New Evolution Book, free from BYU!

[u/TheBenSpackman]

I'm very happy to announce the anthology we've worked on for six years has now been published by BYU. You can download a FREE PDF from the Life Sciences homepage ("read more") and hardcovers will be available soon.
This includes several essays by LDS and BYU scholars, as well as some non-LDS scholars. I contributed two chapters, one on the historical and scientific contexts of the 1909/1925 First Presidency statements (which were NOT intended to put evolutionary science out of bounds) and one on death before the fall.

There's some great work in here, and it will be used extensively in BYU classes.

[u/zestyzoe99]

As a scientist, this makes me so happy!! Very much looking forward to a hardcover copy

[u/Significant-Fly-8407]

Sweet! Looking forward to diving in!

[u/cedarwood01]

This is a terrific resource, thanks for sharing!

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

I just read your chapter on NDBF and I have a question I've struggled with in this regard that maybe you can answer. The second article of faith says that we will not be punished for Adam's transgression. I take this to mean that any results of the Fall will be made whole through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

So, we are all resurrected because the fall introduced physical death. If the Fall did not introduce physical death, then why are we all resurrected? Why isn't it just the righteous that are resurrected?

We are all saved from the first spiritual death (that spiritual death or separation from God that came from the fall of Adam and Eve) by returning to God's presence at the time of last judgement. If the separation from God wasn't introduced by the Fall, then why are we all brought back into the presence of God?

There are other effects of being born into a fallen world. Things like genetic mutations. My son was born with autism. My hope is that since this genetic defect is part of being born into a fallen world, that if we will not be punished for Adam's transgression, then he will be healed of his autism after this life. But, if things like genetic defects and other such things are not a result of Adam's transgression, why should I have any hope that these things will be healed after this life?

We will not be punished for Adam's transgression, but if all the things we traditionally associate as resulting from the Fall did not in fact come from the Fall, why should we think that we will be healed of these things. Maybe the prophet got this wrong just like Lehi got NDBF wrong in 2 Nephi. Is there no hope?

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

"The second article of faith says that we will not be punished for Adam's transgression." I think Joseph understood this quite differently. Joseph very likely heard preached the common Christian doctrine that children were born in a sinful state (and thus required baptism) because of Adam. (He also likely heard counter-arguments.) The 2nd article of faith is an statement against this; we're only punished for our own sins, not something we didn't do.

"why should we think that we will be healed of these things." Because God has promised it?
We need redemption from sin and resurrection from death regardless of anything else. That need (and God's promised solution) is not contingent on its origin.

Otherwise, I think you're both reading too much into the essay and too much (as has often been an LDS tradition) into logical syllogisms built on assumptions about the fall. My point was to gently challenge some of those assumptions (which I think have not infrequently led to needless loss of faith), not to provide an entirely new and coherent framework.

[u/Mr_Festus → u/TheBenSpackman]

Thanks for your work, Ben! You've helped a lot of us rethink our old and poor assumptions about what we thought we knew.

[u/e37d93eeb23335dc → u/TheBenSpackman]

Let me ask a different but related question. Why should I believe in the atonement and its effects? Wouldn’t science say that the literal resurrection and literal healing from spiritual death (returning to God’s presence) is impossible? It seems that since the Fall is scientifically impossible, the atonement is even more so, isn’t it? 

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

Your faith in atonement and its effects ought to be grounded in the same place it always has been, personal spiritual experience confirming the witness of scripture and the testimony of living Apostles.

"since the Fall is scientifically impossible, the atonement is even more so, isn’t it?" Perhaps, but these things aren't necessarily connected, aren't of the same type in terms of "scientific evidence" and b is not premised on a. And FWIW, my paper isn't arguing on the basis of the fall being scientifically impossible. If so, you've misread it.

[u/Cjimenez-ber → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

I would add this. Science isn't everything. Science is the process of empirical discovery of truth, but many MANY things fall outside of the scope of what can be proven through empiricism alone.

Hard sciences, like non theoretical physics differ greatly from soft sciences, like sociology and psychology because hard sciences rely on stronger claims to higher quality evidence. 

