Posts
The Church Takes the Pragmatic View
The Deseret News has a nice article on the teaching of evolution, particularly at BYU. I like this part:
Scott Trotter, spokesman for the LDS Church, offered further clarification:There are several ways to interpret that, but it's a whole lot better than it could have been, from my view.
“Science and religion are not at odds in our faith. We accept truth wherever it is found and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two.”
H/T: Gary at NDBF, who shows what the statement could have been.
14 comments:
Trotter's comment about "insufficient data" is right on target. I blogged about that earlier this year (here). And thanks, by the way, for the link!
That's a beautiful statement, one that I think Joseph Smith would be proud of. But we have a problem when so many GAs insist that evolution is an impossibility. How do we reconcile this?
Thanks - that is a short statement that is very profound.
I agree with Kevin. When thinking about something is completely restricted based on the words of many GAs, how on earth will that ever be reconciled?
Then again, maybe it's one of those things that the church will let fade into the past, without ever formally denouncing the words of past authorities. I know that this parrallel has been used before, but it reminds me of the priesthood ban and the many comments made in the past that were/are offensive to blacks. Sure, Pres Hinckley said that there is no room for discrimination in the church, but the church never issued a formal statement apologizing and/or repudiating those comments, nor will it ever, I believe.
The main point is, the relationship between blacks and the priesthood is understood differently now, and hopefully it will one day be the same with evolution.
I doubt we will ever have a full reconciliation in this life; I suspect that there will always be some tension. Nevertheless, it may be somewhat of a generational thing. Most of our GAs grew up in the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie era.
As for dealing with GA statements, I previously outlined some suggestions here.
It isn't just GA statements that need reconciling. It takes some mental gymnastics to reconcile the doctrine of the Fall with evolution, but it's possible to rationalize most anything by appealing to "insufficient information." Of course, science and scholarship search for what's probable rather than what's merely possible.
The chief problem with reconciling with the Fall is viewing it as a historical event affecting the whole planet. If you think of it instead as the state into which we are all born, a lot of the trouble goes away, IMO.
Jared,
I appreciate your saying that because that is in fact how I think of it. However, if I were to share that view in my Sunday School class, they'd look at me like Regan when she turns her head 360 degrees.
Kadmon,
You can make your point from entirely orthodox sources. I've dealt with this a few times, but try here, here, and here for examples.
People here post comments to the effect that they hope that one day the Church will be reconciled to evolution. This is about as stupid as thinking that one day the Church will be reconciled to homosexuality and gay marriage.
I'll tell you one reason why the two will never be reconciled - because macroevolution will never be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.
Dave C.
Dave C,
There is no need to "prove macroevolution beyond a reasonable doubt." And there shouldn't be a difference between any kind of evolution, macro or micro. It's all evolution.
The only thing important with evolution are the mechanisms by which it is driven, natural selection being one of the (if not the) most prominent driving forces. We know that this mechanism works, and you seem to understand that--based on your comment I think it's safe to say that you agree that "microevolution" occurs.
So the question is, how does a random mechanism with no reason or purpose simply "decide" that it is going to take a break and stop working, because its continuance might cause "macroevolution"?
"People here post comments to the effect that they hope that one day the Church will be reconciled to evolution. This is about as stupid as thinking that one day the Church will be reconciled to homosexuality and gay marriage."
Or as stupid as thinking the Church will be reconciled to monogamous marriage, or eliminating race-based priesthood restrictions, or routine use of birth control.
Concerning reconcillation of the Fall and evolution, we have to take a closer look at what the scriptures say. According to the scriptural view, mortality came after Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Evolution pertains to mortality. Thus, evolution didn't come into play until after Adam and Eve chose to become mortal. This means that evolution was not involved with the creation prior to the partaking of the fruit. That creation was not of the mortal earth.
Allen,
Following your line of reasoning, the physical form of Adam and Eve could not be a consequence of evolution. However, evolutionary biology tells us that the physical form of human beings is attributable to evolution. It also tells us that evolution started long before Adam and Eve. So what you suggest implies that there is no reconciliation.
Post a Comment