For the vast majority of my last 35 years I have been associated with LDS faculty members in the life sciences (biology & psychology) that were active evolutionists. Perhaps as a consequence, I have seldom felt any great tension between science and religion.
Some of these mentioned LDS evolutionists have assumed high leadership in the Church at local levels. I am thinking about these things because last Sunday I lost a colleague (who died of a heart attack) with whom I worked on the same floor for 17 years. He was a retired Professor of Biology and a former Stake President. In the university classroom he was an ardent advocate of evolution, but at the Church meetinghouse he understood that evolution was a tangential topic to avoid.
I can think of four LDS leaders of whom I have had some close connection (academically and/or ecclesiastically) who were active evolutionists. One was a Bishop and a Professor of Entomology; another was a Bishop, a Mission President, and a Professor of (Experimental) Psychology; another was a Stake President and a Professor of (Experimental) Psychology; and finally, my Stake President and colleague, mentioned in the previous paragraph.
My point is that it is especially hard for me to think of evolutionists as evil people or evolution as a dangerous topic.
I have already written numerous essays under the label of evolution. I do not believe the Church has taken an official doctrinal stance on the topic, but I certainly understand that evolution creates some theological problems that have yet to be unraveled. R. Gary at "No Death Before the Fall" is one of the most active LDS bloggers in pointing out these problems.
I recently posted this comment on R. Gary's blog site:
I appreciate your faithfulness, persistence, and testimony. Little or nothing is more important. I am just grateful to be in a Church where we can disagree about the peripheral issues. Evolution is clearly a peripheral issue. I hope it is, at least.
This fall I will be teaching a semester-long university course on human evolution. At the same time I will be teaching out of the priesthood manual on Sundays. I will be putting my best efforts into all these lessons. Further, I will love the priesthood lessons the most.
I believe in Adam & Eve. I believe we live in a "fallen" world. Much of the story, to me, is clearly metaphorical and symbolic. Whatever the truth of the story, it is essential and meaningful. How these individuals fit into the scientific scheme of evolution I would NOT even pretend to know.
What I do know is that the fossil record is systematic, not random. What I do know is that DNA sequences allow for a reconstructed evolutionary tree. I know that dinosaurs existed in the distant past. I know that humans share all the general characteristics of mammals, without skipping a beat.
Thus, I wonder why God would allow nature to lie to us about our past. I don't believe that God lies.
I am left with trying to think of some scriptural verses as metaphorical. I WILL NOT do as some scientists have done, like Dawkins, and turn to atheism. I cannot reject gravity. I cannot reject evolution. I cannot reject God.
So, R. Gary (and you other anti-evolutionists), I just hope you will let us humble evolutionists sit beside you in priesthood meetings on Sundays. There are quite a few of us.
He wrote back for me to save a seat for him.
I am not a good enough theologian to be able to suggest how evolution can be made compatible with the LDS religion. Further, such a suggestion would be outside my station in the Church. What I can proclaim with authority is that evolution is NOT going away. Further, there can never be an LDS-based science that pretends evolution does not exist. (For example, evolution is actively taught in the life sciences at BYU).
How important is evolution to the life sciences? If the topic were subtracted from our knowledge bases, then the field of biology would be crippled. It would be like taking away the notion of gravity from the field of physics.
Should Mormons stop becoming biologists, biochemists, psychologists, and physicians? All of these areas require a significant understanding or appreciation of evolution. Obviously, great harm would result if Latter-day Saints were steered away from the sciences.
I am grateful that when I attend Church no one seems to care that I am an evolutionist. Out of respect for others, I do not advertise the fact in a Church setting. The chapel needs to promote Christ not Darwin.
But, it is worth remembering that it takes all kinds to make a Church. Both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists need a seat. Further, both categories of people can be (and are) faithful.
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.
18 comments:
"I am grateful that when I attend Church no one seems to care that I am an evolutionist. Out of respect for others, I do not advertise the fact in a Church setting. The chapel needs to promote Christ not Darwin."
That's how I feel about being a woman who works outside the home, and who doesn't agree with the Rush/Beck/Hannity types.
Keeping closeted is harder work if we don't keep the focus where it should be.
"I am not a good enough theologian to be able to suggest how evolution can be made compatible with the LDS religion."
