Mormonism and the evolution of man?
This is a short comment I wrote on Carson's blog in response to his request for critics of evolution to provide their best arguments. As many of you know, I'm a rather firm believer of evolution. This is just my best counter argument of evolution from an LDS perspective that I believe points to some problems with the standard LDS beliefs about God and the general theory concerning the evolution of man.
What think ye?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mormons generally believe that God has a physical body that is essentially the same as ours. For example Brigham Young said that we would not be able to distinguish God from other people if he were to be walking among us. Some Mormons, take this to mean that God has the same genetic structure as his human offspring.
If we take this to be true, as well as the general belief that humans evolved from 'lower' life forms as the rest of the biological world, than it seems that there are three possible conclusions:
1. The grand evolutionary process inevitably results in the teleological evolution of human-like animals; or
2. That humans and God are so physically similar is mere accidental; or
3. Human beings are not a result of random mutation in the evolutionary process, but are rather the results of an intelligent design process (perhaps controlled mutations) that eventually resulted in beings like God.
(1) to me, seems a little too contrived and improbable. (2) has the same problem and would probably not gel well with most LDSaints. (3) would perhaps be the most accepted by LDSaints... But if we take out random mutation, are we really talking about the same evolution as the scientists are?
1) Contrived, yes, but why invoke probability for this one and not the rest?
ReplyDelete3) I think you'd still talking about the same evolution, just one where the randomness is (partially) explained, albeit theologically and not biologically...since we're throwing out Mr. Occam's Opus anyway. While we're at it, why couldn't the mutations leading to humankind be controlled whilst other mutations were completely random?
Another thought: What if God had no control over the mutations but, knowing those which were ideal for eventual human life, he created the environment which would best accommodate the "right" mutations?
I've gone cross eyed.
Soxy, I did evoke improbability in the second when I said it had the same problem. In the third I didn't evoke improbability as determinism was implied.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing there could be another alternative that is a combination of (1) and (2). In this, God creates an initial sequence that determines the resultant outcome of human beings. While we talk of 'random' mutations, in the strict scientific sense (even with quantum randomness and chaos theory) there is truly no 'random' in the world. Indeterminism in the world does not arise until the arrival of humans with human spirits that are capable of ex nihilo creation.
In this view, rather than being the master chess player who responds to the world to achieve his end (humans with a particular form), God is essentially playing both sides of the board game to get the check mate.
However, this brings up a larger problem that I forgot to address, and that is the nature of God. I think it is indubitable that our physical bodies are a result of evolutionary processes - the shape, structure, and biology of our bodies are the result of natural selection. If this is the case, and God has the same time of body as us, then this seems to imply that God's body, also, is the result of natural selection.
Soxy, I did evoke improbability in the second when I said it had the same problem. In the third I didn't evoke improbability as determinism was implied.
ReplyDeleteYes I see that now. I missed that originally.
However, this brings up a larger problem that I forgot to address, and that is the nature of God. I think it is indubitable that our physical bodies are a result of evolutionary processes - the shape, structure, and biology of our bodies are the result of natural selection. If this is the case, and God has the same time of body as us, then this seems to imply that God's body, also, is the result of natural selection.
This is a good point. So what would you say if one responded that God's body was the result of a similar chess match by another all knowing God playing both sides of the board, on and on ad infinitum? God (ours), is simply repeating the tried and true process that necessarily produces human beings with bodies similar to his own (it being a result of the same process).
Something about that doesn't taste right to me.
Can you break #3 into two parts?
ReplyDeleteMaybe our race was originally the result of randomly, naturally selected mutations. At some point, one of us got to the point of being divine, and from that point on the race was intelligently designed so that mutations are more managed and selected.
John,
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to write just that. I think one could make the argument (based on the BofA) that God was the first intelligent being that arose from the evolutionary process. Having thus gained his intelligence (and becoming divine) sought to help others attain it. - A sort of combination of the Adam-God Doctrine and 2010 Space Odyssey.
Maybe not the first *intelligent* being, but yeah, the first guy that graduated. Abraham seems to be similar in some ways - he just sort of ended up being the man.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it's kinda what I've always thought. I think this abrasive conflict between theism and science over evolution is overblown.
There's no reason we couldn't have come from apes. Just because we're created in God's image doesn't mean we can automatically eliminate any given technique. I don't think it's some sort of moral concession to say that, either.
Also, given the dual meaning that some passages seem to have, "created in god's image" could be a purposeful way to explain how we came to be, both in the long past ages, but also in the recent past (one, by slow evolution, the other, by being His offspring).
fwiw,
J
There is a revelation from Charles D Evans (an early church patriarch) where he says that when the New Jerusalem is built we will all have our own Urum to learn with and..."The inherent properties of matter, its arrangements, laws, and mutual relations were revealed and taught and made plain as the primer lesson of a child. The conflicting theories of geologists regarding the foundation and age of the earth were settled forever."
