Reactionary disrespect for science and intellectual freedom

[Anonymous]

I did a post at Mormon Matters last year. People like Ray added some GA quotes, and debated about whether evolution is official doctrine or not. Comments 24, 48, 58, and 73 have some interesting quotes. (There’s 121 comments.) It did get a little heated at times, but you might find some interesting stuff there.

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/28/what-do-you-think-about-evolution/

[Anonymous]

Don Ashton wrote:

Quote:

Henry Eyring was pointing out to Joseph Fielding Smith that the earth is 4 billion years over 50 years ago.

Sorry, this comment is only tangentially related to the topic of Official Doctrine. I’m not trying to derail the discussion. I am teaching a lesson on the Creation in HP Quorum Sunday. Euhemerus, do you have the reference for that quote, or reference for other good material that indicates Creationism IS NOT Mormon Doctrine. I’ve got a couple guys in the class who are very intelligent, but sometimes ill informed. I suspect this may be a new concept for them, and I would like to be ready. Can you or anyone else make some suggestions

I’ll try to look it up. It’s in “Mormon Scientist” but I don’t know the page numbers. But let me recap for you.

Henry Eyring, the great chemist, was a mining engineer before he was a chemist. He also studied metallurgy. Couple that with his chemistry brilliance, and it is an understatement to say he knew a thing or two about rocks. Eyring was very confident that carbon dating was a reliable technique for determining age (when I was TBM, I used to try and speculate on the accuracy of Carbon dating as a mechanism for justifying my belief in a 6000 year old earth. Yes, I’m embarrassed! 😳 ). Perhaps coupled closely with this belief he believed in Darwin’s evolutionary ideas and accompanying consequences (at least that’s what I remember). During Eyring’s tenure as General Sunday School President, he and JSF (apostle at the time) had letters, meetings, and conversations regarding the issues. It was fairly clear to me that they disagreed very strongly, and likely had heated debates. JSF published his book “Man, his Origin and Destiny” and it quickly became the “Mormon doctrine” of the era (and of course we all know that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was very heavily influenced by JSF which later became the “Mormon doctrine” of a later era). A few of Eyring’s colleagues encouraged him to write a rebuttal. Eyring hesitated for a number of years but eventually wrote “Faith of a Scientist.” The gist of the book is how Eyring “resolves” the issues of faith and science.

I say “resolved” because ultimately, Eyring didn’t seem to see any need for the two to conflict. As a side note, I will say that as an engineer/scientist, this is the feeling I get from most spiritual/religious scientists. They are just as rational as the next scientist, they simply see no reason for the two to conflict. Anyway, it seems to me that he accepted science as the best mechanism for determining truth about reality, and his religion as the best mechanism for determining truth about spirituality. He didn’t believe that the story in Genesis was ever saying that the earth was created 6000 years ago.

But this is all just my take on him. Read “Mormon Scientist” if you want a better look at it.

[Anonymous]

Oh, one more thing Don. One big problem with using Eyring’s statements is that he really didn’t carry that much weight in the Mormon world (when compared with JSF). As a result, I think his opposing view did not carry the weight that JSF’s views did. Personally, I attribute much of our cultural nonsense, and conservative Mormonism in Utah to the likes of JSF, BRM, and then ETB. Ultimately, rational scientist guys like Widstoe, Talmage, Eyring, Roberts, Brown, etc. didn’t make their way into the heirarchy of the church as much as they did prior to this new era. Mormonism began to look more like a conservative protestant group at this point, rather than accepting “all truth” as they did previously. I think much of our battle in the church is trying to undo this and return to a more rational theology that existed during the early 1900’s.

Anyway, Eyring’s words do have some impact given Henry B. Eyring’s current status, and the fact that Eyring was a world renowned chemist.

[Anonymous]

Henry Eyring (Mormon Scientist) avoided taking a firm stance on the subject of evolution, but he recognized it as a possible method of creation. When asked what he believed on the subject he replied “I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.” (Mormon Scientist p.228)

Another time in a letter he replied: “I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution, like everything else, should stand or fall on its merits. Being trained as a geologist, it answers many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the Gospel.” (Mormon Scientist p.270)

I enjoyed the reference to personal notes in the David O. McKay biography. Prince quotes McKay as saying in private that he believed in evolution.

Here is the closest he came in public: (Rise of MM p.46 from a public funeral address:)

Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: “Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly.” Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said… “Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.”

[Anonymous]

When I was at BYU, took my Bio 110 I can not remember the name of my professor. He was a fascinating guy would talk about the genetic research he was doing in South America. One day he started his lecture by reading a statement from the first presidency that basically said we do not take a possession on evolution. He than bore his testimony, and said I am here to tell you that evolution is a fact. He then gave an example of a new species of plant that had evolved in the last ten years in UT. I was sitting next to a young man who was part of my study group. After class he said I can not accept this. Mcconkie said evolution was one of the great heresies. He said I can accept evolution within a species but not form one species to another. I did not understand how some people just look evidence in the face and refuse to see a thing.

One of the members of my Elders quorum who is an engineer, I once asked is it just me I get really frustrated at the whole debate between creationism and evolution. He said “I think it is like seeing kindergarteners arguing about calculus.” I see this as extremely appropriate. How can anyone see Geniuses as a detailed record, or that we have anything but a rudimentary understanding when looking at the focal record?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the link, MH. I almost had forgotten that exchange. I very rarely get worked up in internet discussions, but that one . . . was . . . interesting. 😳

[Anonymous]

One of the best films I have ever seen is entitled: Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I bought it at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Mystery-Life-Jay-Richards/dp/B00007KLDW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=12

The film explains how intelligent design is essential to create the conditions required for genetic adaptation and change over time (evolution). They will show you examples of intelligent designs and then demonstrate how these designs can adapt to the environment. This is a science film, not a religious film. It is used as a training film in our laboratory to help understand the nature of genetic change.

Evolution and intelligent design go hand-in-hand, they are inextricable bound forever. Once cannot occur without the other – simple as that. If you create a being that cannot adapt to its surroundings, it will go extinct and cease to exist. If you never create a being, it cannot evolve.

[Anonymous]

MWallace57,

I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree that Intelligent Design is ‘science’. I really believe it is just a sophisticated example of the “god of the gaps” sort of thinking.

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_unlocking_the_mystery_of_life.htm

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Thank you Mormonheretic, Euhemerus and Orson for your suggestions. I found all three helpful. I also found a link that does an excellent historical view of teachings on creationism vs evolution debate. I don’t remember if it was on this thread or elsewhere, but it should be of interest to readers of this thread. The essay was first published in Dialogue, is by Duane Jeffry, and is entitled “Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface”

It does a great job of defining the issues of evolution vs creationism, looking at the historical context of the Mormon “discussions”, and traces the history of those discussion to our present time. It is well written and documented, basically says that the Church has a long history of having either diverse opinions and more recently, officially no opinion. It is found at http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/Jeffery-SSE.html

It is long: 30 pages + footnotes. I hope others find it as interesting as I did. (But as far as my lesson goes, I’ve got some good info here and elsewhere, so I probably will read no more than 1 paragraph from it.)

[Anonymous]

I think readers of this thread may want to check out the Eyring-L site. I just did and found some essays there that might be interesting. IMO, the site doesn’t particularly look well laid out so you may have to dig a bit to find what your looking for, but here are some of the topics in one section. Look around and you can find other stuff that might be good.

1. What is the Church’s position on Evolution?

2. What is the Church’s position on Science and Progress?

3. What is the Church’s position on various medical practices?

4. Is there any scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon?

5. What is the Church’s position on parapsychology?

6. Archive of eyring-l discussions on the weight of spirits

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/

[Anonymous]

Don,

While not a GA quote, I think this is fascinating. I posted if on my blog at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/07/13/dna-and-tradition-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Quote:

In the introduction to the book DNA and Tradition: The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews“, by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, there are several interesting quotes, and he quotes from a book written by Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204 ) called Guide for the Perplexed, which examines the issues of being a religious scientist.

Of course I find some interesting parallels between this jew, looking of the lost tribes, and mormons, looking for the Lamanites. And it seems my science vs religion, and DNA posts are getting the most comments lately, so I thought I’d tie these topics together.

Here are some interesting quotes from the book.

“Albert Einstein is quoted as having stated that if you cannot explain something to your grandmother, then you probably don’t really understand it….”

“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today. His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world. Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms. This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism. This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

[Author]

Posts