First, a little background: FAIR is an all-volunteer organization. One of the things we do is answer questions submitted through the FAIR web site. These questions are forwarded to a group of about 100 volunteers, any and all of whom are likely to reply to the questioner. We try to answer every question. Some questions generate only one response; others spur several volunteers to reply.
The questions we get run the gamut, from criticisms of LDS beliefs, to questions about Church history, to help dealing with critical family members.
Sometimes we receive comments critical of FAIR itself. Most often these are from non-Mormons. Occasionally, however, they’re from Latter-day Saints who disagree with something published by FAIR.
About the beliefs of FAIR volunteers: You’ll notice that FAIR’s web site does not contain a “statement of faith” or list of beliefs. All of us* accept the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we agree on the core principles of the Restoration. But we often disagree among ourselves on the less-well-understood or finer points of Mormon doctrine.
When a new and different question comes to FAIR, it sometimes sparks an email conversation among volunteers on how best to answer it. These conversation threads can sometimes go on for days, even weeks. It’s during these times that we are reminded that Latter-day Saints are not a Borg-like “hive mind.” Outside the core principles, clearly defined by revelation, there is a wide spectrum of acceptable Mormon belief.
Today we received an email from an angry Latter-day Saint. She had apparently read some of the information on the FAIR wiki concerning organic evolution and Mormon doctrine.
Because the First Presidency has not come out formally and directly against evolution, FAIR takes a moderate approach to this subject. The closing statement in our wiki article concludes:
The Church has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject. In the evolution debate, difficulties have arisen when readers assume that statements by certain leaders represent an official position beyond that expressed by the First Presidency as a body.
There are, of course, certain individuals who take a more conservative approach — following Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and others — in condemning evolution as a heresy that is incompatible with belief in the gospel. But there are also believing Mormons across the spectrum, including those who embrace evolution — even the evolution of man — as factual and scientific.
The FAIR approach is generally to support those things that have clearly been revealed, and to offer a range of acceptable beliefs when revelation is silent. Evolution is a perfect example of the latter. It doesn’t do any good to be dogmatic when there is room for interpretation and disagreement among believing Mormons.
This, I think, is especially important in raising our youth. The sister who wrote that letter castigated us for perpetuating “great confusion among the youth of the Church.” Yet the very youth who may be taught by this well-meaning sister will eventually go to universities — including BYU! — where evolution is taught in science classes, and where anti-evolution viewpoints are treated with considerable amusement.
They’ve been assured that a denial of evolution and death before the Fall is a key part of LDS doctrine. So, what gives? The Church? The science? One hopes they take the third route, and learn to integrate those things God has revealed with those things God has given us intelligence to discover. Sadly, all too often, it’s either science or the Gospel that gets chucked.
FAIR volunteers disagree among themselves on evolution and other “non-core” subjects, but there is one thing we do agree on: That we will be open to a range of possibilities when certainty has not been revealed.
____________________
*Some FAIR volunteers are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but are sympathetic to our position and have knowledge in special areas on which we rely. We are grateful to and for them.
excellent post. I firmly agree with the position of FAIR on this and I am not a member of the organization.
I was going to say more on this but let me suffice to say that we need to be open minded enough to allow others to have seperate, not core beliefs, or even core beliefs. No temple recommend I know of asks you if you believe in literal genesis, I would argue even Joseph Smith clouded that reading with at least four seperate accounts of genesis so we should be least dogmatic on this.
Appropriately enough, Kevin Burtt (aka the Baron of Deseret) has a well-reasoned and thoughtful multi-part essay–still underway–at Times and Seasons.
I am very pleased that the LDS Church and FAIR has NOT take a firm stand on the topic of biological evolution. I am a LDS life-scientist (neuroscience) with a long-standing professional interest in organic evolution. While the topic is controversial among the lay public, it is NOT controversial in the scientific field (despite the occasional rebel). In fact, organic evolution is seen as being as factual as gravity. It is just as much a mistake to call evolution a “theory” as it is to call gravity a theory. Both evolution and gravity are scientific facts, and there are multiple theories for each fact that attempt to explain a variety of findings associated with each fact.
In my opinion, LDS theologians should NOT be threatened by organic evolution. Evolution is a neutral fact that neither eliminates God nor verifies Him.
Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that science’s domain of authority is nature, and the domain of authority of the Church is priesthood, ordinances, administration of the Church, theology, scriptural interpretation, and morality. To me, the domains appear to be separate and distinct. I am willing to be corrected with appropriate documentation. Given this point of view, a statement by the Church on evolution would NOT change its factual nature, anymore than it would change the factual nature of gravity.
