Creating with Evolution
Creation vs. evolution. Could there be a more worn-out debate? But I never get sick of it.
Two weeks ago, TIME ran a “spirited debate” between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, a pair as famous for their respective faith and atheism as they are for their scientific accomplishments. And, as these conversations go, it boiled down to a debate about evolution. Dawkins won.
Collins is a smart guy. He heads the NIH’s Human Genome Project. You can’t be much more of a scientist than that. And he’s sensible. He knows—probably as well as anyone alive—that evolution is a fact. And he doesn’t get hung up on Genesis literalism: “It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God.”
But try as he might, he can’t satisfactorily reconcile his scientific knowledge with his faithful belief in a divine creation. He’s left with no choice but to suggest that God purposely used organic evolution to create all life.
And Dawkins capitalized on this weakness: “If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.”
Frankly, I have to agree. If God had a full range of choices—limitless choice—why use a process so lengthy, convoluted, and prone to misfire? Why use a process at all? (And in fact most intelligent design folks would say that God didn’t use a process—that he miraculously created a universe ex nihlo that merely looks like it’s been around for billions of years with a history of natural phenomena.)
But as a Mormon, I think there’s a different possibility: maybe there wasn’t any choice after all. Maybe God used evolution because that’s the only way there is. Maybe omnipotence is relative.
We all accept that God doesn’t create matter. That, in fact, it cannot be created or destroyed. And if the matter is already there, its properties probably are too. Water is probably already a polar molecule. Sodium, a soft, silver metal already binds with chlorine, a poisonous yellow gas, to make table salt. Gravity already pulls mass to mass. Etc., etc., and etc.
So, at least when it comes to physics and chemistry, we don’t seem to accept a total omnipotence in the creation. Things started out a certain way and the creator worked with what was available. Whey then, should we expect anything different in biology? Could it be that life also already exists, that it always exists.
After all, our creation liturgy describes a God who places and plants life rather than creating it. And some of the earliest opinions on creation—those from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young—sound more like Francis Crick’s “directed panspermia” than any passage in Genesis.
Here’s the situation: right now we can’t figure out how bacteria came to be. (And that’s the chink in Darwin’s armor that creationists keep prodding.) Evolution makes great sense after that point. But that first step seems too impossible. Especially in the short time it took: bacterial life was basically here as soon as the earth had an environment that could support it.
So my question is, what if, when God came to create life, He started with “bacteria unorganized” and went from there?
All bacteria may belong to a single “species.” Species is a cloudy designation, and it falls apart in prokaryotic taxonomy. So some claim that it makes better sense to admit that all bacteria are just bacteria—all essentially the same thing. And if you had a bunch of them, you could push and prod them to do quite a bit. Some infolding makes a nuclear envelope. Some merging between bacteria makes spinning tails and farmed organelles (this is, by the way, a very Lynn Margulis version of how things happen). Then cooperation and differentiation lead to multicellularity. A few more billion years of small changes and you’ve got primates. A 1% change in DNA from there, and viola. (Little changes, for example, like changing 2 out of 715 sites on the FOXP2 gene to give humans a looser jaw, a suppler tongue, and maybe even a little sense of grammar.)
This certainly isn’t the standard view of Creation, but neither is it groundless.
So I ask the following:
1. Is God omnipotent according to the traditional definition of that word?
2. Would constraints on the creation (as by pre-existent matter or even life) limit its splendor or limit our reverence for it?
3. Can Mormons embrace evolution instead of shunning it on grounds borrowed from our evangelical friends?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Is God omnipotent according to the traditional definition of the word? I don’t think we are bound to that definition. I tend to like the concept of God being omnipotent not in the sense of having all or infinite power, but rather that God is omnipotent in the sense that He has all power that is possible to possess. This is a subtle distinction with major ramifications, and it is consistent with D&C 93 and the eternal nature of the elements and laws. I can’t recall where I first heard this concept, but I think it was from Jim McLachlan talking about Process Theology.
With respect to the evolution/creation debate, I used to be very interested in it. I still am interested in the topics, but not the debate. The fact that I have a Darwin fish emblem on the back of my car may indicate where I side.
One serious comment, though, about this whole debate. I think those who insist upon a literal reading of Genesis and a strict adherance to the creation story as fact do a great disservice to the youth of our church. They set them up for a crisis of faith that need not happen.
When the young person who has been taught that evolution is a lie, that the creation happened in 6 days, etc., finds themselves in a college level course and is presented with the vast evidence supporting evolution and its foundational basis for all of biology, what are they to do? Reject it wholesale, despite the evidence? Or should they reject their faith? Why subject them to such an unnecessary choice?
