Evolution is a beautiful thing. I like to think that the Creator finds joy in putting life forms on earth and then watching how they change and develop new characteristics without any divine input or influence. That is what I would do if I were the god of worlds without number.  

“Look! I put a feline mammal on the planet orbiting alpha centuari a few million years ago and just look at the characteristics it developed without my intervention.” 

“Look! I put finches on the planet earth long ago, and look how it’s body shape and beak size changed without my intervening.” 

“Look! I put some Trilobites on the earth during the Cambrian explosion to help prepare the earth for the arrival of larger species. Notwithstanding their having evolved different characteristics, they were not able to endure changes in the seas during the Devonian period, and were thus wiped out.” 

However, the best example of evolution is humankind. We have been given agency, which means that we are capable of choosing our path through life and the eternities. Don’t you think that God is very interested in how we use our agency to learn and grow? You bet. He is watching with great interest at how we evolve spiritually. If we become like Him, we will be like him in terms of righteousness, yet our personalities and spiritual characteristics will be unique, a product of personal evolution. 

So I think that evolution is a divine concept, and one that is supported by scripture. Contrary to Einstein’s assertion that nothing in the universe is left to chance, Ecclesiastes 9:11 tells us that “time and chance happeneth to them all.” That is to say, all of God’s creations are subject to events that occur as a result of the passage of time, and they are also subject to events that occur as a result of chance processes (e.g., random mutations). He is in control, yet He allows things to change and develop on their own. 

Thus far I have referred to what many call microevolution. Microevolution is a scientifically proven fact, a fact that is entirely consistent with the doctrines of the gospel, as shown above. But what has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the scientific community is macroevolution. Macroevolution is the idea that life is capable of evolving from one life form to another. Sure, there is evidence suggesting that macroevolution may have occurred (the fossil record comes to mind), yet there is no conclusive evidence proving that it does occur. Macroevolution remains an inductive generalization or best guess at what might have happened in the past.

That scientists have not been able to confirm macroevolutionary changes across life forms is not surprising given that it appears wholly inconsistent with fundamental doctrines in the restored gospel. Here are 3 fundamental truths from the gospel that contradict the theory of macroevolution and its concomitant assertion that mankind, including Adam and Eve, evolved from lower species (aka, common descent).

1. We are created in the image of God. By definition, evolution refers to unguided events. If God had left the creation of Adam’s body to chance, there are so many possible outcomes that it is inconceivable that the final outcome would have looked like God. Some claim that God could have used evolution and that it just appears as though it is random to us humans. Fine, but if it just appears random - meaning that it is not - then it is not evolution, is it? I can safely say that your chances of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning, and being elected president of the USA all in one day are better than the chances of unguided evolutionary processes creating an entity in the image of our Heavenly Father.

2. God commanded all life forms to reproduce after their own kind. According to divine law, living things can only produce their own kind. This verse also refers to mankind. Mark E. Peterson wrote, “[Adam] could bring forth only after his kind according to the law of God, and he was "after the kind" or order of his Eternal Father in Heaven. No lower forms were involved” (Adam: Who Is He? p.54.). Reproduction becomes an issue when we consider that hybridization may lead to a new species and, in some cases, closely related species are unable to produce a fertile offspring, as in the case of a horse and donkey producing a sterile mule. 

3. Life forms remain in the sphere in which God created them. Speaking of lower life forms, the Lord said, “And it became a living soul also. . . . for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man” (Moses 3:9). Mark E. Peterson again provides an apt interpretation of this doctrine. He wrote that this verse indicates that “all forms of life remained in the sphere in which he created them. There was no transfer from one species to another” (Ibid).

As you know, some scriptures may be considered allegorical in the sense that they are just symbolic representations of actual events. This may certainly be the case with the creation of the world, the creation of Adam’s physical body, and the Fall of Adam. I don’t know how the earth and Adam’s body were created, neither do I know how the Fall and the subsequent transformation to a telestial world took place. We are largely left to guesswork on these matters.

What I do know is that the aforementioned 3 doctrines are not allegorical. They are statements of fact that should leave no doubt in a reader’s mind as to their true message. They are as straight forward and undeniable in meaning as are the doctrines: “Men will be punished for their own sins and not Adam’s transgressions” and “Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveals his secrets unto his servants, the prophets.” 

What more is there to say that might allow for an alternative understanding of these doctrines? Nothing. In my opinion, attempts to rationalize these doctrines in ways that allow for alternative interpretations are simply unabashed intellectualizations of the plain and simple truths of the gospel.

 


Comments

Jared*

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 3:57:22 pm

You may be interested in some unabashed intellectualization I've previously done on your #2. As a teaser, it starts with the fact that the phrase "after their own kind" is not found in scripture.

http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/kind-of-thing-not-found-in-scriptures.html

 

Dave C

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 5:34:47 pm

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

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:05:29 am

This is all addressed/cleared-up in JD 8:244.
It does, however, throw secular science/Darwinism out the window.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:28:35 am

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.