S. Faux: Thank you for your thoughts. FWIW, I happen to agree with you.
BTW, this topic has started one of those conversation threads on the FAIR volunteers’ email list that I mentioned in my original post. 🙂
Since the Church footed the bill for Talmage to preach sermons in favor of evolution (to demonstrate that there was room for disagreement), I’ve felt the FAIR approach is probably where the Church would have putits money — since it did.
Where and when has the Church published an apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man?
Hi, Gary. I was waiting for you to show up.
The Church has not endorsed organic evolution as the origin of man, and neither have they denounced it. Certain general authorities have denounced it, of course, but that is not the same as a binding and official proclamation.
But, of course, you know all this, and yet still believe what you want to believe. So please save us all some time and don’t try to start an argument here.
I will, instead, freely direct all readers to your website and your blog, where they can read your prolix writings on this subject.
Hello Mike,
Lighten up, okay? You could end up being assigned as my home teacher some day.
In para.9 of your above article, you mentioned ETB, JFS-II, and BRM who condemned evolution in the past. Don’t forget that apostles Boyd K. Packer and Russell M. Nelson continue to denounce evolution in Church publications today.
And thanks for your (double) endorsement of my blog. There’s really no need for us to argue when we both know the Church has never published an apostolic statement endorsing the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
Just as they have never published an official and binding statement denouncing evolution in general, nor as the explanation for the origin of man. In fact, there is an unsigned statement in a Church magazine that includes evolution as one of the possible ways the creation of man could have occurred. But you’re of course familiar with that, and will argue that it’s not “apostolic.” So be it.
As I quoted from our wiki:
From conversations I have had with people who interact with some of the leading Brethren, I know that not all of them are so anti-science as you would want them to be.
Others who would like the Church to be neutral on evolution have also quoted the anonymous comment that your wiki calls “Evolution: Primary sources: IE 1910.” It’s been titled “1910 First Presidency Statement on Evolution” and “First Presidency Instructions to the Priesthood: ‘ Origin of Man,’ 1910.” Eyring-L has it posted as “Improvement Era 1910 Editorial” claiming it was “carefully reviewed” by the 1910 First Presidency who intended it to be a clarification of the November 1909.
All of the above titles are shamelessly spurious and the Eyring-L claim is pure conjecture. There is no evidence that the 1910 comment was published with First Presidency approval and there is substantial evidence that it was not.
In spite of your wiki quote, the Church does have an official position on evolution and, from conversations I have with people in my ward and stake, I know that most Church members are more anti-evolution than you would hope.
Gary,
You are correct that most Church members are more anti-evolution than I would hope.
One question: If the Church is formally and officially anti-evolution, why then is evolution taught freely in BYU science classes?
Consider for a moment that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are the BYU board of trustees. If evolution is wholly in opposition to revealed truth, and the brethren are officially opposed to it, why is it the BYU science curriculum?
Mike,
Do you really want me to answer that question?
As a scientist, my testimony of evolution is strong and sides with Mike’s position, however, I think the tension between the FAIR approach outlined here and the more orthodox approach as advocated by Gary is the more fascinating dynamic.
Although we like to disparage “philosophies of men mingled with scripture”, we really don’t have much choice on this subject since every authoritative voice in Mormonism on evolution from Talmage to McConkie has been exactly that. This seems to leave us with a number of authoritative-looking statements saying that evolution is incompatible with scripture (McConkie, JFS, Elder Nielson, etc), and other autoritative-looking statements saying evolution is compatible with Mormon doctrine (i.e., institutional neutrality) (Talmage, Eyring, etc).
As I see it, the interesting question is how literal (or not) do we have to take scriptures and apostolic statements when they are in tension with “philosophies of men” that are pretty well demonstrated from a scientific standpoint, e.g., evolution or age of the Earth. Until the church comes out with a statement for evolution, (rather than just neutrality) to balance the statements against, I think the bulk of the membership will, like Gary, continue to more strongly weight literal reading of scripture and apostolic statements in the affirmative over scientific philosophies of men and statement of neutrality, no matter how inscrutable – leaving those closer to Mike’s approach scratching their heads over how to communicate the strength of their position when combating authoritative statements against with authoritative statements of neutrality (+science).
The head-scratcher for me is how so many Latter-day Saints could believe that God created the world in a certain manner, and yet left overwhelming evidence that it all came about in a completely different manner.
Mormons say that God works within the laws of nature, not in contravention to them, and yet when the laws of nature go against their preconceived scriptural interpretation, they reject them.
Weird.
Won’t you please tell us, NorthboundZax, what James E. Talmage meant when he said:
When he gave this famous 1931 speech, Talmage was trying to make clear that he was sympathetic to science even when it’s conclusions clashed with his religion. However, as Richard Sherlock points out, those “religious convictions prevented him from becoming an unqualified supporter of evolution. Ultimately he retreated into the world view of Bishop Ussher and the coming of Adam at 4004 B.C.E.” (“A Turbulent Spectrum,” in The Search for Harmony, Salt Lake: Signature Books, 1993, 71.)
Mike,
I agree that the degree to which LDS reject the overwhelming evidence of evolution is depressing, but I don’t think it is all that complicated. Simply look at Gary’s question to me.
Although, Talmage, Eyring, and others clearly (to me and you) made plenty of room for belief in evolution in Mormonism, the lack of explicit endorsement leave many members no incentive to look beyond traditional interpretations of scripture for explanations of how life, the human race, and civilization arose on Earth – especially as the majority of authoritative-sounding statements from apostles and prophets support traditional interpretations. If one, like Gary or the woman that inspired the initial post, already “knows” how it happened, why should he or she look to secular scientific evidence (‘the philosophies of men’) to shed further light on it?
Personally, I think that to make significant headway, we need to drop the dueling quotes approach and point out the value the church places on secular education and learning. After that, the value of scientific evidence may possibly be demonstrated for issues like organic evolution and the age of the Earth.
Gary,
I don’t really care to explain Talmage’s statement. Whether or not Talmage personally believed in evolution is far less important than the room he allowed for belief in evolution within Mormonism. As long as there is room, it suggests that science might have something to say on the subject that warrants investigation — in actuality it has an enormous amount of useful information on the issue!
Aw shucks, NorthboundZax, why don’t you just admit it. The real reason you don’t duel quotes is that you don’t have any! And that’s because no member of the First Presidency or the Twelve has ever put his name on a Church published endorsement of human evolution.
Regarding all that scientific truth about the beginning of human life, the Church’s current doctrinal position statement on evolution contains this important but often overlooked warning:
President Thomas S. Monson says it this way: “My faith did not come to me through science and I will not permit science to destroy it.” This seems to have become a Monson motto for youth. Just four months ago, President Monson emphasized again that “My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.” (“Guideposts for Life’s Journey,” BYU, Nov 13, 2007, p.4.)
Sorry NorthboundZax, in reality I’m not about “dueling quotes.” My desire is to promote accuracy about what the Church teaches. Beyond that, I really don’t care what others believe about evolution.
Gary writes:
Oh, please. The Church has never published an endorsement of scientific explanations of gravity, atomic structure, or photosynthesis — perhaps all of these are false theories of men, too? Perhaps it’s not really gravity that’s keeping us planted on earth, but some other mysterious spiritual force?
(Reminds me of the wickedly clever stuff put out by the reDiscovery Institute.)
As Latter-day Saints of course we all believe that life on earth started as part of a divine plan. Where we disagree is in the timing and method.
The formal statements from the First Presidency affirm that life is the result of God’s plan of salvation, and that Adam is the first man and our parent. The details of how that came about are not yet perfectly known to science and have not been fully revealed. In this case, keeping an open mind to what God has to tell us through reason and revelation is the best course.
And there’s no need to be coy. Your insistence that there was “no death before the fall” (the very name of your web site and blog) shows that you do very much care what others believe about evolution.
Gary,
OK – I admit it. There are no First Presidency statements endorsing evolution. The best proponents like me can do in a dueling quote argument is, like Mike, point out that there are a number of statements of neutrality – demonstrating the room for allowal. In fact, that was the thrust of my post to Mike.
However, the weight of science, if you were ever willing to go there, is incredibly strong in demonstrating organic evolution as the driving force in the derivation and propagation of life. Since the publication of Origin of Species, the strength of the scientific evidence has only continued to pile up in support of evolutionary processes driving the biospheric system.
To address Pres. Monson’s quote, there are two ways to “not permit science to destroy [faith]”. 1) Your way of simply discounting science that you see as challenging to faith, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. and 2) Mike’s approach of finding how the wealth of knowledge in science can be accommodated within that faith (with the occasional quote to back up the approach, if not the conclusion). The second is far richer, and contrary to your position, does have a strong basis in the gospel: “Out of the best books…”; “If we find anything praiseworthy or of good report, we seek after these things”, etc.
Ignoring good and enriching things derived through secular means, simply because previous (or even current) authorities got it wrong, has the unfortunate consequence of painting oneself into a corner when scientific understanding can no longer be buried. Science only challenges faith when one is unwilling to make room within one’s faith for secular learning on particular subjects. Interestingly, heliocentric theory followed an amazingly similar trajectory at times to the evolution debate today. Many, including prominent reformationists such as Luther, saw heliocentrism as a challenge to faith. Now that we (and other Christians) overwhelmingly accept heliocentrism as “gospel”, we see it as a silly thing to challenge faith. I wonder how many generations it will be before evolution reaches that point as well.
