Steven L Peck on Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible 

His remarks were centered around convincing Mormons that evolution theory is valid, rather than how it is compatable with lds theology. I wish he talked more about the difficulties of passages in 2nd Nephi and past leaders statements.

Sorry, but what did he say? I was waiting for something big, and I heard nothing.

In physics there is a problem with Quantum mechanics not being compatible with Gravity or General Relativity. We don't throw out Quantum mechanics and we don't throw out gravity, because they work. We acknowledge that we are missing important information that will unify the two theories. Likewise, the same can be said with the doctrine of creation and the discoveries of science. We don't stop using science and I don't stop using religion, because both have helped me out in life. Science and the knowledge derived from it saved my life when I was a very sick as a child. Also, religion ( The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and a relationship with God.) helped me out in a dark time in my life. They both work and the one day just like in physics we will have the knowledge that will bridge the gap of understanding.

This talk has a good, but misleading title. The speaker did almost nothing to square Mormonism with evolution.

Did anyone hear an actual reason WHY evolution and LDS thought can go together or did he just talk about how he believes in evolution?

Religion 327, (2000) Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, p. 10: "In 1909 the First Presidency stated: 'It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race" ("The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 80).

I don't think Peck makes a strong case here for why evolution and LDS thought are fully compatible. I am not saying they are not, but I was hoping for an argument for a strong symbiotic relationship between the two. His argument seemed to hinge on the fact that he believes science and LDS thought are compatible, and people should stop being afraid of it, but he gave no evidences as to why this should be the case. For instance, he could have spoken about the light of Christ, "as also [the light of Christ] is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made...which [light of Christ] in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is in the midst of all things" (D&C 88:7, 13). He could have gone on to quote D&C 93:30, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence."

I really enjoy this talk. Whether or not any of us should accept or rejects the premise of evolutionary theory is a subject for debate. However, there one basic idea that we must all understand: It is possible to believe in evolutionary theory and be a good/active/spiritual Latter-day Saint. We must accept that the two ideas are at least plausibly compatible with each other, and a belief in evolution (even to the extent that man is descendant from lower primates) is not an indication that one is weak in faith. Further, whether nor not anyone believes in evolutionary theory is irrelevant to salvation. To believe (or emphasize) otherwise is, as Jacob articulated, "looking beyond the mark" of what the Gospel is all about. As for myself, I'm a thousand times more worried about whether or not blokes are getting their home teaching done than what their personal feelings are about evolution.

After joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I heard doctrine that sounded strange to me. Oh well, Jesus Christ is an old friend of mine and his spirit testifies to me page after page that the Book of Mormon is true. That's good enough for me.

It is frustrating reading the comments section or even seeing videos about our faith and not seeing one scripture. Here is one for starters: Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Did we evolve from primordial soup, then? You'd have to have a VERY BROAD interpretation of that scripture. Russel M. Neilson: "“The entire Creation was planned by God. …I testify that the earth and all life upon it are of divine origin. The Creation did not happen by chance. … The Creation itself testifies of a Creator” (“The Creation,” 84-85). Again...trying to create harmony between this and what SOME of "scientific" biology teaches, would take a lot of apologetics, which it seems Steven Peck has become adept at.

Why are people so offended by the possibility that we came from more simpler life forms? If you look at the natural process that occurs in Genesis, that's exactly what happens as well. From dust, to more complex creatures, to more complex...being offended that our bodies have evolved from simpler forms is like the earlier Christians who got disgusted at Joseph Smith for claiming that God was once man. People thought it heinous that Heavenly Father ever had a past of once living on a mortal world and going through similar experiences as ours. Many thought that we demean God with that belief! Why is it a stretch to say that there was a process that God used in order to develop our present day bodies? Is it beneath us to say that we evolved? I love learning about evolution and yes I'm an active LDS.

Joseph Smith wrote in the D and C that the earth is 6,000 years old

Just Sunday the church doubled down speaking against gay marriage by stating that Adam and Eve are real. How does that work with the theory of evolution they teach at BYU, Steve?

