A week or so ago the world noted the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Dubbed “Darwin Day,” the event was met in the press with many stories related to evolution and the effect that evolutionary theories have had on not just the biological sciences, but also on society as a whole.
Included in the mix were several stories related to Mormonism and evolution. I particularly enjoyed one such story that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune about how Daniel Fairbanks, grandson of Avard Fairbanks. Dr. Fairbanks teaches at Utah Valley University and previously taught at BYU and has no problem reconciling evolution with Mormonism.
It appears that Dr. Fairbanks may be in the minority, however. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released a report about the conflict between religion and evolution. In that report they resurrected the results to a question about evolution asked of 35,556 people in 2007 and first reported in 2008.
Question: Now, as I read some statements on a few different topics, please tell me if you completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree or completely disagree.
(c) Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth.
Seventy-six percent of the 600+ respondents who self-identified as Mormon reported that they either mostly or completely disagreed with the statement. The indication, then, is that 76% of LDS don’t agree with evolution.
Of course, it is very possible that the wording of the question was parsed rather finely by the LDS respondents. I know many LDS who accept evolution, but don’t believe that humans evolved naturally from some primordial ooze. Thus, a literal response to a question about whether evolution accounts for the origins of human life would, for such people, be negative even though they accept evolution in other ways. (The Pew survey did not get more nuanced in its responses than what is indicated in the question above.)
Let’s assume for a moment that 76% of Mormons really do reject evolution. Does such rejection indicate that evolution must be doctrinally rejected? Some would say so—particularly those for whom evolution has become a gospel hobby horse. Yet, even the Pew Forum indicates on their resource page (under Mormonism) that it is not an open-and-shut issue within the Church.
It is safe to say that the Church has no official position relative to evolution. Leaders and influential people within the Church have taken positions on both sides of the issue—for and against—and it is taught at Church universities. Like the institutional Church, FAIR takes no official position on the matter, yet as a reflection of the Church membership there are members of FAIR who accept evolution and those who dismiss it. Regardless of their personal views on evolution, all FAIR members that I know accept that we are all children of God who lived with Him before coming here and seek to live with Him again.
Whatever your feelings on the matter, it is important that dismissal of evolution not be presented as doctrine and equally important that Church members not be viewed as homogeneous in their views on evolution.
-Allen
Perhaps some LDS have a hard time reconciling a “spiritual creation” with evolution. Because it might seem that the doctrine that every plant, animal and human was created in spiritual form would demand some sort of pre-planning process, which is the absolute antithesis of evolution.
Some LDS might also be off-put by the idea that God used a process that meanders through countless “dead ends” and discarded versions in order to reach His ultimate creation (when He had the final blueprint in his pocket all along). Since God knew what the final outcome for every plant, animal and human needed to be, evolution seems an odd choice for a creation process.
It would be like someone asking you to make some Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip cookies and giving you a bag of chocolate chips with the recipe on the back, and you decide to spend 5 years trying to “evolve” the cookies by trying millions of different combinations of ingredients in order to figure out how to make them when you had the actual recipe on the back of the chocolate chip package the whole time. Sure, you could figure it out through trial and error, but why…?
So if an LDS believes that God knew what the final creation of the Earth was going to look like, it might seem a little silly to suggest evolution was the way an omniscient, omnipotent being chose to get there.
LDS might also fall into the habit of siding with the general Christian community on these matters, but the idea of “Intelligent Design” is pretty incongruous with LDS doctrine as well (if God looks like us, then He didn’t design us anymore than He designed Himself), so hopefully that won’t gain traction.
I think the question was phrased in a way that is clear for most but ambiguous to Mormons. I discussed this at my blog.
While the question is ambiguous to LDS ears, the answers may also reflect an attitude influenced by Elder McConkie, i.e. The Seven Deadly Heresies, and Joseph Fielding Smith, who are losing some of their influence. There is definitely some ambiguity in their writings/talks about whether these views were “Mormon Doctrine” or not. For those who look into it more find that evolution is a much more dynamic topic than a typical Gospel Doctrine class would allow one to believe.
DVD advertisment on Rod Meldrum’s website:
So, coupled with the survey findings, where is the Church, or a majority in the Church going? Back to the 1950s and the Joseph Fielding Smith era?
Or did they ever really leave it?
Cue Gary Shapiro in three … two … one …
Mike Parker wrote:
Cue Gary Shapiro in three … two … one …
So I take it then, Mike, that you are in agreement with Joseph Fielding Smith? Or are you just pointing this out as an addendum to Meldrum?
While I personally find little difficulty finding evolution compatible with Mormon doctrine, we should admit that such a position does put us in a somewhat precarious position as it has been roundly denounced by the likes of McConkie, Smith, and Benson as incompatible. If one is to take the position that past apostles and prophets weren’t always so good at disentangling doctrine and personal opinion, the obvious corollary is that current apostles and prophets probably aren’t that good at disentangling the two either. I suspect that a high percentage of members would find that position quite unteneble (maybe to the tune of 76%?).
This ambiguity works both ways, as Cinepro perhaps unconsciously (or not) pointed out. I once protested in a letter to the editor of a Secular Humanist journal that evolution and religion can be perfectly compatible, contradicting the assertion of their writers that ANY believer in a god cannot accept evolution. (The letter was not printed… alas) So atheists use evolution as a refuge to assert the non-viability of God, while fundamentalists use evolution as a contradiction to God, and therefore non-viable.
I have always thought such arguments facile, and missing the point both about evolution as a science, and about God’s role in the Creation and in our everyday affairs.
The LDS Church might have “no official” position on Evolution, but the more I study the issue the more ambiguous such a statement comes across. What does it mean to have “no official” position in the LDS Church? That isn’t to say I disagree with that fact, but it is a very slim non-position.
Forget what leaders of the LDS Church said outside of official capacity. The “official source” of LDS teachings and official pronouncements are from General Conferences. When has there ever been a positive or even neutral comment about Evolution in the talks? How many negative statements coupled with theological arguments? I think it becomes clear that there is an official position of anti-Evolution with slight room for disagreement.
I have said this once and will say it again: Pro-Evolutionists (and I am actually one of them) need to get over the idea that there is “no official LDS Church” position. What the leadership has said openly and in official capacities should disabuse of that belief. Once that is realized there has to be more than scientifically reasoned arguments for Evolution. There is clearly a theological gap (as cinepro indicates) that has not been filled. Keeping the questions of Evolution vs. The Creation on “a shelf to ask when I am dead” might be a good personal approach, but it will fail to convince other LDS members. And that means more than dismissing McConkie, Smith, Benson, et el. as wrong. It means the very difficult, but I believe possible, work of explaining how they are correct in their own message (such as explaining what they are really going against is the atheist use of the theory). Then, moving past that, explaining how Evolution fits into Mormon theology and Scriptures.
There are two precedence to show that a positive Evolution position is possible in the LDS Church membership. Romney got more flack from Mormons for his anti-polygamy statements than he did his theo-Evolutionist beliefs. The other positive development was the expectation that Utah was going to pass pro-ID legislation. It didn’t. That could indicate an ambivalence toward the anti-Evolutionary theories. Finally, Evolution might get a bad rap, but even McConkie didn’t believe in the Young Earth theory. That is a starting point.
The fact that we now discuss these things without feeling pressured under the ever watching eye of Elder McConkie’s heresies list shows that we are moving away from the extreme conservative views of 30 years ago.
I see this occurring not only on evolution, but in many other gospel issues. JFS/McConkie dominated the LDS world view for decades, but is now being moderated by newer thinkers. No longer does the Intro to the BoM insist that the Lamanites are the “primary” ancestors of the American Indian. No longer do we flee from discussions on grace. No longer do we insist that salvation can only mean exaltation, and that all others are doomed to eternal anguish for rejecting the fullness.
These simplistic views are now looked upon by more and more LDS as being just that: overly simplified.
And good for us. While I’m not converted to the idea that God HAD to use evolution to do his work, I am open minded about how the process may have occurred.
As I said in the first post, I think the fatal issue for “Mormon Evolution” is the doctrine of the Spiritual Creation. As explained in the First Presidency declaration “The Origin of Man”:
How is it even theoretically plausible to have a spiritual pre-creation before evolution? Did God spiritually create every “evolved” form of life (short-necked giraffes etc.) beforehand, or just the final versions? What if there are no “final versions” though, and plants, animals and humans are continually evolving…does a spiritual creation imply that things will eventually stop evolving when they reach their final form? Or might the spiritual creations be evolving too?
For the time being, do we need to qualify the statement that “there is no contradiction between LDS doctrine and Evolution*” with the note “*except for the doctrines of ‘Spiritual Creation’ and ‘No Physical Death Before the Fall”?
Cinepro, the JST follows a common Jewish reading of reconciling the two creation accounts by making one a spiritual creation and the latter the physical creation. However the spiritual creation was taken Platonically. (Consider for instance Philo’s exegesis)
While the JST follows this basic model clearly we don’t assume a Platonism. So could the planning be a more vague planning? That is should the creation be taken to be the creation of a spirit body for every creature? Or should it be taken to be the general planning of the shape of creation?
Clark, you may be right, but unfortunately the Church doesn’t agree with you (to the degree that materials published at LDS.org represent what the “Church” thinks).
If you base your reconciliation on the idea that past and current Prophets, Apostles and Church publications were in error, or misunderstood the scope of these doctrines, you shouldn’t be surprised if your arguments are rejected by the same people who are encouraged weekly to consider these sources as divinely inspired and reliable.
