Smedley 1 Tyler Smedley English 312 Boyce, Tara 9 June, 2012 Science and Religion: Allies or Enemies?

Merriam-Webster defines it as, Psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously, (Cognitive Dissonance 1). But it hardly needs a definition to be present in our lives. Cognitive dissonance reaches its long knobby fingers into the recesses of all our minds at one time or another, pointing out contradictory beliefs and behaviors. The spectrum varies from major: knowledge of the harms of smoking versus the draw of addiction or marital commitment versus extramarital interests, to minor: new diet versus delicious doughnut, or getting the rest needed versus the YOLO mentality. We all deal with it, and oftentimes our lives move on without serious contemplation of these diverging beliefs, but other times they consume us, insisting to be dealt with head on. For me this experience takes the form of religion versus science. The science classes I take for my major show evidence of evolution and a big bang that started it all, whereas my upbringing within the LDS church told a different story. For others cognitive dissonance may revolve around other questions. Will addressing these topics head on strengthen or weaken us as Saints? Perhaps the questions can be rephrased thus: who is right in the end, science or religion, both or neither? When the disparity between what I had been taught and what science was teaching about the origins a man first came to my attention, my concerns were easily brushed aside by answers like the fossils are remnants from previous worlds, or carbon dating isnt very accurate. At that time it was enough for me to know that others had grappled with my question and finished

Smedley 2 with their faith intact. But in time these replies only exacerbated my concerns. If they are remnants from other worlds used in the creation of the earth, why does it all piece together so clearly and why do they show links to the animals of today? And even if carbon dating isnt accurate, can inaccuracy account for the difference between an Earth that is billions of years old and one that is merely thousands of years old? My questions became more thoughtful, and the replies I received did as well, at least in most cases. There were some who became flippant, disregarding science completely as the creation of those who wished to justify godless behavior. Others reminded me that we are to Walk by faith, not by sight (King James Bible 2 Cor. 5:7), warning that following this question would weaken my faith. These responses chafed me, seeming to imply that my faith, or the LDS church, rested on a weak foundation. It forced me to ask myself, should I leave this question alone or explore it? Other confidants were much more thoughtful, though, simply acknowledging in one way or another that they didnt know the answer, but they were sure it would make sense eventually. This attitude I could accept, it resonated with Joseph Smiths quote that, One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to accept truth, let it come from whence it may (Smith 199). This attitude convinced me, perhaps arrogantly, that I should explore the question. I was sure that I could find an answer even if no one else had. Thus began a cognitive battle that raged on for years, the results of which surprised me. I will share my findings with you in a moment, starting with background on the subject. Its important to note, however, that many may not enjoy the journey. You see, my flippant friend was right; the search did weaken my faith. Evolution:

Smedley 3 Before we move on, we need to be clear about what is meant by evolutionary theory, as those who oppose it often represent it unfairly. We also need to understand why it is considered to be incompatible with several common religious beliefs regarding creation. Evolution isnt a theory that says one species suddenly turns into another, as the man came from monkeys oversimplification leads some to believe. Evolution is the theory that all creatures share a common ancestor (Freeman 420), and that through small changes over billions of years, we have changed and grown in small ways that have led to large variations between earths many creatures. This happens as naturally occurring genetic differences that suit us to our role in the environment become more pronounced, and traits that are less favorable die out (416). Evolutionary theory does not imply that one species can suddenly change into another. The scientific community has accepted evolution so readily because it is so well supported by a variety of different disciplines. When a hypothesis is supported in a variety of different disciplines, its claims become more substantiated and it moves from the status of hypothesis into the realm of theory. The term theory can be misleading, however, as many assume it to be synonymous with speculation. In scientific vernacular it means much more than that. Allow me to clarify the interdisciplinary support of evolution with a few examples. The fossil record shows signs of life beginning between 3.4 and 3.8 billion years ago. It also shows the existence of extinct species that predate the biblically implicit age of the earth (Freeman 417). These simple facts directly oppose the scriptural interpretation of a 6000-year-old earth and the concept that there was no death before that time. In addition, transitional features, traits in the fossil record that link two species, have also been discovered. This is contrary to the belief that God created all forms of life in a perfected state and placed them in the garden. An example of this is in several fish-like
Comment [TS2]: Again, authors last name, then page number Comment [TS1]: This should be the authors last name

