Jump to content

The Concept Of Creation By "guided Evolution."


krose

Recommended Posts

I have heard it postulated, by theists who cannot deny evolution because of the overwhelming evidence, that God simply used the process of evolution as the instrument of creation. I don't buy it, and it's the same argument that I often use against the claim of special creation: the human body itself. The human body is riddled with design flaws. It's difficult for me to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator could have had this in mind as the best tabernacle to house the pinnacle of his creation.

The human body is a wonderfully complex instrument, with systems that work together quite well most of the time, a testament to the ability of life to work itself out over a long period of time. Its current condition makes complete sense when considered to be the result of millions of years of natural selection. But to have been intentionally formed with this as the desired end result? I don't think so. It's not a good design. The bottom line for me is that the human body was not designed at all, either in a single creative event or by divinely guiding the natural process of evolution.

Link to comment
I have heard it postulated, by theists who cannot deny evolution because of the overwhelming evidence, that God simply used the process of evolution as the instrument of creation. I don't buy it, and it's the same argument that I often use against the claim of special creation: the human body itself. The human body is riddled with design flaws. It's difficult for me to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator could have had this in mind as the best tabernacle to house the pinnacle of his creation.

1. How do you know they are design flaws and not part of the Ether 12:27 principle?

2. Why couldn't a perfect process produce abberations?

I am a subscriber of evolution theory and a TBM.

Link to comment

This reminds me of a parable I just made up.

A young apprentice walked into the studio of Michelangelo. "Wow, what are you making?" The artist replied, "David; a masterpiece." The apprentice stood, skeptical. "To me it looks like a chuck of rock to me." Michelangelo overlooked the lads repetitious mistake, and said "I know it's not perfect now. That is because it isn't finished."

And thus we see how one very good artist can make a nice sculpture out of some old rock and have school children from all over the country giggle whenever they see it.

And now the parable of the rich father and his sixteen-year-old son.

"Son, for your sixteenth birthday I bought you a car." In his excitment, the son rushed to the driveway and saw a 1994 Ford Escort, girl green. His hopes deflated a little. "Gee, thanks dad." The wise father knew his son did not comprehend the responsibility of a car, and instead of buying him the 2008 model of his sons choice, he opted for the economy car. He knew his knucklehead son should learn what he was doing and prove himself responsible before unleashing him in a luxury vehicle.

He that hath ears to hear. . .

Link to comment

I have heard it postulated, by theists who cannot deny evolution because of the overwhelming evidence, that God simply used the process of evolution as the instrument of creation. I don't buy it, and it's the same argument that I often use against the claim of special creation: the human body itself. The human body is riddled with design flaws. It's difficult for me to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator could have had this in mind as the best tabernacle to house the pinnacle of his creation.

The human body is a wonderfully complex instrument, with systems that work together quite well most of the time, a testament to the ability of life to work itself out over a long period of time. Its current condition makes complete sense when considered to be the result of millions of years of natural selection. But to have been intentionally formed with this as the desired end result? I don't think so. It's not a good design. The bottom line for me is that the human body was not designed at all, either in a single creative event or by divinely guiding the natural process of evolution.

It's not a good design?? I dare say that the worlds ignorant view of biology is hardly a worthy analysis of the situation.

Can you suggest something better?

Link to comment
But to have been intentionally formed with this as the desired end result? I don't think so. It's not a good design. The bottom line for me is that the human body was not designed at all, either in a single creative event or by divinely guiding the natural process of evolution.

Assumptions here: That this is the "desired end result" and that direction was complete and not partial (that God only directed so that what was necessary for his purposes appeared, but allowed for variations among that which was not necessary).

Since this latter approach (guide where necessary, allow freedom where not) seems to me to be consistent with how God has always interacted with man, why wouldn't he do so from the very beginning?

Link to comment

1. How do you know they are design flaws and not part of the Ether 12:27 principle?

2. Why couldn't a perfect process produce abberations?

I am a subscriber of evolution theory and a TBM.