Every reference to “spiritual creation” at LDS.org addresses it as a specific, detailed pre-creation. Until pro-Evolution LDS can frame the Theory of Evolution in a way that doesn’t catastrophically conflict with the doctrines of “No Physical Death Before the Fall” and “All Things Pre-Created Spiritually”, it will be an uphill battle to convince any member of the Church that the two can be reconciled. Unless that person is really, really motivated to make the effort in the first place, of course.
Recently, pollsters at the Gallup organization wrote, “On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they ‘believe in the theory of evolution,’ while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don’t have an opinion either way.” (“On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution”).
But what does it mean to “believe” in a scientific theory?
I would suggest that a scientific theory is believed so long as it is useful. In other words, a scientific theory is provisionally accepted as true if it adequately explains what is observed about the world.
My colleagues in the biological sciences tell me that the theory of evolution explains the observed diversity of life. On that basis, I accept the theory as useful and therefore as (provisionally) true. In that sense, I agree with the 39% who believe in the theory of evolution.
However, evolution plays no role whatsoever in my own work. If the theory of evolution were falsified tomorrow, the news would cause hardly a ripple in my field. So while I accept evolution, I am largely indifferent to it. I suppose that puts me in agreement with the 36% who express no opinion either way.
If forced to choose between evolution and Mormonism, I would choose the latter. In that respect, I would agree with the 25% who say they do not believe in evolution. At the same time, I would object that the evolution-vs.-Mormonism debate presents a false dichotomy. It is much like debating over whether to choose a hammer or a screwdriver—the answer depends on what one is trying to accomplish.
Here is the long version of “Evolution for ID-iots” (see You Tube clip below). Consider that chimpanzees are closer in biological make up to humans, than gorillas are to chimpanzees.
The Jane Goodall Institute: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/similarities/default.asp
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w
Consider the facts of evolution compared to this:
That only happens in religious mythology. Skin colour doesn’t turn dark because of a curse from God. It doesn’t happen now, and didn’t happen then, expecially given the very short time frame for “Nephites” to become “Lamanites”, “cursed with a dark skin’.
Three official points of Church doctrine:
1) God is a god of order;
2) Abraham states that during various phases of the creation, the Gods saw that they were or would be obeyed;
3) See Doctrine & Covenants 101:32-34:
32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—
33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—
34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.
Most people don’t know there’s a difference between macro and micro evolution but rather lump them both into the same category. If we were to ask about micro evolution, I’d accept existing evidence. It has nothing to do with the ‘creation’.
If we were to ask about macro evolution, cinepro makes the most compelling argument for design rather than chance. God is a god of order. Order and chance do not coexist. Abraham says that the Gods saw that they would be obeyed. Would God leaves things to chance and says he is being obeyed? The notion is nonsensical. Absurd.
Note: Abraham used several phrases, depending on the phase of creation. For land, water and plants (two phases): “saw that they were obeyed”; for lights: “until they obeyed”; for fish & birds: “saw that they would be obeyed”; for land animals: “saw they would obey”.
But, as stated in D&C 101, we won’t “know” the complete truth about the creation of this earth until after the millennium starts. That’s doctrine.
dj wrote:
Most people don’t know there’s a difference between macro and micro evolution but rather lump them both into the same category.
Just for the record, I fully understand the difference.
Would God leaves things to chance and says he is being obeyed? The notion is nonsensical. Absurd.
Would it surprise you to learn that 99% of all species have become extinct?
From just one link:
A “God of order”?
Note: Abraham used several phrases, depending on the phase of creation. For land, water and plants (two phases): “saw that they were obeyed”; for lights: “until they obeyed”; for fish & birds: “saw that they would be obeyed”; for land animals: “saw they would obey”.
Obey what? From another site:
So humans are allowed to totally destroy “God’s creations”?
But, as stated in D&C 101, we won’t “know” the complete truth about the creation of this earth until after the millennium starts. That’s doctrine.
It may be “doctrine”, but we can find out a lot about life on earth from observation, and if God is in total control, one can only wonder why he would allow so many millions of species to go extinct, while hardly blinking an eye. We may well be heading for extinction too. And if this planet survives another million years, it will most likely not be inhabited or dominated by homo sapiens.
If the church has no official position regarding evolution, Elder Russell M. Nelson missed a golden opportunity to make that clear. From a May 2007 Pew Forum interview:
The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it “opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience.” It does not oppose removing a medical patient from “artificial means of life support.” Different denominations deal differently with questions about life’s origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?
Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.
Why is that?
Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.
Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don’t know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.
Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: “When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven.” So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won’t know until that day.
Well I must admit…I’m actually enjoying the mental gymnastics being played out in full public view. Who knew it could be so much fun watching “Mormon Apologists” try to push an elephant into a bread box… 🙂
For those of you that are still sitting on the fence regarding the reality of Evolution, I offer this introduction.
Click here for a step into the world of Evolution and reality…if you dare…
Careful, Craig. You don’t want to appear guilty of stereotyping. You said:
While those who post here (yes, including you) are arguably apologists, they aren’t necessarily “Mormon Apologists.”
Mental gymnastics is an exercise that many perform, whether knowingly or not. It is a human condition, and one to which not even you are immune. To use the phrase as a broad brush with which to paint others you view as ideological “others” is not terribly productive, nor is it a catalyst of the civility I know you would like to enjoy.
-Allen
Ray, you have provided some interesting observations about chimpanzees, biodiversity, and the extinction of species. Can you explain what such observations might tell us about the relationship of evolution and Mormonism?
P.K. Andersen wrote:
Can you explain what such observations might tell us about the relationship of evolution and Mormonism?
Cinepro has already pointed out some difficulties. The idea of “no death before the Fall” is incongruous with the facts. I am also a bit familiar with Australian Aboriginal archaeology, and it has been conclusively shown that Aborigines have been here (I am from Australia) for at least 40,000 years (that’s the minimum; other estimations go much higher).
Although there is no doubt as to how long they’ve been here there, there is controversy about their origins:
Examples of settlement:
As to the various and unique species in Australia:
But singling out the koala:
A bit of a problem for “Noah’s Ark”.
As has also been suggested, the flood story comes from earlier legends. For a good brief:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
Noah’s Ark is a myth. As anyone who cares to examine the logistical impossibilities of this will see that.
The relationship of evolution to Mormonism? The first is a fact. The second is a myth. That however, tells us nothing about the power of myth. For other insights see Joseph Campbell, The Hero With a Thousand Faces.
As Campbell wrote:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
“Chimp beats college kids in computer game”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/03/tech/main3566162.shtml
Allen Wyatt Says:
Careful, Craig. You don’t want to appear guilty of stereotyping.
Craig’s Reply Point taken….
Ok, so I have an on topic question… Assuming that Evolution is true AND assuming (for the sake of discussion) that Mormonism is what it claims to be…How do you reconcile these two seemly conflicting truth claims.
I really want to know. To me each of these by their very nature, cancel each other out. One cannot be true while allowing the other the same claim…and vice versa
I don’t take the story of Noah’s flood literally. Nor do I buy McConkie’s “No Death Before the Fall” idea.
As far as Noah goes, I am a little skeptical that a story like that could be transmitted in complete accuracy all the way up to the point where the five books of Moses were written (probably during the Babylonian Exile from what I can tell). I think the idea of biblical inerrancy is silly (and ironically extra-biblical). If the Noah story turned out to be a faith-promoting myth, it would not upset me greatly. As things stand, I think it’s a story that has been passed on for a long time and inevitably got altered in transmission.
This gives me little reason to believe that the world was really completely submerged with water. Especially since the geologic evidence is so overwhelmingly to the contrary.
Do I think a man named Noah and his family were saved and that God and a boat were involved?
Yes.
Do I think that all animals currently on earth spread from one boat?
No.
Do I think the earth was covered in water?
No.
At most, I’d say that Noah and company lived on a floodplain for a major river and the river flooded, wiping out the local populations. Possibly the boat was washed out to sea where it appeared that the whole earth was flooded.
Whatever.
Point being, I see no reason to think that the Noah story is entirely accurate as anything other than a statement of God’s love for and anger with His children.
Similarly, I don’t mind the Adam and Eve account being largely symbolical. In fact, I’d assert that the temple Endowment session even ENCOURAGES you to take the story symbolically.
For instance, at one point Peter, James, and John visit Adam and the dramatization shows Adam actually touching them.
Considering that all three future apostles didn’t have bodies at this point, it’s obviously symbolic of something else (which I won’t get into). That’s just one example. But I think the Adam and Eve story provides little religious basis for making statements about evolution or the origin of the human species.
So yes, I’d say a rejection of “No Death Before the Fall” and evolution are perfectly compatible with being a Mormon.
No gymnastics required.
Seth R:
So yes, I’d say a rejection of “No Death Before the Fall” and evolution are perfectly compatible with being a Mormon.
Would you feel comfortable expressing that belief in a Sacrement meeting talk?
Let me put it another way. A hypothetical Sacrament meeting talk on “The Great Flood of Noah” (using Seth’s theories):
Talk begins:
Brothers and sisters, as you know, in the Church we have a braod range of beliefs about the flood of Noah. Some believe it was universal, others believe it was local. I believe it was local.
Do I think a man named Noah and his family were saved and that God and a boat were involved?
Yes.
Do I think that all animals currently on earth spread from one boat?
No.
Do I think the earth was covered in water?
No.
At most, I’d say that Noah and company lived on a floodplain for a major river and the river flooded, wiping out the local populations. Possibly the boat was washed out to sea where it appeared that the whole earth was flooded.
I should explain, too, that I don’t believe there was no death before the Fall. Fossil records from around the world put a halt to any such beliefs. We know there was death, on a universal scale, going back millions of years.
But God transported Adam from another planet, the “first flesh” known as homo sapiens. Everything else in the world experienced death, but homo sapiens didn’t. Adam was the first of this species to die.
End of talk.
Is that a suitable scenario?
Seth R. Says:
I don’t take the story of Noah’s flood literally. Nor do I buy McConkie’s “No Death Before the Fall” idea.
Craig’s Reply: Oh My Gosh…Seth you and I actually agree on something. See we can form bridges of understanding. However this is where our agreements end.
I don’t buy any of the Noah story. It’s a complete myth as far as I’m concerned. However I don’t know how you make your brand of Mormonism dovetail with the mainstream Mormon church? How do you make the pieces to your beliefs fit?
Some things to consider:
1. If Noah’s flood was a local event…why would God command Noah to go to all the trouble of collecting all the animal pairs? Surly these same species would have been abundant throughout the so called land of Noah and beyond any flood plain borders.
2. How did Noah get from Missouri to the Middle East in your localized flood?
3. How do you reconcile your version of the Noah myth with the claims in the Book of Abraham regarding the founding of Egypt?
4. How do you reconcile your brand of Noah’s myth with Peter where save eight souls were saved 1 Pet. 3: 20
aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
5. Or Moses 8:26; And the Lord said: I will adestroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his blife.
Note He says destroy man…from the face of the earth. How do you get around these scriptures God supposedly dictated? Are they wrong?
6. Or Moses 8:30; And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will adestroy all flesh from off the earth.
Why wouldn’t God be more specific and just say “the end of “Some” of the flesh…for part of the earth is filled with violence…and I will destroy “Some” Flesh from off the earth?”
Sorry but these are honest questions.
7. And what about all the supposed spirits that Christ went and preached the Gospel to during his three days in Paradise…why all the fuss for just a few hundred souls (in a limit flood)
28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the aspirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.
8. Or Ether 6: 7 which makes Noah’s flood historical at least if the Book of Mormon is to be believed.
And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being atight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.
I understand WHY you don’t believe in a Universal Flood…I just don’t understand HOW you do…
Rejecting official Church teachings is not the same as reconciling them. (And when did it become McConkie’s “No Death Before the Fall”? You make it sound like he made it up out of whole cloth. The doctrine of “No Physical Death Before the Fall” is taught everywhere in the Church, including the current OT curriculum at LDS.org. Does it just make it easier to dismiss if you label it in such a way that it is attributed to a dead apostle?)
Ditto for Noah’s Flood. It is everywhere considered literal and global, and not a single LDS GA or Church publication has ever quivered in their insistence it is so. To those who speak for the Lord and His Church, there has never been any publicly-expressed gray area or question on the subject (and, conversely, there have been countless thousands of public expressions attesting to the flood’s literal and global nature).
I wholly support your rejection of these LDS teachings, and you’ll find similar support from critics, doubters and ex-Mormons the world over. But such a rejection does not a reconciliation make.
Fascinating thread. Here’s what I see…
Faithful members saying “I don’t believe that and the Church doesn’t require me to believe it.”
Critics saying “You must believe that because the Church requires you to believe it.”
I don’t believe in a global flood, nor do I believe that there wasn’t death before the fall. I have no doubt that most anyone here (critic or not) can quote me the published teachings of others—even leaders—relative to these two items.
Can anyone here (critic or not) quote me where leaders have said “you must believe these two things to be Mormon?”
-Allen
I don’t know… can you quote me where any critics have said “You must believe that because the Church requires you to believe it”?
Obviously the Church doesn’t require belief in these things. As far as I know, you can believe or disbelieve anything you want and still remain a member of the Church as long as you keep your mouth shut. If that is our standard of acceptable beliefs, than Mormonism is far more liberal in it’s doctrine than any of us could have imagined.
But for those who believe there is a God, and that he has specifically chosen certain men to which He reveals truths, and that these truths are found in the scriptures and the official utterances of these men (and that these men are given special responsibility and power by God to interpret what the scriptures say), the issue becomes a little more squeezed.
Apologists seem to take the Tootsie Pop approach to LDS doctrine, where they can insist that no matter how much they lick away at the false doctrine, culturally influenced statements, misunderstandings, and just plain errors made by LDS leaders, there will always be a chewy center of “truth” that maintains they are Prophets and Apostles, specially called by God with a special conduit to His truth.
Doubters, Ex-Mormons and Anti-Mormons would argue there is no chewy center; if you lick it all away, you get the same “nothing” that every other Church has. Ironically, many apologists may be themselves discarding the chewy center while mistakenly thinking it’s just more crunchy outside, and doing the work of the Anti-Mormons.
To put it bluntly, Allen, I agree with you that rational Church members should reject the idea of a literal, global flood and no physical death before the fall of Adam. But is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
If one person rejects some teachings of the Prophets because they contradict modern science, and another rejects those same teachings because they doubt those men had any special access to knowledge in the first place, is it really so different?
Ray, you wrote,
It would be helpful to agree on some definitions.
In science, a fact is an objective and verifiable observation or measurement.
Hypotheses, models, and theories are intended to explain facts. A hypothesis is usually advanced as a tentative explanation, sometimes little more than a speculation. In contrast, a theory is well established and supported by extensive observation and testing.
Hence, the observed diversity of species is a fact; evolution is a theory that provides an explanation of the fact. It may well be true that evolution is the best explanation; but it is still subject to falsification.
You say Mormonism is a myth. A myth is a traditional story that explains some aspect of the world or human experience. Some myths may describe real events; others may be entirely fictional; others may mix the real with the fictional. Most are meant to be understood allegorically.
I would agree that Mormonism does indeed include some mythic elements. However, not everything in Mormonism is myth. Joseph Smith, for example, was a real person.
So let me ask you for a scientific answer to a simple question: Did Joseph Smith see and speak with God the Father and Jesus Christ?
Cinepro said:
Very astute question. Really.
The “access to special knowledge” that you reference seems to be the crux of the matter.
Let’s say that whoever wrote Genesis, had “access to special knowledge” about Noah. What did that knowledge consist of? Was it first-hand knowledge? Was it access to something Noah wrote prior to Genesis being written? Was it access to God’s mind so that an inerrant account was written? Did this “special knowledge” amount to something else?
You see, we don’t have the answers to any of that. We don’t know the questions relative to the flood that the Genesis author asked of God. We don’t even know if it was a prophet who wrote Genesis, or a scribe acting under the prophet’s direction. There are more questions than answers.
Now fast forward a few centuries. If a later prophet relies upon the earlier prophet, did the later prophet accept the earlier prophet’s account without questioning, or do we presume that the later prophet went and asked God whether the earlier account was true in all respects and all details? Again, more questions—we just don’t know.
So let’s take another look at your question: If someone rejects those same teachings because they doubt those men had any special access to knowledge in the first place… Well, to me it would seem that the doubt should be in the assumptions of the individual, not necessarily in the men (prophets).
The bottom line is that I can reject some beliefs of earlier prophets because I believe that we’ve gained a bit more “light and knowledge” in the subsequent years. The person who rejects the prophets wholesale, however, seems to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater—and that’s the difference.
Again, very astute question.
-Allen
Keeping in mind that my arguments might not necessarily reflect my feelings on any particular subject, allow me to suggest a scenario where Presidents Hinckley and Monson were just as mistaken about God’s feelings towards SSM as they were about the reality of Physical Death Before the Fall, or the literal and global nature of Noah’s Flood.
Thus, it is no more significant for an LDS to reject the Church’s teachings about SSM as it is for us to reject the Church’s teachings about literal-global Noah and PDBTF.
The wonderful thing about fallible leaders is that you don’t have to always believe them.
P.K.Andersen:
So let me ask you for a scientific answer to a simple question: Did Joseph Smith see and speak with God the Father and Jesus Christ?
I will give it my best scientific shot.
My apology for starting off by asking a question in reply to your question. Do you believe these accounts?:
Norris Stears, 1815:
Elias Smith, 1816:
Asa Wild, 1823:
For further documentation see, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record.
Some other problems are noted at: http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#having (This site gives both the pro and con explanations.)
The evidence indicates that Joseph embellished his FV account over the years. He may well have had some kind of “epiphany”, but it gradually grew into the “official” account we have today. Moroni’s original appearance to Joseph Smith was also reported as a dream:
Another interesting insight from Melodie Moench Charles:
No nursery for me, since I’m not a member. I spotted all of this very early in my Church membership, but I let it go. You know, “somehow it will all work out, since the Church is true”. Ultimately this is a faith issue for members. Did he or didn’t he? For me it’s quite clear his ideas evolved over time.
Presumably that answers your question, but since we’re discussing evolution and Mormonism, back to that subject.
Gravity is also a theory with competing models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans-Dicke_theory
I’ll write a bit more later.
Asa,
If you subject your flesh, or natural tendencies, to the spirit, then you are both a Father and a Son. You are a father of your flesh and a son of the spirit. That one’s easy, especially since Abinidi spells it out in plain, metaphorical english. Christ is the Father of the earth, since it was created by him, and the Son of God.
If you are tasked to create a computer program by your boss, then you are both employee of your boss and an employer of your talents and equipment.
If you draw an image or make anything, then you are both created and a creator.
It’s a great metaphor.
Regarding evolutionary time frames, I thought it would be interesting for you all to know that I’ve been studying decay rates of various elements in my garage for about a billion years. I’ve found that decay rates are not constant! In fact, they greatly accelerate after about 1,500 years. If you have in the interaction of these test elements with other environmental factors, such as solar radiation, erosional influences, interaction with other elements, etc., then that rate increases even faster after about 1,000 years. It’s similar to a fallen log in the forest. It might maintain it’s general shape for about 10 years, give or take, depending on the type of wood. But, once it starts to really break down, it breaks down rapidly. So, all the assumptions of evolutionary time periods are wrong.
Of course, I haven’t really been studying decay rates for a billion years. But, I have read many studies – the original published studies. And, they ALL include an introduction that states the ASSUMPTIONS that the claims of the study are based on. EVERY SINGLE STUDY IS BASED ON ONE OR MORE ASSUMPTIONS.
THE BIGGEST ASSUMPTION OF ALL IS THE CONSTANCY OF DECAY RATES OVER PERIODS OF TIME THAT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED. Therefore, the constancy of decay rates cannot be PROVEN. it is only GENERALLY ACCEPTED for the sake of making hypothetical statements – or, more assumptions.
SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING REGARDING THE AGE OF THE EARTH OR ANY OBJECT SUBJECTED TO DATING ANALYSIS.
Excuse me. My comment on Abinidi’s comments were directed to Ray Agostini, not Asa. My apologies.
Allen wrote:
Critics saying “You must believe that because the Church requires you to believe it.”
I haven’t said that. Whether you are a TBM, a Liahona, or a “middle of the way” Mormon doesn’t bother me in the least. If the Church floats your boat, then relish it.
I don’t find Mormonism and evolution reconcilable. I don’t find the claims of Book of Mormon historicity credible. I don’t find lots of things reconcilable. So it really comes down to personal choice. I try to see things from a much wider perspective. I also chose to leave Catholicism. I also chose to resign from the Rationalist Association in 1989, as I found their narrowness not much different to what one may find in a true believer Hoffer described as, “reshaping the world in the image of his own god”.
If I’m going to speculate, I’d rather speculate along the lines of Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/research/ideas.htm
Not whether there was death or no death before a plainly mythical “Fall”.
Ray,
Thanks for the quotations. (I was previously unaware of Norris Stears, Elias Smith, and Asa Wild.) Your post suggests some additional questions:
Did Norris Stears, Elias Smith, Asa Wild and others really see Jesus Christ?
Did the Palmyra Freeman accurately report what Joseph Smith experienced?
Was Melodie Moench Charles “demoted” to the nursery for something she said in the Gospel Doctrine class?
Such questions could be multiplied indefinitely. The point is, None of these questions have scientific answers because they are not scientific questions.
Science deals with objective and verifiable observations or measurements. It seeks explanations that are neither supernatural nor teleological. It does a good job of describing the observable physical world but is inadequate for dealing with moral and theological issues.
Did Joseph Smith see God in vision? It is hard to imagine an objective, verifiable experiment that could answer that question one way or the other.
So yes, let’s get back to considering the relationship (if any) between evolution and Mormonism. But let’s keep in mind that any attempt to use science to disprove Mormonism is a misuse of science.
dj shouted:
SCIENCE HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING REGARDING THE AGE OF THE EARTH OR ANY OBJECT SUBJECTED TO DATING ANALYSIS.
On the age of the earth, here is one opinion for you to consider:
Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist.
P.K. Andersen wrote:
So yes, let’s get back to considering the relationship (if any) between evolution and Mormonism. But let’s keep in mind that any attempt to use science to disprove Mormonism is a misuse of science.
I am not one of those who goes around “exposing the fraud”. I have quite a lot of respect for Craig, and many other ex-Mormons, but I don’t feel comfortable talking about “the Mormon lie”. It just doesn’t gel with me. Nor do I go around talking about “the Catholic fraud” (even though I don’t believe Catholicism). And I might remind you that Catholicism (the religion I was born into) has a far longer history of saints, visions and miracles (like St. Francis of Assisi), than Mormonism, to the tune of some 1,700 years. Do you believe Joan of Arc saw visions and talked with God? Do you believe all of the claimed apparations of the Virgin Mary? Who can really determine that? But if you want to talk about visions and miracles, Catholicism has 50 truck loads of it. Read some religious history, if you haven’t.
The Catholic Church, however, did get it wrong when it came to science. Read what they did to Giordano Bruno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
They burnt him at the stake. And although that doesn’t happen today, the more “benign” punishment today is known as excommunication, as happened in the case of now ex-Mormon scholar David Wright.
So we can’t entirely separate science from this. I am quite sure Bruno wasn’t trying to “prove Catholicism a fraud”. He was, in fact, a priest himself.
.
So, in contemplating this, and much, much more, I, personally, find it distasteful to belong to almost any religion. No, I don’t hate them, least of all Mormons. I’ve defended Mormons more times than I care to count. But for me too much of it is just too shallow, and irreconcilable with what I see in the world around me, as another poster here previously expressed.
Ray, thanks for the quote from Dr. Eyring.
First, sorry about the all caps. I wanted to emphasis, not shout.
Eyring starts with “in my opinion”. In the last paragraph, he states, “In my judgement…”. Also, in the last paragraph, he subtly mocks anyone who doesn’t agree with him and he tries to bolster his own authoritativeness by dropping the names of two LDS general authorities whose opinions are complimentary to his own – opinion.
Now, it appears that you have proven my point. I don’t agree with his analogy nor do I agree that the so-called radioactive decay law is truly a law. Minimal thought will show that he has not proven that the law is true over 1.3 billion years. It’s never been proven constant over that amount of time. The so-called law of radioactive decay is obviously an assumption. It is assumed that the rate of decay stays constant over very long periods of time but is not proven. None of us know.
IMHO, the earth probably is millions, perhaps billions of years old. The creation process was not 24 hours. I think the scriptures refer to a day of God’s reckoning of time, not ours. I don’t even think it was 1,000 years. I think some geological events take much less time than we think and that others take much longer than we think.
Again, any minimal amount of reasoning will show that THE RATE OF DECAY HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO HOLD CONSTANT OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME. IT IS ONLY ASSUMED TO BE CONSTANT. NO ONE HAS MEASURED IT FOR THAT LENGTH OF TIME — regardless of any LDS authority’s scientific “opinion”.
Bottom line, I think we are all in for some very astounding surprises when we find out all that goes on with the creation as well as with the rest of the eternal processes. I’m trying to contemplate them all while keeping an open mind until I can know for myself.
P.S. I hold Henry B. Eyring in the highest regard, as well as John A. Widstoe and especially James E. Talmage.
(caps are for emphasis, not shouting)
Cinepro said:
Getting the cart before the horse, aren’t you Cinepro? Unless you are claiming revelation for the Church as a whole, I’m not sure how you can say that a living prophet is mistaken about anything. Time may, indeed, provide greater knowledge from God that necessitates change; we shall see.
Tell me—if someone in Moses’ time was able to look into the future and see a day when it was just fine to eat pork, is that person justified in returning to his day and contradicting Moses? Or, for that fact, questioning God’s commands relative to dietary laws in that day?
We may envision a day when the “law” related to some issue with which we take exception does, indeed, change. But until that change comes, it is not our place to steady the ark.
Nope, you don’t. I agree.
-Allen
That analogy would be applicable if we were discussing policy issues such as practicing polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood. Which we aren’t. The doctrines of Spiritual Pre-Creation and No Death Before the Fall aren’t policy.
But you do raise the interesting (although off-topic) question of how Church members should act if they are “ahead of their time” on policy issues.
Were I alive in 1889, I most certainly would have been against the practice of polygamy. And I would have firmly believed that the Church would one day stop practicing it. Were I an adult in 1977, I most certainly would have believed the priesthood ban was the work of man, not of God, and that it would be done away with (hopefully soon). Would it be a sin in either of those situation to say “While I support the current Church policy on this issue, I firmly believe the policy is wrong, and that one say (hopefully soon), the Church will do an about face and bring itself more in-line with my beliefs.” Even if you just said it to yourself?
Generations from now, after SSM is accepted by all (including LDS), I expect LDS to look back at Church opposition to SSM as misguided policy enacted by culturally-influenced, fallible leaders.
As I said, I fully support all LDS in their inclinations to classify the (repeated, official) counsel and teachings of Prophets and Apostles as something other than divine knowledge, and I’m glad to find such thinking alive and well in this discussion.
I remember Mr. Hinckley saying in no uncertain terms that evolution did not happen. Also Mr. McKonkie. Man, this church is so confusing.
“Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the …[only when in church approved interviews, talks, and revelations, we reserve the right to deny doctrine at any time with or without cause. The term “speaking as a man” may be used when and where the church may, and has no obligation to state when this is occurring. “speaking as a man” is a trademark of LDS.inc, copyright infringements will be prosecuted to full extent of the law]
prophet, he knows the way!
dj wrote:
Bottom line, I think we are all in for some very astounding surprises when we find out all that goes on with the creation as well as with the rest of the eternal processes. I’m trying to contemplate them all while keeping an open mind until I can know for myself.
I think that’s probably the best idea. I have a friend who is a Christian, not by any means “slow”, but has several higher degress, and last I heard was working on a Ph.D. He believes the world was created in seven literal 24 hour days. I’ve listened to his arguments, over many years, but don’t accept them. Not even close. He has also read the Book of Mormon, cover to cover (after meeting me in the early ’90s), and does not accept it. (In fact he went on to read volumes of Nibley’s writing.)
Horses for courses….
BCC recently published the best take I’ve heard on LDS and Intelligent Design:
I have several LDS relatives who have jumped on the ID bandwagon, and it drives me nuts.
Regarding the issue of “spiritual creation,” I’m not sure it presents a conflict with evolution.
Traditional Christianity, which generally does not contemplate the doctrine of the premortal existence of the soul, declares that God either creates each soul before a person’s mortal birth (creationism; this use of the word is distinct from the more common use of “creationism” to refer to Genesis-style creation of the material world), or that the soul is spontaneously generated along with the material body (traducianism; this is a minority view).
The Pearl of Great Price declares that God created living things “spiritually” before they were created physically. It doesn’t say how long previous to a living thing’s birth (or other generation) it may have been spiritually generated. Is there any reason we couldn’t believe that God spiritually created each individual Stegosaurus, sequoia, chicken, etc., in the instant before their biological genesis?
Aside from the fact that it makes the whole exercise seem redundant, that is.
Interesting question, but your theory seems to be specifically contradicted in the PoGP:
cinepro,
Do you believe in a God directed evolution or do you believe that it all came about by random chance?
Cinepro,
Good point. I’m beaten back to the old standby of Alma 40:8: “…all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.”
So to speak of something happening in heaven “before” it happens on earth may be mixing apples and oranges.
Here is a great quote from Avi Shafran in his article “Heretics and Humility” in today’s Jerusalem Post
Yet those who elevate Darwin’s theory to an article of faith seem unwilling to even consider that the current understanding of how species came about might one day be explained by a different and grander, if currently unimagined, conclusion than the one reached by the famed biologist.
Like it or not, so far it’s the best explanation we have. And one might ask, why is God playing this “monkey game”? The one percent DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees? Perhaps this is how God gets “comic relief” from the boredom of living forever?
When we are trying to some compatibility between or argue about Creationism and Evolutionism are we not like kindergartners arguing over the correct proof of a calculus theorem?
Geneses or the temple ceremony are certainly not a detailed note book of exactly what God did do. As well as we may have some compelling evidence to natural selection and evolution, but we certainly are miles and miles away from a clear linear leakage from a primordial soup being struck by lightning to the complex human genome.
Really…so we don’t believe in a pre-existence, or people having spirits “before” they were born? The doctrine of Spiritual Creation is closely tied to the belief that we had spirit bodies created before the world was. If it is possible to create a human spirit body before the physical body, then it is entirely possible (from a theological standpoint) to have other things created in spiritual form before they are created physically. At least that’s how I read the doctrine, as influenced by “Saturday’s Warrior” and “My Turn on Earth”.
Neither.
(To add: if God is directing it, is it really “evolution”?)
I once heard a rabbi speak about creation. He said when something is created the creator looses some control over it. After God created man man sinned. The rabbi said that this is an essential part of creation. If we are to create we loose some control over what we create and so did God when he created the earth.
cinepro asked, “. . . if God is directing it, is it really ‘evolution’?”
I have a slightly different question. If God is directing the process of evolution, how would we ever know?
In other words, would God-directed evolution and undirected evolution produce results that appear significantly different in the fossil record?
Ray,
If there is only one percent DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees that is a testimony to the efficiency of His design. I think He gets “comic relief” from listening to us try and figure out how He did it. 🙂 As Gail said, “like kindergartners arguing over the correct proof of a calculus theorem?”
cinepro,
If you do not believe that God directed evolution, and you do not believe that it happened by chance, How do you then account for it? Was it programmed into the Big Bang? If so, what intelligence programmed it?
If the supreme intelligence of the universe programmed it then it is intelligent design.
Theodore
P. K. Andersen said,
There is a significant difference in the fossil record from what would be expected from gradual evolution. There are several periods when millions of new species suddenly come into existence. This is consistent with the scriptural record.
Theodore
Gail says,
That is true for whatever is given agency to choose, like our kids. It is not so true for inanimate objects we might create such as a sculpture. However, it is still subject to the elements and outside forces that affect it and does not remain exactly the way it was created forever.
Some years ago I was teaching a gospel doctrine class on the subject of agency. A sister with four teenage boys, who was sitting in the back of the room, put up her hand and said, “I always believed in the principle of agency, until I learned that it also applied to your kids.” 🙂
Theodore
Theodore Bradley,
I think it also is true for inanimate objects. If you have ever don’t a work of art or of writing or anything that takes creativity during the creative process it seems to take on a life of it’s own and turns out not exactly like you intended but some how better.
That must explain how Satan ended up in control of the waters.
That has to be the most generally worded (and un-referenced) claim I have ever heard. But it pretty much has to be. If you were to get any more specific about “punctuated equilibrium” and what the “scriptural record” actually says, that claim would fall to pieces (or end up in published book form on the shelf at Deseret Book). 🙂
Theodore wrote,
The abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record has long been known: Darwin himself addressed the issue, and scientists have proposed various models to account for it.
As for consistency with the scriptural record, much depends on how one interprets scripture. For instance, I have difficulty reconciling a young-earth interpretation of the Bible with the physical evidence.
Some people look at the natural world and see everywhere the handiwork of God; others see nothing but atoms and void. The same evidence is available to all, yet disagreement remains as to what the evidence means.
So I return to my previous question: If God is directing the process of evolution, how would we ever know?
It seems to me that no scientific test can answer the question, because science as currently practiced does not deal with supernatural (or supranatural) processes.
Theodore wrote:
If there is only one percent DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees that is a testimony to the efficiency of His design. I think He gets “comic relief” from listening to us try and figure out how He did it.
Speaking of which, you might like this:
cinepro,
I will try and be a little more specific (as for references the net is full of them). One example in the fossil record is the “Cambrian Explosion.” This is where millions of new species suddenly come into existence. Below this fossil layer are lower forms of life such as single celled and soft bodied creatures, such as worms. As P. K. mentioned, Darwin knew about it and noted that this would be the main objection to his theory. Since then there have been various hypothesis developed to try and explain how this could be and still support the theory of evolution. As you mentioned, “punctuated equilibrium” is one these. It was promoted primarily by Eldredge and Gould beginning in a published paper in 1972. They suggest what are obvious “bursts” in evolutionary change but do not have a good explanation as to why. Their theory has since been criticized by other scientists who offer their own alternative explanations. The bottom line is that this question has not been resolved by the scientific community.
This Cambrian Explosion more clearly matches the revealed record that details creative periods, where new species are created at each period and commanded to multiply “each after their own kind.” These periods are of indeterminate length and do not require a young earth.
P.K.
This is exactly true. The evidence may be factual but the interpretation of the evidence is highly subjective. This is why I trust the Lord’s explanation when it seems to conflict with the subjective interpretation of others. He is in a better position to know the truth. And, yes, that is a matter of faith.
Scientifically speaking, life on earth is so amazingly complex that for it to happen by random chance is mathematically impossible. So your question then becomes, did God use the process of evolution to create the life we know, or did He use some other method? We then must turn to God to find the answer to that question rather than to science. God specifically stated that He did not use evolution because He commanded every living thing “to multiply each after its own kind in its own sphere and element,” and He observed that they all obeyed.
Science has a long way to go before we can understand scientifically how God does things. Someday we will know. We will then say, “O yeah! Now I understand.”
Ray,
I like it!
Theodore
There is another reason that I don’t believe that God used evolution to fill the earth with life. Moroni tells us:
Darwinism has led many away from Christ. As evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr emphasized, “The real core of Darwinism is natural selection which permits the explanation of adaption…by natural means, instead of by divine intervention” (Forward to “Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse, 1982). Or as Law professor Phillip Johnson, author of “Darwin on Trial” stated, “The whole point of Darwinism is to show that there is no need for a supernatural creator, because nature can do the creating by itself” (quoted in “World,” July/August 2002). Time magazine summed it up this way. “Charles Darwin didn’t want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did.” (Charles Darwin, “Time” December 31, 1999)
It is unreasonable that God would use a process that would turn his children away from him.
The danger in speculation combined with religion can be disasterous.
For example, the change to the Book of Mormon introduction allows for people to be in the America’s before the arrival of BoM people.
Science tells us that the America’s were inhabited as recently as the end of the last ice-age, possible as long ago as more than 50,000 years.
The harm comes when people consider the Bible chronology, then question the story of the flood, and arrive at a conclusion that the North American Indian is not human because they were indiginous before Adam and Eve.
Dehumanizing other living persons has been the source of atrocity and genocide, slavery, etc.
The possibility that this rationale can occur among LDS must be addressed and stopped.
The Mormon Wiki attempts to define D&C 28, etc as Joseph Smith’s word choice for “Lamanite”, and not the Savior’s words. Such things will lead in the minds of flawed thinkers to “racial groups who are not human”.
Opinion and speculation concerning religion and science is dangerous when such ideas of the past return.
MichaelM, you didn’t even get to the theory of Pre-Adamites (or the “Limited Garden Theory”), where Adam and Eve came from mortal parents and had brothers and sisters and lived in a community of people who themselves evolved from lower life forms. Adam and Eve were then “selected” to receive spirits, assume immortal form in a Garden away from their friends and families.
I expect it to be incorporated in the next update of the Gospel Doctrine class guide for the Old Testament, as it (or something similar) is logically required to correlate the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Divine Creation.