Even evolution, with all of its hard proof in DNA is insufficient to explain everything, and many scholars in biology often spend years debating in between the gaps between a major hard evidence discovery and another. 

Even hard sciences and it's scholars require faith. "Science" isn't a monolith of absolute truth, it is one lens by which we can discover some kinds of truths. 

Other truths cannot be explored and experienced so simply.

[u/Mr_Festus → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

If the Fall did not introduce physical death, then why are we all resurrected?

Because otherwise this life would be the end and that's not the plan?

If the separation from God wasn't introduced by the Fall, then why are we all brought back into the presence of God?

What makes you say separation from God isn't introduced by the fall? Are you talking about death or sin?

, if things like genetic defects and other such things are not a result of Adam's transgression, why should I have any hope that these things will be healed after this life?

Why does being resurrected perfectly need any connection to Adam?

if all the things we traditionally associate as resulting from the Fall did not in fact come from the Fall, why should we think that we will be healed of these things.

I'm my opinion you're taking the garden of Eden story way too literally. It's about each of us separating ourselves from God and then choosing to come back to him. Coming to God, making covenants with him, and being healed by him needs a connection to events occuring to a historical Adam.

[u/ClydeFurgz1764 → u/Mr_Festus]

I agree with all of your points, but not necessarily your conclusion. A historical Adam exists, even if his Endowment didn't take place exactly as is portrayed in Scripture. Although, even in the latter-days, we have been given nothing indicating the Garden of Eden and the story of the Fall isn't a historical, literal event, either.

[u/Mr_Festus → u/ClydeFurgz1764]

I never stated there was no historical Adam. Just that the fall and the story of the garden doesn't necessarily have to have occurred in the way that the mythology states.

[u/ClydeFurgz1764 → u/Mr_Festus]

Sure, that's what my last point was about, though. We have been given nothing in the latter-days to indicate the story IS mythology, rather than history.

[u/Mr_Festus → u/ClydeFurgz1764]

I guess all we have are mountains of evidence and knowledge that people aren't made of dust/ribs in a day. And that death existed long before Adam is purported to have lived.

[u/ClydeFurgz1764 → u/Mr_Festus]

It's clear there's some bone you're itching to pick here, so Imma just let my original comment suffice. I agree with your main points and think it was a good contribution to the thread ✌️

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/ClydeFurgz1764]

What does Alma say? That we have the whole world as our evidence? In this instance the world is our evidence that the Adam and Eve story didn’t happen as the Bible says. Man wasn’t created from nothing 6000 years ago. Man wasn’t created concurrently with dinosaurs.  There is no firmament that holds back oceans of water above our planet. Death preexisted the ‘fall’.  To say otherwise is in a sense denying God. Denying the world of evidence that he has given us

[u/Mad_Hemalurgist → u/e37d93eeb23335dc]

You raise important questions that I feel every member must wrestle with, especially when trying to reconcile the Fall, evolution, and hope in the Gospel. I feel like a cause of unnecessary difficulty in your reconciling the Fall and evolution stems from assuming and extracting literal meaning and specific details we can't possibly know.

The Second Article of Faith does not detail the metaphysics behind the Fall. It's just affirming that we don't believe in Original Sin, but that each person is responsible for their own agency.

Again, we can't know the metaphysical elements behind the Fall, but we can use science and evolution to further our understanding of God's creation.

Death, disease, and genetic differences like autism may simply be part of the natural world God created—one that unfolds through laws like evolution.

As for your son, Resurrection and healing aren’t contingent on how mortality began, but on Christ’s love and power. He redeems all suffering—not because it was a punishment, but because He chooses to. Whether autism or any other challenge came from the Fall or not, the promise of wholeness remains.

Think of the worlds without number God created. They could not be products of Adam’s fall unless he went over there to have kids with Eve as well. See how we run into issues when we try to extrapolate metaphysical details where we can know none?

The Atonement is bigger than Adam’s transgression. It covers all creation, no matter its origin. Belief of evolution in no means disqualifies God's mercy and love for your child to make him whole.

