This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Gen 1-2, Moses 2-3, Abr 4-5. We discuss several different accounts of the creation of the world, and the lessons we can learn from them. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #creation. Show all posts
Sunday, January 2, 2022
Friday, February 7, 2014
Confessions of a Creationist
The Winter Olympic games are nearing. I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions. There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?
A prominent atheist, Todd Steifel responded to questions from people of faith recently. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-prominent-atheist-activist-answers-your-most-burning-questions-about-faith-secularism/) One of the questions he was asked was "If atheists have no faith, what is your reason for life?"
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Immortality
The creation of the Earth is the first topic in the book of Genesis. The idea of creationism has been debated even among those that agree there is an intelligent designer behind our presence in the universe.
The most popular Biblical account is that God created the world in six days, and then rested on the seventh day. The details of each of these creative periods is described in the first chapter of Genesis, however, I would like to briefly review them.
On the first day, God created light and divided it from darkness (Genesis 1:3-5). On the second day, God created a firmament which he called heaven (Genesis 1:6-8). On the third day, God caused the dry land to appear separate from the sea, and then created plants and trees on the earth (Genesis 1:9-13). On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-19). On the fifth day, God created fish, whales, and every winged fowl (Genesis 1:20-23). On the sixth day, God made every animal on the land, and then made mankind in his own image. He gave man dominion over all the earth and everything upon it (Genesis 1:24-28).
Many believers will leave it at that. Especially when the very first verse of the next chapter indicates that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Genesis 2:1) He immediately talks about resting on the seventh day from all his work of creation.
What has often stood out to me is the next verses appear to give another version of creation that most Christians in my experience, including Latter Day Saints, tend to skip over. These passages are, in my opinion, of vital importance.
As we continue reading, we see that "every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew" (Genesis 2:5). Further in the chapter, we read "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). There are then several passages about God planting and creating a garden we know as Eden (Genesis 2:8-17). Skipping ahead we see that "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:19) Finally, at the end of the chapter, Eve is created from Adam (Genesis 2:21-23).
An LDS perspective describes this version of the creation as a natural creation as opposed to the spiritual creation that is represented by the six creative periods that are famous in Genesis (Moses 3:5). This is consistent with the idea that in one set of creation, man (both male and female) are created by God (Genesis 1:26-27) prior to the creation of Adam from the dust of the Earth in Genesis 2.
Another important conclusion that can be drawn is that if God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth, would this not also mean that God created every man and woman before they were naturally on the earth also? The point is that every person lived before their birth on this world.
This concept is not a revolutionary idea to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We already have an understanding that we lived with God before we were born, and that in this existence, our identity was distinct from others of God's creations: we were the children of God himself.
The idea that we lived before we came to earth is important in providing purpose to life. God has a plan for his children. There is a reason we are here.
In the end though, that reason does not matter if there is no life after death. In fact, if there is nothing after this life, then not even the power of the sacrifice of Christ himself for our sins is meaningful. Why save someone that will live a few years and then cease to exist?
Perhaps even more important than understanding the place from which humanity came is understanding that humanity has a destination that is largely determined by us here and now. If there is nothing more, then all ethics and values are relative and thus, relatively unimportant. Theft, deception, adultery, murder... these concepts are only truly negative in the context of something more than this life. Only if good truly triumphs over evil can justice truly be administered. Otherwise there will always be a system of which advantage can be taken by cunning dishonest men.
Fortunately, there is good news. The quest for immortality does not require that we find the Holy Grail, or that we master alchemical formulae. Immortality is a gift, given by Jesus Christ.
Though there were enemies that mocked him saying that he saved others, but could not save himself (Matthew 27:42), in truth, he did save himself. He took up his body and gave himself eternal life. In doing so, he made it possible for all the other descendants of Adam and Eve that had been cursed to die to be raised again with the same power.
