I know the LDS church has no official views on evolution. I had someone ask me what I thought about it, and frankly, I haven’t given much thought about it. As I understand, there are people at BYU who believe in evolution, but I think they believe that evolution has limits, and don’t rule out that God created the world.
So how do people reconcile evolution with creationism? What do you think about “intelligent design”?
18 comments ↓
I’ve always said that science is God’s toolkit. Why do we have to reconcile it? Don’t you feel like if God wants something to change over the course of 2,000,000 years he will? We don’t believe the Earth was really formed in 7 days, but instead we believe it took seven periods… and each ‘day” could be any amount of time. I think evolution makes sense in a context that God uses evolution. He doesn’t have to, he could just spontaneously create matter, but then there’d have to be an equal and opposite reaction somewhere else. Everything has its opposite.
Randall,
How do we know that God could just spontaneously create matter? I have always read LDS theology to be that God “organized” or “formed” the Earth out of existing matter, rather than created it “ex nihilo,” out of nothing, as orthodox theology may attest. Perhaps this is a small point.
Agreed, though, about the time scale of evolution. To me, to state unequivocally that evolution is not of God seems in one way to almost limit God’s power, as if to say, “There is no way that evolution was God’s mechanism.” As for intelligent design, I have no conception of what it entails, except perhaps a middle ground between “Creationism” and “Evolution.” What that middle ground is, I do not know. But I don’t really have a problem with the theory of evolution, and have a hard time understanding why it is necessarily wrong.
I think that the problem with the evolution versus creationism argument is that a lot of people have no clue what they are talking about. I can’t tell you the number of times that I have seen mistakes made on the issue.
First of all, I think you have to differentiate between natural selection and evolution. They are not the same thing. Natural selection accounts for differences *within* species. For that discovery alone, Darwin becomes one of the greatest biologists of all time. No one can dispute that natural selection works. It explains the variations that we see in, say, dogs (think Chihuahua versus Great Dane; same species, huge variation).
Evolution on the other hand refers to the creation of *new* species. Darwin thought that natural selection may have been the mechanism whereby new species were created, but he never had any proof.
NeoDarwinism (which combines genetics with natural selection) postulates that genetic mutation combined with natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. But even that theory is not without problems, and many NeoDarwinists are loath to admit it, but the facts do not fit the theory particularly well. Every time someone says they have found a *missing link*, all it does it show another fully-formed species that is most definitely not a hybrid between and earlier species and a later species.
That being said, however, intelligent design is unscientific to my mind because it attempts to fill in the gaps in present theory of evolution without empirical justification. I think that you can’t reconcile the two. I think that scientists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) should lose the overconfident swagger, admit that the current evolutionary theories are flawed and look to developing better theories that explain the apparent history of life on Earth, rather than try to paint their opponents as uneducated, superstitious buffoons.
Randall: Thanks for explaining how you reconcile, even if you don’t consider it reconciling.
DPC: Thanks for explaining the difference between Natural Selection and Evolution. I honestly thought they were the same, and am glad to be corrected. From your comments, I’m guessing Richard Dawkins is a proponent of Intelligent Design. Do you recommend any good books (websites, magazines, etc) to brush up on the subject?
It sounds like you’re not convinced by any of these theories. Is something else more plausible?
MH: “From your comments, I’m guessing Richard Dawkins is a proponent of Intelligent Design.”
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. Richard Dawkins is a rabid atheist with disdain for any organized religion. Even though he knows about the holes in current evolutionary theory, he apparently feels that evolution should be taught as a fact so as to stop religious folk from filling in the details.
“It sounds like you’re not convinced by any of these theories. Is something else more plausible?”
I’m an evolution agnostic. I think that the jury is still out. It’s sad to see how politicized it’s become. That being said, however, I see teaching evolution as a great way to teach the scientific method and its underlying philosophy at schools. You say, here are the facts and empirical observations, and here is the theory that attempts to explain those facts and observations, and here are some reasons why the theory fails to account for certain facts. It helps people understand that science is fluid, that we are free to change theories as we gather more information. It can demonstrate that, at its core, science is a way of organizing and categorizing the physical world around us and is descriptive. It tells us how the world is; it fails, however, to tell us, us how the world should be or even will be.
“Do you recommend any good books (websites, magazines, etc) to brush up on the subject?”
Mary Midgley, “Evolution as a Religion”
Rodney Stark, “For the Glory of God”
Michael Shermer, “Why Darwin Matters”
DPC (or is it dpc?),
You make a couple of good points:
1. Evolution has become politicized. In my mind, this is due, at least in part, to the linking between government funding (by nature political) and scientific research. One could also consider the link between government funding and public education. To get the money necessary for education or research in our current society, one must play the political games or know the political people to get the right revenue streams. Following the money, in my mind, means that there is a necessarily political aspect due to funding. The same would not apply (at least in the same way) for private schooled or homeschooled education environments, nor for privately-funded research. Of course, most think that privately-funded research for public knowledge is a ridiculous notion, and that government funded research is much more objective and perhaps even honest and reliable. And most people think private schooling is for the rich, and homeschooling for the backward.
