Several years ago I posted on this issue on Sarah's blog and now I'm bringing it to my own blog. It really doesn't have to do with politics but I haven't had politics on my mind lately. I've been thinking more about baseball and my work (in that order).
EVOLUTION!!
Here's what I mean by evolution - the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms caused by naturally occuring alterations in the genetic component of the organism.
As a scientist I think about these things a great deal. Very little in the biological sciences makes sense outside of the context of evolution especially in my field of immunology and infectious diseases. As a Christian scientist I think about these things even more than most scientists I imagine. Why? I've been a serious student of biology for 12 years now. I have seen astounding evidence in support of organic evolution. I also have been taught, and sincerely believe, that God is the creator. I suppose I should feel some kind of conflict within my heart as these two ideas are presented as mutually exclusive explanations for the variation among species, but I just don't. I think the theories of evolution are not necessarily at odds with revealed truth. Many church leaders in the early 20th century (when this topic became hotly discussed) thought so as well.
One thing is simply not debatable. Evolution occurs. That is not open to question. Why else do we need flu shots each year? Where do drug-resistant bacteria come from? That's evolution. Evolution is a fact. I suppose alot of people have a hard time going from micro-evolution to macro-evolution, that the physical body of man evolved from a less complex species. I don't have a problem going from one to the other because the basic principles are the same. I'm not married to the idea but the evidence leans very strongly in that direction and I'm not offended by the idea because I know that this body of mine wasn't actually created by God in the literal sense anyway. And I know that this body doesn't represent who I really am. Plus, my body is going to undergo some pretty fantastic changes (yes, Sarah it will get even better) after its resurrection so why should I be insulted by the notion that my body represents a step in the evolutionary process?
Some people I know have used scripture verses as a basis for their opposition to evolutionary theory. That's foolish. The scriptures aren't a science text. God's purpose in showing the creation to Moses was NOT to demonstrate how he did it. Moses would NEVER have understood that. God's purpose was to let Moses know 1) God's omnipotence, and 2) mankind's relation to God. I don't like when people use scriptures to make a point that the scriptures aren't meant to make. Scripture is for answering the questions of 1) who are we?, 2) why are we here?, 3) how do we need to live to have a glorious resurrection. I love this quote from an official explanation of the church's view of evolution:
"Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, none of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research."
The church is saying 'look, ultimately it doesn't matter whether evolution is right or wrong. As a church we're only concerned with what happens AFTER all of that.'
Now a little about the earth's creation. We know that the earth, as it appears today, does not resemble the earth that was formed "in the beginning." One thing that baffles me is that many religious folk have no beef with the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river and that the islands of Hawaii sprang out of the ocean originally as volcanoes. No, most people don't have a problem recognizing that natural processes account for the geology of the earth while continuing to believe that God created it. Yet, suggest that a natural occurrence, a "Big Bang", explains the origins of planet earth and suddenly you've blasphemed. Do these people believe that God waved His arms and the earth simply was? We know that's false. God does not create de novo, rather He created the earth out of matter that already existed. So if God leaves the earth to be shaped by natural occurrences now, why wouldn't he create it using natural occurrences? After all, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? See? I think evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory are not only the best explanation for the origins of earth and life on earth given our current understanding but actually perfectly in accordance with what we know about God's characteristics and how He works. Besides, if you understand biology and find those things interesting then evolution is actually very beautiful and majestic. A God who can weave an intricate creation such that mankind is the end result of a process put into place billions of years previously is truly a God that is deserving of our reverence and obedience.
I find it interesting that the church maintains a position of neutrality on the issue of organic evolution. They are, on the other hand, adamant that we are literally spirit sons and daughters of God, a premise that I have no qualms with whatsoever. In fact, that supports my earlier point. My spirit was literally created by God in it's present form. My body? A completely different story. I don't imagine that during the course of earth's mortal existence God will see fit to reveal the method by which the human body came into being. I'm sure it will surpass even current evolutionary theory in its intricacy and grandeur but I won't be surprised to see that we humans had at least a few things correct.