 

Bruce Johns

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:02:26 pm

I think that the difference is:

Darwinism teaches us that all life evolved from a single-cell organism on this planet.

Brother Kimball seems to be saying that fully-evolved life forms were "transplanted" here from another sphere.

Or at least that's the way I read it.

Good post either way.

 

Jared*

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 3:54:23 pm

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

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:38:07 am

You are correct that to believe in Evolution and God you have to believe in theistic evolution with the idea that some random formative forces might not actually be random, rather than the dogmatic atheistic evolution put forth loudly by others.

I have just a couple of questions? 1) Is it more profound to think of creation in the image of God meaning we have agency, power to act rather than be acted upon, or that our frame is the same as Gods. Which is a more powerful spiritual truth?

2) Don't all animals short of mating with lower species in some sort of sordid beastiality reproduce after their own kind, regardless of whether evolution is true or not?

Humans don't mate with gorillas in evolution. They mate with their own species in their own populations which change according to evolutionary pressures gradually over generations. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.

3)What is the sphere God created life in? Earth? carnivore club? omnivore club? the ecosystem? scavenger? predator? parasite? forest? savannah? desert? Mountains?

Species seems like the most irrelevant of logical jumps for meaning in this case, making the evolution the point of what God is talking about rather than an explanation of why life exists and what it is.

That is, unless you really, really want to believe that evolution and its heresy are all God had in mind speaking to the ancients.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:29:46 am

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?

 

Dave C.

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 1:04:37 pm

Doc,

According to the Molecular Ecology Journal [Mar,. 10(3), 551-568], hybridization can influence evolution in a variety of ways. So it is fair to connect "reproducing within one's kind" with evolution.

 

Ryan

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 5:49:22 pm

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.

 

Jared*

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 6:41:56 pm

The fact that most species can't interbreed is not a problem as far as evolution is concerned. Indeed, it is the outcome of evolution--otherwise there would be no such thing as a species (which is itself slippery to define, but I digress).

There is nothing in the scriptures that speak of 'kinds' that indicates that they are intended to represent platonic types, rather than an expression simply indicating variety. It's an interpretation that must be injected into the text, which then conveniently serves as a weapon against evolution. You may as well hold that "the elements are eternal" means that radioactive decay cannot occur.

 

Doc

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:34:03 pm

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

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 8:47:00 pm

Doc, thanks for helping us remember the more important points of doctrine.
Jared, I respect you and I think that you'd probably be a cool guy to hang out with. But I must say that I think you have taken your semantic games with the word "kind" too seriously. I think the average person who gives the scriptural accounts an honest read would come away with an understanding that the passages with "after his kind" strongly suggests against evolution. I just don't see the scriptures having a special hidden meaning that means exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. Especially when corroborated with Joseph Smith's teaching:
"the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field, all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law or principle" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.198).
I think it would take a lot of bending and twisting to make that passage seem like it's saying that animals and plants are actually related to each other. And I don't see the point in trying.
I also think it is interesting that you accuse me of injecting something into the scriptural text that isn't there, when you yourself would hold that the text allows for millions of years of evolution and death before Adam - something that isn't in there.
Again, don't take my disagreements personally. I think you have a very interesting website and are very intelligent.

 

Jared*

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 8:45:05 pm

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 C.

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 8:56:49 am

Doc,

If theistic evolutionists are going to argue for NONrandom evolution, then they need to delineate the differences between their brand of evolution and neo-darwinian evolution because the latter is completely random. It lacks telos (purpose) and direction.

Up to now I have not seen any LDS evolutionists make this distinction. They talk about God using evolution as if it were the same random evolution as the non-believers embrace.

 

Greg

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 6:39:19 pm

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.

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 9:54:48 pm

Thanks, Greg.

I am interested and will be taking a look at that information.

 

Doc

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:26:29 am

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 G

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 6:28:36 pm

I agree with Doc. God's using evolution doesn't make it purpose driven any more than my using Newtonian mechanics does.

Natural selection is the NON-RANDOM selection of random variation in inheritable traits. I don't think the Neo-Darwinian is committed to there being no direction, only that any such direction is unnecessary and, in fact, beyond the pale of science.

As a staunch Neo-Darwinian myself, I don't see any inherent problem with God influencing the nature of the otherwise random variation, only that such a thing would be completely worthless, unless there were selective forces in place to preserve such variations.

Furthermore, I don't see any problem with God "somehow" influencing the selective forces that are operating in some environment. (Perhaps by a liberal, yet controlled use of the "smite" button.)

Perhaps these things really did happen, but I don't see this as posing any kind of problem for the truth of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Sure, maybe God used evolution; it's just that that's not science, even if it is true.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:01:09 pm

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.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics