Mormons and Evolution

Mormons and Evolution Has Moved

2006-03-23T17:19:00.000-08:00

Here is our new home.

Please update your links, bookmarks, post-it notes, and so forth.

The Failure of the Argument from Design

2006-01-25T15:30:00.000-08:00

As has been noted by some, the obstacles confronting intelligent design are not merely limited to scientific verifiability. In addition to the typical scientific objections to ID, which are myriad and persuasive, there are a number of philosophical issues which ID, as it is typically accepted, is simply unable to deal with. It has often been said that ID is not only terrible science (not science at all in fact) but it is ghastly theology as well. In this post I would like to make some of the less well known reasons for this explicit.

One of the main differences between intelligent design and Darwinian evolution is that while the latter is fully composed of what Aristotle would called ‘efficient causes,’ the former is principally composed of ‘teleological causes.’ In other words, ID’s central point is that the causes responsible for the biological world we now observe are goal or purpose driven while Darwinism maintains that entirely purposeless causes are fully sufficient to cover the appearances.

It is for this reason that ID is called ‘intellectualized creationism.’ The entire enterprise is centered on the ‘argument from design’ or the ‘teleological argument.’ It is my intention to provide an account of the principles involved in the argument from design, drawing upon William Paley’s “Natural Theology: Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature,” and expose its serious short comings.

Paley’s points are as follows:

We have the ability to recognize design when we see it. If on the beach we found a watch (he calls it a clock) next to a rock on the beach, we would easily be able to identify which of the two had been designed.

Natural phenomena such as our eyes, thumbs and noses are more like clocks than rocks.

Just as we are able to accurately infer the existence of a clock maker from the existence of a clock, we should also be able to infer the existence of an ‘eye-maker’ from the existence of eyes. While the maker of a clock need only be finite in nature, the designer of all these designed phenomena in nature must be infinitely wise and powerful.

Thus the only adequate source of such designed features as our noses being pointed down so that we wouldn’t drown from rain is God.

And now for the problems with such reasoning. Before continuing I would like to acknowledge that the ID movement does not insist that the ‘designer’ be infinite in anything, only that he be ‘intelligent’ in some form. However, this has not prevented most who adopt ID from accepting the infinite nature of the designer regardless. While most of these criticisms will apply to a finite designer as well, many will only apply to an infinite one. Like I said, it is the theological use of ID which I am principally concerned with.

The argument from designer violates Ockham’s razor, the principle of parsimony. It engages in serious explanatory overkill. While it may seem more natural to posit a designer, thanks to modern evolutionary theory, we really don’t need to. Without the principle of parsimony, no explanation which covers the appearances is any better than any other which also does. Jesse Prinz’s “theory” that birds are robots, which melt when they burn, were created by mad scientists from another planet and fly because they hang from ultra thin threads connected to spaceships that orbit the earth is just as good as the theory that they are animals which descended from dinosaurs that do not gestate their young. Without parsimony, these two theories are equally good. This argues strongly against (3).

Design need not come from above. In fact, it should not. If design can only be bestowed by an more-designed-Designer then we will have to explain how that more-designed-Designer got to be so designed in terms of an even-more-designed-Designer and so on ad infinitum. Thus, our explanation is heading in the wrong direction. This also argues against (3).

The entire argument depends upon the ability to infer certain characteristics about a cause from its effects. Such reasoning is incredibly unreliable. Are we supposed to be able to infer the properties of salt by the taste which is gives French fries? Such reasoning would never in a million years allow us to conclude that salt is composed of the metal sodium and the poisonous gas, chlorine. Again, this goes against (3).

Closely related, how in the world can anybody reasonably infer from finite effects that the cause must have been infinite? This is not just a case of going beyond what is necessary, but is in fact a case of going against reason to establish a desired conclusion. Hume put it best in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” where he asks if the designer could not have been stupid, or wicked, or a committee or simply vastly-but-not-infinitely powerful. All of these possibilities are actually MORE reasonable given the appearances which must be accounted for than is the all-wise, all-loving conclusion. This is a brutal blow against (4).

The argument from design engages is HIGHLY biased data selection. Sure, when flowers are blooming and suns are setting its easy to be caught up in the awe of it all. But what about when tsunamis and hurricanes hit? What about famine and disease? What about birth defects? What about the obvious injustice of the wicked prospering while the righteous dwindle in utter poverty? What about all the horrible our simply stupid cases of design we observe in the biological world? If these imply a Designer then it must be a relatively stupid or malevolent one. This works strongly against (3). (It should be also kept in mind that we simply can’t say “well, we simply don’t know about these cases” because if such is the case, then we really don’t know about any of the cases and we shouldn’t be using the argument from design at all.)

The problem is that most IDers believe that EVERYTHING, not just some things, shows design. God, sorry, the Designer designed everything including the rocks. This undermines (1).

Issue is not simply one of design vs. non-design. Instead, follow Michael Ruse, the issue would be better phrased as an issue of chaos vs. complexity vs. design. It is not so easy to distinguish chaos from complexity or complexity from design as it is chaos from design and Paley does us a great disservice by ignoring this point. This also works against (1).

Consequently, thumbs, while they may resemble clocks more than rocks, do not really resemble either very well. Nobody has ever seen a rock come into existence, loosely speaking. Lots of people have seen how clocks come into existence, namely by a clock-maker. Lots of people have also seen how thumbs, eyes and noses come into existence, namely by the birth of an organism. This final example shows how biological entities cannot be considered to be rocks or clocks, not by a long shot. This seriously undermines (2).

The argument from design attempts to show that since biological phenomena are not chaos then they must be design, but such is not the case. Biological phenomena, as we have seen, do not suitably fall into the same categories as rocks or designed artifacts. Instead they are something different from both categories and Darwin proposed what is so far the only suitable mechanism for this third category “complexity.” Inheritance of information by birth simply cannot be equated with design, nor does it imply it at all. This too speaks against (2).

Darwinian evolution (which is uncontroversially true to at least some extent) suggests that the equivalent of upside-down happens all the time. The appearances are equally compatible with the proposition that some individuals, in the beginning, were created with upside-down noses, but those people all drown some time in the past, leaves us “right-side-upers” to marvel at the benevolence of the creator. This, however, tells us more about us than the creator. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is uncontroversially true to some extent. (3) is again under attack.

Finally, and a little off topic, the argument from design to the existence of God, rather than a mere designer, simply does not work. Just because some entity designed this world and even us is no reason whatsoever to suppose that this Designer is deserving or desiring of worship. Of course this argument against (4) only goes to show the underlying motives which trump the inadequate reason involved in ID reasoning.

For all of these reasons, which are in addition to the typical scientific objections, perhaps it is time we all got off the ID train.

The Relevance to Evolution of Brigham’s Science-friendly Statements

2006-01-25T12:31:00.000-08:00

Jared has a nice post on the changing publication history of a very interesting quote from Brigham Young, and Jeffrey and Clark give some other interesting statements of Brigham’s. No question it’s gratifying to perceive support for one’s own sympathies for science in general, and interpretational flexibility of Genesis in particular, from someone of Brigham's stature; but there are some reasons for enthusiasts of naturalistic evolution to not to get too excited.

First, Clark italicizes a statement that, taken out of the context of the totality of Brigham’s thought, seems open to evolution; but Brigham surely did not intend it as such. In saying “Our spirits are His: He begot them. We are His children; He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles,” the ‘setting in motion’ Brigham had in mind could only have been the initial procreation by divine beings of the first parents of the human race, and not the initiation of naturalistic evolution by the creation of rudimentary single-celled (or even sub-cellular) life.

Second, the full statement Clark cited has potentially conflicting ideas on God being subject to natural law and God decreeing natural law, and also gives some ammunition to Intelligent Design advocates. Says Brigham,

But it is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law.

So far, so good; sounds like God as Engineer. But then he immediately says

It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author. … It is strange that scientific men do not realize that, all they know is derived from Him; to suppose, or to foster the idea for one moment, that they are the originators of the wisdom they possess is folly in the highest!

Here Brigham is either not recognizing a distinction between God as Engineer and God as First Cause, or is at least denying man’s ability to discover the regularities of nature through the scientific method without divine inspiration. Finally, a general teleological argument:

As for ignoring the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being, I would as soon ignore the idea that this house came into existence without the agency of intelligent beings.

For more on the distinction between God as First Cause and God as Engineer, and the styles of arguments from design they respectively inspire, see this post.

Finally, with regard to the ultimate relevance of Jared’s well-done and much-appreciated detective work: when it comes to what people and organizations take as religious doctrine, older and original are not always deemed more true. In fact, the opposite may be true. (This is contrary—not inappropriately, for science of course, and perhaps also for a religion with acknowledged infallible authorities and an open canon—to the usual values historians deploy in plying their craft.) We applaud Brigham for applying this principle in recognizing the limitations of the creation account in Genesis, by taking account of what we ‘know’ today—either by science or revelation/inspiration—that previous prophets did not. However, this freedom to set aside older statements is a two-edged sword: we may be less excited about the contemporary Church availing itself of this principle in selecting for current consumption only the portions of Brigham’s statements that are today considered good doctrine by the current presiding authorities.

Elder Boyd K. Packer on Evolution

2006-01-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

Elder Boyd K. Packer has commented on evolution on a number of occasions. Below I provide relevant excerpts from all of the talks that I am aware of where he makes reference to evolution either explicitly, or where it could reasonbly be inferred. Most of the talks were given in General Conference--a few were given at BYU. As an exception, I do not provide any text from "The Law and the Light," because the whole talk is dedicated to the topic. A link is provided instead.

For the most part, Elder Packer's talks really seem less to do with evolution than with morality. The recurring theme of his comments is that we are not merely animals, but children of God with divine potential and are governed by moral laws. Many of Elder Packer's statements are actually directed toward a certain philosophy, not science itself. Unfortunately, the average reader may not realize the distinction.

"The Law and the Light" deserves a post of its own, but for now a summary must suffice. This talk makes clear that Elder Packer views the application of evolution to humans as false, yet he also seems to reject the label of "creationist." He declares that he does not know how the creation (including that of man) was accomplished or how long it took. He also leaves the door open for the application of evolutionary theory to animals. Furthermore, he encourages scientific study.

"No Latter-day Saint should be hesitant to pursue any true science as a career, a hobby, or an interest, or to accept any truth established through those means of discovery. Nor need one become a scientist at the expense of being a Latter-day Saint of faith and spiritual maturity."

Again in this talk, discussion of evolution is overshadowed by the reaffirmation of basic gospel truths, especially the existence of conscience and moral law.

Excerpts from Elder Packer's talks are easily used as blunt instruments which may polarize rather than persuade. When given additional context and taken as a whole, I think they allow for more latitude than is initially apparent. If they are approached with an acceptance and belief in God, the Atonement, moral law, and accountability, the tension with science largely (though not entirely) dissolves. Instead of attacks on evolution the statements become testimonies of spritual and moral truths, and a caution against adopting a certain philosophy based on, but not actually a part of, science.

Elder Packer desires that "there be no “evolutionists” nor “creationists” nor any manner of “ists”; just seekers after truth" (4). Although disagreements are bound to occur, this statement suggests that discussion ought to proceed without insult to either intellect or testimony.

----------------------------------------------------

Excerpts:

1. Nov 1984, The Pattern of Our Parentage. (Note that in #4 Elder Packer appears to be more open to the evolution of animals.)

"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?"

2. Nov 1986, Little Children

"This secular doctrine holds that man is not a child of God, but basically an animal, his behavior inescapably controlled by natural impulse, exempt from moral judgments and unaccountable for moral conduct. While many claim that this philosophy could not, in the end, lead mankind to relaxed moral behavior, something causes it! Is it accidental that the more widely such secular doctrines are believed, the more prevalent immoral behavior becomes?

They defend their philosophy with collected data and say, “It is now proven to be true. Look at all the evidence on our side.”

We in turn point to the sorry way in which mankind degrades procreation and the attendant suffering of both children and adults and say, “Look at all the evidence on our side.”

Secular doctrines have the advantage of convincing, tangible evidence. We seem to do better in gathering data on things that can be counted and measured. Doctrines which originate in the light, on the other hand, are more often supported by intangible impressions upon the spirit. We are left for the most part to rely on faith. But, in time, the consequences of following either will become visible enough."

3. May 1988, Atonement, Agency, Accountability

"We are taught in Genesis, in Moses, in Abraham, in the Book of Mormon, and in the endowment that man’s mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation. Had the Creation come in a different way, there could have been no Fall. If men were merely animals, then logic favors freedom without accountability.

How well I know that among learned men are those who look down at animals and stones to find the origin of man. They do not look inside themselves to find the spirit there. They train themselves to measure things by time, by thousands and by millions, and say these animals called men all came by chance. And this they are free to do, for agency is theirs.

But agency is ours as well. We look up, and in the universe we see the handiwork of God and measure things by epochs, by eons, by dispensations, by eternities. The many things we do not know we take on faith.

But this we know! It was all planned before the world was. Events from the Creation to the final, winding-up scene are not based on chance; they are based on choice! It was planned that way.

This we know! This simple truth! Had there been no Creation, no Fall, there should have been no need for any Atonement, neither a Redeemer to mediate for us. Then Christ need not have been."

4. Oct 1988, The Law and the Light, published in 1990 in Jacob through Words of Mormon: To Learn with Joy.

5. Nov 1990, Covenants

"Little do we realize what we have brought upon ourselves when we have allowed our children to be taught that man is only an advanced animal. We have compounded the mistake by neglecting to teach moral and spiritual values. Moral laws do not apply to animals for they have no agency. Where there is agency, where there is choice, moral laws must apply. We cannot, absolutely cannot, have it both ways.

When our youth are taught that they are but animals, they feel free, even compelled, to respond to every urge and impulse. We should not be so puzzled at what is happening to society. We have sown the wind, and now we inherit the whirlwind. The chickens, so the saying goes, are now coming home to roost."

6. March 1992, "The Fountain of Life," 18-Stake BYU fireside, published in Things of the Soul. (Note the similarity to #7.)

"The knowledge that we are the children of God is a refining, even an exalting truth. On the other hand, no idea has been more destructive of happiness, no philosophy has produced more sorrow, more heartbreak, more suffering and mischief, no idea has contributed more to the erosion of the family than the idea that we are not the offspring of God, but only advanced animals. There flows from that idea the not too subtle perception that we are compelled to yield to every carnal urge, are subject to physical but not to moral law.

The man-from-animal theory has been passed about enough to be pronounced true on the basis of general acceptance. Because it seems to offer logical explanations for some things, it is widely taught and generally accepted as the solution to the mystery of life.

I know there are two views on the subject. But it is one thing to measure this theory soley against intellectual or academic standards, quite another to measure it against moral or spiritual or doctrinal standards.

When the theory that man is the offspring of animals is planted in young minds, it should be accompanied by careful instruction to set it in isolation in the garden of the mind until faith is well rooted. Otherwise, seeds of doubt may spring up and choke out the seedling of faith, and the harvest will be bitter fruit and the giver will have served the wrong master."

7. May 1992, Our Moral Environment

"No idea has been more destructive of happiness, no philosophy has produced more sorrow, more heartbreak and mischief; no idea has done more to destroy the family than the idea that we are not the offspring of God, only advanced animals, compelled to yield to every carnal urge."

8. November 1993, "The Great Plan of Happiness and Personal Revelation," CES fireside, published in Things of the Soul. (Note the similarity to #4.)

"We may safely study and learn about the theories and philosophies of men, but if they contradict the plan of redemption, the great plan of happieniess, do not "buy into" them as truth. If you do, you may be putting a mortgage on your testimony, on your knowledge of premortal life, on the creation of man, on the Fall and the Atonement, on you Redeemer, the Resurrection, and exaltation; for "every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Matthew 15:13).

If you "buy into" the philosophies of men, you may have your testimony repossesed. Your respect for moral law may go with it, and you will end up with nothing."

Two Classes of Argument from Design, Which Both Fail

2006-01-13T10:42:00.000-08:00

In a recent post that took Alma’s encounter with Korihor as a springboard, my discussion of the possible evolution of Joseph’s views on the nature of God turned on the assumption that Alma’s argument from design points to a kind of God—which for convenience I will call God as First Cause—who is somehow outside the universe, and logically prior to its natural laws, and therefore the ultimate potentiator of the universe’s observed order. I mentioned parenthetically that it was debatable whether Alma’s argument took this form, and invited commenters to call me on it, but no one did. Hence I take it upon myself to clarify the matter by pointing out that there is a second type of teleological argument, and that it is not clear which Alma had in mind. Then I do that effort at clarification the dubious honor of rendering it moot on the larger issue: while it might make some difference for how we interpret the evolution of Joseph’s theology, when it comes to evidence for God it doesn’t really matter which type of argument Alma (or Joseph writing Alma) had in mind (or if he even thought carefully enough to distinguish them), because they both fail—leaving us, in the end, with the testimony of direct experience as the only potential evidence for God’s existence.

The version with God as First Cause takes the apparent messiness of nature as a starting point, and proceeds to the uncovering of simple laws that give rise to these complicated phenomena. It is then the simple underlying universal laws—rather than the complicated phenomena—that are taken to be the hidden manifestation of God’s wisdom. A possible example of this might be Kepler’s faith-shaking discovery that—horror of horrors!—planetary orbits are ugly ellipses with varying speed, rather than uniform circular motion pure and undefiled. Perhaps this result was rendered more palatable to some—which is to say, more consonant with alleged divine æsthetic sensibilities—by Newton’s derivation of a single set of beautiful laws to unify not only different kinds of orbits, but also terrestrial gravitational and projectile phenomena. Here, underlying the bewildering diversity of phenomena, was the hidden simplicity worthy of divine wisdom.

This argument is turned on its head in the other class of argument from design. In this version, simplicity is not the hallmark of God’s handiwork, but marvelous complexity. Simple laws are not the manifestation of the mind of God, since these alone can lead to meaninglessly messy behavior; the real genius is in the use of these laws—whether by setting up special initial conditions, or through more prolonged regulating interventions—to bring about his purposes. In this more organizational version of creation, instead of God as First Cause we have God as Engineer. (If it were not so unwieldy and inflammatory, we might also say God as Most Excellent Advanced Alien Technologist.)

This perspective of God as First Cause has a grave difficulty. What does it mean to say something outside the universe interacts with it? Considering God outside the universe seems to be nonsensical; the right thing to do is expand one’s definition of the universe to include everything that interacts with us, including God. Similar comments apply to alleged non-material entities like souls (or God himself): if it interacts with our physical bodies, it too ought to be defined as material. Moreover, on what basis could this God’s actions be judged good, or even be orderly, except by fidelity to some set of principles external to himself?

Mormons who believe in God as Engineer—a finite and embodied God within the universe, the nature of whose existence depends on laws and order bigger than him and beyond his control—can be justifiably proud of escaping the above-mentioned (and other) dilemmas presented by God as First Cause. They can also avoid a problem facing religionists who, in accepting something like Intelligent Design, believe in both God as First Cause and God as Engineer: If complex things like human bodies must be designed, and the designer is also a complex thing, then who designed the Designer? Even those Mormons disinclined to attribute the origin of humanity’s physical body to an infinite regression of physically procreating Gods can nevertheless hijack the basic concept and renovate it as an infinite regression of designers.

But God as Engineer faces another problem that not even Mormons can avoid: the reality that we have both theoretical and empirical examples of systems in which random initial conditions can give rise, without intelligent intervention, to ‘special’ outcomes that are both orderly and complicated. There are multiple mechanisms for this; I will mention two examples.

One class of order without intelligent intervention might be called ‘specialness amidst randomness,’ arising from the presence of a statistical ensemble with variations in properties. An example here is planetary systems, of which 150 or so have been detected since the first discovery about a decade ago. None of these systems have conditions similar to Earth suitable for life. It is almost certain that this results from a known observational selection effect, but observing the degree of variety we have so far, it is clear that fundamental natural laws are not sufficient to ensure that all planetary systems have suitable conditions like those of our solar system. But the point nevertheless remains that there are billions and billions of planetary systems out there, and given observationally plausible ranges of conditions, it would be surprising indeed if none of them had suitable conditions. Hence regardless of whether Alma means that divinely ordained fundamental laws on the one hand (God as First Cause) or divinely arranged initial conditions on the other (God as Engineer) are responsible for the “regular form” of our planetary system’s motions, he is dead wrong in asserting to Korihor that it constitutes an evidence of God’s existence.

A second class of order without intelligent intervention—which might be called ‘specialness from randomness’—is exemplified by nonlinear dynamical systems with ‘attractors,’ that is to say, systems that deterministically drive arbitrary initial conditions to one of a few special ‘final’ conditions (manifolds of bounded volume with smaller dimensionality than the entire dynamical phase space). Philosophically similar to this—if less mathematically clean—may be evolution, which in Darwin’s view involves the channeling and ratcheting, via natural selection, of arbitrary variations in species characteristics into certain obviously useful features: eyes, for instance, which I gather have been shown by genetic evidence to have independently evolved several times, by different paths from different initial conditions, to functionally similar ‘attracting’ final states.

Does Alma’s argument from design refer to God as First Cause or God as Engineer? The fact that it is more offhand reference than sustained argument means that it’s difficult to say—and difficult even to tell if Alma (or his creator) had thought carefully about it at the time the statement was authored. Alma’s statement has two parts: a general reference to “all things,” and a more specific reference to the regular motion of our planets. Each part could arguably be motivated by either of the two styles, though I tend to think the first reference to “all things” sounds more like God as First Cause, and the second to planets in their “regular form” like God as Engineer. (Note that in arguing for an evolution of Joseph’s conception of God I deftly combined the two parts to slant interpretation of the combined argument towards “God as First Cause.”)

However the conclusion is that neither style of teleological argument from design for God’s existence holds water. To make an analogy admittedly more poetic than strictly accurate, the fact that certain texts are attributed to, say, Aaron B. Cox is not sufficient to establish Mr. Cox's existence. And works alleged by some to depend on God’s intervention—like the creation of Earth and life upon it, or the Book of Mormon—may be similarly pseudepigraphic. (The analogy is deficient because, having observed that most texts arise from human authors, it is most likely that texts attributed to Mr. Cox were also written by some human. But since we have no clear examples of intelligent minds creating either individual organisms or large-scale biospheres, no ‘watchmaker’ argument can be made remotely rigorous, and every example of ‘specialness from randomness’ renders such less necessary—and perhaps, in combination with observations of biological deficiencies and exaptations, less plausible as well.)

Hence scriptural statements connecting God with creation cannot be understood as arguments for his existence. Given other reasons to believe in him—presumably, direct experience with him or his heavenly messengers—such scriptural statements then, and only then, may tell us something about the nature of our relationship to him, and perhaps also something about his and our natures. To the extent Joseph is responsible for the content of the Lectures on Faith, he deserves credit for reflecting this perspective. And to Alma’s credit, his rebuttal to Korihor started off well, with reference to the testimonies of the prophets and other saints; it’s just that that’s where he should’ve stopped!

Response to God and science

2006-01-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

Since Geoff B mentioned me by name, I feel inclined to respond. Statements from his post are in italics, and my responses follow.

As an example of how God might fit into scientific articles, consider articles about the origin of life on earth. There could be a whole array of scientific hypotheses put forward, all of which could lead to scientific tests, especially in the field of genetics.

As I look over Pratt’s list that follows this statement they all seem, contrary to what Pratt says, either untestable at present with little hope for future testability, barring God’s detailed and public disclosure of his role (b through d, g and h); or falsified, with regard to organisms’ physical bodies (e and f).

A refusal by the scientific world to accept God in any of its respected experiments these days makes for incomplete studies and false science.

Science does not include God in its hypotheses because no one has discovered indications of his actions that are sufficiently precise, testable, and publicly shareable to be amenable to the methodology of science. The range of questions that can be addressed by science is obviously limited (though it has grown steadily over time), and in this respect science is certainly “incomplete.” But that in no way makes it “false.”

As any student of the history of science will know, Sir Isaac Newton and even Einstein accepted the existence of a Creator.

Neither man accepted an anthropomorphic, embodied God. I think for Newton, infinite and absolute space and time (that is, the entire ‘stage’ on which everything plays out) were essential aspects of God’s very being. As far as Einstein goes, one quote I quickly found through Google put it this way:

He rejected the conventional image of God as a personal being, concerned about our individual lives, judging us when we die, intervening in the laws he himself had created to cause miracles, answer prayers and so on. Einstein did not believe in a soul separate from the body, nor in an afterlife of any kind…

…he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science…

…it seems likely that he believed in a God who was identical to the universe—similar to the God of Spinoza. [!] A God whose rational nature was expressed in the universe, or a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together.

I don’t think Mormons can really look to either of these guys for support in specific theology, or that creationists of any stripe can point to them in support of their perverse notions of science pedagogy. That they had interests and perspectives that included things beyond science is a good example for all of us, but says nothing about what should be in science classes—which, after all, is only one slice of life. Ironically, by insisting on including God in science classes, creationists may have already given in or sold out: they shoot themselves in the foot by implicitly conceding and adopting the point of view that the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, insight, happiness, and so on.

Do they honestly believe that the study of science in a Millennial world will be the same as it is now?

If there is open communion with the heavens in a Millenial world then yes, the range of questions addressable by science will be expanded, because there will then be precise, testable, and publicly shareable indications about God’s nature and his past and current involvement with Earth and humanity.

And, lastly, if science classes are incomplete without factoring in the “God factor” in their experiments, isn't there room for at least bringing that up in evolution or astronomy classes?

I think science classes should reflect the content and methods of mainstream professional science, with protracted discussions of its limitations and alternative putative ways of knowing left to other areas of the curriculum (philosophy, “Guidance” class as they call one subject in our local district, etc.), and to other venues (churches, books, blogs, seminars by charismatic circuit tour speakers…)

In this connection I am against the inclusion of so-called ‘teach the controversy’ approaches involving Intelligent Design in science classes, because this does not reflect mainstream science. However such discussions may have a useful place in classes on philosophy, social studies, science and society, etc.

Having said that, I do not think claims should be overstated in science classes, and I do not think all subjects should be taught at all levels, and this leads me to a particular kind of science pedagogy I think should prevail. What belongs in science classes are tested hypotheses for which the students are capable of understanding the nature of the tests. Because I think science classes should leave students with a ‘feel’ for the practice of science, even more than filling their brains with specific facts, I think it would be poor science pedagogy to present even well-established conclusions of professional scientists at a point before students can have some understanding of how those conclusions were arrived at. This approach would, to some extent at least, both allow and teach students to evaluate evidence for themselves. Adherence to this approach would also serve as a prophylactic against the temptation to bandy about the latest and greatest hypotheses at the margins of knowledge before they are tested—as often happens in the media—which often leads to the unfortunate false impression that science is continually overturning itself, when in fact there is steady accumulation of well-established facts and ‘laws,’ and new theories reduce to well-established old ones in the limited conditions addressed by the old theories.

[This is cross-posted from The Spinozist Mormon. Please go to the original post to comment.]

Do all things denote there is a God?

2006-01-13T10:28:00.000-08:00

Suggesting a resonance with the Intelligent Design approach to biology, Matt Evans mentions Alma’s teleological argument to Korihor in Alma 30: the observed order, or “regular form,” of “all things” shows there is a God. There are questions, however, as to whether Alma’s argument is consistent with Joseph Smith’s mature views on the nature of God, and also with the ancient Hebrew worldview from which Nephite culture sprang.

Is God (a) somehow outside the universe and responsible for its laws and its order, or (b) a finite and embodied being within the universe, the nature of whose existence depends on laws and order bigger than him and beyond his control?

I think most Mormons would say Joseph believed (b) during the Nauvoo era. But an early (I think the 1832) account of the First Vision, in which he marveled at the heavens in language somewhat like Alma’s—and also language in D&C 88—may suggest he believed something more like (a) in his earlier years. It would not be surprising if Joseph had been exposed to teleological arguments in, for example, the youth debating club he participated in, mentioned by Richard Bushman in his books on Joseph.

To the extent Alma’s statement represents (a) (this may be debatable—I leave it for commenters to explain why), how to account for its difference from and possible incompatibility, or at least tension, with (b)? One possibility is that Alma did not know as much as Joseph Smith about the nature of God and eternity. This seems plausible; we know from Alma’s teachings to Corianton that Alma did not know as much about the afterlife as Joseph came to know. But a second possibility is that Joseph is the true author of Alma’s argument, and that it therefore reflects Joseph’s early beliefs rather than those of ancient prophet. (Similarly, in this scenario Alma’s hazy picture of the afterlife could be a reflection of Joseph’s haziness on the matter prior to the reception of D&C 76.)

A reason to prefer the theory that Joseph is the source of the Alma’s teleological argument can be derived from a recent post by Jim F. by way of background on the Old Testament. (The responsibility for this use of Jim’s post is mine; he may well not endorse the argument I make here.) Jim describes the very different way ancient Hebrews wrote history: the existence of God and his action in the world was a universal assumption brought to both the writing and the reading of literature, to the extent that to write a meaningful history was to describe God’s involvement in the events of the world. An argument like Alma’s seems completely out of place in such a narrative tradition, in which God’s existence is not something to be argued for, but instead is an unconscicous necessity before a text can even be meaningful. Alma’s argument is much more comfortably situated as a typical believing response, characteristic of Joseph Smith’s era, to issues raised by the Enlightenment.

As a parting comment, I note that Joseph’s mature Mormonism, embracing (b), seems in important ways to be philosophically much closer to atheism than traditional Christianity, which embraces (a). This may be a reason why Mormons imbued with (b) who leave Mormonism tend to become atheist or agnostic rather than active in a denomination of traditional Christianity.

[This is cross-posted from The Spinozist Mormon. Please go to the original post to comment.]

Origin of the Origin of Man

2006-01-05T00:00:00.000-08:00

1909 marked the centennial of Charles Darwin's birth and the semicentennial of the publication of Origin of Species. According to Gary James Bergera,

Seven months after the Darwin centennial, and perhaps in response to questions raised during the Darwin celebration [apparently at BYU - M&E], the First Presidency of the LDS church, consisting of life-long Mormon official Joseph F. Smith and counselors John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund, asked Apostle Orson F. Whitney to draft an official statement on the "origin of the physical man." A special committee of apostles corrected Whitney's text, which was then read to the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles, was "sanctioned by them" as "the official position of the church," and appeared in the November 1909 issue of the official Improvement Era.

James Talmage, not yet an apostle, was also involved in the drafting of the statement.

Interestingly, the 1909 statement draws on an article previously written by Orson F. Whitney and published in the Contributor in 1882. (Contributor, vol. 3 (October 1881-September 1882) June, 1882. No. 9.) In that article, Whitney discussed the absurdity of both evolution and creation ex nihilo. The end of the article is quite similar to the end of the 1909 statement.

Below I have formatted the passage to show the changes made to the 1882 paragraph.

"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims] [m]an is [to be] the direct [and lineal] offspring of Deity~~, of a being who is the Begetter of his spirit in the eternal worlds, and the Architect of his mortal tabernacle in this~~. God himself is an exalted man, ~~possessing body, parts and passions, refined and developed to the highest state of perfection~~ [perfected, enthroned, and supreme]. [By His almighty power] He organized the ~~world~~ [earth] and all that it contains, from ~~matter; from ever-living~~ spirit and ~~everlasting~~ element, which exist co-eternally with [H]imself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after ~~the image of~~ its own kind, ~~and determined the fixity of their respective species.~~ [spiritually and temporally--"that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual."] He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant,; but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Monkeys are the offspring of monkeys, and have been from time immemorial. Hybrids may appear, but they are without the power to propagate. There is no instance on record where a baboon ever evolved into a human being, and science in attempting to unearth a "missing link" which it is claimed will connect mankind with monkeykind, is like a blind man hunting through a haystack to find a needle which isn't there. [Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its "distinct order or sphere," and will enjoy "eternal felicity." That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (Doctrine and Covenants, 77:3).]

[new paragraph]~~For~~ [M]an is the child of God, ~~fashioned in His~~ [formed in the divine] image and endowed with ~~His~~ [divine] attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father [and mother] is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable ~~in due time of becoming~~[, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into] a God."

Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution

2005-12-01T13:31:00.000-08:00

While some theories may be backed by what appears to be science, this does not in any way make that theory itself scientific.  Take for instance global warming.  This theory is backed by huge amounts of research with numerous lines of evidence converging upon the same conclusion.  Nevertheless, “global warming” is not a scientific theory or model by any means, it is a political movement.  The same can be said for the modern Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

While I shall leave the discussion of why this is so for another time, I would like to dedicate the rest of this post to clarifying what other wise seem to be the rather blurry lines which separate ID, formerly known a scientific creationism, from both Theistic Evolution (TE) and Evolutionary Creationism (EC).  Many, in fact most, assume that these three models (not scientific models mind you) are basically the same thing or at minimum have a good deal of overlap with each other.  I will attempt to show that while these models do have their similarities and points of contact with each other, they are actually quite distinct from one another.

The reason for the confusion lies in the belief that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  In other words, since I believe in a Creator God and a fully naturalistic version of Neo-Darwinism denies such, anybody who disagrees with such a model must be on my side.  Accordingly, essentially every flavor of creationist has jumped on the ID band wagon, oft times without so much as asking themselves what it is that ID allows and rejects.

ID, as it presented by Michael Behe and company does not allow for a young earth.  Nor does it hold out for a separate creation of species, including that of humans.  In fact, I can’t think of a single system or organ which is claimed to have been intelligently designed which is unique to humans.  Nor does the theory deny that natural selection as a process does have a significant amount of creative power.  It simply points out that some unspecified organs or systems could not have been produced without intelligent foresight.  That’s it. All these points should make ID supporters far more nervous than they seem to be.

Thus, all young earth creationists cannot wave the banner of ID.  Nor can anybody who insists upon holding out for special and separate creations of species.  This, I assume, covers at least half of those who are so vigilant in their political activism in this matter.  Of course these discrepancies tend not to bother these people in so much as they are happy to have the mere mention of a Creator (Intelligent Designer? C’mon.) in the account of creation.  While they might not accept all of ID, they at least consider it a step in the right direction.

Here I simply can’t help but sidetrack and ask if this really sounds like science to anybody at all.  Parties putting forth preconceived theories without any appeal to falsifiable evidence which can distinguish them from any others and in the end reaching a tentative compromise in order to promote what are common in their different agendas?  People supporting supposedly scientific models based not on what the theory says itself but on what it says against another model?  People voting on what is science?  Politicians’ opinions serving as a substitute for the scientific method?  When was the last time anybody ever saw a debate in a physics, chemistry or biology class?  Contrary to popular opinion, the debate is being taught… to grad students and those who are well informed enough to have informed opinions on the matter.  What kind of class “teaches the debate” in high school?  A humanities class, that’s what kind.  The same kinds of classes that the politicians and lawyers, but not the scientists are accustomed to. But I have digressed.

