Theistic evolution is the belief that God uses evolution to create life. 

I accept this proposition, to a certain extent.  I believe that one of the joys of being a creator of worlds without number is seeing how life evolves on worlds without divine intervention.  The Creator placed life on His worlds and subjected it to the vicissitudes of chance and time (Ecclesiastes 9:11).  So, in a manner of speaking, the effects of time and chance are part of the grand master plan.

Thus we see that there is harmony between randomness and divine purpose.  Contrary to Einstein’s assertion that the Creator does not leave anything to chance (i.e., all events, including falling dice, are law governed), God allows randomness and apparently “uses” it to accomplish His creative objectives (more on these objectives in the next paragraph).  Divine purpose and randomness are compatible.  They can co-exist peacefully!

It is important for us to recognize the compatibility between divine creation and randomness because, as science has shown, random events occur at the genomic level.  Random mutation is a fundamental tenet of neo-Darwinism. According to the reputable Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, “The theory of neo-Darwinism asserts that much of the evolutionary change observed at the molecular level occurs via random genetic drift.” 

Because God and randomness are compatible under certain circumstances, there are no theoretical problems with asserting that He relies on evolutionary, random, genetic drift to achieve His objectives (by ‘objectives’, I am referring to the creation of new and interesting variations without direct divine intervention).  So if God sometimes relies on evolutionary randomness, what is wrong with believing in theistic evolution?

The problem lies with the creation of man (and woman).  You see, most theistic evolutionists believe that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved from lower life forms, just like every other mammal.  This claim is entirely inconsistent with gospel doctrine.  

The gospel teaches that the creation of mankind was purposeful and directed – it could be no less because mankind had to be created in the image of God (Moses 6:8-9).  The creation of mankind was not left up to the vicissitudes of chance over time.  The Creator was not looking for new and interesting variations when He created mankind.  It had to be done a certain way, in a manner that did not involve randomness inherent in evolution. The creation of mankind was not a processes to be left to evolutionary creativity.  Prominent Latter-day Saint scholars support this view.

Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:

Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man.

Robert J. Mathews similarly wrote:

The theistic evolutionist often speaks of a guided evolution, in which God intervenes in the process. There are those in and out of the Church who, because they believe in a divine being, sincerely attempt to hold to both the theory of evolution and their faith in God as creator. It is my opinion that in the eternal plan of God these two positions are incompatible.

I have heard rationalizations from Latter-day Saints desperately wanting to reconcile gospel doctrine and their belief in common descent.  I cannot fault them for trying, however, their efforts have largely proved ineffectual.  Their explanations lack theoretical and theological rigor.  For instance, a common explanation is that God-directed evolution only appears random to us lowly mortals.  This explanation falls short because the real issue is not one of appearances; it is one of what is ontologically real about the creation of mankind.  In other words, at its foundation, was the creation of mankind driven by chance processes as evolution asserts, or was it guided by deity?  If God created mankind with guided “evolutionary” processes, then it really wasn’t evolution, was it, regardless of appearances?

Parallel evolution is another perfunctory attempt at reconciling the theory of evolutionary descent with gospel doctrine on the creation of man.  In a manner of speaking, parallel evolution refers to the independent evolution of similar traits in life forms that shared similar ancestral conditions.  Put differently, two organisms with similar traits may evolve in a similar manner in different settings.  I suppose that this is supposed to show that there is an underlying law or metaphysical principle guiding the evolution of similar traits in separate environmental contexts, and that this principle has something to do with God’s influence.  

Atheistic evolutionists will readily concede that parallel evolution reflects the underlying laws of nature governing evolutionary processes, but they will also add that those laws are purposeless and are not devised by higher intelligence.  Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, will say that parallel evolution evidences a purposeful creator, that he set the laws of evolution in motion and dictated how those laws were to work from the beginning.

How do the atheists feel about divine guided evolution?  They do not like it, and rightfully so.  For atheists, parallel evolution just shows that there are underlying laws of nature resulting in uniform progression. Atheists believe in law governed evolution, however, they reject that those laws were created for a divine purpose.  The laws are just laws, nothing more and nothing less.  Atheists reject divine, purpose-driven evolution because, as they correctly point out, at its core evolution is purposeless.  

