{"id":3947,"date":"2016-06-10T14:50:48","date_gmt":"2016-06-10T20:50:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/?p=3947"},"modified":"2026-07-01T12:40:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T18:40:36","slug":"ces-reply-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/ces-reply-science\/","title":{"rendered":"CES Reply: Science!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Science Concerns & Questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven.<\/span><\/p>\n

No, the real problem is that you\u2019re about to make a lot of scientific claims about Mormonism that Mormonism doesn\u2019t make for itself.<\/p>\n

To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against it, is willful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s probably true, except it\u2019s not necessarily for Mormons to \u201ccling to faith\u201d in the areas you\u2019re going to describe.<\/p>\n

1.2 Nephi 2:22 <\/a>and Alma 12:23-24 <\/a>state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc.) on this earth until the \u201cFall of Adam\u201d,<\/span><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s 2 Nephi 2:22:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.\u201d<\/p>\n

Where does this say there was no death of any kind on this earth before the Fall?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s Alma 12: 23-24:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.\u201d<\/p>\n

Where does this say there was no death of any kind on this earth before the Fall?<\/p>\n

which according to D&C 77:6-7 <\/a>occurred 7,000 years ago.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s D&C 77:6-7:<\/p>\n

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?<\/p>\n

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.<\/p>\n

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?<\/p>\n

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.<\/p>\n

Where do these scriptures mention the date of the Fall of Adam?<\/p>\n

This scripture has long fascinated me, as it refers to the seven thousand years of the earth\u2019s \u201ctemporal existence.\u201d What does that mean? Since we reject ex nihilo creation and believe the matter out of which the earth was made is eternal, surely that dirt is older than 7,000 years \u2013 it\u2019s so old, in fact, that it can\u2019t really be measured. Is that what D&C 77 is saying \u2013 the physical planet has only existed for 7,000 years? (Actually, the real number would be less than 6,000 years, because the last thousand years of the temporal existence would constitute the millennium in which Christ reigns personally on the earth.) Because that\u2019s not just inconsistent with science; it\u2019s inconsistent with scripture.<\/p>\n

7,000 years isn\u2019t the chronological age of dirt; it\u2019s the length of earth\u2019s \u201ccontinuance\u201d or \u201ctemporal existence.\u201d So what does that mean?
\nI think of it in these terms. How old is the city of London?<\/p>\n

According to Wikipedia<\/a>, infallible source of all wisdom, the city was founded in 43 AD and first referred to as \u201cLondinium\u201d a little less than a century later. Did London exist prior to 43 AD? Well, physically, yes, of course it did. The Thames was flowing, but it wasn\u2019t called the Thames. All the dirt was presumably there, too, but it wasn\u2019t called London, because there was no one there to call it London. So it really wasn\u2019t quite London yet, despite its geographical relationship to the town and then city that would later occupy that spot of ground.<\/p>\n

History is concerned with chronology and where there is no chronology, there isn\u2019t really any history to speak of, either. Anthropologists refer to the era prior to man\u2019s arrival as \u201cpre-history,\u201d as in \u201cprehistoric times.\u201d So when does history begin?<\/p>\n

Specifically, if the chunks of matter that make up the earth have always existed, at what point did they participate in earth\u2019s \u201ccontinuance\u201d or \u201ctemporal,\u201d i.e. time-based, \u201cexistence?\u201d I submit that the criteria is the same as that of when London began.<\/p>\n

History began when people showed up who were capable of recording time, which would require mathematics, writing, and philosophy \u2013 in a word, civilization. It\u2019s not scientifically ludicrous to say that, regardless of biological origins, functional human civilization is somewhere around 7,000 years old, give or take. In any case, I don\u2019t think the idea of earth\u2019s 7,000 year-old temporal existence mentioned in Latter-Day Saint scripture ought to be viewed through an ex nihilo<\/i> filter, nor do I think it presents a significant intellectual roadblock to credible theories about the origins of both the earth and the life upon it.<\/p>\n

So where does the Fall of Adam fit into that timeframe? No idea. God has not seen fit to reveal the dates or the process, so I feel no responsibility to worry about it or to reject scientific evidence about both the age of the earth and the origins of life.<\/p>\n

It is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. How does the Church reconcile this?<\/span><\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.\u201d <\/i>(Improvement Era, August, 1908, 778.)
\n
\n\u201cThe Church itself has no philosophy about the\u00a0modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world\u201d <\/i>(Joseph F. Smith, Juvenile Instructor 46 (April 1911): 208-09).<\/p>\n

That one\u2019s kind of fun, as Joseph F.\u2019s son, Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote a book called Man: His Origin and Destiny<\/i> to refute evolution and claim the earth was only a few thousand years old. He tried to get the Church to publish the book, but my great-grandfather David O. McKay, who was a firm believer in evolution, death before the Fall, and geological time, disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith on just about everything in that book.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a letter President McKay wrote on the subject:<\/p>\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
\n47 E. South Temple Street
\nSalt Lake City, Utah
\nDavid O. McKay, President<\/p>\n

