mormonsandscience

 Theistic evolution is the belief that God uses evolution to create life. 

I accept this proposition, to a certain extent.  I believe that one of the joys of being a creator of worlds without number is seeing how life evolves on worlds without divine intervention.  The Creator placed life on His worlds and subjected it to the vicissitudes of chance and time (Ecclesiastes 9:11).  So, in a manner of speaking, the effects of time and chance are part of the grand master plan.

Thus we see that there is harmony between randomness and divine purpose.  Contrary to Einstein’s assertion that the Creator does not leave anything to chance (i.e., all events, including falling dice, are law governed), God allows randomness and apparently “uses” it to accomplish His creative objectives (more on these objectives in the next paragraph).  Divine purpose and randomness are compatible.  They can co-exist peacefully!

It is important for us to recognize the compatibility between divine creation and randomness because, as science has shown, random events occur at the genomic level.  Random mutation is a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism. According to the reputable Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, “The theory of neo-Darwinism asserts that much of the evolutionary change observed at the molecular level occurs via random genetic drift.” 

Because God and randomness are compatible under certain circumstances, there are no theoretical problems with asserting that He relies on evolutionary, random, genetic drift to achieve His objectives (by ‘objectives’, I am referring to the creation of new and interesting variations without direct divine intervention).  So if God sometimes relies on evolutionary randomness, what is wrong with believing in theistic evolution?

The problem lies with the creation of man (and woman).  You see, most theistic evolutionists believe that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved from lower life forms, just like every other mammal.  This claim is entirely inconsistent with gospel doctrine.  

The gospel teaches that the creation of mankind was purposeful and directed – it could be no less because mankind had to be created in the image of God (Moses 6:8-9).  The creation of mankind was not left up to the vicissitudes of chance over time.  The Creator was not looking for new and interesting variations when He created mankind.  It had to be done a certain way, in a manner that did not involve randomness inherent in evolution. The creation of mankind was not a processes to be left to evolutionary creativity.  Prominent Latter-day Saint scholars support this view.

Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:

Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man.

Robert J. Mathews similarly wrote:

The theistic evolutionist often speaks of a guided evolution, in which God intervenes in the process. There are those in and out of the Church who, because they believe in a divine being, sincerely attempt to hold to both the theory of evolution and their faith in God as creator. It is my opinion that in the eternal plan of God these two positions are incompatible.

I have heard rationalizations from Latter-day Saints desperately wanting to reconcile gospel doctrine and their belief in common descent.  I cannot fault them for trying, however, their efforts have largely proved ineffectual.  Their explanations lack theoretical and theological rigor.  For instance, a common explanation is that God-directed evolution only appears random to us lowly mortals.  This explanation falls short because the real issue is not one of appearances; it is one of what is ontologically real about the creation of mankind.  In other words, at its foundation, was the creation of mankind driven by chance processes as evolution asserts, or was it guided by deity?  If God created mankind with guided “evolutionary” processes, then it really wasn’t evolution, was it, regardless of appearances?

Parallel evolution is another perfunctory attempt at reconciling the theory of evolutionary descent with gospel doctrine on the creation of man.  In a manner of speaking, parallel evolution refers to the independent evolution of similar traits in life forms that shared similar ancestral conditions.  Put differently, two organisms with similar traits may evolve in a similar manner in different settings.  I suppose that this is supposed to show that there is an underlying law or metaphysical principle guiding the evolution of similar traits in separate environmental contexts, and that this principle has something to do with God’s influence.  

Atheistic evolutionists will readily concede that parallel evolution reflects the underlying laws of nature governing evolutionary processes, but they will also add that those laws are purposeless and are not devised by higher intelligence.  Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, will say that parallel evolution evidences a purposeful creator, that he set the laws of evolution in motion and dictated how those laws were to work from the beginning.

How do the atheists feel about divine guided evolution?  They do not like it, and rightfully so.  For atheists, parallel evolution just shows that there are underlying laws of nature resulting in uniform progression. Atheists believe in law governed evolution, however, they reject that those laws were created for a divine purpose.  The laws are just laws, nothing more and nothing less.  Atheists reject divine, purpose-driven evolution because, as they correctly point out, at its core evolution is purposeless.  

