The theory of intelligent design is, simply put, the idea that this world is too perfectly designed for there to be no designer. The theory comes from what’s called the Watchmaker Analogy, put forth by William Paley in 1802. The idea is that if you walked into the woods and found a pocket watch, you would assume someone designed that pocket watch. Due to the complexity and clear design of the pocket watch, you would not assume it just appeared there by coincidence.
Of course, it’s more complex than that. Before you say, “Well you would assume a designer because you’ve seen a pocket watch before,” well, sure. That’s not the point. The point is that things that appear to have been designed usually have a designer. If it makes you feel better, insert “clearly designed foreign object” instead of pocket watch.
Intelligent design gets a tough rap in the scientific community. In scientific circles, they scoff at this idea. They say, scientifically, who is the designer? The ridicule continues from there.
There is one argument from scientists against the theory of intelligent design that I’d like to discuss here. Scientists who believe in the theory of evolution and oppose intelligent design make this argument:
They say that –
“If there is an intelligent designer, why would that intelligent designer create things that seem to not have a purpose?”
To be funny, and to lighten the mood, we will use the example of male nipples. Why would an intelligent designer give males nipples when they serve no purpose?
Proponents of intelligent design would respond, “Just because we don’t know the purpose, doesn’t mean there is none.”
This results in escalated scoffing from evolutionary scientists. They say, “That is unscientific. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say something has an intelligent designer, then when asked why there would be pointless designs say we don’t know the purpose of those designs. That is unscientific as it is untestable and can’t be proven either way.”
This goes back to what is “scientific” in terms of the scientific method, etc.
The theory of evolution is that all species have evolved through a process called natural selection. There is ample evidence to appear that the theory of evolution is true. See my post What the Theory of Evolution is Missing. Natural selection is basically the idea that the strongest survive, they breed, and so the strongest traits in a species will survive and be passed on.
Of course, it’s not that simple.
So, here’s the thing.
If an evolutionary proponent is asked, “Why did natural selection result in males with nipples? How did nipples help man survive?”
The response would be, “Natural selection doesn’t guarantee everything is related to survival. There is some randomness.”
What is the difference between the intelligent design defense and the evolution defense?
What’s the difference between:
Intelligent designer
If we don’t understand the design, doesn’t mean there is no purpose.
And
Evolution and natural selection
Not every trait is for the purpose of survival, there is some randomness.
Where is the difference? These are both ‘you can’t have it both ways’ arguments.
Is there something I’m missing here? Is this not, essentially, the same argument? Is this not the same thing?
Ultimately, the root of criticism of the theory of intelligent design comes down to one thing: belief in God. That’s what it’s all about. A lot is thrown around about “unscientific” and blah blah. Please define “scientific.” Cool, thank you. Now I’ll find 10 different definitions of scientific from 10 different scientists.
I’ve elaborated more on the “God issue” in science in this post. Science and religion will always be in an unwarranted battle until the true scientist – the one who set this all up, designed it, created it, organized it, and sent us here – comes down and explains it all to us. I welcome that day.
Scientists put sugar water outside of a beehive every day at 4:00pm and found that the bees soon started coming out of their hives for the sugar water at 4:00pm every day. The bees did this even when there was no longer any sugar water left out for them.
Therefore, bees perceive time.
But some said, “Hold on, what if the bees are measuring the angle of the sun.”
So they did the experiment in the dark. The bees still came out at 4:00pm.
Therefore, bees perceive time.
But…some said, “Hold on, what if the bees are measuring the heat from the sun?”
These back and forths happened repeatedly until the experiment was eventually performed underground in a salt mine.
But…some said, “What if the bees are measuring the rotation of the Earth?”
How do we prove that bees perceive time?
Then, a scientist did the exact same experiment, not in a salt mine, but in Paris. Then that scientist flew the bees to New York City. The bees left the hive at 10:00am because they had jetlag.
This proved that bees perceive time… I think? (Maybe bees have an internal clock completely separate from our “time.” Do bees, in this case, perceive time “more” than I do because I don’t think I could be that precise…. But I digress). I’m not smart enough to think of another, “What if bees were doing this,” scenario, but what this did make me think about is how faulty our human logic is. Almost anything can be proven or disproven. What do we really know…about anything?
With all our science, logic, and knowledge, we still basically know nothing. Our very own bodies are a mystery. We still don’t know how the pyramids were built. There are theories, of course, but we’ll never really know until it is revealed to us. I’m amazed at the pompous ignorance of our generation. Our generation believes that because we can Google something we’re the smartest generation to ever live on the earth, while most of us can’t begin to explain how “Google” even works.
This story just made me think of the frailty of our own brilliance. It’s hard to prove anything and we’re really not as smart as we all think. That’s all.
I’ve heard of the “Adam-God Theory” but never looked into it. Until recently, I really didn’t know what exactly it referred to. Here is my research into the Adam-God theory for those interested and especially for those who may have concerns about this theory and its history in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.
Before I begin, almost all my thoughts come from this link:
It was a great resource on this topic and I recommend it if you want to learn more.
If you want a quick, short video that sums up the whole history of the Adam-God theory, watch this video:
Now, my thoughts.
The Adam-God theory is the theory that Adam and God the Father are the same person. This theory was mentioned by Brigham Young.
First – Adam is not God the Father. Adam is not who we pray to. This does not fit the teachings of the scriptures, does not fit modern revelation, is not a doctrine of the restored gospel. So why are we talking about it, you ask?
Second – Yes, Brigham Young did make some bold statements about Adam being God. He also made countless statements contradicting that statement. Brigham Young was a convert and a prophet. Try to imagine the dichotomy of those positions. Try to imagine someone a few years into the faith trying to lead the entire church. Is it so shocking that there were erroneous statements made, especially when we consider and understand the personality and boldness of the prophet who led the saints across the rugged wilderness of the West?
Third – Because Brigham Young made incorrect statements does not mean he was a false prophet. It means he was learning line upon line, and he made false statements. He has made statements to try to help us, the people of the church, reconcile some of his more questionable comments. For example, when speaking generally about who Adam was and proposing some thoughts about Adam, Brigham started by saying, “I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare….I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.. (Brigham Young, Oct 8, 1851). If it does not concern our welfare, don’t get too hung up on it. The church was young and growing when Brigham was prophet. God has always worked through us, mortals, to fulfill His works. This has always resulted in fallibility. Brigham Young was a prophet, even if he made mistakes in the thousands of public discourses he gave during his learning period as a prophet/convert.
Fourth – Because prophets are fallible does not mean we cannot trust and follow them. As The Church has grown out of its infancy, it has strengthened itself in countless ways. One of those strengths has become the checks and balances of the church organization. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in any declaration of doctrine. President Nelson speaks hundreds of times a year. Not every word from his mouth (in my opinion) is scripture. It is guidance and direction from God’s anointed prophet, yes, but not scripture. But when President Nelson, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve sign their names to a declaration, it becomes binding guidance on doctrine, church policy, etc. Such was the case with “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” for example.
Now, the statement made by Brigham that when Adam and Eve came to the Garden of Eden they already had celestial, resurrected bodies is interesting. I more think they came with perfect bodies as they came directly from the Father and hadn’t yet been corrupted by the fall, not that they were necessarily resurrected bodies yet. Celestial, maybe, resurrected, I don’t think so. That’s all I will say on this matter, though, to support my point earlier that things that distract from our salvation should be discussed with caution. I haven’t done enough research, pondering, or praying to comment on this with much confidence and would hate for my children 150 years from now to claim I believed Adam was already resurrected when put in the Garden of Eden. See how these small comments can be blown out of proportion? Grateful I’m not a prophet.
Another thought – the eternal nature of the plan of happiness is not something we can begin to comprehend. If it ultimately distracts us from our current efforts towards salvation, we should tread with ultimate caution. Such is the thinking about if Adam lived on another planet before he came here and countless other thought experiments that might distract from what is important, which is, Jesus Christ performed the ultimate atoning sacrifice for my sins. He died so that I can live. He suffered so I can be forgiven and can live with God, my Father, again. All other questions, while interesting and can expand our minds and thinking, if they distract from the ultimate source of our salvation – the Plan of Salvation and Christ’s personal role in it for us – should be avoided.
Those are my thoughts on this from my research. Here are some final items to really, I hope, put this theory and any issues involved with it, to rest.
As mentioned, Brigham contradicted himself many times on the idea that Adam was God. While he mentioned the idea a couple times in public, there are many other instances of Brigham Young speaking where he clearly separated Adam and God the Father as two separate individuals.
BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson sums it up well:
“Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch…. A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called “Adam-God theory.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don’t; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here…. For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and…the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.”
“As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young’s successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.
One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:
‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.‘
In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church’s official position on Adam-God:
‘We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.‘”
Other statements by future general authorities refuting Brigham Young’s opinions:
Bruce R. McConkie – “What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings of the Standard Works.”
And Brigham Young himself – “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. … Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”
Finally, while some might consider everything said here to be a sign that the church changes and is “wrong,” I would completely refute that. The church is changing. The church is growing. The church is living.
Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 is Christ speaking and reads “And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.”
While so many would criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for changing, the Lord describes it as living. The only living church on the face of the earth. This is a power of Christ’s church- not a weakness.
No Coincidences 