Having shown how ID differs from the less sophisticated versions of creationism, we should also proceed to show how it differs from other more scientific versions of creationism.  Theistic Evolution maintains that evolution is “the pen which God used to write the book of life” so to speak.  It comes in two varieties.  First, Deistic Evolution (DE) states that God created the world and its laws knowing what would evolve and therefore had no reason to ever interfere with the process of creation.  The other version is that of Evolutionary Creationism which holds that God somehow guided evolution in some undisclosed way.  Both versions accept what ID denies, namely macroevolution.

Part of the appeal which TE offers to the scientific mind is that it makes no claims whatsoever to actually being science.  It offers no theories whatsoever as to how, where or when divine intervention played a role in the creative process.  It simply accepts that it did on simple, unpretentious faith.  But again I have digressed somewhat.

The differences between both forms of TE and ID should not be trivialized.  ID does not accept macroevolution, namely the idea that natural selection along with other purely naturalistic mechanisms could have possibly been responsible for the wide diversity of highly complex life which we now observe. The very idea of ID is that at some time an Intelligence came along and designed something. This is not natural selection, self-organizing complexity or any form of evolution at all which, be it theistic or non-theistic is defined as the accumulation of design through the (differential) replication of living entities.  Coagulation, flagella and the immune system, for example, didn’t evolve into existence at all, but were instead designed all at once.

Either something is designed by an Intelligence or not. I while back at Times and Seasons Glen Henshaw posted on evolutionary algorithms and their use in creating new designs in software programs and the like. This process is very akin to EC in a number of ways.  While the designers did design the computer algorithms they used as well as control the selective pressures, they did not design the products of that process.  Naturally if any person is to receive credit for having designed the products it would definitely be those programmers.  The real credit, however, belongs not with the programmers’ creative genius, but with the creative power of the entirely mindless algorithms themselves.  The programmers simply took advantage of this vast creative power and used it to their own advantage.

To give the designers the full credit for the resulting designs would be to miss the entire point of evolution by natural selection.  One of Darwin’s earliest critics understood this perfectly well when he shrieked:
“In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer; so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system, that, in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it... This proposition will be found…to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin's meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill.”

Exactly!

The differences between this and ID should be clear.  Had the engineers been intelligent designers they would have simply built the end product themselves rather than letting a long, wasteful and cumbersome process work on it for a while.  Had they intelligently designed the end product, then they would have indeed deserved full credit for the creative process, but they didn’t so they weren’t.

Like DE, they didn’t directly create the end product, but rather the process by which that product, whatever it would turn out to be, would be created by nobody but the processes itself.  This, however, isn’t really giving the engineers their full due, for they did, presumably, supervise the process and guide it according to their tastes by a manipulation of selective pressures and variability.  Their roles were much more analogous to EC.  Nevertheless, they still did not directly create the end product and still do not deserve as much credit as if they had directly designed the end product by themselves.

Despite these similarities, there are, however, a number of differences which should not be overlooked.  In the case of the engineers survival and replication are artificially defined according to their particular tastes, desires and goals.  However in biological evolution survival and replication are in fact intrinsically self-defined.  Whereas the engineers defined the ability to survive and reproduce according to performance some particular faculty, surviving long enough to reproduce in biological systems is not defined by actually surviving long enough to reproduce.  Thus, it would seem that in this very important aspect, the User of the biological evolutionary algorithm could design nothing but creations which are good at surviving and reproducing, something which is done by all living organisms, irrespective of cognitive capability or Whose “image” they come in.

Other ways could be conjured up as to how God could have guided this evolutionary process though.  He could have some how protected from harm those organisms which He saw had mutations which, although not contributing to their genetic fitness, did contribute to His own definition of fitness.  He could have also negatively selected mutations which although increase genetic fitness, were contrary to His particular definition of fitness at that particular time.  This, however, would appear to be a serious uphill battle.  One would also have to wonder why, if He knew what was good or bad, didn’t He simply design it according to ID?

This is an important point worth mentioning and giving more thought to.  The reason why the engineers in our example used those mindless algorithms to discover those wonderful designs was because they didn't know what that design would eventually be. If they had known what that optimal design was beforehand, they simply would have intelligently designed it that way rather than taking the long and wasteful route.  One wonders how this point applies to a EC devoid of all intelligent design as I have defined it. If the Designer knew the design then why waste so much time, energy and life in taking the long route? Why take the longer and more exploratory route if no exploration was necessary? The ID answer is that He (to one degree or another) didn't. The evolutionary creationist, on the other hand, doesn't really have much of an answer.

The other way in which God could have guided the evolutionary process is by influencing the mutations in organisms as well as the variation within the populations making them less than random.  Of course, this starts to look an awful lot like full blown ID.  ID, as far as I can tell, does accept that while the irreducibly complex features we now observe could not have come about by natural selection, they do arise within the embryonic development of each organism in a purely naturalistic manner.  Thus, their design wouldn’t amount to building a system as much as simply tinkering with the genetic sequence with a specific goal in mind.  Is this really all that different from what TE is suggesting?

A few comments are in order.  First, if that is the form of design which ID promotes then they really need to abandon any hope of special creation, for this mechanism has common descent written all over it.  This, as we have already seen, should come as no surprise since Behe himself has already acknowledged this.Second, the manner in which "irreducibly complex" systems can arise due to simply manipulations in the genetic sequence actually works against ID attacks on evolution. They are quite fond of quoting Darwin's admission that gradualism is necessary, but here is exactly where Darwin's ignorance regarding genetics plays a crucial role. Modern Neo-Darwinism doesn't necessarily hold out for gradual change in the phenotype as much as it does for gradualness in the change of the genotype, and even then there are some important qualifications which have recently come to light.  The gradualism which ID attacks is no longer a strict prerequisite as it once was. Thus, ID simply must hold out for changes in the genetic sequence which are virtually impossible without some intelligent "help" for their "theory" to have any meaning whatsoever. And this is where the separation between ID and EC comes in. God's causing or influencing particular mutations in the genome would, I suggest, count as EC if the change COULD have come from entirely naturalistic causes, whether it actually did or not. Such mutations would count as ID if they could not have possibly been the effect of "random" mutations and this by their own definition.Thus the EC should be careful to not get too greedy and/or specific in his claims that God influence mutations and/or variation or else he might find himself in the ID camp after all.  The difference between EC and strict ID (a long earth creationism, complete with common descent and microevolution) is one of degree rather than kind, for the possible/impossible divide as to whether a mutation could have arisen by itself is blurry at best.
This then serves as a sufficient test as to whether somebody rejects the ID movement for pragmatic reasons or due to its falsity. Those who reject ID due to its falsity don't think that there are any mutations which COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been entirely blind and naturalistic. Those who reject the ID movement for pragmatic reasons think that there just might be some mutations which really couldn't have been random and therefore do require an Intelligence Designer.  “It’s just,” they claim, “that we probably won't ever be able to find any such mutation events with any degree of surety.  Therefore it is best that we leave that explanation out of science altogether for it is only by assigning naturalistic explanations to all we can that the exceptions will be revealed.”

ID says that those mindless algorithms aren't powerful enough to have done the work we now observe.  Therefore the design which we see now is not a product of indirect design through the tool of blind forces, but is instead the products of direct design. That is why it is "intelligent" rather than "blind."  Thus, either design came directly from God as ID claims or it came, at best, indirectly from God as EC suggests. It can't be both. If we accept any breaks at all in the genealogical lines of accumulated design then we have at that very moment left evolution altogether and are now in ID land.

Joseph F. Smith: A Tale of Two Letters Pt. 2

2005-11-15T09:00:00.000-08:00

The same month (April 1911) that Joseph F. Smith's editorial appeared in the Improvement Era, he published a separate editorial in the Juvenile Instructor. Although similar to its companion, the JI article contains some interesting statements.

It comes as no suprise that President Smith viewed evolution as "more or less a fallacy." Nevertheless, he characterized our relationship to our Creator as defined by revelation to a "very limited degree." He further made these significant statements:

In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false...

The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world...

Part of President Smith's motivation for the action he took was a desire to keep the gospel simple--something that both schooled and unschooled could understand and appreciate. He thought that a better use of biological instruction was to focus on practical issues like pest control.

Commenting on this editoral, Trent Stephens and Jeffery Meldrum write:

A lot has changed since 1911...We now know that managing insects requires a knowledge of their life cycles, chemistry, genetics, and evolution.

...the decision to avoid teaching evolution in the church schools was abandoned at least by the fall of 1971, when a formal class in evolution was instituted at BYU [with General Authority approval, M&E]...It has been the case for many years that all the biology classes at BYU teach evolution as the foundation of the discipline... (Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, p. 41)

Again, it is interesting to note that President Smith did not make reference to the 1909 statement. Nevertheless it seems appropriate to suggest that these two editorials illuminate Joseph F. Smith's thinking on evolution, and that they should be kept in mind when interpreting "The Origin of Man."

The Juvenile Instructor editorial is reproduced below. The text is taken from Eyring-L.

-------------------------

Philosophy and the Church Schools.

Some questions have arisen about the attitude of the Church on certain discussions of philosophy in the Church schools. Philosophical discussions as we understand them, are open questions about which men of science are very greatly at variance. As a rule we do not think it advisable to dwell on questions that are in controversy, and especially questions of a certain character, in the courses of instruction given by our institutions. In the first place it is the mission of our institutions of learning to qualify our young people for the practical duties of life. It is much to be preferred that they emphasize the industrial and practical side of education. Students are very apt to draw the conclusion that whichever side of a controversial question they adopt is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and it is very doubtful therefore, whether the great mass of our students have sufficient discriminating judgment to understand very much about some of the advanced theories of philosophy or science.

Some subjects are in themselves, perhaps, perfectly harmless, and any amount of discussion over them would not be injurious to the faith of out young people. We are told, for example, that the theory of gravitation is at best a hypothesis and that such is the atomic theory. These theories help to explain certain things about nature. Whether they are ultimately true can not make much difference to the religious convictions of our young people. On the other hand there are speculations which touch the origin of life and the relationship of God to his children. In a very limited degree that relationship has been defined by revelation, and until we receive more light upon the subject we deem it best to refrain from the discussion of certain philosophical theories which rather destroy than build up the faith of our young people. One thing about this so-called philosophy of religion that is very undesirable, lies in the fact that as soon as we convert our religion into a system of philosophy none but philosophers can understand, appreciate, or enjoy it. God, in his revelation to man has made His word so simple that the humblest of men without especial training, may enjoy great faith, comprehend the teachings of the Gospel, and enjoy undisturbed their religious convictions. For that reason we are averse to the discussion of certain philosophical theories in our religious instructions. If our Church schools would confine their so-called course of study in biology to that knowledge of the insect world which would help us to eradicate the pests that threaten the destruction of our crops and our fruit, such instruction would answer much better the aims of the Church school, than theories which deal with the origin of life.

These theories may have a fascination for our teachers and they may find interest in the study of them, but they are not properly within the scope of the purpose for which these schools were organized.

Some of our teachers are anxious to explain how much of the theory of evolution, in their judgment, is true, and what is false, but that only leaves their students in an unsettled frame of mind. They are not old enough and learned enough to discriminate, or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy. In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. We think that while it is a hypothesis, on both sides of which the most eminent scientific men of the world are arrayed, that it is folly to take up its discussion in our institutions of learning; and we can not see wherein such discussions are likely to promote the faith of our young people. On the other hand we have abundant evidence that many of those who have adopted in its fullness the theory of evolution have discarded the Bible, or at least refused to accept it as the inspired word of God. It is not, then, the question of the liberty of any teacher to entertain whatever views he may have upon this hypothesis of evolution, but rather the right of the Church to say that it does not think it profitable or wise to introduce controversies relative to evolution in its schools. Even if it were harmless from the standpoint of our faith, we think there are things more important to the daily affairs of life and the practical welfare of our young people. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore, about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading. God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him, and we should regret very much to see the simplicity of those revelations involved in all sorts of philosophical speculations. If we encouraged them it would not be long before we should have a theological scholastic aristocracy in the Church, and we should therefore not enjoy the brotherhood that now is, or should be common to rich and poor, learned and unlearned among the Saints.

Joseph F. Smith

The Juvenile Instructor 46(4):208-209 (April 1911)

Joseph F. Smith: A Tale of Two Letters Pt. 1

2005-11-14T09:00:00.000-08:00

The first public controversy over organic evolution at Brigham Young University occured in 1910-1911 when three professors were fired, or forced to resign, because they would not refrain from teaching evolution and higher criticism.

This episode has been detailed by Gary Bergera in Brigham Young University: A House of Faith and The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, both unfortunately now out of print. However, the chapter from The Search for Harmony, "The 1911 Evolution Controversy," is available online.

In order to explain the action that had been taken, Joseph F. Smith published two letters in April of 1911. The first one we will look at was published under the "Editor's Table" in the April 1911 edition of the Improvement Era and is reproduced below. This editorial was heavily excerpted in the recent Priesthood/Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith (Chapter 35 p. 315-316) (which takes its text from Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith), and lays out the basic facts of the situation.

The letter contains plenty of ammunition for critics of evolution, as it asserts the dominance of revelation and the interpretation of the scriptures by the leaders of the Church over the "theories of men." However, it does contain some conciliatory elements; President Smith recognized that the paradigm of evolution could serve as a "scaffolding" for discovering truth. Interestingly, the 1909 First Presidency statement on the origin of man, issued only a year and a half earlier, was not mentioned. (It is also interesting to note that Heber J. Grant, who would later issue a statement regarding evolution and serve as the final judge in the dispute between B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith, was a member of the committee that investigated the 1911 controversy.)

The letter follows:

---------------------------------

Theory and Divine Revelation.

Our young people are diligent students. They reach out after truth and knowledge with commendable zeal, and in so doing they must necessarily adopt for temporary use many theories of men. As long, however, as they recognize them as scaffolding useful for research purposes, there can be no special harm in them. It is when these theories are settled upon as basic truth that trouble appears, and the searcher then stands in grave danger of being led hopelessly from the right way.

Recently there was some trouble of this kind in one of the leading Church schools—the training college of the Brigham Young University—where three of the professors advanced certain theories on evolution as applied to the origin of man, and certain opinions on "higher criticism," as conclusive and demonstrated truths. This was done although it is well known that evolution and the "higher criticism"—though perhaps containing many truths—are in conflict on some matters with the scriptures, including some modern revelation.

An investigation was instituted, founded on the charges of Superintendent H. H. Cummings of the Church schools, based on complaints from patrons of the school; and the General Church Board of Education appointed a committee to ascertain to what extent the teaching of unorthodox doctrines in the school by these instructors was based upon fact. The personnel of the committee was: Francis M. Lyman, Heber J. Grant, Hyrum M. Smith, Charles W. Penrose, George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Horace H. Cummings, and Dr. George H. Brimhall.

The committee met with Professors Henry Peterson, Joseph Peterson and Ralph V. Chamberlain—all three eminent scholars, able instructors, and men of excellent character—and the investigation was held. The meeting and examination were characterized by the utmost cordiality and freedom on both sides. The professors frankly admitted that they held to and taught the theories of evolution as at present set forth in the text books, and also theories relating to the Bible known as "higher criticism," which they appeared to view as conclusive and demonstrated; so that when these ideas and enunciations were in conflict with the scripture, ancient and modern, it required the modification of the latter to come into harmony with the former, carrying the impression that all revelation combines a human element with the divine impression and should be subject to such modification.

The Church, on the contrary, holds to the definite authority of divine revelation which must be the standard; and that, as so-called "science" has changed from age to age in its deductions, and as divine revelation is truth, and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater; and, further, that in institutions founded by the Church for the teaching of theology, as well as other branches of education, its instructors must be in harmony in their teachings with its principles and doctrines.

There was no inclination to interfere with the freedom of thought and expression of the opinion of the professors, but the committee, after carefully weighing the matter, concluded that as teachers in a Church school they could not be given opportunity to inculcate theories that were out of harmony with the recognized doctrines of the Church, and hence that they be required to refrain from so doing.

The committe so reported to the trustees of the Brigham Young University. This body later held a meeting at which they unanimously resolved, "that no doctrine should be taught in the Brigham Young University not in harmony with the revealed word of God as interpreted and construed by the Presidency and Apostles of the Church; and that the power and authority of determining whether any professor or other instructor of the institution is out of harmony with the doctrines and attitude of the Church, be delegated to the presidency of the university."

The wisdom of the committee and board of trustees in their actions, as well as the justice and consistency thereof, will be conceded by every right thinking man. The standard of faith and belief for all Latter-day Saints must be the word of the Lord as set forth in the holy scriptures. Undeviatingly should this be the case in Church institutions of learning, founded and sustained—one may say expressly—for the purpose of creating faith in the minds of the young people.

There are so many demonstrated practical material truths, so many spiritual certainties, with which the youth of Zion should become familiar, that it appears a waste of time and means, and detrimental to faith and religion to enter too extensively into the undemonstrated theories of men on philosophies relating to the origin of life, or the methods adopted by an Alwise Creator in peopling the earth with the bodies of men, birds and beasts. Let us rather turn our abilities to the practical analysis of the soil, the study of the elements, the productions of the earth, the invention of useful machinery, the social welfare of the race, and its material amelioration; and for the rest cultivate an abiding faith in the revealed word of God and the saving principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which give joy in this world and in the world to come eternal life and salvation.

Philosophic theories of life have their place and use, but it is not in the classes of the Church schools, and particularly are they out of place here or anywhere else when they seek to supplant the revelations of God. The ordinary student cannot delve into these subjects deep enough to make them of any practical use to him, and a smattering of knowledge in this line only tends to upset his simple faith in the gospel, which is of more value to him in life than all the learning of the world without it.

The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth. "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good, common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found."

A good motto for young people to adopt, who are determined to delve into philosophic theories, is to search all things, but be careful to hold on only to that which is true. The truth persists, but the theories of philosophers change and are overthrown. What men use today as a scaffolding for scientific purposes from which to reach out into the unknown for truth, may be torn down tomorrow, having served its purpose; but faith is an eternal principle through which the humble believer may secure everlasting solace. It is the only way to find God.

JOSEPH F. SMITH.

Seven Thousand Years of the Earth's Continuance

2005-10-16T09:23:00.000-07:00

In trying to reconcile the findings of science with LDS theology, one of the more difficult scriptures to deal with is D&C 77:6-7.

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Jeff has discussed this scripture before. I want to supplement his discussion with some further information and analysis.

I think there are 3 basic ways to approach this scripture, not all of which are mutually exclusive.

1. Traditional: The traditional straight-forward approach is that the fall of Adam and Eve occured ~4,000 B.C., which began the temporal (mortal) condition of the earth. The seventh thousand-year period will be the millenium and is expected to begin soon. This approach is supported by biblical chronology as well as D&C 88, which uses the seven thousand-year framework.

This general view of earth history is also held by some other Christian denominations, so it is not unique to LDS theology or modern revelation. Of course the problem in relating this to science is that it is contradicted by a number of scientific disciplines.

2. Literal, With Modification: This approach gives literal meaning to the seven thousand years, but modifies it a bit. Jeff Lindsay describes this approach as suggested by Sterling Talmage, son of James E. Talmage. Sterling Talmage examined the meaning of the words "continuance," "economy", and "temporal."

The three terms that Talmage analyzes harmonize with each other and all point to the conclusions that D&C 77 refers to God's dealing with man under the present time period (the collection of dispensations of the past several thousand years), and does not say anything about the time of the Creation or age of the earth, or even the antiquity of other humans or humanoids.

3. Developmental: Michael Quinn's biography of J. Reuben Clark says that Clark had some different views on science and scripture than Joseph Fielding Smith. Presidents Clark and Smith corresponded about a speech that Clark intended to give. Clark wrote in a letter,

You quote from Section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I do not get from that section the meaning you give it.

Apparently the basic difference between us is this: you do not accept the scriptural record as given in historical sequence; I do.

It is not clear to me exactly how Section 77 was used in the correspondence[1], but the final sentence quoted is interesting. It suggests to me that while Joseph Fielding Smith tended to view the scriptures as an integrated whole, J. Reuben Clark viewed the scriptures as coming line upon line and reflecting historical context.

I think this second view is worth considering in connection with Section 77. Later in the same section, verse 12 refers to the seven days of creation. Unlike some other Christian denominations, Latter-day Saints, including such commentators as Elder Bruce R. McConkie, have felt free to view the days of creation as representing longer periods of time ranging from one thousand years for each "day" to unspecified lengths of time. The basis of this freedom is derived from the Book of Abraham which describes one of God's days as one thousand of our years (this is also suggested in the New Testament) and uses the vague term "time" instead of "day" in describing the creation.

The information that became D&C 77 was written in 1832, and D&C 88 was given at the boundary of 1832/1833. Joseph Smith obtained the papyri from which he translated (whatever is meant by "translated") the Book of Abraham in mid-1835. It is easy to retroactively apply the insights gained from the Book of Abraham concerning the "times" of creation to D&C 77:12, but at the time it was given we would likely have held a literal view of the "days" of creation.

Perhaps we can see Section 77 as an example of the Lord speaking according to Joseph's understanding--not bothering to correct traditional interpretations or incorrect information of the time. The meaning of the "days" of creation has been re-interpreted in the light of further revelation; perhaps the seven thousand-year timeline will be also.

Meridian of Time: Finally, I want to discuss a potential objection--that any alternative reading is contradicted by the scriptures that refer to Jesus as being born in the "meridian of time." Joseph Fielding Smith's explanation for "meridian of time" was that Jesus was born about 4,000 years after Adam and 2,000 years before us. The future millenium and the "little season" (D&C 88:111) following it complete the balance, putting the birth of Jesus approximately in the middle. (Doctrines of Salvation Vol I p.81. Orson F. Whitney also expressed this view.)

I see several possible weaknesses with this explanation:

1. Stretching the "little season" into almost one thousand years seems ad hoc to me. Why is this period of time lightly passed over when it would seem to be equivalent, or nearly so, to all of the other divisions of time?

2. The exact chronology of future events is somewhat uncertain, but the declaration of D&C 88:110 that "time is no longer" (whatever that means) could easily be understood to occur at the beginning of the millenium, since it is immediately followed by a statement about the binding of Satan. If the beginning--or even the end--of the millenium marks the end of time, the scheme laid out by Joseph Fielding Smith is disrupted.

3. It has been traditionally understood that during the millenium the earth is to be returned to a "terrestrial" condition, as it was before the fall of Adam. If such is the case, why is the millenium, but not the time before the Fall, included in figuring the meridian of time? Again, this seems ad hoc to me.

4. Although "meridian" can have the conotation of "middle" or "dividing symetrically," it also means "high point" or "zenith." Jesus' life and atonement is legitimately described as the "meridian of time" whether or not it divides time in two equal portions.

------------------------------------
1. My inference from the information provided is that Joseph Fielding Smith was reading Abraham's equation of one of the Lord's days for one thousand of our years into D&C 77:12, thus concluding that the creation of the earth took seven thousand years. J. Reuben Clark was comfortable with millions of years.

Thinking About the Fall, Part 2/2

2005-09-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

Given how little we know about how the Fall of Adam and Eve actually occurred, it is difficult for me to see why it must necessarily be incompatible with evolution. My belief is that the conflict is only apparent, and that more information about the Fall will help resolve the conflict. I do not claim to know what that further information is, but I have a few ideas that might be worth thinking about. (Some of these ideas have been brought up by others here and are not totally unique to me.)

Modularity and Timelessness: Our scriptures make clear that the power of the Atonement was operational before Jesus came to earth. Men and women were forgiven of their sins and sanctified in spite of the fact that the Atonement had not actually occurred yet. At least in regard to forgiveness of sin, it seems that the timing of the Atonement was not important. Time does not seem to matter to God. Is it therefore possible that conditions on earth preceding Adam and Eve operated as though the Fall had already occurred? Furthermore, is it possible that Adam and Eve performed a vicarious work for us in the garden, as our representatives, making the events in the Garden of Eden largely ceremonial in nature? So Adam and Eve represented us in getting us into mortality, and Jesus represented us in getting us out.

Pre-Mortal Symbolism: The story of Adam and Eve can be generalized to all of us. In fact we are encouraged to follow their example. Yet many elements of the story seem restricted to Adam and Eve. Jeff has suggested that we think of the story of Adam and Eve in terms of the pre-mortal world (pre-existence). Thinking along these lines reveals some striking similarities between Adam and Eve, and the rest of us. Common elements include:

Living in the presence of God
Not subject to pain or disease
Desire to gain knowledge and experience
Unable to have children
choosing to progress by entering mortality and leaving the presence of God
Confronting temptation by Satan
Receiving a coat of skin (ie. body)

Could it be that Moses taught about our pre-mortal existence by the means of allegory? If this is the case, it leads to some interesting questions. For example, is it possible that the reason we wanted to come to earth was because Lucifer introduced us to the concept of mortal life, thus sowing discontent with our pre-mortal existence (ie. teaching us that we were naked) and unwittingly fulfilling God's plan?

Multi-Step Process: When we talk of the Fall, we usually think in terms of a specific event that occurred on a specific (but unknown) day. The way the story is given to us encourages this kind of thinking. Perhaps the Fall was a multi-step process that began in the spirit world and culminated with Adam and Eve in the garden. An analogy might be cross-country travel. We think of Adam and Eve as taking off in New York City and landing in Los Angeles. Perhaps it was more like traveling by car with stops and detours along the way. Thus, the Fall was responsible for the mortality of all life forms on earth, but the part of the Fall that initiated mortality for most (if not all) of the earth happened back in Missouri (to be clever)--not the end of the trip in Los Angeles.

Conclusion

I think that some of the ideas I have outlined above are useful, even within the traditional LDS paradigm of the Fall. Such ideas do not dispense with the importance of the Fall--they merely adjust our way of thinking about it. (Revelation does do that from time to time.) The ultimate truth may or may not resemble my suggestions, but until we are given further light by revelation, it seems a little hasty to conclude that evolution and the Fall are ultimately incompatible with one another.

It appears that Robert Millet rejects much (or all) of evolution, but I think that the sentiment expressed here is well-put.

In regard to the Fall, it should be sufficient for us to know that Adam and Eve and all forms of life are required to partake of the fruits of mortality before we can partake of the fruits of immortality in the Resurrection. Further, men and women cannot partake of the fruit of the tree of life--that is, gain eternal life--while they remain in their sins; mortal man simply cannot inherit immortal glory. It is as though the Lord places cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way of celestial glory so that we may surely understand that no unclean thing can enter his presence. Repentance and redemption always and forevermore precede exaltation. (Power of the Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon p. 66)

Thinking About the Fall, Part 1/2

2005-09-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

One of the main theological objections to evolution is that it is incompatible with the Fall. Since the scriptures tie the Fall and the Atonement together, some believe that any implications that evolution may have for the Fall carry through to the Atonement, the heart of the gospel. I'm not sure that such must be the case, but I will leave that topic alone and focus on the Fall.

In discussing the Fall, a question we might ask up front is "what do we know and what don't we know?" The answer is not an easy one because it depends on the amount of weight given to any particular commentary. Some in the broader Christian community argue that everything in Genesis must be factually true, or else the whole Bible is unreliable. Some Latter-day Saints seem to buy into this reasoning, but strictly speaking such an argument is false when judged by the standard of Mormon theology. Elder Packer has said,

Now, about the Creation. What is said in the revelations about the Creation, though brief, is repeated in Genesis, in the Book of Mormon, in Moses, in Abraham, and in the endowment. We are told it is figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned. ("The Law and the Light") [It pre-dates me, but apparently the last sentence is derived from previous wording in the endowment.]

It seems to me that the line between literal and figurative in Genesis has not been clearly drawn, but for the sake of discussion I think we can safely make a few judgments. Let's look at a few examples.

Adam and Eve: The scriptures consistently speak of Adam and Eve as actual people. Although it might be tempting to argue that the prophets who wrote the scriptures just assumed that Adam and Eve were real, such an argument becomes more difficult in the face of the teachings of modern prophets. Joseph Smith repeatedly taught that Adam was a real person, that he is Michael the archangel, and that in terms of priesthood, he stands at the head of the human family. Furthermore, Joseph Smith identifies Adam in vision (D&C 137). Joseph F. Smith also identified Adam and Eve in his vision of the spirit world (D&C 138:38-39). Although questions about whether the visions were intended to communicate factual information might be interesting, overall it seems that the historical reality of Adam and Eve is too ingrained in LDS scripture and theology to be easily removed. I am not aware of any General Authorities who have felt otherwise.

The Garden of Eden: Joseph Smith identified Missouri as the location of the Garden of Eden. This identification has not actually been canonized, nevertheless it would seem difficult to dispense with the historicity of the Garden of Eden without doing violence to Joseph Smith's prophetic status.

Eve Formed from Adam's Rib: At least three LDS authorities (Brigham Young, Specer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie) have designated this part of the story as figurative. (For Kimball and McConkie, see "The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood," Ensign, March 1976 and "Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982.) A number of prophetic commentators would also view Adam's creation from the dust as figurative.

The Tree of Life/Knowledge of Good and Evil: Opinions regarding the trees may vary, but at least Elder Bruce R. McConkie designated the trees and their fruit as figurative.

To Adam and Eve the command came: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality. ("Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982)

Other elements of the story such as the serpent, or Adam and Eve being naked, have not received as much attention and their status as either literal or figurative probably do not matter. Since the central objects of the story (ie. the trees and fruit) can be legitimately be viewed as figurative, I am inclined to view these other elements as figurative as well.

Accepting that Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden were historical realities, we still know almost nothing about what actually occured in the Garden and how Adam and Eve became mortal. This being the case, it strikes me as a little strange to say that evolution and the Fall cannot both be true.

[I should also point out that we know very little about how the Atonement actually works. Thus, when it is suggested that limiting the paradisiacal state of the earth to the Garden of Eden also limits the effects of the Atonment to that square acreage, I have to wonder whether the infinite Atonement is really limited by such technicalities.]

The Essence of Games

2005-08-25T20:27:00.000-07:00

I've been sitting on this for quite a while, partly because I'm not much of a philosopher and partly because I haven't been able to figure out what to do with it. So I'm finally just throwing it out.

"In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein proposed the idea of cluster, or ‘family resemblance’, concepts: some terms by their nature do not admit of an essentialist definition, but are rather characterized by a diffuse network of more or less loosely interconnected properties. Any particular instantiation of the concept may draw on a subset of such threads, even though there is a limit to such conceptual ‘plasticity’. Wittgenstein’s famous example is the idea of a game: the more one thinks about it, the more it is clear that it is difficult to list a set of characteristics that are necessary and sufficient to define what we mean by ‘game’. Board games like chess or monopoly clearly have more features in common than any of them has with ball games like soccer or basketball, and yet we meaningfully refer to all of these activities as ‘games’.

To put it as the master did: “How should we explain to someone what a game is? I imagine that we should describe games to him, and we might add: ‘This and similar things are called games’” (P.I., para. 69). ... “But this is not ignorance. We do not know the boundaries because none have been drawn ... We can draw a boundary for a special purpose” (ibid).

The same holds for species. Not only special purposes (like the very different works of a paleontologist and a geneticist), but also different classes of living organisms (a bacterium vs. a reptile) may require us to think of species as concepts made of a loose cluster of characteristics, some of which turn out to be particularly useful – while some do not apply – in any given circumstance."

If this inspires anything in you, have at it.

What Did Nibley Think of Evolution?

2005-08-14T20:25:00.000-07:00

Many Church members—even some who profess an interest in Mormon thought—resist discussion of evolution. Early in his career, Hugh Nibley discussed the subject in his classes; then, for a period of time, he decided “it was a waste of time;” and finally, he recognized that the alleged evolutionary origin of humanity is “a subject that is impossible to avoid,” and was willing to weigh in on the matter. He expressed his view in Before Adam, an address to the BYU community delivered in 1980 (also available in CWHN, Vol. 1, Ch. 4). While he commendably took scientific findings much more seriously than material published by the Church, in the end his view does not stand up in the face of currently available data.

Nibley deserves credit, first of all, for recognizing the need for a reconciliation between scientific data and scriptural accounts. He urges us to get beyond the “nursery tales” and “Sunday-school recitals” that many take away from Biblical stories, but he also disparages those who “fall into adolescent disillusionment” under the influence of their “emancipated teachers.” When it comes to getting beyond these default options, he declares that “We have drawn back from that assignment, preferring to save a lot of trouble and take sides with the traditional schools.”

Nibley is not kind to these “traditional schools.” “…we have been the spectators of a foolish contest between equally vain and bigoted rivals, in which it is a moot question which side heaps the most contempt on God’s creatures.” In the same vein, on the surface it would seem to be a moot question which of these “rivals”—“apostate religion” or “an always inadequate science”—receives more contempt from Nibley. With these, “…the issue is never the merits of the evidence but always the jealous rivalry of the contestants to see which would be the official light unto the world.”

In fact, however, his bark is worse than his bite; his sarcastic dismissals seem to be a rhetorical stance adopted out of concern over theories “that turned some of our best students away from the gospel,” and perhaps also an effort to assure his audience of his bona fides before taking a step or two beyond traditional doctrine. “Am I willing to stake my eternal salvation on their highly conflicting opinions?” No, Professor Nibley, we are persuaded you are not. But we can see past the red meat your audience demands to the way you have voted with your feet: your summaries of worldly learning, copious references, and ultimately your attempt at accomodating what you accept as stubborn facts all constitute a high compliment, betraying the time and thought—and therefore serious respect—you have accorded the scholars and scientists, and some of us are grateful.

Whether or not his mockery of the would-be official luminaries is merely rhetorical, it’s not, of course, as though Nibley himself is without an official light: “This means that Joseph Smith is the only entry.” Relying primarily on his ‘grown-up’ interpretation of the Book of Abraham, but sensitive to the facts uncovered by geology and paleontology, Nibley parses the account as a description of the creative enterprise more or less in line with scientific realism. He makes as much as possible of available resources offered by the text, emphasizing changes in perspective, the earth and waters being “prepared” to “bring forth” life, the waiting and watching to see that things “obeyed.” He paints an interesting picture “entailing careful planning based on vast experience, long consultations, models, tests, and even trial runs for a complicated system requiring a vast scale of participation by the creatures concerned.”

