Mormons and Evolution

We now come to Mc Conkie’s fifth objection which is a big one. Fortunately we have already dealt with much of the material. (Topics which he has not already mentioned before and will be addressed here are in bold.) While we have addressed the issue of death in the world, I intentionally avoided a full treatment of the fall, with its supposed introduction of both temporal and spiritual death to the world. But such must now be addressed.

FALL OF ADAM AND ALL THINGS. — Before the fall there was neither death nor procreation. Plants, animals, and man would have continued living forever unless a change of condition overtook them; and in their then immortal condition they could not have reproduced, each after its own kind. Death and procreation pertain to mortality, that is, to the status and type of existence attained by all forms of life subsequent to the fall.
Lehi said: “If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.”
Eve expressed the same truth in this language: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” Adam’s fall brought temporal (natural) and spiritual death into the world. The temporal or natural death means that body and spirit separate, the spirit going to a world of waiting spirits to await the day of the resurrection, the body returning to the dust, the primal element, from which it was taken. The effects of this fall passed upon all created things.
Obviously, the whole doctrine of the fall, and all that pertains to it, is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary assumptions relative to the origin of species.

Dismissing the fall altogether is a notion that most members are simply not going to be willing to give up. But why is this? Is it the fall as we commonly understand it that cannot be rejected or the effects from and reasons for the fall which are more important? I suggest that it is the second, though saving the first would be icing on the cake. After all, Mc Conkie’s strong adherence to the doctrine of the Fall stems from two things: 1) his desire to maintain the credibility of the scriptures and 2) it’s association with the atonement which shall be dealt with shortly.

The doctrine of the fall is as follows and surely any attempt at reconciliation must account for such things:

1. It was an introduction of physical death for those involved.
2. It was an introduction of spiritual death for those involved.
3. It was an introduction of the ability to physically procreate, again, for those involved.
4. It was an introduction of knowledge in one form or another to those involved.

I have left these statements rather vague (i.e. “those involved”) for good reason. First, and most obvious yet least persuasive, is that abiguity makes reconciliation easier. Second and more persuasively, we already saw that organisms have been dying and procreating for billions of years. We cannot say that the fall introduced death and procreation into the earth with the fall of two human beings about 6,000 years ago. There is no evidence for these notions and if one is to accept any form of evolution, even IDC, we simply must reject such ideas.

Thus, we cannot apply the ideas Mormons commonly maintain about the fall to the entire earth and its history. Whatever the fall was, it was not the introduction of death and procreation to the earth. Whatever the fall is meant to describe, it is to that and that alone that we should also apply the introduction of spiritual death and knowledge.

Well, what could it have been? Some of you already know my theory concerning this issue and I will describe it now since I can think of no other event which these ideas could refer to in Mormon doctrine. It makes little mention of Adam and Eve but such shall be taken up in one of Mc Conkie’s later objections.

Before I go on the describe my theory, I should first address another category of “alternate falls.” These other attempts at reconciliation invoke an isolated fall where death and procreation were happening outside of the garden of eden. I find such attempts unsatisfactory for a couple of reasons.

1. We do not have a common ancestor which lived a mere 6,000 years ago which could have introduced any of these things to all of humanity.
2. Such a limited account of the fall seems to destroy the point of the fall all together, since it is supposed to be a description of all of mankinds predicament.
3. It seems very contrived and somewhat desperate. Though all attempts at reconciliation will seem that way to a certain degree, we should avoid excess.
4. Such schemes, as we will see in reviews of Skousens’ Earth in the Beginning and B.H. Robert’s The Way, the Truth and the Life, usually posit someform of mass destruction of life around 6,000 years ago. This simply isn’t true.

Some things to remember about the fall. Accounts of it tend to be closely intertwined with ceremony (the temple) or are rather legendary (genesis). Though I don’t presume to actually do so right now in too much detail, we must separate, the ceremony from the story and the myths from the historical kernal. In the ceremonial setting, the point is not to learn about Adam and Eve. It is to learn more about yourself. The genesis is objective history, it is a story with a point. With this in mind I will continue.

What we know about life before the fall is:

1. Adam was in God’s presence. God walked and talked with Adam.
2. Adam lived in a paradise, whereever this was, it was not “here.”
3. Adam had an immortal spiritual body of sorts. It is difficult to tell what this actually means.
4. Adam was ignorant in that he had not gained some form of knowledge which seems to be an experience of good and evil. He could only progress spiritually by subjecting himself to spiritual and physical death.
5. Satan was present was also present here in God’s presence. Only after goes against the Father is he banished.
6. Adam was childless. This seems to be related to the nature of his spiritual body.

After the fall the conditions were as follows:

1. Adam was cast out of God’s presence. We no longer had relatively easy access to God, but instead had to pray for “many days” for an angel to come.
2. Adam was cast out of paradise into was is termed a lone and dreary world. In other words we was sent “here.”
3. Adam became mortal. He received a mortal body just like we have now.
4. Adam could now have children. Again, just like we can with our bodies now.
5. Adam began to gain knowedge and progress spiritually.
6. Satan was also was cast out of the paradise. He then came to the lone and dreary world with Adam to tempt him.

If these events do not describe the Garden scene, what could they describe? An interesting question, especially when we consider that the name Adam means man or mankind (hence my reason for not mentioning eve, sorry ladies). If we replace Adam with mankind in all of these points we recognize these as describing something else, namely the pre-existence!

Now how this idea of the fall would work with our ideas of the premortal counsel would be a fun chore for another day, but we must admit that the parellels are startling. The story of our coming to earth and the story of the fall, seem to be telling the exact same story. Why not just consider them to be one and the same story, namely mankinds fall from heaven? This could be a valid way of reconciled the doctrine of the fall with evolution.

Summary: We have already addressed issues concerning the fall of the earth. We cannot however evade the issues of the fall of man, since salvation must include us being saved from something. Startling parellels between the accounts of the fall and our coming to earth may provide us with the fall we need while maintaining scientific cerdibility.

Part of Mc Conkie’s 4th objection is his rejection of the notion that one species could turn into another since living things were supposed to bring forth offspring after their own kind.

“After this temporal creation, this creation of all forms of life in a state of immortality, the Lord God issued the decree that all created life should remain in the sphere in which it was after it was created. Further, having in mind the coming fall and consequent entrance of death and mortality into the world, the Lord in that first primeval day commanded that all forms of life, after mortality entered the picture, should bring forth posterity, each after its own kind. These principles accord with the one announced by Paul that “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.”

In other words, his objection again derives from a belief in essentialism. Men are men because they have man-ness about them. Fish have fish-ness and beasts, beast-ness. Species, according to this line of reasoning, is not merely a label that we somewhat arbitrarily place on organisms according to the differences we see in them. Instead, God creating separate species is in fact the law which causes the differences we see in them. This, however, is getting the cart before the horse.

First of all, we should note that the word kind, as used in Genesis as well as the famous passage by President Taylor, is not used in the same way as biologists in their “Kings Play Cards On Fat Green Stools” classification system. The text is merely stating the obvious fact that chicken do not give birth to turtles, nor monkeys to humans. The author is giving a reason for this otherwise, at the time, inexplicable tendency in nature. Evolutionists have never claimed that these things did happen.

As to Mc Conkie’s use of Paul’s statement, we have another case of getting the cart before the horse. Paul is using the differences we all observe in different organisms as an illustration of the differences between physical and spiritual beings. He is not saying that since there is a difference between physical and spiritual beings, there is necessarily a difference between assorted species. He didn’t, after all, say there is a difference between the flesh of Gorillas and that of Chimpanzees, the flesh of piranas and that of gold fish. He is using broad groups (beasts and fish) which have obvious differences between the two so as to ensure that there will be no argument. He is not arguing anything at all about individual species, let alone that there are essential differences from species to species.

What we have here is a case which we warned about in the beginning. It is the same problem found in the books sold in Born-again Christian book stores which intend to show how physics proves that the Bible is true. They use vague proof-texts which mention the heavens expanding and say that these actually refer to the general relativity and the big bang. Mormons do the same thing with the Book of Abraham. And this is what happens when people accept their scriptures as being too perfect. The scriptures are not text books for science, neither advanced physics nor evolutionary biology.

I mentioned that evolutionists do not claim that monkey’s give birth to humans. This statement should be unpacked a bit since creationists never tire of claiming the evolutionists do say this.

Speciation is a very noneventful occasion. There is simply no way to say when it is happening, only when it did happen in the past. It’s like a person coming home to his wife and excitedly announcing “Guess what I did today! I helped give birth to Victor Hugo!” As Dennett asks, “What is wrong with this story?” It is completely anachronistic. At the time of Victor Hugo’s birth there would have been no reason whatsoever to be excited about giving birth to him, for he had not yet made a name for himself. Victor Hugo’s birth was no more significant than that of anybody else’s and anything else’s.

Speciation has no clear boundaries. It is never absolutely clear when, exactly, it happened. We can only say when it has happened. Thus, Mc Conkie objection does not hold water.

Summary: The Bible says that living things reproduce “after their own kind” but this does not pose a problem for our believing in both the Bible and evolution. Those who do see a problem do so because of their attributing too much information to various Biblical statements and a misunderstanding of speciation events.

Moving on to number 4 of Mc Conkie’s doctrinal objections to evolution, we must deal with the doctrine taught be many that there was no death in the earth prior to Adam’s fall.

Adam and Eve and all forms of life, both animal and plant, were created in immortality, that is, when first placed on this earth, all forms of life were in a state of immortality. There was no death in the world; death entered after the fall. All things existed in a state of primeval innocence. If conditions had not changed, death would not have entered the picture. Instead, as the revelations express it, “All things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.”
If the revelations are true which say that all life was created in immortality, then evolutionary theories which necessarily assume there was always death in the world are false.

This last sentence seems to be a bit of an exaggerated dichotomy: either the scriptures are true and evolution is false, or vis-versa. Never the twain shall meet. One line of defense against evolution states that though somethings are true, there are still big holes in the theory. Why can’t we adopt a similar position regarding scripture? This should definitely be kept in mind when the scripture in question is a conceptual translation (done by Joseph Smith) of an account (related by Nephi many years after Lehi’s death) of an interpretation (given by Lehi to Jacob) of other scriptures (written by Moses) which were written 2,000 years after the events they describe! Maybe we could allow for a little bit of fallibility to have crept in after passing through so many mortal hands.

That being said, this objection is closely related to the previous one regarding evolution in paradise. Why would God create imperfect mortals, when all He creates is perfect, just as He is? Well, as we saw, when it comes to potence He is not absolutely perfect. Not only that, but His benevolence, which is as perfect as we could ever hope it to be, might also have reasons for not doing so. For instance, the trillions of organisms that lived and died before 4,000 BC could have been “inhabited” by inferior intelligences also in need of mortal experience.

This, I might even suggest, is a way in which that phrase from Lehi can be applied truthfully. “All intelligences which were self-existent must have remained in the same state in which they found themselves; and they must have remained forever, and had no end, unless they too entered an already “fallen” world.” Whether my new rendition has any merit to it whatsoever, it is beside point. What the verse clearly intends to convey is that progess can only be achieved in a fallen world.

If we are able to overcome our notions of scriptural infallibility and God’s utter perfection as well as that of His creations, we don’t have to reconcile much of anything. God used the billions of years of utter mortality to help inferior intelligences progess, just like He is now doing with us.

We should also mention some other things regarding death prior to the fall. The fact is, there was death, even according to the scriptures. Ben S. commented over at Virtual Theology that according to Trent Stephens, the co-author of Evolution and Mormonism:

To a cellular biologist, cell death IS death. The death of a human is just cell death on a large scale.
Saying there was no death must mean something other than what we assume, because regular day-to-day regulation of plants and animals requires death on a cellular level. Picking an apple will inevitably result in the cellular death of that apple.
Did Adam and Eve have hair? Fingernails? Both are made from dead cells. If a fingernail broke off in the process of gardening (as they were doing), would it be replaced? That would require the death of some cells, each of which, according to Brigham Young, would have had some intelligence or spirit (not going to get into that argument) associated or attached to it.
There was indeed death on a cellular and thus larger level, but something un-did or counteracted any effects of that until the fall. He suggested that they ate regularly from the tree of life (that wasn’t forbidden, remember) and that kept death in abeyance. (This is the theory which Jared posted on) Once they had sinned, they were NOT allowed to partake of the tree of life or else they would live forever. In this view, eating from the tree of life is not a magical thing that grants eternal life if you only eat it once. Rather, it’s like a supplement that you take continuously to keep your body in young condition, where the DNA that produces new cells to replace the old dead ones (you have a completely new body every 3-4 years, btw) doesn’t shorten and produce bad cells, ie. aging.

Now whether his theory regarding the tree of life has any merit is a different matter for a different post. The point is that there was death before the fall, not only outside of the garden (which all attempts at reconciliation have suggested), but in the garden as well to a certain extent. Further details regarding Eden and the Fall are still to come.

Summary: Having rejected the necessity that God create things in an absolutely perfect form, it is not difficult to accept that there was death before Adam. In fact, according to molecular biology, there must have even been a certain amount of death in the Garden of Eden.

Mc Conkie continues his third objection:

Bearing on this general theme that the earth was created in its glory and perfection, in a higher type of existence than it now enjoys, is the revealed fact that, as is the case with man, the earth itself is passing through a plan of salvation. It was created (the equivalent of birth); it fell to its present mortal or telestial state; it was baptized by immersion, when the universal flood swept over its entire surface; it will be baptized by fire (the equivalent of baptism of the Spirit) in the day when it is renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory; it will die; and finally it will be quickened (or resurrected) and become a celestial sphere. Evolutionary theories take no account of any of this.

Has he over-anthropomorphizes the earth? Or is there some vital doctrine at the core of this idea that we as Mormons cherish too much to throw away?

First of all, we must admit that this “plan” is very different from the plan we people are currently in. While we are born innocent, we also were born underdeveloped. It makes no sense to insist that the earth was born as a fully developed paradise because that is how we were born.

The fall, an issue that will be dealt with later, does not matter too much either. We are punished for our own sins, not Adam’s transgression. Why should the earth be different? How did the earth sin, so that it needed to be baptized?

As Prof. Jeffery pointed out, if we are to maintain that the earth had to be baptized, are we going to hold out for all animals as well? They are certainly more alive than the planet is. What about all plants and so on? What about infants while we are at it, for I can see no reason why the earth would need baptism, but not infants?

Regarding the baptism of fire, we are not literally subjected to fire when we receive such. Why must we insist that the earth be? How will the earth die? It doesn’t seem to be alive in order to do so. And how could it then be resurrected? What about other planets? Are they alive? Must they be baptized? If not, what law are they breaking that the earth is not? These questions don’t seem to make much sense. Why does Mc Conkie insist on bringing them up in the evolution discussion?

1. Reading the scriptures too literally. There are some verses, which refer to the earth moaning and weeping and the like. The fact is, the earth, while it might have a spirit of sorts, has no brain with which to contemplate anything, let alone tear ducts to cry with. These verses are better interpreted metaphorically.
2. Defending 19th century speculations. Brigham really did believe that the earth was alive. He thought that the “ebbing and flowing of the tides” was caused by the earth’s inhaling and exhaling “and not the moon as some have vainly supposed. The moon has nothing to do with this natural phenomenon. The motion is natural to the Earth and independent of the moon’s influence.” It goes without saying that the earth has no lungs, and astronomers are quite confident in thief theories of what causes tides. Clearly this influenced the view, which began with Brigham that the earth had to be baptized. Unfortunately, the ideas, which the doctrine is based on, are all wrong.

