Prehistoric Man in Seveth Grade Social Studies

I was surprised the other night at dinner by what my seventh grader said. (Usually it’s my high schooler who surprises me, mostly because I think he lays awake at night thinking of ways to do so because it’s so much fun for him to see me react.)

They’ve begun a new unit in Social Studies that is looking at prehistoric developments like cave paintings in Europe. The cave paintings have been dated to up to 40,000 years ago, and some speculate that they may come from Neanderthals instead of Homo Sapiens. That didn’t surprise me. But what came next did. My daughter said her social studies teach said she’d get in trouble if she taught Chapter 2 out of their book, so they’d be skipping that.

I asked what was in Chapter 2, and my daughter wasn’t completely sure (they only have a classroom set of the books, so we couldn't look at it together), but she thought it had to do with human evolution from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens. We talked a little about why that might be a hot topic, and I expressed my surprise that they would not discuss it in class. I explained that many of our friends in our area are fundamentalist Christians, who tend to take a more literal approach to the creation story than we do. Further, they tend to accept an ex nihilo approach to the creation. Those ideas are not completely compatible with scientific theories of the beginnings of the earth and the development of man.

I’m still puzzled at the notion that my daughter’s teacher would get in trouble for teaching accepted anthropology in a social studies class, but I chalk that up to hyperbole from either the teacher or my daughter’s understanding of what her teacher said.

But I also took the opportunity to offer some other thoughts to my daughter on the subject of evolution. I pointed out that there are many faithful Latter-day Saints who take a similar approach to our fundamentalist Christian friends, who believe in a time bound specific creation as described in Genesis, and for whom the theory of evolution is something not to be believed, and even to be feared.

I also said that I don’t hold that view. I said our modern prophets have taught that the church does not take a stand on organic evolution, but does teach – and has consistently taught -- that man is a specific and precious creation of our Father in Heaven. Modern prophets in years past have made specific statements that have been quoted and re-quoted over the years. A First Presidency letter published in 1909 was republished in the November 2002 Ensign. It teaches the divine nature of the creation of man in the image of our Father in Heaven. Among other things, we read there:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

What others have written (including the First Presidency-approved entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) is this:

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how.

Both the 1909 letter and subsequent statements from other First Presidency members have made clear that the question of evolution as a theory is not essential to our salvation. They have counseled church leaders to focus on those things that are essential to salvation – the preaching of the gospel and administering in the ordinances thereof. Further, they suggest, we should leave scientific inquiry and exploration to the scientists.

Here’s why this is important to me, and why I wanted to spend time with my seventh grader on the subject. When I was in ninth grade and had a lesson on organic evolution in my biology class, I felt I had to defend the church’s anti-evolution point of view. I assumed my church taught what other churches taught, that evolution was evil and ignored the need for God. (And, in truth, there are some in that time who clearly taught those things in church).

What I have since learned is a more nuanced approach. I can accept the divine parentage of a loving Father in Heaven without understanding the how of His creation. And I can accept the good that has come from the study of evolution and the wonderful organism that is the human body. And further, I can encourage my children to explore the sciences, to study them and to understand them. Our world needs bright scientists to continue to explore and discover and invent.

My children and I can look critically at scientific theory and we can also examine critically the literal interpretation of religious texts. And by critically, I do not mean we find fault with them, but I mean we can examine them, understand them, seek parallels and differences, identify what we do and do not understand, select areas for further study and understanding and so on. The conversation is at least as important as the outcome at this stage of my daughter’s life.

I pointed out to her that she will meet lots of people with lots of views on this particular subject, even within our extended family. And it’s ok to have different points of view. Those who are more or less conservative than she is on this matter are entitled to their opinions; these are not matters essential to salvation, and are not worth losing precious relationships over. In the end, as she matures, my wonderful daughter will draw her own conclusions. And that’s ok.

Richard Dawkins is on my mind

And I can’t get him off. And I’d like to. Maybe writing about it will help.

I watched a video of an appearance of Mormon rocker and Killers front man Brandon Flowers in a post at Times and Seasons a few days ago. Here's the clip if you'd like to watch:



In the clip, Flowers appears on a Norwegian talk show and takes a question or two about his music, then several from the host about his church (and Mitt Romney). Then Richard Dawkins (famous British biology professor and athiest) comes in and all but attacks Flowers for believing in the story of the “convicted charlatan” Joseph Smith and the fraudulent Book of Mormon. To his credit, Flowers responds with grace and calm, despite the fact that it seems he’s been ambushed by both host and Dawkins.

