If you can accept the thoughts of a skeptic, I can try to shed some light on the matter. I'm not a Bible believer, nor even a UB believer in any very robust sense, but I do find the UB's ideas about evolution intriguing.
I think the UB is more compatible with "Intelligent Design" than Creationism. A lot of people don't understand the difference, or even think there is one, but here's a stab at it:
Creationism is opposed to evolution. Evolution implies the common ancestry of all species. Evolution is the idea that species arose from other species. This means that, for any two organisms in the world today, of any species whatever, if you go back far enough, they have common ancestors. Creationism denies this, claiming instead that species, or possibly groups of species were specially created.
Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution. That is, the ID believer is not committed to denying the common ancestry of all species. Indeed, Michael Behe, the man who started the Intelligent Design phenomenon, believes in the common ancestry of all species. The ID theorist, however, does not believe that you can get evolution by means of random mutations and natural selection alone. The ID theorist argues that the evolutionary process had to be engineered, and that there is in fact observable evidence of that.
I'm not going into the arguments for and against these positions. I'm just clarifying what the positions are.
The UB says that "all planetary life" was implanted on Urantia 550,000,000 years ago in three marine locations. The same life forms were implanted at all three locations. These life forms were, in fact, formulated on this planet, to evolve under conditions here. After that, life was allowed to evolve. This is an Intelligent Design scenario. Since there were three implantations, it's not strictly true that all organisms today have common ancestors, but that's a mere technicality.
I hope that helps.
Ubizmo
_________________ Todd
|