Garden of Eden and Evolution as One
Posted by Wade on March 15th, 2006
To put it simply, I believe in Evolution as part of the Creation. I also believe in The Garden of Eden, complete with real persons named Adam and Eve. This presents a serious conundrum. Part of our problem is that we are trying to put a round block into a square peg. The two things of The Garden of Eden and Biological Evolution just don’t seem to go together. When we try reconciliation, it only ends up messing with one or the other. The importance or existence of one of the two becomes seriously questioned. Assuming that both are correct, how can they be made to co-exist? For years I have been doing a little theological speculation thought experiment on the subject. From my research I have come to a tentative conclusion that they can relate.
First, we must realize that scientific understanding of Creation is not too different from the Scriptural explanations of how it all started. The first day was about the creation of the elemental forces of the universe, particularly light (Gen 1:1-5). The second day talks about the Earth’s planetary formation. The land and water are separated from each other, with water probably becoming liquefied below and gaseous above (Gen 1:6-8). After this, the Scriptural account becomes more scrambled from what we know scientifically. Most of the out of order information has to do with the development of time (Abraham 4:13-17). It is more of a conceptual than a creative development, finding uses for what has already been formed.
It is at this point that a very sketchy presentation of Evolution can be read in the material. The first mention of living things is plants, rather than animals (Abraham 4:11-12). This seems consistent with what is known of Earth’s development. Plants were the first living things to develop on land. Animals followed later. Reading about the development of animal life can be interpreted to support the idea that life originated in the oceans, as Evolutionary theory postulates:
And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the God’s saw they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good. (Abraham 4:21)
The Scriptures then state that every creature will bring forth after their kind. For those who don’t believe in Evolution, they see this as an indication that changes can’t happen. A lion can’t bring forth a bear. It wouldn’t be after their kind. However, the theory of Evolution doesn’t say that is possible either. Any developments would be dependent on the sharing of DNA between two parents. Drastic mutations would hurt the chances for survival. Besides, fossil discoveries seem to provide strong evidence that life has never been static. To me it is about reading two different versions of the same event. God simply didn’t fill in the details.
At this point the Garden of Eden must be introduced. Reading of Adam and Eve seems to be a refutation of all that went before. I don’t believe that is completely true. Perhaps they have little to do with each other. They both happened, but not for the same reasons. Evolution was in one corner developing life and The Garden in another changing human nature.
The Garden of Eden was most likely the first Temple on the Earth (see The Gate of Heaven by Matthew B. Brown, pg. 26 - 33), and by nature separate from the rest of the planet. Some similarities to the Temple are the Presence of God, a central location, a place where sacred rivers run (see Rev. 22:1), having precious materials that High Priests wear, and etc. It is clear from reading the Scriptural account that the Garden of Eden was a specific place. Modern Revelation has located the Garden of Eden having been in Jackson County Missouri. Like the City of Enoch, it no longer exists on the Earth and might have been taken up to Heaven.
Eventually, although it would have to near the end of Evolution, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It was at this time when the Lord God made coats of skin and clothed them (Moses 4: 27), sending them back to “till the ground from whence he was taken”(Moses 4:29). Adam and Eve had once again become part of the world we know. Pres. Brigham Young said that Adam was born like any person. Perhaps Adam and Eve were taken from the Evolutionary process, made a Son and Daughter of God through Temple ordinances, and returned back when they had become spiritually prepared for a life of choice.
Now that’s a progressive approach to the scriptures. I really enjoyed it, particularly this part:
“Perhaps Adam and Eve were taken from the Evolutionary process, made a Son and Daughter of God through Temple ordinances…”
In context of what the temple teaches, I think that’s about the best outside-the-temple explanation I’ve ever read.
And above all…anyone who struggles to put scripture and science together without denigrating one, this person makes my day.
Comment # 1 left by Watt Mahoun on March 15th, 2006
Very interesting and well stated. It will take me some time to consider this.
Comment # 2 left by Eric on March 16th, 2006
I guess one could read evolution into the scriptures. I myself see Adam as the first of all living on the earth. I also see that plant and animal life were not put on the earth and made alive until the seventh day. If this be true, then evolution has a harder time fitting into the scheme of things.
Comment # 3 left by Rob Osborn on March 16th, 2006
Leaving scripture out of the picture, evolution has some serious scientific problems!
Bringing scripture into the picture, evolution has further problems.
Comment # 4 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
By the way, Rob Osborn’s comments in that T&S thread are very interesting and enlightening. If anyone reads through the thread, I recommend taking note of the fact that no neo-darwinists were ever able to give scientific answers to many challenges posed.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
I’ve never considered “not being able to give an answer” an indication of weakness…particularly in science.
And one of the things I find most compelling about Mormonism, is the tradition of openness to inspiration from outside the scriptual canon…even contradictory inspiration. And the traditional support of science (at least among the more scientifically minded GAs) as a powerful source of inspiration and discovery.
Perhaps the scriptures were never meant to be the definitive measure of “the scheme of things”.
Carl Sagan called science “a candle in the dark” which tells you much about how even a scientist and champion of scientism might view the weakness of science.
Perhaps it’s safe to also see religion and scripture also as somthing of a candle, rather than the daytime sun? This seems a prudent position for fallible humans to take–at least this is what I think.
Comment # 6 left by Watt Mahoun on March 16th, 2006
Perhaps it’s safe to also see religion and scripture also as somthing of a candle, rather than the daytime sun?
I can live with that. However, it is unfortunate that science often is used to cast aspersions on faith. Science is held out as the end-all means of finding truth.
Perhaps the scriptures were never meant to be the definitive measure of “the scheme of things”.
If this is so, why would God give us anything less than the truth? He said anything less than what really is, has been, and always will be, is evil.
I understand some scripture is allegorical. But I don’t understand why God would say He created humans in his likeness through conception and birth but that this is an allegorical way of saying we were actually created from primordial gas?
Comment # 7 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
‘fossil discoveries seem to provide strong evidence that life has never been static’
I remember reading a statement by anthropologist Steven J. Gould that was quoted in ‘Darwin on Trial’ that said that one of the biggest problems of an anthropologist is trying to explain why the theory doesn’t match the evidence. He said that there were three main things wrong with the fossil record overall.
1. sudden emergence of species.
2. Millions of years without any change.
3. Sudden disappearance of species.
In general, with only a few exceptions, this appears to be what fossil evidence shows.
Again Jettboy, you have provided something interesting in an interesting way. Still trying to sort it out.
Comment # 8 left by Eric on March 16th, 2006
I have just re-read ‘The Origin of Man’ which is the 1909 statement by the first presidency of the church (Joseph F. Smith prophet). It was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign.
I am actually surprised how little it says in terms of specifics. It states over and again that we were created in the image of God, but never really says how. I still have a hard time letting go of the ‘no death before the fall’ stuff (2nd Nephi 2 and other places). Maybe some of this stuff only relates to the Garden of Edem folks and not what may have gone on before Adam.
For me I hold loosely to some of this stuff, until I get more knowledge. We all know the ultimate source on that.
Comment # 9 left by Eric on March 17th, 2006