This leads us to consider the flood. If geologists are sure about anything it is that the earth was never a sphere of water within the last 10,000 years. Such an event would have left massive amounts of evidence, none of which can be found. We can hold out for a limited area which was effected, but a totally global flood, as imagined by children’s books is completely out of the question. For a very good treatment of the subject see Duane Jeffery’s article here.

When people insist that we cannot accept evolution because it does not allow for Mother Earth’s personal plan of salvation, I simply cannot agree. They are either claiming inerrancy for the scriptures (something Mormons don’t believe in) or even worse, inerrancy for their interpretation of the scriptures. They are also over-anthropomorphizing the planet, beyond what is necessary or supportable by reason and evidence. Might the earth have some sort of plan of salvation? This actually goes rather well with the doctrine of “lower” self-existent intelligences and evolution. But to say that its plan is the same as ours raises too many red flags.

Summary:
Related to the notion that the earth was created as a paradise, is the idea that the earth is itself passing through a mortal probation right now. Such a concept comes from taking the scriptures too literally and over-anthropomorphizing the earth and should not be defended.

Continuing down Mc Conkie’s list of ten objections to evolution, we now come to #3 (and people thought we would run out of stuff to talk about after a week or two;).) the theory denies that the earth was created in a paradisiacal state.

This earth, when first it rolled forth from the Creator’s hand, was in a paradisiacal or terrestrial state. This condition, which does not now prevail, will be restored when the earth is “renewed” (made new again) and receives its paradisiacal glory.
In its primeval, edenic state all of the earth’s surface was in one place; thorns, thistles, briars and noxious weeds had not yet begun to grow on it; rather, all plant and animal life was desirable, congenial, and designed to provide for man (earth’s crowning inhabitant) a fruitful, peaceful garden in which to dwell. It was not a condition attained by progressive, creative evolvement from less propitious situations; it was creation in its glory, beauty, and perfection; hence, the Lord God pronounced it “very good.” The fall to present conditions was to come later.

Here is where Mc Conkie really digs in his heals, even the ID movement isn’t willing to assert the things he does. The evidence against the earth being in any kind of state which resembles what he describes simply isn’t there. The land hasn’t all been in one place for a really… long… time. And at no time can we consider the entire earth to have been an eden of any sort.

The issues surrounding the earth’s “plan of salvation” will be dealt with in my next post. Here I will limit myself to what seems to be his main problem; namely that instead of the earth being created good and afterwords we defiled it, evolution asserts that the earth was created not so good and we are still trying to improve upon it. Indeed, it would probably be best to describe the earth’s creation as not yet completed.

Briefly, I must mention the land being in one place. This comes from a verse in Genesis which says in the days of Peleg the earth (land) was divided. This could mean any number of things. In D&C it says the earth will return to being one as it was in the days of Peleg. Again, it can mean any number of things, and as far as I know, no more revelation has been given on the subject. Given what we know about plate techtonics and the like, I would suggest that Mc Conkie’s view, which He inherited from his Father in law, Joseph Fielding Smith, is simply incorrect. I would interpret the separation of the land as referring to political or social division of some kind.

But back to what I take to be his main objection which cuts to the very heart of evolution, whether biological or algorithmic. Darwin suggested, and this is what made his idea so revolutionary and dangerous at once, that complexity, design and diversity need not come from above. Before him, we had a neat pyramid around which essentially all religious sects interpreted their understanding of the world.

1. God
2. Mind
3. Design
4. Order
5. Chaos
6. Nothing

It would be better to refer to this as a chandelier instead of a pyramid, since all thing are based on and depend on God. What Darwin did, is turn it into a pyramid: give Chaos time and we will get Order. Give Order time and we will get Design. Design gives us Mind, and Mind, we can speculate, just might give us God. I mean this quite literally as did Truman Madsen in his lectures “Timeless Questions: Gospel Insights.” It is not to be interpreted as some sort of psychological yearning for something more.

I answer, so what? What’s wrong with that? After all, that chandelier is already quite different in Mormon understanding. For one, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Nothing does not exist, by very definition. God himself cannot create anything, even chaos, out of nothing. Second, intelligence, we are told, is eternal, as eternal as God. Where exactly does this fit in? If I had to put it anywhere it would be Mind, but I am not comfortable restricting it so much.

From there, we can see other problems not unique to Mormonism. What, exactly is the difference between chaos and order? Order and Design? These have vague boundaries at best. In other words, holding too strongly to the chandelier is a bit like building our house upon the sand, don’t expect it to stand up to the rains.

The desire stems from two problems: 1) reading the scriptures too literally and 2) trying to use the account of the garden of eden as a form of theodicy. With regards to (1), all prophets have taught that at least some of the garden story is allegory. The fact that we use it is our ceremonies should be an obvious tip off that we should be more concerned with symbolism that history.

As to (2), which I think is what Elder Mc Conkie issue is all about, the attempt to show that evil derives from man is misplaced in the Mormon context. Evil always has existed, just as agents have always existed. We don’t have to believe that God created the world as a perfect paradise and then man messed it up. We believe that God is limited enough by self-existed intelligences, elements and laws to not require it all being Adam’s fault.

We cannot accept that the entire earth was recently (within the past 10,000 years) in a paradisiacal state and accept evolution. Some general authorities have suggested that the paradise was limited to the local garden of eden. Others have suggested that it was in a terrestrial state and we shouldn’t look for evidence here in this telestial world. There are other suggestions which I will cover later, but that the world earth was a paradise that Adam recently cursed is simply untenable.

Summary: Darwin not only showed that design and minds can be derived from chaos and order, but that it did. This is in direct conflict with the notion that the entire earth was once a paradise. While other imterpretations are open and should be investigated, that the entire earth was once a death-less paradise must be rejected if we are to accept evolution.

Why is evolution unpalatable to many Mormons? Unlike more fundamentalist devotees of the Bible—who tend to lump an “old earth” and evolution together—most Mormons seem capable of swallowing the former, while still choking on the latter. (more »)

The year following the First Presidency’s statement, “Origin of Man,” the following was published in the Improvement Era, April 1910:

Origin of Man.-”In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?” This question comes from several High Priests’ quorums. Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1:26, 27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of-Abraham 5:7. The latter statement reads: “And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject. Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God. For helpful discussion of the subject, see IMPROVEMENT ERA, Vol. XI, August 1908, No. 10, page 778, article, “Creation and Growth of Adam;” also article by the First Presidency, “Origin of Man,” Vol. XIII, No. 1, page 75, 1909. [emphasis added]

For more discussion about this passage see Duane Jeffery’s article here.

Since Joseph F. Smith was one of two editors at the time, this passage has been attributed to him and although it probably did not reflect his own opinion it shows that no specific creation process was officially endorsed. Although the creation of Adam and Eve has been the topic of continued discussion in the years since this statement, the lack of official clarification has been maintained.

Some cite certain scriptures was well as statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others, to argue that Adam (and presumably Eve) was physically born of Heavenly Parents and later became mortal in the manner described in Genesis. This would seem to contradict the scriptural teaching that Jesus was the only physical son of God. Elder Bruce R. McConkie resolves the contradiction this way:

Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam’s entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence. (”Son of God” in Mormon Doctrine)

However Stephens, Meldrum, and Peterson in their book, Evolution and Mormonism, rightly point out that the phrase “Only Begotten in the flesh” is not contained in the scriptures.

For some, the idea of a divine origin of our physical bodies presents a significant impediment to accepting the concept of common descent as being applied to mankind. And yet investigation of the anatomy, genome, and development of humans does not reveal any marks of special creation. Rather they strongly support that we and other primates have common ancestors. Stephens et al. write:

The unsupported notion that our physical bodies must be in some way special, i.e., apart from nature, and directly descended from God’s immortal body is a major source of conflict with evolution theory. There are no scientific data to support any of these supernatural hypotheses; in fact, the body of accumulated scientific evidence stands against them. If our physical bodies are in some way “special,” in that our ancestors’ physical bodies came from some other planet or directly from God, then we could predict that the physical nature of our bodies should be in some way different from those of life forms originating on this earth.

Regardless of whether Adam was a literal son of God or was “transplanted from another sphere,” the basic conflict with science remains the same. Whatever the truth is regarding the origin of our physical bodies, it must explain the evidence that we see for common descent. The following are two hypothetical scenarios that might resolve this discrepancy:

1. Stephens, Meldrum, and Peterson propose a theistic evolution scenario where Adam and Eve’s physical bodies were the result of hominid evolution. However, at some point after their spirits were placed into their physical bodies, they became immortal by partaking of the fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. (Perhaps they experienced something similar to translation.) This is the immortality that they later fell from. Variations on this scenario are possible, including the geographical and organismal range involved.

2. Another scenario might be a compromise between theistic evolution and the idea of a divine origin of our physical bodies. Perhaps Adam and Eve were born (physically) of Heavenly Parents. Their Fall entailed taking on the physiology of the most similar hominids by some sort of tissue transplantaion. Although I am not sure whether it can be reliably traced to Joseph Smith (I cannot trace it past Joseph Fielding Smith), a common doctrinal concept is that Adam and Eve did not have blood while in the Garden of Eden. Since blood is derived from bone marrow, perhaps something like a bone marrow transplant occured where the donors were the most similar mortal (non-children of God) hominids. Certainly this scenario is highly speculative, but something like it allows for our close genetic relationship to other animals while retaining our spiritual and physical relationship with God. Adam and Eve thus fell by taking mortal physiology and genetics into their bodies, and our relationship to other animals is therefore a partial illusion.

Yet to come–Adam and Eve: When and Where?

The process of evolution, by Gould

“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. [.]

Eldridge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means ‘in another place’). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare-as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range.

Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change. “What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

- “The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change,” Error! Bookmark not
defined., New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 182-184.

Monday, May 27, 2002

Is evolution like a well-tuned car that purrs down the road at a steady pace? Or is it more like an aging, rattling jalopy that often lurches forward?

The aging jalopy is a handy metaphor for the evolutionary theory popularized by Stephen Jay Gould, who died of cancer last week at age 60. Thanks to Gould’s numerous popular writings, his theory known as “punctuated equilibrium” has been at the center of a major scientific debate since theearly 1970s.

Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge argued that the evolution of life isn’t a slow, steady, gradual process, as conventional scientific wisdom held. Rather, they said, evolution is a multi-million-year saga usually characterized by brief, sudden shifts separated by long periods of little or no change.

In recent years, some experts claim, the weight of evidence has increasingly favored the Eldredge-Gould hypothesis. Others aren’t so sure. “Up to now proponents (of punctuated equilibrium) think they’ve been vindicated, while those of gradualism claim the same,” says University of California at Berkeley paleontology professor Kevin Padian, a leading admirer of Gould.

In an outline for his course, Integrative Biology 100b, Padian calls
Eldredge and Gould’s 1972 article “perhaps the most influential and
frequently cited paper in paleontology in this century. It is also one of
the most far- reaching theoretically, and one of the best written papers you
will find in recent science . . .”

EVIDENCE IMPRESSIVE

Among the evidence supporting punctuated equilibrium, said David Jablonski, chair of the committee on evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, is “an impressive array of examples in the fossil record, from snails to horses . . . a core of solid analyses that are very convincing.”

One scientist analyzed the evolutionary “trees” of 34 different types of scallops and found only one that displayed gradual evolution over time. The remaining 33 stayed pretty much the same from generation to generation, Jablonski says. Another scientist found gradualism in only eight of 88 lineages of trilobites.

Even so, traditions die hard, and critics have gone to great lengths to try to discredit punctuated equilibrium.

One renowned evolutionary thinker, John Maynard Smith of England, wrote in 1995: “Because of the excellence of his essays, (Gould) has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the pre-eminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary theorists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.”

DEBATE GOES PUBLIC

Normally, even intense scientific disputes are unknown to the public: They rage behind the closed doors of laboratory and university seminar rooms. But punctuated equilibrium became a very public issue in the 1970s, thanks partly to Gould’s prolific popular science writing in books, essays, and his column for Natural History magazine.

The son of left-leaning New York Jews, Gould hated elitism. A gifted and witty writer, he decided to bring the debate to the attention of ordinary folks — the same kinds of folks with whom he rubbed shoulders and gobbled hot dogs at New York Yankees baseball games.

Punctuated equilibrium “went public” for another reason, too: the emergence of the modern creationist movement. Gould and Eldredge’s dispute with other evolutionary theorists thrilled creationists, who misinterpreted it as a sign that evolutionary theory was on its deathbed.

CREATIONIST FOE

That angered Gould, an agnostic. Few things made him madder than having to deny the charge that punctuated equilibrium theory played into the hands of creationists.

Punctuated equilibrium “is still very much a controversial theory,” but “is fully compatible with what we term neo-Darwinism,” said Peter D. Roopnarine, chair of invertebrate zoology and geology at the California Academy of Sciences. “Creationists unfortunately, and very incorrectly, seized upon this as a challenge to Darwin and evolution.”

The story of punctuated equilibrium is a classic example of how scientists (like the rest of us) sometimes see what they expect to see, not what’s really there in front of their eyes. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Traditionally, scientists looking at the fossil record assumed they didn’t see strong evidence of gradual evolution because the fossil record was woefully limited. If the fossil record were more complete, they assumed, they’d see overwhelming evidence of gradual organic change, just as
characters on movie film gradually shift position from frame to frame.

STORY IN FOSSIL RECORD

But in fact, Gould and Eldredge argued, the fossil record was quite rich in some places and very adequate for seeing patterns of stasis, not gradual change.

The problem is that “people just didn’t see the evidence of stasis,” says geologist-paleontologist Carlton Brett of the University of Cincinnati.

“They didn’t see the obvious pattern of stasis even though it was right in front of their eyes. Because they had a preconceived idea that they should be seeing gradual change, they failed to see the obvious pattern of stasis.

“This is a common problem in science: Sometimes we don’t see what we
don’t expect to see,” Brett said. “The influence of a particular paradigm is
so strong that it may make people put blinders on, and it may prevent people
from seeing obvious patterns.”

STASIS DEBATED

What causes stasis? That’s still a hotly debated topic.

Gould suggested that “rapid” evolution — say, over thousands of years, a blink of an eye in geological time — might occur when a small splinter group of a species becomes geographically separated from its peers. For example, sea- level rise might turn a peninsula into an island, isolating a small number of animals from their kind on the other side of the water.

Result: When these isolated creatures undergo random mutations, as all species do from time to time, the mutations persist rather than being genetically washed out by genetic “blending” with a larger group of animals.

Over time the splinter group accumulates many mutations. Eventually it may become a different species.

“Of all Gould’s contributions, in my mind nothing is more important than his establishment of stasis as a real phenomenon,” Brett says. “This notion of stasis is something that people really didn’t think about prior to 1972.”

FINAL BOOK

Brett recalls Gould as an effusive, brainy, sometimes arrogant raconteur who was capable of real warmth — a man who would happily chat about evolution while repairing a flat tire in the middle of a field trip, as he did on an outing with Brett.

Gould dedicated his last book, the 1,500-page “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” (Harvard University Press) to Eldredge and their colleague Elizabeth Vrba. The book’s dedication reads, in part: “May we always be the Three Musketeers / Prevailing with panache.”
E-mail Keay Davidson

Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Much of the scientific controversy over Gould’s work concerned matters of definition. Few evolutionary theorists deny that evolution sometimes happens quickly and is a highly chancy affair. Rather, the key questions are: How quickly? and how chancy?

Gould argued that some creatures undergo dramatic changes in shape and size over time periods of thousands of years — periods that are a blink of an eye, geologically speaking. He was furious when creationists misquoted his views in support of their belief in divine creation.

The Fossil Record

As part of Darwin’s theory on Origin of Species, he proposed that random, gradual, continuous changes was the mechanism for changing one species to another. But even as he was formulating his theory he had information that showed species remained the same for long periods of time. He explained the lack of fossil that recorded the speciation event to the incompleteness of the fossil record, and persisted in teaching the gradual change as the mechanism for evolution. Biologists for over 100 years have diligently sought for those fossils which would verify that theory, but with extremely limited success.

Geologists, not trained as biologists, did not know they were supposed to find gradually changing fossils, so they identified what they found. They noticed that world wide certain fossils appeared in certain strata of rock, and when they found the means to accurately date the strata/fossils, they used the fossils as markers for dates in their explorations. The fossils they found remained the same for the duration of the time they were found, a time of up to several million years.

As time went on, paleontologists realized the same thing, that the fossil record showed organisms in stasis, or unchanging. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge were among the major proponents of this idea, starting about 30 years ago. An article in Models in Paleobiology in 1972 was an early attempt to inform the professionals of what the fossil record showed.

But Darwin’s theory still reigns supreme, and in order to explain how speciation could proceed without leaving a fossil record the current theory was proposed. It states that a small group of a larger population found themselves isolated, in a poor environment for their species. The environmental stress made many of the hidden mutations beneficial, so much change occurred in a geologically short while in this small population. The small area and the short time made fossils very difficult to find.

I have many questions about the proposed method of speciation.

The large group of the species had a great body of mutations to draw upon, but we are told that the large group tends to stabilize the population, that changes would die out rather than become fixed. But once the small population became detached, mutations would rapidly proceed to fixing.

I find this reasoning rather strange. I have read in biology texts the formulas for fixing of mutations, which takes into account the added benefit of the mutation and the size of the population. Those formulas are presented as being quite precise, once the additional benefit of the mutation is known. While the time to fixation is longer in a large population, it still seems to proceed to fixing. Recently the idea of neutral mutations has surfaced, and it becomes a random walk to fixation. In larger populations, I assume that the random mutations would not likely be fixed, thus supporting the proposal for speciation. However, beneficial mutations should still be
fixed, and these are the ones most likely to play a part in speciation.

So, according to the theory, a small group would be separated from the main body, and the mutations which were neutral in the main body would become beneficial in the stressed environment. But now you only have a small group to mine mutations from, so the process of speciation could slow way down.

The mutations that would not fix in the large group now fix quickly. This seems to be a contrived explanation, and is difficult to support. The large quantity of mutations available in the large group are no longer available, which makes the speciation process less probable. As soon as the residual mutations are fixed, the speciation process would almost grind to a halt.

Species are different from other species. Each species is different enough that paleontologists can assign markers to identify them from other similar species. But looking at the small group that are proposed to do the speciation. We find that in the best case, they have fixed several beneficial mutations, and are slightly different from the large group, but not yet different enough in the several markers to be considered a new species. Why does speciation not stop there?

To realize the importance of this point some discussion of speciation is needed. As we look at the fossil record, we note that every step in a species history is a discrete step. Tooth shape is one identifier of a species, and as I understand it is a major part of the new species. (I will have more to say about the size of step in speciation later in this paper.)

The small group that is separated from the main body of the species in question is a major player in speciation. However, in many species the small isolated group is the rule rather that the exception. A stressful environment is also common. Over a million year period it is probable that stressful environments will occur many times, so what would trigger a speciation event after such a long period of time with similar stresses and other conditions?

In trying to analyze the detailed process for speciation, it seems the most logical scenario is that mutations would gradually be accumulated in the group, but the mutation that finally made the difference would most probably be in a single individual. Just how a spouse would come by the same mutation is a great problem, but if we assume it could then we have a group that cannot mate with the others left behind. A major problem here is the amount of variation in the species. The evidence I have seen indicates that the new species has the same variation that the previous species had. But a bottleneck of one or two leaves behind most variation. The alternative is for the whole small group to change one mutation at a time, but this
requires much time. It also requires a viable path for each character that is different in the successor species from the equivalent character in the parent species. For the number of DNA bases that must be changed to describe the new species, it is almost impossible. To get an idea of the number of DNA bases that are different between species, it is instructive to follow such examples as Homo and chimp. The DNA clock studies give an estimate of the time when both species had the same ancestor, and the number of speciations since then in both lines can be intelligently guessed at. The number of DNA base differences is also known, so simple divisions gives a ball park number of the number of changes per speciation. The amount of ‘junk’ DNA is also known, as well as the number of places where ‘don’t care’ mutations can be made. That leaves a guess as to the number of working bases
that change in each speciation. Recent studies have shown that some genes have more changes than has been expected by the current theory.

The above discussion shows that there are problems with the New Synthesis of Darwin’s theory, and attempts to come up with answers to the problems sound contrived and not very convincing.

A proposal

What kind of speciation process would answer the fossil record? What predictions could be made from such a process? Here is the answer to both questions.

Speciation in a single generation would fit the fossil record completely. For speciation, only the necessary genes would be changed, and there would be multiple changes in those genes, which would preserve the variation found in the parent species. Now a definition: Speciation has several meanings so I have chosen microevolution and macroevolution to define exactly what changes make speciation.