Admittedly, I am not either. However, I have had success in teaching evolutionist principles during Gospel Doctrine classes by giving an LDS history lesson. Once honest-thinking members of the Church realize that many early LDS leaders (Roberts, Talmadge, Witdsoe, etc.) espoused these teachings, they are less prone to call it evil. I find it humorous that anti-evolutionist ideas abound in the Church today primarily because its proponents outlived their antagonists.
Most members fear that which they cannot understand (for example, my wife's deep-seated hatred of polygyny). To remedy this, I have often read great portions of Abraham 4 with scientific side commentary.
Fortunately, a good portion of my ward knows where I stand on this issue, and yet I have not felt ostracized for it.
"Should Mormons stop becoming biologists, biochemists, psychologists, and physicians? All of these areas require a significant understanding or appreciation of evolution. Obviously, great harm would result if Latter-day Saints were steered away from the sciences."
This would be a great shame.
How many diseases have been cured/controled because of our understanding of evolution? Because of evolution our understanding of biology, human biology, cells bacteria and diseases in general has been revolutionized.
By trying to take an education of evolution away from LDS people is literally to practice the same religious extremism that cuts people off from all the blessings of the world and causes societies to backtrack into dark ages?
Now, you mentioned bishops, but I know from personal interaction as well as hand written letters that many general authorities support evolution. (Not that science depends on a democratic vote.)
Furthermore, anti-evolution is just a phase we see time and again with people whoes entire "anti-science X" arguments come down to their interpretation of scripture:
1. Religious scriptorians told generations of people the earth not being flat was incompatible with scripture and religious people believed it. (How else do you have 4 corners of the earth?)
Our modern knowledge that the earth isn't flat is no longer a problem, as a blessing for all mankind.
2. Religious scriptorians told generations of people that the earth had to be the center of the solar system or science was inconsistent with religion.
Our modern knowledge that the earth isn't the center is no longer a problem, and is a blessing for all mankind.
3. Religious scriptorians now tell people that evolution is inconsistant with scripture.
But the pattern is clear. Humans, over generations get over such claims, and they are better off for it.
The future of the LDS church is one where we understand biology and cure diseases because of our knowledge of evolution better than any previous generation:
AND THIS WILL MAKE GOD VERY HAPPY WITH US!
Then, like the flat eathers, these scriptorians can try to make their case to a future judgement bar.
By the way, if it was just a question that didn't have a huge impact on the world, I wouldn't care, but the fact is evolution is key for our understanding of biology and especially how to give adequate health care so by being against evolution you are playing the dangerous game of harming in a very real sense many humans. (Not to mention the rest of the biological world)
So yes, it is important to not only defend modern evolution education for LDS people, but also disclose how modern day "flat earther syndrom" doesn't leave societies where people but more emphasis on their interpretation of scripture then on examining the real world we were placed in.
Sorry so many comments but I need to clear one thing up: I'm not accusing anyone of malice, just an over-zealously about certain stances on the scriptures that cause real people real harm.
I know such people who hold such views are wonderful, hard working people who love their fellow man. That doesn't however stop their teaching from being dangerous to many if they were heeded.
(Okay, no more comments I promise. :) )
Maybe I'm way off base, but here is how I've always reconciled religion and evolution.
It is a gospel principle that when creating the earth, Christ used materials that were already in existence. It could easily be that He used a planet that was already in existence, (possibly whatever killed the dinosaurs on it had also wiped out all other life) and then added to it. He put it in a new orbit, (which made the light and darkness phase of the creation happen) revegetated it, started once again with animals and people. We don't know what went on before this earth. We don't know if evolution was a means that God first created animals, all we know is that He placed animals on this planet.
I had a biology teacher at BYU who was an evolutionist. I remember him telling a story of when he was meeting with one of the twelve apostles. The apostle asked him if he believed in evolution. He replied that he did. Rather than chide him, or scold him, the apostle just put his arm around him and told him he loved him. That is the response we should always take when our own beliefs differ with those of others.
It has been my experience, that most members of the church do not believe in evolution because of habit, rather than as a result of actually "thinking and studying" it out.
What I mean is that, most members are shocked when I tell them that I believe in evolution. They've all heard that evolution obviates the necessity of God, and therefore is wrong. In this instance, many are guilty of accepting the religious party-line straight from Fundamentalist Christianity.
The thing that I find most interesting about this phenomena is that those beliefs are based on the foundation that the bible is inerrant.
I suppose my biggest frustration with this, and other similar issues, is that the Lord has repeatedly enjoined us to take knowledge from as many sources as possible.
On this issue, I find LDS people to be decidedly parochial.
Argh. As I posted some time ago, it mildly irks me when people talk about "believing" in evolution at all.
It is a scientific principle, not a principle of faith.
Honestly.
I would call your attention to an excellent website www.biologos.org which has some excellent material on dealing with issues involving evolution , the scriptures and basic doctrine of the Christian Faith.
One of the sponsors is Francis Collins a distinguished biologist who was just appointed by President Obama to head the National Insititute of Health.
It is a shame that we have nothing like this sponsored by BYU or that these sort of issues are not dealt with honestly in the Ensign or Sunday School of Priesthood/Relief Society Manuals
SilverRain:
I confess. I believe in evolution -- the fact of evolution.
There are theories of evolution that can be tested for this situation or that. Scientists, of course, should reserve judgment until the data give strong support for one view or another.
But, evolution, itself, is a factual observation. Organisms change over generations of time. It is like gravity. We observe its effects. Theories, which are to be tested, are simply attempts at giving a naturalistic explanation to the fact of evolution.
So, yes, I believe that evolution is a legitimate fact, requiring a scientific account or accounts.
S.Faux,
Good post. I am aquainted with some members of the church who say that evolution is not scientific and is false etc. (I have tried to convince them otherwise.) This attitude is very unfortunate. As someone who is critical of evolutionary claims, I stand with evolutionists in claiming that it is a fact-based, legitimate theory that makes valuable contributions in science.
I was pleasantly surprised at the Darwin lectures earlier this year at BYU as only a few hands went up when the speaker asked who in the room was a creationist. This was after explaining what a creationist was and lumping intelligent design onto that heap.
I think my funniest experience with Creationists was my inlaws one time avoiding the early man section of the Museum of Wales saying it was just a bunch of fiction anyway.
For me as a historian and eager watcher of all things archealogy I could never reconsile the position that evolution was flawed science. Especially when one looks at the LDS view of a holy evolution among the children of Heavenly Father.
Very nice post, S. Faux. I always enjoy your commentaries on how you find being a teacher of evolution as well as an active Latter-day Saint to be fully compatible.
S. Faux, your posts are always a bright spot in life. I love the way you faithfully defend our science and our faith. I can always count on you to compromise neither. Thanks.
Sorry about your friend Dad.
Eat healthy and exercise, we need you for another 40 years please.
Son #1
I'm a little late in this discussion, but I'd like to add a thought of my own.
I'm not terribly educated on the subject of evolution in the particulars. I pretty much know the basic theory and it makes sense to me.
When I was 19, I attended a gospel doctrine class on the creation, but instead of talking about adam and eve, most of the class was devoted to proving evolution to being a false concept, and explaining that dinosaur bones came from space.
I knew it wasn't cold hard doctrine that could be backed up by scripture (at least not directly). So, I went to a youth class the following week. The teacher in the youth class chose to forgo whatever topic that was assigned for the week and give the anti-dinosaur lesson he heard the week before.
I had had a week to think about it and ways to argue against it. I couldn't help myself.
I won't go into the pettiness of the argument, but I think this is a valid point that people arguing against evolution must consider: Just because the account of creation doesn't describe something doesn't mean it wasn't there. The example I used with this man was bacteria. I can't see it or touch it. The bible doesn't talk about it. The only way we know about it is science. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop washing my hands. That doesn't mean it's not there. There are countless animals and plants that the Bible fails to mention, but that doesn't prove they don't exist.
The scriptures explain the 'why' behind human existence; they give us a point to existing at all. What the scriptures do not adequately provide, however, is the 'how' of existence. How did this world come into existence? God. Well how did God manage it? There is no adequate answer. We know God works by laws and delegation, but we never fully learn the 'how.' I believe that that's because it isn't the point of scripture. Knowing the scientific means by which creation came about won't do much to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. That doesn't mean, however, that such knowledge is utterly meaningless or abjectly false. God is the god of everything, including science. To exclude the possibility of evolution being a means by which god creates and destroys is to deny his power.
Becky:
Nice comment. I pretty much agree with you.
I am an evolutionist, simply because the data demand it. I cannot pretend it does not exist. I cannot lie to myself that dinosaurs are a figment.
Besides, dinosaurs are just absolutely cool.
Post a Comment