Mormon,Mormonism Creation of Man

In this page I discuss the question, "Why would a God, who can perform great miracles, use a very slow and laborious way to create man?" The short answer to that question is because God does his work through natural laws, and scientists are learning that evolution seems to be one of the natural laws used in the creation of physical life.

Let us obtain the long answer by looking at the short answer (given above) in more detail. We know through science that physical matter is controlled by the laws of nature. Scientific research is based on the principle that the laws of nature are consistent.

From the Pearl of Great Price, we have the following statement that in creating the earth God organized the elements.

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. (Abraham 4:1)

God did not create the earth from nothing. He organized the earth from preexisting but unorganized matter. The fact that God organized the matter instead of creating the matter implies there were laws controlling the matter and that God followed those laws. This leads us to the following question. When God used unorganized matter in creating the earth, in what way was the matter unorganized? The scriptures don't answer that question, and we are left to our speculation about it. One possibility is there were molecules of the elements present, implying that on the molecular/atomic level the matter was organized, but on a macro level, the molecules were not organized into stars, planets, moons, mountains, etc. Another possibility is that individual molecules did not exist and that the unorganized matter was actually energy. In this case, in creating the earth, God transformed energy into molecules of matter. Whatever happened, the important question is, did God create universal laws that would organize the matter, or did He use preexisting laws to organize the matter? To help us answer this question, let us read from the Doctrine and Covenants about those who are exalted in the Celestial Kingdom.

They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; (D&C 76:55-56)

Those who are exalted will receive the fullness and glory of our Heavenly Father, and He will give all things to those persons. Latter-day Saints believe this includes the power of creation. Let's assume for sake of discussion that you become exalted and receive the power of creation from our Father in Heaven. In order to use that power, will you have to create laws of nature that will govern the unorganized matter that you use to organize a world? No, of course not. Those laws are universal and were in effect before you were born into mortality. As an exalted being, you will learn to evoke and control those laws and use them to fulfill your purposes.

So it is with our Father in Heaven. When God organized preexisting matter, He was, I believe, obedient to the laws that govern that matter. His works, especially miracles, do not contravene natural laws. He may, though, evoke higher laws that override the laws that normally are in control of the matter.

To summarize, the scriptures give the *why* of God's creations; why He created the world and the universe. The scriptures don't, however, give the *how* of the creation. We must turn to science to learn how God created the physical earth and the universe. Science tells us that evolution was one of the key laws involved with the creation of the physical world. God was obedient to those laws.

Mormon,Mormonism Official LDS statements about Evolution and the Origin of Man

In this page I discuss the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints toward evolution and the origin of man.

Many people consider evolution to be in opposition to the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, a review of official documents of the Church reveals that the church is neutral towards evolution. In this post I give links to websites that contain information about the documents.

In a 1957 letter letter to Professor William Lee Stokes, President David O. McKay, writing on church stationary as President of the Church, stated "On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position."

In 1992 BYU prepared an evolution packet to be given to students who inquire about evolution and the Church. The statements from the First Presidencies that are given in the packet do not reference evolution, per se, but emphasize that we are children of our Father in Heaven and that Adam was the first flesh on the earth.

In 2005 William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery published a book called Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements, in which they brought together many if not all of the official documents of the Church about evolution. In 2006 Frank B. Salisbury of FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) reviewed the book.

As you read the official documents issued by the Church, keep in mind that the question of evolution only concerns our mortal bodies. Our spirits are the offspring of God, and we have no information about their origin.

Mormon,Mormonism Evolution not a matter of Chance

One of the criticisms of evolution that is given by religious people is that evolution is random or a matter of chance, and God wouldn't use a scheme that relied on chance to create persons in his image. There are two reasons why I believe evolution is not a matter of chance.

First, the charge that evolution is a matter of chance implies that the changes or mutations occur randomly in the DNA of the organism. However, the mutations that cause changes to the DNA are not random. They are caused by sources that put a bias on which DNA sequences will be changed. Examples of such sources are solar radiation, air and water temperature of the environment in which the organism lives, and mutations caused by disease. Recent research shows there is a strong genetic component to evolution.