Predictably and perhaps necessarily, his congeniality towards science begins to wane as he approaches man, and he is ultimately at a loss to provide a clear-cut solution to the Adam problem (though he does in the end throw a desperate “Hail Mary,” mentioned below). He vacillates, on the one hand seeming to need and want the theoretical space afforded by eight “roles” and four “senses” of “Adam,” and acknowledging the existence of “100,000-year-old villages;” but in the end he chooses the other hand, and denies the authority of archaeology and anthropology to say anything about us. Regarding “creatures that looked like men long, long ago,”

…their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared.…That gap between the record keeper and all the other creatures we know anything about is so unimaginably enormous and yet so neat and abrupt that we can only be dealing with another sort of being, a quantum leap from one world to another. Here is something not derivative from anything that has gone before on the local scene, even though they all share the same atoms.

By thus positing an unbridgeable gap in time and type, when it comes to man he makes a decisive break with evolution.

In making his case, Nibley positions himself above the fray, occupying the high ground cleared by Joseph’s sweeping revelations, and adopting the strategy of triangulation long before anyone ever heard of Dick Morris. Seeking a solution beyond those proferred by the equally inadequate jealous rivals, the idiosyncratic picture Nibley ends up with has important affinities to the position staked out by B. H. Roberts in his (until recently) unpublished manuscript The Truth, The Way, The Life. (One wonders if Nibley arrived at his views independently, or if perhaps he had access to this embargoed work of Elder Roberts.) Knowingly or unknowingly following in Elder Roberts’ footsteps, Nibley’s synthesis valiantly attempts to thread the needle–accepting more than is customary (for a Mormon) from science, while taking more seriously than is customary (for a scientist) the scriptural accounts. In conceding the reality of death before the fall and the existence of “a lot of creatures running about long ago who looked like men,” he risks alienting the Priests; in ultimately rejecting an evolutionary origin of mankind, he finds himself hopelessly at odds with the Scientists. His intriguing and dramatic finale, a bold coup de gras, is almost literally deus ex machina: a not-so-subtle hint at a resort to private acceptance of some form of the Adam-God doctrine in order to resolve the problem of Adam, whereby he manages to simultaneously offend both Priest and Scientist in equal measure—a situation probably inevitable in any attempted reconciliation anyway. (Nibley here provides a roadmap for getting away with this sort of thing with an academically unwashed audience of faith: first, let the impression fall as gently and subtly as possible, like the dews of heaven, that you know a hell of a lot more than they do; and second, make as explicit as possible—and as bombastically as occasion allows—your unalloyed allegiance to the Restoration, by roundly condemning its detractors while overtly wrapping yourself in the ægis of Joseph’s revelations. Must be fun to throw lightning bolts from that rhetorical Olympus.)

I like this piece of Nibley’s, for its willingness to take on the subject, its erudition, and its engaging, bold, almost flamboyant style; but I think it fails on scientific grounds, right where it matters most: the origin of man. It is not at all clear that the gaps in man’s nature and descent that he requires are there; on the contrary, everything seems to point to us being an elaboration of anatomy and culture possessed by ancient and different ancestors. (The modern genetic evidence seems particularly definitive regarding historically contingent descent of the physical body; see this post for a specific example.) Nibley seems tolerant of evolution of the animal kingdom, but is unwilling to take it all the way to man. (I suspect that if President McKay accepted evolution, as often alleged, it was only in this limited sense that does not ‘give away the store.’) The necessity of this gap is a legacy of the fundamental Mormon doctrine of an anthropomorphic, procreating God, whose consequences for the expected nature of exaltation will not easily be relinquished.

Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth?

2005-07-24T12:24:00.000-07:00

The LDS doctrine of God differs from that of others in a number of ways. Probably the most prominent difference is our belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, presumably similar to the resurrected Jesus. This gives added meaning to our belief in Jesus's divine Sonship. Church doctrine also teaches that we are all the spirit children of God. A more obscure doctrine concerns the relationship of Adam and Eve (and by extension, all of us) to God--that Adam and Eve are physical children of God. I say "obscure" because I was unaware of it until three-fourths of the way through my mission. It is beyond the scope of this post to give a thorough historical tracing of this doctrine. Rather, I want to provide an overview of the support for this doctrine and some of my own observations. (I have touched on this topic before, here.)

Background

I do not know exactly when this doctrine originated. Some cite this statement of Joseph Smith in support of the doctrine:

"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way." (TPJS, p. 373)

The idea that Adam was a physical son of God is a reasonable extension of this statement, but technically this statement was about the plurality of gods, not Adam's creation. Brigham Young was probably more responsible for bringing this doctrine out into the open. He denied that Adam was literally made of dust and insisted that Adam had a physical father, which was intimately tied into Brigham's Adam-God teachings.

It appears that in the decades following Brigham Young's death, the teaching that Adam was a physical child of God was retained by stripping it away from, and discarding, Adam-God. A 1910 Church manual stated:

Man has descended from God: In fact, he is of the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also. There never was a time, probably, in all the eternities of the past, when there was not men or children of God. This world is only one of many worlds which have been created by the Father through His Only Begotten. (Church Manual, Course of Study for Priests, 1910, under the subject "The Creation of Man")

Joseph F. Smith made this statement in 1913:

I know that my Redeemer liveth; . . . I know that God is a being with body, parts, and passions and that His Son is in His own likeness, and that man is created in the image of God. The Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our early parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I. (Deseret Evening News, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. III, p. 7. Also quoted in Deseret News: Church Section, Sep. 19, 1936, pp. 2 & 8)

In a 1912 letter to a mission president that dealt with a controversial speech by Brigham Young, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith included this statement:

But President Young went on to show that our father Adam, -- that is, our earthly father, -- the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being "Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days," and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, 265-267)

Further support might be drawn from the 1909 First Presidency statement, "Origin of Man" (also under Joseph F. Smith). This document affirms our spiritual relationship with God, but also contains statements that could easily be interpreted as supporting a physical relationship as well. (This document is available on the sidebar as part of the BYU Evolution Packet.)

Perhaps the most influential proponent in modern times has been Elder Bruce R. McConkie who wrote:

Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam's entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence. ("Son of God" in Mormon Doctrine)

This does not represent an exhaustive list of statements by Church leaders or publications that support this doctrine, but these are probably the most prominent.

Scriptural Support

As should be clear from the above discussion, the chief scriptural support for this concept comes from the New Testament and the Pearl of Great Price. A listing of Jesus's genealogy in Luke states, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38, italics in KJV and indicate wording inserted by the translators.) In his commentary on the New Testament, Elder McConkie affirmed that these words meant what they said. This scripture was also cited by the First Presidency in the letter quoted above. Also in the context of genealogy, the Book of Moses states, "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed" (Moses 6:22). No doubt some see the statement in the Book of Moses as the restoration of a "plain and precious" truth, yet there are facts that would seem to obscure its plainess.

The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is taken from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Joseph translated Genesis 1-17 (maybe even through 24) and then switched to work exclusively on the New Testament. After finishing the New Testament, the Old Testament was then completed. The JST corresponding to Luke 3:38 alters the words "Adam, who was the son of God" to read "Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth." Since Joseph's alteration of Luke occured after he wrote Moses 6:22, it seems reasonable to question whether he intended the literal interpretation that some have made of these verses.

Chapter 6 of the Book of Moses, itself, suggests a figurative interpretation because after Adam is baptized he is told "Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." (Moses 6:68) Here, Adam's sonship is equated with the sonship (or daughterhood) that is offered to all of us. In a number of places, the scriptures refer to the status of a "son of God" as something one becomes through the Atonement (see John 1:12, 11:30, 34:3, and 45:8, for one example). A counter-argument to this might be that while Moses 6:22 has reference to Adam's physical relationship to God the Father, the other scriptures have reference to becoming a son of Christ, as explained by King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon.

Another scripture cited in support of this doctrine is Moses 6:8 which says, "Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God." Again, the term "children of God" is usually used in scripture to refer to God's covenant people. Some also equate the word "firstborn" with Adam's physical birth in Abraham 1:3, but other readings seem equally legitimate.

Interestingly, there is at least one scripture that contradicts this doctrine. Speaking of Christ, D&C 93:10 says, "The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him." Since God the Father is the father of our spirits, in what sense did Jesus make men if Adam is a physical son of God? Elder McConkie's solution to this scripture is to invoke the principle of divine investiture of authority--the actions and words of the Father can be attributed to the Son, and vice versa. (The Promised Messiah, p.63. Elder McConkie also gives an extended treatment to how one becomes a son of God. One is first adopted into the family of Christ, and then into the family of Elohim. See chapter 20.)

Current Treatment

Although this doctrine has appeared in talks and Church publications from time to time, it seems to be almost absent from current Church teaching. "The Family: A Proclamation on the Family," and Church manuals such as True to the Faith and Gospel Principles emphasize our spiritual relationship with God but say nothing of any physical relationship.

You are a literal child of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life. As His child, you can be assured that you have divine, eternal potential and that He will help you in your sincere efforts to reach that potential. ("God the Father" in True to the Faith, p.74)

In fact, none of the Church Educational System (CES) Institute student manuals dealing with the Old Testament, New Testament, Pearl of Great Price, nor the more general "Doctrines of the Gospel" manual, contain commentary on Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22 affirming the doctrine. (In most cases there is not any commentary on these scriptures at all.)

A search of the Ensign reveals only a handful of references to Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22, none of which are contained in an article or talk by a General Authority. As far as I can determine, there have not been any General Conference statements in at least the last 25 years supporting the doctrine either. In the October 1980 conference, Elder Mark E. Petersen gave a talk in which he specifically criticized Adam-God. In the course of the talk he said:

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ. Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous! Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are. Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.

This is one example of an Apostle emphasizing Adam's (and by extension, our) spiritual relationship with God, but leaving any physical relationship untouched (or in this case apparently denied.)

Conclusion

The concept that Adam and Eve were physically born of Heavenly Parents is a natural extrapolation of our mortal experience and fits reasonably well within the overall structure of Mormon theology. It has been believed and taught by some of the best men of this dispensation. However, although I am not aware that the doctrine has ever been specifically repudiated, the dearth of support for it from LDS leaders for almost a generation leads me to conclude that it is considered an unsettled, and perhaps speculative, matter by current leadership.

[Update: In his 1976 book, Adam: Who Is He?, Elder Mark E. Petersen refers to Luke 3:38 in three places (pages 5, 13, 59), although without much elaboration. His 1980 talk notwithstanding, it is possible that he believed the doctrine.]

Intelligent Design: A Personal View

2005-07-21T13:32:00.000-07:00

Readers of this blog will have noticed that I speak ill of "intelligent design," and may wonder why that is. Why, as a believing Latter-day Saint, do I not support such a concept? There are number of reasons, some of which I have expressed in previous posts. Nevertheless, I thought it might be helpful if I concentrate some of them in one post, which I will link to on the sidebar and update as I feel inclined. Extensive critiques of intelligent design are available in books and on the internet.

Continue Reading at LDS Science Review

Joseph Smith and Recycled Planets

2005-07-01T07:18:00.000-07:00

As discussed in my last post, B.H. Roberts sought to account for the age of the earth and the fossils therein by invoking a statement by Joseph Smith that "our planet was made up of the fragments of a planet which previously existed; some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed" (Gospel and Man's Relationship to Diety). In his later work, The Truth, The Way, The Life, Roberts apparently abandoned this line of reasoning, which was part of the reason the Church refused to publish it--he was asserting that life and death had occured on this earth before Adam and Eve.

Given his importance to Latter-day Saints, we are desirious to know everything Joseph Smith had to say on any topic and slow to discount his words. The first step in investigating this topic is to determine exactly what was said. The statement comes from notes taken by William Clayton of a speech by Joseph on January 5, 1841 and is published in The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. (I am unaware of any other sources; please provide others if you know of them.) Here is the relevant passage:

The world and earth are not synonymous terms. The world is the human family. This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live. The elements are eternal. That which has a begining will surely have an end. Take a ring, it is without beginning or end; cut it for a beginning place, and at the same time you have an ending place.

A key, every principle proceeding from God is eternal, and any principle which is not eternal is of the Devil. The sun [the context suggests that this should be "Son."] has no beginning or end, the rays which proceed from himself have no bounds, consequently are eternal. So it is with God. If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end. In the translation, "without form and void" it should read "empty and desolate." The word "created" should be formed or organized.

It is apparent from the surrounding sentences that Joseph's main point concerns the eternal nature of element. In fact a footnote says that "the William P. McIntire account of this discourse indicates that the subject of ex nihilo creation was one of the major topics of discussion during this inaugural lyceum meeting."

So we have a single, non-canonical statement taken from notes by William Clayton, that was not the main topic of Joseph's speech. This seems to me, poor material with which to build arguments against modern science. James E. Talmage apparently thought so too:

The statement by Joseph Smith, quoted at the beginning of this article, has been amplified and applied by some of our people in a way unwarranted by the prophet's utterance. This is no unusual incident in connection with the announcement of a great truth bearing the stamp of newness. Thus, the words of the prophet have been construed as meaning that great masses of material have come together in space to form this planet, and that the broken and disturbed state of the earth's crust is an immediate result of these masses falling together in a disorderly way...

Whatever may have been the character of the planetesimal bodies, the existing structure of the earth's crust is the result of causes less remote than the original accretion of these bodies,-causes of a kind yet operating,-disintegration, removal, and re-deposition in the case of these dimentaries, volcanism and metamorphism in the case of crystalline rocks. (Improvement Era, Vol. VII. MAY, 1904. No. 7.)

I have no training in geology, but I think it is a safe bet that the progress in geology over the 100 years that have passed since Talmage's writing have only compounded the difficulties in maintaining the interpretation that he argues against.

The scientist Henry Eyring (father of Elder Henry B. Eyring) is reported to have said that "it would take a very fancy shovel to put the earth together in such an organized fashion so that the fossils and ages of rocks are arranged in such an orderly manner with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on top."

In his Sunstone article, Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions, Duane Jeffery gives some treatment to this topic:

Some Latter-day Saints have tried to explain the fossil record with an uncanonized statement reportedly made by Joseph Smith that this earth was created from fragments of other earths. This sentiment is then extended to propose that dinosaurs, mammoths, and Australopithecines all come from other planets that have been destroyed, broken up, and recycled.

What size were the fragments? I have encountered claims all the way from continent-sized portions, to tectonic plates, to specific geological formations complete with living bristlecone pines on them, to mere atoms. Suffice it to say that no scientific evidence whatever exists to support such a model, and massive amounts of data indicate that our planet has, from its beginning, been a single dynamic but integrated entity--with continued accretions of space dust and meteorites of course.

Jeffery goes on to discuss theological questions such a scenario also raises.

Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether Joseph Smith was right or wrong. Like the quote commonly attributed to him concerning the Constitution hanging by a thread, the statement of interest here is rather vague and any interpretation of it says more about what the interpreter thinks than what Joseph thought. It gives no information as to how we could verify the statement, where we should look to do so, or what we should find. Even an interpretation of his statement regarding the eternal nature of elements is questionable, given our knowledge of nuclear physics and relativity. (Physicists could probably make an even stronger point here.)

What if Joseph really intended his audience to think that fossils came from recycled planets? Could it not be it a personal opinion, assumption, or speculation? Similar questions are currently in play regarding Joseph's views on the geography of the Book of Mormon or the identity of the Lamanites. However, I do not think we need to argue over whether it was personal opinion or not because the statement is sufficiently vague that no specific meaning can be reliably attached to it. (I wonder if the word "fossil" was part of Joseph's working vocabulary. My quick search on Gospelink 2001 did not return any usage of the word by Joseph. If anybody finds otherwise, please provide a reference in the comments.)

Finally, I think it would be useful to have a list of specific evidences that the scenario Roberts put forth would have to overcome or explain in order to be plausible. I invite readers to leave such in the comments--with references if possible. (Don't worry about the age of the post, comment anyway.)

Perhaps Joseph was absolutely right in what he said. But until we know what he meant, or we uncover meanings consistent with available evidence, it seems best to put his statement aside for now. I think it unwise to use the statement as a weapon until we know which way it cuts.

[This is a cross-post at LDS Science Review.]

B.H. Roberts on Evolution

2005-06-29T09:56:00.000-07:00

Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity, a book written by B.H. Roberts, was first published in 1888 with new editions released as a late as 1924. In a "Supplement" at the end of the book, Roberts takes on the topic of evolution. It is clear from his discussion that Roberts did not accept evolution for reasons having to do with both theology and science. Since there were multiple editions of the book, I do not know whether the supplement was included from the beginning or was added later, however it appears that he eventually did modify some of his thinking on the matter (see below).

The Supplement is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it shows what Roberts thought about evolution (as understood at the time). Second, Roberts lays out a number of arguments that persist to this day. The Supplement is too long to reproduce here, but I will provide the most relevant passages. Since it is such a readily accessible resource, I will also provide links to counter-arguments made on Talkorigin.com's Index to Creationist Claims. I will also add a few comments of my own. In doing so I intend no disrespect toward Roberts--as the 1931 controversy and other aspects of his life show, he was a man of both spiritual and intellectual integrity. I do not, however, believe that we do Roberts any honor by not providing answers to his objections.

The state of science has progressed immeasurably since Roberts first published this book--or even since he died. Think of the concepts of radioactive decay, genes, plate tectonics, the structure and coding of DNA, molecular biology, and genomics--the majority of these did not even exist in Roberts' lifetime and those that did were still in their infancy. These concepts have brought us an unprecedented understanding of the world we live in--an understanding that is increasingly harnessed by technology for practical benefit. I wonder what Roberts would say today.

Excerpts from the Supplement (page numbers are included):

p.265 What do these facts prove, I mean the sterility of species and hybrids on the one hand, and fertility of varieties, descendants from a common stock, on the other? Why, that the great law of nature is, as announced in holy writ, that every seed shall produce after its kind, and every fish, fowl, creeping thing, beast, and man shall bring forth after his kind-that is what it proves. And though man may for a moment by crossing species cause a slight deviation from the great law, it can be but for an instant, the monstrosity cannot be perpetuated, it dies out by being made unfruitful.

How do these facts affect the theory of evolution? Let us remember upon what that theory rests. It rests upon the principle that lower forms producing favorable variations, and these being preserved by the process of natural selection, amount finally to the production of distant species; but we have seen that varieties cannot produce what may be called the great characteristic of species-infertility to each other; then also we have seen there is a check to variation in the sterility of species and hybrids. Add these facts to that other fact that neither in living nature nor in the geological records can be found the intermediate transitional forms linking together by fine gradations the species, and the theory of evolution as advocated by many modern scientists lies stranded upon the shore of idle speculation.

Now that the basis of heredity and genetics are better understood, Roberts' objections are consistent with, if not outright supportive of, evolution. The more closely related two species are, the more likely it is that they can produce a hybrid (not all hybrids are sterile, by the way). Inability to produce a hybrid means that the reproductive isolation is complete. This is a matter of genetics, not a supernatural law governing variation.

Evolution has not been proved.
Mutations do not produce new features.
Range of variation is limited within kinds.
Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
Transitional fossils are lacking.
There should be billions of transitional fossils.
Science cannot define "species."

p.266 But if the hypothesis of evolution be true, if man is only a product evolved from the lower forms of life, better still producing better, until the highest type of intellectual manhood crowns with glory this long continued process-then it is evident that there has been no "fall," such as the revelations of God speak of; and if there was no fall, there was no occasion for a Redeemer to make atonement for man, in order to reconcile him to God; then the mission of Jesus Christ was a myth, the coinage of idle brains, and Jesus himself was either mistaken, or one of the many impostors that have arisen to mock mankind with the hope of eternal life.

There are two crucial links in reasoning here, and in many other theological treatments of evolution. The first is that the Fall of Adam and Eve is incompatible with evolution. The second is that without the Fall, the Atonement is unnecessary. I would like to deal with these in a future post. For now I will just say that I believe that these objections can be overcome. (If the first is overcome, the second is moot.) It is self-evident that we are subject to physical death. It is also self-evident (to most people) that we are not in the presence of God. Since the purpose of the Atonement is to overcome these two things, I think that how they came to be is of secondary importance, theologically. I hope to expand on this in a future post. Although the index treatment of this is unsatisfactory to me, it at least gives something to think about.

Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.

p.267 I am aware that there is a class of men who profess to be "Christian evolutionists," and who maintain that Christianity can be made to harmonize with the philosophy of evolution. But how are they made to harmonize? We are told that Jesus is still a Redeemer, but in this sense only: he gave out faultless moral precepts, and practiced them in his life, and inasmuch as people accept his doctrines and follow his example they will be redeemed from evil. But as to the fall of man and the atonement made for him by the Son of God-both ideas are of necessity rejected; which means, of course, denying the great fundamental truths of revelation; it is by destroying the basis on which the Christian religion rests, that the two theories are harmonized-if such a process can be called harmonization. It is on the same principle that the lion and the lamb harmonize, or lie down together-the lion eats the lamb.

If this is the best harmonization that can be accomplished, we do have a problem. While this may be the solution for some, I think the options presented here are a false dichotomy. See above.

p.279 The Prophet Joseph Smith is credited with having said that our planet was made up of the fragments of a planet which previously existed; some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed...

p.281 Accepting this statement of Joseph Smith relative to our planet in its present state being created or formed from the fragments of a planet which previously existed, one may readily understand how the supposed differences between scientists and believers in revelation have arisen. Scientists have been talking of the earth's strata, that were formed in a previously existing planet; they have considered the fossilized flora and fauna embedded in those strata, and have speculated as to the probable lapse of time since those animal and vegetable forms of life existed; and have generally concluded that the age is so far remote that there is no possible chance of harmonizing it with the account of the creation as given in the Bible. Believers in the Bible, on the other hand, have generally taken it for granted that the account of the creation in the sacred record would give to the earth no greater antiquity than six thousand years; and have held that within that period the universe was created out of nothing by the volition of Deity-an idea so palpably absurd that intelligence, despite all church authority to the contrary, everywhere rejects it.

The theory set forth in this writing that before Adam was placed upon this earth to people it with his offspring, the matter of which it is composed existed in another planet, which by some mighty convulsion was broken up, and from its ruins was formed our present earth, at once affords a means of harmonizing those facts established by the researches of men and the facts of revelation. If scientists shall claim that myriads of years or of centuries must have been necessary to form the earth's crust, it may be allowed by the believers in revelation, for there is nothing that would contradict that idea in the revelations of God on the subject. If scientists shall claim that the fossilized remains in the different strata of the earth's crust reveal the fact that in the earlier periods of the earth's existence only the simpler forms of vegetation and animal life are to be found, both forms of life becoming more complex and of higher type as the earth becomes older, until it is crowned with the presence of man-all that may be allowed. But that this gradation of animal and vegetable life owes its existence to the process of evolution is denied. As before stated, the claims of evolution, as explained by philosophers of the Darwin school, are contrary to all experience so far as man's knowledge extends. The great law of nature is that every plant, herb, fish, beast and man produces its kind; and though there may be slight variation from that law, those variations soon run out either by reverting to the original stock, or else by becoming incapable of producing offspring, and thus become extinct.

Furthermore, since we have learned that God made "every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew" (i. e. in our earth), the gradation of life forms which the naturalists discover in the various strata of the earth's crust may reasonably be accounted for aside from the theory of evolution-viz., by the animal and vegetable life forms of some older earth being brought to our own; different species being transplanted as changed conditions in the soil and atmosphere and temperature of our earth rendered it favorable to their productions, the older species becoming extinct as the changed conditions of the earth became unfavorable to them.

Then too, the theory advanced in this writing gives ample room for the reconciliation of another serious difficulty between the scientist and the believer in revelation. To the latter Adam is the first man; the former maintains that there are evidences which prove the earth to have been inhabited before Adam's time. Whether or not the planet which existed previous to our own, and out of the ruins of which our own was organized was inhabited by man as well as by vegetation and animals, I cannot say; all remarks on this subject would be conjecture merely. But if the researches of scientists prove beyond all question that there were pre-Adamic races, then doubtless they were inhabitants of that world which was destroyed, but the evidence of their existence as well as the evidence of the existence of animals and vegetation was preserved in the re-creation of that planet to form this earth. Though, in this connection, I must say that so far as I have examined the works of those who treat on the subject of pre-historic man, or pre-Adamic races, they have hung the heaviest weights on the slenderest of threads: and I am inclined to the opinion that Adam was the progenitor of all races of men whose remains have yet been found.

The claim that the age of the earth and the fossil evidence can be explained by the earth having been formed from previous planets that were broken is unique, I think, to Latter-day Saints. I will defer discussion of this claim to my next post. I would just note that one of the reasons The Truth, The Way, The Life was not published by the Church was because it assumed life and death had occurred on this earth before Adam and Eve. Thus it appears that Roberts did not stick to the argument laid out above.

The statement by Roberts that "the claims of evolution...are contrary to all experience so far as man's knowledge extends" is telling. I think that many arguments against evolution really boil down to this sentiment. It is what Richard Dawkins calls "The Argument from Personal Incredulity." However, the truth or accuracy of scientific concepts does not lie in whether they are intuitive or not. Quite the contrary--science is full of counter-intuitive ideas. For example, even a casual exploration of physics will uncover concepts that have no resemblance to our day-to-day lives. We are used to it now, but there is nothing immediately intuitive about how microorganisms cause disease--the etiology of infectious diseases has been unknown for most of history. The germ theory of disease was deemed absurd by some skeptics. Examples could be multiplied--the point is that our daily experience is not always the best way to judge such things.

As for the transplantation of life on earth from a another planet, this is a common idea found in LDS circles--I'm not sure whether it is found in the broader Christian tradition. The history of this concept within Mormonism would be interesting--something I may investigate later. For now I will just say that the idea that most life-forms were transplanted from another place does not really solve any problems. First, it does nothing to answer the question of how the life-forms were created. It merely moves the question back to another place. It also fails to explain the evidences from biogeography, the fossil record, and molecular evidences of common descent. Whether the original life on earth was a transplant is something that probably cannot be ruled out by present evidence, but that is another matter. If transplantation of life from elsewhere has occured we currently have no evidence for it, and for large-scale transplantation, we have much evidence against it.

Macroevolution has never been observed.

[This is a cross-post from LDS Science Review.]

Evolution & the Law of Consecration

2005-06-17T15:11:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the men most responsible for popularizing evolution was Herbert Spencer and Thomas H. Huxley (sometimes referred to as "Pope Huxley" of "Darwin's bulldog"). Interestingly enough, their popularization efforts centered not in the biological consequences of Darwin's idea, but in the political ramifications, especially in the case of Spencer. Spencer's coining of the phrase "survival of the fittest" was intended not only to describe biological evolution, but as a principle of economics as well. Those who are able to prosper is some sense should and should not try to bag down the rest of humanity by helping the "weak" to survive and reproduce through altruistic acts of charity.

It is for this reason that the LDS church of the second half of the 19th century was not too persuaded by evolution. At the time, Pres. Young and to a lesser degree Taylor were trying vigorously to impliment the United Order and nothing could have been more contrary to the United Order than Spencer ideas of Social Darwinism. It is in this context that Brigham writes to his son:

We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall and the false political economy which contends against co-operation and the United Order. This course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst. As a beginning in this direction I have endowed the Brigham Young Academy at Provo and [am] now seeking to do the same thing in this city. (Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, 200)

Clearly this was a bit of an over-reaction on Brigham's part on a number of levels. First of all, Darwin did not himself fully buy into Social Darwinism, despite it's unfortunate name. Second, I don't think that anybody at Brigham Young University would really want to take the scriptures as their textbook for any subject outside of the religion department.

Where Brigham was right, howver, was in his rejection of Social Darwinism. Though I should make it clear that his rejection was hardly based on any kind of logical error which he perceived in the theory. He almost certainly rejected the theory out of an allegiance to his interpretation of scripture and revelation. Luckily, by the end of the second world war, the rest of the academic world has also come to realize many of the flaws in Spencer's reasoning. These errors came to mind all to easily upon seeing Hitler take Spencer's reasoning to an extreme in his genocidal racism.

Darwinism in itself does not contradict the United Order as practiced by the early Saints. I wouldn't say that it supports it either, but nobody has ever articulated the logical bridges necessary to cross from the "is" of biological evolution to the "ought" of Social Darwinism. But wait. Aren't we told that evolution is centered around the "selfish gene"? How can a biological theory is is surely based of selfishness of some kind or another ever support the altruism necessary for the Law of Consecration to work in any form?

The answer to this question lies in the difference which exists between the "selfish genotype," an idea which evolution definitely supports, and the "selfish phenotype," an idea called Social Darwinism which biological evolution says little about. It is in the very selfishness of our genes that the altruism of our phenotypes has evolved. Altruism can emerge under many forms, for example kin selection and reciprocal altruism.

Kin selection is the altruism found in most animal species where the parents or siblings make sacrifices for the benefit of their children or siblings. This can be understood by the fact that the children bear the genes of their parents, thus when a parent sacrifices for their offspring, they are actually serving their own genes as found in their offspring. Thus, phenotypic altruism serves the selfishness of the genes.

I very interesting example of this is found in wasps, ants and bees where by an unusual genetic phenomenon, females are more closely related to their sisters than they are to their daughters. Thus, from a selfish gene point of view, it is more profitable for these females to occupy themselves raising the offspring of their fertile sisters than their fertile daughters. And this is exactly what we observe in such colonies in the case of females, but not males who have no such genetic relationship. This is a clear example of the selfish gene producing radically altruistic behavior on the phenotypic level.

The other example of genetically based phenotypic altruism is reciprocal altruism. This too is found among many species of animals, especially mammals, the great apes in particular. This is where I am nice to people when they are nice to me, thereby allowing all of us better chances at survival and serving the selfish gene again. Many studies have been done using game theory to show how such behavior could evolve and with great success. Due to the societal relationships of early man and most great apes, where the society are small bands with a relatively large perentage of the population being related, it would not be at all improbable for kin selection to evolve into reciprocal altruism. It is due to such "in born" reciprocal altruism that our tendencies towards contractual relationships has evolved, suggests the founder of sociobiology, Edward Wilson. We are naturally inclined, to a certain extent, to be altruistic on the phenotypic level.

Now we are approaching the law of consecration as expressed in the United Order. The revelation was as follows:

And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself. For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. (D&C 38)

This was the point of the Law of Consecration the extending of the family, that we consider those around us (remember this was in the context of the United Order) brothers and sisters and not just in name but in action. It was not just giving of your "time and talent" to the church as we hear today, but giving of everything, especially money. How many are willing to merely give of their time and talents to their children, expecting that to be enough for their sustanance? We are to treat those around exactly as we do our kin, because that is what they are.

Some people, especially mothers, consider their children to be but an extension of themselves. It isn't a her and them relationship at all, but is instead a "we" relationship, the first person plural. The Law of Consecration as practiced in the United Order was an attempt to extend this first person plural to include all other members of the church and community as well. It was to transform the my family and their family relationship into an "our family" relationship. Thus, in the United Order people were asked to embrace an intense phenotypic expression of reciprocal altruism (done by a covenant and deed which cannot be broken, D&C 42:30) which was to be considered a form of spiritual kin selection.

I'm not saying that we are biologically engineered to be communists or to embrace the United Order. I'm simply pointing out that the genetic selfishness inherent in evolution is not at all in conflict with our doctrines concerning consecration as Brigham evidently believed. Indeed, most naturalists view religious inclination in general to have been an evolutionary adaption meant to facilitate greater group cohesion. I can think of no greater expression of this cohesion than that found in the United Order.

Did God or Evolution Create Us?

2005-06-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

One question that constantly plagues me as I read Miller's more theological chapters is "where does he stand, exactly?" As we have noted, he offers two main windows of opportunity for God to have created us. The first being the creation of a universe which has laws specifically designed to support life. This doesn't really work too well in the Mormon context, in fact I'm not at all sure how well it works in an ethical monotheisic context either. After all, did God choose the physical laws, or did they choose Him?

His second window is that of quantum mechanics wherein small and inherently unpredictable fluctuations can be ampliphied into major biological changes. Thus God could direct evolution, but here is the problem, Miller doesn't seem to think that God DID direct evolution. Not too much anyway:

No question about it. Rewind that tape, let it run again, and events might come out differently at every turn. Surely this means that mankind's appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out. I agree...
Do we have to assume that from the beginning he planned intelligence and consciousness to develop in a bunch of nearly hairless, bipedal, African primates? If another group of animals had evolved to self-awareness, if another creature had shown itself worthy of a soul, can we really say for certain that God would have been less than pleased with His new Eve and Adam? I don't think so...
If a Creator were to fashion a world in which the constants of matter and energy made the evolution of life possible, then by forming millions of galaxies and billions of stars with planets, he would have made its appearance certain. With a sample size of only one, we can hardly look at earth's natural history and be assured that the evolution of intelligence and consciousness is the unavoidable outcome of life here or anywhere else. But given the size of the universe, it is easy to imagine that there may be many such experiments in progress. For all we know, God has revealed Himself to us, according to our many religious traditions, because we were the first of these experiments to be ready; or because we were merely the latest of His many encounters with creation. (272,274,275)

In other words, God created the universe according to astronomical creationism and basically let it fly. He might have done some 'fudging' here and there, but the target He was shooting for wasn't very small, and relatively easy to hit. Now while we have suggested that we should get too literal in interpreting "in God's image", we certainly cannot be as lax with it as Miller. Surely the God of Mormonism, while He might only have four fingers, does not have horns, feathers and twelve arms with thousands of deadly needles sticking out the ends.

Remember Joseph's King Follet discourse? God was once a man like us. He had to have experiences something at least remotely similar to what we are experiencing. Edward O. Wilson has a marvelous and very creative account of how intelligent and conscious life could have evolved. He delivers what could been a "state-of-the-colony" speech had termites progressed to be worthy of souls in Miller's sense:

Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies; the sanctitiy of the physiological caste system; the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat). (Consilience, Large Print ed. 288-9)

These vast differences in morality would have resulted from the vastly different epigenetic rules which are at the heart of "termitity" such as celibacy, non-reproduction of the workers, the exchange of symbiotic bacteria through eating eachother's feces, the use of chemical secretions for communication and the eating of shed skin as well as dead or injured family members. Is anybody willing to accept that God might have attained exaltation in accordance with a morality based in such epigenetic rules? I doubt it. While other Christians might be willing to embrace a suitably modified version of this predicament, Mormon's simply don't have this option.

For Mormon's consciousness is not enough. If God created anything which He could call His children in anything but the most anagorical and meaningless way, they would have to possess certain qualities. They would probably have to have two legs and two arms. I'm not sure they would have to be mammalian, but surely they wouldn't be birds, or even plants (there is no guarantee of animals in evolution, though there is a large likelyhood). They would also have to evolve at least somewhat similar epigenetic rules, largely based around their method of reproduction. Would man have to naturally be the more dominant gender? Could there be more than two genders? Could there be only one gender? Do the female to male ration have to be approximately even? Can they have sense which we are not familiar with such as ecolocation, sonar, phermonal secretions or even eletric senses similar to that of some deep water fish?

It is not inaccurate to say that the Mormon target for God to hit in accordance with evolution is much, much smaller than the target Miller's God is aiming for. Thus our answer to the title question may not be the same as Miller's answer at all. But then, Miller's question is different than ours. "Did God or evolution create some form of intelligent and conscious life?" The answer to this, is pretty much evolution, not God, and he even seems to say so himself in the above quote.

Our question, however, is "Did God or evolution create us?" This is precisely where we wax a bit creationistic. We were a small target, and such a target could have been reached by blind chance, but could not have been reached by blind chance on our world, as well as God's past world, as well as all the other worlds which are supposed to be home to God's other children. We answer, "Yes, we are products of evolution, but God played a significant part in it." This is a total faith claim, which should not pass for science by any respectable definition.

Our answer here is probably analogous to how we believe God created the earth. Do we really believe that He created each planet as if they were snow balls and then sent them flying like a bunch of billiard balls? I doubt it. I imagine that, similar to what Miller says in this matter, God probably started with a planet which was already mostly formed in its current conditions and went from there. Personally, I believe that the most likely scenario involved God choosing this planet after the seeds of life had already appeared on their own, though I imagine many will want to push the commencement of His involvement here back a bit.

Lastly, I would like to address one final flaw in Miller's reasoning. He quotes a particular speaker who explain the evolutionary God as follows:

If you deny evolution, then the sort of God you have in mind is a bit like a pool player who can sink fifteen balls in a row, but only by taking fifteen separate shots. My God plays the game a little differently. He walks up to the table, takes just one shot, and sinks all the balls. I ask you which pool player, which God, is more worthy or praise and worship? (283-4)

Nice try. Which pool man in more powerful? The one who builds the pool and then fills it up right there, the one who builds the pool and waits for the rain to come and fill it in or the one who simply waits for some kind of hole to appear somewhere and happen to get filled with water? This last pool man is the one Miller is suggesting. This pool man isn't the pool man of Mormonism.

Summary: Mormonism's views regarding life of other planets, both previous, future and contemporary, forces them to consider God's contribution in our creation to be rather significant. Miller's views, on the contrary, reduce most, if not all, creative work to mindless evolution.

Evolutionary Theodicies

2005-06-08T16:52:00.000-07:00

We have dealt in a number of posts about the problem of evil as it related to evolution. We mentioned how a literal reading of garden of eden story is principally motivated by an attempt at theodicy. Thankfully, Mormonism is not commited to such a reading (in fact I would argue that such a reading goes against Mormon doctrine) so the abolishment of such a reading by evolution presented little problem.

There is another problem which arises concerning the problem of evil as it relates to evolution. Namely, why in the world would an all-powerful God use such a drawn out, wasteful and inaccurate process as evolution to create life for us? This seems to fly in the face of everything we believe about God. It is basically to take the differences which Joseph Smith established between the Mormon God and the traditional Christian view of God and amplify them to the point of caricature. Not only did God create the world out of preexisting materials in accordance with natural law, but He took 4.55 billion years to do it, allowed 99.9% of all species to have gone exict and even so ended up with a product which has numerous and obvious short comings. If this doesn't put the problem of natural evil in prespective, I don't know what does.

Miller attempts to address this and similar issues toward the end of his book. It would do us well to carefully consider his way out of such a conundrum and how these argument might work in a Mormon context.

We should here mention that this is a place where the distinction between creating us through evolution and creating us in accordance with evolution. Creating us through evolution seems to suggest that evolution is in some respect God and a manifestation of His power. This puts all the bad side-effects associated with evolution squarely on His shoulders; not only does He not prevent the evils of evolution but He causes them under this reading. Luckily, God does create us through evolution. Carl Sagan put it nicely when he said that such a God would be "emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Miller discusses how God sometimes takes a hand's off approach to us here on earth. We can't and don't blame Him for most if not all human evil's. Adam's fall, the holocaust and so on are not God's fault, but are Adam's and Hitler's fault respectively. This is called the free will theodicy, which basically says that God doesn't interfere in our actions out of a respect for our free-will. He could intervene, but not without accomplishing the greater good.

Fair enough. But can we extend this theodicy of human evil to cover natural evil as well? Most would seriously doubt it, but this is exactly what Miller tries to do.

Obviously, few religious people find it problematic that their own personal existence might not have been preordained of God, that they might not be here but for the decisions of their parents or the chance events that brought them together. But strangely, some of the very same people find it inconceivable that the biological existence of our species could have been subject to exactly the same forces. If we can see God's will in the flow of history and the circumstances of our daily lives, we can certainly see it in the currents of natural history. (239)

Miller starts to get into some deep water here. First of all, many people DO think that their personal existence is preordained. Second, those who do realize that contradiction between the contingency of free will and absolute foreknowledge only limit God's foreknowledge only in as much as it contradicts free will. Remember, one desirable trait is being sacrificed for an apparently more valuable trait. Finally, there is no apparantly more valuable trait to be gained in limiting God's foreknowledge before any beings with free will existed on this earth. He has really gotten himself into trouble here for he is sacrificing God's foreknowledge and absolute power without anything in return.

He then goes on to bring this calling into question of God's power really into focus by quoting Gould thusly:

The real enigma... surrounds the origin and early history of animals. If life had always been hankering to reach a pinnacle of expression as the animal kingdom, then organic history seemed to be in no hurry to initiate this ultimate phase. About five sixth's of life's history had passed before animals made their first appearance in the fossil record some 600 million years ago. (243)

Given these views, it becomes difficult to believe Miller when he says, "By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God." Nice try. The power of the God of ethical monotheism seems seriously weakened by this analysis. God could have created us all in a puff of smoke without all that wasted time, energy and species just like most Christians still believe He did. But He didn't and Miller hasn't given such Christians a very good reason why.

As a brief introduction to how these ideas work in a Mormon context, let me quote a couple of lines from Miller.

God's miracles are not routine subversions of the laws of nature. If they were, then the issue of why so many extinct forms of life preceeded us would be a conundrum, since each one would have to be the intentional creation of the mind of God. If each were just another chapter in an unfolding plan driven by the laws and principles of nature, the issue is not important. If God were just a magician, He could have made the present world appear in a puff of smoke. But He isn't... Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected. Even if God can intervene in nature, why should He when nature can do a perfectly fine job of achieving His aims all by itself? It was God, after all, who chose the universal constants that made life possible. (240-241,244)

While the idea that God chose the physical laws probably isn't very consistent with Mormon doctrine, Miller's notion of God as being bound by natural law is very Mormon.

The reason why God used such a slow process is because He doesn't, maybe even can't, create living organisms out of the dust of the ground. Each creature has to be born in some sense of the word. This is what has motivated the transplantation doctrine, which was seen as a forced doctrinal move in it's pre-evolution days. (As a side note, we must confess that Elder Talmage himself noted that transplantaton is no answer to the origin of species anymore than saying that your roses came from the store answers where roses came from. Are we really prepared to admit that all 'kinds' of animals have always existed and were never created? Isn't evolution the only possible answer?)

The reason why God didn't prevent the all the death and suffering inherent in evolution is because only through the death and suffering does selection occur. God must work within the laws of nature, and given the immense amount of complexity and contingency involved in evolution, it took a really long time. We should also mention that every animal will die eventually, so this is really not that big of a deal.

But did it have to take this long just to reach us humans so very late in the game? Probably, but if not, I have suggested that we can view the history of life on earth as not being so anthropocentric. If these animals had any kind of intellgence, why not suggest that they too were profiting from their existence here on earth, similar to how we are?

And as a final side note, I cannot help but call attention to Miller's use of the free will theodicy. Miller suggests that God doesn't interfere with out lives too much out of a respect for our free will. But what kind of free will? If we maintain that this free will is basically, as Dennett calls it, moral levitation then applying this to the pre-human earth is entirely inappropriate. But if this free will is that of the compatibilist as endorsed by Ruse, Dennett and myself then there are enough similarities which can be drawn between our free will and the pre-human earth to justify his use of the free will theodicy.

Summary: Miller's evolutionary theodicy compromises the absolute omnipotence of the God of ethical monotheism. His God sounds very similar to the God of Mormonism in His being bound by natural law. An attack is also brought against the idea of separate-species transplantation.

Quantum Mechanics and Evolution

2005-06-07T13:12:00.000-07:00

Last time I mentioned that Miller, for all his intense and persuasive arguments against creationism, did not find materialism in evolution to be a forced move. He presented two principles which allow God room to intervene and thereby participate in the creation of the world as we now know it. The first window was in the creation of the universe itself according to what is now called the strong anthropic principle. I found his use of this principle to be unpersuasive it that while it seems that Miller strongly discourages biological creationism, he here seems to be endorsing astronomical creationism, an argument based too heavily on our current ignorance of the universes beginnings. Additionally, it is very unclear how the anthropic prinicple, in it's strong form, works when combined with the Mormon doctrine of the eternal nature of physical law and elements. I think it best that we, as Mormons, search elsewhere for a creative window of opportunity.

Miller's second options which he considers is based on quantum mechanics. This may seem like another appeal to ignorance, but there is a slight variation. This ignorance does not derive from our lack of understanding in this particular field, but rather is an inherent quality in this field. It's not that we don't now know or aren't able to make accurate predictions about what happens at the quantum level based on our current understanding of the matter. Instead, quantum mechanism has an 'uncertainty principle' built into it which ensures that we never will be able to predict what happens at that level.

Some think that difference between the two is negligible and that Miller really is falling back on the very arguments he criticized so heavily in his chapters on creationism. Miller does not, nor do I when considering things from his view. But there is the the rub. His view of God is not our view at all. I will explain why after a brief review of what, exactly, it is that Miller has in mind.

Miller draws heavily on Schrodinger's classic work "What is life?" Miller summarizes as follows:

Life is built around a chemistry that provides an amplifying mechanism for quantum events... Mutations, which provide the raw material of genetic variation, are just as unpredictable as a single photon passing through a diffraction slit... The fact that mutation and variation are inherently unpredictable means that the course of evolution is, too. In other words, evolutionary history can turn on a very, very small dime - the quantum state of a single subatomic particle... Quantum physics tells us that absolute knowledge, complete understanding, a total grasp of universal reality, will never be ours. (207-8)

He goes on to mention that the main thing that gets the opponents of evolution so riled up about the subject is the idea of its being totally random. "The only alternative to what they describe as randomness would be a nonrandom universe or clockwork mechanisms that would also rule out active intervention by any supreme Deity." (213) In this they are wrong, Miller maintains, for the position which more clearly fits their theology is the indeterminacy of quantum physics. In other words, God can act at the quantum level without science ever (in principle) coming to know the difference.

Before we go on to Miller more exciting applications of his reasoning, let's first view what we have here with a critical eye, if not a Mormon eye. First of all, let's discuss God's apparent ability to use quantum physics to His advantage. Let's assume that He does have this ability (if He didn't then the argument is over before it even starts). In order to be able to use this inherently unpredictable mechanism to His advantage He must of had to learn about it. Remember, God was once an ignorant man, just like us. But if He could learn about it to such a degree as to be able to use it to His advantage, which entails predictability, then Miller's argument of inherent unpredictability doesn't work in the Mormon context. Either it's inherently unpredictable or it's not, we can't have our cake and eat it too. This is one problem.

Another problem arises in his (over)emphasis of the randomnes in quantum physics and its relationship to mutation. The randomness of evolution which the materialists emphasize so much does not come from quantum physics, but from the utter contingency involved in the evolutionary process. Evolution works with whatever mutations are already in the population, thus the mutations are random in the sense that they are not 'intended' for anything. They are simply there through nobody's fault and nature selects whatever mutation happen to give organisms an advantage over those around them. If a particulat mutation helps, chances are (here is more change based on contingency) that it will eventually tend to spread through the popluation. If it doesn't help, chances are it won't. Either way, since all mutations are not equally fortuitous, SOME mutations will be selected, and all of this unguided randomness without quantum physics. Some, Dennett for instance, even maintain that evolution does not depend on indeterminacy at all.

Miller, it seems, could have equally said that since mankind will never be able to perfectly predict whether patterns, earthquakes, migrations and all the other extraordinarily complex factors which play a part in the survival of a particular species in any given ecosystem, we can never be sure that God isn't guiding things so let's keep faith. Basically, what Miller is holding out for is a Laplacian Demon, a demon which we do not believe exists.

That said, I must confess that the nature of quantum physics does suggest that if God is going to direct mutations, there is much that could be influenced on the macroscopic scale, by such infinitesimal and directed 'fluctuations.' If this is how God does it, however, then the inherent ignorance of such processes are only illusional.

I did say, though, that Miller's applications of his proposal are more exciting than the proposal itself. His accusation that Christians are playing into a form of Deism is particularly interesting from a Mormon perspective for reasons we shall soon see.

The opponents of evolution... see each new materialist, scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon as a retreat for the primacy of God. They are willing to fix on anything that seems unlikely to have a material explanation as proof of the divine agency they seek. And given biology's remarkable success in accounting for life's workings today, they are obliged to find those miracles in the past... Such reasoning shows a curious lack of faith in the creative power of God. Creationists act as though compelled to go into the past for evidence of God's work, yet ridicule the deistic notion of a designer-God who's been snoozing ever since His great work was finished... If they believe in an active and present God, a God who can work His will in the present in ways consistent with scientific materialism, then why couldn't that same God have worked His will in exactly the same ways in the past? What this means, in plain and simple terms, is that ordinary processes, rooted in the geniune materialism of science, ought to be sufficient to allow for God's work - yesterday, today and tomorrow. (215,217,218)

I'm sure most Mormons will recognize that last phrase since they are fond of quoting it to support their ideas concerning revelation, and miracles in general, in the current church. Do we really believe that God is the same or don't we? Why aren't new species popping up out of nowhere anymore like creationists seem to imagine? Why is His work finished?

Perhaps the least engaging (though far from being the least accurate) book which I have ever read on relgion and evolution would be "God After Darwin". The one thing which I did get out of the book, however, was the uplifting idea that the creation is not yet finished. God, with our co-creative help, is still creating a better world through the same laws which have always existed in this world. I like that, for it suggests that the methods that God used to perform His miracles in the creation of the world as we know it, are the same methods which He is still using today. We have already proposed two forms in which God could have directed evolution: 1) through inspiration and 2) through quantum fluctations. It sits well with me that we allow for these two methods to still be in use in the world today.

Summary: Miller's use of quantum physics an a impenetrable safe-haven for God's acts doesn't work too well in the Mormon context. Nevertheless, this not to say that God couldn't have, or didn't use it. Clearly God's creative acts lies in our ignorance somewhere, the problems only arise (as they do in creation science) when we resist penetrating this ignorance out of fear that God will be left without another job.

Evolution & the Anthropic Principle

2005-06-03T11:47:00.000-07:00

We have already covered Miller's thoughts on both creationism and atheistic materialism. He finds both parties to be presenting the same argument: Darwinian evolution proves there is no God, at least not one worth worshipping. Miller doesn't buy it and nor do I. Both sides are talking about a God which it absolutely in control and totally responsible for everything which happens in the universe.

You could, I suppose, cast the Almighty in this guise, make Him a cosmic tyrant, a grand puppeteer pulling every string at once, and then nothing would be left to chance. But most people would find this view of God disturbing. Putting God in charge of every trip and stumble of our daily lives does take chance out of the picture, but at what price? God is now personally responsible for falling limbs and power lines, for your daughter's illness, and even for the school bus full of children slipping off an icy road. (p. 234)

But this isn't the God of Mormonism. Our God works in accordance with self existent laws, elements and intelligences. He is not responsible for a lot of things which happen, and it is the eternal nature of these three things which gives Mormonism such a powerful theodicy to work with. Eternal intelligences can act on their own, thus allowing for moral evil. Eternal elements and physical laws allow for natural evil. We still have to wonder why God doesn't intervene more often, but we are off to a good start. It unfortunate that Miller couldn't have considered a Deity more along these lines in his book, but had he done so he simply would not have found near as large an audience. Instead, he sticks with the utterly transcendent God of ethical monotheism.

His next chapters are entitled "Beyond Materialism" and "The Road Back Home" where he attempts to show that there is more than enough room for God in the creation of the world and maybe even humans. It marks a transition in his book, from a consideration of evolution to musing in theology. Unfortunately, many have noticed that Miller isn't much of a theologian. A reviewer put it thus: "Darwin is found but God is still missing." Ouch.

There are two areas where God can make his appearance: 1) the designing of the Universe, and 2) the quantum level. He mentions these because not only do we know little about happenings in these realms, but in principle we can never scientifically know about them. Thus, while creationism discourages scientific investigation into the origins of species, an area where we can and do know quite a bit, his God of the Gaps lies in gaps that science itself says cannot be filled. Thus he is able to hold hands with science while keeping his distance from materialism. But how well do these moves work within a Mormon context? Let's have a look.

We mentioned the influence which natural theology had over the western world at the time of Darwin's Origin of Species. It was due to such a strong hold of natural theology that many of his day adopted Deism, a movement that basically put all of their stock in what we now refer to as the Anthropic Principle. In order to life of any kind to appear in the Universe, the laws had to be very particular, suspiciously so in fact. This has led many to find compelling evidence for God in the physical laws of the universe. Miller is one of these people.

Should Mormon be like these people as well? I'm not so sure. First of all, we should acknowledge that the stronger forms of the anthropic principle, the forms used to suggest that there is a God, rely heavily on our ignorance. We simply can't (won't) think of any other way to explain what seems to be an astronomically enormous coincidence. Enter Lee Smolin with his ideas of cosmic evolution, along with an endorsement from Daniel Dennett. The universe, according to Smolin, gives birth to other universes through black holes. With each new birth the fundamental laws of the universe are slightly variable, and the laws which are most conducive to forming blackholes by creating heavy materials such a carbon, will be the ones which will be most commonly observed. Hence, here we are in a carbon filled universe, ideal for the evolution of life.

Suddenly there is another explanation available, and our argument from ignorance loses a lot of steam. But Miller is right in that our knowledge, or better yet, our ignorance of the universes beginning does still allow for God. Thus, according to Miller, while biological creationism is bad, he sees no problem with astronomical creationism.

Deprived of empirical evidence, the best he [Dennett] can manage is to assure his readers that his non-theistic explanation is "at least as good" as a theistic one... [Thus] Dennett unwittingly admits that the "traditional alternative" is valid as well. (p. 231,232)

Thus while the anthropic principle doesn't provide very compelling evidence for God, it does make one think a bit. It at least allows for God anyways. One can only wonder, however, what happened to Miller's views of creationism in general:

I find the flow of their logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge, which might at any time disprove belief, but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. (p. 267)

Combine the large quantities of ignorance we have regarding the formation of the physical constants we know observe in the universe with the Mormon doctrine that ultimate physical law is eternal in nature, uncreated and coeternal with God, along with all of us and I'm not so sure the anthropic principle is really the best basket for Mormons to put too many eggs in. We simply have no clue how much involvement God had, in any at all, in the formation of the physical constants we observe today. I used to think that the Mormon doctrines concerning the physical universe were rather similar to those of Deism. Now I see that they are almost exact opposites.

Summary: Miller's use of the anthropic principle as room for God's creative acts is evaluated and seen to be suspiciously similar to the arguments put forth by the creationists he has just rejected. While the anthropic principle does allow room for God's creative acts, such space is tentative and possibly inharmonious with Mormon doctrine.

Evolution & the Gods of Disbelief

2005-06-02T13:33:00.000-07:00

After his having thoroughly demonished the three most prominent forms of creationism, one gets the feelings that Miller probably doesn't really believe in God the same way most people do, if he believes at all. It is this second option which he considers next in his book. Does evolution prove that there is no God? Now of course the most obvious response to this would be 'no,' but it's not so simple as we shall see. It certainly discounts any Gods that created species individually or created the earth without any death on it until about 6,000 years ago. Does evolution allow for a God? Yes, but not just any God. Does evolution allow for a God that created Human beings, us? That's a tough question which should be addressed with some care and length, which Miller does.

Between Newton and Galileo the latter is certainly more well known for his conflict with the church. He offered strong evidence that man was not at the center of the universe and therefore God's attention (in one interpretation). In response the church offered Galileo two options: 1) take back what you have said or 2) suffer, both in the next life and this one. Thankfully most churches learned from this unpleasant encounter by the time Darwin rolled around with his further displacement of man from center stage. While most held strong suspicions and disbeliefs regarding Darwin's ideas, few were willing to come out in full fledged opposition. This was a good thing, since in the long run they would have lost.

Newton's ideas also came in conflict with many notions of 'folk relgion' although when I say Newton I mean many of the pioneers of the Enlightenment who began to promote and embrace a materialism which varied between being merely methodoligical and fully ontological. With the discovery of mindless physical law, the jobs previously held by God began to disappear. God doesn't make things fall on earth and make the planet go around the sun, gravity does. Rain is not water from heaven, but water which had been evaporated off the earth's surface. God doesn't make the sun rise, shine and set for us each day, this is accomplished by the earth's rotating and 'nuclear fusion.' Like I said, I'm not only referring to Newton.

It was because of this that westerners began to adopt various forms of natural religion, culminating in deism. God didn't do these things anymore, but He did create the laws and materials which did do these things. It was because of natural relgion that people began to embrace the argument from design so strongly. And nowhere was the argument from design so powerful as in what we now call biology, the one area which still hadn't been taken over by the laws of nature as discovered by science. God still had a job, namely creating each form of life in it's vast complexity and wonderful design.

In the early 19th century people accepted the existence of God principally because of the argument from design. Life was uniquely designed and just as a wonderfully designed watch must have a watch maker, wonderfully designed life must have a life Maker. Even if the earth, its continents and weather systems were created more by physical laws than by God, life was different. That was His main concern, and that was His main occupation. How else could we account for the obvious design we see in life? Again, the argument from ignorance. Hume had already thoroughly destroyed the basic tenets of natural relgion, but this is precisely the place were he too fell short. He could come up with no alternative explanation to account for life and its various examples of design.

Enter Darwin. Life too is controlled by physical laws, 1) self-replication, 2) random variation and 3) a struggle for survival. From these three, design not only can but will emerge, not perfect design mind you, but design nonetheless. In one fell swoop, Darwin not only found himself in a Galileo event, but also threw down the religious dams placed by religion to hold materialism at bay. The consequences fo this application of materialism to biology can hardly be exaggerated:

The application of materialist science has transformed biology from the observational discipline of the nineteenth century into a predictive and manipulative science that enters the twenty-first century as the most dynamic and far-reaching of all scientific disciplines. (Miller, p. 168)

Thus there are physical laws everywhere, even in biology. Just as gravity had no fore-sight or teleological purpose in its creation of the earth, evolution had no fore-sight or purpose in its creation of us. Thus, according to some, God is left unemployed and we are left without meaing.

Dawkins draws directly on evolution to say that life is without meaning. Wilson finds that evolution can explain God away as an artifact of sociobiology. And Dennett is ready to dig quarantine fences around zoos in which religions, held safely in check, can be appreciated from a distance. (p. 185)

What gets really obnoxious is when the defenders of creationism back these claims up.

The griddy irony of this situation is that intelluctual opposites like Johnson and Lewtonian [who lies in the same camp as Dawkins & co.] actually find themselves in a symbiotic relationship - each insisting vigorously that evolution implies an absolute materialism that in not compatible with religion. This means, in a curious way, that each validates the most extreme viewpoints of the other.
Johnson's willingness to dismiss scientific evidence confirms Lewtonians fear that someone "who could believe in God could believe in anything." Anything clearly includes the nonsense of creationism.

Well, what about Mormonism? Are the fears of Johnson, the very fears which Dawkins exploits so willingly, the same fears which we Mormons should have? I don't think so.

First of all, what of God's creating the world and especially life? This is a question which he haven't discussed too much yet, if only out of sheer ignorance. While it is clear that evolution could have produced us all by our selves and Dawkins, Wilson and Dennett could be absolutely right, it is even more clear that evolution didn't have to produce us by itself. Gould insists that if we rewind the tape, the change that humans would reevolve is basically zero. Out of faith we believe that God meant for us creations in His image to be here. This He did not by creating the laws of evolution and then sittin back, but in accordance with the laws of evolution. Evolution did a lot of the creative work, but this doesn't some how disqualify God as a guide in the process.

What about the fears of materialism? What interesting is that Mormon are materialists in a certain sense. We believe that intelligence, element and laws are all self-existent. Materialism doesn't disprove God's use of these things and more than it disproves my use of this computer. Is a spiritual reality superfluous? It depends on whether we view human life as an accidental by-product of evolution (in which case the answer is yes) or as an intended goal of somebody working within the bounds of evolution (in which case the answer is no). Either way, the existence of a spiritual reality is not disproved.

What about the meaninglessness of life according to evolution? I have addressed this issue in a previous post. To ask what's the meaning of life can be better phrased what's the meaning of our existence? If we can answer what the meaning of our eternal existence is without appealing to God, since we exist independant of Him, I imagine it won't be that different from the meaning which Dennett gives to his life. We believe the laws of math, physics and ,where proper conditions exist, evolution to be eternal and uncreated, before which even God Himself must bow. This doesn't mean that there is no purpose in our eternal existence, let alone in this temporal existence.

If there we have any worries about materialism, meaning to our existence or God's part in creation, these worries stem not from evolution, but from Mormon doctrine itself. If anything we should be grateful that evolution has helped enlist so manhy other people in the quest to find answers to these questions with us. Evolution is not the bogey man some take it to be, especially for Mormons.

Summary: The worries which creationists and naturalists alike see in evolution are worries which Mormons must deal with even in evolution is false. While evolution may make belief in a spiritual reality superfluous, based on a particular view of human life, it certainly doesn't disprove a spiritual existence. Our belief in God and an eternal existence should not be based in the argument from design.

Blood, The Fall, and Intelligent Design

2005-06-02T10:25:00.000-07:00

According to current LDS theology, blood is a distinctive part of mortal life. Although Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the Garden of Eden, their bodies did not contain blood. The Bible Dictionary states, "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood" (see BD, "Fall of Adam"). Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

Eating of that forbidden fruit subdued the power of the spirit and created blood in [Adam's] body. No blood was in his body before the fall. The blood became the life thereof. And the blood was not only the life thereof, but it had in it the seeds of death. (Seek Ye Earnestly, p.81)

That there was no blood before the fall is a relatively recent concept. From what I have been able to find, Joseph Fielding Smith appears to be the first person to have taught it. In regard to the origin and support for this teaching, Robert J. Matthews has written:

That there was no blood in the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall, and that blood came as a result of the Fall, is not categorically stated in any one passage of scripture, but leading doctrinal teachers such as President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie have declared that such was the case. This conclusion is scripturally based and takes into account that blood is the mortal life of the body (see Gen 9:2-6; Lev. 17:10-15).

A further point supporting the conclusion that Adam and Eve had no blood in their premortal, non-death bodies is that we are assured by the Prophet Joseph Smith that resurrected beings do not have blood but possess bodies of flesh and bones "having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." The Prophet also said, "When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." In speaking of the place where God dwells, the Prophet said, "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." (See also 1 Cor. 15:50.)

This much we know about blood: (a) it is a vital part of our mortal lives and is basic to the reproductive process of mortals; (b) it was the agent of redemption in the atonement of Jesus Christ, he shedding his blood to redeem all people from the effects of the Fall and, upon the condition of repentance, from their personal sins; and (c) blood will not exist in the bodies of resurrected beings. With these known facts it becomes evident that blood is the badge of mortality, and since it will not exist in the deathless bodies of Adam, Eve, and their posterity in the resurrection, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that blood did not exist in the deathless, premortal bodies of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. (Man Adam, p.45)

In passing, it should be noted that while blood is a vital part of our mortal bodies, and that of many animals, it is not a component of many mortal life-forms (plants, for example).

Blood fulfills a number of important roles in the body. It's most notable role is to deliver oxygen to cells and remove carbon dioxide waste. It also facilitates the transportation of many substances through the body including nutrients, hormones, and components of the immune system. Because it is so vital to life, there are mechanisms in place that help to keep us from losing blood, ie. clotting.

The formation and regulation of clotting involves a number of proteins, all of which are encoded in our genes. Inherited deficiencies in these genes can lead to such conditions as hemophilia. It is beyond the scope of this post to detail the interactions of these proteins, such as in the clotting cascade. (See here for further reading.) It is sufficient to know that the regulation of clotting is complicated and impressive.

Elder Russell M. Nelson has commented several times on the wonders of the human body, including the ability of blood to clot. (See, for example, “The Magnificence of Man,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 64.) The regulation of clotting has also been discussed by Michael Behe in his book, Darwin's Black Box. In his book Behe claims that the clotting cascade is an irreducibly complex (IC) system, which means that if any component of it were removed, the system would fail. Since it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that the whole system could have been fully developed by natural means, all at once, and since the system would not confer any advantage to an organism if it was developed one component at a time, Behe argues that this system has been intelligiently designed. Presumably, the "designer" is God. If Behe is correct, his argument would seem to add scientific support to the sentiments of Elder Nelson, and some undoubtably see it as such. (Whether or not Behe is correct is beyond the scope of this post.)

In thinking about the Fall, a natural question arises: Why was it necessary? Why did God create things in a paradisiacal state rather than a mortal state? In his criticism of evolution, Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:

Latter-day Saint theology recognizes God as the creator. Thus the labor of creation must be godlike. God does not do shoddy work. Having completed the work of creation, he declared it "very good" (Moses 2:31). (Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions, p. 158-162.)

While the scriptures have much to say concerning the consequences of (and redemption from) the Fall, they have little to say about the reason for the Fall. Robert J. Matthews expressed this opinion:

If God had created man mortal, then death, sin, and all the circumstances of mortality would be God's doing and would be eternal and permanent in their nature whereas if man brings the Fall upon himself, he is the responsible moral agent, and God is able to rescue and redeem him from his fallen state. (Bible! a Bible!, p. 187)

Apparently McConkie sees anything less than a paradisiacal creation as "shoddy" and ungodlike. Matthews sees the Fall as a way for God to avoid responsibility for our mortal condition.

There may be other explanations, but I do not find either of these explanations compelling, which leads to the point of this post: If God does not create anything "shoddy" (and therefore ungodlike) and has no responsibility for mortal conditions, how can we say that God designed or created blood, the hallmark of the Fall? We can widen the question to include all things that are in a fallen condition, since the scriptures state that all things testify of Christ. In fact it was God who issued the curses that would characterize mortality for Adam and Eve. If we take the scriptural account literally, thorns and thistles were apparently previously unknown to earth. This means that either God had previously created such plants but held them in a dormant state, or he created them when Adam and Eve fell. The same can be said for blood or any other biological characteristic of mortality.

If we are to exclude any role for evolution in the creation of life on this earth on the grounds that God either does not create, or cannot be responsible for, anything that is less than perfect, then it seems to me that we have to relinquish his role in the creation of anything that characterizes fallen conditions, including blood. Conversely, if God has created (in a direct way) aspects of our mortal condition, then we cannot say that using evolution in the creative process would be "shoddy" and ungodlike. If evolution is to be rejected as a tool which God uses to create, it will have to be on theological grounds other than its imperfect nature.

God as Mechanic in Evolution

2005-06-01T12:34:00.000-07:00

The third form of creationism which Miller criticizes in his book is that of Behe's irreducible complexity. The believers in such, claim Miller, worship God the mechanic, clearly an upgrade from God the charlatan or God the magician. It must be kept in mind that Miller here is addressing three different and not always compatible versions of creationism in his book. In God the charlatan he attacks the idea that the earth is young, which it clearly isn't. Thus he establishes that there has been death on this earth and all those fossils are the remain of animals which must be accounted for. He then moves on the God the magician who created all those animals separately in a not very intelligent way, for no obvious reason. But animals do have common origins. This clearly comes through in the fossils record and our understanding of genetics. Now that he has established that animals do descend from common sources, and that there has been life and death on the earth for a very long time, he goes after the Mechanichists.

I do say these things for a reason. Namely, that the Charlatanists should not use the arguments which the Magicianists and Mechanichists put forth for they are not compatible with what they, the Charlatanists, believe. Neither should the Magicianists be using the arguments of the Mechanichists, because altough they are both attacking Darwinism, the arguments of each are not compatible with the arguments of the other, making such statements attacks on each other as well. The Magicianists use many arguments which require an old earth. The Mechanichists use many arguments which require common descent. But it doesn't seem that any of them care all that much for the simple reason that they aren't interested in science or truth for that matter. They are interested in attacking their attacker and defending their faith claims, Truth with a capital 'T'.

Here's a perfect example.

In a 1995 debate, I presented him [Behe]with molecular evidence indicating that humans and the great apes shared a recent, common ancestor, wondering how he would refute the obvious. Without skipping a beat, he pronounced the evidence to be convincing, and stated categorically that he had absolutely no problem with the common ancestry of humans and the great apes. Creationists around the room - who had viewed him as their new champion - were dismayed. Behe's views stand in oppostion to those of Philip Johnson, who rejects any notion of a common ancestry for humans and other animals; and in bold contradiction to young-earth creationists... who reject common ancestry altogether and maintain that all species were seperately created. (p. 164)

Those who find the problems between evolution and the fall to be unsuprable barriers, cannot in good-conscience use the arguments of Behe, arguments which depend on an old earth. They should also be careful about how they accept Johnson's arguments as well. These men are only trying to establish that God played a role somehow and that natural law isn't enough by itself to generate us. They have given up on the young earth and its time we did as well. Behe has given up on a special creation and we should be no different. Miller, as we will see, with all his Christian faith has given up on irreducible complexity and we should too if only out of intellectual integrity for science, which in Mormon theology is a relgious reason.

We have already seen what Michael Ruse, a respectable and fair philospher of biology, had to say about Behe's book:

No evolutionist ever claimed that all of the parts of a functioning organic feature had to be in place at once, nor did any evolutionist ever claim that a part used now for one end must always have had that function. Ends get changed, and something that was introduced for one purpose might well take on another purpose. It might be only later that the new purpose gets incorporated in such a way that it becomes essential...
Take the example of an arched bridge, with stones meeting in the middle and with no supporting cement. If you tried to build it from scratch, the two sides would keep collapsing as you started to move the higher stones into the middle. What you must do first is build an understructure, placing stones on it. Then, when the stones are pressing against one another in the middle, you can remove the understructure...
We find that Behe's case for the impossibility of a small-step natural origin of biological complexity has been trampled upon contemtuously by the scientists working in the field. It is not just that they disagree, but that they think his grasp of the pertinent science is weak and his knowledge of the literature curiously (although conveniently) outdated...
Behe's knowledge of evolution is suspect. His knowledge of his own area of science is suspect. And the same is true when he moves into philosophy and theology.

