Posts
Evolution is an Eternal Principle
Over at NDBF, R. Gary pits evolution against the Millennium: "Evolution requires death and, beginning with the Millennium, there will be no death anywhere on earth." Ergo, evolution will cease. However, this isn't quite right and it gives us an opportunity to think about this a little more in depth.
You only need three conditions for evolution to occur:
1. Variation in traits
2. Heritability of the variation
3. Differential reproduction (i.e. varying degrees of success in passing on the traits)
Natural selection gets most of the attention when it comes to #3, hence the association of evolution with death. (Well, fossils contribute to that, too.) But besides the fact that there is more to natural selection than death, natural selection is only one mechanism of evolution. There are others like sexual selection, where the preference of males or females for certain traits leads to those traits becoming more common. Another one is genetic drift, where simply by random luck some genes become prevalent and others disappear.
Death or no death, when it comes to the Millennium, will variation in traits cease? Will reproduction of those traits cease? Will all traits be maintained in the population in the same proportions? Unless you can answer 'yes' to one of those questions, there will be evolution.
The hymn "If You Could Hie to Kolob" says, "There is no end to race." As long as there is variation, heritability of variation, and differential perpetuation of that variation, there will be no end to evolution.
15 comments:
Jared*, you have a habit of making my day.
But what about appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, strawman?
Pretty much every aspect of our gospel doctrine is in conflict with evolution. When we are resurrected, we shall gain an immortal and perfect body not to be corrupted again. Lions shall lay with the lambs and shall not harm them. Death and disease shall be done away with. As far as I know, Darwinian evolution can't account for any of these changes.
Rob Osborn
Rob,
Darwinian evolution doesn't need to account for these changes. The only change it needs to account for is that which occurs from one generation to the next.
As far as the lion laying down with the lamb, I have long seen that as being a symbolism for the great amount of peace that will exist upon the earth among all nations. I cannot believe that a lion would truly lay next to a lamb and eat grass. Its body is not meant to eat grass, and forcing it to do so would be a harsh punishment, in my opinion.
But that being said, what's the difference between a plant and an animal, other than the fact that we can view emotions in one more quickly than in the other?
Casey, I don't suppose that there will be an end to those either.
Rob,
The law of supply and demand doesn't account for the fact that metal rusts. In other words, you are inappropriately mixing things.
"Over at NDBF, R. Gary pits evolution against the Millennium: "Evolution requires death and, beginning with the Millennium, there will be no death anywhere on earth." Ergo, evolution will cease. However, this isn't quite right and it gives us an opportunity to think about this a little more in depth."
Another thing that isn't quite right about R. Gary's post is that the Lord explained to Joseph Smith in D&C 63:50-51 and in D&C 101:30-31 that those alive during the Millennium would grow old and die; thus, there would be death during the Millennium. I tried to explain this in a comment to R. Gary's post but he refused to publish my comment. In fact, he's refused to publish several of my comments on several of his posts. He won't acknowledge scriptures or quotes from Apostles that disagree with him. The bottome line is, there will be death during the Millennium, thus saith the Lord.
What's odder is that the manual doesn't say there won't be death. It's clear there is death. It's just that the manner of the death will be different in that people will immediately be resurrected. But that's still dying!
Further contextually it clearly is about people. It's not saying that grass, mice and so forth won't die normally.
Interesting thoughts on evolution as it relates to the Millenium. I had never really thought about it that way before. Thanks for your great blog!
Jared*, first, of course, the LDS Church does use the words "no death" to describe one of the amazing Millennial conditions to come:
"No Death"
That's a heading in Gospel Principles. (Chapter 45, "The Millennium".) The sentence that follows this heading, introduces an important clarification:
"During the Millennium, there will be no death as we know it."
And yes, my post included this important sentence (click here). But let's expand our view just a bit and look at the sister manual to Gospel Principles which is used in less developed areas of the Church. It's titled Gospel Fundamentals and it says:
"During the Millennium, the earth will be as it was when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden." (Chapter 34, "The Millennium.")
The question becomes: What was the earth like before the Fall of Adam? Last month, I posted a selection of Church published statements by or approved by members of the First Presidency and Twelve about the the Millennial renewal of earth. It turns out they say there are some surprising similarities between conditions on the earth before Adam's Fall and conditions we'll see during the Millennium (click here).
Since my post prompted this post, I hope it's okay that I've included a couple of links to my blog. And I hope you and your family have a marvelous and wonderful holiday season!
Despite all of those quotes you've provided, R. Gary, Christ said, "Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye." He also said, " In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious."
You can quote anybody you want but since Christ said that people will grow old and die during the Millennium, that means there will be death and conditions will not be the same as they were before the fall. You can argue all you want but unless you have something that trumps what Christ taught to Joseph Smith, you can't win this debate.
Jared*, as noted in my comment this morning, Gospel Principles (Chapter 45) uses the words "no death" in a heading and in the sentence that follows that heading. Click here and notice the scripture verses referenced at the end of the paragraph (D&C 63:51 and D&C 101:29–31).
I'd really like to know why anyone would quote three of those four referenced verses, gleefully and blissfully claiming that the quoted verses disprove the unquoted fourth, which says:
D&C 101:29 "And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death."
Isn't this no death thing kind of splitting hairs? It seems like the confusion is in trying to express something we are not familiar with in terms that we are.
But Gary raises another interesting question. If in the Millennium, Earth will be just like it was in the Garden of Eden, then doesn't that mean (according to traditional interpretation) that there will be no reproduction? Or is the comparison between the Millennium and the Garden of Eden just that--a comparison, that shouldn't be taken too literally?
"During the Millennium, there will be no death as we know it."
"During the Millennium, the earth will be as it was when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden." (Chapter 34, "The Millennium.")
Interestingly this completely undermines the no death before the fall thesis, if you appeal to it. As others have noted, the scriptures are explicit that there is death in the Millennium but that the process of dying is different.
If this is how it also was during the garden then that entails that there was death prior to the fall. I don't think you've thought through the implications of claiming life prior to the fall is the same as in the millennium. Your appeal in particular to D&C 101:29 as the meaning of "no death" given the qualification in 30 seems to entail that there was death prior to the fall but merely that for humans the manner of dying was different (and maybe they lived longer).
So, R. Gary, are you claiming that one verse (D&C 101:29) disproves the other four (D&C 63:50-51 & 101:30-31)? I suppose if we read those verses closely, we will see that they claim there will be no death (permanent death) but that men will grow old and die (momentary death followed by resurrection). So, while people will continue to die, there will be no permanent death.
Also, if the conditions during the Millennium are identical to the conditions prior to the fall, which do we go with? No procreation, no death, and all things remaining as they were when they were created as the scriptures describe conditions prior to the fall or procreation, growth, and momentary death as the scriptures describe the conditions during the Millennium?
I thought genetic mutation depended on birth, not death. "No death" doesn't mean infinite life. My wife saw the translation process in a dream. The person starts glowing and they become brighter and brighter, then poof. They're gone.
Post a Comment