Smedley 4 species from between 385 and 362 million years ago. These species show transitional bone structures that are intermediaries between the foreleg of a land animal and a front fin of a fish (Freeman figure 24.4, 418). These transitional traits imply a functional shift over millions of years that allowed some animal life to move out of the sea where it began, and inhabit dry land. Similar to these transitional features are vestigial traits. These are non-functional or less functional structures that resemble functional structures in other species. One human example is the coccyx, or tailbone, which serves no purpose for mankind, but is a functional tool for our genetic cousins the monkey (Freeman 418-419). Yet another example is the human appendix, which though it apparently serves no current purpose, is used in other animals to digest cellulose, an act that humans are not capable of (Darwin). These would be odd additions if man were created instantly, unrelated to other creatures. Furthermore, geneticists have found striking similarity between the genes of different species that supports the idea of a common ancestor. Different proteins and genetic sequences of the human genome are similar to those of seemingly unrelated species. Those species that are more closely related to humans in evolutionary ancestry share more genetic similarity than do those more distantly related, yet there are even similarities within the genetic makeup of seemingly unrelated species as well. An example of this is a similar protein expressed by humans and fruit flies. The genetic sequence that produces this gene is 90 percent the same for both life forms (Freeman 420). In addition to these discoveries within the realm of archaeology, zoology, biology and genetics, relative dating and carbon dating also substantiate evolution. As geologists study the layers of the earth and separate them according to their relative ages they find
Comment [TS3]: Do you really want to invite your audience to argue with you?

Smedley 5 that the ages of rock where different fossils are found agrees with the order of species proposed by evolutionary theory. This agreement is further substantiated by carbon dating of the environments where fossils were found (Freeman 420). This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of scientific support of evolution, nor do I claim to understand the theory in full, I merely share these findings to clear the air of any notion that evolution is an unsupported hypothesis or speculation. In a recent conversation with a preacher friend, such a sentiment was expressed when he said he knew too much about evolution to give it any credence because there are too many holes within the theory. What he meant was that there is not enough fossil evidence to show a step-by-step transition from single celled organisms to the genetic diversity of today. This is true, in a sense, because fossilization is a rare enough occurrence that such direct evidence is unlikely to manifest itself, but that doesnt discredit the theory. It must be understood that evolution is an extrapolation from a wealth of scientific findings. Whether we agree with these extrapolations or not, we must acknowledge the facts it is based upon. The earths age, how long it has been inhabited, and the striking similarities between its inhabitants are compelling evidence for evolution, and against many common beliefs of scriptural creation. These facts cannot be simply brushed aside. Doctrine vs. Culture: In addition to understanding evolutionary theory, we need to understand the official stance of the church regarding creation. In LDS culture, the topic of creation is a point where tradition has clouded doctrine. Though scientific discoveries and evolutionary theory sometimes seem incongruent with the doctrine of creation to many LDS members, these facts are not truly incompatible with the official doctrines and scriptural accounts of the LDS church. Though,
Comment [TS4]: Saying this means you should probably explore and answer the supposed holes.

Smedley 6 admittedly, they contradict with cultural, personal and at times even general authority interpretations thereof. Many saints wrongly assume our doctrine to be against evolution as means of creation, simply because our culture seems to be against it. Contrary to common opinion, though, the church is actually neutral when it comes to evolution as means of creation. Within church leadership there have been those who support evolution, as well as those who disagree with the concept. In 1930, church scholar B.H. Roberts and Joseph F Smith, then a member of the Twelve, argued for and against the existence of man-like creatures before the creation of Adam and Eve. Their conversations were brought to the attention of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency, and they each argued their points through extensive letters. Roberts argued in favor of the existence of pre-adamites, human-like creatures existing and dying before Adam and Eves advent in the garden. One way Roberts supported this belief scripturally was by referencing the command that Adam and Eve multiply and replenish the earth (King James Bible, Gen 1:28). He pointed out that replenish means to refill that which had been made empty, meaning that Adam and Eve werent the first inhabitants thereof (Roberts 677). Such a stance would leave room, doctrinally, for evolution as the means of creation of man. Man could be an evolutionary creation, and Adam and Eve could have been the first of Gods spirit children to inhabit the final product. Elder Smith maintained the opposite viewpoint stating, there was no death upon the earth prior to the fall, neither vegetable, insect, or animal, which of course includes man. This is an often-quoted concept, but doesnt necessarily contradict evolution if it is viewed to apply to the garden directly, and not to the entire creational process. Both Roberts and Smith quoted scripture and previous general authorities to support their arguments throughout the discussion.