Not the kindest words, but not entirely undeserved when Behe tries to put himself in the complany of "Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur and Darwin." (Behe in Darwin's Black Box, p. 232-233) Miller agrees with Ruse when he says, and rightly so, that Behe has literally taken the old 18th century argument from design and spiffed it up with biochemical terminiology. Darwinism can account for most large features in organisms, Behe admits, but when it comes to the really small ones it can't. Why we might ask? Because it's really complex, irreducibly complex in fact. People have been saying this for centuries about the big features, why should the small ones be any different? As long as there is random mutation, self-replication and a struggle for survival, evolution will occur, regardless of size.

Basically Behe's book amounts to being one long series of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. "We don't know therefore God did it," and "I don't believe it so it isn't true." Regarding the argument from ignorance, on mulitple occasions in this book Behe really tries to drive home his points by stating that nobody has proposed evolutionary pathways for various systems. This is not just icing on the cake of his argument, it IS his argument.

There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. (Behe, p. 185)

A God-of-the-Gaps theology if there ever was one. The problem with the God of the gaps is that the gaps have a tendency of filling it with time. For Behe, however, it was even worse, for the gaps had already been filled in contrary to his claims otherwise. Soon after Behe's book was published, Miller did a search thorough the literature to see if Behe was right about the utter and complete lack of evolutionary accounts for the systems he mentions. Remember, for Behe's argument to mean anything at all, there must be NO literature on the matter as he himself says. Much to Miller's surprise, however, numerous articles were easily found detailing the very things which Behe said had never, and hopefully would never, be detailed. "Not only is [Behe] wrong, he's wrong in a most spectacular way. The biochemical machines whose origins he finds so mysterious actually provide us with powerful and compelling examples of evolution in action." (Miller, p. 160)

Well how does Behe believe that these 'irreducibly complex' biochemical system got into the cells in the first place? It almost pains me to quote this one:

Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others... One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later... were present but not 'turned on.' (Behe p. 228)

No, we can't suppose this for a number of reasons. 1) This is a flagrant violation of Ockham's razor. 2) Evolution would have destroyed such genes while they were turned 'off' for so long. 3) Such a scenario requires that the earliest bacteria were about 1000 times the size of today's bacteria. We can say that they shrunk, but this is just what I said in (2).

While Behe's work may be 'faith promoting' it is not good science and therefore makes for bad Mormon theology as well. It is the worst kind of 'faith promoting' material, the kind that only works as long as we remain in ignorance. Once the ignorance vanishes, then what happens? Should our faith suffer from our learning? I think not. Mormon doctrine tends to deemphasize the teleological argument and instead puts more weight on 'divine experience.' Let's not follow Behe in his opposition to this trend.

Summary: The third form of creationism is considered and rejected. Behe's criticisms of evolution rest of the argument from ignorance (which makes for bad theology) and personal incredulity (which makes for bad science). The inconsistencies between the three types of creationists are also pointed out.

Procreation or Design: Pick your Poison

2005-06-01T10:09:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post I argued that God as Literal Father and God as Engineer are mutually exclusive ways of understanding God's role in the creation of the human physical body. (Both are anathema to the hard-core evolutionist; hence the title of this post.)

I've created a new poll, available on the sidebar, where you can declare your best guess. The options are not binary: there are several variations of God's possible "design" involvement; an option that includes both design and procreation; and, just so no one feels left out, an option for skeptics/unbelievers as well.

Previous polls (which still accept votes) can be found here.

God as Magician in Evolution

2005-05-31T13:27:00.000-07:00

I have now finished Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" and can say that I recommend this as a starting point for anybody interested in finding, as he calls it, "common ground between God and evolutioin." While I do have some issues with his attempts at reconciliation, some are based on a Mormon application some not, these will be dealt with later on. While I have already considered some of his arguments against the those who hold out for a young earth, I would like to address his points against those who deny the common origin of species.

While he considers that God of the young earthers to be a flat out charlatan, he considers the God of those who deny the common origin of species a magician which really isn't all that bad but certainly isn't that good. While "young-earth creationism requires a full frontal assault on virtually every field of modern science" (p. 81) the Magicianists do not find themselves in a near as uncomfortable conflict with well established fact. Nevertheless, Philip Johnson (the main Magicianist) still finds himself at odds with boat loads of well established scientific reasoning.

Johnson claims that there are no credible evolutionary sequences. Wrong. There are lots of them and more are turning up every year. He claims that there are no credible evolutionary mechanisms. Wrong. The actual rate of morphological change in the biological world can be measured and turns out to be 10-100 times faster than is needed to produce the impossibilities he sees in the world. Obviously he isn't a scientist nor is he familiar with the relavent data.

He is, instead, a defense lawyer who has only one objective: to establish reasonable doubt. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not science. Not by a long shot. He offers no theories of his own, no alternatives, nothing but criticism. Again, not bad, but not science.

Well let's consider two theories which he could put forth, but, of course, doesn't. How do species appear if not by common descent? 1) A puff of smoke which could means either a special creation right then and there or tranplatation in our tradition. 2) A new species is born of another species, for example, a chicken hatches from a triceratops egg.

Number 2 isn't going to be maintained by too many Creationists since it is basically what they think that evolutionists believe, which they don't. Animals multiply according to their own 'kind' and can never transcend those barriers. What's interesting is that that is almost exactly what Darwin himself would have taught. We cannot have 'hopeful monsters' popping up since they would over shoot the selective focus. Instead, mutation from one generation will be very limited giving a relatively gradual course for evolution to follow as it were. Neither the scientists nor the religionists accept number 2.

What about number 1? Mormons will tend to reject the 'puff of smoke' idea (I hope) since we have traditionally felt that God created the world by natural means, nothing being more natural than sexual reproduction. Thus we speak of transplantation. Miller has a little bit of fun with this idea based on is total rejection of a global fall.

The appearance of new species out of thin air doesn't seem to happen anymore, even if it happened on a recurring basis in the geological past. These newly designed organisms continued to appear on a regular basis right up to the present day. Then for some reason, just as we became able to observe it, this remarkable magic stopped. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? (p. 100)

"I'll tell you why," we can hear the creationist shout back, "because the Lord finished the creation of the sixth day a pronounced it good. There was no need for more once we were here. In fact, isn't it the Darwinians who believe that new species should be cropping up out of nowhere?" (No they don't, since speciation events can only be defined, by very definition, with the hindsight of 1,000's of years.)

In Miller's second critique of the Magician he calls into question the Magician's competence.

To adopt the explanation of design, we are forced to attribute a host of flaws and imperfections to the designer. Our appendix, for example, seems to serve only to make us sick; our feet are poorly constructed to take the full force of walking and running; and even our eyes are prone to optical errors and lose their ability to close focus as we age... Whatever one's views of such a designer's motivation, there is one conclusion that drops cleanly out of the data. He was incompetent... The average length of time a species survives after its first appearance is around 2 million years. Two million years of existence, and then extinction... In simple terms, this designer just can't get it right the first time. Nothing he designs is able to make it over the long term. (p. 101, 102)

He brings in an amusing analogy.

As a visitor walked past one of the cages at the zoo, he marveled at the sight of a lion and a lamb sleeping peacefully nest to each other. Amazed, he sought out the zookeeper. "That's incredible!" the visitor said. "How do you make them get along so well?" The zookeeper smiled. "It's easy. All we have to do is to put in a new lamb every day." (p. 102)

99% of the species which have inhabited the earth have been destroyed. Special creation is starting to look a bit ridiculous. Assuming that all those fossils came from animals which live and died on this earth, why would our Magician create these totally unnecessary species only to have them go extinct before anybody could admire them? This is an especially poignant point when considering the numerous 'links' which are no longer missing. Fish/amphibians, Amphibian/reptiles, Reptile/dinosaurs, Dinosaur/birds, Reptile/mammals and Land-mammal/whales have all been found. Are we really going to think those creatures were special creations, destined to live and die for no apparent reason?

Intelligent design advocates have to account for patterns in the designer's work that clearly give the appearance of evolution. Is the designer being deceptive? Is there a reason why he can't get it right the first time? Is the designer, despite all his powers, a slow learner? He must be clever enough to design an African elephant, but apparently not so clever that he can do it the first time... Intelligent design does a terrible disservice to God by casting him as a magician who periodically creates and creates and then creates again throughout the geologic ages. Those who believe that the sole purpose of the Creator was the production of the human species must answer a simple question... Why did this magician, in order to produce the contemporary world, find it necessary to create and destroy creatures, habitats, and ecosystems millions of times over? (p. 127,128)

This question applies to those who believe the fossil record to have been supplied by other planets full of animals, transition forms and even hominids indistinguishable from modern man. Why was their planet which seems to have been almost EXACTLY (even IDENTICAL) like ours destroyed? We don't think this planet will be destroyed, why would this other hypothetical world complete with its ecosystems be dismantled? These criticisms coming from a strong Christian scientist should not be dismissed as easily as they have been. God is not a magician who only appears powerful as long as we don't look very close.

Summary: Having considered the false idea of a young earth, Miller continues his attack on the creationists who dismiss the notion of common descent. Such an idea is alos bad science and terrible theology since it depicts the Magician Designer as being utterly wasteful, incompetent and deceptive.

Joseph F. Smith vs Ernst Haeckel?

2005-05-27T12:23:00.000-07:00

In reading the 1909 First Presidency statement, The Origin of Man, part of an oft-quoted section stood out to me.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

Continue Reading at LDS Science Review.

Creationists Sound Off!

2005-05-27T11:29:00.000-07:00

s promised, this is the rather long paper which I wrote a few years ago when I was still an Intelligent Designer of sorts. Don't worry, there never was any 'part 2' that got put into any coherent format so this is all there is. Anybody who has read any of my evolution posts will instantly recognize that I don't think the arguments I present here hold any water, and as such I will spend a few posts critiquing my own former arguements.

The Evolutionary Theory: Part 1

In a debate recently held at Stanford University between Phillip Johnson, professor of Law at UC Berkeley, and William Provine, professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University (1), the three most prominent philosophical positions held regarding Darwinism were staked out. Toward the end of the discussion Dr. Provine decided to take a vote with the audience to see what the general opinion was as to each view. “On the count of three I want everybody who feels that the earth was created about 10,000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is a complete fraud to make noise. 1-2-3!” There came a generous amount of cheers from the crowd. He then repeated the scenario with respect to a God-guided version of Evolution, which was followed by a scanty number in the audience applauding. “Evolutionary Theists are few and far between,” Provine chuckled to himself. “Now, who believes that evolution is the most logical explanation for life and that God had little, if anything, to do with it?” As with the creationists, there arose a loud roar from the audience. And there I was, still awaiting other possibilities for which I could cheer. My personal beliefs, as those of many Latter Day Saints, do not conform unequivocally to any of these positions.

The 10,000-year theory has various versions, some, in my opinion, more plagued with unnecessary leaps of faith than others. One of the oldest, and currently least accepted is the idea that God created the earth and the universe exactly one week before Adam’s creation more or less 4,000 years before the advent of Christ. Many have humored themselves at the notion of God waking up early the fourth day, after getting a good rest from his third day endeavors, and giving a great stretch accompanied by a loud yawn. He gives a few cracks to his knuckles and then says “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky!” snaps his fingers and POOF! A cloud goes up and as the dust clears the sun, moon and all the stars are magically in place. He sees this it is good and continues resting until the next days work. A rather extreme and quite ridiculous theory indeed.

Another, more accepted description of the creation is the idea that since 1,000 years to man is but one day to the Lord (2) the creation of the earth, complete with a fossil record, was commenced more or less 7,000 years before the creation of Adam. This, however still leaves us with the same humorous story, because although the process was extended a few thousand years according to us, it too, seemingly leaves God with not much to do in that week of creation, aside from long naps occasionally interrupted by the quick snaps of the fingers. Why was all of that intermediate waiting necessary? What was happening during this time? While there are answers proposed for most of these questions and other versions of this theory, which will be discussed later, one grasps the basic underlying idea.

The possibility of a God-guided evolution has its strong and weak points as well. While it does explain how chance was able to overcome huge odds and produce a wide diversity of life forms, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Is man a God-guided product of evolution from primates or rather set apart descendants of Adam, a being created expressly in the image of deity? If the former is true, why is he so special in God’s plan? If the latter holds valid, what was the point of the billions of years preparatory to Adam’s coming? If life can be explained away by evolutionary methods, just how involved is God in our lives?

Provine gave a fairly accurate description of the “unavoidable implications” of a naturalistic evolution in his presentation, which he summed up as follows:

1) No gods or purposive forces
2) No life after death
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics
4) No ultimate meaning in life
5) No free will

Not only does this outlook on life leave one feeling utterly empty, but it also discredits virtually all of the evidence and studies that have been performed that provide convincing evidence in favor of the existence of some type of divine being. Furthermore, it is also not very hard to see that the fact (assuming the theory to be true) of evolution among species does not directly lead to any one of Provine’s concluding points.

While the atheistic setting is not as humorous as the satires derived from a creatio ex-nihilo (creation from nothing) it does make for a fascinating paradox when the scientist, who has renounced anything concerning religion, dedicates many hours to writing books and giving lectures on “Science and Religion.” Hugh Nibley pointed out this popular train of logic followed by altogether too many scientists:

1) The secret of the Scientist's superiority and success is that he pays strict attention to the problem at hand; limiting himself to the laboratory situation, he rejects all else as extraneous and irrelevant.
2) This means that the problem at hand is everything that counts.
3) If that is so, nothing else counts—Science is all in all.
4) Therefore Science alone can give the answers to the ultimate problems of life.
5) But the ultimate problems of life are exactly what Science must renounce in order to be Science! (3)

While I am not at all opposed to science (I am in fact fascinated by it), I do not hold people who twist the facts in order to force their atheism upon others in high-esteem. This, however, is not anything new to the world. Nibley has noted in an essay, which I would recommend to any Latter Day Saint interested in the subject of evolution, that

Long before the time of Christ the ancient Sophists, supplanting religion by naturalism, came up with a scenario very close indeed to what we think of as evolution. And so we get at an early time … the sight of an apostate religion squaring off against an always-inadequate science. And the issue is never the merits of the evidence but always the jealous rivalry of the contestants to see which would be the official light unto the world. (4)

The Book of Mormon gives an example of an anti-Christ named Korihor preaching a doctrine similar to that of a naturalistic survival of the fittest:

“Ye cannot know of things which ye do not see (5)…these things which ye call prophecies…are foolish traditions of your fathers…it is the effect of a frenzied mind…every man fares in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospers according to his genius, and…every man conquers according to his strength; and whatsoever a man does is no crime…when a man is dead, that is the end thereof…I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God.” (6)

Evidence supports the supposition that Korihor himself might very well have been a scientist, or at minimum well acquainted with science, by the way that he was apparently able to carelessly explain away phenomena such as “the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form.” (7) He did not consider these prodigies to be evidence of God, but rather as natural occurrences. This dogmatic assertion of not believing in things one cannot see was, ironically, what eventually led the ancient Americans into false scientific convictions. (8)

Today we coexist with many people who, similarly to Korihor, are bent on badgering the uninformed into accepting, for moral reasons, the very principles that destroy moral standards. Perhaps the most ardent advocate of Atheistic Darwinism is Richard Dawkins who has written that

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). (9)

With acclaimed scholars unleashing ultimatums of this caliber it would be very comforting to most of the religious masses to hear an intellectual put forth some line of secular defense in their favor. Fortunately, such statements are not hard to find at all. No less an educated man than Sir Fred Hoyle, an avowed atheist and therefore uninfluenced by religious bias, has been very open in speaking out against orthodox Darwinian Evolution

Statements one frequently hears, to the effect that the Darwinian theory is as obvious as the Earth going around the Sun (another quote from Dawkins (10) are either expressions of almost incredible naiveté or they are deceptions. (11)

Clearly the argument is far from as settled as many would have us believe.

Worth mentioning is the fact that there are indeed fossils that have been found. They are not few in number, and these animals, whose remains are being unearthed, must have existed at one time or another. One theory that accounts for such discoveries is that since the earth was made from fragments of other earths (12), the animals must have existed on other earths and their remains were preserved. This theory rests on no less than two assumptions. First, it requires that some God, at one time or another was not able to resurrect some of His living creations and has, as a result, left remains from his failed kingdom. And second, when the fragments were reused in the creation of this earth, it was in a manner sufficiently gentle in order to preserve these fragile remains, and sophisticated enough to leave the remarkably ordered fossil record that we find today.

When dealing with the creation of the world one should exercise a fair amount of care not to jump to premature conclusions. Very little has been revealed with respect to the time, place, manner, and the characters involved in the creation of the earth. And if these obstacles were not enough, we cannot be totally sure how literal or allegorically we are meant to interpret the revelations that we currently possess. (13) This, unfortunately, has been the greatest downfall for Christians of all ages. Too many have declared that their own interpretation of what the prophets have reported God to say to them (the prophets), a second hand account at very best, to be the infallible and final word on the subject. For this very reason a number of astronomers were imprisoned and persecuted for teaching that the earth was not, in fact the center of the universe. (14) And again, for this reason many scientific intellects have criticized the Pope for having discouraged the study of what might have happened before the Big Bang. (15)

Whenever I start talking about this creation business, people fly apart like glass. They can't stand the fire. They will stick to their old traditions. I can't even bring it up. They want to string me up to the nearest tree if I start talking about that because their prejudices are so deep and so established. (16)

He believed that the world “was made by a natural process, and the almighty knew exactly how to do it.” (17) All things considered, our traditional interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis is likely to be quite erroneous.

In order to help us understand matters such as the creation of the earth, the Lord revealed through Joseph Smith the following:

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass. (18)

Related to this verse, the prophet also taught, “one of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” (19) Of all things researched, most Christians would agree that the study of things in and under the world have resulted most vexing to their faith.

Does the existence of dinosaurs (20) automatically imply the non-existence of a supreme being? By no means. Joseph has taught that there have existed (on this earth if the 130^th section is to hold true (21) many animals of which the saints of his day had no concept.

John saw beings…of a thousand forms…strange beasts of which we have no conception… John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men… We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John. (22)

But, on the other hand, does the existence of dinosaurs automatically imply the existence of Darwinian Evolution? Again, not necessarily. As we shall see, the theory of evolution has many problems.

First of all, what is natural selection? It is a tautology and nothing else. This point alone has subjected Darwinists to quite a helping of criticism. It is basically saying that “If among the varieties of species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.” (23) How much information does that sentence really convey to a reader? What else can be said as a fact in the field of evolution, aside from the obvious? Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at British Natural History Museum said in a lecture:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing… that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got then was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing- it ought not to be taught in high school”. (24)

Very little is known with a certainty about evolution, especially with regard to past life forms.

This creates a dilemma for our friends the scientists. Even if they were to unearth a stunningly complete record of fossils equipped with all the transitional forms they could ever hope to amass in their favor (which they have not), the hardheaded creationist could still claim that each form was a different creation from God, and the scientist could never really prove otherwise. Short of building a time machine to go back and watch it happen, there is virtually no way for the theory of common descant to be proven 100% true. Campbell, formerly of UCLA, has made this point clearly:

We know that we can never do more than present hypotheses on the basis of the presently available evidence. As time-bound creatures, no ultimate truth about the origin and evolution of mankind can ever be known to us. (25)

This truth should not be bothersome to anybody, for this is the very definition of a theory. Take, for example, Newton’s theory of gravity. It was accepted as true for centuries until Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity were conceived. Stephen Hawking acknowledged this line of reasoning as follows:

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis. You can never prove it. No matter how many times the result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. (26)

Even if we saw new species popping up at the same rate at which species are going extinct (27) (which they are not), I imagine that some would still reject the idea of common descent out of faith that the counterevidence would still come.

And so it is, Darwinism can never be thoroughly proved (though staggering amount of evidence can be amounted in its favor) yet may be quickly refuted. With this in mind, one becomes deeply suspicious of those proclaiming the case to be closed when a Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, Lynn Margulis, declares, “History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.” (28) What is it that is causing many renowned scientists to reject the current theory of evolution? (29)

It is my intent to present a range of current arguments used against the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of earth’s past. Although in the future some might eventually come to naught, as noted, only one solid contradiction is needed to at minimum force revision of the current theory.

Life Is Unique

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the idea of utterly random mutations is the question as to how life began on earth in the first place. On one hand, in order for natural selection, or nature for that matter, to have existed, a self-replicating organism of some kind was needed. On the other hand, for something as complex as a self-replicating organism to have come about without inherited mutations would be nothing short of a miracle.

The old school said that rabbits had been created by God using methods too wonderful for us to comprehend. The new school said that rabbits had been created from sludge, by methods too complex for us to calculate and by methods likely enough involving improbable happenings. Improbable happenings replaced miracles and sludge replaced God, with believers both old and new seeking to cover up their ignorance in clouds of words, but different words. (30)

Either scenario seems to me like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

In 1953 Stanley Miller, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment where he took the materials thought at the time would have been present in the primeval earths atmosphere and subjected his apparatus to a simulated lightning storm for a few days. Soon a reddish slime developed on the edge of the flask and, upon analysis, was revealed to contain amino acids, the building blocks of life. Many scientists had a heyday publishing the obvious implication: life was nothing but a haphazard accident in chemical reactions.

Not all informed researchers, however, were so thrilled.

Miller and Urey’s experiment only works as long as oxygen is absent and certain critical ratios of hydrogen and carbon dioxide are maintained… Scientists are now learning that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required by the Miller-Urey apparatus. Oxygen was likely present in the early earth atmosphere. (31)

To assume that there was no oxygen in the earths atmosphere is indeed a bold claim since "solar effects on the earths water may provide our primary supply of oxygen, and not photosynthesis (the synthesis of oxygen from carbon dioxide by plants) as is generally believed." (32) But why would they assume that oxygen was not present on the earth? The answer, obviously, was that that was the only way it could happen. (33)

In the presence of oxygen any organic compounds formed on the early Earth would be rapidly oxidized and degraded. For this reason many authorities have advocated an oxygen-free atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years following the formation of the Earth’s crust. (34)

The proposal of an absence of oxygen, while avoiding a few problems, only creates others. Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would exist no ozone layer. Any sort of organism miraculously assembled in the prebiotic soup would be subjected to a lethal dose of ultraviolet radiation in approximately .3 seconds. (35) Alternative methods of producing life have been purposed, but

the big problem is that each nucleotide “building block” is itself built up from several components, and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. (36)

In short, the production of amino acids is remotely improbable.

But there is yet another problem. Amino acids are not life! They must combine in a highly complex pattern in order to form a single protein. Well, how probable is that?

Joining many amino acids together to form a protein with a useful biological activity is a much more difficult chemical problem than forming amino acids in the first place… Because water is so abundant on the earth, and because amino acids dissolve readily in water, origin of life researchers have been forced to propose unusual scenarios to get around the water problem.(37)

To firmly believe that such was the beginning of life requires more faith than Job ever could muster. (38) When one denounces others for exercising faith in unseen things while maintaining such improbabilities in their own heart one begins to question that person’s motives. (39)

Particularly unhappy with the situation have been the mathematicians. They have compared the odds of any form of life emerging from the chaotic blob of stuff to the possibility of an army of monkeys strumming away on their typewriters over an indefinite length of time and actually producing one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning… There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰=10^40,000 (40) an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social belief or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. (41)

In other words, if the whole universe were made of monkeys, and if they had billions of years to accomplish the feat, those monkeys could still never produce anything comparable to the complex and intricate organization of life. In case the odds of life some how forming out of indiscriminate coincidences in the four billion years that the earth has been calculated to exist (or the 15 billion years of the universe) (42) were not in itself a stretch of common credulity, consider the powerful evidence which suggests that life appeared only one to three hundred million years after water (which is necessary for life to exist) formed on the earths surface. Where time was once considered to be “the hero of the plot” (43), it has now become the villain. Such a setting has forced many to speculate about the possibility of transplantation of life from other planets. (44) But, as Elder Talmage has pointed out,

To explain the origin of a rose-bush in our own garden by saying that it was transplanted as an offshoot from a rose-tree growing elsewhere, is no answer to the question concerning the origin of roses. (45)

But surely there must be some evidence in support of a primordial soup. Even if it’s existence does not concur with theoretical logic, perhaps there is a clue to be found in the fossil record, else why the insistence upon it’s existence?

If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere in this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compound, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, alternatively in much meta-morphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes (graphite-like nitrogen-containing materials). In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere in earth. (46)

Why then, in direct violation of Ockham’s Razor (47), do scientists persist in declaring that there must have been some organic mess lingering around? The answer is simple. Naturalistic philosophy and uniformitarianism are assumed and, some might argue, required in all science. Such logic, however useful for producing theories and relative predictions, is insufficient for conclusive proof in matters with such weighty ethical consequences.

Unlikely Evolution Of Irreducibly Complex Systems

In Darwin’s writing of “The Origin of Species” he provided a number of hypotheses as to how certain traits, organs, and characteristics of a variety of species could have evolved. So important was this point to his theory that he admitted,

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (48)

This bold statement requires an immense amount of supportive research, which he readily attempted to supply. He did remarkably well at explaining away many derivations of organs, considering his 19^th century knowledge.

We, however, do not live in the 19^th century. Since the time of Darwin many scientific advances have been made in various fields, particularly that of molecular biology (which was nonexistent at his time).

Molecular Biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world… The recently revealed world of molecular machinery, of coding systems, of informational molecules, of catalytic devices and feed back control, is in its design and complexity quite unique to living systems. (49)

With the discovery of proteins, their building blocks amino acids, and their building blocks nucleotides, much skepticism has been centered on whether Darwin’s criterion for failure has been met.

Michael Behe in his award winning book “Darwin’s Black Box” has addressed this very problem by mentioning a number of irreducibly complex systems that, he feels, could not have been produced by a non-directed evolutionary process.

A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning, cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. (50)

Nearly identical to the concept of spontaneous generation of life, this is the notion of a spontaneous generation of functional organs.

There are many illustrations of this principle in the biological world around us. Take for example the bat with its echolocation. To have it, many things must evolve in a simultaneous manner. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, specialized ears to hear echoes, specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects. If all these things don’t evolve simultaneously, there is no advantage (51). If there were no advantage then why would natural selection not discard the unnecessary baggage?

In the microscopic world, probably the most classic example of a complex organ presenting a challenge to the evolutionary theory is that of the eye. Darwin addressed this organ in “The Origin of Species”, showing that our highly intricate sense of sight, complete with color vision, could have evolved from less complicated versions of the same thing. He gave examples of many animals that have colorless vision, to a not-solid lens vision, ultimately to a light sensitive spot, which some animals have. That was very convincing logic for a world that knew nothing of what made an eye. But,

The arguments… fail because they never discuss what is contained in the systems over which they are arguing. Not only is the eye exceedingly complex, but the “light-sensitive spot”… is itself a multi-celled organ, each of whose cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison. (52)

The question of how the light-sensitive spot came to be is rarely mentioned for lack of explanation.

The molecule of DNA, the most famous of the nucleic acids, is made up of four kinds of nucleotides: A, C, G, and T. When the “A” nucleotide is not connected to a polymer, in can take on several forms: ADP, ATP, and the first form synthesized in the cell and an essential ingredient in metabolism, AMP. The metabolic system, and AMP in specific, is very far from simple, and a suitable idea for their evolutionary pathway that might have been taken in their formation has not been conceived. Nearly all of the current theoretical explanations involve the scientist drawing

A figure, in which arrows point from the words abiotic syntheses to the letters A, B, C, and D. But, breaking new ground, he has arrows pointing from A, B, C, and D to M, N, S, T, and W, and from there to P, O, Q, R, and U. Besides each of the arrows he has written Cat (as an abbreviation for “catalyst”) to show how the letters originated, but that is no explanation: the only “evidence” for the scheme is the figure! Nowhere does he or any other researcher attach names of real chemicals to the mythical letters…No one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed. (53)

Another example of an elaborate system found within organisms that presents a problem to the unsystematic development of life is the immune system. Various characteristics had to be acquired in this system in a synchronized and timely fashion so as to save many species from certain doom before the first disease (or in other words, a need for it) had evolved. Recognition of foreign and potentially hazardous bacterium, destruction of the danger while tolerating the harmless and helpful, reproduction, and diversity (54), to name only a few, must all be synthesized in order for the system to be of use. “Whichever way we turn, a gradualistic account of the immune system is blocked by multiple interwoven requirements… The complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.” (55)

Another bodily system that presents a formidable challenge to Darwin’s ultimatum is the coagulatory system. Russell Doolittle from the Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of California, San Diego, has said,

Blood clotting is a delicately balanced phenomenon involving proteases, antiproteases, and protease substrates… How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? … The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble? (56)

Even such a simple routine as blood clotting requires many proteins and enzymes in order to form clots, limit the clotting before dangerous lumps form in the blood stream, strengthen them and remove them. Where as in other systems, difficulties or lack of one of its components will only yield the scheme unprofitable, in the case of the coagulation cascade such obstacles result in serious health problems or death from a stroke or blood loss. (57)

Other examples could be given, such as the cilium (the waiving tail found on many cells which help sperm swim and push mucus up to the throat), which requires microtubules to slide, connectors to convert sliding to bending, and motors to move it. Or take into account the vesicular transport system, which entails six interacting components (58). There are many, but where “Richard Dawkins can simplify to his heart’s content, because he wants to convince his readers that Darwinian evolution is “a breeze”, in order to understand the barriers of evolution” (59) one has to elaborate more than space here is available.

Complex Animals Appeared Suddenly

In an outright onslaught of attacks to creationism, one of the scientists did manage to acknowledge this imperfection in the conventional theory of evolution.

Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendent pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if these were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin’s time, and re-explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed… We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin’s time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. (60)

This is basically the argument that animals changed too fast, which, though it seems to be, is not a contradiction of the following point, that animals changed too slow. The two arguments are two forms of evidence against the uniform, gradual, series of mutations predicted by evolutionists.

Perhaps the most often used evidence from the fossil record by anti-Darwinists is the Cambrian explosion. Until relatively recent times the evolutionists have assumed (and logically so by their own theory) mutations and natural selection to be slow and gradual processes. But “The most thorough study yet of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with a most un-Darwinian abruptness after long periods of stability.” (61) Where the previous conception of the earths past was more or less that of an evolutionary tree, steadily branching a little by little, scientists are now confronted with more of an evolutionary bush, a burst of diversity followed by very slight changes. At the beginning of the Cambrian era, a mere 530 million years ago, the record gives strong evidence to this eruption of life.

The fossil evidence that challenges this classic concept of evolution has been found worldwide: in western Canada, near Chengjiang in southern China, in Africa, Greenland, and Sweden. The Cambrian explosion of life encompassed the globe. Jointed legs, food-gathering appendages, intestinal structures, notochord, gills, and eyes with optically perfect lenses- all these “evolved” simultaneously. Sponges, rotifers, annelids, arthropods, primitive fish, and all the other body plans represented in the thirty-four animal phyla extant today appear as a single burst in the fossil record. And it happened 530 million years ago. Those are the data. No one disputes them. (62)

There are no intermediates. There are no “missing links” coming forth. It is not even a question of the missing link, because nearly all of them are missing. Alan Cheetham, after his excursion to amend this lack of evidence “came reluctantly to the conclusion that (he) wasn’t finding evidence for gradualism.” (63) He was not just speaking of the Cambrian era, but everywhere. There are very few intermediates being found anywhere at all.
In such an absence of supporting proof many have turned to inventing common ancestors between different species and presenting them as fact (64). If I were to accurately draw the fossil record as the data suggests, I would not draw a tree, or a bush, but rather a number of reeds sticking out of the ground. This just goes to show, as Geerat Vermei of University of California Davis has admitted, “Those who have looked hard, and that’s not a large number, have tended to find punctuation.” (65)

Change In The Past Has Been Limited

With such giant jumps found between species in the fossil record it is not unreasonable to suppose that there exist many instances of small skips from one life form to the other that could be considered a mutated form of a former species. And yet, as reasonable as that assumption may be, if evolution has in fact occurred to all of the estimated 50 billion species that have existed on this planet, it has proven to be false. The famous biologist, Lynn Margulis,

At one of her many public talks asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. (66)

While some life forms, which Darwinists are always quick to label “intermediate forms”, have been uncovered, there is absolutely no reason why these could not be a unique species in and of themselves. Just because the do not fit into the traditional “Kings Play Cards On Fat Green Stools” (67) labeling system that we have created is no definite reason to suspect mutation. Even in the case of these examples, which scientists love to through in any unsuspecting creationists face, all but one of the links in the connecting chain between species is missing.
This goes directly against what has been taught to every high school student for the past few generations. Where most biologists are afraid to mention such difficulties, with their theory (mostly out of fear of giving the creationist ammunition) (68), it is comforting to know that some die-hard evolutionists are willing to fess up.

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the over simplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -Yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbook. (69)

In summary, the fossil record is replete with various explosions of life forms, which seemingly come out of nowhere. No intermediate species have been found, and therefore no satisfactory explanation has been provided for such bursts. Also noted in the remnants, is the fact that between these break outs of new species, there are few examples of change either. The animals were always either mutating too fast to be considered indiscriminate mutations in a game of survival of the fittest, or they were mutating too slowly too account for any major change between species.

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collection up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. (70)

Change In The Present Is Limited

On our planet there are currently 50 million species of plants and animals. This represents one part in a thousand of the species estimated to have lived here. Thus 99.9 percent of all the species that have ever lived on earth have become extinct, an average of about 1 species every three or four days. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that, assuming the theory of evolution to be true, new species could be expected to be popping up at about the same rate to maintain a relatively stable equilibrium. Over the past six thousand years of recorded history surely man must have observed at least one new species come into existence. And yet,

In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born… This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. (71)

Artificial selection was Darwin’s favorite source of evidence in support of his theory. From pigeons to dogs, his Origin of Species is filled with examples of mutations induced upon domesticated animals. He pointed out, and rightly so, that the animals always adapted to certain situations in a rather effective way. This is microevolution, the small mutations found in the same species under different environments. In all fairness, it should be stated that microevolution is, without a doubt, true to a great extent. To ignore the fact that a fish will grow in proportion to the size of its container would be comparable to an ostrich thinking an enemy disappears because he sticks his head in the sand.

Domesticated animals, dogs for instance, have been subjected to severe conditions in hopes of producing the extremes, a Chihuahua or a Saint Bernard. While a great variety has been developed certain plateaus (72) of change have been met. And even so, after such variations have been accomplished, the end product is still a dog.

From all this it is quite clear that dogs selected and kept by man in a domesticated state remain within the boundaries of species. Tame animals that have reverted to the wild state lose the characteristics produced by mutations and fairly quickly resume the original wild type… This demonstrates, as we knew before, that artificial and natural selection do not work in the same way. (73)

In other words, at least halt of Darwin’s book is irrelevant. Not only are there no solid examples of evolution in the past, there are none in the present.

Chance Cannot Account For The Highly Complex Ecosystem

Recently, much research has been performed at the Santa Fe Institute regarding a complexity theory. One of the main problems they have attempted to tackle, and unsuccessfully at that (74), is how such an extremely complicated system as the world’s ecosystem could have evolved by chance. While many have accused their “science” of being more mathematical that biological, the question they raise is significant. One author, who supports the theory said,

Think of the interaction of life forms on the planet to make an ecosystem. That’s even more complex than a single animal. All the arrangements are very complicated. Like the yucca plant… The yucca plant depends on a particular moth, which gathers pollen into a ball, and carries the ball to a different plant- not a different flower on the same plant- where it rubs the ball on the plant, fertilizing it. Only then does the moth lay its eggs. The yucca plant can’t survive without the moth. The moth can’t survive without the plant. (75)

Or consider the similar interactions between flowers and bees. The whole “circle of life” is a huge community of interrelated elements (76). How could such intimate interactions, and there are many, have come to be? “A balance of species in a community cannot be produced and maintained by competition alone.” (77)

Some have wondered how many advantages, which natural selection is claimed to have “forced” (does that sound like a mindless haphazard word to you?) upon species, could have arisen at all. To have any real effect or give any real advantage the mutations would have to be freakishly large by our standards. Think of that, how many freakish mutations have really helped a person to survive? Though, there may be some, the odds are quite low as to whether a mutation would help at all.

"Rare favorable mutations…cannot free themselves from the more frequent unfavorable ones, because an offspring to whom a rare favorable mutation occurs is inevitably saddled with all the unfavorable mutations which have afflicted its parental line." (78)
"When genes are tied to each other, as they are when reproduction from generation to generation follows an asexual binary fission model or a budding model, there can be no positive evolution. Rare advantageous mutations are swamped by more frequent deleterious mutations. The best that natural selection can do subject to a specified environment is to hold the deleterious mutations in check." (79)

With such relations full of twists and turns one can reasonable argue, as did perhaps the most intelligent scientist ever that, “To compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies argues the Cause to be not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled” (80) in the sciences.

Naturalistic Interpretations Of Genetic Molecules Cannot Account For The Information Contained Therein

With the discovery of the double-helix-shape of the DNA molecule by Francis Crick and his associates, many scientists became quite excited. At last, solid information of how evolution works and the history thereof could be studied. Their excitement was not, however, justified. It soon became apparent that not all the DNA molecule was used, and the majority of it was evidently neutral.

The result of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations. (Emphasis not added) (81)

Biochemistry has revealed that although they can now study genetic codes directly, they tell little about how that species evolved. Perhaps the most mysterious riddle is (as we have already discussed briefly) how the very structure of the helix and the information within was formed.

The sequence of bases that spell out a message in the DNA molecule is chemically arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic in the chemistry of any base sequences that makes it carry a particular meaning. In fact, there are many base sequences possible besides the ones actually used in the cell-all of them equally probable in terms of chemical forces. By merely examining the physical structure, you could not detect any difference between these useless base sequences and those necessary for life. There is nothing in their physical make up that distinguishes the two sets of molecules. Out of a vast number of possible base sequences, somehow only a few carry meaning. (82)

Those who have studied the molecular structure of DNA have not had the foggiest idea where the shape came from, nor why it is produced. Equally vague is why that particular structure should contain such a vast quantity of information and, some might argue, intelligence. As one author has described the intelligence of the microbiological system,

A single fertilized egg has a hundred thousand genes, which act in a coordinated way, switching on and off at specific times, to transform that single cell into a complete living creature. That one cell starts to divide, but the subsequent cells are different. They specialize. Some are nerve. Some are gut. Some are limb. Each set of cells begins to follow its own program, developing, interacting. Eventually there are two hundred and fifty different kinds of cells, all developing together, at exactly the right time. Just when the organism needs a circulatory system, the heart starts pumping. Just when hormones are needed, the adrenals start to make them. Week after week, this unimaginably complex development proceeds perfectly- perfectly. (Probably M. Crichton)

Science has shown that life is made up of the same stuff as “the dust of the ground” (83) but it has had a relatively difficult time defining the difference between living and inanimate matter. They have not been able to figure out how something that is metabolic, self-reproducing and eventually capable of rational thought (a process still not fully understood) could come into being time and time again from merely chemical reactions that arose spontaneously. Where does the information for this unparalleled process come from? How can inert matter contain such information? There appears to be no explanation.

I sincerely hope that in my showing the errors and holes found in the theory of evolution I have not portrayed the scientists as evil villains who spread nothing but rubbish and devious doctrine. Such has not been my intent. I very much approve of scientists and hope myself to become one in the future. It is my belief that God himself is nothing short of a scientist. It is, however, important to remember that the current theories in science are just that, theories.

The scientist readily admits that he was wrong yesterday, but dogmatically insists that he is right today. We can believe him when he says he was wrong, but can we believe him when he says he is right today? He said that yesterday, too. (84)

I feel that the current evolutionary theory is a remarkably intelligent theory and has been reached a great deal of correct conclusions. It has been shown that life forms on this planet have become gradually more and more complex through out time. It has shown that species are very interrelated and have a remarkable ability to adapt to their environment. It might have even shown how life has developed its huge range of diversity. But, it must be admitted that other sciences have provided quite convincing evidence against a blind, naturalistic, and utterly haphazard version of this theory. I do not disapprove of the theory of evolution being taught in school, for it is the most descriptive and apparently accurate model that science has to offer. The evidence against the theory is, nonetheless, just as scientific as the evidence in favor of it, and should be presented as well. The ad hominem argument (85) of labeling all dissention as superfanatical, religious ranting will never help anybody learn the absolute truth.

I do approve of the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence, but there are limits, which should not be crossed in such analyses. When one assumes that what has been observed is all there is to work with, this is logical and much truth can be discovered by this method. When such a method is used to develop a theory, I do not believe that the theory should be used to prove that there is no more than what is observed. That is a circular argument from which there is neither escape nor progress. On the flip side, “God did it and that is that,” offers little forward advancement as an explanation.

So, the question that should be on every person’s mind is how did it happen. Were there a snap of the fingers and a poof of smoke on each of the seven creative days? That is just the question.

************************************************

1 Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? On VHS video cassette by Phillip Johnson
2 (Abr. 3:2-4; Facsimile 2 Fig. 1, 4; 2 Peter 3:8; Psalms 90:4)
3 Hugh Nibley, Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley, page 244
4 Hugh Nibley, Old Testament and Related Studies, pages 49 – 50
5 It is interesting to note that though many claim that it is foolishness to believe in things that one cannot see, that is exactly what scientists are beginning to claim in regards to astronomy. In the January 2002 edition of Discovery the author points out that astronomers are sure that there is matter that cannot be seen, and this in order to account for gravity holding galaxies together with so little visible matter.
6 Alma 30:14-18, 48
7 Alma 30: 40-44
8 Many sources, both canonical and non-scriptural, indicate that the ancient Americans and Easterners at one time knew that “surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun” (Helaman 12:13-15), a belief which eventually was abolished and ultimately loathed by the church and state. We see in an ancient account of Mark 16:3 reads “In the third hour of the day there came darkness throughout all the globe of the earth.” Clement of Alexandria, a second century Christian, wrote, “the ocean is impassable to men; and there are worlds which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God.” In Mesoamerica, the entire Mayan city of Teotiuacan is, to a remarkable degree of accuracy, a scale model of the solar system. See “Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids pg. 215, 221, and 266-9.
9 Richard Dawkins has written many books, The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable for example, with the sole purpose in mind of destroying creationism.
10 Dawkins 1989 New York Times, April 9, 1989 sec. 7 p. 34
11 Fred Hoyle in “The Mathematics of Evolution” page 30
12 Joseph Smith, Jan. 5, 1841, Words of Joseph Smith pg. 60 “This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broken up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.” Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 1:275 “When the elements in an organized form do not fill the end of their creation, they are thrown back… to be made over again.” Hugh Nibley taught, “How fascinating to realize that the surface of our planet must be strewn with matter from other solar systems." Well, the more recent report here is that our earth is almost totally made up of matter brought to it by comets. That's Parley P. Pratt's old theory. Remember, he used to defend that…. "So the cosmic debris streams out from galaxies and begins to form a bridge between them [we actually have a photograph of that going on]. This matter [that is brought by comets] tears down and builds up all objects, providing new raw materials for new creation. This metabolism resembles the metabolic process of organic life, a new combination, a new creation." Oh, what a shocking thing to say! How unchristian. Haven't I heard the expression, "We have a new world, like unto the other worlds that were created." Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, page 5
13 Elder Bruce R. Mc Conkie has written, “We do not know how the fall was accomplished anymore than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state.” A New Witness for the Articles of Faith pg. 85-86.
14 Copernicus was sentenced to a kind of house arrest for his “preposterous” theory, which many felt went in outright opposition to the written Word, that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Carl Sagan spoke very cynically of examples such as these in his book Pale Blue Dot. He thought that such instances in history some how prove that there was no God (A conclusion which I emphatically disagree with) and that we humans should get off of our high horse, humble ourselves, and study things out (conclusions which I whole-heartedly endorse).
15 Stephen Hawking in “A Brief History of Time”
16 As quoted in Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, page 2
17 As quoted by Franklin Richards in Timeless Questions, Gospel Insights lecture 1 by Truman G. Madsen.
18 Doctrine and Covenants 88:77-80
19 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.
20 One wonders if Abraham knew of dinosaurs judging by figure 16 in Facsimile number 2.
21 Doctrine and Covenants 130:5
22 Joseph Smith commenting on the Book of Revelation, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page. 291
23 Fred Hoyle in “the Mathematics of Evolution” pg. 2
24 As quoted in “Darwin on Trial” page 10 by Phillip Johnson from UC Berkeley
25 Campbell, Bernard Conceptual Progress in Physical Anthropology: Fossil Man,” Annual Review of Anthropology 6:27
26 Hawking in “A Brief History of Time”
27 Estimates have it that over the history of the earth an average of one species has gone extinct every day. This in itself is strong evidence against evolution since science has yet to record the creation of a separate, and distinct species. If evolution is so slow, why are there so many species in existence now?
28 Lynn Margulis as quoted by Mann, C. in 1991, Science 252, 378-381
29 It should be noted that while many scholars are rejecting Neo-Darwinism, this does not imply that they are necessarily leaning toward creationism. Many, in fact, still believe in the mutation of species, but realize that random mutations and natural selection alone are not enough to give us the current biological situation observed today. Other theories to account for this are Complexity Theory (which is studied very thoroughly at the Santa Fe Institute), Symbiosis, Gaia and others.
30 Hoyle in “The Mathematics of Evolution”
31 A Case Against Evolution pg. 41 by Overman
32 G.R. Carruthers and Thornton Page Science 177:788 Carruthers afterwards calculated that approximately 1% of the primitive earths atmosphere was oxygen. In “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories pg. 79-80 the estimate is that the earths atmosphere was about 25% of the amount observed today.
33 This line of reasoning is made painfully clear by the circular argument: “The very fact that life sprang up on earth constitutes conclusive proof of a primary reducing environment since the latter is a necessary prerequisite for chemical evolution and spontaneous origin of life.” Manfred Schidlowsky quoted by Shapiro pg. 112
34 Denton pg. 261
35 C. Sagan in “Ultraviolet Selection Pressure on the Earliest Organisms” in the Journal of Theoretical Biology 39:197
36 Behe 171
37 Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box pg. 169-70
38 “In so far as chance plays a central role the probability that even a very short protein, not withstanding a genome, could emerge from a primordial soup, if it ever existed, even with the help of a deus ex machina, for 10^9 years is so small that the faith of Job is required to believe it.” The Journal of T. Reil by H. Yockey pg. 91,14
39 Believing in the improbable is not frowned on in my train of thought but rather the intolerance of others to do so. Reporting beyond the facts with the intent of discrediting a Creator is, lamentably, an all too common occurrence. “I now admit… That in the earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or survival of the fittest… I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to show that species had not been separately created… If I have erred in giving to natural selection great power… I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
40 To understand how remotely minute this chance is, consider the fact that you have a 1 in 1060 chance of shooting at random a 1 inch target from 20,000,000,000 light years away! There are only an estimated 1080 atoms in the known universe!
41 Hoyle and Wickramasingle in “Evolution From Space” pg. 148, 24, 150, 30, 31
42 “Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book “Energy Flow and Biology,” computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.” Scientific American special publication 1979
43 G. Wald wrote in his article “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August 1954 the following: “However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it… once may be enough. Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” In a 1979 Scientific American special publication C. Folsome said regarding this statement, “Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see.”
44 Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate, wrote, “Given the weakness of all theories of terrestrial genesis, directed panspermia should still be considered a serious possibility” Scientific American February 1992.
45 Talmage in “Articles of Faith” page 31
46 J. Brooks and G. Shaw in “Origin and Development of Living Systems” pg. 73 or consider this statement “Rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of abiotically produced organic compounds been found.”
Denton (1985) pg. 261
47 “When a proposition comes out true for things, if two things suffice for its truth, it is superfluous to assume a third.” Interestingly enough, Carl Sagan quotes it differently in his novel “Contact” as an argument against God: “All things considered, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct… Which is more likely? There is a magical god who created us in his own image but decided to leave us without a shred of proof, or that we made him up in our minds to comfort us.” It seems to me that though the second description sounds simpler, the first scenario is less complicated.
48 Charles Darwin in Origin of Species page 154
49 Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis pg. 250,71
50 Behe page 39
51 Michael Crichton in the Lost World pg. 207-9 though this is a science fiction novel, the ideas presented there in are an excellent non-fictional sources of counterarguments against Darwinism. The book contains a number of illustrations of an irreducibly complex system.
52 Behe pg. 46
53 Ibid 152,9
54 If the FBI only had two fingerprints on file, how much help would that provide?
55 Ibid 139
56 Doolittle in the journal “Thrombosis and Haemostasis” 70, 24-28
57 Behe pg. 88-89
58 Ibid 110
59 Ibid 48
60 Raup in Scientist Confront Creationism by Godfrey pg. 156
61 Science 267:1421-22
62 G. Schroeder in The Science of God pg. 88-9
63 Alan Cheetham of American Museum of nation History
64 Take for example the “Hard Facts Wall” as it has become known in San Francisco where, not only are there invented fossil records presented, but the time line has been skewed as well so as to beguile any non-suspecting spectator. See “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy”.
65 Geerat Vermeij of UC Davis Science 262:1421-2
66 Darwin’s Black Box pg. 26
67 Kind, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
68 Behe 30
69 David Raup in Science 213 pg. 289
70 Eldredge, N. in Reinventing Darwin, pg. 95
71 French Zoologist Pierre Grasse
72 Many anti-Darwinists would call them limits, while the Darwinists will throw up their hands and scream, “Who says that’s the limit? Who says that we have gone as far as we can?” Whether or not we have reached the absolute limit, it is apparent that there are no dogs the bulk of elephants, nor the size of a baby rat.
73 Pierre Grasse in Evolution of Living Organisms pg. 124
74 Stuart Kauffman, the main pioneer in the project, has been accussed by his old mentor, Maynard Smith, of practicing “fact-free science”. “Life at the Edge of Chaos?” New York Review, March 2, 1995 pg.28-30
75 Michael Crichton in the Lost World pg. 309-11
76 Worth noting here is the coincidence that a representation of this perfect system is found in the second Facsimile of the Book of Abraham, Figure 6, which depicts a leaf, a herbivore, and a carnivore. See Hugh Nibley in “Facsimile 2 Figure 6”.
77 D. Boberg in Evolution and Reason- Beyond Darwin pg.88
78 Pg 10
79 Hoyle in the Mathematics of Evolution pg. 135-6
80 Issac Newton, in a letter to Dr. Bentley 1692
81 Mac Donald, J. “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 14,93
82 M. Greene “Knowing and Being” pg. 241
83 Genesis 2:7
84 Hugh Nibley, Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley, 244
85 An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the person presenting an idea rather than the idea itself. Accepting a scientists argument while rejecting the very same point given by a layman is illogical and inconsistent. It is appealing to prejudice rather than reason in an argument.

Mormons, Evolution & a Young Earth

2005-05-25T12:33:00.000-07:00

I have now almost finished what is perhaps the best book on reconciling evolution with God that I have ever read. Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: a Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" really lays out the issues involved in such a clear way that one really comes to appreciate both many of the pit falls of both creationism and the more evangelical naturalists such as Dawkins. While I have yet to reach the final chapters where he finally reveals his attempt at reconciliation, I have already covered his chapters regarding the two camps.

Instead of lumping creationism altogether in one camp (after all, by the strictest of definitions he would be a creationist as well) he separates them by according to how much science each version rejects. Those who, like Behe, accept common descent but think that God played a significant role in the matter, such as overcoming 'irreducible complexity' he calls their God, "God the Mechanic." The God of those who allow for an ancient earth, but reject common descent he calls "God the Magician." And the God of those who believe that the earth is more or less 10,000 years old, he calls "God the Charlatan." It is this last God which I would like to address in this post.

This is the God of those who claim that the earth isn't really that old and that the dating of all those fossils and the like simply aren't any where near right. This is principally due to the fact that before the fall of Adam the laws of the universe were quite different. This is what our friend Gary has been suggesting. Before we get to a Mormon critique of this version, let's first review what Miller has to say on the subject about Christians in general who believe this.

First of all, he states that such people are not really intested in science or what they have to say at all. It's not that they think that the finding are merely off, but that they really don't want science done at all. (Of course this accusation doesn't apply across the board.) This can be seen in that if their beliefs that all the animals we see in the fossil record really lived at the same time, then we should be able to see quite a few things which would completely destroy evolution. For instance, if we found within the petrified feces of Tyrannosaraus Rex (and we do have quite a few specimens of it) bones or seeds from animals of plants which were supposed to have lived well after them, this would spell disaster for the evolutionists. Not only has this not played out, but the Young Earth Creationists don't even try to investigate such things. They don't want evidence of any kind. Of course this make one wonder why. (Where is their faith?)

He talks a bit about radiometric dating and clearly shows why we believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. He puts the dating of the earth in its original context. Darwin stated that the earth had to be MUCH older than was believed at his time. He stuck his neck out saying that if the earth was not millions of years old, his theory would be absolutely wrong. Everything was literaly on the line. Then cam along nuclear physics which showed that not only was the earth millions of years old (something which was well beyong what anybody at the time thought), but it was in fact BILLIONS of years old. What a brilliant score for Darwin! (And people believe that evolution is untestable.)

He goes on to talk about using nuclear decay in the solar system to date it as well. He clearly show that if the solar system were less than a billion years old, it could very easily be shown, but such has not been the case. What he could have also mentioned, but didn't really, was how our dating of the geological record is not based exclusively on radiometric dating, though that method is by itself enough to thoroughly destroy doubt in most reasonable people's mind. We could suggest that the rates have changed in the past but there are three problems: 1) we would have be believe that ALL of the rates changed together (something which is practically impossible) 2) we can look back in time by observing distand stars and galaxies which are millions of light years away from us and see that they obeyed the same laws as we do now and 3) the radiometric dates match VERY well with our non-radiometric dating techniques, and there are many.

The only way that any person can really maintain that this solar system, this earth and all its fossils are not as old as they appear to be, would be by suggesting that God changed them to look old. Coincidence, or accident is simply not an option. God must have created the 'appearance of age' as the creationists call it. God created things to specifically look not only older, but to look like they were 4.5 billion years old. How can this be viewed as anything but deception? Thus, not only is this view of the universe bad science, but it makes for bad theology as well.

Let's move this toward a Mormon perspective where things are even worse for a number of reasons. Why does God admonish us to seek learning in the heavens and in the earth if He knows these things in no way depict reality as it really is/was? Is He commanding us to believe a lie? We believe that God didn't create the universe, He organized it. Did he organize all those photons apparently coming from distant galaxies for any particular reason?

But wait. We don't even believe that it was God who caused these changes, it was Adam by his sinning. Isn't this the popular version of the fall which is being clinged to so tenaciously? 'We have to believe that we are in a fallen existence in order to believe in atonement. We have to believe that we are fallen because of Adam, not God. Therefore, the world is as it is because of Adam, not God.' Are we going to believe that Adam was somehow able to give the appearance of a specific age to the universe in his fall?

But wait, it gets worse. The physical laws are eternal. God didn't create them, instead He works in accordance with them. He can't break or change them and this is why all miracles are in accordance with natural law according to Mormon doctrine. Thus God not only didn't change the physical laws in order to give the appearance of a specific age, He couldn't have done it. He couldn't change the physical laws of the unverse at all.

'But clearly the pre-fallen existence was different somehow,' some will protest. That's true, but even in this protest we are supposing that it was a different existence, not the same existence only changed. Adam fell from an immortal spiritual world to this telestial world, a world which has always had the same basic physical laws. And since the laws have always been more or less the same, the dating of the solar system, the planet and the fossils are all accurate. Clearly there has been death on this planet for a long time.

To finish, let's consider a story. Suppose we have a man who was raised Mormon on trial for murder somewhere in Utah. There is a mountian of physical evidence which clearly points to his guilt. In comes the defense lawyer who argues as follows:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. We all know that the past is behind us and we simply cannot be absolutely sure what happened unless we were there. Were any of you there? Of course not. How do we know that all of that evidence used by the prosecution is not, in fact, misleading? How we know that the laws of the universe were not different in the room he was in and at that particular time? Can we be sure? No, we can't be positively sure.
Of course we need at least some reason to believe that such might have been the case. I have here in my hand this man's patriarchal blessing. It clearly says that he would always be strong in the faith. Ladies and Gentleman, is murder something that people who are strong in the faith do? Of course not. Therefore, if we accept that this man actually did commit the murder, then this patriarchal blessing which was given by revelation was in fact false. This would mean that the church is false. The ver existence of God is called into question. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, are you prepared to accept that?
I want you to know that I am positive that that evidence is all misleading. God or someone else, only gave it the appearance that it does in order to try our faith. We simply have no clue what the laws of the universe were at the time of that murder, if in fact there really was one at all. After all, there is only one alternative, and I don't think any of us wants to accept those consequences. My client is clearly innocent.

Would any of us really buy that? I don't think even the most faithful of Mormons would ever go for that.

Summary: The evidence for an ancient earth, complete with death before the fall is simply over whelming. To suggest that God anybody else has altered reality to give it the appearance of age is not only bad science but terrible theology as well.

Transplanting, Evolving and Sealing

2005-05-24T11:30:00.000-07:00

In his chapter which might as well have been titled "Contra Evolution" Joseph Fielding Smith uses the doctrine of transplantation as the 'true' mechanism of creation used by the Lord. "The Lord has given us the information regarding his creations, and how he has made many earths, for there never was a beginning, never was a time when man did not exist somewhere in the universe, and when the time came for this earth to be peopled, the Lord, our God, transplanted upon it from some other earth, the life which is found here." Let's talk a little bit about this doctrine of transplantation.
Hyrum Andrus in his "Doctrinal Commentary of the Pearl of Great Price" dedicates a couple of pages to it so lets follow his lead. His primary defense of the doctrine comes from quoting authorities, namely JFS2 (as we have just quoted) and Brigham Young. This is interesting because while JFS2 was certainly the most vocal authority about the doctrine, BY seems to have been the originator, he being the first person to extent the principle of transplantation beyong Adam. Those who are relatively familiar with the doctrinal developments of the 19th century probably all think the same thing at this point: how does this relate to his other doctrinal 'renovations'? I don't say this as an excuse to bring in, as Greg called them, the philosophies of 19th century men mingled with scripture. I do it to show what the underpinnings of the doctrine are.

Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and built this world—that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you. Who brought them here? It matters little to us whether it was John, James, William, Adam, or Bartholomew who brought them; but it was some Being who had power to frame this earth with its seas, valleys, mountains, and rivers and cause it to teem with vegetable and animal life.
Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. - JD 7: 285-6

Thus we can see the two principle doctrines on which transplantation is based. The first is Joseph's doctrine that there is no such thing as a son without a father. "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Wherever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."

The second is the idea that Adam came from another world. This has taken on a number of forms: 1) Adam was a literal son of God, He obviously coming from a different sphere or planet. 2) Adam was God who came from another planet. 3) Adam was some unnamed person's son, this person dwelling on another planet, since Adam was the first one on this one. Either way we know that Adam was created and THEN introduced into the garden and that this world was patterned after a world were he used to live.

Let's deal with the first doctrine, the impossibility of men being created without a father. This is exactly what evolution says. There are no special creations out of nothing. Every creature has parents, from which it differs very slightly but which is still close enough to be of the same "kind". No animals never gives birth to anything which is not of the same kind, but given enough time new kinds can be created.

What about the spontaneous generation of life? Isn't this exactly what Joseph is preaching against? Kind of, but not really. Obviously beavers aren't going to be popping out of nowhere, but what about proteins, RNA or viruses? What is life and when/how did it start? Well, according to evolution the line gets blurry, and quite frankily we don't know too much about it. Stuart Kauffman in his book "Investigations" says that life is "a self-reproducing system able to perform at least one thermodynamic work cycle."

He then goes on to unpack this definition for the majority of the book. Now I don't want to get too technical, and his book is quite technical indeed for a popular science book, but Kauffman goes on to give a "Just-So Story" for how life probably came about. He says that due to the non-ergodicity of the universe, auto-catalyitic systems were a near inevitability on this planet given its environment. The line between an auto-catayltic system and a "self-reproducing system able to perform at least one thermodynamic work cycle" is blurry at best and could easily have been over come through purely natural means. Thus, there was no definite place were a life-form was created from a non-life-form. This fits quite well with what Joseph taught.

Now as to Adam, it isn't entirely clear which of the three options listed above is the one Joseph endorsed. It was definitely the first one for most of his life, but Brigham claimed that it eventually became the second one. I don't think he even considered the third. He have already discussed a number of viable options as to what we can believe about Adam. So I won't go into too much detail here. Suffice it to say that Evolution doesn't require that Adam be born of man.

Now what happens when we combine these two doctrines? Not much actually. While we clearly understand Adam to have created the earth and then stayed there, nowhere do we hear Eloheim say "Jehovah, Michael, take sheep with you to earth." Instead it is "go down and create animals." The transplantation doctrine is a forced conclusion only when we maintain the immutability of species, an idea that wasn't overthrown until Darwin's Origin of Species. With this new view of life and 'kinds' we are no longer forced to accept the transplantation of numerous 'kinds' to give us the wide variety of life we now observe.

The doctrine of transplantation was never a revelation. It was instead seen as a forced consequence and corollary of those other two doctrines. Now that such a conclusion in no longer forced (indeed there is much evidence against it) we should feel no need to accept such a doctrine as binding. Every animal did have a progenitor. Adam could have been transplanted somehow. This is all in perfect harmony with evolution.

Now we come to the point, for this is where Elder Packer takes issue:

An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts.
Let me repeat: An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts. That should be reason enough for any endowed and sealed Latter-day Saint!

This, in my opinion, is a rather desperate argument despite the apparent logic used. For one, we don't actually believe that everybody will be sealed. Only those who qualify for the celestial kingdom, which will hardly be a majority, will have the "Holy Spirit of Promise" seal their sealing. Thus, not only are animals excluded, but most humans are as well.

Secondly, I should ask who am I sealed to? I am sealed to my family. Am I sealed to my ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago? Yes, but very indirectly. What about those who lived 5,000 years ago? Even more indirectly. And those who lived 5,000,000 years ago? Who cares! Even if I am, they won't have anything to do with me. Nobody here will be sealed in any significant way to a Cro-magnon.

If the gradualness of evolution doesn't match with how clear cut we imagine our sealings to be, it is our idea of sealings which is in trouble not evolution. If only those who are worthy will be sealed, then THERE is some gradualness which simply must be dealt with. And if that gradualness can be accommodated in the sealing tree, then I see no problem with evolution either. Just as there are some people who will go the the telestial kingdom and will be deprived of a 'sealing', so there are hominids who will not be worthy of a sealing either. Where the cut-off line in either one is, I don't presume to know, nor do I particularly care.

Summary: The doctrine of transplantation was a pre-darwinian forced conclusion based on two doctrines which are themselves compatible with evolution. While the gradualness and the mutability of species inherent in evolution seems to pose a problem for temple sealings, such a reading is based on our ignorance of the sealing process.

Evolution of Spiritual Meaning

2005-05-23T14:10:00.000-07:00

Continuing with my response to Elder Packer's "The Life and the Light" we come to the issue of evolution and the fall. We have already delt with this topic in our consideration of Mc Conkie's doctrinal objections to evolution so I will not dedicate another post to that topic. I do, however, wish to point out how comfortablly our take on the fall fits in with how Elder Packer describes the fall:

It is easier for me to understand the word "fall" in the scriptures if I think both in terms of location and condition. The word fall means to descend to a lower place... The fall of man was a move from the presence of God to mortal life on earth. .. Fall may also describe a change in condition. For instance, one can fall in reputation, or from prominence. The word fall well describes what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place which made them "a little lower than the angels."... The bodies formed for mankind became temporal or physical bodies... After the transformation caused by the fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies), would not endure forever.

This is exactly how we view the fall in our 'reconciled version.' Thus, while we agree on most of Elder Packer's description of the fall, we do not accept both evolution and his definition of the atonement: "Many who perceive organic evolution to be law rather than theory do not realize they forsake the atonement in the process." This is not the case as we have already shown.

After this he goes on to show the interrelatedness of physical laws and what he has been calling spiritual laws by mentioning art, mathematics and music. It's difficult to tell if he is speaking out against evolution in this part of the talk, or if he is speaking out against a purely naturalistic evolution. The latter is not what we have been considering in our quest for reconciliation for I don't feel that his views really need to be refuted from a Mormon Evolutionist's point of view. We have not denied that there is a spirit to man which existed before birth. If we denied this we could hardly consider this to be a reconciliation of any kind. Both "The Evolution of Spirituality" and "The Evolution of the Light of Christ" fit in particularly well with Packer's ideas.

Where he might go a little too far, however, is when he says "There are too many interconnections uniting the physical and the spiritual in man to suppose that they came at random or by chance--not in a billion years or a billion times a billion years! It is against the law! What law? The law of common sense!" It would seem that by 'the spiritual' he means 'the abstract.' Music, art and mathematics only arise from the meaning which we give to or recognize in them. Could meaning have evolved?

Yes! This is actually the main question which Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life" is meant to address. Meaning, according to Dennett, comes directly from our adopting the intentional stance toward that phenomena which surround us. (Remember, there is the physical stance where we see things as atoms and forces, the design stance where we see leaves designed for absorbing sun light and the like, and the intentional stance where we see plants seeking out the sun light.) "There is no substitute for the intentionaly stance [in evolution and survival]; either you adopt it, and explain the pattern by finding the semantic-level facts, or you will forever be baffled by the regularity - the causal regularity - that is manifestly there." With the adoption of the intentional stance, not only by humans but by any organism, emerge reasons, not just apparent reasons, but real ones. With reasons, eventually come interests. With reasons, interests and recognition comes meaning. "Real meaning, the sort of meaning our words and ideas have, is itself an emergent product of originally meaningless processes."

Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson approach the topic from the Epigenetic view (see Ruse's "Taking Darwin Seriously" or Wilson's "Human Nature"). Mathematics evolved in humans due to the advantage which the basic axioms of mathematics conferred upon those who could better adopt them. This eventually lead into more complex mathematics (undoubtably Dennett would claim that memes played a large part in this process) which also contributed to our species survival. With the advanced math we eventually developed technology, a super-weapon for survival.

Art is entirely contingent upon the human recognition of certain colors, sounds and compination of these which provided a biological advantage. We can only see and hear certain wave-lengths for the reason that we didn't evolve the ability to see or hear others. Color sensitivity is clearly influenced by genetic contingencies, not only in humans, but in many animals (especially birds). Certain patterns really do convey certain emotions, and this because of our genes. The same can be said for our tastes in what our ancestors ate, contingencies which would eventually contribute greatly to what would be the culinary arts.

Thus, notions of beauty and art or highly subjective, not just from person to person, but from species to species. I can easily imagine some "children of God" on another planet reacting somewhat differently to certain color, sound or taste combintions than we do. This would not be because either of us has a bad taste in art or beauty. It would only go to show the amount of contingency which is inherent in evolution.

Can abstract meaning evolve by itself? Yes. Can abstract meaing as we know it evolve by itself? I would say yes with some qualifications. Did abstract meaning as we know it evolve by itelf? Mormons answer 'no' based on their faith. God almost certainly played a part in the evolution of our sensitivity to inspiration and creativity. Thus we can ask the second question again: Can abstract meaning involving the inspiration of God as we experience it evolve by itself? By definition no, we can't. Can abstract meaning which seems to involve the inspiration of God as we experience it evolve by itself? It most certainly can. Thus, our saying that God directed the evolution of our artisitic tendencies is also a faith claim which we should not wave around as if it were a scientific argument.

We believe that God played a part in the developing of our particular tastes in art, mathematics and music. Similarly, we believe that God guided evolution toward "humans". Could evolution have produced intelligent beings by itself? Of course. Could it have produced humans by itself? Yes. Did it? We don't believe so, based on our faith. The two claims are exactly analogous to one another.

Summary: Evolution could have produced intelligent agents with affinities for art, math and music all by itself. This means that humans, along with our meaningful experiences, could have been produced by blind evolution alone. It is our faith, not scientfic necessity, which persuades us to believe that such was not the case.

Amylase and the Power of Molecular Biology

2005-05-23T09:40:00.000-07:00

In preparing for a presentation recently, I came across these two papers: (Here and here--the papers are old enough that they are available for free.) I think they are rather interesting, so I'm going to do my best to tell you about them in layman's terms, although it will help if you have a basic grasp of biology.

Amylase is an enzyme, made in the pancreas of all vertebrates, that helps to break down complex sugars. It is also made in the salivary glands of some mammals. The human genes that code for amylase have a interesting story to tell.

This image is a schematic representation of the DNA just in front of the human amylase genes:

The first thing to note is that there are five genes: AMY1A, AMY1B, AMY1C, AMY2A, and AMY2B. The AMY1 genes are all expressed in the saliva. Only one representation accompanies them because they are all essentially the same. The AMY2 genes are expressed in the pancreas. However, the DNA in front of the two genes has some differences. Let's look at each structure in more detail.

AMY2B: The arrow at a right angle is showing where transcription starts, which means this is where the cellular machinary starts reading the genetic code for making the protein. It has a "Pan," indicating that this occurs in the pancreas. To the left is a shaded box labeled "gamma-actin". This is a pseudogene that inserted just in front of the amylase gene. (Pseudogenes are copies of genes that are re-inserted into the genome, but lose coding function due to mutation.) The letters and arrows underneath represent primers used in PCR--they need not concern us, so ignore them.

AMY1A/B/C: This schematic is similar to the one I just described. In this case, transcription starts a little upstream, and the "Sal" indicates expression in the saliva. The shaded box again indicates the presence of the gamma-actin pseduogene, but it has been interrupted by the insertion of an endogenous retrovirus. As part of their replication cycle, Retroviruses (such as HIV) integrate their genomes into the host genome and are flanked by Long Terminal Repeats (LTRs) when they do so. If the integration occurs in a germline cell, the viral genome will be passed on to progeny as part of the host genome. In other words, this viral genome is now part of your DNA. Over time, mutations occur which can disable the viral proteins. Evidently a retrovirus, whose proteins have likely lost function, integrated in the middle of the gamma-actin pseudogene.

AMY2A: This schematic is similar to the first two (this gene is expressed in the pancreas) except that most of the retrovirus is gone--there is just one LTR in its place. The two LTRs are made by the virus, and are identical to each other at integration. Because of this, sometimes homologous recombination between the integrated LTRs occurs which results in the removal of most of the viral genome, leaving only a solo LTR behind.

Now it is rather unlikely that a pseudogene would independently insert (5 times) in the same place in front of multiple amylase genes. Again, it is unlikely that a retrovirus would independently integrate (4 times) in to the same place in multiple actin pseudogenes. The most likely explanation for the pattern we see here is that there were duplication events within the genome.

This figure shows a proposed sequence of events (click to enlarge):

An actin pseudogene inserted in front of the original amylase gene. This new formation was duplicated within the genome. One of those is what we know as AMY2B. The other went through additional modifications. First was a deletion of part of the pseduogene (look at the first figure and you'll see that the pseudogene box is longest in AMY2B). Then the retrovirus inserted into the pseudogene and this formation was duplicated. In one case, the LTRs recombined to remove the viral genome, giving us AMY2A. In the other case there were two more duplications to give AMY1A/B/C. Using sequence differences between the five genes, estimates of the times of these events are given (mya = million years ago).

How do we know that the amylase gene did not start out with the actin pseudogene in front of it? Well the pseudogene is not present in other animals such as rodents or New World Monkeys (ie. American). This is shown in the next figure:

Squirrel monkeys are New World Monkeys and do not make amylase in their saliva--only the pancreas--which is why it is being compared with human AMY2B. There is no sign of the actin pseudogene in front of their amylase gene.

Now it gets interesting: New World Monkeys lack the pseudogene and do not make amylase in their saliva; Old World Monkeys have the pseudogene (one copy has a deletion) and do make amylase in their saliva; Apes and Humans also have the pseudogene, as well as the retrovirus, and they both make amylase in their saliva. This is represented in the following figure:

Noted in the figure is a portion of the retrovirus which is sufficient to target gene expression to the salivary glands (this has been done experimentally in mice) but it cannot account for all salivary amylase production because the Old World Monkeys also make amylase in their saliva.

These data are most consistent with the following scenario: Ancestral primates (and other mammals) simply had an amylase gene that was expressed in the pancreas. After New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys diverged, the gamma-actin pseudogene inserted in front of the amylase gene and a duplication occured. In one of the copies a deletion occured in the pseudogene. After the Apes and Old World Monkeys diverged, a retrovirus integrated into the pseudogene in Apes, leaving Humans and Apes with similar structure in their amylase genes. (Look carefully and you can transfer in information of figures 2 and 4 onto one another.)

Remember I said that there are a few other animals that also make amylase in their saliva. This appears to be a feature that is independent from primates because the regulatory DNA responsible is totally different.

There are several lessons in all of this. First, none of this makes sense outside of the context of common descent. Second, it is an example of gene duplication--the geneology of genes within the genome--and their ability to take on slightly different functions as a result. (For another example, see here.) And third, it shows how pseudogenes and retroviruses can interact with and shape genomes, and that they are powerful markers of relationships.

Postscript: Just for fun, I went to the website that hosts the human genome, which is freely accessible. I was able to zoom in on the part of chromosome #1 that contains the amylase genes. On the left you can see a larger map of the chromsome. The amylase genes are just on the upper arm of the chromosome, toward the middle (centromere). On the right you can see the designation of the amylase genes I discussed. If I were to zoom in closer, I could look at the actual DNA sequence. Interestingly, there is something called "AMYP1". This is an amylase pseudogene--ie. a non-functional copy of one of the amylase genes, which means it is presumably "junk DNA".

[This is a cross-post from LDS Science Review.]

A Rollback of the Classical Mormon Perspective on Humanity's Origin and Destiny?

2005-05-22T20:38:00.000-07:00

While the evidence is mixed, certain recent statements by President Gordon B. Hinckley can be read as hinting at a distancing of the current public stance of the Church from classical Mormon ideas on the origin and destiny of humanity. This hinges on an oft-underappreciated distinction between two very different ways of understanding God's role in the creation of human beings. And it may represent a humble and courageous willingness to open oneself beyond dogma.

By "the classical Mormon perspective on the origin and destiny of man," I mean notions of God as Literal Father. A comprehensive formulation of these ideas was articulated succinctly, and surprisingly recently, by a President of the Church in a formal setting. In the April 1977 General Conference, President Spencer W. Kimball gave a talk entitled Our Great Potential, which seemed to endorse each of the following ideas: self-existent, eternal intelligences; divine procreation of spirit bodies to clothe these intelligences; divine procreation of Adam and Eve; and the capacity to procreate both spirit and body as the destiny of the faithful in eternity. Here I mention three features of President Kimball's talk that illustrate some of these ideas. Quoting Brigham Young, President Kimball stated:

Millions of us have contributed toward the creation and the development of a spirit, but “the germ of this, God has placed within us. And when our spirits receive our bodies, and through our faithfulness we are worthy to be crowned, we will then receive authority to produce both spirit and body. But these keys we cannot receive in the flesh.” (JD, 15:137.)

In addition, President Lorenzo Snow's couplet “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become” was quoted in this talk---not once, but twice. To close the talk, President Kimball read the words to the hymn O My Father, penned by Eliza R. Snow (sister of President Snow), which refers to both a Father and a Mother in heaven.

Restricting themselves to metaphorical interpretations of the fatherhood of God, mainstream Christians are likely to conceptualize God's role in the creation of humanity in a very different way: God as Engineer. Perhaps Mormons have not always perceived an incompatibility here, but it doesn't take much reflection to see that procreation (what a literal "Father" does) and design (what an "Engineer" does) are distinct, mutually exclusive activities. One is the unleashing of an automatic biological process; the other is a more direct, deliberate, and ongoing "hands on" arrangement of raw materials into a desired form.

Perhaps surprisingly in light of classical Mormon ideas, some statements by President Hinckley seem to be more sympathetic to and compatible with the perspective of God as Engineer. In the following quote from a First Presidency Message in the Ensign (originally given as a student fireside at BYU), note the use of the word "design," as well as the phrase "eternal spirits," which may negate the notion that spirit bodies had a beginning (and hence a "birth"):

Look at your finger. The most skillful attempt to reproduce it mechanically has brought only a crude approximation. The next time you use your finger, look at it, and sense the wonder of it....

I believe the human body to be the creation of Divinity. George Gallup once observed, “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone—the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.” Our bodies were designed by our Eternal Father to be the tabernacle of our eternal spirits. (August 1992)

Regarding the Lorenzo Snow statement, it is reported that in three interviews in 1997, President Hinckley seemed to minimize its importance. (I'm not excited about linking this source, but the original news outlets probably don't have these quotations online.) He seems to hedge on the certainty with which we know it would entail something as specific as the divine procreation contemplated by the classical Mormon perspective; he prefers to refer instead to a more generic "eternal progression" whose nature is unspecified. Asked by the San Francisco Chronicle if God was once a man, he replied

I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.... Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. (April 13)

On PBS, regarding the possibility of becoming gods in the afterlife:

Well, they can achieve to a godly status, yes, of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression of the human soul. … We believe in the eternity and the infinity of the human soul, and its great possibilities. (July 18)

To Time, again regarding whether God was once a man:

I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it. (August 4)

To be sure, there are factors mitigating against a putative change in doctrinal direction. For example, sensitivity to audience and the vagaries of quote selection need to be taken into account in assessing these statements in the press, as President Hinckley himself observed in the November 1997 General Conference:

I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

In addition, in a General Womens' Meeting in 1991 he noted (with a tone that possibly hints of reluctance) that as a matter of history the idea of a Mother in Heaven was "not corrected" by Joseph Smith, that her existence is suggested by "logic and reason," and that the doctrine "rests well" with him (even if prayer to her does not). One may ask, then, why he would think logic and reason suggest a Mother in Heaven if divine procreation were not part of the picture; are male and female needed to be "joint engineers" or something?

When it comes to the status of the classical Mormon view of divine procreation, what are we to make of this mixed bag?

Someone interested in a reconciliation with evolution might be tempted to make the following argument: God as Literal Father and God as Engineer are mutually exclusive; President Hinckley argued for God as Engineer in 1992; President Hinckley was not President of the Church in 1992, and as a counselor he would never dream of unilaterally overturning doctrine; therefore, God as Literal Father must never have been doctrine. (And as a corollary, because God as Literal Father was taught by President Kimball in General Conference, it must be that being taught by a President of the Church in Conference is not sufficient to make something doctrine.)

It may be that the truth is not yet clear, but the reality is likely to be much murkier than this clean argument suggests. For one thing, perhaps the argument is simply wrong: President Hinckley may not perceive an incompatibility between God as Literal Father and God as Engineer, either because he's smarter than me (not unlikely) or because he hasn't thought about it carefully in this way (not impossible).

But beyond this is the fact that all such simple arguments are at best simplifications of the complexities of the real world. One might marvel at the somewhat inchoate cluster of ideas represented by the above quotations in comparison with the relative clarity of the formulations of, say, President Kimball's talk cited above, or Elder McConkie's systematizations; perhaps it represents the growing pains associated with a desire to be less dogmatic, born of a sensitivity to the realities of data not previously given adequate consideration. We then witness the buffeting that results from a release of one's death-grip on dogma, arising from a challenging set of diverse circumstances with sometimes-conflicting requirements: a desire to motivate belief in an unbelieving world (August 1992); the public relations needs of a global missionary Church (April, July, August 1997); the need to assure members of doctrinal purity, consistency, and (perhaps most importantly) continuity (1991, November 1997); and the necessity of reigning in aberrant ideas and practices (1991). All this, in the presence of the overarching perennial problem: The lack of clear, unmistakable revelation on the nature of cosmic realities.

Evolution into the Image of God

2005-05-19T14:07:00.000-07:00

Elder Packer now starts to approach a part of the creation/evolution debate which not much of worth has really been said. He insists, as all Mormons must, that we humans were an intended outcome of evolution. Creation went according to plan, the plan described in the scriptures. How exactly it happened, he confesses he doesn't know, but there are some things which he does feel that he knows:

When man was created, there was no need for trial and error, for chance. Think! Pray! Open your minds to the majestic vision of the universe unfolded in the revelations! How the earth was made, I do not know! I do know that even that will be revealed...
The spirit of God "moved upon the face of the water." The water was divided.
Light was divided from darkness. In turn came grass and herbs, and trees yielding seed and fruit. Then came fishes and fowl, beasts and creeping things. All things which were created, each in its separate kind, were commanded to multiply each after its own kind. How long this took, I do not know. How it was done, I do not know. This I do know: After it was declared to be good, it was not yet complete, for man was not yet found upon the earth. Man was created separately and last.
However brief the information on the creation of man, one point is emphasized by repetition above all others--man, his physical body, was created, in the very beginning when it was created, in the image of God.

First of all, that the evolutionary creationists (such as myself) need not claim that God needed trial and error or chance to create the world. However, the trial and error and chance which is inherent in evolution derives from the laws of the universe of which God had no control, and within whose bounds God Himself works. Therefore, God doesn't really use trial and error and chance as much as He works with what He has available to Him, which included trial and error along with chance.

There is trial and error along with chance in evolution as seen from the completely impersonal view of survival of the fittest. This is not the view of any person, it is simply the paradigm in which Darwinism is framed so that we can understand it. Whatever animal happens to survive and reproduce is whichever animals happens to do so based on a huge amount of historical contingencies and the animals particular ability and chance to overcome these contingencies. Could God see these contingencies ahead of time and plan accordingly? Evolution has absolutely nothing to say on that matter. There is no evidence for or against such a proposition so science basically ignores it according to the Ockham's razor.

What can be said about God's planning according to these contingencies is that it would have been really, really difficult involving an astronomical amount of data. Take for instance the idea that God directs the mutations, 'aiming' for human beings. This is far too simplistic. There needs to be a niche which such mutations will fill. If the mutation provides no benefit, it will be lost, sending God back to the drawing board so to speak. If there is a need for it, however, then evolution will tend to accomplish the needed mutation on its own in one way or another.

There, however, is the stickler: one way or another. Is any way good enough? Does it matter what kind of eye we have? What about what kind of skin? How much body hair we have? Are we more concerned about the phenotype or the genotype? These are very important questions when we talk about our being created in God's image. Mormon's talk about our being created in His physical image, and this due mostly to our beliefs regarding God's nature. Other Christians don't have this issue at all, since God doesn't have a physical image. Any kind of intelligent, rational being is good enough to be created in God's image according to them. But not us.

How strict can we be about these things? If God has four fingers instead of five, are we still created in His image? What if he has slightly more or less body hair? What if he has a larger or small brain cavity? What if he has a greenish hue to his skin? What if he is 4 feet tall or 8 feet tall? What if his eyes are more like some of the others forms of eyes which have independantly evolved in the history of this planet, or like something entirely different, though appearing and acting the same.

Clearly we must care about the phenotype, this much is obvious. But how close in God's genotype? The closer we make it, the more he had to control the evolutionary processes, and clearly God didn't control TOO much (I am uncomfortable with the idea that God intervened a lot more in the course of history in the past when there were no humans than He does now when there are). This isn't to say that His controling our genotype is too much to be believed, but it is to say that it's getting there.

There are some quasi-doctrines that seem to commit us to holding out for a very similar genotype. These include the following: 1) God had physical relations with Mary so as to create Jesus, and 2) Adam, who was a son of God, had very similar genes. The second one can easily be overcome by Adam gaining a certain genotype as part of his fall, and I suppose the second one can be overcome through miracles of sorts. We should also keep in mind that the idea that God actually had physical relations with Mary is starting to really fall out of favor since there are so many other ways it could have been done. How specific did God have to be in directing our genotype? I don't know, but we do have some wiggle room in my opinion.

The other issue which is raised by all of this talk of being in God's image is that of essentialism, yet again. When did God declare that man had finally evolved into His image? Naturally, we want to say at the time of Adam, but we must remember that there was no essential difference, certainly no physical difference, between Adam and his contemporaries. I would suggest that reconsider the idea that God declared at a specific point that from 'here' on man is in My image, but before was not. Instead we should work with degrees. (Adam as God might provide some interesting insights in this area.)

Summary: God did not use 'trial and error or chance' as much as He worked in accordance with them. He could have guided evolution somehow, but this is a total faith claim which science has nothing to say for or against. While we must hold out for God directing evolution toward His phenotype, it is unclear if He had to direct it toward His exact genotype. As Elder Packer says, more light and revelation is needed.

Jeff's Reconciliation Notebook

2005-05-19T12:57:00.000-07:00

It has been claimed, most notably by Bruce R. Mc Conkie and Joseph Fielding Smith, that there can be no reconciliation between evolution and the gospel. Mc Conkie gave reasons for his believing this and it is these reasons which must be addressed before any kind of reconciliation can be considered satisfactory.

What needs reconciliation? 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.
Science and Religion. Some people try to disengage from the science vs. religion debate by claiming that the two deal with two separate questions, how and why respectively. This is not entirely true for the hows and the why are intimately connected. Any mention by religionists regarding creation and human nature are attempts to answer how questions and are, therefore, open to scientific criticism.
Scriptures. When beliefs based on scriptural statements are at odds which should win out? This is a difficult question which has no suitable answer for all circumstances for both science and scripture fall short of absolute perfection. Though it makes many Mormons uncomfortable, some scriptural passage may have to be rejected to account for the truths of evolution.
Does Evolution Leave Room for God? Evolutionists have rejected the more traditional forms of God in favor of a more abstract version of Him which amounts to little more than the natural laws of the universe. Mormons, however, have rejected the traditional form of God since the beginning and have tended to believe in a radically anthropomorphic Deity. Strangly enough this idea of a finite God may be fairly well suited for dealing with evolution.
Does Evolution Leave Room for God? Pt. 2 While evolution does not deny the existence of God, it does disprove many of the ideas which we may have about Him. This is especially true for the Mormon doctrine which denies the occurance of absolute miracles and posits a God subject to natural law.
What Kind of God Uses Evolution? Evolution tells us that life as we know it has been evolving for billions of years in order to "reach" mankind. This process involved prodigious amounts of waste and suffering, couldn't God have done it a better way? Mormons will want to answer "no" so as to maintains God's omnibenevolence, but this is at the expense of His omnipotence.
Does Evolution Preclude a Preexistence? In order to discuss the relationship between evolution and the Mormon belief in a preexistence, we much first try to understand that preexistence. The Mormon doctrine of preexistence has, by no means, been uniform over the years.
Does Evolution Preclude a Preexistence? Pt. 2 Each person's spiritual individuality comes under attack when applied to evolution. Issues of randomness, historical contingency and well as free will make many of our personal characteristics seem anachronistic in the preexistence. It is not at all clear that a finite God would have the foreknowledge or power to precreate what would later play out in evolution.
Evolution and Spirit Birth. The doctrine of a literal spirit birth inevitably gives rise to essentialism in our classifying living creatures. Evolution, however, has thoroughly demolished essentialism as applied to living creatures. Thus, it is very difficult if not impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal spirit birth.
Evolution and Self-Existing Spirits. Having found problems with the notion of a literal spirit birth, we must consider Joseph's doctrine of self-existing spirits. This doctrine, though currently not endorsed by most church members, was able to address many of the problems raised by the other preexistence doctrines rather successfully.
Is Evolution the Best He Could Do? Engineers are currently using evolutionary algorithms, analogous to biological evolution, as a substitute for hard work and creativity. The results have been very successful showing the power behind the theory of evolution. Attempting to use this example to show God's wisdom in using evolution does not solve many of the problems of evil discussed earlier.
Evolution in Paradise. Darwin not only showed that design and minds can be derived from chaos and order, but that it did. This is in direct conflict with the notion that the entire earth was once a paradise. While other imterpretations are open and should be investigated, that the entire earth was once a death-less paradise must be rejected if we are to accept evolution.
Mother Earth's Plan of Salvation. Related to the notion that the earth was created as a paradise, is the idea that the earth is itself passing through a mortal probation right now. Such a concept comes from taking the scriptures too literally and over-anthropomorphizing the earth and should not be defended.
Evolution and an Immortal Creation. Having rejected the necessity that God create things in an absolutely perfect form, it is not difficult to accept that there was death before Adam. In fact, according to molecular biology, there must have even been a certain amount of death in the Garden of Eden.
Evolution of Organisms After Their Own Kind. The Bible says that living things reproduce "after their own kind" but this does not pose a problem for our believing in both the Bible and evolution. Those who do see a problem do so because of their attributing too much information to various Biblical statements and a misunderstanding of speciation events.
Evolution and the Fall. We have already addressed issues concerning the fall of the earth. We cannot however evade the issues of the fall of man, since salvation must include us being saved from something. Startling parellels between the accounts of the fall and our coming to earth may provide us with the fall we need while maintaining scientific cerdibility.
Evolution and the Atonement. Some have unfortunately declared any attempt at reconciliation between evolution and the gospel to be a lost cause. This, they think, is due to evolutions rejection of the Garden story and consequently the Atonement. Such fears, however, are without foundation.
The Natural Man in Evolution. Evolution is often dispised by many due to its saying that we came from lower life forms instead of from higher beings. Saying what our nature derives from, however, has little to do with what our natures currently are. Such an objection misses the point of evolution and the plan of salvation.
Adam as the First Man in Evolution. The most popular reasons for rejecting evolution have to do with Adam and Eve. There are, however, numerous versions of Adam and Eve worth believing in. The most popular one, which maintains that they were the first man and woman, goes directly against all the evidence gathered by science and must, therefore, be rejected.
Adam as Symbolic Myth in Evolution. Interpreting the story of Adam and Eve as a symbolic myth has become rather popular as of late. While this version of Adam does have its benefits, Mormons have commited themselves to a historical Adam in their modern revelations.
Adam as (First) Prophet in Evolution. Considering Adam to have been the first great prophet has many advantages. It allows for a historical Adam, while also enriching our views of the mythic Adam as well. Surely this is an Adam worth wanting.
Adam as God in Evolution. While our previous versions of Adam were acceptable with evolution, they were never taught by any prophet. The version of Adam as God, however, has. While this version has its benefits, its doctrinal corralaries might simply be too much for most members.
Adam in Evolution: an Update and Overview. All humans do share a common ancestor(s) who lived comparatively recently. This concept has no effect on the versions of Adam as first man and symbolic myth. It has some, though small, effects on Adam as first prophet, but has a very beneficial effect on Adam as God. Our analysis of Adam in evolution comes to a tentative conclusion, having found many versions of Adam worth wanting.
The Age of the Earth in Evolution. Mc Conkie's eighth objection centers around the time which the Lord has alotted for the earth. While the age of the earth has not been specified, the 7,000 year temporal existence must be dealt with. If we start the 7,000 years not with the beginning of death on the earth, but at Adam's advent, we are safe.
The Future According to Evolution. In his ninth objection, Mc Conkie lauches an assault on science in general, though he may not realize it. Mormon doctrine, as has been noted by many in the past, is in fact very science freindly do to its maintaining the eternal nature of physical law. Descriptions of the millennium can easily be interpreted as literary devices used to describe peace, harmony and freedom from death and disease without denying evolution or science in general.
Evolution and Spiritual Things in General. Mc Conkie's final objection arises when we confuse the methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Mormons should accept the former while rejecting the latter. This separation allows Mormons to accept both a spiritual realm and evolution (as well as science in general).

This point marks a transition in my posts from dealing with Mc Conkie's doctrinal objections to evolution as listed in his Mormon Doctrine, to dealing with the issues which Elder Packer raises with human evolution in his talk "The Law and the Life". I call them issues instead of objections because Packer is far less dogmatic in his approach and instead of trying to prove evolution wrong by using the gospel he merely points out a number of issues which must be addressed before church members could really accept the evolution of mankind.

Did God Use Evolutionary Laws? We must be careful to distinguish between operating "through natural laws" and "in accordance with natural laws." The latter is what Mormons claim, not the former, which separates us from other proposed forms of "theistic evolution." God operates in accordance with the laws of genetics and natural selection, He does not control them.
Are Mormons Creationists? pt. 1 Having spent some time on Mc Conkie's objections to evolution, we will now move on to discuss Packer's issues. Packer suggests that we stop being so anxious to file individuals under certain labels. While labels are useful we should not try to push them too far.
Are Mormons Creationists? pt. 2 Creationism is a vague label which covers a lot of ground and is often used as a synonym for creation science. While Mormons should accept the former, we should, in all honesty, reject the later. Our doctrine of God and creation is most similar to Evolutionary Creationism, a form of Creationism which tends to distance itself from other Creationists.
Contingency in Guided Evolution. Before we even suggest any kind of mechanism for how God could have used evolution to produce us, we must first fully recognize what constraints would be inherent in such an endevour. Mutation, Natural Selection and External Circumstances are very powerful factors which should not be ignored.
The Evolution of Spirituality. A possible suggestion for how God partially directed evolution is that God directed such through plain old inspiration. This gives not only God a way of directing the gene flow, but also may account for other human traits such as our ability to recognize inspiration.
Essentialism and Adam (Again). While it is possible to believe that Adam was the very first son of God in any way to walk the earth, this is not embracing evolution. Adopting a form of adoption which better fits with the gradualism inherent in evolution would be a better path which allows for a richer understanding of the creation and animal life around us.
The Laws and Theories of Evolution. Natural selection and Genetics both qualify as eternal self-existent laws, maybe even more so than do moral commandments. Evolution is certainly more than a theory and can actually tell us a great deal about not only our physical bodies but our spiritual selves as well.
Evolution of the Light of Christ. The difference between us and other species should not be considered one of absolute kind, but one of degree. This is so even for the reception of the Light of Christ as well as the possession of a conscience. To suppose that a conscience was not introduced into the human race until the advent of Adam is absurd.
Evolution of Moral Law. Elder Packer maintains that our conscience and sense of morality in what separates us from other animals. The Darwinist couldn't agree more. While our moral intuitions clearly derive, at least partially from our evolutionary past, our sense of morality has no rival in any other species.
Evolution of Free Agency Pt. 1. Many attempts to establish a notion of free will and responsibility based on our being animals have been flat out wrong. It is right for Elder Packer to criticize these attempts, but he does so by falling into the same error as them, they all try to derive 'ought' from 'is.'
Evolution of Free Agency Pt. 2. The Evolutionary accounts of free will as provided by both Dennett and Ruse are reviewed as well as that of Blake Ostler. While we clearly have a sense of free will far surpassing that of any other animal, this does not imply that evoltionary accounts of humans are incorrect.
Evolution, Science and Mormonism Pt. 1. Darwin's changing views of God can be seen to be closely related to his progressive understanding of evolution. While he went from Christianity to Deism to Agnosticism due to his understanding of God, teleology and evolution, Mormonism's belief in a finite God (which is intimately related to their acceptance of science) is able to put a stop to such a degeneration of faith.
Evolution, Science and Mormonism Pt. 2. Mormonism and the Intelligent Design movement do not find mutual support in one another. ID moves beyond the design to complexity (which science fully supports) and zealously moves on to the argument to Design, an out right faith claim. While Mormons believe that there was a significant element of design in the creation of modern life, the best way to discover this element is through evolution as it is currently taught.
Evolution, Science and Mormonism Pt. 3. Evolution was not introduced by Charles Darwin, nor was it finalized by him. Many ideas related to evolution have been and are currently being rejected by the scientific community, but the evolution itself is not one of them. This is not our of blind allegiance, for even the IDers don't question evolution as a fact. While dismissing evolution as a mere theory was OK for a time, since the mid 1900's this is no longer acceptable.
Evolution, Mormonism, Rationality and Patience. Elder Packer calls for less hostility between evolutionists and creationists. This is a praiseworthy goal which can only be attained through more patience and rationality on both sides of the divide. Notions of mortgaging one's testimony on one position or another are sure signs that more patience and rationality are indeed needed.
Evolution into the Image of God. God did not use 'trial and error or chance' as much as He worked in accordance with them. He could have guided evolution somehow, but this is a total faith claim which science has nothing to say for or against. While we must hold out for God directing evolution toward His phenotype, it is unclear if He had to direct it toward His exact genotype. As Elder Packer says, more light and revelation is needed.
Evolution of Spiritual Meaning. Evolution could have produced intelligent agents with affinities for art, math and music all by itself. This means that humans, along with our meaningful experiences, could have been produced by blind evolution alone. It is our faith, not scientfic necessity, which persuades us to believe that such was not the case.
Transplanting, Evolving and Sealing. The doctrine of transplantation was a pre-darwinian forced conclusion based on two doctrines which are themselves compatible with evolution. While the gradualness and the mutability of species inherent in evolution seems to pose a problem for temple sealings, such a reading is based on our ignorance of the sealing process.

At this point the focus is taken off of Packer's essay and moves on to Kenneth Miller's wonderful book "Finding Darwin's God". This book is wonderful in that it rightly rejects the anti-intellectual forms of creationism while still maintaining that God not only exists but took some part in creation. Miller's theological arguments, however, were not intended for a Mormon context, a difference which will need some clarrification.

Mormons, Evolution & a Young Earth. The evidence for an ancient earth, complete with death before the fall is simply over whelming. To suggest that God anybody else has altered reality to give it the appearance of age is not only bad science but terrible theology as well.
Creationists Sound Off! This is the rather long paper which I wrote a few years ago when I was still an Intelligent Designer of sorts. Anybody who has read any of my evolution posts will instantly recognize that I don't think the arguments I present here hold any water, and as such I will spend a few posts critiquing my own former arguements.
God as Magician in Evolution. Having considered the false idea of a young earth, Miller continues his attack on the creationists who dismiss the notion of common descent. Such an idea is alos bad science and terrible theology since it depicts the Magician Designer as being utterly wasteful, incompetent and deceptive.
God as Mechanic in Evolution. The third form of creationism is considered and rejected. Behe's criticisms of evolution rest of the argument from ignorance (which makes for bad theology) and personal incredulity (which makes for bad science). The inconsistencies between the three types of creationists are also pointed out.
Evolution & the Gods of Disbelief. The worries which creationists and naturalists alike see in evolution are worries which Mormons must deal with even in evolution is false. While evolution may make belief in a spiritual reality superfluous, based on a particular view of human life, it certainly doesn't disprove a spiritual existence. Our belief in God and an eternal existence should not be based in the argument from design.
Evolution & the Anthropic Principle. Miller's use of the anthropic principle as room for God's creative acts is evaluated and seen to be suspiciously similar to the arguments put forth by the creationists he has just rejected. While the anthropic principle does allow room for God's creative acts, such space is tentative and possibly inharmonious with Mormon doctrine.
Quantum Mechanics & Evolution. Miller's use of quantum physics an a impenetrable safe-haven for God's acts doesn't work too well in the Mormon context. Nevertheless, this not to say that God couldn't have, or didn't use it. Clearly God's creative acts lies in our ignorance somewhere, the problems only arise (as they do in creation science) when we resist penetrating this ignorance out of fear that God will be left without another job.
Evolutionary Theodicies. Miller's evolutionary theodicy compromises the absolute omnipotence of the God of ethical monotheism. His God sounds very similar to the God of Mormonism in His being bound by natural law. An attack is also brought against the idea of separate-species transplantation.
Did God or Evolution Create Us? Mormonism's views regarding life of other planets, both previous, future and contemporary, forces them to consider God's contribution in our creation to be rather significant. Miller's views, on the contrary, reduce most, if not all, creative work to mindless evolution.

Evolution, Mormonism, Rationality and Patience

2005-05-18T13:32:00.000-07:00

Next in Elder Packers talk he comes to basically the moral of his talk for scientists. Don't make fun of religionists who don't agree with you. Always keep your scientific learning of a leash held by your testimony. You can study the evolution of animals (is Elder Packer acknowledging death before the fall!?), but don't make man just another animal. Man is special.

For generations, the clergy of the Christian churches (including ours) have been labeled as bumbling and naive because they rejected the theory of evolution and believed in a separate creation of man. Those who have only the Bible, have just enough in the Old and New Testaments about men as the children of God, about law and sin, to enforce their belief that man is accountable for his conduct, that accountability requires a special status, a separate creation.
Confronted by the sophisticated arguments of articulate scientists with impressive visual evidence to support the theory of organic evolution, the clergy could not quote scriptures or testify of inner feelings. This meant little or nothing to the scientist.
Do not despise those who over the years defended these doctrines in spite of intellectual mocking. Do not belittle their efforts. However foolish they may have appeared to some, there is substance to the position they have defended. I say, God bless them!
You should not be hesitant to pursue knowledge; indeed you should excel in fields of scientific inquiry. I repeat, if you respect the truths of moral and spiritual law, you are in little danger for your soul in any field of study. You may safely study the adaptation of living things to the environment...
Do not mortgage your testimony for an unproved theory on how man was created. Have faith in the revelations; leave man in the place the revelations have put him!

What has always ammused many defendants of evolution, especially ones who are strict naturalists and would like to see others converted to their ways, is how religious people have evolution backwards when it comes to evidence. Some people are constantly clamoring about how there are still argument between qualified scientists as to evolutions status. This is true but not in the way these relgious people want.

All of the things that religious people don't like about evolution are the very thing which scientists are most sure about. Biologists do debate over the paths of evolution or even the mechanisms of evolution, but nobody and I mean nobody debates the fact of evolution without some serious bias coming into play. This is what makes the ID movement so ammusing. They are not attacking evolution as fact at all, but are instead trying desperately to attack the mechanisms mostly, and the paths but to a lesser extent, in the hope that this will eventually over throw evolution as fact. Prediction which I am willing to bet pretty much anything on: They will not succeed in attaining this ultimate goal.

This is what makes Elder Packers advise so confusing. Religious people aren't the only ones interested in man more than any other organism. Look through any universities course catelog to see evidence of this. If the evolution of any species has been studied it is that of homo sapiens. To deny that we really didn't descned from hominids in some form or another is simply not a scientific option, though I suppose one can believe whatever they want religiously. If other words, right where Elder Packer wants a hole in the evidence to exist is exactly where we have found the most. While we still don't know everything about the exact paths and mechanisms which led to the features which separate us from other animals, the fact that we did descend from 'lower' lifeforms (as the religionists, not the evolutionists, insist on calling them) is simply undisputable. Another very safe prediction: These relatively small and insignificant gaps will continue to be filled in without any change in the 'fact' of our evolution.

Now what with all these predictions? Is this just arrogance on my part? Maybe, but it is intended to make a point. Mormonism, as Elder Packer knows, embraces science. We study astronomy and physics without having to 'mortgage' our testmonies, why should evolution be any different? (Clark Goble has expressed his profound curiosity with our focus on evolution as a challenge to the faith, when astronomy is at least as challenging as evolution.)

Though there are some evolutionists (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) that seem dissatisfied with sticking to the arguemnt to complexity, rather than inappropriately weighing in on the argument to design, relgionists tend to do this far more often. It is they, with authoritative statements that the two cannot be mixed, that have encouraged such 'betting' in evolution. They have mortgaged their testimonies on the incorrectness of the theory, and let me assure you, they are betting against far greater odds than the evolutionists are. But the fact is no bet is necessary in evolution if things are considered with patience and rationality.

It was Huxley's impatience which led him to insist on evolution as a religion of sorts with the tenets of Social Darwinism being it's new commandments. This was later shown to be false, by more experienced and rational thought. While Evolution does have something to say regarding the nature of God and His creation, including man, to automatically jump to the conclusion that God can no longer be believed in is getting a bit impatient again. Calmer reflection shows that this is not the case either.

It is impatience which makes people today claim that the evolution of mankind is an impossibility since we are conscious with a conscience. This too has been shown to be false upon patient, rational thought. So is this what we are to think about the religious people who deny Darwinism, that they are impatient and irrational? I would say yes with a couple of big qualifications.

I would call them irrational when they make authoritative statements about things they know very little, if anything about. This isn't meant as an insult, for under this definition almost all of us are irrational. There are, however, differing degrees of rationality. To tell scientists that all the evidence for evolution, both of man and of other animals, is misleading is going to take more than a smile and the bearing of testimony.

I would call them impatient for similar reasons as well. They are impatient when they are willing to make authoritate statements on subjects which they have not taken the time to investigate. Take the claim that humans are moral therefore we are not animals. This is completely unfounded and shows a remarkable misunderstanding of evolution. This is not meant as an insult either, since nobody really knows enough about every subject they talk about (take politics as a clear example).

What I am really advocating is a sense of humility, both the scientists and relgionists. Dawkins is clearly impatient and irrational when it comes to theology, but Ruse is actually pretty good. Most creationism activists are clearly impatient and irrational when it comes to science in general, but some forms of creationists (they are almost never activists) are pretty good. We see some of them in the bloggernacle as a matter of fact.

When I say that irrationality and impatience are not insults I mean it. It is precisley because these are the reasons for their incorrect ideas that we should be kind to them. They simply don't know what they are doing and being snobby or condescending toward them will not help your cause or theirs, regardless of which group we side with. Our insults and accusations are only signs of our own impatience and irrationality. Evolutionists are seeking after the truth as are the Creationists. Mormons believe that a union not only can, but eventually will be made between theology and science and only more patience and rationality will bring this about.

Summary: Elder Packer calls for less hostility between evolutionists and creationists. This is a praiseworthy goal which can only be attained through more patience and rationality on both sides of the divide. Notions of mortgaging one's testimony on one position or another are sure signs that more patience and rationality are indeed needed.

Evolution, Science and Mormonism pt. 3

2005-05-17T13:42:00.000-07:00

This will be the final post in this Evolution, Science and Mormonism series, I promise. Elder Packer says in his talk:

Knowledge of the physical universe and of the laws which govern it is cumulative. Thus each generation builds upon and expands the knowledge gained from discoveries of the past. Contributions to scientific and practical knowledge are gathered from one generation to the next. As greater light and knowledge are discovered, tentative theories of the past are replaced.

He is absolutely right about this, and he is absolutely right in applying this to evolutions past.

We should note that Charles Darwin was not the first to promote a version of evolution. There is a difference between Darwinism, meaning evolution based principally on natural selection, and evolution is general, meaning the idea that all species share origins with one another. Charles' grandfather, Erasmus, was actually one of the founding fathers of evolution in general, believing in what would later be called Lamarckianism (evolution with the inheritance of acquired characteristics). This was pretty much the most popular theory at the time of Charles' publication of Origin of Species.

Once Origin was out, however, this theory began to slowly fall into disfavor since Darwinism could accont for far more phenomena than could Lamarckianism. Even so, however, there were still some doubts about Charles' work. He had no mechanism for inheritance, without which all 'selected' features of any sexually reproducing organism would diluted to the point of being useless and non-existent. In other words, the scientific community had serious issues with Darwinism and kept the theory at arms length for some time.

It was for this reason that not too much work was being done in biology during the 19th century using Darwinism in any novel way. The principle way in which it was used and popularized was as a social theory by Huxley. He almost single handedly carried Darwinism into the 20th century with his endless 'proselyting'. No this is not an inappropriate word for what he was doing for he really did see Darwinism as supplanting Christianity as the new world view. He considered it to be a new religion of sorts.

It is for this reason that the only mention of Darwin's name by Brigham Young was his stating that his purpose in establishing what we now call BYU was to counter the false doctrines of Darwin and Huxley and other such notions that go against the United Order. (It should be mentioned here that Darwin did not believe in social Darwinism, interestingly enough.) In other words Brigham's issue with Darwinism was its social implications, implications which were later shown to be totally misguided by scientists as well. Brigham never really said much of anything about Natural Selection as Darwin understood it.

Darwinism was very much a theory which wasn't being put to much of any use until the 1930's and 40's when people started integrating Mendelian genetics with it. Then it really took off. But before that, it was not inappropriate at all for anybody, be they scientists or preachers, to have called evolution a "theory of men". And this is what we see in the 1st Presidency statements in the early 20th century: "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 lowers orders of animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men." It's true, it was a theory at the time and a lot of that 'theory' was eventually rejected being flat out wrong.

Times have changed, however. Evolution is no longer considered to be a theory by any stretch of the imagination. With the coming of molecular biology, no scientist doubts that man was descended from 'lower animal creation'. This is simply fact. No the paths which we took and the mechanisms which were responsible can be consider theory to a certain extent, but it is no longer acceptable to brush evolution off as a mere "theory of man."

What this account also shows is that scientists are not clinging to evolution with religious fervor. Natural selection came as a replacement of other evolutionary theories. Darwinism itself was eventually modified (meaning parts of it were rejected) to become what is now called neo-Darwinism. Even now, some parts of evolution are debatable. These parts, however, are limited to paths and mechanism. Evolution itself is not questioned, not even by the Intelligent Designers.

With this in mind I should also address the idea that evolution is a telestial law. To a certain extent it is. Evolution requires three things: 1) replication, 2) variation and 3) a struggle for survival. This means that for there to be biological evolution there must be organisms both giving birth and dying. In the garden there was neither of these things so obviously there was no biological evolution. But so what?

The facts are that there has been birth and death on this planet for billions of years and that we are descended from a common ancestor as chimpanzees. Whether there is evolution is the terrestrial or celestial kingdom has nothing to do with these things. We can say that Adam was introduced into this telestial world from some other non-telestial world, but this doesn't change the fact that we have a lot more hominid than Adam in us and these things must be accounted for. As near as I can tell, pointing out that evolution is but a telestial law accomplishes nothing in our attempts at reconciliation.

Summary: Evolution was not introduced by Charles Darwin, nor was it finalized by him. Many ideas related to evolution have been and are currently being rejected by the scientific community, but the evolution itself is not one of them. This is not our of blind allegiance, for even the IDers don't question evolution as a fact. While dismissing evolution as a mere theory was OK for a time, since the mid 1900's this is no longer acceptable.

Evolution, Science and Mormonism pt. 2

2005-05-16T13:06:00.000-07:00

Last time we saw that, as Elder Packer says, one need not "become a scientist at the expense of being a Latter-day Saint of faith and spiritual maturity." Instead our embracing science (always with the qualifier "true science") as a sub-set of eternal truth can tell us a great deal about God and the ways in which He deals with us. I simply have to disagree, however, with Elder Packer when he says:

If all things were known, man's creativity would be stifled. There could be no further discovery, no growth, nothing to decide--no agency.
All things not only are not known but must not be so convincingly clear as to eliminate the need for faith. That would nullify agency and defeat the purpose of the plan of salvation.

This is not an accurate view of science, knoweldge, agency or God as taught by Mormonism in my opinion. Mormons and Evolutionists both maintain that it is knowledge which gives us creativity, God being the most creative of us all due to His knowing everything which can be known. A jellyfish knows very little and is, therefore, not very creative. It is because of our knowledge that we can make informed decisions. Now we can maintain that God keeps us in the dark to a certain degree as to His existence and purposes allowing us more agency (this is what I imagine Elder Packer actually had in mind), but this is not what we are talking about in this context. No matter how much we learn in science about the physical laws of the universe we will always have agency and creativity.

Clearly, however, the tradition of including science within the realm of eternal truth has something to do with our viewing science as a way to learn about God. If we are to maintain that God did not create the physical laws which science studies, then we must clarify this position of ours.

We say that Charles Darwin was a Deist and as such believed that God created us, the animals and everything else through natural law. This is not far from (if there is any difference at all) the God of Stephen Hawkin and Albert Einstein. Many Christians have gained comfort in their use of the word 'god' in their writing be assured that rather than working against the Christian faith, these men were actually working for it. This isn't strictly the case. When these men use the word 'god' what they mean is the collective whole of the laws which govern the universe, not the Christian God at all. Thus for these men it was easy to include science within their 'gospel' because science, to them was the gospel, no more no less.

This is not the Mormon position. We believe that the physical laws exist completely independant of God. Studying these laws is not the same as studying God Himself or His nature. It is, nevertheless, the study of eternal laws and eternal truths. These are (again, assuming the all-important qualifier) the very same laws which God Himself had to learn at one time (or eternity) or another, and from our knowledge of these laws we can better see how God COULD have created the world and intervened thereafter. It is because of this that criticizing evolution using perceived flaws in it which have been refuted tells us nothing about God or His creation. Criticism is good in science, but there is a difference between responsible criticism and the fanaticism seen in some evolution critics.

So where does this leave us with regards to the Intelligent Design movement? After all, we do believe that God intervened somehow to get us here don't we? We simply cannot maintain that God didn't do anything in the creation. Is Intelligent Design the way to go?

As I'm sure most of you can guess, my answer is no. This is not because I don't believe that God didn't play a role in the creation, but is instead because I don't believe that we have discovered any evidence as to how He did. I should also mention that I see no reason whatsoever for Mormons to jump on this band wagon. ID uses arguement to show how evolution could not have resulted in certain features, therefore God, I'm sorry, a Designer must have intervened. They are trying to establish that a Designer had some part in the process, but from a Mormon perspective, who cares? Of all the targets which the ID movement shoots for none of them even attempt to show that humans are not related to chimpazees and share a common ancestor or that there was death before the fall. These are the only issues which Mormons really have with evolution and ID addresses none of them at all, so let's not think that they are working for us at all.

Let me take a brief example of why we Mormons who embrace science should not embrace the non-science of the ID movement as it is now known. As I have mentioned, Michael Ruse is a Darwinian Naturalist who actually looks upon Christians with much sympathy. He even sends his children to a Christian school. He wrote a book titled "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" to which he answers 'yes'. (Just as a warning, his arguments don't address Mormon theology very well at all.) Nevertheless, he shows no patience for the ID movement and played an essential role in the Arkansas trials. Here is what he says regarding Behe's famous irreducible complexity.

No evolutionist ever claimed that all of the parts of a functioning organic feature had to be in place at once, nor did any evolutionist ever claim that a part used now for one end must always have had that function. Ends get changed, and something that was introduced for one purpose might well take on another purpose. It might be only later that the new purpose gets incorporated in such a way that it becomes essential...
Take the example of an arched bridge, with stones meeting in the middle and with no supporting cement. If you tried to build it from scratch, the two sides would keep collapsing as you started to move the higher stones into the middle. What you must do first is build an understructure, placing stones on it. Then, when the stones are pressing against one another in the middle, you can remove the understructure...
We find that Behe's case for the impossibility of a small-step natural origin of biological complexity has been trampled upon contemtuously by the scientists working in the field. It is not just that they disagree, but that they think his grasp of the pertinent science is weak and his knowledge of the literature curiously (although conveniently) outdated...
Behe's knowledge of evolution is suspect. His knowledge of his own area of science is suspect. And the same is true when he moves into philosophy and theology.

In order to better understand the idea of Intelligent Design and how it relates to Mormonism we should attempt to clarify thier use of teleology versus our use of it. A teleological cause is basically something in the future causing something else to happen in the present. Take my typing this post. I so that it will be read by others, but others don't read it until after I have typed it. Therefore the future is influencing the present by way of my intentions. It is not your reading of this post that really causes me to type it, but my intention that you read it that causes me to type it, and my intention comes before the typing.

Many people, especially creationists, see teleological causes written all over nature. Why are people born with big brains? So they can think with them. But the thinking happens after the person is born with the brain, therefore there must have been intention, or in other words a teleological cause. The same can be said about the beavers tail, the giraffes neck and the cows four stomachs.

This was actually the reigning philosophy until Darwin came along with his idea of natural selection. Giraffes don't have neck in order to later eat the leaves off of trees, but rather giraffes exist because their parents had long necks and could eat the leaves off of trees. Giraffes inherit this ability from thier parents. Thus baby giraffes have long necks because their parents do which enabled them to eat the leaves and survive long enough to reproduce. This is not the case all the way back infinitum,just until there were 'giraffes' which didn't have long necks yet. It was this thinking which lead Huxley to exclaim that evolution had dealt the death blow to teleology.

With this in mind we can now separate the typical argument to design as used by the IDers into two arguements: 1) the argument to complexity and 2) the argument to design. IDers want to always talk about design because in automatically implies a Designer which can administer teleological causes. Complexity on the other hand has no such connotations. So what do we see in the world, complexity or design?

Creationists like to use the classic example of Paley's watch. You find a watch on the beach, is it merely complex or is it designed? BUT what is we find a watch which is able to reproduce? What if we observe random variations in its offspring? What if we observe a watch which is in a struggle for survival and it ability to keep time contributes wonderfully to it competing? Obviously we aren't really talking about watches anymore. If we find a watch we assume that its makers was a designer. If we find a mouse we assume that it's maker was it's mother and father mouse. This difference can hardly be overemphasized.

Upon closer observation of the world around us, I'm not sure that we would want to take the designer option too far anyways. As I noted in the last post, Darwin was very disturbed by the vast amounts of imperfection in the world. We see things in the world which seem to be designed for certain purposes, but they don't even approach perfection in doing these things. Do we really want to attribute such things to a Designer? Immediately we start down the road paved by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

If things were really designed by the designer that the IDers are hoping for we would certainly expect them to be better than they are. But if these same things are instead complex, meaning that they are functions in a very complex network of agent trying to survive by utilitizing different functions in different ways, there would be no need for perfection in the least. Natural selection uses what is available to beat others in the struggle for survival. Pefection is not what matters. The only thing which does matter is being 'better' than your competitors who are engaged in that same struggle.

Neo-Darwinism (as we now call it) supports the argument to complexity like no other scientific theory has ever done. What does it have to say regarding the further arguement to design? Not much at all. It swallows up a lot of what was previously used in the argument to design, but it doesn't say anything against it either. Could there be design in the world in addition to complexity? Sure, why not. Have we found any unambiguous examples of this? No. No we haven't.

It is for this reason that ID is rejected. Do Mormons accept the existence of undesigned complexity? They'd better if they don't want to be labeled 'naive'. To we accept the existence of design on top of that? Yes, but this is a total faith claim. The argument to complexity is scientific through and through, and to the same degree that complexity is scientific, the argument to design is theological in nature.

Could design be brought into science? According to Mormons, yes. We too will eventually learn about how to create and populate worlds using both complexity and design. However, we simply to not have the tools or evidence necessary to even start on such a science now. For the time being, the best way to help discover, develop and further a model of Intelligent Design by Mormon standards is through participating in evolutionary science as it currently taught in the universities. Any other way is unscientific and un-Mormon.

to be continued...

Summary: Mormonism and the Intelligent Design movement do not find mutual support in one another. ID moves beyond the design to complexity (which science fully supports) and zealously moves on to the argument to Design, an out right faith claim. While Mormons believe that there was a significant element of design in the creation of modern life, the best way to discover this element is through evolution as it is currently taught.

Evolution, Science and Mormonism pt. 1

2005-05-16T11:29:00.000-07:00

Now we come to a part in Elder Packers talk in which a lot of things are said very briefly and in an off-hand sort of way. He addresses Mormonisms position in regards to science, which will lead us into a discussion regarding the nature of God as we see it versus the nature of God as Darwin saw it. He then addresses in a very indirect way the status of evolution as a science, which we will use to address issues surrounding Intelligent Design. He also mentions that fact that scientific knowledge is cumulative, which is true, and accusses some people of getting a bit over confident in their scientific knowledge, which is also true. This will serve as a good spring board into a brief discussion regarding the accusation that Darwinism is either just a theory or is an atheistic religion in itself. This will probably take two or three posts to adequately cover.

I envy your opportunity to work in fields of scientific discovery: anthropology, paleontology, geology, physics, biology, physiology, chemistry, medicine, engineering and many others. Just think of the opportunity to study the laws of the physical universe and harness the power inherent in obeying them for the good of mankind. It gives me feelings of wonder, of reverence.
No Latter-day Saint should be hesitant to pursue any true science as a career, a hobby, and interest, or to accept any truth established through those means of discovery. Nor need one become a scientist at the expense of being a Latter-day Saint of faith and spiritual maturity.
Science is seeking; science is discovery. Man finds joy in discovery. If all things were known, man's creativity would be stifled. There could be no further discovery, no growth, nothing to decide--no agency.
All things not only are not known but must not be so convincingly clear as to eliminate the need for faith. That would nullify agency and defeat the purpose of the plan of salvation. Tests of faith are growing experiences. We all have unanswered questions. Seeking and questioning, periods of doubt, in an effort to find answers, are part of the process of discovery. The kind of doubt which is spiritually dangerous, does not relate to questions so much as to answers.
For that and other reasons, it is my conviction that a full knowledge of the origin of man must await further discovery, further revelation.
Latter-day Saints may safely follow an interest in science and pursue it with commitment, dedication, and with inspiration.
Laws which govern both the temporal and the spiritual are ordained of God. After all of the tomorrows have passed and after all things have been revealed, we will know that those laws are not in conflict, but are in harmony. The Lord said that not at any time has he given either a law or a commandment which is temporal. (D&C 29:34-35) Of course he has not! Temporal means temporary and, whether they govern the physical or the spiritual, his laws are eternal!
Know this: Knowledge of the physical universe and of the laws which govern it is cumulative. Thus each generation builds upon and expands the knowledge gained from discoveries of the past. Contributions to scientific and practical knowledge are gathered from one generation to the next. As greater light and knowledge are discovered, tentative theories of the past are replaced.
Unlike knowledge of the physical universe, the moral knowledge of each generation begins where the previous generation began rather than where they left off. For example, the remedy for an infection in the physical body has changed dramatically over the centuries; the remedy for infidelity, not at all. Morality is not so easily conveyed from one generation to the next. It is acquired more from example, ideally in the home.
This apparent imbalance in accumulating knowledge can easily contribute to a spirit of arrogance in students of the physical world, especially in so-called intellectuals. They may feel they have inherited the larger and more valuable legacy of knowledge.

I have mentioned in previous posts that one of the tendencies of Mormonism, is not hallmarks of it, is our acceptance of science. Most of us have heard the quotes from Orson Pratt and Brigham Young which state that all science, it being a large sub-set of eternal truth, is included within the gospel. Brigham Young even went so far as to say:

If one of our Elders is capable of giving us a lecture upon any of the sciences, let it be delivered in the spirit of meekness—in the spirit of the holy Gospel. If, on the Sabbath day, when we are assembled here to worship the Lord, one of the Elders should be prompted to give us a lecture on any branch of education with which he is acquainted, is it outside the pale of our religion? I think not... Or if an Elder shall give us a lecture upon astronomy, chemistry, or geology, our religion embraces it all. It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity. The truth that is in all the arts and sciences forms a part of our religion. Faith is no more a part of it than any other true principle of philosophy. JD 1:334

Orson Pratt remarked:

The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth--scientific, religious, and political. JD 7:157

Closely related to this acceptance of science is the Mormon doctrine of miracles, namely that they are always done in accordance with natural law. Brigham went so far as to say that there is no such thing as a miracle to those who know how it is done. In other words, Mormons don't believe in real magic, only in the magic that really is real, namely an illusion. Real magic isn't real, even in Mormonism.
Another doctrine which is closely related to this is our idea that Laws are eternal and self-existent. God can't break, change or create physical law. He can only work within its bounds and use it to His advantage due to His knowledge of these laws. Thus, one will find lots of Mormons majoring in engineering and other physical sciences, the parts of science that study these laws.
So here is the Mormon God: He did not create natural law, but discovered them just like we must in we want to become like Him. He can intervene in the world by performing what appear to us to be miracles in order to accomplish His designs.
Now, how does this compare with Darwin's God? Darwin's God!? some might exclaim. Wasn't he an atheist or at least an agnostic? Not at first. He was, at first a Christian. He believed in a God that created the physical laws of the universe and occasionally intervened in affairs 'down here'. Eventually he became a deist (similar to many great minds in science) in that he rejected the idea that God intervened in the world since He created it, but He was the one who created the laws of the universe and got the ball rolling so to speak. In otherwords, this God is the complete opposite of the Mormon God.
Darwin's conversion to deism was greatly influenced by Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism. It was largely due to his acceptance of Lyell's theory that Darwin rejected the idea of miracles, and with them, Christianity. "He grew to accept an Unmoved Mover who works through unbroken law, rather than a God of intervention who works through miracles that break physical laws." (Ruse in Darwin and Design) Notice, neither one of these gods is the God of Mormonism. We do not believe that God works through natural law. Instead God works in accordance with natural law, just like we do though to a greater degree. Which means that we also reject the idea that God intervenes by breaking natural laws as the other position states as well. Instead, we find ourselves walking a fine line down the middle of these two positions.

Darwin's deism also played a major part in his developing his theory of natural selection. Since God was the creator not of each kind of animal, but of the laws whereby animals would eventually be created, evolution, instead of being a stumbling block to Darwin's faith (as it was to most Christians) was instead a remarkable vindication of his faith.

It was only later in his life, well after the first publication of the Origin of Species that Darwin fell into agnosticism, though he never reached atheism. This had quite a bit to do with the fact that upon closer examination, the wonder design brought about by his deistic God was not so perfect after all. Natural selection cares nothing about perfection, only success in competition. We don't need to be, and indeed are not, perfectly designed, only designed better than others. Combine this with the importance which the British placed on teleology at the time and the devestating Humean criticisms of it which were circulating and Darwin gradually slipped into agnosticism.

What do these things have to do with the God of Mormonism? Actually quite well in my opinion. We reject the reality of miracles which break natural law so we are able to bear, even accept, the uniformitarianism inherent in geology, astronomy and evolution. Nevertheless, we, like science today, reject the strict uniformitarianism which Darwin and Lyell endorsed thus allowing us to maintain a certain degree of intervention in God 'creating' the world.

The God of Mormonism did not create the physical laws so evolution was by no means a vindication of the Mormon faith. However, given Mormonism's rejection of onotological miracles as well as a letter perfect Biblical text, evolution was not an insuperable obstacle either. Darwin's theory of natural selection was actually quite neutral with regards to Mormonism.

While Mormonism does embrace a certain amount of teleology with regards to God, His plans and His intentions, we have never placed too much emphasis on the teleological argument for God. We don't believe that God created the laws which would eventually create animals nor do we believe that God created them by a process contrary to natural law so we don't insist that said animals be perfect. The Humean criticisms, while totally devestating to the Christian use of the teleological argument, are significantly less harsh on the Mormon doctrine of God. (see David Paulsen's Doctoral dissertation, "Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finistic) and Classical Theism) Instead, we place more stock in the proof of God by revelation, something completely separate from evolution.

Due to the ideas and doctrines that are both related to and the base of Mormonisms strong acceptance of science, we are able to embrace what is one of the more fascinating of sciences as well, namely evolution.

to be continued...

Summary: Darwin's changing views of God can be seen to be closely related to his progressive understanding of evolution. While he went from Christianity to Deism to Agnosticism due to his understanding of God, teleology and evolution, Mormonism's belief in a finite God (which is intimately related to their acceptance of science) is able to put a stop to such a degeneration of faith.

Evolution of Free Agency pt. 2

2005-05-13T13:22:00.000-07:00

Last post (pt.1) we noted that we are not like the digger wasp, nor does anybody claim this anymore. Genetic determinism is false, plain and simple. Nevertheless, we do inherit a great deal from our evolutionary past, such as sexual instincts, and appetite for sweets, a fear of snakes and heights and the like. There clearly is a connection to these 'animal' urges and our current behavior whether creationists like it or not. But to say that this is the end of the story is misleading at best.

This can be seen in that some animals do make actual choices. A couple of posts ago we noted a few examples from studies of chimpazees, our closest living relatives. How conscious or rational these choices are is debatable, but decisions are being made.

Gary Drescher in his study of artificial intelligence (a topic I will definitely steer clear of) makes a distintion between what he calls 'situation-action' machines and 'choice' machines. A situation action machine are programmed or designed according to rules which basically say 'if you encounter condition C, do A.' This is what we saw in the wasp example, pure reaction to environment and programming. Such a machine requires very little design and are exceedingly cost-effective, a serious matter in evolutionary biology.

Choice machines require far more design in the form of intelligence. They are 'programmed' according to rules which state 'If you encounter condition C, doing A will result in outcome Z with probability P.' We can even imagine an intermediate which cuts out the probability part. Thus, such an animal allows it thoughts (the choices it didn't accept) to die in its stead greatly increasing its chances for survival and reproduction. Humans clearly are able to consider more options or possible choices at a fast speed than can other animals. We can also easily imagine the ability to consider options in greater numbers and speed coming through evolutionary mechanisms. These things clearly played a relational role in our developing bigger brains which greatly modifies both the timing and quanitity of child birth.

But is this all there is? Is this all we are? Some, myself included, have no problem with this. Others, such as Blake Ostler, do have problems with this and shall be addressed shortly. First I will consider those who do not have a problem with this, taking Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett as test cases.

Ruse and Dennett are definitely the two philosphers who have taken evolution into consideration more than others. Dennett has written numerous papers on evolutioin, mostly dealing with consciousness and free will, and has also written two books which deal rather thoroughly with the subject: Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Freedom Evolves. Ruse has probably written more books on evolution than any other person alive. His books which pertain most to the subject at hand are Taking Darwin Seriously and Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? the answer to which he feels is 'yes.' (Though his attempts at reconciliation will simply be unacceptable to most Mormons.)

Dennett is a hardcore naturalist who conisiders himself a 'brite' (the new, P.C. and less emotionally charged word for 'atheist'). He makes no mention of Intelligent Design not considering with his or anybody else time or consideration. While endorsing the idea of epigenetic rules, he accepts and is one of the main proponents for the existence of memes. His book long treatment of this subject, "Freedom Evolves" was instantly a classic and burned many relatively new paths which showed promise. Here is basic account of the evolution of agency taken from his book:

Four billion years ago, there was no freedom on our planet, because there was no life... The wisdom inherent in the design of multicellular life forms can best be understood by adopting the intentional stance toward the whole process of evolution. From this perspective we can discern the free-floating rationales of the cooperative 'choices' in non-zero-sum games that have guided the evolutionary R&D [Research and Design] process to ever more sophisticated rational agents, expanding the capacity of life-forms to recognize and act on opportunities. Turning our back on the misguided bugbear of 'genetic determinism,' we can see how evolution by natural selection provides for greater and greater degrees of freedom, but this is still not the freedom of human agency... A Darwinian approach to human culture permits us to sketch an explanatory path that can account for the major differences between us and our nearest animal relatives. Culture... provides... Homo sapiens with new topics to think about, new tools to think with, and - since the media of culture open up the possibility of cultural replicators [memes] whose own fitness is independent of our genetic fitness - new perspectives to think from... This approach does not subvert the ideals or morality; it provides much-needed support... The complexities of social life... generate a series of arms races from which agents emergbe who exhibit key components of human morality: an interest in discovering conditions in which cooperation will flourish, sensitivity to punishments and threats, concern for reputation, high-level dispositions of self-manipulation that are designed to improve self-control in the face of temptation, and an ability to make commitments that are appreciable by others.

Like Dennett, Ruse is a metaphysical naturalist who considers a form of compatibilism to be the best path to take regarding free will. He clearly has no axe to grind against theists for while strongly objecting to a scientific status of "Intelligent Design" he has no strong objections to one seeing the hand of the designer in the world, just so long the the validity of evolution is never compromised. Rejecting or ignoring the idea of memes, he relies quite heavily on E. O. Wilson's ideas of epigenetic rules in considering human epistemology and ethics, viewing David Hume as a brilliant precursor in these areas. This is from his Taking Darwin Seriously:

What then of freedom of choice, given genetically underpinned moral norms?... If we had gone the route of Hymenoptera, programmed to do blindly what we do, then there would be no true freedom. But we are conscious beings, aware of the dictates imposed by our epigenetic rules - aware of the prescriptions of morality. Far from Darwinism denying freedom, it demands it! And this demand is obviously met, for nothing has been said to negate our phenomenological awareness or ourselves as free beings... None of this is to decide on whether or not, in some basic sense, all human thought and action lies within the causal nexus. My own presumption is that it does. Like many philosophers, I have difficulty in imagining what an uncaused thought/action would be like. I certainly cannot see how such would open up a presently missing opening for human freedom... Readers versed in history of philosphy will have appreciated, already, that the solution to the free-will problem that I have recommended to Darwinians is Humean to the core [compatibilistic].

While the Mormon reader will want to include a part for our "intelligence" to play in the decision making, such a compatibilist account is quite compatible with evolution and, in my opinion, Mormon doctrine.

Blake Ostler, however, disagrees. In our recent debate regarding Libertarian Free Will versus Deterministic Compatibilism, he argued that the Mormon position should be that of the Libertarian. When asked how this model fits in with evolution he responded:

My views are actually mainstream emergent agent causation... adopted in its noumenal form by Immanuel Kant and is entailed in process thought. My background is in neurophysiology and all of these views are considered live options in the philosophy of neurophysiology or neurosciences. In fact, it seems to me that the emergence of mind from material complexity is precisely what evolution leads us to believe.
I accept evolution. I did a paper on cranial evolution of hominids in school where I argued that cranial capacity has nothing to do with hominid evolution or intelligence, rather, the key is the structure and complexity of dendryte morphology. I believe that God used the means of evolution to create our bodies. I like what you say on your post about evolution and find myself largely in agreement on those issues.

I couldn't help but include that last part ;-)

When asked if his view of free will works even without any kind of "spiritual reality" he responded yes. In other words, a libertarian account of free will seems to be fully compatible with evolution as well. While I myself am a determinist, those who strongly disagree with me can accept the evolution of free agency.

Summary: The Evolutionary accounts of free will as provided by both Dennett and Ruse are reviewed as well as that of Blake Ostler. While we clearly have a sense of free will far surpassing that of any other animal, this does not imply that evoltionary accounts of humans are incorrect.

Evolution of Free Agency pt. 1

2005-05-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

The real issue that Elder Packer seems to have is with free will and responsibility. Animals clearly don't have and we clearly do. Well, it depends on how you define free will and responsibility. Also, we should again emphasize that evolutionists do not think that humans, since they are animals, are just like all other animals. Evolutionists don't think that any animal is just like all the others, let alone one as unique as a human.

The comprehension of man as no more than a specialized animal cannot help but affect how one behaves. A conviction that man did evolve from animals fosters the mentality that man is not responsible for moral conduct.
Animals are controlled to a very large extent by physical urges. Promiscuity is a common pattern in the reproduction of animals. In many subtle ways, the perception that man is an animal and likewise controlled by urges invites that kind of behavior so apparent in society today. A self-image in which we regard ourselves as children of God sponsors one kind of behavior. A conclusion which equates man to animals fosters another kind of behavior entirely.
Consequences which spring from that single false premise account for much of what society now suffers. I do not speak in theoretical terms; it matters very much in practical ways. The word abortion should suffice as an example.

He seems to suffer from a serious caracturization of evolution and its claims for he consistently argues against things which evolutionary biologists discredited a long time ago. Take for instance the idea of genetic determinism. We can study the actions of some animals, especially insects, and realize that they are not really deciding anything at all. They are programmed by the genes to do certain things and they do them.

Wooldridge gives a great example of this in the life of the digger wasp. When it is time for the female to lay its eggs, it stings a cricket so as to paralyze it without killing it, burrows a hole in the ground and lays its eggs next to the cricket in the hole. By the time the eggs hatch the crickey has not decomposed and can thus be eaten by the offspring. Is this great planning and foresight by the wasp? No, as we can readily see with a simple experiment.

When the wasp is about to drag the crickey into the hole, she first enters the hole to make sure that everything is ok, leaving the paralyzed cricket at the threshold. Upon emerging, she then takes the crickey inside the hole. If while the wasp is inspecting the hole something (such as a curious scientist) moves the cricket even a couple of inches from the threshold, the wasp will proceed to move the cricket again to the threshold, leave it there and proceed to check things out in the hole. If while inside we move the cricket again the same thing happens. The wasp will do this dozens of times without fail in we are so inclined to keep with this game.

Is the wasp really planning and thinking about what it is doing? No. Genetic determinism basically amounts to the fear that we are but an elaborate version of the digger wasp. Fortunately, nobody really believes this, not even the most atheistic Darwinists.

Before we go on to consider what they really do think, let us first recognize a serious flaw in Packers reasoning. No it's not revelation, he says so himself. I'm not using science to criticize an Apostle, instead this Apostle has ventured into the realm of science thereby inviting criticism upon himself, if only by his mischaracterizing evolution.

"The perception that man is an animal and likewise controlled by urges invites that kind of behavior so apparent in society today." This is an obvious violation of the is/ought relationship which spelled the demise of the social darwinists. What happened to our species in the past might have something to do with what we ought to do now, but a bridge is badly needed to connect the two. Spencer (the main proponent of social Darwinism) failed to provide this bridge as has Packer is his criticism.

Yes, animal seem to be 'promiscuous' having sexual relations outside of wedlock, but wait, they don't have wedlock. Ah, but they have multiple parters. Yes some do but others do not. Attempting to dervie ethics for us from animals so disconnected from us is bound to flop.

Well then, what about the nature of our closest relatives then? First of all, or closest relatives are not the chimpanzees, they are our closest living relatives. Just as I am more closely related to my grandparents than I am my cousins, we are more closely related to Cro-magnon and the like than we are to chimps or gorillas.

There is a whole branch of science dedicated to answering question like these regarding human nature. It is called evolutionary psychology. Women tend to be more 'monogamous' than are men, because they want a man to provide for them and their (specifically the woman's) offspring. This is a form of kin selection. Men tend to be a bit less monogamous due to their 'wanting' to spread their genes as far and wide as possible. (This really shouldn't bother Mormons so much for obvious reasons.) Does this mean that it is better that men run around with as many women as possible trying to get others to raise their genetic offspring? No, this is where the is/ought relationship violation comes in. We value trust, honesty and commitment to such an extent that such a scenario seem repugnant to us. This is due to our sense of morality.

to be continued....

Summary: Many attempts to establish a notion of free will and responsibility based on our being animals have been flat out wrong. It is right for Elder Packer to criticize these attempts, but he does so by falling into the same error as them, they all try to derive 'ought' from 'is.'