On the 'Theory of Evolution' vs. the 'Testified-upon Creation'

By RE CASTEL

The debate between the 'theory of evolution' and the 'testified-upon creation' continues enraged. The debating parties can't seem to find the points of argument whereby to finally settle the debate. So, perhaps we should try here, no matter how biased it may be. Let us just try to ensure here that the bias is towards the more rational, more logical and more beautiful picture.

Let us now, therefore, identify the salient points of argument from both parties in the debate and what they mean for both parties in the debate. Principally, we have the current items of proof. Specifically, we have the fossils and we have the scriptures.

In the former we have a story purportedly wrought in fossils under rocks and sediments, and the scientists have been trying to put the story together since Darwin. Everyone seems welcome in putting the story together. There is actually the finding of the fossils and then the putting them together. The making of the fossilized story is hugely an on-going effort and very exciting. Notably, the 'missing links' have been a long time coming into the story.

In the latter we have the story wrought in words on scriptures and everyone is already welcome to read the story if they really care to read it.

And so, what are the implications from the stories presented by the items of proof?

On the one hand, atheistic science presents an assurance that eventually death will come and all the dead will remain dead forever. Atheistic science even claims that we have an entropic cosmos that is destined towards "heat death." If all there is to it is as the atheistic men of science say, then this existence is all for naught. And so, atheistic science in reality has nothing to offer. And therefore according to atheistic science our efforts to be good are all for nothing.

On the other hand, theistic religion presents the hope of a resurrection into immortality. In the LDS faith that hope includes the promise of godhood for man, which means the perfect happiness for man similar to the perfect happiness that God enjoys in an endlessly growing cosmos. Now, this is clearly something worth all our efforts to be truly good.

The idea that Adam was an immortal son of God in the garden seems to have escaped a lot of people. This idea suggests that it does not matter at all that there are lots of fossils of ape-like/man-like creatures, because these can be explained a number of ways without the necessity of linking their prior existence to the family of Adam who was an immortal son of God in the garden.

If God used the life-forms that existed on earth in the billions of years before Adam merely to mount organic droppings for eventual use as fuel in the temporal trial of the faith of the human family that He deems worthy of immortality and eternal life, then that actually looks infinitely better than the atheists' proponed irreversible death-end in the theory of evolution and the theory of an entropic cosmos.

Now, any consideration by an LDS that Adam was a product of evolution and that God used the evolution process to bring forth Adam is irrational and illogical. The idea of an LDS who believes in the evolution of Adam from the apes is irrational and illogical. A basic LDS doctrine is that God has an immortal and perfect body of flesh and bones. So, why would a God with an immortal and perfect body of flesh and bones need evolution to create an immortal Adam in the garden? The Lord Jesus had his navel, then why not Adam his navel off an immortal when the scriptures declare that Adam was an immortal son of God?

According to LDS doctrine there was no death for Adam and Eve before the Fall. But that does not mean that plants did not vegetate and animals did not defecate before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Certainly, plants shed their leaves and grew, fruits and seeds fell on the ground, and animals shed their skins and multiplied in number, especially out in the lone and dreary world beyond the garden. The idea that Adam and Eve were not subject to death simply means that they were 'healthy' and were obedient to the law of the garden and were sustained by the tree of life – although in their innocence they obviously didn't know how to multiply before the Fall.

The six thousand years of mankind is a story that began with Adam and Eve in the garden, as testified by the prophets and holy men who lived and sacrificed their lives for the truth that they bore. Unlike the atheistic men of science who theorized evolution and other similar death-assurance theories that mean no more than mankind's vain gain, the prophets and holy men testified and sealed with their blood their witness regarding the creation and their witness of the assurance of the hope of a resurrection into immortality and eternal happiness that mean in the truest sense mankind's eternal gain.

The 'theory of evolution' is not even a thousand years old – and Darwin never saw the ape-to-man evolution firsthand. Religion's 'doctrine of creation and resurrection into immortality' is six thousand years old – and prophets and believers saw firsthand and recorded having seen the resurrection of the Lord and that also of all the dead who rose from the graves.

Two hundred years of Darwin's theorized science saying that mankind evolved from the aminos and the apes against six thousand years of mankind's testified religion saying there is a God who fathered all mankind and who has given mankind the assurance of a resurrection into immortality – so, which statistical data is better?

The idea of evolution of life on earth is given as an extra-ordinary hypothesis and an extra-ordinary product of human imagination. But that is all it is – a hypothesis and an imagination – because none of the atheistic men of science can claim to have been there when things supposedly evolved.

But the idea of the creation of mankind as offspring of God and the promised resurrection into immortality is given as a testimony and a witness of facts sealed by the blood of martyrs. And that is what it is – a testimony and a witness of facts – by men who experienced or saw the occurrences.

Thus, on the one hand, we have the atheistic scientists with their theories because they managed to find the fossils, and they sat and talked to the bones face-to-bones, and they managed to guess what the bones purportedly were telling them... On the other hand, we have the prophets with their testimonies because they managed to find God, and they walked and talked with God face-to-face, and they were shown visions of the creation of the earth and its inhabitants, and were even shown visions of the creation of worlds without number...

And so, let us ask: Which idea has the better position as a statement of facts? Is it the position of the theorizing imaginations of Darwinians? Or is it the position of the eye-witness testimony of the prophets?

Now, in the consummate analysis, what really matters is the answer to the question regarding the purpose of human existence. And so, we ask: Which idea offers the best picture of the purpose of human existence – evolution or creation?

Finally, let us ask: Which one of the conflicting ideas has the better prospect of finally showing proof of its argument? Is it the evolution idea whose proponents can never go back to the past and observe the evolutionary process firsthand? Or is it the creation idea that awaits the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in a Second Coming?

Clearly, the creation idea has a better chance of proving itself once the Lord's work of creation is capped by the Lord's work of the resurrection of all mankind.

On the other hand, it is a foregone conclusion for the evolution idea. Obviously, it is altogether impossible for the evolution idea to find its confirmation because there is no way any of us can go back to the past and see evolution in progress; no one will ever see the past of the actual birthing of the Cro-Magnons, the Neanderthals, and the like, towards modern man. The fossils can never be convincing proof of the evolution idea. The fossils are mere bones, mere dried leftovers, and too dead at that. So, the evolutionists' ideas regarding dead bones, dead humankind, and, ultimately, that of a dead universe in complete entropy, are just all too grossly dead and improbable to support the evolution idea.

The creation idea has the better chance of proving itself, even to all of us, when the promised resurrection is fulfilled – because the suggestion is that all of us will be there when it happens and we will know for sure the truth about the creation, and furthermore even the truth regarding the fossils.

And thus, the verdict for now seems to be that the fossils are done-in, while the scriptures live-on and await their fulfillment.