A friend of mine recommended a book by Kary Doyle Smout called The Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power. Kary is an Associate Professor of English at Washington and Lee University, and specializes in rhetoric. I usually delve more into historical topics, so this was a bit of a change for me, but I enjoyed it.
Smout analyzes the arguments between pro and anti-evolution sides. He noted that with rhetoric, we often create artificial dichotomies. For example, on page 6 he gives an example from the movie Mary Poppins. Male is shown in a positive light, and female in a negative light in the movie . The father wants to have the children break from “sugary female thinking.”
Often we use these dichotomies to prop our position, while showing the opposing side in a negative light. This is the case with evolution/creation. He also notes that while 2 sides use the same words, these words have different definitions. From page 9,
From a rhetorical perspective, a terminology battle can thus be seen, not as a stubborn refusal to accept correct definitions of terms, but as a power struggle between competing communities. These communities try to convince other communities that their own word meanings make the best sense. The problem is that in a culture based on Enlightenment conceptions of a universal reasoning faculty in humans, people do not ask, “Best sense according to whom?” In effect, the terminology battle becomes a battle about worldviews. Those who win this battle attain the power to define the terms from within their own worldview for the culture as a whole.
His book has just 5 chapters.
- Introduction
- Beginnings of the Creation/Evolution Controversy
- Bryan and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial
- The Arkansas Creation-Science Trial
- Conclusion
He goes into great detail into the 2 trials mentioned above, discussing witness testimony and the lawyers involved in the cases. I was especially interested as he discussed the Biblical inerrancy during the Scopes trial. I hadn’t realized that the evolution controversy played a significant role in this debate. From page 62,
This notion of irreconcilable conflict between creation and evolution depends on the concept of biblical inerrancy, which developed late in the nineteenth century in the United States as an important theological position and a historical key to American fundamentalism.29 James Barr defines biblical inerrancy as the belief that the Bible is free of error of any kind. He writes “The inerrancy of the Bible, the entire Bible including its details, is indeed the constant principle of rationality within fundamentalism.”30 This position on the Bible grounds all fundamentalists arguments; it is the measure–albeit a very narrow one, which is fraught with many disturbing implications for nonfundamentalists–of reasonableness itself. In evaluating a statement for its truth, fundamentalists compare the statement to the Bible, resolving any conflict between the two by rejecting the statement and keeping the Bible.
It seems to me that fundamentalists have painted themselves into a corner with this notion of biblical inerrancy. For example, did God really create the earth in 6 24-hour days? I think most people don’t believe that, but there are some hard core people that apparently do.
While creationists won the battle at the Scopes trial (Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution, and many other southern states adopted similar laws as Tennessee to prevent evolution from being taught), it appears that they are losing the war. We all know that evolution is taught in biology, and few textbooks mention creationism. I wasn’t aware of the Arkansas battle in 1981; fundamentalists wanted to include creation science in the textbooks as well as evolution but were defeated.
I think it is funny that the two sides have created a dichotomy between evolution and creation. Why can’t God use evolution? Smout notes this conundrum as well, and notes that the two sides are continuing to battle as if there is no middle ground. I liked Kary’s conclusion on page 186-7,
I finally agree more with the evolutionists than the creationists, but I do not want the creationists to give up the fight. I am increasingly convinced that reason and knowledge are not the only bases on which to found a society, nor even that they are the best. I am unsure that a strictly rational society it best. How does one found a society on these values? I doubt that either the creationists or the evolutionists will ever stop arguing so long as we have no simple way to know the truth beyond our own perceptions. We in this pluralistic nation have had to continually deal with recurring tensions between professionalism and democracy, between the academy and other cultural institutions, between competing political philosophies, and between other differing persuasions, all arguing for, and from within, their own worldviews. In this life, we walk by faith. We must put our faith in those persuasions that seem most worthy of it.
So what do you think? Must creation and evolution be at odds with each other?
Mormon Heretic 
I think you know where I come down on this one. To me, the judgements of God and the actions of evolution are almost indistinguishable from each other.
Ironically, I became a scientist because I was commanded to do so in a dream in which I was told by a messenger that “Science is part of My Divine Plan.” So reconciling science and theology has always been part of my personal mission rask.
But I try to keep in mind that the word was”part”, not “all”.
I think they do need to be at odds with each other, not because it makes sense, but because as soon as you admit that the Bible is not inerrant, you open it up for personal interpretation. You lose control, and now all aspects of the Bible are up for debate. This is why there are so many Biblical Inerrancy followers. I think you underestimate the percentages that fall into this camp.
If you start making claims that the creation story is not literal, then what happens to many of the Abrahamic foundations established within that story? Are they also no longer literal? I’m talking about establishment of the Sabbath day, mortality, obedience to God.
Do you end the debate with creation or extend it to the entire book of Genesis? Now we have things like the law of sacrifice, murder, mark of Cain, Global Flood (which is still taught as literal in LDS Sunday School) and on and on.
