On his home page, which is titled “Thoughts on Science & Religion”, Dr. Robert D. Gardner has written the following:
This site contains thoughts developed over my lifetime as I have studied to earn a Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University while still maintaining my deep faith in the teachings of the LDS (Mormon) Church.
He has written a very interesting paper titled “Abraham’s Vision of the Creation.” You can find it online here (divided into various sub-sections - simply click on the links in the left-hand side) and there is a link on the same page for download (as a Microsoft Word document).
1Rob Osborn on May 3, 2007 at 1:59 pm:
A very good read although I disagree with the work he has put together. Too often we see people influenced by the world in regards to their learning. It is as if we feel somewhat perplexed or left out when we cant seem to be able to reconcile science with the revealed word of god. So instead we take the opposite approach and reconcile the word of god with our own understanding.
In his paper he spends some time talking of evolutionary processes that Abraham must have been speaking of when he refers to Abraham’s - “prepare” and “to bring forth”. I however do not possibly see how this can be interpreted this way. Life does not come forth in the Abraham account after they prepare only. Abraham’s account talks more as if the spirit beings are already created and that they must now prepare the land and water to be able to bring forth life when it comes kind of like when I prepare my garden to bring forth vegetables and fruit. I must still plant the seeds but I must first prepare everything so that when the time is right the seeds can be brought forth naturally with water and sun while having the right nutrients from the soil to grow.
Also according to Abraham’s account was the fact that it had not yet rained on the face of the earth and nothing was yet growing until the seventh day. So it would hold to reason then that when the earth was being prepared to bring forth life, it was just that- a preparation of the earth, water and heavens that would then after their preparation be able to bring forth and sustain life.
2danithew on May 3, 2007 at 4:03 pm:
Rob,
I don’t see why the text can’t be interpreted that way. It seems to be one plausible logical path to follow. I like the fact that his paradigm allows for utilization of both scientific reason and faith.
At the same time I should say that I’m not wholly locked into a specific theory. The paper linked above follows certain strains of thought and ideas that I currently favor. That is all.
One of the ideas I happen to like is that “night and day” refer to vast unspecified periods of time - that day one, two, three may not be equal amounts of time.
3Robert Gardner on May 4, 2007 at 12:30 am:
If you get hung up on the evolution aspects of the paper you will have missed the main points, which are:
1- the creation story is about the earth, not the universe
2- Abraham may have witnessed a re-enactment of the creation and written about it
3- these two taken together result in an account in Abraham that is remarkably similar to the current scientific understanding of the creation of the solar system
4- the creation account is at least consistent with evolution
Suppose a current astrophysicist were to create a high-speed film of the creation of the solar system, focusing on the earth. Then imagine you watched it and went home and wrote in your journal what you had just witnessed. I claim that you would write something remarkably similar to what Abraham wrote.
That’s really the crux of my article. This may not be at all representative of what actually happened with Abraham, but I find it fascinating how close the two accounts (Abraham’s and science’s) come.
4Rob Osborn on May 4, 2007 at 12:59 am:
I guess it all comes down to how one interprets it- it can go either way. Now take for example the Moses account in the PoGP- it clears up the fact that there was no breathing living beings of any kind until the seventh day when God caused it to rain and then formed the mans body and put the spirit into him and then man became a living breathing soul- the “first flesh” of all flesh. Man here comes before the animals and either just completely blows large holes all over evolution or the Moses account is flawed- I guess it can go either way depending on how one interprets it.
I do like the presentation given concerning the whole cosmos and light darkness in the paper, I have always been intrigued about the creation of the sun and moon and then the later placement of them even though man had not yet been appointed his reckoning when he was still in the garden. It kind of makes you wonder if the earth was not yet in it’s current condition but in some other system with it’s reckoning to another large planet like Kolob.
5danithew on May 4, 2007 at 1:46 pm:
Robert Gardner, thanks for providing the summation of the article. I should have done something like that myself - I just didn’t have/take the time to put it together.
6Robert Gardner on May 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm:
Rob- In both my scientific and scriptural views, I think evolution can go either way. My goal was to show that it can be consistent with scripture, not that scripture demands it.
I’m happy to discuss evolution, but I’m not an expert and don’t have strong opinions about it. Regarding the so-called “second creation” or “spiritual creation” that you are referring to, the different accounts of the creation seem to take separate tacks. One talks about the spiritual creation, then the physical creation. Another talks about the physical creation, then the scriptural. While another intermixes them. I view this as simply the authors trying to indicate that the physical creation was planned, or if you prefer, spiritually created. I think the physical creation is the account that matters when trying to understand the correlation to our scientific understanding.
So I don’t think you need to claim that either evolution is wrong or Moses is wrong. I think they can both still be consistent. That, of course, depends on what those “second creation” accounts are really trying to tell us. I find them confusing.
I would be careful with the thought that the earth was first created around Kolob and then moved here. Eric Skousen has a book expounding that theory if you are interested. I personally find it extremely unlikely because we should see physical evidence of something that dramatic, and we don’t. The concept violates so much of our scientific understanding that I just can’t agree with it, and I don’t see anything in the scriptures compelling me to accept it. Sure, science could be wrong, but why would God go to such great lengths to make it look like it happened one way while secretly doing something completely different? The creation story that science tells us is very simple and very elegant. I find that, alone, to be extremely inspirational — what a remarkable designer the creator was! And to find that the scriptural accounts follow it so nicely fills me with awe and wonder.
7Robert Gardner on May 27, 2007 at 8:57 am:
There is an interesting discussion of Intelligent Design in the recent FARMS Review, at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=623
This article proposes an approach to evolution and design that is similar to what I’m suggesting. Check out the appendix, which references some books that might be of interest.
I’m not convinced that the case for design is as solid as this article makes it out to be, and my preferred approach to design is one where we probably cannot detect it with science. Nonetheless, I found the article thought provoking and I found myself in general agreement.