A Personal Point of View

I don't believe there is a conflict between my enthusiastic belief in the validity of biological evolution and my spiritual commitment to the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My study of the issues leads me to conclude that there are no irreconcilable differences between Latter-day Saint theology and evolutionary theory on these issues. There are significant gaps in both the scientific and scriptural data, yet in my mind the two act in complementary fashion to paint a preliminary picture of creation which is both intellectually and spiritually satisfying. I should hasten to add, however, that the arguments or personal interpretations offered here are neither complete nor exclusive. Nor do I suggest that all questions about the origin of life are answered or potential conflicts resolved. Clearly our ignorance about these matters is large.

It is quite true that there is a fundamental difference between the methods we employ in science and in religion. The important question, however, is whether the physical data generated by the techniques of laboratory or historical science must inevitably lead to different conclusions than those supported by the spiritual data generated through faith and revelation. I believe that the answer is no; with an appreciation of the strengths and limitation of each comes the realization that the two approaches to truth are not mutually exclusive. On a following page (22) is my attempt at a personal harmony on five relevant issues: the age of the earth, my relationship to God, my relationship to the living organisms of the world, my relationship to Christ, and the origin of man. The sentences in bold-face type express the conclusions I have arrived at after comparison of the information available from both evolutionary science and LDS theology on each point.

I believe it is hypocritical for us as members of the Church to sift through the concepts of science selectively identifying friends and enemies as best fits our narrow purposes. Is radioactivity a less valid scientific principle when it is used by a paleontologist to establish that a fossil organism lived on the earth millions of years ago, than when it is used in contemporary medicine to diagnose human disease or to treat a cancerous tumor in a loved one? Moreover, this lack of understanding of science and its methods may cause us to err in the other direction, as we fail to appreciate its limitation and hold unrealistic expectations about what it may be able to accomplish.

It seems to me that Latter-day Saints are left with some clear-cut alternatives. For example, parents could decide against a visit to Dinosaur National Monument in eastern Utah in order to avoid the evolution-related issues which would certainly arise in the family. Or, they could visit the monument, but stifle discussion to side-step the questions of the children about the meaning of what had been seen. Or, they could explain that the fossils were fraudulent, placed in the earth by evil and conspiring men to destroy the faith of religious people. Or, they could suggest that the bones had been placed in the rock by Satan for the same purpose. Or, they could reason that the animals were not a legitimate part of the earth's history, but were placed there by Heavenly Father in order to test the faith and loyalty of his people. Or, they could conjecture that dinosaurs only resided elsewhere in the universe, on other worlds which had been dismantled and whose parts were recycled in the construction of our own planet. Or - they could accept with wonder and excitement the evidence of that experience as valid testimony of part of the marvelous evolutionary history of this earth, answering some of their children's questions by supplying accurate scientific information, affirming faith in creation as a divine act, and answering other questions with a candid "We don't know." - and plan a return trip a few years now to learn more.

I think the choice is clear, and vote for the last option. Hiding from an issue only invites disaster in the future. Fraud does exist in science, but it was scientists not theologians who exposed Piltdown Man. Christ is the Creator, not Satan. There are plenty of trials normally associated with working out one's salvation; the Lord doesn't have to resort to subterfuge. If the rock in which Tyrannosaurus is embedded came from another world, that just postpones our search; we have to go to other planets to study how evolution operates there. The truth is that none of the mental gymnastics of the previous paragraph are necessary; if one begins with the judgment that evolution is not a stumbling block to faith, the rationale for such strained rationalizations disappears.

I would like at this point to express dismay at an attitude I find particularly offensive. Some members of the Church (including parents, students and a few of my faculty colleagues) suggest that biologists at BYU teach evolutionary principles only out of a professional obligation to the discipline. The line of reasoning goes something like this: "There can be no harmony between the truths of the gospel and the theory of evolution; to accept the latter is to jeopardize one's eternal life. However, we must continue to teach these (insidious) ideas, or BYU will lose its accreditation." I must take exception to this implied lack of personal integrity on the part of a Latter-day Saint teacher. We have so little time as learner/teachers, and there is so much that is important for us to consider. Speaking for myself, it would be immoral - perhaps worse- for a Latter-day Saint with a deep love for the young people of the Church to burden their souls with notions that were not valid, useful and beautiful.