Notwithstanding their anti-religious stance, Richard Dawkins and Will Provine are two evolution atheists who tend to think more clearly about this issue than most theistic evolutionists.  Here is what they had to say about believing that God provided the laws of evolution for the purpose of creating mankind.    

Dawkins:
If I were God, I wouldn’t do it by evolution!  I would do it directly. By invoking the idea of evolution by natural selection as God’s way of doing it, you are in effect invoking the one way which makes it look as though God isn’t there.  So if God chose that way of doing it, then he deliberately chose a way which totally covered his tracks.

Provine:
I think creation scientists are very intellectually honest in their beliefs. If evolution is true, then none of the things that deeply religious people want to be true are in fact true. No God. No life after death. No free will. No ultimate meaning in life and no ultimate foundation for ethics. All these things are taken away.

So what are we to conclude about Latter-day Saints who embrace theistic evolution, notwithstanding its inconsistencies with true gospel doctrine and evolution orthodoxy?  Perhaps LDS scholar Robert J. Mathews put it best when he wrote:  

It may be that the believer who accepts [theistic evolution] has simply never thought it out to its logical, moral conclusions.  

Well, I finally got around to finishing my January 2009 issue of Scientific American, you know, the special issue on the "most powerful idea in science" (shhh! Don't tell Einstein).  I think most of the evolution articles were well written.  I particularly enjoyed “Evolution in the Everyday World” which talks about how evolution is being applied in technology, criminology, medicine, and computer science.  Because I graduated with a doctoral degree in psychology, I was especially interested in “The Four Fallacies of Pop Evolution Psychology.”

Generally speaking, evolutionary psychology uses evolutionary principles to understand human development and behavior.  It is “the new kid on the block” in the discipline of psychology.  It has only been around (in classrooms and texts) for about 10 years.  I thought that the queen bee, evolution biology, would welcome this new offspring into the hive and put it “under her wing” until evolutionary psychology could successfully branch out on its own.  On the contrary, she views the new discipline as an unwanted species resulting from an unfortunate mutation in the social sciences.  And so now the queen bee is trying to artificially select it for elimination.  That’s right folks; evolutionary psychology has been voted off the hive by evolution biologists. 

Hoooray!  As several hundred of my former students know, I don’t think too highly of evolutionary psychology.  I have always said that it was intellectually bankrupted from the get go, and Scientific American (SCIAM) agrees, to a certain extent.  

I found it interesting that SCIAM calls it “pop evolution psychology,” as if to suggest that there may be a legitimate evolutionary psychology out there somewhere – yeah right!  SCIAM sould have just called it “evolutionary psychology” because the scholars it attacks are those the psychology discipline recognizes as modern architects of the evolutionary psychology movement, notables like Steve Pinker.  SCIAM’s criticisms are legitimate, but as we shall soon see, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

According to the article, evolutionary psychologists attempt to understand human behavior by “analyzing the adaptive problems our ancestors faced [long ago].”  However, the article also points out that claims regarding our ancestors’ adaptive problems “are purely speculative because we have little evidence of the conditions under which early human evolution occurred.”  In other words, evolutionary psychologists can’t say for certain what conditions and adaptive challenges existed long ago because they were not there!

The article also points out that for evolutionary psychologists to effectively speculate on how adaptation to environmental challenges influenced our ancestors’ psychological traits, we need “knowledge of our ancestors’ psychological traits – which we don’t have – [so] we can’t know how selection tinkered with them to create the minds we now possess.”  In other words, evolutionary psychologists cannot speak authoritatively on how our minds developed because we are missing too much information, thus they resort to best-guess story telling to fill in the gaps.

The gist of these and other criticisms is that evolutionary psychology is plagued by speculation.  It lacks facts to back up the ideas it’s advocating.  Jack Nicholaus might put it this way: “You evolutionary psychologists are writing checks (hypotheses) that your research (facts) can’t cash!”

Well done evolution biology, but did you notice that some of the criticisms you leveled at evolutionary psychology also apply to you?  That’s right – you better be careful when pointing a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you, you schmuck.

In the same edition, SCIAM also presents in stunning artistic detail the human pedigree showing the evolution of mankind.  The article boldly claims that “we KNOW that our closest living ancestor is the chimpanzee and that humans arose in Africa between five million and seven million years ago.”  Somewhat surprisingly, after making this bold claim, the article admits these 4 weaknesses: (a) “the human family tree contains many dead branches;” (b) “the story of our origins is far from complete;” (c) paleontologists have yet to find “fossils of the last common ancestor [linking] chimpanzees are humans,” and (d) we have yet to learn how “homo sapiens [were] able to outcompete the Neandertals and other archaic humans.”

