, before blood typing was known.... and crossed every racial line, the Bible declared God made man of one blood. The Bible told the world the earth was round...... Columbus believed it, even when the clergy of the church did not understand.
Darwin was not a scientist. His theory of evolution spun off many other theories of beginnings... which excluded the Bible context. For a period of time, the influence of the elite scientific organizations of England and Europe, accepted his theory and so succeeded in a rush to prove 'evidence' most of which has been proven false.... but so caught the Church off guard, as few had questioned the account given in Scripture.
However, as the church, by popular persuasion, began accepting that 'perhaps' there might be some truth to evolution, not having any defense.....especially when it was common among some clergy to explain the difficult parts of the Bible as 'allegory', rather than recognize the truth is there....it a matter of our not having come to the times where the truth is revealed and understood in our experience:
Fortunately, a body of scientist who had confidence in the Bible rose and challenged the evolutionary, Big Bang, and carbon dating theories among others.
One by one, as the evoluntionist developed new theories, the 'science' on which one 'proof' depended was debunked by the science which proved another evolution position, or the supports were proved to be 'circular'...what was held as an axiom in one direction became the product of the axiom in the reverse direction....thereby proving nothing... and the fraudelent 'proof' using fossils and skeletal pieces..... and the 'standards' of measuring time being contradicted within nature... and without explanation....
The evolutionist do not address the many problems with their theory which the creationist have uncovered. They ignore it... or group together in opposition and try to ignore. And when they cant ignore the creationist's challenges... they disparage the whole group of creationist as being extreme, ignorant, fundamental. Actually what many evolutionist think is 'evoluntion' in the adaptive process of organism such as bacteria in resisting an antibiotic..... are not dissimilar of the healing God designed into the living forms he made of animals, and plants, and human. Only God could take nothing and speak his thoughts into existance and reality, of mass and energy, of time and eternity.
JMS, if you don't believe the Bible is true, then you have no basis for your belief in God, a relationship with him, or a foundation stronger than that 'you said it' when you tell others what God is like in your relationship to him. Should I take your word? The word of a stranger? Or should I believe the Word, which God wrote with love, through the pens of many men, most who never knew each other, and each book reflective of their own style and personality.... yet in agreement throughout in meaning? I'd rather believe a book which has proven trustworthy over a period since its beginning about 4 thousand years ago, than someone so young and immature and limited in vision and more to my equal.