But I would expect to see such an endorsement were a member of the First Presidency or the Twelve to say that scientific explanations of gravity, atomic structure, or photosynthesis were foolishness. Yet that is exactly what Elder Russell M. Nelson has said about scientific explanations of evolution.
And please allow me to differentiate between caring about what others claim the Church teaches and caring what others believe.
Excellent points, NorthboundZax. You said what I was thinking, only much more eloquently.
There is no need to erect barriers between science and religion; they are quite complimentary, with science giving us much of the “how” and religion giving us much of the “why”.
Many Mormons (rightly) complain about non-members reading anti-Mormon material to learn about Mormonism. Yet many of those same Mormons themselves read the trash put out by creationists to learn about evolution, rather than reading what scientists themselves are saying.
A good place to start on the religion/evolution controversy is Talk.Origins FAQ.
I stopped at Gary’s blog and intended to post before I realized I needed to register. However, there is one interesting (to me at least) aspect of his recent entry that ends:
Because of Elder Nelson’s intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the human body, he is “convinced that its creation was divine.” Thus, for him it is “foolishness [to] deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved.”
That is an interesting note to end on, implying that Elder Nelson’s experience as a doctor gives him special insight in to the nature of evolution. By and large, even sites like Gary’s that adamantly trump faith over science are happy to fall back on scientific authority when it seems to land on the ‘right’ side. Implicitly the weight from Elder Nelson’s position comes from his apostolic mantle, but yet Elder Nelson’s claims are said to be coming from his medical experience. Is an apostle-doctor more informed than other doctors or biologists on evolution when he draws on his medical experience to make a conclusion? Curious indeed…
Gary, if you’d rather respond to that at your blog as a ‘safer’ environment than here, that works for me. I’d have posted this comment there if it weren’t for the registration thing.
BTW, I’d like to hear your answer to why BYU’s teaching of evolution isn’t an implicit endorsement from the church of the compatibility between Mormon Doctrine and evolution.
Actually, Talmage’s journal and private correspondence does say specifically that the Church has no official position on two issues:
1) death before the fall
2) the existence of “pre-Adamites,” which I presume means evolutionary predecessors to Adam.
What did Talmage think of death before the fall?
Thus, one can claim what one wants about how Talmage saw evolution. (It’s pretty silly, in any case, to rely on Talmage’s or anyone else’s critiques or reservations about evolution from the 1930s. The genetic revolution was still decades ahead.) This is hardly germane to the point at issue–i.e., what is Church doctrine?
Talmage was pretty clear, though, that he believed that other lifeforms lived and died before the Fall.
And, he’s clear that pre-Adamite endorsement or denial is not requisite Church doctrine. And to claim that either is would seem to me to go beyond what we are entitled to do.
It seems to me that dogmatism or hobby-horsing on either side is counterproductive.
Greg
I’m hoping Elder Nelson was quoted correctly and in context, because there is a logical error in his quote as presented. The error is in assuming that if man evolved from lower creatures then the creation was not divine.
It is quite possible that evolution was the mechanism of divine creation.
Mike, it appears to me to be quoted in context, but it is a bit odd that Elder Nelson doesn’t recognize the fallacy of his own thinking. It is hard to imagine that as a doctor it wouldn’t have occurred to him at some point that evolution could be God’s mechanism of species creation.
When Elder Nelson says “simply evolved,” I suspect that he means “evolved without any input or control from God.” That is, he is objecting most strongly to the idea that God had no role in the creation.
Now, he may also reject evolution wholesale, but I don’t think you can get that from this quote–his concern (and a good one) seems to be the omission of God from the process.
If asked to characterize my views, I’d say that I believe generally in “common descent,” with evolution as one probable mechanism, but not necessarily the only one.
I wouldn’t exaggerate the familiarity which medical doctors will have with evolutionary theory or its data. As an MD myself, I can tell you that evolution plays very little role in medical school curricula even today; I expect in his day it had even less of a role. One could be a young-earth creationist and not have it impact either education or practice in medicine.
Unless you were exposed to evolutionary biology as an undergraduate, you aren’t going to pick it up or use it as a physician. I find it amusing when evolutionary biologists are so outraged that physicians might not believe in evolution–frankly, it just isn’t that important. It may have BEEN important to the establishment of various treatments or drugs, but the physician doesn’t need to know about those things, or accept them. An artillery gunner doesn’t have to believe that Galileo got parabola theory right to use an automatic targeting system.
(The most common instance of evolution in medicine is probably bacterial antibiotic resistance. These days, evolutionary principles help you grasp things like immunology, and probably tumor biology. But, none of those really impact much on what one thinks about origin of species.)
On the other hand, while there are some miraculous, elegant things in the human body, there are also some really crappy instances of “design.” (Doctors get paid, often, fixing or dealing with these issues. Hence the old joke:
Q: What is the purpose of the appendix?
