Wow! Did you see it? Dinosaurs are in the Church News. The article is entitled: "Dinosaurs revisited in BYU paleontology museum."
Because of the late "Dinosaur Jim" Jensen, BYU has one of the finest collections of dinosaur bones in the country. As I understand it, scientists will be working on uncasing Jensen's bone collection for decades.
Yes! Mormons believe in dinosaurs. Heehee. It's in the Church News after all.
Now, of course, the article had to print the following subtitle: "We know why the earth was created, we just don't know how."
Fine. I can live with that.
From our beloved religion, we do know there is purpose to this earth. But, to be honest, from our beloved science, we also have a fairly good understanding of how life evolved over the history of this earth.
Stare at those wonderful dinosaur pictures in the Church News and appreciate the ancient history of the earth.
There is nothing wrong with being 21st century Mormons who know science a little better than our forbearers.
There is nothing magical about the scientific process:
1) Those dinosaur bones represent extinct creatures never seen alive by any humans.
2) Those dinosaur bones come from deep layers of the earth, exposed either by digging or by erosion.
3) The atomic clocks in those dinosaur bones and their surrounding rock accurately measure the ancient age of those bones.
Personally, I think it is unfair to say that the earth was created out of previously "used" materials from some other planet. That argument would be like saying to a three year old,
"Don't worry about scribbling in that Mormon pioneer diary. The pages ONLY look old. Erase and scribble in it all you want. What's already there does not matter."
What's the harm in ignoring evolution? Well, to me (and I am being precise) that would be like saying, "What's the harm in ignoring gravity? Why study gravity?" One's salvation (and standing in the Church) does not depend upon either evolution or gravity, but one's education does.
When I grew up, no one told me that I could NOT believe in ALL of science. No one told me that if something is true, I might be required to disbelieve it anyway. No one told me such things.
Instead, I was taught about "continuing revelation." I was told that human life is all about learning, exploring, and expanding our minds.
Consequently, we modern Latter-day Saint scientists can live with our eyes open, seeing those sauropod killer teeth UP CLOSE and not even blinking.
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.
9 comments:
Hugh Nibley once explained why scientists can't know what happened ten thousand or forty million years ago:
"My own children, long before they could read, write, or count, could tell you exactly how things were upon the earth millions and millions of years ago. But did the little scholars really know? ' What is our knowledge of the past and how do we obtain it? ' asks the eminent archaeologist Stuart Piggott, and answers: ' The past no longer exists for us, even the past of yesterday.... This means that we can never have direct knowledge of the past. We have only information or evidence from which we can construct a picture.' The fossil or potsherd or photograph that I hold in my hand may be called a fact—it is direct evidence, an immediate experience; but my interpretation of it is not a fact, it is entirely a picture of my own construction. I cannot experience ten thousand or forty million years—I can only imagine, and the fact that my picture is based on facts does not make it a fact, even when I think the evidence is so clear and unequivocal as to allow no other interpretation." (The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 1, ch. 2, 25-27.)
It was actually Dr. Jensen himself who provided the subtitle. The article quotes him saying, "We know why the Earth was created, we just don't know how."
And even in the 21st century we still don't know, and won't know until God tells us. He was there.
R. Gary:
It is great to hear from you. I love your skepticism.
Truth is all relative, especially history.
We know there was a Nauvoo, Illinois occupied by early Mormons between 1839 and 1846. We know those people came primarily from Missouri or Ohio. We know when they left Nauvoo that many went to Utah.
There are many details we do NOT know about those people, but we do KNOW the basic sequence of events.
The same can be said for the evolutionary history of the earth.
Do we have perfect knowledge? No. But, let's NOT give the misimpression that we know nothing.
After all, those dinosaur bones stare us in the face. They are hard to ignore. And, evolutionary paleontologist Jim Jensen would have been the first to say so.
.
S.Faux,
It's clear you think we know, but paleontologist Jim Jensen is quoted in the Church News saying we DON'T know.
R. Gary:
You are welcome to selectively interpret a selective quote.
Multiple times I have heard Jim Jensen speak, and I have studied his work. He was a faithful Latter-day Saint, and I have no problem calling him an evolutionist.
Cite me a source in context that states otherwise.
The issue is NOT Jim Jensen. There are MANY Latter-day Saint evolutionists.
Hmmm... Maybe it is a generational thing but I fail to see why this would elicit a "wow". The again I am approaching 40 now maybe it is not a generational thing... Seems to me that I don't remember a time that dinosaurs were actively preached against. Whenever they were preached against on earth I always thought they must be crackpots and assumed my fellow Mormons agreed.
In other words, while it is nice to see folks like R Gary still exist in the church, in my experience people who preach as he does about science are becoming the proverbial dinosaurs.
.
Geoff J,
Yep. Me and Boyd Packer and Russell Nelson.
.
S.Faux,
I agree, there are many LDS evolutionists. I also agree, the issue is not Jim Jensen.
The issue is the so-called "selective" quote. But note that the Church News quoted only one sentence from Jim Jensen and I quoted the whole thing.
As for "selective" interpretation, there is nothing in the Church News article about atomic clocks or evolution. The article simply says, "Even visitors who can't tell a brontosaurus from a triceratops will likely appreciate the Divine's hand in their creation."
R. Gary:
Paradoxically, I typed my last comment just before going to Church. At Church I realized that comment was a little too snippy, especially regarding the "selective quote" business. So, I apologize if it came across that way.
I really do appreciate your deep theological homework on the topic. You always raise issues that must be addressed.
As for me, God is behind all creation, but there is TRUTH in the rocks, not just the Bible. The fossils in the rocks speak for themselves.
Thus, it is hard for me to believe that evolutionary science and the gospel are ultimately incompatible. Thus, I choose "faith" that they are.
S.Faux,
I have visited the BYU paleontology dinosaur bone collection a few times. It is a great place, probably under-utilized by locals.
Like you, I have a difficult time accepting that ancient bones may have come from other worlds. This notion seems to fly in the face of the doctrine that every living thing will be resurrected.
Here are some other thoughts I have on this issue.
I am familiar with the Nibley quote. For me, the most important message in that quote is making a distinction between the undisputable facts of science and the theories we create to explain those facts. As I see it, facts are facts, and so arguing that the gospel in agreement or disagreement with those facts is somewhat of a non sequitur (lacks relevance).
When it comes to the theories we create to explain those facts, then things change a bit. Admittedly, evolution (i.e., common descent) is a very good scientific theory for explaining the fossil record, however, from a philosophy of science viewpoint, it is not infallible. The theory of common descent is an inductive generalization that has been inferred from passive observational facts like fossilized remains. What it lacks to give it more certainty (akin to relativity) is verification of its logical consequences in controlled settings.
With regard to the gospel, the theory of common descent carries with it certain problematic materialistic assumptions that are incommensurable with what the gospel teaches. But this is “weakness” is not unique to evolution; other areas of science, including the very methods of science themselves, contain underlying assumptions that contradict some aspects of gospel doctrine. Richard Williams (BYU administration) and Brent Slife (BYU faculty) wrote an excellent book on this issue called What’s Behind the Research? This does not mean we should throw out science altogether; it means that we should acknowledge the weaknesses of science to avoid making overambitious truth claims.
I have no problems with scholars saying they *believe* that common descent is absolutely true. I also have no problem with LDS scholars saying that they *believe* that evolution and the gospel are completely compatible. For all I know, they could be right on both counts, notwithstanding my difference of opinion. However, these scholars cross the line when they assert that common descent is a proven and unassailable fact of science, and when they assert that there are absolutely no inconsistencies between the doctrines of the gospel and evolution like the BYU department of biology did during Darwin week. When they make these assertions they cross the line of sound scientific and theological reasoning. Worse, they have the potential to mislead others.
2 cents.
Dave C:
Thanks very much for your two cents. You are insightful and informative. We just disagree on a few things, and that is NO problem with me. We both have firm testimonies of the gospel.
If we made a list of the indisputable facts in science (by polling scientists), then I believe evolution would be first and gravity would be second. Any church that decides to oppose either gravity or evolution would be fighting a lost battle. (This firm understanding is behind the strong statements of our BYU biologists). Consequently, the term "believe" (as you use it) really falls quite short of the confidence that evolutionary scientists have.
Think of all the inferences we make in LDS theology, and yet our testimonies come out as "I KNOW." I wonder if there is a double standard somewhere in all of this.
Remember there are just as many unobserved inferences in atomic / field theory as there are in evolution. Induction and deduction are hard to avoid -- and should NOT be avoided. The success of science method speaks for itself, despite any resistance put up by Williams and Slife.
OK, now for common descent theory. The fossil record is unexplainable without it. Genetic sequencing, actually, is the strongest argument for common descent compared to the fossil record.
Entire genealogies of all living things can be built around genetics. The correlation between the fossil record and genetics may not be perfect, but both solidly support the same conclusions. (Do you believe in "construct" validity?)
I am perplexed by your theology, since to me the Bible suggests common descent or at least a unity of all living things tied to a creator. (But, that's me).
Where in the Bible are we required to have a digital interpretation of creation? Why couldn't creation have had analog characteristics -- that is, being progressive and continuous?
How can there be any scientific finding that goes against our theology? God should NOT be subjected to scientific test. (I get that impression from you, but I may be wrong).
I love the quote attributed to Cardinal Baronius: "The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes."
Data are data, and I guess I will have to leave it up to better theologians than myself to determine how it all fits together.
I am CONFIDENT that it all does.
Again, thanks for your careful response. I am very glad we connected up, even though our perspectives are quite different. Heehee, and to think we came out of the same basic program -- although I was much earlier.
Post a Comment