A popular opposing view is intelligent design. Intelligent design has lots of flaws, the most prominent in my mind being that they use scientific examples of complexity (such as the eye or bacterial flagellae)to make the point that these systems couldn't have evolved independently. Well, science has successfully refuted both of those examples. The components of the eye and the bacterial flagellae have been demonstrated to have a role outside of their primary functions. The point here is that we do Christianity and God a disservice if we explain away very complex things by saying 'well, God did it.' That's true, but science advances very rapidly and will soon have a better explanation than 'God did it.' Does the scientific explanation mean that God didn't do it? No, but it does mean that God works with the laws of nature to accomplish His creative efforts.
Well, I've got alot more to say on this topic but I've got to save something for the comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI think it wise to remember two things. One, that evolution from a single cell organizm to a human is a THEORY. And two we should remember that that God does not necessarily work by "the laws of nature" as we know them. He works within laws that we do not understand.
Let us not limit God's power to the laws of our understanding. Else how could the Lord walk on water or change water to wine, or create bread and wine from apparent nothingness?
I for one think that it is almost always a mistake to use mans concepts and theories of the day to explain or merge with the gospel or history of the world. Unless we can know for a surety that the doctrine (science can be doctrine in my mind) is absolutely true, then we must be cautious.
I for one see several issues with what you have written about.
I do agree that God works within certain bounds or laws. But we also know that he can create from what appears to be nothing like when he fed the 5,000.
A good reminder is how the majority of scientists in Einstein’s day had agreed that Physics and other advanced theories of Math would NEVER work. They believed that they had discovered most of all information in some of those areas or believed that not much work was left. But then Einstein came along and completely blew away that theory. That and most of his work began to show them that much of their work was lacking, incorrect and often incomplete.
So what's the point if "science" is going to be saying something different in 15 years? :)
I agree with you Troy.
ReplyDeleteI often contemplate the different accounts of the Creation in LDS scripture and doctrine, and the variety found there does not lead me to create some hierarchy of accuracy in translation. Instead, I choose to see the process, not it's specifics as important. For me, the notion that God spent six periods of creation to end up with a world important. It was not a snap of celestial fingers. It was a labor of love over a significant period of time. That is what matters to me.
Also, what is eternal progression if not a type of evolution?
To Ammon's comment: Sure God can work in miraculous ways, but that does not mean that evolution does not occur.
Troy is clear in his statements that he is not stating that macro evolution is completely correct in all its details, but that as a concept it works to explain things, and that it is in and of itself not in conflict with God creating the universe and this world.
Oh and Ammon, what was the point of the Mosaic law if Christ was just going to come and giver a higher law anyway? :)
I'm with you, Troy. My personal opinion: Evolution does not preclude the existence of God. And, depending on how liberally you interpret the Bible, the existence of God does not preclude evolution.
ReplyDeleteI have never been one to argue vehemently for one or the other. I just figure they intermingle, and I'll find out one day, if God decides I am worthy enough to know the truth.
But I am also one of the other few Christian scientists in the world. The very few.
Oh, this is Heather, your facebook chat buddy.
Congratulations to you Heather for being the first non-Mormon for posting on my blog! For those other few people who read this blog Heather is a friend of mine from Columbus who was a fellow graduate student. She's a good person and very, very funny.
ReplyDeleteYou make an important point Heather. I don't think the creation story of Genesis is meant to be interpreted literally. It's not the purpose of scripture to tell us how God created the world. Scripture's purpose is to tell us that this earth isn't an accident, that it is part of God's plan and that we are here for a reason. The remainder of scripture (and for me that's the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price) is to tell us how to live in order for us to live with God after we die.
Ammon, great conversation with you on the phone tonight. I wish Kyle and Heather could have joined us. Talking to you made me see just how little people know about what scientists actually do and how we do it. It's the fault of the scientists of course (and the media) and we have to do a better job of helping society understand the role that we play. In my short career as a research scientist I have only met people who are honest in their efforts to understand, in my case, immunology and virology. We check things six ways to Sunday to make sure the data holds up before we even think about publishing our findings. I'm sure we're not all that way but the ones I've worked with have been that way.
