The LDS community has diverse opinions
Preface: In a most wonderful 2008 Conference talk (“Finding Joy in the Journey,” Ensign, Nov 2008, 84–87.) President Monson addressed the topic of the constancy of change. Referring to his long tenure as a General Authority, he stated, "The changes over a period of 45 years that were incremental now seem monumental." President Monson was in no way advocating biological evolution, but his ideas apply. Biological evolution is ALL about small incremental genetic changes (like point mutations) that add up over geological time to become monumental.
My forced association of select concepts from a Conference talk with evolutionary ideas might cause some to be uncomfortable. My bias as a strong advocate of evolution probably colors what I hear in the Church. It is simply an empirical fact that the LDS Church is made up of pro-evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, and BOTH can be in good standing with the Church.
Advocates of both positions probably could be appropriately reminded (including myself) of the great words of Nephi from the Book of Mormon that state, "I do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17). Yet, we do KNOW some things.
One thing we know is that the Church and its priesthood authority is of secondary importance ONLY to God. In the eternal scheme of things, evolution is but a footnote. Evolution, however, is NOT a footnote to biological science – it is central.
My purpose in this essay is NOT to persuade others to believe in evolution. Rather, my goal is to help anti-evolutionists to understand the level of conviction of LDS evolutionists. Further, it is important to be aware that Latter-day Saints can have diverse views on the topic. The stereotype of the LDS Church as a closed society with narrow minded thinkers is completely wrong.
Just the other day I attended a university workshop on "science & religion" for faculty members. One of the presenters was a very respected (non-LDS) theologian. Her talk was about the various identities we carry and how (sometimes) they can come into conflict. She listed a variety of religions on the right-hand side of the board, one of which was Mormon. She listed a variety of everyday roles on the left-hand side, such as professor, parent, and lesbian. This exercise got me to thinking about the tension of roles in my own life, one of which is being an evolutionist and a Latter-day Saint.
While there may be some tension between evolution and the culture of Mormonism, I don't see any fundamental incompatibility between the two. Of course, there are people in the LDS blog world who would tell me: 1) Darwin was wrong; and 2) Darwinism and Mormonism don't mix. Such I have been told multiple times. Even so, one's position on the topic of evolution is about as relevant to Church standing as being a Democrat or a Republican. Consequently, I am perplexed by the current amount of heat that has been generated by a few over evolution.
One way to explain my level of puzzlement over disbelief is by using the following parable:
Suppose a LDS fireside had just ended at the Faux home, and the house was filled with people. The closing prayer had been given, and punch and cookies were being served. A big family room was filled with chatter and laughter, but then all of a sudden a large vase was tipped over and smashed on the floor, making a loud sound. Shards of the vase scattered across the floor. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of the few in the room that reacted to this incident. Suppose people were questioned about what happened, and most everyone insisted the vase never existed, even though they were stepping on the pieces.
The vast majority of scientists do NOT have a problem with evolution because they cannot ignore the loud shatter of the vase hitting the floor – that is, the systematic layering of fossils in the strata of rock, the effect of the environment on genetic sequencing, and the ancient dates that come from multiple radiographic measures. Those who heard the crashing vase would naturally wonder why people could deny the obvious.
In my house I have large plastic dinosaurs on display in my main family room where we meet with visitors, like Home Teachers. These plastic models have been there for nearly two decades. My plastic dinosaurs have been object lessons. I have taught my children that there was NO PROBLEM in believing in Triceratops (the dinosaur) and in believing Jesus. Why should there be any conflict?
Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but there seem to be two views of creation by members in the Church. The two versions are DIGITAL and ANALOG. The digital view is that God created the universe, world, and life within short discrete periods of time (like 6 days). I strongly prefer the analog perspective. My family has been taught that God's creation occurred over a LONG period of time (millions of years) in CONTINUOUS steps using natural processes.
Again, I would NEVER argue that belief in Darwin and evolution is necessary for spiritual salvation. Such an argument would be ridiculous. In fact, I have NEVER heard a LDS evolutionist make such an argument.