Finally, I enjoyed the TIME article, but my favorite quote comes at the very end when Dawkins says:
Amen. God is much bigger than the tidy boxes we, as humans, try to force Him into.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:23 am
“Can Mormons embrace evolution instead of shunning it on grounds borrowed from our evangelical friends?”
I find that interesting because in all my years as a member I didn’t know mormons who didn’t believe in evolution. The debate I always heard was whether or not God created the matter which was used or used what already existed. In fact, I was more of a creationist before I joined and ended up an evolutionist as a result.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Two comments:
1) Is it just me, or does the angel in the posts picture look like Carrot Top?
2) “right now we can’t figure out how bacteria came to be. (And that’s the chink in Darwin’s armor that creationists keep prodding.)”
THAT’S the weak point? That scientist can’t figure every single thing out which happened millions of years ago? That’s pretty impressive in my opinion. The evolutionists can’t figure everything out and the creationists can’t seem to figure anything out when it comes to “how”.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am
1) I’m not convinced that God is subject to the same laws of physics as the universe he created. Rory gives a very interesting definition of omnipotence, but I’m not sure we can really know. If God can work outside our laws of physics, how would we ever know?
2) The constraints are the splendor, in my mind. Natural selection, evolution, gene duplication, transposable elements, random mutation, mate selection—it’s all very elegant, in a brutal, haphazard way that no ballroom dance can approach. Who wants to study creation-by-the-snapping-of-fingers?
3) Yes, but I know that some Mormons shun evolution based solely on Mormon grounds (see Gary’s “No Death Before the Fall” blog).
Last: You write, “Here’s the situation: right now we can’t figure out how bacteria came to be. (And that’s the chink in Darwin’s armor that creationists keep prodding.) Evolution makes great sense after that point. But that first step seems too impossible. Especially in the short time it took: bacterial life was basically here as soon as the earth had an environment that could support it.”
I’m not the person to review the body of literature on this topic, but I would recommend looking into the research of Leslie Orgel, one of the leading scientists studying the origin of RNA. (I heard him speak in San Francisco this year; he’s quite good.) The bottom line is that this “chink in Darwin’s armor” is, like other chinks, getting ever smaller.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Re: The Angel Carrot Top: hilarious!
November 30th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I don’t think we can - reference my post on the capacity to sustain the tension of not knowing. But, the concept of omnipotence that is simply all power available and thus constrained in some ways by laws and elements is a concept I can grasp, it is one that I can accept.
Exactly! Whether it is an act of creation or just a natural course of events, or both, the majesty and scale is both incredible and awe inspiring. This month’s National Geographic Magazine has a short spread on “Earth in the Beginning.” I’m not sure how long the link will work, but the short article by Tim Appenzeller is worth the read. Just for a taste:
In my opinion this answers question #2 from Rick: Would constraints on the creation (as by pre-existent matter or even life) limit its splendor or limit our reverence for it? Absolutly not! Again, the scope and scale of the truth written in the stone, in the strata, in the elements and the universe is worthy of our awe and reverence.
We needn’t be constrained to a strictly literal interpretation of the writings of a Bronze-Age people. Nor should we be held to the constraints of worldviews or speculations of those even a generation ago. We can adapt our own spirituality to the best information of our time, and we should be mature enough to grant that such a freedom will be the inherent right of generations to come.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
[...] Click here for Sunstone Blog discussion on Evolution and Mormonism. Posted by Mark G Filed in Mormonism, Evolution and Mormonism [...]
November 30th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
In light of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era theology, Mormons should have no problem at all with the theory of evolution. In fact, evolution fits perfectly within the Mormon Paradigm of Eternal Porgression–the progression of living things from a lower order of intelligence to a higher one; the progression of nature from a chaotic state of things to a more “complexed” (to quote Mormon theologian, John A. Witdsoe.)
What so few LDS Mormons now days seem to realize is that at the end of his life, Joseph Smith had completely rejected the traditional Doctrine of Creation. I would go so far as to label the doctrine of Creationism heretical in light of Jospeh’s later theology.
Even harder for so many LDS Mormons to accept is that Joseph Smith preached AGAINST the notion of God as the Supreme Being; he rejected monotheism altogether in favor of polytheism—”the Plurality of Gods” as he called it. I think Joseph’s embracing of polytheism was a major step FORWARD–both theologically, philosophically and ethically.
Polytheism reflects the diversity found in nature. Monotheism (the belief that only one all-powerful intelligence, being, force or priniple controls all things) represents an attack upon, or a flight from the rich diversity to which we refer when using the broad abstraction “nature.” Many Mormon writers and scholars over the past few decades have written of how Joseph Smith’s doctrine of a Limited God may actually be his greatest contribution to theology.
I would agree with this. Philosophically, Nauvoo-era Mormonism rejected the traditional religious belief in the Primacy of Consciousness in favour of a more “scientific” and rationalistic idea: the Primacy of Existence.
For those who might be interested in this, I wrote an essay on these concepts and of Joseph’s rejection of the Doctrine of Creationism. It’s entitled, “In the Beginning…or…Let the Madness Begin.”
You can find it at the following link:
http://www.reformmormonism.org/library/readingmaterial/inthebeginning.htm
November 30th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
1. Depends on what you consider the traditional definition of omnipotence to be. I’d recommend to you Blake Ostler’s Treatment of this.
2. I believe there are already many constraint on the LDS concept of creation, so no.
3. While I know several non-embracing of Evolution LDS situations, I think the BYU packet, Michael Whiting, and books like Mormons and Evolution are helping us past the time of Man, his origin and destiny.
For the record, I don’t think Collins nor Dawkins lost the debate. I loved them both the more for both being grown up and not falling into the stereotypes placed on either.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I wonder if they were to ever to do a living biological study of how someone can be raised for the dead or even resurrected for that matter? What would science have to say on the subject of eternal life for instance? Or also, what would science have to say about the process involved of healing a blind man or a lepor just on faith alone? What are the biological processes involved in these situations?
I think based upon our faith itself in the scriptures being true, that there are some things in life that just can’t be explained with our yet infant knowledge of biology and science! We all hope for the many miracles performed by Christ to be true. We also live in hope that the resurrection and eternal life is also true. But if we lean on our understanding of science to explain these most important topics, we will utterly fail to have any hope at all! Where does this leave us? Does it leave us in a Godless universe? Does it leave us without the hope for salvation and eternal life?
Science as we yet know it can’t possibly explain the most of all important scientific facts- that of resurrection of all living things and their eternal duration thereafter. This leaves us with faith and hope that the scriptures are true, they must be, for without them we are nothing! This also leaves us with the knowledge that even though science says we can’t believe such silly notions and myths about the creation, we can turn to God and believe in his word and not the arm of man.
Is evolution true? It may be, it may also be false. But we can be certain that God must have created us in his image and likeness, otherwise we have no Father. Did we come from apes or ape-like creatures? Maybe so, maybe not so. Can science prove we came from monkeys? No, not with any real and tangible evidence on a biological level. Can science prove that all man that has ever walked the earth will live again in an eternal state without ageing? No, it has yet been able to provide such a viable source.
What are we really talking about then? Theories? Hope in something we want so desperately to believe in? Ask yourself this one question- If science can neither prove nor disprove the bible scientifically, then can it also be unable to prove scientifically that we have progressed from a lower species?
Where is my faith? It is in the scriptures. I am a child of God and my first ancestor was a literl son of God Amen!
November 30th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Rob, I’m not sure I follow your logic when you write:
I assume you mean to draw the distinction between science proving or disproving God, not the Bible, correct? There are certainly elements of the Bible that different fields of study can corroborate - locations, events, etc. There are also elements of the Bible for which modern scientific fields of study can discredit, and point to the use of literary tools and mythologies among the early writers. Such an interpretation of scripture does not do violence to the writings, it opens them up.
Limiting strictly to the question of God, I don’t think one could argue either way scientifically. But to point to that limitation and extend it to claim that science cannot “prove” evolutionary principles is rather sloppy. The weight of the evidence, which is both consistent and predictive, simply cannot be rationally dismissed.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
“Don’t comes at me with facts!! I have a testimony! So there!
-stick fingers in ears-
Lalalalala!, I can’t hear you!”
This is pretty much the argument for the truthiness of young-earth, or even old-earth creationism.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Rory: Thanks for the link to the Nat’l Geo site. The author’s site (www.LifeThroughTime.com) is stunning—I got so interested in it that now I’ve missed my bus…
On the omnipotence argument: I’m not challenging your definition; I actually think it’s quite good. But I don’t understand how defining God’s omnipotence is useful in this context (or many others). The question Rick asked has to do with evolution; i.e. is God powerful enough to have created the earth in this way? But I don’t see how defining God’s power helps us to understand how the earth was made. But I do see studying geology, paleontology, genetics, etc. helping us to understand how the earth was made. I just assume that however it was done, God had power over it.
To me, the value of seeing God as omnipotent is: 1) I can believe that when he says he did something that he really did do it rather than just observed it, though I still wouldn’t necessarily know how he did it; 2) I believe that when he promises to do something that he will really be able to follow through, though again I may not be able to see how it is done.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Rory,
The point I suggested was that science although good, cannot prove we came from a lower species. By this I meant that there is no biological model to viably explain the very transition. All that exists is similarities amongst the species and this in no way can be reproduced scientifically. I also used the same logic to deduce that this same scientific process of prediction and theory cannot explain resurrection which people also believe in.
