by Thomas Cole, 1827
To me, the story of Adam & Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden is the most important and provocative of the stories in the Hebrew Bible. Regardless of whether one is a Biblical literalist or not, there is important allegorical meaning in this story.
Adam & Eve evolved. Prior to their transgression, they were not fully aware of the difference between good and evil. They did not understand the difference between life and death. As such, their senses of morality and mortality were quite limited. Then, they consumed the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:6). At that transition point, the "eyes of them both were opened" (Genesis 3:7). They understood their nakedness, their sorrow, the necessity to work for survival, and the inevitability of their death. Their consciousness had been elevated to a new level as they were cast out into a harsh physical world.
In scientific terms, what does consciousness involve? It involves reactivity, the ability to be aroused from sleep. It involves discrimination learning (such as distinguishing good from evil or pleasure from pain). It involves self-recognition, such as the ability to identify oneself in a mirror (and know one's nakedness). It involves "theory of mind," which refers to a set of behaviors involving the ability to imitate, interpret, and anticipate the actions of others. It involves moral empathy, which is an advanced theory of mind. And, finally, it involves language, including the ability to deceive. All of these behaviors have received serious discussion in the scientific literature in the context of consciousness.
Please note that the "fall" of Adam & Eve involved receiving an elevated repertoire of behaviors associated with consciousness, as defined above. To me, the story of Adam & Eve is about (at least partially) the story of the rise of human consciousness.
How does this story figuratively connect to our evolutionary history? I can only express an opinion.
The behaviors and brains of our Great Ape cousins establish a kind of baseline. Their conscious abilities are reduced compared to humans. They have fair discrimination learning; mild self-recognition; mild "theory of mind," mild empathic abilities, and communication abilities that fall well short of human language. The brain volume of a chimp or an orangutan averages about 350 cubic centimeters (cc). The gorilla brain volume is not much larger – about 450 cc. These facts establish what I will call the Great Ape baseline.
Now, let's compare these facts with what we know about human evolutionary history.
Our earliest human-like bipedal ancestor might be as follows: Sahelanthropus Tchadensis dates to 6 or 7 million years ago, with a brain volume about 350 cc. Jumping forward in time to 3.5 million years ago we find Kenyanthropus platyops, which had a brain volume around 400 cc. At about 3.2 million years ago, we find Australopithecus afarensis, which had a brain volume near 500 cc. Then, we find Australopithecus africanus at about 2.5 million years ago with a brain volume around 500 cc.
Notice that all the species above had brain sizes hovering around the "Great Ape" baseline. I suspect their cognitive behaviors (and level of consciousness) approximated those found among the Great Apes.
The first species assigned to the human genus is Homo habilis, which dated to about 1.9 million years ago. It had a brain size at 500 cc, again at the Great Ape baseline.
Then, at about 1.7 million years ago, there was a big jump. Homo ergaster showed up with a mushroomed brain size of 850 cc. It was this species that I suspect showed the beginnings of language – protolanguage.
Closely related to H. ergaster was Homo erectus with a brain size near 1000 cc. It existed somewhere between 1.5 and 0.5 million years ago in round numbers.
Our species, modern Homo sapiens, was not found until about 100,000 years ago. We have a brain size that averages about 1300 cc.
I apologize for all the numbers and dates. But, I strongly believe our evolutionary history is written into the fossilized skeletal anatomy of our most ancient ancestors.
At some point, human skills of consciousness deviated significantly from the "Great Ape" baseline. At some point we learned to discriminate good from evil. We could recognize our reflections in pools of water, and we could distinguish ourselves from others. We came to realize that other beings had minds. We were able to imitate them, interpret their intentions, and we came to anticipate their actions. At some point we became highly engaged in mutual aid, empathy. We served others in need. Our language skills elevated, and we began to think in words. We came to understand our own mortality and the inevitability of death.
Naturally, I do NOT claim to understand all the essential meanings of the Adam & Eve story. Yet, I am attached to the story, which I believe has significant value. In a real manner, the Adam & Eve story symbolizes for me the natural history of the rise in human consciousness.
Genesis captures the essence of the story of consciousness, even if it collapses the time scale. Adam & Eve symbolize cognitive qualities that were essential for overall human survival in a demanding world.
In our fallen state, the mind rose.
Copyright © 2010 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.
49 comments:
One can view other aspects of the cursing of Adam and Eve from this point of view as well. A) The pain and life-threatening danger of childbirth is due to increased brain size which is necessary to support the knowledge of good and evil. B) The desire for a husband is for help in childrearing as viewed in evolutionary circles as being caused by the very extended childhood and adolescence of humans, necessary to have creatures of thought and culture. C) Adam's toil is painful because he is smart enough to anticipate the future more than other creatures (due to large brain) and fear starving. Knowing the risks of the future make work more stressful. (Okay, maybe this last one is a stretch)
Great comments, Paul.
I continue to believe there is wisdom in ancient knowledge. Sometimes we must apply a modern perspective, but I believe such ancient stories have something valuable to think about.
