Griffiths describes the battle on page 92.  Theological liberals are

called “modernists”, and and their conservative enemies, termed “fundamentalists”….In the battle between the two camps, one that hoisted the banner of science and another that decried the abandonment of traditional biblical views, where would the Latter-day Saints land?

In the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, the LDS church established schools.  These schools were tremendously expensive to run.  The church experimented with high school and college seminaries in Utah and Idaho.  These seminaries were much less costly than church schools.  The economic savings and stock market crash of 1929 persuaded the church to turn over nearly all church schools to the state, and focus on funding seminaries for high school, and Institutes of Religion for college campuses.  But there were some problems.  The Utah State Board of Education recommended (on page 96)

that Church seminaries and public high schools be completely dissaciated, release time eliminated, and credit for biblical studies withdrawn.  A major point of Williamson’s criticism was the teaching of LDS doctrine in biblical classes offered for credit.  Williamson charged that such teachings as “the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri;…Noah’s ark was built and launched in America;…Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible is superior to King James version; and…Enoch’s city, Zion, with all its inhabitants and buildings, was lifted up and translated bodily from the American continent to the realms of the unknown” were being taught in biblical classes for which the state offered credit.²⁴

Joseph Merrill was the church commissioner of Education.  He recommended that BYU become a training school for seminary teachers, and that these teachers not only obtain a teaching certificate, but be trained in theology.  Just prior to the scathing Williamson report, some LDS members had received training in theology on their own.  From page 93,

Sidney B. Sperry, on his own initiative, left in 1925 to attend the Divinity School of Chicago.  He received a Master’s Degree in 1926, specializing in Old Testament studies.¹⁰ At the same time, Heber C. Snell, a teacher at Church-owned Snow College, attended the Pacific School of Religion, majoring in biblical studies.

Impressed with this theological training, Merrill issued a call to Daryl Chase, Russel Swenson, and George Tanner to attend the University of Chicago’s Divinity School.  From page 98,

Why the University of Chicago?  Besides Sperry’s already existing relationship with the school, there were several compelling reasons to send seminary men there–and several reasons for concern.  Chicago was among the most liberal divinity schools in the country.  At the time, the divinity school…emphasized research and academic freedom.  The views of scholars there fell highly on the modernist end of the spectrum, stressing historical methodology and critical linguistic, sociological, and psychological approaches to the scriptures.³¹ Many of the conclusions reached by the Chicago scholars ran contrary to orthodox views of the scriptures among Latter-day Saints.

…

Doubtless there were professors on both sides of the spectrum from Goodspeed, but on the whole the young school prided itself as being a “hotbed” of radical theology.³⁴…the school emphasized non-confrontational approaches toward those who held more conservative views on scripture.  Russel Swenson recalled, “In all the time I was there I never heard one criticism by the professors against the fundamentalist of conservative point of view.”³⁶

Page 99 notes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925.  This trial on evolution seems to be the pinnacle of the arguments between fundamentalists and modernists.  From page 99,

When Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued in a Tennessee courtroom over evolution and the inerrancy of the Bible, Darrow, a Chicago attorney, was using ammunition supplied by Chicago scholars.³⁸

So once again, this leaves the question, Why the University of Chicago?

Indeed, one of the ironies of the situation may have been that only a very liberal school would accept Latter-day Saints as students in the religious climate of the time.³⁹

Merrill was interested in improving the scholarship of seminaries.  In showing that Sperry was still a conservative scholar, Merrill noted that (pages 99-100)

“Sperry had been back there and apparently this hadn’t hurt him at all.”  He said Daryl Chase had concluded that “Joseph Merrill had so much faith in the gospel that he thought if we went there we’d be able to find the material so that we could just positively lay out the proof for all of our claims.”  Chase believed that “Joseph F. Merrill was naive enough to believe that that would lead us into proof positive of the various positions we had taken.”42  While the men may have believed that Merrill was being naive, there is ample evidence to believe he also knew the risk he was taking.  Each of the men was informed that if they changed their views, they might not have a position when they returned.⁴³ Overall, Merrill’s attitude indicated a cautious optimism about the venture.

Griffiths notes good and bad experiences for LDS students.  Some embraced the school, while others weren’t impressed. Swenson wrote that “the past year will be a bright year in my life” and “They have no diabolical scheme to undermine the truth, but the reverse, to discover it.”  On the other hand, T. Edgar Lyon wrote the professors were “either infidels or agnostics…I fail to see how a young man can come here to school, then go out after graduation, and still preach what we call Christianity.”

Eleven LDS students obtained advanced degrees from the University of Chicago.  Swenson and Sperry became faculty at BYU, and Merrill (not a graduate) was later called to be an apostle.  Chicago graduate Howard Snell created controversy among Institute teachers when he questioned the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and said that God used evolution to create life.  This provoked a strong reaction from Joseph Fielding Smith who was very antagonistic toward evolution.  On page 107, J Reuben Clark, a member of the First Presidency

warned that if unorthodox teaching continued, “we shall face the abandonment of the seminaries and institutes and the return of Church colleges and academies.”  He added, “we are not now sure, in the light of developments, that these should ever have been given up.”⁸⁸

President Clark’s address provoked strong reactions among educators present.  Sterling McMurrin, a young teacher present, remarked, “We divided ourselves up…into liberal and conservative camps…Clark laid it out very firmly, and there was considerable discussion about it around our campfires.”⁸⁹

…

[page 109] At the end of the 1938-39 school year, when Guy C. Wilson retired as the head of the Religion Department at BYU, J. Wyley Sessions, who did not hold a PhD, was appointed as his replacement, which was perceived as a signal that faithfulness was more important than scholarship in Church education.

President Clark wrote a letter stating (on page 110),

“Teachers will do well to give up indoctrinating themselves in the sectarianism of the modern ‘Divinity School Theology’.  If they do not, they will be no longer useful in our system.”  The letter asked teachers to teach “the gospel and that only, and the Gospel as revealed in these last days.”  They were also warned not to use the term “ideology”, which the First Presidency felt placed “the Gospel in the same category with any and every pagan religion or theology.”  The letter continued, “This concept reduced to its lowest terms, may be expressed as conceiving that religion is man-made, that man makes his God, not God his man–a concept which is coming to be basic to the whole ‘Divinity School Theology,’ but which is contrary to all the teachings of the Church and to God’s revealed word.”¹⁰²

Griffiths notes that the Chicago men varied from quite orthodox (Sperry) to liberal (Snell).  It seems quite clear that the church made a swing toward fundamentalism, and away from modernism.  Even apostle Joseph Merrill seemed concerned with some of the more liberal teachers.  T Edgar Lyon was the last person to attend divinity school for the next 30 years.  Griffiths notes some of the good things that happened with the divinity school experiment.  From page 121,

Nearly all of the Chicago men noted that their time at the divinity school opened ecumenical doors for the Church and helped bring Mormonism further into the mainstream of American religious discourse.  At the same time, the scholarly methods learned in Chicago, applied toward modern scripture, led to huge leaps in the quality of Mormon apologetics.  Sidney Sperry, T. Edgar Lyon, Russel Swenson, and other Chicago scholars wrote the majority of Sunday School and priesthood manuals used in the Church for decades after they returned from Chicago.”

I am saddened that the fundamentalists won, but I am encouraged that it seems the modernists are making some headway in the church.  What do you think of this history?  Are you a fundamentalist, or a modernist?

Smout analyzes the arguments between pro and anti-evolution sides.  He noted that with rhetoric, we often create artificial dichotomies.  For example, on page 6 he gives an example from the movie Mary Poppins.  Male is shown in a positive light, and female in a negative light in the movie .  The father wants to have the children break from “sugary female thinking.”

Often we use these dichotomies to prop our position, while showing the opposing side in a negative light.  This is the case with evolution/creation.  He also notes that while 2 sides use the same words, these words have different definitions.  From page 9,

From a rhetorical perspective, a terminology battle can thus be seen, not as a stubborn refusal to accept correct definitions of terms, but as a power struggle between competing communities.  These communities try to convince other communities that their own word meanings make the best sense.  The problem is that in a culture based on Enlightenment conceptions of a universal reasoning faculty in humans, people do not ask, “Best sense according to whom?”  In effect, the terminology battle becomes a battle about worldviews.  Those who win this battle attain the power to define the terms from within their own worldview for the culture as a whole.

His book has just 5 chapters.