I want to see him debate Kent Hovind. Please send this comment to Steven if you know him.

I still don’t see how evolution is compatible with LDS doctrine. What sets humans apart from all other species is that we are all the literal children of God. We are “the race” of God. And because of that we have the divine potential to become exalted. We know from the scriptures that Adam was the first man on this Earth. If evolution is true, then were Adam’s parents only 99% children of God? If so, can they be exalted? How would those spirits have been made? Or maybe they were some other species that was everything that a human is except for actually being a human? They have every physical and mental characteristic of a human in order to produce one, but the only thing they lack is having any divine identity? That doesn’t sound like the gospel at all to me. One either is or isn’t a literal child of God. That is true LDS doctrine.

The scriptures teach that Adam was the first man and that there was no death before the fall. Evolution teaches that humans lived and died for hundreds of thousands of years before Adam. Anyone who doesn't see a contradiction in these two doctrines is blind.

Dang! No closed caption available.

Steve, I think your view on scientific methodology is... well, naive. You should know better since you have studied the philosophy of science. Let's just look at just one of your "activities that define and constrain science and that make it *powerful*" -- let's look at peer review, the foundation stone of scientific inquiry. Have you actually looked at the research on the results of peer review on the soundness of the research and conclusions? I come from a psychology background and there is something called "confirmatory bias" and this affects not just peer reviews, but the "credentials" factor as well. A well-known example is the earliest dating of habitations of the Americas. The "consensus opinion" restricted the levels (dates) that archeologists were digging because it was a "waste of time and effort". After all, everybody knows that the migrants came across the Bering Strait. I have not even touched on the flawed logic, e.g. conflating conclusions with data (facts). I often find that articles cite an assumption or conclusion as if it were fact. You are still young, and someday you will realize that scientists are HUMAN and have human flaws. Reputation is often more important than truth. Your description of science and scientists does not exist in the real world in which we presently live, especially in such an emotionally loaded area of evolution. It is now official that any research that even smells like ID is officially forbidden (not funded). (PS May I suggest you should include Nibley in your study of the philosophy of science. Study the psychology of scientific research.)

The problem with evolution is not that it is incompatible with the creation story in the Bible, but that it cannot explain moral agency, consciousness, meaning, language, truth and many other things. The fact that science has been successful in medical science and technology does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution has been succesful in explaining consciuousness or morals. The real issues with evolution, therefore, are not addressed. He being a philosopher I would expect he would address some of these issues.

I have a hard time understanding why any LDS member would allow themselves to get confused with science, and their personal beliefs. It really doesn't have to be all that complicated. It really comes down to your core beliefs, and what you know for certain to be true. At the very top should be Jesus Christ and your belief in him, and in Gods plan for us. Then, your belief in the Book of Mormon and the bible, and whether or not you believe in Gods teachings. If you KNOW these things to be true and absolute then the rest is easy. If these things are not absolute, then go back to the basics of reading and praying about it with sincerity, and God has already promised that he will reveal it to you so that you can know with "certainty" that it is true, and god CANNOT lie. Then, once you are certain, you will quickly realize that science and your beliefs can easily co-exist because you will begin to understand that your beliefs are the core truths of the earth itself, and that all science is working towards this same truth, but are thousands of years behind, but one day they will catch up and reach these same conclusions that you can obtain right now by simply believing in god, and in the scriptures. Science is more like a thousand year research project that is designed to figure out how god created the world. We know that he did it through the power of the priesthood, yet it will most likely take scientists thousands of years to arrive at this conclusion, but I do have faith that they will eventually arrive at this conclusion.

Amen. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true! Science is always changing and is the act of discovering the Glory of God. You can be a non-conflicted LDS scientist.

Awesome presentation!

My question is this: when did God start using evolution? There was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. Did things start evolving after the fall? Did man start evolving from the already perfect form of Adam?

There are many willing to teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

-"Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it. To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions!" - Russell M. Nelson, "The Magnificence of Man," Ensign, Jan. 1988, p. 67

That’s just his opinion and he has the right to his own opinion but not to his own facts.

