Mormon Theism and the Data
Supportive of a Theory of Organic Evolution
In chapter one, I reviewed the position of Edgar
Sheffield Brightman who argues that the hypothesis of a finite God coheres more
closely with the findings of evolutionary studies than does the hypothesis of
an omnipotent God. This position is based principally on (1) the apparently
extremely long periods of time necessary for the development of man; and (2)
the staggering waste ensuing in the evolution of life-forms. There is no logical
inconsistency in the notion of God’s creating men without (a) resort to
evolutionary process, (b) taking millions of years and/or (c) producing staggering
waste. Coupled with the evidence contraindicating an omnipotent creator,
Brightman also sees evidence of creative and purposive advance. The conflicting
data point him toward the hypothesis and benevolent God hampered by obstacles
and instruments to His will.
I will not attempt herein to review the data and
findings of evolutionary studies which point to a divine designer or director
of the evolutionary process. These are adequately treated by Brightman and summarized
in chapter one. Rather, I shall focus on those aspects of evolutionary data and
theory which seemingly cohere with Mormon, but not with classical, theism.
The god of classical theism created the physical
universe and the physical laws constitutive thereof ex nihilo. On this
view, God is not bound by any physical (synthetic, causal, material)
necessities. He is not limited by the so-called laws of nature. Accordingly, God
could have created men instantly without resort to a prolonged and wasteful
evolutionary process. Within the context of Mormon theism, however, the
fundamental constituents of the physical universe, as well as the laws and
principles constitutive of their uncreated properties, are self-subsistent and
co-eternal with God. Hence, in the achievement of His purposes, God works
within a framework of self-subsistent physical laws. God’s power must, hence,
be understood not as power to abnegate such laws, but rather the power, based
on His perfect and complete understanding of such laws, to maximally utilize
these laws in the fulfilment in His purposes. God, then, in addition to being
the perfect exemplar of all moral values, is master physicist, chemist,
biologist, geneticist, psychologist, sociologist, etc. Accordingly, it is not
necessarily inconsistent with Mormon theology to assert that God did (and had
to) develop and perfect mortal life-forms by means of an evolutionary
process which, of necessity, required a long time period and the possibility of
waste. (David Lamont Paulsen, “Comparative Coherency of Mormon
(Finitistic) and Classical Theism” [PhD Thesis; The University of Michigan, 1975],
165-67)
It
should be noted here that the president of the church has neither endorsed nor
repudiated the theory of organic evolution, although more definitive positions
pro and con have been advanced by general authorities of the church. Joseph Fielding
Smith, then a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, published a vigorous
attack on the theory of organic evolution in 1952 in his book, Man: His
Origin and Destiny. In response to the controversy engendered by the book,
David O. McKay, prophet and president of the church, stated and wrote on
several occasions, that the viewpoints expressed by Elder Smith in the
aforesaid book represented Elder Smith’s personal opinions and did not
constitute the official position of the church. President McKay stressed the
point that the church has taken no official position.
Herein,
I do not take a position either. I simply argue that Mormon theism provides a
conceptual framework for understanding the facts supportive of a theory of
organic evolution which is much more coherent and accommodating than does the framework
of classical theism. An interesting historical summary of the church’s
responses to the theory is contained in Duane E. Jeffrey, “Seers, Savants and
Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
VIII (Autumn, Winter 1974), pp. 41-75. (Ibid., 172-73 n. 54)