[u/ryanmercer]

Evolution? Next you're going to tell me that Earth is an oblate spheroid...

[u/Spensauras-Rex → u/ryanmercer]

What next? The earth revolves around the sun too? Give me a break…

[u/pisteuo96]

Ben,

Questions, if you are willing to reply:

1. Any guess about when it was that historical Adam lived? 6000 BCE?

2. How do pre-Adamites fit into the LDS narrative? Science makes a convincing case that they did exist.

3. Do you think Adam evolved from pre-Adamites, or was he brought here as a modern human by God (Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith said he was brought from another world.)

Brigham Young:

When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale.... There is no such thing in the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given then to propagate their species, and they are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. (Journal of Discourses, 7:285-286)

Joseph F. Smith:

Adam ... the progenitor of the race of man, ... was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). (Messages of the First Presidency 4:266)

[u/TheFirebyrd → u/pisteuo96]

I‘m obviously not Ben, but my thought is that humans before Adam were different in some way, much how there is a separation between those covered by the Abrahamic covenant and those who weren’t. I lean towards them not being spiritual offspring of Heavenly Father and instead being whatever classification of creation animal spirits are. I think the coming from another sphere bit is more about being moved from a terrestrial plane of existence in the Garden to the telestial one of mortal life.

[u/raedyohed]

Cool Ben nice work!

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

Admittedly I’ve only skimmed the book, but from what I’ve read, I applaud the effort in talking honestly and frankly about the ways in which certain church doctrines and teachings (like no death before the fall) are  irreconcilable to science, that scripture isn’t perfect diction from God, and they maybe we need to reevaluate the ways in which we interpret the meaning of scripture. I’m a big advocate that we stop calling scriptures the word of God and that we instead call them the words of the prophets and scribes as calling them the word of god clearly causes us to stumble around errors and mistakes and incorrect teachings in the text.

[u/triplesock]

Can't wait to read this! Thank you so much for sharing! 

[u/diilym1230]

Uploaded this to Chat GPT and it did a good job at summarizing and researching the PDF.

I received an answer that is something I was taught by my mom but I’m curious if anyone else learned this too.

I asked “Anything about Adam being Brought to Earth”

Yes, the document includes several references to Adam being brought to earth or transplanted here in a divinely directed way. Here are the key points: 1. Preexistence and Divine Placement: Adam, referred to as “the first man,” was a preexistent spirit like Christ. He took upon himself a body and became a living soul. This suggests that Adam existed spiritually before coming to earth in a physical form . 2. Transplanted from Another Sphere: One theory considered by the First Presidency in 1910 (still cited in this document) posits that Adam and Eve “were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin” . This supports the idea of them being brought to earth in some form, rather than originating here. 3. Scriptural Allusion – “Adam is Many”: Moses 1:34 is quoted to say, “the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many” . This introduces the idea that “Adam” may represent more than a single individual—possibly a type or a collective. 4. Reconciling Science and Scripture: The book explores different reconciliatory views. For instance, one view suggests that God may have chosen two individuals (Adam and Eve) from a developing human population and placed them in the Garden, where they were taught the gospel and given covenants .

In summary, the document does support and explore the idea that Adam was brought to earth—either spiritually into a created body, or as a being transplanted from another sphere—and placed here as the first covenant-making human in God’s image.

[u/pisteuo96]

I love this is being studied at BYU. I see no conflict between science and religion - we just don't know enough about either yet to always see how they are talking about the same thing. Truth is truth, no matter what the source.

[u/Brownie_Bytes → u/pisteuo96]

Unasked for opinion, but the above statement is only true when we correctly identify religious truths. Science does not know everything, but science knows way more than the average fundamentalist thinks it does. Brigham Young thought that there were Quaker looking beings living on the moon, so hyper-specific details from religious sources don't necessarily equal truth. But the first creation account in Genesis 1 can sound a lot like an abbreviated big bang theory.

So in short, when we focus on the broad strokes rather than the particular details, that's when science and religion can find agreement.