The more I study of evolution, the more I become convinced that if you start with a colony of the first organism hypothesized to form, you'd end up essentially a very similar colony after a billion years.

I once said to someone that "Heavenly Father is a scientist". She looked at me as if I was WRONG!! but didn't argue back. I kind of wish she had questioned me a little more - not that I like to argue - but I would have liked to have shared more of my thought process with her. Isn't Heavenly Father the source of all truth? Do we not go to Him with all our questions and doubts and He will give us the answer? Does that not make Him the expert in all things? In my mind, this makes Him a scientist, but also a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, a teacher, etc. I don't have a problem with Him using science to "organize" all things. Actually, I believe our understanding of science is quite trivial compared to what He knows, but I also believe we will have access to many science classes in the eternities 😊.

Ehn. False advertising on this title. Hugh Nibley had a talk about how in Abraham, Chapter 4, the Gods watched over their creation until it obeyed them. It implies a continuing creation. So I was hoping that this guy had an expansion of that idea--how LDS scriptures are especially friendly to scientific ideas. This was mostly: Don't tell your kids religion is right and science is wrong. The church does not teach an extreme version of that. There was no "why" in this talk.

As with all arguments for evolution, a case can never be made without a philosophical mockery of intelligent design. I believe in science. That's why I reject evolution. Peck presented no scientific evidence whatsoever.

President Joseph Fielding Smith did not believe that evolution and LDS thought are FULLY compatible. In 1911 he said that "it is well known that evolution and the 'higher criticism'--though perhaps containing many truths--are in conflict on some matters with the scriptures, including some modern revelation" (Joseph F. Smith, “Theory and Divine Revelation,” 14 Improvement Era (no.6) 548-549 (April 1911)). If they are in conflict on "some matters," then they are NOT "fully compatible." In other words Peck is deceiving himself and others when he claims that they are fully compatible.

It is pitying this interesting video does not have CC, which would be very important for people hard of hearing like us!

If science's goal is to find the truth about how the world works, then religionists and scientists should have no different outcome -- ultimately. The problem with both is that neither knows everything they need to know now. As a religious person, I'm not afraid of science. Science, given enough time, will eventually find out all the answers. Mr. Peck alluded to the fact that there is transience between the species (or kinds, if you will), but offered no examples. His disses those who hold that macro-evolution has not occurred without offering any substantive proof of its occurrence. Maybe he has written about it elsewhere, but you will not find it in this lecture.

"There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish... There is no way to harmonize the revealed religion which has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism or the diverse speculations descending therefrom." - Bruce R. McConkie, 7 Deadly Heresies, 1 June 1980

Creation evolution all sounding very much like something from Eric Van Daniken or Elron Hubbard.

The human body is an evolved structure? Where is the evidence for that? Animals have evolutionary capabilities but how did that work with human bodies-no one has answered this LDS or NOT.

Left me with my questions than answers.

This was a very poor presentation where absoulty nothing was reconciled between the theory of evolution and LDS doctrine. Very disappointed

Having been a student of engineering, I just don't see enough billions of years available to account for the complexity of the bacteria flagellum motor and the probability that in those billions, it could get to the level it's at. These guys should be doing what the Apostles say which is to challenge the assumptions of their various sciences.

If evolution fits so "marvelously" with LDS doctrine then why not address the "Fall" as taught in Mormonism, hard to fit an historical Adam and Eve into human origins according to science.

