Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[ERayR]

Of course you don't. It's just annoying to see otherwise intelligent people dismiss evolution with a wave of the hand when they aren't even remotely up to date on the evidence that supports it. I do appreciate though that you don't accuse those who do accept human evolution of having no faith. So thank you for that.

I would never question anyones faith. And please do not think that I am unaware of what is going on, it is just that for me there are still too many gaps and assumptions. I don't dismiss it with a wave of my hand, just shrug of my shoulders.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I was perhaps unclear by what I meant by "metaphor." I am emphatically not saying The Fall didn't "really happen" - I believe it literally did occur, for every one of us. (Remember, by the way, your Articles of Faith #2, because it'll be important in this discussion: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." If God were literally causing us to die because our great-grandpa ate a bad fruit, He would be, in my judgment, a very immoral God. We all "become" Adam in our own personal Falls.)

This is part of why I love the Pearl of Great Price so much, why I find it such a valuable piece of the Restoration. It Restores the absolutely vital concept of the Premortal existence of every person - the doctrine of Uncreated Intelligence. This has so many ethical, cultural, social, and spiritual ramifications that you could write a book on it - as Teryl Givens did recently. It Restores true Agency to humanity, elevates us to something far more than mere Calvinist "creatures" dependent on someone else for our fundamental existence.

What I am saying is that the way we express this concept, the way we teach it, the way we pass the history of it on to our children is indeed rooted in Metaphor. That is, stories are by their nature a simplified representation of what actually occurred. In any linear linguistic construction, we cannot include every aspect of Reality. We have no records of what Jeremiah ate for breakfast, and we don't need to.

Like a map, we simplify the underlying referent, the underlying territory in order to clarify it, in order to grasp it. I don't need to understand where every pebble is located in order to follow the roadmap. I need the broad strokes, a simplified "vision" of it in order to walk the path. We have globes that signify the entire world, but not every single city is located on them. Yet they're incredibly useful! That's just the way humans learn - it's what I think the Temple is for. (The word "template" is derived from the root of the word for "Temple.")

The apocalyptic images of Revelation, the dreams in Daniel, Peter's vision of the Great Sheet, Lehi and Nephi's Tree of Life, etc. - they are often metaphorical expressions. Nephi did not literally walk up to a physically-existing Tree of Life - he was given the image by revelation, or at least his mind organized the "mentalese" deposited from the divine source into a common cultural image he could grasp.

"And it came to pass that they did speak unto me again, saying: 'What meaneth this thing which our father saw in a dream? What meaneth the tree which he saw?' And I said unto them: 'It was a representation of the tree of life.'" (1 Nephi 15:21)

The problem is that unless we understand the historical context for these images, the surrounded culture they are rooted in, we simply won't understand the visions themselves. Nephi warns us of this in 2 Nephi 25:

"Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews."

[...] "For I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

It's a cultural system of learning. If you don't know the language or the culture, then a mysterious flat octagonal red sign sticking up from a metal post with four magical white angular runes written on it will not mean "STOP" to you. You have to be immersed in a very specific culture, limited to a very specific time and place, in order for the symbolism to make sense to you. It's not self-evident - you have to be taught it at some point.

The "ascent" of evolution is a metaphorical expression (and not a particularly accurate one, at that.) Organisms do not physically "ascend" to produce more-complex progeny - that is a metaphorical description of the historical reality. It is a linguistic construction. There is no "up" or "down" in space until we arbitrarily name/define a part of it as "up" and a part of it as "down." The "Fall" could just as easily be termed the "Ascent" if our culture conceived of the heavens as "down."

What matters is the historical process of the movement of our Uncreated Intelligences from one sphere to another, not the terminology we employ. It's not that the Fall is itself metaphorical - but we cannot talk about it except by using metaphorical language. Adam and Eve did not trip over something and Fall, and I'm quite serious by that.