This definition is based entirely on DNA. Microevolution is made up of random mutations, the source of SNPs.(Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) It can also include any of the mistakes made in division of the germ cells, improper division and recombination of the chromosomes, or the transfer of parts of chromosomes (DNA material) by bacteria or by other methods that science has found. Variation in species is made up by microevolution. The finches that spread around a lake in Russia, and have gone so far that the furthest around the lake cannot breed with those near the start, even though each adjacent variation can interbreed, another example of microevolution.

Species that spread over a countryside with gradual changes in coloration or habits are also microevolution.

Macroevolution is multiple DNA base changes within a single gene. This could be read as multiple microevolution, but the rate of the DNA clock is known within some rather broad error band and macroevolution would far exceed that known rate. Also, the multiple changes are only in a few genes, while microevolution is in most genes.

In the fossil record, one species disappears and another may appear in it’s place. Thus macroevolution completely fits the fossil record.

Predictions

About 5 years ago I predicted that studies of developing embryos would identify the genes that determined such things as the shape of the tooth, and at that time comparison of those genes in closely related organisms would show that multiple bases have been changed between the two. Last year, sequencing of the chimp/Homo 20/21 genes proved that prediction. The researchers, according to news reports, discovered some genes that have more changes than were expected between the two. I have not been able to get details, but this is exactly what I predicted, and what Darwin cannot
explain.

How much change for speciation - is there any guidelines? I say, yes. According to the proposal, these changes take place in a single generation, so the new embryo is a different species from the mother. The change in a successor species is the maximum that can be made, considering these constraints:
1. The new species cannot disrupt the parents immune system, and vice versa.
2. The new species cannot be too big for the parent to bear, if a mammal or
egg laying animal.
3. Habits of the new species must be compatible with the parents, as they
must teach them while young. (For species that rear their young.)
4. Appearance of the new species must be compatible with expectation of the
parents. They cannot look like some foreign species.

While we do not know all about the habits and environment of each step of all organisms, we can make good guesses enough to see that the species in the fossil record would generally follow the above guidelines.

There are many other examples in the fossil record that give great problems for Darwin, but fit in easily to this proposal. Also, many evolutionary biologists have made statements of problems with Darwin’s new synthesis, but this proposal answers those concerns very well.

One remaining problem: I do not have a mechanism for the process of macroevolution. But if the fit with the fossil record and the predictions are acceptable, the good biologists can probably find a mechanism. I note that Einstein’s work with the speed of light has no mechanism for the limiting speed, or the properties of matter nearing that speed, and has been that way for most of 100 years, so the mechanism is desirable but not mandatory if everything else fits.

Carl Cox
Mansfield, MO

We have already discussed, very briefly, how the God that uses evolution must be limited. With this in mind we should make a few more issues clear.

I recently read through the discussion on evolution held over at times and seasons. There Glen Henshaw wrote a great post on evolutionary algorithms and their potents usefulness in designing wonderfully complex and productive artifices. This is according to Orgel’s second rule, “Evolution is cleverer than you are.” He gives an explanation which brought to my mind the metaphor of smaller cranes building larger cranes, until we have huge cranes capable of accomplishing tremendous things.

He then concludes with the following:

It seems to me that in the debate between evolution and creation, the burden of proof was often on religious advocates of evolution to demonstrate why God would choose to use such an strange way of creating humans. But now that evolution is being proven to be such a powerful, flexible design technique, the burden of proof is shifting, and maybe it’s now incumbent on detractors to explain why He wouldn’t.

I think the analogy has a great deal of merit but hardly warrants the conclusion drawn from it. In the comments Gordon Smith pointed out that such a scenario is “silly” unless one believes that God is less than omniscient or omnipotent. I fully agree. Luckily, Mormons don’t believe in a absolutely omnipotent God, and there is more than enough room for a less than absolutely omniscient God.

Where I disagree with his conclusion, however, is his shifting the question to “why wouldn’t He have done it this way?” Because, whereas the engineers are using an evoluitonary algorithm to create wonderful things by designing thousands upon thousands of models and then dumping them, all in virtual reality, the Engineer of this world actually creates His models in actual reality, complete with death, waste and suffering, for the purpose of creating humans. The scientists find the “optimal design and then only really create that one design. God, it seems, couldn’t do this. In other words, the scientists are doing it better than God! In other words, the question is definitely “Couldn’t God find a better way to do it?” instead of the other way around.

If He was not able to, He is limited in His power to some degree, but He is still omnibenevolent, vastly powerful and still worthy of our worship and allegiance. If He could do better, but chose not to, we can maintain that He is still “omnipotent,” again in the limited Mormon sense, but we cannot believe Him to be all-loving. Our allegiance to Him is such a state of affairs in questionable.

Some may say that He could have done better, but He chose not to in order to protect a greater good, but this only moves the question. Could He not have accomplished that greater good without having to allow so much suffering and waste? If we are to accept evolution, even the most basic beliefs about it, to be true, we must posit a God quite limited in His creative abilities.

Summary:
Engineers are currently using evolutionary algorithms, analogous to biological evolution, as a substitute for hard work and creativity. The results have been very successful showing the power behind the theory of evolution. Attempting to use this example to show God’s wisdom in using evolution does not solve many of the problems of evil discussed earlier.