Flowers interrupts Dawkins’ monologue to take exception to his “facts” and Dawkins presses on, insisting that he has done his research and knows he is right. Flowers is then told he needs to leave to prepare with his band to sing the closing number of the show. Flowers, as a parting shot, offers to chat with Dawkins later about his views. (Dawkins apologizes only because he didn’t know that Flowers would have to go, not because of the ambush or his boneheaded and offensive tone in the conversation.)

I thought about this exchange the other morning as we read about Korihor in our family scripture study.

Dawkins offered an oft-used chestnut when scientific atheists talk about God: There is no evidence of the existence of God. Korihor also claims not to believe, and demands that Alma provide him proof. Alma responds that it should be Korihor’s burden to prove that God does not exist, for all things (including repeated testimony of prophets of which Korihor was aware) denote that there is a God (Alma 30:44).

My daughter-in-law is finishing her PhD in biology and will soon begin working in a post-doc position at a major research center on the East Coast. Although she was reared in a Catholic home, I don’t believe she practices her religion (I know my son does not practice the LDS faith of his youth). In a recent online discussion of evolution, she commented (quite correctly, I think) that science doesn’t really explain the supernatural. Dawkins would do well to remember that.

I don’t think that my DIL was necessarily making a case for belief in God (and I wouldn’t want to put words in her mouth), but I appreciated that she allowed that there are different disciplines at work. (I am not suggesting there are different truths, but there are different disciplines for exploring truth.)

Just because there are scientific explanations that some religious people may choose not to accept, it does not mean that God does not exist.

For instance, it may well be that God used natural means when creating the earth. Certainly evolution provides a way to explain the development of life on this earth that has facilitated additional study by biologists, and that’s a good thing, because good things come from that study. (My DIL will use her genetic research skills in diabetes research, for instance.) I acknowledge that there are faithful Christians (including many Latter-day Saints) who reject evolutionary theory in part or in whole. Their choice to accept or reject evolution as an explanation of the origin of life has no bearing on whether God exists. (Or on the correctness of evolutionary theory, by the way.)

It may be that science can isolate unique chemical activity in the brain associated with what subjects describe as spiritual experiences. That does not mean that spiritual experiences do not happen, even if it’s possible to mimic them artificially. (We’ve discovered ways to mimic lots of natural processes to create artificial flavors, and even artificial diamonds; it doesn’t mean that the originals of those things don’t exist.)

Dawkins’ insinuation that believers in God are intellectually deficient (and that is the message that I got from his interchange with Flowers and the conversation that followed after Flowers left, though I admit I’m sensitive about this particular subject) is insulting and ignores the very thing that attracts young people to science, namely the wonder of learning about the world around them, and the openness to learning new things. That Dawkins simply dismisses belief in God the way he dismisses Santa Claus suggests that all thinking people should do so. (I don’t question his right to believe as he wishes, but his suggestion that all rational people should do the same is silly.)

-------

A few days have passed since I started this post. And I’ve had another thought. Just as I’m annoyed at Dawkins’ out-of-hand rejection of the notion that God exists, so am I also troubled by the attitude of some of my fellow-believers that science is the enemy.

Not long ago, a statement from Bill Nye (“The Science Guy!”) made the rounds as he encouraged people to stop telling their kids that evolution was wrong.



And I agree with him. As I mentioned above in reference to my DIL, there are different disciplines at work here, and that’s ok. The study of evolution (for example) allows the building of a scientific foundation that supports other scientific research, and the kids of believers should also be engaged in that work.

I will say this: I don't particularly like the phraseology of "believing" in evolution. Evolution is science, not religion. I don't "believe" in Hydrogen and Oxygen combining to form the chemical compound we call water. I don't "believe" in gravity. It's what we observe. Yes, there are incomplete theories out there (remember relativity?), but they do a great deal of good in allowing scientists a framework for observation and further study. It's not a question of "belief."

It’s wrong for Dawkins to dismiss believers as intellectually deficient. It’s just as wrong for believers to dismiss scientists as morally deficient.

Well, I feel better now. I hope I haven't made you feel worse.