Google Webmaster Tools
 

Here we go again with more monkey business regarding evolution.  Another article presenting arguments in defense of evolution has appeared on a pro-evolution LDS blog (here).  Only this time the article is by a high octane researcher from Berkeley.   They have pulled out the big guns with this article.  The article defends the science behind evolution using both recent scientific discoveries and comments from prominent Latter-day Saints.  

There is much in the article that I agree with, especially the fact that the church has not issued a formal statement against evolution; this is true.  In fact, to the best of my knowledge the church has never issued any formal scientific statements, and for good reason.  The church is in the business of saving souls, not making scientific discoveries.  Galileo said it best when he told the Catholic Church, which was meddling in scientific affairs during the 17th century, that the purpose of religion is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Notwithstanding the mounting evidence in favor of evolution, I want to be clear about one thing – God did not use evolution to create mankind.  I don’t have elaborate scientific evidence to support this claim nor do I have a quote from a prominent general authority.  What I do have is the plain and simple truths of the gospel and the basic definition of evolution.

By definition, evolution refers to changes in the genome through (1) environmental selection a’la survival of the fittest, and (2) random mutations in the genome.

Regarding the first point, it is conceivable that God could have manipulated environmental circumstances that caused lower life forms with desirable genomic qualities to survive while others died.  In fact, I personally believe that He did this to prepare the earth for other species.

Regarding the second point, it is NOT possible that God allowed random mutations in the genome to evolve to the point of creating mankind.  There are way too many changes and possible combinations for Him to leave this to chance.  His house is a house of order, not randomness.  Moreover, we are created in His image which means that there was ONE possible outcome to the creation of mankind, not billions through random events.

By definition, evolution requires randomness and God did not use randomness to create mankind.  Those who advance the idea that God used evolution to create mankind are thus no longer talking about evolution; they need to come up with some other name or stop calling it evolution.

Finally, the article assails some beliefs held by YEC (young earth creationists).  It asserts that YECs embrace beliefs that are inconsistent with church teachings (Note: I am not a YEC).  By attacking YECs in this way, the evolutionists are leaving themselves open to similar criticisms. One such criticism may be: believing that God used evolution to create mankind is inconsistent with a fundamental tenet of evolution, namely that the existence of mankind is to explained without referring to the supernatural.  Darwin wrote to his friend Charles Lyell, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions [from God] at any stage of descent.”

 


Comments

Matt W.
11/03/2008 23:38

Isn't there a scripture that says "For with God, nothing is Impossible"

Why is it not possible for God to use evolution? It seems organized and orderly for God to know what conditions would need to be in place to bring about the necassary mutations to bring about a man. ie- what seems like "chance" to us is not chance to him, etc.

Anyway, I must confess that while I am very open to the idea of evolution, I am really agnostic on this issue. I just hate to see your post here without anyone at least giving you a little food for thought.

Reply
Dave C.
11/04/2008 09:54

Thanks for your comment, Matt.

I concede that it is possible that God could have used some sort of evolving process to create man, although I don't believe that it happened that way.

If the Lord did use an evolving process then it would no longer be what we know as evolution because at its core, evolution is undirected, random change. This assumption is incompatible with the gospel's creation story. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) would be wise to modify the evolving process by which they believe God created humanity. For starters they need to replace undirected change and randomness with intentional change.

Until they correct the inconsistent assumptions in a logical fashion their position will remain untenable.
- 2 cents.

Reply
Clark Goble link
11/07/2008 14:57

I should know better than to get drug down into these sorts of discussion. But I probably should at minimum explain what evolution believers mean by God using evolution.

Evolution says that the environment determines what genes successfully get passed down in the community. While the way the genes are selected is random mutation natural selection itself is not random. God would, in this view, be part of the environment much like a cooling or warming earth is or an asteroid possibly leading to the extinction of dinosaurs.

To portray this as randomness is just to exposure your ignorance of what evolution actually is.

Reply
Dave
11/07/2008 16:15

Clark,

When you say the genes are selected randomly before being passed onto offspring which may or may not be selected for survival by the environment, you are talking about the random chromosomal selection process know as meiosis, which results in reproductive gametes (sperm & egg). I am not referring to meiosis. I am referring to random mutations in the genome that increase or decrease the chances of an organism being selected for survival by environmental circumstances.

Evolution does not recognize God in this important random mutation process. If He were involved, then changes in the genome would, by definition, not be random and thus it would not be what we call evolution. Saying that God used evolution to create mankind faces a huge hurdle: random mutations are not directed by deity; they ARE random.

Even the Human Genome project chair Francis Collins recognizes this as a legitimate argument. He wrote: “But how could God take such chances? If evolution is random, how could He really be in charge, and how could He be certain of an outcome that included intelligent beings at all?”

So Clark, it appears as though your accusation that I am ignorant of evolution is unfounded.

Reply
Jeffrey Thayne link
11/11/2008 11:37

Dave,

I agree with this post. It is strange that people don't realize that random =/= purposive direction. That is, if a process is random and autonomous, it can't also be purposive and directed, because the terms are mutually exclusive.

Reply
JC
11/15/2008 19:43

As far as it goes for LDS, considering modern science with a read of the Teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith should dispel all these concerns. He writes: I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory (evolution) of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God...then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory (evolution) death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradition, a thing impossible.

In short: believe in an evolutionary process, whether random or controlled, is to deny the mission of the Son of God.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply

Google Analytics