A: To pay for the surgeon’s summer vacation.
So, raptures about the sophistication of the design can backfire. The heart may be an ingenious piece of hardware, but so is HIV or malaria. I’m not sure I want to praise God’s greatness for His genius in concocting either of those plagues. I prefer to see them as instances of evolution in action, allowed to run relatively unchecked in a telestial world.
It’s largely, I think, a case of seeing whatever will confirm our pre-existing views. If you’re a theist, the human body is one more example of God’s handiwork. If you’re an atheist, the fact that your back isn’t really built to do what you demand of it, such that 85% of us suffer back problems at some time, or the useless appendix that can kill you, are good prima facie evidence for contingency in evolution, and not at all what a designer might do.
The Argument from Design as an a priori argument for God, though, doesn’t wash, I don’t think. Unfortunately, it is precisely as this that many want to use it; hence the perpetual “evolution wars” engulfing schoolboards and textbooks.
Greg
When creationists and evolutionists argue, too often both sides miss the point about the meaning of “truth” in science.
A scientific theory is true only to the extent that it is useful.
In other words, if a scientific model seems to account for what is observed in the physical world, it is provisionally accepted as true. If a scientific model fails to account for observations in the physical world, it is replaced by a better model that is provisionally accepted as true. This process continues indefinitely.
At no point can a scientist claim to know the absolute Truth about Life, the Universe, or Anything.
My colleagues in the biological sciences tell me that evolution is a useful model for them, so I believe it is true. At the same time, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I can accept both points of view as true, because scientific truth and religious truth are different.
Evolution is not relevant to my line of work (I am an engineer). If some observation were made tomorrow that overturned the standard model for evolution, it would cause great excitement among biologists; however, it would cause barely a ripple in my field.
Likewise, I would suggest that evolution is not relevant to teaching the gospel, so the the leaders of the Church have not taken an official position on it. If some observation were made tomorrow that overturned the standard model for evolution, it would could have no effect on the truthfulness of the gospel.
Exactly. Evolution is only important in a religious sense if:
1) Overzealous members insist you CAN’T believe in evolution, and so students or investigators are forced to choose between the gospel and what they believe the evidence shows them
2) One decides that evolution means there is no moral standard, we are nothing but animals, etc.
If someone keeps their covenants, I don’t much care what they believe. What worries me, though, is those who use bad reasoning to attack evolution–when the audience eventually learns that the attack is either misinformed or dishonest, they may decide that the Church and the gospel are to blame.
As we seek (with Paul) to be “all things to all men, that thereby [we] might save some,” dogmatism on unessentail points ill serves the cause of Christ.
Greg
With March Madness upon us, I can’t help but give a score to the Mike Parker vs. R. Gary debate above.
After checking my stat sheet, I’ve got Mike winning with a final score of 27-4.
Geez, makes me wish I had money riding on this one…
To be fair to Gary, I don’t think he and Mike are arguing exactly the same thing. The way I see it, Mike is arguing that evolution is perfectly viable within the gospel umbrella – I think Mike wins quite handily here. However, I think Gary is arguing ‘the church doesn’t teach that’ which is subtly different and for which he does have a fairly strong case. (i.e., the best we evolution proponents can do is to say there is room for it). So depending on which game you are watching you might get a different score.
So…no money, right?
Thanks to Mike Parker for opening and then continuing to carry on a genial and intelligent conversation about this fascinating issue in both science and the church. I think you have handled it very well indeed, and am largely in sympathy with the issue as FAIR and the church understand it… thus far.
Best,
Kerry A. Shirts (The Backyard Professor)
It told me I have to include my wegsite. Sorry! Does that make the link to the name work better? I am soooooo new to all this facsinating techno-jivin stuff – GRIN!
Quoting the FAIR Wiki, Mike Parker said twice on this thread that “the Church has no official position on evolution.”
FAIR is wrong. The Church does have an official position on evolution.
S. Faux and others organic evolution is not as factual as gravity. Its mechanism , random variation is deeply anti reigious and scientifically vacuous. It should be rejected out of hand by serious theists and scientists. At St. John’s College students learn a lot from spending a lot of time trying to make Ptolmaic astronomy work. This is the spirit in which evolution should be studied. Over at The Waters of Mormon I blogged a while back and found the discussants Theologicall, Philosophically, and scinetifically illiterate so I stopped. It is too bad that FAIR is following the same dead end. I had a good friend who is a brilliant philosopher and a devout Catholic read part of the blog. He advised me to stop wasting time with those who are mindless about philosophy, and theologically and cannot see the implication of their supposed science
Richard Sherlock
I’m not sure what you think is a “dead end” about FAIR’s approach. FAIR does not have a position on evolution, pro or con (though various members accept or reject various aspects of the theory).
