People that live in glass houses… are fossils.
Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster.
Is it possible that our religious and spiritual proclivities are an evolved phenomenon? Is there an evolutionary basis for religion embedded in our nature that would justify an alternative name for our species: Homo religiosus? Why is religiosity a near cross-cultural universal?
Such historical questions have NO bearing on the underlying validity of any religion. The questions merely ask how long humans have been religious.
Evolutionary history cannot validate religion anymore than it could validate aggression. Both could have some evolutionary foundations. Thus, one cannot argue that religion is good simply because it evolved. Philosophers indicate that it is a "naturalistic fallacy" to derive moral lessons from nature alone. Even so, evolved human adaptations have staying power that often yield safety, sociality, sympathy, stability, survivability, sustainability – and maybe even (heaven only knows) salvation. In general, can we say that religion has benefits that can be scientifically demonstrated as adaptations? Perhaps.
For example, fasting, the widespread practice of abstaining from meals for a short period of time, easily could have both a dieting benefit and a deep spiritual significance. Scientifically, we now know that too many calories shorten life spans. Dieting could also ration food that might be in short supply. Could fasting be an example of an evolutionarily adaptive religious practice? Such questions, even if difficult to answer, are worth asking.
I am taken-aback by the atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, whose writings seem to suggest that human life is diminished by the existence of religion. They too easily connect religion with aggression and warfare, as if removing religion would remove war. If so, then they are wrong. Humans appear to be almost as predisposed toward acquiring religion as they are predisposed to acquiring language. No one doubts the benefits of language, but religion is less appreciated in the academic world. Could religion have an evolved history that is associated with significant benefits? My answer, developed below, is yes.
Religion and evolution have a long-running feud, but the tension is artificial and manufactured. In a recent essay entitled "Adam & the Hominids" I argued that our religion might have more in common with evolutionary biology than we LDS usually recognize.
For example, both fields of theology and evolution have a common interest in "origins and genealogical trees." Both fields recognize the common heritage that humans share, making us all brothers and sisters. In another essay, I have argued that Genesis and evolutionary biology coincide to a considerable degree, if one is allowed to interpret the origin story of Genesis as figurative more than literal.
One of the main messages of the fall of Adam story is to explain why natural principles operate upon the world – e.g., why there is death. Science would adopt a different set of rationales than Genesis, but its big conclusion would be the same: nature is regulated by lawful principles. It is too bad that the shared conclusions of evolutionary science and religion are seldom emphasized.
Are there irreconcilable differences between religion and evolution? There are a number of LDS bloggers who think so. I am not one of them. There are far too many LDS evolutionists (even though we might be in the minority) for me to think that there is any disadvantage to being a Mormon scientist.
LDS scientists, like all scientists, have a moral obligation to be led by the data observed in nature. Science is NOT a game in which we try to cram preconceived truths into inconvenient observations. In fact, scientific data are often inconvenient, from a human perspective. The good news is that extended research often clarifies.
For example, Darwin delayed publication of his evolutionary ideas in part because he could not figure out how there could be sterile castes among the social insects (see: R. J. Richards (1983). Why Darwin delayed... . J. of the Hist. of the Beh. Sciences, 19: 45-53). Yet, in modern times an extended understanding of such sterility became just one more line of evidence supporting Darwin's proposals.
What are the data that direct my evolutionary thinking?
used in the university courses I teach.
At my (non-LDS) university I have built (for lack of a better term) an evolutionary shrine to human evolution. My display consists of hominid and great ape skulls necessary for the undergraduate study of physical anthropology. It is on the ground floor of our life science building. Hundreds of university students will see the display each day. To me, study of these skulls is almost a sacred experience. I realize that statement would sound strange to those who do not know me. Yet, these skulls provide clues about the development of human intelligence and alas maybe even human consciousness. As I stare into those skulls, I believe nature is talking to me. Nature may mumble, but it tells no lies.
Evolution is NOT a minor topic in science. In fact, it might be the MOST important and most integrative of ALL scientific fields. But here are my major points:
Smart LDS university students need NEVER run away from science. We can face the "hominid skulls" of science with the best of them. Further, we need NOT go into non-parsimonious contortions to justify science with our religion. Latter-day Saints embrace all truth. The scientific search for natural operations does not displace the divine.
I doubt such views would surprise many Latter-day Saint graduate students or professionals in natural science.
So, let me return to the topic of the evolutionary function of religion.
Here is one possible naturalistic account for the origin of religion. Even if my account is not much more than a Kipling "Just-So" story, it may have some components that are archeologically testable. Scientific speculations can be legitimate if they can serve as hypotheses for later studies.
Over the past 7 million years, we know that there has been an almost exponential explosion in hominid brain size. Sample evidence is shown in the table below.
The earliest hominids between two to seven million years ago had brains that were about the same size as a modern chimp or gorilla. Shortly after the two million year mark hominid brain size began to mushroom. Although there have been many speculations as to the cause of this sudden volume increase, we can be confident that our larger-brained hominid ancestors were becoming more language-oriented and more intelligent than their predecessors.
Also, we can be confident that these more recent large-brained ancestors lived longer lives than the earlier small-brained ones.
In a recent study of the longevity of species within 18 mammalian orders, it was shown that brain size was positively correlated (R = 0.77) with longevity (C. Gonzalez-Lagos et al. (2010). Large-brained Mammals Live Longer. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23: 1064-1074). This general finding holds for primates as well (J. Allman et al. (1993). Brain weight and life-span in primate species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90: 118–122). Using regression equations to predict longevity from endocranial capacity, one can estimate that Homo habilis had the capacity to live into its fifties and that Homo erectus had the capacity to live into its sixties (M.L.A Hammer & R. A. Foley (1996). Longevity and life history in hominid evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 11: 61–66).
Such extended life spans combined with larger brains probably altered hominid social organization. Long-living grandparents could contribute cultural memories and childcare, making them valuable members to the social group. One can reasonably speculate that increased longevity eventuated in: a) long-term care for aging parents by adult children; b) concerns for an afterlife; c) ritualized burials; and d) the beginnings of religion.
Eckart Voland (2009; "Evaluating the Evolutionary Status of Religiosity and Religiousness" in E. Voland, W. Schiefenhövel (eds.), The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, Berlin: Springer-Verlag) effectively argues that religiosity (the psychological ability to be religious) meets the criteria for biological adaptation because: 1) it is a near cross-cultural universal that appears to be inherited from parents to children; 2) it shows many "special-purpose" designs; and 3) it appears to solve problems of adaptation. In that context, Voland discusses religion as: 1) a natural by-product of "theory of mind" (agency detection); 2) a strategy for mastering daily contingencies; 3) a social bonding mechanism; 4) an amplifier of self-awareness distinguishing in-group from out-group; 5) a communication device for building loyalty; and 6) a moral building system for catching "free-riders."
A blog essay is not the place to try to generate a comprehensive listing of the evolutionary functions of religion. Nonetheless, let me list two more functions that I think are essential:
Religion often builds strong dominance hierarchies. Clear lines of leadership appear to be essential for the long-term survival of many different primate societies. Religious organizations across the world, usually dominated by men, are very similar to the ranked-ordered organizations found in non-human primates. The evolutionary stability of such organizations, for better or worse, should not be underestimated.
The survivability of a religion depends upon the fertility of its membership. Religions often directly promote reproduction. Latter-days Saints need not be reminded of the admonition to "multiply and replenish."
Conclusions: Religion may well instill survivability into its adherents. It is inappropriate for scientists to conclude that religion is maladaptive because most scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Latter-day Saints should be advocates of the scientific process. We LDS should understand that natural principles do not invalidate legitimate components of our religion.
Of one thing I am confident: evolutionary science is NOT going away. It is a dominant theme taught everyday in our life science buildings. When classes are dismissed, we might rush pass the glass display that houses the hominid skulls in the hallway. Nevertheless, the skulls will stare at us demanding attention. They are trying to whisper messages to the living, if we would but listen.
Wouldn't it be funny if one of the messages was religious? Maybe religion is in our bones.
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
20 comments:
Great post! With religion being one of the few human universals (like music, smiling, etc.) there must be deep neural structures supporting it. You are absolutely right, just because it evolved does not say anything about that which it refers to. We have stunning light processing neurology, to get at real signals. So it is with religion.
Keep up the great work!
There's a stunning correlation between the restoration and the beginnings of religion with regard to the way God goes about his business -- according to your post, that is. What we have with the restoration is an obvious social evolution which required no small amount of time to reach a "tipping point" as it were. (Indeed there may even be a dash of biological evolution involved in the process, dare I say.)
At any rate, what we have is a God who will not "force the issue" so to speak. And if he will not exert coercion with respect to social evolution then perhaps it is unlikely he would act differently at any point along the way -- that is if we view social evolution as being directly tied to organic evolution.
So, in light of the above, is it possible that Adam and Eve are the "hallmark" of a tipping point?
Jack
Christ himself might have been a kind of tipping point like Adam and Eve, though having Heavenly Father as a physical father might change the game a bit.
SteveP:
Thanks as always to a fellow Darwinist.
Anonymous:
I like your thoughts, and you may well be correct.
Syphax:
Thanks for contributing. It is extremely difficult for me to imagine Jesus being anything other than a gigantic tipping point.
Let me say that I am in some disagreement strictly from a gospel perspective.
We, as LDS, just cannot believe that religion, let alone our minds, evolved into the beliefs we have regarding faith and God. It makes God out to be a fiment of our perceived imaginations. It makes religion as a whole to be a facade.
If we believe in our religion we must have the faith to recognize that God gave us religion because we needed it. It did not evolve over time according to our brain size.
Over and over again I see the musings of theistic evolutionists to reconcile their religious convictions with their knowledge of science. The problem here though is that one will almost always replace God and religion with something that can be explained solely from a naturalistic evolutionary standpoint. Thus- even the belief in God (our very LDS religious beliefs) is assumed just to be a make believe world that gives evolved man more closure- believeing in something that does not really exist- a fantasy world.
I think it is high time for the evolutionists to really answer the call on this subject- Either there really is a God and he gave us the undefiled religion from the beginning to the first man we call "Adam", or God is just the mere figments of our larger evolved brain. Which is it?
Rob osborn
Rob:
Thanks for your challenging questions. Your dislike for evolution is so complete that I am sure my answers will not revise any of your views.
I grew up with science. My father was a chemist and a confirmed naturalist. I was raised in the Church and in science.
As I examine the world, it works by natural principles. I have learned that lesson from my study of physics, chemistry, biology, and experimental psychology.
I reject the claim of atheist Richard Dawkins who believes: A lawful universe leaves nothing for God to do.
To me, God works by nature. Without God there is no nature.
Thus, I am unafraid of what nature tells me, as I observe it.
I NEVER try to learn science from scripture. I just do not think that is the purpose of sacred writings. Scripture provides spiritual insights about how to live. Its lessons are invaluable. In fact, my QUAD contains the most important books I own and study.
Like you, I believe God created the universe. But, I do not imagine that God's methods of creation would be anything like how a human would do it. Nor do I believe that God snapped his fingers and the fish appeared in the oceans.
In other words, I do NOT believe that my LDS religion requires me to believe in magic.
Not everyone in the Church needs to be a scientist. But, we scientists need to take the sacrament just like all other members of the Church.
Mormon scientists do NOT have to be quasi-scientists, para-scientists, or almost-scientists. We simply can be FULL scientists.
As a scientist, I am NOT prepared to dispose of quantum mechanics, geology, comparative anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience, physical anthropology, or comparative psychology. These are some of the main fields I would have to reject, if I disposed of scientific evolution.
I must honestly face facts, especially when they are confirmed by multiple independent fields (such as those listed). The God I worship does not require otherwise.
You are welcome to reject evolution. Faith in God should not require a testimony of science.
For me, however, nature brings me closer to God, not farther.
I guess what I am getting at is this-
It appears that you are suggesting that our brains have evolved over millions of years to the point of where we can imagine a God and religion for that matter which indeed helps us live better lives- gives our lives purpose. However, believing in this, one must reject LDS doctrines completely because neither God or religion in mans brain is something that just came because of what nature randomly did. Even including God into the equation as you propose creates a myriad of problems I am sure you are aware of. The first of course is recognizing Gods actual hand in the creation. It may be easy to just say that I can study and support a Godless theory all week long and then go and support God and his creations on Sunday, but at some point one really must reconcile the two and make them mesh, otherwise its as if he is just serving two separate masters.
The things we learn in church we accept on faith because we cannot readily see the truth. AS LDS believers we are in a unique and special position because we believe in an orderly GOd who works within prescribed laws and circumstances. Unlike other religions which can believe that God can be magical and just snap his fingers and have everything appear, we know through various revelations to ancient and modern prophets that God has a physical body like ours, that he obeys prescribed laws, that he is unable to do any real "magic". Having thus leveled the playing field we have a greater understanding of how God works. But, as believers there are just some things God has given us that requires us to have faith to believe in. In fact, our whole standing and placement in the church hinges off what we really have true faith in, not just the "correct list" answers.
Thus I believe that in order to be a true standing LDS believer, God must not only be in the equation of life and its origins, he must be at the very center of it. This must include how and why God may have actually worked to bring his creation about. For you this must be extremely difficult because current evolutionary theory seems to answer every aspect quite well. In fact, from reading the original post it really appears to me that the only reason we have a belief in God and religion is because nature evolved our brains to the point where we can concoct such imaginations.
If however I am wrong, then you must be able to explain Gods role in it, otherwise you too are just using magic to construct a God that operates outside of the world of science.
rob osborn
Here are my thoughts: They way we recieve truth SEEMS like it is evelotionary. Line upon Line. But to God - it is not. He knows EVERYTHING from the end to the beginning. The laws he governs by were established before he became the God we worship. Adam and then Noah, Enoch and others reveived the fullness of the Gospel while on the earth - but they did not know everything God knows. Joseph F Smith said that God is NOT continually learning. He is fixed. His laws are fixed. Any other way, he woudl cease to be God. God is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow.
Rob:
I think my answer to you would be contained in my former post entitled: Starry Messages Reveal God.
Part of my message is that there is mathematical order in randomness. Watch the marbles distribute themselves as a bell curve in a Galton box. This is simply the binomial theorem in action.
As humans who understand the binomial theorem, we KNOW before the balls drop into the Galton box that they will distribute themselves as a bell curve.
It seems to me (in my own personal system of theology) that the universe is just an immense and more elaborate Galton box, fully understood only by God.
At the moment of the Big Bang, intelligence was as inevitable as the formation of a bell curve in a Galton box.
As the Galton box illustrates, what looks random and spurious may have an underlying order.
I reject the notion that scientific naturalism leads to a meaningless and chaotic universe.
Instead, naturalism helps me to find the underlying order of things. For me, science bestows meaning.
A scientific explanation of religion does NOT invalidate religion. It only makes religion more comprehensible. Our religion may start with faith, but I hope we end with knowledge.
Sorry but there is no meaning mathmatical order in randomness. I believe you are just trying to rationalize why evolutuion's randomness can line up with a God of order. I once argued on Steve P's blog about random generators and such. The problem with even the Galton Box is that if you had an advanced physics computer watching the distribution of the balls fall, the computer could predict exactly where each ball would fall and end up. Of course the computer would have to be extremely but highly accurate.
You wish to assume that intelligence is a byproduct of natural laws when in fact scientific study only shows that intelligence- true intelligence, is only the byproduct of an intelligent source.
What you must do is somehow explain where God fits into the structure of intelligence in nature. Naturalism just cannot explain complex intelligence in an orderly system.
Over the weekend coming back from a baseball tournament in Portland we came accross a huge tree farm that someone had planted. We knew someone had planted it because the trees were all the same height, they were all in semi-perfect lines and they grew in square fielded areas. Now of course mathmaticians can claim the probability of this happening randomly in nature and even go so far as to say they could possibly be the byproduct of nature itself. The problem is however that of all the billions of forests in the world, we know which ones were planted by humans with an intelligent purpose in mind. No forest thus grows like those planted purposefully in nice lines and in nice square fields.
The point is thus- we can attempt to explain away order and intelligence in nature as mathmatical possibilities/probabilities, but the real truth is still underlying and unanswered. That truth being that we exist as intelligences with purpose and believe in both religion and God. And it just so happens we have a written history and record of mans dealings with God himself, an exalted human being. For me it is easy to understand this reality, nothing else really addss up. Naturalistic measures completely fail to explain both my purpose and existance. For you the problem is trying to reconcile what your religion is trying to teach you and what man says is not true. At some point the lines must merge and your science must explain God or at least aknowledge his divine hand in all things in the biological world.
rob osborn
Rob:
You state that there is no meaningful mathematical order to randomness. The entire field of statistics and probability disagrees with you. Either that, or I don't understand what you are saying.
You state: "scientific study only shows that ... true intelligence [is a] byproduct of an intelligent source." I believe you must be referring to Wm Paley's watchmaker analogy in Natural Theology. Unfortunately, that argument is over 200 years old and is thoroughly discredited.
The bottom line is that you and I have VERY different outlooks on naturalism. But, I hope that I am right, because I would hate to see the day when Mormon universities have to teach science differently than everyone else. That, to me, would be a sad day.
To clarify-
"...there is no meaning mathmatical order in randomness."
By that I am meaning that randomness is not capable of creating something intelligent or orderly. Even a good random number generator on a computer program is not random at all. The computer program itself acts only according to a program. It is us that are duped into believing that order can come from something random- it really cannot. My analogy with the trees states this specifically. Let me take it one step farther-
There are probabilities that can be made to exact the odds of trees growing all by themselves in nature in some degree of uniformity and order, or that of seeming order. But, that is where the odds stop. There is a point where it can be positively concluded that randomness did not nor is capable of creating something of a specific designed order. The tree farm for example cannot be measured with statistical odds because it lacks the criteria or background occasions to draw upon. This is because it is not something naturally observed in nature. Trees just do not grow in an orderly fashion in perfect rows forming nice square fields of evenly spaced trees all of the same height. That is why when we see the farm we instantly conclude using our intelligence that it was a designed intelligent endeavor by an intelligent agent serving some purpose. In that case it was for harvesting a certain type of tree.
So, whereas we cannot calculate the odds of this happening in nature (because nature is incapable of creating purposeful order of this type), we can however calculate odds of how many trees will fall or be destroyed in a certain amount of years. We may even be able to calculate statistical odds of growth rates and disease hinderance. Those types of things can be seen more as what "nature" creates and controls.
So, in that analogy, it can be applied across the board. Nature controls and effects things, but those things are not capable of producing instances of intelligent order such as the tree farm. The byproducts of intelligent actions are always measured with intelligent order whereas things in nature or of a natural order are measured in randomness in levels of chaos.
The problems I see for you in your search is that as you really begin to understand and explore the creations of God, it will only lead you to conclude God as the creator and that they exist because of his divine actions in making them with purpose. That of course is not what evolution teaches. evolution trys to understand and explain everything, including why we
"imagine" God and religion.
What we will come to find is that God and science are inseparably connected. As we delve deeper and deeper into both the biologic and astro sciences we will find that it is the very trademark of an intelligent and purposeful designer. I see this as looking from an ants view stuck in the middle of the giant tree farm. We as humans are looking out and from our small perspective the trees surrounding us seem random and chaotic in their own natural order. But, if we were to look at the bigger picture and our place in that tree forest from above we would be astonished to see that the tree farm is actually designed and orderly. Science will lead us to the truth, but I am afraid that the answers of that truth will not be pleasing to those wanting a natural random order. Instead it will point to God himself. At some point in the future we will find that inseparable connection of known laws and nature being the actual products of God himself. We are just not there yet. But, LDS doctrine being true depends upon that.
rob osborn
Rob:
You indicate that nature cannot produce something intelligent. However, the empirical world (as it is observed) invalidates your claim.
You are welcome to put limits on nature, but scientists have an obligation to stay with the data and to interpret observations parsimoniously. Obviously, you are uncomfortable with that scientific approach. I am not.
Also, please understand that natural selection is ALL about nonrandom design. Living beings are nonrandom and have been engineered (albeit by imperfect tinkering).
Science is devoted to the study of order and lawfulness in the universe. Scientists seek to find the predictable regularity in nature.
The critical fixation on "randomness" is a misleading stereotype of evolutionary biology. We evolutionists study design and function, which are nonrandom outcomes of selection. Each new generation of organisms is a nonrandom variation of the parental population.
Finally, I totally reject the notion that a universe run by natural operations is godless. Such thinking is entirely foreign to my being. In that context, I believe you and I speak very different languages.
Even so, we would agree that the gospel is what it claims to be. We need the atonement, the priesthood ordinances, spiritual guidance, and an eternal outlook. No LDS evolutionist would argue otherwise -- and there are many.
I am of the total belief that "nature" by itself is wholly incapable of producing anything intelligent. There is absolutely no empiracal evidence to suggest such. We need to define what we mean by "nature".
By "nature" I am speaking of things that do not think like weather patterns, gravity, lightning, sunlight, etc.
Nature as I have explained can effect already existing intelligence, but it cannot actually be the force in creating new intelligent information. What is it that we see at the microbiologic level? We see intelligent interactions and operations carrying out work according to a predesigned plan. Every once in a while there may be a slight change due to a mutation or such but that is not a driving force in creating better or more sophisticated intelligence. The many many experiments done on flys and such to study the effects of mutations have yielded undesired evolutionary results. Thus, nature is not what is the driving force in creating intelligence.
I am totally comfortable with the scientific approach when "it is done right". Observations from nature have proven time and time again scientifically that it is not capable of producing life or intelligent information. That is a fact- an actual scientific fact. What we have found however is that nature can effect already existing intelligent information found in biologic life. But there is a difference here because it is not actually nature that is found to be the producer of intelligent operations and life. No, it is observed scientifically that the producer of new intelligent information is intelligence itself.
Darwins theory of evolution is an idea based entirely off of randomness in nature effecting living things. The driving force in evolution, natural selection, is wholly dependent upon random acts of nature effecting life causing it to change. Lets quickly define "random"-
A Random event means that it is an undesigned or unplanned event which happenes with no real intentive purpose. Mutations in cells are "random" events and the only driving mechanism in darwinian evolution. There is nothing planned or designed in mutations leading to either a loss or gain of information. Thus, evolution's driving force- mutations, are a random event.
I will agree that we can both think differently about lifes origins and yet both aknowledge the atonement and the need for a Savior.
I am curious however to know what you believe to be a specific actual physical event the Creator did to bring to pass the creation. Was it scientific? What may it have been? What role did the Creator actually have in the creation and formation of life on this planet?
Rob Osborn
Rob:
To me, all existence in the universe depends upon God. Without God there is no existence. Of course, there are moments of intervention. The First Vision would be an example. Even so, I believe that pretty much all of the groundwork for creation was laid at the moment of the Big Bang. There would be little need for "hands-on" after that. But, what do I know?
As I told you before in previous posts, I hope to learn the fine grain details in Heavenly University (in the afterlife) -- I believe the course name in the catalog is "Compressed Creation in 6 Days."
Is that title a reference to 6 days of creation, or is that title just indicating the length of the course? I am dying to find out.
I think your universe would have some serious explaining to do in light of LDS doctrine. Was God and the place he lived in outside of the "big bang", or did he somehow formulate himself and all matter into existance?
I view your idea of the creation currently as Godless, unless of course you can somehow explain the above.
rob osborn
Rob:
You seem to be saying that natural mechanism implies godlessness. To me, God works through natural mechanism. I cannot envision the universe in any other way.
And, no, I cannot tell you where God was standing during the Big Bang. That is just a shortcoming I was born with.
Who caused the natural mechanisms we see to come about in the first place? Does God create the laws we see in nature or are they set in eternal stone of the which he himself is a byproduct of? It is interesting that you brought up the big bang because generally speaking, before this big bang nothing existed. So, if God caused the big bang to happen he must exist outside of the universe...right? But, our scriptures teach us that God is a part of our universe and inside our universe. I don't expect you to have any real answer here because science itself cannot really explain the big bang paradox.
To try to further understand your view, what may have God done or caused to have done through the will of his power to bring to pass the big bang? What may he have done to "load the dice" so to speak, that would have ensured us to eventually evolve and look like him with similar body parts? Or, does God just allow "nature" to run it's natural course which are destined by some law to eventually evolve human beings? Does that place God outside of the picture?
rob osborn
rob osborn
S Faux, I love your blog! I just posted on evolution, not realizing you had posted on it too! (Great minds think alike.) I see some of the commenters are already familiar with your essay, but I may be sending a few more your way. I really enjoyed your previous post reconciling Genesis with evolution.
Thanks, Mormon Heretic.
I will be continuing to post more essays on the intersections between science & religion. One field should not be against the other.
Post a Comment