Galapagos, Darwin And The Ensign

[Nenahnezad]

I think the introduction of the article is clear to what it is meant to demonstrate (the part in italics) and mentioning Darwin's name wouldn't have hurt as far as I am concerned (the bold provides part of the context/environment of the saints there), but it wouldn't have helped it either:

Nice logic. The Galapagos was also a base for English pirates. Why didn't the article mention that? [grin]

Let's all discuss the evolution of English Sea Captains to Buccaneers.

[volgadon]

Nice logic. The Galapagos was also a base for English pirates. Why didn't the article mention that? [grin]

Let's all discuss the evolution of English Sea Captains to Buccaneers.

Perhaps because the pirates in the Galapgos did not change the course of world history quite so dramatically as did Darwin's theories.

Now, if there was an article on saints in Port Royal which mentioned the old harbour but never said a word about pirates, then you might have a point.

[Franktalk]

..... They seed the earth, and watch over it for an unspecified amount of time as their commands to "be fruitful and multiply" are obeyed according to preexistent natural laws, with the water giving birth to creatures which then move to the land and spread outward, the simple leading to the complex.

Nice post by the way. But I have to take exception with this one comment. Of course it is the foundation of evolution. It seems that after a certain level of complexity the ability of evolution (the mechanism of change) is not capable of increasing complexity and in fact can't maintain the complex structure that does exist. Take man for instance, the human genome is falling apart. We have tens of thousands of genetic diseases yet a couple of enhancements (ones I don't agree with). It is as if the design of life has an expiration date and we are getting close to that date. You see that the mechanism of change can be viewed in two different ways. One way is to view the system as designed in and it is a self correcting or error checking system that maintains our structure. This fits the data better than the other view. The other view assumes that the mechanism is responsible for complexity because of the limits placed on the rule set science uses. They have a pile of bones and the only thing around that they can touch is the mechanism of change. But in a more robust arena of ideas some other method must be responsible for complex life. Myself I think that life has been unfolding since the beginning and we are due for a wind-up.

[thesometimesaint]

No faith is perfectly compatable with Evolution or even science for that matter. There is NO scienctific explanation for life beyond the grave let alone Resurrection.

Why should the Church even mention Darwin in a story about the members in the Gallopogos islands?

The ONLY faith involved in science is the faith that we humans can make accurate predictions from physical evidence.

Evolution does not claim that one species gives birth to another species. But that over time, and physical separation one group of a species can change enough that it can not reproduce with the parent group. IE; Birds are simply modern day doinosaurs.

All life on this planet is far more alike than John or even Joseph Smith knew about. That is why we can take the genes of one species and transfer them into another species. Yet it is still a fact in the every day world that dogs and cats can not reproduce with each other.

Edited August 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[David T]

I was actually wondering the same thing.

Me too.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I must say, Nenahnezad, it's rather frustrating that my beliefs and concerns (yes, "as a Mormon") can be so cursorily interrogated only to be dismissed with laughter and an ill-supported wave of the hand.

“We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion." - Joseph Smith

The Church is not concerned with using its authority to "legitimize" scientific findings. It is concerned with preaching the (non-inerrant) gospel and reaching those who have yet to hear it. The gospel our missionaries carry, which (contrary to the undemonstrated assertion) is indeed perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory, is also perfectly compatible with astrophysics, geology, chaos theory, anthropology, linguistics, chemistry, neurology, etc. etc.. ("Perfect" in the sense that there are no gaping theoretical contradictions, despite the inadequacies of current science to describe, for instance, the resurrection, as thesometimesaint mentions. I can conceive of a man being brought back to life; I cannot conceive of the bodiless paradox of the Unmoved Mover of many religious traditions.)

The Church doesn't make "official announcements" whenever there is an advance in any number of these important fields; why should biology be a special case, when the brethren have made it clear that they have received no revelation on the matter? They leave science to the scientists. They're concerned with trying to guide members to raise their families in righteousness, not, say, debating the philosophical viability of multiple quantum states.

D&C 1 was received while Joseph Smith was in a special conference of Elders of the Church. I can't see a way in which the "disciples" and "servants" frequently mentioned does not include Church leaders such as the explicitly mentioned "Prophets and Apostles" (D& C 1:14)

I don't know how God created the spiritual tabernacles of our uncreated Intelligences. Neither - if I may boldly presume - do any of us. But while our uncreated Intelligences are inextinguishable, our spiritual tabernacles can certainly "die" in the sense of being separated from God. (2 Nephi 9:12, Helaman 14:16-18, Alma 11:45, 12:16, 42:9, D&C 29:41)

The theory of evolution is deeply intertwined with the conservation of energy, in which the amount of energy in a given system cannot be created or destroyed, but only transferred and transformed from one state to another, one type of structure to another. "Separated", if you will. This is perfectly consonant with LDS theology, in which uncreated Intelligence can be neither created nor destroyed.

"Death" is a somewhat vague term in biology, but is usually used as a nontechnical shorthand way of referring to the breakdown of a particular biological system. Yet the energy from a "dead" organism is immediately transferred and conserved within the overarching closed system. If you want to split terminological hairs, you could say that nothing ever really "dies" at all - all that happens is a reformulation of constituent elements. Which is part of the reason why, I think, the scriptures talk of death as a "separation" rather than an oblivion of nonexistence. We can become separated from God, separated from our own bodies. But never destroyed, only lost.

The command for animals to multiply in their spheres of creation in no way implies a necessary lack of evolution. To the contrary, I can read it as being equally supportive of evolution as some can read it being against. "Being fruitful and multiplying" seems to me to refer to physical replication, the onward-flowing rush of Darwin's version of the Tree of Life, the dance of genes adapting to their environment.

The first part of the quote from D&C 77 was neglected in this conversation, in which brother Joseph explicitly states that "they are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John." [emphasis added] None of the other quotes preclude evolution. He says the trees will grow "naturally," and that men and beasts have different types of flesh (an evolutionary adaptation to different types of environment, perhaps?). Indeed, when taken in their entire context, I see Joseph trying to find words to explain his Vision of the Creation in words which his followers would accept:

"I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them."

"Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy and want to take my life!"

The spiritual creation does not preclude evolution based merely on the shape of the spirit:

"The spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it." [emphasis added]

Clearly the spiritual creation does not rely on Plato's Unchanging Ideal Forms which post-Apostasy Christianity adopted. It is elastic, able to stretch and flow into different shapes, stretching and expanding and flexing, rebounding in on itself, adapting to a variety of circumstances.

I think the historical record is very clear that the anti-evolutionary stances held by some within the Church migrated in by way of Joseph F. Smith's contact with traditional fundamentalist Christian sources outside the Church which preached that evolution ran contrary to established dogma. The problem, of course, is that evolution does, in fact, run contrary to many strains of traditional, post-Apostasy Christianity. But why should that, of all things, concern us? We do the same thing already with our doctrine of deity!

And yes, I do think that the reticence on the part of many members to embrace some scientific findings related to evolution is an illogical and unnecessary attempt to remain philosophically respectable in the eyes of those traditional Christians who, in many cases, already disagree with us entirely on the nature of God. If the price of that vague smattering of half-hearted respect is throwing out demonstrable scientific findings, then I don't think it's worth it.

Joseph Smith, for instance, was deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosophy:

"I beg leave to say unto you, brethren, that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church; like the torrent of rain from the mountains, that floods the most pure and crystal stream with mire, and dirt, and filthiness, and obscures everything that was clear before, and all rushes along in one general deluge; but time weathers tide; and notwithstanding we are rolled in the mire of the flood for the time being, the next surge peradventure, as time rolls on, may bring us to the fountain as clear as crystal, and as pure as snow; while the filthiness, floodwood and rubbish is left and purged out of the way."

