Mormons Worse at Believing Evolution?

Does it thereby follow that Mormons don’t think evolution is correct? No.

Oh, oh. I think I hear R. Gary coming…

You put up this positive graph demonstrating the intelligence of members, and then you go and spoil it all by suggesting we aren’t that intelligent at all, and its just false figures. You are a spoil sport.

Your graph seems to show a confluence of a badly phrased poll question and a tendency of many members to go with the flow when it comes to hatin’ on evolution and all of its supposedly atheist proponents. As an intelectually satisfied member who also believes in evolution I have always found the antievolutionary stance of many members to be misinformed and quite irksome.

Matt B (#3), I think in Mormonism it is a bigger issue than in other religions simply because Mormonism sees us literally as the children of God, believe God is embodied and embodied in a resurrected human body. Further we believe we existed as spirits prior to being born. Contrast this to the typical Christian view that our spirits were created at conception.

This logically entails that the human form (or something very similar) existed prior to life on earth. The big question for a Mormon attempting to reconcile science and religion is how evolution could progress and arrive at a human body similar enough to what existed before. Even if one accepts natural selection and so forth clearly something else was going on to develop human bodies.

The typical apologia is that natural selection worked, there was nothing like ID (i.e. God making miraculous steps in the chemistry), but God still was interventionist. (Say, hypothetically, tossing an asteroid towards earth to wipe out the dinasaurs, or perhaps doing something like in Kubrick’s 2001)

The problem then becomes when someone asks if evolution explains the origin of human life. One has to make a guess as to whether one should parse the question as “the sole source for the origin of human life” or “a partial source for the origin of human life.”

It is quite interesting that the “evolution” as a complete package deal that the scientific world promotes is not in accordance with what we as LDS believe as official doctrine. As official doctrine, the LDS church teaches that man is created in the image of God and that God resembles us. The implications this has with evolution are paramount!

Many LDS who also believe in evolution are easily persuaded to take the bits and parts of evolutiion that they decide upon and mix them with their religious ideas and beliefs of creation. The funny part about this is that God and evolution just absolutlely do not get along! I have yet to read any evolution book that explains as part of the package deal how God used evolution in his creation! In fact, every book I have- every textbook or student book on evolution I have seen either fails to mention or excludes God as merely a fantasy!

So, I find it interesting that LDS can even belive in a doctrine (evolution) that denies Godliness!!!!!

Rob, I think we ought distinguish between evolution proper and particular claims about what events brought about a particular environment that biased how evolution developed life. The best example of this is the asteroid theory of the destruction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammals. Whether or not an asteroid would hit really has nothing to do with evolution. But it clearly has a lot to do with the environment that made some mutations more likely to lead to reproduction.

My feeling is that many don’t see that distinction and which is why they have trouble with evolution. They confuse questions of evolution with questions of environment.

As to science discussing god relative to evolution textbooks. Why on earth would they? It has no bearing! And surely that says nothing about God. Just that the texts don’t (and needn’t) take a position on God. To draw an analogy none of my physics textbooks mention god either. Does that mean there is a problem there?

JTJ, I don’t see why the stories have to be viewed allegorically. Why can’t we just see them as narratives written from a first person perspective by a person living in the ancient world? (That’s Nibley’s perspective in “Before Adam”, although I think Nibley’s wrong about a lot) Once we just treat them as ancient narratives with a biased view of history then many problems disappear. This idea that it’s all allegory or literal is just a false dichotomy which I think leads to all sorts of problems.

Clark, so are they first person narratives of fictitious events? For example, there seems to be no geological evidence of the flood, but there are scores of flood myths of what many think are local flood events. The first person narrative (which doesn’t apply to the book of Genesis, as the author is claimed to be Moses) only works if it is a fabrication. If you are reasonable enough to accept the facts and science of evolution, don’t discard that intellect and try and justify unfounded pseudoscience like a global deluge because the bible says it’s so.

