Q: How does the Garden of Eden fit it? Where did Adam come from? (What are the possible models to explain the creation of man?)

A: The scriptural accounts of the creation of man are beautiful, inspiring, and provide indispensable doctrinal insights about the purpose of life and our relationship with God. It is not appropriate, however, to interpret them as a scientific description of the creative process. Several of the concepts are stated figuratively, and are important for the spiritual truths they covey symbolically. The truth is, we don't know the details of how Adam was introduced into mortality. In spite of our ignorance, the religious principles and the scientific evidence are not mutually exclusive and can be reconciled. Accepting Adam doesn't require rejecting evolution or vice versa.

Let's begin by attempting to describe a broad overview of what may have happened. The earth was formed nearly 5 billion years ago, and chemical and biological events proceeded as proposed in the evolutionary scenario. A great diversity of plant and animal life was the result. Organisms were born and died. New species arose, and many became extinct. Observing the process God asked, "Is man found on the earth"? The answer was no, but at the appropriate moment in time, when "the earth had brought forth" creatures - hominids - whose physical characteristics were compatible with the spirits who are the offspring of Heavenly Father, the decision was made to introduce that lineage, beginning with the man Adam.

It is a fact that there were living organisms that closely resemble modern men and woman on the earth several million years ago. The evidence is indisputable. What should we call these creatures? The designation man or human or protohuman seems appropriate because of their obvious physical similarity to ourselves. From the viewpoint of LDS theology, however, there is a critical distinction which can be made: the spirits which animated "Lucy" (a famous African fossil of the species Australopithecus afarensis) and other prehistoric "humans" were the creations of God, while the spirits possessed by Adam and Eve and their posterity were his literal offspring. One in an artistic production, the other is a child. Only the latter can exercise agency and be held accountable, only the latter can attain godhood. Although the fossil record clearly shows a temporal connection between early prehistoric "humans" and the subsequent appearance of modern man, the question is whether or not there was a genealogical connection or some other type of relationship. It is about the events at the historical interface between these two types of beings that we are particularly ignorant.

It seems to me that there is a very modest requirement if one is to reconcile "Lucy" and Adam: permit Adam and Eve to inhabit a very special place or state as inhabitants in an immortal Eden which is located on an otherwise mortal planet where evolutionary processes have previously been going on for many years. It is true that some LDS writers have insisted that before Adam the whole earth exhibited the death-less state of Eden (8). However, the one scriptural statement always marshaled in defense of this view, 2 Nephi 2.22, seems to refer specifically to the conditions in Eden. It is the things in the Garden which would have remained in an unchanged state if Adam had not transgressed. In addition, one has to ask why, if the earth was uniformly immortal and paradisiacal, was Adam placed in one particular portion of it; why was Eden needed in the first place? And again, why after the fall did our first parents have to leave Eden (there were sentinels guarding the Tree Of Life) if conditions in and out of Eden were the same? And why was the earth outside of Eden designated as the "lone and dreary world" if there were not an important difference between the two places?

What, then, was the mechanism through which Adam came? Was he born to prehistoric parents? Was he transported with a body to this planet from some other sphere (9). Did God fashion his body in a one of a kind, miraculous, creative act? What other possibilities can we imagine? We have neither memory nor experience with the immortal; it would not be surprising if the actual process were incomprehensible to us. Perhaps this is why the scriptural language is figurative: "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"; "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman (Genesis 2:7,22)." But no matter which of the alternative explanations may be appealing or unlikely to us, none of them invalidates evolution. As long as we recognize Adam's unique position as a spiritual son of God there is no violation of a fundamental religious principle.

Some have seen in evolution a threat to the doctrine of the Fall of man. I an unable, however, to understand a logical line of reasoning leading to the conclusion that evolution invalidates the principles of the fall and the atonement. Neither Adam and Eve nor any of us who have followed them can be saved or exalted without divine help. The problem is sin. If we wish to benefit from the Savior's atoning sacrifice, we are required to repent - of violating the commandments, but not to repent of the fact that we have physical bodies or repent because of the mechanism through which we obtained them, regardless of how it was arranged. Moreover, the only beings capable of repentance, and of becoming gods, are those who are spirit offspring of the Father, a principle which is not in question. It seems to me that concerns that biology will undo these true religious principles are easily removed (or at least suspended) by simply allowing for God to introduce man into the special conditions of the Garden of Eden (or for Adam's transition to mortality) following a lengthy prior period of life, death and evolution. Likewise the principle of priesthood sealing of the generations into eternal families remains intact. This blessing is only available to those in the lineage of the Father's spiritual offspring; the spirits of the animals (including "Lucy"?) are qualitatively different - no matter what actually transpired during the transition from "Homo erectus, etc. to Homo sapiens".

I believe there is a very important point to be made here. One strategy which has frequently been used in searching for truth between religion and science is inappropriate and harmful. One ought not to hold up a spiritual principle such as the reality of God, Christ as Creator, or the Fall and test its validity against an observation of science. These principles are true, affirmed to individuals by a witness of the Spirit of God. Scientists do not have at their disposal a special technology to investigate these principles; they must rely on faith, the same as any other people. When a principle of science is also confirmed as true it will not be in conflict with such religious doctrines. All that it needed is sufficient humility to acknowledge one's relative ignorance in both fields of endeavor, and the patience to wait for a clearer understanding. With respect to the creation of man, failure to do this has unfortunate consequences. Those who claim that a reconciliation between theology and science is impossible or who are unwilling to suspend judgment are left to ignore the scientific evidence, argue that it is invalid (or selectively choose only that part of science which confirms one's prejudices) or ridicule it. All of these inappropriate responses to science are unworthy of people committed to exercising "heart, might, mind, and strength" in pursuit of truth.