I am not turned off from evolution’s views, I am just critical of their mode of rationality of applying science to a field that should be left to theology as to where we came from and the driving source behind it. Science should not delve into areas that cannot be proven scientifically and are matters of deep religious convictions. This same logic applys to religion. We should not try to prove that resurrection is or is not possible with our current knowledge of biology- because we will only fail in the attempt therof.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Rob O, I couldn’t disagree more. And I challenge your statement that you’re not turned off by evolution.
Why should the scientific method be withheld from any question that it can help solve?
From your posts, I get the impression that you’ve fallen into a common trap of considering “science” to be an entity–a group or something–instead of a method for investigating observable phenomena. As such, it should be applied without reservation to anything observable–including those clues about where we’ve come from and what drives creation. Given the enormous steps made by scientific observation towards answering these questions, your retort smacks of willful ignorance.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Brian, thoughtful post. Some responses:
My question was actually not whether God used evolution to create species—that seems to be an obvious neccessity to me. Rather, I’m asking why a trully omnipotent being would choose such an inefficient method. Could it be that there wasn’t a choice after all? I don’t believe that God is powerful enough to make 2 + 2 = 5. Nor do I accept that God, or any other being or (Miller-Ulray experiment) can create life. (I’m what you could call a fundamentalist Pasteurian, I suppose.) And more importantly, I find that the uniqueness of our theological view of deity really supports my opinion.
You also listed two values of accepting a traditional definition of omnipotence:
” I can believe that when he says he did something that he really did do it rather than just observed it”
I planted a beautiful garden last year. In the past four years I’ve created two AMAZING human beings. But I’m not omnipotent. I was constrained to use natural processes for all my creating. Still, I can give you an incredibly accurate account of either creative act (although maybe this isn’t the place for details on that second one.)
“I believe that when he promises to do something that he will really be able to follow through, though again I may not be able to see how it is done.”
I think that’s a good point, but not one that negates the whole idea. As a mortal, constrained as I am, I can make and keep promisses. Perhaps God is good enough not to make only those promises he can keep.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
nee, I’m always overjoyed to find people like you who were never taught that evolution = evilution as part of a mormon upbringing (or introduction). I, on the other hand, was raised by a wonderful father whom I love dearly—and who is rabidly anti evolution and even largely anti-science and medicine.
And plenty of material still comes from the top ranks. Just last year at women’s conference, Elder Packer belittled evolutionary theory with an ill-constructed line of reasoning.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Rory, thoughtful comments. In regard to the first—-what should a young mormon do who’s been raised on anti-science rhetoric—this is something that worried Henry Eyring (the chemist, not the apostle) quite a bit. He came right out and warned church members that if they painted a picture of malicious, godless scientists, their children would eventually find them out and feel lied to.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Jeff G., Carrot top. LOL. Ruined the picture for me.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Brian J, I am quite familiar with L. Orgel’s works, and he’s been the first to admit that life’s origin is a real puzzle. Now it’s a total scientific copout to throw up your hands and say, “well, I guess God did it”. And….that’s sort of what I ended up doing here. It wasn’t my intention; I was mostly starting a philosophical discussion about the theological idea of creation with constraints. I certainly don’t mean to side with the ID folks on the matter of biogenesis.
Although, in my defense, Orgel himself has engaged in this same type of discussion. He collaborated with Francis Crick in the development of a “directed panspermia” hypothesis. Neither of them accepts this hypothesis as hard fact; it was mostly a philosophical exercise to demonstrate how wide-open the question of life’s origin really is. And it’s pretty damn wide when we start postulating that life first began somewhere else in the universe, then evolved to be intelligent enough to make space probes, then sent bacteria all over the universe, and then evolved all over again to creatures like us (nearly smart enough to send out a second batch of bacteria across the universe). It’s an extremely unlikely possibility—-and the same could be said about my “bacteria unorganized” idea—-but it’s interesting philosophically, for sure.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Brian J., another thing. I think you contradict yourself a little bit here:
1) I’m not convinced that God is subject to the same laws of physics as the universe he created. Rory gives a very interesting definition of omnipotence, but I’m not sure we can really know. If God can work outside our laws of physics, how would we ever know?
2) The constraints are the splendor, in my mind. Natural selection, evolution, gene duplication, transposable elements, random mutation, mate selection—it’s all very elegant, in a brutal, haphazard way that no ballroom dance can approach. Who wants to study creation-by-the-snapping-of-fingers?
