Birthday and Mad Hatter Tea Party

"Leave it to us Mormons to do sober what others only do while drunk!" said a friend of mine after doing an undies run in the snow in February!

Anyway, this week we all got together and did a Mad Hatter-themed tea party before going to watch Alice in Wonderland, which I gave a 77/100.

Mad Hatter Tea Party Pictures.

Later that day we all got together to celebrate David Olson's and my birthday. (The birthday of David and me?)
Birthday Party Pictures.

Also note that I added an additional picture to that last entry on Genetic Personality traits.

Genetic Personality Traits

My younger brother Stephen was going to be named "James Alexander" and my parents were going to call him "Xan" (pronounced Zan) for short. But immediately upon meeting him, mother decided that he was far too serious for that moniker, and so he was christened Stephen Thomas.

You can see why, I hope, in this picture.



Anyway, it came as no surprise that Stephen's child is as serious as he is.



I wonder what kind of kids I'll have. Here's a picture of me from this weekend's Mad Hatter-themed Tea Party. I went as a random Wonderland resident. Grew my beard out for it so I could have the handlebar moustache.



Things might be further compounded if I were to end up marrying my current girlfriend (just an observation, not a prediction).



Edit: Should've waited until I had this picture as well for that last comment. Ah well. Here it is anyway.

Evolution and Creationism

This post has been on my mind for a while. In fact, I wrote the first draft of this entry back in November. I’ve long had a bit of a problem with Creationism, and particularly Mormon creationists as we don’t have real reason to be so, as I outline in this previous blog entry.

The purpose of this entry is for me, so I can have an easy, ready-to-hand, parsing of evolution and LDS doctrine regarding the creation. In short, a few years ago I went through and outlined all the possible scenarios regarding creationism and evolution that I could. I came up with 7 that I had either heard before or had come up with on my own. In re-working the list in chart form I realized that I missed a few that I have to point out of logical necessity.

Why do this? Well, there are two things I’m not willing to give up. First, the science regarding evolution (including human evolution) and the age of the earth (6 billion years) is not negotiable. Second, God created the world, and we are his children. The first members of the human race were Adam and Eve. So, without further adieu, I give up a big complicated list trying to fit together all the possible scenarios of how to reconcile these two items. And keep in mind that there is a difference between old-earth creationism and young-earth creationism, and that there is a dispute whether or not the Garden of Eden was the only paradisiacal place on the planet, or whether the entire planet was paradisiacal.

1. Standard Young-Earth Creationism.
God created the earth in 6 twenty-four hour periods as outlined in the Book of Genesis (and for LDS, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the temple ceremony). Science is wrong in ascertaining the age of the earth, how life came to be, and this is either through gross scientific inaccuracy or a conspiracy involving all major scientists, periodicals, research institutions, universities, and companies with a stake in it. Adam and Eve walked out of the garden and . . . well, we’ll get to that.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: The literal reading of Genesis (and the others from uniquely LDS sources).

Weaknesses of this theory: The science. All of it. The best you could do is say that God created everything to look really old, but then you have to wonder why God is propagating such a huge deception on his children

1a. Brother Brigham Young-Earth Creationism.
In JD 17:140-6 Brigham Young outlines his view on the fall, that when Adam and Eve fell the earth itself was removed from it’s original place “near the throne of our Father in Heaven.” Upon earth’s arrival in this solar system then, presumably (and this is my interpolation) then life starts being red in tooth and claw. In short, the Garden of Eden was the entire planet.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: An amalgamation of the various creation accounts with a bit of interpolation from Brother Brigham on how they all fit together.

Weaknesses of this theory: The science, again, for all the above reasons. This time, however, we’re also stuck with the creation of the moon and it’s role in giving us light during the night (but just during half of each month). And God still made everything look old for no good reason.

1b. Dinosaur Planet Young-Earth Creationism.
The earth was formed out of many pre-existing planets, so the carbon dating of various life forms is accurate as are the dating of various strata in the earth, etc. In other words, dinosaurs were creatures on another planet that God had created, and they never existed here.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: Both the literal creation account (but not ex nihilo creation, so this is a theory that you will only find in Mormonism) as well as the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. It allows you to maintain the rest of the cosmos as is with stars, solar systems, etc. being created out there, but preserve the earth as a more unique action of God.

Weaknesses of this theory: I’m no geologist, but I bet competent ones would laugh at this one, really hard. Astronomers too.

