Answer: There is none.
Concerning evolution (and many other things we will eventually get around to covering), there have been varied opinions from high-level Church leaders as well as lay members. If you want some quotes to support evolution, they’re there. If you want some quotes denying evolution as a trick of Satan, they are there too. In reality, the First Presidency has not officially released anything concerning evolution since 1925, and even that didn’t really say much. The more recent Proclamation on the Family also doesn’t actually address this either, and as per the recent edit to Elder Packer’s conference talk, may or may not even be an “official” revelation. When President Hinckley was asked his thoughts, he replied, “People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago.” Kind of a non-answer.
So, it begs the question: Why are we even talking about science and religion? Shouldn’t we be talking about faith-promoting experiences? Are we just distracting each other from Christ and other things that are our real purpose for mortality? And if we are talking about science and religion, where will those answers come from? Some random people posting some ideas and comments on a website? President Kimball stated: “we don’t know exactly how [Adam and Eve’s] coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.” But when we are “supposed” to know, will it come as revelation from a prophet? Will it come through scientists? Will we actually never know in mortality?
As I mentioned in a reply to the first post, I have thought a lot about this over the years. Why do I persist in coming back to this topic? I briefly mentioned 3 things that have kept me going forward:
- I can’t help myself. I love science. I love thinking about these types of questions and my mind always twists back to them. Like the early members of the Church, I am optimistic that there is a “truth” that makes sense. The search keeps me going.
- We are in good company. From the time of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, learning has been actively encouraged. From the Institute manual: The Doctrine and Covenants makes it very clear that the Lord intends for His people to be well educated: “Seek not for riches but for wisdom” ( D&C 6:7 ; 11:7 ). “Teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” ( D&C 88:77 ). “Teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” ( D&C 88:118 ). “Study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people” ( D&C 90:15 ). “Obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man” ( D&C 93:53 ). “Let every man learn his duty” ( D&C 107:99 ). “Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom” ( D&C 136:32 ). Church leaders have always taught the importance of obtaining knowledge and the great effect it has on one’s progression. President Brigham Young said that “the religion embraced by the Latter-day Saints, if only slightly understood, prompts them to search diligently after knowledge. There is no other people in existence more eager to see, hear, learn, and understand truth.” ( Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 247.) He also said: “It is the duty of the Latter-day Saints according to the revelations, to give their children the best education that can be procured, both from the books of the world and the revelations of the Lord” (in Journal of Discourses, 17:45).
- But most importantly for me, there are many religious “traditions” about science taught as “truth” to our children. These are taught in Primary and Sunday School and Seminary. Where science might disagree with what someone thinks is “truth”, our children are taught that it is a “trick of Satan” or else that there is a “godless scientist” behind it. At some point, when they go to high school or college or some web site, they are going to encounter scientific facts that perhaps run counter to some of the things they have learned. I worry that any resulting cognitive dissonance will cause them to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Therefore, we need to address these things straight on. We need to show people it is possible to embrace science yet still have faith. We need to wrestle with the hard questions. That is a big motivation for me.
So that’s the why.
As we go forward through this series, there are a few assumptions I will make:
- Truth Exists. I have faith that there is a reality, although our perceptions of it may change. There may be quirks that are currently past our understanding. But “it” is out there somewhere. If there is no “truth” to discover, than the whole point of trying to discover it is meaningless (unless we discover the “emptiness” underlying reality – but that’s a whole different tangent).
- God is NOT Trying to Trick Us. Our ways are not God’s ways, but at the same time, I assume He doesn’t do things to trick us. If there are dinosaur bones there, they weren’t placed there to “test our faith”. Our understanding regarding them may change, but they are echoes of what actually happened in the past.
- As we progress, we are getting CLOSER to the truth. We are told that knowledge will flood the earth in ALL subjects – not just religion. There may always be temporary detours, which ultimately get corrected, but I assume that we are generally getting closer to discovering reality as opposed to going in the wrong direction. Look at our understanding of the sun: Pulled by a god in a chariot -> glowing light revolving around earth -> star around which earth revolves -> burning fire which would exhaust fuel -> mysterious star sustained by nuclear fusion -> orbiting satellites watching the “weather” on the sun to warn operators of power grids if a “storm” is headed our way.
So, discussing science in the context of religion is very important. There are controversial areas, but it is still important to discuss these areas. And as knowledge has progressed over the millennia at an ever increasing rate, we are getting further along in our understanding of the world and universe.
Questions:
- Should we be discussing science and religion, or is it distracting us from “things of God”?
- If there is revelation about these areas, through what “conduit” will we receive it? Will we receive knowledge about science/religion through a prophet or a scientist?
- Is there a danger in teaching “traditional” interpretations that might be at odds with modern scientific views?
- Has anyone encountered a blow to their faith from things they learned in a classroom? How have you balanced that?
- Are these assumptions valid as we go forward?
(NOTE: This is #2 in a multi-part series which starts here. Parts 3 and 4 are going to discuss the Scientific Search for Truth and the Religious Search for Truth)
Wheat & Tares 
Truth Exists.