If those constraints are the splendor, what’s wrong with the suggestion that they could be binding to even God?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Rob Lauer, thanks for your post. I actually thought of you when i was trying to piece together this little blog piece. I think your point of view is a strong asset to the discussions we have here.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Rick,
You mentioned my exact point ,you said-” instead of a method for investigating observable phenomena“. I totally agree that science should stick with investigating obsevable phenomena. This includes evolutionary process on a micro scale which is wholly different than macro-evolution. There is no phenomena of monkeys turning into humans, so therefor we shouldn’t scientifically state that. In fact science has never been able to identify a case of macro-evolution on a biological level.
I am not critical of micro-evolutionary processes also labeled as mutation within species or the like. What bothers me is that we say that macro-evolution is science and God/creation isn’t when they are based upon the same thought process and clues. Macro-evolution and creation both should for the time being be left to philosophy and theology until we have more solid proof one way or the other. The problem of creation versus evolution will never die until we can learn to separate good sound facts from conjecture and opinion. Like say with creation- Did the creation take 6 literal 24 hour days to complete or was it just 6 periods of time of who knows how long? The same logic can go towards macro-evolution, like say- Did the first transitional dino-birds learn to climb trees and jump out to learn to fly with their new feathers or did they begin running faster and started taking flight as the swift air passed through their new feathers?
See my point? The only things we have to build on with macro-evolution and creation alike are hope in a belief that is not scientifically provable at this point. So why expend millions of dollars with conjective science if it still hasn’t solved these issues after more than 200 years. Leave them both to philosophy and theology and get both of them out of the scientific process in the classroom until some “actual” physical phenomena happens that we can actually study!
November 30th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
“There is no phenomena of monkeys turning into humans”
Who’s suggested that there is?
“Macro-evolution and creation both should for the time being be left to philosophy and theology until we have more solid proof one way or the other.”
How will we come upon this proof if–as you suggest–we shouldn’t be searching it out? Why on earth would you want to limit our best investigative efforts into such important questions?
“So why expend millions of dollars”
I’d sure rather spend millions on any scientific research than on pro athlete’s salaries or a number of other things we throw money at.
“I am not critical of micro-evolutionary processes also labeled as mutation within species or the like. ”
Please give me a solid definition of what you mean here, including a solid definition of species. I’d like to discuss your point, but I want to make sure we understand each other’s nomenclature.
“science has never been able to identify a case of macro-evolution on a biological level. ”
Again, you’r refering to science as if it were an entity. I’d also like to address this point, but first require your definitions for “species” and “micro” vs. “macro” evolution.
How, for example, would you classify the adaptation of mitochondria and plastids? That’s a fairly large step for an organism to take…..opens a lot of doors for development. Since the evidence for that acquisition is clear, would you consider that a proof of evolution?
November 30th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Rob, please also tell me where it is that you’ve heard the claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution (whatever you personally mean with that term).
November 30th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Rick,
By “species” I mean from one animal group like dogs or cats. I am not taiking about one kind of cat turning into a different kind of cat. Species in scientific terms can have very drastic definitions so when I mention species i am talking about totally different groups like chimps and humans.
By micro, I am meaning small changes like fur color or heighth. By macro, I mean like from T-rex evolving into a bird that flies.
As far as the claim for macro-evolution, Show me the evidence including the biological paperwork of the species and process of that change including documentation using the scientific method.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Again, please really adequately define what you mean by “species” and “macro” vs. “micro” evolution. I can’t really even begin to respond to your challenges when you define species as an “animal group like dogs or cats.” Does that mean that Lions and siamese are the same “species”? What about dingos and st. bernards? Or, for that matter, what about great danes and teacup chihuahas?
I’m already familiar with some fairly standard definitions (none of which is very solid), but I can’t tell if you’re accepting those or taking a more “Pandas and People” approach that is purposely vague in order to support an a priori agenda.
I’d like a response on mitochondria and plastids—whether or not you dispute their aqcuisition by phagocytosis and whether or not you’d view this as an evolutionary step.
I’ve never heard a suggestion that T-Rex learned to fly (or that monkeys became humans). Although I understand there is some evidence that T-Rex (and some other dinosaurs) had feathers.
The evidence for macroevolution (and its predictability and falsifiability) is readily available even with cursery google searches. Most people who argue against it do so with very little effort expended. So again, where have you picked up the argument that no such evidence exists? Was it from exhaustive research or an anti-evolution website? (or something between those two extremes)
I must also emphasize that all of this is entirely secondary to the point of my post and might even need to be moved to its own area. I’m nothing close to a neodarwinist and find a lot of fault in what I’ve encountered in standard evolutionary theory. So taking the discussion down this path is really not something I savour. My intended question is much more philosophical: is God omnipotent or not and does it matter? My own answers are “no” and “yes”—in that order. I’m interested to see how others feel about the matter.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:21 am
Seems like we are stuck trying to figure out what the heck “species” is when you and I both know what I am talking about. I do not mean that cats and dogs are the same species. I meant that a cat was a different species than a dog. Wheather or not some dinosaurs had feathers or not does not prove in any way that there was a process involved where they further evolved into birds. This is ridiculous!