Creationists are in a tough spot. They are almost forced into cognitive dissonance lest their worldview begin to crumble.
Creation and evolution will continue to be at odds with each other because of the strict adherence each group has with either rejecting God or including God. The movement of “Inteligent Design” is the current leading theory to refute Darwinian evolution. There is a lot at stake here. On one side they are trying to establish a basis of truth founded upon reason, purpose, and some type of intelligent predesigned plan. On the other side they are trying to continue to establish purely naturalistic means for our existance. No real professor or scientist who espouses evolution will aknowledge that God had anything to do with the design we see in nature, to do so would be admitting intelligent design theory to be at least partially true.
What it really boils down to is that Evolutionists want to completely remove God from science and replace him with the laws of nature. Even well respected LDS professors and scientists reject LDS beliefs regarding the creation- they have to in order to go on in support of Darwinian evolution. You see, Darwinian evolution proposes a complete plan for our purpose and being- our existance which is void of God. Evolution doesn’t need God. In fact, God in the picture refutes Darwinian evolution and instead supports intelligent design. You really can’t have it both ways. There really is no such thing as theistic evolution in LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine adheres to the intelligent design movement. Our doctrine teaches us that the Creator created each living thing after its own kind. This obviously included an intelligent design and a carrying out of that plan. Our scriptures confirm that there indeed was a plan in place to be carried out according to detail. Our doctrine teaches us that if one were to scientifically trace lifes origins, he would find God himself at the helm of it all. As LDS believers we should be proud of the fact that we have an intelligent and loving Creator who designed and carried out the creation, causing each kind of life to be produced, each after its own kind.
In light of those beliefs we should stand as gaurd against any doctrine or teaching that diminishes or replaces the Creator and his role in bringing life into existance. Darwinian evolution is one such doctrine. Darwinian evolution leads us to believe we are merely animals, evolved from a purposeless random and unintelligent universe which itself came into existance through mere improbable statistical chance! Think about that for a moment. Is that what we want to espouse? Do we want a Godless science that leads us nowhere where it counts most?
The two theories will never mesh. Its like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole, they are wholly incompatable. All truth must eventually lead back to God himself. The science which espouses evolutionary theory will never move in that direction but directly away from him.
Rob:
There are more things in heaven and earth — like me, for instance — than are dreamed of in your philosophy. See comment 1.
It seems to me that a theology of an infinite God should not have to be at odds with evolution. As is stated above, all truth must eventually lead back to God. A theology that puts God in a box strikes me as way too limiting to be worthwhile.
I think they do need to be at odds with each other, not because it makes sense, but because as soon as you admit that the Bible is not inerrant, you open it up for personal interpretation. You lose control, and now all aspects of the Bible are up for debate.
Hasn’t the Bible been up for personal interpretation ever since Tyndall published the first Bible for the masses? Prior to that, only the priests could read the bible. Luther and others said the Bible was open for personal interpretation. Tyndall felt the Bible didn’t need to be interpreted (or mis-interpreted) only by priests.
Bishop Rick and Rob, after reading the book, it is apparent to me that both creationists and evolutionists like this false dichotomy. It is easy to demonize the other side. I agree with Aaron. When we shut our minds to other possibilities, we put God in a box and limit God to our own pre-conceived notions.
Rob:
I disagree that science is moving away from God. While there are occasional dead-ends, etc. in general, I believe that science is moving closer to the “truth” than away. Historically, there have been a number of times when science was “proving” things that couldn’t exist with God and the Bible. We reject a flat earth. We reject a geocentric model of the universe. As important as these things were to people’s views of God at the time, we now think the arguments quaint. We can still recognize God’s role in our lives despite earth not being at the center of the universe with man as the premiere creation.
While there is kicking and screaming now, I think the same thing will happen with evolution. It will be accepted. People will accept that God still has a central role in our lives. Everyone will come up with a way to harmonize evolution with a belief in God. This argument will appear as quaint as using the inerrancy of the Bible to argue for a geocentric model of the universe while science pushed for a “Godless” heliocentric model.
Mike S,
There is much more at stake in the evolution controversy. I know of absolutely “0” professors of science who support evolution who are fighting for a move to include God in evolutions picture. Many claim to be theistic evolutionists in the church including professors and scientists but when it comes right down to it they cannot for the life of themselves figure exactly where God fits into the picture. Want to know the reason? Its because Darwinian evolution explains our origins without a God. In fact, evolution claims that nature itself is our god. The majority of bible believing Christians in this country still support creation and reject evolution. Its good to know that the majority of us still have our heads screwed on straight.
Our doctrine even teaches us that we did not evolve from a long line of animals. Some evolutionists in the church will deny this but it is the truth and the prophets have repeatedly taught of us our true geneology and origins.
The “science” of evolution is moving away from God not towards him.