I am trying to stay simple so that it does not detract from the issue of the American Indian.
With Meso-American theories, living individuals there are considered childern of Lehi, but North American indigenous people are being excluded by many crazy ideas. I just want to point out the harm of this, and the atrocities that have occurred when some regard another group as not human.
Michael says:
.
The Theory of Evolution has had a far too detrimental effect on religion to be immune from religious scrutiny.
Theodore
I agree Theodore. The theory of evolution has destroyed faith, created hopelessness and empowered governments when coupled with Marxism or Facisim, resulting in atrocities against humans that religious principles would not otherwise allow or condone.
My concern, as I have stated, is that evolution not be used in conjunction with religion to declare a specific race to be non-human.
This idea concerning the American Indian could take root with some LDS because of the ideas flying around concerning the origin of North American indigenous people before the Book of Mormon events.
I am not arguing, rather simply trying to remind religious members of the LDS faith of the harm which can originate from ideas.
Incidently, how can the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn be used and justified by some LDS apologetics? Blaise Pascal is much more substantial concerning faith and reason.
Michael,
First of all, I have not been aware of any Latter-Day Saints seriously proposing the absurd thought that the natives of North America are somehow subhuman. I hesitate to even respond to the concept for fear of lending it respectability.
The revealed word of God is clear that Adam was the first man. It is also clear that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. He lived on what is now the American Continent, which has been inhabited (almost continuously) from that time. Based primarily on radiocarbon dating, the current scientific view is that America was inhabited by humans for 40,000 to 50,000 years. There are several basic problems with radiocarbon dating that make these time periods highly questionable. As I mentioned above, when there is a conflict between revelation and current scientific thought I will side with the revelation every time. Others will attempt to adjust the revelation to coincide with the current consensus.
As for the heritage of the American Indian, I do not subscribe to the theory of the Book of Mormon events being confined to Mesoamerica, but find that the geographical evidence within the pages of the Book of Mormon itself is a perfect fit across the North American Continent, from Costa Rica to Cumorah. (see “A North American Setting For The Book Of Mormon,” http://brandley.poulsenll.org/ )
I also do not agree that there were others in addition to the Book of Mormon people living in North America at that time. They were not required by the text and the text specifically states there weren’t any others. (see my discussion with Steven Danderson on his topic Deus ex machina on the FAIRBlog http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/18/deus-ex-machina/ )
There was another 1,000 years after the Nephite period of which we have no historical record and the Lord could have brought any number of immigrants from wherever to settle in America during that time.
Kuhn’s philosophy of “paradigm shifts” in scientific thought is actually a strong argument for hanging onto the revealed view when science and revelation do not agree. The scientific consensus will one day change, but the revelation will hold fast. I agree with you about Pascal. He tried to find new truths by building on established truths. Sort of like “line upon line.” But Pascal was concerned about his own method because he thought it impossible to find rock-bottom truths on which to base everything else. That problem is solved when we rely upon the bedrock truths of revelation. “Upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18) That is the rock of revelation.
Theodore
Hi Theodore,
I like your position. There are others who do not see it as you do. Some go so far as to suggest that a patriarchal blessing lineage for an American Indian (North America indigenous) is adoption only, in spite of the key words such as outlined in the January 1991 Ensign.
The problem with the intro change to the BoM is that those who do not see it as you do on the time line also forget that the flood would destroy all human life except those on the Ark. Hence, the Jaredites are the best explanation, as the indigenous ones found in North America had to have come after the flood.
Those who speculate otherwise (including some LDS apologetics) are not participating in a paradigm shift, they are bringing up old prejudices concerning the origins of races.
There are LDS apologetics whose ideas set the stage for a return of a very harmful and destructive concept of some races being less than human. I know you would never go along with this, but it is happening.
I am very familiar with Kuhn, and many non-LDS writers who use his philosophy are aethiest. Pascal makes it clear that at the end of our reasoning begins the realization of how little we really know. Not all can be revealed to us in mortality or there would be no need to live by faith.
Faith is a belief in things unseen, and to have all things revealed destroys the need for faith. Kuhn’s philosophy can and has been used in very faith destructive ways.
“There are LDS apologetics whose ideas set the stage for a return of a very harmful and destructive concept of some races being less than human.”
Could you be more specific, I am not aware of any LDS born ideaology which suggests that some groups people are not human. I am familiar with some fringe theories which tie Brigham Young’s comments of moon inhabitants with the lost tribes of Israel. Even still, the best source for those types of claims have been from members of no consequence in local sunday school settings. This notwithstanding, even generally uninformed members appear to cringe at these type of comments. You seem to be stressing the concern that this type of thinking may recieve broader traction amongst the general membership, but I just don’t see it happening. In what venues are you observing this line rhetoric?
The Deseret news explained the introduction change to the BoM and showed that there is an acceptance of ancient people in the Americas other than those in the Book of Mormon.
There is a FAIR link that attempts to state “Lamanites” in D&C 28 was Joseph Smith’s word choice and not our Savior’s words.
Another link at FAIR suggests the idea that the American Indian being Book of Mormon people is only a tradition among church members and not necessarily true. When coupled with the previous link, some individuals could arrive at the opinion of excluding the American Indian.
Now the issue of evolution and religion. Where did these people come from before the BoM times? The idea of science and dating 50,000 years or more places individuals in the Americas before Adam and Eve, unless one considers the first humans much later than science suggests.
As I said, the stage is being set. Yes, most people cringe at the suggestion, but in all of this is confusion. When an LDS member accepts that not all or possibly even no American Indian are Book of Mormon people, the indigenous ones face exclusion from the scriptural history.
Next, the reasoning is where did they originate? This same issue of origination was argued from the time of the first discovery of the Americas.
The one thing the LDS faith has had in strength for the American Indian was that they were a unique people with great promised blessings.
None of these logic stages are open, direct and spoken as I have here. Instead they remain clouded in the backs of peoples minds. Most non-indigenous LDS members do not see the outcome or realize their own words and actions.
As an example, my wife (25 years married) stated in a relief society class that the Book of Mormon was about her people, and the lands mentioned were her ancestoral lands as well as all other indigenous ones. She was questioned afterwards by a priesthood leader for making statements outside of the teachings of the Church. My wife is an enrolled tribal member of a South Dakota reservation. The ward as a whole follows the Meso-American theory.
As far as considering some groups less than human, this is not seen by most LDS members in larger stakes, but it does get expressed in small communities bordering the Navajo reservation in Southern Utah.
I am not familiar with this type of rational. I would have to agree with Theodore, that the confusion which has and will likely continue to arise is a larger conflation of scientifically held theories with religious belief. This will usually entail innovative re-interpretation of scripture when it comes to thing’s like a universal flood. Theories, such as those regarding pre-adamites which suggest that life in a strictly academic sense began much earlier than Adam, but it was with Adam that God endowed man with intelligence, and hence for spiritual purposes all things began with Adam, will become more common. I don’t see the tendecy of thinking to lean to entirely new perspectives on man’s orgins, rather just a give and take marrying of the two schools of thought.
You are suggesting that the theories among the Navajo membership entail that the American indians must be “subhuman”. This is a view the hold regarding themselves then?
Theodore wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing a proof that evolution is “mathematically impossible.” I cannot even imagine how one might set up the mathematics. Do you?
I agree that only God can answer the question.
Does “kind” mean “species”?
Agreed.
“Scientifically speaking, life on earth is so amazingly complex that for it to happen by random chance is mathematically impossible.”
As I understand it, life probabilities theories have been largely abandoned given the perceptual distortions such models lead to in the context of the universe. I have read reasonable arguments which challenge such calculations when considered in light of the expansiveness of time and space. In other words, when you compare the probability of a dog mutating in a kennel, to planets and life appearing over the breadth encompassed by time and space in the universe, randomness seems improbable. When placed in proper context, ie billions of years over the full spectrum of matter and space randomness seems less absurd.
For the record, I actually believe creation was divine, though I will not try and explain the mechanics behind the matter.
Cowboy said: “You are suggesting that the theories among the Navajo membership entail that the American indians must be “subhuman”. This is a view they hold regarding themselves then?”
No, you have misunderstood me. This is an attitude among some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation.
Cowboy said: “I don’t see the tendecy of thinking to lean to entirely new perspectives on man’s orgins, rather just a give and take marrying of the two schools of thought.”
This is my concern. It is not a new perspective to consider other people as less than human. The give and take to marry two schools of thought is risky.
I already listed: The D&C is given off as not our Savior’s words, but instead Joseph Smith’s word choice concerning the word “Lamanite”. This unhinges what is regarded as revelation. Does the name of the LDS church then become Joseph word choice also?
Compromising the revelations and scripture to marry them with current scientific thoughts is not something to consider lightly. The philosophy of Kuhn might suggest this, but Pascal provides a different view.
Indigenous peoples of both North and South America have lost their LDS faith over the DNA issue. There are numerous news sources which can be found by google. Why play with the flood, the origin of races, etc.?
Can no one see the harm resulting from playing with “intellectual” ideas as a hobby? There are living indigenous individuals who are feeling they have been lied to.
Cowboy said: “I am not familiar with this type of rational.”
Please try to see how theories can be harmful to faith of others different from you, and dangerous to other humans. History has shown what has occurred concerning race.