And no I do not think your topic of the whole mitochondria and plastids explains how macro-evolution is verified.
Is God omnipotent? Of coarse he is. He is definatly all powerful. Does it matter? Of coarse it does
December 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
I’m not playing games, I really can’t tell what you mean when you say “species” or when you differentiate what you see as two types of evolution. I’m also not sure why you’re refusing to spell it out. The typical ID approach (what I call the “Panda & People” appraoch) is to claim that there are created “kinds” and that “micro” evolution may occur within those created spheres. But it’s sure hard to nail down a definition for “kind”. In one sentence the ID’er implies that it means species and in another it seems to mean genus or even family. When there is no attempt to define a used term, it makes conversation quite difficult.
Now I know what I mean when I say species. But I honestly don’t know what you mean. If you don’t want to have this conversation at all, that’s fine with me (especially since it’s a distraction from the original question). But if you do want to, I really can’t move on without you stating what you mean. Sorry, dude.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am
Rick: Have you read “Mormons and Evolution”?
December 1st, 2006 at 9:55 am
Rory said: “I tend to like the concept of God being omnipotent not in the sense of having all or infinite power, but rather that God is omnipotent in the sense that He has all power that is possible to possess.”
Damn if you didn’t do better in 20 words saying what I tried to express in 1000.
That’s the exact point I’m going for: that Mormons believe in an omnipotent God, but that our definition of omnipotent is necessarily different than the norm.
How could it be the same if we believe that our Heavenly Parents were once mortal, that they don’t (and in fact CAN’T) create matter, etc. There’s a very strong theological foundation stating explicitely that “miracles” are actualy all a matter of natural phenomena that we mortals just aren’t smart enough to understand.
Well, you can only have natural phenomena when you have a system of natural contraints (e.g gravity, thermodynamics, etc). So, by our seeming definition, God can’t be considered omnipotent over that system but intead omnipotent for mastering it.
This also goes a long way to explain why there are flesh-eating bacteria, why “bad things happen to good people” etc. I know there are sunday school answers to those questions, but they’re all weak. When you hold an eight year old Kenyan orphaned girl with AIDS in one arm because her bones are so chewed up by syphilis that she weighs nothing—and in so much pain that her whole day is spent lying in bed crying—-in those moments the arguments that omnipotent God lets this happen “for our own good” go right out the window.
Again, just my passionate $0.02. : )
December 1st, 2006 at 10:26 am
Matt, do you mean the recent book by Duane Jefferey? A compilation of authoritative church statements on evolution? I don’t own it, but I’ve examined it. A member in California named Mel Tungate has also had an online reference of authoritative statements for several years: http://www.tungate.com/Evolution.htm
December 1st, 2006 at 10:38 am
Rick,
I do not like to take the creationist view of things for the most part. In my mind the logic I have always come up with is this- In biology I think it is perfectly honest to discuss how genes mutate, how bacteria can change and all of that as it is beneficial to medicine and disease solutions. But I think that biology goes beyond it’s bounds by trying to play God in “telling us” where we came from, especially when they try to back up their claims using drawings of predictions rather than actual tangible evidence. This is why I believe that when it comes to talking about man’s origins, it should be more of a philisophical or theological question and approach. It’s funny that the evolution argument doesn’t want to include God in the discussion when any good knowledgable christian knows that he was part of our direct development.
Mankind’s origins absolutely cannot be discussed from an atheistic point of view. I have never seen a biological approach yet in our public school system that uses both evolutionary process theory and creation process theory. It can’t happen that way. The NCSE and ACLU prohibit that approach, based on supposed amendment violations. Questions like- Did God use evolution to create mankind? or- Is the whole God theory of creation mythical? questions like these should be left to the debate classes rather than the scientific ones as they carry religious baggadge that cannot be settled with our scientific means.
To get back to your regual post questions-
To think that life already might have existed on this planet before God came on the scene bothers my mind, it makes no sense. I think that God started with matter that was already present and then organized an earth that was capable of supporting life. I do not carry the typical christian/mormon approach to how and when life was placed on this earth. I believe that the earth was sanctified (set apart for holy use) before life was placed on the earth. This didn’t happen until the seventh day. Then the plants were made to grow because of rain, and man, the first life form was placed on the earth. After man came all of the animals. These animals were produced in the normal fashion of reproduction from parental form who came to the earth rather than be develpoed from micro organisms.
