tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-112398632024-03-23T11:19:22.995-07:00Mormons and EvolutionA Quest for ReconciliationJeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1143163187653943122006-03-23T17:19:00.000-08:002006-03-23T17:20:14.066-08:00Mormons and Evolution Has Moved<a href="http://evolution.nfshost.com">Here</a> is our new home. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />Please update your links, bookmarks, post-it notes, and so forth.<br /></span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1138224619619871312006-01-25T15:30:00.000-08:002006-01-25T13:31:08.116-08:00The Failure of the Argument from DesignAs 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.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Paley’s points are as follows:<br /><br /><ol><li>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.</li><br /><li>Natural phenomena such as our eyes, thumbs and noses are more like clocks than rocks.</li><br /><li>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.</li><br /><li>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.</li></ol><br />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.<br /><br /><ol><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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.)</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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).</li><br /><li>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.</li><br /><li>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.</li></ol><br />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.</span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1138222139767083972006-01-25T12:31:00.000-08:002006-01-25T12:59:57.586-08:00The Relevance to Evolution of Brigham’s Science-friendly StatementsJared has a nice <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2006/01/uncovering-brigham-young.html">post</a> on the changing publication history of a very interesting quote from Brigham Young, and <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2006/01/uncovering-brigham-young.html#113808084458346881">Jeffrey</a> and <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2006/01/uncovering-brigham-young.html#113808604734429010">Clark</a> 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. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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; <i>He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles</i>,” 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.<br /><br />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, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> So far, so good; sounds like God as Engineer. But then he immediately says <blockquote>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!</blockquote> 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: <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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 <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-classes-of-argument-from-design.html">this</a> post.<br /><br />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 <i>today</i> considered good doctrine by the <i>current</i> presiding authorities. <br /><br></span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1134966406643178172006-01-16T09:00:00.000-08:002006-01-15T17:46:46.600-08:00Elder Boyd K. Packer on EvolutionElder 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.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />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 <i>philosophy</i>, not science itself. Unfortunately, the average reader may not realize the distinction.<br /><br />"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.<blockquote>"No Latter-day Saint should be hesitant to pursue any true science as a career, a hobby, or an interest, or to accept <i>any truth</i> 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."</blockquote>Again in this talk, discussion of evolution is overshadowed by the reaffirmation of basic gospel truths, especially the existence of conscience and moral law.<br /><br />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 <i>philosophy</i> based on, but not actually a part of, science. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />----------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><b>Excerpts:</b><br /><br /><b>1.</b> Nov 1984, <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm">The Pattern of Our Parentage</a>. (Note that in #4 Elder Packer appears to be more open to the evolution of animals.)<br /><br />"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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Since <i>every living thing</i> follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for <i>His</i> offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?"<br /><br /><b>2.</b> Nov 1986, <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20november%201986%20.htm/little%20children.htm">Little Children</a><br /><br />"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, <i>something</i> causes it! Is it accidental that the more widely such secular doctrines are believed, the more prevalent immoral behavior becomes?<br /><br />They defend their philosophy with collected data and say, “It is now proven to be true. Look at all the evidence on our side.”<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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 <i>faith</i>. But, in time, the consequences of following either will become visible enough."<br /><br /><b>3.</b> May 1988, <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20may%201988.htm/atonement%20agency%20accountability.htm">Atonement, Agency, Accountability</a><br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>chance</i>; they are based on <i>choice!</i> It was planned that way.<br /><br />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."<br /><br /><b>4.</b> Oct 1988, <a href="http://www.moleff.com/church/TheLawandtheLight.pdf">The Law and the Light</a>, published in 1990 in <i>Jacob through Words of Mormon: To Learn with Joy</i>.<br /><br /><b>5.</b> Nov 1990, <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1990.htm/ensign%20november%201990.htm/covenants.htm">Covenants</a><br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br /><b>6.</b> March 1992, "The Fountain of Life," 18-Stake BYU fireside, published in <i>Things of the Soul</i>. (Note the similarity to #7.)