2. Teen Carl Old-Earth Creationism.
This was the theory I held during my teenage years (so I get to name it after myself!). In short, God made the earth, including the Garden of Eden, but only the Garden was paradisiacal. Adam and Eve did their thing while the earth did it’s thing for however many billion years (or 4, or whatever) until they decided to eat the fruit and get kicked out, at which point the Garden would simply dissolve into the world, eventually leaving no traces of it.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: Both the literal reading of the Garden of Eden and all of the science.

Weaknesses of this theory: Did God, in his infinite wisdom, just happen to create all the animals in the garden as evolution would eventually generate outside of the garden, so once Adam and Eve leave the animals they had with them fit perfectly in the ecosystem they were introduced into? That seems rather coincidental. Also, did God generate creatures that look an awful lot like humans, just to introduce Adam and Eve into the mix later, making the development of those creatures completely superfluous? Seems odd to me.

3. Evolution, Paradise, then back to Evolution.
God uses evolution to get to the point that he has beings that look like His image (in Mormonism, the literal image of an embodied God, not the watered-down version of what “image” means in traditional Christianity), then freezes the Earth in a paradisiacal state and introduces the souls of Adam and Eve. They fall, and then the Earth continues on as it had previously.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: Both the literal reading of the Garden of Eden and all of the science.

Weaknesses of this theory: Does this really preserve the literal reading of the Garden of Eden myth? I don’t personally think so. This theory tries to have its cake and eat it too, but in doing so makes it a pie instead of a cake. (Sorry, terrible metaphor.) Also, again, it sort of makes God a deliberate deceiver of His children.

4. No Fall.
God uses evolution to get to the point that he has beings that look like His image (again, a literal image), at which point he begins to instill human souls in them. Whatever came just before the first true “humans” (here defined as bodies with the souls of children of God) might very well have walked, talked, and had culture, knives, stones, etc. In this view, the Garden of Eden story is an untrue myth that has been perpetuated since someone wrote it down a long time ago. The “fall” is when these creatures are able to tell right from wrong, a doctrine that is very LDS, but doesn’t represent a move from a paradisiacal state to our current one.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: The science, as well as the fact that some biblical scholars think that “Adam” isn’t necessarily used as a proper name until Genesis 4:24.

Weaknesses of this theory: I’m pretty sure we LDS are beholden to a Garden of Eden located in Jackson, Co. Missouri. You can’t just wholesale abandon the myth.

Edit (8/23/11): Apparently, we aren't as beholden to a Garden of Eden located in Jackson County as I had originally thought.

4a. No Fall, but still with Adam and Eve.
God uses evolution to get to the point that he has beings that look like His image, and then he instills two human souls (Adam and Eve) in two random homo sapiens. Their offspring, which may still intermarry with the other hominids in the area (which gets rid of the need for incest in the first generation of humans—though there are ways around incest, especially if Adam and Eve have "perfect" genes), are ever after imbued with the souls of God’s children, beginning the human race.

What this theory tries to preserve/strengths of this theory: The science. In doing research for this blog post, I came across the idea of a “Great Leap Forward” about 50,000 years ago that fits quite nicely with both this theory and with theory 4.

Weaknesses of this theory: I’m not sure if this is a robust enough version of the Garden of Eden story to placate LDS commitments to it.

The remaining recombinations of these factors result in theories that are logically possible, but don’t actually try to preserve the right things or double up on preservation or try to preserve contradictory things. Occam’s Razor means I won’t place any bets on these being accurate, but for the sake of completeness they are:

5. Young-earth creationism with only the Garden being paradisiacal.

6. Old-earth creationism with the entire earth being paradisiacal. (Different from 3 above by the manner of creation, still 6 creative periods equally spaced, but really long ones.)

7. Previous planets being used to create the earth, but only the Garden of Eden was paradisiacal.

8. Evolution, the Garden of Eden alone freezes and becomes paradisiacal, but Adam and Eve fall before the rest of the earth evolves too much.

I outright dismiss any thought that Satan had anything to do with creation to try to trick us. I hadn't actually heard any Mormons that thought this, but a friend of mine assure she's heard it.

I think I just rolled my eyes so hard I gave myself a brain injury.

This brings our grand total to at least 11 theories.

I have not stated which theory I think is the correct one. I won’t do so, since my official answer is we don’t know, as evidenced by D&C 101:32-33.

Yeah, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things.

Things 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—

Maybe that’s why I like the philosophical cinematic musings on the subject of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.



So, what are your thoughts?