Raymond Poincaré (one of the greatest scientists of forever), when asked by Napoleon (that Napoleon) where Got fit into Raymond Poincaré’s universe said “I have no need of that hypothesis. This is the entire problem. Evolution has no need to invoke God at any step. That’s it. There is no creation/evolution controversy except in the minds of a few creationists. None.
that hypothesis.” (Close quote, sorry.)
djinn: What? Which Raymond Poincaré is that? Which Napoleon is that? The Henri Raymond Poincaré born in 1854? The Napoleon who died in 1821? On The Origin Of Species was from the 1850s. Care to elaborate where you got your quote?
If you are interested in the history of this issue, try this article, The Evolution of Creationist Movements. You might also be interested in my tangential comments on it here.
Rob: Paraphrasing your comment:
“”There is much more at stake in the heliocentric controversy. I know of absolutely “0″ professors of science who support a heliocentric model of the solar system who are fighting for a move to include God in the models’ picture. Many claim to be theistic physicists in the church including professors and scientists but when it comes right down to it they cannot for the life of themselves figure exactly where God fits into the picture. Want to know the reason? Its because the heliocentric model explains the revolution of our earth without a God. In fact, the heliocentric model claims that gravity itself is our god. The majority of bible believing Christians in this country still support a geocentric model and reject the heliocentric model. Its good to know that the majority of us still have our heads screwed on straight.”””
“””Our doctrine even teaches us that man is God’s greatest creation and, as such, deserves to be the center of the universe around which everything else revolves. We are told that the “sun stood still” in the heavens. Some astronomers in the church will deny this but it is the truth and the prophets have repeatedly taught of us our true geneology and origins.”””
“””The “science” of heliocentricity is moving away from God not towards him.
————
Your same argument against evolution is nearly the same as that against changing the geocentric model of the solar system that people felt HAD to be true, or else they were denying God. Since then, we’ve seen into the universe. We’ve used our understanding of the “theory” of gravity to passively land a probe on a moon around Saturn. We’ve landed on the moon. Yet billions still believe in God.
Scientists BY DEFINITION try to explain God out of the picture. They try to understand the laws behind what they observe in a reproducible way. They try to take those laws and test them. Your argument is backwards. If a scientist claimed a role for God in something that he/she couldn’t otherwise explain, it’s not really science at that point, but religion or metaphysics. In order to be science, there can’t be room for God. (NOTE: There are obviously religious scientists. There IS room for God in their own personal beliefs, but just NOT in the lab)
Mike S. Nice. Oh yes, they are completely compatible. As a Biology professor at BYU we have strong institutional support as a place where you can come to understand that one can be both an evolutionary biologist and a good Mormon. Mormonism embraces truth where ever it is found. We have nothing to fear from evolutionary biology except those who are so entrenched in their antiscience that they grasp at straws like Intelligent Design (which no evolutionary biologist takes seriously). The risk is that in making people choose between one or the other, science vs. religion you end up with people loosing their faith because the evidences for evolution are scientifically undeniable. To reject evolution you must abandon science as a way of knowing. Dangerous and unnecessary. Mormons early on embraced the idea that we can take the best science has to offer and find room in our theology for it. To do otherwise is to descend to superstition. People like Rob drive many students out of the church (Sadly I know of many cases), who in attending other universities think they have to choose between science and religion. Science and religion are two ways of knowing. We need fear nor reject either one.
Mike:
I very largely agree with you, but I think science focuses on the “how” rather than the “who”. As a scientist and, simultaneously, a believer, knowing “how” tells me something about the nature of the “who”. Specifically, it tells me that the “who” is mostly orderly, and still manages to produce incredible complexity that involves both personal and impersonal elements. I see no sign that the “who” is distinct from nature, but that doesn’r make God any less personal than you or I are.
Instead it makes us, as part of nature, also part of God.
Mormon Heretic
Hasn’t the Bible been up for personal interpretation ever since Tyndall published the first Bible for the masses?
I think you missed my point. Perhaps because I didn’t explain it well. I don’t disagree that the Bible CAN be up for personal interpretation, but its not. How many people do you know (outside this immediate circle) that actually read the Bible? The LDS church does not encourage anyone to read the Bible. ALL emphasis on scripture reading is focused on reading/re-reading the BoM. I am a convert to the LDS church. I don’t know a single person from my Baptist days that actually reads the Bible either. Those that do, seem to concentrate on the New Testament.
Finally, my point was that once people who believe in a literal Bible consider the possibility of a non-literal Bible, foundations begin to fall apart.
You didn’t even address my questions about the Sabbath, etc.
You are obviously not a Biblical Literalist. How do you pick and choose what is literal and what is merely myth?
