In our youth, children are isolated to one-sided opinions. It is only through education and the exposure to new things can people discover how multi-faceted our society is. For my political poster, I chose the subjects of evolution and Christianity (in particular, Mormonism). When I was in sixth grade, our class began to learn about human evolution. It was my belief that Mormons should shun this theory, which I readily did. It was not until eight grade that I started to reexamine my beliefs and ask other members about their views on evolution. Through my series of inquiries, I was able to educate myself to fully understand the complexities of the matter and reconcile two ideas that I had thought were contradictory.
When we are young, the way we express ourselves is influenced by our experiences. A Nigerian woman named Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie delivered a TED talk named "The Danger of a Single Story." Adichie explained that she read British and American literature with blonde and blue eyed characters who ate apples and commented on the weather. Reflexively, Adichie would right stories about blonde and blue eyed characters even though her community was not made up of any of these individuals. Adichie noted,"What this demonstrates, I think, is how impressionable and vulnerable we are in the face of a story, particularly as children. Because all I had read were books in which characters were foreign, I had become convinced that books by their very nature had to have foreigners in them and had to be about things with which I could not personally identify." It is fortunate that Adichie went on to discover new things, or else she would still be writing about white children eating apples commenting on the weather. It is through our exploration of the unknown that we may heighten our understanding of our community and ourselves.
In a news story from Christianity Today titled "Creation of Evolution? Yes!", Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, was interviewed concerning his thoughts on his Christen faith and Darwin's theories. Collins noted that God is not limited by space or time and he finds that our discoveries of the evolutionary creative process are completely in line with the Scriptures. Collins was then asked, "If evolution is true, don't atheists have a point?" Collins then answered, "No...This leaves out profoundly important spiritual questions, such as why we are here, if there is a God, and what happens after we die. Those are questions that science is not really designed to answer. You have to look in another place, using another kind of approach. And for me that's faith." To believe in evolution does not make one an atheist. It can simply means that they consider evolution to be the path by which God took to create man.
Considering this path has not been condemned by the LDS church. In fact, the theory of evolution has been widely discussed as a possible means of the Creation among prevailing church members. There have been several statements throughout the years that make it clear that man was created in the image of God, but it is unclear as to how Heavenly Father accomplished this. In my poster, there is a Darwin fish and the angel Moroni kneeling down, extending an arm to the creature. This depiction reflect my reconciliation between my faith and my belief in evolution and how they can work in tandem. I chose the quote, "...all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have a love one to another" because if members are followers of Christ, they will be accepting and loving of our different beliefs. So much hate crime has been produced out of disagreements among Christians and evolutionists. It is a contradiction for members to hate people for their believes since Jesus so often preached the opposite action. Our prophets leave it open to our own interpretation of the scriptures and science to decide how humankind came about. This open interpretation allows us to investigate avenues of understanding we may not have attempted to tread before.
It is understandable that we parrot our parents' opinions when we are young. However, as we mature and discover different patterns of thought, one must come to their own view of the world and how things have come to be. The power of a single story is great, but the might of many stories is even greater.
a related poster


Facebook comments:
ReplyDeleteRenee--
"Maybe we didn't evolve from monkeys, but we can't deny the fact that organisms are constantly changing and species are moving in different directions from generation to generation. I mean, look at the human height average and human lifespan over the past 100 years. I guess that does in a sense contradict the whole "made in His image" idea though."
Scotty--
"It depends on what religious beliefs you have, and what specifically about evolution theor(ies) you are talking about. I believe that several LDS general authorities has said that things do change over time, so in that sense evolution and our religion are ok with eachother. However, it is clear doctrine that we believe that Adam & Eve were created and didn't evolve from monkeys; so here they diverge. Also, Rene'e, made in his image does not mean a carbon copy of God, so just because people have changed a bit doesn't mean that we are not in his image. Also, what would be different enough to classify as not his image? Height, build, skin color, etc? I don't really have any answers to that.
Elder Scott talks about knowledge in one of his talks very precisely. There is knowledge gained by spiritual, and by scientific, means. But both are by different ways, and carry certain confidences & certainties/uncertainties. He says that spiritual things can be known for absolute sure, whereas scientific is base upon theories which seem likely but which are always subject to re-evaluation based upon new knowledge and findings."