S.Faux,
I *really* think you are on to something here. At least, for one level of allegory.
What is so coincidental is I just read an article, another one of these "crazy" should be put it the appendix of the journal of discourses articles, where the author who as far as I can tell knows nothing of evolution comes to smilar conclusions. But has his scriptures handy.
This author tries to demonstrate that adam and eve clearly did not have the same level of consciousness before and after the fall as you suggest. People can take from this what they want but I will explain the main crux of the article as it parallels with this post:
1. Adam is certainly a symbol for all mankind. And mankind (adam) at one point did not have the mental capacities of modern man and found himself in a state of consciousness not understanding good and evil but instead being like a little child.
2. At some point, man's level of consciousness progresses until he "woke up" to the reality that he is in a lost and fallen state and worried the inevitable death will have an eternal sting.
3. Adam (mankind) begins to call upon the Lord hoping He will send some way out of this dreadful predicament.
4. Adam (mankind) discovers there is a variety of solutions to his problem to choose from but if he is wise he will chose the solution involving the Savior.
5. If Adam (mankind) does choose correctly, his level of consciousness and knowledge can grow until he has a perfect knowledge of God, hoe to become like home and with Him partake of eternal life.
Again, maybe it is nothing. But just maybe there is a parellel between the plan of salvation, and an evolving Adam (Mankind) who starts off with no advanced level of consciousness but eventually begins to call upon God and through wise decisions progresses to acquiring the fulness of the gospel, establishing Zion, temples and every other thing needed to come back into the presence of the Father and become just like him.
Just some thoughts.
There is no Evolution, sorry, but the First Presidency has been very clear on this. Choose to follow whom you will, but I will follow the Prophets of God.
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
-2 Nephi 9:28
One last thing. (I'm sorry to comment so much but your blog always has such great stuff!)
Dawkins gives a litmus test for how advanced a species is: can they understand evolution? I think it is a fair test.
I will give another litmus test to see how far along man has progressed: have they reached where there are able to understand God, His importance, and be willing to call upon him and make sacrifices to him.
Even if you are *not* religious, surly you have to admit it takes an advanced species to cross this threshold.
Russ:
My PhD preceptor was an avid professional evolutionist and an LDS Stake President. Years later, another man I worked with for 15 years was an avid professional evolutionist, and he was my former Stake President. There just are too many loyal LDS members who are active scientists and evolutionists for me to believe that there is an inherent contradiction between science and our Mormon religion.
But, if I am wrong, and the Church wanted me to back off of evolution, then I would. I would also resign from my faculty position because I would NO longer be able to honestly teach science to the best of my ability. Evolution is the foundational FACT of life science.
As a believing Latter-day Saint, I am concerned that educated science students continue in their faith, as it is a mistake to throw religion away.
Consequently, must we LDS scientists read Genesis as a work of science? I don't think so. But, yes, we should read it for spiritual enlightenment.
I do NOT claim that all Latter-day Saints should believe as I do about science. Faith comes first, and science is second.
But, consider this: we live in a scientific age wherein knowledge is growing more rapidly than ever before. We know more about genetics and neuroscience from the last 10 years than we ever knew before.
As scientific knowledge expands, it is tempting, as Richard Dawkins has argued, to proclaim religion to be obsolete. I disagree with that proclamation. Yet, there remains a need for LDS scientists to find ways to reengage the scriptures, not as science, but as moral & divine principles that will return us to God.
My posts on this site are my feeble attempt to make a contribution.
To those who wish to reject the principle of evolution, then they have a mountain to climb. Why? Because, the mountain involves almost completely rejecting quantum physics, genetics (and most areas of biology), paleontology, neuroscience, comparative anatomy, and quantitative chemistry, to name just a few.
But, if the church wants me to stop being a scientist, then I will. But, I have no reason to believe such a request will ever be made. In fact, I believe there is considerable harmony. Of course, I understand there are LDS who disagree, and in fact, I may be in the minority. Such is life.
And I personally know there are modern general authorities who privately support evolution. I won't name names especially given the whole Mormon Matters issue, so sorry if this is a cop out.
But if men serving as general authorities can be faithful and magnify their callings while believing in evolution, I think the rest of us can as well.
First, to clarify,
There is no Human Evolution. We are the literal, complete offspring of God, who is an exalted man, and we are not descended from some proto-human. There is possible evidence of animal adaptation over time, but on the genetic level evolution does not work. This is still argued by scientists and there are differing opinions. I find it fascinating that scientists did not learn anything from the persecution they went through in the middle-ages. They now can be just as close minded as they accuse religion of. There is a natural tendency within man that when they think they are educated they think they are all knowing on a subject. It tends to breed an intractability and resistance to anything that requires faith or the intercession of Deity.
Secondly, to say that evolutionary science is FACT is very limiting and does not leave room for further discovery. Wouldn't it be more valid to say that "Evolution is the foundational THEORY of life science?" Much could be said here, but I do not want this to turn into a lecture series.