Soooo, what evolution biology is saying is it lacks facts to back up several of its assertions regarding the human pedigree because its wasn't there when those things happened, and it is left with conjecture when filling many of the gaps of the human pedigree.  Wait a minute!  Yet evolution biology claims to KNOW that humanity arose in Africa 5-7 million years ago as a close relative of chimpanzees?!  

Evolutionary biology, when it comes to the origins of mankind, like the evolutionary psychologists, you too are writing checks (hypotheses) that your research (facts) can’t cash!

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was an evolutionist who believed in the inheritance of acquired traits.  Inheritance of acquired traits is the notion that changes in an organism’s characteristics that are caused by life events or exposure to environmental stimuli may be passed onto offspring.  For instance, if a man takes up body building and develops muscle mass, he will pass muscle mass characteristics onto his offspring.  Or if a mother becomes a prolific reader, her children may become good readers.  

Here is what Lamarck said:
"All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young."

Lamarck deserves credit for being among the first to provide a comprehensive theory of evolution.  He also deserves credit for stressing the important role that environment plays in giving rise to changes in organisms.  However, because he advanced the idea of inheritable acquired traits, and idea that has been rejected by the scientific community, he has been relegated to the bottom of the evolution contribution totem pole.  At the top of the pole is Darwin’s face, under it is Wallace’s face, and somewhere near the bottom is Lamarck’s face, positioned where people have been able to kick his teeth once and a while for proposing inheritable acquired traits.  Well, that may be changing.

Recent discoveries in genetics have uncovered an exciting field called epigenetics.  Epigenetics is the study of the mechanisms that drive gene expression without altering the basic structure of DNA.  Put simply, certain genes may be turned on and off, thus leading to changes in human phenotype (visible characteristics) without altering the genotype itself.  The effects of epigenetics may be far reaching.  It may lead to a better understanding of aging, life changes, and the causes and potential cures of diseases, to name a few.   

What I find interesting about epigenetics is that the mechanisms driving gene expression can be influenced by environmental stimuli.  What is even more intriguing is that epigenetic changes can be passed onto offspring.  That’s right, the sort of things you expose yourself too (good and bad) can influence your offspring.  I am not just talking about pregnant mothers here.  Environmental influences we were exposed to as young children may have epigenetic consequences for our offspring.

Epigenetics is not a vindication of Lamarck’s principle of inherited acquired traits; they are not the same thing.  But if I had to pick a scholar who came the closest to presaging epigenetic phenomena, it would have to be Lamarck.  Well done, Jean-Baptiste.

Epigenetics is a recent discovery, yet God has always known about it.  He knows everything about how the environment affects our epigenetics.  I am certain that He took epigenetic phenomena into consideration when he gave us the Word of Wisdom.  The Word of Wisdom was given to us as a form of godly admonition or divine advice about what we should take into our bodies.  He did not tell us why He gave us the Word of Wisdom, He just did.  Yet as science’s understanding of the importance of consumptive habits grows (e.g., balanced diet, moderation, avoiding harmful substances, type II diabetes, epigenetics), we are increasingly uncovering the godly wisdom in the Word of Wisdom.

So those of us who want to pass on favorable epigenetic characteristics to our children and grand children should heed the counsel of the Word of Wisdom.  It now appears that the things we were exposed to as children can influence our children’s epigenetics, and the things that we expose our young children to can influence our grandchildren’s epigenetics. 

In aviation it’s called a “course correction”.  When a flight crew realizes that they’ve deviated from the pre-established direction of flight, they correct their course.  

It seems the BYU Biology department needs a course correction.  

The biology department’s mandate is to teach the science of biology, including evolution, within the light of the gospel.  I am sure they are doing an excellent job of teaching the principles of biology and evolution, but when it comes to integrating the principles of biology with the principles of the gospel, they’ve goofed.  They are way off course.  That’s right; if they were NASA, the Mars rover would have crashed landed on Venus.

A faculty member recently said, “We [the biology department] spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible” (Feb. 9, 2009 BYU newspaper, The Daily Universe).  In other words, they are teaching that the doctrines of evolution and religion are in complete harmony.  I can only assume that this statement includes the restored gospel.   

Can someone please tell me how a godless and directionless theory of the descent of mankind is in harmony with a purpose-driven and divinely-directed theology of creation?  BYU biology professors who do not recognize these inconsistencies between the evolutionary and gospel accounts of the creation of mankind need to do some reading.  Those who avoid the conflict by compartmentalizing dissimilar gospel and evolutionary teachings and then tell their students that the two are compatible are being disingenuous.  In either event, a course correction is needed.

Apparently I am not the only member of the church who has pointed out the glaring inconsistencies between gospel and evolutionary accounts of the origin of mankind.   

Joseph Fielding Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding McConkie, and Boyd K. Packer also recognized the inconsistencies.  Here is what they said:

Joseph Fielding Smith
“This idea that everything commenced from a small beginning, from the scum upon the surface of the sea, and has gradually developed until all forms of life, the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea, and the plants upon the face of the earth, have all sprung from that one source, is a falsehood absolutely.  There is no truth in it, for God has given us his word by which we may know.” 

John Taylor
According to gospel doctrine, “The principles [of creation] do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from their Maker. There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and its operations can go no further.”

Joseph Fielding McConkie
"Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?  No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall. Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man."

Boyd K. Packer
"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded them in the Creation. They reproduce after their own kind.  They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that. Every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. . . . Each is a child of God. He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors."

It is time for the BYU biology department to change course on their approach to evolution and Mormonism.  First, they need to stop spreading the myth that Mormon theology and evolution are in complete harmony.  Second, they should study the underlying differences, acknowledge that differences exist, tell their students about the inconsistencies, and let their students make up their own minds on the matter. 

The BYU Biology Department’s efforts to lionize Darwin and find meaningful parallels between his life and those of great men have me wondering.  Perhaps the BYU Darwin Bicentennial celebrations attempted to make a Darwinian mole hill into a Darwinian mountain.  Of course Darwin did a great job at uncovering a mechanism driving microevolutionary processes (he did not “invent” evolution), but I am not inclined to put him into the same category as other great men.  I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, his scientific accomplishments and their impact on society pale in comparison to those from scientists like Boyle, Newton, Galileo, Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell.

Let's take Galileo, for example.  Not only was he a great scientist, his work is directly connected to the Restoration. 

- Joseph Smith and Galileo encountered stiff resistance from apostate religionists when they tried to tell the world of truths they had discovered.  Joseph Smith had truths about the nature of the godhead and religions, and Galileo had truths about the nature of our solar system and our place in the universe.  

- Also, Galileo and Smith encountered the same sort of opposition as they challenged deep-seated apostate views.  The prophet Joseph Smith declared, “I soon found that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among the professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution.”  And Galileo similarly wrote, “I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them . . . stirred up against me no small number of professors.”

- And attempts were made to disprove each man’s discoveries.  In the case of Smith, clergy members attempted to deny and disprove it by claiming that “there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there would never be any more of them.”  And in the case of Galileo, “[Theologians] sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them.”

- Galileo’s efforts to loosen the shackles that constrained free thinking prepared the earth for the Restoration which Joseph Smith brought forth centuries later. 

- Finally, each man lost his freedom as a result of challenging apostate religious dogma.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, who is the head of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Culture, recently affirmed the church’s full fledged acceptance of neo-Darwinism as the mechanism by which God created the world and mankind.  He wrote, “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God.”  

How did they goof up again? 

They overstepped their religious boundaries by making formal scientific assertions.  (Steven Jay Gould, the late biologist who argued for a vigorous separation of religious and scientific domains, might be turning in his grave right now.)  You see, the Catholic Church made the same sort of mistakes with Galileo in the 1600s.  He said that the earth and all the planets move around the sun; the Catholic Church said he was wrong and they locked him up.  The church claimed the sun and all the planets revolve around the earth.  It turns out Galileo was right and the church was wrong.

There are 2 good reasons why churches should refrain from making such statements. 