I believe that God is omnipotent in that he can literally do anything he wants to do biologically as long as he stays in the bounds of science. By this I mean that in order to create us, he had to obey laws of orders and kingdoms. This translates into- For God to create a son, he must create that son with the normal method of procreation rather than just go down to the lab and dream up a formula that will start out as something less than life itself and end up in the end a duplicate of himself. Ethics are very much a part of Godliness. We tend to destroy those laws though as we try to clone or mutate or modify certain genes to create animal and human possibilities that destroy the Father/Mother relationship. Can God create us from a non-life form? Maybe, maybe not. Would he? Doubtful as it would go against the very laws of Godliness and procreation (purpose of both man and women sealed eternally)
So to sum up, I think omnipotence has more to deal with ethical behavior and righteousness rather than ability to master or distort natural processes of biology.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Fun discussion. Wish I had time to weigh in more, but my dissertation deals with this subject quite a bit, so as a shorthand, let me add a slightly modified quote from it as it echoes the definition of God’s omnipotence that both Rory and Rick seem to like.
This short section also brings up what I think is a really interesting aspect of LDS theology: that we believe that everything in the universe has some sort of “intelligence,” an ability to react to God’s creative lure (hence our whole Book of Abraham creation story that has the God’s watching to see if the elements will obey). I can’t see us as Mormons having a great evolution discussion without some discussion of this notion and the Abraham text. I’ve written about it in a different place in my dissertation and also in a short piece I did for Irreantum magazine. If anyone is interested, here’s a link to a cleaner version of what’s there (they accidentally printed the first draft of the piece I’d sent in, which had a different title and a few other things missing from this version).
From my dissertation (Awakening Joseph Smith: Resources in Mormonism for a Postmodern Worldview, Claremont Graduate School, 1996):
Cheers,
Dan Wotherspoon
December 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Rick, sorry, I got the Title Backwards It is Evolution and Mormonism And it is not just the Authoritative Statements. Mel Tungate’s site is very good, but I think it is Mainly Just the BYU packet plus David Bailey’s excellent article. this Book is more of a primer on Evolution plus one possible way Evolution and Theology can by Coupled. For other views, I recommend Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller(I think that’s the right name.) and the Works of Allister McGrath, who are all not LDS, but speak to the issue very well for faith in General. FARMS has reviews of evolution and mormonism in their latest review here.
I think there are a number of plausible alternatives for recognizing both God and Evolution. The greatest requirements are Faith and Understanding.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Rick:
http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/
This is worth having for online resources as well..
December 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Rick, Thanks for the responses. This thread has proven to be very interesting. I should apologize now for the sloppy/hurried posting I’ve been doing—this discussion really deserves better.
“My question was actually not whether God used evolution to create species” Yes, I got that in the original post. This is the first example of me being sloppy/hurried. I simply meant to point out that I do not see how defining God’s omnipotence helps me to understand evolution, seeing that I have no way of actually measuring his omnipotence. I realize in hindsight that I shouldn’t have pressed this issue, seeing that the point of the post was to talk about the philosophical question, so I apologize.
As for ”why a truly omnipotent being would choose such an inefficient method”—I don’t know. For fun? For our own edification? So we could use evolutionary science to develop medicines? Because that was the instructions on the kit he purchased? (Sorry to be flippant; I’m remembering a Far Side cartoon.)
”Could it be that there wasn’t a choice after all?” I think this is a very interesting question—one that I have applied to other actions by God (eg. the whole fruit/garden/Fall setup). Again, I don’t know how I could ever know the answer. How can I distinguish between what God chose to do and what God had to do? How do I distinguish between what God didn’t choose and what God couldn’t choose? (By analogy: I have never owned a Pontiac, though it has been within my ability; a Ferrari, by contrast, has never been within reach.)
”Nor do I accept that God, or any other being or can create life.” I’ve not considered that before. My initial response is: 1) maybe you’re right, 2) maybe he just can’t create intelligence, but he can create a physical home (be it bacterial, amphibian, or human) for that intelligence: and intelligence + home = life.
”(I’m what you could call a fundamentalist Pasteurian)” Ooo, I like that.
”I find that the uniqueness of our theological view of deity really supports my opinion.” I agree: it does seem to lend support. I should make it clear that I don’t think your question about omnipotence is unimportant. I agree that there is some limit—somewhere—to God’s power. But I don’t think it’s valuable to try to define that line because I don’t think that it can be defined—it’s an impossible experiment, in my mind. So when I read the account of the Fall, I have to remind myself that I know very little about what God could have done, I only get a glimpse of what he did. Very often in discussions on the Fall or other topics, someone will try to explain something by saying, “Well, God did such and such because he couldn’t do such and such.” And I think, “Really? How do we know that he couldn’t have done that?” So to me, the value of the question of omnipotence is as a reminder of what I don’t know about God rather than a way to learn more about him.