ReplyDeleteI hope I'm around...(to be proven right!) ;-)
I would like to agree with someone/anyone, but I can't.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the Human body is the best animal form, or even a good body. (too many errors and compromises).
Therefore, I can't see why God would pick it to be his form, or replicate though eternity.
I kind of agree with Robert. My mental image of God is as a man with arms and legs and eyes and a nose (etc.), but I'm not so sure he didn't pick that after the fact (which fact? I don't know) so we could identify with him more personally. I'm not married to the idea that God's current body has the same form it has always had.
ReplyDeleteSoxy: (which fact? I don't know)..the Burning Bush(?)
ReplyDeleteHere's something to consider . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23309/
Lincoln: I read it, but I missed it's point. If ET and I have the same 20 acids, I stll don't look like him, or look like my dog(?) There may be another Earth out there. But it had it's hay day a billion years ago.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is saying that the human body is the perfect animal form. There are so many ways things could be improved. It may be though that this is a close enough representation to what God has that we can see him as a father. Furthermore, it is "good enough" for us to experience the purpose of this life. If we had a perfect animal form body, we wouldn't be able to experience many of those things that we should in this life.
Lincoln and Robert,
Despite having a strong belief in God and believing that He helped guide evolution to create what we see today, I don't think that seeing order in the universe really is much of a sign of His work. For example, in that 10 amino acids article you linked, the way the universe works sets it up for things to happen more likely in certain ways. In other words, probability and the natural occurrence of things can have the order we see because that is how the chemistry and physics works out. Every time water hits something above its boiling point it turns to vapor. That isn't because God tells it to necessarily, it is because that is the chemical nature of water.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the order that we have isn't because of God. He could have set this universe into motion in such a way that tree's are green and water expands when it freezes. He could have also done it so that we would instead have baby poop green trees that drip sulfur byproducts to photosynthesis.
My thinking or understanding is that man looks like man because it is one of the animal forms that works on this earth. My question is why would God look like an earth animal, if we are talking Evolution is to met the need of living on earth? I would think God would be more like a gold ball, or an atom, if his only real need is to have a material form or existence (?)
ReplyDeleteHistory has shown that man can handle a God not in human form.
There also seem to be a belief that there is something more powerful than God(?) A set of laws (Nature?) he must live by. Laws he did not make, nor can he change them. They appear mindless and uncaring. God seems to spend his time ‘using’ these laws, working around them, or saving his children from them(?)
Roberto, I enjoy seeing your thoughts on this, but I'm not sure if you are playing devil's advocate or if you really think what you wrote...but what kind of families do gold balls form? Do you not think that the family, more specifically husband and wife are the combined synergistic unit of divinity? Why does it have to be God looking like an earth animal instead of an earth animal looking like God?
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can get an answer on the laws over God vs laws from God question with our limited knowledge. We'll just have to wait for more info before we can decide on that. I do like to theorize though, and phrases like He can not rob justice, and he can not look on sin with the least degree of allowance imply that he is subject to them. Cold?, yes. But he provides the option of mercy and that gives "warmth" to those cold laws.
Carson:I hope I wrote what I think, I was not trying to jerk anyone chain. I don’t think Science has Evolution right yet. But I know finer minds than mine use it as a working model with success. I really don’t think Mormonism defines Evolution the same as Science does. Science sees Evolution as Godless, plan- less, and random, and yes.. cold.
ReplyDeleteNature has been forming families for millions of years. Mormonism current ideal family model started around the time of David O. McKay.
Most of the reasons man looks the way he does, is to deal with living on this earth. He is created in the image of his surroundings. I don’t know why God would need to had such as body(?)
My question is who/what made the laws that God must follow, or create a plan to save his children?
I really don’t think Mormonism defines Evolution the same as Science does.
ReplyDeleteDoes Mormonism really define evolution?
Science sees Evolution as Godless, plan- less, and random, and yes.. cold.
Lol. It would be unscientific for "science" to "see" it that way.
Soxy: first forgive my bad grammar in my last post. 1) I was watching TV, 2) went to a public school, 3) You now know I am not one of those Harvard Mormons. Also, on other blogs, I am known as Bob.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Mormonism can even define Mormonism(?) Those Mormons who think they agree with Evolution, need to revisit the topic.
I think it is fine for someone to believe in a God, and their God created everything. But Evolution is belongs to Science, and Science puts no God into it.
I am still in the study and ponder stage on both. To add prayer, would be for me to pick a side. ( :) )