Can Mormons believe in evolution? This question has been hotly debated in the LDS Church ever since Darwin’s theory found its way across the Atlantic and entered the American consciousness (for a historical summary see Duane Jeffery, “Seers, Savants and Evolution”, Dialogue 8 (1973):41-75). Mormon prophets have claimed that all truth is included in the gospel, and that many key figures in history were inspired by the Spirit. While most Mormons would likely list Galileo, Newton and Einstein as examples of such inspired individuals, few Latter-day Saints would include Darwin.

Church leaders have long been divided over the issue of evolution and have never come to a doctrinal consensus regarding it. On the one hand, General Authorities such as James Talmage, B.H. Roberts, John Widtsoe and Joseph Merrill argued for at least a limited acceptance of the scientific evidence for evolution. On the other, some leaders have viciously attacked science, scientists and certain scientific theories, invariably including evolution. For example, Apostle Bruce McConkie branded evolution as a heresy (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 1985, p. 99). Russell Nelson, one of the few scientifically trained Apostles, describes evolution as “unbelievable” and warns against such false doctrine (“The Magnificence of Man,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 64-67). To him, scientists are grasping at straws, however improbable, to prop up a godless worldview.

Another recent science critic is President Boyd Packer, who stated: “Many Church members are entirely unaware that fundamental doctrines cannot co-exist with a belief that man evolved from lower forms of life” (“The Law and the Light”, BYU Book of Mormon Symposium, Oct. 1988). Although some of the doctrines Packer spoke of are general to theism and Christianity, and have been addressed at length elsewhere (see Robert Pennock, ed, Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, MIT Press, 2000), certain key doctrines he refers to have a unique Mormon slant. Because Mormon doctrine frequently takes a literalist approach to the Bible, Latter-day Saints have some problems reconciling their teachings with science that most mainstream Christians don’t have. Thus the incompatibility spoken of by Packer is the central problem to address in any discussion of Mormonism and evolution. Are there fundamental Mormon doctrines which are irreconcilable with the modern, scientific theory of evolution (by emphasizing scientific, I mean evolution stripped of certain nonessential metaphysical baggage)? I don’t have a definitive answer to this question. What follows is a discussion of areas where I see serious difficulties integrating Mormon doctrine and modern evolutionary science. In this essay, I won’t attempt to decide what is ‘official’ Mormon doctrine; instead I am interested in discussing traditional doctrine – that doctrine which is taught generally in the Church as found in Sunday School and Institute manuals, the Standard Works, General Conference talks and Church magazines. Whether these differences are truly irreconcilable I leave for the reader to decide.

The Creation and Fall of Adam and Eve

The most well known clash between evolution and scripture involves the Creation. The Creation is one of three key pillars of Mormon doctrine, the other two being the Fall and the Atonement. The first of the two Hebrew creation stories found in Genesis speaks of a Creation Week, with the appearance of humans bearing the image of God being the crowning event. For centuries most Christians took these verses to mean that the universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days.

By the middle of the 19th century though, almost all scientists had accepted the fact that the earth is very, very old, and Brigham Young, along with countless clergy in almost all other denominations saw no problem regarding the Creation Week as figurative. Although there is still some resistance to this approach in fundamentalist circles, the vast majority of Mormons generally accept the evidence for an old earth, even if they believe that for most of its existence the earth was in a different, pre-Fall state.

The special creation of life itself, particularly humans, is a different issue however. When it comes to accepting the common ancestry of man and ‘lower’ animals, the Church has been much more reluctant to accept the conclusions of scientists. To accept evolution and the story of Adam and Eve requires some modifications of the traditional LDS view of our first parents. For example, in order to account for the descent of all life on earth from a common ancestor, Adam and Eve must have been born of mortal parents, unless a deceptive God created human anatomy and DNA to look as if we shared common ancestors with other species. If Adam and Eve were indeed born of mortal parents, then there would have been a significant population of anatomically modern humans at the time Adam and Eve entered the Garden of Eden. This population, descended from earlier hominids, must have continued during the First Couple’s sojourn in Paradise right on through the Fall. Adam and Eve began their family after their expulsion from Eden, side by side with the other humans on the planet. The inevitable conclusion is that Adam and Eve were not the first mortal humans on earth, and for some portion of human history after the Fall there were humans who were not offspring of our Biblical first parents.