I see your point on the “whites” along the Navajo reservations, and yes I misunderstood you. I am well aware of the religious harm behind juxtaposing religious and scientific in order to assuage the apparent conflicts. My point was not to suggest that this would be the ideal, but rather to point out that the trend has been to blend the two into a more socially palatable brand, rather than to diverge into more extreme interpretations – such as American Indians are “subhuman”. Outside of the limited sphere of the Navajo reservation (with which I have no experience) I am not sure the rest of the Church is headed to the inevitable and forwarned conclusion that any culture of people is anything less than human.
I think I am still misunderstanding you however. I am aware of some antiquated prejudices where those who supposedly descended from Cain are perhaps substandard humans. Or at least they represent a seperate caste of mortals per conduct and designed in the pre-existence. These as far as I am aware, never challenged a human populations genus, perhaps excepting the early Church history description of Cain. Are you suggesting that “some whites” along the Navajo reservation are advocating that some American Indians are either, a lower species of human, or aliens?
I was sarcastic with Cain comment BTW.
Cowboy said: “I am not sure the rest of the Church is headed to the inevitable and forwarned conclusion that any culture of people is anything less than human.”
I have not suggested that the Church is headed that way, but the possibility of individuals becoming misguided in a series of logical deductions can occur.
The general membership does seem to be headed in a direction of disregard for the North American indigenous people, due to the popularity surrounding Meso-America and the DNA theory of a small group introduced into a much larger gene pool. FAIR links contribute to this.
Those considered not to be Book of Mormon descendants then can become objects of curiosity concerning their origin. With the merge of science and religion, some theorists will likely consider them outside of Adam and Eve in their ancestoral origins.
This can set up an new set of prejudices among some, such as the opinion that certain indigenous groups mixed with the seed of Adam and Eve, and are therefor not as pure a race, etc. Harmful ideologies found in the historical past had beginnings such as this.
I am not suggesting the church is headed that way, but influences from intellects carry and spread.
There are individuals with prejudices that we can only wish were antiquated. The American Indian experiences things that those unaffiliated with them have no idea of.
Cowboy said: “Are you suggesting that “some whites” along the Navajo reservation are advocating that some American Indians are either, a lower species of human, or aliens?”
I used the Navajo has an example that LDS in Utah might not be aware of. There are whites who even today consider that the American Indian is not human. The rationale is certainly not “alien”, but rather a primate species.
I really think I have wasted my time with you on this, what with “alien” comments, and your misunderstanding my first comment of white directed prejudice toward non-white, in the way you turned it around in your question, “You are suggesting that the theories among the Navajo membership entail that the American indians must be “subhuman”. This is a view they hold regarding themselves then?”
Sadly, it is my experience that LDS “intellects” are blind and far too often wrong.
P. K. wrote:
In theory it is quite simple. You identify all of the factors that are necessary for life on the planet, calculate their individual probability of randomly occurring, and then multiply these probabilities by each other. (In practice it would probably take a team of researchers and a supercomputer)
Start with astrophysical conditions:
What is the probability that the force of gravity is just what it is? If the force of gravity was weaker stars would not be compacted tight enough for fusion to occur. If gravity was stronger stars would burn so hot they would burnout in short time. What is the probability that the strong nuclear force is just what it is? If it were much weaker protons and neutrons would not stick together and the only element we would have in the universe would be hydrogen. If it was a little stronger the protons and neutrons would bind too tightly together and we would have no hydrogen, and therefore no life. What is the probability of the electromagnetic force being just what it is? If the electromagnetic force were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other. If the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. Dr. Hugh Ross at California Institute of Technology calculated the probability of a combination of just eight such required conditions at 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power. (Hugh Ross, “The Creator and the Cosmos,” 1995)
There are about 10 to the 84th power sub-atomic particles in the universe, so the probability of these eight items occurring by chance is like picking one sub-atomic particle at random out all the particles in 100,000 universes.
Then one has to multiply this by the probability that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, in not too elliptical orbit, not too much larger or smaller, the right amount oxygen, carbon dioxide and water. We need a moon about the right size and distance to stabilize the axis and tides. Etc, Etc. (Incidentally, what is the probability that the sun and the moon both appear the same size from the surface of the earth and give us perfect eclipses?) Then multiply these probabilities by each other and by 10 to the 92nd power above.
Now start multiplying in the probability of life developing. Some scientists have measured the chance of a replicating molecule occurring by chance at 10 to the 450th power. Biochemist Dr. Frank Salisbury has calculated the probability of a typical DNA chain arising by chance to be 10 to the 600th power.. Etc, etc, etc. (see “How Did the Universe Begin?” by Ralph Epperson, http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html )
If each particle in the universe could participate in a thousand billion different events every second, then the greatest number of events that could ever happen in all of the universe throughout its entire history is only 10 to the 110th power. Most mathematicians consider a probability of 10 to the 50th power as impossible and therefore zero. Even if we extend that to 10 to the 110th power life is still absolutely impossible from chance arising from a horrendous explosion of the Big Bang. Biologist Edward Conklin stated that, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop.” Someone else has compared the probability of life happening by chance to an explosion in a junk yard randomly producing an airworthy 747. Or, as my father once told me: “That life was created by a supreme intelligence can be proven by the theorem of “ridiculosus absurdum.” Any other explanation is ridiculous and absurd.”
Theodore
MichaelM:
I’m sorry that I have wasted your time. I didn’t think you were talking about aliens, but I found the rest of the concern mostly ridiculous, so I postulated that perhaps it was completely ridiculous. First, I think you fail to understand what Church, and therefore members you are talking about. The premise of the Church is Prophets, revelation, etc. The current attitude, and overt teaching from the Church (largely to make up for the past) is that we are all children of our Father in Heaven, regardless of race. I am not accusing the members of not thinking for themselves with what I am about to say, but what goes hand in hand with the Prophets is that they speak for God, and the current Prophet is always the most correct. They establish doctrine, it is sustained, and thing’s move forward. It is very unlikely for any wild theory, such as what you are suggesting, to get any type of recognizable traction independent of the Church’s current teaching’s clearly to the contrary. Book of Mormon geography debates such as whether main events took place in either North, South, or Central America do not challenge fundemental doctrines of the Church, so they are allowed to continue. You better believe however, the Church would immediately address and put an end to any discussion with even a minor foothold, which taught that on account of race some people or lower life forms. If not out of decency, then out of public relations. Can you imagine the PR nightmare of what you are proposing.
Theodore:
I’m genuinely always impressed with responses.
Addendum, Should read: “…your responses.”
Cowboy said: “First, I think you fail to understand what Church, and therefore members you are talking about. The premise of the Church is Prophets, revelation, etc.”
Again Cowboy, you have misunderstood me. I was not talking about the Church and it’s members, I was talking about the so called apologetics as those found at FAIR.
The speculations of evolution and the flood even on this blog seem ridiculous. As far as your statement about prophets and revelation, according to FAIR, “Lamanites” to describe the American Indians was Joseph’s word choice in D&C 28.
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Lamanites_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants
This goes against the history of the LDS church, the first mission of Oliver Cowdery to the Lamanites, as well as Joseph Smith’s words to the Sac, Fox and Pottawami.
In other words, FAIR pulls the plug on revelation and becomes free to speculate, even in disregard to the Doctrine and Covenants which most LDS consider revealed teachings.
I understand fully what church and what members, I was talking about the wild speculations made by some at FAIR, who claim to be LDS.
Some of these ideas are quite popular, and of those concerning Central America theories, a disregard toward the American Indian can and does occur with some in the general LDS membership.
As I have found no anchor to teachings of the prophets by some at FAIR, I simply was pointing out how far ungrounded ideas have run in the past.
Do you make it a habit to ridicule what you do not understand?
“Do you make it a habit to ridicule what you do not understand?”
Yes, and in that spirit let me reply to the rest of your comment.
“Again Cowboy, you have misunderstood me. I was not talking about the Church and it’s members, I was talking about the so called apologetics as those found at FAIR.”
Vs.
“…a disregard toward the American Indian can and does occur with some in the general LDS membership.”
So is it the “so called apologetics”, “the general membership”, or “some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation” which are classifying American Indians as subhuman? I understand the general concern some people have with innovation in LDS apologetics. The Church for a long time has made some pretty bold claims regarding the broad range of American Indians including South/Central American peoples. LDS Prophets and apostles have alluded to “the children of Lehi” while speaking in South American conferences. To all of the sudden change the tune would cause confusion, particularly for members who fall into those classifications of people.
These conflicts between LDS teachings regarding heritage and modern science have been, as you have noted, a stumbling block for many which has led to the conclusion that The Church is not true. I would argue that this is the most common response, “The Church said I am a descendant from Book of Mormon peoples, science clearly shows ancestry which would pre-date that. The Prophets must have been wrong, therefore the Church is not true.” This is where the “apologetics” come in. In order to address these disputes between science and LDS claims, apologists theorize potential, sometimes even extreme, possibilities which give LDS claims plausibility. That is the best that they can do given that many of the claims which they are defending are unsubstantiated in the first place. Even so, I can assure you (though I am not a spokesperson for any apolgist organization) that in spite of this agenda to intellectually defend The Church, no legitimate apolegetic organization (Fair, FARMS, etc) is ever going to adopt and circulate theories which rank any class of people as subhuman. That is the concern you ultimately raise, and given your prior comment to me (about wasting your time) it is now the point which I now freely ridicule. As for the general membership, I do not see any such theories there either. So you are left with possibly “some whites who reside near the Navajo reservation”.
Lastly, on a few occassions you seem to lament the belief that you are misunderstood by the hyped up intellectuals on fair. I wonder if you are misunderstanding them. Recognizing the concern that some apolgetic theories could be ultimately damaging, perhaps you might try and understand to difficulty in defending formerly held world views, anchored in a religion, against modern evolving anthropology, physics, etc. If we did not have revisionism in the Church, it would still be commonly circulated that Africans descended from Cain, and were marked for being “less valiant” in the pre-existence. Ultimately what these intellectuals do is good for the Church.
Cowboy said: “If we did not have revisionism in the Church, it would still be commonly circulated that Africans descended from Cain, and were marked for being “less valiant” in the pre-existence. Ultimately what these intellectuals do is good for the Church.”
The revision came through revelation, not by the apologetics. So you take credit for the revelation of the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball?
Interesting how you fail to address the link at FAIR which attempts to alter the LDS history and revelation.
Jude’s words of contending for the faith were in reference to members within.
My experience with apologetics are that they are liars, deceivers, and non-belivers. My patron saint for lost causes leads me to the idea that his words can be applied to some apologetics found at FAIR.
Let’s be realistic here. You really do not believe the LDS doctrine, and have no faith. As a cowboy, I suppose your horse is a tapir? How do you round one up when it is at the bottom of the river hiding? Spaniards found five or six dogs were often killed by the tapir while trying to capture it. One even bit off the arm of a zoo keeper.
You may believe that you are doing good for the church, but it becomes obvious that like Thomas S. Ferguson, there are many who really do not believe but because they think it is the best fraternal organization on earth, choose to remain and defend it.
D&C 28 identified who the Lamanites were. FAIR is preaching false doctrine on this. Your ridicule of the American Indian while taking great care to prevent offense to blacks is disgusting.
Have a nice day.
Last comment, because again you seem to be unaware of who you are talking to.
1) I am not an apologist for the Church. I have posted a number of comments throughout Fair which clearly demonstrate that I am largely skeptical of much of what the Church teaches. So, I take credit for nothing regarding Church policy. President Kimball effected Church policy governing the Priesthood ban, but I would argue that apologists have led the charge in effecting ideology. You will notice that the 1978 revelation is often coined the revelation on Priesthood, not the revelation on race. It simply allows for all worthy males to fully participate in the Priesthood regardless of race, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, independant intellectuals and groups such as Fair were the first to address the the former racist notions taught by early Church leaders. A position which Church leaders are finally willing to openly address now.
2)”Interesting how you fail to address the link at FAIR which attempts to alter the LDS history and revelation.”
Seeing as I am not a Fair apologist, it is not all interesting. The fact that I addressed revision, which you even critiqued, should demonstrate my views on the matter, which makes that observation even more uninteresting.
I find it interesting that you chose not to defend the absurd conclusion that Fair, among others, is headed down a slippery slope to discounting the humanity of American Indians.
3) “D&C 28 identified who the Lamanites were. FAIR is preaching false doctrine on this. Your ridicule of the American Indian while taking great care to prevent offense to blacks is disgusting.”
No one has ridiculed the American Indian in this discussion, unless perhaps you are an American Indian, in which case I have ridiculed a single American Indian. But this on account only of the absurdity of your comments, and not all due to your ancestry of which I am not even certain. You have made blanket accussations against those you term to be apologists, attacking no less their faith and integrity. This on account of being in disagreement with you. You apparently see yourself as the gold standard for truth and right.
Did I fail to mention, have a nice day?
I find it surprising to see that some people still fail to understand that there is absolutely no conflict between
(1) the Lehites landed in a continent already filled with millions of people and the Book of Mormon describes only a tiny fraction of the western hemisphere population between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400
and
(2) every Native American in the western hemisphere in A.D. 1492 had Lehi as a genetic ancestor.
Any statement is false that claims there is some kind of discrepancy or problem with “assuming a limited Book of Mormon geography in a vastly populated hemisphere” and “having ALL Native Americans be literal descendants of Laman (i.e., genetic Lamanites).”
As for which of a person’s ancestors is the “principal” ancestor, one can just as well point to the most important or most significant as to any other criteria. (One could pose the question of which is Prince Charles’ “principal ancestor.” The answer has no uniquely true answer—Queen Victoria works as well as any despite the fact that she has no more genetic importance to Prince Charles than any other of his 32 ggg grandparents.) If the Book of Mormon is historical, and if all Native Americans are descended from Lehi and Laman regardless of the New World population at the time of Lehi’s arrival, then it is clear, at least to me, that Lehi is the principal ancestor of both North American Indians and all other Native Americans in the western hemisphere.
Lineages in patriarchal blessings are thus entirely irrelevant in the discussion of either Book of Mormon geographies or New World population histories. Similarly, statements that some particular Native American tribe or tribal area is “Lamanite” is equally irrelevant. If the Book of Mormon is historical, ALL Native Americans in the western hemisphere are almost certainly Lamanites regardless of any assumption about geography or demographics.
P. K.
If we apply the same statistical extrapolation to the question “Which members of the Church in 1900 had an ancestor of African origin?”, the implications for the priesthood ban are catastrophic.
Theodore wrote,
Yes, you can multiply the probabilities if the events are independent. That is the easy part.
The hard part is determining the probabilities in the first place. Consider the first factor you mentioned:
Although you may be right about the consequences of a different value for the gravitational constant, you have not demonstrated that the gravitational constant could be different than it is. One could argue that G is not a random variable but a universal constant that has the only value it can have.
Even supposing that G could take on a different value (in a different universe perhaps?), you still do not have enough information to compute a probability for it. What range of values could G take? Are some values more likely than others? What determines the value of G?
Similar questions can be raised for the other fundamental constants you mentioned. There seems to be no way to know what range of values are permissible or which are more likely. We cannot even be sure that the fundamental constants are independent of each other.
So your probability calculation appears doomed from the start.
I am not saying that you should refrain from such calculations; however, be aware that the results may not convince anyone that God created all things in the heavens and earth.
Moreover, there is a danger that your efforts could backfire. A spurious “proof” can damage your credibility and raise questions about the other things you say.
So what? That is irrelevant to THIS issue. The fact remains that if Lehi has descendants 2600 years later, the probably is close to 100% that all the people in the population are his descendants. This means that probably all Native Americans are Lamanites regardless of where they now live or whether the Book of Mormon was local or hemispheric or whether or not the hemisphere was populated when Lehi arrived.
P. K.,
The points you make are valid considerations. However, the calculations are not mine but, as I mentioned, they are the calculations of astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. I don’t know how he selected his range of possibilities. That these constants are fixed is true, but why are they fixed at the exact levels that are favorable to life? If the only element in the universe was hydrogen, if there was no life it wouldn’t matter. No one there to care. The whole point is that these forces are fixed at the exact levels that are favorable to life. This would not be possible by random chance. Only if the universe was designed for life.
Even if we did not consider these astrophysical conditions in the calculations the other considerations still make it impossible for life to come about by chance. DNA alone is impossible by chance. One cell stores all the design information necessary to build and entire human being, cell by cell. It also includes the software program, and the communications capability to interact with all subsequently produced cells. As Bill Gates said, “DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.” Programs are developed by intelligence. Information is only stored and used by intelligence. This does not happen by chance from big explosions.
Theodore
Pam,
What evidence do you have to support your above assertions?
Theodore
The “descendant” argument is probably the weakest part of the hemispherical/local debate. In fact, it isn’t even part of it. Modern Prophets and Apostles assumed that the Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were “Lamanites” because they also assumed that all of these peoples’ lineages originated with the Book of Mormon populations.
Obviously, apologists have to believe that there were other populations with many people already in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites (and Mulekites) arrived. Science and anthropology demand it.
But if we go by what the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles have said, the obvious (and to some, inspired) reading is that the land was vacant when the Jaredites arrived (being the first group after the flood), and the Lehites found a land that was vacant (or “preserved”) for them, with the exception of the Jaredite remnant. Frankly, I can’t see how to argue strongly for either position witout feeling a tad silly, so I’m content to let the Sorensenites and Meldrumites battle it out for the hearts and minds of the few LDS who actually care.
“Sadly, it is my experience that LDS “intellects” are blind and far too often wrong.”
I don’t think you sound “sad” about it at all Michael.
My experience is that non-LDS “intellects” are just as ‘blind and far too often wrong’ as LDS “intellects”. They just take a different slant on it.
I’ve discussed this topic sufficient to know that there is no objectivity in science.
I would also like to say that I admire the mathematician, William Dembski, for his brilliant work in the book, No Free Lunch.
Read the LDS Bible Dictionary: Fall of Adam
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2
“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.”
No death. Get it? Death is the keystone to the Theory of Evolution. No death, no evolution. Survival of the fittest implies non-survival of the weakest or death.
Steve,
You forget–the Bible dictionary is not cannon; it is a study guide.
And, yes, despite what you think, there was death in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve ate something, did what they ate die in the process? How about when the animals in the Garden ate something; did what they eat die?
How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair? How about fingernails? Those are both made up of dead cells, are they not?
Of course there was death before the fall, unless you say that nobody ate anything in the Garden–although God said that they should eat–and nobody had hair or nails.
(I speak for myself in these comments; not for FAIR. Don’t try to say that FAIR believes this; we are not a monolithic organization.)
-Allen
Steve,
We welcome thoughtful, reasoned comments here on the FAIR blog. On 2 August you left a series of comments on various posts that were rude and, in some cases, inappropriate. I’ve removed most of these, and invite you to tone down your comments when you participate here. Further snarky comments or obnoxious behavior will get you banned.
—Mike, admin