Jon--
ReplyDelete"Hey I'd love to read a talk where it is stated that Adam and Eve didn't come as a result of some kind of evolution. God said that Adam was the first "Man". What does man imply? Does he have to have been created out of the dust of the ground to be the first man. What if dust is symbolism for evolution and the organisms that eventually evolved. Evolution is virtually irrefutable, so how do we put evolution and religion at peace with one another? We can't deny God's workings according to the laws of Biology, he isn't magical. That does not mean he can't do many things in the snap of a finger, he IS all powerful. But for me I personally believe that Adam and Eve were a result of evolution."
Julia--
"I agree with Scotty, evolution is possible, even probable in some aspects, but when it comes to Adam and Eve the doctrine is clear and it is not the result of evolution. We follow in the 'pattern of our parentage' and our parents are from human lineage not monkey, but rather a Heavenly Father and mother. Here is a link to the talk I am referring to:
https://www.lds.org/.../10/the-pattern-of-our-parentage...
If you are looking for a specific instance where they say its not possible, I at least can't find it. Even within the church it is a hotly debated topic-Elder James E. Talmage and President Joseph Fielding Smith even came to a fairly dramatic disagreement on it. So ultimately, the church has made statements saying we have no definitive stance on 'pre-adamites'.
Gordon B. Hinkley made the statement ""What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'" President Hinckley added that scientists can speculate on the rest, and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, "Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now."
I think this statement is the material point. Adam and Even were the first of the HUMAN race, and that is doctrine. BUT we can delve further into research and make our own decisions on other aspects-regardless though we can't let it worry us to the point it affects other truths, sending us into a spiral of sorts, ya know? Here is the link to that article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/...
The fact is as much as it bothers us, there are things that we just aren't going to know in this life and it comes down trust for me. Do we trust God enough to accept that we might not know the answers, but that they are there? I think if our lack of definitive answers one way or the other gets in the way of our trust or faith, thats when it becomes a dangerous road to go down with evolution. If you can go into researching this with that in mind, I see no problem whatsoever. Ya feel me?
Also, sorry for the novel. Haha."
McKay--
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Julia, you (and everyone else here) have a superb attitude towards the subject. Many scientists say there is no evidence for God or Adam or the such, but I think the Gospel teaches us to accept what we know without letting go of what we don't know.
That being said, I have found that my belief in doctrine and my understanding of empirical evidence isn't at odds. Two things help me here: Science is wholly contained within the physical and natural realm; purpose, destiny, morality, and my potential and divine heritage (along with a slew of other topics) are not wholly physical and cannot be adequately pinned down by science. On the other hand, I think that our ancient prophets were writing entirely within their context, culture and understanding; there were very likely experiences that they were not able (or not allowed) to write down adequately.
Think of how difficult it is for us, with modern English and hundreds of years of scientific testing, to articulate Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity. If Moses saw everything, surely he saw evolution: likely it wasn't important to his (or our) eternal salvation, and therefor he didn't care to articulate it."
Scotty Pt.1--
ReplyDelete"Also to agree with Julia, "but when it comes to Adam and Eve the doctrine is clear and it is not the result of evolution." Indeed,there have been many general authorities (although not official church statements per say) that suggest, but not stated as doctrine, that life probably existed in some forms for a while before Adam, and that the creation was not 7 literal days, but 7 creative periods, culminating in the eventual creation (not evolution) of Adam.
Now to address some of the rhetorical questions that you brought up @Jon Northrup, but I will actually do my best to answer them, just know that I am not perfect or all knowing in these matters. That would be God.
Dust is not a Hebrew symbol of organism or evolution. Rather, it denotes lowliness, humility, etc -- the point of symbolism is to teach principles; in this case one of the principles we need to learn is that we are nothing with out God, or are as the dust of the earth without him. I will also check my gospel symbolism books when I get home for more on "dust."
Indeed, God works within the Laws of Physics (Biology being a subset of those), but we would be a fool to think that we know all of the laws that God does. For instance, basically every miracle that Jesus performed. They happened. This is a doctrinal belief of ours that many scientists do not share. Anyways, miracles seem to be a contradiction of science, but rather God is using things that we don't know about. The same could be said about creation, biology, & evolution. Slight shift in the gene pool happens naturally, but that does not prevent God from creating life from scratch. We might not be able to or know how, but God does. So this is how we "put evolution and religion at peace with one another" as you posed the question, recognizing that "God[] work[]s according to the laws of Biology, [and] isn't magical." To me, creation, priesthood power, miracles are all one in the same -- God has more power and/because he knows so much more about the fundamental rules of the universe than we do.
