Creationism vs. Natural Selection
I believe in both creationism and evolution. No one can deny that evolution/natural selection occurs in our world to some extent. It's a fact that the overproduction of a species, a species' struggle for existence, and the variation of individuals within the species all inescapably cause unequal reproductive success. This, in turn, results in adaptation, also known as natural selection. I do not, however, believe that evolution is how man, or other living organisms originated.
The First Presidency of The Church of Jeses Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement as a response to evolution in 1909:
""God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian"learned," as we are told, "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians"when making this important announcement was not voicing a mere opinion, a theory derived from his researches into the occult lore of that ancient people. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people." (The First Presidency of the Church, From Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 7581)
I like the point that William Jennings Bryan, former United States Secretary of State made in response to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.
"[H]ow does the evolutionist explain the eye when he leaves God out? The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes were unknown. And since the eye is a universal possession among living things the evolutionist guesses that it came into being not by design or by act of God but just happened, and how did it happen? A piece of pigment, or, as some say, a freckle appeared upon the skin of an animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of the sun upon that spot and when the little animal felt the heat on that spot it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. The increased heat irritated the skin so the evolutionists guess, and a nerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye! But this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece of pigment or freckle soon afterward and just in the right place in order to give the animal two eyes. And, according to the evolutionist, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so the leg came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animal without legs was wiggling along on its belly one day when it discovered a wart, and it was in the right place to be used to aid it in locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart, and use finally developed it into a leg. And then another wart and another leg, at the proper time by accident and accidentally in the proper place. How long did the "light waves" have to play on the skin before the eyes came out? The evolutionist is very deliberate; he is long on time. He would certainly give the eye thousands of years, if not millions, in which to develop; but how could he be sure that the light waves played all the time in one place or played in the same place generation after generation until the development was complete? And why did the light waves quit playing when two eyes were perfected? Why did they not keep on playing until there were eyes all over the body? Why do they not play today, so that we may see eyes in process of development? And if the light waves created the eyes, why did they not create them strong enough to bear the light? Why did the light waves makes eyes and then make eyelids to keep the light out of the eyes?" (William Jennings Bryan, In His Image, [1922] 97-100).
Charles Darwin himself confessed that "the eye with all its inimitable controversiescould have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Quoted by Bert Thompson in The Case for the Existence of God, 2003.) Sir Isaac Newton said, "In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."
I share these same feelings that Newton had at the wonderment of the human body. I feel as the psalmist did when he wrote, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalms 139:14).
Elder Douglas L. Callister shared the following story in his devotional address at BYU-Idaho on November 8, 2005:
"One of my brothers is a physician. During earlier years in medical school he was assigned to study anatomy in companionship with an agnostic. Their education eventually required that the two of them carefully examine and dissect a cadaver. They studied the incredibly complex, yet harmonious systems of the body: the lymphatic, skeletal, circulatory, waste elimination, reproductive, neurological and immune systems. They noted the body's power to correct its own deficiencies, and to send healing antibodies to the place of injury or infection. They learned of over 150 trillion cells within the body. If set end-to-end, they would encircle the earth over 200 times. Today they would learn of over one billion miles of DNA in one human body. They learned of a brain bathed in fluid which continually receives signals from 130 million light receptors in the eyes, 24,000 hearing receptors in the ears, 10,000 taste buds, and hundreds of thousands of receptors in the skin, with specialized commission to recognize touch, vibration, cold, heat and pain. My brother and his friend became silent as they contemplated the miracle they were examining. Sensing the moment was right, my brother challenged: "Coincidence is a marvelous thing, isn't it?" The agnostic responded, "You win.""
Some people use "comparative anatomy" to support the idea that all living creatures have the same evolutionary history, that they share the same origin. "Comparative anatomy" finds similarities in the body structures (such as skeletal systems) of different species, thus suggesting "homology", or common ancestry. (Campbell, 2004, Essential Biology.)
A statement by Elder Boyd K. Packer challenges this idea of common origin.
"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind." (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.) In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage. This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don't show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed. Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?" (Boyd K. Packer, "The Pattern of Our Parentage," Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66.)
To me, the kind of evolution that should be in the forefront of our minds is man's evolving into a more Christlike, Godlike being; the evolution of our spirits. This is the purpose of life.
"Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and eons, of evolving into a God." (The First Presidency of the Church, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 7581.)
President Hinckley said this:
"I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator." (President Gordon B. Hinckley, "God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear," Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5.)