Suffice it to say that many things are yet to be revealed by both science and religion and it will be interesting to see how they both sync up in the end.
Russ:
You are very welcome to your opinions, but as a life scientist, I can state clearly and unequivocally that scientists regard "gravity" as a fact that needs further explanation, and that they regard "evolution" as a fact that needs further explanation.
Again, you are welcome to brush evolution aside. The concept is NOT theologically important. Further, you are welcome to lecture to me, as long as you realize such a conversation may be unfair.
My concern in the essay above is NOT directed to those who disbelieve evolution; rather, my concern is for all the many LDS science students who MUST confront evolution without the facile option of sweeping it under the rug.
It is to my fellow science students that I am trying to argue that the scriptures are still important. They are NOT to be brushed aside.
Not the whole gravity exists as a fact so therefore evolution is fact analogy again. This is what bothers me most about those promoting evolution as "fact". An apple falling from a tree to the ground is a fact just as a dog having a different coat than its mother is a fact. But, humans evolving from monkeys is anything but "fact". You can actually see an apple falling to the ground and conclude it as fact. But, can you see a monkey evolving into a human? Nope- never been documented. So why is it a fact then if there is no proof?
This is where evolutionists cross the bridge into fairyland and make believe and confuse imagination with reality.
It's really just a matter of how one uses his wording. To be honest an evolutionist should say that it is "believed" by some that humans evolved froma lower order of animal. It would also be proper to say that evolution through natural selection is a "theory" held by some by which it is believed that life came about from simple life forms to more complex forms.
But as of yet there is no evidence- factual evidence, that Darwinian evolution is true. It therefore is an "idea" or a "theory". Now I suspect that some evolutionists want to play semantics and state that"theory" and "fact" is used different in "science". The truth is that only in their fairyland and make believe world do those words have different meanings- only to fit their own ideals and then explained to the average Joe as if it were really true.
I find it strange that scientists can say something is "fact" such as human evolution without any conclusive evidence. And we call these guys "scientists"? Maybe it would be more proper to call them liars until they learn how to properly use the words that they along with the rest of us learned in school.
Sorry for the negativity but it does drive me crazy that learned people do not know how to use words and terms the correct way.
rob osborn
Rob:
Yes, I use the gravity analogy a lot, because it is totally applicable.
At scientific conferences we do NOT debate the factual accuracy of evolution. Such debates are long gone. Instead, we debate how evolutionary processes proceeded.
Again, you are welcome to sweep evolution under the rug and label it as speculation, but it is NOT.
In fact, the story of our evolutionary history is written in the nucleotide sequences of our cells. They are a textbook of evolution.
So, why would DNA lie or deceive? Science must assume that nature tells the truth, even if it mumbles sometimes.
Evolution is NOT a political fiction manufactured by a conspiracy of scientists. It is considered scientific fact.
Your alternate opinion is fine, but you cannot misrepresent the perceptions of the scientific community. Scientists think of evolution as fact that needs further explanation.
Evolution is placed in a position of strength, not weakness.
There are parts of evoutionary theory one could consider fact. But when it comes to human evolution or macro-evolution as a whole, that is not FACT, it is THEORY.
It's not my problem that "some" scientists are stuck on evolution being "fact". I just call them liars. Sorry, but that is the truth.
Tell me S Faux, how is human evolution a "fact"? Where is the conclusive evidence beyond any shadow of doubt?
rob osborn
Rob:
From molecular genetics: SNP "misspellings" accumulate the farther the genealogical (phylogenetic) distance.
From quantum mechanics: radioactive isotopes decay at precise rates, yielding useful clocks for dating.
From comparative anatomy: hominin skeletal anatomy changed systematically over geological time.
From paleontology: specific skeletal types are found in specific geological strata.
From neuroscience: hominin brain volume expanded linearly over the past two million years.
Each of the above are facts related to evolution. Give me a better account than evolution that synthesizes all these data.
Do so without sweeping the data under the rug. Scientists do NOT have the option of picking and choosing the data they like.
S. Faux,
Somehow I am not convinced beyond a shadow of doubt. Yet again you presented information which you call "facts" but in fact are just ideas or theories. I don't have any problem with researching ideas and theories as they present themselves but to state it as "fact" goes against everything I have come to understand in the scientific world. I asked for "facts" and all you gave me were ideas and theories none of which have proven to be factual beyond doubt.
Yes it's true that there are isotopes. As to what rate they decay, how much daughter element was already there, etc, we cannot be sure of any validity for correctly aging rocks. We know that there are anomalies in dating rocks- often times when dates come back as being entirely incorrect.
We are wholly unsure of how skeletal changes occurred over geologic time. We are unsure if a skeletal remain- that of an animal is even directly related. Not only that, we do not know the exact time of death and who their ancestors are.
Brain size evolving has yet to be proven. This all comes back to the faults in dating processes and too many assumptions. we cannot be sure that any two different skulls were from the same time or not let alone if they were really related or not. Just because we have similarities does not mean we are directly related.
