Scriptural Problems with Evolution

By Loyal to the Word


“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

                                                                                                                                                                                      -Matthew 6:24


“You cannot be a faithful member and reject the scriptures – Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price – for these are the standards of our faith. If you accept them you cannot accept organic evolution, for they are diametrically opposed.”

                                                                                                                       -Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 276



The Incompatibility of Evolution with the Gospel

         The theory of evolution is very popular and pervasive in our society. It is common to hear references made to the “evolution of man” even in the news and popular culture, let alone among the scientific establishment. Therefore, it is not very surprising that there are a number of Latter-day Saints who, being weak in their faith and wishing to feel mainstream, accept the theories of men. However, in accepting such theories, the Latter-day Saint is at odds with the revealed truth of the scriptures. 

         These liberal Mormons who make these compromises do not wish to hold tightly to the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets. Instead, they are content to accept the theories of men and mingle them with scripture. These liberal Mormons will bend, twist, and contort the scriptures whatever way they feel they need to in order to accommodate for their beloved theory of evolution. In this butchery of the Word of God, they attempt to hold to both the Gospel and evolution. But concerning the scriptures and evolution, it is inevitable and necessary that a person must accept one and discard the other, because they are polar opposites. If we are to believe the scriptures then we must reject evolution! Evolution and the Gospel are not compatible in the slightest; they mix like oil and water. This is exactly why the two cannot co-exist together, but one view must always give way in favor of the other in the heart of an individual. And so, as has been mentioned, those theological liberals in and out of the Church will disregard the scriptures whenever it becomes inconvenient for their evolution theory.

         This article will discuss the many scriptural problems of evolution theory and demonstrate that it is entirely incompatible with the Gospel, and that we must therefore reject one or the other. We must choose, for we cannot have both. This article will not delve into the scientific refutations of evolution theory, but its purpose is to focus solely on the scriptural inconsistencies. For scientific objections to evolution theory, the reader is referred to here.



Darwin – The False Prophet 

         Jesus warned, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:24). This is a solemn warning from the Savior to be wary of false teachings in the world. A person does not have to declare himself to be a prophet in order to qualify as a false prophet. A false prophet is a false teacher who claims special insight into matters relating to God or truth, whether from a supernatural or a purely intellectual source. A false Christ is any perception of God that is incorrect. Both in and out of the Church, there are those who imagine up unto themselves a God that used the process of evolution to create life, including human life. This is a false Christ. And those who believe in this false Christ have set up for themselves Charles Darwin as their prophet. For them, the scriptures, the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the teachings of subsequent prophets must all bow to Darwin’s theory. If there is ever any disagreement, it is Darwin that wins out for them. For many of Darwin’s followers within the Church, they will bend and twist the Gospel however they must, but one thing remains constant for them – their adherence to Darwinism. Because of these circumstances, Darwin becomes for them their ultimate prophet, their ultimate source of truth, which trumps genuine revelation. But just as Darwin’s teachings lead a person to believe in a false Christ, Darwin himself is a false prophet.  

Charles Darwin, the false prophet. 

         Jesus also said, “Ye shall know them [i.e. false prophets] by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16). Probably no person in history has contributed more to the spread of atheism and Godlessness than Darwin through his theory and its implications. He is the prophet of atheists and reprobates, and the supreme prophet to faithless liberal members of the Church who wish to embrace the philosophies of men instead of the truth of the scriptures. 

         We shall now consider inconsistencies between evolution and the scriptures, as they are treated below and sorted into major topics.



The Earth


1. There Was No “Big Bang”

         Evolution teaches that there was a “Big Bang,” which is the name for a supposed explosion of a tiny condensed particle 13.8 billion years ago, and from this particle all matter we see has formed spontaneously. The Big Bang is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to explain the existence of the universe without the intervention of a God. The scriptures teach in contrast to this silliness that God is responsible for the creation and order of the universe, which were deliberately organized by him. Also, God did not commence all of his creative acts with a Big Bang, but instead he has been steadily and consistently creating worlds without the constraint of some theory of a one-time massive explosion. If the Big Bang were true, then God would have only done a creative act basically one time, and all of his creative enterprises would have to be restricted within the framework of this single, arbitrary theoretical event. Yet the scriptures clearly indicate that the creative acts of God are continuous and not bound to a single triggering event: “And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works” (Moses 1:38, emphasis added). The Lord Jesus Christ also said, “We will go down, for there is space there [suggesting that there was not space in other places, because there was already created worlds], and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell” (Abraham 3:24).  

         The Big Bang Theory, with all matter coming from a single, mysterious dense particle, is a throwback to the old false doctrine of creation ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. There is very little difference between a single tiny particle and literally nothing. The two doctrines have a very similar theme, except that one excludes God entirely. As for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men...say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 350). The Prophet also taught that the materials used to create the world are co-eternal with God and therefore cannot have been made by him through the Big Bang process:


                             “You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, ‘Doesn't
                             the Bible say He created the world?’ And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out
                             of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it
                             means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had
                             materials to organize the world out of chaos
—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the 
                             glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which
                             can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning,
                             and can have no end.”
                             (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 350-351, emphasis added).



2. Length of Time for the Earth’s Creation

         The crucial lynchpin which the theory of evolution requires is a very, very old earth. This is essential to their theory because in order for evolution to seem plausible, enormous amounts of time are necessary to bring about the changes from one single-celled organism to all the present varieties of life we see today. Evolutionists’ theories about the age of the earth have always been in flux, always getting older and older. But presently evolutionists believe the earth to be some 4.5 billion years old. 

         In opposition to this, the scriptures tell us very specifically how old the earth is. The key to this mystery is laid out for us in the Book of Abraham. In every instance where the Mosaic account uses the word “day” to denote a Creation period, Abraham uses “time.” Furthermore, we are told what the duration of a “time” is:


                             “And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according
                             to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his 
                             manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou 
. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.” 
                             (Abraham 3:4, emphasis added).


         Also, in connection with the forbidden fruit, the Lord told Adam in the Abrahamic account, “in the time [1000 years] that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Abraham 5:13). Note that in the other Creation accounts here also “time” is interchanged with “day.” Adam certainly did die within the time (or 1,000 years) that he ate the fruit, for “all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died” (Genesis 5:5). Joseph Smith also taught this concept in these words:



“Now, as to Adam, the Lord said, ‘In the day thou shalt eat thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Now, the day the Lord has reference to is spoken of by Peter: a thousand of our years is with the Lord as one day, etc. At the time the Lord said this to Adam there was no mode of counting time by man as man now counts time.”
(Joseph Smith in Dahl & Cannon, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, p. 21). 

         The great scriptorian Orson Pratt expressed this same thought. He said, 



“[T]here is a certain great world, called Kolob, placed near one of the celestial kingdoms, whose diurnal rotation takes place once in a thousand of our years; and that celestial time was measured by those celestial beings, by the rotations of Kolob, hence one day with the Lord was a thousand of our years. If this was the case, the six days of the creation of our earth, the six days during which it was being prepared as a habitation for man, must have been six thousand of our years.”
(Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 16: 317). 

         We conclude from this very enlightening information that it took about 6,000 years to create the earth, followed by a thousand year period of rest according to Book of Abraham. Therefore, the earth is only 7,000 years old from its Creation, plus the length of time which man has been upon the earth.



3. Wrong Order of the Creation Events

         One glaring inconsistency between evolution theory and the scriptures are the chronology of creation events. The two stories differ completely with respect to the sequence in which the earth was formed. In evolution, the earth began as a hot, molten mass, with oceans appearing later. According to the scriptures, in its most primal state, the earth was covered in water (Moses 2:2), with dry land appearing afterward (Moses 2:9-10; Psalms 24:1-2). In evolution, the Sun lighted the earth long before plant life arrived. In the scriptures, plant life was formed on Day 3, before the Sun was given as a light source on Day 4 (Moses 2:11-19); Prior to that, God was the light (D&C 88:6-10; John 8:12). In evolution, the first animals were simple single-celled organisms. In the scriptures, the first animals were great whales/sea creatures and birds – very complex organisms (Moses 2:11-13). In evolution theory, land-roaving dinosaurs evolved into our modern birds. In the scriptures, birds had already appeared on Day 5, before any land animals (Moses 2:21-23). In evolution theory, there was supposed to be no grass in the time of dinosaurs. Yet the scriptures assure us that grass came on Day 3, before any beasts were on the earth (Moses 2:11). According to evolution, insects came before birds. However, in the scriptures, birds were created on Day 5 (Moses 2:20-23). Insects, or “creeping things” were made afterward on Day 6 (Moses 2:24-25, 31). Try as one may, there is no way to reconcile these two opposing views without destroying the integrity of one or the other. 



4. The Earth was a Paradise World

The earth was created in the beginning in a state of paradise. 

         Evolution teaches that for billions of years the earth has for all intents and purposes been a fallen world, with organisms living and dying and primal animal struggle being the rule (and the mechanism of progress) in the world. In contrast to this falsehood, we know that when the earth was originally created, it existed in a paradise state, free from this sort of corruption.