Notwithstanding their anti-religious stance, Richard Dawkins and Will Provine are two evolution atheists who tend to think more clearly about this issue than most theistic evolutionists.  Here is what they had to say about believing that God provided the laws of evolution for the purpose of creating mankind.    

Dawkins:
If I were God, I wouldn’t do it by evolution!  I would do it directly. By invoking the idea of evolution by natural selection as God’s way of doing it, you are in effect invoking the one way which makes it look as though God isn’t there.  So if God chose that way of doing it, then he deliberately chose a way which totally covered his tracks.

Provine:
I think creation scientists are very intellectually honest in their beliefs. If evolution is true, then none of the things that deeply religious people want to be true are in fact true. No God. No life after death. No free will. No ultimate meaning in life and no ultimate foundation for ethics. All these things are taken away.

So what are we to conclude about Latter-day Saints who embrace theistic evolution, notwithstanding its inconsistencies with true gospel doctrine and evolution orthodoxy?  Perhaps LDS scholar Robert J. Mathews put it best when he wrote:  

It may be that the believer who accepts [theistic evolution] has simply never thought it out to its logical, moral conclusions.  


 


Comments

Tim

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 4:48:59 pm

I think we can all be grateful that Dawkins isn't God.
I've come to the conclusion that Dawkins and his ilk have, as their main objective, not the instruction of evolution, but the preaching of atheism. They, like many fundamentalists, have this warped idea that science and God are at odds with each other, and that if geology, chemistry, and biology are correct (or at least fossils, radioactive dating, and evolution), God can't exist. That idea is simply absurd.
Preaching atheism and calling it science is just as wrong as preaching the Bible and calling it science.
How much do you know about "parallel" evolution? (It's more commonly referred to as convergent evolution, and for good reason). It's quite fascinating, actually. And I do think it deserves more treatment than you gave it here, including (but not limited to) the possible implications with theistic evolution.
So, if you don't think God created us through evolution, how do you think he created us?

 

Tim

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 4:56:26 pm

By the way, I looked up Robert J. Mathews on Wikipedia.
You might want to point out to your readers which one you're referencing, as the first two names to pop up were/are both Mormons.
I'm hoping it's not the leader of an extremist white nationalist group.
:)
References to the quotes in your article would be nice too.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 9:55:52 am

Tim,

I don't know how God created Adam and Eve's bodies. Gary at NDBF says that Adam was born. I tend to disagree. I think that Adam was created out of the physical material of the earth. This is not far fetched given that God's power will ressurect people whose bodies have been broken and scattered.

In the post I mention that Robert J. Mathews is a "prominent LDS scholar".

The McConkie quote comes from "straight forward answers to tough gospel questions" (p.154)

The Mathews quote comes from "A Bible, A Bible" (p. 170).

I hope someone chimes in on the parallel evolution bit. As I understand it, this is not the same thing as convergent evolution.

 

Ryan

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:19:32 pm

"So, if you don't think God created us through evolution, how do you think he created us?"

I believe that it is clear from the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets how Adam was created. And the truth is actually quite the opposite to evolution. Enoch said, “And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed” (Moses 6:22). He also related that God said, "inasmuch as [Adam was] born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul..." (Moses 6:59).
Moreover, the First Presidency declared, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity" ("Mormon" View of Evolution, 1925).
There is much more to discuss about this very interesting topic. A comprehensive discussion of it can be found in my article here:
http://loyaltotheword.synthasite.com/the-manner-of-adams-creation.php

 

Doc

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 1:02:19 pm

Did you really quote Dawkins and Provine to support your position. Don't you get it, both your sides are playing the same game, all or nothing false dichotomy. Dawkins knows the evidence surrounding evolution. He would love for his quote to be true. Unfortunately for him, the high stakes game of chicken is complete fallacy, one that will end with a victory ultimately for the Dawkins side becuase he rigged it that way.

Brother McKonkie holds a very literalist view of the world he inherited. His opinion is interesting, but in the end, not one I can ever agree with. As for the suggestion I have not thought out logical, moral conclusions, that kind of conjuecture shows a breathtaking lack of introspection and critical thinking all its own.

You have hung your hat on this randomness thing and your unwillingness to listen or comprehend any explanation is extremely aggravating.