Personally, I regard ID as a theory" just as I regard evolution as a "theory". Learning to separate the facts from the ideas has been somewhat of a circus because a lot of time people are not very upfront with presenting their evidence and also in misusing the english language.
Just for once could you stop for a minute and just statethe simple fact that evolution is a theory?
Where are the "facts"? That is what I want- where is the indisputable evidence that no one questions?
rob osborn
rob,
Evolution is a theory just like the earth revolving around the sun is a theory.
Anciently, people refused to believe the earth revolved around the sun because they loved their interpretation of scripture more then the loved weighing honestly the revelations God was sending through nature.
Today such people look foolish but at least they were able to brag to their scientific counterparts that they gave more credence to scriptures and prophets then the theories of men.
Strange how history keeps repeating itself. :)
Rob and all those to whom this applies,
S. Faux is one of the kindest most faithful LDS scientists I know. Why do you go out of your way to come on his blog and bash him and or the things he writes about? It is 100% clear from his writings he is trying to promote faith in those who are scientifically minded. It is shocking to me you give him so little credit.
We will all be held accountable for how we managed our time. There is so much work that needs to be done to promote Zion.
As far as I can tell S. Faux doesn't spend all his strength tracking down you and your dealings and degrading you and your attempt to promote righteousness. Why, because his goal is to uplift and serve the Lord, not tear down others also anxiously engaged in the work.
And S. Faux is so humble and kind he will say it isn't a problem. But that's just it!
If you real priority is building up the kingdom of God and Establishing His righteousness, explain why attacking the most faithful scientists in the church is such a priority the the Lord would rather have you do this as opposed to something else?
Rob and all those to whom this applies,
Given it may sometimes be hard to find a better way to promote Zion then tracking down the most faithful scientists of the church and attacking them, I recommend listing to the Mormon Channel: http://radio.lds.org/.
It is surprisingly good, always invites the Spirit and importantly often gives ideas to help us stay anxiously engaged in the most helpful ways. I love it and recommend it to everyone.
Rob,
You consistently ridicule the science but have you every spent a few days on a fossil dig?
The rocks are darn clear: Life has progressed from less complex to more complex. That is true whether we are talking about plants, animals or humans.
No where in the fossil record --- anywhere in the world --- is there any instance where an advanced species is found in the more ancient layers. They are always found in more recent layers with more primitive forms below.
Contact a local university that does science in this area. I think you would find a few days in the field illuminating.
Rob:
You use scientific terminology a little differently than scientists.
In science, the term "theory" really does NOT mean "speculation," which is how you are using the term.
The term "theory" usually refers to a broad umbrella that captures a large number of facts.
In evolutionary science, the broad umbrella is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is the best overall account of evolution, but it is NOT the only way evolution could have sometimes occurred. Other mechanisms could be involved as well.
Your argument denies the facts and then contends there is nothing left to explain. Fine. Proceed ahead.
For the rest of us, we must organize the data and try to make sense of it.
I do NOT have the ability to undermine quantum physics, paleontology, genetics, etc. as entire fields of inquiry. You are welcome to that task, but I am very glad I do not have to even try. I have no such need.
Joseph:
Thank you for your very kind compliments. I do try to be faithful, but I probably am not as humble as I should be. I am often tolerant of others' views, but I still think I am right. I am probably no more persuadable than Rob.
S.Faux,
Well, as an internet presence who is attacked for everything you say I think you are remarkably, kind, patient, humble and faithful.
However, I do want to apologize to everyone for overstepping in my comments *again*. My excuse is I am still in my 20s and so haven't had sufficient years and experience, but the reality is I need to be less impulsive.
My sincerest apologizes to everyone.
Joseph:
Keep those comments coming. I do not think you overstep -- at least not on this site.
Also, I do not feel persecuted at all. I enjoy controversy and discussion. I like the battle of ideas, especially when discussants avoid name calling and unsubstantiated accusations.
A primary concern on this blog is building faith, and I am especially concerned about the university students who struggle with evolution, LDS history, and certain political issues.
The value of the Church outweighs all the battles. In fact, the gospel cuts through them all, in my opinion. So, I really do appreciate R. Gary and Rob Osborn, etc. who know the gospel is the priority. They are correct.
S. Faux,
I am comfortable with calling parts of evolution as "fact". The facts I am talking about are those observed in nature. Instances where we see variation in species I am well aware of as being factual. I don't think any rational human would question this level of evolution being factual. It's when we go on to say that these small changes lead to bigger changes over long periods of time that people like me question things. For instance- the evolutionary theory of whale evolution- how they evolved from purely land dwelling animals into sea dwelling whales, to me this is a "theory" and not fact. It reminds me of the all too famous coelocanth fish that was supposedly was extinct but instead was found alive and well and no relative macro-evolutionary change over the supposed 10's of millions of years.