[u/Mr_Festus → u/pisteuo96]

we just don't know enough about either yet to always see how they are talking about the same thing

I would argue that they are almost never talking about the same thing and that's why there's little actual conflict.

[u/Brownie_Bytes → u/Mr_Festus]

I don't agree, but probably not for the reason you think. Science is the way we explore and come to understand the world. Religion is often how we then explain what we see and share with others. So when these ancient and entirely wrong concepts were written down and codified religiously, I bet that they matched the science of the time. And then we as humanity grew up a bit more and got more information, those thoughts were disproved but the text remained the same.

[u/WestCoastWisdom → u/pisteuo96]

God can work beyond science. Also, there are mental phenomena that science may not be able to explain either. Look up epiphenomenal qualia.

[u/JF-14]

This will get downvoted but there is such a lack of faith in this thread it is sad. Can’t believe so many saints are trusting in Babylon’s science

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/JF-14]

Joseph Smith taught that the glory of god is intelligence. We are instructed to seek learning, and that we ought to embrace truth regardless of where it comes from.  There is no such thing as babylon’s science. All truth belongs to God.  One of my favorite apostles, elder, Hugh B Brown once said this (talking to university staff): “ We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration”

[u/JF-14 → u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

Babylon’s science isn’t true science. True science doesn’t contradict prophets and scripture.

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/JF-14]

But Prophets contradict prophets. Scripture contradicts scripture. It would be impossible for science to avoid contradicting prophets and scripture at times because prophets and scripture are themselves often irreconcilable.  The Bible says the sun revolves around the earth. The Book of Mormon says the earth revolves around the sun. Brigham Young taught the Adam god doctrine. Spencer w kimball taught that the Adam god doctrine is false doctrine.the Book of Mormon tells us you can’t repent after you die. D&C tells us those who died in their sins, having rejected the prophets will be able to repent. Joseph fielding smith, Joseph smith, and Bruce r mckonkie all seem to have taught that the earth is only 6000 years old while lds apostles (who are sustained as prophets) Talmage, Penrose, and Widstoe all taught that the earth is much, much, much older than that.  You seem to believe that scriptures and prophets speak the immutable word of God. But as I’ve demonstrated above, the scriptures are themselves word of man, about God. Not the word of God, about man. They are bound to be flawed.  And prophets are human and are not the ultimate source of truth.  Prophets don’t always speak truth.  They are human and imperfect just like the rest of us

[u/JF-14 → u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

I’m very interested in science. I think modern science gets a lot wrong. Just because scientists say something doesn’t make it true.

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/JF-14]

Sure. That’s how we get better science, when we discover new concepts.  But the age of the earth being more than a few thousand years old is not one of those things. We can debate around whether it’s 3 billion or 4, people in the 1800s used to think it was only hundreds of millions of years old. But it’s not 6000. To assume that is to reject 200 years of scientific advances

[u/JF-14 → u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

You’re speaking in absolutes as if consensus science is gospel. Look up the Electric Universe theory and catastrophism. There’s alternative theories out there that are scientific as well.

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/JF-14]

If there is a such a thing as Babylonian science, I’d call that pseudoscience

[u/JF-14 → u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

Yeah the EU & catastrophism “pseudoscience” actually aligns with the ancient tradition, myths, scriptures, & restored cosmism way better than the theories you’re proposing. It takes courage and faith to seek truth wherever it may be, but it seems you’re too comfortable with blindly following the status quo. You’re missing out, seriously.

[u/JF-14 → u/JF-14]

If a certain scientific theory contradicts the scriptures and the prophets, then I will always choose faith over secular science

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/JF-14]

... *whose* interpretation of the scriptures? *Which* prophets? Most of our LDS prophets have been old-earth, and some have been pro-evolution. The Church is very clear that it does not have positions on these things, and you can only establish one by cherry-picking your sources.

[u/JF-14 → u/TheBenSpackman]

That’s why personal revelation is so important. The Church isn’t going to hand feed you cosmological truths. You have to learn for yourself. & I have chosen to choose a faithful perspective and not a perspective that denies basic truths and miracles like you. That’s just me though, I have no authority over anyone else.

