mormonsandscience

Jared,

Thanks for pointing that out. The temple uses similar wording, but that's all I'll say about that.

Your post brings up an interesting point - could animals reproduce before the Fall? The commandment to reproduce may seem strange if they were unable to do so until after Adam fell. Yet Adam and Eve were also commanded to reproduce even though they were unable to do so. Hmm?

I am curious, what is your viewpoint on the location of the earth before and after the Fall? Do you believe that it was near to God's throne, and then descended to another domain to our current place in the galaxy after Adam fell? I have heard others posit that Adam lived on a different earth before the Fall. This latter scenario may allow for eons of microevolutionary processes and other events to prepare the earth for Adam and his descendents.

Bruce Johns,

Interesting remarks from Heber C Kimball. Many endowed members would likely agree with Heber Kimball's assertion that the plants themselves or seeds were placed in the earth. Yet this does not necessarily throw darwinism out the window. Many people in and out of the church believe that God placed life on the earth to start things off, and then allowed it to evolve.

Dave,

I know it was a popular idea with some of the early brethren, but I see no reason to think that Earth was formed outside of our solar system.

As for Adam, my view is similar to Henry Eyring's:

"We are not told who Adam's father was. To me the important thing is that Adam is the spirit child of God. He came into this world when he received a mortal body. The Fall consisted of becoming subject to death, and everyone born into the world is subject to death and so partakes of this fallen state with Adam. Finally, through the atonement we will all receive a resurrected body.

Whether Adam's father lived on this earth or somewhere else would seem of secondary importance to me. Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve his wife, became our first parents."

(For source, see http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2008/11/henry-eyring-galileo-and-adam.html)

Doc,
Do you have a PhD, MD, or an ED. If not and you do not play basketball like Doctor Jay, then whence the title? :0
Anyway, thanks for your comments.

1. Yes, I agree that we are created in God's spiritual image in terms of having agency, etc. Yet it is also clear that we are created in His physical image as well, which begs the question for theistic evolutionists: How can we be created in His phsyical image if the process were random? This argument completely debunks theistic evolution.

2. Yes, I understand that reproduction is a separate issue from evolution. It is possible for species to reproduce with their own kind and still have evolution take place. You have hit on the weakness in this argument. But I still think that the command to reproduce within one's kind has relevance when we talk about evolution given that many hybrid species are sterile and unable to reproduce (e.g., mule, liger).

You wrote that I seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Well, as I understand it, at its core evolution is change in the genome. By processes of environmental selection and random mutation, new characteristics evolve. Any concerns about this (I didn't google evolution as I wrote this definition).

I don't know the exact details of the "sphere in which God created them", but I'll bet it applies to the limits of intelligence and complexity to which God assigned life forms to exist in. The intelligence inherent in lower life forms will never attain, through evolution or any other process, a higher order of being or existence.

Anymore unabashed intellectualizations of the plain and precious truths you would like to consider?

If macroevolutionary changes in organisms still constitutes life bringing forth after its own kind then that would mean that there is only one kind, since evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common ancestor. But the scriptures indicate that there are several kinds that are distinct from each other.

It's an MD if your curious, hence mormonmd in the URL.

You are arguing a bit of a straw man. Theistic evolution is NONrandom by definition, though it appears random from the inside. In reality the environment and evolutionary pressures are tweaked to produce desired results through random DNA variations.

While hybridization of species is considered by evolutionists, it really is not required for evolution. Besides, the scripture forbids it. I don't see how this debunks anything. It just tells us the commandments. Last I checked we were responsible for keeping commandments as individuals.

Individuals reproduce after their own kind. Evolution,even if it were being understood in biblical times still would not at all be hindered by following this commandment and no one is breaking it because evolution is taking place.

However, the real power of these scriptures are that we are created in the image of GOd, have a spark of the divine within, we should reproduce after our own kind, and that life has purpose and a reason for being. These are things I think we can both agree on and I don't think the areas of disagreement necessarily mean one of us is guilty of sacrilege.

I'm really not intellectualizing away meaning in the scriptures so much as I am trying to distill the plain and relevant truths. The plain fact of the matter is we don't understand the how and why of the creation fully from the scriptural accounts. I am looking forward to the day we do, until then I'll keep an open mind and rely on spiritual confirmation of the important and individually relevant parts as I study things out in my mind..

Ryan,

Thank you for the compliments--and I hope I don't come across rudely. I try to remember that behind the anonymous internet names are real people. And I appreciate that you are trying to understand my argument.

I think I need to back up a little and clarify some things. Rather than fill up the comments here, I will respond over at my blog. It may take me some time to put it together, but keep an eye out for it.

Dave,

Since much of our Judaeo-Christian understanding of the "creation" comes from Genesis, may I offer up a viewpoint expressed in the post <a href="http://www.believeallthings.com/2700/endowment">What is an Endowment?</a> that may put this topic into a different context? Perhaps we would have a different type of discussion if we viewed the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses and the Book of Abraham in the context of a sacred and highly personalized "apocalypse".

Dave C.,
If God is "using" evolution, he is doing so to further his purpose, hence you automatically have telos and direction.
The difference is not the changes in DNA and traits. Those are necessarily random. The difference would be manipulating the evolutionary forces and pressures to get the desired result selected for. Scientists have used computer models this way in order to test the theory of evolution.
Again, from the inside, the process between theistic and non-theistic evolution would look exactly the same, but on the outside, in theistic evolution, God is running things and has everything well in hand, while atheistic evolution insists dogmatically that God cannot exist and no one controls selective pressures or forces.

Jeff,

An eloquent appeal for theistic evolution. The idea that the neo-darwinist is, as you say, not necessarily committed to there being no direction is helpful. What they are committed to is a theory that does not require intervention.

On the other hand, the fact that some famous theistic evolutionists have tried to reconcile divine intervention with evolutionary randomness by saying that evolution only "appears" random has me wondering if purposeful creation is more of a problem than most think.

E.g., One of the leading scientists of our time and head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, wrote that "evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God's perspective the outcome would be totally specified." Thus God could be completely in control while at the same time everything appears random and non-directed to us, as required by evolutionary principles.