Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article by David M. Belnap originally appeared in Science & Mormonism Series 1: Cosmos, Earth, and Man (2016).
Abstract: David Belnap, professor of biochemistry and biology at the University of Utah, answers questions about evolution that commonly come up in discussions among Latter-day Saints.
To download this chapter in PDF format, click here.
About the Interpreter Foundation Book Chapter Reprint Series
The purpose of this reprint series is to make individual chapters from books published by The Interpreter Foundation more accessible to readers. Chapters from large format books will be made available as pdf files, while chapters from smaller format books will appear within the Interpreter journal, making this content available in a form suitable for many popular digital readers.
Although in some instances the formatting and pagination may have been changed, the content of this chapter, like others in this reprint series, is identical to what appeared in its original book publication. It has not been updated to incorporate research that has appeared subsequently nor to reflect the current practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use the full name of the Church and to avoid terms such as “Mormon” and “LDS.”
I enjoyed your article. I don’t know whether evolution is true, but I like the way that you show that a belief in evolution is not inconsistent with believing in God. You also make the excellent point that in this fallen world we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. The only way to discover God is through prayer and impressions from the Holy Ghost – which is the way the Lord intended it because we’ve already been tested on what we would do when we were in the IMMEDIATE presence of God. What surprises me about atheistic scientists is that their atheistic beliefs and statements are very UNscientific and thus undermine their credibility as scientists. I think that part of their bias is a reaction to the false ideas of many religions: e.g. world made out of nothing.
By the way, you mention that a person in a previous Interpreter blog on evolution asked how does evolution explain how life began – and thus doubted evolution because it has no explanation. I was that person. I admire that you admitted that so far evolutionists have NOT discovered how in evolution life began. Your admission was unlike some of the commentators in the previous Interpreter blog, who referred to websites that these commentators claimed did explain how evolution began life. Those websites – as you did – explained, however, how life COULD have begun in the evolutionary process but did NOT claim (as you also did NOT claim) that there was a definite conclusion on how life began.
I do disagree, however, with your analogy that science’s NOT yet finding (after more than 100 years of research) how life began in the evolutionary process, is like our not being able to fully explain the Savior’s atonement. Thus, you conclude that finding answers to difficult questions often takes time. I fully agree with you that we cannot fully explain the Savior’s atonement. But I believe that NO mortal can understand the Savior’s atonement because I believe that it can be understood only by exalted persons. Even after we’re resurrected, I believe that only exalted persons will understand how the Savior’s atonement worked, how He as God suffered for the sins of the world. I think that it is utterly impossible for a mortal to understand how the Savior suffered for the sins of the world. Even Church President Spencer W. Kimball – who obviously strongly believed in, and testified of, the Savior’s atonement – said that he did NOT understand how the Savior suffered for the sins of the world. Even the Savior Himself in mortality asked the Father if there was another way but – as always – did the Father’s will. Thus the Savior’s atonement can be understood only by exalted persons.
There are other Gospel questions which deal with experiences outside of our mortal experiences, and which we will know the answers to, only after our resurrection.
Thus, I disagree with your analogy and still wonder why after more 100 years of research scientists have not discovered how life began in the evolutionary mode.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
Dear Lanny,
Thank you for your comments. I especially like your statement that here on earth we have to live on faith because we were already tested on what we would do if we lived in God’s presence. I also agree that many godless responses to creation are likely responses to the way some people believe the creation occurred. I have thought the same thing. And finally, yes, statements that evolution proves atheism are not scientific and push the science beyond its bounds.
You may be correct that understanding the Fall and Atonement will take an eternal perspective. To restate your premise, we need further understanding, a different vantage point, or both. The same is true with how the first life began and many other difficult scientific questions. How gravity works and how cancer works are two others. We have made great progress in understanding cancer, but it still is not cured. Thousands of people have worked millions of hours on cancer. Difficult questions take time whether they are religious, scientific, emotional, etc. Some will never be answered in this life.
Professor Belnap,
I really appreciate your work on this. I know you’ve had to be careful and thoughtful to avoid the pitfalls, emotions and difficulties inherent in this kind of discussion. I thank you for wading into it and it is clear that you are a sober-minded and wise advocate. I am always proud to be a member of the church that has people like you in it.
From what you’ve said about Intelligent Design, I’m wondering how familiar you are with the literature. Have you delved deeply into the work by Meyer, Dempski, Behe and others? I have read some of their work and I’m not sure you do them justice.
Having said that, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I do know that they have extensively written on the issues you bring up.
Dear Collin,
Thank you for your kind words. I am very grateful for the Church and its teachings.
Your comments about Intelligent Design are fair points. My purpose has not been to discuss ID.
I have read and listened to some things by those advocating Intelligent Design. On the surface, their arguments are appealing to those of us who believe that a super-intelligent being was behind the formation of life on earth. On the other hand, I see the proponents stating, purposely or inadvertently, that evolution must be disproved to save faith in God. They are tying belief in God to the mechanism of creation. This is unnecessary. If human beings use the evolutionary process to make things and solve difficult problems, then certainly God could have used the same process to make and maintain life on earth. Where ID proponents and those arguing against theistic evolution see incompatibility between Christian doctrines and the theory of evolution, I see compatibility. For example, a world made and maintained through evolutionary (competitive) processes is exactly the kind of world into which Adam and Eve were thrust.
ID arguments have been refuted. Evolution can produce increased complexity. Complex eyes and bacterial flagellum could develop through evolutionary processes. When ID arguments such as these are discredited, then once again belief in a divine creation is made to look foolish. My faith that God created me, you, and all other life is based on my belief in the scriptures, in the temple endowment ceremony, and in the spiritual feelings I have felt as I have observed and contemplated nature. My faith is not based the mechanism God used. I love the following two statements by Henry Eyring (the chemist):
“Evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability.”
“The Lord made the world in some wonderful way that I can at best only dimly comprehend. It seems to me sacrilegious to presume that I really understand him and know just how he did it. He can only tell me in figurative speech that I dimly understand, but that I expect to more completely comprehend in the eternities to come. He created the world, and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures he used.”
(Reflections of a Scientist, ed. Harden Romney Eyring [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983,1998], pp. 57, 62.
“When ID arguments such as these are discredited, then once again belief in a divine creation is made to look foolish. ” This is an important insight and it is my belief that the reason that ID is not taken seriously by most Christian biologists is this fear. In other words, this fear, rather than the merits of ID, leads to the hasty dismissal of ID claims before giving a serious review. I don’t know how deeply you got into the literature, but I hope it wasn’t like when a Protestant asks his pastor about Mormons. Anyway thanks for responding. Best wishes.