What Needs Reconciliation?
When it comes to evolution, almost everybody in the church has an opinion of some sort. Some are for it, many againt it and other sit in an uncomfortable "undecided." The official position of the church regarding evolution is that they have on official position, a wise stance indeed. But this has not stopped people from saying a lot of things about it.
Some people have even gotten the false impression from some statements by general authorities that the church is decidedly against it, but such is not the case. These general authorities were against it, not the church. No church authority has claim revelation on the subject. Instead, they have claimed that revelation found in the scriptures are against it. Here is where this blog weighs in.
Evolutionary biology does seems to contradict scripture on many accounts. Let us take Elder Mc Conkie's article on the subject in his Mormon Doctrine where he lists off no less than 10 points of conflict:
Given these problems, it is easy to see why so many people do not accept evolution as valid. But here is the problem, evolution is valid. Anybody who doubts this can go to their local university library and read the tens of thousands of books written by responsible scientists on the subject.
If you do not believe in evolution, fine. The purpose of this blog is not to debate the validity of evolution, for we can plainly see that it is true. The theories validity will here be taken for granted and we will proceed to devise, critique and hopefully in the end accept a fully satisfactory reconciliation between the two. We will assume three things: 1) the main points of biological evolution are largly true, 2) the gospel is true and 3) a reconcilation can be made between the two, for truth is not self contradictory.
We will now proceed to devise, critique and hopefully in the end accept a fully satisfactory reconciliation between the two.
Summary:
Many church authorities have spoken many thing regarding evolution, both for it and against it. Those who spoke against it had reasons for doing so. Addressing these reasons is a suitable starting point in our quest for reconciliation.
Some people have even gotten the false impression from some statements by general authorities that the church is decidedly against it, but such is not the case. These general authorities were against it, not the church. No church authority has claim revelation on the subject. Instead, they have claimed that revelation found in the scriptures are against it. Here is where this blog weighs in.
Evolutionary biology does seems to contradict scripture on many accounts. Let us take Elder Mc Conkie's article on the subject in his Mormon Doctrine where he lists off no less than 10 points of conflict:
- The theory leaves no room for God
- The theory leaves no room for the pre-existence
- The theory denies that the earth was created in a paradisiacal state
- The theory denies that all things were created in am immortal state
- The theory leaves no room for the fall of Adam
- Since there is no fall there is no need for an atonement
- The theory teaches that first man was lower than us, not higher like Adam was supposed to be
- The theory denies the age of the earth as taught by the scriptures
- The theory denies the resurrection and future destiny of the earth
- The theory denies all things spiritual in general
Given these problems, it is easy to see why so many people do not accept evolution as valid. But here is the problem, evolution is valid. Anybody who doubts this can go to their local university library and read the tens of thousands of books written by responsible scientists on the subject.
If you do not believe in evolution, fine. The purpose of this blog is not to debate the validity of evolution, for we can plainly see that it is true. The theories validity will here be taken for granted and we will proceed to devise, critique and hopefully in the end accept a fully satisfactory reconciliation between the two. We will assume three things: 1) the main points of biological evolution are largly true, 2) the gospel is true and 3) a reconcilation can be made between the two, for truth is not self contradictory.
We will now proceed to devise, critique and hopefully in the end accept a fully satisfactory reconciliation between the two.
Summary:
Many church authorities have spoken many thing regarding evolution, both for it and against it. Those who spoke against it had reasons for doing so. Addressing these reasons is a suitable starting point in our quest for reconciliation.
posted by Jeff G at 8:31 AM
13 Comments:
Rusty,
I appreciate that. One thing that people just tend find simply unbearable is saying "I don't know." Most people I have found, would rather be wrong than admit ignorance. I consider this a virtue, the very virtue that Joseph possessed which which eventually lead to the restoration.
What I have noticed, however, is that in the evolution debates it is very difficult to really be content with "I don't know" on all accounts. It may be easy when one doesn't know much about it, but as one learns more about the issues at stake, it has been my experience that "I don't know" starts to become very unsatisfying.
Wow, Jeffery. I didn't realize you were ready to hit the pavement.
That's funny, I was going through Mormon Doctrine last night using it as a template for objections to evolution. I see you beat me to it.
Hi. I am an "unbeliever" who has been studying this issue for years. However, I will stick to doctrinal issues given the assumptions of your forum. I assume from previous experiences that LDS evolutionists believe that Adam's body descended from lower forms of life. If this is so, how did this body become "immortal" so that the transgression in the Garden brought death the the "species."
Greg,
This is good question, which will be addressed later in a post of its own. To start answering question, or presuming to do so, at this point to devalidate the whole point of creating a separate blog, and would ruin all the fun as well. :) Please keep checking back to see how things are going.
Great idea, guys, but it's a pretty narrow topic to try and post on regularly. I think you're going to run out of blog topics in about two weeks, although you can always import Panda's Thumb posts for filler material.
I like "Mormon Evolution" as a name, cutting out the "and" like in the URL. That kind of suggests a wider range of topics, including the evolution of Mormon doctrine in this but also in other areas.
Greg,
I have addressed that topic, though briefly at my other blog www.mormondoctrine.blogspot.com
Try these links:
This one has to do with the fall:
http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/03/fall.html
This one is just a speculative beginning to one theory:
http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolution-attempt-at-reconciliation.html
Keep in mind both are very speculative and not too well analyzed so don't get your hopes too high or come down on me too hard.
Dave,
Although things might change, our intention is that this will not be a fast moving blog. We want to explore issues in more depth than is done on most blogs. So hopefully we won't burn out quickly.
In the meantime, we'll keep our respective blogs going (Issues in Mormon Doctrine and LDS Science Review) and alert readers to new posts here.
Greg,
Try this article here recently published in Discover magazine:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html
The irreducible complexity arguments haven't really been solved by computer although computer "evolution" is certainly intriguing. But I don't think the computer programs will convince an IDer.
Of course in my mind if you accept ID, you've accepted most of evolution anyway, so it seems you've already resolved most of the possible theological issues. So at that stage, why adopt ID? Why not accept full blown macro-evolution?
What Clark says is true, that the article I posted will not convince IDer's, but it does show that random variation coupled with a struggle for survival can produce "irreducible complexity." The paper wasn't intended to convert IDer's, for the author believes that they really can't be converted. Instead it simply shows that their argument isn't all that valid. It was defensive more than offensive.
Perhaps a better site would be:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Irreducible_Complexity
Greg,
I think the ideas you attribute to Pres. Kimball are classic 19th century doctrine, but it's very interesting to see them expressed in the late 20th century.
What's your source for these statements by Pres. Kimball? I'd love to get a copy.
Greg, boy you seem more excited about this blog than we are. I appreciate your enthusiasm.
In this blog we are not going to be very dogmatic about which reconciliation is the best. Each person can review what we have said, offer suggestions or critiques like you have done and help contribute. In the end we might find one version of reconciliation which is head and shoulders above the others, then again we might not. In each reconcilation which is offered (we haven't even approached one yet and probably won't for at least a week to come) we will describe how well the model fits with the scientific evidence as well as Mormon doctrine.
Obviously the object is to retain as much of the traditional doctrine intact otherwise nobody in our audience will accept what we have to say. I personally don't think that we should throw away good solid reasoning and well established evidence only because of a verse or two which do not even claim to be revelation.
Clearly, I have a fairly liberal view of scripture (at least far more so than the average Mormon) and many will not be willing to make the dismissals I am. Thus, they may not be willing to accept the same theory of reconciliation as I am in the end.
But I do consider our traditional adherence to the standard works to be a bit overzealous at times. I believe it to be a sentiment inherited from protestant Christianity. While we often hear that revelations must be in harmony with the scriptures, I am far more comfortable with the 19th century statements to the effect that the scriptures must be in harmony with the revelations.
Greg,
With regards to your problems with blogger, I don't know what to tell you. Lately I have been having problems as well so it is not just on your end. Next time you do have troubles and accidently post the same comment four times could you delete the extras? I can do it myself, but like I said I am having problems of my own to deal with as well. Thanks.