The core principle of Genesis is not the particular means by which God created the world. The point is to establish a record of intentionality, of purposive causation. There is no reason why God could not have used the principle of organic evolution, intentionally harnessed preexisting laws to create our world. In fact, we have good reasons in our theology to suspect that He did just such a thing, or something similar. (God could not create Himself, He is a man like unto ourselves, spirit cannot be created or destroyed, etc.)

Franktalk rightly notes that I was making a simplistic generalization. As Gould states in the article referenced above:

"When we consider that for each mode of life involving greater complexity, there probably exists an equally advantageous style based on greater simplicity of form (as often found in parasites, for example), then preferential evolution toward complexity seems unlikely a priori. Our impression that life evolves toward greater complexity is probably only a bias inspired by parochial focus on ourselves, and consequent overattention to complexifying creatures, while we ignore just as many lineages adapting equally well by becoming simpler in form."

Because this is the case, it's not necessary to assume that if my bones are fossilized that a future archaeologist will consider me a "lower" life form, since if environmental constraints have not changed during the intervening years, there is no reason to suspect he or she will be particularly different from me, though yes, evolution will still be in effect, and changes will be evident in species whose environments have not remained stable.

But if they have changed, and our descendants are different from us in bodily form, what of that? Why is having a different type of body considered "low," when it has already been admitted that all bodies, whether they be human, animal, or plant, are made of spirit, (though not the literal spiritual children of God)? Gould is not saying that a creature whose body is closer to the lower limit of "conceivable, preservable complexity" is "lower" in a "demeaning" moral sense. It is merely less complex.

I don't think Darwin's theories will be taught as future revelation; there are problems with his model of the mechanism driving evolution at the genetic level which I don't think we've solved yet. But when we do understand more fully, why shouldn't we use that aspect of science to help our faith grow? Our missionaries turn on lights every day, a "miracle" of science and technology. The First Presidency stated that:

"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals ... We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation."

Why are secular scientists not allowed to progress in their field? Jew and Gentile are alike unto God, who is no respecter of persons. Our ways are not God's ways; are we really going to tell Him which types of people He's not allowed to help as they study things out in their mind, burning with questions like the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the grove?

Personally, I'm pretty intrigued about the potential of the theory of directed panspermia. I think Mormonism has an excellent opportunity to reconcile those who think there is an unbridgeable gap between the findings of science and the purposes of faith, which is one reason why I think it will sweep through the world. Despite Joseph F. Smith's unofficial pronouncements about spacetravel:

"James C. Fletcher, the only person ever to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on two occasions (1971-1977 and 1986-1989), is generally recognized as one of the most influential administrators from the first three decades of space flight. Among his other attributes, whether for good or ill, Fletcher's approach toward directing the U.S. space program owed something to his western American and Mormon conceptions of the world. This heritage came into play throughout Fletcher's NASA career as an underlying philosophy of why humans should explore space."

( http://si.academia.e..._Final_Frontier )

"A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge." If we have godlike potential, it will be realized only after we have worked to come up to where God is; the glory of God, after all, is intelligence. I believe Genesis was a deeply inspired book - it is certainly a personal favorite of mine, among the many creation myths I have studied and treasured (many of which are more similar that one might think, lending credence to the idea of cultural dispersion). But I do not believe that it is a complete or infallible instruction manual for how God goes about His great work. If it were, we could build worlds ourselves, or at least understand how God does.

The early chapters are clearly a simplified, streamlined account (possibly even a sort of "script" for an ancient Temple drama), written by men who had to work within the linguistic and theoretical constraints of their culture, time, and place ("given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding"), a story which has been repurposed at many different points in history.

With all this in mind - and as some bits from the Book of Moses have already been quoted rather haphazardly - let's consider our various Creation accounts.

We know that there have been "worlds without number" created which have already passed away, and the works of God are endless. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith says that "creation" is from preexisting material, and is a new "organization" of that substance, not instantaneous ex nihilo magic. There have been "holy men that ye know not of" (D&C 49:8 ) who have been reserved unto God throughout time, on this world and others. Our definition of Godhood is male and female human beings united in marriage, partaking of eternal glory because, being "exalted", they reside in a "high place" [ex- "out, up" + altus "high"], a planet which is not "like this earth" (D&C 130:6), where they are different in kind from the angels ["angelos" - "messenger, envoy, one that announces"] because their "seed" continues on forever.

In the Book of Moses, we learn that in the midst of this huge panorama of activity, God created "all the children of men" spiritually, before they were "naturally" upon the face of the earth, because he had not yet "caused it to rain upon the face of the earth." After He causes a "mist" to go up from the face of the earth, which "watered the whole face of the ground", He "formed man from the dust of the ground" over an unspecified amount of time. Specifically, at this point, the definition of the type of man that he is creating is one who will posses the cultural understanding to know how to "till the ground". We don't know how long this process of organizing preexisting materials took; the "days" are "a thousand years" to God, an old expression meaning not literally "1000" but "a really, really big number". Why can't the "dust" man was created from be the minerals of the earth, giving rise to more complex creatures which rose from the ground over the eons and leading to homo sapiens? As Hugh Nibley pointed out long ago:

"Bene-Adam, however, is the normal Jewish word for human beings. The Septuagint considers Adam a proper noun from Genesis 2:16 on; the Vulgate from 2:19 on; Adam appears for the first time as a proper noun in the standard Hebrew Bible only after Genesis 4:25. In that text twenty-two of the twenty-seven occurrences of the name are accompanied by the article: "the man." They are not proper names. In Genesis, E. Lussier concludes that Adam has four senses:

1. "Man," a particular man, the first man (sixteen times).

2. The first husband (nine times).

3. Generic, "mankind" (two times).

4. As a proper name—once!

Before the type of man who can "till the ground" appears on the scene, God says that "all things [referring to "the generations of the heaven and of the earth"] were before created". Yet Adam is said to be "the first flesh upon the earth". Is this a contradiction? No, because the definition of the "first flesh" is stated as being a body which has had "the breath of life" breathed into its nostrils as a Child of God. He is "a living soul ... the first man also" who can "till the ground". Not the first man ever created, for worlds without number have passed. Not the first Child of God, for Children of God have populated the other worlds. He is merely the first spirit-child to be born into a body on this earth, at the head of his particular dispensation.

Nowhere is there any mention of immortality.

The Man is taken and placed in the safety of a peaceful Garden. There he meets a Woman, a long-lost sister of the same species, taken from mankind, meant to be cherished and bound to the heart as closely as a rib. Yet God knows that in the day they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thereof, then their eyes shall be opened, and they shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. They will become ashamed of the nakedness which leaves their sins unclothed, though they had once been unashamed to bare their souls to each other.

This is important: the Tree is a representation of knowledge:

Moses 3:12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

And the eyes of them both were opened.

Now they understood.

If we look throughout the Wisdom literature, we find that the Tree of Life is one of the symbols used for Lady WIsdom. It was She who was with our Father before the foundation of the world, and She counsels Her children not to partake of the counterfeit Wisdom of the world, not to eat the fruit of the deceptive woman who allies with the great Accuser, the Father of Lies. This is about culture, about learning, about understanding the difference between good and evil.

When we speak of the sin in the Garden of Eden, it's not about a magic fruit. It's about how each of us sins by following the lies of those who would destroy our moral agency, our eternal culpability. In the Romans 5:12 quote, Paul teaches us that all men have sinned, not that our mortal bodies die because our great-great-grandparents ate a bad apple. We don't believe in an Original Sin which can be transferred from parent to child; if God is literally killing us for the sins of others, then He is an evil God. But He is not, because we believe that men fell - as our glorious Mother Eve said - that they might have joy.

The Accuser's plans ultimately fail because he is merely being allowed to play the role of the necessary opposition in all things for a time. The purpose of the type-story in Genesis (and the Temple, for that matter) is to teach us that we have all become Adams and Eves ourselves because we have sinned. In that way, like the first Man and Woman who sinned in this world's history, we die a spiritual death, entering into this world and consigning ourselves to a mortal probation, where we must work to keep our second estate and be forgiven by the God at the head of the Heavenly Council who we rebel against.

And yet, this is part of our eternal progression, a necessary step in the eternal round, the endless cycle of the Plan of Salvation! It's a good, glorious thing! God doesn't curse us with childbirth and gardening, he blesses us by lovingly explaining to us what will happen in our new lives, preparing us for the pains we will have to endure in order to have joy and be like Him and the Great Lady. We are separated from them and the rest of our family for a time in order that we might choose to be a part of them willingly.

Moses 5:10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

12And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

It's not a scientific statement that it was biologically impossible for them to have children before then. She's saying that if she hadn't taken the next step in the Plan, if she hadn't sinned, then she wouldn't have had children, she wouldn't have progressed with her husband, taken part in the Sacred Marriage that will lead to exaltation if they are faithful. All things would have remained in the same state in which they were after they created; they would have remained forever in their stagnant outer darkness of willful blind ignorance which had no end.

Instead of sinking into impotent stagnation, we come to this world to learn how to hope for things unseen, such as the reconciliation of the At-one-ment offered by Christ our Redeemer, using this time on earth to learn how to become joint-heirs to the throne of God, whose glory is intelligence and who works to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, that males and females might bypass the angels and be Gods, Gods because their seed continues forever after being planted in their Sacred Marriage from which Lady Wisdom's Tree of Life may grow.

None of which is an argument against evolution.

(Edited to fix the truly screwed-up spacing issues, sorry 'bout that! *laugh*)

Edited August 1, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As Trent Stephens says here ( http://www.fairlds.o...t_Theology.html )

"Were Adam and Eve inherently immortal when they were placed in the Garden? If so, please give me all the scriptural references that you can find - the one that's usually referred to is 2 Nephi 2:22. Let's look at that scripture: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."

That seems fairly straightforward and it's used quite commonly to establish the idea that there was a paradisiacal state and that all things, everything would have remained in the same state in which it was created. And in fact, the word "all things" there is used oftentimes to include literally all living things - not only Adam and Eve but everything else.

But let's read the very next verse which is oftentimes left out, verse 23, which says, "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

Is this talking about grass? Or is this just talking about the humans?

Now, I have highlighted the word "they" because if we're using proper grammatical construction ... then ["they"] in both the remainder of that sentence and the following sentence should refer back to the previous noun. So "all things" are not talking about all things; it's not talking about the grass, it's not talking about the fruit tress necessarily. It seems to be talking, when we get down to verse 23, about something that's capable of sinning, i.e., apparently Adam and Eve.

Now we use that same vernacular today. "Hey, if I hadn't gotten in a car wreck, things would've been fine today." Right? "All things" would have been hunky dory, they would have continued on just the way they had been.

Because if "all things" really refers to all things in the garden - including, say, the fruit - how do we account for this scripture: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat" (Genesis 2:16). Now, look at something like a mango growing in the garden; in what inflorescent stage was the mango created in the first place? Or was it maybe a full-grown fruit - and if it was a fruit, that suggests that there was reproduction going on in the garden. And when Eve prepared that mango for dinner that evening, how did it remain in a state in which it was created once it had been chowed down?

The most reasonable interpretation of 2 Nephi 2:22 is that it referred to Adam and Eve specifically, not to other organisms in the garden. Now, once 2 Nephi 2:22 is dealt with, then I would throw out the challenge (and I've done this to many students over a number of years) to identify any other scripture that tells us that Adam and Eve were inherently immortal."

Edited August 1, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Rob Osborn]

I am glad they didn't mention Darwin in the article. Darwinian evolution is incompatible with LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine is about stating the belief of who we really are, where we came from, why we are really here and where we will be going after this life. Darwinian evolution makes a mockery of those unique beliefs and destroys all faith...it's really no wonder he was intentionally left out.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[cinepro]

As Trent Stephens says here ( http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Evolution_and_Latter-day_Saint_Theology.html )

The most reasonable interpretation of 2 Nephi 2:22 is that it referred to Adam and Eve specifically, not to other organisms in the garden. Now, once 2 Nephi 2:22 is dealt with, then I would throw out the challenge (and I've done this to many students over a number of years) to identify any other scripture that tells us that Adam and Eve were inherently immortal."