<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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 <i>some</i> things, it is widely taught and generally accepted as the solution to the mystery of life.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br /><b>7.</b> May 1992, <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20may%201992%20.htm/our%20moral%20environment.htm">Our Moral Environment</a><br /><br />"No idea has been more <i>destructive</i> 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."<br /><br /><b>8.</b> November 1993, "The Great Plan of Happiness and Personal Revelation," CES fireside, published in <i>Things of the Soul</i>. (Note the similarity to #4.)<br /><br />"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).<br /><br />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."<br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1137178717723214582006-01-13T10:42:00.000-08:002006-01-13T11:08:35.073-08:00Two Classes of Argument from Design, Which Both FailIn a recent <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2006/01/do-all-things-denote-there-is-god.html">post</a> 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. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>use</i> 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.)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />One class of order without intelligent intervention might be called ‘specialness <i>amidst</i> 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 <i>not</i> sufficient to ensure that <i>all</i> 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 <i>none</i> 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.<br /><br />A second class of order without intelligent intervention—which might be called ‘specialness <i>from</i> randomness’—is exemplified by nonlinear dynamical systems with ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor">attractors</a>,’ 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2006/01/do-all-things-denote-there-is-god.html">arguing</a> 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.”)<br /><br />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 <a href="http://bannerofheaven.weblogs.us/archives/149">attributed</a> 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 <i>some</i> 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 <i>from</i> randomness’ renders such less necessary—and perhaps, in combination with observations of biological deficiencies and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation">exaptations</a>, less plausible as well.) <br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2820#comment-114601">reflecting</a> 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!<br /></span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1137177646512812992006-01-13T10:37:00.000-08:002006-01-13T10:40:46.516-08:00Response to God and scienceSince Geoff B <a href="http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/12/20/god_and_science">mentioned</a> me by name, I feel inclined to respond. Statements from his post are in italics, and my responses follow. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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). <br /><br /><br /><i>A refusal by the scientific world to accept God in any of its respected experiments these days makes for incomplete studies and false science.</i><br /><br />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.”<br /><br /><br /><i>As any student of the history of science will know, Sir Isaac Newton and even Einstein accepted the existence of a Creator.</i><br /><br />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 <a href="http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm">quote</a> I quickly found through Google put it this way: <blockquote>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…<br /><br />…he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science…<br /><br />…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.</blockquote> 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 <i>only</i> path to knowledge, insight, happiness, and so on. <br /><br /><br /><i>Do they honestly believe that the study of science in a Millennial world will be the same as it is now?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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…) <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[This is cross-posted from <a href="http://spinozist.blogspot.com">The Spinozist Mormon</a>. Please go to the <a href="http://spinozist.blogspot.com/2005/12/response-to-god-and-science.html">original post</a> to comment.] <br /></span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1137177287997343692006-01-13T10:28:00.000-08:002006-01-13T10:36:27.856-08:00Do all things denote there is a God?Suggesting a resonance with the Intelligent Design approach to biology, Matt Evans <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2820">mentions</a> Alma’s teleological argument to Korihor in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/30">Alma 30</a>: 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. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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 <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/88">D&C 88</a>—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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76">D&C 76</a>.)<br /><br />A reason to prefer the theory that Joseph is the source of the Alma’s teleological argument can be derived from a recent <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2806">post</a> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />[This is cross-posted from <a href="http://spinozist.blogspot.com">The Spinozist Mormon</a>. Please go to the <a href="http://spinozist.blogspot.com/2006/01/do-all-things-denote-there-is-god.html<br />">original post</a> to comment.] <br /><br></span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1136349056189020672006-01-05T00:00:00.000-08:002006-01-04T21:28:31.310-08:00Origin of the Origin of Man1909 marked the centennial of Charles Darwin's birth and the semicentennial of the publication of <em>Origin of Species</em>. <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/Mormon_History/1911EvolControversy.html">According to Gary James Bergera</a>,<span class="fullpost"> <blockquote>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 <em>Improvement Era</em>.</blockquote>James Talmage, not yet an apostle, was also involved in the drafting of the statement.