(And by the way, it's incredibly condescending to imply that if everyone just used their "common sense" they'd agree with your personal idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture - "common sense" being, quite often, synonymous with "ethnocentric, culturally-inherited prejudice." *grin*)

So was the Whore of Babylon a real, physically-existing woman? Was she actually born to physically-real parents, did she actually grow up to become a prostitute? Even if there was a particular woman that John based the image off of in Revelation, he uses the image of her to express an underlying idea. She "is" a metaphor. She has no actual "existence" as such.

Does this make her "just" a fiction?

Only in the sense that she did not exist as a particular woman! The underlying idea she represented, the corruption of the world, was very much real.

So the Fall of our Uncreated Intelligences into mortal bodies was a Real Event, for all of us. Unlike quite a bit of traditional Christianity, we don't believe that the Fall was a Bad Thing - Eve says that it brought her Joy in the end. It was a part of the Plan, it was a step along their Eternal Progression. The Garden stories - from many cultures! - are personal favorites of mine.

But.

If images such as the Whore of Babylon are not referring to physically-real people, and Prophets often receive their Revelations in the form of archetypal Images and Types, and the Restoration explicitly lets us know that the name Adam means "many", and the Restored Temple has us all become Adam and Eve to reenact the Pattern of our lives in a simplified Sacred Drama Template, and the weight of the entire scientific establishment (from, don't kid yourself, multiple interrelated fields) supports the idea that there is a common genetic ancestor for all life on earth including humans ...

... then why should we be duty-bound to think of the story of Adam and Eve as a literal historical event?

This is not linguistic flip-flopping - this is a limitation of our culture's language. Science is self-correcting. We don't know everything about evolution, just as we don't know everything about anything. There are undoubtedly flaws in our current models. But notice: what skeptics of evolution often simply gloss over is the fact that it was science acting as science is supposed to which eventually overturned the flawed theories of the past. Science is so wonderful because it works.

(Bitche$. *grin*)

I find Myth to be utterly empowering. And "Myth" is not synonymous with "untrue" - it is, if anything, the truest form of expression. I believe Joseph Smith was a True Prophet, who Restored things of real value that had been lost.

Unfortunately, we often use a fallacious slippery-slope argument in these situations. "Well, if Adam and Eve weren't real people, then you can't trust anything in the Bible!"

Not at all. We just have to make sure we interpret each story in the correct individual context. Accepting that the Whore of Babylon was a Type does not mean I disbelieve in the existence of Jesus, because the text constrains me in different ways in interpreting each person. Christ was real. Moroni was real. They have to be, or core elements of the faith are lost. If Christ was not a physically-real person, then many claims of Christianity are, obviously, undone. If Moroni was not a physically-real person, he could not show Joseph Smith where the plates were buried. The history and the text constrain my understanding of these people in ways that they do not in the cases of the Whore of Babylon ... and Adam and Eve.

They are living metaphors. They're untrue - and yet they're the truest history we have! They're simultaneously "fiction" and "historical."

The evolution of our physical bodies does not negate the need for At-one-ment! Regardless of how our physical bodies came to be, we have to believe that we can become (metaphorically!) "at-one" with all other Uncreated Intelligences, as Christ prayed for: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

Christ is not "literally" fusing with the Father. They are separate people, separate Uncreated Intelligences empowered through their bodies. Yet by living their lives according to a metaphorical Template of "oneness," of being part of a unified "body," they become the Peacemakers, Teachers of Righteousness. They bring the At-one-ment, which is very real.

Is it a mere "metaphor"? Is it a "fiction"? Is it "history", is it "reality"?

... why can't it be all of them?

Edited January 18, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[katherine the great]

I would never question anyones faith. And please do not think that I am unaware of what is going on, it is just that for me there are still too many gaps and assumptions. I don't dismiss it with a wave of my hand, just shrug of my shoulders.

Lol! Okay then!

[CV75]

I don't have a problem with the fall being a metaphor for the descent from the premortal state to the mortal state. I don't see why believing in the fall requires me to believe that there was no death on this planet 10,000 years ago or earlier and to try to overturn all of the work of scientists for decades. I'd really rather engage in this type of a debate with opponents who are biologists or who at least have a good understanding of scientific theory or who could at least offer a viable alternative theory to evolution that accounts for the entire scientific community of the planet being so incredibly wrong on something so basic.

Good luck finding what you're looking for here without disengaging them!

In line with the four basic evidences of evolution, I do not:

1. …conclude that the fossil record shows changes in a species over time, but instead a sequential departure and extinction of one species after another out of the Garden of Eden. Just as not all die or resurrect at the same time, not all left the Garden of Eden at the same time. Just as Noah was the last to enter the ark, and Adam was the last to enter the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were the last to enter the fallen world. There may be a more scientific alternate conclusion as well! But the most obvious and certain conclusion is that the species did exist in such a way as to leave fossil records.

2. …conclude that the chemical and anatomical similarities between life forms always mean that they are genealogically related (which they are in the cases of comments #3 and #4), but that there are only so many elements (6) necessary for the creation of life in all its forms on this planet (in line with comment #1 and post #304)—this is the most obvious and certain conclusion.

3. …conclude that unique biotic environments resulting from natural selection occurring in isolation accounts for Homo sapiens’s appearance into any of those environments (in line with comment #1).

4. …conclude that easily-observed population genetic changes over many generations (such as surviving immune bacteria giving rise to the next drug-resistant form after a massive antibiotic-induced die-off) accounts for Homo sapiens’s appearance (in line with comment #1).

[katherine the great]

Good luck finding what you're looking for here without disengaging them!

Why?

[Tepui]

The Fall was not a metaphor. It was an actual event. The LDS Bible Dictionary summarizes it quite well:

Fall of Adam. The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16–17). The fall was no surprise to the Lord. It was a necessary step in the progress of man, and provisions for a Savior had been made even before the fall had occurred. Jesus Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins. http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-adam?lang=eng&letter=f

The scriptures clearly state that Adam brought death into the world: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1Cor.15:22. If there had been death on this planet before the Fall of Adam, then Adam would have had no need to fall, -which is part of the plan of salvation - and Christ would have had no need to atone for Adam's transgression. Thus the Theory of Evolution denies the necessity of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Theory of Evolution is based upon death having existed for eons, because that is what is currently observable. Evolution does not require faith beyond the physical senses, but requires man-made interpretations of those observations. If one wants to reconcile the Theory of Evolution with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you have to come up with things such as "it depends on what 'kind' means" or "God loves those early hominids just as much as he loves you."

Thank you.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Bible Dictionary is not canon, and is not binding. It is a study help, nothing more, and is subject to revision.

Edit: "As in Adam [ie, "many"] all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Adam is a type here. As Joseph Smith said of Genesis, God "breathes" (again, a metaphor) our Uncreated Intelligences into our current bodies and we become, therefore, subject to mortality. The At-one-ment of Christ, the Reconciliation, in which all Uncreated Intelligences conceive of themselves as being part of the same adopted Family across worlds without number, as part of the same Body, is absolutely necessary. How will we be at Peace without such a teaching, from the Teacher of Righteousness whose very Divine Body formed the Template of how we are to live our lives?

Edited January 18, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Tepui]

The Bible Dictionary is not canon, and is not binding. It is a study help, nothing more, and is subject to revision.

And much less so is FAIRLDS and quoting from it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

Truth is truth, no matter who has it. If FAIR has truth that the Bible Dictionary doesn't, that's what I'll accept. There is no authority except the truth.

"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." - Joseph Smith

[Tepui]

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

Well the whole point of this thread is to determine "true science, etc." is it not?

Truth is truth, no matter who has it. If FAIR has truth that the Bible Dictionary doesn't, that's what I'll accept. There is no authority except the truth.

I'll take the Bible Dictionary over FAIRLDS.

"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." - Joseph Smith

The Prophet Joseph Smith was referring to Revelations from God. Not revelations from Man:

D&C 121:33 How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

God is an exalted Man, and scientists are created in the image of their Heavenly Parents, male and female, with Divine Potential. *grin*

You're arguing from authority, not offering a compelling counter-paradigm.

Edited January 18, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Tepui]

You're arguing from authority. You quoted Joseph Smith, but your application of that quote was incorrect.

You also argue by FAIR, which has no authority. I'm arguing from the authority of the scriptures, which is not a logical fallacy.

FAIR is merely composed of interpreters. The Bible Dictionary for the Fall of Adam, while not canon, agrees with LDS canon. There was no death before Adam. Period.

The "keystone" of Evolution is death. Remove death from the equation and evolution is non-existent. :;

[altersteve]

How many blackeyes have you enjoyed.

[altersteve]

There was no death before Adam. Period.

James E. Talmage, Henry Eyring, and B. H. Roberts disagree with you.

[Tepui]

James E. Talmage, Henry Eyring, and B. H. Roberts disagree with you.

Are you their spokesperson?

2 Nephi 2:22 Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die..

[altersteve]

Are you their spokesperson?

You could do some research and find out for yourself what they taught. Elder Talmage in particular openly expressed his belief that animal and plant species lived and died for ages before Adam, and he did so with the First Presidency's approval. See his talk entitled "The Earth and Man."

[Rob Osborn]

The "keystone" of Evolution is death. Remove death from the equation and evolution is non-existent. :;

This is classic. I love it- so true. Not only death but almost countless ages of it too!

[Rob Osborn]

You could do some research and find out for yourself what they taught. Elder Talmage in particular openly expressed his belief that animal and plant species lived and died for ages before Adam, and he did so with the First Presidency's approval. See his talk entitled "The Earth and Man."

My own interpretation of scripture has plants first, then man, then animals in that order

[Wants2know]

Well the whole point of this thread is to determine "true science, etc." is it not?

Actually, the point of this thread was to discuss mutual exclusion; can both evolution and creation survive within the threads of theology, and specifically, Mormon theology. It seems that this thread has certainly answered, at least for me, that they can and do survive within this religion. There have been great efforts here on both sides of the "argument", and I feel satisfied that my original inclination that this church does allow for both certainly exists. Thanks so much for all your input - special shout to Katherine the Great - always enjoy your input!!

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Some 80% of all DNA is dedicated to the functioning of a single cell. Biologicaly we have more in common with that Amoeba than some Supernatural being that can not die no matter what is done to it.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Science as such is always tentative. Continental Drift is a theory, a darn good one, but still it can be replaced with a better theory when and if it comes along.

[Wants2know]

So, W2K, what do you think now?

GG

I am comfortable with the idea the evolution explains the process of how life has come to be, and creation explains the origin. This has been an awesome thread. I have to admit, I was a little afraid of how it might go … but it's been a tremendous read.

[Rob Osborn]

Actually, the point of this thread was to discuss mutual exclusion; can both evolution and creation survive within the threads of theology, and specifically, Mormon theology. It seems that this thread has certainly answered, at least for me, that they can and do survive within this religion. There have been great efforts here on both sides of the "argument", and I feel satisfied that my original inclination that this church does allow for both certainly exists. Thanks so much for all your input - special shout to Katherine the Great - always enjoy your input!!

While I agree that there is some small wiggle room for evolution in LDS theology, let there be no mistake that when it comes to Darwinian evolution (of the which most LDS scientists believe in) there is absolutely no room at all. This is the heart of the greater matter that is often overlooked. What this thread should have been about is if the intelligently designed creation in LDS theology is compatable with a godless Darwinian evolutionary model.

I can assure you that LDS evolution scientists are not theistic evolutionists! If they were they would fall under the category of "intelligent design". God forbid!

[Jeff K.]

Amoebas are formless masses that seek only to feed. In short, mortality at middle age.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Some 80% of all DNA is dedicated to the functioning of a single cell. Biologicaly we have more in common with that Amoeba than some Supernatural being that can not die no matter what is done to it.

Speak for yourself. I am a child of God. I am sorry to hear you are the child of an amoeba.