The hope of life beyond death gives potency to the purposes that God gave to men before the world was. Salvation and exaltation were not spur-of-the-moment ideas... and truly, God has patiently invited people in every generation as much as possible to fulfil their purpose. Immortality and Eternal Life is available to those that heed the council of His Majesty Jesus Christ: "whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14).
The most popular Biblical account is that God created the world in six days, and then rested on the seventh day. The details of each of these creative periods is described in the first chapter of Genesis, however, I would like to briefly review them.
On the first day, God created light and divided it from darkness (Genesis 1:3-5). On the second day, God created a firmament which he called heaven (Genesis 1:6-8). On the third day, God caused the dry land to appear separate from the sea, and then created plants and trees on the earth (Genesis 1:9-13). On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-19). On the fifth day, God created fish, whales, and every winged fowl (Genesis 1:20-23). On the sixth day, God made every animal on the land, and then made mankind in his own image. He gave man dominion over all the earth and everything upon it (Genesis 1:24-28).
Many believers will leave it at that. Especially when the very first verse of the next chapter indicates that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." (Genesis 2:1) He immediately talks about resting on the seventh day from all his work of creation.
What has often stood out to me is the next verses appear to give another version of creation that most Christians in my experience, including Latter Day Saints, tend to skip over. These passages are, in my opinion, of vital importance.
As we continue reading, we see that "every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew" (Genesis 2:5). Further in the chapter, we read "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). There are then several passages about God planting and creating a garden we know as Eden (Genesis 2:8-17). Skipping ahead we see that "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:19) Finally, at the end of the chapter, Eve is created from Adam (Genesis 2:21-23).
An LDS perspective describes this version of the creation as a natural creation as opposed to the spiritual creation that is represented by the six creative periods that are famous in Genesis (Moses 3:5). This is consistent with the idea that in one set of creation, man (both male and female) are created by God (Genesis 1:26-27) prior to the creation of Adam from the dust of the Earth in Genesis 2.
Another important conclusion that can be drawn is that if God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth, would this not also mean that God created every man and woman before they were naturally on the earth also? The point is that every person lived before their birth on this world.
This concept is not a revolutionary idea to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We already have an understanding that we lived with God before we were born, and that in this existence, our identity was distinct from others of God's creations: we were the children of God himself.
The idea that we lived before we came to earth is important in providing purpose to life. God has a plan for his children. There is a reason we are here.
In the end though, that reason does not matter if there is no life after death. In fact, if there is nothing after this life, then not even the power of the sacrifice of Christ himself for our sins is meaningful. Why save someone that will live a few years and then cease to exist?
Perhaps even more important than understanding the place from which humanity came is understanding that humanity has a destination that is largely determined by us here and now. If there is nothing more, then all ethics and values are relative and thus, relatively unimportant. Theft, deception, adultery, murder... these concepts are only truly negative in the context of something more than this life. Only if good truly triumphs over evil can justice truly be administered. Otherwise there will always be a system of which advantage can be taken by cunning dishonest men.
Fortunately, there is good news. The quest for immortality does not require that we find the Holy Grail, or that we master alchemical formulae. Immortality is a gift, given by Jesus Christ.
Though there were enemies that mocked him saying that he saved others, but could not save himself (Matthew 27:42), in truth, he did save himself. He took up his body and gave himself eternal life. In doing so, he made it possible for all the other descendants of Adam and Eve that had been cursed to die to be raised again with the same power.
The hope of life beyond death gives potency to the purposes that God gave to men before the world was. Salvation and exaltation were not spur-of-the-moment ideas... and truly, God has patiently invited people in every generation as much as possible to fulfil their purpose. Immortality and Eternal Life is available to those that heed the council of His Majesty Jesus Christ: "whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14).
Thursday, February 23, 2012
On the Origin of Species by Means of Creationsism
I remember the first time I thumbed through my sixth grade history textbook in elementary school. We had just adopted a new textbook series. For my grade level, ancient civilization was the focus. I started in the middle of the book and worked backwards, looking at artistic depictions of Roman soldiers, Greek phalanxes, Persian chariots, the hanging gardens of Babylon, and cuneiform tablets. As I approached the front of the book, I realized that there was more material prior to the Egyptians and the first Mesopotamian cities. There was a section that identified Cro-Magnons, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and other forms of what the text referred to as "proto-humans."
Being a nerd, I had read enough to know that I was about to get my first experience in the public education system with the theory of evolution. Being a young member of my church, I viewed the presence of this content as offensive. I had been taught clearly that God had created man. As we began going through the material, I became increasingly uncomfortable, however, I remained silent with respect to my feelings on the subject. One day, one of my classmates pointed aloud before the class that the depictions of these "proto-humans" resembled monkeys. I did not shout, but I certainly did not politely raise my hand when I began saying that I was not a monkey, my father was not a monkey, and his father was also not a monkey. The class became silent. Finally the teacher gave a diplomatic statement regarding required curriculum, scientific evidence, and if I recall correctly that the subject had no bearing on what we may have learned in Sunday school.
Since then, I have learned much more with respect to both the theory of evolution and my church's belief in the creation.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints does not have a firm point on how the world was created. The church does maintain firm doctrinal stances on why it was created, and also that God is who created it.
Many people within the church have found this fact sufficient to reconcile the modern theory of evolution with their belief in God. After all, God could have caused the Big Bang ages ago to set everything into motion. He could have controlled all of the forces that led to the climate and elements present such that small creatures could adapt, survive, and emerge from the sea to evolve into a variety of species, one of which became the race of men.
It probably helps support this concept that the records in Genesis seem incomplete. There is very little information in the Bible about society after the fall of Adam. The events surrounding the flood make it easy for people to come to the conclusion that these are not literal stories, but symbolic representations of events for which we do not have all the details. Evolution provides a scientifically accepted, evidence-based context for how life on this world came to be.
In a conversation with one such individual, I recall them attempting to persuade me to accept evolution. They pointed out the development of children in the womb as proof that one type of living cell could become an entire organism in a short time under the right circumstances.
Another individual that had no belief in God defined evolution simply as "change." This is obviously an over simplification, otherwise I would be an expert on the subject from my experience "evolving" diapers for my two young boys.
In spite of its acceptance among so many people, few people really understand what evolution is. At the risk of producing a straw man argument, I wish to enumerate the major points of evolution.
1. Evolution is not manifest in acquired characteristics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is perhaps best remembered for promoting this theory. An example of this is that a parent that works out frequently and obtains greater muscle mass will not necessarily produce offspring that also have great muscle mass.
2. Evolution is manifest by changes in allele frequency by means of natural selection. In other words, those that have genetic characteristics that allow them to more successfully reproduce, or survive to reproduce will pass these genetic characteristics to their descendants. A tortoise that genetically has a longer neck and is able to eat higher food is less likely to starve, for example, and more likely to pass on its longer neck to subsequent generations. The result is the species evolves to have longer necks.
3. Evolution implies common ancestry. The idea that all species were once one and through various means life diversified and grew complex is central to the theory. In order to have enough generations to account for these changes, the time frame of this theory necessarily takes millions and millions of years.
4. Evolution requires assumptions. If life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they currently are observed, changes in allele frequencies are impossible.
5. The concept of "species" is more complicated than many people believe. A common understanding of a species is a group of organisms that are still able to reproduce. Dogs for example are bred using unnatural selection to produce certain characteristics such as size (chihuahuas), strength (pit bulls), and speed (greyhounds), but dogs are still able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. The combination of a horse and donkey produces the sterile mule, thus horses and donkeys are considered different species. This definition obviously cannot apply to organisms that reproduce asexually.
Having presented these points, let me also present points of belief for creationism. Let me do so with the understanding that this represents my belief, and not necessarily those of anyone else.
1. Creationism does not forbid adaptations that come by means of changes in allele frequency. The Galapagos tortoises do not rule out creationism since creationism is a view on the past.
2. Creationism does not have to be limited to six 24-hour periods. It is also possible that it does represent six 24-hour periods. There is not a fixed definition for "day" in the scriptures.
3. Creationism rejects common ancestry of all species, but accepts common ancestry for humanity. Creationism accepts a literal man named Adam and his wife Eve as the parents of mankind. Adam and Eve are not figurative concepts for groups of advanced primates, they are actual individuals that were created with special attention and using different methods than those used for the creation of other plants and animals.
4. Creationism requires assumptions. While this is pointed out by individuals that enjoy antagonizing creationists, there is no point in denying it. Creationism assumes that life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they are currently observed. Conditions prior to the fall of Adam, and even prior to the flood were not the same as conditions generally observed presently.
5. Creationism implies purposes for various species. While there exist evolutionists that believe in intelligent design and embrace the concept that man has a different purpose than other types of organisms, the implication is required in the creationist paradigm. Man is not simply an animal. God commanded man to "...be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
In the end, both creationism and evolution rely on assumptions about times that were very different than what we see now. A person that does not accept evolution is not guilty of forcing Galileo to recant. We simply accept different assumptions.
I believe that God created the world and placed life upon it. There was a time where life, death, and birth did not exist as we now know them. When Adam transgressed, everything changed. Mankind was sent to a place where their observational abilities were severely limited. We only detect a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation as visible light. We hear a narrow range of frequencies. We must be very close to smell, touch, or taste items. While science has brought miraculous new advancements that allow us to see things we have never before seen, we are still unable to detect theoretical particles that are very small, or comprehend distant astronomical phenomena that are very large. Certainly our observation is limited by time, and while we may be able to interpolate what conditions may have been like in prehistoric times, or predict what may appear in the future, confirmation is typically only available for time periods much closer to the present.
As limited as mankind is, God has promised that through his son Jesus Christ, the curses and limits under which we find ourselves can be removed. There is a great potential in each man and woman that can be realized by following Jesus. He even has power to redeem men after they die... and as difficult as the world may become, when he comes again, he will save us all.
Is it so hard to believe that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"?
Being a nerd, I had read enough to know that I was about to get my first experience in the public education system with the theory of evolution. Being a young member of my church, I viewed the presence of this content as offensive. I had been taught clearly that God had created man. As we began going through the material, I became increasingly uncomfortable, however, I remained silent with respect to my feelings on the subject. One day, one of my classmates pointed aloud before the class that the depictions of these "proto-humans" resembled monkeys. I did not shout, but I certainly did not politely raise my hand when I began saying that I was not a monkey, my father was not a monkey, and his father was also not a monkey. The class became silent. Finally the teacher gave a diplomatic statement regarding required curriculum, scientific evidence, and if I recall correctly that the subject had no bearing on what we may have learned in Sunday school.
Since then, I have learned much more with respect to both the theory of evolution and my church's belief in the creation.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints does not have a firm point on how the world was created. The church does maintain firm doctrinal stances on why it was created, and also that God is who created it.
Many people within the church have found this fact sufficient to reconcile the modern theory of evolution with their belief in God. After all, God could have caused the Big Bang ages ago to set everything into motion. He could have controlled all of the forces that led to the climate and elements present such that small creatures could adapt, survive, and emerge from the sea to evolve into a variety of species, one of which became the race of men.
It probably helps support this concept that the records in Genesis seem incomplete. There is very little information in the Bible about society after the fall of Adam. The events surrounding the flood make it easy for people to come to the conclusion that these are not literal stories, but symbolic representations of events for which we do not have all the details. Evolution provides a scientifically accepted, evidence-based context for how life on this world came to be.
In a conversation with one such individual, I recall them attempting to persuade me to accept evolution. They pointed out the development of children in the womb as proof that one type of living cell could become an entire organism in a short time under the right circumstances.
Another individual that had no belief in God defined evolution simply as "change." This is obviously an over simplification, otherwise I would be an expert on the subject from my experience "evolving" diapers for my two young boys.
In spite of its acceptance among so many people, few people really understand what evolution is. At the risk of producing a straw man argument, I wish to enumerate the major points of evolution.
1. Evolution is not manifest in acquired characteristics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is perhaps best remembered for promoting this theory. An example of this is that a parent that works out frequently and obtains greater muscle mass will not necessarily produce offspring that also have great muscle mass.
2. Evolution is manifest by changes in allele frequency by means of natural selection. In other words, those that have genetic characteristics that allow them to more successfully reproduce, or survive to reproduce will pass these genetic characteristics to their descendants. A tortoise that genetically has a longer neck and is able to eat higher food is less likely to starve, for example, and more likely to pass on its longer neck to subsequent generations. The result is the species evolves to have longer necks.
3. Evolution implies common ancestry. The idea that all species were once one and through various means life diversified and grew complex is central to the theory. In order to have enough generations to account for these changes, the time frame of this theory necessarily takes millions and millions of years.
4. Evolution requires assumptions. If life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they currently are observed, changes in allele frequencies are impossible.
5. The concept of "species" is more complicated than many people believe. A common understanding of a species is a group of organisms that are still able to reproduce. Dogs for example are bred using unnatural selection to produce certain characteristics such as size (chihuahuas), strength (pit bulls), and speed (greyhounds), but dogs are still able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. The combination of a horse and donkey produces the sterile mule, thus horses and donkeys are considered different species. This definition obviously cannot apply to organisms that reproduce asexually.
Having presented these points, let me also present points of belief for creationism. Let me do so with the understanding that this represents my belief, and not necessarily those of anyone else.
1. Creationism does not forbid adaptations that come by means of changes in allele frequency. The Galapagos tortoises do not rule out creationism since creationism is a view on the past.
2. Creationism does not have to be limited to six 24-hour periods. It is also possible that it does represent six 24-hour periods. There is not a fixed definition for "day" in the scriptures.
3. Creationism rejects common ancestry of all species, but accepts common ancestry for humanity. Creationism accepts a literal man named Adam and his wife Eve as the parents of mankind. Adam and Eve are not figurative concepts for groups of advanced primates, they are actual individuals that were created with special attention and using different methods than those used for the creation of other plants and animals.
4. Creationism requires assumptions. While this is pointed out by individuals that enjoy antagonizing creationists, there is no point in denying it. Creationism assumes that life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they are currently observed. Conditions prior to the fall of Adam, and even prior to the flood were not the same as conditions generally observed presently.
5. Creationism implies purposes for various species. While there exist evolutionists that believe in intelligent design and embrace the concept that man has a different purpose than other types of organisms, the implication is required in the creationist paradigm. Man is not simply an animal. God commanded man to "...be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
In the end, both creationism and evolution rely on assumptions about times that were very different than what we see now. A person that does not accept evolution is not guilty of forcing Galileo to recant. We simply accept different assumptions.
I believe that God created the world and placed life upon it. There was a time where life, death, and birth did not exist as we now know them. When Adam transgressed, everything changed. Mankind was sent to a place where their observational abilities were severely limited. We only detect a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation as visible light. We hear a narrow range of frequencies. We must be very close to smell, touch, or taste items. While science has brought miraculous new advancements that allow us to see things we have never before seen, we are still unable to detect theoretical particles that are very small, or comprehend distant astronomical phenomena that are very large. Certainly our observation is limited by time, and while we may be able to interpolate what conditions may have been like in prehistoric times, or predict what may appear in the future, confirmation is typically only available for time periods much closer to the present.
As limited as mankind is, God has promised that through his son Jesus Christ, the curses and limits under which we find ourselves can be removed. There is a great potential in each man and woman that can be realized by following Jesus. He even has power to redeem men after they die... and as difficult as the world may become, when he comes again, he will save us all.
Is it so hard to believe that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)