Troy, that's been my experience as well. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on why "theory" has a different meaning in the scientific world than in colloquial language. And also that scientists really are mostly just tring to find the truth in their small niche.
ReplyDeleteI think we're so sure that our data holds up before publishing because there is no greater shame than publishing false information. Your career can almost never recover.
I also don't believe Scripture is meant to explain everything to us. There's a reason it's called "Faith".
Well, I just kind of read through the whole post real quick, but I agree. I think if we believe in an omnipotent being such as God, then who are we to tell him how he can or cannot create things. I don't see anything that has to make God and scientific findings in regards to evolution mutually exclusive. I think they go together nicely. I do think that it's true that scientific insights can/do change, and it's probably foolish to think we have it all figured out. There is probably a whole lot more going on to how the world came to be etc. than we know now. And believing in God, I'm sure he has the full scope on how it all works.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that God operates within certain laws. I don't know if it's the laws of nature, since I tend to think that nature abides by his laws, but there is definitely order, and structure, and logic involved (which convinces me that earthly life is not just mere chance but would suggest a brain behind its making).
It's always weird to me when people feel that science cannot go hand in hand with religion. I've found so many studies that consistently seem to support religious principles...it just seems foolish to think they are opposites. After all, if God is in charge of the world, if his laws are indeed what is 'Truth' then it would only make sense that anything we research as scientific fact/'truth' should go hand in hand with what is ultimate 'truth', right?
Fran
Heather you mention one of the exact things that I was thinking about. The word "theory." The public believes this word to mean little more than an idea. I suppose that's a correct definition for the word but in science theory is so much more than just an idea. It's a concept that has continuously been supported by evidence. It's not like with enough evidence the concept of evolution will "graduate" to some higher level. A theory IS a high level.
ReplyDeleteThe theories of Einstein that you speak of in such a positive light Ammon WERE theories, ARE STILL theories, and will REMAIN theories. You call evolution a theory as if to brush the concept off as something that requires no further thought because 'that's nothing but a theory.' A concept that holds little merit would never earn the high status of scientific theory. So yes, evolution is a theory. But that word means alot more when used by scientists than the non-science world understands.
I think I get it, and I'm not really a scientist (at all). A scientific theory has and can withstand various testing, and has demonstrated consistency in results. It's not just a nice idea (which I think in science would be a hypothesis, of sorts?).
ReplyDeleteI do believe that a lot of the theories of our time will still be standing years from now. But, I also believe there are theories (in various fields) that will be changed/enlarged/newly encompassed by new theories in the future. I don't think that'll always mean that the end result is different, but our understanding of cause and effect may change or stuff like that. Anyway, I'm not a scientist, so I don't have much input.
All I know is that I haven't found/heard of much in science that I've found in any way in opposition to what I believe, and it's odd to me that so many religious people seem to find those two fields so mutually exclusive.
I'm always thrilled when I read about research in psychology (my field) that soooo goes hand in hand with Christian principles (like a study that showed that married, never divorced people show the highest level of satisfaction, followed by people who've never been married, followed by those once divorced, followed by those co-habitating!!!, followed by those twice divorced). If that isn't making a case for the sanctity of marriage...
Anyway,...
I believe that many of you have misunderstood my comments above. I wrote it quickly while at work. Let me simplify what I meant:
ReplyDeleteI believe that our understanding of Science is literally a fraction of a fraction of what God understands. And since we are ever learning and changing and adjusting our views based on the latest fad's in science I believe that it is a pointless effort to try to conform our religious beliefs to agree with the science of the day. That is what I meant to say.
Is it an interesting conversation? You bet, but in the end I believe it is worth nothing more than that.
Oh, by the way Troy, we, as a Church, do have an official stance on Evolution.
