Question For The Atheist.

[WalkerW]

Interesting.

That was the clincher for me way back when. I ended up reading Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. Helped a lot.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That was the clincher for me way back when.

Well, I never really had no issue with evolution. But I had never seen this and there is no way to disput it. This is perhaps the best argument I have seen for common descent.

[WalkerW]

Well, I never really had no issue with evolution. But I had never seen this and there is no way to disput it. This is perhaps the best argument I have seen for common descent.

Miller presented this evidence at the ID trial and had no response. They literally just ignored it.

From a theist's point of view, I highly recommend Miller's aforementioned book, Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006), and Simon Conway Morris, "The Boyle Lecture 2005: Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation," Science & Christian Belief 18:1 (2006) and "The Inevitability of Intelligent Life," The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010). His full-length book on the subject is Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003), but I haven't read it. Check out the following interviews as well (I posted these earlier):

http://vimeo.com/6825227

He has some great points regarding science and religion:

http://vimeo.com/6825736

[Brian 2.0]

Is there a TBM or apologetic theory/speculation on how God stepped into that process for Adam & Eve, not discounting any of the science?

You would have to assume death before the fall, I would think, and from there you could come up with some speculations.

You could talk of God "pushing" evolution or positioning all the elements of nature a certain way so that evolution takes it's natural course to "man." And then at some point there would be a natural birth and that person you would call Adam. There aren't big jumps in evolution so Adam would be very similar to his parent, yet his parent wouldn't be "man."

I guess I'm not too keen on the idea of evolution existing as science says, and then God coming to Earth and placing a "new" creation on it of "man" that didn't come from evolution. Especially since that new creation contains in it all the elements of that evolution process.

Trying to see what theories are out there.

p.s. I know it's all speculation and "no one can know" or "it hasn't been revealed", but that's why it's fun to talk about.

[ELF1024]

Is there a TBM or apologetic theory/speculation on how God stepped into that process for Adam & Eve, not discounting any of the science?

You would have to assume death before the fall, I would think, and from there you could come up with some speculations.

You could talk of God "pushing" evolution or positioning all the elements of nature a certain way so that evolution takes it's natural course to "man." And then at some point there would be a natural birth and that person you would call Adam. There aren't big jumps in evolution so Adam would be very similar to his parent, yet his parent wouldn't be "man."

I guess I'm not too keen on the idea of evolution existing as science says, and then God coming to Earth and placing a "new" creation on it of "man" that didn't come from evolution. Especially since that new creation contains in it all the elements of that evolution process.

Trying to see what theories are out there.

p.s. I know it's all speculation and "no one can know" or "it hasn't been revealed", but that's why it's fun to talk about.

There are some on the board who believe that the Adam and Eve story is completely allegorical, and that there isn't any historical truth to it. In that case, I don't see any conflict been Eden and Evolution.

[WalkerW]

Well, I never really had no issue with evolution. But I had never seen this and there is no way to disput it. This is perhaps the best argument I have seen for common descent.

I forgot to add Collins' BioLogos Foundation. Great stuff can be found there.

At some point, I plan on picking up Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2010). They are both secularists, a philosopher and cognitive scientist, who disagree with Darwin's theory. A taste of it can be found in Fodor's article in the London Review of Books. There have been some pretty strong respones from other philosophers such as Michael Ruse, Ned Block and Philip Kitcher. I'd also like to read British theologian Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea (Eerdmans, 2010). He hosted the BBC special Did Darwin Kill God?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I forgot to add Collins' BioLogos Foundation. Great stuff can be found there.

At some point, I plan on picking up Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2010). They are both secularists, a philosopher and cognitive scientist, who disagree with Darwin's theory. A taste of it can be found in Fodor's article in the London Review of Books. There have been some pretty strong respones from other philosophers such as Michael Ruse, Ned Block and Philip Kitcher. I'd also like to read British theologian Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea (Eerdmans, 2010). He hosted the BBC special Did Darwin Kill God?

Do you got have kids? If so how do you find the time to read all of this? Lol.

[WalkerW]

Is there a TBM or apologetic theory/speculation on how God stepped into that process for Adam & Eve, not discounting any of the science?

You would have to assume death before the fall, I would think, and from there you could come up with some speculations.

You could talk of God "pushing" evolution or positioning all the elements of nature a certain way so that evolution takes it's natural course to "man." And then at some point there would be a natural birth and that person you would call Adam. There aren't big jumps in evolution so Adam would be very similar to his parent, yet his parent wouldn't be "man."

I guess I'm not too keen on the idea of evolution existing as science says, and then God coming to Earth and placing a "new" creation on it of "man" that didn't come from evolution. Especially since that new creation contains in it all the elements of that evolution process.

Trying to see what theories are out there.

p.s. I know it's all speculation and "no one can know" or "it hasn't been revealed", but that's why it's fun to talk about.

Conway Morris argues that humans were inevitable. Some recent findings seem to indicate this as well.

I view Adam and Eve as a primal covenant people. The kingship and priestly motifs within the Eden account lead me to embrace that.

And I do accept death before the Fall, but I'm not really sure if "the Fall" is a singular event that literally demoted the entire creation. "The Fall of Adam and Eve" is part of the temple narrative. The concrete historical reality of such an event seems a bit questionable.

[WalkerW]

Do you got kids? If so how do you find the time to read all of this? Lol.

I don't. That's how. Though school has killed it for a bit. Speaking of which, I should get back to studying for a finance final.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't. That's how. Though school has killed it for a bit. Speaking of which, I should get back to studying for a finance final.

I see. Good luck with your final.

[CV75]

You would have to assume death before the fall, I would think, and from there you could come up with some speculations.

It would seem to me that death before the Fall is not a requirement for any evolutionary processes occurring before the Fall. The inhabitants of the Garden of Eden could have been many, varied, and multi-generational without having to die. Regardless of where they came from, Adam and Eve were unable to procreate until after the Fall only because of the specific covenants and limits placed upon their tenure in the Garden of Eden.

On the other hand, the inhabitants of Eden and the inhabitants of the Garden East of Eden may have been living in vastly different conditions and under different covenants, with a one-way passage or bridge into (or out of) the Garden until the Fall. In this scenario, the inhabitants of Eden could die, and the inhabitants of the Garden of Eden could not die until there was a Fall. Sot it is conceivable that evolutionary processes occurred in either place, one (Eden) with and the other (the Garden) without death.

[CV75]

...also, not all the inhabitants of the Garden of Eden may have sallied forth en masse (a la Alma 40: 8 and 19), but by increasingly sophisticated categories ("two by two") with Adam and Eve the last to go. In this way the Garden served as an ark.

[WalkerW]

...also, not all the inhabitants of the Garden of Eden may have sallied forth en masse (a la Alma 40: 8 and 19), but by increasingly sophisticated categories ("two by two") with Adam and Eve the last to go. In this way the Garden served as an ark.

Or perhaps the Ark served as an Eden, from which the new Adam, creation, and covenant emerged?

[CV75]

Or perhaps the Ark served as an Eden, from which the new Adam, creation, and covenant emerged?

Yes, I think the idea has many spiritual and eternal applications in the Lord's dealings with His children.

[Brian 2.0]

It would seem to me that death before the Fall is not a requirement for any evolutionary processes occurring before the Fall. The inhabitants of the Garden of Eden could have been many, varied, and multi-generational without having to die.

I don't think that variation works. For evolution to work, it's not just about reproducing, it's about only the "survivors" reproducing, hence the traits for inclined to survival are passed on. If there is no death, and everyone can reproduce and pass on their traits than natural selection does not take place.

Your second variation is a bit more palatable, but still has the issue of if the DNA of Garden of Eden isn't connected to DNA outside of eden then it's odd (simply because human DNA look completely connected to other species)

Another option would be full standard scientific evolution and Adam & Eve were the first humans God made a covenant with and the became "the first man and woman" simply by title (i.e. there were other human among them). Sort of like an Abraham thing.

[Nathair/|\]

The world-class physicist, Stephen hawking, asks the question, "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

It is a religious question, but Hawking is an atheist.

Lehi

Last I'd heard, he was agnostic. Did that change?

[CV75]

I don't think that variation works. For evolution to work, it's not just about reproducing, it's about only the "survivors" reproducing, hence the traits for inclined to survival are passed on. If there is no death, and everyone can reproduce and pass on their traits than natural selection does not take place.

Your second variation is a bit more palatable, but still has the issue of if the DNA of Garden of Eden isn't connected to DNA outside of eden then it's odd (simply because human DNA look completely connected to other species)

Another option would be full standard scientific evolution and Adam & Eve were the first humans God made a covenant with and the became "the first man and woman" simply by title (i.e. there were other human among them). Sort of like an Abraham thing.

With no death, everyone is a "survivor". Reproduction need not be sexual or necessarily a function of physical/natural/competitive fitness--it could be a function of spiritual fitness and the knowledge and will associated with that (e.g. a function of the available and chosen foodstuffs and their impact on the organism in its own sphere; adoption of the righteous). Of course this is departing from the "full standard science", but we've gone well beyond that already!

With that in mind, DNA in the garden could have gotten there through a one-way portal or bridge--variation developing outside, then remaining static once inside until the Fall. Evolution could have occurred inside, for that matter. These inhabitants of the Garden of Eden, including Adam and Eve, may not have been able to procreate and "have seed" as we commonly talk about it, and human "having seed" may have had more to do more with sealing connections than having viable gametes or familial ascendancy. While Adam and Eve were married and presumably sealed to each other, in this scenario their "seed-by-any-other-means", if any, which may have been "born" by some other means, would not have been born in the covenant until after the Fall because these spirits were under pre-mortal covenant not to remain in the Garden (just like their parents).

[Brian 2.0]

With that in mind, DNA in the garden could have gotten there through a one-way portal or bridge--variation developing outside, then remaining static once inside until the Fall.

So you could have standard natural selection evolution, with death, to the point where humans were on the planet. Adam was born of natural means by humans on this planet. Then God creates the Garden of Eden in a section on the earth and takes Adam and places him in the Garden and places a veil on him so he doesn't remember living in cave or in the desert, whatever. Then he takes Eve, who was also born of natural means to parents, and he places her in the garden and places a veil on her so she doesn't remember living outside the Garden either. Then the Garden of Eden story goes from there, without death, for who knows how long, until they partake of the fruit and are cast out of the Garden and back into the world (a place they had been before, but just didn't remember).

That may be the "easiest" way to keep as much of scientific natural selection evolution of human AND a literal Garden of Eden with no death AND a literal Adam and Eve. I'm not saying that's correct, but it could be an option.

It's obviously just speculation, but I enjoy speculating scenarios. Sometimes its a bit fun finding some middle option that doesn't dismiss Adam & Eve (i.e. fully methaphorial Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve story) or dismiss the science (i.e. Humans have no common ancestory with apes).

[CV75]

It's obviously just speculation, but I enjoy speculating scenarios. Sometimes its a bit fun finding some middle option that doesn't dismiss Adam & Eve (i.e. fully methaphorial Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve story) or dismiss the science (i.e. Humans have no common ancestory with apes).

There is another tread touching on reconciling the science of human evolution with spiritually revealed truths that gets into this quite a bit; you may want to take a look at it if it's still in the archives. I suppose someday we'll be able to reconcile what we've discovered with our physical and mental facilities with spiritual revelation of truth. Some of that reconciliation will obviously require tossing out that which is not correct. I've found that part of what makes it enjoyable is the ability to be flexible in what to consider while strictly keeping my covenants.

[Ralph Man]

To answer a question earlier in this thread, while atheism itself isn't a belief system, atheists are perfectly free to have belief systems. Atheism is just rejection of belief in deities. That doesn't tell you much of anything about how the world actually is or how to think about it. But individual atheists almost certainly have views on that of varying levels of sophistication.

I've never understood why this can be a difficult point for so many believers to get. Replace "deities" with just about anything else, let's say gnomes, and the person almost instantly understands how rejection of their existence doesn't constitute a belief system in of itself.

[inquiringmind]

I think an Atheist would tell you they cannot yet answer exactly how the universe came into being.

But the Atheist would probably also tell you a universe that was created using natural laws, accepted physics, proven scientific principles and measurable/observable cosmological processes has more evidence than a universe created by the whim of a powerful supernatural being.

But isn't that the same universe the LDS believe in (only with the addition of a highly evolved being, or beings at the top of this independent universe of natural laws, matter, energy, and intelligences)?

Doesn't Mormon Theology basically reject every philosophical argument for the existence of God (non-contingent cause, intelligent design, Law/Lawgiver, etc.)

Take intelligent design for instance.

As I understand it, LDS believe that Gods have always existed as a race of male and female the procreat spirit children (the same way we mortals procreate.)

They also believe these spirit children have always progressed by following certain laws, all of which imply design without an intelligent designer (above this race of Gods.)

If it's possible for such a proto-universe of Gods, design, and law to exist without a designer (or Lawgiver), why couldn't this universe exist as it is without any Gods?

That is one of the major stumbling blocks of LDS Theology (for most Christians and Jews.)

[cdowis]

Doesn't Mormon Theology basically reject every philosophical argument for the existence of God (non-contingent cause, intelligent design, Law/Lawgiver, etc.)

Not really reject, but point out that they are based on a false premise. We believe that God is subject to the universal laws of the universe, that he did not create those laws.

We have a sound answer to the question: "Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it?" No, because he cannot violate the laws of nature.

[inquiringmind]

Not really reject, but point out that they are based on a false premise. We believe that God is subject to the universal laws of the universe, that he did not create those laws.

We have a sound answer to the question: "Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it?" No, because he cannot violate the laws of nature.

But then law can exist without a lawgiver (and design without a designer), so you're left with no philosophical reason to believe in God (or Gods.)

Are you not left with no logical argument for His/Their existence?

[LeSellers]

But then law can exist without a lawgiver (and design without a designer), so your left with no philosophical reason to believe in God (or Gods.)

We don't need, nor even want, a philosophical reason to believe in God.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

We don't need, nor even want, a philosophical reason to believe in God.

Lehi

So you'd agree that a Mormon (who subscibes to LDS Theology) is left without any logical philosophical argument for the existence of God (or Gods)?

Would you also agree that Mormon Theology undermines all such arguments?