Reconciling Genesis and Evolution

[_Stormy Waters]

As a believer, I thought that the creation depicted in genesis could be reconciled with the evolutionary process. As a non believer I've since changed my mind.

Consider the time scale involved. The first life appeared approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Let's say since Adam it's been about 7,000 years. That means that the main part of God's plan has been in action for about 0.0000018% of the total time that life has existed.

Consider the amount of death required by evolutionary process. Many animals died in childbirth, others were eaten by predators, starved to death, or froze. Many lines of speices simply went extinct leaving no descendants at all. Animals living and dying for billions of years.

Human like creatures have been around for almost 200,000 years. According to the Bible "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:45. So these soulless pre-adamities were born, suffered, and died, just so that one day we could exist. They were like us in many ways, but to God they were just a means to an end.

When considering the big picture of evolution it seems much more likely that we are byproducts of this process, not the intended result. To believe that we are the reason for all it seems arrogant to say the least. All the suffering, and all the time, just so that one day we could exist. If the God of the Bible did wish to create us, he could have accomplished it through much more simple, sophisticated means.

[_bcspace]

So these soulless pre-adamities were born

Who has proposed that pre-Adamites were soulless as part of a reconciliation?

When considering the big picture of evolution it seems much more likely that we are byproducts of this process, not the intended result.

Doesn't seem to follow from your recitation of history. At worst, there is an equal chance for either.

To believe that we are the reason for all it seems arrogant to say the least

That implies a belief in God as otherwise arrogance doesn't seem to matter.

If the God of the Bible did wish to create us, he could have accomplished it through much more simple, sophisticated means.

What could be simpler and more sophisticated than big bang/evolution? Even scientists grow mold in petri dishes so as to harvest the "byproducts".

[_Stormy Waters]

Who has proposed that pre-Adamites were soulless as part of a reconciliation?

Adam was the first man. Pre-Adamities were physically almost identical to us. So what makes them different from us if not their soul?

What could be simpler and more sophisticated than big bang/evolution? Even scientists grow mold in petri dishes so as to harvest the "byproducts".

A process that doesn't take billions of years. A process that doesn't require millions of generations to live and die.

Imagine if these scientists had the choice between using a process that literally takes seven days, or a process that takes 3.8 billion years. Do you think they'd opt for the 3.8 billion years?

[_moksha]

As a believer, I thought that the creation depicted in genesis could be reconciled with the evolutionary process.

Even as a believer, why be constrained to hold onto the most impossible portions? Why not regard it as sacred fiction and refuse to let it impose on the worthwhile things you believe?

[_bcspace]

Who has proposed that pre-Adamites were soulless as part of a reconciliation?

Adam was the first man. Pre-Adamities were physically almost identical to us. So what makes them different from us if not their soul?

I have proposed such a difference, a different spirit. But never spiritless or soulless. It happens to be an excellent hypothetical explanation as to why homo sapiens big-brained never developed civilization after all those years until relatively recently.

The happy fact remains that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine. Speaking of pre-Adamites, the Church itself has stated that it is not doctrinally opposed to their existence in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement which was the culmination of debate over the 1909 statement (which also does not preclude evolution but merely re-states LDS doctrine).

[_Sethbag]

If they had developed civilization 20,000 years ago instead of 10,000, then 10,000 years ago there would have been a BCSPace arguing on a message board "then why didn't they develop civilization until 10,000 years ago?" It happened when it happened. What would it have looked like if it had happened differently?

[_honorentheos]

I don't remember if this was mentioned on the board when it came out. If so, I apologize, but I found the article in the June 2011 National Geographic on Gobekli Tepe facinating. in particular, the way this archeological discovery was reshaping the narrative of how or why human beings became civilized in the true sense of the word.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text

I don't think it means anything in particular in regards to BC's point, but it's humbling to reflect on how little we really know about how we came to be the species we are. If, as the developing theory suggests, human kind formed cities with cooperative, large scale communities because of religion or the religious impulse, does this require a rewrite of our view of religion when we say we are approaching it rationally as a subject? or is it inconsequential?

[_Stormy Waters]

Even as a believer, why be constrained to hold onto the most impossible portions? Why not regard it as sacred fiction and refuse to let it impose on the worthwhile things you believe?

Once parts of the book are reinterpreted to be sacred fiction, how do you know which parts of the book are fiction or non-fiction? Does the book only become sacred fiction when science starts to put pressure on it?

Consider the Jaredite barges being discussed in the another thread. If Mormons started to reinterpret the Jaredite story to be sacred fiction would we respect this move? Wouldn't we just view it as a desperate attempt to escape the evidence? Maybe my perspective is tinted by Mormonism, but to me the attempts to reinterpret scriptures as metaphors or fiction seems like a cop out.

[_Stormy Waters]

The happy fact remains that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine. Speaking of pre-Adamites, the Church itself has stated that it is not doctrinally opposed to their existence in the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement which was the culmination of debate over the 1909 statement (which also does not preclude evolution but merely re-states LDS doctrine).

For the purposes of this thread I'm not interested in going on a treasure hunt for quotes that qualify under your definition of official doctrine (Although if someone does know of qualifying quotes, feel free to share). The argument I'm making is simply that a God who has the ability to create humanity in a quick and painless way is not likely to choose to do it in a manner that takes 3.8 billion years and requires death and extinction on a massive scale.

[_moksha]

Once parts of the book are reinterpreted to be sacred fiction, how do you know which parts of the book are fiction or non-fiction? Does the book only become sacred fiction when science starts to put pressure on it?

Religion should never be a way to zone out reality. It should be the blueprint for a productive way of life that brings us closer together along with God. Science has the unique opportunity to broaden the envelope of religious understanding, such as evolution giving us a better understanding of God's methodology.

Religious understanding can be mixed. I can be entertained with tales of the Giants vs. Asgard, ennobled by the love of Christ and find myself in agreement with the Buddha that the desire for things we can't have is the root of unhappiness.