Posts
Book of Mormon Scholarship as an Elias for Evolution
By the early twentieth century it was becoming clear that the ancient Americas were largely inhabited by people with no apparent connection to Lehi or the Middle East. This clashed with the common view of the Book of Mormon as a history of the entire Western Hemisphere. However, some argued that the text of the Book of Mormon supported, or even demanded, a more limited geography. This view now seems to be dominant among LDS scholars and is advocated in publications by FARMS and FAIR.
This scaled-back view of the Book of Mormon is much easier to reconcile with science, especially as DNA evidence has shown Native Americans to have a significant genetic link to Asia. However, this view also runs into difficulties with the text of the Book of Mormon, which never mentions any people not derived from the Middle East. To resolve this problem it is argued that the Book of Mormon was an ethnocentric account, and that the text contains clues pointing to the existence of outsiders.
We face a similar problem in reconciling the science supporting human evolution with the scriptural belief that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans, and that all people are descended from them. Science has little to say about whether Adam and Eve were historical figures, but it does have something to say about where humans have lived and when, and it also has something to say about our genetic diversity. Rather than go into details now, suffice it to say that from a scientific standpoint, the notion that Adam and Eve are the exclusive ancestors of all people just isn't feasible.
It may be that Book of Mormon scholarship has prepared the way. One potential resolution to this conflict is to apply the same kinds of arguments as those made for a limited Book of Mormon geography. That is, that the account of Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants is an ethnocentric one focusing on the founding parents of the first gospel dispensation and God's covenant people, and that although the text is silent on the existence of others, their existence can reasonably be inferred from (or is at least allowed by) the text. This kind of argument preserves the historicity of Adam and Eve as well as their importance as the leading patriarch and matriarch of the human family while freeing us to accept the broad outlines of human history made clear through archaeology and genetics.
In forthcoming posts I'll sketch out a little more of what I think this argument might look like.
Posts in this series:
Before Adam
Adam and Eve: Reading Between the Lines
Some First Parents are More First than Others
Michael Ash on Lineage Histories
The Family of Adam
The First Man
16 comments:
I am looking forward to this series.
oooh...
I'm waiting with baited breath. I have been pondering this very topic quite a bit of late.
Excellent observations.
Articles I read indicate that humans are much less genetically diverse than other primates (or other mammalian species). True, I don't think that means we evolved from a single set of human parents, but I would be interested in your account.
Personally, I get MUCH more out of the scriptures from symbolic and figurative interpretation than I do from literal interpretation. The primary exception is that I literally accept the death and resurrection of Jesus. (I do not know yet how to put that event in strict scientific terms).
"This scaled-back view of the Book of Mormon is much easier to reconcile with science,...."
False claims can always be made compatible with data by reducing the scope of those claims just enough to evade contradiction. That's not to suggest that Book of Mormon historicity claims are necessarily false, but if they are to be given a scientific grounding, there has to be some scope to them below which the claims are less compatible with the data rather than more. If the claims can be arbitrarily reduced in scope without contradicting the data, then they become empirically indistinguishable from the null hypothesis.
The same applies to harmonizing the scriptures and evolution (or anything else). Harmonization is always possible if you reduce the scope of the claims just enough.
Anthony,
I think what you say would be true if making the BoM compatible with science were the ONLY reason for taking a smaller scope, but I don't think this is the case. In other words, I don't think the limited geography models are ENTIRELY ad hoc in nature since I believe that the most careful reading of the book suggests a more limited model independent of the scientific data.
Anthony,
Your point is well taken and I agree with you (although see Jeff G). Of course, this is not a purely
scientific discussion.
"Harmonization is always possible if you reduce the scope of the claims just enough."
In this case the counter-balance is the integrity of what we are harmonizing with science. In other words, does the reduction in scope fatally violate the integrity of the essence of the claims?
"does the reduction in scope fatally violate the integrity of the essence of the claims?"
Good question. Due to our flexibility in interpreting scripture, I'm unable to identify the essence of the claims. Seems to be a moving target.
I agree that it's a bit of a subjective judgment. For example, some people are fine with a non-historical Book of Mormon, but probably most people are not. Each person's wall of faith will be placed differently.
I agree with Jeff G regarding the scaling down of the claims for the BofM. But I don't see how it can also be correctly used to reconcile A&E and evolution. Granted, the evidence hasn't been presented yet so I cannot evaluate the claim. For example, if the creation story only covers the events surrounding A&E, and there were other "people" with whom the tale is not concerned, how do you reconcile it with the teaching that death was not brought to the world until after the fall?
Dave,
I hate to disappoint you, but my focus will be on Adam and Eve post-Garden of Eden. I hope you'll be interested anyway.
The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden is highly figurative. In my view, trying to reconcile a figurative story with science is pointless. Several years ago I wrote this. I still stand by it.
As for no death before the Fall, my view is closer to James E. Talmage. (See here for a brief introduction.)
By the way, you might want to consider modifying your alias to avoid confusion with Dave of Dave's Mormon Inquiry. He's one of the longest and most established bloggers in the bloggernacle. Just a friendly suggestion.
Hi Jeff G.,
I agree that you can make a case for limited geography from BoM internal evidence, but part of my criticism is that there's no clear minimum geography. Additionally, there are a lot of shrinking claims beyond just geography: genetic impact, linguistic impact, metallurgy, transport vehicles, domestic animals, etc. The reinterpretation and/or reduction of these claims to fit whatever evidence is currently available seem pretty ad hoc to me.
Wow,
Thanks for the follow up. I was not aware of E. Talmage's thoughts on the matter. Very enlightening
I'm not disappointed at all on focusing post-garden. I'm sure it will be intriguing. I'm fairly new to the bloggernacle so I didn't even know that other one ("Mormons and Evolution") existed. I'm definitely going to check that one out more.
btw, is this a better alias? :-)
Dave @ B,
If you weren't familiar with Talmage's views, then you have a lot to read, my friend. I've been working on a recommended reading list; maybe I'll move it up a few notches in priority.
The M&E blog has not been active for several years now, but do look around.
Your new alias isn't as easy to type, but it definitely uniquely identifies you.
I would love to see that reading list.
I'll admit the only thing I've read by Talmage is Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith. I absolutely loved both books and really respect what he has to say on any topic.
I recently tried to find what Nibley felt on the matter but I wasn't really able to discover anything. What I did find seemed to indicate he wasn't a supporter of the idea of evolution, but I wonder if he would've felt differently given the current state of science.
D.H. (formerly Dave @ B)
I think that something like this must be right. The recent evidence that European (not Asian or African) linages have Neanderthal DNA support this kind of notion. Keep up the good work. I'm looking forward to the rest of these!
@ SteveP
From the May 7 issue of Science:
"By comparing this composite Neandertal genome with the complete genomes of five living humans from different parts of the world, the researchers found that both Europeans and Asians share 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neandertals."
Post a Comment