First, as Galileo pointed out to the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, churches are in the business of saving souls, not scientific theories.  Hearing the Catholic Church make scientific truth claims is a bit like going to the butcher shop and being given legal instruction on how to write a binding contract, or going to the bank and being given medical instructions on how to treat a sports injury.  I am pleased that the LDS church has refrained from making formal statements about scientific issues.  It seems to understand better than other religions that its purpose is to bring souls unto Christ.

Second, science is an ever changing enterprise.  It is a bit hard for us to realize that well-accepted theories come and go because so many of us don’t have the benefit of living long enough to see this happen.  Here are a few recent examples.  The once widely accepted scientific theory of Phlogiston is now debunked.  The once widely accepted theory of Luminiferous Ether is now debunked.  Even several of Newton’s “irreplaceable and irrefutable” ideas have now been replaced by Einstein’s Relativity.  The geocentric (earth-centered) theory of the universe which dominated science for over 1400 years was eventually replaced, and, yes, one day evolution may also be replaced by a superior theory of the diversity of life forms.  Hard to believe?!  That is what the advocates of ether and Newton’s mechanics once thought.

What happens when a scientific theory changes or is debunked, as history has shown?  This is an important question for religions to consider.  If a religion thoroughly embraces a scientific theory, what does it say when that theory changes or is debunked?  If it claims inspiration from God, how will its leadership appear to others when it says, “Uh. Umm . . . We made a mistake, guys”?  It will appear foolish.  This is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church in its handling of the Galileo affair.

American philosopher George Santayana wrote “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The Catholic Church would be wise to consider this sage advice.

In 1861, upon reading the Origin of Species, he exclaimed: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.”

Who is he? Karl Marx (author of the Communist Manifesto and father of communism).

Nearly 2 thousand years before Origin of Species went into print, this man taught ideas that bear a striking resemblance to the assumptions underlying evolutionary principles. He taught the following:

- There is no need to believe in God (a theory of human existence devoid of deity)
- Every man fared in this life according to the natural “management of the creature” (a'la natural selection)
- Every man “conquered according to his strength” (a'la survival of the fittest)
- “Whatsoever a man did was no crime” (moral relativism)
- “When a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (atheism)

Who was this man? Korihor (ancient American atheist extraordinaire and deceiver of many). Sorry I couldn’t find his picture.

 

In 1891 in Gori, Georgia, a 13-year-old choirboy with dreams of becoming a priest, Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, was discovered by his mother at dawn, having stayed awake through the night reading Darwin’s Origin of Species.

“I loved the book so much, Mummy, I couldn’t stop reading,” he explained. He later told a friend that God “doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived.”

“How can you say such a thing?” the friend exclaimed.  The boy responded by handing his friend a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Who is the boy?  Joseph Stalin (orchestrator of the Great Purge or Soviet Holocaust which resulted in the deaths of millions of soviet citizens).

Evolution is a beautiful thing. I like to think that the Creator finds joy in putting life forms on earth and then watching how they change and develop new characteristics without any divine input or influence. That is what I would do if I were the god of worlds without number.  

“Look! I put a feline mammal on the planet orbiting alpha centuari a few million years ago and just look at the characteristics it developed without my intervention.” 

“Look! I put finches on the planet earth long ago, and look how it’s body shape and beak size changed without my intervening.” 

“Look! I put some Trilobites on the earth during the Cambrian explosion to help prepare the earth for the arrival of larger species. Notwithstanding their having evolved different characteristics, they were not able to endure changes in the seas during the Devonian period, and were thus wiped out.” 

However, the best example of evolution is humankind. We have been given agency, which means that we are capable of choosing our path through life and the eternities. Don’t you think that God is very interested in how we use our agency to learn and grow? You bet. He is watching with great interest at how we evolve spiritually. If we become like Him, we will be like him in terms of righteousness, yet our personalities and spiritual characteristics will be unique, a product of personal evolution. 

So I think that evolution is a divine concept, and one that is supported by scripture. Contrary to Einstein’s assertion that nothing in the universe is left to chance, Ecclesiastes 9:11 tells us that “time and chance happeneth to them all.” That is to say, all of God’s creations are subject to events that occur as a result of the passage of time, and they are also subject to events that occur as a result of chance processes (e.g., random mutations). He is in control, yet He allows things to change and develop on their own. 

Thus far I have referred to what many call microevolution. Microevolution is a scientifically proven fact, a fact that is entirely consistent with the doctrines of the gospel, as shown above. But what has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the scientific community is macroevolution. Macroevolution is the idea that life is capable of evolving from one life form to another. Sure, there is evidence suggesting that macroevolution may have occurred (the fossil record comes to mind), yet there is no conclusive evidence proving that it does occur. Macroevolution remains an inductive generalization or best guess at what might have happened in the past.

That scientists have not been able to confirm macroevolutionary changes across life forms is not surprising given that it appears wholly inconsistent with fundamental doctrines in the restored gospel. Here are 3 fundamental truths from the gospel that contradict the theory of macroevolution and its concomitant assertion that mankind, including Adam and Eve, evolved from lower species (aka, common descent).

1. We are created in the image of God. By definition, evolution refers to unguided events. If God had left the creation of Adam’s body to chance, there are so many possible outcomes that it is inconceivable that the final outcome would have looked like God. Some claim that God could have used evolution and that it just appears as though it is random to us humans. Fine, but if it just appears random - meaning that it is not - then it is not evolution, is it? I can safely say that your chances of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning, and being elected president of the USA all in one day are better than the chances of unguided evolutionary processes creating an entity in the image of our Heavenly Father.

2. God commanded all life forms to reproduce after their own kind. According to divine law, living things can only produce their own kind. This verse also refers to mankind. Mark E. Peterson wrote, “[Adam] could bring forth only after his kind according to the law of God, and he was "after the kind" or order of his Eternal Father in Heaven. No lower forms were involved” (Adam: Who Is He? p.54.). Reproduction becomes an issue when we consider that hybridization may lead to a new species and, in some cases, closely related species are unable to produce a fertile offspring, as in the case of a horse and donkey producing a sterile mule. 

3. Life forms remain in the sphere in which God created them. Speaking of lower life forms, the Lord said, “And it became a living soul also. . . . for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man” (Moses 3:9). Mark E. Peterson again provides an apt interpretation of this doctrine. He wrote that this verse indicates that “all forms of life remained in the sphere in which he created them. There was no transfer from one species to another” (Ibid).

As you know, some scriptures may be considered allegorical in the sense that they are just symbolic representations of actual events. This may certainly be the case with the creation of the world, the creation of Adam’s physical body, and the Fall of Adam. I don’t know how the earth and Adam’s body were created, neither do I know how the Fall and the subsequent transformation to a telestial world took place. We are largely left to guesswork on these matters.

What I do know is that the aforementioned 3 doctrines are not allegorical. They are statements of fact that should leave no doubt in a reader’s mind as to their true message. They are as straight forward and undeniable in meaning as are the doctrines: “Men will be punished for their own sins and not Adam’s transgressions” and “Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveals his secrets unto his servants, the prophets.” 

What more is there to say that might allow for an alternative understanding of these doctrines? Nothing. In my opinion, attempts to rationalize these doctrines in ways that allow for alternative interpretations are simply unabashed intellectualizations of the plain and simple truths of the gospel.

The following comments recently appeared on a pro-evolution website. Quote 1 is from the author of the column, and quotes 4-5 are from someone who posted comments on the column. They were written by members who accept evolution (here).

1. “First, make this the year that you do what you’ve always planned to do: read Origin of Species. It’s marvelously readable. It is also one of the classics of Western civilization that one ought to have read to be considered culturally literate.”

2. “Deniers of evolution are just as loathsome as deniers of the Holocaust.”

3. “Deniers of evolution are . . . totally disconnected from physical and empirical realities.”

4. “Deniers of evolution are . . . [are] opting instead to dwell in the oblivion of their own nonsensed, dissociative inner-world.”

5. “Deniers of evolution are . . . clinging to false religion and false gods that they have fashioned in their own image.”

Does anyone else have a problem with these statements?  These comments demonstrate the lows some evolutionists in our ranks have gone to in order to support their position. They have also resorted to ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with their beliefs.  I have been the target of some of these ad hominem attacks because I disagree with some of their evolutionary viewpoints. 

It should stop.

It is possible to express divergent viewpoints regarding the creation of the world and evolution in a non-demeaning manner; several Latter-day Saint evolutionists and non-evolutionists have demonstrated this fact. But why some have attempted to demean others is beyond me. I consider it inappropriate and unscholarly to ridicule others in this manner regardless what side of the issue we are on. 

My 2 cents.

