Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[mfbukowski]

Many parables have multiple meanings and layers.. we are supposed to liken all the scriptures unto ourselves...

Not to mention likening Adam and Eve to ourselves.

Anyone fallen recently, resulting in spiritual death entering the world in which they live?

[mfbukowski]

This is exactly why I am so doubtful about this approach to reconciling gospel doctrine with Darwinist dogma. It just won't work. It creates more problems than it resolves. I'm much more inclined to believe that God has the capacity to do things that human scientists just can't explain.

Of course he does.

Darwinian Evolution is no less a metaphor than anything else. I think Popper was right about that one even if he was forced to recant, tongue in cheek because of scientific fundamentalists.

Edit:

Okay that's far too much from me. I will shut up now unless someone wants to answer a post. But I bet that will not happen.

Oh by the way Jeremy, Kings Cross is quite "real". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_King%27s_Cross_railway_station

Edited April 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tepui]

It can't be reconciled. God gave man his agency in the garden. The scriptures are clear on this. Adam and Eve were given the agency to choose to die. Our Creator didn't create mortal humans. Adam and Eve were immortal. If you believe there was death before the Fall - involved with creating life - then you deny the necessity of the Atonement of the Creator. For the scriptures are clear - beyond Genesis - that the Atonement was necessary due to the physical and spiritual fall of Adam. In my opinion, the theory of Evolution is anti-Christ. Not that if you believe it makes you Anti-Christ, but that the theory is.

Again, if there had been death before Adam (necessary for Adam to have evolved from a lower species into a human who lived 900+ years), then you deny the necessity of the Atonement of our Creator.

In fact, Christ is the Atonement. The Spiritual and Physical Creations, The Fall, the suffering in the garden, on the cross, His resurrection, the future (and past) resurrection of all his children, the glorification of the Earth and the eventual Exaltation of the faithful, it is all part of the Atonement - it is He who makes this all possible by his Power, Majesty and Righteousness. Some singular physical creation that we can only perceive with our mortal eyes cannot be isolated or be made mutually exclusive from the gospel.

Nephi said: If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.

The brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove—and it was removed

Are these not references to the Creation? To our Creator's power? Did it take millions of years for Mount Zerin to remove itself?

How many fossils would have been created if Nephi had been commanded to say unto the water be thou earth and it was done immediately?

Who are we to limit the power of God? To what? To some textbook we read in High School or College? To an uninspired man roving the world on ship with a name for a dog who perceived the creation through his mortal eyes - and whose

theory has been changed and modified since?

Why do we dwell on the construction of our temporary home, when we believe the Earth will be renewed to its paradisaical glory? Sure, it's interesting.

But, why do we question the past construction while ignoring higher truth and knowledge from its Creator?

Because of a wagging tongue? A mocking finger? To regurgitate it during an exam to get an A? Get the A. Render unto Darwin. Get your tax return. Move on. Progress. Get an Eternal Life.

Darwin's theory has led to population control, Eugenics, death, the diminishing of the human spirit, trampling upon your fellow man. Alma 30:7 teaches against this doctrine:

And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of

men

, but every

man

fared

in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every

man

prospered according to his genius, and that every

man

conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a

man

did was no crime.

"Survival of the fittest" is not part of the Atonement of Christ. It lead to large and mighty men chasing the last Jaredite, But they died in their sins. Ether 15:26. Survival of the fittest: False doctrine. They no more evolved into a higher species than you and I. We were created in the Image of God.

[ERayR]

I don't see how most of your ideas can be reconciled with fundamental gospel truths such as:

Adam and Eve were created in the express image of God. If God already had a body like ours (like when he showed himself to the brother of Jared) then what possible reason would there be for "evolving" life to get to a point where it was like God already is? It makes no sense to me that he would go about things in that way.

There are lots of other problems I see with your post, but I think I'll just start with that one.

If I could I would give you two points for this one. Macro-evolution does not make sense to me. God already had the pattern. Someone has already quoted Brigham young but stopped short of giving his answer. The rest of that quote goes (as I remember) God created Adam of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was brought her with one of his wives(Eve) to people and populate this planet.

[ERayR]

Next you'll be telling me the Psalms aren't a literal history book either.

In all seriousness, though - genre is incredibly important to take into interpretive consideration. Comparisons with other ancient creation stories, the reasons for their connections and departures, etc are a VERY important part of reading and understanding Genesis as it would have been presented and understood in its ancient near eastern context.

There are books of scripture designed to be read as histories. There are some designed to be read as Founding Myth. There are some designed to be read as satirical historical fiction. There are some to be read as heart-wrenching poetry. There are some designed ot be read as philosophical contemplation. There are some designed to be presented as Exhortations. There are some designed to be regarded as Symbolic Warning. There are some designed to be read as Nationalistic History. There are some designed to be regarded as Testimonials.

And where is the part that is to be taken as real?

[Log]

What a curiously brittle faith one must have to affirm with one's mouth a God of miracles, yet deny Him before PhDs.

[ERayR]

That's not called for, nor does it represent how I approach scripture. The condescending mockery isn't appreciated.

It's not condescending mockery. It is the way thinks work. When scientific myth and scripture collide the first thing that happens is that scripture is described as allegorical and wrong.

[ERayR]

I'm willing to be open to receiving new light based on scientific knowledge (which I view as a form of enlightenment/divine revelation as well), rather than being stuck to explaining the workings of the world the way desert nomads did several thousands of years ago.

Did it not occur to you that sometimes when they do not agree it is the scientific thought that may be in error?

If God is a supreme scientist, why are so many of his most devoted followers anti-science? Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt et all tried to merge their gospel understanding with the latest science of their day. At times, these mergings needed to be readjusted. Others have held out quite well. I think the power of Mormonism is its versatility and allowance for further light and knowledge to expand our understanding.

Darwinist Dogma?

Do you not recognize that there are many devoted followers of Jesus Christ and believers in the divine who aknowledge the scientific principles that are observable and understandable in the world today? That this doesn't make them any less faithful than you, or any less devoted ot the Cause of Christ than you, and that can bring just as many souls to Christ as you can - while still allowing that science can teach us things that the scriptures don't?

Perhaps it is not the principles that need called into question but the interpretations attached to them?

What causes more problems than solves is creating an 'either or' dichotomy, and condemning those that don't hold to one's particular well-defined 'either'.

Your right and I notice it as a common practice on both sides of the issue.

[longview]

"It can't be reconciled. God gave man his agency in the garden. The scriptures are clear on this. Adam and Eve were given the agency to choose to die. Our Creator didn't create mortal humans. Adam and Eve were immortal. If you believe there was death before the Fall - involved with creating life - then you deny the necessity of the Atonement of the Creator. For the scriptures are clear - beyond Genesis - that the Atonement was necessary due to the physical and spiritual fall of Adam. In my opinion, the theory of Evolution is anti-Christ. Not that if you believe it makes you Anti-Christ, but that the theory is."

. . .

"Who are we to limit the power of God? To what? To some textbook we read in High School or College? To an uninspired man roving the world on ship with a name for a dog who perceived the creation through his mortal eyes - and whose

theory has been changed and modified since?"

"Why do we dwell on the construction of our temporary home, when we believe the Earth will be renewed to its paradisaical glory? Sure, it's interesting."

I agree. The current state (or advancement) of science is not adequate to give much credibility to estimating the age of this earth or even of the Universe. The carbon dating or strata estimation are based on rigid assumptions of the ratio of carbon-14. It is very likely that during the Garden of Eden period there were different compositions of carbon isotopes. The "Terrestrial" existence had no death for any animals, just a "quickening" after a certain duration (e.g. 100 years for humans). This will reoccur in the Millennium where earth will again be in the Terrestrial state. The fossils may actually come from Adamic times or they may have come from "reused" parts of dead planets.

In the case of the Big Bang, it is very possible people are misinterpreting the red shift. What if starlight had to pass through regions of "dark matter" or "dark energy" ? Would that cause photons to lose a certain fraction of energy? Scientists have discovered these regions of dark matter/energy but have no way of ascertaining the "nature" of these things.

Everyone should understand that there remain millions of questions for every "supposed" item of knowledge!

[shalamabobbi]

Well I see this thread has gotton derailed..(not referring to mfbukowski)

Of course he does.

Darwinian Evolution is no less a metaphor than anything else. I think Popper was right about that one even if he was forced to recant, tongue in cheek because of scientific fundamentalists.

Edit:

Okay that's far too much from me. I will shut up now unless someone wants to answer a post. But I bet that will not happen.

Oh by the way Jeremy, Kings Cross is quite "real". http://en.wikipedia....railway_station

Hi mfbukowski, Would you elaborate on this a little please?

Edited April 21, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

The problem is that the genetic relationships have been worked out. A single Adam as progrnitor of all himans 6000 years ago is a theory that is disproven. It doesnt mean that it cant be believed but the predictions based on the model have all failed.

Hi bullfr0g,

Could you provide some sources that do more than state this conclusion. Any that explain the findings in laymans terms would do. Thanks.

[cdowis]

The problem is that the genetic relationships have been worked out. A single Adam as progrnitor of all himans 6000 years ago is a theory that is disproven.

Perhaps you could clarify. Most agree that the 6000 years issue is still unresolved, but tell us about the "single Adam" being disproved. I seem to remember that the BOM was also disproved by DNA research -- that the genetic relationships had been "worked out", until we looked deeper into it.

I seem to have recently seen a PBS special where there were still unresolved issues -- that there was a "funnel" effect. Scientists, as I remember, are able to trace modern humans back to a small group of humans, but not past that group. Thus arose the funnel effect theory to explain that finding. No proof, just a hypothetical explanation.

Now, my experience with scientists is that they sometimes confuse explanation with fact. Perhaps that is what you mean by "disproven" -- an explanation but no proof. Something has been "proved" or "disproven" when scientists have a common consensus among themselves. It is printed in textbooks and everybody agrees with the conclusions, even when they are not based on facts but on (reasonable) explanations. The funnel theory falls into that category.

Anyway, my memory may be mistaken (that does happen sometimes), so let's see what you got.

Edited April 21, 2012 by cdowis

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Oh by the way Jeremy, Kings Cross is quite "real".

Hahaha! Shows what I know.

I still maintain that no one will ever find the Elder Wand, but I would not be opposed to someone proving me wrong. >_>

[Log]

I still maintain that no one will ever find the Elder Wand, but I would not be opposed to someone proving me wrong. >_>

Reminds me of a joke someone told me about holding the priesthood once... but I shan't repeat it.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski, Would you elaborate on this a little please?

I think your question was about Popper- though I am not an expert on his philosophy I can elaborate to some degree.

Basically his view is that all scientific propositions or theories are conjectural- they are what we might as laymen call "generalizations" and really no more or less. What is important is that they predict the way that data will "come in"- ie: that if theory x is justified, one might expect that all future data which is "discovered" will be in line with data one would expect to cohere with theory x.

But if theory x is not falsifiable, it becomes problematic whether or not it is even verifiable. For example, you cannot falsify the notion that "God exists". You can't prove it either, but you also cannot falsify it.

Popper recognized problems with the theory of evolution. It's not that he really doubted that in some sense it was true- all the data seems to point to the alleged "fact" that something like evolution must indeed be how species progress- but the problem is that it is really not falsifiable.

Another problem is the whole notion of what is sometimes called "survival of the fittest", which when you think about it, is arguably tautologous and really doesn't say much of anything. I understand that the "survival of the fittest" is not the same as Darwinian Evolution, but I think it does point to problems with Darwinian Evolution as it is presently understood.

The fact is that organisms adapt to the environment in which they live, or they die. There is an interaction between the environment and organisms, and organisms can adapt to small changes over time. But if there are fish in a lake and the lake dries up, the fish will die. What lives lives, and what dies dies. Maybe some of the plants surrounding the lake will live without the lake. Maybe some of the insects will survive and some will not. It is just a fact that what lives lives and what dies dies when the environment changes.

Making that simple tautology- "what lives, lives" into "survival of the fittest" is a totally human invention. We see those organisms which don't die in that situation as "more fit" than the others because they were able to adapt to the change. The idea of the "survival of the fittest" is non-falsifiable- what we MEAN by the word "fittest" IS "those organisms which survive".

In those terms, of course the "fittest survive" because that is what we MEAN by those terms. There is no new information there, nor is it falsifiable any more than the idea that A=A; what we MEAN by "A" is in fact "A". It's a tautology. It is necessarily true, "by definition".

Now admittedly, that is not all that Darwinian Evolution has to say, but in a very real sense it IS based on the idea that organisms and their environments co-vary.

That really should not be news to us as thinking people. The whole field of memetics for example is based on a similar view, but in this case the concept is that certain ideas are useful and survive and others are not useful and die away as it were.

Morality is based (arguably) on similar principles. Societies which do not condone random murder will survive better than societies which theoretically do condone random murder. Societies which pick one side of the road to drive on will have fewer vehicle accidents than those which allow anyone to drive anywhere they like at any speed etc.

So the idea that "murder should be prohibited" and that "speed laws should be observed" are ideas which survive- in a sense they are like "survival of the fittest"- those IDEAS survive because they work. They are useful because they work.

So now back to evolution. Because certain organisms live and others don't- we conclude there is "NO GOD"?? What does one have to do with the other? Nothing!

One could say that God thought up the whole fact that some things work and some don't. Or on the other hand one could say "God? God didn't do that- it's common sense!" One could say that it is part of "God's Plan" or that such talk was nonsense. In my opinion, one MIGHT be right either way- either conclusion really has nothing to do with the data itself.

Of course "what survives survives"

Of course good ideas "work" and make the world a better place.

Cars are better than horses, electricity makes life better than having no electricity, humans can do more things to affect their environment than worms.

When the lake dries up, the humans walk away or dig a well, or migrate to where there is a more hospitable environment. We build houses and make buffalo robes when it is cold- we create our own environment wherever we are. We build cities and read computer screens and don't care if its 105 degrees outside or 40 below, and argue about God and Evolution.

You might as well be arguing whether or not Mercedes Benz or Ford "invented" the automobile as whether or not God "invented" mankind, "organized" him or "created" him ex nihilo. It's all definitions- it's all just talk.

What do any of those facts have to do with God existing or not? Nothing!

If God has spoken to your heart- you know he is. If he does so on a continuing basis- you know that's true. All the talk and theories and facts and - whatever- have nothing to do with that personal gut-level experience- that knowing in your heart.

Anything else is just metaphor- it's just a story you made up or someone else made up. It might be a good story, it might explain a lot, it might work very well, but it's still just a story. It is some symbols in language of something you think might "exist" out there somewhere, with no way to get out there and see if it "corresponds" to what you can't see to check if it's right. All we have is what we experience ourselves ultimately.

And THAT'S MY story and I'm stickin to it!

Edited April 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

One more- I'm not making this stuff up myself. Pardon the formatting.

http://www.scientifi...-boy-of-physics

Scientific American, July 2011

Bad Boy

of Physics

Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never

stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever

be beyond reach of our understanding

Interview by Peter Byrne Stanford university physicist leonard susskind revels in discovering ideas

that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded

string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading

candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen

Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but

grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking

eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception

of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled

physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework

largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind

now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

Susskind worries that reality might be

beyond our limited capacity to visualize it.

He is not the first to express such a concern.

In the 1920s and 1930s the founders of quantum

mechanics split into realist and antirealist

camps. Albert Einstein and other realists

held that the whole point of physics is

to come up with some mental picture, however

imperfect, of what objective reality is.

Antirealists such as Niels Bohr said those

mental images are fraught with peril; scientists

should confine themselves to making

and testing empirical predictions. Susskind

thinks the contradictions and paradoxes of

modern physics vindicate Bohr’s wariness.

The views I am espousing would fall into the "antirealist" camp.

Edited April 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer. It is more like in evolution those that reproduce win.

[mfbukowski]

Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer. It is more like in evolution those that reproduce win.

Those that reproduce, reproduce.

Not earth-shattering news. Them bunnies will soon take over the world.

[bu11fr0g]

This area has rapidly expanded over the last decade due to technological improvements.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100.full This paper "Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation"

provides the information I believe you are looking for.

A single "Adam" is not disproven. A single Adam 6000 years ago as the origin of man however is.

This paper from 2001 was the beginning of work that has markedly expanded over the past decade.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409928a0.html?free=2%EF%BF%BD%C3%9C

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06862.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409821a0.html?free=2 (layman's description)

The work that I do looks specifically at timing and migration of certain disease causing mutations.

[bu11fr0g]

some quotes from the article:

In the past 30 years, the ability to study DNA sequence variation has dramatically increased our knowledge of the relationships among and history of human populations. Analyses of mitochondrial, Y chromosomal, and autosomal markers have revealed geographical structuring of human populations at the continental level (1–3) and suggest that a small group of individuals migrated out of eastern Africa and their descendants subsequently expanded into most of today's populations (3–6). Despite this progress, these studies were limited to a small fraction of the genome, to limited populations, or both, and yield an incomplete picture of the relative importance of mutation, recombination, migration, demography, selection, and random drift (7–10). To substantially increase the genomic and population coverage of past studies (e.g., the HapMap Project), we have examined more than 650,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in samples from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP-CEPH), which represents 1064 fully consenting individuals from 51 populations from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, the Middle East, South/Central Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas (11). This data set is freely available (12) and allows a detailed characterization of worldwide genetic variation.

By genotyping two chimpanzee samples, we were able to define the putative ancestral allele for ∼95.5% of the SNPs in the 650 K panel. We compared the distribution of these ancestral allele frequencies (AAFs) among the 51 populations. Figure 4A shows four examples of the AAF spectrum for Yoruba, French, Chinese, and Japanese populations. Yorubans and other sub-Saharans have more SNPs with high AAFs (>0.6, on the right of the distribution) and fewer with low AAFs, producing a steeper slope of SNP counts in the midrange of AAF spectrum. The slopes within 20 to 80% AAF are plotted in Fig. 4B for all 51 populations, showing a progressive reduction moving away from Africa, from ∼0.04 in sub-Saharan Africa, to ∼0.03 in Eurasia, ∼0.02 in East Asia, and ∼0.01 in Oceania and the Americas.

The flattening of the AAF spectrum reflects the interplay of multiple demographic forces and may yield clues to the history of individual populations. Generally, populations that had a small effective population size and/or experienced a severe bottleneck would have more pronounced genetic drift, resulting in a more rapid increase in derived allele frequencies. Populations that maintained a large size or experienced expansion would tend to preserve the ancestral states of the variant loci. Theoretical work (25), empirical data, and simulation (26) have shown that demography plays a major role in the change of the AAF spectrum over time. Our result is consistent with the serial founder model, in which non-African populations form a sequential chain of colonies. Those that are more peripheral and younger have relatively smaller effective sizes, and perhaps experienced greater selective pressure. For example, the European and Asian spectra can be explained by a reduction of population size followed by recent recovery (a bottleneck), whereas the spectrum for an African-American population suggests a history of moderate but uninterrupted expansion (26, 27).

[bu11fr0g]

Here is a good "layman's" article describing the research:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/using-snp-data-to-examine-human-phenotypic-706

[katherine the great]

To me reconciling macro-evolution has several small problems but two major ones. They are reconciling "fall". A fall is a decent and evolution is an ascension from the primitive. to me just the opposite. The other is the big one and that is if there was no fall then the atonement is negated. No fall, no need of an atonement.

Someone may have already addressed this, but evolution is absolutely not simply an ascension from the primitive to more advanced. Evolution is change that adapts to the environment. Populations either evolve, move to a more suitable environment or they die. Some species stay basically the same for millions of years because their environment does not not change enough to require a lot of adaptation--others change relatively quickly. The second problem you cited is based on a more literal interpretation of scripture than I take of the fall. I view it more metaphorically. I think our descent from our heavenly home to this planet to take on a covering of "skin" was enough of a fall.

[changed]

The problem is that the genetic relationships have been worked out. A single Adam as progrnitor of all himans 6000 years ago is a theory that is disproven. It doesnt mean that it cant be believed but the predictions based on the model have all failed.

(Old Testament | Genesis 6:2)

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Anyone else think the above is talking about Adam's family mixing in with the indigenous population? seems to be children of God, and children of men mixing around together in any event...

[David T]

(Old Testament | Genesis 6:2)

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Anyone else think the above is talking about Adam's family mixing in with the indigenous population? seems to be children of God, and children of men mixing around together in any event...

All the contemporary readers understood that to be in regards to gods from the Divine Council who chose to break ranks and interbreed with the mortal women, and give out heavenly secrets, thus being the original Origin of Evil. The writers of the Enochic literature took that understood story and expanded upon it, but turned it into a polemic against the Priests of their day (Fallen Angels = Fallen Priests).

Not at all in line with current LDS understanding of how the world/heavens work, but certainly part of the ancient worldview.

Inserting earthly pre-adamites into the story would be a fun re-interpretation and re contextualization for it, but would have had nothing to do with anything on radar of the ancients. Unless you consider the heavenly sons of god (the bene elohim)in the story as technically being pre-adamites

The explanation of Sons of God being Sethites and the sons of men being out-of-the-covenant was a much later tradition, once the appearance of henotheism et al needed to be explained away.

Edited April 22, 2012 by David T

[SamIam]

Usually the challenge is we can't see the forest for the tree, but in this instance I wonder if we shouldn't focus on the tree. There is little doubt that as explanations for the origins of man go, evolution really is a conundrum. There is no question that there is a story being told in the layers of rock and sediment that form this earth that lends credence to key aspects of the evolutionary theory. Many points that are problematic as well, but the evidence is compelling. I notice that it is this conundrum of circumstance that makes for difficult debate points for LDS minded folks. On one hand we want to accept the creation story, and on the other we have to concede some things just don't seem to mesh up with the science that sustains the theory. So in conversation with those that support the unquestioned validity of the theory we acquiesce and acknowledge the obvious so as not to look the fool in light of the multitude of problematic evidences that point to the evolutionary probability and the creationary conflict. Again, perhaps if we back away from the mass of conflicting evidence and take closer look at the tree itself, evolutionary theory will come into sharper focus.

I thoroughly enjoy analyzing what side people will take in a debate when the subject matter is one in which we cannot know the actual truth but sufficient information is provided to polarize some debate participants on one side of the discussion while others find validation in the opposing viewpoint. The evolution / creation debate is such. Bottom line we simply do not have enough facts to put forth an absolute detailed explanation of how this earth came into being. Even as a creationist, I can hardly give one good piece of empirical evidence to sustain my perspective against the volumes of compelling evidence to an altered perspective of billions of years of creation processes. I realize there are those who want to claim creationist testimony while repeating the oft rehearsed caveat that God’s creationary processes may be more involved and take much longer than the scriptural record indicates. While that in truth may be the case, for the most part I don’t buy it when most LDS toss that line of reasoning out. Call me silly but I think we are usually just trying to have our cake and eat it too and keep from looking like totally lame brains for looking over the obvious mass of data indicating a lengthy time frame. - Lukewarm with a hint of conflict and doubt of which way to turn to find the truth.

Us creationists quite frequently like scriptures. They make us feel comfortable with our lack of definitive explanation because we can chalk everything up to one more mystery that we will have to wait and find the answers for. We can hunker down with a little Genesis or Pearl of Great Price anytime we feel threatened for the mass of conflict that the theory of evolution creates in our otherwise pristine and peaceful world. However, what if, maybe, and perhaps, we might consider, that the entire question has nothing to do with creation.

As a creationist, I’ve got a scripture too. I'm entitled because after all I am a creationist and that's what we do. It’s fabulous and I think for situations where I want to choose sides in a debate over something that has no real definitive answer it is the perfect compass for which way I will invariably choose…even if there are volumes of compelling evidence to the contrary.

My scripture:

Moroni 7: 16

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

LDS and Christian creationists alike get overwhelmed by the forest of data when it’s the towering tree we should be focusing on. Why was this tree planted in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Should we as LDS compliment its lofty branches and swelling girth and continue to sustain its growth while basking in its light blocking shadow? Not me …as for me and my house… well you know the rest.

The point is, this theory is and was floated and sustained by brilliantly cunning minds, who at the top of the food chain generally have only one ax to grind – they are too smart to believe there is a God at all. They delight in how polarizing the discussion has become and how many have been persuaded by its compelling “evidences”. Even more entertaining is how many creationists get confused about the real subject matter and are quelled into silence or acquiescence for fear of being swallowed by the avalanche of proofs against the 7 creative cycles or Adam as the first flesh.

This theory, when held up to Moroni’s standard is repulsive and evil for what it truly seeks to accomplish. If I believe outright and embrace wholeheartedly the theory of evolution do I believe in Christ more or less? Does it foster a belief that by doing good and being obedient I will advance God’s cause or does it open a view to no standard of right and wrong so live for today? Does the theory of evolution shine a light on anything or does is cast a pall of darkness over the minds of men who find their origins in the loins of apes as opposed to the kingdoms of God?

Now, here’s the real rub for us smart folks who don’t want to look like big dummies. We work really hard at not being disagreeable when we chat with our evolutionary friends. We acquiesce on the obvious points and play down the 7 days thing. We listen politely and except for the little twitch over our right eye when they forthrightly declare our Hominidae ancestry no one is the wiser for our evolutionary handicap. The point is this; more often than not the discussion is not about monkeys to men or amoebas to aardvarks…it’s about reason’s to deny the existence of God. It’s about justifying bad behavior because there is no accounting anyway. It’s about much, much, much bigger issues than the Origins of the Species – it’s about the souls of men. And when we play along with the game and let the debate gently flow by it is us that is being snookered.

When all is said and done, we weren’t polite or congenial, or pleasant – we were duped. Duped by Satan to support, albeit weakly in many cases, a position that most of the time we do not even realize we are taking. Quite frequently when we engage those who sustain the theory we are not talking rocks, and fossils, and strata we are usually discussing why that person does not believe in God. All the while our pleasant little attitude is simply letting them think we agree with their evidences for why there is no God. While most of the time our politeness is better served and I don’t advocate differently, I do believe that if we really know what the discussion is about there may be occasions where we can see an opportunity to share something that we shouldn’t see as theoretical in the least. There is a God – and he has a plan.

The reason I enjoy analyzing what side people will take in these kinds of debates is because it shows me a little bit of what’s under the hood. It can demonstrate what kind of thinkers they are and if they have clear perspectives. Sometimes we are so busy being smart that we aren’t very bright. Even in the circles of LDS academia this discussion is entertained and lofty and soaring missives are written to reconcile the justifications of our science with the pleadings of our faith. Surely they understand the true discussion points.

In a way, how we handle these types of discussions often illustrates valiancy and courage but more than anything else when we can’t really know the answer to the things we debate the side we choose illustrates most clearly, in the words of Boyd K. Packer, “which way we face.” I don’t choose to be a creationist because there is empirical data to support the decision; I choose it because I know which way I face. Maybe it doesn’t seem to be as well evidenced a position but I know of a certainty that “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth” and whether I have all of the details figured out as to how or why, I refuse to give any credence to a logical, well developed and sophisticated theory that only really has one real purpose – to provide reason to believe there is no God.

I think, contrary to the popular wisdom, that it can be good to focus intently on the tree and then let the forest fade from view and perhaps, with less distraction, we may notice just how dark it really is under this massive towering tree. Perhaps then we can turn around and face towards the light of clear comprehension of who planted it in the first place.

Brock Lenox