         As the Tenth Article of Faith reads, “We believe… that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory [at the Second Coming of Christ].” That is, it was originally in a paradise state and it will again return to that state when the Lord returns. Before the Fall of Man, God declared his Creation as “very good” (Moses 2:31), and had man not fallen, “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end” (2 Ne. 2:22). That is, things would have remained indefinitely in the original paradisiacal state that the earth was created in had the Fall of Adam not occurred. The theory of evolution has no place in it for a paradisiacal earth, and is indeed necessarily extremely opposed to the notion.  

         Consider also that if God initially created the world in a state of corruption, death, and turmoil as evolutionists must claim – in other words, if God created a fallen world – then this would have made God the author of sin, evil, and corruption! Evolutionists in the Church are in the uncomfortable position of having to attribute sin and corruption directly to God. But the scriptures are clear that man is the reason that sin and death are in the world, having brought it to the world by transgression, and hence this is the reason for man’s fallen nature and the earth’s condition. For instance, the Book of Mormon teaches “there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience” (Alma 42:12, emphasis added). The Book of Mormon also explains how God placed man upon the earth in a state where he was empowered to act for himself, and that through the use of this agency mankind had precipitated the Fall (see 2 Ne. 2:14-23). Therefore, it is because of man's actions, and not God's, that we live in a fallen world.



5. Life Transplanted From Other Worlds

         Evolution teaches that life on this planet evolved over millions of years from simple single-celled organisms to all the present varieties of life today. The truth of the matter, however, is that these forms of life all appeared relatively simultaneously, and that they appeared at once in a fully-developed condition. The reason for this is that the life on our planet did not originate here, but was actually transplanted from other worlds which God had already created. The scriptures tell us that at the beginning of the earth, plants of all kinds were planted on this earth via already existing seeds. Each plant came forth “from its own seed” (Abr. 4:12, emphasis added), suggesting that the seeds for every plant on our planet has already long existed elsewhere. “Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?” the Prophet asked in connection to this idea (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373). President Brigham Young taught, “[Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:319, emphasis added). President Young also remarked, “Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that formed and built this world [i.e. Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael/Adam] – that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:285).

Life on this planet was transplanted from other created earths. 

         As President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “…does it not appear to you that it is a foolish and ridiculous notion that when God created this earth he had to begin with a speck of protoplasm, and take millions of years, if not billions, to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image? Why not the shorter route and transplant them from another earth as we are taught in the scriptures?” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 277). This is a valid point. Why would God bother with the process of evolution when He could simply take existing life forms from other planets and populate the earth more efficiently? In any case, life on our planet was transplanted here from other worlds, and therefore could not have evolved as evolutionists claim. 



6. The 7,000 Year Temporal Existence of the Earth

         We have already discussed how evolutionists of necessity must claim a very old earth, which is diametrically opposed to the information we are given about the age of the earth in the scriptures. We have already demonstrated that it took 6,000 years for the Lord to create the earth, which was followed by another thousand years of rest. Then the story of human history, with Father Adam and Mother Eve, begins. The question is: how long has the earth been around since its Creation? Evolutionists again must claim here that it would be a very great amount of time, and they generally believe that various living things have been living and dying on the earth for hundreds of millions of years, and that human beings emerged around 2 million years ago.

         In direct contrast to this, the scriptures once again give us a very clear answer regarding the amount of time the earth has existed since its Creation and the Fall of Man. As for the time that has elapsed since the Creation and Fall, the scriptures tell us that, including the thousand years’ Millennial Reign of Christ, the earth is to have “seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence” (D&C 77:6). That is, about 6,000 years plus the 1,000 year Millennial Reign of Christ. 

         In speaking of this topic, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “The world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 252, emphasis added). The Prophet Joseph Smith also referred to the Millennium as “the Sabbath of creation,” since it will essentially be the seventh thousand years from the time of the Creation, and a time of rest (ibid., p. 13).

         Orson Pratt likewise taught similarly regarding the length of the earth’s temporal existence (after its Creation) compared to the time it took to create it: “The events of this creation…and finally the great day of rest after the six days were ended, were all typical, the latter especially, typifying what should take place in regard to the future existence of this creation. After six thousand years should pass away…in the seventh period, or the seventh thousand years, [Satan] should be bound” (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 16:318). 

         In other words, the Creation is reflective of the future destiny of the earth. In its Creation, the earth underwent approximately six thousand years of construction, until there was a great rest on the seventh day. Now, after its Creation, there has been six thousand years of human history, analogous to the six 1,000-year Creative periods. And sometime “in the beginning of the seventh thousand years,” which are fast approaching, “will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man” (D&C 77:12). Thus the day of rest the Lord took on the seventh day of the Creation (Moses 3:1-2; Abr. 5:1-2) is a type and a shadow of the Millennial reign of Christ.

          Therefore, there have only been roughly 6,000 years since the Fall of Adam, and therefore only 6,000 years of human history. That makes the earth: 7,000 years’ preparation in Creation + 6,000 years of human history = about 13,000 years old. This is in direct conflict with evolution theory, which of necessity teaches that the earth has had a temporal (i.e. non paradisiacal) existence for billions of years.



7. Uniformitarianism is Wrong 

         Basic to the theory of evolution is the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the earth we see today is the product of slow, gradual processes; and that the earth has always existed in a state like the present, and has changed at the same rate at which it does today, denying catastrophic events as explanations for the different geological curiosities of the earth. However, we know from the scriptures that this idea is false. A massive catastrophic event has happened – the Flood, which we will discuss more later. The apostle Peter prophesied that there would be many in the last days that would assert a false uniformitarian theory and thereby deny the Flood and other truths of the Gospel. He said:



“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his [Christ’s] coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
(2 Peter 3:3-7, emphasis added). 

Uniformitarianism is the belief that the earth’s unique features are a product of slow, gradual processes.

         This scripture is very plain that the Flood, the great catastrophic event that it was, completely destroyed the previous world, or the “world that then was.” And we know that the earth has undergone many changes since the day of its first Creation in the beginning. Therefore, we necessarily must reject the false theory of uniformitarianism and embrace catastrophism, which is the idea that sudden catastrophic events are responsible for shaping our planet in its present form.



8. The Division of the Earth

         Evolutionists concede that the earth was once a large supercontinent, called by them “Pangaea.” On this point they are right, for the scriptures say, “the islands” were “one land” which has since become “divided” (D&C 133:23-24). However, where the evolutionists err is the timeframe in which the division occurred. In the paradigm of evolution, the division of the continents took hundreds of millions of years and occurred by slow processes. This is false, for the scriptures certify that, “in his [Peleg’s] days,” who was the son of Eber, that is, in one generation, “was the earth divided” (Gen. 10:25), far from millions of years. Also, all of this was accomplished much more recently in history than the evolutionists think, since Peleg lived about 100 years after the Flood, being born circa 2243 B.C. and living for 239 years (see Genesis ch. 11). 

         In addition to this, the scriptures tell us that, directly contrary to evolutionary theory, the continents will be restored to their proper place in the Millennium:

The earth originally had only one great supercontinent. It was divided in a single generation of men. It will likewise return suddenly to that state once again. 


 “Wherefore, prepare ye for the coming of the Bridegroom; go ye, go ye out to meet him. For behold, he shall stand upon the mount of Olivet, and upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea, and upon the land of Zion. And he shall utter his voice out of Zion, and he shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people; And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found. He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land; And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.”
(D&C 133:19-24, emphasis added). 



9. The Ultimate Destiny of the Earth

         The theory of evolution teaches that the primal struggle of our present world will continue, until the time in which the earth and all living things upon it will be eradicated through natural means: one day far in the future the sun will burn out and become a red star, expanding and eventually engulfing the earth, destroying it. The universe is then, according to the theory, destined to eventually become cold and lifeless. This is all in stark contrast to the truth as revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who revealed that the destiny of this earth is for it to become a terrestrial sphere at the Second Coming of Christ, and ultimately become a celestial kingdom upon which its righteous inhabitants may dwell. In regard to the transformation of the earth at the Second Coming, the revelations say:


                              “And prepare for the revelation which is to come, when the veil of the covering of my temple, in my
                              tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together. And every
                              corruptible thing, both of man, or of the beasts of the field, or of the fowls of the heavens, or of the 
                              fish of the sea, that dwells upon all the face of the earth, shall be consumed; And also that of element
                              shall melt with fervent heat; and all things shall become new, that my knowledge and glory may dwell upon
                              all the earth. And in that day the enmity of man, and the enmity of beasts, yea, the enmity of all flesh,
                              shall cease from before my face. And in that day whatsoever any man shall ask, it shall be given unto him.
                              And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man. And there shall be no sorrow because there is
                              no death. In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree;
                              And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of
                              an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious. Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day
                              when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—”
                              (D&C 101:23-32).


         Regarding the ultimate destiny of the earth, in which it is transformed into a celestial kingdom, to be the abode of the righteous forever, the revelations say:


                              “And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed
                              that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all
                              unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after it hath filled the measure of
                              its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father; That bodies who are
                              of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created
                              and for this intent are they sanctified.”
                              (D&C 88:17-20, emphasis added).



Adam and the Children of Men



10. Adam was a Historical Person

         The theory of evolution teaches that there was no man Adam, but that such stories are myths developed through history to come up with a primitive explanation for our world. But as Latter-day Saints, if we are to believe the scriptures and be consistent, then we must accept that Adam, the first man and the progenitor of all mankind, was a real, historical person. The scriptures indicate that when God created Adam and Eve, they were indeed “living souls” (Moses 6:9). How could they be so designated if they were not real people?

         The revelations of Joseph Smith chronicle the lineage of the priesthood, and trace it directly back to Adam. As the scriptures say,


                              “This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner: From Adam
                              to Seth, who was ordained by Adam at the age of sixty-nine years, and was blessed by him three years 
                              previous to his (Adam’s) death, and received the promise of God by his father, that his posterity should be
                              the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth...”
                              (D&C 107:41-42).


         If Adam was not a real person, why chronicle the descent of the priesthood through his lineage? And why give specific ages of when these supposedly fictitious patriarchs were ordained? Would that not be a pointless exercise? If Adam was a myth, there would be no legitimate reason for the Lord to establish this connection of priesthood descent for modern priesthood holders.

         It is significant that Joseph Smith made frequent reference to Adam in his teachings, and taught that he was intelligent, mighty, etc. “That [Adam] received revelations, commandments and ordinances at the beginning is beyond the power of controversy” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 168), the Prophet taught. And this so-called fictional man is none other than the Archangel Michael, who stands next to Christ himself in authority as the next “Great High Priest” to whom all subsequent prophets must give an account of their stewardship (ibid., p. 158. See also D&C 27:11). There can be no doubt that the Prophet understood the events in the Creation narrative, with Adam, Eve, and a Garden, quite literally, since he went as far as to identify the precise location of the Garden of Eden in Jackson County, Missouri (see Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, Dahl & Cannon, ed. p. 277). Was Joseph Smith wrong?

         The Prophet Joseph Smith knew well what he was talking about when he spoke of Adam, for he had even seen him in vision. The Prophet said, “I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 158).  As to the knowledge and understanding received from heavenly visions, Joseph assured us that “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.” (ibid., 324.). The Prophet had also actually heard the voice of Michael, who is Adam, as the scriptures relate: “And again, what do we hear? … The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light!” (D&C 128:20). Michael, or Adam, had also appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith along with Gabriel, Raphael, and “divers angels…all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood” (D&C 128:21).

         Joseph Smith was a treasure trove of heavenly knowledge and insight. He knew the truth. In fact, the Prophet Joseph assured us, “I could go back and trace every subject of interest concerning the relationship of God to man, if I had time. I can enter into the mysteries; I can enter largely into the eternal worlds.” (ibid., 359). Would Joseph Smith have changed his opinions about Adam had he been contemporary with Darwin and been “enlightened” by the doctrine of evolution? It is unthinkable and presumptuous to suggest that Darwin, or any modern-day LDS evolutionist, might have anything meaningful to add to the Prophet’s understanding about our father Adam, of whom he had first-hand knowledge. Joseph Smith said of his understanding, “I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him.” (ibid., 350). Joseph Smith the Prophet also declared, “I know the scriptures and understand them” (ibid., 357), and he stated unequivocally, “I believe in the fall of man, as recorded in the Bible.” (Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, Dahl & Cannon, ed. p. 238, emphasis added).

         The evidence from the scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are overwhelming. If we accept the scriptures and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, then we are completely bound to believing that Adam was a real, historical person. It therefore follows that if Adam was not a real person, as evolution teaches, then our religion is false.



11. Adam Lived 6,000 Years Ago, Circa 4000 B.C.

         Evolution teaches that the primitive predecessors of mankind first emerged around two million years ago, and human beings as we know them appeared several hundred thousand years ago. However, this idea when measured up against the scriptures is found to be totally fallacious. That is because we can determine with supreme confidence that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago, circa 4000 B.C. We do this by adding up the ages of the patriarchs and thereby determine the time span of the history of the world. We do not have to look exclusively to the Old Testament for this information, as the ages of these patriarchs are corroborated in the revelations of Joseph Smith found in the Book of Moses, chapter 6, verses 10-25 (Joseph Smith’s inspired version of the Genesis account), the Doctrine and Covenants (sections 84 and 107 give the lineage of the priesthood and the ages at which the patriarchs were ordained), and even in the Lectures on Faith, co-authored by the Prophet (in Lecture Second is given an account of the ages of the patriarchs). In addition to this, the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the timeframe of human history when he remarked, “The world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 252).



12. Adam was the First Man

         Another indispensible tenet of evolutionary theory is the idea that there were human beings before the time of Adam (circa 4000 B.C.). Also, that there was non-human, ape-like cavemen roaming the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. All of this is in direct contradiction to the scriptures, as there were no people before Adam, and no so-called pre-Adamites whether of a human or semi-human kind. The scriptures declare: 


                               “And the first man of all men have I [i.e. God] called Adam…”
                               (Moses 1:34).

                               “And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
                               life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also…”
                               (Moses 3:7, emphasis added).

                               “[The Priesthood] was conferred upon [Abraham] from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the 
                               beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present
                               time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers
                               unto me.”
                               (Abraham 1:3, emphasis added).

                               “… [Abel] received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the
                               first man
                               (D&C 84:16, emphasis added).

                               “And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the 
                               beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created…”
                               (2 Nephi 2:15, emphasis added).

                               “And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the
                               world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents…”
                               (1 Nephi 5:11, emphasis added).

                               “And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the
                               presence of the Lord
; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.”
                               (Alma 42:7, emphasis added).

                               “For they [the wicked] are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old
                               serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all
                               mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.”
                               (Mosiah 16:3, emphasis added).

                               “And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree
                               of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption
                               would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.”
                               (Alma 12:26, emphasis added).

                               “For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, 
                               from whence they were taken…”
                               (Alma 42:2, emphasis added).


There were no pre-Adamites. While some of Adam’s children lived in primitive circumstances along the course of history (accounting for the “cave men”), the scriptures are clear that there were no pre-Adamite people, or people-like subhuman beings inhabiting the earth. 

People have been conditioned to believe that there is overwhelming evidence for man having evolved from apes. The artistic rendering of the Nebraska Man (to the right) was composed on as little evidence as a single tooth - a tooth which was later determined to have belonged to a pig. But the suggestion made by such illustrations and propaganda nevertheless carries a powerful and enduring, albeit false, imagery upon the public mind: that man descended from beasts.


13. Man Was Created in the Image of God from the Beginning

         Evolution teaches that man did not originate as human beings in the beginning, but instead started out as a single-celled organism, and then slowly through a great many successive generations, evolved up through the lower forms of life to his present condition. In contrast to this, the scriptures teach that in the beginning, man was fashioned in the image of God: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27; Moses 2:27; Abr. 4:27). The scriptures also declare:


                              “[Christ] should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in
                              the beginning
; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God.”
                              (Mosiah 7:27, emphasis added).


                              “ in the beginning was created after the image of God...”
                              (Alma 18:34, emphasis added).

                             “Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after
                             mine own image
                             (Ether 3:15, emphasis added).


         In connection with this scriptural verity, the First Presidency has proclaimed, “It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father” (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, “The Origin of Man,” 1909).



14. No Death before the Fall

         Absolutely crucial to the theory of evolution is the necessity of the presence of death in this world for millions upon millions of years. In order for the theory to work, there had to have been death for millions of years, and that through this means organisms improved themselves through successive generations. However, the scriptures are in direct and absolute contradiction to this entire idea, as they are absolutely clear that death did not bring man into the world, but man brought death into the world. There was no death of organisms upon the earth before the Fall of Adam. The scriptures are completely certain on this point: 


                                “And [Enoch] said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made
                                partakers of misery and woe.”
                                (Moses 6:48, emphasis added).


                                “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men….
                                Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…. by one man's offence death reigned.”
                                (Romans 5:12, 14, 17, emphasis added).


                                “…by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death…”
                                (Moses 6:59, emphasis added).


                                “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the
                                garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were
                                after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.”
                                (2 Nephi 2:22).


                                “…the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal…”
                                (Alma 42:9).


                                “…for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead,
                                both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.”
                                (Helaman 14:16).


                                “For since by man [Adam] came death…”
                                (1 Corinthians 15:21).


         These declarations of the scriptures, that there was no death before the fall, and that Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden brought death into the world, are too numerous to be discounted without destroying the Gospel story within the scriptures. However, evolutionists within the Church, in order to continue to subscribe to their precious theory, must deny the truth of these scriptures. And so they do. They will bend and twist and spiritualize away these scriptural utterances until Holy Writ itself becomes utterly meaningless.