The only thing worse than a complete lie is a lie mixed with truth. A lie mixed with truth is more likely to deceive people than a simple lie.

Expelled Exposed is basically a movement to expose the supposed lies in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled. I recently read two sources spearheading this endeavor: a website attacking the movie that is sponsored by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and a blog posting by Michael Shermer on the website for Scientific American (SA). These two sites present harsh accusations towards Ben Stein, accusing him of completely misrepresenting the truth in his portrayal of scholars who were expelled from institutes of higher learning for embracing intelligent design.

After reading the shocking accusations against Stein’s movie at the NCSE and Scientific American websites, I had to find out if anyone has posted a reply to the accusations. That is when I came across a pro-Expelled article by lawyer Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. After thoroughly reading all the aforementioned material in an objective manner, I have come to a most unfortunate conclusion.

The National Center for Science and Education and Scientific American have unfairly labeled Ben Stein as being a deceptive, anti-scientific, religious fanatic. These entities have attempted to do this by adding a pinch of truth to a large portion of falsehoods. Shame on them!

I shall give you a sampling in this post. The following are falsehoods perpetuated by the NCSE and SA, and truths of the matter from Corey Luskin. (Note: All quotations come from Luskin’s article titled “Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled”)

Falsehood #1 – Stephen Meyer’s article which explained the sudden appearance of life forms during the Cambrian Explosion using intelligent design, and which appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was not peer reviewed nor was it subjected to review by an associate editor according to the rules of the biological society.

Truth of the Matter – Meyer’s article was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers. It is true that Richard Sternberg, the editor who processed Meyer’s article, did not send the article to an associate editor for final review. However, it is a fact that editors working for the biological society are permitted to use their own discretion when deciding whether to forward an article to an associate editor. Dr. McDiarmid, president of the biological society, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper.

Falsehood #2 – Scholars at the Biological Society did not treat Richard Sternberg poorly because of his pro-intelligent design viewpoints. No pressure was put on Sternberg to leave his position at the Smithsonian.

Truth of the Matter – Emails from staff at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History where Richard Sternberg worked clearly indicate that he was dealt with harshly because of his pro-ID leanings. Consider the following conclusions from a congressional investigation into Mr. Sternberg’s case. The Congressional Staff Report states:

            “Officials at the Smithsonian created a hostile work environment intended to for Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as research associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights”

            “In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, Smithsonian officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.”

            “Smithsonian officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”

Falsehood #3 – Pro-ID Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzales was denied tenure because his publication record “tanked” while at ISU.

Truth of the Matter – Gonzales has published numerous peer-reviewed articles. Indeed his publication rate slowed when he started to investigate and write a book about ID called the Privileged Planet. Even still, as of 2001, Gonzales led ALL TENURED FACULTY who voted against his tenure in normalized publications and citations. According to Luskin, ‘Dr. Gonzales has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for.” A majority of external reviewers who reviewed Gonzales’ tenure application agreed that he deserved tenure. One external reviewer wrote: “Dr. Gonzales is eminently qualified for the promotion according to [ISU’s] guidelines of excellence in scholarship.”

Falsehood #4 – There was no conspiracy at ISU to deny Gonzales tenure based on his intelligent design leanings.

Truth of the Matter – ID played a major role in denying Gonzales tenure at ISU. 

            “ISU Physicist John Hauptman explicitly admitted in an op-ed that he voted against Gonzales’ tenure because of ID.”

            “Dr. Gonzales’ department chair Eli Rosenberg devoted a full third of his chair’s statement in Gonzales’ tenure file to discussing intelligent design.”

             “Two tenure-voting faculty in Gonzales’ department had links to an anti-ID petition publicly denouncing intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience.”

            Other ISU faculty were intent on sending a message to Gonzales that “his efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty.”

Conclusion

The anti-Expelled lobby has unfairly accused Ben Stein of misrepresenting the truth. It appears that they will stop at nothing to besmirch Stein’s work. They have even gone so far as to criticize him as being “dishonest” for using extras in the opening scene where Stein gives a speech to students. Hmmm? A Hollywood production using extras. How is that dishonest?!

In my opinion, aggressive attacks on Expelled from the National Center for Science Education and Scientific American are exposing their hidden atheistic agenda – to completely secularize our society and drive any mention of God out of science.