Second, the mutations are not transmitted in a random fashion to subsequent generations of the organism. Evolution involves a principle called natural selection, in which mutations, that favor the survival of the organism, will likely continue to subsequent generations, while mutations, that do not favor survival of the organism, may not continue to subsequent generations, causing the organism-line may die out. That is, natural selection puts a bias on which mutations continue to subsequent generations. Of course, some mutations that don't favor survival of the organism may be transmitted to subsequent generations because other mutations favor survival, and those mutations may cause the organism to not die out.

Evolution of life on this earth has been going on for millions of years, likely over a billion years. That amount of time is long enough that changes in an organism, that individually might be considered minor, continue in subsequent generations due to natural selection, until eventually the changes have caused the organism to be a different organism. An example of this is a fish that "walks" on land using its fins as legs. Living about 375 million years ago was "An extraordinary fish that...had unique features in its head that helped pave the way for vertebrate animals to live on land, scientists said on Wednesday (October 2008)." Perhaps something like the following occurred millions of years ago. Ancestors of the fish would inadvertently swim near the shore of the water and end up in shallow water. The fish would flop around until they either died or got back into water where they could swim. While a fish was flopping in shallow water, it was exposed to solar radiation that changed its DNA. Over a long period of time, those changes increased the likelihood that the fish could survive out of water. Eventually the fish had evolved into the "walking fish" that was recently discovered in fossilized form by scientists.

My final reason for believing that evolution is not a matter of chance is a philosophic reason that I believe that God uses evolution to accomplish his purposes.  He does, I believe, control the evolution to accomplish his purposes. He does his work through the use of natural laws rather than through a magical influence that defies natural laws.

The concepts of evolution are being proved true

Many people consider evolution as a theory. They say that evolution has never been proven. I think they are wrong, and in this post, I'm presenting hard evidence that concepts or principles of evolution have been proven.

The principles of evolution say that changes to an organism can, over a long period of time, change the organism such that it becomes a new organism. In order to produce a new organism, the changes or mutations have to be passed on to subsequent generations of the organism. This passing on of the changes is influenced by "natural selection", and natural selection causes the mutations that favor continued existence of the organism to be preserved over mutations that do not favor continued existence of the organism.

Think of evolution this way. Many, if not most, life forms begin as a single cell. That cell divides and divides and divides, and so on. As the cells divide, the DNA of the organism controls how the cells develop such that some cells become muscles while other cells become bone, and so on. The DNA controls the formation of the organism such that it becomes the same type of organism as the one that originally formed the single cell. However, if mutations occur in the DNA, the resulting organism may be slightly different than the original organism. Over time, these differences can accumulate such that the organism actually becomes a different organism. For example, bone may grow where there was no bone before. The new organism may develop lungs instead of gills and thus be able to exist on dry land. The result of this is that the original organism has evolved into a new organism.

Evolution via Avida

Generally, evolution requires tens of thousands or more generations of the organism before new organisms are created. Because a new human generation only appears after about 20 years, it isn't practical for scientists to observe evolution in humans. However, some scientists have turned to computer software as a way to study evolution. I'm not talking about computer simulations of evolution. I'm talking about actual evolution in which the computer-generated organisms are changed and new generations are created. Trust me on this, because I worked in industry and education as a computer programmer (software engineer) for over 40 years, and I understand how computer software works. Because computers are fast, new generations can be produced in a fraction of a second, and evolution over tens of thousands of generations can be observed in a relatively short time.

Scientists are using small computer programs, known as “digital organisms,” that behave in certain aspects like real organisms. The digital organisms can reproduce or replicate themselves via spawning, and they pass to their descendants changes in their nature that result from mutations caused by external stimuli. The digital organisms are not simulations of evolution in which reactions to stimuli are programmed into the organisms a priori. The organisms actually experience mutations and natural selection, and they react to those stimuli in ways that are not programmed into them.

The software used by the scientists is called Avida. In discussing Avida, we must realize that the software was designed to explore concepts involved in evolution rather than perform evolution of real-life. Numerous articles have been written about digital organisms. I am drawing on an article in Discover magazine for most of my information about Avida. A single digital organism is created with only one skill, the ability to reproduce or replicate itself. The organism reproduces itself, and its children reproduce themselves. Over time thousands of generations of organisms are produced. During these replications, random changes or mutations to the computer commands that make up the organisms occur, and these mutations change the nature of the computer programs and hence the nature of the organisms. These mutations are passed from generation to generation. As mutations change the computer programs of the organisms, new skills are gained by the organisms.

To understand the changes, we have to understand how the computer commands that make up the organisms are organized. We can, in a simplified way, think of there being two groups of computer commands, namely, commands that allow the organisms to replicate themselves, and no-operation commands that consume computer processing power but don't do anything useful. Mutations occur in both groups of commands. Mutations that occur in the commands causing reproduction may eventually change the commands such that reproduction can no longer occur, and the organisms in those strains die. Mutations in the no-operation commands create new commands, and it is these new commands that lead to the evolution of desirable skills. To understand how the mutations occur, let us realize that the computer programs that make up the organisms are just groups of binary numbers (1 and 0) that are interpreted in particular ways by the computer hardware. The mutations change a 1 to a 0 and a 0 to a 1.

The organisms are fed input numbers. In the beginning, the organisms don't know how to obtain the numbers or how to do anything with the numbers. As new skills are evolved, the organisms are able to access the numbers and do desirable manipulations of the numbers, such as obtaining a second number, adding the two numbers, etc.

As organisms develop desirable changes in their computer commands, they experience a form of natural selection by being rewarded with increases in the computer processing power that is used by the programs, and this enables those organisms to reproduce at a faster rate. This increases the number of children that have the desirable traits. In the real world, organisms experience natural selection when they evolve traits that enable them to have a higher rate of survival.

Because the digital organisms are experiencing evolution, there are interesting parallels between them and real-life organisms. The article in Discover magazine discusses these parallels.

• Real-life organisms have DNA that contains instructions for passing the genetic nature of the organisms to their descendants. Digital organisms are computer programs that contain commands for passing the computer programs to their descendants; this program defines the nature of the digital organisms.
  
  
• Mutations to DNA occur which change the genetic nature of the descendants. Mutations to the computer programs occur which change the nature of the digital organisms.
  

A Research Platform

Scientists are using the Avida software to study evolution. An experiment was conducted to see if digital organisms could evolve into more complex organisms. This experiment was described in the Discover article. The goal of the experiment was to see if digital organisms could evolve into organisms that could determine if two consecutive input numbers are the same. For example, the group of numbers 6190443279 has one pair of equal numbers (44). To provide the conditions for natural selection, Avida was adjusted to reward simple mutations that could lead to the desired complex organism and to give even larger rewards for more complex mutations. The organisms were allowed to replicate for 16,000 generations. This experiment was repeated 50 times, and a complex organism evolved in 23 out of the 50 times. The initial digital organism had only the ability to replicate itself. The complex organism had the additional abilities to obtain the input numbers, keep the last number in its memory, obtain a new number, compare the two numbers, and record in some way if a match occurred or not. An interesting aspect of the experiment is that the 23 successful digital organisms were different from each other because they took different evolutionary paths to reach the desired complexity.

The researcher conducting this experiment calculated that the probability of a complex organism being obtained with random mutations but no natural selection was about one in a thousand trillion trillion. This probability was computed from the number of bits (1 and 0) in a computer program written by the researcher to perform the complex function. This extremely low probability for a complex organism illustrates that the success of 23 out of 50 runs of the experiment was due to natural selection via the rewards given for favorable mutations and the higher rewards for complex mutations. The importance of natural selection was confirmed when the researcher took away the rewards for the simpler mutations--the complex organism was never achieved.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

One of the big debates about evolution concerns the debate about evolution and intelligent design or ID. Evolution and ID are competing ideas how the Cosmos (including this earth) was created. The short answer is that I believe evolution is based on science while ID is based on religious belief. My understanding of ID is that it does not refer to "god". It refers to an intelligence that created the Cosmos. However, the parallels between a god and the intelligence are so great, I think that many people would say that ID involves a god. I believe that evolution is the best explanation that science can currently give. ID is a reasonable religious explanation, but it isn't a scientific explanation. Now, let's look at the long answer to the debate.

The Scientific Method

Wikipedia gives the following explanation of the Scientific Method.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

The Nature of Intelligence Design

The following information about ID is taken from the ID website.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago..

Intelligence Design is not Scientific

Proponents of ID claim that ID is scientific. The following information is from the ID website, in answer to the question, "Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?"

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Notice that that statement implies that only intelligent agents produce complex information. That implication is false. In another part of this discussion of evolution, I show that evolution can create complex information. In addition, information which is given below about the eye shows that the eye is a product of evolution and was not created as a complex organ.

Also notice that ID claims the identification of CSI is scientific, but nothing is mentioned about the use of the scientific method to determine the existence of an intelligent agent. Proponents of evolution do not deny that complex information exists in nature. They do claim that such information evolved from simpler forms. They key characteristic of ID is that intelligent agents exist, not that complexity exists in nature. I have found nothing in the ID website that shows the scientific method has found the existence of intelligent agents. Because of this, I do not believe ID is scientific.

School Curriculum

One aspect of the debate between evolution and ID is whether ID should be taught in school science classes. The answer is, to me, a straight-forward "No". I have just shown that ID does not follow the scientific method to show the existence of an intelligent agent and that ID is not science. Whether ID should be taught in school as a religious philosophy is a question individual school boards will have to answer.

The Eye

People who support creationism say the eye is a good example that supports ID. The eye is probably the most complex organ in the human and animal bodies, and proponents of ID say evolution couldn't create such a complex organ. However, in 2008, a researcher in Australia published a paper saying that fossil evidence shows the eye has evolved.

The palaeobiologist discovered that unlike all living vertebrate animals – which includes everything from the jawless lamprey fish to humans – placoderms had a different arrangement of muscles and nerves supporting the eyeball – evidence of an “intermediate stage” between the evolution of jawless and jawed vertebrates.

The researcher (Dr. Young) went on to say that

“Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ.

“These extinct placoderms had the eyeball still connected to the braincase by cartilage, as in modern sharks, and a primitive eye muscle arrangement as in living jawless fish.” Dr Young said that this anatomical arrangement is different from all modern vertebrates, in which there is a consistent pattern of tiny muscles for rotating each eyeball."

This, it seems, is evidence that the eye has evolved and wasn't created as the complex organ we have today.

Future Study

Wikipedia is a good starting place for study about evolution. The article contains many links that will enable you to study various aspects of evolution. The blog, LDS Science Review, is maintained by Jared, a LDS biologist, and contains a number of articles about evolution and ID, as well as other aspects of science that parallel Mormon doctrine. Another blog that discusses evolution and ID is The Mormon Organon. That blog is maintained by Steve, a BYU biology professor.

Wikipedia is also a good starting place for study about ID and for an introduction to the Discovery Institute. In addition, there is a web site for ID.

One of the key factors in the debate about evolution and ID is DNA. Future research by scientists should give more information about this.

Mormon,Mormonism Freedom to Choose, But Who Is Responsible?

Latter-day Saints often think of agency as the freedom to commit a sin or not. However, science is beginning to show that we may need to think of agency in a slightly different way.

Research at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing shows that "the seeds of violence may be planted before a child is born".

Recent research demonstrates a biological basis of crime, says Dr. Liu. "'Biological' does not mean only genetic factors," she explains, "but also health factors, such as nutritional deficiency and lead exposure, which influence biological processes."

Dr. Liu's study emphasizes the prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal periods, which are critical times for both a child's neuro-development and for environmental modifications.

The article points out that the most important times for development of the brain are in the first 36 months (age 3). This has important implications for LDS, because the church teaches that children are not held accountable by God for their actions until they reach the age of accountability, which is defined by church leaders as age 8.

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. (Moroni 8:8)

That is, young children are not capable of making intelligent decisions about things; "mistakes" they make are not considered "sins" by the Lord, and the Atonement cleanses the children (in terms of their eternal salvation).

The dilemma facing Latter-day Saints is that if children undergo brain and emotional development before age 8, a just God would not punish them for actions after age 8 that were conditioned by their development before age 8 (and even development before birth). This is counter to the common belief of LDS that all acts after age 8 may be sin. I have been concerned about this for years, because people are born into conditions that predispose them to committing acts of sin later on. I remember, while living in Phoenix, reading about burglaries that were committed by parents while their children were in their automobile as they cruised neighborhoods looking for houses that were not occupied at that moment. Perhaps the children even helped the parents enter the houses and remove objects. These children were being taught by the actions of their parents that it is OK to steal from others.