FAIR attempts to provide accurate information about official and non-official stance vis-a-vis evolution.
You can see all official statements here:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Evolution
You can see a variety of unofficial statements that express a variety of points of view here:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Evolution:Primary_sources
What exactly about this troubles you?
It has been my experience that one man’s “completely obvious implication” of a set of scientific observations is not at all obvious or required when viewed through another set of preconceptions.
Disengaging from the discussion because the opposition is too dense to see what it obvious to us isn’t the most fruitful path, in my experience….
Greg
Just a note. There are several different questions involved in these discussions I think keeping them seperate is very helpful
1. Age of the earth. On this many authorities e.g. Talmage, Penrose, Widtsoe thought the earth was very old. They said so in print. This seems to pose no theological problem
2. Life and Death before the fall again different views Widtsoe and Robert said this was true in print. Again I see no fundamental theological problem here.
3. Descent of life from simple to complex as seen in rock strata. Unless you are a certain kind of fudamentalist this seem to me to pose no theological problem,
4. Evolution as a process that proceeds with random variations an natural selection– a purely natural process. This is sceintific garbage and nothing but warmed over atheism. Every sincere Christian including Mormon should reject this out of hand. I’ll be blunt. Those who believe this should be honest. They have lost real faith.
5. The idea that since says how and faith says what it means is nonsense. Christianity makes truth functional claims about the past. Either Christ rose from the dead or he did not. If he did not they as Paul says give up faith.
6. But Gary overstates the case about the unsigned 1910 statement . There is actually a good deal of manuscript evidence that the first presidency did approve of the statement. Furthermore the first presidency in the 1911 affair never said that evolution as descent from simple to complex was false . What they specifically said was that such study was controversial, disturbed people and should be avoided because education should be practical in character. Evolution was not relevant to cattle breeding or accounting for example.
7. We should note that Joseph F. Smith as president gave financial support from the Church for the publication of Nels Nelson’s Science and Mormonism which is plainly supportive of Darwin.
8. The idea that human beings have descended from lower life forms is both untrue and irrelevanrt. No human descended . What makes us individuals is our souls or spirits. These were always present. What makes you you is not your body
(4) is “scientific garbage and warmed over atheism?” How so? First it is hardly scientific garbage. But let’s ignore that issue and ask how on earth it entails atheism. How on earth have they lost faith?
For the record I think (4) is true and I rather resent the claim I’ve lost faith.
Let’s grant for the sake of discussion that God did intervene to SOME degree in the process of producing your point #3: “3. Descent of life from simple to complex…” [A position I hold personally, by the way.]
But, it seems quite clear that a great deal of the process of #4 DOES go on with random variation, natural selection, Mueller’s ratchet, etc.
So, if one admits that natural selection and random variation plays at least SOME role (maybe even a large role in some cases), in the process, is one then a atheist heretic who has lost the faith?
How much can one grant, and how do you draw what seems like a fairly arbitrary line? Does granting God’s involvement at SOME point suffice? Or, must He be intervening at every step?
[If one grants death before the Fall, it seems to me that since most organisms aren’t genetic clones, SOME degree of natural selection based on variation is inevitable, given resource limitation.]
I think it axiomatic that any theist is going to see God as involved in the process (Deists excepted, I suppose) in some way. But, how much contingency is allowed before they’re beyond the pale?
And, I still don’t understand what troubles you about “FAIR’s approach” in this case. Can you clarify?
Best,
Greg
I was perhaps too strong but I wanted to make a point. If god has intervened in the process of the universe he did not do so randomly. Miracles are not to be explained as the result of random material forces. Jesus was resurrected and so was Lazarus because god wanted those things to happen. Life on earth began because God created it. etc. Some randomness I admit but if you admit that some things have cpome about because of non-random, non-material causes then we agree.
My point is that you cannot believe that only material, natural causes account for events in the world or you have rejected and plausible version of Christianity that includes miracles, and the resurrection. That is fine but be honest.
What troubles me about FAIR’s approach is the vague way in which “evolution” is used. If you mean that the Church has no position on the age of the earth you are right. If you mean that the church has no position on death before the fall, again you are right. If you mean that the Church has no position on ther concept of descent from simple to complex as shown by paleotologists, ditto. If you mean that only, natural, material causes are at work in the natural world and that you can explain the development and diversity of life strictly with reference to random variation , and natural selection, which is what Darwin thought and his followers still think. Then I submit that the Church has always, and must always reject this completely. If Adam came as divinely directed which is what the Church has always held, then his physical body must have been prepared at the right time. This is not anything like what Darwinian theory has ever held.
Richard Sherlock
But to say that God intervened is not to say that intervention is random. Let’s say that to ensure that dinosaurs don’t rule the earth God lobs an asteroid to cause massive extinctions. That isn’t random but the process of evolution surrounding such events are.
