In a recent apologetics book, endorsed by Matthew Holland (President of Utah Valley University and son of Jeffrey R. Holland), Chad P. Conrad, while having many misgivings about macro-evolution, admitted that it is unwise (and anti-intellectual) to reject such:
Being strongly religious myself, I can empathize with this [creationist, anti-evolutionary] impulse to want to reject evolution altogether. But I fear that doing so sets up unnecessary confrontation.
Organic evolution isn’t simply one of many theories in science that we’re free to pick and choose from. It’s the overarching theory that organizes many branches of science: zoology, botany, geology, archaeology, anthropology, and genetics, to name a few. The eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, 35:125-29). In some ways, to reject evolution is to reject science altogether, which simply becomes too big a demand to make of bright, young, scholastic minds. (Chad P. Conrad, Doubt Your Doubts: Seeking Answers to Difficult Gospel Questions [Springville, Utah: CFI, 2015], 133-34, comment in square bracket added for clarification)
Elsewhere, while showing misunderstandings about the scope of macro-evolution, Conrad critiques two rather common “arguments” against macro-evolution:
It turns out that each part of complex organs like the eye actually can be shown to add survival value for the organism. The proposed evolutionary chain stars with the development of simple photoreceptor cells that can discern between light and dark. These cells could give the organism a slight survival advantage over less-developed relatives. Subsequent random variations in its offspring could continue, eventually resulting in the complex interconnected neurochemical pathways of the human eye. Biologists can string an entire chain of similar species together, showing each developmental step along the way (“Darwin’s Greatest Challenge Tackled: The Mystery of Eye Evolution,” Science Daily, November 1, 2004). So this challenge to organic evolution seems rebutted.
Another classic critique of evolution is the glaring absence of “missing links.” Darwin called them “transitional links”—organisms show common features of two species supposedly connected in the evolutionary chain. Theoretically, fossil records should be full of them. Darwin acknowledge that their absence constituted “the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species [New York: Penguin Books, 1958], 175). Darwin’s answer was simply that fossil records are imperfect, but he predicted that eventually the transitional fossils would begin to appear.
They have. Just two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, palaeontologists discovered the first fossil remains of an archaeopteryx, or the proposed link between dinosaurs and birds. Over time, many such transitional fossils have appeared. So this objection seems to have been overcome, but creationists continue using to attack the theory (Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001], 151, 154). (Ibid., 136-37)
In another (albeit, much more) recent book by Richard Gardner who holds a PhD in molecular and cellular biology, presents some of his favourite evidences for macro-evolution:
Evidences for Evolution
Here are some evidences for evolution or at least phenomenon that suggest that it might suggest that it might explain how various organisms came to be. I teach my biology students about these evidences, but ask them to make up their own minds, or to put off making their own minds, but in any case to keep their minds open:
Genetic Code: Almost all types of organisms, from single-celled bacteria and yeast, to plants and animals, to humans, share the same genetic code. There are only a couple of known exceptions, and even then, the code is almost identical. Sharing the same genetic code means that the new sequence of “letters” in DNA will tell cells from any organism how to make the same proteins, composed of the same sequence of amino acids. Because the genetic code is the same, we can take genes from one organism, and put them into another, which will then create the same protein. Thus, much of the corn grown in the US contains a gene from bacteria, which encodes a protein with insecticidal properties, so that corn containing this bacterial gene wards off its own pests. We can also take a jellyfish gene, which causes the jellyfish to glow green, and place it in other organisms, which cause them to glow green too. This glowing ability is a research tool, but it also creates novelty pet fish. The idea that all organisms share a common ancestor explains why their genetic code is the same. Those who do not accept a creator ask, if there was a good, why would He give all his organisms the same code? Of course, one could also ask, why not? But it does suggest a common ancestor.
DNA and Protein Sequences: many of the “letter” sequences of genes in the DNA from different organisms are remarkably similar. This means that the proteins from these different organisms have very similar sequences of the 20 amino acids. Sure, one could specify that “God made them that way,” but this is consistent with a common ancestor for these organisms. The more related two organisms are, the better their sequences match.
Vestigal Organs/Imperfection: Humans have a useless tailbone, which appears to be a remnant of a tail. We have goosebumps that are supposed to make us warmer, if only we had enough hair on our arms to stand up and insulate us (like monkey hair does). Why would God give us goosebumps or tailbones? Of course, He can do anything He wants to, but it seems reasonable that these vestigial features came from ancestors with hairy arms and tails. By the same token, walking on our legs isn’t good for our backs. Our bodies, for all their glory, have defects; why wouldn’t God (if He created us specially) have created us defect-free? (One LDS rejoinder is that we are supposed to have trials, such as broken tailbones or sore backs that come from walking on two legs).
Fossils: Generally, more primitive forms are found deeper in the earth, and more advanced forms are closer to the surface. Of course Genesis also teaches that simpler forms were created first, so this argument does little to favour creation over evolution. Creationists like to point out the gaps in the fossil record. However, just because we haven’t found a particular fossil that fits into a particular gap doesn’t mean that particular organism didn’t exist. Over the years, many, many gaps have been filled in. A belief in God just because we can’t explain the gaps in the fossil record is called “God of the gaps,” and it is a poor reason to believe in God. It is better to believe in Him from positive evidence, not negative evidence. (Richard D. Gardner, Beneficiaries of the Restoration: Our Privileges, Responsibilities and Attitude Regarding Scriptures, History, Truth and Zion [Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018], 213-14)
It is refreshing to see a growing number of Latter-day Saints embracing macro-evolution as opposed to naive young-earth creationist (often mis-)readings of Scripture.
