Charles Darwin was born to a progressive, abolitionist, wealthy English family and Abraham Lincoln was born to a poor family in Illinois. Both were unassuming men who changed the world profoundly and whose influence continues to mold our present and future.
13 comments:
Both were great men, but Darwin gets pilloried by Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Mormons, of course, have no problem with Darwinism as it pertains to evolution. It is silly to think that this world was created in six consecutive 24 hour periods (or however long a day was back then). God's day is however long it is. There is no reason to shoehorn Genesis into man's narrow time frame.
I just ran across some ghost stories related to Lincoln.
Here they are:
The first ghost sighting of Lincoln occurred during Calvin Coolidge's administration...between 1923 and 1929. His wife Grace Coolidge saw Lincoln standing in front of a window in the Oval Office. And then she saw him...in the Lincoln Bedroom...A lot of other interesting personalities have seen Lincoln-- Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, they all claim they felt the presence of Lincoln. In fact, Winston Churchill refused to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom because the first time he was there, he saw Lincoln's ghost and I guess it scared the heck out of him.
Alan...What do you mean when you say, "Mormons of course have no problem with Darwinism as it pertains to evolution."?
Here's a funny one that is true from Nick.
President Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and President Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln!
Nick is a passionate White House student. Every film, book, etc. He knows quite a bit.
The Lincoln Bedroom was actually only Lincoln's office, was never his bedroom. He slept across the hall, the name Lincoln Bedroom is more associated with the furnishings from the era. (Nick feeding me info again, you can well imagine that I wouldn't know such stuff.)
I would ask, Alan, if you are thinking primarily geologically or biologically or both. What may be a concern for Teresa (and for a great many) is the notion of man's biological evolution vs the literal notion of the Garden of Eden, Adam's rib etc.
What continues to please me a great deal about Mormonism is that it stubbornly refuses to fall in to the traps of literalness, but I haven't followed current LDS intellectual thought on this all important subject enough to know how to comment.
The view of LDS scholars and church leaders has evolved (pardon the pun) over the decades. The abundance of scientific evidence is hard to deny. Geologically speaking, the earth is very old, and I can't understand why evolution should be troubling to those of the LDS faith. Evolution may not be exactly as Darwin envisioned it to be, but what is wrong with intelligent design or even "providential guidance of the species?" How is it that the number of species in the fossil record and in modern day continues to grow? There is no fossil record of house cats, so why are they around today? Whether it is evolution or "providential guidance of the species," it is undeniable that species have come and gone over millions of years. In light of undeniable scientific fact, one should not become mired in preconceived religious notions of how life came to be. So what of Adam and Eve? There is nothing preventing them from being the first of God's spirit children on the Earth. One often hears the question "Did Adam have a navel?" Well, of course he did.
I think I understand you Alan, and I agree with that. I do not deny the Earth's evolution and that of it's creatures. Of course there were dinasaurs and the like...the earth was created and designed to evolve and go through lots of natural changes by the time God placed man on earth. The earth needed to be prepared for man. Evolution of earth and animals was part of the design. I don't beleive in the evolution of man from an ape though....those artifacts of strange ape like men are a form of an animal. Although similar looking to man...they are not man...probably the evolution of the ape. All of the above, including the evolution of the earth and animals, was all necessary and a natural part of God's intelligent design. God is an incredible scientist...he knew what he was doing when he designed all of this and it's processes. No one could ever convince me that we are all just here because of accidental, uncontrolled hapinstance events..that just happened to create intelligent beings. Poppycock! Human life and it's sustenance is obviously intelligent, controlled, processed, systematic science all guided by a greater power than any of us can imagine...and that is why so many don't beleive. Because their minds can't imagine it...and that is why Christ teaches us to forget all the complexities and just have faith. And thus faith and hope light our way...until God one day can and will prove it all to us, when our minds are ready for it and when we have developed (evolved)to the point of understanding.
I hesitate a bit to overdo the evolution thing. I know how important are LDS beliefs to my family and I fear that discussing evolution in depth will appear as a constant attack on those beliefs, on any God-centered religious beliefs really.
I want to reiterate my respect for most Mormon thought on this topic. I think that Alan stated it really well and that Teresa furthered the discussion really well. I remember hearing Dad make similar statements to those of Alan and Teresa. Mormon intellectual thought on this subject has progressed as Alan stated. It is inconceivably foolish to believe earnestly that the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old. Mormons do not make this mistake. Same goes for the evolution of various plant, insect and animal species, Mormons accept that evolution in species is a fact. Even though Teresa expressed her views really well and even though Alan stated that there is no reason not to believe that Adam and Eve were the first spirits to take bodies on earth, I have to disagree emphatically. There is an ever-increasing amount of evidence that humans evolved exactly has have plants, insects, and animals. In fact, following Alan's correct statements that a great many fossil specimens undeniably show that species have come and gone, so have species of mankind. The fossilized bones of various strains of humankind are mounting in number and in implications.
Some Christian writers, most especially Anglicans (Episcopalians)-and even more especially American Anglicans- are claiming boldly that Adam and Eve are only cultural metaphors in man's yearning to explain our beginnings. Most all religions attempt to explain our beginnings in some way. They also attempt to explain our continuing on to another life. Primitive man did as much.
There is an enormous amount of reading to be done on the subject. There are religious intellectuals of all stripes who try to reason beliefs away from human evolution. There are humanist/secular/atheist writers who attempt to argue the opposite.
I became an atheist and a humanist not because of any bitterness toward religion or God (that came later), but rather after a lot of reading, reflexion, and hopefully use of logic. Being gay was the at the crux of my need to read and critically think about what I had believed. Not fitting into the mold forced me to look at the mold from the outside. That became very enlightening.
I guess I must disagree with Teresa's explanation because I can no longer jump off that cliff of faith that is absolutely essential to God-belief at some point. At some point, to continue to believe in God, it is necessary to accept conclusions that are not provable, that are not even really explainable in any real sense. The only ground they seem to stand on is an emotionally/culturally charged one. Science is imperfect but is self-perfecting. It's growth constantly explains to us the world around us and helps us manipulate it for our survival and betterment. Religious faiths are constantly trying to explain away earlier beliefs, constantly trying to fit the advances of science into their dogmas, constantly revising their earlier 'truths'. The LDS church has not escaped this constant revising. The LDS church seems to accept eagerly embrace science, but oddly not the fullness of evolutionary science. I think that it is because the implications are too threatening.
I understand the absolute yearning/need to believe.
Evolution and its expanding repercussions in all areas of the study of man is for me the reason to put my eggs, all of them, in that basket.
As usual, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There is much we do not know about the creation, whether it be from a religious or scientific standpoint. Nothing that science has discovered or proven precludes the existence of deity, so putting all ones eggs in that one basket is a questionable act. Sure religion has changed and molded itself over the ages, but so has science! Theory after theory gets thrown on the trash heap in favor of new ones, which themselves get replaced. In fact, it is science that has changed more than religion. This world was designed as a proving ground for faith, and it was purposely designed to be a difficult one, but not impossible.
---
Also, I know we have discussed this before in emails and you probably believe the following to be a cop out, but believing in God really is the more logical option in terms of outcomes.
Scenario #1: Atheists are correct.
When we die the believer and the atheist are the same. Just dead without any ramifications for either one. So it doesn't matter one way or the other if one believes or not. The end result is the same.
Scenario #2: Atheists are wrong.
When we die the believer is rewarded for his belief and the atheist is merely surprised and unrewarded. So the believer is justified and the atheist is not.
Conclusion: It is more logical to believe since there is possible reward for doing so, whereas the atheist has no possibility of reward in either scenario.
I think that is called Pascal's wager. It is certainly logical. The believer also has a great advantage; much comfort and direction in this life when confronted with loss, pain, difficulty, and disorientation. For this reason many choose not to be religious in any organized sense, but just the same seek the comfort of believing in the afterlife and in God however unconstructed. Good for them, good for believers, I certainly do not begrudge them their comfort.
Regarding faith. Faith is of course a formidable subject and is not at all limited to religious faith. It is being studied in light of evolutionary psychology and biology. It is very interesting. I have come across some fun and intriguing readings on the subject. We won't find agreement here either I suspect.
As for change in science and religion, I see it this way:
Both are seeking truth and absolute truth at that (if there is a difference!)
The nature of science is change. Science changes willfully, many times almost gleefully and anticipates change. Research is meant to bring about confirmation or change.
The nature of religion is not a quest that allows for discarding beliefs or dogma; it does not allow for fundamental doctrinal change. What religion knows is via God, prophets, or some form of mental revelation. If so, then God said it and it's absolute.
In essence, it is not ok for religion to change otherwise it is not what it said it was: God must have been wrong since he/she/it revealed it. It is ok for science to change because that's what science says it is.
You are right that religion as a whole is not conducive to change and often changes only under duress of scientific truth or social change. I don't know about other religions, but the LDS church, at least, has always allowed for some change based on the necessity of the times. We believe in a living, dynamic God, rather than a static, steady state God. Hence the need for a prophet who guides the church on the basis of God's dynamic (changeable) decisions.
---
Lastly, there are some scientists who hang on to disproven theory until their death. A very interesting example (for me anyway) was the fight between the "steady state theory" and the "big bang theory." Some scientists immersed in the steady state theory refused to acknowledge overwhelming evidence of the correctness of the big bang theory. Some of those scientists died while ever bent on proving the steady state theory to be correct. I think another ongoing example today to the faux anthropogenic global warming theory. Some will cling to the false theory with their dying breath, despite the overwhelming evidence that data has been falsified and that cooling is in fact occurring. Dogma dies hard in science as well as religion (and in politics as well).
The core LDS doctrine has not changed with the times. God is the same Yesterday, today and always. His eternal life saving principles have never been altered. Baptism, repentance, etc.
You are right Teresa, in terms of core beliefs, but some things have changed. For example, Abraham has wives and servants and children from both. Such a church member nowadays would be excommunicated faster than you can say "Bob's your uncle." Also, animal sacrifice is no longer practiced because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. Still, a change nonetheless. Wine used to be used in early church sacrament, but no longer. Blacks can now receive the priesthood, although I don't know that an official commandment was every given to withhold the priesthood from Blacks in the first place. I may be wrong, but it merely came about due to historic factors and became an entrenched, but modifiable policy.
Post a Comment