Mormons On Intelligent Design

[inquiringmind]

I was just visiting a Mormon blog, and I was struck by the number of comments expressing agreement with the theory of Intelligent Design.

Here's one from a Mormon biology student.

Everything testifies of the existence of God. I currently study biology and chemistry for my degree, it continually amazes me that everything down to the elements and atomic structures, biological cells, the world, and the Universe all seem to be working in sync and following laws. Some may say that it's all chaos and chance, but yet it all somehow just works out?

http://mormon.org/faq/faith-in-god/

This is what my own reason tells me, but I have a great deal of difficulty reconciling it with what I understand of Mormon Theology (and what most of you seem to believe here.)

If God, matter, and a vast (or infinite) number of individual intelligences are all co-eternal independent facts (uncreated, and without beginning or end), isn't everything ultimately just chaos and chance that somehow works out?

If God needs anything outside Himself to create, and pre-existing material just conveniently exists, don't we have a watch without a watchmaker?

Design without a designer?

(The watch being the symbiotic relationship between God, matter, and these uncreated intelligences, all of which work together, without anyone designing them to work together--a watch without a watchmaker.)

Must a Mormon be defenseless in an intellectual debate with an Atheist?

Must he say "uhh, o'kay, maybe you're right--there doesn't really need to be a God, creation doesn't really prove anything--I just feel God exists"?

And does this philosophy undermine passages in the standard works (like Ps. 19:1, 2 Nephi 2:13, and Alma 30:44)?

If you read those passages, the logic always seems to be based on the very natural presupposition that design requires a designer.

And Lehi certainly seems to have agreed with the Mormon biology student quoted above, when he said

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

Is this just false human reasoning?

Can there be utility and design without a designer?

(And if there can be, why do the standard works use creation as evidence of a Creator?)

Edited February 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[altersteve]

Can there be utility and design without a designer?

Can a house exist without someone having built it? Can a song exist without someone having composed it? Can a book exist without someone having written it? Can a painting exist without someone having painted it?

[inquiringmind]

Can a house exist without someone having built it? Can a song exist without someone having composed it? Can a book exist without someone having written it? Can a painting exist without someone having painted it?

Can a tool box exist without someone having created and stocked it?

Can atoms, electrons, neutrons, positrons, photons, time, space, and intelligences exist without someone having created them (and if "yes," why not suns, planets, moons, flora, fauna, and man)?

In short, if a universe of things that we can't see (up to and including uncreated conscious entities) could just exist (as a bare fact, and without a Creator), why not this universe we can see?

Edited February 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Arkholt]

In short, if a universe of things that we can't see (up to and including uncreated conscious entities) could just exist (as a bare fact, and without a Creator), why not this universe we can see?

First of all, creation ex nihilo (from nothing) causes far more theological problems than it purports to solve, so we must assume that certain things just are, including intangible things like good and evil as well as tangible things like matter.

Second of all, the physical matter we see and the spiritual matter that we have been made aware of is organized. The matter that just exists without being created is probably disorganized. So, the question becomes, is God necessary in order to organize that matter (or as we term it, "create"). That's the gist of your question, I'm assuming.

Science says no, or at least Stephen Hawking has made that statement. He hasn't said that God doesn't exist, but that even if he did, he wouldn't be necessary to create the world we see. You've cited scriptures to the effect that he is necessary, and that creation = creator. Who's right? I think both are.

I don't think that God is necessary to have the world that we see, and even though we can't prove it completely, I think there's enough evidence to at least suggest it. However, a physical world with human beings in it and Heavenly Father's Earth and children, and the world that was meant to be a home for them, and bodies they were meant to inhabit are two different concepts. Perhaps not the simple fact that there is a world with life on it, but the way things have been set out show the hand of a creator. Not all life is created equal. A human being may evolve on a planet that was organized without a creator, but would it have a spirit child of heavenly parents inhabiting it?

As for this:

Must a Mormon be defenseless in an intellectual debate with an Atheist?

Must he say "uhh, o'kay, maybe you're right--there doesn't really need to be a God, creation doesn't really prove anything--I just feel God exists"?

I've never felt the need to have defenses against atheists. I've also never felt the need to have intellectual debates about the existence of God with atheists (or anyone, for that matter). I don't feel I'm ever going to convince someone, through reason alone, that God exists, any more than an atheist could convince me through reason alone that He doesn't. Belief in God need not be reasonable. Faith, by its very definition, is unreasonable and irrational. That doesn't deter me, either from being rational in the right circumstances or from being irrational in the right circumstances.

[cdowis]

Often the atheist argues that his position is based on logic, and the believer only has faith.

In reality, atheism requires faith. "(Stephen Hawking) hasn't said that God doesn't exist, but that even if he did, he wouldn't be necessary to create the world we see." This is not a fact, it is an assertion, a statement of faith, a belief.

Specifically, evolution. Certain observable phenomena in nature cannot be entirely explained by evolution. There have been several threads on that issue, and I will be happy to repeat the discussion. Evolution is based on both demonstrable fact as well as assertion (faith, belief).

The believer is not defenseless before the atheist. He simply has to point out that we are boh in the same boat -- there are certain things which both of us have to accept on faith/assertion.

Edited February 25, 2012 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

Can intelligence exist without someone creating it?

Mormons say yes.

If this is true why not atoms, planets, suns etc etc.

Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer.

That said, a designer also does not represent a threat to our theology either.

We can have it either way.

[Bikeemikey]

The believer is not defenseless before the atheist. He simply has to point out that we are boh in the same boat -- there are certain things which both of us have to accept on faith/assertion.

The difference tends to be the atheist is persuaded by empirical evidence and the religionist is persuaded by spiritual evidence (feelings and holy ghost goose bumps and stuff).

[cdowis]

The difference tends to be the atheist is persuaded by empirical evidence and the religionist is persuaded by spiritual evidence (feelings and holy ghost goose bumps and stuff).

How very juvenile.

Are you persuaded by evidence of quantum mechanics, such as FTL communication?

We can only detect FTL and other quantum mechanics phenomena by specialized equipment not available to the layman. What you call ghostly goose bumps are merely specialized detection equipment even as the physicist uses clouds to detect subatomic particles. How do you believe and understand what is found in those "ghostly clouds". The same way I believe and understand in those ghostly goose bumps.

We will give up our goosebumps when you give up on those ghostly clouds.

You think you are intellectually superior with you facts and logic, when in reality you are superior in your arrogance and inablilty to admit that there is a reality beyond your comprehension.

My understanding of the spiritual reality comes from more than goose bumps.

Edited February 25, 2012 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

Chill out cdowis - you make some pretty big jumps on who I am and what I believe from the word goose bumps.

These things are different in kind not relevance or superiority - we will get to the point where everything can be empirically measured - even the holy ghost. Might not be to our bodies are glorified and all that good stuff.

(null)

[peacefulleeman]

There is a big difference between "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism". Intelligent Design fits with LDS Theology and science, Creationism does not.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with being mormon and believing in Intelligent Design, it's based in science and compatible with LDS Theology.

However, Creationism is based in belief alone, not anything intellect based.

[cdowis]

There is a big difference between "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism". Intelligent Design fits with LDS Theology and science, Creationism does not.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with being mormon and believing in Intelligent Design, it's based in science and compatible with LDS Theology.

Intelligent Design is not compatible with LDS theology. He did not "design" organisms, which implies that there was a "first". An apple has always been an apple -- it was not designed.

The answer to the questioin, "which came first, the chicken or the egg" has a simple, elegant answer == they are co=eternal. For every chicken there has been an egg, and for every egg there has been a chicken. We find the word Creator in the scriptures, but this really refers to one who is using existing designs and materials to "build".

Design assumes that there was "first".

Panspermia is the closest to LDS theology.

Edited February 25, 2012 by cdowis

[Tepui]

"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

The LORD is more intelligent than the sum - or of any other multiple multipliers - than all of us. It's quite comforting, in fact, that such a Being is our Creator.

But most of us need a grocery store to get an egg.

[inquiringmind]

Intelligent Design is not compatible with LDS theology. He did not "design" organisms, which implies that there was a "first". An apple has always been an apple -- it was not designed.

The answer to the questioin, "which came first, the chicken or the egg" has a simple, elegant answer == they are co=eternal. For every chicken there has been an egg, and for every egg there has been a chicken. We find the word Creator in the scriptures, but this really refers to one who is using existing designs and materials to "build".

Design assumes that there was "first".

Panspermia is the closest to LDS theology.

If you're right (i.e. Intelligent Design is entirely incompatible with Mormon Theology, God just uses existing designs and materials, and that's the only way a faithful Mormon can look at it), doesn't The Book of Mormon put human reasoning and doctrinal error in the mouth of the prophet Lehi?

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

I see no way to make Lehi say what you're saying here (do you?)

.Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer.

Again, if you're right, wasn't Lehi very much mistaken?

He says that if there's no God "we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things."

You say "Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer."

How much further apart could you and Lehi be?

And (by your reasoning) that Mormon biology student I quoted in the OP simply doesn't understand his own faith.

He said "Everything testifies of the existence of God. I currently study biology and chemistry for my degree, it continually amazes me that everything down to the elements and atomic structures, biological cells, the world, and the Universe all seem to be working in sync and following laws."

You say that everything doesn't testify of the existence of God.

You say "Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer."

So Lehi, and this biology student are wrong, are they not?

I don't think that God is necessary to have the world that we see

Same question.

If you're right, wasn't Lehi wrong?

How can you personally have any testimony that 2 Nephi 2:13 is true, if you don't think God is necessary to have the world we see?

Wasn't Lehi's whole point that we couldn't have the world we see if God didn't exist (and didn't he say so in the plainest words possible)?

Edited February 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

The LORD is more intelligent than the sum - or of any other multiple multipliers - than all of us. It's quite comforting, in fact, that such a Being is our Creator.

But most of us need a grocery store to get an egg.

Interesting.

If God really is more intelligent than any and all other intelligences, He's unique.

(That could be the starting point in answering some of the questions I have.)

Some would even say that Intelligence is uncreated, but individual intelligences come into existence when we're organized as spirit children.

But others would say that individual intelligences have always existed, our God is just the most intelligent of those who have chosen to become His children, and there are an infinite number of uncreated intelligences above our God.

The first view (that whatever else God is, He's unique) might be compatible with inteligent design, but the latter view seems entirely incompatible (and those who hold to this view seem to think it's the only view any right thinking Mormon could have.)

Any thoughts?

And is it necessary for a latter day saint to believe that matter has an eternal existence entirely uncaused by God, and independent of His existence?

Edited February 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[cdowis]

If you're right (i.e. Intelligent Design is entirely incompatible with Mormon Theology, God just uses existing designs and materials, and that's the only way a faithful Mormon can look at it), doesn't The Book of Mormon put human reasoning and doctrinal error in the mouth of the prophet Lehi?

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

I see no way to make Lehi say what you're saying here (do you?)

Again, if you're right, wasn't Lehi very much mistaken?

He says that if there's no God "we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things."

You say "Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer."

How much further apart could you and Lehi be?

And (by your reasoning) that Mormon biology student I quoted in the OP simply doesn't understand his own faith.

He said "Everything testifies of the existence of God. I currently study biology and chemistry for my degree, it continually amazes me that everything down to the elements and atomic structures, biological cells, the world, and the Universe all seem to be working in sync and following laws."

You say that everything doesn't testify of the existence of God.

You say "Mormonism is one of the only religious theologies that doesn't need the idea of intelligent design. Given we believe in an underlying conception of the universe (intelligence) that was not created by God, that was not created at all, it allows a space that we can accept principles of the universe that did not need a designer."

So Lehi, and this biology student are wrong, are they not?

Same question.

If you're right, wasn't Lehi wrong?

How can you personally have any testimony that 2 Nephi 2:13 is true, if you don't think God is necessary to have the world we see?

Wasn't Lehi's whole point that we couldn't have the world we see if God didn't exist (and didn't he say so in the plainest words possible)?

Please read my post, and then read what Lehi said. I am talking about a **Designer**, Lehi is talking about a Creator. Panspermia is not a creative process, but the mechanism by which He propagates his creation. Lehi was right, I was right, you are mistaken/

Do you understand the difference between design and create? I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out for yourself. There is no contradiction between what I posted and Lehi's statement.

Best of luck.

Edited February 25, 2012 by cdowis

[inquiringmind]

Panspermia is not a creative process, but the mechanism by which He propagates his creation.

