Duwayne Anderson
Jul-15-93 03:00PM
Mormonism and Evolution

Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond, OR, USA
From: duwaynea@master.cna.tek.com (Duwayne Anderson)
Message-ID: <224nht$30g@master.cna.tek.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins


Hello.  I've been following this news group for about the
last year  and find it  very interesting.   I don't  have
much time  to post, but I would still  like to contribute
on rare occasions.

There have been a  few comments over the last  few months
regarding Mormons  and their  position on  evolution.   I
thought  the  readers  of   this  news  group   might  be
interested in  learning of a recent  article on evolution
in the  Mormon church's  monthly  magazine "The  Ensign".
This  magazine  is published  by  the  Mormon church  and
contains regular feature  articles by the  highest Mormon
officials.

The article was in  the June 1993 issue.  The author, Dr.
George Hill III, is  a General Authority emeritus  of the
church, has a PhD (in Geology I think), and has served as
the dean      of     the University of  Utah's College of
Mines  and Mineral  Industries.   His  credentials  as  a
scientist and General Authority  would certainly earn him
the undisputed agreement of all Mormons (except for a few
heretics that  have developed a  nasty habit of  thinking
for themselves).

Dr. Hill begins his article by discussing the differences
between  what  he  calls the  scientific  and  revelation
methods  of  learning  the   truth.    He   claims  these
approaches are different but  complimentary.  Some truths
are  reserved  by  God  to  be  discovered  only  by  the
"revelation" method,  while others  are left  to discover
through  the  "scientific" method.      I  find  the  two
approaches are not similar  at all.  In fact, they appear
to  be  opposites.    Science   welcomes  skepticism  and
requires peer  review and repeatable results  that can be
reproduced by  any observer  who is  willing to  properly
perform   the   experiments.       Religion   discourages
skepticism,  and  is  founded   on  authoritarianism  and
personal experiences that are  dependent on the observer,
and generally not repeatable.

After introducing  the revelation and  scientific methods
Hill goes  on to explain  that theories are  not laws and
that facts  never change,  although  our inferences  from
them do.  His  attempt here seems to be the  usual one of
discrediting an  idea by branding  it a  theory and  then
arguing that  theories are  only the  ideas of  men.   He
tries to  draw a distinction  between laws and  theories,
but  never tells  the  reader how  to tell  one from  the
other.  He refers to the "Laws" of thermodynamics and the
"Theory"  of  evolution.   Both  are  products  of  human
science.  Presumably laws are those ideas that Hill finds
comforting  and   in  agreement  with   his  preconceived
notions,  while theories  are  those things  that  put  a
wrinkle in his world view.

After this philosophical introduction Dr. Hill goes on to
discuss evolution  and how  he believes  it fits  in with
religion and  science.  He  starts right  off by  stating
that  "[evolution]   conflicts  with   a  basic   law  of
chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states
in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process
to  produce a  system  of higher  order  than the  system
possessed at the beginning of the change".

To make his point  he quotes an unidentified, "renowned",
biologist who allegedly exposed grasshoppers to radiation
and  found  that they  only  had  deleterious  mutations.
There  was  no  discussion   about  how  a  mutation  was
classified  as deleterious  or  not, nor  was  there  any
discussion  about  any  of   the  specifics  of  how  the
experiment was  carried out.   Anyone out there  have any
idea what studies he might be referring to?

He  also  uses  the  argument  that  the  second  law  of
thermodynamics prevents boulders from rolling up hill.  I
thought that argument was  quite interesting.   I wonder,
if  rolling   up  hill   violates  the   second  law   of
thermodynamics,  how  does Dr.  Hill  suppose  all  those
boulders got up the  hill in the first place?   As a part
time mountain climber I never had any  problem with rocks
rolling  up hill,  as  long as  there is  some source  of
energy to  drive them.   In fact, throughout  the article
Hill simply  seems to ignore that great  big yellow (yes,
damn it, not green :)) ball of hot gas out there in space
that is driving the  weather, evolution, and a  whole lot
of other things here on earth.

Dr. Hill  seems to leave  the door open for  some sort of
acceptance of evolution.  His primary  criticism seems to
be  against  an evolutionary  system  that  is driven  by
random events.  Several times he discusses  what he calls
the need  to have some  outside directing force  in order
for organisms  to advance  or change  in non  deleterious
ways.  I found  that interesting, as it possibly portends
a change  in Mormon  Church doctrine.   In  the past  the
church has  vigorously argued against any  sort of change
among "kinds" (yes, I know, and they never  define what a
kind is  either).  Some  of their most  prominent General
Authorities  have  made statements  to  the  effect  that
evolution  is  a  doctrine   of  the  devil  and  totally
inconsistent with Mormonism.

Perhaps Dr. Hill can see the writing on the  wall (to use
an Old Testament metaphor.) and is trying to tweak Mormon
doctrine into  a position that is not  quite so obviously
at odds with scientific facts.

The article  is copyrighted  by the  "Corporation of  the
President of  the Church  of Jesus  Christ of  Latter-day
Saints".  I would have typed in the whole article but I'm
not sure how that would conflict with copyright laws.  If
you want, you can probably get a copy of the article from
any meeting house library  of the Mormon church.   If you
know any  Mormons they  would probably  be very  happy to
loan you a copy.

Hope this  helps to  end the  confusion  about where  the
Mormon church stands on evolution.  Mormons are firmly on
the side of the creationists and opposed to the theory of
evolution.

Duwayne Anderson