Evolution and God: Why can't they get along?

Although the main focus of this blog is regarding Mormonism, I thought I would broaden the topic to the whole idea of God in general.

Let me first point out that I believe in evolution. There is so much overwhelming evidence that evolution isn't a debate in the scientific community anymore. Darwin's theory of evolution has been verified by fossil records, carbon dating and DNA. To deny that evolution exists today with how much evidence exists is like denying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Let me also say that I believe in God. What I don't understand is why it is supposed to be either or. Why can't it be both? Why not? Perhaps God created evolution so that life can adapt to the ever changing environment here on Earth. I don't see how the concept of evolution diminishes the existence of God in any way.

However, I do have one problem and that is the origin of life. Scientists can explain how a single celled organism evolved to what we can see today, however how that single-celled organism is still a mystery. According to the theory of spontaneous generation, somehow life arose from non-living matter. The problem with this theory is that it isn't science. Nobody has been able to explain or reproduce how non-living matter becomes living matter.

Scientists have been able to take inert matter and make amino acids, the building blocks for proteins which construct cells. However, they have not been able to take those amino acids and construct proteins in order to construct living cells. To believe in spontaneous generation, one must have "faith" to believe it since there is no evidence or data that supports it.

Don't get me wrong, scientist have been able to explain a lot more about life than any religion has. However, the exact origins of life still remain a mystery. To add more insult, we now know that even a single celled organism still has amazingly complicated DNA strands. To look at the odds of how an organism came into existence without any assistance from some kind of outside source seems pretty irrational to me when I look at the scale and the laws of probability.

It is like when I look at a Rubik's cube. There are over 43 quintillion possible combinations in a Rubik's cube, but only one of those combinations is the correct solution. The odds of a blind person solving a scrambled Rubik's cube are so astronomical that even if this blind person moved it one move at at time every second of every day statistically, you would need over a billion years until that person would solve it realistically. The fact that people can solve a Rubik's cube in 20 seconds repeatedly tells me that there is some intelligence behind it, and it isn't just random chance. And we are talking about a Rubik's cube. Life is much more complex than that.

I look at the sun that seems to be the right temperature, size and distance to support life on Earth, it is amazing enough. Then I see a moon that is in a position to keep the Earth anchored on its tilted 23.5 degree axis to prevent wild swings and extreme weather and I can't help but be struck in awe. I see Jupiter that is so massive in size that its gravitational pull deflects meteorites that could potentially destroy Earth like big brother out there. Then I look at a strand of DNA, which is complicated instructions found within each cell of every living organism. I can't understand how all this can come about without some kind of creator behind it, at least in the time frame we are talking about.

Perhaps if the Earth was around for octillions of years before life came into the picture it might be more plausible, but the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. The first microorganisms are believed to have existed between 3-4 billion years ago. It is truly amazing how the Earth is created and suddenly life is spawned from non-life within such a relatively short time frame, when you are talking about the odds it would take to create said living cells by random chance.

However, once the cell is created, scientists have been able to demonstrate how life evolved to more complex organisms. I just don't see how any of it disproves the existence of God in any way. My question is why don't religions in general accept evolution? Why does it have to be either or?

Disillusioned Mormon Read more!

A Banana Testifies Of The Genius of God's Creation

Kirt Cameron says that a banana testifies of the genius of God's creation.

He talks about how a "well-made banana" is specifically designed by God to serve humans. I think his argument is cute, and I do think that a banana demonstrates the genius of God's creation, but not in the same way as this particular example.

What is a "well-made banana"?

Bananas come in all different shapes and sizes. Bananas have been cultivated and selected by humans to benefit humans. Say you have 50 different types of bananas. You would pick the one out of the 50 that best suits human interest and cultivate just that one. As time goes on, any time you come across a variation that benefits humans, you would select that one and cultivate it. If you run across a banana that is too big, or too small, you wouldn't cultivate that one and that gene dies off. The point is that the definition of a "well-made banana" is simply that by its own self-serving definition. The bananas that best serve humans are the ones that are selected and cultivated by humans themselves.

What about corn?

Does corn testify of the genius of God's creation? Of all the varieties of corn in the world today, not one is wild. The reason is simply because the plant we call corn today is physically incapable of regenerating itself without the active assistance of man. To the left you can see a picture of teosinte, an ancestor of modern-day corn. Teosinte is not edible and still exists today in Mesoamerica. It is a grass and has tiny little cobs inside of little pods about 4 cm small and they do grow naturally. Compared to modern day corn, It is practically useless, and I would not consider it "well-made" in the context of describing a plant that is beneficial to humans.

Why Can't Corn Reproduce Naturally?

In my research into the cultures of pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, I learned about how they cultivated maize from a grass-like plant to modern corn. During this research, I came across an interesting tidbit on how modern corn had to have been manipulated genetically by humans and by no other means. In Reader's Digest Mysteries of the Ancient Americas, it says:

Modern corn's strength and its weakness lie in its unique grain-bearing "ear," a highly specialized flower cluster whose hundreds of seeds are compactly arranged along a rigid cob, the lot enclosed in tight-fitting, multi-layered husks. These husks prevent the seed kernels from dispersing on their own either on the stalk or when the ear falls to the ground. in fact, only when the ear is shucked and the kernels are forcibly freed can the seeds go fourth to start another season's growth...corn had somehow been manipulated genetically, from varieties that were less satisfactory in size and productivity to varieties that were large and yielding more food value.

What is a "well-made" ear of corn?

When defining a "well-made" ear of corn(as in beneficial to humans), you would consider the food value, the size fits well in your hands, not too big, not too small, it tastes good, etc.

The paradox, if you are to consider intelligent design, is that corn doesn't grow naturally. What you would consider a "well-made" ear of corn has been cultivated by humans over time to benefit humans. This is evident in the fact that there is no such thing as wild corn. Corn has been cultivated over time and the variations that benefit humans the best have been singled out, selected and cultivated. The ancestors to corn like tripsacum and teosinte are of little use to humans, and when compared to corn, they would in no way be considered "well-made" in this context. There did exist wild corn some 7,000 years ago, but it was very similar to teosinte in that it was very small and grass-like. Wild corn doesn't exist anymore today and the only corn that exists is what has been cultivated and selected by humans.

I don't dispute that God has given us this wonderful thing called nature in all its splendid beauty. After all, without teosinte, we wouldn't have corn, so for that I do thank God. However, I do dispute the argument that everything is designed perfectly by God to benefit man as defined and explained in the video. Now, I have to be careful, because I am not saying that God didn't design everything perfectly, I am saying that the definition of intelligent design that I have heard is not congruent with what one can see simply by looking at an ear of corn. God has given us the tools and means to cultivate our agriculture to our benefit by our own liking, or own choosing and by our own definition. It is almost as if we are given some kind of "free agency" in this selection process. The true intelligent design is the fact that God has provided us with plants and animals that can change and adapt to the environment as well as what we consider "well-made". It seems to me that the most intelligent design is something that can change and go through a selection process.

If there is such a thing as "intelligent design" as defined by many, I think the banana is a very poor example to use. The ability of obtaining the most beneficial banana to humans through the selection process is really what testifies of the genius of God's creation.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

New Anti-Mormon video is distributed

Search for the Truth

This video entitled "Search for the truth" was distributed to thousands of members of the church for free. Although I was not selected to receive the DVD, anyone can watch it on the Internet. Overall, I thought it was pretty boring but it did have some good points as to why I no longer believe in the Mormon church. The part about the Book of Abraham was the most important part for me, because when I learned about the Book of Abraham, that is when I completely lost faith in the Mormon Church. I will discuss my discoveries on the Book of Abraham at a later time. Just like most "Anti-Mormon" productions made by evangelicals, I found about 15 mins worth of substantial information in a 1:30 hour presentation. It was a typical over-impassioned film, but it did have some worthwile and accurate information, even if it was watered down at times.

Evangelicals and Hypocrisy

I find it fascinating that Evangelicals are quick to point to DNA and archaeology to disprove the Book of Mormon, yet they fail to recognize that the same science disproves many aspects of the Bible as well. DNA disproves creationism for one, and there is no scientific evidence to back up the story of Noah's ark. There is some evidence to support some events in the Bible, but there is also evidence to contradict other events and stories. In the video, there was a part where someone was saying "scientists are not debating the origin of the Native Americans". However, there is also no debate in the scientific community on the origin of man either. Scientists have used DNA evidence to link Homo sapiens to the Homo heidelbergensis and the Homo ecrectus species. So, if we can apply DNA evidence to prove that Native Americans are from North Eastern Asia and not Israel as the Book of Mormon claims, we can use the same DNA evidence to prove that men came from apes and not Adam and Eve. My point is if you discredit DNA evidence when it disproves the Bible, you have to discredit it completely.

Locations as Evidence for the Bible?

It is interesting that people would point out that the locations mentioned in the Bible exist and therefore that proves that it is a true book. However, the cities mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants exist. I can go to Independence, Missouri, Carthage, IL or Palmyra, NY and see evidence that Joseph Smith existed. I can look at archaeological evidence to support that Joseph Smith was a real person and that the people groups that are mentioned existed. Does that mean that the Doctrine and Covenants is a true book?

Mormons and Hypocrisy

On the flip side, I am also amazed at the reaction of church members. Most members of the church are repulsed by the idea of someone sending them a video that questions their faith and is trying to ram their beliefs down their throats to get them to change religions. Then, I laugh because the LDS church is doing the exact same thing, it looks like people don't like the taste of their own medicine.

I know all about what LDS missionaries do, because I was one. As a missionary, I was trained to destroy other people's faith in their religion. We would send videos along with other medias, but the point is that now that the shoe is on the other foot, LDS members need to understand why other people are mad when we try to shove our beliefs down other people's throats.

Everyone is a Hypocrite

Evangelicals like to use science to disprove Mormonism, but when the same science disproves the bible, suddenly science isn't reliable. Mormons like to drop by unannounced and show people videos that they didn't ask for, but get bent out of shape if someone else does the same thing to them. I suppose it is just part of human nature to only see what we want to see. I am sure I do the same thing. As for the quality of the video, I have seen other videos that are better.

Church Response to the video

LDS apologists offer some insight. This is the part where I lose faith in Mormonsim. LDS apologists can't refute what is said on the video, all they can do is attack the source. The worst is the part where they admit that the Book of Abraham is a hoax and the church has known it since 1967.

The official church response is very angry and upset about the video. Once again, they can't refute any of the facts on the video, they can only attack the source of the video. "one religious group chooses to target another with a DVD full of distortions of its doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of the producers." Pot, meet Kettle. You want to talk about a group that distorts LDS doctrine and church history, look in the mirror. I just mentioned the Book of Abraham and how the LDS church has known since 1967 that it was a hoax, but yet the church hides and distorts that fact from the general church population. The Book of Abraham is still an officially cannonized scripture.

By their own words, a religious group that is full of distortions of the LDS doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of that group, we should not trust anything said by that religious group. Nobody has distorted and misrepresented LDS history and doctrine like the LDS church.

Skeptical Mormon
Read more!