What about evolution?

Remember, this answer does not represent the position or doctrine of the church. It is my own. Many faithful members of the church have come to different positions on the subject. Some take a hard line to the side of science, some to a traditional understanding of creation, and some have worked to reconcile a middle position between the two.

I took AP Biology in High school too. I followed it up with some courses in psychology and in anthropology at the University of Minnesota. All of them depended heavily on a foundation of evolutionary science. All have been beneficial to me. I recall one lab evaluation where I was to order a set of human skulls chronologically according to its features; I performed well and enjoyed it. While I knew there was a conflict between the traditional interpretation of the modern biblical record and the science’s current claims, it did not bother me at the time. Nor does it now.

And it shouldn’t. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that “the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” That is certainly the case. Here are two axioms that apply to evolutionary biology or genetics, and to every other branch of the sciences, for a believer in the restored gospel:

1. Belief in the one does not necessarily preclude belief in the other. Accepting evolution does not mean that you must abandon your faith in the plan of salvation, or vice versa.
2. Science and scripture are both progressive (or evolutionary, if you will). That is to say, we believe in ongoing revelation and correction in both. God never changes, and neither does history or scientific fact. But our understanding of both does change – and often.

So my answer is this: I very much enjoy the study of evolution, and the other sciences as well. I read about them, study them, I try to stay on top of the latest research. I think you should too. I never became a scientist (I did at one time want to be an astronomer. And later I wanted to be a chemical engineer. Neither worked out.) But I have had the privilege of knowing a few great scientists. The ones I have known are men of principle and faith. They have adapted varying views of these things; no doubt each has had varying degrees of spiritual and intellectual struggle to arrive there, but they are solid in their convictions. Darwin himself, though agnostic in his practices, never became an atheist, and in fact said that it is “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”

Now, I do have some strong opinions about the people who have latched on to evolution as a tool for undermining the faith of others. I think Darwin would be disappointed in them. They are like the people who cannot separate their politics from their religion; sincere and enthusiastic, but misguided and immature… and lacking in intellectual potential. Their behavior bears the angry hallmarks of the dark religion. One of my favorite examples of this is their insistence on using a flawed, simplistic example in education. No doubt you’ve seen it: the picture of the two different-colored peppered moths on a tree. It claims that microevolution occurred in a species of moth in London; as the trees became darker in color from the pollution of the industrial revolution, so did the visible camouflage colorings of the moths, a form of natural selection that afforded protection from predators.

Unfortunately, the picture is a lie. The moths (it was later discovered) were bred in captivity by a scientist and stuck to the tree for a photo. Why? Because the peppered moth doesn’t come out during the day, doesn’t rest on trees, is rarely seen in the wild, and its natural predator – the bat – is BLIND. Yet to this day the moth is the poster child for “evolution in action”. I only noticed it because it was in my high school biology book, then my anthropology book, then my psychology book… I noticed the exact same picture was used each time. I thought, “Don’t they have any more examples of microevolution? If it’s a proven scientific concept, why do all these different disciplines use the exact same example and photo?” I smelled a hoax, and when I did a little homework, I found out I was right. Of course, this hasn’t stopped them from using the picture in textbooks. It’s still in my kids’ textbooks today – with no mention of the fact that the picture is faked.

Does this prove evolution is wrong? Of course not. It only demonstrates that there is much more work to be done before we can pretend to understand everything. The same applies to theoretical physics, by the way, and the various PhDs in that field who believe they have somehow “proven” God’s existence wrong (ironically this is a violation itself of scientific principles). Whether it is gaps in the fossil record or the lack of a unifying field theory, science has holes. Scientists have to learn line-upon-line and precept-on-precept just like us Deists, and sometimes (often) they have to make adjustments due to “further light and knowledge”.

One other interesting side note from the LDS perspective: While one set of evolutionary geneticists are depending on their science to disprove the biblical history, another set has embarked on a quest to disprove Book of Mormon history using genetics (the arguments and rebuttals on that can be found elsewhere). They need to coordinate their efforts together, because there’s a problem: The Book of Mormon, of course, was published in 1830, decades before Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. (Darwin’s famous voyage of discovery on the Beagle was in 1831). “Origin of Species”, published in 1859, was the first book to overcome the rejection of the concept of transmutation by scientists. So if the Book of Mormon was made up, it sure was ahead of his time scientifically, because only the Book of Mormon asserts the existence of generational trait change in populations due to environment – microevolution and natural selection - well before it was a scientifically accepted fact. Award fifty points to the Joe Smith team. I guess they should have pinned a Nephite and a Lamanite to the tree for that photo for the textbooks.

The upshot of all of this is this: whether you choose to study science or some other discipline, you would do well to learn revelation. Revelation is a difficult process – it is not cut and dried. It is iterative, nuanced, and subtle. But it is as real as things you can see and measure. And it can help not only reconcile perceived differences, it can help advance the science even further.