Minimally, Mormons must believe that Adam and Eve were the first human souls on this planet; that is, they were the first combination of an anatomically modern human body and a literal spirit offspring of God. Mormons also understand Adam and Eve to be the literal forebears of all people who have ever lived on the earth (D&C 27:11). The LDS Bible dictionary states that “Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth.” The manual Gospel Principles, citing Moses 1:34 states: “Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth” (p. 31). In the 1909 First Presidency Statement on the origin of man we read:

Adam, our great progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the pre-existence, - revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days…teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh, and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” (Cited in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 335-336; this book was the Melchizedek Priesthood/Relief Society manual for 2000-2001.)

Church teachings typically declare that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and even the first creatures to be mortal. The Fall is understood to have introduced both spiritual death (separation from God) and temporal, or physical death. We read in Moses 3:7: “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” Joseph Fielding Smith wrote about the meaning of ‘first flesh’: “Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality… There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it…” (Seek Ye Earnestly, p. 281). The LDS Bible Dictionary states the following under the entry “Fall of Adam:”

There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations [before the Fall]. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16-17).

The Book of Mormon reinforces the idea that the Fall introduced physical death to all creation: “And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever and had no end [if Adam had not fallen]” (2 Nephi2:22). This passage implies that when the creation was finished, all things were in some sort of immortal state. In the 2002 Relief Society/Melchizedek Priesthood manual we read that Harold B. Lee said the following:

They [Adam and Eve] were visited by all the vicissitudes to which mortals from that time since have been heir…Pain, misery, death, all now came in their wake…

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants – all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death….a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration… (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, p. 20).

As we can see, LDS teachings indicate that the Fall included two aspects – a temporal and spiritual Fall. As a result of this two-fold Fall, Latter-day Saints understand that Christ’s atonement included a two-fold redemption – unconditional redemption from physical death and resurrection for all earthly creatures, and a redemption from spiritual death dependent on “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (3rd Article of Faith).

Obviously evolution requires the death of vast numbers of organisms over a long period of time. The fossil record is a clear testament to the continuous mortality of living organisms. Scientists estimate that greater than 95% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Several times over the course of the earth’s history mass extinctions have wiped out nearly all life on the planet. Our own prehistoric ancestors were both predators and prey. If Mormons accept evolution, and accept the descent of humans from non-human ancestors, then they must acknowledge that there was death before Adam and Eve. In order to have children, Adam and Eve’s parents must have been mortal (2 Nephi 2:22-25).

If Adam and Eve were indeed born of mortal parents, this indicates that one aspect of Christ’s redemption was required not because of the actions of Adam, but rather because of how the Creation was accomplished. God thus created this world in a state requiring redemption from the beginning.

Whatever uncertainty there may be in traditional Mormon doctrine, the evidence from evolutionary biology overwhelmingly suggests that humans and all other present-day life share an ancient ancestor, and that humans and the great apes such as chimps, gorillas and orangutans diverged not much later than 10 million years ago. If Mormons are to accept evolution, they must reject a special, separate, physical creation of man. Scientists see no reason to regard humans as exempt from the overall evolutionary picture, and the evidence supporting this belief is extensive. Below I briefly discuss three of the more important lines of evidence.

Common Ancestry

Apostles Boyd Packer and Russell Nelson both dismiss the idea that the anatomical similarities between animals implies a common ancestry. Anatomical similarities could simply mean that God used the same blueprint to accomplish similar goals. But what about when similar structures serve dramatically different functions? Humans, bats, lions and whales all have anatomically similar forelimbs. All have homologous arm or forelimb bones, as well as a similar set of bones corresponding to human wrists and digits. Why would God have gone out of his way to create a whale flipper with bones that resemble those of a human hand? Rather than implying a thought-out, a priori design, many anatomical features of whales such as mammary glands and an occasional vestigial pelvis leave us with the impression that these are former land mammals which have now adapted to marine life. There are countless other examples of similar structures that have diversified into different functions on both the anatomical and molecular level. This divergence of function is exactly what you would expect to result from an evolutionary process. Evolution works with the parts at hand – over generations a protein or bone serving one function can be recruited to serve a new function as a population of organisms adapts to a changing environment. The burden of proof is on the critics of evolution to show how these remarkable similarities can indicate anything other than common ancestry.

The fossil record for human evolution is one of the most complete fossil series scientists have found (for a good introduction to human evolution, see C. Loring Brace, “Humans in Time and Space,” in Scientists Confront Creationism, Laurie Godfrey, ed. (Norton, 1983), p. 245-282). Early Australopithecines, dating from about 2 million years ago, had a cranial volume the size of modern apes, and molars that resemble those of both apes and humans. In spite of many such ape-like features, these hominids had characteristic canine teeth possessed by no other present-day primates except humans. The shape of the pelvis and spinal chord indicate that this creature was bipedal in a way that was different from all other known apes, but somewhat similar to humans. In a nutshell, Australopithecus africanus was a species that possessed a combination of human and ape characteristics.

As the fossil record progresses in time, through Homo erectus and finally to our species, we can see clear trends towards increasingly human characteristics. Cranial volume increases steadily, dental structures become less ape-like and locomotion becomes increasingly similar to that of modern humans. Interestingly, along with the progressive fossil record we find a gradual increase in the use of tools. To put it simply, the fossil record shows a succession of creatures who develop human characteristics and lose ape-like ones, and begin to use tools as they develop a larger brain. It would be completely arbitrary and scientifically unjustified to assert that the hominid lineage developed into stone age humans, only to have God stop the process and specially create Adam and Eve. Theoretically, God could also have created us all yesterday, complete with memories, scars and diseases. Both cases require belief in a God who likes to purposely deceive his children.

A more recent line of evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other animals, particularly apes, is found at the molecular level. Our DNA is not an efficient, tightly written instruction manual; it is a mass of genes, junk, and most interestingly, molecular fossils. What is a molecular fossil? Basically, it is the remains of a clear cut, one-time event that can be detected in the genome today. An example is something called a pseudogene, which is usually a once-functional gene that has suffered some type of inactivating mutation. This inactivating mutation is a unique event that leaves a scar in our DNA.

The cd8b2 is one such pseudogene that has been used to clarify the genetic relationship between various species of primates. Cd8b2 is an defective, truncated copy of a functional gene called cd8b1. The Cd8b1 gene codes for a subunit of a protein called CD8 which is expressed in immune cells called T lymphocytes. The duplication and truncation that created cd8b2 was a one-time event that appears to have occurred by well characterized biochemical mechanisms. Delabre and colleagues studied the occurrence of this cd8b2 pseudogene among various primates (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (August 1993) 90:7049-7053). They searched for it in many different primate species, and found that it only occurred in humans, gorillas and chimps. Furthermore, this stretch of DNA was essentially unchanged in these three species, indicating that the creation of this pseudogene occurred too recently for many additional mutations to accumulate. Cd8b2 is a genetic accident that occurred in a single individual who was the ancestor of all humans, chimps and gorillas, but not of orangutans and baboons. The likelihood that identical cd8b2 pseudogenes were created independently in three separate mutational events, in three different species is too low to consider a realistic possibility. The distribution of this gene is thus strong evidence for the common ancestry of humans, chimps and gorillas.

Of course scientists do not base their claims of common ancestry for chimps, gorillas and humans on evidence from just a single gene. Many other genes have been studied, and lead to the same conclusion, which is also supported by fossil evidence. In addition to pseudogenes, there are other types of molecular fossils that can arise through the action of ‘transposable elements,’ which are parasitic pieces of DNA that insert themselves in various places throughout the genome. Like pseudogenes, these insertions are unique events that leave tracks in our DNA. SINES and LINES, two types of such parasitic genes, are frequently used today to study the genealogical relationships between species.

In order to account for the evidence for common ancestry Adam and Eve must have been born of physically human, mortal parents on this earth who were related to all other life on this planet. (Incidentally, many Church authorities have been confused in the past about the species status of Adam’s parents as they have pointlessly argued that Adam sprang into being fully human and not from an ape. Scientists would agree that apes don’t give birth to humans. Evolution is a very slow process, and Adam’s parents would have been anatomically modern humans. See the 1909 First Presidency statement on the origin of man for an example of this confusion.) At some point God could have placed spirit offspring into two individuals of an already existing population of Homo sapiens. Adam and Eve would have thus been born of mortal parents who were not the spiritual offspring of God. These two would have been taken from this pre-Adamite population and placed in a paradisiacal state in the Garden of Eden, where they would later fall and reenter mortality.

Several questions come to mind in this scenario. What happened to the population of humans who were not the spirit children of God? What was the relationship of Adam’s descendants to these soulless people, who would certainly have outnumbered the posterity of Adam for some time after the Fall? Were there two sets of beings living side by side or even together, both physically in the image of the anthropomorphic God of Mormon doctrine? It would have required some time until all humans on earth could claim Eve as an ancestor. Adam’s parents would have had normal language abilities, and if he grew up with them physically before the Fall he would probably have had a loving relationship with his extended family. Yet, not being the spirit offspring of Elohim, these people would not be part of his eternal family. As President Packer said, “The sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts. Let me repeat: An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts. That should be reason enough [to disbelieve evolution] for any endowed and sealed Latter-day Saint!” (See “The Law and the Light”)

To reconcile the Mormon understanding of the Creation with natural history requires belief in a sequence of events that you will never hear in Sunday School or General Conference. It requires a belief that Adam and Eve were born of intelligent, mortal parents who will not become part of the Celestial human family, that Adam and Eve were taken from a preexisting mortal population of humans and placed in an immortal state, and that for some time the descendants of Adam and Eve lived with and intermingled with humans without a spirit that was a pre-mortal offspring of God. Furthermore, it would be the Creation itself and not Adam’s transgression that made Christ’s work to redeem us from mortality necessary. Certainly this carries some significant theological implications. Gospel Doctrine teachers who bring up these points may quickly find themselves serving in the nursery.

A side issue, not doctrinally important but bearing on the Mormon understanding of the Creation, is the sequence of creation events. I have frequently heard the claim that the scriptural account roughly parallels the evolutionary development of life. Ignoring the fact that light, darkness, day, night and the earth itself occur before the creation of the sun and stars, it is still difficult to demonstrate any parallels between Genesis and evolution. In the scriptures, grass and fruit trees appear before animal life in the sea or on land. Birds and whales appear before land animals. The scientific evidence indicates that whales descended from land mammals and birds certainly didn’t evolve directly from fish. We also know that flowering plants and fruit trees were a later evolutionary development. Nothing in the scriptural sequence fits what we know from the fossil record, and the Creation Week must be regarded as completely figurative if a Latter-day Saint is to accept evolution. If Adam and Eve could be regarded as figurative as well, many of the conflicts between Mormon doctrine and science would disappear.

Did Humans Originate in Missouri 6000 Years Ago?

The Doctrine & Covenants states directly that Adam and Eve dwelt in what is now Missouri, and that this Earth has not had a temporal, or post-Fall existence of more than 7000 years. The LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Eden states that: “Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, and adds the important information that it was located on what is now the North American continent.” In D&C 77:6, the Lord gives an interpretation of the seven seals described in the book of Revelations: “What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.” A temporal time frame of seven thousand years from the Fall to the end of the Millenium has been a frequent theme in Mormon doctrine. For example, Bruce McConkie taught in Mormon Doctrine (2nd edition, p. 211): “When Adam fell, the earth fell also and became a mortal sphere…this condition was destined to continue for a period of 6,000 years…”

These two doctrines cannot be true if the scientific picture of the human past is correct. The evidence that humans originated in Africa and/or Asia well over 100,000 years ago is hard to dispute (although there is still some controversy as to whether Homo sapiens arose exclusively in Africa and replaced Homo erectus in Asia, or whether our species evolved simultaneously in Africa and Asia). The world at the time of the Fall as dated by Mormons is very different from what we typically imagine. Instead of a lone pair exiting the garden and beginning the human family, there were communities all over the earth 6000 years ago. Early agricultural settlements existed in the fertile crescent by 9000 BC. By 7000 BC agriculture had spread to the northern coast of the Mediterranean sea. At the probable time of the Fall around 4000 BC, there were agricultural communities all over the Middle East, northern India, eastern China, and Southeast Asia, including the areas covered today by the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, central and northern Europe, and parts of Central and South America. Religion already existed in Mesopotamia. One thousand years after the Fall supposedly occurred, and much too soon for a single couple with primitive health care and technology to populate the entire earth, there were kingdoms and dynasties in Egypt, Mesopotamia (where the earliest written records are found) and India. Metals were already in use at the time of the Fall. The scientific picture we have of the ancient world is very different from what most Mormons imagine when they attend the temple or discuss the Fall in Sunday school. Reconciling D&C 77 and human history is very difficult, and suggesting a possible reconciliation is a quick way to earn a rebuke during a priesthood lesson.

Conclusion

Many of the more intellectual Mormons I have known have been quick to admit that they accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution. When I was a faithful believer, I held the same position. If you don’t delve into the details it is easy to think that Mormon doctrine and evolution are compatible. To this day though, I have not read any successful attempt to reconcile these two sets of beliefs. Any reconciliation seriously alters or waters down fundamental doctrines to the point where it is not acceptable to discuss these ideas in a Church meeting. As a result, I have found that most Latter-day Saints hold a fairly strong anti-science position, mindlessly repeating the mantra that the gospel includes all truth and that some day in the next life we’ll see that our current understanding of both science and doctrine is too fuzzy to draw any conclusions. Mormon doctrine may be fuzzy, but evolutionary science is not. Three billion years of death, and the idea that all life shares a common ancestor is so well verified that these are accepted as facts. Most Mormons believe the heliocentric model of the solar system is a fact, but five hundred years ago this fact was just as hotly disputed among religious believers as evolution is today. Five hundred years from now people will look back at present day Mormons and view them in the same light that we view those religious leaders who clung against all reason to the discredited Ptolemaic model of the universe.