The official stance of the Church on Evolution given Nov 1909:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=55bf8c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."
You all can debate science and how it can be bent to fit our beliefs all you want. But I will stick to the above statement given by Pres. Joseph F. Smith and the First Presidency.
FYI:
ReplyDeleteThe Church republished that statement by the First Presidency in the Feb 2002 Ensign. So it isn't just an old and forgotten position.
Ammon, Ammon, Ammon. Buddy. Ol' Pal. You've got to dig a little deeper and not stop when you've found something that supports your opinion.
ReplyDeleteThat statement was added to just one year later in 1910 because church members still questioned the origin of man's PHYSICAL body. So the church published this:
Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, thru the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted thru sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."
That's not nearly as anti-evolution as the 1909 statement and actually presents three possible explanations for the creation of man's physical body - 1) evolution, 2) physical birth, 3) transplanation from another sphere. None of those are the typical "creationist" model. So the 1909 statement didn't resolve the controversy among church members and professors at BYU. In 1911, as it is today, evoltuion was being taught at BYU. Joseph F. Smith was vocal in his opposition to the theory of evolution but he said in 1911 that the church was "not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true and how much of it is false." That represents quite a change from the so-called "official stance" of the church from 1909.
In 1913 President Smith spoke at a conference in Arizona that "Adam, our earthly parent, was born of woman into this world." In 1925 the church, under Heber J. Grant, issued another "official" statement on evolution. Interestingly, the following words from the 1909 statement were removed in the 1925 statement:
“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of
the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.”
Through the 20s and 30s the topic became greatly contested between the different apostles and the church decided that the issue should be left alone. Thus the statement:
Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research,while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.
But by this time the feelings of President Smith and some earlier statements had already been published and become entrenched in the minds of the members. I think that, to this day, the church membership at large looks to that 1909 statement as the definitive position of the church and they don't bother to see how that statement (for lack of a better word) evolved over the next 10 years.
ReplyDeleteJames Talmage, an apostle at the time, reported in his journal that an unnamed member of the 1st presdency remarked: "sometime, somewhere, something should be said by one or more of us to make plain that the Church does not refuse to recognize the discoveries and demonstrations of science, especially in relation to the subject at issue.’
In the 1930s Talmage gave an address in the tabernacle titled "The Earth and Man." You'll never see such an address given in the tabernacle today. In this talk Talmage never specifically mentioned evolution but he did talk about scientific discoveries which demonstrate that primitive species gave rise to more complex species with aquatic species appearing first followed by land-based organisms. I'm not suggesting that Talmage's words constitute an official statement in support of evolution but it certainly argues that the church's position is not one that is opposed to evolution. This talk of Talmage's, by the way, was reprinted as recently as 1965 in a number of different church publications such as the Millenial Star.
Church historian James Allen believes that Talmage gave this talk at the request of the first presidency. We know that at least the first counselor in the 1st presidency and Joseph Fielding Smith were present in the audience and each offered their "tentative approval" of the discourse.
The most recent first presidency-approved statement on evolution comes in a packet designed to accompany the evolution course (yes, there's an entire course devoted to the subject) at BYU. This packet was specifically approved by the Board of Trustees which includes the first presidency. This packet includes the 1909, 1910, and 1925 official statements which appear to contradict one another slightly. Then the first presidency at the time offered this statement:
“Although there has never been a formal
declaration from the First Presidency addressing the general matter of organic evolution as a process for development of biological species, these documents make clear the official position of the Church regarding the origin of man”
So that was really long but you can't stop at the 1909 statement. The official stance of the church today, Ammon, is one of neutrality. That 1909 statement is no longer a representation of what the church, as a body, believes. And I think it's important the church separates the development of the mortal body and the origin of man. I think one deals with the physical body and one deals with our origin, our spirit body
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDeleteOk, so...I agree that God knows far more than man has, does and ever will. It certainly would be more than presumptious to assume that human science can ever create as much or more knowledge as God possesses. And, of course, because we're human and our learning and understanding is a process it'd be silly to think that we have a complete knowledge of anything.
