Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Concept Of Creation By "guided Evolution."


krose

Recommended Posts

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

Are you sure you want to stick with that?

Clearly I never said there are no flaws in evolutionary theory. I said the current state of the human body is completely explainable by invoking natural selection, rather than any kind of divine 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.

There's no accounting for taste? How does that apply here? The human body's problems are just a matter of an acquired taste?

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)?

Such logically follows from my theory. Would such a 'pre-Adamite' notice? We are spirits (James 2:26) clothed in physical bodies.

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.

While I agree that LDS scripture and traditional teaching do not allow for guided evolution, the idea that humans were specially created in the image of God is even worse, because you're contending that all of this was intentional and designed. So does God have teeth, a prostate, sporadic mammalian body hair, and a vestigial tailbone, just like us?

Link to comment

krose,

Clearly I never said there are no flaws in evolutionary theory.

You said (emphasis added): "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.

How can something "make complete sense" if it has flaws in it?

Or were you just overstating your claim?

I said the current state of the human body is completely explainable by invoking natural selection, rather than any kind of divine design.

Actually, that's not what you said.

But even that assertion is problematic. The human body is completely explainable?

There's no accounting for taste? How does that apply here?

"It's not a good design" is a value judgment, not an statement that is objective or quantifiable or falsifiable.

I can just as easily say that the human body is a "good design," and this statement would have just as much weight as yours. Why? Because as those crazy Romans put it, De gustibus non est disputandum.

-Smac

Link to comment
So does God have teeth, a prostate, sporadic mammalian body hair, and a tailbone, just like us?

And great teeth and a nice smell to boot!

Although I could go with what was postulated in a Star Trek TNG episode in which it was found that all humanoids had common DNA with a race of beings who originally seeded the Galaxy. In other words, we might be only one of many species of humanoid and yet all are created in the image of God. More fun, but much less plausible so far.

Link to comment

You said (emphasis added): "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.

How can something "make complete sense" if it has flaws in it?

Or were you just overstating your claim?

Actually, that's not what you said.

But even that assertion is problematic. The human body is completely explainable?

You seem to insist on hearing something that I'm not saying. I say "Its current condition makes complete sense when considered to be the result of millions of years of natural selection," and "the current state of the human body is completely explainable by invoking natural selection."

You then ignore the subject of each sentence (bolded) and choose to treat the prepositional phrase that followed as the subject. Let me say it yet again: The human body is best explained as the result of evolution rather than any kind of creation.

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.

I beleive in creationism plus evolution. i:e.....what would happen to human beings legs

if we never used them for anything at all? or hands e.t.c..

God "did" create us and everything else to boot, but when doing so he added the ability of adaption

in everything, plants,animals humans, e.t.c.......

{so hows about dem apples?}

:P

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.

I don't agree. How would you know what a kind, loving, merciful, etc. God is like? Where is your evidence for that kind of a God? Or are you just pretending to understand what that kind of a god would be like?

HiJolly

Krose:

So far I haven't you haven't proven your case against "Guided Evolution". As a TBM and Evolutionist, there is no Scripture that precludes it.

<devil's advocate> Can you explain how 2Ne2:22 does not preclude it?

HiJolly (who believes in some form 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.

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.

What your question boils down to is this? Why are we not created immortal? Well, Adam was originally, until he introduced mortality by partaking of the forbidden fruit. A change then took place. Our bodies are now mortal, and corruptable. With that in mind, I have no problem with the design with the knowledge that it is not meant to last forever.

We are not yet the crowning pinnacle of God's creation. This corruption will some day be raised to incorruption.

Link to comment

Assume that our bodies were in a perfected condition, perfect teeth, perfect digestion and function, would they not then by a fantastic creation? The ability to hear music, see beauty, touch a baby's head, run with the wind in our faces, all these things which even in our imperfect bodies bring great joy, would be even more exalting in a perfected body.

I look at it as creation not yet complete and evolution continuing until we are resurrected.

Link to comment

HiJolly:

"And 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."

The verse says nothing about the rest of the world, only about the Garden eastward in Eden. :P

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.

May I begin by protesting against the sloppy use of language? The thread subtitle says, "It's just not logical." So I came in here expecting to find something resembling a logical argument.

And I didn't.

I saw Krose telling us--not in so many words, of course--that he assumes that if the human body was designed, the design would be perfect. It isn't, so it must not be designed. Now it is quite easy to cast that as a logical argument, but he hasn't done so; possibly because that would involve explicitly stating the major premise, which is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is that designed systems frequently have flaws, and more and more they are put there intentionally. Ever heard of "planned obsolesence?" It is true that human bodies develop faults (get sick) suffer component failures (get injured) and eventually break down (die) either from wear or from some catastrophic event. They even occasionally manufacture faulty units (birth defects) but please note that incontrovertibly designed systems do all of these things. What is more, it is a not-very-controversial point of our theology that our bodies are intended to have these flaws. The fact that they have them is an example of design success, not evidence against design.

The human body is a wonderfully complex instrument, with systems that work together quite well most of the time, a testament to the wisdom of its creator. Its current condition makes complete sense when considered in the context of the plan of salvation.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Design flaws are becoming more and more of a problem now that people live longer than they used to. For most of our evolution, adult humans (and pre-humans) died young from infection, child birth, malnutrition, starvation, etc. Now we have solved such problems in developed countries, and instead we mostly die from basic biological malfunctions. Our cells and organs contain fiendishly intricate mechanisms for staving off cancer and cardiovascular disease for a good 30-40 years, but now that we commonly live twice that, it is undeniable that the molecular machinery within our cells is not appropriate for such a long life span. Are molecular malfunctions part of god's plan for modern humans? Or are they the expected result of unguided evolution, which cannot directly select for survival mechanisms that function beyond an organism's normal reproductive age?

I don't believe in god, but I have no theoretical problem with the idea that a greater cosmic intelligence (call it god) is pleased or interested in the way homo sapiens turned out on this little blue planet around a yellow sun. I just don't think the idea that God designed us ahead of time, and used evolution to reach a desired homo sapien goal, holds much water. I have to wonder about people who believe such a thing -- do they really understand biology as well as they think they do? :P

Link to comment

Assume that our bodies were in a perfected condition, perfect teeth, perfect digestion and function, would they not then by a fantastic creation? The ability to hear music, see beauty, touch a baby's head, run with the wind in our faces, all these things which even in our imperfect bodies bring great joy, would be even more exalting in a perfected body.

I look at it as creation not yet complete and evolution continuing until we are resurrected.

I've noticed posters claiming that I want a "perfect" or "immortal" body. No, just one that's designed better. I would think that being created in God's image or "likeness" would rate something much better than this.

It just so happens that the world and its inhabitants look exactly as they would if they came about by entirely natural means, with no divine intervention. The increasingly shrinking god of the gaps has now been reduced to working behind the scenes, in an invisible way, tweaking the genetic code of certain creatures to cause minor mutations that will eventually (millions of years later) turn out to be a new creation. If you remove God from the equation entirely, the end result is the same.

Link to comment

It just so happens that the world and its inhabitants look exactly as they would if they came about by entirely natural means, with no divine intervention.

But why does that preclude God? If God is a God of laws as LDS believe then the fact that we look like we would look through natural means seems to support a God who would use the laws of the universe to create beings in his likeness, albeit due to mortality not yet evolved to the perfect Being he is.
Link to comment

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.

Not necessarily true. For a good discussion on the different positions historically among the brethren and the official position of the church, as well as a scientific look (from LDS perspective) at the age of the earth, etc., see Rhodes' and Moody's "Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham," published in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant but available from the Maxwell Institute here.

Regards

Link to comment

Evolution may not be true but right now it makes a lot of sense. We have systems in our bodies that are being transitioned out, which in ancestor species still function to their full extent. These ancestor species are directly related to us with DNA. mtDNA is easy to trace, on average in humans it randomly mutates every 5k years and we can trace these mutations right around the world from the 'cradle of humanity' in Africa. In doctrine the black skin is a curse, in evolution the black skin was breed out once humans hit cold regions. In fact it was lost over a fairly short time I think something like 100,000 years. If you want to say evolution is not true then you need to come up with something better than Adam being around 6 thousand years ago, because humans have been here longer than that. We have paintings in Australia on caves made by 'modern' humans which are carbon dated to 40k years ago. please don't raise the inaccuracies of carbon dating, there are more ways to date than that now, and they all correspond. We also know the American indians got to America by walking across an ice bridge 10,000 years ago (the last ice age). This is all proven with many areas of science reaching the same or corresponding conclusions.

Evolution describes our current state perfectly. Most doctors who really understand the body are usually evolutionists.

Another minor point, if all living things have a spirit, what about mules, they cant breed, they are an evolutionary dead end, do they have spirits even though god never planned for them to exist? Did he make spirits to fit just in case they poped up?

Life is full of dead ends, mistakes, things that were fine tuned to limited surroundings died quickly after thousands of years evolution. Almost all life ends in a violent and painful death. It is a matter of kill of be killed. We are in the middle of all this but its very hard to see when you live in a house with heater, an ambulance close by, lots of food, running water, toilets etc... But if your lucky, we you will occasionally be snapped back to the reality of evolution when the earth makes a big move.

Another thing to think about with the modern life and lifespans is how evolution will work in the future. For example, in the past a male was more likely to reproduce if they were strong, big, fit etc.. and this is what females became attracted to. It works the other way round, males are attracted to females most likley to give their genes the best chance of survival. Attractive females are only attractive because our minds tell us they offer this opportunity. If 500kg females offered this better, then males would be attracted to 500kg females. SO, I have noticed that some females these days will have relations with men who are not fit, strong and all that, based on the fact that they have money. This is not a bad thing because money today will actually help assure an easier future - whether it is for them or their offspring I don't know, but being selfish is basically part of evolution. So it could be possible that as things change in a modern life the fittest genes are not the ones which go forward and the human race could be come (only in small pockets and short periods of time) more frail as to pure survival of the fittest, meaning money (or something else) could become the new fit.

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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