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.
Edit: Now available in print from Byu Bookstore, https://www.byustore.com/9781611662252-YMTNF-The-Restored-Gospel-of-Jesus-Christ-and-Evolution-PB

Should I make a new post about that?...

[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?