15. Fall of Man was Necessary for the Atonement 

         The next problem with evolution and the gospel also deals with the Fall of Adam. That is the scriptural fact that the Fall of Man is the necessary condition for the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Fall of Adam brought sin and death into the world, and the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ reconciled those two problems. In other words, according to the scriptures the entire reason Jesus Christ came into the world to save mankind was to remedy the condition brought onto the world by the Fall of Adam. And yet, if evolution is true, then there was no Fall of Man and mankind did not bring death into the world. Evolution totally undermines the most central and important concept of our religion.

         The scriptures teach the following regarding the inseparable, reciprocal connection between the Fall and the Atonement:


                                “For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs
                                be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the
                                fall came by reason of transgression…”
                                (2 Nephi 9:6, emphasis added).


                                “Behold, [God] created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus
, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.”
                                (Mormon 9:12, emphasis added).


                                “For behold, and also [Christ’s] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of
                                (Mosiah 3:11).


                                “ in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.”
                                (Mosiah 3:16).


                                “Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death
                                —that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord,
                                are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.”
                                (Helaman 14:16, emphasis added).


                                “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even
                                so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
                                (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).


The entire reason for the Atonement of Jesus Christ was to remedy the effects caused by the Fall of Adam. If the Fall of Adam did not occur, there was no need for the Atonement. Therefore, evolution completely undermines the most fundamental concept of our religion.



16. Adam and Eve Brought Forth the Family of All the Earth

         Evolution teaches that modern man’s heritage goes back hundreds of thousands of years and denies the recent advent of man 6,000 years ago. Those who choose to try to hang on to both worldviews are obliged to believe in pre-Adamites and human tribal activity far pre-dating the time of Adam. Many therefore assume that Adam must have come later than these primitive tribes, and simply been one among many already existing human beings. This is completely at odds with the scriptures, which teach that all people who have lived on the earth have been descendents of Adam and Eve. First, the scriptures declare that “the first man, who is Adam,” was designated as the “first father” (Abr. 1:3), and that Adam and Eve were “our first parents” (1 Nephi 5:11, emphasis added). The scriptures declare, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many” (Moses 4:26, emphasis added; see also Gen. 3:20). As Lehi taught, “And they [Adam and Eve] have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth” (2 Ne. 2:20, emphasis added). The scriptures elsewhere indicate: “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…” (Acts 17:26, emphasis added). This is entirely in contrast with the false theistic evolutionary idea that there were men on the earth for longer than 6,000 years ago, and Adam’s family was only one among many.


Adam and Eve brought forth the family of all the earth.



17. Atonement Only Effective for the Children of Adam

         Another inconsistency between the theory of evolution and the gospel centers around the Atonement. As already pointed out, the theory of evolution claims that there have been people for hundreds of thousand of years before the time of Adam. However, the scriptures teach us that the exalting power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is only effective for those souls born through the family of Adam. Jacob the brother of Nephi taught that Jesus “suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Ne. 9:21, emphasis added). And as King Benjamin taught, “[Jesus Christ’s] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” (Mosiah 3:11, emphasis added). The Atonement is effective for the earth and nature, but the family of Adam are the only humans subject to salvation. If evolution is true and Adam’s father was a primitive human or something very close to it, he would not be a candidate for salvation. Neither would the other tribesman of human beings who were supposed to be existing contemporaneously at the time of Adam. Neither would the descendents of such tribesman unto their latest generations. If circumstances were thus, this could not possibly strike the reader as anything other than very unfair. It is comforting to understand, therefore, that the theory of evolution is false.

         It should also be here noted that there are many worlds with many Adams, all of which have access to the same Atonement. As the scriptures say, “And worlds without number have I [i.e. God] created…. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many” (Moses 1:33-34, emphasis added). The Lord also said pertaining to woman, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many” (Moses 4:26, emphasis added). Therefore, upon each inhabited world that God has created, the name (or title?) of the first man is Adam, and the name (title) of the woman is Eve, “because she was the mother of all living” upon that planet (ibid). Adam is the name for the first man, and Eve is the name for the mother of all living on each respective planet. Nevertheless, only the descendents of Adam and Eve on each respective planet are subjects of salvation in the sense of inheriting the kingdom of God.



18. Adam, a Son of God Almighty

         Evolution teaches that mankind is descended from animals, and that we evolved from the lower orders of creation. But the Gospel teaches us that mankind is no less than the literal offspring of God. As Paul taught on Mars’ Hill: “…we are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29, emphasis added). How was the creation of Adam effected? The scriptures tell us explicitly that Adam was “born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit [i.e. the natural elements of birth]” (Moses 6:59, emphasis added). They also assure us that Adam “was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed” (Moses 6:22), and that Adam was the “firstborn” into the world (Abr. 1:3). And so the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were literally begotten by our Heavenly Parents. It is true that the scriptures say that man was “formed… from the dust of the ground” (Moses 3:7; Abr. 5:7; Gen. 2:7), however, this is a cryptic verse in scripture that we are told elsewhere in Holy Writ means simply to be born: “inasmuch as ye [Adam] were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul” (Moses 6:59, emphasis added).

         Speaking of Jesus Christ’s title as the Only Begotten Son of God, Bruce R. McConkie wrote, “Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22, 59), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam’s entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. p. 742). Unlike the conception of Jesus, which was the merging of mortal and Godly genetic material and was accomplished through the medium of the Holy Ghost and was a nonsexual event, the birth of Adam and Eve was the product of the marital union between God and His exalted Wife.

         If Adam was a literal son of God, then this absolutely excludes the possibility of human evolution. If man is the direct offspring of God, and God is not an ape or any sort of lower animal, then man did not come from such base lineage as the animal kingdom. The true understanding of man’s origin is exactly opposite to the demeaning implications of Darwinism. The real heritage of mankind is exalted and from above, not formed from the scum of a primordial pond. The First Presidency reaffirmed that God, and not animals, is in man’s lineage when, in an official statement concerning evolution, they said, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity” (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Nibley, “Mormon” View of Evolution, 1925, emphasis added). Notable apostle and contemporary of this particular First Presidency, Elder James E. Talmage, concurred with this and testified, “Man is the child of God....He is born in the lineage of Deity, not in the posterity of the brute creation” (James E. Talmage, The Earth and Man, 1931, emphasis added).  

The First Presidency in 1925 declared to us the “Mormon” View of Evolution, which is simply this: Mankind is directly descended from God, and therefore able to progress to godhood. 

         Another notable apostle from an earlier day, Elder Orson Pratt, likewise drew the stark contrast between the falsehood of evolution theory, which he called “the creation of man’s folly and foolishness,” with the truth of man’s origin when he said: “But when we learn through the revelations of God that instead of man’s coming up from the poor worm of the dirt, he descended from the being who controls the universe by his power; that he descended from that being who is the fullness of all knowledge....We are his offspring, we are his sons and his daughters, we are his children, he has begotten us” (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 20:76).          

         This one scriptural truth is sufficient to falsify human evolution. For a much more in-depth discussion of this marvelous doctrine and a greater abundance of prophetic testimony of its truthfulness, please visit the author’s article: The Manner of Adam’s Creation



19. Language was with the First Man

         Evolution theory teaches that the first humans, being recently descended from animals, did not have any means of communication as sophisticated as language, and that language had to be developed over many thousands and thousands of years, from simple forms to more complex, until man was finally able to develop both oral and written language. In contrast to this spurious view of human history, the scriptures verify that the first man had both oral and written language of an extremely highly developed nature. The scriptures chronicle, “And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration” (Moses 6:5). This highly developed “language of Adam” was only ever diversified at the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel (a verity corroborated by the Book of Mormon in Ether 1:33-37).


Left: Adam and Eve instructing their children. A written record was kept from the beginning, “in the language of Adam.”



20. Longevity of the Patriarchs

         In keeping with the belief of uniformitarianism, evolution teaches that the lifespan of mankind is not capable of reaching very far beyond our present day’s average lifespan, and that it never was, especially in the distant past. And yet the scriptures give accounts of pre-Flood men with great lifespans that reached over 900 years old! The Book of Genesis gives the following amazing account:


                               “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred
                               and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat
                               sons and daughters: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. And Enos lived
                               ninety years, and begat Cainan: And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and
                               begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. And Cainan
                               lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and
                               forty years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and
                               he died. And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: And Mahalaleel lived after he begat 
                               Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Mahalaleel were
                               eight hundred and ninety and five years: and he died. And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and
                               he begat Enoch: And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And
                               all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. And Enoch lived sixty and five
                               years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and
                               begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch
                               walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years,
                               and begat Lamech: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat 
                               sons and daughters: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. And
                               Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This
                               same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath
                               cursed. And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and
                               daughters: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. And Noah was
                               five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
                               (Genesis 5:5-32).


         In addition to this, after the generations of men that had lived close to the time of the Flood had been ending, the prophet Jacob told the Pharaoh of Egypt, “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage” (Gen. 47:9). All of this is totally contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists – even largely those within the Church. And yet, other Latter-day Saint scriptures confirm the truth of the Old Testament account. The Book of Moses likewise gives the ages of the patriarchs (see Moses 6:12-27). So also does the Doctrine & Covenants corroborate the great ages of the patriarchs (see D&C 107:41-52), declaring that “Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam” (D&C 107:46). Likewise, the Lectures on Faith, co-authored by the Prophet Joseph Smith and approved by him, give in Lecture Second a rehashing of the Biblical account of the ages of the patriarchs. There is no escaping it for Mormons – the people of pre-Flood days were able to live to great ages. And this flies in the face of all the tenets of evolution theory.




21. There Were Giants in the Earth in Those Days

         The scriptures speak frankly regarding the pre-Flood era, “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6:14; Moses 8:18). These giants were men of great stature, far larger than the typical modern man. There can be no doubt that these giants did exist, for in the inspired account of Genesis, the Book of Moses, we learn that these giants conspired to kill Noah: “And in those days there were giants on the earth, and they sought Noah to take away his life” (Moses 8:18). This race of giants was evidently common in the world before the Flood, and after the Flood only existed in ever-decreasing numbers.

         When the Children of Israel came in to inherit the Promised Land, they saw in the land the “Anakims” or the “children of Anak” who were “A people great and tall,” a people so great and terrible in stature that it was said of them, “Who can stand before the children of Anak!” (Deut. 9:2). They also encountered “Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants” (Joshua 12:4). Of this king Og, it was recorded that he was so large that out of necessity for his sheer size, his bed was “nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it [i.e. more than 13 feet long and about 6 feet wide]” (Deut. 3:11). Of Goliath the scriptures record, “And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span [i.e. about 9 feet 6 inches!]” (1 Sam. 17:4). The children of Israel seem to have extinguished the last remnants of the giants around the time of David’s victory over Goliath. And so according to the scriptures, mankind has been generally decreasing in size since the beginning.

         All of this is completely foreign and opposed to the paradigm of evolution, which teaches that mankind has descended from small life forms and tree climbing monkeys, in the fullness of the stature of man. And all of the scriptures’ mentions of giants are considered utter foolishness according to evolution theory.



22. No Vestigial Structures

         Evolution teaches that since man has evolved from lower forms of life, he has within himself many vestigial structures, or useless, no longer functioning parts that are left over relics from our evolutionary heritage. Without rebutting the scientific absurdity of this idea, we shall only point out that this is directly contrary to the scriptures. The scriptures teach about the human body: “…let not the head say unto the feet it hath no need of the feet; for without the feet how shall the body be able to stand? Also the body hath need of every member…that the system may be kept perfect” (D&C 84:109-110, emphasis added. See also 1 Cor. 12:14-23). Likewise Joseph Smith taught that the Priesthood “may be illustrated by the figure of the human body, which has different members, which have different offices to perform; all are necessary in their place, and the body is not complete without all the members” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 112, emphasis added). There is no such thing as vestigial structures – they are a myth; but instead every structure of the body has its use and purpose.

The Appendix, long thought to be a useless vestigial structure left over from evolution, is now known to have an immune system function. 



23. Races of Men

The various races of men have developed quickly in single generations, and were the result of departing from the commandments of God. 

         Evolution falsely teaches that we are evolved from apes and diversified into different colors of people over millions of years, and that the several races of men developed very slowly; also that the first, most primitive people (and therefore the closest to animals in lineage) had darker skin and Negroid features (if evolutionary artistic renditions are to be taken at face value). In contrast to this, the scriptures indicate definitely that the original people were white and fair-skinned, and that what today is the wonderful diversity of the several races of men, actually originally developed from the unfortunate circumstance of men departing from the Gospel. What is more, far from taking thousands of years to effect a change of race due to climatic conditions, these changes from fair skin to darker skin occurred in one generation.

         In the case of Cain the scriptures say, “And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain” (Moses 5:40; Gen. 4:15) due to disobedience. As a result, “the seed of Cain were black” (Moses 7:22). From Cain (through the loins of Ham – see Abr. 1:21-27) have sprung the African race we know as the Blacks. In the case of the Lamanites, the scriptures chronicle: “And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Ne. 5:21). From the Lamanites have sprung the American Indians. No doubt the other races of men have similar circumstances for their origin. None of this is meant as any disrespect to any people of color; but the point here is that the claims of evolution theory and the claims of scripture regarding the origin of the races of men are completely and utterly at odds with each other. 



24. The Spiritually Destructive Effect of Evolution Theory

         Evolution teaches that mankind are merely animals, simply a higher-evolved beast. The Gospel, on the other hand, teaches us that we are the children of God. The difference between these two worldviews is tremendous in its effects upon a person’s moral compass. The false doctrine of evolution, which teaches us that we are merely animals, naturally leads one to disregard codes of moral conduct. The reasoning is thus: Since beasts are not subject to any moral law, and man is simply a beast, then man is subject to no code of morality. Surely, if man truly was a beast then the logic of such thinking would be inescapable. This was the same line of thinking that Korihor, the antichrist from the Book of Mormon, taught. He reasoned:


                               “…that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to
                               the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man
                               conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.”
                               (Alma 30:17).


         Of course, this sort of teaching naturally and inevitably led to sinful behavior. As the scriptures record, “And thus [Korihor] did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (Alma 30:18). Evolution has a poisonous effect upon individuals and also society at large. It is of significant note that Karl Marx dedicated the German edition of Das Kapital, his book of anti-capitalist rants and socialist ideals, to Charles Darwin, his idol, as Marx could clearly see evolution theory as a theoretical/intellectual basis for his proposed communism system. And it is a matter of fact that evolution has served as the philosophical underpinning to communism, socialism, and Nazi fascism, as well as initiatives such as eugenics, genocide, and population control. It is undeniable that autocrats like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were heavily influenced by Darwinism in their policies and philosophies. Evolution is even the philosophical basis for behavioural vices that manifest themselves spontaneously in society, such as promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and school shootings. The implications of evolution theory – that man is a beast, and that he is not subject to God’s moral code – have a great effect on the minds of people.

         However the premise put forth by evolution, that man is a beast, is entirely incorrect. The true doctrine of the Gospel, that mankind are children of God and are inherently separate from the lower forms of the animal creation, is edifying and leads one to good behavior. Moroni taught this great test of truth, which evolution cannot pass:


                               “But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which
                               inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God…. for every thing
                               which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of 
                               Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to 
                               do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect
                               knowledge it is of the devil…”
                               (Moroni 7:13, 16-17).


         The notion that man is simply an animal does not entice one to believe in God or to do good, but rather entices him to do whatever his carnal desires drive him to do, in the same way that an animal is driven by its carnal desires. The scriptures also indicate, “And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness” (D&C 50:23). The idea that man is descended from apes is not an edifying thought or belief. The true doctrine that man is the child of God is edifying, and leads men to better conduct. Boyd K. Packer taught this truth when he said:


                               “The comprehension of man as no more than a specialized animal cannot help but affect how one behaves. A
                               conviction that man did evolve from animals fosters the mentality that man is not responsible for moral
                               conduct. Animals are controlled to a very large extent by physical urges. Promiscuity is a common pattern in
                               the reproduction of animals. In many subtle ways, the perception that man is an animal and likewise
                               controlled by urges invites that kind of behavior so apparent in society today. A self-image in which we
                               regard ourselves as children of God sponsors one kind of behavior. A conclusion which equates man to animals
                               fosters another kind of behavior entirely. Consequences which spring from that single false premise account
                               for much of what society now suffers.”
                               (Boyd K. Packer, “The Law and the Light,” 1990).



The Beasts of the Earth




25. No Spontaneous Generation

         Evolution theory teaches the unscientific idea that the first simple organism developed on its own from nonliving matter. This is called the theory of Spontaneous Generation. The utter unscientific principles it is based on will not be delved upon here, but we will instead challenge it from the scriptures, which indicate that all life comes from already existing life (a fact corroborated by nature itself). The scriptures say, “And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind” (Abr. 4:12, emphasis added). 

         The Prophet Joseph Smith corroborated this scripture by teaching the following which absolutely destroys the hopes of theistic evolutionists within the Church who cling to the theory of Spontaneous Generation:



“God has made certain decrees which are fixed and immovable; for instance, God set the sun, the moon, and the stars in the heavens, and gave them their laws, conditions and bounds, which they cannot pass, except by His commandments; they all move in perfect harmony in their sphere and order, and are as lights, wonders and signs unto us. The sea also has its bounds which it cannot pass. God has set many signs on the earth, as well as in the heavens; for instance, the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field, all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law or principle.”
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 197-198, emphasis added).

Scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated the fallacy of Spontaneous Generation, supporting the veracity of the scriptures. 

         The Prophet Joseph Smith further taught, “Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373). There is no such thing as Spontaneous Generation.



26. All Animals and Things Created Spiritually First

         There is little, if any room at all, for the spiritual or metaphysical within the theory of evolution. But instead, it is wholly materialistic and denies the existence of the spirit. It is significant therefore that the scriptures teach us that God first fashioned living things in the spirit before creating them in physical form. He declared, “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth” (Moses 3:5).

         We must ask: How would this work in the context of evolution? If God used evolution to create living things, as theistic evolutionists insist, what of the Spirit Creation? The scriptures assure us that “that which is spiritual [is] in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created” (D&C 77:2). Was there a spiritual evolution then? How does that work? If all living things are in the likeness of their spirit, and evolution teaches that there must be countless transitional forms with partially developed body parts, then would there not necessarily be countless spirit beings created by God with intentionally permanently useless vestigial structures? Such a thing doesn’t make any sense. All of the sudden mixing evolution with the gospel is getting much more complex than LDS evolutionists were hoping.



27. All Earthly Creatures on the Earth at the Same Time

         According to evolution theory, organisms appeared consecutively in varying forms, from simple to more complex as time went on. A major tenet of evolution, and absolutely crucial to the theory, is the idea that organisms have been undergoing changes for hundreds of millions of years, and that mankind has never shared the earth with dinosaurs or other ancient creatures now found in the great fossil graveyards in the earth. In contrast to this, the scriptures indicate that all forms of life lived contemporaneously, as the scriptures say, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20:11, emphasis added). That necessarily means that birds, deer, trilobites, saber-toothed tigers, wooly mammoths, horses, dinosaurs, and all other forms of life shared the earth in the beginning with man. 



28. After Their Kind

         Absolutely essential to the theory of evolution is the idea that organisms have undergone fundamental changes over millions of years, changing from one kind of animal to another over many generations. In fact, according to evolution theory, all life, whether plant or animal or insect or bird or elephant or man, are related to each other, all having evolved by slow, gradual changes from the first single-celled organism. While no one doubts that there is great genetic variety among creatures and created things, the scriptures (and indeed nature itself) declare that there is a definite limit to genetic variation. The scriptures tell us positively that forms of life will bring forth “after their kind” (see, for example, Moses 2:21, 25). This is repeated so much in the beginning of the Creation narratives that it makes no sense to suggest that there is room for disagreement on this point. 

         Furthermore, while a certain amount of variation exists, life cannot go beyond the bounds of remaining within certain kinds. As the scriptures say, God “organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind” (Abr. 4:12, emphasis added). Joseph Smith concurred with this, and taught that it was impossible for life to bring forth in any other way than the pattern of its parentage. This is such an undeviating verity, that he compared it to the eternal law of baptism, when he said, “Upon the same principle do I contend that baptism is a sign ordained of God…Those who seek to enter [God’s kingdom] in any other way will seek in vain.” In connection with this undeviating truth, the Prophet Joseph taught the following great verity which we have already quoted, but which nevertheless bears repeating to establish the point that life only comes forth after its kind:


                               “God has made certain decrees which are fixed and immovable; for instance, God set the sun, the moon, and
                               the stars in the heavens, and gave them their laws, conditions and bounds, which they cannot pass, except
                               by His commandments; they all move in perfect harmony in their sphere and order, and are as lights, wonders
                               and signs unto us. The sea also has its bounds which it cannot pass. God has set many signs on the earth, as
                               well as in the heavens; for instance, the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field,
                               all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant,
                               and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law or

                               (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 197, emphasis added).


         This teaching of the scriptures, that life must bring forth after its kind only, is another death knell for the hopes of LDS evolutionists.



29. Animals Restricted to their Sphere

         As just discussed above, evolution teaches that animals and other forms of life go beyond their limits and evolve into different kinds of creatures. But the scriptures teach that God has delineated all forms of life into great classes, of which these creatures cannot surpass the bounds of in time or eternity. As the scriptures say, in the eternal worlds the animals are segregated into “classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation” (D&C 77:3). How then can beings evolve from one form or class to another? These principles are truth both on earth and in the eternal worlds, because they are eternal principles, as the scriptures say: “…in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created” (D&C 77:2, emphasis added). All animals throughout time and eternity are subject to genetic limits and bounds and are restricted to a particular sphere of existence (see D&C 77). They cannot therefore transition into different kinds of creatures and violate the sphere in which God has placed them.



30. All Flesh Is Not the Same Flesh

         Evolution theory teaches that all organisms are ultimately related to each other, having descended from the same common ancestor – a primitive single-celled organism. In contrast to this, the scriptures teach that living things are not descended from a single common creature at all, nor are they able to cross over into different kinds of animals, but from the outset they are separate and distinct in their classes or kinds. As Apostle Paul stated regarding the eternal distinctions between living things, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Cor. 15:39). This scriptural truth is in direct conflict with the evolutionary idea that all flesh came from the same ancestry. 



31. Doctrine of the Resurrection Complicated by Evolution

         Evolution theory, of course, acknowledges nothing regarding the reality of the resurrection. But even if we were theistic evolutionists, and managed to incorporate the resurrection within our line of thinking anyway, it is needful to consider the serious complications that evolution would have on the resurrection if it were indeed true. Regarding the resurrection, the scriptures indicate, “Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality” (Alma 41:4). Therefore every living creature is to be restored to its original state, or its “natural frame” (ibid), excepting deformities and other such imperfections. In “heaven, the paradise of God,” what we find is “that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.” (D&C 77:2). 

         But in evolution, there are no deformities to correct, for all mutations, which are expressions of evolution, are an integral part of the creature’s being. And there is no such thing as a “proper order” within the aimless process of evolution. If evolution is true, there must have been countless transitions among the various living creatures, as they were evolving from one type of animal to another, with many useless parts as the process of evolution was making new structures. If an animal had only a partially developed wing, for instance, being neither one kind of animal nor the other, they would be doomed to remain like that in the resurrection. Will a bird with a partially formed wing be resurrected in such a debilitating, retarded condition? One would properly guess that an animal with a deformity would be repaired of its abnormality in the resurrection. But if evolution is really true, because of the fluid nature of evolution, the animal has no true basic form from which it was created as a reference to change it back to. Therefore it can only be resurrected in its state of useless vestiges for all eternity. It would not be the case of correcting a physical deformity in the afterlife, for there would be no particularly correct form to which the animal should have belonged, since the mechanism of evolution is apparently supposed to be random and aimless. It is a natural consequence of the theory that there would be animals with useless parts that are remnants of evolutionary change. Do these animals retain their completely useless parts for all eternity? If evolution is true, then the answer indeed must be yes.



The Flood 



32. The Flood – A Historical Event 

         Evolutionists who understand the implications their theory has for the earth all unite in denying the reality of Noah’s Flood. They must deny the Flood, or consider it a local flood only, in order to preserve their theory, because such a deluge would surely have destroyed evidence for evolution. It is also global a catastrophic event, and is therefore in direct opposition to the uniformitarianism which evolution is based upon. It is significant therefore, that while evolutionists without the Church or within it deny the reality of the Flood, the scriptures themselves proclaim Noah’s Flood as a literal, historical event. As Elder Mark E. Petersen testified, “Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place” (Mark E. Petersen, “Follow the Prophets,” General Conference, Oct. 1981).

         The Lord Jesus Christ understood the Flood to be a true event, and likened it to the time when he would make his appearance at the Second Coming. He said, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37-39). If the Flood did not actually occur, then the effectiveness of Jesus’ use of it as a comparison for his Second Coming is destroyed. 

         Joseph Smith likewise confirmed this, and taught that belief in the Flood as a literal event was analogous to belief in the Second Coming as a literal event. He taught, “Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood; and the Son of God came into the world to redeem it from the fall” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 12). He said again, “In the days of Noah, God destroyed the world by a flood, and He has promised to destroy it by fire in the last days” (Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, Dahl & Cannon, ed., p. 204). If one is true then so is the other. If one is not true then this casts significant doubt on the veracity of the other. Yet evolutionists within the Church want to say that the first destruction of the earth is a fiction, yet still hold out promise that the second destruction of the earth will nonetheless occur as the scriptures have stated.

         The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price likewise corroborates the reality of Noah’s Flood. It says:


                               “And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a 
                               temporal salvation; Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held
                               it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.”
                               (Moses 7:42-43).


         In the great Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, President Joseph F. Smith saw many of the “great and mighty ones” whom God had revealed himself to throughout time. Among those seen by President Smith was none other than “Noah, who gave warning of the flood” (D&C 138:41). Therefore Noah was a real, historical individual, who warned of a real, historical flood. Also, the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that “…Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.157). Gabriel (Noah) was the “father of all living” in his day, of course, because “in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:2), and Noah and his posterity were obliged to repopulate the earth much the same way Adam and Eve were obliged to populate it the first time.

         The conclusion is very obvious. The scriptures and the teachings of the Prophets indicate that Noah and the Flood were real and historical people and events. This conclusion is inescapable to the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith. Therefore, if the Flood is not true, then the Gospel is not true.



