Thursday, June 02, 2005

Blood, The Fall, and Intelligent Design

According to current LDS theology, blood is a distinctive part of mortal life. Although Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the Garden of Eden, their bodies did not contain blood. The Bible Dictionary states, "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood" (see BD, "Fall of Adam"). Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

Continue Reading


Eating of that forbidden fruit subdued the power of the spirit and created blood in [Adam's] body. No blood was in his body before the fall. The blood became the life thereof. And the blood was not only the life thereof, but it had in it the seeds of death. (Seek Ye Earnestly, p.81)


That there was no blood before the fall is a relatively recent concept. From what I have been able to find, Joseph Fielding Smith appears to be the first person to have taught it. In regard to the origin and support for this teaching, Robert J. Matthews has written:
That there was no blood in the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall, and that blood came as a result of the Fall, is not categorically stated in any one passage of scripture, but leading doctrinal teachers such as President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie have declared that such was the case. This conclusion is scripturally based and takes into account that blood is the mortal life of the body (see Gen 9:2-6; Lev. 17:10-15).

A further point supporting the conclusion that Adam and Eve had no blood in their premortal, non-death bodies is that we are assured by the Prophet Joseph Smith that resurrected beings do not have blood but possess bodies of flesh and bones "having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." The Prophet also said, "When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." In speaking of the place where God dwells, the Prophet said, "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." (See also 1 Cor. 15:50.)

This much we know about blood: (a) it is a vital part of our mortal lives and is basic to the reproductive process of mortals; (b) it was the agent of redemption in the atonement of Jesus Christ, he shedding his blood to redeem all people from the effects of the Fall and, upon the condition of repentance, from their personal sins; and (c) blood will not exist in the bodies of resurrected beings. With these known facts it becomes evident that blood is the badge of mortality, and since it will not exist in the deathless bodies of Adam, Eve, and their posterity in the resurrection, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that blood did not exist in the deathless, premortal bodies of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. (Man Adam, p.45)
In passing, it should be noted that while blood is a vital part of our mortal bodies, and that of many animals, it is not a component of many mortal life-forms (plants, for example).

Blood fulfills a number of important roles in the body. It's most notable role is to deliver oxygen to cells and remove carbon dioxide waste. It also facilitates the transportation of many substances through the body including nutrients, hormones, and components of the immune system. Because it is so vital to life, there are mechanisms in place that help to keep us from losing blood, ie. clotting.

The formation and regulation of clotting involves a number of proteins, all of which are encoded in our genes. Inherited deficiencies in these genes can lead to such conditions as hemophilia. It is beyond the scope of this post to detail the interactions of these proteins, such as in the clotting cascade. (See here for further reading.) It is sufficient to know that the regulation of clotting is complicated and impressive.

Elder Russell M. Nelson has commented several times on the wonders of the human body, including the ability of blood to clot. (See, for example, “The Magnificence of Man,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 64.) The regulation of clotting has also been discussed by Michael Behe in his book, Darwin's Black Box. In his book Behe claims that the clotting cascade is an irreducibly complex (IC) system, which means that if any component of it were removed, the system would fail. Since it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that the whole system could have been fully developed by natural means, all at once, and since the system would not confer any advantage to an organism if it was developed one component at a time, Behe argues that this system has been intelligiently designed. Presumably, the "designer" is God. If Behe is correct, his argument would seem to add scientific support to the sentiments of Elder Nelson, and some undoubtably see it as such. (Whether or not Behe is correct is beyond the scope of this post.)

In thinking about the Fall, a natural question arises: Why was it necessary? Why did God create things in a paradisiacal state rather than a mortal state? In his criticism of evolution, Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:
Latter-day Saint theology recognizes God as the creator. Thus the labor of creation must be godlike. God does not do shoddy work. Having completed the work of creation, he declared it "very good" (Moses 2:31). (Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions, p. 158-162.)
While the scriptures have much to say concerning the consequences of (and redemption from) the Fall, they have little to say about the reason for the Fall. Robert J. Matthews expressed this opinion:
If God had created man mortal, then death, sin, and all the circumstances of mortality would be God's doing and would be eternal and permanent in their nature whereas if man brings the Fall upon himself, he is the responsible moral agent, and God is able to rescue and redeem him from his fallen state. (Bible! a Bible!, p. 187)

Apparently McConkie sees anything less than a paradisiacal creation as "shoddy" and ungodlike. Matthews sees the Fall as a way for God to avoid responsibility for our mortal condition.

There may be other explanations, but I do not find either of these explanations compelling, which leads to the point of this post: If God does not create anything "shoddy" (and therefore ungodlike) and has no responsibility for mortal conditions, how can we say that God designed or created blood, the hallmark of the Fall? We can widen the question to include all things that are in a fallen condition, since the scriptures state that all things testify of Christ. In fact it was God who issued the curses that would characterize mortality for Adam and Eve. If we take the scriptural account literally, thorns and thistles were apparently previously unknown to earth. This means that either God had previously created such plants but held them in a dormant state, or he created them when Adam and Eve fell. The same can be said for blood or any other biological characteristic of mortality.

If we are to exclude any role for evolution in the creation of life on this earth on the grounds that God either does not create, or cannot be responsible for, anything that is less than perfect, then it seems to me that we have to relinquish his role in the creation of anything that characterizes fallen conditions, including blood. Conversely, if God has created (in a direct way) aspects of our mortal condition, then we cannot say that using evolution in the creative process would be "shoddy" and ungodlike. If evolution is to be rejected as a tool which God uses to create, it will have to be on theological grounds other than its imperfect nature.

[This is a cross-post from Mormons and Evolution. Please comment there.]

Continue reading...

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Andromeda

This news story from National Geographic says that the nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is three times larger than previously thought.

I don't know how significant that is--mostly I just wanted an excuse to post the pretty picture below. Also, I know from personal experience that with a simple pair of binoculars you can see Andromeda. You just need to know where to look. It kind of looks like a faint whispy cotton ball. I wonder if anybody over there is looking at us.

Continue reading...

Dept. of HHS Asks PNAS Not to Publish Paper

Science news reports:

In an unprecedented move, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to pull a bioterrorism-related paper that the journal planned to publish online on 30 May. The journal took the paper off its publication schedule on 27 May and has been reviewing it internally.

The paper, by mathematician Lawrence Wein of Stanford University and graduate student Yifan Lu, models how bioterrorists could wreak havoc by slipping a small amount of botulinum toxin into the U.S. milk supply, and it spells out interventions that the government and the dairy industry could take to prevent this nightmare scenario.


Apparently the government objects to some of the details contained in the paper. This is one of those tough science/law/national defence issues--when should scientific findings NOT be published? Apparently Wien wrote and Op-Ed in the New York Times that describes his paper. PNAS could go ahead and publish the paper, scrap it, or modify it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Continue reading...

Monday, May 30, 2005

On Dating

Sorry, no discussion of courtship here. Rather, this is about the tools that scientists use to determine how old things are. I recently came upon a couple of websites that discuss different methods and thought I would draw attention to them.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective discusses radiometric dating as well as other dating methods including dendrochronology (tree rings) and ice cores. (Note: Ice cores were discussed in a semi-recent FARMS article in an attempt to support the hypothesis that the destruction described in 3 Nephi was due to a volcanic eruption. Sum-up: the data are somewhat supportive. I think the pdf version has a picture of an ice core, if you are curious.)

This link, which I think is called Darwiniana and Evolution, has a brief discussion of dating methods with links to other resources. (Actually the website is much broader than just dating.)

So have a look. I'll probably add at least one of these to the links on my sidebar.

Continue reading...

Genealogy Gets Juicy

A couple of days ago at the conference of the Mormon History Association, one of the speakers dealt with possible children of Joseph Smith via plural marriage. See Justin's post at Mormon Wasp for more details. The summary is that out of nine known potentials, three males have been voted off the island, I mean ruled out by genetic testing. (I wonder how they feel about that.)

I can't help but note the irony: DNA testing is needed to determine whether certain people are descended from the man who restored the spirit of Elijah.

Continue reading...

Friday, May 27, 2005

Joseph F. Smith vs Ernst Haeckel?

In reading the 1909 First Presidency statement, The Origin of Man, part of an oft-quoted section stood out to me.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.


Continue Reading


What are they talking about? With a few caveats, your genes are the same from the moment of conception until you die. No life-form begins life as something other than what it is (if you don't count metamorphosis), so what is the point of this paragraph?

The answer, I think, is that it is a reaction to outdated and erroneous ideas about evolution. I welcome correction, but I think specifically this paragraph is in response to the ideas of Ernst Haeckel and his "biogenetic law" (although saltationism is another possibility.) Haeckel's idea was that during development, embryos pass through stages that represent adult organisms of evolutionary history. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." So an embryo would have gone through the stages of fish, reptile, and "lower" mammals, until it finally reached human form. Although lessons can be learned from comparative embryology, such a simplistic progression does not occur and the ideas about genetics that formed the foundation of the idea have long been known to be false.

Haeckel's ideas have been a blight on biology and he has been repudiated. Even before 1900, criticisms of Haeckel had been advanced, but his ideas still hung around in some circles, apparently giving inspiration to Hitler. So this paragraph from the First Presidency is correct. Readers should know that it addresses ideas that have been discarded based on contrary evidence.

(Read more here and here.)


(Haeckel's drawings of embryos have been discredited.)

Continue reading...

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Interspecies Relationships May Be Over-rated

There has been some discussion at No Death Before the Fall about conditions in the Garden of Eden, and those that will prevail in the millenium. When I saw this article, about a rhino and a goat bonding, the scriptural passage about the lamb and the lion came to mind. In fact, the article cites a few cases of lions "adopting" baby antelopes. The end of the article had a suprising twist, though:

In 1998, an elephant that was abandoned by its mother became best of friends with a sheep at a South African research center.
That friendship ended tragically when the elephant accidentally crushed the sheep to death, probably when it rolled while sleeping.

Reminds me of the rhyme: Fat and Skinny went to bed. Fat rolled over and Skinny was dead.

The millenium notwithstanding, some species may not want to lay down together.

Continue reading...

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Elder Packer on Reason and Revelation

On a couple of blogs that I frequent, there have been a lot of quotes from Elder Packer thrown around lately, so I'll join in the fun. Here are a few that I like, derived from a BYU Devotional:

Continue Reading


There are two opposing convictions...On the one hand, "seeing is believing." On the other, "believing is seeing." Both are true! Each in its place. The combining of the two individually or institutionally is the challenge of life...

They mix the way oil and water mix--only with constant shaking or stirring. When the stirring stops, they separate again. It takes a catalytic process to blend them. This requires the introduction of a third ingredient, a catalyst, which itself remains unchanged in the blending process.

Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits but requires it. An individual who concentrates on either side solely and alone will lose both balance and perspective...

I spoke of the catalytic process where two seemingly antagonistic influences can merge and each give strength to the other. The essential catalyst for the fusion of reason and revelation in both student and faculty is the Spirit of Christ. He is "the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (D&C 93:2). The blending medium is the Holy Ghost, which is conferred upon every member of the Church as a gift...

On the one hand is reason: the thinking, the figuring things out, the research, the pure joy of discovery, and the academic degrees man bestows to honor that process. On the other is revelation, with the very private and very personal, the very individual, confirmation of truth. The combining of them is the test of mortal life! (BYU Devotional, 1991, italics in original.)

Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP