Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
On Latter-day Saint Rejection of Evolution

On Latter-day Saint Rejection of Evolution

Last updated on: August 28, 2020 at 6:30 pm by Dan Peterson

On Latter-day Saint Rejection of Evolution 2020-08-28T18:30:31-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

After a long period of development, the modern naturalistic ideologue emerged.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain)

My attention was called some time back to a 2014 blog article titled “So just what do Mormons think about evolution?” According to this article, Latter-day Saints are among the least evolution-friendly religious groups in the United States. Recent discussions of Latter-day Saints and evolution prompt me to revisit that article.

I have no reason to reject it, but I think that I would like to unpack things just a bit.

The question from the Religious Landscape Survey on which it is based is formulated as follows: “Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth. Do you completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree?”

Latter-day Saints tend very noticeably to disagree with the proposition that “Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth.”

Does this mean that they tend to reject evolutionary explanations of Earth’s biosphere altogether? Perhaps. Certainly I know more than a few Latter-day Saints who do.

But I ask myself how I would be inclined to answer the question.

More on that in just a moment. First, though, permit me to say something about myself. I’m routinely accused of being anti-evolution and even of being a young-Earth creationist (i.e., of believing that the Earth was formed only a few thousand years ago). The accusation is untrue. For one thing, I have absolutely no reason to question the current estimate of the age of the Earth, which is roughly 4.54 billion years. I don’t think that I’ve ever, even as a child, believed in a “young Earth.” For another, I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Darwin’s theory (developed at roughly the same time by the almost forgotten Alfred Russel Wallace) is one of the most powerful scientific insights ever achieved.

That said, do I consider evolution to be the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth?

In one sense, Yes. Although extremely significant questions remain, it seems essential to any accurate accounting for the wide variety of organic life that we observe around us.

In another sense, No. I’m not sure that Darwinism (or anything else) has actually yet accounted for the absolute origin — the first appearance — of terrestrial life. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t done so yet, and all we have thus far is a promissory note that a naturalistic explanation will someday be found.

But this is nitpicking. I would answer No in another and more important sense, too. Let me explain:

Evolution almost invariably comes with ideological baggage. There is no particularly religious objection to relativity or quantum physics, or to Mendelian genetics, or to the germ theory of disease, or to string theory, or to plate tectonics and continental drift, or to most of the other major scientific ideas of our time. That’s because they aren’t accompanied by such “ideological baggage.”

Why is there so much Sturm und Drang surrounding neo-Darwinian evolution? It’s because evolutionary theory affects — or is thought by many to affect — human notions of our nature and our status in the universe, and of the nature of the universe itself, in very fundamental ways that are often regarded as demeaning and/or threatening. Germ theory does none of that. Nor do studies of DNA or speculations about subatomic particles.

Listen, for example, to the vocal British evangelist of atheistic evolutionism Richard Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Or consider the case of the social Darwinist Adolf Hitler, who dismissed humanity as “a ridiculous cosmic bacterium.” “I am freeing man from . . . the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called ‘conscience and morality,’” he explained.

Or — similar comments might be multiplied a thousand-fold — listen to Anthony Wallace, of the University of Pennsylvania, who predicted back in 1966 that

the evolutionary future of religion is extinction. Belief in supernatural beings and in supernatural forces that affect nature without obeying nature’s laws will erode and become only an interesting historical memory. To be sure, this event is not likely to occur in the next generation; the process will likely take several hundred years . . . but as a cultural trait, belief in supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all over the world, as a result of the increasing adequacy and diffusion of scientific knowledge . . . the process is inevitable.

Or consider this 1994 statement, from Cornell University’s William Provine:

When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reaction to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favorable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, [was] an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture.

Religious — and specifically Latter-day Saint — discomfort with evolution isn’t so much about science as such, I strongly believe, as it is about what evolutionary doctrine is sometimes thought to entail beyond biology.

Are such entailments really necessary or inevitable? Certainly some evolutionists claim that they are. But there might be another way of looking at the matter. Darwin himself wrote, in the last paragraph of the first edition of his 1859 classic On the Origin of Species, that

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

And, in a letter to Charles Darwin, the Rev. Charles Kingsley indicated that he had “gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”

Am I willing to endorse the view that the best explanation for life on earth is sheer, random, pointless coincidence? No, I’m not.

So my answer to the question of whether “Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth” would need to be nuanced. But the Religious Landscape Survey mentioned above permits no such nuance.

Uncategorized

Alfred

Charles

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Previous Post

August 28, 2020

Revision 4.10 "On the Moral Teachings of the Qur’an"

Next Post

August 28, 2020 "Some Notes on Jacob 4:14, Revelation, Canon, Covenant, and Law"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to Hebrews, without what is it impossible to please God?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Faith Sacrifice Obedience Love