You seem to completely neglect that whole avenue of thought. Either everything is random or else there is no evolution. Surely you see that as a false dichotomy, don’t you?
As to your last point that “only natural material causes are at work in the natural world” what on earth does that mean? Unless you unpack what natural material causes are you aren’t really saying anything at all. It’s almost empty of content.
I think the problem is that your target is physicalism and not evolution and that you’re conflating the two issues. (Physicalism could well be false with evolution being true) Of course I’d argue that the problem with physicalism isn’t what you appear to be pointing towards but rather that its simply a horribly muddled concept since there is the ambiguity about whether it refers to the current laws of physics or some future laws of physics. Now some might still reject that arguing that God controls everything. I personally find that problematic given the apparent rejection of creation ex nihilo in Joseph’s last few sermons. If God is material and co-equal with the elements of the universe then I think that entails God doesn’t have classic omnipotence which entails as a likely possibility either co-existing laws of physics or else a kind of act by persuasion like Orson Pratt speculated about.
The point being that what you are saying “the Church has always held” seems quite muddled with discussion about physicalism and then questions about the environment within which evolution operates.
One last point, in case it isn’t clear, I think the issue you really want to address is whether there are irreducible agents. Certainly some thinkers like Blake Ostler think there are. (Although Blake adopts the controversial position of ontological emergence) Certainly many Mormon thinkers have adopted such a position either by property dualism (Orson Pratt) or Cartesian dualism (B. H. Roberts). However there is nothing to demand this and one could easily read Brigham Young as embracing an idealist position where souls are made up out of ‘intelligence’ and thus agents aren’t irreducible. (I’m sure Blake, were he here, would point to radical emergence as solving this by making agents have parts but not be reducible to the parts but I’m not sure one can ascribe such a view to Brigham Young)
The point being that if agents aren’t fundamental then that radically changes the way materialism is discussed. Yet you may well be taking agents as irreducible as a central and non-negotiable part of Mormon doctrine. In my view though regardless of how one may believe in terms of philosophy the Church has taken no position on the question of whether intelligences are ontologically fundamental or not. So that question is up in the air and people can respectively disagree.
Now if you think agents are irreducible and thus intents are irreducible and thus creatures with intentionality can’t be explained via Evolution that’s fine. I’ll disagree with you but I can at least respect your position. However it seems to me that you don’t want merely to have your view as one possible reading of ambiguous doctrine but as THE MORMON POSITION. Now that I have much more grave difficulty with.
But, isn’t this exactly what the wiki says?
“Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency (above)…”
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Evolution
And, the ABOVE takes you to the three official statements, which make it pretty clear that God was involved in the creation.
If there’s vagueness in the use of the term “evolution” (which, as you point out, could involve or not involve death before the fall, common descent, or a strictly mechanistic world view) that’s a problem of how the Church has typically addressed it. Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith certainly didn’t believe in death before the fall, or common descent.
That is, I think, why the wiki defines the term in reference to the official statements only. We really did try to pitch as large a tent as possible.
===
Non-random I would certainly agree with. I’m not sure what a “non-material cause” would look like in LDS doctrine, since we believe in material spirits, etc.
Maybe you have another meaning of “non-material,” like “caused by an intelligent agent” (i.e., God)?
I think there’s a strong stream in LDS thought that sees miracles not as suspension of natural law, but as merely manifestations of a deeper understanding of natural law.
On that view, there are no “miracles” in the sense of suspending or contravening natural law, but merely various levels of law, some of which appear miraculous because mortals don’t understand them. (A compass might appear miraculous to someone with knowledge of magnetic fields.)
It seems to me, though, that there have been plenty of people who accepted Darwinian evolution who nevertheless continued to believe in miracles. (Miracles, by definition, probably aren’t really amenable to scientific study. How would one prove or disprove the resurrection with science at this point?)
Surveys of biologists seem to suggest that plenty are theists; they don’t seem to draw the conclusion that you feel must follow. Maybe they’re all wrong, but I think I can see how one might embrace Darwinism whole hog as far as life on earth goes (even though I don’t), and still believe in the Christian God (LDS or otherwise).
Can one believe in a strictly mechanistic physics and still be a believer in good standing?
For the record, I believe heartily in both the resurrection and other types of miracles. 🙂
Greg
With regard to the “FAIR approach”, I outlined in my original post, above, what that is:
This approach defers to revelation, which is clear on certain points: God is the Creator; men and women are His children; there is a divine plan for all of us that includes a sinful, mortal experience that can be overcome by the atonement of Jesus Christ. None of these things are random.