February 3, 1959<\/p>\n

Dr. A. Kent Christensen
\nDepartment of Anatomy
\nCornell University Medical College
\n1300 York Avenue
\nNew York 21, New York
\nDear Brother Christensen:<\/p>\n

I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church\u2019s position on the subject of evolution.<\/p>\n

The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.<\/p>\n

Neither \u2018Man, His Origin and Destiny\u2019 by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor \u2018Mormon Doctrine\u2019 by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church\u2026<\/p>\n

Sincerely yours,<\/p>\n

[signed]<\/p>\n

David O. McKay<\/p>\n

(President)<\/p>\n

How do we explain the massive fossil evidence showing not only animal death but also the deaths of at least 14 different Hominin species over the span of 250,000 years prior to Adam?<\/span><\/p>\n

We explain it by teaching precisely that information in biology classes at church-owned universities like BYU and BYU-Idaho.<\/p>\n

2.If Adam and Eve are the first humans, how do we explain the 14 other Hominin species<\/a> who lived and died 35,000 \u2013 250,000 years before Adam? When did those guys stop being human?
\n<\/span>
\nThat\u2019s a question that B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage frequently asked, as they believed in the idea of \u201cpre-Adamites,\u201d as they called them. It is true many prophets and apostles doubted evolution, but many more have not. The Church has taken no official position on the subject, so there\u2019s no need for it to \u201cexplain\u201d any of this, as it\u2019s not spiritually relevant. The Church is concerned with why God created the heavens and the earth, not how.<\/p>\n

3.Science has proven that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

No, it hasn\u2019t, because it\u2019s impossible to prove a negative.<\/p>\n

Time for Dan the Illogical Scientist to make an encore presentation:<\/p>\n

\"illogical<\/a><\/p>\n

I will grant you, however, that science has provided compelling evidence that suggests a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago or at any other time would be highly unlikely.<\/p>\n

Do you really literally believe in the flood story where 600-year-old Noah built a massive ark with dimensions that equate to about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep?<\/span><\/p>\n

You\u2019ve touched on a sore spot in the Bennett household. Because there was a time when I answered an unequivocal \u201cyes\u201d to that question. Then I married a brilliant biology major who, while a faithful Latter-day Saint, also believed that much of the story of Noah is kind of ridiculous.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve since discovered that there are fully active and faithful Latter-day Saints of every stripe who believe anything and everything that it is possible to believe about the story of Noah \u2013 some who insist that it is 100% scientifically accurate, and others who insist the whole thing is a fable, and everywhere in between. The Church does not require its members to believe any scientific information about Noah and the ark.<\/p>\n

That Noah and his very small family took two of each unclean creature and seven of every clean creature and all the food and fresh water that would be needed on board for 6 months? And that after the flood, Noah and his family released the animals and they, along with Noah\u2019s family of eight repopulated \u2013 via incest \u2013 the entire planet?<\/span><\/p>\n

Simple mathematics show that there was insufficient room on the ark to house all the animal species found on the planet, let alone the food required to feed all of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

How did the carnivores survive?\u00a0 There would not have been nearly enough herbivores to sustain the carnivores during the voyage and the months after the ark landed.\u00a0 What would the herbivores eat after the flood subsided?<\/span><\/p>\n

There are a bunch of other problems with the global flood and Noah\u2019s ark story but I find it incredible that this is supposed to be taken literally considering the abundance of evidence against it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, for my part, as I\u2019ve discussed the matter with my brilliant wife, I\u2019ve been persuaded that, while I believe there was an actual, historical prophet named Noah who built an ark and put animals on it and survived a flood, I also believe that a great deal of the story is figurative and\/or allegorical, and I neither know nor particularly care which parts are which.<\/p>\n

While I remain open to the supernatural possibility that God engineered miracle after miracle to make the impossible possible, I am also open to the possibility that the flood was smaller and more localized than many assume, and that Noah\u2019s world, at least as he perceived it, may not have been the entire globe. In any case, I do not see the story of Noah as an impediment to honest scientific inquiry, nor do I see any action on the part of the Church to punish or even counsel Church members who are not willing to read Genesis as a literal scientific treatise.<\/p>\n

Am I expected to believe in a god who would wipe out the entire planet like that?\u00a0 Kill millions of women and innocent children for the actions of others?\u00a0 What kind of a god is this?<\/span><\/p>\n

If you take the story at face value, the people who were wiped out were not innocents. Everyone in Noah\u2019s world was corrupt and wicked. I am open to the possibility, however, that Noah\u2019s world, as he understood it, was not the entirety of the globe, and that there were innocents outside of Noah\u2019s awareness who did not perish in what may have been a localized and not a global flood.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Other events\/claims that science has discredited:<\/span><\/p>\n