How many people do you know (outside this immediate circle) that actually read the Bible? The LDS church does not encourage anyone to read the Bible. ALL emphasis on scripture reading is focused on reading/re-reading the BoM
I’m at my sister’s house right now. I was a bit surprised that she is listening to the Old Testament on tape. She says she is doing it to keep up with the current Sunday School lessons focusing on the Old Testament. She doesn’t read my blog (despite my attempts to persuade her). I agree that the focus in the church is primarily the BoM, but there are people that read the Bible. Living in Colorado, she has even been attending a non-denominational Bible Study and learning a lot. (But I do get your point–many people don’t read the Bible, but I’m pretty sure the hard-core creationists read it.)
If you start making claims that the creation story is not literal, then what happens to many of the Abrahamic foundations established within that story? Are they also no longer literal? I’m talking about establishment of the Sabbath day, mortality, obedience to God.
Do you end the debate with creation or extend it to the entire book of Genesis? Now we have things like the law of sacrifice, murder, mark of Cain, Global Flood (which is still taught as literal in LDS Sunday School) and on and on.
Bishop Rick, the church has many similar tendencies as fundamentalist Christians and hard-core evolutionists. It is easy to polarize that deal in gray areas. I served my mission in Georgia and South Carolina. The current stake president from my last area in Georgia is a college professor. On my mission (some 20 years ago) he was telling me that the creation story was non-literal. He also believed in a localized flood.
In studying the story of Balaam, I have come across rabbis that said the donkey didn’t talk, but simply brayed at Balaam. I’m currently reading the Biography of Peter, and the author notes that ancient peoples did not have this idea of literalism that we have now. They weren’t nearly as concerned with whether the flood was global or local–to them it was global, and that’s all that mattered. Certainly we understand more about the world than they did.
As Mike has mentioned a few times, the idea that the sun was the center of the universe rather than the earth was considered such a heretical (and now quaint) idea that the Catholic church tried to ban it. With 400 years perspective, future Christians will probably look at the evolution/creation controversy as a silly argument. Just as the sun being the center of the universe didn’t bring down the Catholic church, I think that the current debates about evolution and how literal to take the Bible will be quaint. As for mark of Cain, and the other things you mentioned, I’m definitely not a biblical literalist, and I don’t understand how any LDS person can be given the article of faith stating “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Yes, I know some LDS seem to be persuaded by fundamentalist Christian arguments to inerrancy and literalism, but I think we need to remind them about our article of faith again.
As we learn more, we will be better able to decide how to pick and choose what it literal and what it myth. The point of scripture is not to prove historicity. When we try to shoe horn the creation story into science, we get into trouble. Scripture is for spiritual knowledge. We need to keep that in mind when we worry about literal/mythical questions. There doesn’t need to be an artificial conflict. There’s a lot we don’t know, and we shouldn’t assume we know everything when it comes to the mark of Cain, global flood, etc. based on a small chapter in Genesis. Fundamentalists get into trouble when they claim to know everything.
Steve P,
I guess were back to bashing each other again. Thats fine with me. Doesn’t it bother you at least slightly that on one hand you admit the reality of evolution and yet on the other you also believe in an intelligent designer? Oh yea, I forgot, God is just on the sidelines allowing evolution to occur. Needless to say, the ideals you teach are not supported by the Brethren of the church. I don’t mean that as a bash, just stating the truth. The problem with those like you who preach evolution and God can go hand in hand is that when it comes right down to it they are not really compatable. Is it not your stance that you are completely unsure just where the Creator fits into the picture of lifes origins? Surely if he is the Creator, then he must have did something scientifically to bring about life.
It definately is about choosing sides. We are in a battle for the salvation of souls. Evolution does a pretty darn good job at teaching us to behave like animals and to follow our natural evolved instincts. In direct refute, the church teaches otherwise- that we are sons and daughters of God, that we did not evolve and that we have both design and purpose in everything in the universe. Our doctrine also teaches us that without God, no creations would exist. Guess what that is called? That’s right- its called intelligent design. You can choose to reject the Creator as an intelligent designer who did in fact design and place life on our planet. You can even reject that he did it scientifically and just “poofed” them into existance. But, as a true LDS believer you must really ask yourself just which side your religious beliefs really line up with. I am afraid to tell you that our doctrine supports and adheres to the intelligent design movement. You may deny it if you want to, but you and I both know that Christ acting under the direction of the Father both designed and carried out the creation physically to bring about intelligent life on this planet. Admit it- that is intelligent design if I ever saw it! But, if you deny intelligent design, then you also deny the fundamental teachings of the very church you belong to.
Rob,
There is an LDS Biologist who blogs at Mormon Insights. His most recent post from a few days ago discusses evolution from an LDS point of view. I think his blog is FANTASTIC. Here are 2 links that I absolutely love:
http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/2010/08/evolutionary-function-of-religion.html
http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/2009/03/biblical-genesis-corresponds-with.html
Let me quote from his most recent post.
and from his post called “Biblical Genesis Corresponds with Evolution”
I highly recommend S Faux’s blog, especially when you want to understand an LDS biologist’s position on evolution not being in conflict with religion.
MH,
I do find it interesting that more and more scientists are starting to accept the global flood. It still may be the very small minority but it is proof that scientific research is being done to show how the global flood took place. This is a case where historicity may really prove to be true. We should be careful not to rule out the recorded events of history until we can prove them to be false. Evolutionists will always deny the flood being global because if it really did happen, then evolution is false. They have a lot to lose (in fact everything) if it can be shown the flood really was global. There is ample evidences of a global catastrophe sometime in the past. we just do not have thousands of feet of flood laid sediment on every continent for nothing. For believers, it stands as a testimony of the truth and hisoricity of the bible and ancient prohets- men of God.
MH,
I post a lot over at S Faux’s blog. Currently posting over there right now. While I can respect and understand to “some” degree where LDS evolutionists come from, I believe their study comes from the angle of trying to fit the bible into evolutions picture. In other words- they are trying to fit God into their limited understanding but more specifically to that of mans philisophical ideals.
The thing that bothers me the most is that evolutionist who also are LDs try to discount the scriptures whenever it doesn’t coincide with what they have come to understand with mans teachings. There is a reason that the majority of evolutionists neither believe in God or do not attend church regularly. Polls have shown that church attending believers are more likely to believe in the creation and reject evolution. LDS believers are mostly in that group. Of course that don’t mean much scientifically but from a logical side, there is a reason that people who belive and attend church are more inclined to believe things like the flood and the creation in the face of evolution. Yes it does require faith to believe in some events but the same goes for evolution- it must take loads of faith to believe that abiogenesis actually happened and was the cause of life forming and evolving into what we now are.
Rob,
You continue to claim that there is evidence of worldwide sediment deposits is so far off base as to be silly.
There are parts of nearly every continent with deep sediment. Yet, there are other areas, often close by, with none.
Consider Montana. In the eastern part of the states, there are deep sediments. Some of the most famous dinosaur fossils come from there . . tyrannosaurus, triceratops, etc.
Move to the west. You find additional sediments. But, the dinosaurs are very, very different. Maisaurus, Troodon, etc.
Further west are areas with almost no sediment.
Now, if there was a worldwide flood, the sediment would be equivalent across the state. It is not. There are many different kinds — sand (former deseret), limestone (from sea animals), shale (river deposits). More importantly, the fossils group by type. In the same kind of sediment are the same kind of animals. Move a bit to the east or west and you find totally different animals in different sediment.
A quick, worldwide flood would have similar deposits everywhere and the animals would be intermixed. They are not.
Of note, many claim that the world was essentially flat at the time. Thus, the Rockies should be covered by deep sediments that have been uplifted. But, that breaks down in Montana. You’ll find mostly granite and volcanic material. But, no sediments on top.
In some places you’ll find sediments uplifted. But, often, it contains ancient sea creatures or, even, large areas with nothing.
The picture is simply too complicated — and too segregated by fossil type — to have come from a few events.
The world is an amazing place. But, it didn’t have a worldwide flood nor was it created in a few days. But, it is magnificent and its majesty honors God.
Steve,
I am quite sure that since the flood there has been a lot of geologic catastrophe. In the Book of Mormon we read about some of that catastrophe where entire lands are sunk into the ocean and mountains practically rise overnight and bury whole cities. If the BoM is true (as LDS we sure better hope it is) then geologic events happen a lot faster than uniformatarians think. And yes, we do see areas of the world with all kinds of animals buried in the sediment.
Rob,
But, the animals you find in different sediment deposits vary dramatically.
They group by complexity.
How would a flood put primitive organisms on the bottom of the rock layers and increasing complex in each layer?
In a modern flood, the animals most likely to die are the more advanced, not the least so.
As to the idea that mountains are built quickly, please name one instance in recorded history where a mountain, besides a volcano, rose rapidly. There are none. Not one.
Given that recorded history goes back to about 3000 BC, that is a huge gap.
The Book of Mormon account is likely to be in Central America and is referencing volcanic action over a small geographic area. That is not comparable to the rise of the Rockies or the Alps which cover hundreds and hundreds of miles.
The bottom line is that the scriptures are often figurative or of limited scope. They are not a guidebook to how the physical world works. They are meant to create a spiritual history, not a physical one.
Rob, I have a couple of questions for you.
(1) Do you consider yourself to be a scriptural literalist in the same sense as outlined in the OP? (That is in the fundamentalist Christian sense and those that support Creationism.)
(2) Do you think the 8th Article of Faith has any bearing on this issue? (Is it possible that Genesis is a mistranslation and could conceivably include evolution as part of God’s creation?)
“In the Book of Mormon we read about some of that catastrophe where entire lands are sunk into the ocean and mountains practically rise overnight and bury whole cities.”
I think we need to be a bit careful here. You’re probably aware of John Sorenson and his limited geography theory in Central America. I’ve blogged often about different BoM geography theories. Venice Priddis put forth a theory that much of South America was under water prior to Christ’s visit, and then South America rose up at the time of Christ. Sorenson heavily discounts such a theory and says the science doesn’t support it. He says that we need to be careful when we depend on geologic catastrophes to support such a theory. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/21/a-south-american-model-for-the-book-of-mormon/
OK. I’m supposed to be putting a Book of Mormon Geophysics post up at Mormon Matters on the 28th. I’ll save my detailed discussion for there, but the short form is that Steve is right, although Sorenson’r volcanic evidence somes from too far to the northwest because it’s pre-1980 evidence.
Steve,
Tell you what, lett’s just chalk up the whole of scriptures as being figurative. Christ never really existed, neither did Moses or even Adam for that matter. Resurrection is a lie and for that matter God is only the figurative imaginations of eveolved human thought. Would you be happy with that?
Because you do not believe the historicity of the scriptures its no wonder you claim there is no recorded event in history. Your history only includes that which is non-scriptural.
The geologic column is not as perfect as some think it to be. In fact, no geologist really drills through each sediment to classify and document the succession of fossils in one area.
Do yourself a little elementary experiment- go get some sediments and some spices and different objects and place them all in a gallon glass jar. Then pour some water in and shake it all up and then let it settle and finish by draining the water out. You will find that each sediment falls and distributes itself at different levels and in different ways. What you may notice, if you have an open mind, is that it very closely resembles exactly what we see int he geologic column.
Rob,
Have you spent 15 minutes looking at a fossil bed?
I’ve dug dinosaurs in Montana. Visited bone sites in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah. Gathered sea and plant fossils in Utah, Idaho, Arizona and Montana.
I know a bit how the record looks. The unalterable fact is that everywhere in the world, beds are layered from simple to complex. There is absolutely no reason why they would stratify that way in the same event.
In each individual bed, you will find the same kind of plants and animals that are of similar complexity together. Recently I was in SE Idaho near Grays Lake. The bed is made of limestone, indicating sedimentation in a marine environment. It is filled with horned corals, brachiopods, etc. That have never been seen alive by man. A few miles to the east are sandstone and mudstone deposits. Those are filled with land plant fossils and scattered dinosaur bones (includes lots of egg shell). Within less than 10 miles are sediments from a marine environment and a land environment. One event could never have created both.
In fact, they are seperated in age by over 200 million years. Thus, it is unsurprising that the older, marine deposit is far less complex. The land deposit is much more complex. Of note, on top of both are deposits that have yielded ice age mammals (sloths, mammoth, mastadon).
As to claim that the entire scriptures are made up — that has never been my position. Christ lived. There are several records roughly contemporaneous supporting that. We know that Pilate was the Roman governor and Herod the puppet king. So, it stands up to cursory scrutiny.
Some of the older scriptural accounts are harder to document. Moses is not in the records. Maybe he was wiped out. But, even his account indicates it is not word-for-word accurate. An exodus of millions would have left some trace. But, a much smaller event, perhaps a few thousand, would be consistent with both area historical records and the archeology. So, the event probably occured — just not as detailed in the account.
By claiming that everything is accurate in the scriptures, you strip them of their time and place. That kind of reliance is open to easy attack. But, a simple assumption that they represent what they claim to be — the account by individuals of a certain time, a particular culture, etc. makes them understandable, consistent and they still carry great spiritual weight.
MH,
To answer your questions-
As for #1. No I am not a literalist in the sense of the debated issue. As a LDS believer, my beliefs are unique in that we believe that God has a body of flesh and bone, matter cannot be created nor destroyed- it is eternal and has always existed. We believe that God formed the world and prepared it to support life in 6 creative periods of the which we do not really know how long.
As for #2. As a special priveledge to the reliogion of being LDS we have a special retranslation already in place- it’s called the book of Moses. The retranslation clarifys some things. Of special note is that it clarifies that the first 6 days was only a creation of the world and preparation paeriod for the placement of life. Up through day 6 no actual physical life was yet placed upon the planet. This pretty much destroys evolution completely. Then on day seven Adam, the first man and also the first of all life was formed and his spirit placed inside his new body. After this event on the seventh day the animals were then formed and brought to Adam to see what he would name them. Now of course it would be physically impossible for evolution to have occurred for man if he was the first of all life to be formed- the primates obviously being formed after him and not before him.
As for the limited geography model I do not but into it and neither does the church. take the hill Cumorah fro example- the church has specifically stated it to be the same hill as the one mentioned in the BoM. We should be careful to limit geography to a people so industrious and exploring. Is it not true that Lehi and family traveled thousands of miles to start new life? Why are we to believe the whole of the BoM happened on such a microscopic piece of land as he suggests?
Tell you what- here is a scripture and I will leave it for you to interpret-
9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.
11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;
13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:9 – 14)
Steve,
one more thing, you said-
“As to the idea that mountains are built quickly, please name one instance in recorded history where a mountain, besides a volcano, rose rapidly. There are none. Not one.”
10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:10)
Rob,
Your claim that geologists don’t drill though the sediments at every location is true. But, what they do is follow the layers. Once you identify the content of a layer (typically in a fairly small geographic area) you can then date it when it is found a short distance away.
I wrote above of the fossil layers near Wayan Idaho. Those layers are heavily folded. But, the top of the folds can be traced from hill to hill to hill. If I find tempskya fern on a layer that is mudstone, I can then go to the next hill and if it is similarly textured and colored, I am likely to again find tempskya.
If a massive flood event would have occured, you would find different kinds of animals and plants in all the layers. You don’t. You find animals and plants consist with environment (desert animals and plants in sandstone, sea animals and plants in limestone). And, as I’ve emphasized above, the complexity goes from less complex to more. In a disaster, the more complex tend to die first. The should be on the bottom. But, that is simply not true.
God is not a deciever. The records indicates what happened. Ever seen Elder Talmadge’s quote of fossil remains? He knew that the science was likely right nad the assumptions of others were simply wrong. But, that never undermined his testimony.
Creationists love to casually dismiss the science. But, they rarely bother to even understand the basic elements of it. Geology is complex and involving. But, the basic principles are solid and have enormous analytic and predictive power.
A final note — modern geology/palentology does allow for dramatic events. An asteroid strike wiped out the dinosaurs. Huge floods altered the landscape of northern Utah, Montana and northern Idaho. The Permian extinction (possibly an interaction of an asteriod strike and massive volcanic activity) destroyed more than 90% of life on the globe. The snowball earth thesis indictes that the globe at one time was completely ice covered and life was hammered hard.
The difference is that these events have evidence. Your flood does not.
@Rob Osborn
Sigh. The Book of Mormon account is there perception of what was happening around them. They lacked CNN or a satellite to tell what was happening around them.
In ancient times, the Aztecs didn’t know what was happening a few hundred miles from them. Why would the Book of Mormon area be any different?
Every scripture you cited could easily be explained by a significant volcanic event in a fairly small area.
Sorry . . “They lacked CNN or a satellite to tell what was happened away from them.”
Rob,
Another point of context — the Old Testament is the history of the Israelites. From reading the Old Testament you would think they were a major player in the region. They were not.
The great empires surrounded them — the Sumerians, Hittites, Assyria, Egypt,Persia, etc.
What is fascinting is how little attention those empires gave the Israelites. Do you know that Solomon is not even referenced? David is barely mentioned. When Palestine is referenced they most common is to the heathen tribes or the Phillistines. They Israelites loved to claim the glory of Solomon and David but they were really minor rulers from a regional perspective.
The scriptural account is the world from the Israelite perspective. It plays up their importance. It downplays the surrounding world. But, there is far more to the story.
That perspective explains the Book of Mormon. They were probably small players from a continental perspective.
All scriptures show the bias of the writers. They will puff of the importance of their nation. None of that undermines the spiritual messages but it gives context.
Rob,
When it comes to creation/evolution, I don’t see your position as materially different than any fundamentalist Christian. Ok, so you believe the Book of Moses is a better version of Genesis, but where do you differ from fundamentalist Christians notions of creationism? So far, I can’t discern any difference. As it says in the OP about fundamentalist Christians, “In evaluating a statement for its truth, fundamentalists compare the statement to the Bible, resolving any conflict between the two by rejecting the statement and keeping the Bible.” Now you can add LDS scriptures into the Bible, but you reject any statements that conflict with your interpretation of scripture. I don’t see one bit of difference between your position and a fundamentalist Christian position, except for relying on LDS scriptures. Is there a difference besides what I have outlined here?
Since the book talked so much about rhetoric (i.e. how we argue our positions), it strikes me that you have fallen into this preferred dichotomy. If any scientist (such as S Faux) tries to claim that an LDS person can believe in scripture and evolution, you complain that they discount scripture, thus giving your position the moral high ground, while denigrating his position. This seems to put you in a scripture literalist/inerrant position, despite your attempts to avoid the label.
Has anyone here ever heard of Gerald Schroeder?
I dont nessecarily agree with his views but he thinks GENESIS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH MODERN SCIENCE. His method is:
1)limit your science to peer reviewed science found in mainstream scientific journals
2)limit your interpretation of the bible to ancient and medieval jewish commentary like the Talmud and Nahmanides.
Mormons are so quick to embrace people like CS Lewis, maybe we should give the Rabbi’s a try. I dunno
http://mormoncodex.blogspot.com/2010/04/genesis-big-bang-theory-by-drgerald.html
Here is a better version of his talk.
Here is the problem- You guys cal me a “creationist” and lump me together with all the bad baggadge coming from either this or that court case. I never said I was a creationist in the context of how you guys define it. I have maintained for quite some time that I believe in intelligent design which in and of itself is not a religion nor does it favor one religion over another. It only attempts to solve the riddle that Darwins evolution has been unable to prove.
Yes I do take my scriptures quite serious and judge most things from the knowledge I have gained first through scripture study. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that Steve uses his evolution bible to gauge everything he believes off of. Is there any difference? He just admitted that the BoM is possibly wrong because his science sauys otherwise. Is there any difference?
Steve,
Its fine with me if you put evolutionary biology in front of the Creator, doesn’t bother me one bit. Go on and believe it, we are all free.
I am not trying to lump anyone against their will. could you explain how you position is different? why is your position on intelligent design better than a fundamentalist christian?
Rob,
What I find so frustrating is that you ignore every element of evidence. You just know what happened regardless of what the world actually shows. I’ve given example after example. And, you just dismiss them.
Show me one single example of evidence in the physical record that the world was created without evolution or that the flood occurred.
Every example you’ve every cited is fundamentally flawed. Sediment is not spread worldwide. The sediments that are there are from different methods, often very close to each other. Fossils are layered by complexity. On and on and on.
I can’t think of one geologist or paleontologist anywhere in the world who believes what you do. Not one. Of note, BYU has had many competent professors in this area. Professor Kirkland is one of the world’s leading paleontologists.
Oops. I erred. Jensen is the BYU professor. Kirkland is the Utah state paleontologist.
BYU does do great work in this area. They are involved in Mexico, Utah, Idaho, etc.
Their geologists are also first rate.
Well, since the Book of Moses comes from the JS translation of the OT, and it is canonized, doesn’t Rob have a point?
Personally I know that a global flood was/is impossible…not enough water. Not much more to discuss there.
That said, Rob is using LDS created/canonized scripture to back up his claims. As a believing member of the LDS church, how can you go against that?
Rick —
Your assumption is that if someone quotes a scripture, then the argument is over.
But, most is the impressions of the writer coupled with inspiration. And, they are rarely the same thing.
On the Book of Mormon quotes above, they talk about mountains rising and seas moving. But, does that mean the entire world or hemisphere saw such events? No.
People fail to understand that most scripture is giving the perspective of a particular people or person. Thus, i am not disputing the scripture but an overly broad reading.
MH,
The reason that I stick with the intelligent design group is because it is both fairly sound and tested and proven and at the same time it aligns perfectly with LDS doctrine. The ID movement is about trying to prove that evolution did not nor is capable of evolving from simple to complex all on its own. The ID movement has nothing to do with what the creation says about the seven days of creation. That is not what the ID movement is about- it is not about trying to enforce a biblical point of view on the masses as was the intention of some over-zealous minded creationists.
ID is about showing that complexity and intelligence in nature exists because an intelligent force, entity or intelligence of some sort planned it that way and that without that intelligent design there couldn’t possibly be anything complex in nature. As you can thus see, the ideals of ID align in perfect harmony with both logic and our core LDS doctrines.
As much as Steve hates to admit it, he too is a supporter of ID, that is of course if he believes in the Creator- an intelligent being who designed and planned the creation.
Steve,
Ignore evidence? Are you serious? Is it any difference if I bring up a scripture about the flood and you just dismiss it as evidence? Or what about referring you to the “Discovery Institute”? Would you honestly aknowledge their material? Are you serious?
Seems like the street runs both directions.
As a matter of fact, there actually is enough water to cover the whole world. The only reason we are not still underwater is because God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to be formed. This is exactly what we see in the world- mountain chains uplifted to vast heights showing their splendor sedimentary layers while deep in the oceans we have canyons. So, technically speaking, there is enough water.
Rob,
You stated that mountains because they have sedimentary layers that have been uplifted. If they all had a kilometer or two, that might hold water.
But, there is not even close to an even distribution on top of the mountains worlwide. Some have vast sedimentary beds. Others are made of granite with nothing on top. Others have very thin sedimentary layers.
In addition, some mountains that do have such layers have different kinds of rocks and fossils. Again, there is no similarity.
Rob, I am not well-versed on this topic of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Are you saying that ID has nothing to do with the Genesis account of creation?
Bishop Rick, Rob would have a point if everyone agreed with his interpretation of the scriptures. However, it appears to me that nearly all biologists at BYU have no problem combining evolution and the Genesis account. I just talked to a biologist from BYU tonight and he said he absolutely thinks evolution is part of the Genesis account. I would wager that Rob’s interpretations of evolution and scripture is a minority opinion among LDS scientists. But perhaps among non-scientists, he may hold the majority position. It would be interesting to do a poll based on education status of the person being asked about their belief of evolution. I suspect the more education one has, the more likely they are to accept evolution.
My sister doesn’t think we evolved from apes, but believes that evolution and natural selection play a role in nature. I suspect many “average” LDS people accept that position as well.
MH —
BYU is interesting.
Their Biology Department consists of well-regarded evolutionary biologists.
Their paleontologists are world renown. All support evolution.
Their geologists are prominent — and all think the flood was not global.
Sounds like the BYU Board of Trustees needs to get rid of all of them. Oh, wait, they hired them. . .