So God intentionally gave us a poor design so we could be humble? The prostate is given to us so we can have painful urination when we're older, then we can drop to our worn-out knee joints in humility. Menstruation and its cramping are a monthly lesson in female humility, lest they get too proud.

Link to comment

It's not a good design?? I dare say that the worlds ignorant view of biology is hardly a worthy analysis of the situation.

The world's ignorant view of biology? What other view is there? An otherworldly view?

Can you suggest something better?

Why yes, I can. Anyone could, given a little thought.

Let's just take one easy example: teeth. Prior to modern dentistry, human teeth all rotted and fell out by the time people hit forty. If we're going to insist on the process of chewing to ingest nutrients (not a given), why not teeth that keep replacing themselves, like the shark, or a single unit that has no gaps for trapping bacteria. Many better options suggest themselves.

And how about a tougher skin that won't kill us just by being exposed to the very thing that gives us light and energy?

How about not using a single pathway for food and breathing, thus leaving us susceptible to choking?

That's just a start. I could go on and on.

Link to comment

And now the parable of the rich father and his sixteen-year-old son.

"Son, for your sixteenth birthday I bought you a car." In his excitment, the son rushed to the driveway and saw a 1994 Ford Escort, girl green. His hopes deflated a little. "Gee, thanks dad." The wise father knew his son did not comprehend the responsibility of a car, and instead of buying him the 2008 model of his sons choice, he opted for the economy car. He knew his knucklehead son should learn what he was doing and prove himself responsible before unleashing him in a luxury vehicle.

He that hath ears to hear. . .

Do I get this right? You're saying that humans get the bodies we deserve, because we can't handle anything better?

Link to comment
1. How do you know they are design flaws and not part of the Ether 12:27 principle?

2. Why couldn't a perfect process produce abberations?

I am a subscriber of evolution theory and a TBM.

So God intentionally gave us a poor design so we could be humble?

I didn't say that and neither did that verse.

The prostate is given to us so we can have painful urination when we're older, then we can drop to our worn-out knee joints in humility. Menstruation and its cramping are a monthly lesson in female humility, lest they get too proud.

Of course those with the weaknesses, instead of making them strengths, could always complain of 'poor design'.

Link to comment
Do I get this right? You're saying that humans get the bodies we deserve, because we can't handle anything better?

I don't think it has to do with what we deserve, but what we need at the time. At this time, we need a mortal body so we can be subject to and overcome temptations and learn deal with hardships in the appropriate (Christ-like) fashion.

So like-wise, the 16 year old son does not need that new sports car until he learns how to manage a lesser model.

Link to comment

Evolution is absolutely in conflict with the notion of a kind, loving, merciful, beneficent God, because the process of evolution is cruel, violent, merciless, and (if I may use the term) inhumane. Any being who would create such a system cannot possibly be described as kind, loving, or merciful.

Link to comment

The world's ignorant view of biology? What other view is there? An otherworldly view?

That's precisely the point. We don't fully understand, nor can we, because that's the only view we have.

Why yes, I can. Anyone could, given a little thought.

Let's just take one easy example: teeth. Prior to modern dentistry, human teeth all rotted and fell out by the time people hit forty. If we're going to insist on the process of chewing to ingest nutrients (not a given), why not teeth that keep replacing themselves, like the shark, or a single unit that has no gaps for trapping bacteria. Many better options suggest themselves.

And how about a tougher skin that won't kill us just by being exposed to the very thing that gives us light and energy?

How about not using a single pathway for food and breathing, thus leaving us susceptible to choking?

That's just a start. I could go on and on.

You are welcome to come up with ideas, but making them work within the balance of physical laws that define our world is something well beyond our reach. I don't think our bodies are perfect, but I also don't think we are intellectually qualified to evaluate the situation.

As an example, how are you going to make tougher skin? Would that require blocking perspiration? mammals have a very delicate temperature balance you know. Would it reduce our sensitivity to touch? How about transport of chemicals? Absorption of sunlight?

Again, I don't think that the body is necessarily perfect, but to say that it can't be God's construction because it's shoddy workmanship seems pretty arrogant.

Link to comment

So God intentionally gave us a poor design so we could be humble? The prostate is given to us so we can have painful urination when we're older, then we can drop to our worn-out knee joints in humility. Menstruation and its cramping are a monthly lesson in female humility, lest they get too proud.

It doesn't take a believer in God to realize we can learn from pain. Even Nietzsche learned some of his greatest life lessons and built character due to his chronic tooth problems, which caused him every day to set his jaw again and say "once more!"

Do I get this right? You're saying that humans get the bodies we deserve, because we can't handle anything better?

Don't get me wrong; the body is a step forward in progression, but it isn't perfect quite yet. It will be. Even for those who don't believe so. That's given to all of us, regardless of what we believe about it.

Link to comment
Evolution is absolutely in conflict with the notion of a kind, loving, merciful, beneficent God, because the process of evolution is cruel, violent, merciless, and (if I may use the term) inhumane. Any being who would create such a system cannot possibly be described as kind, loving, or merciful.

Change in form and function over time such that it's not noticeable over many generations is all that? lol

Link to comment

Evolution is absolutely in conflict with the notion of a kind, loving, merciful, beneficent God, because the process of evolution is cruel, violent, merciless, and (if I may use the term) inhumane. Any being who would create such a system cannot possibly be described as kind, loving, or merciful.

Suffering is a temporary condition. It always comes to an end. As much as I don't want to suffer myself and I don't wish it on others, if there is an eternity, what then is the consequence of having to suffer in life? Absolutely nothing.

Link to comment

Evolution is absolutely in conflict with the notion of a kind, loving, merciful, beneficent God, because the process of evolution is cruel, violent, merciless, and (if I may use the term) inhumane. Any being who would create such a system cannot possibly be described as kind, loving, or merciful.

That is, unless eternal law dicates it so. Don't confuse the LDS view of God with the God of the philosophers. It makes a huge difference. Interesting take on evolution, though.

Link to comment

Another problem I would like to see explained is the concept of the human spirit. At some point God would have had to decide that hominids were sufficiently human to receive one of those pre-existent, intelligent spirits that wait to inhabit bodies. We know that the process of evolution works through tiny steps, favoring certain traits that give a species a slight advantage.

Do we surmise that one being, which was only slightly different from its parents, suddenly deserved to be a true human being, with a human spirit, whereas its parents had animal-level spirits (or none at all)?

Link to comment

Vestigial genes, organs, etc. are difficult to reconcile with a traditional view of creation, and almost as difficult to reconcile with a view of "evolutionary creation" that involves an all-knowing God perfectly and directly creating beings, to precise specifications right down to the molecular level.

Luckily, LDS doctrine doesn't require that.

LDS doctrine makes it clear that creation was participatory-- that God and Christ created the world, but with the help of many others (possibly including all of us). Just as God uses the imperfect efforts of humans on earth to further His work, so he very well could have used the imperfect creative efforts of those imperfect others who participated. This, like our mortal service in the Church, would have as its objective not only the end goal of creation, but also the experience gained through participation. Are vestigial organs, genes, etc. mistakes? Sure... I just hope I wasn't the knucklehead who missed a step in the tailbone removal manual. (Note, this last part isn't doctrine, but rather a possibility left wide open by doctrine.)

Link to comment

I have heard it postulated, by theists who cannot deny evolution because of the overwhelming evidence, that God simply used the process of evolution as the instrument of creation. I don't buy it, and it's the same argument that I often use against the claim of special creation: the human body itself. The human body is riddled with design flaws. It's difficult for me to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator could have had this in mind as the best tabernacle to house the pinnacle of his creation.

Without making any claims about "guided" evolution, here's a few questions I have:

1) It would seem that what you expect God to do (create us with perfect bodies, with no "design flaws" whatsoever) would be pretty strong evidence of "guided" evolution, wouldn't you say? Perhaps even strong enough as to make denying "guided" evolution an absurdity. After all, flaws are natural. But perfection? Well, that's divine.

2) Will a glorious, resurrected body have all of the same "design flaws" as the mortal coils in which we now live?

3) How do you define "design flaws?" And how do you propose that they be objectively designated as such?

The human body is a wonderfully complex instrument, with systems that work together quite well most of the time, a testament to the ability of life to work itself out over a long period of time. Its current condition makes complete sense when considered to be the result of millions of years of natural selection.

It does? There are no flaws with the Theory of Evolution? It makes "complete sense?"

Are you sure you want to stick with that?

But to have been intentionally formed with this as the desired end result? I don't think so. It's not a good design.

De gustibus non est disputandum. Ever heard of it?

Here's a hint: "It's not a good design" is an excellent example of it. (Here's another hint.)

-Smac

Link to comment

Another problem I would like to see explained is the concept of the human spirit. At some point God would have had to decide that hominids were sufficiently human to receive one of those pre-existent, intelligent spirits that wait to inhabit bodies. We know that the process of evolution works through tiny steps, favoring certain traits that give a species a slight advantage.

Do we surmise that one being, which was only slightly different from its parents, suddenly deserved to be a true human being, with a human spirit, whereas its parents had animal-level spirits (or none at all)?

It hasn't been fully revealed, but I would refer you to Abraham chapter 2, discussing the nature of eternal intelligence, and that is about it.

Link to comment

The whole arguement for Evolution is based on the faulty data gathered from a "fallen world." So I submit that it is not possible for Science to discover the true origin of man or this earth for that matter because this earth was created in a paradisacal state...there was no death existant until after the fall of Adam and Eve. So the idea that this earth was created over a period of billions of years is meaningless, and the idea that they mutated over a long time period denies the doctrine of the fall and must be false. In truth we do not know how long it took to create the earth we do know it was not 7 days meaning days in the 24 hour units of reconing of time we have now. Also Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. Our bodies are mortal because of the fall, but they are patterned after the image of God's glorious and perfected immortal body. All life forms were created first spiritually then physically, they were also in a paradisical state so death did not exist for them before the fall either. So guided evolution is not a viable option according to my understanding of the scriptures both ancient and modern.

Link to comment

As an example, how are you going to make tougher skin? Would that require blocking perspiration? mammals have a very delicate temperature balance you know. Would it reduce our sensitivity to touch? How about transport of chemicals? Absorption of sunlight?

Again, I don't think that the body is necessarily perfect, but to say that it can't be God's construction because it's shoddy workmanship seems pretty arrogant.

First off, it's not my job to create or to come up with new and better solutions. I am neither all-powerful nor all-knowing. But I can easily point out problems, and that's not arrogance, it's just stating the obvious.

By the way, is the "in his own image" phrase just another figurative concept, not to be taken literally? Are we to assume that Elohim has a physical body that is radically different from ours in form and structure, not just material?

Link to comment
So I submit that it is not possible for Science to discover the true origin of man or this earth for that matter because this earth was created in a paradisacal state...there was no death existant until after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Since 'created' implies a finished process, I submit to you that, according to 2 Nephi 2:22, this state of no death was the state into which they were created and that it implies a previous state, the state of creation wherein a host of theories, such a evolution, can swim without comming into conflict with LDS doctrine.

Also Adam was created in the image and likeness of God.

Indeed. Evolution could very well be the process by which bodies in the image and likeness of God were brought into readiness to receive our spirits.

All life forms were created first spiritually then physically,

No problem here. Our spirits were ready before the earth was created.

they were also in a paradisical state so death did not exist for them before the fall either.

Says nothing about the state before the paradisical. Evolution occured until Adam and Eve who were then placed into that paradisical state to await the Fall.

So guided evolution is not a viable option according to my understanding of the scriptures both ancient and modern.

Evolution, guided or not, is quite viable according to my understanding of the scriptures, both ancient and modern.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...