DougT, You will not find a scientist who agrees with your definition of a “theory”, and it is hardly a waste of time to prove or disprove them. Thanks to quantum mechanics, you are able to use your computer to post on this blog. Thanks to germ theory, you have (hopefully) been vaccinated. Thanks to general relativity (which only improved upon the “theory” of gravity), we are able to launch a satellite into space and land it onto an orbiting planet 36 MILLION miles away. If you don’t like a theory, prove it wrong, and the world will record your name for generations to honor and revere.

What scares me more than the anti-Evolutionary stance is that Mormons have become literalists with the Scriptures. That is hardly, regardless of what Michael Dorfman says, to consider the Scriptures fiction or even strictly allegorical. It is, however, to recognize the human failings and passage of time within the pages. It is to use the historical and textual contexts to understand what the writers of the Scriptures are trying to say within their own understandings as they were inspired.

Mormons should be the leading believing Biblical critics that writers like N.T. Wright exemplifies. That they are not is inexcusable.

I think I get it now. The four groups with the highest percentage are relatively small, and the other three groups above the national average are not far above the average.

Wow. Lots more comments.

DougT, I think we’ll just have to disagree. The scriptures don’t remotely say anything one way or the other. Some people with a particular way of reading the scriptures draw inferences from their reading. But I think it important to distinguish our inferences from relatively unambiguous clear statements.

I also think it interesting that you criticize science for “not proving” (a rather high standard) yet don’t apply the same standard to your exegesis of scripture. (Ignoring the other problem for Mormons who reject Evangelical styled inerrancy that the scriptures themselves are often interpretations)

JTJ, my point is that if you have a fairly primitive guy living 4000 years ago in a big flood one shouldn’t take his descriptions as being universal and objectively relating to the whole world. The problematic dichotomy is between fiction and complete truth. I think most narratives – especially ancient narratives – are somewhere in between. So I think things are just a bit more complex hermeneutically than you suggest. Once again I’m not saying one should naively just take everything as historically accurate. And, as you note, flood myths are common. But what would happen textually if there was someone in a real local flood after a few thousand years of copying? Especially when people encounter other flood narratives or related stories? I think the phenomena of intertextuality can’t be neglected. Finally I think most agree that the Torah in its current form was compiled after the exile from pre-existing texts. I don’t think anyone knows what religious texts the Jews had a thousand years earlier. (If any written texts at all)

Jettboy, I think “literalism” is more than a little problematic as a term. What many call literalism is just people assuming the text was written by people in their culture and taking it as if someone was speaking to them. That is ignoring the different rhetorical styles and strategies and different context. In addition to that literalism often has a second sense in which one doesn’t approach with a hermeneutics of suspicion. That is one assumes a kind of inerrancy to the text from a God’s eye view. Which is problematic since most texts are written by actual historic individuals – and often not even the individuals being described. There’s tons of room for error there.

So I agree we have to pay attention to context. I’m not sure it’s surprising lay members don’t do that. I do think LDS are improving considerably in how they read scripture though. Compare today with even 20 years ago.

JTJ, I think too many Mormons read too much into the baptism of the earth symbolism. The problem is that it is explicitly presented as a symbol. The main passage “literalists” point to is Moses 7 for this. However I find this just a dubious reading at best. Literalists here are committed to this not being literature of the apocalyptic style, with the rhetorical patterns that entails, but that the earth be an actual intelligent being. Which, to say the least, is difficult to accept. I know even John Widstoe moved in that direction. But while I’m open to a gaia-like hypthesis being a somewhat defensible theology I’m not sure treating the planet like a human being makes much sense (nor is textually supportable) Those who take animism passages literally kind of make me scratch my head. Reminds me of people I met in Louisiana who read Revelation and took all the clearly figurative presentation as literal events on the earth.

There are also fairly good textual arguments for “earth” meaning a narrower area than planet. Consider, among many passages, Hel 11:6 where “the earth was smitten that it was dry… and the whole earth was smitten.” So those arguing for the text being universal are really straining (IMO).

William Hamblin, well known in Church circles, discusses it like this:

No one that has posted on the subject seems to have taken the time to
read the accounts of Noah in the original Hebrew. It would save a great
deal of time and effort if people paid close attention to what the text
actually says and doesn’t say, and how different people interpret the
meaning of the text, rather than simply endlessly speculating.

For example, in chapter 7, vs. 3, 4, 6, and 8, the KJV text uses the word
“earth.” In Hebrew, two different words are used. ‘RTz = eretz in 3 & 6,
and ‘DMH = adamah in 4 & 8. More accurately by modern English usage, eretz
means land (e.g. eretz israel = land of Israel), and adamah means ground.
Neither necessarily means earth in the modern sense of the entire globe.
There has been a shift in meaning of earth away from ground to planet.
Read the Noah story, replacing the word earth for land or ground, and see
if it doesn’t read quite differently. God sends the flood to destroy
everything off the face of all the land, but which land?

Clearly the entire Noah story can be read in the sense of a regional flood
which wiped out a particular civilization, and which carried a boat down
the river into the ocean where the occupants (who may never have seen the
ocean) looked out the window and saw nothing be endless waters.

He adds some textual caveats but then notes, “if it is possible interpret the text in a manner which reconciles it with the available scientific evidence, why don’t we do
so?”

This is why I’m suggesting a middle ground between “it’s all allegorical fiction” and those who adopt an Evangelical inspired literalist reading. (Even if frankly it is easy to see why someone reading the text naively would adopt that reading)

Sorry Michael. That was an oversight on my part. (I thought this week would be far less busy than Valentine week – but getting caught up in paperwork is if anything worse!)

I think for Mormons there are reasons to accept the historicity of Adam and Noah beyond what other Christians need theologically. One reason is that Adam has eschatological roles in Mormon views of the future. Further Mormons believe Adam has appeared to various prophets as a resurrected being. That typically is taken to imply he’s an actual person even if the ‘history’ we have of him has been highly corrupted and mythologized.

Noah is a more interesting case. However I think most Mormons see there being later prophecies that present the flood as historic. Which is not the same as portraying it as a global flood (although certainly historically most Mormons took it as such given that most Mormons weren’t scientists) Some Mormon general authorities who were scientists attempted odd wiggles to get around the problem. So John Widstoe back in the 30’s suggested that if it were raining everywhere that would be good enough. (i.e. he rejected a real global flood, given his knowledge of mountains and so forth) As I mentioned though a lot of people note that naive readings of the Book of Mormon took it as applying to all the Americas when you look at the text closely that’s impossible. (Ignoring the abundant archaeology information would would also make it impossible) Most scholars assume from the text itself that the Book of Mormon consists of a small group of people entering an already populated land and living in a relatively small area. So many tend to extend that way of thinking to other stories. i.e. de-mythologize them in a sense.

I certainly agree that texts as presented are not eye witness testimonies in the sense we moderns expect narratives to proceed. I hopefully didn’t imply that. My point is that to just assume it’s all a made up story is also problematic.

JTJ I think you are using allegory rather loosely. What is it an allegory for?

There are allegories in the narratives but I have a difficult time seeing it as allegory for anything. I can see it as mythic and typological. I can see it as a narrative with lots of meanings. Don’t get me wrong, I’m open to an allegorical reading. And yeah, I know I’m being a bit pedantic here since you probably just mean figurative.

Clark:To add I think that if all we had was the Torah I’d largely agree that Genesis was nothing but mythic literature with no necessary tie to historicity. But as I noted to michael I’m not sure that position is really open in Mormonism in a defensible way.

In other words, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

I feel fortunate that I’m not committed in advance to believing or disbelieving any texts I might come across.

I’ve been having a related discussion lately with my (young) children, in the context of their (state-required) religion classes. The historicity of the Buddhist Sutras (or, for that matter, the Sermon on the Mount) is not relevant to their claims– it doesn’t matter if it was the historical Buddha or Jesus who utterered them, the point is, somebody did, and they’re worthwhile messages regardless of the author.

Regarding the Noah/Flood story: I’d think that those who are invested in believing in God would try to distance themselves as much as possible from that story, as it tends to paint God in a pretty bad light (e.g., if God is powerful enough to flood the whole earth, why doesn’t he just provide Noah with an pre-built ark instead of requiring him to make one from scratch?)

Clark:They may not accept the stories of Moses and Joshua as historically accurate and may even doubt the existence of the specific individuals but are open to there being some level of historicity to the notions. But they probably wouldn’t be shocked if they found some archaeological evidence there was a Moses either.

I’d agree that there may be some level of historicity in the Exodus/settlement myths, but in the absence of other, outside, reliable evidence, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Clark:Now I’d be the first to admit that the reasons I have for that aren’t reasons you are apt to accept. However the reasons also don’t come out of a naive hermeneutic, some theology of inerrancy, or the like.

I’m guessing, however, that the reasons don’t come out of the scientific method, either. And I suppose that’s the point (for me, at least)– that it appears to me that you are applying one set of standards to some texts (Homer, Gilgamesh, etc.) and another set to a different set of texts (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) for reasons that are not accessible to a non-believer. I’m not relying on any “facts” that are not equally accessible to all and sundry.

If some archeologist found conclusive evidence that there was a historical Moses, I’d believe it without a second thought. If, on the other hand, some archeologist found conclusive evidence that there was not a historical Moses, I think there’d be a lot of believers finding reasons to dismiss the new evidence.

To summarize: I am equally dispassionate about the historical existence of Romulus, Remus, Noah and Moses, and it frankly baffles me that many folks have (what appears to me to be) an arbitrary investment in some of them, but not others.

From the Book of Mormon: Ether 1-33 “Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.”

Doesn’t believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon requiring believing in the historicity of Genesis as well? Or how do you interpret the reference to the Tower of Babel in Ether?

Djinn, once could think the Book of Mormon accurate and that Genesis is wildly corrupted. Just because an event referred to is the same doesn’t entail that the relating of the event is accurate. So if someone mentions George Washington had a cherry tree it doesn’t follow that the apocryphal tale of his not lying about cutting it down was true.

Todd, I think that while there’s a lot we don’t know about creation there is a ton we do know about creation. Folks who appeal to some scriptural theory about how creation works often ignore all that science can tell us.

That’s been my experience too Hye. Even at BYU it was only people who adopted a bit of gospel hobbyism via McConkie that seemed to have a problem. But I have to confess that on the internet I’ve met quite a few doubters. But given how the internet self-selects I’m not sure how to gauge the relevance of that.

I think a lot of the problem is the presentation of evolution in schools. I did not exert myself enough in my BYU biology class, but on the other hand I do not think we were given the packet on evolution either, and that was in early 2000. So I am not indicting BYU.

I don’t think I got a good idea of evolution until I took physical anthropology at Wayne State University and even at that when I read a short explanation of what has been the “accepted” explanation of evolution for the last 30+ years, I realized that I only vaguely realized that was what it was, and could not have spoken of genetic variation, random and non-random factors, and would have only mentioned natural selection if asked.

I think the ignorance is as much scientific as theological.

Added to this the Signatoratis who insist on mocking the faithful, and trying to portray the Church in a negative light and trying to foist their views onto the Church, from a continent wide Book of Mormon to all apostles speaking infalibly, have made it so Church members often distrust science because it is used as a club by enemies of the Church.

Lastly, I think an equally problematic thing in the Pew study is members of different religions see themselves as in or out of the religion by different standards. Based on the Pew figures I have a suspicion that most people who were raised as Latter-day Saints but have not been to Church in the last year or so reported themselves as Unafiliated, while the Jewish figure includes people who have never been to a syngogue in their life ever, in fact it contains many people who are Jewish because they think they are Jewish because their father was Jewish, but they have in no way ever practiced Judaism and their Jewishness would be rejected even by Reform Jews.

Another issue is how much do these figures tell us about religious differences, and how much do they tell us about regional differences. The assumption that views on evolution are a function of religion is odd if evolution is science and not religion.

In fact that means that you have skewed the results because this is part of a greater pew study. They are asking people about evolution in a religious context. I still think it would be more useful to have state by state or at least region by region comparisons. Would we find the same figures throughout the country, or would we find significant regional variations or even state by state variations within religious groups.

Since most Americans go to public schools, and different public schools apprach science and evolution differently, it would not be surprising if regional variations at times would come up.

If we want to study Americans views on science we need to do it in the context of a study of their views on science. If you have done so in the context of a study of their religion, you have already biased your sample, with religions that provide explanations of man’s origin that is something other than merely being a product of evolution getting different results.

Put another way, if you believe that are spirit children of God, would not this at least be a neccesary component of the “best explanation of human life on earth”.

This is not what some try to make it out to be, an indication that Mormons support Young earth creationism, let alone any form of creationist ideas, it just indicates that they do not view evolution as the best explanation.

As is so often the case, people are setting up a false diachotomy without acknowledging there are more choices.

One more comment, and I promise this one will be short.

The graph itself provides a false diachotomy. If groups those who say “no” with those who say “I really don’t know”. It assumes that this is a yes or no question, like are you male or female, instead of a question as it is like “is there life after death” which you can answer “I do not know”.

Does the lower rate for Latter-day Saints indicate a higher rejection than some other groups, or does it indicate a higher level of ambivalence.

All political polls I have ever seen allow for the undecided. Why does this question force a yes or no answer. It is an act of creating belief on the spot when there may not be any strong view on the issue, people may figure it is something that we do not know, and at least in a religious context not worth making a clear statement on.

Remember, this is whether evolution is best, not whether it is useful, informative or anything else. It does not even say “the best current explanation”, so it does seem to be cornering those who say yes into an almost dogmatic explnation of evolution.

Sorry, this is a bit long, but I have another question. What if I answered the question by asking “what do you mean by evolution”, or “are you refering to evolution as espoused by Darwin, or molecular evolution as taught by current biologists”, or “should I consider Darwinian evolution” or “do you mean survival of the fittest” or even “do you mean the process of natural selection”.

I have read reviews criticizing people for defining evolution as natural selection and that alone. While this may be a result of scientific ignorance, I would say this ignorance is in a part a result of those who speak on evolution too often spending time mocking religious opponants instead of explaining their own position.

Clark,
I think the reason that those who support evolution are less vocal, at least in the Church, is because they are people who figure “evolution is the best science” while those who oppose it feel they are expounding a view that is central to the gospel. The one exception on the opposition side might be B. H. Roberts.
Still, since dogmatic evolution, that is advocating it is not only the best but the total explanation of human life, at least as most people see it, means God does not exist and we are not his children, dogmatic evolutionists tend to march out of the Church, and the signaturatis have tried their best of late to facilitate this outward migration.

To djinn,
The historicity of the Tower of Babel does not by itself prove that everything in Genesis is historic. Anyway, what Clark is trying to get at is that accuracy and historicity are different. This applies even more to INTERPRETATIONS built around scripture than their base means, which may or may not be properly expressed in the English translation.

Wow. I’d slow down the posts a little. There’s a bit too much here to answer it all. A few comments.

I agree Evolution isn’t taught well in schools. Especially High School. I think while pressure to keep it from being taught hasn’t worked that many teachers are hesitant because of the hassle of dealing with some enraged parent. Plus frankly a lot of science teachers don’t necessarily have a love for science in the regular curriculum. I’d disagree about BYU – at least when I was there. Although I never took Biology 101. I’m surprised you didn’t get the evolution pack as it’s definitely still being given out. I know in Physical Science (which I TAed for a few times) the presentation of evolution was pretty clear and I thought was quite good. And that’s a required class for all students.

While I agree that tokens of community membership can lead to that community embracing or rejecting a position independent of the merits for the position I don’t think that is happening here. (I do think it is happening in the Republican party unfortunately – and also with global warming) I think there’s just too much pro-evolution at BYU and too many people who take it for granted.

The point about rejection and ambivalence is a good one. I don’t recall the exact wording on the survey. If you go to the study I’m sure it gives a more detailed breakdown. From discussing this before I don’t recall that changing things much.