1. Introduction
2. Beginnings of the Creation/Evolution Controversy
3. Bryan and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial
4. The Arkansas Creation-Science Trial
5. Conclusion

He goes into great detail into the 2 trials mentioned above, discussing witness testimony and the lawyers involved in the cases.  I was especially interested as he discussed the Biblical inerrancy during the Scopes trial.  I hadn’t realized that the evolution controversy played a significant role in this debate.  From page 62,

This notion of irreconcilable conflict between creation and evolution depends on the concept of biblical inerrancy, which developed late in the nineteenth century in the United States as an important theological position and a historical key to American fundamentalism.²⁹ James Barr defines biblical inerrancy as the belief that the Bible is free of error of any kind.  He writes “The inerrancy of the Bible, the entire Bible including its details, is indeed the constant principle of rationality within fundamentalism.”³⁰ This position on the Bible grounds all fundamentalists arguments; it is the measure–albeit a very narrow one, which is fraught with many disturbing implications for nonfundamentalists–of reasonableness itself.  In evaluating a statement for its truth, fundamentalists compare the statement to the Bible, resolving any conflict between the two by rejecting the statement and keeping the Bible.

It seems to me that fundamentalists have painted themselves into a corner with this notion of biblical inerrancy.  For example, did God really create the earth in 6 24-hour days?  I think most people don’t believe that, but there are some hard core people that apparently do.

While creationists won the battle at the Scopes trial (Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution, and many other southern states adopted similar laws as Tennessee to prevent evolution from being taught), it appears that they are losing the war.    We all know that evolution is taught in biology, and few textbooks mention creationism.  I wasn’t aware of the Arkansas battle in 1981; fundamentalists wanted to include creation science in the textbooks as well as evolution but were defeated.

I think it is funny that the two sides have created a dichotomy between evolution and creation.  Why can’t God use evolution?  Smout notes this conundrum as well, and notes that the two sides are continuing to battle as if there is no middle ground.  I liked Kary’s conclusion on page 186-7,

I finally agree more with the evolutionists than the creationists, but I do not want the creationists to give up the fight.  I am increasingly convinced that reason and knowledge are not the only bases on which to found a society, nor even that they are the best.  I am unsure that a strictly rational society it best.  How does one found a society on these values?  I doubt that either the creationists or the evolutionists will ever stop arguing so long as we have no simple way to know the truth beyond our own perceptions.  We in this pluralistic nation have had to continually deal with recurring tensions between professionalism and democracy, between the academy and other cultural institutions, between competing political philosophies, and between other differing persuasions, all arguing for, and from within, their own worldviews.  In this life, we walk by faith.  We must put our faith in those persuasions that seem most worthy of it.

So what do you think?  Must creation and evolution be at odds with each other?

Also, the conversation veered off the road on my Malay post, going into the space-time continuum.  So, since I like to compartmentalize things, I thought I’d open up a new post where space-time continuum, advanced civilizations, etc can be talked about.  So, this is basically a science post where you can post anything to do with science vs religion.  I don’t care about threadjacking here, as long as it shows some reference to science.  I do want to pull a quote from Nachminides, as we start this discussion.  I posted this previously on my DNA post:

“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

So, Bishop Rick, before you get started on Evolution/Creation, please read this blog post from S Faux, Biblical Genesis Corresponds with Evolution. I’m no expert, but Faux is an LDS professor at a university in the midwest.  I think he presents a pretty compelling argument, especially for those like you who view the creation story as non-literal.

For those wanting to discuss space-time continuum, feel free to continue the discussion here.  (I want to quote Doc Brown from Back to the Future, “1.21 jigga-watts!!!  He mispronounces it badly, it should be giga-watts.)  Perhaps we need a flux capacitor to truly understand all the implications of the Theory of Relativity.  Star Trek handles time travel pretty well too, and can go back or forward in time relatively easily.  Of course, don’t forget Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure!  Someone mentioned that people don’t go into the future, but I think that is because we have no idea what needs fixing in the future.  It’s much easier to look on the past and fix that instead.

Anyway, I think science and religion ARE compatible, but sometimes it is hard to see how.

So is it possible to be a faithful scientist?  What happens when it seems threatening to your church?

Science and Religion are opposed:

• We should have a discussion sometime about Scholarship and Apologetics. (and how never the twain shall meet)

• Apologetics: Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position, system or institution.

• Scholarship: Knowledge resulting from study and research in a particular field.

• These two ideas are actually opposed to each other. One draws on the information to form the knowledge, the other defends the idea, often formed before the defender was ever born. When I typed these two words side by side into Google. I found that of the top 10 websites that came up. Six were Mormon.

