But It Does Not Guide My Life
Preface: If the topic of evolution bothers you, then please do NOT read this essay. I am an evolutionist, and I am making the simple point that LDS individuals can be evolutionists. At the same time, I realize that evolution does NOT contribute to our religious understanding, but it increases my appreciation of life as it has been organized.
I have been reading Donald R. Prothero (2007): Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (New York : Columbia Univ. Press). My favorite quote (p. 210) from the book actually is a citation from another author:
J. G. Maisey, 1996. Discovering Fossil Fishes. New York: Henry Holt)
The only way to make fishes monophyletic would be to include tetrapods [four-limbed animals], and to regard the latter merely as a kind of fish.
The history of fishes through tetrapods has been worked out in great detail. It is not the product of scientific imagination – it is fact-driven. Some religionists (not necessarily LDS) may want the earth to be no older than 6000 years old, or may want Adam to be the first living creature on earth, but I have no interest in forcing scientific facts to fit someone's predefined theology of origins.
The earth (nature) speaks truth, even if it sometimes mumbles – this is the starting point of any scientist. Scientists (of any religious background) cannot be in the business of sweeping data under the rug on fossils, genes, and ancient rocks because these data do not fit prior theological convictions. The data supporting biological evolution are overwhelming. I am going to mention only three of many multiple lines of strong evidence:
1) The fossil record of fish to amphibians shows a smooth and beautiful transitional process. There is no evidence of anatomical monsters that appear out of nowhere, and no evidence of fossils misplaced in time. (See, e.g., Prothero, 2007, cited above).
2) The genes, which code for sequences of amino acids, show systematic changes in evolutionary time. That is, we can literally track the tiny changes in amino acid sequencing over lengths of time and across related species. Further, with minor expected variations (e.g., prions), nearly all life is based upon the same foundational genetic code.
3) Geologists do not confuse layers of undisturbed rock from the Cretaceous period (about 145 to 66 million years ago) with those from the Quaternary (about 2 million years ago to the present). The Cretaceous layers have dinosaur fossils and the Quaternary layers do not. There simply is no scientifically honest way to make the claim that the earth is 6000 thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived within that time frame. Such a claim would be absurd.
Thus, there is no scientific evidence that organisms were created all at once within a short period of time. The fossil record is systematic. There is no evidence that humans were designed in a moment. In fact, the mitochondria in our every cell were symbiotic invaders with their own genetic system. This symbiotic process took millions, if not billions of years, to pull off. We do NOT find human bones mixed with dinosaur bones. Instead, the fossil record reveals a coherent genealogy. Nature is NOT telling us a fib.
Evidently, there is a new movie being released called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, made by actor and celebrity Ben Stein. The movie evidently is nothing but an anti-Darwin diatribe, and it argues that teachers are being fired across the nation who attempt to teach “creation theory” as opposed to Darwinism. I teach Darwinism heavily in my college courses, and I have several students who want me to see this movie – I think because they are anti-evolution.
There are a number of reviews of the movie posted on the Scientific American web site, and these reviews will appear in the June 2008 issue. It is clear that the movie argues that Darwinism is a deep source of evil in society. Further, it argues that there is a general conspiracy to keep teachers from teaching alternate views that are consistent with the Book of Genesis.
My perspective is this: Imagine a teacher who taught there is no such thing as gravity. Further, suppose this teacher taught that gravity theory is not supported by the actual data. Still further, suppose this teacher taught that people do not fall off the round earth because of the design, desire, and force of God. How long would such a teacher stay hired in a standard High School district? How many college students would enroll in courses advocating such a position?
Just as anti-gravity teachers would not be competitive with those who taught Isaac Newton, anti-evolution teachers are not competitive with those who teach Darwin. The field of education involves a competition of ideas. That is just an economic reality. Good thing, because truth usually wins in the competition of ideas – not always, but usually – and especially in science. Science is a very efficient winnower of naturalistic truth. Darwinism has been around since 1859, and it has become only stronger over time. It has won the competition; and “creationism,” as usually presented, has lost the intellectual war.
Is evolution and evolutionary theory against God. No. God is outside the purview of science, period. Why does science ignore God? An example comes to mind: One could inefficiently argue that God makes cars go, but a scientist would explain the movement as a function of gasoline, pistons, spark plugs, and so on. The same approach is used in the study of evolution. God explains everything and nothing at the same time. The concept of God is just not a satisfactory explanation for natural events.
How do I make my LDS religion compatible with Darwin?
First of all, I appreciate the fact that my religion allows me to be a scientist – any form of scientist. Ultimately, my religion understands that God is outside of the purview of science. Nevertheless, my religion also argues that God should NOT be outside of the purview of the scientist, as a person. One can have both a scientific view of the world and a religious one.
I love history. I have been reading texts on evolution since I was age 15. The study of evolution, then and now, gives me a sense of the history of the world. Evolutionists, like any historian, can get a few of the details wrong, but over time correct details tend to replace false ones.
At the same age, I began to read the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I have learned to love those books over time, especially Isaiah, which I hated as a teenager and skipped over. These books discuss critical issues, but NOT biological evolution.
I recently wrote the following on someone else’s LDS blog:
I have no problem about the spiritual nature of humans as taught by the Church. Science cannot address that nature. It can, however, address with great skill the physical nature of the world and the life it contains.
I do NOT listen to General Conference to learn science, and I do NOT listen to science to learn about God.
Ultimately, I think science and religion can be made compatible, but right now they are speaking past each other.
Most of my posted essays are NOT science. I would NEVER make that claim. But also, I do NOT impose my religious views on my science/college courses. Normally, science and religion do not mix for me.
However, my perspectives of the world are greatly enhanced by having both scientific and religious components in my life. Even so, the contributions those two components make to my life are rather independent of each other. The interactions between the two are relatively minor. For example, my religion teaches me to be an honest scientist. Science has taught me how easily prejudice and stereotyping is formed against religious peoples. Also, my scientific skills helped me to recreate the location of pioneer trails here in Iowa. Science has not formed my theology, and my theology has not formed my science.
In my early years, I had hoped there would be a synergy between science and theology, such that being good in one would make me so much the better in the other. I am now mostly skeptical that any such synergy will exist in my lifetime. I know good scientists who are theists and atheists. I know good LDS members who are pro-science and anti-science (or anti-evolution). I think the LDS Church is just a neutral entity with respect to the scientific positions its members take.
I am pretty sure that one’s beliefs about the age of the earth and of the universe have no relevance to one’s salvation in the eternities. Even so, I am extremely confident that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. That is my scientific testimony, but I am the first to admit that I need not bear it in Church. Evolution inspires my scientific thinking, but my religion guides the fundamentals of my life.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
5 comments:
Quote: "There simply is no scientifically honest way to make the claim that the earth is 6000 thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived within that time frame. Such a claim would be absurd."
Might I go out on a limb and say that only a fool would believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. How can one dispute scientific evidence? I can't imagine anyone still believing that dinosaurs lived anytime on the earth within the last 6,000 years.
I think what many people do is confuse the age of the Earth with the age of the world. Am I the only one that makes that distinction? I equate the world as the time in which man was placed here and entered mortality. The Earth has obviously been around a whole lot longer than 6,000 years.
Tim, I would be comfortable with some kind of theological distinction, such as you are making. I am thinking about D&C 77:12 that clearly indicates there are 6 creation (time) periods, and then indicates the 7th period will "complete the salvation of man." The sabbath is, then, a type or similitude of the Millennium, the last period. The sequencing given in the temple is very compatible with modern science. But, like I say in the essay, I am most comfortable letting nature speak for itself, and I am happy to listen to the Prophets about the nature of Adam. The two paths, science and religion, seldom cross for me.
Again, thanks for reading and thinking. I do appreciate it.
I believe in some aspects of Darwin's theories. I collect little scientific facts that read or hear about from science journals,NPR and the science page of the that stand out as possible detractions from D's theories.
Some large mammal fish have hip bones-indicating land to sea evolution not D's sea to land theory.
The 2nd theory of thermal dynamics that all things are in a state of desinigration is in conflict with D's theory.
Recent DNA evidence shows that modern humans mated with some early pre-erectus. This throws a wrench in D's seamless progression from ape to homo-erectus.
Some flies in Hawaii mutate at speedy rates changing attributes in months.Mutation and specie deviation may not have to be depicted in steady progression.
Finally Dinosaurs since you brought it up. Would you consider crocodiles dinosaurs?
I don't believe God created dinosaurs but I believe he allowed Satan to build his own animal kingdom. Joseph Smith said to the effect--
"whenever the Lord sets up a kingdom, lucifer sets up a false kingdom to contradict it."
In the Lord's animal kingdom the lamb and the lion peacefull co-exist. Somehow carnality contaminated Eden's celestial animal arrangement. Could Satan's animal kingdom interloped with God's resulting in lions eating lambs. Feel free to point out the holes in my thinking. I am not afraid to evolve in my thinking. MJH
MJH:
Thanks for your comment!
Whales did indeed evolve from land mammals (specifically ungulates), and they have vestigial skeletal features that indicate so. The lineage is pretty well worked out. For example, see this page. In any case, evolution does not move in a single direction, such as sea to land. It moves in any direction that is a result of enhanced survival and reproduction.
Your reference to the law of entropy is just a little misunderstood. Yes, matter moves from organization to disorganization over eons of time as the universe goes cold. However, in any energetic system (with heat) there is going to be both organization and disorganization. Crystals are organized non-living matter. Obviously, living organisms are highly organized. Such organization does NOT violate the laws of physics.
Darwin does NOT propose any seamless progressions. Evolutionary genealogy is like a tree branching out, not like a straight line. Natural selection does not aim for anything other than survival and reproduction. Tigers can mate with lions to produce ligers. Homo Sapiens could mate with other closely related species. I am not sure of the data to which you refer -- "pre-erectus." Yet, I would fully expect that modern humans carry DNA segments from earlier Homo species, and even farther back to the Australopithecines.
Fruit flies are wonderful little organisms. They reproduce fast and they mutate fast. They are a prime organism for genetic laboratories. While evolution is normally seen as a slow, steady process, it need not always be. Scientists are beginning to appreciate that evolution take take very fast leaps.
Dinosaurs and crocodiles have a common ancestor, but no, crocodiles are not dinosaurs. Birds are closer relatives to dinosaurs than crocodiles!!
I am resistant to the Satan-creation theory. There is nothing in scripture that would suggest such a thing. I would like to see your reference to the Joseph Smith quote. Even so, I would have no need to force scientific data and interpretation into Joseph Smith's speculations.
Thanks for your reaction. I may not have answered all your questions to your satisfaction, but this is the best I got at 4 A.M. in the morning.
R.
Thank-you for taking the time to comment on my points. I have greater appreciation for Darwin's theory of Evolution. Go Galapagos!
The exact Joseph Smith quote and reference about Satan's opposing kingdoms can be found on page 15 of our Teachings of the Presidents of the Church paragraph 1, "In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God"
I have enjoyed reading your facinating posts. I read your Abraham Ur of Chaldees piece. I understand you don't like to mix religion and science, but I hope you might consider shedding scientific perspective on Abraham's Cosmos/Time revelation in a future blog. Can any of the components of the revelation compare to any modern theories like string theory and dual universes or scientific facts like the proven expanding universe? Food for blog thought. MJH
Post a Comment