The only question is how men and women came to exist in the physical sense. As I see it, there are four options available to believing Latter-day Saints:
Personally I prefer option 3, but I don’t try to push my belief on others. I’d like to think that the gospel is broad enough and uncertain enough to allow all four (and possibly others).
Just a brief response. Adam and Eve were not the product of evolution. Their bodies were if one accepts 3 as I am inclined to do. Yes I think that the “eternal man” idea is a non-negotiable part of LDS doctrine because it, and it alone will sustain our radical notion of free agency and moral responsibility as Ostler shows. My experience is that “main street ” mormonism accepts the notion of agency but then incoherently connects it to an idea of God that ultimately will destroy it. Yes property dualism is absolutely correct ( see David Chalmers) as is a form of ontological dualism ( see Angus Menuge ).
2 responses to other comments. I think that those who try to say that Mormonism is committed to “materialism” are trying to solve a problem with a stipulative definition which is not to me a sound way of arguing. Not all things are material e.g. the power of the priesthood. If we understand matter in terms of our common use of the term then spirit is not matter as we use the term and as science uses it. Paul says quite clearly in I Cor. 15 that resurrected bodies are spiritual bodies, not material bodies as we understand matter. e.g. “flesh and blood” cannot inherent the kingdom of God” appealing to a mysterious “matter” which is radically unlike what we undersrand as matter solves no problems. Actually there is a solid emerging body of research by very good scientists supporting spirit matter dualism.
Second, claiming that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus and the many, many miracles of the restoration are really instances of a higher law being invoked undermines science in a much more powerful way than just admitting divine intervention in some cases. If there really are a set of laws that describe a causal structure leading to miracles. Then you have adopted a position that I think leads to the conclusion that we do not know very much at all about the world around us. That our understanding of weather, health, life, death and thousands of other things is puny. Since I accept miracles as divine interventions I would prefer to say that we know a very great deal about disease and health, for example. I want to say that science is real and valuable, not a puny imitation of the real causal structure of reality.
one final point I think these discussions are healthy. We need to see what Mormon theology implies and requires not just what others have said. We need to argue from foundational convictions to other conclusions about what mormon theology should hold. e.g. from foundational views about agency to the necessary belief about eternal man.
This is, of course, what I meant. It’s pretty difficult to be a believing Latter-day Saint without accepting a pre-mortal existence for human beings as children of God. I don’t think anyone here is arguing against that. My 1-to-4 list, above, was describing the creation of man’s bodies only.
I curious to know how you can argue this around D&C 131:7–8.
I think the wiser answer is to simply say it is the application of understanding we don’t have. i.e. advanced technology using law.
I think we ought avoid too many philosophical assumptions. Even if we think some kind of dualism is correct I don’t think it follows that such is necessary for our theology.
I don’t see how that follows. Almost certainly if we talk about matter in ancient Palestine it means simply the kind of phenomena usually encountered. What Paul meant by spirit isn’t clear (I favor a more Stoic reading but I think we ought leave the issue as open as possible). I think however it is anachronistic to read either in terms of modern physics. After all it’s very possible Paul would say that plasmas or air aren’t matter. Yet modern science would say both are matter.
Turning to Joseph we have his comments that spirit is matter, only much finer. It’s pretty near impossible to guess what he meant. Some (Quinn) have suggested a connection to perhaps neoPlatonism. I think that might be more problematic for various reasons, although it’s intriguing to ask how we might consider the issue done from an idealist framework’s conception of matter.
In any case I think at best we can say spirit is more matter like than what say Catholicism taught (minus Bonaventure and company of course). But trying to correlate it with any particular phenomena is dangerous. Personally I think it matter of the sort science can deal with. But I think when considering doctrine we ought be as open as possible given the ambiguity of the relevant texts.
BYU evolution courses do not connote Church approval or establish compatibility with Church doctrine.
Ah, yes, but Gary…
Do you really think the church would allow BYU to have multiple evolution courses if the current church leaders (the living prophets) felt that evolution was evil and of the devil?
Really, if it was a big deal, I’m sure they’d have no problem canceling the courses and forbidding any science teachers to speak of the matter.
But no mention anywhere here or elsewhere about racism. Where do you suppose the premise of the Aryan superiority came from? Pyrere’s premise of the American Indian being not from Adam should shock any LDS faithful member. This subject of racism is much more embedded into the topic than is acknowleged.
The 19th century writings about the superiority of the Caucasian race contradicted LDS teaching found in the Book of Mormon. How about addressing the theroy of evolution’s influence on this garbage?
I have textbooks from BYU which suggest the superiority of the Caucasian race on the subject of evolution, and bring up the pre/co-adamite as a possible explanation to the fossil record.
There is danger when attempts are made to merge evolution and religion. Closing one’s eyes to reality does not alter the universe. The ignorance of the LDS on racism is appalling.