BUT: how on earth is learning from science and about science equivalent to "You all can debate science and how it can be bent to fit our beliefs all you want"?
If I'm not mistaken, and I know I'm not, prophets and apostles have encouraged learning and not just from the scriptures. The pearl of great price has a verse saying that all things testify of God, things above, things underneath etc. If I'm to assume this scripture to be true, then it would make sense that everything in our world testifies of a divine creator. Therefore, learning about science, how the earth operates, etc. can be a great testimony of God. That has NOTHING to do with bending things to make them fit with your faith or using science to prove your religion.
Of course, in the end, religion will always be a matter of faith, and science has nothing to do with faith. No one will likely ever procure a proof of the existence of God, or other similar fundamental religious elements. But, just because of that doesn't mean that we can not only benefit from learning and studying secular knowledge, but that we ought to...and that those things can and will also testify of Gospel truths, and greatly enhance our understanding not only of temporal matters but eternal matters.
And to top it all off...your nice little quote is NOT an official stance. It is A stance. Period. Just because it was said by a prophet 100 years ago doesn't make it official as to what the Church believes today. There have been various changes in things that have come out of the mouths of prophets over the time - like Pres. Kimball claiming that homosexuality can be cured, and that the cause is immorality. Not a stance the Church has today AT ALL. So, which prophet is right? I could find you all kinds of statements from Apostles and Prophets on all kinds of issues that you'd probably never consider official Church views (like Pres. Kimball's comments in General Conference on hunting for sports, or Elder George A. Smith General Conference statement saying that Mohammed was raised up by God to scourge the world for their idolatry, and was teaching the moral principles the Savior taught, etc. - official Church stances? Probably more official than something from a New Era!).
Anyway. Does God's word and knowledge trump human word and knowledge. Of course. If someone isn't sure what to believe, they'd be better off sticking to the scriptures and the words of our current prophets. But really, I haven't found much scientific knowledge that has been incongruent with my beliefs.
Alright, I should add one more thing as well. Even if the Church republished the statement Ammon quoted, it doesn't say much about the Church's actual beliefs on evolution. All it says really is that we ought to consider Adam and Eve as our first parents, the first humans. Ok. No prob. I can do that. And, of course, the Church should make it clear that when in doubt, believe the Bible over some academic journal. However, I don't see how the statement excludes the possibility of evolution for humans. Maybe God didn't consider the apelike creatures, or the neantherthal (or however that's spelled in English) as valid humans. Maybe Adam came before them. Who knows. I definitely don't think we can make a sure claim that we have all the 'facts' based on our current scientific knowledge. But, I also don't see the problem with taking our current understanding to understand the workings of God as good as we can.
ReplyDeleteDitto to what Fran just said. The church's statements really only point out that Adam and Eve were the first beings that we consider human.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Ammon, following the 2002 reprint of the 1909 statement the First presidency received alot of mail asking for a clarification. That brethren responded by sending the BYU packet and stated that the BYU packed IS the church's official position. The BYU packet/official position includes these words:
"The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ... .
Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race"
So Ammon you can't claim that the 2002 Ensign article was meant to declare that the 1909 statement is THE definitive statement on evoltuion. I think there is truth in that statement but the fact that the 1925 statement, which removes the "these things are the theories of man" statement, is also included in the BYU packet is meant to indicate that the church has officially backed away from its earlier anti-evolution comments and now is completely neutral on evolution. Then there's the 1910 statement (included in the BYU packet) which clearly states that evolution is one possibility but that the issue hasn't been addressed in revelation received from God.
Ammon you mentioned on the phone that you are partial to the idea that God literally formed man from the dust of the earth. What do you make of that having no mention in the official statements from the church while evolution, transplantation from another world, and physical birth are all at least listed as possibilities?
Fran, I just re-read everything you said in your previous two comments and I 100% agree with every word. And you said it so much better than I could. This is a new feeling for me - agreeing so much with Fran and disagreeing with Ammon.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how urgent everyone is to discredit an OFFICIAL statement from the first presidency of the church. Language such as the statement being over a hundred years old and the fact that some BYU packet represents the church's stance.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of a time where BYU represented the church in any official capacity. BYU is a school and is supposed to teach multiple viewpoints. Otherwise it would be a faulty education.
In response to Fran, I absolutely agree that we should study every good thing. But I do not believe that means that everything we study is true or valuable. I can study occultism but that will never make it true. Heck I can even major in it at several university's.
Does evolution happen? Absolutely. I am not arguing that. My issue is believing that Macro-evolution (changing from one species to another) was the means of creating life on this earth. Despite the argument scientists have NEVER found factual evidence that one species has produced a new one in the natural environment, or in a lab in well over a hundred years!
You all call me out for quoting the leaders of our church yet nobody on this thread has discussed the many other theories that claim to prove Evolution to be a farce.
And you claim that I am not looking far enough?
Oh, and Troy, the answer to your question on the why I believe that man was formed from the dust of the earth: Because the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (both the books of Moses and Abraham) all agree on that one element of their individual recitations on the creation of the world.
Personally, and you just might agree, the scriptures ARE TRUE.
Now, I have a question. If you explain away creation with or as evolution, how in the world would god do the following?
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
-Gen 2:7
The breathing in the life of man is also found in all the references.
It was apparently the first presidency's own declaration that the BYU packet represents the church's official stance Ammon. Take it or leave it. So who cares if you've heard of it being done before. The reason that the BYU packet represents the church's official stance is that it's actually a collection of past official statements.
ReplyDeleteAmmon, you don't honestly expect me to believe that Genesis 2:7 is to be interpreted literally? One day in Genesis does not equal 24 hours. God did not actually take a rib from Adam to form Eve. You can find words from prophets to back that up. And God did not literally take dirt and form a man. It's a metaphor. The Old Testament is full of them (Lot's wife did not actually become a salt-lick) and especially the creation story. It's how God explains things to us that we wouldn't otherwise understand. Come on man. Breathing in the life of man has reference to God placing our spirit into the body. The reason that all 4 works of scripture would use that phrase is because all four works of scripture are from God and that's the analogy He has used to explain the creation of human life.
As for these other theories that claim evolution is a farce? I'm not aware of any opposing theory that has stood up to the rigors of scientific explanation and please don't go down the conspiracy route about scientists covering up opposing theories. Let's keep this discussion based in reality please.
Ammon, what kind of factual evidence do you need to convince you of macroevolution? For it to happen right in front of our very eyes? Because that will never happen. It would be the biggest thing to happen in science - ever - if man could replicate macroevolution in the lab in a paltry 100 years of research. There are a lot of holes in the field of macroevolution (as there are with all fields), but there is also a lot of evidence for it. But it sounds like you would like God to send down just one more text verifying that he indeed has master-minded evolution.
ReplyDeleteI guess my personal outlook is that studying the world God has given us is part of our job here.
By "farce", do you mean that people have been mistaken in their development of the theory, or that it is some vast plan to pull the wool over the collective eyes of the public? I know of no valid theories claiming evolution is a farce.
Scientists like Troy and I are rigorously trained in reporting what we see and observe, and making speculations and conjectures based on our observations. It is all peer-reviewed and available for public consumption. And believe me - I would love to be able to correctly claim someone's huge, well-accepted theory is incorrect. I would be famous! Well...a famous scientist.
I was going to write a comment again earlier on, but got side-tracked. Now I just ran by chance into this article. Not exactly the topic, but I thought it still fit well into this thread.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&sc=fb&cc=fp
I figured more stuff to stir the fire can't hurt, right? :)
You know Ammon I read that article from the Ensign and actually I agree completely with it. The section that we have disagreed on reads:
ReplyDeleteIt is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men”
There's nothing wrong with any of that. I don't think the sentence, 'These, however, are the theories of men' necessarily has to be interpreted to mean 'these are the theories of men and thus they are incorrect and evil.' Yes, evolution IS a theory of man as opposed to being revealed truth from God. Not all theories of man are wrong. To me this simply means that, as a theory of man, we are limited in our capacity to fully understand it and that we are at a disadvantage in that we will most assuredly get some of the details wrong.
Now, as for you bringing up that "breath life scripture" in Genesis - I steer away from looking to scripture to address the verity or fallacy of evolution because the scriptures were not written for that reason. The answer to that isn't in the scriptures. But if you'd like I can point you to a scripture that I think could be interpreted as hinting at an evolutionary process for the creation of species. Look to Moses chapter 2 verses 20 and 21. The phrase "which the waters brought forth abundantly" is interesting. Why would it say it that way - 'the waters brought forth' rather than 'God brought forth out of the water.'
See? The creation story in the scriptures is presented metaphorically and, with all metaphors, can be interpreted many different ways hence the fallacy of trying to find an answer to how God created the earth and life within the scriptural text.
Interesting conversation. I believe in evolution. My interpretation of the creation accounts support evolution. I have some reservations about following an evolutionary process out to include man, but I don't lose sleep over it either. If we evolved to our current state over millions of years, then so be it. I find this all very interesting, and I think it is an important topic, but I tend to not get too worried about what is right and wrong. However, I do appreciate that for the scientific community the theory of evolution has to be almost more fact than theory at this point (and frankly, it would be silly for it not to be). Again, I believe in God. I believe that God is the creator and that he created (or allowed) an evolutionary process. I'm not sure if that process went up to an included man, but it could have. I remain absolutely unconvinced that God created every different plant and living thing that exists on this planet. All of my reasoning, and we were given minds to reason, convinces me otherwise. He organized the process by which life could flourish and fulfill the measure of its creation.
ReplyDeleteAs an interesting side note, Charles Darwin was good friends with Charles Loring Brace. Brace would read the origin of man 13 times before he died. Darwin's work had a significant impact on Brace and the social scientists/social workers of his day - especially the theory of natural selection. This whole notion of looking at the person in their environment and trying to strengthen them for that environment stems from natural selection.
-Craig
OK, I do want to add a little more here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do not doubt that evolution currently occurs any more than I doubt the existence of subatomic particles. The evidence supports what cannot be observed with the naked eye. On the other hand, I do not believe that as a process evolution is always random. In fact, I believe that God uses and invisible hand to direct the process in creating life in His desired forms. God had a plan and I personally see no problem with him using the evolutionary process as the tool to in act that plan.
As humans we are able to participate in creation through pro-creation and in some senses even through the breeding of other species. I do not see this as sacrilegious, but see both pro-creation and the treatment of other life as sacred areas where we should tread lightly and respectfully of God, other people and all forms of life.
God may have used evolution in the initial creation of life, or parts of it. He may have miraculously created man/woman in another way. (that we are here at all is a miracle in my opinion) Certainly I cannot scientifically explain all miracles, nor do I feel compelled too. I have no problem either way, if God used evolution in the beginning or used some other mehtod.
For my own tangential aside, I want to bring up the concept of what it means to be a human being and that there are traits other than genetics that are passed between generations and essential to the process of natural selection and evolution. Perhaps we should begin looking at human human beings as being defined by something more than only a particular sequence of DNA, and contemplate all the traits and attributes that make us children of our Father.
Good addition to the thread Kyle. Just the other night Ammon and I were talking about this on the phone and I conceded that I break away from evolution when it comes to point of everything being random. I believe that it appears random to man because we are incapable of fully understanding the process. In reality, and we'll recognize this when we are perfected, if evolution or some variation thereof was utilized by God to create life it was not random at all. Again, it appears random to us because we are stuck only being able to see the here and now rather the whole picture, but it could not have been random because I do believe that there was a set purpose to it - namely, the formation of man; into which God could place our spirits.
ReplyDelete