There are many instances of these anomalies to the point of questioning the entire theory of evolution. This is why we call it a theory in general- it is not a fact, nor is it a known law or priciple. By itself it is in every scientific definition- just a "theory".
You can argue all you want about the facts of evolution, but the reality of it is that most of evolutionary thought is mere idea and theory not holding much factual evidence.
Facts in science are things we have observed and know to be true. Apples falling to the ground and the world being round are both observed facts of science. Now as to why apples fall to the ground or why our earth is round can bring to mind ideas and theories. As this basic logic applies, we are discussing the origins of our human race. The fact is that we do exist and that we came from some source, somehwere at some point. Thus, idaes and theories (such as Darwinian evolution) have been proposed for explaining our origins. But that is the distinction- it is a fact that humans varry in genetic make-up but not factual that we evolved from a lower order of animals. That is what the scientific world calls a "theory" of the which i know you are aware of but still somehow sidestep this fact and call human evolution a fact. This is why I humbly accuse you of either misrepresenting the english language or are just outrightly lieing. Perhaps this is more directed at the fundamental flawed institution of Darwinian evolutionary thought in our modern day. It's as if some prominent members of the scientific community are intentionally trying to pull the wool over our eyes and dupe us into believeing that human evolution is not theory anymore but now a documented actual fact. I have serious problems with these types of false claims, especially by learned and noble men in the scientific community. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Us Id'ers have no issues of misrepresenting the english language. We know Intielligent Design is a theory. We do not run around claiming it as fact like evolutionists claim on their theory.
Am I misrepresenting this claim inany way?
rob osborn.
If God places the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens -- all in the course of one frightfully huge cosmic day -- and that "day" is reduced to an allegorical 24 hr period in the Creation Story... (deep breath) ...then it would seem that the allegorical rise of human consciousness is given quite a healthy chunk of time in our little tale. Ergo, it must be rather important -- something worth devoting our 1300 ccs of grey matter to on occasion.
Jack
Rob,
You stated: "[T]he evolutionary theory of whale evolution- how they evolved from purely land dwelling animals into sea dwelling whales, to me this is a "theory" and not fact."
But, it is a theory supported by a large number of facts. There is a linear fossil record from older, primitive forms to today's whales. This is a great summary of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
The evolutionary pattern is unmistakably clear. I love dinosaurs. Early dinosaurs were very primitive. Later forms were incredibly diverse.
That pattern of simpler to more complex is throughout the fossil record.
I also enjoy marine fossils. Throughout the Rocky Mountains there are many places where one can find different types. One of my favorite spots is in the Tetons on the Idaho side. At the bottom are primitive seashells and extinct life forms. Near the top (about 80 feet up) are far more complex forms of sea life.
That pattern of simply to complex is worldwide. It is tremendous evidence that life goes back many millions of years and evolved. No where does it go complex to simple for any particular type of lifeform.
Rob:
I am going to draw the line at your accusation of me lying about evolution as fact.
You are welcome to your anti-evolution opinions. You are welcome in expressing them on this site. You are NOT welcome in accusing me of lying or misrepresenting the field of evolution.
Evolutionists do think of evolution as fact, and they explain that fact with a variety of theories.
Here are some sample quotes from other evolutionists:
Prof. Richard E. Lenski (Michigan State Univ.): "It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth."
Dr. David L. Katz (Yale School of Medicine): "Evolution is a fact."
Richard Dawkins (Oxford Univ.): "I would certainly call [evolution] a fact."
E. O. Wilson (Harvard Univ.): "[B]iologists, particularly those statured by the peer review ... are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact."
Stephen J. Gould (Harvard Univ.): "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."
Donald C. Johanson (Arizona State Univ.): "[E]volution is a fact."
Kenneth R. Miller (Brown University): "[E]volution is as much a fact as anything we know in science." [From: Finding Darwin's God].
So, the fact is that evolutionists speak of the change in species over geological time as factual. Evolutionary theories gather the multitude of those facts in an attempt to account for process.
Please do NOT accuse me of lying.
I think that Adam and Eve were the first organisms to engage in A-B, A-C, and therefore C-B stimulus relations.
Anonymous:
I don't understand your point.
As for myself, I was exhilarated by your post. This is in lines of what we were talking at our dinner table not so long ago.
What if, at some point, after the process had been started by the council of Gods (Elohim, Jehovah, etc.), they decided that now this creature is advanced enough to start learning this higher stuff, and Father called to Adam/Michael, whose spirit had been placed in one of the sentient apes? This way Adam can be "many" as well as Michael, who was one of the prime movers at the beginning.
Then Adam/Michael and his wife were married and instructed, but one thing was lacking: They did not know from their own experience the difference between good and evil. Michael wanted to be good all the way and obey father.
But he was put in a situation, where he had to decide between remaining innocent and also without being able to progress, and taking a risk of stepping out of the "charmed circle" of ignorance and take humanity to a path leading to god-like existence.
That would satisfy an almost-literal meaning of the creation/Eden narrative and also could fit with what you talk about brain capacity. It was precisely this brain capacity thing I was thinking of...
