A Thought on the Theory of Evolution
Over the weekend I had a thought regarding the theory of evolution, where evolutionists promote the idea that humans somehow descended from ape-like ancestors.
My brother's dog had puppies and my daughter asked about why the "dad" wasn't there, which led into how quickly animal babies develop and grow and become self-sufficient. It was from this that I later had the thought that there seems to be a major error in the evolutionist's theory.
First, I believe God created species so they can evolve. Not from one species to another, but to develop, progress, and become better. This is evident from many documented studies. There is actual proof that a species can evolve and develop, improving their ability to cope with the environment.
Natural selection is also well documented. Traits and characteristics that do not help tend to be discarded with future generations. In a similar vein, those traits and characteristics that would hurt the survival of the species also tend to disappear. The common term is "survival for the fittest."
Where there is no proof is evolution from one totally different species to another.
Because people, including most scientists, tend to only understand things if there is a beginning and end, science--generally speaking--wants to establish a beginning. From that beginning, everything eventually evolves. Somehow evolutionists believe from the simplest lifeforms, more complex ones develop. They pick out patterns of development within various species over time and assume that there must have been some evolution to higher, more complex life from the simple.
But, our human minds like to pick out patterns where none may exist.
And, there has yet to be any proof that one species can evolve into another. So, there must have been hundreds of millions or billions of years of evolution that occurred.
While there may be some species that do dramatically change over many generations, the changes are usually adaptive so the species can better survive.
Which comes to the problem I thought of.
If the theory of evolution were correct, how is it that the dominant species (humans) of the planet came into being when it takes most babies close to a year before they can walk, a few years before that infant grows to be able to (somewhat) do things on their own, and several years before that could possibly (although unlikely) even survive on their own?
Human babies, unlike every other animal on the planet, take years to develop and years to become self-sufficient where they can take care of themselves. Human babies are a great drain on resources. They take a great amount of time, effort, energy, strength, and commitment to raise to where they can contribute to the family.
In the terms of survival of the fittest, this "evolutionary" trait of young who are so helpless for so many years would have been quickly eradicated in favor of quickly developed young. In the aspect of the animal kingdom, there is no value to this trait.
I'm sure the evolutionists and scientists have their reasonings and "educated" guesses, but they really cannot justify it using their theories. It just doesn't make sense.
However, if the world was created for the off-spring of God to come, receive bodies, and to be tested it becomes more understandable.
I think the creation of the world went through what we might call stages of development as it progressed to a point where it could support human life. How long these stages lasted we won't really know until the Millennium. But, I think they were necessary for the earth to get to point where it could support more advanced, complex, and intelligent forms of life. The "evolution" of humanoid-like animals, including monkeys and apes, was probably an indicator of how well the planet would be able to support human life.
I think the idea (I believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught this) that life was essentially transplanted from other planets is the most likely explanation. As the atmosphere and environment progressed to a point where humans could live, then humans (Adam and Eve) were brought.
When we look at the mortal experience as being a testing, or proving, ground for God's children to learn to choose between right and wrong, and to learn to become more like God, then it makes sense that human young take a long time to grow and develop.
As a parent of four children, there is a lot I have learned, and I realize there is a lot I still don't know. One of the lessons I'm learning is if we are to become like our Heavenly Father then becoming a parent is a great teaching tool. It would not be such a valuable experience if kids grew up as quickly as animal babies. Parents can learn many of the Christ-like traits and characteristics--such as unconditional love, patience, kindness, selflessness, humility, teachability, etc.--through the raising of children. And, when we go to our Father for guidance and instruction and follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit, we learn to better submit our will to the Father's.
We can progress (somewhat) as a single person, but our progress is limited. I think progress is probably even more limited for men who are single than women. Progress can really be best made only after getting married (sealed in the temple) and raising a family.
I didn't get married until my mid-thirties, so I had a few years as a single adult. I thought I was making some progress. Now, I think the comparison is more like as a single adult I was on a very long, slowly sloping incline, where the upwards slope was often imperceptible. After getting married and having kids that slope becomes a steep incline at times, requiring actual climbing to get somewhere. There are occasional places to rest, but the upwards movement is faster that being single. At times it seems like there is no progress, but when I can look around I can see that with my sweet wife, and our children, we have made much more progress than I could have as a single person.
And that is where the real evolution takes place as we learn to evolve to become more like our Savior and our Heavenly Father.
My brother's dog had puppies and my daughter asked about why the "dad" wasn't there, which led into how quickly animal babies develop and grow and become self-sufficient. It was from this that I later had the thought that there seems to be a major error in the evolutionist's theory.
First, I believe God created species so they can evolve. Not from one species to another, but to develop, progress, and become better. This is evident from many documented studies. There is actual proof that a species can evolve and develop, improving their ability to cope with the environment.
Natural selection is also well documented. Traits and characteristics that do not help tend to be discarded with future generations. In a similar vein, those traits and characteristics that would hurt the survival of the species also tend to disappear. The common term is "survival for the fittest."
Where there is no proof is evolution from one totally different species to another.
Because people, including most scientists, tend to only understand things if there is a beginning and end, science--generally speaking--wants to establish a beginning. From that beginning, everything eventually evolves. Somehow evolutionists believe from the simplest lifeforms, more complex ones develop. They pick out patterns of development within various species over time and assume that there must have been some evolution to higher, more complex life from the simple.
But, our human minds like to pick out patterns where none may exist.
And, there has yet to be any proof that one species can evolve into another. So, there must have been hundreds of millions or billions of years of evolution that occurred.
While there may be some species that do dramatically change over many generations, the changes are usually adaptive so the species can better survive.
Which comes to the problem I thought of.
If the theory of evolution were correct, how is it that the dominant species (humans) of the planet came into being when it takes most babies close to a year before they can walk, a few years before that infant grows to be able to (somewhat) do things on their own, and several years before that could possibly (although unlikely) even survive on their own?
Human babies, unlike every other animal on the planet, take years to develop and years to become self-sufficient where they can take care of themselves. Human babies are a great drain on resources. They take a great amount of time, effort, energy, strength, and commitment to raise to where they can contribute to the family.
In the terms of survival of the fittest, this "evolutionary" trait of young who are so helpless for so many years would have been quickly eradicated in favor of quickly developed young. In the aspect of the animal kingdom, there is no value to this trait.
I'm sure the evolutionists and scientists have their reasonings and "educated" guesses, but they really cannot justify it using their theories. It just doesn't make sense.
However, if the world was created for the off-spring of God to come, receive bodies, and to be tested it becomes more understandable.
I think the creation of the world went through what we might call stages of development as it progressed to a point where it could support human life. How long these stages lasted we won't really know until the Millennium. But, I think they were necessary for the earth to get to point where it could support more advanced, complex, and intelligent forms of life. The "evolution" of humanoid-like animals, including monkeys and apes, was probably an indicator of how well the planet would be able to support human life.
I think the idea (I believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught this) that life was essentially transplanted from other planets is the most likely explanation. As the atmosphere and environment progressed to a point where humans could live, then humans (Adam and Eve) were brought.
When we look at the mortal experience as being a testing, or proving, ground for God's children to learn to choose between right and wrong, and to learn to become more like God, then it makes sense that human young take a long time to grow and develop.
As a parent of four children, there is a lot I have learned, and I realize there is a lot I still don't know. One of the lessons I'm learning is if we are to become like our Heavenly Father then becoming a parent is a great teaching tool. It would not be such a valuable experience if kids grew up as quickly as animal babies. Parents can learn many of the Christ-like traits and characteristics--such as unconditional love, patience, kindness, selflessness, humility, teachability, etc.--through the raising of children. And, when we go to our Father for guidance and instruction and follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit, we learn to better submit our will to the Father's.
We can progress (somewhat) as a single person, but our progress is limited. I think progress is probably even more limited for men who are single than women. Progress can really be best made only after getting married (sealed in the temple) and raising a family.
I didn't get married until my mid-thirties, so I had a few years as a single adult. I thought I was making some progress. Now, I think the comparison is more like as a single adult I was on a very long, slowly sloping incline, where the upwards slope was often imperceptible. After getting married and having kids that slope becomes a steep incline at times, requiring actual climbing to get somewhere. There are occasional places to rest, but the upwards movement is faster that being single. At times it seems like there is no progress, but when I can look around I can see that with my sweet wife, and our children, we have made much more progress than I could have as a single person.
And that is where the real evolution takes place as we learn to evolve to become more like our Savior and our Heavenly Father.
Comments
Post a Comment