You’re in trouble right there. The “truth” that we are taught to seek by the church does not allow for a cat to be both dead and alive. You have to get everybody on the same definition of truth if you want to close any gaps.
I think the questions about science are important. I’ve made a similar argument about the historicity of the Book of Mormon as you’re posing here about evolution. These questions are not distractions from the call to follow Christ. Their answers potentially tell us important things about how to follow Christ, because they potentially change our understanding of how God has put reality together, what He is doing, and why He is doing it. It becomes an important check. for both ourselves and our leaders, against being deceived by emotions and good intentions.
Ah, but the truth requires that we learn how the cat can both be dead and alive.
Lemming:
I absolutely agree with you that “truth” can be a slippery subject. That’s why there are a few “introductory” posts in their series. The next post talks about how science has traditionally worked toward finding an understanding of truth. The post after that talks about how religion has worked towards finding an understanding of truth. Then there are posts that attempt to reconcile the two different ways – or as you already recognized is necessary, closing the gaps. Then we can get on the really fun stuff and actually start “arguing” about a bunch of different topics once the groundwork is set.
For the purpose of THIS post, my faith that “truth exists” means that something concrete actually happened (for now, leaving aside parallel worlds, quantum universes, etc). If there is a particular bone in the ground, for example, it got there a specific way. Was it an animal buried at that spot by a mudslide? Did God put it there as a trick to test us? Was it transported from another world as this one was created, almost like a recycle bin? Or is it something completely different? We can give our different theories and ideas, but my faith is that something SPECIFIC actually happened. We just need to figure out what.
The next two assumptions follow from this: if God is perfect, and God is trying to trick us, then we will NEVER be able to distinguish this from reality – it will be a perfect trick. So I have to assume that God will not TRICK us, because if He is, we will never know and this whole series is moot. And I also assume that our understanding is getting CLOSER to reality, as opposed to further away. We may not understand exactly how the bone got there, but we are closer now than in the past.
#1 and #3
Regarding dead and alive cats, there are future posts on the uncertainty principle being a fundamental and necessary part of mortality. We need to prove that we can still choose “correctly” when both choices might be equally valid.
I love people that love science. Great project.
At some point the LDS church will have to come to terms with it’s dogma’s, just like the Catholic Church did. So, I say we discuss it and create a healthy view on science before we get to a point of crisis.
I think SteveP’s article in Dialogue on Evolution demonstrates the need to consider the connections between science and religion. His article lays out the challenges that evolution poses to biblical christianity and also attempts to read Mormonism into that debate. Science suggests religiously significant questions.
Justin: I also agree that we will have to come to terms with dogma’s. The issue becomes a bit tricky given the Church’s philosophy. The “14 points” that were repeated twice in the latest conference suggest a prophet can say anything he wants, about anything he wants, which supersedes anything anyone else has said.
The problem comes with someone like Joseph Fielding Smith, for example. He said many things touching on the intersection of science and religion that at the end of the day were basically wrong.
How do we separate “correcting” some things that a prophet says from being a repudiation of other things that he says? Does it take a massive amount of evidence for the general church consensus to change (ie. bottom-up), or does it take a proclamation from a more recent prophet to correct a prior prophet (ie. top-down)?
Aaron R: I agree that there are quite significant questions between science and religion. I’m also excited as we go forward that there are a bunch of people around who have thought about, written about, and argued for/against these various issues. I’m looking forward to learning from everyone and it’s great that places like this exist to facilitate these discussions.
Should we be discussing science and religion, or is it distracting us from “things of God”? — You’ve made a great case for discussing the questions, and I agree with you. Should everyone do it? Probably not. For some, the most important thing is figuring out how to eat tomorrow. For another it may be preparing to go to the temple for the first time. But for another, it may be these very questions you are asking.
If there is revelation about these areas, through what “conduit” will we receive it? — Through whatever conduit God chooses. He has revealed truth through science, through prophets and even through poets.
Will we receive knowledge about science/religion through a prophet or a scientist? — Yes. Coming through one does not preclude the other.
Is there a danger in teaching “traditional” interpretations that might be at odds with modern scientific views? — Danger? Hmm. With respect to the concern for spiritually immature students who hear one version in Sunday School and another in science class, yes, there is a danger. I remember my own dissonance in high school over evolution. Crazy thing is, I don’t remember anyone specifically teaching me the “religious” view; had I spoken to my parents about my concerns, they would have helped me find a middle ground.
Has anyone encountered a blow to their faith from things they learned in a classroom? As mentioned, in high school (many years ago) I struggled with the science vs. religion view of evolution. It wasn’t until I got to BYU as a freshman that an honors course with a very pro-evolution biology professor helped me sort it out.
How have you balanced that? — I know now that there are many things I do not know. And I so I have learned to keep my mind open and to balance even conflicting views, trusting that understanding will one day come. I doubt very much that my salvation hangs on my understanding of creation mechanics, but if I were a geologist or biologist, then likely my professional training and skill would hang on it, and I would seek to master it.