Do you really think it impossible for God to guide evolution by controlling the environment or selective pressures? If so, please explain. I don't understand your thinking, and all I ever get is irrelevent Einstein quotes that make me think you don't even understand what evolution is.

How exactly did God create (nonhuman) life? With his hands? With the force? With a super do-it-yourself chemistry kit? If man was created as a father creates a child, did he have a lot of celestial pets for the rest of the animal kingdom? Is there a Father of all naked mole rats, or scorpions in heaven? Do you have a secret book that fills in all the gaps in Genesis with these juicy and oh, so important salvific details? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 2:09:21 pm

Doc,

The tenor of your response is typical of the harshness that I have come to expect from LDS pro-evolutionists.
Either you people have a difficult time dealing with people who disagree with you, or you are so caught up in defending your precious neo-darwinism that you cannot take a step back and analyze it critically. Dogmatic adherence to a theory in the presence of convincing theological and philosophical counter arguments is unscholarly.

I expect people who oppose my views to engage them, not vilify them and me by repeatedly saying, "You just don't get it!" or "You don't understand science and evolution." As someone with a PhD, published book on science, and several publications in peer-reviewed journals, I consider those fighting words. But I am not going to stoop to the levels that you people have dropped to. That sort of playground mentality doesn't cut it in the scholarly world.

I quoted Dawkins and Provine to show that they are more theoretically consistent with the materialistic assumptions of evolution than LDS theistic evolutionists are.

I will stay with randomness until I find a convincing argument that refutes it. I am still waiting.

Of course God can control the environment through selective pressures; I believe He does, to a certain extent. But why would God resort to having to make special adjustments to the environment in order to compensate for random genomic changes whilst trying to create mankind? It seems silly to force Him into this mode of creation just because we have some transitional fossils. Why not just make mankind?

I don't know how God created mankind; I wasn't there. If He can suddenly bring together a resurrected body that was completely destroyed from an atomic blast, then I would not discount that he simply made Adam from the dust of the earth, which is how I understand it.
.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 2:16:04 pm

Ryan,
You express views that may be similar to Gary's views at NDBF. He and I recently debated whether Adam was a son of God in the flesh. My concern with this is that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. When I hear that Adam is a son of God, I tend to think of spiritual lineage. Anyway, we could not agree more that it did not happen via evolution.
I look forward to reading your article at loyaltotheword.

 

Doc

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 3:35:16 pm

Sorry for the tone, but your repetition on the randomness thing is wearying. It's not random, it's selection, period, end of story. I can not follow how mutation being random leads inevitably to mankind being an accident.

BTW, I thought we were all there when Earth was made, part of the council in heaven. ;-)

I am glad to hear that you can say you don't know how life was created. The truth is I don't either. I am convinced that the deepest meanings of the creation story are symbolic and spiritual in nature, and I have a hard time using a text given to a group of freed Egyptian slaves with no scientific understanding of life as evidence for or against a scientific theory about life.

For evolution to require God to cover his tracks requires God to have created everything ex nihilo. It assumes God created evolution and that it is not a fundamental property of life. <a href="http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/previous/2.html">You, yourself</a> pointed out nicely how our spiritual progression is its own example of evolution as a spiritual principle.

We don't hold to creation Ex-Nihilo, therefore, Dawkins argument does not apply to the Mormon view. It also holds arrogant atheist assumption that we can reason out what God was doing using evolution. Until I hear from God himself, I am going to take a pass on Dawkin's inferences.

This is the problem with the whole Creation vs. Evolution debate. Both seem convinced that we have to scientifically prove the existence of God for him to be there.

The same idea applied to Galileo's run in with religious authority. Why would God not make heavenly bodies "perfect", asks the Pope. You are making God superfluous by describing natural phenomenon to explain him away. You are taking away his power and majesty and making him besides the point. It is a God of the gaps argument born of fear.

Theistic evolution takes God right out of that gap and just assumes that something we observe as a natural law must be the way God did it. Science is just a method of learning at certain truths about how the universe works. We embrace them all, as Brigham Young notes on your own home page. The foundation of the theistic evolution argument is about as Mormon as it gets.