Scientific understanding of evolution (and its related genetic sequences), however, is critical for TEMPORAL salvation. Am I suggesting evolution has important practical value? ABSOLUTELY, YES!!!
**Every physician must understand that antibiotic drugs do NOT kill all bacteria. Those that survive "evolve" to be resistant.
**Evolutionary principles are critical for effective conservation management of our stressed ecological environment.
**Evolutionary and genetic principles are necessary in the use of laboratory rats to cure human cancers.
**Evolutionary and genetic principles are necessary to understand epidemiology, the study of the spread of infectious disease, such as those viral or bacterial. Specifically, evolution helps scientists to understand why some viruses attack only pigs, some only humans, and others BOTH pigs and humans.
My list could be GREATLY extended. Most people are unaware of the importance of "evolution" in modern daily life.
The result is that evolutionary ideas are NOT optional for an accurate life science. Even Church sponsored schools have an obligation to teach it.
In the LDS blogging and internet world there is a diverse array of opinions about evolution. The range of ideas can get quite confusing. I have organized a few LDS blog sites according to their positions on Darwinian evolution.
Pro or Tending Toward Pro
Closest to the orthodox positions of evolution are S.Faux ("Mormon Insights") and SteveP ("Mormon Organon"), who both hail from the academic world in the life sciences. Both are active Latter-day Saints, and neither apologizes for promoting evolution in educational activities.
Jared at "LDS Science Review" is a very informed life scientist, and I would describe his posts as pro-evolution enlightened by a very balanced and strong LDS perspective. I recommend his posts to all.
Dave Banack has recently posted an essay entitled, "Theology in the Wake of Evolution," in which he reviews Haught's God After Darwin. The book argues that religion would receive a new birth of excitement if it would recognize "the natural zest for life that links us biologically to our evolutionary past."
Jeff Lindsay, a noted LDS blogger, has written a very balanced essay ("Do Mormons believe in evolution and the fossil record?") on how a pro-evolution perspective can mix with LDS theology.
The LDS author behind "Mormon Fortress," Michael R. Ash, in a 2002 Dialogue article, "The Mormon myth of evil evolution," argues that "in time we may see the demise of the Mormon myth that teaching or accepting evolution amounts to apostasy." The article further argues that the Church's "official stand on the subject [of evolution] is neutral." This paper is very persuasive.
Anti or Tending Toward Anti
By contrast, Dave C., a LDS scientist and philosopher at "Mormons & Science" describes evolution as a "random" process, and argues that "inconsistent with gospel doctrine" is the view that humans evolved from "lower" forms of life. He is adamant (pun intended) and articulate.
Noted LDS blogger R. Gary Shapiro has been extremely articulate in his anti-evolution positions on his site: "No Death Before the Fall." If I were on a BYU debate club and were asked to take an anti-evolution position, then I would want Shapiro on my team. (By the way, a debate club would be the ONLY place where you would hear me taking an anti-evolution position).
R. Webster Kehr has recently posted a second edition of his anti-evolution electronic book entitled, Prophets or Evolution – An LDS Perspective. The linked page states (emphasis in the original): "The teachings of the anti-Christ Korihor are identical to the teachings of the theory of evolution." Obviously, I hope he is wrong.
To the best of my knowledge the LDS Church does NOT take positions on scientific findings. The Church is normally content with letting the scientists engage in battle. The exception might be evolution, but even that is quite debatable, depending upon the source of information (as reviewed in the above section).
The LDS Church traditionally has had an "anti-creedal" philosophy, believing instead in continuous revelation and knowledge. Take for example, this statement from Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.327
I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further"; which I cannot subscribe to.
Any human creed, whether religious or scientific, may have some truth and some falsehood. If one's goal is to learn ALL things, then it is best NOT to lock into a position that implies "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." Fortunately, science is a self-correcting process, where the boundaries of knowledge should never come to an end.
Copyright 2009 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.
22 comments:
Thanks for this.
"One's position on the topic of evolution is about as relevant to Church standing as being a Democrat or a Republican."
And you'll get the same weird looks, and you'll be tempted to respond to the same kind of off-topic comments in Sunday School, regardless of whether you're a Democrat or you accept evolution.
Nice post, and thanks for the endorsement! If I ever need a blurb, your description will do nicely. I've repented and added you to my blogroll.
I love your posts! Mostly I want to say Ditto. Evolution is not going anywhere and those who continue to suggest that the gospel and evolution are incompatible do a lot of harm to people's testimonies in suggesting that they have to choose between one or the other. Thanks for the good work you do.
Jared* you too. I love your site and have learned a number of things for the first time on your blog.
S.Faux,
I enjoyed this post. I think you accurately characterized my views. Everyone should know that I am not anti-evolution and I am not a young-earth creationist.
I am anti-evolution dogma which is asserting that it is a faultless theory and is wholly compatible with the gospel. I have no problem with evolutionists believing this way, as you do, but those who assert these truth claims to the world while disparaging the voices of concern from some church authorities and reputable scholars like me are being unscholarly.
I think you should have put mormon organon in a category by itself. It is the pro-evolution site that tolerates no dissention. If you do not drink the mormon organon evolutionary kool-aid you are branded a scientific heretic who does not understand science. At least that is how I experienced it during my last few visits.
Tim:
Thanks goodness for a little mercy in my life. I get weird looks only for being an evolutionist. I am a "Colin Powell" Republican. Oh, never mind. I do get weird looks from "Cheney" Republicans.
Jared:
Thanks for putting "Mormon Insights" on your sidebar. Your posts are always provocative and informative.
SteveP:
I think of Mormonism as a society that stands behind all truth. Truths in biological science can be fully embraced. Further, we are NOT obligated to embrace falsehoods.
Dave C.
I understand that you are not against all evolutionary ideas. But, since you reject any notion of common descent in humans, then I think that rejection alone puts you into a contrasting camp.
While it is sometimes necessary to criticize ideas, I always try to do so by being courteous to the people behind those ideas. In other words, I treat comments on this blog like I would treat comments in my classroom. If I have ever sounded disparaging, then I apologize.
Take SteveP to lunch at the "Cougar Eat." I mean literally, not figuratively.
Aw, Steve, I love your blog too. Group hug.
Jared:
I write these posts always hoping to start some controversy, and instead I get group hugs. ;) Well, I am dealing with mostly Mormons, after all.
hey there,
Really great interesting blog! Just a quick comment.. As a trained geologist I have no trouble with evolution per se. Its effect are easily seen as you say (nice vase analogy by the way - I think I'm going to use that one!). The trouble comes when people equate what has happened to animals in the world to how the human race came into being as it has quite plainly been asserted by church authorities that Adam and Eve did NOT descend from primates regardless of whether or not evolution has occured to other species.
Oh and hey I notices that you said your classroom - I take
it you are a teacher? Just curious as I teach Geography over here in sunny England - take it easy.
Rmartin
p.s. I have been a long time subscriber to your
My only complaint here is that characterizing LDS positions as "pro" and "anti" evolution is misleading when there are a half a dozen points of division on the subject, such that only a small minority of even superficially informed LDS have ever adopted the "stupid" or "naive" view that is so easy to caricature.
In particular Young Earth Creationism has nearly always been a minority viewpoint in the Church, as in even superficially informed advocates are hard to find and leaders who have spoken on the subject have generally taken an old earth position. The idea that there has ever been a plurality in the Church for the denial or radical compression of the geological / fossil record is dubious in the extreme.
In contemporary Mormonism, I would say there are only two typical points of dispute - whether humans were some sort of exception to common descent comparable to resurrection (majority says yes for theological reasons) and whether there was any divine interference or other teleological elements in the origin and continuation of the evolutionary process (majority also says yes for theological reasons). The first is increasingly difficult to defend, the latter not so much, in particular because it cannot be disproved.
The NDBF position is scripturally faithful, but a conventional reading is so radically contradicted by the evidence for an old earth that the number willing to defend a conventional reading is largely limited to a minority of professors of religion.
Mark D.,
The problem is that many members are not even superficially informed.
It would be interesting to see an accurate survey of this (and, for obvious reasons, a bloggernacle survey would not be an accurate representation of church members). I'm betting a significant percentage (over 15%, possibly much greater) would go with the NDBF position.
Rmartin:
I just got out of shoulder surgery (4 hrs. ago), and i am drugged up, and I am typing with my left hand.
So, if my responses don't make sense, then forgive me.
Evolution applies to all life, including humans. Yet, the fall of Adam and Eve is crucial to understanding the atonement. I do not pretend to know how it all fits together. But my theology cannot alter the clear scientific data. The vase crashed loudly to me. Others can acknowledge it or not.
I would NEVER want evolution to be used as a tool to attack the Church. The G.A.s can take whatever positions they want. But, I firmly believe a Mormon can be any kind of scientist, and still love the gospel.
When I study the ancient Hominins, I am reminded that we are all brothers and sisters. In a real way I feel I am doing my genealogy.
I think that your parable of the broken vase is a little too flawed. You say that "most everyone insisted the vase never existed, even though they were stepping on the pieces," suggesting no doubt that Creationists (or "anti-evolutionists" if you prefer) are ignoring the obvious. But Creationists/IDers are looking at the same evidence as evolutionists. They see the microevolution that you pointed out in your "Evolution is an Applied Science" portion of your post. What they're not accepting, and what you're accepting on a leap of faith, is the idea that those observed microevolutionary facts are adequate evidence that macroevolution produced what we see in the world. They're not pretending that fossils don't exist, for instance. They simply have a different interpretation of the evidence at hand. They have a different story to fill in the blanks with (if by "blanks" we meant the unobserved past). They see the same fossils in the same rocks. Evolutionists say, "Hmm. Must have been evolution at work, just like Darwin said!" Creationists say, "Hmm. Looks like the work of Noah's flood, just like the scriptures indicate." To say that Creationists blatantly ignore what evolutionists constantly push into their faces as evidence in every school, in the media, etc. is not a fair or accurate depiction. They accept evidence, they just reject your conclusions/interpretations of the evidence.
I think that your parable of the broken vase would have been much more accurate and made more sense if it would have went something like this:
The group of people walk into the unfamiliar room and see the vase having been broken in their absence. They see the scattered shards. Each of them asks, "How did these get here?"
One guy surmises, "Hmm. Some vase must have broken suddenly and the pieces scattered all over the floor like this."
"No, you fool!" Another guy chimes in. "Don't you see? The pieces must have formed slowly from frayed fibers in the carpet, over a very long time. Look and see for yourself, the carpet is a similar color to the shards, and so they must have been produced by it. And anyone can see that the shards are embedded in the layers of the carpet."
The first guy says, "Gee, I dunno..."
"What do you mean you don't know!" The second guy says, "I'm SURE about this!"
While this is not a perfect analogy of the issue, I find it to be much closer than your original parable.
Mark D:
I very much appreciate your comment.
It is hard for Utahns to dispense with the ancient earth because Bryce Canyon and the Grand Canyon are both sitting in the backyard, providing hard and unequivocal testimony.
To me, we have a rational religion that allows scientists and historians to see the world clearly and for what it is.
There is no need to pound square pegs into round holes. There is no need to refine the rhetorical art of spinning. Mormons can be orthodox scientists and STILL love the restored gospel.
I think Professor Henry Eyring tried very hard to teach us that.
Ryan:
Thank you for your comment!!
I love the story of Noah, but it provides NO scientific explanation. Its theological points about cleansing are immensely important. In fact, I think those points are too often missed when the story is interpreted literally.
When my right arm is feeling better I would like to write an essay on the figurative meaning of Noah.
Sorry, but I have found ID "theory" about divine design to be a great example of how preconceptions can always be supported with poor scholarship. God and science deserve better.
Just a side-note: Lots of micro-evolutions make macro-evolution. The distinction is merely one of quantity and passage of time. It makes no sense to me to say, "I believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution." It is like saying, "I believe in apples, but not bushels of apples."
I don't mind the tiny little growth spurts of my children, but eventually they grow into adults and leave the house. Some facts cannot be escaped by still calling them my babies.
