How BYU Became an Evolutionary Biology Powerhouse

[Hamilton Porter]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://open.spotify.com/episode/1FNtbHjPqerfz9ZYNUhDc1&ved=2ahUKEwiPle_yj6T_AhWFFFkFHfKVDOAQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1_bunYpqljzHNfCQXE8v8v

[LoudmouthMormon]

Can partially confirm with my 3 decade old anecdote.  In 1991 or 1992, I was a student at the U of U, and my buddy was going to the Y.  We each invited the other to crash a class on the other's campus, just to see what happened.  He had me go to his biology class, on the day the professor covered evolutionary biology.  Dude had a large poster of the evolution of man from which he taught.  He taught the various methods of dating rocks and fossils, and their pros and cons.  There was sort of a level of tension in the class, as all the zealous kids were having things rub up against their sensitive political issues.  Somewhere during the class, the professor said something to the tune of "I don't care if you believe in any of this stuff or not, but you dang well better understand it well enough to do well on the test.  Right now, we're here to learn what science and the world has to say about it, you chose if you want to adopt it or not."  

I get a big kick out of belonging to a church where a young-earth creationist can sit next to an evolutionary biologist, with a flat-earther in the back somewhere, and all focus on the work of salvation without fighting about stuff.

[Hamilton Porter]

12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Can partially confirm with my 3 decade old anecdote.  In 1991 or 1992, I was a student at the U of U, and my buddy was going to the Y.  We each invited the other to crash a class on the other's campus, just to see what happened.  He had me go to his biology class, on the day the professor covered evolutionary biology.  Dude had a large poster of the evolution of man from which he taught.  He taught the various methods of dating rocks and fossils, and their pros and cons.  There was sort of a level of tension in the class, as all the zealous kids were having things rub up against their sensitive political issues.  Somewhere during the class, the professor said something to the tune of "I don't care if you believe in any of this stuff or not, but you dang well better understand it well enough to do well on the test.  Right now, we're here to learn what science and the world has to say about it, you chose if you want to adopt it or not."  

I get a big kick out of belonging to a church where a young-earth creationist can sit next to an evolutionary biologist, with a flat-earther in the back somewhere, and all focus on the work of salvation without fighting about stuff.

Burn Young Earth Creationists at the stake! Just kidding. It's interesting that LDS who go to secular schools aren't as inculcated into evolution as those who go to BYU. My little brother at Cal didn't take basic biology (I think he took nutrition or something) and was technically a creationist. So I gave him the BYU evolution packet.

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Can partially confirm with my 3 decade old anecdote.  In 1991 or 1992, I was a student at the U of U, and my buddy was going to the Y.  We each invited the other to crash a class on the other's campus, just to see what happened.  He had me go to his biology class, on the day the professor covered evolutionary biology.  Dude had a large poster of the evolution of man from which he taught.  He taught the various methods of dating rocks and fossils, and their pros and cons.  There was sort of a level of tension in the class, as all the zealous kids were having things rub up against their sensitive political issues.  Somewhere during the class, the professor said something to the tune of "I don't care if you believe in any of this stuff or not, but you dang well better understand it well enough to do well on the test.  Right now, we're here to learn what science and the world has to say about it, you chose if you want to adopt it or not."  

I get a big kick out of belonging to a church where a young-earth creationist can sit next to an evolutionary biologist, with a flat-earther in the back somewhere, and all focus on the work of salvation without fighting about stuff.

That is epic, good for you two to try out that experiment, or what have you. I just remember my tenth grade year and learning about evolution and the whole time I'm thinking my teacher was nuts and he even walked like an ape, either pretending or his actual walk. I'm still not sure about evolution, haha. I'm not a good student. 

[Dario_M]

If you wanna follow a studie at BYU university ... is that expensive? Have some of you guys ever been a student at BYU? Or a teacher maybe?? How is the atmosphere there? 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

If you wanna follow a studie at BYU university ... is that expensive? Have some of you guys ever been a student at BYU? Or a teacher maybe?? How is the atmosphere there? 

https://enrollment.byu.edu/financial-aid/cost-of-attendance - That's the full college experience.   Not cheap, although I don't have a clue what financial aid looks like these days.  

They also offer BYU pathway worldwide:  https://www.byupathway.org/   I think it's fully online.  This is much more affordable and basic education, meant for folks who are seeking employment or looking to maybe make more money than a minimum wage job.     My wife is currently doing byu pathway to help with her small business.  Going into web development so she can run her website.  She reports the atmosphere is friendly, supportive, and rather basic. (She is just starting her 2nd quarter, so she's looking forward to more advanced stuff coming her way.)

Edited June 6, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

On 6/2/2023 at 8:54 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Can partially confirm with my 3 decade old anecdote.  In 1991 or 1992, I was a student at the U of U, and my buddy was going to the Y.  We each invited the other to crash a class on the other's campus, just to see what happened.  He had me go to his biology class, on the day the professor covered evolutionary biology.  Dude had a large poster of the evolution of man from which he taught.  He taught the various methods of dating rocks and fossils, and their pros and cons.  There was sort of a level of tension in the class, as all the zealous kids were having things rub up against their sensitive political issues.  Somewhere during the class, the professor said something to the tune of "I don't care if you believe in any of this stuff or not, but you dang well better understand it well enough to do well on the test.  Right now, we're here to learn what science and the world has to say about it, you chose if you want to adopt it or not."  

I get a big kick out of belonging to a church where a young-earth creationist can sit next to an evolutionary biologist, with a flat-earther in the back somewhere, and all focus on the work of salvation without fighting about stuff.

I enrolled at BYU in January 1996.  In my first semester I took a biology course from Dr. William Bradshaw, which included a robust component about evolution.  I recall Dr. Bradshaw addressing, briefly, the purported tension between evolutionary biology and the Restored Gospel.  I don't remember the particulars of what he said, but the essence of it was that the two are reconcilable.  

More recently, Dr. Bradshaw (who retired from BYU in 2008), wrote a very good 2021 article on this topic: Biological Evolution: Toward a Reconciliation of the Science and Our Faith

Some excerpts:

Quote

Q: Who is a creationist? Is it correct to identify Latter-day Saints as creationists?

A: Though this may seem to be a straightforward question, the word "creationist"--like so many used in conversations about evolution--needs careful definition. As generally used in the context of the controversy over teaching creationism in the public schools, Latter-day Saints are not creationists.

Putting one-word labels on people to categorize their positions on a certain issue is nearly always unfair and inaccurate. Often the term "creationist" is used carelessly, as if its meaning is self-evident. Thus a creationist is commonly thought to be one who believes in a divine Creator, and creationism is the designation for a religious person's political stand. This notion is reinforced by the fact that creationism is nearly always positioned as the antithesis of evolution. Thus, a false dichotomy has been born, and creationism/evolution joins the ranks of white/black, good/evil, and theism/atheism as mutually exclusive alternatives at opposite ends of a single continuum. This polarization is not helpful.

Although Latter-day Saints accept Jesus Christ as the Creator of the earth, we cannot theologically and should not politically align ourselves with "creationism" as generally understood in the United States today. Our beliefs about the Creator and his methods are not compatible with the tenets of the ultra-conservative Protestant tradition espoused by contemporary "creationists."[2] Unlike "creationists," we do not demand a literal interpretation of all scriptural passages. We regard some biblical statements about the origin of life on earth as figurative. For example, we do not believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour days out of nothing. Also, in contrast to contemporary creationists, we do not pursue a political agenda calling for the insertion of religious belief into the science curriculum of the public schools.

I believe that the divine revelator and the inspired human writers intended the scriptural accounts of creation to convey general, spiritual aspects of the events, not a literal description of specifics. I am not, therefore, a creationist as the term is generally used today.

This is, for me, one of the better summaries of what the Latter-day Saint perspective is (or ought to be).

More:

Quote

Q: Is evolution an atheistic concept? (Does evolution assume the absence of a divine Creator?)

A: Unfortunately, many commonly assume that evolutionary theory operates on the premise of the absence of a Creator. This is not true. No data generated by chemistry, biology, earth sciences such as geology and paleontology, or other related academic disciplines either validate or invalidate the conclusion that a divine Creator exists. Theological questions are outside the realm of science. True, some evolutionary scientists are atheists, but many others adhere to their religious faiths and maintain a strong belief in God.

The mistaken conflation of evolution and atheism is a result of a popular belief during the latter 19th century (after Darwin presented the case for natural selection as the mechanism for evolutionary change) that science and religion were at odds with each other, irreconcilable enemies destined to fight for the souls of men. The truth is that scientists, evolutionary biologists included, have neither the means nor (generally speaking) a motive to discount, invalidate, or repudiate religious faith. Consider the following statement from the concluding paragraph of an entry in a popular book about dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures:

So, nowadays, although they argue about the details of what controls the rates or pattern of evolution, almost all biologists accept that extinction and evolution have taken place, and that Darwinian natural selection is the major mechanism underlying them. There is nothing in this that necessarily contradicts a belief in God or even in Divine intervention, for the record in the rocks could be interpreted as a testament to the way in which God chose to create the natural world.[4]

"{T}he record in the rocks could be interpreted as a testament to the way in which God chose to create the natural world."

That seems pretty apt.

More:

Quote

Q: If evolution is valid, does that mean that life originated "by chance"?

A: Let's rephrase the question. "Could life have originated without the hand of God?" I believe the answer is no. "Could God have employed a mechanism for creation that depended on the random behavior of molecules and other probabilistic biochemical and biological events, confident that the outcome would be as he envisioned?" I believe the answer is yes. God would not have needed to intervene at each stage of the creation process in order to insure the eventual appearance of living organisms on the earth.

People whose view of creation is based on a totally literal interpretation of all the scriptural accounts have difficulty understanding how evolution could allow Deity a role. In contrast to the idea that God effected creation instantaneously, the scientific scenario of gradual change over billions of years, irregular patterns of appearances and extinction, and hereditary connections between apparently diverse organisms can seem directionless and precarious, as if the earth and its inhabitants are a chance occurrence. But this problem is at least partly semantic. For example, when a chemist describes the random behavior of molecules, his nonchemist listener may develop the sense of a haphazard, purposeless event and, by extension, perhaps, of a world in which Deity is excluded. On the contrary, in large samples, random processes are predictable with very high precision, which means that their outcome could be understood, foreseen, and even utilized by Deity. In discussing evolutionary concepts, "chance," like several other important terms, needs to be carefully defined.

I believe that if, during the early stages of the primeval earth, the Creators left matter to act for itself, its activity, though random, would still be predictable and its outcome foreseeable, at least in general outline. Viewed in this way, evolution is not an accidental or fortuitous process, but an inevitable one. Given a set of elements from which to construct molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms, and given air, water, and rock as environments in which organisms can live, evolution will fashion lungs and gills--wings, fins, and feet. Living things reflect both the properties of their raw matter and their environment. Thus the assembly of life, even a self-assembly, could not be totally capricious. I expect that if we were able to go elsewhere in the universe and study the history of life on other planets with conditions similar to earth's, we would find evidence for sets of organisms remarkably similar to those that have inhabited this planet. Evolution will have mainly achieved there what it has here.

Clearly randomness operates in the chemistry of living cells today. Molecules move and react in a nondirected fashion, subject to somewhat arbitrary environmental forces. Nevertheless, the maintenance of life is not at risk. God does not have to follow the path of each molecule of glucose nor check each enzyme-catalyzed reaction nor monitor the replication of chromosomes in order to insure that they will behave predictably. He can trust these objects to follow the laws governing life processes.

"'Could God have employed a mechanism for creation that depended on the random behavior of molecules and other probabilistic biochemical and biological events, confident that the outcome would be as he envisioned?' I believe the answer is yes."

I could go on, but this is getting too long.  The entire article is worth a read.

Prior to taking the biology course from Dr. Bradshaw, I had conferred with my dad on this issue.  As he is both a well-educated and thoughtful fellow, he provided a summary of this thoughts that, though not as in-depth and Dr. Bradshaw's article, were nevertheless congruent with it.  Interestingly, he quoted Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine (a book my dad, overall, did not much care for) for the proposition that "truth is ever in harmony with itself," and that this likely has application to reconciling the Restored Gospel with evolutionary theory.  He also wryly noted the irony of this quote being the the same book that elsewhere categorically denounces evolution.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

As more evidence supporting evolution is discovered, consider the following excerpt from Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine.

Obviously there never will be a conflict between truths revealed in the realm of religion and those discovered by scientific research. Truth is ever in harmony with itself. But if false doctrines creep into revealed religion, these will run counter to the discovered truths of science; and if false scientific theories are postulated, these ultimately will be overthrown by the truths revealed from Him who knows all things (McConkie 182).

McConkie made it clear what side evolution fell on later in the book when he said, “there is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution.”

Another seeming irony arises by contrasting Elder McConkie's declaratory assertions about organic evolution with his well-known statement issued following the revelation on the priesthood in 1978:

Quote

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year {1978}. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

Would Elder McConkie, if he were alive in 2023, say something similar about evolution?  Perhaps.  The Church has, for quite a while now, tried to provide guidance as to differentiating truths "essential to our salvation" and truths which are not.  I like this summary:

Quote

What Can I Study?

A deep understanding of the gospel will help us distinguish between pure and partial truth. We’ll be most successful if we focus our energy to build “upon the rock of our Redeemer” (Helaman 5:12).

When he was a member of the Seventy, Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge said: “There are unlimited claims and opinions leveled against the truth. … You can spend a lifetime desperately tracking down the answer to every claim … and never come to a knowledge of the most important truths.”⁴

So instead of spending your energy tracking down individual answers every time you have a question, take time each day to deepen your understanding of those fundamental truths that anchor your faith to the Rock, Jesus Christ.

The basic doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes faith, repentance, covenants, prophets, revelation, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, and our divine identity as children of God.⁵ These truths help us move along the covenant path; they are essential for our exaltation.

Peripheral truths, on the other hand, are not essential for our salvation.
...
4. Lawrence E. Corbridge, “Stand Forever” (Brigham Young University devotional, Jan. 22, 2019), 5, speeches.byu.edu.
5. See Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2019), 7.

The general contours and principles associated with organic evolution are important, but in my view they do not rise to the level of "essential for our salvation."  Consequently, I did not have much difficulty with resolving this issue for myself.  We have a hodgepodge of comments about evolution from various General Authorities over the years, many of which either contradict each other or else contradict what is currently taught as the best scientific knowledge at BYU.  I'm okay with that, as GAs having erroneous understanding of issues on topics not "essential for our salvation" does not create much of a problem for me.

 One more excerpt from Dr. Bradshaw's article:

Quote

Q: Does acceptance of evolution lead to a loss of faith, religious skepticism, or an inclination to sin?

A: The answer is no. Though sinners or skeptics may seek reasons to explain or excuse errant behavior, it is incorrect to view evolution as a pathway leading to sin. Many faithful, active Latter-day Saints accept evolution as a true principle.

In the preceding pages, we have argued that evolutionary biology is not atheistic: no scientific data suggest the absence of God, and no theoretical considerations exclude Deity from the processes that generated living things. If one accepts these premises, then a person cannot find in evolution a reason to cease activity in the Church nor disclaim its teachings. Apostates will be punished for their own sins and not for Darwin's transgression.

Consider the following personal expressions by two university students written at the conclusion of their study of evolutionary biology:

I have, for the most part, resolved the conflict I had with evolution and my religious beliefs. I believe God could and may have used evolutionary means to develop the organisms on the earth. I do not believe He would make the earth appear in a "zap," but rather would use scientific devices. The same goes for the organisms He created. I believe the evidence for the evolution of other creatures is valid and do not believe He would change His method to make man. The thing He did differently is to give man a soul and the ability to use free agency in order to return back to Him.

I find the theory of evolution to be a beautiful explanation of the creative process. The idea that the organisms here on the earth, including man, have evolved from "lower forms" and are genetically related is to me a remarkable concept--a concept that increases my belief in a Supreme Being who has governed this wonderful process. Indeed, I feel there need be no conflict between the theory of evolution and LDS theology.

Many active, faithful Latter-day Saints find the evidence for evolution to be compelling, accept it as a true principle, and view it as a support and confirmation for their religious commitment (see, for example, the recent book Relics of Eden by LDS scientist Daniel K. Fairbanks).
...
A Personal Point of View

I don't believe there is a conflict between my enthusiastic belief in the validity of biological evolution and my spiritual commitment to the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not suggest that all questions about the origin of life are answered or all potential conflicts resolved; our ignorance about these matters is large. Nevertheless, my study of the issues leads me to conclude that there are no irreconcilable differences between Latter-day Saint theology and evolutionary theory. Significant gaps exist in both the scientific and scriptural data, yet to me, the two act in complementary fashion to paint a preliminary picture of creation that is both intellectually and spiritually satisfying.

Meanwhile, the current state of things at BYU seem to be pretty good.  See here (from late 2018) :

Quote

New research suggests there has been a shift toward acceptance of evolution among undergraduates who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The study, published in PLOS One, also provides some clues about effective strategies to increase the acceptance of evolution among religious people.

“As deeply religious individuals (and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) as well as dedicated scientists, we have all been through our own process of reconciling our beliefs with science,” said Jamie Jensen, an associate professor of biology at Brigham Young University and corresponding author of the study.

“Now, as faculty members at an institution whose student body is ~99% highly religious with a large range of acceptance towards evolution, we were curious to know if we are moving the needle among our religious student body and if so, what factors are leading to that movement.”

In their longitudinal study, the researchers collected data from students who were enrolled in an introductory biology course at Brigham Young University. (The course is for non-biology majors.) The researchers compared students from 1986–1996 to students from 2014–2016. The students completed a 500-word personal essay outlining their view of evolution, along with surveys about evolution and other scientific issues.

The researchers observed a positive shift in attitudes toward evolution over the past two decades. Students in the 2014-2016 cohort, for example, were more likely to acknowledge the reliability of the fossil record and accept of the age of the earth. These students were also less concerned that evolution conflicted with their religion.

“Readers should understand first, that we are seeing a sizable shift toward acceptance among our student body, and second, that there are some major factors that appear to predict these changes: high school coverage of evolution, a decrease in negative messaging, and the teaching of evolution in a faith-compatible environment,” Jensen told PsyPost.

Previous research has found that people who know more about evolutionary theory are more likely to accept it.

The new study also found that Brigham Young University biology courses were linked to increases in the acceptance of evolution. In the first cohort, acceptance jumped from 12.7% at the start of the course to 38.3% after the course. In the second cohort, from 39.4% to 75.4%.

Jensen and her colleagues used what they described as a “Reconciliation Model” when teaching evolution. They emphasized that evolution was not a belief system and therefore not in conflict with religion, among other things.

“We hope that this both encourages the scientific community and the public that it is possible to increase acceptance of this foundational theory, but also that this article offers a potential template for the scientific community to approach the teaching of evolution to religious audiences in a more reconciliatory fashion,” Jensen said.

I will always be grateful to my father and to Dr. Bradshaw for their guidance on this issue (on a related note, I met my now wife in Dr. Bradshaw's class, so there's that too).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 6, 2023 by smac97

[Vanguard]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I enrolled at BYU in January 1996.  In my first semester I took a biology course from Dr. William Bradshaw, which included a robust component about evolution.  I recall Dr. Bradshaw addressing, briefly, the purported tension between evolutionary biology and the Restored Gospel.  I don't remember the particulars of what he said, but the essence of it was that the two are reconcilable. 

I was there about 8 yrs before you and also took basic biology from Dr. Bradshaw. The class had to be about 200-300 in size. Of the two lectures I remember, toward the end of one such lecture on evolution he threw up a picture of his pet cat and became emotional claiming that the two of them were connected relationally/biologically as a result of evolution. It moved me and I never forgot it. : ) 

As an aside, the other lecture I remember had him throwing up two photos side-by-side. One photo was of a mountain brook with a fallen tree over the brook and the other was a picture of a well-manicured golf course. He asked the students which one of these photos were more beautiful and of course there were some suckers who raised their hands for the golf course... ; )  

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

One photo was of a mountain brook with a fallen tree over the brook and the other was a picture of a well-manicured golf course. He asked the students which one of these photos were more beautiful and of course there were some suckers who raised their hands for the golf course... ; )  

The Lord's pavilion is broad enough to cover landscaping engineers as well as environmental science people.