 

Jared*

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 4:43:10 pm

You're definition of evolution is a little too tight. Evolution is change over time, and can be driven by several processes, including but not limited to natural selection. If God intervened and, for example, made a desired mutation, it would still be evolution, but it would be due to a heretofore unrecognized mechanism--i.e. direct intervention by God.

Convergent evolution is an interesting idea. When it comes to Homo sapiens, so far N=1, which makes it tough to evaluate. On the other hand, the universe is a big place. For an interesting discussion of this idea, see http://www.scientificblogging.com/skeptic/michael_shermer_what_aliens_can_tell_us_about_evolution

 

Dave C.

Fri, 01 May 2009 9:54:52 am

Doc & Jared*,

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, "organisms evolve through random genetic mutations, by sexual reproduction, and by other mechanisms [such as environmental selection]." This quote comes directly out of Scientific American (Jan. 2009, p. 90). I have read this sort of claim many times over.

I agree that evolution is selection (from Doc) and/or change over time (from Jared*). However, if we limit evolution to selection processes then that is classic Darwinism and not neo-Darwinism which where science is today (i.e., selection + genetics). Moreover, if we limit evolution to change over time then we are not drilling down to the essential, underlying mechanisms which are needed in a discussion like this. (Please feel free to correct me on this, though).

I have heard some theistic evolutionists claim that God may be purposefully selecting life. I have no problems with that, yet why then does the same edition of SCIAM claim that "evolution is an emergent phenomenon with no conscious selector" (p. 91)?

 

Doc

Fri, 01 May 2009 1:13:03 pm

Only one of those mechanisms in your quote is random. I still do not follow how mutation being random inevitably leads to the conclusion that mankind is an accident.
The article makes that claim because it is holding to the narrow world view that both creationists and atheists share.

 

Jared*

Fri, 01 May 2009 6:17:39 pm

Clearly heritable change is rooted in the genome, where all kinds of changes occur--insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, recombination, rearrangements, single nucleotide changes, and so forth. When such changes occur, what determines whether they will be maintained in the population? If the changes confer a reproductive advantage of some sort, they will be maintained. If the change is deleterious, it will eventually go extinct. Both are an outcome of natural selection. On the other hand, the change might be maintained or go extinct for chance reasons--maybe the few individuals with the change were drowned in a flood, or maybe they made it to a new island where all of their offspring have the change.

So there are at least two levels here: the change in the genome, and whether it is maintained in the population or not and why.

God could conceivably intervene anywhere in the process, but that's not a scientific question, it is a philosophical/theological question. To say that "evolution is an emergent phenomenon with no conscious selector" is no different than saying that water runs downhill, or hurricanes form, or earthquakes occur, or the chromosomes in gametes sort--all without a conscious mover/former/choser. Maybe somehow God directly participates in all of those things, but unless he is less sneaky about it science can never know about it.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 01 May 2009 10:20:57 pm

"Maybe somehow God directly participates in all of those things, but unless he is less sneaky about it science can never know about it."

I want a front row seat when He tells us the secrets about the heavens above and the earth below.

 

paul

Sat, 16 May 2009 5:44:48 pm

Jared and Doc

I agree with Bro.Packer when he states that it is irreverant to God to think we were created from slime and reptilian decent.

This conclusion is arrived at by studying the Priesthood and Holy Ghost.

I think there are way to many Christians today who are apologetic for no good reason. They ignore the obvious issues that evolution has thrown up, clinging to and putting their trust in the arm of flesh.

I would encourage you both to spend a great deal of time focusing on the gifts of the Spirit. This concreat platform with a real understanding of the Priesthood and its purposes, assuming one is living worthily, will enable one to immediately see evolution (regardless of form) for what it is....just a man made theory.

You protest and ask how God made us - let me ask you - how did the Venus Flytrap evolve? I guess one day a blade of grass enjoying the rays from the sun said to itself, if only I had a mouth and could produce a horrible smell, it would mean ofd course that I would have to get a digestive system as well but thats no problem - I will evolve it!

What of the African Bee catcher plant - there is no logical explanation like so many other insects and animals that it or they could have evolved. How many more examples do you want? I have asked some of the best scientists around how this is possible and everytime they say they don't know!!! Good luck, I am always happy to hear someones explanation.............

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics