Mormons and Evolution

Mormons usually are not particularly unique in their creationism. Except for a few details on the timing of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve, they usually let other segments of Christianity do the work for them and follow their lead. However at WeaverResearch there are some new (or at least uncommon) twists to young-earth creationism.

Their guiding philosophy, of course, is that the scriptures and statements by various Church leaders (many of which are quoted) can be taken at face value as accurate in their description of natural history. In contrast to many young-earth creationists, WeaverResearch does not attribute most of the fossil record to Noah’s flood. Evolution is right out, so how does one explain the principle of faunal succession? The answer at WeaverResearch is that the order of fossilization corresponds to reproductive fecundity. At the fall of Adam and Eve (and presumably again after Noah’s flood), all of the existing organisms began to reproduce and fill the earth. However, the rates of reproduction differed and so less complex organisms filled the earth and were fossilized before more complex organisms.

A foundational scripture for WeaverResearch is Doctrine and Covenants 121:12

And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness; [emphasis added]

Using other scriptures the term ‘times and seasons’ is interpreted to refer to the orbit, tilt and rotation of the earth. According to WeaverResearch, changing the ‘times and seasons’ is not a poetic way of saying that God controls the destiny of the earth (as Daniel 2:21 suggests), rather the letter from Liberty Jail is an explicit acknowledgment that God has subjected the earth to catastrophies such that scientific methods of determining time are skewed. Apparently God has done this on purpose, and yet, paradoxically, the confusion can be overcome by anybody with a Bible.

Perhaps the centerpiece of the website is a geological and archeological correlation with the scriptures. This chart shows carbon-14 dates and where they really line up with scriptural dates, with the same done for major geological events. The Permian extinction correlates with Noah’s flood, of course the continents separate with Peleg, and a few other events are shown correlated to Abraham, Moses and Christ. Thus, according to the chart, you can find the actual scriptural date on which events, otherwise thought to be ancient, occurred.

Although interesting, this approach leaves a lot of questions unanswered; here are a few of mine:

1. C-14 dating has been used on ancient Egypitian artifacts to obtain dates in agreement with those derived from other historical sources. Yet according to the correction curve for carbon dating, this should be impossible for anything older than about 2,000 years ago. How can this be?

2. Some radiometric dating techniques can be used over a very wide time range. Argon-argon dating, for example, has been used for some of the most ancient rocks (eg. 4.5 billion years ago), and yet under optimal conditions it can also be used for much more recent dates, such as the Mt. Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD. Imagine a geologist dates the lava from a volcanic explosion using argon-argon and gets a date of 15,000 years ago. The remains of a tree that was burned and covered by the lava are found and C-14 dated to 15,000 years ago as well. According to WeaverResearch, this correlates to about 3,750 years ago (between Abraham and Moses). The problem is that rocks dated by argon-argon to 50 million years ago would also correlate to 3,750 years ago. If the correlation chart is right, then given the right outcrop, dating could give you younger rocks laid down before older ones–an obvious problem. Why would rocks formed at the same time give such different (correlated) ages when measured by the same method? Or stated another way, what governs whether isotopes in a rock formed between Abraham and Moses decay super-fast to appear 50 million years old versus 15,000 years old–a difference of over two orders of magnitude?

3. If the order of fossilization is a function of relative rate of reproduction, why does it also happen to correlate with the order of morphological transitions, like for tetrapods moving onto land or mammals moving back into water?

4. Were dinosaurs really that much more fertile than rodents or birds?

5. When different dating methods that use different assumptions agree (isotopes, tree rings, varves, sediment layers, ice core layers), isn’t that pretty good evidence of their reliability? Would catastrophies that throw up mountain ranges overnight, cause isotopes to decay at rates never observed by humans, and wipe out species also be expected to add layers to seasonal records in accordance with isotope decay rates?

In regard to evolution, I will just point out that faunal succession is only one line of evidence. Others include biogeography, anatomy, and genetics. They each tell a pretty consistent story.

Despite the problems, those who think that the standard of true belief does not allow for concessions to the natural sciences may find WeaverResearch a breath of fresh air. Others will wish for winds of change.

[Comments–both pro and con–on WeaverResearch are welcome. I just ask that they remain respectful; good people will be found on both sides.]