The mechanism by which He (God?) propagates His creation isn't a creative process?

What does that mean?

Also, if it's a mechanism, and functions to serve a purpose, was it designed to serve that purpose (or wasn't it)?

I am talking about a **Designer**, Lehi is talking about a Creator...Do you understand the difference between design and create? I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out for yourself. There is no contradiction between what I posted and Lehi's statement.

I don't think I'm smart enough to figure out the difference, so could you please explain it to me?

And how is it that there's no contradiction between what you're saying and what Lehi said?

Lehi was right, I was right, you are mistaken

What am I mistaken about, and how can you and Lehi both be right?

Lehi says

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

You say that if there were no God, you and I would still exist (as intelligences), and things (matter, element) would still exist around us.

He's saying that our existence, and the existence of things around us is evidence of a Creator.

You're trying to make some distinction between Creator and Designer, and denying that our individual existence, the existence of things around us, and the existence of functioning laws and processes around us prove the existence of purpose and design--a Creator, a Designer.

He's saying that the existence of such things do prove the existence of a Creator.

Since you're so much smarter than I am, please explain to me how you can both be right.

Please explain how it is that you see no contradiction here.

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Mariner]

The mechanism by which He (God?) propagates His creation isn't a creative process?

What does that mean?

Also, if it's a mechanism, and functions to serve a purpose, was it designed to serve that purpose (or wasn't it)?

I don't think I'm smart enough to figure out the difference, so could you please explain it to me?

And how is it that there's no contradiction between what you're saying and what Lehi said?

What am I mistaken about, and how can you and Lehi both be right?

Lehi says

... if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

You say that if there were no God, you and I would still exist (as intelligences), and things (matter, element) would still exist around us.

He's saying that our existence, and the existence of things around us is evidence of a Creator.

You're trying to make some distinction between Creator and Designer, and denying that our individual existence, the existence of things around us, and the existence of functioning laws and processes around us prove the existence of purpose and design--a Creator, a Designer.

He's saying that the existence of such things do prove the existence of a Creator.

Since you're so much smarter than I am, please explain to me how you can both be right.

Please explain how it is that you see no contradiction here.

I would also be very interested to hear an explanation of the difference between a supernatural designer and a suparnatural creator according to Mormon theology.

[inquiringmind]

I would also be very interested to hear an explanation of the difference between a supernatural designer and a suparnatural creator according to Mormon theology.

I thank you for your interest.

What I'm interested in is whether official LDS doctrine leaves any room for the view that design is evidence of an intelligent designer. and what the relationship of the Mormon God would be to that intelligent designer.

I don't know if Walker W. is still here, but I remember him expressing the minority view that there's room for an ontological first cause in Mormon Theology--and I'd like to hear from him, and those who share his view.

And before we get sidetracked by questions like what has to have a beginning, and why-- I'd like to point out that ontologically "first" doesn't imply first in a temporal timeline (Aristotle believed the universe has always existed, but he believed it exists because of an ontologically first cause underlying it's existence.)

If there are a million gods (or an infinite number of gods), could they all have some ontological first cause?

Is that first cause Heavenly Father (or could Heavenly Father have some relationship to Him, or it)?

And what about the matter or element that Mormons believe God uses to organize His creation?

Does the right quality and quantity just exist by some undesigned, convenient accident; or does it share some ontological first cause with Heavenly Father (or could Heavenly Father be it's cause)?

These are some of the questions I was hoping could be explored here.

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[peacefulleeman]

Intelligent Design is not compatible with LDS theology. He did not "design" organisms, which implies that there was a "first". An apple has always been an apple -- it was not designed.

The answer to the questioin, "which came first, the chicken or the egg" has a simple, elegant answer == they are co=eternal. For every chicken there has been an egg, and for every egg there has been a chicken. We find the word Creator in the scriptures, but this really refers to one who is using existing designs and materials to "build".

Design assumes that there was "first".

Panspermia is the closest to LDS theology.

No, you are mixing Creationism with Intelligent Design. As to "first", there can be a first creation from existing materials and designs.

Intelligent Design means just that. It is not referring to creation ex-nihilo, etc.

As to Panspermia, that would be a part of the process of that intelligent designing, thus it wouldn't necessarily be incompatible either.

[blackstrap]

As science forges ahead in the realm of the cell,it is now apparent that the cell itself is more than the sum of its parts,more than just a complex machine.So also is the brain in that the separation of the parts down to the smallest pieces,has yet to discover the mind.To me God is a great organizer of materials and then somehow breathes into those organizations the breath of life,in other words,they become more than a bunch of parts.That is intelligent design.It doe not matter how long ago the original designs were produced.

[Rob Osborn]

Intelligent design is the best represented theory for our existance- plain and simple. LDS doctrine bases its beliefs that the intelligent designer s God himself and that He is the cause for all existance. In my opinion- case closed.

[cinepro]

Intelligent design is the best represented theory for our existance- plain and simple. LDS doctrine bases its beliefs that the intelligent designer s God himself and that He is the cause for all existance. In my opinion- case closed.

God may be the Creator, but if we look like Him, He wasn't the designer. Unless He designed Himself.

[Maidservant]

I would also be very interested to hear an explanation of the difference between a supernatural designer and a suparnatural creator according to Mormon theology.

Not "Mormon theology". In someone's ideas on what they personally are learning (based in scripture and Mormon concepts). I myself have never made the distinction, although in a philosophical discussion like this, I might end up doing so.

I'd like to point out that ontologically "first" doesn't imply first in a temporal timeline

This is really hard for some to grasp, it took me some time to get my head wrapped around that, ha ha. Some never even consider that there is a distinction.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Here is something I think. I think we are blinded by our paradigm of "nature". We imagine that some things are "nature" or "natural". That there is something fundamentally different from leaves, water, bodies, etc. versus cell phones, buildings, pulleys. Especially since for most of the ages of the world, we have been pondering on things without having cellphones and such ilk as object lessons.

I had a professor who taught an origins of humans class, and while I don't know how he conducted his personal religion, he was very committed to the received wisdom of the state of today's "origin" science(s). So when the following came out of his mouth, not realizing the implications of what he was saying, I had an ephiphany. He spoke on "artifacts". He said that, let's say we start exploring a far off planet. All things are strange there. But we see something, just something. It's an artifact. We know that it means that someone made it, even if we know nothing else about their culture, lives, technology. He said, it's like if we were going through the wilderness and came upon a set of railroad tracks, even if we couldn't explain it very much, the tracks are an artifact and a prima facie evidence that someone made it.

I just laughed inside as I realized.

A leaf is an ARTIFACT. In the EXACT SAME WAY A TRAIN TRACK, CELL PHONE, GODDESS STATUE, PLASTIC THAT DOESN'T BIODEGRADE, etc.

There is nothing mystical about it. (Well, there is, but that's another story; in the sense that a painting can be just a bunch of chemicals swiped all over a solid object, yet we know that the mystical is really there in the piece of art.) Not only is a leaf designed and created, it is also built.

In today's age, we can comprehend the possibility of that technology. But we are in the habit of ages gone by who could not see that even faintly; we speak in the habit of the old paradigm.

Reproduction is a program. We all know this. Look at it straight on in the face. What is in DNA? A program. A what? A program. A what? Hardware, software. Actually, quite a bit of software with a minimum of hardware. Bill Gates would be proud/jealous.

If you see a leaf, you have a culture that created it, just like if you found a statue and tried to understand the culture that created that. Etc.

Any theory on artifacts and understanding them and how they came into existence is applicable to understanding rocks, streams, atoms. Realized like this, this is not a theological nor a scientific inquiry. It's a humanities inquiry.

Artifacts. Programs.

It is all technology. There is no such thing as nature and never has been.

It does not take a religion or a science to behold what surrounds us. We are simply those explorers who have stumbled across the train tracks.

[Rob Osborn]

Is there an edge to the universe? What if nothing actually existed? All that matters for us is that we have a knowledge that we are not just the mere end result of random chaos.

[inquiringmind]

God may be the Creator, but if we look like Him, He wasn't the designer. Unless He designed Himself.

Why couldn't He have done that (or, if past, present, and future are "one eternal round" for Him, why can't He be doing that)?

Designing Himself a body would allow us to see and interact with Him, and isn't that what He wants?

Edited February 26, 2012 by inquiringmind