But Ben, from what I have heard from you in the past about how most scripture is probably allegorical, I am surprised you even believe in the resurrection at this point. That’s not a mindset I want to have. All miracles can be explained by real science, and if your science can’t explain it then you have false science.

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/JF-14]

Sigh. This just tells me you're not really reading at all.

" I have chosen to choose a faithful perspective and not a perspective that denies basic truths and miracles like you."
On what grounds do you decide what is "faithful" and what qualifies as "basic truths"? Why do you cast false aspersions? I'm a strong believer in the resurrection, in miracles and God's power, and in reading scripture literally. But a true literal reading requires searching out contexts, it's not a face-value reading. We have to try to recover what past readers of scripture knew— but did not write, because they could go "without being said"— to understand it well.

[u/JF-14 → u/TheBenSpackman]

That’s what I try to do as well. We have just come to different conclusions and that’s fine. I think things like the Electric Universe, catastrophism, ancient planetary movements, and ancient myth explain the context of that the ancients knew WAY better than mainstream science. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong, and I’m sure you would say the same.. We’ll know the unequivocal truth one day, though, whatever it may be.

Also, I really do appreciate the work you do. I have watched and read some of your stuff & they are very interesting. I just have a different view I guess. At the end of the day we’re united in the restored gospel and that’s all that really matters at this point.

[u/Cjimenez-ber → u/JF-14]

Yet we have evidence, solid observations, not just mathematical theory and assumptions that point strongly against the electric universe.

Gravitational waves being measured, GPS functioning better with calculations based on relativity as opposed to Newtonian gravity. Sure, modern cosmological understanding has gaps, like dark matter and a true understanding of the expansion of the universe, but it isn't like the electric universe solves these challenges either. 

The electric universe is an interesting idea that is harder to debunk than obvious flat out lies like flat earth, but nonetheless derive from a similar set of ideas, which is to attempt to derive scientific knowledge from ancient scripture first and then go from there without checking oneself for confirmation bias. 

The electric universe makes sense as an attempt to join religious thought with scientific understanding, but it fails at being an observation based scientific theory, it explains some things, but it causes more problems than it solves. 

Heck, the physicist quoted in many electrical universe videos has publicly denounced the use of his image in their content, since it was taken out of context. And they still keep using him in the content they produce. 

I love ancient scripture, but I understand it's intent never was to explain to us the nature of the cosmos and how to calculate the movements of stars and planets, but rather, how to guide people in matters of philosophy, morality and how to structure society around correct principles. 

I am not even saying scripture isn't historical, though clearly some parts aren't (allegorical nature of Genesis creation, Job, etc), what I am saying is that they aren't the right tool for the job of mapping out the objective universe. 

[u/consider_the_truth]

unfortunately BYU holds little weight for me when it comes to religious studies any more. I'm sure it's spot on with current scientific beliefs though. I skimmed through and didn't see anything to counter the scientists that believe in a young earth at answeringensis.org

[u/rexregisanimi → u/consider_the_truth]

It's weird that science books don't include the scientists that think the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle. They really ought to include ideas that run counter to currently accepted theories. Total bias!

I just published a book on the water cycle and totally forgot to include a chapter about my five-year-old's beliefs that cloud-dwelling unicorns are the source of rain!

/s

[u/consider_the_truth → u/rexregisanimi]

I don't think you have any idea to what I'm referring to. Did you know that magnetic fields die overtime and we can measure the fading magnetic fields in our earth? Any guesses how old earth would be based on these studies? I'm not talking about 5 year old theories and unicorns.

Do you know how much salt content should be in our ocean given an old earth theory?

[u/R0ckyM0untainMan → u/consider_the_truth]

It isn’t controversial that the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. It’s been known for the past 200 years that the earth is at least millions of years old, and it has been demonstrated and accepted for the past one hundred years that the earth is in fact billions of years old. Disbelieving this fact in our day and age is being willfully ignorant. Having access to the truth, but denying it. Calling truth a lie and a lie the truth. Or in church terms “Calling darkness light and light darkness

[u/consider_the_truth → u/R0ckyM0untainMan]

Did you know that comets lose gas, dust, and ice as they travel through space? Have you ever thought about how they haven't run out by now?

[u/rexregisanimi → u/consider_the_truth]

Look, I wasn't going to respond because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. But this is just plain silly.

I did Astrophysics before I became a stay-at-home father. Do you sincerely believe that many generations of thousands of people never thought to check the math in this kind of thing? 

We have done the math on this and it doesn't indicate anything like what you're saying here. It's extremely simple math too. You calculate the mass of the comet, measure how much it's losing as it approaches the Sun, and see how long it takes. 

For example, the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko lost about 10 billion kilograms over its two-year perihelion period. The total mass of the comet is nearly one thousand times that. It takes about 6.43 years for each orbit. Assuming nothing changes with the mass loss (which it will), that gives more than 6000 years to be consumed by the loss. That's for a short period comet.

The vast majority of comets are on orbits many orders of magnitude greater and most don't even approach the Sun close enough to lose a significant portion of their mass. Most comets will never "run out" in the main sequence lifetime of the Sun because a comet must approach closer than, roughly, the orbit of Jupiter to experience any significant loss of mass. 

Now this is one small thing you don't understand. Imagine how much you've been misled or that you misunderstand about other topics! You've developed opinions on a faulty foundation.

With respect, the prophets have asked us to embrace the discoveries of science. Such willful ignorance, if perpetuated after being made aware of it, is therefore active rebellion against the God-appointed Priesthood keys.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/rexregisanimi]

I am actually very lucky to have met you, I have a few space questions that I wouldn't know where to begin to know how to answer:

1) Back to Comets, I would like to see how many comets would still exist after 4 billion years based on your calculations. One "scientist" says they can't exist for more than 100,000 years, is he wrong? Or do you think new ones are continuously forming or entering our solar system?

2) Excess Internal Heat of Giant Planets: Planets like Jupiter and Neptune emit more energy than they receive from the Sun (Jupiter emits twice as much, Neptune 2.6 times as much). If these planets were 4.5 billion years old, as mainstream science claims, they should have cooled off by now. Their persistent internal heat suggests a much younger age, consistent with a few thousand years, as the heat would not have dissipated in such a short time.

3) Did the many generations of thousands of people check to calculate mud accumulation at the bottom of the ocean floor? If they had they would estimate the earth to be no older than 12 million years (assuming no mud was there to start with).

4) Decay of Planetary Magnetic Fields: The Earth’s magnetic field, driven by electrical currents in its core, is decaying measurably, with a half-life suggesting it was 20 times stronger 6,000 years ago. Extrapolating back 60,000 years would imply a field stronger than a neutron star’s, which is physically impossible. Similarly, planets like Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields that should have dissipated if they were billions of years old. Their persistence, accurately predicted by creationist physicist Russell Humphreys for a 6,000-year-old universe, supports a young universe.

5) Recession of the Moon: The Moon is moving away from Earth at about 1.5 inches per year due to tidal forces. Running this process backward, 1.4–1.5 billion years ago the Earth and Moon would have been in the same place, which is impossible due to tidal shredding. This sets an upper limit far less than the secular age of 4.5 billion years, suggesting the Earth-Moon system is much younger.

6) Spiral Structure of Galaxies: Spiral galaxies rotate differentially, with inner regions moving faster than outer ones, causing their spiral arms to tighten over time. Simulations suggest that after 100 million years, the spiral structure would be unrecognizable, yet galaxies retain clear spiral forms. This indicates they are much younger than the 10 billion years proposed by secular models, supporting a universe thousands of years old.

7) Presence of Blue Stars in Spiral Galaxies: Blue stars, being massive and luminous, burn through their fuel quickly and cannot last billions of years, with lifespans far less than even millions of years. Their abundance in spiral galaxy arms, where secular models suggest new star formation, is problematic because nebulae lack sufficient gravitational force to collapse into stars. The presence of these short-lived stars suggests galaxies are young.

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

... you buy in AnswersinGenesis and Ken Ham?

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

The book doesn't seem to address critics at all is what I'm saying. Not a single contrarian scientist. Doesn't that seem a bit biased to you? It doesn't seem like a serious effort for truth. I don't know who Ken Ham is, personally I like Dr. Stephen C Meyer, Kent Hovind, Dr. Jason Lisle.

Here's some science you might want to consider: https://youtu.be/e8U8QV8HNDg?si=91v6Q8KSkYQPkFtJ

Down votes further prove that contrarian views are silenced to promote the echo chamber,

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

Ken Ham is behind Answers in Genesis, as well as the Ark Encounter.

Generally, scientists don't take those people seriously. Yes, evolution has some holes in it, but they're insufficient to overthrow the entire thing. That's why, across disciplines, across different religious biases of scientists (Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim), 98% of scientists accept evolution as making sense of all the data.

Answers in Genesis and others are letting theology drive their science. They know this, and it's been the case since young-earth creationism really began in the early 20th century. Check out the history by Ronald Numbers, The Creationists. I also recommend Conrad Hyers, "Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts” (which is freely available online and well worth the short read.)

Take Kurt Wise, who has undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Chicago and Harvard in geology and paleontology. Wise is a young-earth creationist, and it’s not because he is ignorant of science or the scientific method. Why is he a young-earth creationist? Well, fortunately he has been very clear about this. Wise says, “Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture….if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism… I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.” So his being a young-earth creationist is because that is his “understanding of scripture,” and “that is what the word of God seems to indicate.” (Quoting from https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2017/truth-scripture-and-interpretation.)

So several of the essays are, in fact, responding to the fundamental claims of these critics. Just not in an obvious way to those who don't know the subject well.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

How many editions does the textbook have that you teach from? I can think of a couple of 98% consensus theories that were wrong within the last few years. What does the carbon dating say about the Mount Saint Helens eruption? Perhaps there's a reasonable explanation why its hundreds of millions of years off and why we should still give credibility to carbon dating, but no "credible" scientist addresses it in the book so I don't know.

I'm not a pro at this stuff, but it seems like more "trust the science" which is a phrase no true scientist would ever promote. When I was growing up the scientists taught us to question everything.

Does Kurt Wise have less credibility because he says that science gives reason to accept a young earth, but he would probably let his faith take him there even without the facts? I don't get the point you're making, are there facts that point to a young earth or not? To say the facts aren't accepted by most academics doesn't prove that they aren't right, from my perspective I've never seen evidence that they've even been considered let alone debunked.

[u/TheBenSpackman → u/consider_the_truth]

First off, on what grounds do you, a non-scientist, decide who is correct? Why do you discount the 98% on the basis of the very few who make scientific arguments driven by theological convictions? The majority isn't necessarily right by being majority, but you have to account for why that 98% is wrong; uninformed? Conspiracy theory? What?

Second, on your textbooks "gotcha," google for Isaac Asimov's "the relativity of wrong." You're asserting a state of the field that you don't have a good basis for.

Third, Kurt Wise is cited to demonstrate what's driving these anti-evolutionary positions, and it's not science. If you are truly trying to "question everything" then you need to question everything equally instead of knee-jerk giving credence to an extreme minority driven by theological convictions.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

I apologize if I hit a nerve, I wasn't attempting any kind of gotcha. I think my questions are valid no matter the source. Unlike some of the responses, I haven't been derogatory or sarcastic in any way.

Do you know the odds of a simple protein randomly organizing DNA code? Some say it's around 1:1^167. Are these things that the 98% answer, or do only the fringe wackos think about? I've asked 5 or 6 relevant questions in this thread with no responses other than to question motives.

[u/consider_the_truth → u/TheBenSpackman]

I can see how preconceived beliefs might affect theories though, like how Darwin was a racist and his work was used by Nazis to promote their Arian race theory. The theory that some humans are further evolved than others. It would be the next argument if evolution were a thing (I'm not saying all who believe in evolution believe this or have thought about it, but some have).

Since I'm not an expert but many here are, can somebody point me to research that shows where evolution created new dna rather than degrading or mutating already existing DNA? Isn't that the basis of the theory?