Deterministic influences are no more a violation of the orthodox position on evolution than a petri dish.

Off of the top of my head, I know only one prominent ID advocate who does not believe in common descent, and he is an attorney.

ID is fundamentally a philosophical position that says that somewhere, somehow, LFW is necessary for a complete description of the biological world, and human psychology and civilization in particular, if not the evolutionary process in general.

How is that usefulness determined, and by whom? What intelligent force makes this decision?

However, we tread on very thin ice when we get to arguing about the nature of God and whether the human form is the only possible result. Mormons believe that we are in the Image of God. While the Creeds dispute this, God is always depicted as a man in popular art and literature, regardless of source. Apparently, nobody really believes in an infinite god without parts or passions, uncreate, etc.

I look at the facts: humans are indisputably the result of a long evolutionary process. Our bodies are animal bodies. Simple as that. Because of our penchant for literal interpretation of a chosen creation myth, we assume that God must look like us.

From Joseph’s first vision we learn that God has a body and Jesus does too. So far, so good. However, we don’t really know what God’s morphology really is – he could have simply shown Joseph a hologram of a form consistent with what Joseph would have expected.

Now we have a problem – evolution is a blind process with only one selection criterion – fitness to changing environments. Thus, no end result is predictable, except that in the seas, fitness drives toward streamlining of vertebrates, whether mammal or fish, etc. Cephalopods evolved on a different track and even have different (better) eye structure.

So how could God direct human evolution to get us? Well, he could have interfered and “bred” us, like we did with dogs. So the object would be to get to a primate of some kind, then breed the desired form.

This would certainly be possible, given God, but all things in nature point to a universe ruled by the laws of nature, including natural selection.

So, in my humble opinion, the mortal test bed of LDS theology merely requires mortality. The end form might not be particularly important. Since we have only one example of intelligent, self aware, God worshiping beings, we can’t be sure of anything that pertains to God.

Nobody knows what God does when he goes to work each “day”. A being who could create the universe, endowed with all the right parameters to yield the universe around us, beautifully following set of powerful laws is pretty far beyond us. So we cannot “know”.

But think on this notion: the universe had a beginning (14.5 billion years ago or so). It is expanding and big but FINITE. It is not eternal; it will suffer a heat death and go dark. All matter will become inert at absolute zero.

Therefore it is FINITE. Not eternal. But God is eternal, and so are we – he have always existed. If the universe is FINITE, then there can be an INFINITY of universes.

Therefore, the mortal form we have in this tiny speck of existence cannot be important. Resurrection will unite us with a perfected body (whatever that means). I’m content to wait to see what that form really is before I waste a lot of sleepless nights speculating on what cannot be known.

In any case there was a lot of variation in Greek thought and not all of it was Platonism. (Aristotle was a materialist, for instance as were the epicurians, stoics and others)

Steve, I’ve heard several compelling arguments that the biggest problem with EP is that they overemphasize sexual selection and tend to adopt some naive views of it. One can especially see this in their views of mating among humans where competing theories are rarely addressed. One example is that animal sexual dimophism is tied to one of the sexes being dominant. Which is a great “just so” story until you start to look at the data which suggests that it is social ingroups among sexes that often is selecting. So this is why some varieties of female hyenas have penises for instance. (There was a great Bloggingheads TV argument about this a couple of weeks ago)

Personally I think your solution is the best one I have come across yet. I did want to respond to a couple of your points.

>There are some reasons to think >that tool making and hands could be >a good solution several survival >problems and be important in the >evolution of intelligence and >upright posture to free that hands >exedra. So that part of the body >might be easy to get.

I think this is reasonable. The only real problem is there is a big jump between upright posture and tool use and the human body plan. In other words it is possible to think up many reasonable possibilities without invoking bipedal primates. For example certain species of birds show high intelligence even to the point of constructing and using tools. It is not unreasonable to speculate a highly intelligent birdlike creature could arise from such stock. Perhaps with modified wing tips of some type to perform manipulation. I am not sure the biological data supports the idea that the only possible highly intelligent form is an upright bipedal primate. And if so what of those hypothetical intelligent creatures who are not created literally in the image of God?

>But since we only have a sample >size of one (this planet) we don’t >know how likely it would be

Well I would argue on this planet there are many examples of convergent evolution. Ranging from wings to eyes to body shapes designed to go through water. But there is only one example of the human body plan evolving. And if indeed the human body plan is a strong fitness peak it might be expected to observe multiple independent evolutionary events. Similar to what we observe for the eye, wing etc.

>(However, I as evidence, I hold up >Star Trek which found humanoids all >over the Galaxy ).

I admit you make a good point .

>Humans are weird though from a >biological point of view and the >social evolution is hard to get a >grip on. I actually have a couple >of Blogs on this at BCC (here and >here), but we have to be careful.

I agree with all of the above. I was just trying to point out monogamy is not the only successful mating strategy. Indeed it is not the predominate one observed in nature.
And many mating strategies are not compatible with the plan of salvation. Including ones used by some of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

Plus I am just using mating strategy as an example. Our behavior is profoundly affected in many ways by our biology. But there are many behaviors that may be evolutionarily beneficial but are not compatible with the plan of salvation. For example male lions will kill the cubs of the previous male so the female lions will go into estrous. It seems it is just not enough simply to have the form of a man. But also have to some extent the same social structure. And social structure is driven to some extent by biology. The more specific and restricted your requirements for being made in Gods image. The unlikelier it is the human body is the result of convergent evolution. Would it fit in LDS theology to have beings who look just like us and are as intelligent as us but through a deep seated biological imperative. The males of the species kill the children of their new mates?

>You have to remember, though, there >are two things outlining my project >arguing that that evolutionary >biology is completely compatible >with Faith. One is that evolution >through natural selection gave us >the biological world in which we >live including the human body. The >other is that the restoration is >true, including the fact that our >body is like God’s in important >ways. These two ‘facts’ form the >focal points of the ellipse I’m >trying to create.

This works great as long as you take it for granted the faith under discussion is true that is an accurate depiction of how the universe really works. It does not work so great if you are trying to decide that very question.

But all this being said if indeed the human body is the result of convergent evolution. It does solve the problem of evolution being undirected and Man being made in the image of God. I am just not sure it is reasonable based on the data we have to argue Mans body plan is inevitable. And it is particularly unreasonable to argue it is the “only” body plan possible for intelligent beings. Can moral intelligent beings not made in the image of God fit in LDS theology and obtain exaltation? If so what then is so special about literally being made in the image of God?

All the Best,
Uncertain

There are some reasons to think that tool making and hands could be a good solution several survival problems and be important in the evolution of intelligence and upright posture to free that hands exedra. So that part of the body might be easy to get.

But since we only have a sample size of one (this planet) we don’t know how likely it would be (However, I as evidence, I hold up Star Trek which found humanoids all over the Galaxy ).

Humans are weird though from a biological point of view and the social evolution is hard to get a grip on. I actually have a couple of Blogs on this at BCC (here and here), but we have to be careful. Evolutionary Psychology is considered a bit of a disaster because of their “Just-so Stories”(although they are catching on and rethinking their field and we might see a more maturing science down the road), but there is good work being done on mate-preference issues such as you bring up in many social species.

You have to remember, though, there are two things outlining my project arguing that that evolutionary biology is completely compatible with Faith. One is that evolution through natural selection gave us the biological world in which we live including the human body. The other is that the restoration is true, including the fact that our body is like God’s in important ways. These two ‘facts’ form the focal points of the ellipse I’m trying to create.

And I find the two completely compatible and we needn’t compromise on either point. You do raise relevant thoughtful questions, the trouble is I really don’t have good answers yet.

Michael, interesting point, from what I’ve read (and we are stepping far outside my area of expertise), the influences of Greek extended to both the Islamic and Jewish scholarship of the era. The learned tended to read the same texts and be influenced by the same groups. Scholarship after the 13th Century was founded upon reading the Greeks and Roman Classics. I think all three Abrahamic religions where cross fertilizing each other as the Great Chain of Being was being solidified.

For example due to constraints imposed by physical laws there is only a small number of ways to construct a functioning wing. Hence bats and birds both evolved completely independently similar wing shapes. So although evolution may be unguided due to limitations imposed by how the universe works there is a small number of solutions to powered flight and it is likely these solutions will appear over and over again as evolution proceeds. Even though the evolutionary process itself is undirected. Something similar is observed in genetic algorithms that attempt to imitate the evolutionary process. Even though they are highly stochastic the same fitness “peaks” will be found over and over again (given certain conditions).

If I understand correctly SteveP would argue the human form is similar to the basic wing shape. That is due to inherent constraints caused by how the universe is put together the human form is inevitable it is a strong “peak” in the evolutionary fitness landscape (like powered flight) and given enough time it will inevitably evolve even though the evolutionary process itself is unguided.

I think this is a innovative idea I do have a couple of reservations. First as far as I am aware there is very little evidence the human body plan corresponds to a strong peak on the evolutionary fitness landscape. There are a number of examples of wings evolving independently ranging from birds to bats to insects but no examples as far as I am aware of the human body plan evolving independently. Not every adaptation produced by evolution is necessarily convergent.

Second it might be plausible for example to postulate intelligence is such a strong enhancer of fitness it will evolve multiple times. But the more specific you get with your requirements the more unlikely this becomes. It might be plausible to claim intelligence with some kind of manipulation digits will occur multiple times in evolution. But to claim the human body plan (i.e. upright naked bipedial primates) is inevitable or strongly likely is a dicier proposition. Are toenails for example required to be in Gods image? How about two arms and two legs? Would a human level intelligence octopus still qualify as made in the image of God? Suppose an asteroid never killed off the dinosaurs would an upright bipedial primate be inevitable in a world dominated by dinosaurs? Would an intelligent species arising from a dinosaur lineage still qualify as being made in Gods image?

Monogamy is by far not the norm in the animal kingdom. For that matter a number of primates are very promiscuous Chimpanzee for example or Bonobos. What about evolution not just of the physical form but social practices? Consider in LDS theology faithfulness to your partner is very important. Indeed exaltation is in part marriage for eternity to your chose mate. Now suppose there is a hypothetical species in which the body plan is very similar to ours but in which the male mates with as many females as possible however he forms no lasting bonds and the female is left to her own devices (similar to many examples in nature). The LDS view of eternal families does not seem compatible with such an arrangement. In which marriage is a completely foreign concept. Can Bonobo’s get married how about mice? Does convergent evolution also act to produce hairless upright primates with biologically derived mating systems within acceptable bounds?

The fundamental objection is the examples of convergent evolution we have in nature will only take you so far. And when you start arguing that a very specific body plan and set of social practices are the result of convergent evolution you start going beyond what the data shows in nature. A bat has wings like a bird and an insect but it is not a bird nor an insect there are still many important differences.

(Sorry for the long response this subject fascinates me)

All the Best,
Uncertain