Are these assumptions valid as we go forward? — While we accept the words of The Prophet (as in the president of the church), we also have the opportunity to learn on our own, to find our own understanding and testimony of those words. In the meantime, we may choose to act in faith. But acting in faith for me relates to how I make and keep covenants, how I interact with God and with my fellow man, and has less to do with intellectual exploration.
#11: Paul – Great comments. They mirror my views almost exactly.
Bad theology, even if only recognized as such after the fact, is usually associated with harmful, unchristian acts. To pick an example separate from the current discussion, think how Christians have mistreated Jews over the centuries by presuming that Jews were Christ-killers, and therefore less than other humans. If anything, the lesson of the atonement would argue that Jews were the BEST of humanity, therefore leaving NONE of us with any excuse. Yet, our bad theology made pogroms real.
Truth about the nature of spiritual and physical reality is something some of us ought to be pursuing with a full-court press as soon as issues present themselves, IMO, because their are real humans hurting in the meanwhile.
If creationism isn’t LDS doctrine, I wonder why Mormons have nearly the lowest acceptance of evolution among U.S. religions. (Only the Jehovah’s Witnesses are lower.) The study performed by the Pew Forum can be found here.
MoHoHawaii:
Like many things in the LDS Church, creationism isn’t “official” doctrine. Very realistically, however, there have been opinions published by ranking Church leaders that are accepted as de facto “doctrine” (ie. Mormon Doctrine, etc). Absent any delineation of “official” doctrine from the Church, many members therefore base their opinions on the opinions of people higher than them in the hierarchy – hence the results of polls like the Pew Forum.
In my opinion, this is a problem. It is a problem-fraught way to address many issues and is actually the purpose of this whole series.
Also, when we get to evolution and other topics in this series, I have much more granular information on actual LDS beliefs, broken down by LDS scientists vs active-LDS vs inactive-LDS vs seminary teachers, etc.
“I wonder why Mormons have nearly the lowest acceptance of evolution among U.S. religions” Same reason they are also probably high among global warming deniers. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
“I wonder why Mormons have nearly the lowest acceptance of evolution among U.S. religions”
Probably because Mormons’ religion has more influence on their overall thinking than average.
That is, for many people who are only slightly marinated in their religions, there may be less of a tendency for second-order religious teachings (like antievolution) to counter the standard cultural conventional wisdom, which holds (rightly, in this case) that evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection is the best explanation for the origin of species.
In the case of Mormonism, there has indisputably been a powerful school of thought that evolution is a Satanic deception. Even if the Church no longer teaches that (or even if it never officially did), that was one Mormon cultural influence on many Mormons. And since Mormon cultural influences may have a stronger influence on more-committed Mormons than, say, Baptist cultural influences have on more lukewarm Baptists, then it stands to reason that there would be more Baptists than Mormons who (notwithstanding that — I think — their movement is at least as unfriendly to evolution as Mormonism now is, if not much more so), you will see more Baptists following the general conventional wisdom on evolution than Mormons.
Looking at most people’s actual understanding of the principles of biology underlying evolution, I would say that most people who pride themselves on having the “right” opinions on evolution (unlike those idiot fundamentalists!) really have nothing to boast about. All they know is that evolution is what they’re supposed to believe in, because that’s what the conventional wisdom says. They would nod their heads knowingly if someone said we descend from monkeys, notwithstanding that of course that’s not remotely true. And they think punk eek is what proper old Brits experienced upon hearing the Clash.
Signed,
A flea-infested skeptic of the notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, who unlike most of the people who think said opinion is stupid actually knows positive feedbacks from the absorption spectrum.
…I wonder why Mormons have nearly the lowest acceptance of evolution among U.S. religions…
BRM: There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
JFS: …I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so….
Ezra Taft Benson: Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book (Book of Mormon) to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc
And the ultimate arbitrator of science and religion, Glenn Beck: I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species that’s developing into half-human?
Re 15, 16, 17– Interesting answers. To summarize, we have
A) Current LDS leaders have quit talking about the issue, so people rely on obsolete statements from earlier leaders.
B) Mormons have absorbed ideas about evolution as a side effect of broader cultural alignment with U.S. evangelicals.
C) Mormon belief is intense and literal; doctrines therefore are “sticky.”
I could believe all of these, but even with these explanations it still seems remarkable while the BYU biology dept openly teaches evolution a super-majority of Church members stay with creationism. That’s a big disconnect.
“punk eek” was actually first described by that great thinker Ernst Mayr, Thomas; and anyone who drives in the west and sees the massive aspen and pine tree die-off wrought by the spruce beetle–two generations get to nibble on a tree per year (previously only one) due to the already present warming, leading to death–and doesn’t understand the serious consequences of global warming needs more than sneering and slinging around a few sciency terms to make their case.
Not to mention that no self respecting punk would use the interjection “eek.”