Our Family: religion

I'm going to wax philosophical for a moment. There's a lot wrong with the world today, but fortunately, its not as bad as many people make it out to be. I think a lot of what's wrong is due to a perceived conflict between "science" and "religion". Many people in the "religion" camp blame all that's wrong on a perceived creeping atheism and have harbored a major distrust in "science", even if the head's of that particular religion have either made no statements against, or have even made statements supporting, science. Many people in the "science" camp blame much of what's wrong with the world on the perceived atrocities caused in the name of a god or gods.

I personally think that both camps are partially to blame but that both should stop blaming the other. Much like how we need bipartisan/nonpartisan agreement in politics, science and religion need to, and can, work together. Its not science vs. religion, nor is it science OR religion. I believe that God is a God of science. He does not violate scientific laws of nature, rather He uses them to perform His work, however, He has access and and understanding of laws that we haven't figured out yet (a "higher law", so to speak).

If we, as a people, taught and everybody understood the scientific method/process, and if we embraced said principle, instead of fearing science or remaining in ignorance, the number of people that would fall for easily debunked ideas/claims would decrease dramatically. Likewise, the number of people that wasted money on products and services that claimed to be beneficial to health, when there is no scientific evidence to support such practices, would decrease dramatically.

Religion doesn't know everything, and needs to stop discouraging people from embracing science. Science doesn't know everything, but does its best to try to. However, it, too, needs to stop discouraging people from embracing religion. "Live and let live", as the saying goes. Science is not the enemy of religion. Neither is religion the enemy of science. By learning and embracing the scientific method, we can do our best to improve our lives, and the world, with the technology and science that God has provided to us to do so. This life is a time to learn all we can to prepare ourselves to return to meet God, and become like him. If we don't do it now, we will just have to learn the same things in the afterlife. Why not get it over with so we don't have to take the "remedial classes" in the afterlife, and we can jump straight into the advanced courses?

As I am a newcomer to the Bloggernacle, I was pleasantly surprised that I have been finding quite a bit of discussion on the topic of evolution and how it fits into the gospel. Having taken several biology courses, and even recently completing a course on Evolutionary Psychology, this has been a topic of great interest to me. Even though I have a solid testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel, and realize that only through prayer and manifestation of the Spirit can this be obtained, I tend to also think logically and scientifically. I am very aware that many in the Church feel that the two are not reconcilable and it is dangerous to discuss gospel topics from a scientific stand point.

I believe that God is a god of science and uses scientific truths/laws in his works (some, if not most, of the laws he uses are science that has not yet been revealed to man, and therefore appear miraculous. An example of this is electricity: lightning was a miracle until it was discovered how to harness the power of electricity to use for our purposes). I'm not trying to say that all of His scientific laws are able to be discovered during our sojourn here on earth, but they exist and someday, as we continue our education in life and in the life to come, part of our Eternal Progression will be able to be creators of worlds and we will need to know those laws.

Many members (most?) look at evidence provided by the earth and justify it away as a way for H.F. to test our faith: the geologic strata, as well as the fossil record says the earth is millions and millions of years old and evolution is how life came to be upon the earth, but its been only 6000 years since the Fall of Adam so therefore that must mean H.F. just put all that there to see if we would believe the Heresy of Darwin or the teachings of the Gospel. I, however, don't feel that is the case. In Alma 30, Alma is contending with Korihor, an Anti-Christ, who claims that he believes there is no God. In response, Alma declares:

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no ^aGod, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a ^atestimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

All things testify of God. All things. Some look at the "Golden Ratio / Fibonacci Sequence" as evidence of the existence of God. I whole heartedly agree; I think it is really amazing. I go one step further and declare that even the geologic strata and the fossil record testify of H.F. because they are the physical evidence that was left behind during His creative process.

Now, I don't even pretend to have all the answers. And the more I've been reading into the subject, the more questions are developed. For example: The fossil record is very clear that animals have evolved over eons. There is even the fossil record of pre-Homo sapien hominids. How do Neanderthals, Homo habilus, etc. fit into the scriptural doctrine that A&E were the first humans H.F created? (What is human? is Homo sapiens the only acceptable definition of 'human'? This question is discussed on this post over at MormonMatters. The author of which post, FireTag, has been helpful in directing me towards other sources for reading on this and other topics.

Even well known Mormon scholars have chimed in over the years (as to be expected) concerning this topic. Some pertinent opinions can be seen here (muchos thanks go out to Jared* over at LDS Science Review for the post and the subsequent conversation in the comment section). He also pointed me over to this blog that, although (he explained to me) is not used much, it is still full of valuable information.

One line of thinking (that, so far, I seem to be most aligned to) is this: The seven "days" of creation were who-knows-how-long periods of creations, not seven, 24-earth-hour periods. Additionally, we have no idea how long A&E were in the The Garden before they partook of the fruit and were thus cast-out. Therefore, It is possible that God set evolution in motion outside of the garden for the plants and animals found there. However, a major argument against that idea is that there was no death before The Fall.

2 Nephi 2:22:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Moses 6:48:

48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam ^afell, we are; and by his fall came ^bdeath; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

Many Church leaders have spoken in favor of the idea that this pertains to the whole earth. Many others (perhaps just as many) have spoken against this interpretation. Joseph F. Smith and B.H. Roberts, for example, were of the former opinion. While James E. Talmage, on the other hand, felt that was incorrect. The following I have taken from this website, also linked above (thanks again to Jared*).

One must also not overlook an earlier debate on the issue of "pre-Adamites" between Elder Brigham H. Roberts of the Seventy and then-Elder Joseph Fielding Smith was brought to an end at the instruction of the First Presidency. Part of the debate centered around whether there was death prior to the Fall. At the request of the First Presidency, Elder James E. Talmage gave a talk in the tabernacle, entitled "The Earth and Man." In it, he spoke of fossilized animals and plants and said:

These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.

With the approval of the First Presidency, this address was published in the Deseret News, as a Church pamphlet, and later in The Instructor.^[5] Clearly, then, a universal lack of death prior to the fall is not a necessary belief within the Church, since leaders and members have held both positions.

Another scholar, whose other work I find reliable and trustworthy, is Hugh Nibley. In the limited research I have done on my own, I have not found any definitive statements establishing his opinion on the matter. However, this site contains for download research notes and other unpublished works. This article was written by Nibley about archaeology and religion (admittedly, I have not read it yet). And this blog post also discusses the subject. Please correct me if I am interpreting it wrong, but it seems to me that he strongly disagrees with evolution. However, I can't help but wonder if his opinion would have changed with the ever increasing fossil evidence. He seems to be an honest and open scholar that would be slow to discredit the increasing evidence to support the theory of evolution.

So basically, I feel that evolution happened, and still happens. We have sufficient evidence to support that plants and animals have and are evolving. What I don't understand is how humans fit into it all. There is ample evidence to suggest that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominids over many eons. But the scriptures say that A&E were the first man and woman created. on a couple different occasions, there have been statements from the Catholic Church suggesting their doctrine is shifting over to an idea that the A&E story is more figurative and that H.F. let evolution occur until He decided to place a soul in a couple Homo sapiens and call them A&E and the first people. I don't personally believe that, but felt it pertinent to express one possible idea.

UPDATE: Ok, so there's a lot of discussion currently happening in the Bloggernacle about this subject, stuff being said faster than I can analyze it. After originally posting this, I was directed to more source material that shed new light on the subject in my mind. Allen, over at The Convergence of Science and Religion, directed me to an essay he wrote on this very subject. Fortunately for me, it was fairly easy reading and explained more fully. Basically, if I understand it well, the Fall of Adam, from a physical world standpoint, was not instantaneous, but took millions of years for life to evolve, etc. The basic timeline is:

God created a physical world that had no death. This world included the Garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve were placed in the garden and were thus immortal.

Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, and the immortal world was replaced by a mortal world, i.e. the Fall of Adam occurred, a fall from immortality to mortality.

The process of the world becoming mortal was not instantaneous. It took millions of years in earth time for God to create the mortal world via the natural laws that govern the mortal world, and God used evolution as one of his tools in creating the mortal world.

One paragraph from his essay further clarified it that mortal time is not the same as immortal time, the following really clarified the concept in my mind:

Am I saying that Adam and Eve just sat around for millions of years waiting for their mortal world to evolve? No, not at all. I expect the millions of years it took for the earth to evolve passed quickly for them, since time belongs to mortality and Adam and Eve were not yet mortal. Perhaps this time of waiting was the time between their partaking of the fruit and their leaving the Garden. In other words, they chose to become mortal, and a short time later, from their viewpoint, they inhabited the new mortal world. From our viewpoint, Adam and Eve chose to become mortal, and millions of years later, they inhabited the mortal world. In support of this difference in time, Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity teaches that time is variable, that a series of events might take a long time or a short time, depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

And then just yesterday, as I was pondering the above new information, I saw this discussion regarding what Nibley thought about evolution. Fortunately, it has a quote from FAIR that parrots my own beliefs, mentioned above, about Nibley: "The science has advanced substantially since Nibley's article, and so its scientific claims should no longer be considered current. However, his theologic and historic perspective is still useful."

So basically, although I have found answers for a lot of personal questions regarding this topic, and feel I have found a little bit of the "further light and knowledge" referenced in the title, I think I have dived in over my head trying to summarize it and present it from an interesting and fresh perspective in a blog post, when there are so many other voices out there that are doing a great job investigating this and presenting the material. However, I would like to put a question out there to anyone who may read this: How do you think A&E fit into the fossil/evolutionary record? please discuss.