As for another question you posed, *I* would say (not doctrinal, but personal opinion), that "man implies" a sentient being made in the likeness of God. Where the lines is drawn between Man and animal I don't not have the knowledge to answer that. God I am sure knows, but I do not..."
Scotty Pt.2--
ReplyDelete"Now, as for your original request, I could not find a GA saying percisely what you asked for, but, here are some links to resources that basically point out 1) if we accept the atonement we must accept the creation and not the evolution of Adam, and 2) that God purposely created Adam and Eve.
A talk by McConkie that addresses 1 & 2:
http://www.lds.org/.../1984/10/the-caravan-moves-on...
Under the "Test Two" for how we can be saved: "There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall. True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death." Granted, this does disagree a bit with my paragraph #1, but the point not being whether or nor any lifeforms might have existed before Eden and gone extinct, but rather was Adam created or evolved.
A part from a OT teaching manual, with multiple quotes from church leaders:
http://www.lds.org/.../genesis-1-2-the-creation...
About 3/4ths of the way down is where you will find the following quote, under "Points to Consider;" actually, the entire thing is great reading:
"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.… I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory 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"
Now then, sure you could probably find some loopholes in the quotes I found here, but I feel as if the spirit of what they are trying to say is that man was created not evolved. The audience is key here. They are probably talking to church members, and so not every single thing must be 110% closed off as if you were talking to a group of lawyers. Sure, they could have been super uber exact in their language, but that would have been so much more verbose, taken many times as long, and the Spirit of what they were saying would be lost by them trying to cover every single base when their end goal was not to give some deep doctrine lecture but rather to build faith in Christ.
Anyways, these are my further thoughts on how the gospel & evolution can be harmonized, but how the creation of Adam was a creation and not an evolution."
Andrew--
ReplyDelete"My short answer would be no, but the long answer has already been discussed fairly well here I would say. Some LDS leadership statements and publications have been strongly opposed to it, while others have been much more open to it. As long as this is an LDS discussion (it appears to be), and the church officially takes no position, it falls to personal study and revelation.
There is a lot of evidence fore evolution and it grows everyday, but religious testimonies are built on evidence as well, and can be just as strong. Just because i don't understand all the details of how the two fit together doesn't make them incompatible or contradictory, nor does it force me to reject either one."
Jon--
ReplyDeleteAgreed Mckay well put. At BYU-I they want everyone to go through a course helping us to understand evolution, at first my instinct was to completely reject it and let it affect me, then I had to come to terms with it. Our professor would often tell us evolution is irrefutable, but our reaction to it and how we respond to it in terms of our religion is up to us. I really don't know how it exactly come together.
For me however, I think the picture to the left is really talking about whether a belief in God or a belief in Darwinism can still yield moral thought and righteous action. Whether they conflict, with one another, or have nothing to do with one another."
McKay--
ReplyDelete"I'll be honest, I'm more on the side of "Adam was physically evolved". I say "more on the side of" because until it gets a First Presidency stamp of approval and I get a spiritual confirmation, I'm not going to bet my eternal salvation on picking a side. However, the best way that I've been able to put all of the ideas as I know them is to say "Adam was physically (albeit providentially) evolved and spiritually created, the same way I was." I'll leave it at that, because there is no need to debate, but I wholly leave each individual to frame their own view of the world."
Richard--
"Great question, Mel - As a biologist who has studied evolutionary genetics I can understand the concept of proteins being generated by electrical discharges through the primordial soup, and advance from single cell organisms to complex organisms through natural selection. What I have trouble with is the jump from simple proteins to a single cell. Explain that one to me without Intelligent Design. I see the need for deity to make the first cell, and I can imagine guidance from-time-to-time to mold a final outcome. I'll look forward to talking to you about it sometime."
Andrew T--
ReplyDelete"No difference. I believe in evolution, but I believe god created all things that eventually had the potential to evolve."
I love that TED Talk (saw it last summer), and your poster, and this post!
ReplyDelete