And Adam was first "flesh" because he was the first one, who was put under a conditional curse (Lucifer/snake was put under an unconditional one). And truly, there was no spiritual Death before the Fall, nor was there a possibility of it. Now, there was.
Thank you. You see, this thing has been in my consciousness much for years and years. :)
And Paul, naturally, who introduced some very nice ideas of how we can see what the Bible may actually mean when it says something that simple literalism doesn't make profound at all.
Velska:
Thanks for your kind comments and deep thoughts. It is nice to know there are others who have similar thoughts from a faithful perspective.
I could have started by:
"Inasmuch as I have never for a second thought that even the most literal reading of Genesis (before I had been introduced to other creation narratives) could mean that the Earth let alone the Universe was created during six 24-hour periods to harmonize with what we now define as a "day"..."
I know what Joseph Fielding Smith taught, and I think he was wanting to bring Mormons closer to Evangelicals (I could back that assumption up...) for some reason, and wanted to curb what in his mind was a too liberal view of scientific progress in the same process.
I have also read plenty of the writings of his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie.
With all due respect to the Apostleship of both of those men, I think they took some license to make assumptions and allegations beyond what was actually the revealed word of God.
But at the same time I admire the way BRM took back some "never" statements after the 1978 declaration. I have to admire a man who can admit to having been wrong, now that further light has been given--I know too many of the kind who'll never admit to having been wrong, perish the thought!
The captcha on this is, ominously, "light".
This is pure speculation, but I'd be interested to know if there was any crossroads in human evolution history where if one decision is made, the species would go down a path leading to a heightened awareness/consciousness/ability to conceive, worship and become like God or another path they who keep the species to remain like unaware animals forever.
Actually, Jared Diamond emphasizes that our species made several decisions they greatly effected outcomes. Things as simple as the decision to leave africa and go to the fertile crescent where agriculture and the domestication of animals had *major* impacts on humans.
And so we have a creation narrative where innocent Adam (again a symbol for mankind) and Eve make some conscious decision which later leads them having a concept of priesthood, the need to call on God, the need for a Savior and the need to become just like them.
I'd just be interested if there was some crossroads in mankind's (Adam's) evolutionary past that put the decision between the path that leads to becoming Godlike and the path the causes him to remain innocent and childlike before them.
Joseph:
I like your thinking. If we could have a full picture of human history, then I think we would be astonished at how inspiring and meaningful that picture would be.
Yes, I think there were critical turning points. And, yes, I think there were inspirational (revelatory) turning points. As you know, I am not talking magic or maybe even the supernatural, but I am talking about a picture that is consistent with the grandeur of our gospel.
I believe you recently pointed out how Genesis parallels the standard big bang and evolution scenario: First all the heavens and the earth seemed to be created at once, then light and stars, planets and moons form, then live appears on the earth very simple then becoming complex and leading to us today.
Now, scientists *cringe* at the hearing another scientist point this out for good reason but the fact remains: *somehow* Genesis really does parallell what science has verified. (Even if "overly faithful" men can't get over some of the details.)
Similarly, I'd be interested if, given the above discussion, if we find in a similar vein the Garden->Fall->Finding yourself in the lone and dreary world is a parallel with evolutionary theory in the ways we have just discussed.
Not that this proves anything. It would just be interesting to me if Genesis, written thousands of years ago before modern cosmology and biology *somehow* gets the parallel with science just right. I mean, how did the ignorant non-scientific ancients get the parallels to happen to work?
Although again, it is hard for many scientists and many "overly faithful" men to see connections between such parallels, but if they are real it becomes more obvious why the Lord has to keep saying: He who has ears to hear, let them hear.
S. Faux,
So then it is pretty simple- either a simple "yes" or a simple"no"-
Do you believe that human evolution- mans evolution from a lower order of animals to be a "fact"? (Yes/No answer)
If "yes", then what indisputable scientific facts are you basing this from?
If "no", then why the misrepresentation in the scientific community over the facts and the theories? Where is the separation?
Rob Osborn
Rob:
The answers to your questions are in Comment #13. I think you are repeating yourself. Obviously, there are no sets of facts that will satisfy you.
Rob,
What kind of evidence would it take to satisfy you?
I'm most familiar with the paleontological evidence which you so cavalierly dismiss.
Here is what the rocks, indisputably show:
* Fossils are ordered worldwide from simple to complex.
* Rock layers identified as being of certain ages based upon radioactive dating never show more complex organisms assigned to later dates. On occasion, dates are moved a bit but the consistency between the age of the rocks and the types of organisms is striking.
* Humanoid fossils follow the same pattern. Simple to complex with the more simple associated with older dating.
* With the more recent human forms, the associated tools are striking. Older human forms have simple tools. More recent have more complex items.
You love to quibble about dates but you've not spent anytime in the field. Dating is striking accurate today. If you find a rock layer that dates to a certain age the fossils will be consist with similar layers in different parts of the globe. What will vary is the variation in species. But, that is expected. Still, the overall complexity is consistent.
The interwoven pattern and consistency does not evidence chunks of worlds pushed together nor some global flood.
Ironically, some of the leaders in evolutionary biology are at professors at BYU as are some great geologists and paleontologists. These are believing folks who agree with the science and have faith.
The world is God's creation. But, the evidence is pretty darn clear that he is the great evolutionist.
Hi, Brother Faux. First of all, I want to thank you for your thought-provoking posts.
I want to mention the trouble I have accepting the idea that we evolved from lower life forms. I'm not demanding (or even expecting) an explanation, but I won't turn one down. I am, however, tired of the same anti-science, anti-evolution diatribes! :) So let's take this conversation in a new direction, shall we?
The scripture record indicates to me that we have devolved since Adam and Eve left the Garden, as indicated by how long we live.
Our own scriptures (Moses 6-8, D&C 107) tell us that the early individuals from the Old Testament lived much longer than we do. And the flood... Moses 8 tells us it happened, though I don't think we are required to believe it covered the earth or even, if pressed, that it necessarily killed everyone else on earth. I'm a programmer, not a biologist, but a near extinction of the human race explains to me why the average life span dropped so quickly after the flood. It seems like the result of a genetic bottleneck.
The drop isn't immediate, but obvious and nearly linear. It also fits with the conception I've had for a long time that Adam and Eve left the Garden with near-perfect, though mortal, bodies. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that if they were the result of evolution, their life-spans would have been much nearer ours now.
The whole "simple to complex" in the geologic column is ridiculous. The Cambrian explosion shows that life suddenly appeared and that they were already highly complex. Trilobites for instance had fully functioning and complex eyes. Just don't buy into it.
Rock layers and dating have always had their issues and anomalies. Certainly not a consistant measuring tool. Hasn't sold me yet.
Human evolution using simple tools to complex tools says nothing of reality. Historical records have shown that some civilizations are highly complex while others living right next to them are just raving idiots. Do we not still see this today- primitive Indians living in remote locations and the highest degree of tool making they have is a stone cimeter while just hundreds of miles away contemporary humans communicate via the internet. Don't but that either.
So far all the evidence put forward is disputed evidence and not factual.
rob osborn.
I too am curious as to what evolution has to say about the ancients living to ages almost reaching a thousand years old. Weren't primitive humans supposed to be stupid and thus not able to preserve themselves for such long periods of time? What about disease and such? What about the DNA line- was it better, more pure?
rob osborn
rob,
Can you cite peer reviewed articles supporting those conclusions. Didn't think so. :)
In the real world scientists don't have the pleasure of forming theories on conclusions based on making stuff up.
rob,
Anyone can sit back and say scientists are wrong because... (And fill in the blank with bad science) Even 5 year olds can be trained to do this.
This is on the same level as when anti-mormons say the Book of Mormon is wrong because... (and fills in the blank with bad, unsupported claims, misleading claims.)
Now, can you confront science using good science, something like S. Faux is obligated to do? Or do you assume there is not such thing as good science and thus you can never bring bad science down with good science?
Sam Bishop,
I think you raise an honest question (And S. Faux will be able to say it better I'm sure). Second I want to say this is a purely scientific answer. I realize the Lord perhaps has something more beautiful behind the scenes than evolution, but right now evolution is the only theory we know of that fits the data.
With that in mind:
The problem with this de-evolution theory is that if it were true, we should see this de-evolution in the fossil record among other places. We should see more advanced societies and bodies becoming less advanced over time. We have good snapshots of the human species over nearly every time period going back ~200 million years. In each instance we see as time goes by both the genetics of the species and the civilizations of these species becomes more complex. If there is de-evolution going on we just don't see it.
Now again, I will say it is *possible* the Lord has something more beautiful up His sleeves, but two things:
1. Whatever that other theory would be it would be 100% consistant with the data and not full of contradictions, unlike all current alternative to evolution theories.
2. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be nit the full theory, one could never be intellectually honest and deny that the theory of evolution seems to fit the data as of Oct. 3, 2010 flawlessly and like all good scientific theories go on to predict new ideas that surely will continue to be verified.
So I am not against people hoping there is something more than evolution as long as they are honest enough to admit as of now evolution looks rock solid and any other theory that is true had better fit the data with no contradictions and do an even better job of predicting science than evolution.
Do not fall into the trap of many anti-evolution people of ignorantly thinking evolution is not consistant with the data and or clinging to alternative theories that are not only inconsistant with the data but also have internal contradictions through out.
Good scientists have to put forth good science. The Lord will expect His scientists to do no less.
Sam Bishop:
Thanks for your thought provoking questions.
It has been mentioned several times in the commentary that evolution proceeds from simple to complex. This is true only in certain lineages, and there are plenty of exceptions.
For example, the living mouse lemur has a brain that is 27% smaller than its ancient evolutionary ancestors. Most primates appear to have larger brains than their ancestors. In the primate lineage, complexity seems to expand over time, but there are always exceptions, even within the primate order.
Rob, who has been commenting much on this post, is correct that evolutionary scientists do NOT have a full account of complexity. Why don't bacteria or archaea form cellular communities the way eukaryotes do?
Our first evidence of cellular communities (probably made of eukaryote cells) date back to 2.1 billion years ago. From that point in time, evolution was gradual until the Cambrian Explosion (545-530 million years ago) wherein all major animal phyla suddenly emerged such as chordates and worms. (Perhaps this emergence was caused by changes in atmospheric conditions).
We know there was evolution. We do not have full explanations of its pacing or its direction. We do not have a full account of complexity.
So, was Adam more complex than modern humans? It could be. I could only guess. But, like I said, evolution does NOT always proceed from simple to complex. The reverse is quite possible.
I do NOT pretend to know how evolution fits into all doctrinal precepts from the Church's point of view. All I know is that there are many of us LDS who are evolutionists, and we see considerable harmony.
I hope the Church never reaches a point where it advises that the LDS can be only certain kinds of scientists that avoid evolution. Such a position would eliminate most of life science. But, such a policy would also impact physics, chemistry, psychology, anthropology -- and even computer science. (There are many Darwinian algorithms out there). Fortunately, I have NEVER heard the Church even hint at such a position. In fact, BYU biology is STRONGLY evolution oriented.
On this blog I always have contended that religion and scripture are our priorities. Engaging in scientific battle is fun, but not at the expense of our testimonies. Some people are not designed for the stresses of science. But, there are many of us who are strongly scientific in our orientation. For me, science and religion have considerable similarities.
I appreciated Elder Ballard's comments on drug addiction. I am also grateful for the scientific work that tries to address that problem. I am grateful that we can do drug studies in rat brains because they are similar to human brains. I am grateful to evolutionary theory that justifies the study of rats in order to better understand humans.
Sorry for the tangents. I hope I have addressed some of your questions.
Joseph Schmidt and S. Faux, thank you for your replies. I agree with you two, by the way. Evolution is the best fit for the archeological/biological data we have, and the Church is true. Some day they'll fit together perfectly--after a few modifications to our understanding of both, most likely. I just thought I'd mention the odd-shaped piece that gives me trouble, to see what your thoughts are.
One more thing before I go back to lurking. S. Faux, one of things I like about your blog is the restraint you show. Sometimes apologists get very excited about their "grand unified theory" regarding how the gospel and science fit together. It's very important to carefully distinguish between true doctrines, current science, and personal opinion. And I think you do that well.
Sam Bishop:
It is kind comments like yours that make the trouble of blogging worth it. No, I don't have all the answers, and yes, I do learn from commentators like yourself.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Alert!!! More blasphemous speculation. :)
I came across this quote by Orson Pratt today trying to prove our Spirits come from a pre-existant world and are not created at birth:
"Now, where do you suppose all these tabernacles got their spirits? Does the Lord make a new spirit every time a tabernacle is made? if so, the work of creation, according to the belief of Christendom, did not cease on the seventh day." JD vol. 1
Now, barring technical details and arguing of the context of the quote yatta yatta yatta, the thought occurred to me:
What if Orson is touching on something deep?
Why wouldn't we expect something like evolution to be real?
1. If we believe myriads of plants, animals, humans and worlds without number still need to be created and prepared for every condition the universe might throw at them, and
2. If the Lord has really rested from His labors why not think the pronouncement of "it's good" involve noticing natural selection can carry on the work from here on out, without His constant needed to tweak how everything is rolling forth?
Hence, He can rest and yet the creation of worlds without end can continue to roll forth.
Just another heretical idea. :)
Unless I've missed something, nearly all of these posts assume that the LDS Church says evolution is false. The fact is, the Church takes no stand on the matter at all.
You'll find some good information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_evolution
And the BYU "evolution packet" here:
http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution/Packet.pdf
Excellent post and informative about what seems to have been a key stage in human evolution and it's likely connection with the emergence of what we recognise as a true human level of consciousness.
Interestingfly it used to be a real No No in science to attribute to animals any level of consciousness / self awareness / empathy etc. Studies appear to be showing however that the line between our consciousness and that of some other animals is one of degree - not necessarily of type.
I'm not going to address some earlier comments which try to refute evolution - we both know such views are quite ill-informed.
My own take on consciousness and supernatural god belief is that with a significant rise in awareness of self and others, a greater ability to make causal connections and greater ability to plan to the future would have come a greater awe about the world and it's ways.
Aware that he himself was a causal agent man would have felt the need to explain the causal agent behind what he saw happening in the world at a larger scale. Being a social ape he would personalise this and we end up with belief in some unseen causal personality. I suspect the beginnings of belief in supernatural forces must be closely connected in time with our increasing brain capacity and consciousness.
As such the story of Adam and Eve does I think have symbolical relevance to our real evolution.
Post a Comment