33. A Worldwide Flood

         If evolutionists accept the notion of a Flood at all, it is only in a limited scope as a very localized flood, such as in the Mesopotamian region, the story of which then grew and developed into a great myth of a Flood that covered the entire world. But the scriptures indicate without a doubt that the Flood was a worldwide Flood, and it did indeed cover the entire earth. The scriptures say: 


                               “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved
                               upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon
                               the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land,
                               died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle,
                               and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only
                               remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
                               (Genesis 7:20-23).


         The Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith declared to be “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194), corroborates the Bible’s teaching that the Flood was a worldwide catastrophic event. The prophet Ether in the Book of Mormon taught that “after the waters [of the Flood] had receded from off the face of this land [i.e. the American continent] it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” (Ether 13:2). Therefore, the Flood waters had covered the land of the Americas, as well as everywhere else in the world, according to the Book of Mormon, and the Jaredites, whose civilization began very soon after the Flood, were the first to inhabit America after the waters had receded.

         Also keep in mind that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “…Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.157, emphasis added). How could Noah have been the father of all living in his day” if the flood was not worldwide? The scriptures and the prophets teach definitely that the Flood was a worldwide event, and not a merely local one.



34. The Baptism of the Earth

         The scriptures tell us that “the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law” (D&C 88:25). Part of the law of the celestial kingdom, and indeed certainly its most conspicuous requirement, is the law of baptism. All accountable people are subject to the requirement of baptism if they wish to inherit the celestial kingdom. The earth itself, as an actual sentient being, is no different. As the scriptures relate, the earth itself spoke with a voice to Enoch and lamented, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?” (Moses 7:48). Of course, animals are not under the same requirement of the law of baptism, but the earth is much like a person in its understanding of sin and good and evil, and therefore is accountable like a person. The Flood therefore, was a baptism of the earth. 

         The prophets have taught this principle in abundance. President John Taylor in commenting on the Flood story of the Old Testament taught, “That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 26:74-75). President Brigham Young taught, “The earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (Brigham Young as quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:20).



Answers to Common Points Raised By Evolutionists in the Church 



“Evolution is a proven fact.”

         No, it isn’t. If anyone ever makes this statement or one similar to it, you can know immediately that they are misleading you.

         The trouble arises because evolutionists who make statements like this are obscuring the definition of the word “evolution,” confusing its two different meanings, and making it appear that all evolution is the same (this is called the argument fallacy of equivocation).

         The reader must beware that “evolution” can be termed in two different meanings:

  • Microevolution, which is variation within the different kinds of animals. For example, there are a large variety of dogs. But in the final analysis, whether they are large, small, fluffy, or pudgy, they are all still dogs. This variation within the dog kind is called microevolution, and it is observable and entirely factual. Everybody agrees on this part.
  • Macroevolution, which is a change from one kind of organism into a completely different kind of creature. For example, dinosaurs changing into birds over millions of years, or apes evolving into man. Such fundamental changes from one kind to another are usually what are meant when discussing “evolution,” the theory of Darwinism that all life descended slowly from a single-celled organism. This macroevolution, however, has not been observed, ever. Neither is it observable at all. Is there any possible way to watch for millions of years while organisms evolve into completely different kinds of life forms? Was anyone there to see man evolve from an ape? Of course not. This kind of evolution – macroevolution – is a belief, not a fact. You must simply buy their story; they cannot prove it to you. It is as the philosopher of Science Karl Popper said, that evolution is unfalsifiable; it cannot be subjected to scientific rigor sufficient to ever prove it false.

         Much misunderstanding and misinformation arises because evolutionists are constantly trying to prove macroevolution true by citing examples of microevolution. For example, evolutionists will show you the different finches on Galapagos Island, and say, “See! That’s evolution!” They want you to believe that that is sufficient evidence for the theory of common descent (macroevolution), when all they have really shown you is variation within kinds (microevolution). A dishonest thing, indeed.

         Since most equate “evolution” with macroevolution, the unobserved, unobservable belief system, then the honest are constrained to admit that No, evolution is not a proven fact.

 “Organisms with homologous (i.e. similar) physical structures show a clear evolutionary relationship of common descent.”

         This is one of the main evidences for evolution, and yet it rests on a very faulty argument. It is actually what is known as a fallacy of weak induction, which occurs when the premise (i.e. animals have similar structures) is not conclusive enough to arrive at the conclusion (i.e. they must have a common ancestor). The idea that similar structures in animals demonstrate a relation between them is certainly not the only conclusion to be drawn, especially if one considers the role of a Creator. 

         Why do creatures often have similar design? Rather than saying that it must be because they have a common ancestor, we could just as easily conclude that it is because:

  • The same Creator designed all the creatures (a common Designer), or
  • All the creatures are created according to the application of universal laws (a common natural law). According to the principles of eternal law, organisms are made in certain ways because those are the laws that govern such things.

         Just considering the logic of the situation, both of those alternatives are equally logically as valid as the common ancestor theory. So why accept the evolutionary viewpoint out of hand? And is it really true that there is consistency in the common ancestor paradigm?

         There are cases in nature where creatures have similar structures but are not supposed to be evolutionary relatives. That is, they are supposed to have evolved their similar characteristics independently of each other. Such an idea is referred to as “convergent evolution.” Clearly it is a copout solution, an escape hatch to avert a very legitimate criticism of the evolutionary view. If the evidence for evolution is that animals are related because they have similar features, yet even according to evolutionists they need not be related to share those features, what does that say about that line of reasoning in the first place? How does similarity establish relation then? The closer the similar structures argument is examined, the more comical it appears. 

“Rejecting evolution is foolish because we should be open to science.”


         What is foolish is selling our birthright for a mess of pottage, so to speak; In other words, to trade in the revelations of God for the theories of men. The Church, and this author, is in no way opposed to science or to truth. Science is wonderful and interesting and beneficial to mankind. But evolution is a false theory within science, based on gross speculation, and is not itself useful for anything. Being open to science should not mean unreservedly believing in a theory that is based on assumptions, beliefs, unverifiable postulations, and often pure imagination. There are many valid scientific objections to evolution, and if science is truly about inquiry, then such opposition to the theory is being open to science. Accepting without question the dogmatism of the evolutionists is not in harmony with the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Just because a view is popular in science, doesn’t mean that it’s true or right, especially when it contradicts the knowledge the Creator has already given us.

         This author is fully aware that evolutionists love to make it appear as though evolution is the foundation of all science, and completely indispensible. But the idea of evolution being fundamental or necessary to science is absolutely false. The only thing evolution is fundamental for is furnishing a particular worldview, a lens through which to see the world. You must believe that all life has evolved from a single-celled organism; there is no way to verify such a notion (short of hopping into a time machine and observing it directly).  All evolutionists can do is make interpretations of observable facts. For example: it is a fact that fossils exist in the earth. To say that the fossils are millions of years old or descended from other fossils is an interpretation of the fact, not facts in and of themselves. There is no guarantee that their interpretations are correct; you must simply buy into their story. Any theory or idea about the origin of life must therefore be relegated to the realm of belief, and nothing more. Because evolution must be believed in and is beyond verification, it is actually more akin to religion than science.

         The truth is that, no matter what the evolutionists would like you to think, scientific certainty can never be achieved with regards to origins. There is no possible way to gain firsthand knowledge of how God created the earth. All we can do is look at the evidences left behind, whether that is the word of God in the scriptures or the scientific evidence within the earth itself. While each can lay claim to interesting evidences, both evolution and creationism are entirely “faith-based,” if you will. There is no possible way to scientifically verify the claims of either beyond all doubt. Therefore, why discard our belief in the scriptures for another belief – one that denies the revelations, the power of God, and the word of the Lord? There is simply no good reason to do it, especially when there exist many credible scientific objections to evolution theory.

         In reality the scriptures are our best guide in the matter of the Creation and life that God has created. As the First Presidency declared, “Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known [i.e. from the scriptures], and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain” (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, “The Origin of Man,” 1909).



“The Creation story should be interpreted figuratively rather than literally.”


         There is simply far too much corroboration between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament stories to take this view seriously. One of the great purposes of the Book of Mormon is to “[prove] to the world that the holy scriptures [meaning the Bible] are true” (D&C 20:9-11). The Book of Mormon likewise testifies,


                               “[that the Book of Mormon] came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the
                               convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered
                               upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb
                               [i.e. the Bible] are true. And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records [the Book of Mormon, etc.], 
                               which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [i.e. the Bible].” 
                               (1 Ne. 13:39-40).