<br /><br />Interestingly, the 1909 statement draws on an article previously written by Orson F. Whitney and published in the <em>Contributor</em> 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 <em>ex nihilo</em>. The end of the article is quite similar to the end of the 1909 statement.<br /><br />Below I have formatted the passage to show the changes made to the 1882 paragraph.<br /><br />"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims] [m]an <strike>is</strike> [to be] the direct [and lineal] offspring of Deity<strike>, of a being who is the Begetter of his spirit in the eternal worlds, and the Architect of his mortal tabernacle in this</strike>. God himself is an exalted man, <strike>possessing body, parts and passions, refined and developed to the highest state of perfection</strike> [perfected, enthroned, and supreme]. [By His almighty power] He organized the <strike>world</strike> [earth] and all that it contains, from <strike>matter; from ever-living</strike> spirit and <strike>everlasting</strike> element, which exist co-eternally with [H]imself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after <strike>the image of</strike> its own kind, <strike>and determined the fixity of their respective species.</strike> [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<strike>,</strike>; but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. <strike>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.</strike> [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).]<br /><br />[new paragraph]<strike>For</strike> [M]an is the child of God, <strike>fashioned in His</strike> [formed in the divine] image and endowed with <strike>His</strike> [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 <strike>in due time of becoming</strike>[, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into] a God."<br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1133472673773830332005-12-01T13:31:00.000-08:002005-12-01T13:33:29.366-08:00Intelligent Design and Theistic EvolutionWhile 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.<br/><br/><span class="fullpost">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.<br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>Either something is designed by an Intelligence or not. I while back at <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1736">Times and Seasons</a> 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.<br/><br/>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:<br/>“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.”<br/><br/>Exactly! <br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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?<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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?<br/><br/>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 <em>possibly </em>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.<br/>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.”<br/><br/>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. <br/><br/></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1131853461400685102005-11-15T09:00:00.000-08:002005-11-14T17:41:38.183-08:00Joseph F. Smith: A Tale of Two Letters Pt. 2The same month (April 1911) that Joseph F. Smith's <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/11/joseph-f-smith-tale-of-two-letters-pt.html">editorial appeared in the <em>Improvement Era</em></a>, he published a separate editorial in the <em>Juvenile Instructor</em>. Although similar to its companion, the <em>JI</em> article contains some interesting statements.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />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:<blockquote>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...<br /><br />The Church itself has no philosophy about the <em>modus operandi</em> employed by the Lord in His creation of the world...</blockquote> 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.<br /><br />Commenting on this editoral, Trent Stephens and Jeffery Meldrum write:<blockquote>A lot has changed since 1911...We now know that managing insects requires a knowledge of their life cycles, chemistry, genetics, and <em>evolutio</em>n.<br /><br />...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, <em>M&E</em>]...It has been the case for many years that all the biology classes at BYU teach evolution as the foundation of the discipline... (<em>Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding</em>, p. 41)</blockquote><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><br />The <em>Juvenile Instructor</em> editorial is reproduced below. The text is taken from <a href="http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/JuvInst1911.html">Eyring-L</a>.<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br /><strong>Philosophy and the Church Schools.</strong><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <em>modus operandi</em> 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. <br /><br />Joseph F. Smith <br /><br />The Juvenile Instructor 46(4):208-209 (April 1911)<br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1131826603348045742005-11-14T09:00:00.000-08:002005-11-14T17:40:34.486-08:00Joseph F. Smith: A Tale of Two Letters Pt. 1The 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism">higher criticism</a>.<br /><br />This episode has been detailed by Gary Bergera in <em>Brigham Young University: A House of Faith</em> and <em>The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism</em>, both unfortunately now out of print. However, the chapter from <em>The Search for Harmony</em>, "<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/Mormon_History/1911EvolControversy.html">The 1911 Evolution Controversy</a>," is available online.<br /><br />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 <em>Improvement Era</em> and is reproduced below. This editorial was heavily excerpted in the recent Priesthood/Relief Society manual, <em>Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith</em> (Chapter 35 p. 315-316) (which takes its text from <em>Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith</em>), and lays out the basic facts of the situation.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />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.)<br /><br />The letter follows:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><br /><strong>Theory and Divine Revelation.</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />JOSEPH F. SMITH.<br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1129434126546036782005-10-16T09:23:00.000-07:002005-10-15T21:15:38.993-07:00Seven Thousand Years of the Earth's ContinuanceIn 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.<blockquote>Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?<br /><br />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.</blockquote><br />Jeff has <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/05/age-of-earth-in-evolution.html">discussed this scripture</a> before. I want to supplement his discussion with some further information and analysis.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />I think there are 3 basic ways to approach this scripture, not all of which are mutually exclusive.<br /><br />1. <b>Traditional:</b> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />2. <b>Literal, With Modification:</b> This approach gives literal meaning to the seven thousand years, but modifies it a bit. Jeff Lindsay <a href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/dc-77-and-age-of-earth.html">describes this approach</a> as suggested by Sterling Talmage, son of James E. Talmage. Sterling Talmage examined the meaning of the words "continuance," "economy", and "temporal."<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />3. <b>Developmental:</b> 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 <a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/elder.htm">wrote in a letter</a>,<blockquote>You quote from Section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I do not get from that section the meaning you give it.<br /><br />Apparently the basic difference between us is this: you do not accept the scriptural record as given in historical sequence; I do.</blockquote> It is not clear to me exactly how Section 77 was used in the correspondence<a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/10/seven-thousand-years-of-earths.html#1">[<b>1</b>]</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><strong>Meridian of Time:</strong> 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. (<i>Doctrines of Salvation</i> Vol I p.81. Orson F. Whitney also expressed this view.)<br /><br />I see several possible weaknesses with this explanation:<br /><br />1. Stretching the "little season" into almost one thousand years seems <i>ad hoc</i> 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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>ad hoc</i> to me.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------------<br /><a name="1"></a>1. My inference from the <a href="http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/elder.htm">information provided</a> 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.<br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1126141676835511722005-09-09T09:00:00.000-07:002005-09-08T17:01:43.436-07:00Thinking About the Fall, Part 2/2Given 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.)<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><b>Modularity and Timelessness:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Pre-Mortal Symbolism:</b> 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 <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/03/evolution-and-fall.html">suggested</a> 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:<br /><br />Living in the presence of God<br />Not subject to pain or disease<br />Desire to gain knowledge and experience<br />Unable to have children<br />choosing to progress by entering mortality and leaving the presence of God<br />Confronting temptation by Satan<br />Receiving a coat of skin (ie. body)<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><b>Multi-Step Process:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />It appears that Robert Millet rejects much (or all) of evolution, but I think that the sentiment expressed here is well-put. <blockquote>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. (<i>Power of the Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon</i> p. 66)</blockquote><br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1126141574228379102005-09-08T09:00:00.000-07:002005-09-07T20:21:23.766-07:00Thinking About the Fall, Part 1/2One 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.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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,<blockquote>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.]</blockquote> 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.<br /><br /><b>Adam and Eve:</b> 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 <i>assumed</i> 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.<br /><br /><b>The Garden of Eden:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>Eve Formed from Adam's Rib:</b> 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," <i>Ensign</i>, March 1976 and "Christ and the Creation," <i>Ensign</i>, June 1982.) A number of prophetic commentators would also view Adam's <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/07/adam-and-eve-obscuring-plain-and.html">creation from the dust</a> as figurative.<br /><br /><b>The Tree of Life/Knowledge of Good and Evil:</b> Opinions regarding the trees may vary, but at least Elder Bruce R. McConkie designated the trees and their fruit as figurative.<blockquote>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," <i>Ensign</i>, June 1982)</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[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.]<br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1125027475717503672005-08-25T20:27:00.000-07:002005-08-25T20:39:09.136-07:00The Essence of GamesI've been sitting on <a href="http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/2005/06/wittgenstein_so.html">this</a> 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.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><blockquote>"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’. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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."</blockquote><br />If this inspires anything in you, have at it.<br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1124076644042225022005-08-14T20:25:00.000-07:002005-08-14T20:58:37.046-07:00What Did Nibley Think of Evolution?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 <a href="http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=73&mp=T">Before Adam</a>, 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. <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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 <i>bona fides</i> 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.