I resolved this dilemma by believing that we are judged by God for the decisions we make and the actions we perform after age 8, but we are not judged by God for the conditions we lived in prior to age 8. After reading about this research from the University of Pennsylvania, I've extended my beliefs to include that we are not judged by God for the physiological and psychological development we have as children under age 8. That is, our agency involves how we react to conditions we are under when we aren't responsible for our being under those conditions. Those children in Phoenix weren't responsible for participating in burglaries, and I believe they won't be held responsible for their participation in the burglaries, but they will be held responsible for their actions after they become old enough to understand "right" from "wrong" and to defy, if necessary, their parents who want them to help with the burglaries. They may have been born into homes in which stealing was considered OK; they may have experienced physiological and psychological changes as children that predisposed them to creating acts of crime, but the Atonement removes the effects of their acts of crime that were committed while they were under age 8. This is, of course, just my personal belief and doesn't necessarily reflect LDS church doctrine.

Another example of a dilemma about agency is that of homosexual members of the church. For many years, some church leaders took the position that homosexuality was a matter of choice and not of biological reasons. However, homosexuality among animals is documented in the scientific literature, and I think this implies there may be a biological factor in homosexuality. This presents a dilemma for the church leaders who say homosexuality is only a matter of choice. It is a science dilemma because the views of church leaders may disagree with science, and it is a theological dilemma because many people say a just God wouldn't punish a person for something that wasn't a factor of his or her choice. In recent years, President Gordon B. Hinckley said the sin is not in having feelings of homosexuality but in having sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage, as the church defines marriage. That is, the Lord will not punish people for having feelings of homosexuality, but the Lord will punish persons who act on their feelings in ways that transgress the boundaries given by the Lord for sexual activity. The Lord expects the same limitations on their actions by homosexuals as he does of non-married heterosexuals.

Let me repeat the conclusion I have come to, because that conclusion answers for me questions about the justice of God: I believe that when we become responsible for our actions, God will hold us responsible for how we react to influences in our lives when we weren't responsible for those influences. We may, through no actions of our own, live in an environment that conditions us to accept sin as "normal", but God won't hold us for accountable for being in those conditions and for our actions as children under age 8 that result from those conditions. He will hold us responsible for how we react to those conditions after we are old enough to be held responsible for our actions. In the case of the children in Phoenix, God will, I believe, recognize the influence of their parents while they were children, and he will recognize how those influences have influenced the physiological and psychological growth of the children. He will recognize how well the children have been taught right from wrong. He will recognize how capable the children were after age 8 to choose right from wrong, and he will judge accordingly. As law enforcement and legal officials of society, as Priesthood and auxiliary leaders in the church, we have to judge people about their membership in society and in the church. Fortunately, we don't have to judge people about their eternal salvation, for we don't understand enough about people to be just judges in the eternal sense.

Mormonism: Adam lived in the general Missouri area of the US?

Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters? (D&C 117:8)

Spring Hill [Daviess County, Missouri] is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. (D&C 116:1)

Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. (D&C 107:53)

Traditional Latter-day Saints believe that Adam lived in the general Missouri area and that it was through the flood that Noah and his family sailed to the mid-East and spread from there, as depicted in the Old Testament. However, I have serious concerns about the flood being a global-wide flood, and I discuss these concerns in other posts. If Adam lived in North America, then his descendants would have had to migrate to the Mid-east prior to the advent of Abraham, as described in the Old Testament. The Bible gives no information about such a migration.

Scientists have long believed that modern humans evolved in Africa and spread from there throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. The scientists have believed this, because the earliest fossils of early humans were discovered in Africa. However, recent scientific research indicates this assumption may not be accurate. Specifically, one report indicates the anthropoids that lived anciently in Africa may have been migrants to the area rather than being native to the area. I have never felt that the fossil record supported the theory that modern civilization began in Africa. The fact that the oldest fossils of ancient humans were found in Africa only shows that the oldest fossils known so far have been found there. The fossil record does not show that ancient humans originated there.