FWIW, the Bible Dictionary references both 2 Nephi 2:22 and Moses 6:48 in support of the idea that "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam."

But in cases (and places) such as this, the FWIW is usually "not very much" where the Bible Dictionary is concerned, so I only throw that out there for completeness' sake.

Edited August 1, 2011 by cinepro

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Good call, cinepro. I am all about completeness, as the often-absurd length of my posts indicates. *grin*

The Bible Dictionary was, I imagine, compiled under the assumption of Adam bringing physical death to the world, so it was good and right that it included that reference under the heading. I don't think Enoch's statement conflicts with my (excruciatingly spelled-out) views, tho.

Edited August 1, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

I am glad they didn't mention Darwin in the article. Darwinian evolution is incompatible with LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine is about stating the belief of who we really are, where we came from, why we are really here and where we will be going after this life. Darwinian evolution makes a mockery of those unique beliefs and destroys all faith...it's really no wonder he was intentionally left out.

Darwinian Evolution doesn't weaken my faith at all. Seeing the order of the world, and the logical programatic development of life into greater complexity is in fact very faith promoting for me. It in no way mocks the unique beliefs of our pre-mortal spirits (it in fact is quite complimentary to it). Evolution is about how our physical bodies (and all animal life) was organized. The key doctrine teaches where our core intelligence or spirits, which inhabits these bodies, comes from. The key doctrine teaches us how Christ is the template and Way of fulfilling our full Eternal potential, and being more than just the natural evolutionary matter that makes up our current bodies. Christ, in fact, enables us to evolve together into the next phase of existence.

Just as farmers use selection to rapidly create the most ideal type of plants as the rest of the world moves on by Natural Selection, the Lord is among us, guiding humanity and giving us the experiences to become who we need to be. The Lord is the gardner. We're in the vineyard, and He's guiding our progression, generation by generation.

It's a powerful, incredibly faith-promoting symbol for me. The ancient prophets with their antiquated science had their symbols, which they used to teach in accordance with their then-current understanding of the world. Overtime, they become antiquated (such as the symbols of the ancient cosmology). IMHO, It's time to teach the symbols with new meaning for a new generation with new understanding, and embracing the Revelation the Lord provided from the revelation of creation itself, as observed by inspired scientists. That's continuing revelation.

Edited August 1, 2011 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

^ Exactly. (And succinctly, to boot!)

[Craig Paxton]

LDS Science Review has a post focusing on an article in this month's Ensign, saying they've "avoided" something that should be "obvious":

Islands of Fire and Faith: The Galapagos

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

LOL... It's like describing Mt Vernon and failing to mention George Washington or profiling Nauvoo and overlooking Joseph Smith...their failure to even mention Darwin only acts to shine a bright light on the obvious...well at least to everyone but the uninformed and the Ensign.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We should also recall that Darwin was writing in a time when he probably did not have access to the Restored Gospel's message. When he rejected God, he rejected the Post-Apostasy version, exactly as Joseph Smith did. "That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing," Smith proclaimed without shame, and spirit itself is matter, after all. Now, when we have historical evidence to show that Darwin himself explicitly connected his theory to the metaphorical cultural template available to him in the biblical Tree of Life, yet simultaneously rejected the cruel bodiless abstractions which plagued Christianity in his day exactly as they do in ours ...

... why do we dismiss out of hand the possibility that Darwin was inspired of God?

Darwin's theory, with the rise of genetic information that he simply had no possibility of examining, is now becoming inadequate to deal with some aspects of evolution. Rather than the symbol of a tree, the template some biologists are leaning towards now is a web. The tree metaphor is being phased out. But at the time when Darwin was writing, he (and some of his contemporaries, who also espoused related ideas) helped to spark an enormous advance in our understanding of nature; we wouldn't have the current genetic information now if he (and those others) hadn't sparked a more rigorous study.

By connecting it with the biblical Tree of Life, is it completely out of the question that God might have been working through him to try to prepare the way for the world to start increasing our understanding of the natural world, that we might follow Christ, who descended below and rose above to be the light of Truth in that He "comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things," making all things "subject" to Him, not to debase or exploit them, but to exalt them as joint-heirs? Would Samuel the Lamanite be as great a Prophet as he was if he had bowed to either Nephite or Lamanite culture rather than searching for truth wherever it might be found?

Just for fun, let's do a little comparison.

Here's Charles Darwin in 1872:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during former years may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups.

Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station.

As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."

Now go read Joseph Smith's 1830 Book of Jacob, chapter 5.

See what I mean?

Edit: The scriptures are constantly talking about the Creation being the place where God plants both seeds of life in soil as well as seeds of faith in our hearts. Nibley's 'Treasures In The Heavens" is a fascinating and rather wild ride on the theme of these intimately related types of "plantings": http://maxwellinstit...d=52&chapid=474

"The creation process as described in the Pearl of Great Price is open-ended and ongoing, 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. The whole operation is dominated by the overriding principle of love."

Edited August 1, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BCSpace]

Besides, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, when has evolution stopped, as some of you infer? Evolution hasn't stopped, per the theory's adherents.

Who says evolution has to stop? And if it does, what matter if it's for 10 years or a hundred? Or a thousand? We're not likely to sense any effect.

If it hasn't, will we all one day be considered lower life forms by our higher evolved descendants?

The earth will be Celestialized at some point. And we are living in the last days. Again, a hundred or even a thousand years is not going to produce any significant effect.

Embracing the theory means embracing that you're a lower life form.

How so? Why can't God have used evolution to provide bodies for His spirit children? There is no need to worry about lower life forms.

[Analytics]

A question I've always had is in what way members of the Church are like iguanas. The article explains...

Members of the Church, like these marine iguanas, understand that strength comes from holding tight to their covenants as they forge a united course toward the Lord through faith, service, and sacrifice.

[cinepro]

A question I've always had is in what way members of the Church are like iguanas. The article explains...

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

OH my stars, I don't know how I missed that. Brilliant.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*bumpage* since I am curious to know if Nenahnezad has any response to the later developments in the thread.

[BCSpace]

A question I've always had is in what way members of the Church are like iguanas. The article explains...

Members of the Church, like these marine iguanas, understand that strength comes from holding tight to their covenants as they forge a united course toward the Lord through faith, service, and sacrifice.

Has any measurement been done to show how similar we are to iguana's by DNA? 80-85%?

[BCSpace]

The most reasonable interpretation of 2 Nephi 2:22 is that it referred to Adam and Eve specifically, not to other organisms in the garden. Now, once 2 Nephi 2:22 is dealt with, then I would throw out the challenge (and I've done this to many students over a number of years) to identify any other scripture that tells us that Adam and Eve were inherently immortal."

He's missed the critical piece of information in that verse. It says what state Adam and Eve were in AFTER they were created. What was the state BEFORE they were created? A separate and different state is implied by making the distinction "AFTER".

[Kenngo1969]

LDS Science Review has a post focusing on an article in this month's Ensign, saying they've "avoided" something that should be "obvious":

Islands of Fire and Faith: The Galapagos

The article has profiles of different Church members and life on the islands, and even discusses the ecology and wildlife there. But it never once mentions Charles Darwin. Do you think this is an intentional omission, or is it understandable that someone could write such an article and just not think to mention Darwin and the part the islands played in his theories?

Depends. Does the Church see its mission as being to promulgate the "gospel" of Charles Darwin, or to promulgate the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Just asking.)

[Kenngo1969]

... Why should the Church even mention Darwin in a story about the members in the Gallopogos islands?

"Gallop"-ogos? You mean, the article talks about horsies? Now, I simply have to read it! I like horsies!

[Rivers]

The very name of Darwin is just too controversial to be mentioned anywhere in the Ensign.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

My apologies, fumble fingers strick again.