Where are these rankings of which you speak, Bob? Are there Topps Bubble Gum Blogger cards I am not aware of? If so, could you get me a 1997 Nate Oman card? That thing’s got to be worth bank!

I don’t believe that is the stand of the Church. That’s back to God once was a man.

Back to? When did we ever leave it? Just because the church doesn’t actively teach it, Bob, doesn’t mean we don’t believe it. It’s pretty hard to justify the idea of eternal progression without this concept.

If God is a watchmaker, then Evolutions mistakes are his mistakes.

There is no God that makes mistakes in Mormonism.

Re: 144, does the letting the “evolutionary ‘choices’ to play out” place the Creator in the “divine watchmaker” category—who created the universe, wound it up, then left it to run on its own? Just wondering about the implications of that theory.

The fact that apples have fallen downwards from trees 4.6 bazillion times in the past offers no indisputable logical reason to trust that it will happen on the 4.6 bazillion-and-one-th time.

Very good point. I suppose my response to that would be that in that case, anyone appealing to science needs to admit it is faith-based and little better than any other religion. If they don’t want to admit that there is faith involved, they need to treat it as what it is originally meant: a method of discovery, and no more. (The route I prefer.)

Krizarro – (I think comic-book-villianess is great!) I really like your analogy to agency. It seems to me that if God works with natural laws, he would be more of a guide than one who literally builds atom upon atom. He would just nudge the process of evolution the way He wanted it to go.