While I agree that there can be some tension, I think that there can be a middle ground, and I am going to propose that apologetics and scholarship can influence each other.  We are all familiar with common examples of scholarship affecting apologetics:  Columbus proving the world is not flat, Galileo proving that the sun is the center of the universe and not the earth, but few scientists will talk about how apologetics can influence scholarship.

I wanted to provide some formal definitions for these two terms.  Here’s what I found from the dictionary.com website, and it pretty much agrees with Book1830′s definitions, although I wanted to add the theology part to the definition.

American Heritage Dictionary

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

schol·ar·ship /ˈskɒlərˌʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[skol-er-ship]

Here are some recent examples of how apologetics has influenced scholarship.

Sodom and Gomorrah.

Many scientists have claimed that the story in Genesis of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are a complete myth.  The story of Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt seems to support this mythical story.  There is no evidence that the cities exist near the Dead Sea, and the story of God destroying the city by fire and brimstone seems very mythical.

However, some scientists in Jordan have found “five cities of the plain” on the eastern edge of the Dead Sea in what is now the country of Jordan.  There is an episode of Digging For the Truth which explores this claim.  While there are 3 different theories claiming to know where these lost cities of the plain are, the most compelling site is in this episode.  So, it seems apologetics is debunking the myths

King David

Outside of the Bible, there has been no evidence that King David (the one who killed Goliath) existed, prompting some scholars to question the historicity of David.  However in 1993, the Tel Dan Stele was found, where an Assyrian claims to have defeated “the House of David.”  This is the first non-biblical reference to David, and though it is an indirect reference, it seems to lend some credibility to the Bible.  More information can be found in this episode of Mysteries of the Bible.

I could list other references, but I’ll stop here.  While I agree with Book1830′s contention that religion and science can conflict, I think that they can come to accomodations of each other’s point of view.  Comments?

I thought I’d post the more egregious errors here, instead of going section by section as I had originally intended to do.  I just checked the site, and got a chuckle out of this little exchange:

On May 29th, 2008 reds0xfan (not verified) says:

I’ve searched all over your website, and can’t understand your rationale for why the lands are 75 x 120 miles wide. Please provide a reference as to how you came to this conclusion. Saying “Please read the site, it is very clear.” is not helpful. Please be more specific as to what page(s) you are referring to.

On May 29th, 2008 admin says:

Measure Erie, PA to Rochester, NY.

You call that justification?  In the “Errors” section, you said people should figure the internal map first, and then you did just the opposite.  Puhleeez.

Here are some unanswered questions of the theory, along with some other points.

1. Is seismic activity normal for NY?  A catastrophic earthquake from 2000 years ago would provide great evidence for your theory.  Does the evidence exist?
2. The website never addresses the issues of cement.  The author says that the only extravagant building mentioned is Noah’s palace, but Nephi says his temple was after the manner of Solomon’s temple.  Shouldn’t a cement building last longer than wood?
3. Lake Tonawanda is from wrong time period.  10,000 BC is not same as 600 BC.
4. The author calls Genessee River Gorge a “sea.”  Seems more like a river….
5. Where are bones from last battles?  Mass graves?  Weapons?
6. Why did Moroni bury plates in a war zone (Cumorah)?  Wouldn’t it have been easier/safer to bury them away from the fighting?
7. The author attacks Evolution, when he means to attack Carbon Dating.  Evolutionists didn’t create carbon dating, chemists did.  He is attacking the wrong scientists when he says mammoth is from 600 BC not 10,000 BC.  Whether he chooses to attack evolutionists, or carbon daters, he’s not just fighting uphill, he’s fighting up a cliff.
8. Does Geology say Niagara Falls rose/fell 2000 years ago?  I don’t think so.
9. Archaeological Evidence Section should be renamed “Archeological Speculation”.  There is absolutely no evidence in this section.  Perhaps it is plausible, but a prosecutor would be fired if he referred to these things as evidence.
10. “pre-historic stone age savage” does not describe the more civilized Nephites/Lamanites who fought with iron.
11. Seneca and Iroquois do not date to BoM times.  I know you did not mean to imply this, but it is easy for the reader to make this leap.
12. Where is the evidence for barley, wheat, other grains?
13. Why is there no mention of DNA evidence?

I’m happy to discuss these problems, but it seems like the crickets are chirping too loud for me to hear any rebuttals…

So how do people reconcile evolution with creationism? What do you think about “intelligent design”?