2. Science tells us how the world is, but fails to tell us how it should or even will be. This is a great point. Not sure I have much to comment on this one, but it is a great point. It is important to understand the limits, as well as the capabilities, of scientific processes and approaches.
Interesting points all. So if you were to explain all things things in a non-political way, how would you approach it? Do we start with the Bible, say that God uses Natural Selection, and Creationism/Intelligent Design, or some other approach?
First, Intelligent Design is creation science. (see Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. - I suggest watching PBS’s Nova - Intelligent Design on Trial for an good portrayal of the trial)
Second, as I understand it, natural selection is the definition of micro-evolution. I’ve read of creationists saying the evolution stops of micro evolution, but there is no definitive line between micro- and macro- evolution, at least as far as I can find.
Of course, I’m not a biologist, and frankly, they would be the best source on the subject of evolution.
Thanks for the info. I’ll look into it, and if anyone else has other good sources, please let me know.
there is no such thing as macro evolution. all evolution is on a tiny scale, but if you look at what has happened over millions of yrs, you’d see a big change. but it is only through the small changes that it has been possible. if you do some good research on evolution you’ll see how if you are unable to reconcile it with your faith, you will have to accept that your religion is not true. for a church that stresses it’s truthfulness so regularly it seems strange that some members thing they don’t have to reconcile it with other known truths or, facts. and also, it is doctrine that god cannot do certain things, like break natural laws. that should tell you he can’t do whatever he likes, so to say he can is not doctrinally sound anyway.
Creationism and itelligent design are remnants of the old roman/greek way of thinking. Plato talked about an “unmoved mover” who must have created the earth. Aristotle was the one who came up with the idea of the earth being the center of the universe. Mainstream Christianity borrows heavily from these philosophers. Traditions die hard. Evolution has more proof almost than any other scientific theory. Many Mormons hold on to their protestant/catholic/etc. traditions. Evolution is not frightening, it is aligned with Mormonism completely. Darwin, on the other hand, got carried away towards the end of his life. He became an atheist of course, and at this point, he made some bogus claims.
antonInus,
Very interesting points. Do you have any references linking Creationism and Plato? What are some of the things you like about Darwin that mormons should embrace?
I always thought that Bruce McConkie had it right when he said.
“If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.”
You can either have religion or evolution - not both.
James,
I think many biology professors at BYU believe that we can have both evolution and religion. I think that they would say that God uses evolution, so I don’t think it must be the either/or proposition you (and McConkie) suggest.
Oops, I commented on your previous website, so if you don’t get it, respond to me and I will write again on this site.
I know this is a little bit late, (almost 1 year later) but I just ran into your site.
I have a biology degree from Boise State, but went to Ricks and BYU-H. I have obviously had many classes if not the subject of Evolution, and least related to it. Most people do not understand what evolution is. it is the change of the ratios of genes in a population of animals. (we will assume humans are also animals for this).
I will try to keep this short, but I could go on for pages if you wanted me to get more in to it. it is easy to see evolution as a small change. Say for example the English Peppered moth. for many years, most of them were white with black spots. There were some black with white spots, but they stood out to predators, because the trees they hid on were white. Then along came the industrial revolution, and the trees they lived on now had a bunch of pollution, turning them black. Now the white moths stood out to predators, and the black ones survived better. That is considered evolution. Now say that some black ones were isolated from white ones, say an earthquake happened or something, and they were separated for 5000 years. Because of random gene mutation, or whatever other reason (there are many) after this amount of time, they cannot interbreed. You bring them back together, and since the genes have changed so much, they cannot have a “mixed” breed. That is also evolution.
Now, here is my question, why can’t people see that evolution may be the way that God created the Earth? Gods time is not the same as man’s time.
The other thing that I want to mention, is something that I asked a professor about in Hawaii. We talked about Evolution, and I asked this same question to him that you are putting out. How does evolution tie in with church doctrine? He explained a few things, but the main point was that God uses the principle of adoption for many things. (I won’t give any examples, but there are some) God may have adopted one species to use to place His spirit children in.
This probably doesn’t answer your question completely, but hopefully it gives a little insight into it. If you want more discussion, you can send me a message, and we can get into more detail about it.
Jason,
Thanks for stopping by! I’m not sure why this topic is getting a few hits lately, but I’m fine with that. I figured out how to copy your comment here. It’s quite timely, since James just pulled out that Bruce R McConkie quote.
I think most people completely understand your white moth example. As someone else commented, this white/black moth example is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
I think the problem that people like James Brown and McConkie have is to say that evolution causes macro-evolution, meaning that man was formed from apes who were formed from fish, who were formed from amoebas. Nobody is doubting micro-evolution as in the case of the moth, but rather the idea that man evolved from amoebas is much more difficult to swallow for the pious.
Certainly, if one subscribes to macro-evolution, it certainly didn’t happen in just the 10,000 years or so of Biblical history. My question to you is this: how do you reconcile macro-evolution with the Bible, or do you?
Leave a Comment