"Lots of micro-evolutions make macro-evolution. The distinction is merely one of quantity and passage of time."
Oh, how silly of me. Macroevolution must have happened because we know microevolution happens - micro turns into macro, right? Let me ask you a question: have you ever seen this occur? ...(crickets chirping)...That's what I thought. You may believe that your statement is true, but your mere belief in it does not make it fact like you're trying to suggest. It's not enough to simply make a claim like that. If what you said is really true, then be a scientist and show us.
Ryan:
My comment on macroevolution was not demeaning; it was definitional. I was a bit surprised by your reaction.
For a good lesson in biology, see: How new species are created.
A good example of micro leading to macro is found in the genetic analysis of lions and tigers. They can interbreed, because their lineage separated only a couple of million years ago. There are many studies on how geographic isolation is associated with point sequence changes. It is a huge theme in evolutionary biology.
I could say a lot more but I have only one hand, as the other is in a sling.
Do remember that scientific conclusions come from both observation and experiment. You are welcome to reject these findings, but we both know how successful the scientific process has been, even if occasionally fallible.
I welcome civil reactions.
S.Faux,
I apologize for the scathing remarks. I was out of line. I guess I'm on the defensive because it seems you think people like me are silly or ignoring obvious facts. But you still aren't seeing what I'm talking about. Your pride will not let you see where your logic is failing.
You say the lineage of Lions and Tigers separated "only a couple of million years ago." Were you there to see it happen? Then how do you know? How do you know that microevolution culminates in macroevolutionary change? You have no contemporary examples of macroevolution. All you can say is, "Millions of years ago such and such must have happened..." But since no one ever witnessed it, it is only a BELIEF of yours, not a demonstrated fact.
You say, "Do remember that scientific conclusions come from both observation and experiment." I agree. So who observed the lineal split between lions and tigers millions of years ago? Was it you? Who repeated that very split in a laboratory? Anybody? Anyone can make up a story and stack up circumstantial evidence in their favor. But how much is that worth? Macroevolution has never been observed, so it doesn't help to pretend like it has.
Also, to suggest that there is no evidence for a world-wide flood is not true. What I'm sure you meant to say was that you do not interpret facts/evidence through that worldview. Others look at the Grand Canyon and the layers in the earth and see a great flood as an excellent explanation, and offer science-based reasoning for their conclusions. Just because an idea is popular, doesn't automatically make it right. Especially when the truth must be forever out of the realm of the observable.
Ryan:
I do not have the capacity or desire to persuade you, as we have very different views of the natural world. Believe as you please.
Proposed scientific evidence, like world-wide floods, needs to be presented and scrutinized at international conferences by a diverse array of authorities. I have never seen such a presentation, largely because the claims would not hold up. But, believe me, if someone had strong evidence, then scientists would be thrilled.
Further, remember the layers of rock have internal atomic clocks. The layering in the Grand Canyon happened over millions of years, not thousands, not hundreds, and not in 40 days.
The observations I mentioned are the histories recorded in the gene sequencing and the chromosomal structure, along with the fossil record. So, YES, the macroevolution HAS been observed. It is NOT an imaginary concept.
I am talking about a written history in the language of DNA, atomic clocks, and comparative fossil anatomy. The evidence is not circumstantial, it is direct. If you require time machine evidence, then let's just admit you cannot be persuaded.
There is no better science than evolutionary science. It is regarded as fact, just like gravity. Evolution has multiple lines of independent converging evidence.
My only argument is that Mormons have the freedom to be evolutionary biologists, and still remain in good standing with the Church, holding temple recommends and high office.
Belief in God is FAR more important than belief in evolution. I think we agree on that much.
"The G.A.s can take whatever positions they want. But, I firmly believe a Mormon can be any kind of scientist, and still love the gospel."
In reponse to this I would say that I don't doubt any scientist can love the gospel but for me what a G.A. speaks and does so as a G.A. in an offocial cpacity then not only can they take whatever position they want but I'm inclined to believe it is my duty an dobligation to follow it.
Hey you still haven't told me if you're a teacher or not : )
RNM:
My response is here.
Post a Comment