That's okay MJT... I tend to do some mocking of BB theory when I work in my garden and observe how everything is interconnected, dependent upon each other, the beauty of an iris or pansy or rose when I observe the exquisite patterns of colors and shapes of each separate bloom, the wonder of the crocus whose tiny bulb knows just when to send up its shoots in early spring to bloom once again for the few short weeks... each species meeting the measure of its creation... no, this cannot be random...
Evolution accounts for exactly that. A creature evolving needs food. The food cannot kill it, but must encourage continued life. Thus, a symbiotic relationship exists. Some creatures evolve to eat a broader spectrum (some monkeys), other don't (like koalas). Either way, it's not to say the sparks of life, the important steps along the way, etc weren't initiated and designed by God to ensure a specific outcome (a world ready for us), but evolution would be the natural way for everything else to work so well together, regardless of whether man came from the process or not. It's beautiful either way too.
"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)
Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)
Exactly. I do believe that they resulted, at least in part, from a "big bang" somewhere. There was nothing in his statement though that implied the possibility of God using the Big Bang as a tool. Thus, my believe would be erroneous. And for the many followers of young earth philosophy in the church, this is exactly how they will take it. The pauses for laughter were designed to allow others to join in the laughter at such "ridiculous" notions.
There is a saving grace though, which was what he said thereafter:
The likelihood is most remote.
Which, when confronted with the other quotes, is what I will bring up. He said they are most remote, but did not outright say impossible. He then takes on evolution:
But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."
This is a silly comparison. A book is not an organic being. It would of course not be able to self-replicate. But biological evolution allows for it. His statement could be taken to mean that a species cannot improve upon itself without God. This would mean that the various birds, insects, cows, etc were from God, not natural evolution.
I of course realize that he is trying to convey the point that we are children of God. He is in fact even allowing for the even remote possibility that man could have evolved, but only if guided by God. The way he said it was so broad though it could use refinement. It wasn't even close to the focus of his talk though, so I understand.
"There are those who mock our beliefs in the most uncharitable ways. And we will bear what they do with long-suffering, for it does not change truth. And in their own way they move our work along a little faster."
â??Boyd K. Packer