I actually have to totally disagree with you, Steven. I'm glad that you are are trying to reconcile science and religion but I just can't agree that we are a product of mutations, even if God had a hand in it. The earth as we know it has been in its terrestrial state for no more than 7000 years. I don't pretend to know exactly how the earth was created but I do know that there was extreme intelligence infused into His creation. DNA is not only complicated, we have no idea how to even start constructing the type of information encoded and everything that it can do. We are just really starting to understand the actual depth and breadth of complexity. An example of its complexity: DNA can have multiple messages with the same structure letters and can tell the difference between them then reproduce virtually perfect. Evolution would actually need to be babysat at every step, versus everything being created, falling from a type of celestial state and running on its own. Entropy only works one way, that is where we get the "arrow of time". Scientists cannot use entropy in their favor no matter how hard you try. In fact, science shows that entropy is in full force with genetic codes because of the breakdown of information. I love science, and I believe that perfect science and perfect religion go hand in hand. I don't believe evolution to be a science but a type of religion. Takes more faith to believe that evolution is possible than it does to believe God created and set in motion all things. I didn't really hear anything that you presented that makes LDS doctrine and evolution compatable...

Don't take this talk as absolute truth. Science keeps learning and in 20 years who knows what will scientists say.There in no conflict between religion and science, the conflict is in our minds.

Well there goes 30 minutes of my life I will never get back.

Lost me at the idea that humans evolved

On his last point, recently they are developing video games and simulations with a design mechanism called "procedural generation", which is when a code or law is written, and the computer is capable of making a practically infinite number of variables based upon those laws. It got me thinking into how God created the universe, considering that we now are about to have universes in our computers. Did he personally create everything, or did he set laws in place and matter organized itself?

My question is simple. Does God The Father, have the power and intelligence, to create a man, or any other creature in one second of our present and current time system?

I won’t ever get this 30 minutes back again either. The temple teaches otherwise. Perhaps if I wait long enough my Ford will become a Rolls Royce. The one thing we also know about science is that it is never fixed. Yesterday’s science is today’s pseudo science and the possibility of today’s science becoming tomorrow’s pseudo is potentially a given. I don’t see confidence in his presentation, rather, hesitancy. Man as a species “evolved”? Then man in the beginning was not created in His image. Way too many problems with his thesis.

I do not think anybody knows. Dogmatic people from either side annoy me. Can different animals in Australia be used as evidence for evolution? Yes. Is the cell too complicated to just have evolved on its own. Yes. Could life have come from somewhere else in the universe? Maybe. So if we find life on Mars that is microscopic what does that mean? What about if we find it on a comet or asteroid that comes from a far away place? It means life may not have originated on earth. So did it evolve other places? Did it evolve independently? Or did it come from a creator? Nobody knows in my opinion.

The good brother would also like us to believe that day is night and night is day. Darwinian evolution is the popular mythology of how God didn't create the earth nor anything in it. This is the definition of Darwinian evolution not one of many possible interpretations or extrapolations. The only question is why this good brother is fighting so hard to get us to accept this absolute nonsense.

What has this to do with SALVATION?

I agree with Peck. We need to come to terms with truth of scientific findings, and learn that these truths are not irreconcilable with our beliefs.

Each species was created by God individually. There is adptation to the environment within the species as the environment changes. God created the ecology and maintains the ecology of the earth to suite His purposes.

Yeah still not convinced

Said almost nothing. Seems he’s at conflict. Science is a discipline in its effort to better understand the natural world only, not the Devine or heavenly side of who we and all that has been created.

LOVE THIS PRESENTATION!!! This should be presented in all CES classes. Oh well.

I commend the speaker for accepting the facts of evolution and encourages others to do the same. He remains unpersuasive, however, on the purported topic on squaring evolution with LDS thought. The speaker must know, as do I, that the human population never bottlenecked at two people, especially two people living in Missouri. Adam and Eve cannot have existed. Other religions can accept this, but Mormons must accept the teaching as literal -- that we are the literal descendents of Adam and Eve, the pinnacle of creation. Adam is (in a misreading of Daniel) the Ancient of Days. Mormons are one of the few remaining religious bodies to take the bible so literally. I predict that tendency will chip away if the church wishes to remain relevant, just as it has on this subject. 10 years ago, this speaker could not have given this talk, sanctioned by Mormon apologists. "Other ways of knowing," the speaker says. What are those? He says revelation. So here we have a learned professor saying we can learn things not only through observation, study, measurable tests, etc., but through supernatural means of voices and thoughts, real or imagined. The Holy G-G-Ghost. There are no other ways of knowing. You can only learn math by study and practice, not osmosis, prayer, or wishful thinking. He sees the "New Atheists" as enemies. That strikes me as odd. They are only an enemy because they make the conclusion the speaker is unwilling to make -- all signs point to a lack of a designer/creator. This is the stumbling block of the speaker and all apologists like him (again, though, I commend him for being more forthright than others I have read). They operate from the premise the church is true. They do not entertain another perspective. I approach life that maybe what I think is wrong. Let me hear an opposing view, and, if persuasive, shift my thinking, no matter how hard it is. It took a year of study before I finally admitted the evidence against a god was too overwhelming to continue to have a believe in one. His joke about burning fairy dusk to fix one's car is a funny one, but more damning than he realizes. When in a drought, Mormons fast and pray, as thought abstaining from food and speaking to a absent deity is what makes it rain, and not the water cycle. Peer review. Tentativeness. Transparency. Critical thinking. The speaker rightly points out these attributes of scientific thought. They are also almost completely absent in religious thought. Another way religion and science are not compatible. The speaker says he doesn't know how the spirit works, I think it was relative to cloned animals or something. Of course he doesn't. How can he study what he can't see, or at least know is present? And yet that's what theologists do -- study a subject (god) that cannot be seen, heard, and whose presence cannot be measured. Evolution is a fact. Thank you for saying it. Now follow it to its logical conclusion that god is not a one-word programmer. That is a deist position. Our watchmaker is blind (and non-existent). The speaker, as a Mormon, has to believe in a personal god. One who can heal wounds greater than the medicine you advocate. One who can move mountains, and not just through plate tectonics. One who creates by fiat, as described in Genesis, and not by winding up the world, and only dropping in on the human species some 100,000 years after they evolved.

Weaksauce. The cat dog rat chessboard example is weaksauce at it's finest. Chessboards and random mutations aren't even in the same universe. Weak-minded arguments. Seems to be pulling from a bunch of random ideas that in some way supposedly validate his all over the place arguments.

1 nephi 20:13 Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. I call unto them and they stand up together. 1 samuel 2:8 for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 2 esdras 16:59 Who spreads out the heaven like a vault; upon the waters has he founded it. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. ************************************************* Just a sample of Gods scriptural Words describing a flat earth sitting on foundations, with pillars , corners ,covered by a glass like firmament holding back the waters above .. ************************************************* John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." 2 Nephi 2:22 Evolution may be compatible with his thought, but not with scripture or the words of the prophets. If he believes this, then he is an unbelieving and uninspired man. Give him no heed.

So, it's not about science vs. God. It's about whether God used evolution (macro evolution) or not in creating his children here on Earth, and other Earth's for that matter. As I have looked into it, the Church has not taken an official stance on this topic. For me something does feel off about macro evolution. The fossil record tree of this animal modifying into that animal still doesn't hold water to me. Those all could simply be similar animals that died out. We do have proof of adaptation, just look at melanin levels in skin on people right? But that still doesn't prove that we humans will eventually evolve to have wings or whatever, so to speak. Human's seem to have always been humans. When I see overlaps and similarities in species or even across species it seems logical to me that the same artist (God) made all of his numerous living things. Just like a trained artist can pick out a Monet, due to similarities in artistry. Ultimately what matters is that God does exist. That science is one multidisciplinary way to seek truth or fact, and that God is the ultimate Scientist, knowing and creating all laws that govern both the Temporal universe and the Spiritual. I look forward to the day God reveals fully HOW he created us. I suspect those lessons will be reserved for the Gods and Goddesses made by God through Exaltation somewhere WAY down the line. Unless He decides to reveal it into His servants the Prophets...which would be awesome. Also, we have this to look forward to from Doctrine and Covenants 101: 32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things- 33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof- 34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

The speaker is a good talker, but he doesn’t address his topic. I regret the time wasted listening to this.

I will always stand and side with the prophets. The words of scientist will fail give it time.

The only thing needed is to look at The Book of Mormon . There is no way it came about by man . Once you realize this , which you will if you are being honest , all else is just details that we will have the answers to one day but aren't really important in the limited time we have to prepare for the next life .

"Did the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know that members are "leaving in droves?" a woman asked. "We are aware," said Jensen, according to a tape recording of his unscripted remarks. "And I'm speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care," he said." (Reuters)

Why do evolutionists always use the argument for science as an argument In favor of evolution? These are two completely different things. I honestly didn't hear anything in this entire talk about LDS thought being compatible with evolution. His entire chess illustration, for instance, assumes a naturalistic premise and excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer who could easily bypass any configuration in order to achieve his intended creation. Just because a building is built brick by brick doesn't mean it takes millions of years to achive this. If the theory of evolution were truly compatible with LDS thought, he would have no problem explaining the whole spirit cat & dog dilemma which I thought was actually quite profound. I also disagree with the whole notion of micro evolution being the same as macro evolution over millions of years. There is simply no new genetic information being created during the reproduction processs, which sugests to me that these minor mutations are limited within a species.

More than applicable to anyone, I know it's the simple principles that allow for the furthest leaps towards the ultimate gifts. However, I consider evolution and it's role. Who can ignore a fish flying from the water? Would it be anything less than spectacular if it did take the elements of all creation to create the capsule of man? My specific thoughts on what little I know of physics and/or biology leaves me with days of possible amazement. Is it any less grand or amazing for all elements or all living things to have been organized in the dynamic order of evolution as if the God's had pooooof!.......organized man? Either way I know whichever the mystery it is by God's hand.

My opinion is: your full of Dennett's theories!

Scientists and religionists that think they know too much come across as not being very intelligent. I don't know. I don't know. Stop telling me I have to believe in evolution or anything else that can not be proved. I do not. It is a fascinating theory but it is a theory. Proving the earth is round can be proved. Proving what happened billions of years ago is silly even with computers. Too many unknown variables. The chess analogy come on life is more complicated than chess.

Nope. If there was no death before Adam (see 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48; and LDS Bible Dictionary) evolution did not happen before the fall of Adam.

Don't understand his statements against ID . He supports ID just a few steps back .

Wow, this was a poor attempt to reconcile science and evidence with religion. I am an Ex-Mormon/Agnostic Atheist. So I might have a little bias. But I listened with the intention of being convinced and I never was. Let's think something. This core of this problem is whether to take the book of Genesis as literal truth or metaphorical stories. It says in the bible that things were created as they are today. Well clearly that isn't possible if you understand science and furthermore understand evolution. So let's take it as metaphorical text, well where do you stop taking text as metaphor? Is the first sin metaphor? Well then why would Jesus die for a metaphor? So it has to be taken literally, but then that makes no sense with science and all evidence. Maybe the book is wrong? Well many would say "I feel it to be true"! So is the Koran true because Muslims say "I feel it to be true"! How can that be that multiple groups get the same feeling? Maybe they are all right, and this is some secret test of God, or maybe (and seems most likely) you get a chemical release in your brain when you think that someone greater loves you regardless of the existence of the loving person. Maybe the "holy spirit" is placebo and its "warmth" is what you feel when you think you are loved due to chemical releases in your head. Not to mention how the reason why Jesus died is mostly glossed over.

This may be the most lame argument for evolution, nevermind linking evolution to creation I've ever heard. It may be the case...could be...but he is not a convincing advocate. Evolution, as currently taught and explained is being shot down left and right by scientists who have much more credibility than this gentleman.

Wonderful presentation!!

It would be VERY much easier to follow this speaker, if he would please WRITE OUT his talk and just READ it. Then he wouldn't have to stutter.

So if evolution is true, no Adam and Eve, so no original sin, no need for a savior, and no reformed gospel.

Ok the reason we have different skulls and dna is because of race mixing and fallen angels and the mixing of man and animals. The days of noah. Its coming back.

What a waste of time. Is this what they get at BYU? LDS should be so embarrassed.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Totally in agreeance with brother Peck,.. our father in heaven is indeed the master programmer he is not some magician who conjures creation out of things without an origin, evolution is absolutely compatible with my LDS faith & my own critical thinking.