<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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 <i>us.</i> Regarding “creatures that looked like men long, long ago,” <blockquote>…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.</blockquote> By thus positing an unbridgeable gap in time and type, when it comes to man he makes a decisive break with evolution.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris#Morris_and_Clinton">triangulation</a> 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 <i>The Truth, The Way, The Life.</i> (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 <i>coup de gras,</i> is almost literally <i>deus ex machina:</i> 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.)<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/05/amylase-and-power-of-molecular-biology.html">this post</a> 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.</span>Christian Y. Cardallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06343561849439394638noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1122179205266072392005-07-24T12:24:00.000-07:002005-08-15T17:51:15.236-07:00Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth?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, <a href="http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/03/adam-and-eve-how.html">here</a>.)<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><b>Background</b><br /><br />I do not know exactly when this doctrine originated. Some cite this statement of Joseph Smith in support of the doctrine:<blockquote>"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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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:<blockquote>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, <i>Course of Study for Priests</i>, 1910, under the subject "The Creation of Man")</blockquote><br />Joseph F. Smith made this statement in 1913:<blockquote>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. (<i>Deseret Evening News</i>, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. III, p. 7. Also quoted in <i>Deseret News: Church Section</i>, Sep. 19, 1936, pp. 2 & 8)</blockquote><br />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:<blockquote>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, <i>Messages of the First Presidency</i>, Vol.4, 265-267)</blockquote><br />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.)<br /><br />Perhaps the most influential proponent in modern times has been Elder Bruce R. McConkie who wrote:<blockquote>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 <i>Mormon Doctrine</i>)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Scriptural Support</b><br /><br />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 <i>the son</i> of Enos, which was <i>the son</i> of Seth, which was <i>the son</i> of Adam, which was <i>the son</i> 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.<br /><br />The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is taken from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. According to the <i>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</i>, 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 <i>the son</i> of God" to read "Adam, <i>who was formed</i> of God, <i>and the first man upon the earth</i>." Since Joseph's alteration of Luke occured <i>after</i> he wrote Moses 6:22, it seems reasonable to question whether he intended the literal interpretation that some have made of these verses.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. (<i>The Promised Messiah</i>, 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.)<br /><br /><b>Current Treatment</b><br /><br />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 <i>True to the Faith</i> and <i>Gospel Principles</i> emphasize our spiritual relationship with God but say nothing of any physical relationship.<blockquote>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 <i>True to the Faith</i>, p.74)</blockquote>In fact, none of the Church Educational System (CES) Institute <a href="http://www.ldsces.org/manual_index.asp">student manuals</a> 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.)<br /><br />A search of the <i>Ensign</i> 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:<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />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.)<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />[<b>Update:</b> In his 1976 book, <i>Adam: Who Is He?</i>, 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.]<br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1121978099611098082005-07-21T13:32:00.000-07:002005-07-21T13:34:59.616-07:00Intelligent Design: A Personal ViewReaders 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/07/intelligent-design-personal-view.html">Continue Reading at LDS Science Review</a>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1120227639776425022005-07-01T07:18:00.000-07:002005-07-01T07:20:39.800-07:00Joseph Smith and Recycled PlanetsAs discussed in <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/06/bh-roberts-on-evolution.html">my last post</a>, 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, <i>The Truth, The Way, The Life</i>, 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.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />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 <i>The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph</i>, 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: <blockquote>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. <br /><br />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.</blockquote><br />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 <i>ex nihilo</i> creation was one of the major topics of discussion during this inaugural lyceum meeting."<br /><br />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: <blockquote>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...<br /><br />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.)</blockquote> 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.<br /><br />The scientist Henry Eyring (father of Elder Henry B. Eyring) is <a href="http://www.byui.edu/Perspective/v4n2pdf/v4n2_williams.pdf">reported to have said</a> 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."<br /><br />In his Sunstone article, <a href="http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/134/134-27-45.pdf">Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions</a>, Duane Jeffery gives some treatment to this topic:<blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.</blockquote>Jeffery goes on to discuss theological questions such a scenario also raises.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.) <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[This is a cross-post at <a href="ldsscience.blogspot.com">LDS Science Review</a>.]<br /><br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1120064339858113332005-06-29T09:56:00.000-07:002005-06-29T09:58:59.873-07:00B.H. Roberts on Evolution<i>Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity</i>, 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).<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />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 <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html">Index to Creationist Claims</a>. I will also add a few comments of my own. In doing so I intend no disrespect toward Roberts--as the <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/05/bh-roberts-episode.html">1931 controversy </a>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Excerpts from the Supplement (page numbers are included):<br /><blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html">Evolution has not been proved.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html">Mutations do not produce new features.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html">Range of variation is limited within kinds.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html">Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html">Transitional fossils are lacking.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html">There should be billions of transitional fossils.</a><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB801.html">Science cannot define "species."</a><br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />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 <i>how</i> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html">Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.</a><br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</blockquote><br />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 <i>The Truth, The Way, The Life</i> <a href="http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2005/05/bh-roberts-episode.html">was not published by the Church</a> was because it assumed life and death had occurred on <i>this</i> earth before Adam and Eve. Thus it appears that Roberts did not stick to the argument laid out above.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">evidences</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html">Macroevolution has never been observed.</a><br /><br />[This is a cross-post from <a href="ldsscience.blogspot.com">LDS Science Review</a>.]<br /></span>Jared*http://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1119046332335697102005-06-17T15:11:00.000-07:002005-06-17T15:12:12.350-07:00Evolution & the Law of ConsecrationPerhaps 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.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now we are approaching the law of consecration as expressed in the United Order. The revelation was as follows:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1118355421534651572005-06-09T15:16:00.000-07:002005-06-09T15:19:14.706-07:00Did God or Evolution Create Us?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?<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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:<blockquote>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... <br />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...<br />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)</blockquote><br />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. <br /><br />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:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Our question, however, is "Did God or evolution create <i>us</i>?" This is precisely where we wax a bit creationistic. We were a small target, and such a target <i>could</i> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1118274762010713662005-06-08T16:52:00.000-07:002005-06-08T16:52:42.020-07:00Evolutionary TheodiciesWe 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.<br /><br />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.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />He then goes on to bring this calling into question of God's power really into focus by quoting Gould thusly:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />As a brief introduction to how these ideas work in a Mormon context, let me quote a couple of lines from Miller.<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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 <i>very</i> Mormon. <br /><br />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?)<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/05/free-agency-notebook.html">myself</a> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1118175188065379742005-06-07T13:12:00.000-07:002005-06-07T13:13:08.073-07:00Quantum Mechanics and EvolutionLast 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.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Miller draws heavily on Schrodinger's classic work "What is life?" Miller summarizes as follows:<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/05/contingency-in-guided-evolution.html">utter contingency</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-we-worship-demon.html">Laplacian Demon</a>, a demon which we do not believe exists.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11239863.post-1117824470761949742005-06-03T11:47:00.000-07:002005-06-03T11:47:50.773-07:00Evolution & the Anthropic PrincipleWe 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. <span class="fullpost"><blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html">Lee Smolin</a> with his ideas of <i>cosmic evolution</i>, 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. <br /><br />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.<blockquote>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)</blockquote><br />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:<blockquote>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 <i>disprove</i> belief, but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. (p. 267)</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /></span>Jeff Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11344848794614278761noreply@blogger.com4