”You also listed two values of accepting a traditional definition of omnipotence:” No. I listed two values of believing in some degree of omnipotence (which I realize is an oxymoron. But inasmuch as no one else was using the terms “super-potent” or “quasi-omnipotent”, I wasn’t going to be the first to start.) I know I did not make that clear in my comment, so I’m making it clear now.
”I planted a beautiful garden last year. In the past four years I’ve created two AMAZING human beings. But I’m not omnipotent. I was constrained to use natural processes for all my creating…isn’t the place for details on that second one.” At least as funny as the Angel Carrot Top. But to the point: yes, you were constrained. And yes, God must have some kind of constraints. But the constraints on God when he planted a garden (eastward in Eden) may have been the same or different than the constraints on you. He may be working under entirely different or additional or fewer physics.
But when you planted a garden, your neighbor couldn’t take credit for it. And without you, those veggies would never have grown. So when you take credit for the lovely squash and beans, I am willing to let you have that credit. So with God: when he says that he destroyed the Egyptians, freed captive Israel, raised up a prophet, etc. I take that to mean that he had some input that was necessary (though not necessarily sufficient).
”Perhaps God is good enough not to make only those promises he can keep.” I think you meant “…enough to make only…” so I’ll work with that assumption. And I agree with you. And if it’s correct, it’s just one more way that I am not like God.
”I am quite familiar with L. Orgel’s works…” I didn’t mean to be patronizing, so I hope it didn’t come across that way. I really just wanted anyone reading the thread to know that while there are significant holes in the model for biogenesis, it is not as if it is a complete “hole in the armor,” and if anyone wanted to learn more about recent advances in this field, that Orgel is a good place to start.
”I think you contradict yourself a little bit here: … If those constraints are the splendor, what’s wrong with the suggestion that they could be binding to even God?” Just what I’ve said above: there’s nothing wrong with the suggestion; it’s the assertion that I have trouble with. The constraints that I find splendid are the constraints on the natural world. Those may or may not also be constraining on God; i.e. maybe he imposed the constraints and maybe he worked within them.
Thanks again!
December 1st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
BrianJ,
You do a great job of reminding us all of the importance of stating our views in terms of what seems most likely to us, or as our own parsings of this or that question, rather than as assertions about things we can’t possibly know. Yet whereas some folks like to stop there and claim that since we can’t know those things we shouldn’t keep speculating, you seem to still be open to continued inquiry. That’s neat to see. Thanks!
Dan
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 am
Dan,
Thanks for including the quotes from Griffin. I think your dissertation is actually where I picked up the concept of all power available, as my reading of it would coincide better with the timeframe than the workshops I mentioned earlier. Credit where credit is due. I just have difficulty remembering where it is due.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:57 am
Rob said: “I believe that God is omnipotent in that he can literally do anything he wants to do biologically as long as he stays in the bounds of science.”
I’m interested that while we obviously believe very different things about the order of the creation, we both accept this basic—and very unique—principle.
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
BrianJ: far from needing to apologize, I think you’ve been a stellar contributor to this thread. You’re very insightful and articulate….plus affable (whereas I’m more of a….as my kids call me…..a “buttcrack”.)
I want to respond more point to point, but I’ve got to go back into work for the day. I’ll post some tomorrow.
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:12 am
David Bailey wrote an essay, “Mormonism and the Omnis: The Dangers of Theological Speculation” that was published in Dialogue and is available here.
I’m of a similar mind to BrianJ. I have no idea what God’s capabilities are and I have enough humility to accept that just because I can’t imagine how he might do something doesn’t mean that he can’t, or just because something seems strange doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a good reason. On the other hand, Joseph Smith began breaking with traditional notions of God and set a trajectory for a more limited God than traditional religions allow for.
So in my mind the question of whether God chose to do something or had to do something is not resolvable (unless he tells us). So in the meantime, science focuses on what has been done–and how–using the best evidence available.
As to whether Mormons can embrace evolution, I think that they can (although perhaps not all of the philosophical ideas that get attached to it). I don’t think it conflicts with the plan of salvation in any fundamental way.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Jared, I’m really surprised not to have seen that article by D. Bailey before. Some of his other pieces have been hugely influencial for me….really formative when I was a new returned missionary starting at the big, scary universtiy.
Anyway, the whole concept I’ve tried to present here borrows heavily from him (and a bit from a few others). But I’d only really seen him hint at it, not present a full treatment like in the article you linked.
thanks for the great info.