Smedley 7 In the end, the First Presidency issued a report stating, Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as doctrine at all (Roberts 677). This conclusion by the First Presidency matches the attitude put forth in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which states, The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again. (Evolution 478). This statement is supported by a scripture saying, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all thingsThings which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32,33) This scripture is a firm reminder that the whole story is not communicated in the scriptural accounts* (See footnote). Though the accounts are true and teach us much, there is more to be learned, and it is quite possible that many of the conclusions we draw from these passages are imperfect. The Experience: Coming to understand the true position of the church on the matter, neutral as described above, was a surprise for me. Growing up within church culture had left me with the impression that my religious beliefs and evolutionary theory were mutually exclusive. This misunderstanding had caused me years of cognitive dissonance that may have hampered my growth and could have caused me to leave the church had I not been surrounded by a strong network of loving, faithful Saints. I dont assume that everyone feels that church culture gives this impression, but it seems unlikely that an experience shared by myself and others I know is isolated just to us. I am also aware that not everyone is blessed with the support system I have.

For a short treatment of my personal beliefs concerning scriptural support for evolution please see the section following the works cited page at the end of the document.
*

Smedley 8 I also dont believe that this is the only topic in which church culture is dissonant with doctrine. As I interact with old friends who have left the church for one reason or another I find a recurring theme: church culture had led them to believe things that were challenged later, and eventually the cognitive dissonance led them away. I cant help but wonder, if we increased our knowledge so that our culture better reflected LDS doctrine would they still be with us? Members losing faith and leaving is not a new occurrence, though some feel its frequency is increasing. In the beginning of Alma we learn that many saints herdened their hearts and left the church, a great trial to the faith of those who remained (Alma 1:24-25). Traditionally, at least from my experience within church culture, the answer to such a predicament has been to stay away from that which causes doubt. I can see the insight there. It is inevitable that if we go looking for reasons to disbelieve we will eventually come across questions that we dont know the answer to. But the saints of Almas time seem to have reacted differently. In the verse directly following those referenced above, we learn that they reacted by coming together to learn the word of God (26). This approach, of confronting these challenges directly instead of letting them fester is implicit in the continual counsel that church members obtain as much education as possible, and the command within the scriptures to teach each other diligently and be educated in many facets, including the sciences of history, geology, politics, archaeology, and others (Doctrine and Covenants 88:78-79). This process will not be any walk in the park. As we study, learn and grow, our assumptions will be challenged, and our faith will be tested. In the Doctrine and Covenants the word truth is defined as knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (93:24). A strong warning follows this definition that whatever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. It is easy for us to interpret

Smedley 9 this as a warning to all those outside the church who desire to sow lies and hurt our faith. But isnt it even more applicable to what we choose to believe within the church? We are not immune to misunderstanding. If we allow ourselves to accept embellishments of doctrine that add to or detract from what we are taught directly we set a trap for ourselves, regardless of how well accepted or pleasing these embellishments are. We come to a point where we, like the Lamanites of old, must reject the incorrect traditions of our fathers in favor of truth (Alma 47:7). I submit that many of our brothers and sisters who fall away do so not because they are asking the hard questions, but because they are the only ones asking the hard questions. If the rest of us as members had the desire for truth that they did we would have been digging in alongside them, helping each other through questions and obstacles that arise. In order to be in line with the scriptures and with the guidance of the prophets we must do so. We must become educated and active in the scientific process, the trademark of our time. We must ask the hard questions and be ready to toss aside flattering or traditional assumptions that prove incorrect. Conclusion: Earlier I stated that this search weakened my faith. It did, at least for a time. It weakened my faith the same way a hard workout weakens a muscle before it rebuilds them stronger and more fit for use. In the end it bolstered my strength in God, and it solidified my faith in LDS doctrine. I came to understand that the answer to my modern question had been locked within words thousands of years old. In the end this challenging search led to the galvanizing of my faith, though had I given up the search, or resigned myself to doubt at any time it would have been to the detriment thereof. It is for this reason that I believe that we need to address these questions together, as taught by scripture and implied by the prophets. Like hiking and

Smedley 10 many other worthwhile activities, if pursued alone it can be dangerous. On the other hand, if pursued together It can lead to an alloy of scientific and religious belief stronger than anything we have experienced in the past. This is how I feel about my experience. It opened my eyes to the concept that if I step away from culture and deal with scriptural and official doctrine I can find answers that remained hidden when I looked through a cultural lens. I love to put together puzzles. I often start at the edges, systematically working piece by piece until they fit together. My sister is different. She looks for any piece that may belong to the central figure and begins from there. In spite of the differences in our approaches, they eventually come together in the finished product. Science and LDS doctrine parallel this process. Religion starts with the elements revealed through scripture, and makes inferences as to what the entire picture must look like. Science works systematically through the edges, inferring what the central figure looks like. Both disciplines have a tendency to overstep the solid facts of what they know, mixing in what they believe or hope to be true as they seek for understanding. Such an attempt to expand understanding isnt necessarily bad, but it can have negative affects. * When these assumptions are challenged or disproven, it can be a jarring experience, but a positive one. It is then that we must retreat to the basics and strive to develop a culture based on what we know, not on what we infer. Eventually these two approaches will fit together, though it may not be in the near future. As we struggle through the process of understanding the truth of creation, we can take comfort in the words of Joseph Smith when he said, One of the grand, fundamental principles of Mormonism is to accept truth, let it come from whence it may. One day all truths will be circumscribed into one great whole, but if we discount truth in favor of tradition we build a house of cards that will one day fall. For a short treatment of my own beliefs concerning scriptural support for evolution, please see the section following the works cited page.
*

Smedley 11
Comment [TS5]: Show me dont tell me Comment [TS6]: What does this mean?

Works Cited The Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989. Print. Cognitive Dissonance. M-W.com Merriam-Webster, Inc. n.d. web. 8 June 2011.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. 1871. Print. Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989. Print. The Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989. Print. Evolution. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 1st ed. 1992. Print King James Bible. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989. Print. Roberts, B. H. Appendix 11. First Presidency to the General Authorities, 5 April 1931. The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology: The Masterwork of B.H. Roberts. Ed. Stan Larson. San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994. Print. Smith, Joseph. Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977. Print.

Smedley 12
Scriptural Evolution: I believe instantaneous creation is actually opposed by the canon of the LDS church. Considering what we know about Gods revealed character and the patterns he uses in interacting with mankind, lets explore the traditional interpretation of the creational accounts. Does instantaneous creation really fit with what we know? Everything about this earthly experience is done incrementally rather than in leaps and bounds, even the restoration of the gospel was this way. Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon and established the church over the period of a few years, but then came years of continuing revelation, both doctrinally and concerning the organization of the church. This is illustrated by the long-term compilation of the Doctrine in Covenants. Even after Josephs martyrdom, the restoration wasnt fully completed; Joseph F. Smith received the last sections of the Doctrine and Covenants almost 75 years later. Not to mention the fact that revelation continues to be given today. Perhaps an even better example of this is the pattern of personal revelation. The Lord gives us pattern(s) in all things, that (we) be not deceived (Doctrine and Covenants 52:14). The pattern given for revelation is precept upon precept; line upon line here a little and there a little (King James Bible Isaiah 28: 9,10). Why would his patterns for revelation and restoration be so different than that of physical creation? After all, revelation is a form of spiritual creation itself, is it not? If the Lord creates spiritually before physically, why would the physical creation be carried out so differently from the spiritual? On a different note, we know from Romans that the wages of sin is death, which matches with the experience of the fall: if there is sin or transgression, death follows. This brings up an interesting question in regards to the Abraham account of the creation. In chapter 4 there are several references during the different creational periods that say and the Gods saw that they were obeyed (Pearl of Great Price Abraham 4: 7,9,10, 11, 12, 24), but some of these are particularly interesting. After the creation of the lights in the heavens it says, And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed (18). Then, after the preparation of the waters for marine life it says and the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good (21) Lastly, when creating the beasts, they saw they
Comment [TS7]: Show me dont tell me

Smedley 13
would obey (25). In my mind, these references imply a period in which there was disobedience, or at least a lack of perfect obedience, that was eventually brought to an end. If there was disobedience, or sin, and the wages of sin are death, there would have been death in the creational process before Adam and Eve were created. Is it not possible that as the creation was carried out there were cycles of disobedience that eventually came to peace and order before a new stage began? Is it not possible that Adam was the first spirit child of God to be breathed into the body of a creation that had been fine-tuned through millions of years of evolution to be in the likeness of the Father? Also interesting is the fact that, within this account, preparation of the sea for marine animal life and preparation of land for inhabitance by beasts are treated independently, in the same order in which evolutionary theory proposes them (21-25). In other accounts the creation of wildlife is treated as one step. Let me restate, once again, that I dont claim to know exactly how the creation proceeded. I only wish to clarify that there is strong evidence within the scriptures that imply death occurred in stages before the garden, and that the creation may have been different than how we envision it. It was probably much more complex and involved than what we imagine when we read, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (King James Bible Gen 2:7), Though I can imagine no simpler way to describe evolutionary development, through eons of time, starting with the simplest elements of existence and culminating in the masterpiece of man, than with that simple statement.