What's new

Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

An honest question here, but does anyone know WHEN BYU started to include evolution in their biology? Was this at the same time most (western) universities started teaching it? Was it about at the same time most private/religious institutions started to include it?

I think a fair question could be the ages of those questioned. If you were to ask many older BYU grads about evolution (who may not have taken courses on evolution), they might give you a different answer than those who just barely graduated and took a course (which as Colton pointed out, is required for all students).

I know for me that my knowledge on evolution would be a lot more limited than what it already is had I never taken the required Biology classes that I did.

WARNING: Mini-essay/rambling forthcoming:

Mormons believe in evolution. Mormons believe man can evolve into a God. If the jackass down the street from me can evolve to a god then I see no reason to dismiss the evidence or theory that we evolved from a gorilla/chimp like ancestor.

It was never prohibited and thus there doesn't appear to be a date that it was actually permitted: https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/49978/ It was taught as early as 1910; however, there were two professors fired during that period. Some claim they were fired due to teaching evolution, while others argue they were fired for other reasons. (This was also under the eyes of Joseph F. Smith, father of Joseph Fielding Smith, who I mention below). https://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11583 (ctrl+f evolution and go from there). Pretty much, the older leaders during this period were more okay with the teaching of evolution than the younger church leaders (J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, et al. were not that cool with the "secularism") so as the years progressed, the pressure to avoid teaching the topic also increased as the older leaders died off.

Keep in mind, this was 10-15 years prior the the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial. So, BYU was not unique in its efforts in trying to figure out how to fit evolution into their teachings, especially for a church school wary of creeping secularism. The 20s-70s were a period of intense struggle by the church in attempting to shift from a western, largely mysterious, sect into mainstream US culture and religious thought. This led to a lot of internal struggles about how to make doctrine fit shifting cultural views (Word of Wisdom and Alcohol - prohibition era is when the church finally banned beer; blacks and the priesthood; evolution; age of the earth; etc.).

Even today some parents and students still confront some BYU Idaho professors about their teaching of the subject, but it's one of those beliefs that many conservative Mormons likely hold, but they aren't very vocal about it: https://www2.byui.edu/Perspective/v4n2pdf/v4n2_firestone.pdf I've also heard that some donors threatened to withhold funds due to a Darwin Week at BYU a few years ago. Colton, have you heard anything like that from any Biology professors?

Let's not kid, a lot of Mormons vehemently opposed evolution and were strong proponents of a young earth theory - including, most notably, Joseph Fielding Smith (father-in-law to Bruce R. McConkie - McConkie has had a huge impact on Mormon doctrine/thought. His ideas have also been very embarrassing for some portions of the membership. He was also very critical of evolution and anyone who believed it). For those unfamiliar with Joseph Fielding Smith, he served as Church Historian, was the son of the 6th prophet of the church who officially ended polygamy, grandson of Hyrum Smith (Assistant President of the Church to, and brother of, Joseph Smith), eventually became prophet himself from 1970-1972, and was a PROLIFIC writer and producer of doctrine and theology. He'll also probably be the last prophet to be so outspoken on points of doctrine as well due to the current politics and political correctness of the church. His writings were very influential on Mormon thought and doctrine to this day. Anyways...

So up until 1972, the Mormon church had in Joseph Fielding Smith a prophet who was a young earth creationist and outspoken critic of evolution. So it's not surprising that a lot of Mormons still do not believe in evolution, maybe just because of Joseph Fielding Smith and some of his writings. And even if they think evolution makes sense, etc., the statements by someone such as Joseph Fielding Smith could still likely influence their feelings on the topic and effect their responses to poll questions like the Pew Center's.

Additionally, the creation story is a bit more complex for Mormons which is what I think Colton somewhat hinted at. The creation plays a major role in Mormon theology and is a focal point of the Mormon temple experience. It's also not as simple/black and white for a Mormon to answer "do you believe in 'evolution' or 'creationism?'" Many Mormons believe Adam was literally the son of God. Others believe that God used evolution to create Adam. Others believe in "pre-adamites" (seriously, google this if you haven't heard of it and enjoy Mormon doctrine - it's some very unique theology! This was also the basis of major public disagreement between Joseph Fielding Smith and James Talmage (another super influential Mormon theologian)). Some even believe Adam and Eve were living on another earth prior to this earth and God brought them down here and they went from being an immortal being to a mortal being by eating the forbidden fruit.

Also, there's the whole BYU Evolution Packet thing in case anyone's interested. It seems to have been given to professors at BYU regarding the doctrine and how to teach the subject etc. (Just google "BYU Evolution Packet" if you want a compilation of Mormon teachings).

Conclusion: Basically, whereas church leaders used to be quite outspoken on issues of doctrine, the church now prefers to obfuscate past teachings, downplay the relevance of the non-mainstream theories, and try to avoid any controversial stances. Well, except for the gays. No matter what you think about Mormonism, it has a very interesting development of theology and doctrine.

tl;dr - There isn't a specific date that BYU professors started teaching evolution because the topic was never really banned - it was definitely taught as early as 1911. However, as the years passed, the leaders actually became more critical of the teaching. And Mormon theology pretty much believes man was placed here already in the human form so evolution was somewhat unnecessary, but men may evolve into a god.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I'm not expert on evolution....

But didn't Darwin's theory at first concentrate on the evolution of animals? Based upon his studies with the birds on the Galapagos islands? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the Origin of Species came out several years earlier than the Descent of Man. Whereas the Origin of Species speaks specifically on the evolution of animals and plants...

So the question, % who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of HUMAN life on earth is a little deceptive. In fact, I'm not sure how I would answer that. I think many religious folks, especially Christians, would answer NO to that question. I'm guessing that most Christians would probably mostly agree that evolution has happened, happened, and will continue to occur for animals. However, for humans, I would guess that many Christians believe that the origin of HUMAN life on earth come from god and his placing of Adam and Eve in the garden. NOT evolution. Evolution has since occurred since (we're becoming taller it seems like). But to say that it is the best explanation for the origins of HUMAN life would seem to be a "gotcha" question aimed at making Christians appear backward.

Even if they felt like Evolution is, they would probably best answer the question that god merely placed them in the garden. Even if they believed that Adam and Eve had evolved via God's influence, I'm not sure that 100 % coincides with the question, % that believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of MAN.

I really love science. I find it fascinating. I also don't see science as a weapon against religion. Nor do I, a religious person, feel that my religious beliefs must impede or refute scientific findings. Maybe it's because my beliefs influence who I am but do not define who I am. My thoughts and personality are my own and not a creation of my religion. But to me, I find that if God is omniscience, then science is merely discovering more and more about God. He knows everything and if science cannot explain everything to me, I feel that in time it will all make sense.

Perhaps this war against science began long long LONG ago when religion was DIRECTLY tied to politics? But IMO, I no longer see that. For example, we should be doing our best to keep the environment clean just because it's what we should do. Not out of respect for god or to abuse the earth thinking that god will merely "clean it up." Just keep the thing clean cuz that's part of being a responsible human being. I hope that future generations can enjoy clean air and water too.

Just one last comment, with all the time, energy, and money this guy had. Why waste it on some stupid snake bite? The man could have been doing so much good with his time.
 
Last edited:
What did Talmage say about evolution?

Not much. He didn't fully embrace it, but didn't fully reject it either. He was a geologist and viewed science favorably. Like many others today, he tried to reconcile the two (faith and science), but it wasn't always easy. So he said a lot of different things on the subject throughout his life. Here's a blog post summarizing some of his thoughts. https://ndbf.blogspot.com/2005/08/james-e-talmage-and-theory-of.html

The dispute between BH Roberts, Talmage, and Joseph Fielding Smith is partially why the church tried to steer clear of ever speaking out against science. This remains true even today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormo...Roberts.E2.80.93Smith.E2.80.93Talmage_dispute
 
Last edited:
I've also heard that some donors threatened to withhold funds due to a Darwin Week at BYU a few years ago. Colton, have you heard anything like that from any Biology professors?

Thanks for the detailed info. No, I haven't heard of anything like that since I've been here.
 
What a great post Mr. McGibblets. I enjoyed that very much.
 
Oh, since we're on topic about snakes here. . . .

While I was doing some library research on genetic sequencing that has been done for certain vital enzymes, stuff vital to many life forms which has been used in some cases to construct "evolutionary trees" with estimates of time lapsed since various branches diverged, I found not all proteins agree on the "tree".

For example, while few would be surprized at evidence showing practically no difference between humans and pigs (insulin), most of us would cringe at sharing the exact same protein(infering no lapsed time since divergence, or arguably no divergence) between Humans and either pit vipers and yeast.

So, I can stand on the technicalities of Science to prove that at least some of us are no different from "snakes in the grass" or "opportunistic parasites".

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Back in college, I was slightly intrigued at how well the explanation of evolution's timeline matched Moses' timeline. There's not a lot of detail in the Bible to go on, but what was there seemed accurate.
 
Oh, since we're on topic about snakes here. . . .

...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?
 
...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?

There is nothing "sudden" about evolution.
 
...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?

That's TBS level of insight. You guys should hook up.
 
Venom involved many different times probably. Things evolve many times. For example flight evolved four times... Viviparity evolved about 120 times.

If he had my level insight he would be reciting with Shakespeare's level of eloquence with Einstein's level of intellect.

Haters are gonna hate, watch the jealous try to insult me with great failure :).
 
I can respect TBS for his ability to stay in the red. I remember when BluesRocker set out to have the highest post count and still have a red bar, he failed because even he said stuff that was accidentally funny. TBS has just managed to stay completely dull and unlikeable for this whole time. Bravo.

Even that UtahJazz23972894729, who post all the dumb "Get this player" threads eventually got into the green.
 
There is nothing "sudden" about evolution.

...I think you've missed the point! What would be the motivating factor of a snake changing or "evolving" the apparatus needed to inject venom into it's prey...if it's already "surviving" nicely by using constriction? The expression "suddenly" had to do with the motivating factor to change a whole way of existence when none was needed! Rarely, if ever, are such questions asked of evolutionist when it comes to explaining how a particular creature/specie acquired a complex method of survival necessary to continue it's existence! So you explain it to me....."suddenly" or at your convenience!
 
...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind?

All life is continuously evolving. All snakes have been and will continue to be evolving contemporaneously.

If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim?

Venom has evolved independently in not only various lines of snakes, but also amphibians and fish. It does not appear suddenly.

Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival,

Evolution does not teach that.

when did venom become necessary to survive?

You don't think venom is an advantage?
 
...I think you've missed the point!

Your point is flawed and based on a msunderstanding of evolution.

What would be the motivating factor of a snake changing or "evolving" the apparatus needed to inject venom into it's prey...if it's already "surviving" nicely by using constriction?

Evolution does not respond to motivations. One possible history (I have not researched this, and don't claim it to be authoritative) would be a feedback loop of gradually increasing venom strength and gradually specialized venom delivery.

Rarely, if ever, are such questions asked of evolutionist ...

On the contrary, questions like this are quite common from creationists.
 
Back
Top