What a bunch of baloney. Human to ape evolution is the biggest lie ever told to God's children. He skillfully uses humor, subtle images, and star power from the apostles (albeit poorly quoted and out of context) He puts a bad quote From Elder Nelson that has nothing to do with evolution from a stake conference and uses that as "his mandate" when the actual quote according to him was "go back to the fundamentals of your science and look at the roots" That can mean so many things. Go to 27:18 - (this is an exact quote from his presentation) "Q: what about the commandment to (can't read and hands back to her) plants and animals multiply in their own sphere how can evolution fit or work with this and there still be species drift. Uh that's a great question.. I think, I think, and again as was pointed out by Jeff. The scriptures when they conflict with DEEP BIOLOGY. or deep biology that we see. UM we CAN REINTERPRET THEM IN DIFFERENT WAYS. so when it says the plants command er the animals to do in their sphere. We don't know what that sphere means...there are lots of different Interpretations I think we don't have to take the interpretation that they evolved in their sphere" PLEASE LISTEN WITH YOUR HEART this is the epitome of philosophies of men entering the church through a pinhole to spring a massive leak in a boat. And HOW Many return missionaries go to BYU and leave the church not long after. WE HAVE AN EPIDEMIC OF doubt. This guy is contributing to it. He is asking us to reinterpret or change the scriptures to FIT HIS FAULTY false scientific theories into our beliefs.

Steve, You use medical research as your example of science. Medicine is rather objective and relatively easily testable. But try to put evolution into a testtube. The results can be highly subjective in drawing conclusions. You cannot produce a chain of evidence -- the "fossil evidence", for example, is not found in a step-by-step chain process, as we can do with medical research. The steps are based on speculation/opinion/assertion.

Hard to believe there are people still pitching evolution. Harder yet to believe that a scientist would believe in evolution. Nice try mister. Thank you for the laughs

I was very disappointed with this talk. No offense to Brother Peck, but he didn't really address the areas where people see a conflict. For example, no death before Adam and Eve. It seems to me that he has more faith in an interpretation of fossils than revelation. Also, the chart he show'ed showing whale evolution is very outdated and the "transitional forms" he shows are all disputed. I'm neither an evolutionist, or young earth creationist, I like to keep open to all possibilities and study both until real revelation comes. Brother Peck disappointingly does what most evolutionists do, he pits his "evidence" against straw men. If you actually study what creation scientists believe, you'll find it quite compelling. If you study the problems with Brother Peck's whale chart, you'll find it can be shown to have real weaknesses. It's just a different way of looking at the data. Both have merits, and both have problems. The only real way to truth is through revelation. You can't get revelation without study. But you shouldn't be dogmatic about an idea that hasn't been given by revelation. Even if President Eyring's dad was a scientist. He certainly wasn't the Prophet. If the prophet receives a revelation that evolution is true I'll embrace it. If he receives a revelation that it's false, people who value fossil interpretations over revelation will have a hard time following the Prophet.

CHANGE SCRIPTURE? How do you do that. BYU is so full of misinformation it is a shame to education

Horrible talk, I didn't learn anything....its the philosophies of men mingled with scripture....

This is incredible; trying to make the idea of evolution compatible with mormonism. Has your faith degenerated to that stage? You are wasting time; evolution is simply impossible, looking at it from the viewpoint of mathematics and fysics. Science and religion fit together very well, as is said in the video, but unfortunately the science of today is still very limited in its scope. The creation is far too complicated to be the result of a cosmic accident. Ask any socalled scholar, who believes in the proces of evolution, how far he has studied in mathematics and the answer will probably be none; evolution is a philosophy, a beliefsystem, not a science. The fact that there are fossils in the ground does'nt prove that we are descendents from them, only that there was a former creation. This creation proves there is a creator, there is no other way to explain our existence.

this guy needs to look up intelligent design.

Fraudulent!

Waste of time. Don't bother listening. The title is misleading.