         Likewise Nephi said, “Wherefore, my brethren, I would that ye should consider that the things which have been written upon the plates of brass are true” (1 Ne. 22:30). What things were written upon the plates of brass which Nephi was referring to? It was the Bible, inasmuch as it then existed. The Book of Mormon relates that the plates of brass “did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” (1 Ne. 5:11-12). The Book of Mormon further indicates that “these plates of brass should go unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” in a state that, though missing “many parts which are plain and most precious” (1 Ne. 13:26), is remarkably well intact, as Lehi prophesied, “these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time” (1 Ne. 5:19). All the while the Book of Mormon has consciously assured us that, “the things which have been written upon the plates of brass are true” (1 Ne. 22:30, emphasis added). And so we have the Book of Mormon’s endorsement that the events of the Creation and the history of the Old Testament are true. The Book of Mormon also goes on to particularly corroborate many specific events of the Bible, such as the Fall of Adam (2 Ne. 2:17-25; Alma 12:22-30), the Flood of Noah (Ether 13:2; Alma 10:22), the Tower of Babel episode (Ether 1:33), Moses leading the Children of Israel out of Egypt (1 Ne. 17:23-25), the parting of the Red Sea by Moses (1 Ne. 17:26), the Israelites smiting and driving out the wicked nations in the land of Canaan at the command of the Lord (1 Ne. 17:32-40), and the miracle in which “it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still” for Joshua (Hel. 12:15; Josh. 10:12-14).

         It is clear from the message of the Book of Mormon that the scriptures should be trusted, and must be trusted. It is crucial that we believe the earlier accounts in the Bible, for we cannot accept the New Testament and all that it represents unless we do. If a reader cannot trust the Creation story as Moses wrote it, then they cannot trust the Lord Jesus Christ, as he referenced Genesis several times in the New Testament. He also said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe in my words?” (John 5:46-47). In fact, long ago, Christ was the one who revealed the Creation account to Moses in the first place (see Moses 1:35-36), and so the Creation narratives as we have them must be accurate.

         Latter-day Saints are fortunate to have three scriptural accounts of the Creation: Genesis 1-2, Moses 2-3, and Abraham 4-5. In substance they are all very similar and consistent. A case can be made, among Latter-day Saints, for questionable accuracy of particular or occasional Biblical passages, but not so with the supporting Mosaic and Abrahamic accounts of Creation. The Books of Moses and Abraham are particularly accurate since they were received directly by revelation, or by inspired translation to the Prophet Joseph Smith; no serious claim of mistranslation can be made for them. Therefore, LDS evolutionists are forced to consider the Creation accounts as figurative stories, rather than a problem of mistranslation.

         It is very significant and cannot be over-emphasized that Joseph Smith, the great Prophet, revelator, and head of our dispensation, was NOT scripturally liberal. He believed what was written therein. The Prophet taught, “We take the sacred writings into our hands, and admit that they were given by direct inspiration for the good of man. We believe that God condescended to speak from the heavens and declare His will concerning the human family...and guide them in a direct way.... For these reasons, if we have direct revelations given us from heaven, surely those revelations were never given to be trifled with” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 53-54). He assured us that “the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say” (ibid., p. 264). The Prophet remarked boldly, “I know the scriptures and understand them” (ibid., p. 357) and he stated unequivocally, “I believe in the fall of man, as recorded in the Bible” (Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, Dahl & Cannon, ed., p. 238, emphasis added). A person can comb the teachings of Joseph Smith very carefully, and they will never find him to display the sort of attitude toward the scritpures displayed by modern LDS evolutionists. Did Joseph Smith consider the scriptures to be a mass of inaccurate fables? Despite the fact that he did initiate many corrections to the scriptures, it cannot be denied that he was a stalwart believer in their veracity. Therefore, so should we be.

         To suggest that God gave us inaccurate information is absurdity because it makes God dishonest. We must remember that the Book of Mormon, which corroborates the Old Testament, is “the most correct of any book on earth” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194). To suggest that God gave us an entirely figurative account of the Creation is not consistent since it is presented as real events, both in the Bible and Book of Mormon. It is true that the information relating to the Creation of man is figurative, but we know that it is so because God gave us the key to interpreting this mystery in the scriptures themselves (as found in Moses 6:59; 6:22). We cannot assume the same for the Creation of the earth, however, in which no such interpretive key is given to us by the scriptures. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s method for understanding the scriptures. He said in relation to interpreting the scriptures, “Everything that we have not a key-word to, we will take it as it reads” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 293).

         It does not enrich a scriptural story to suggest that it was fake or never happened. By saying that the Creation accounts are strictly allegorical, nothing is gained and much is lost. We can have just as much or more symbolic meaning from a literal event as we can from a fake event, so it does not make sense to suggest that God told us a fake story to teach us some lesson. God is “a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12; Enos 1:6). Therefore we can expect his scriptures to be accurate and not full of fiction.



“If a member of the Church does not accomodate for evolution they will lose their faith when confronted with scientific evidence.”


         What this objection is basically assuming is that people who believe the scriptures are ignorant of science, and that if they ever learn anything about it, their entire foundation for faith will collapse (if they haven’t already made compromises for evolution). The idea that people who don’t believe in evolution are simply ignorant of the theory is false and extremely arrogant. Such reasoning assumes that if only a person understood the theory, they would be constrained to accepting it. The fact is that virtually all anti-evolutionists who have been through the normal public school system are quite aware of the most impressive evidences of evolution – they have simply found them unconvincing and therefore have chosen to reject the theory. It is not because they don’t understand it.

         The truth is that most people will not falter because they have a simple faith in the scriptures. Most people who believe the scriptures know enough about the problems of evolution theory to comfortably reject it, or they at least are willing to suspend judgment on scientific details that they don’t have a full understanding of at the present time. But if a person decides they can disregard the scriptures, relax their faith, and allow the falsehood of evolution into their thinking, before they realize it the principles of the gospel are on very shaky ground and the entire need for the Atonement of Jesus Christ is called into question. This will surely have the effect of eroding faith if the theory of evolution is carried to its logical doctrinal conclusions.

         There is certainly no harm in believing the scriptures to be accurate. Anyone who tells you differently is a heretic. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 374).



“The scriptures were never meant to be a textbook of science.”


         Though this statement is very obviously true, it is always made with the aim to discredit the scriptures as a source of truth about the Creation and beginnings of life. This suggestion, that nothing credible about science or the beginnings of the world can be learned from scripture, is totally unwarranted. The scriptures are a true and inspired account of the events of the past, and they have the approval of the Greatest Scientist in the universe. In actuality then, scripture is our best source, our best key to the past that we could ask for.



“The prophets are not experts in science. Therefore we need not heed their warnings against evolution because they are not qualified to speak on the matter.”


         A common sentiment put forth by liberal Mormons is that the prophets are “not experts on science,” and the liberal Mormons thereby imply that the prophets are not qualified to speak on the matter of evolution. In doing this, liberal Mormons reject both the prophets and the principle of revelation from God, suggesting that a degree in science is needed in order for God to reveal to a prophet whether evolution is true or false. In reality, however, God has no educational requirement of his prophets and reveals truths as He sees fit. Joseph Smith, for instance, had very minimal education, but to him was revealed some of the grandest truths that are available for mankind to know. President Ezra Taft Benson taught in relating to this matter: “The prophet [of the Church] is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Living Prophet”, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1980). So how then can we be justified in disregarding prophetic warnings on the grounds of educational background? President Benson then lamented the existence of liberal Mormons who fight against the truth and added, “Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution” (ibid).



“Evolution is a part of our eternal progression.”


         While it is true that mankind has a long road of eternal progression, this concept does not include animals turning into people. The First Presidency has stated: “…even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God” (The First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” 1909, see also The First Presidency, “‘Mormon’ View of Evolution,” 1925). There is no indication or justification in any of this that animals may take the same course, or that the human race was made to pass through development stages as lower animals.

         The true sweep, scope, and spectrum of eternal progression involves the same basic entity – man – on his journey through premortal, mortal, and postmortal existence. Man began life in the preexistent state as the literal spirit offspring of God (Heb. 12:9; Abr. 3:22-25). The spirit bodies of all people were then in the image of God’s glorious resurrected body (Ether 3:15-16). The Father prepared a great plan wherein his begotten spirit children could advance to his exalted station (Abr. 3:26-27). In due time, when the earth was prepared for human habitation, mankind was placed upon the earth (Job 38:4-7; Abr. 3:24-25; Moses 2; Abr. 4).

         At no point are we given to understand that man had to pass through development through animal stages on his path to godhood. Indeed, man was already the same kind as God, for “we are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:29), and Adam, the “first man,” (Moses 3:7) was “born into the world” (Moses 6:59) as a “son of God” (Moses 6:22), not the son of an animal. And we know that animals will not become gods in the eternities, or deviate from their distinct classes at any point in eternity, as indicated by the following declaration of the First Presidency:

                                “[God] made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image,
                                nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be
                                perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its ‘distinct order or sphere,’ and will enjoy
                                ‘eternal felicity.’ That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).”
                                (“Origin of Man,” 1909, emphasis added).

         This statement is sufficient to falsify the notion that evolution from lower animals is part of the eternal progression experience, since no animals are changing kinds in the eternities as part of eternal progression. The eternal progression argument for evolution is a weak and scripturally unsupportable concept.



“Lots of members of the Church believe in evolution. It’s an acceptable opinion.” 


         Actually, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a research body which Church spokespeople have described as “a major religious research organization, highly regarded by professional journalists and academics”[1], it has been determined that only 22% of Mormons believe in evolution, an overwhelming minority.[2] That is because most members listen to the prophets who have told them repeatedly for generations that evolution is false, and they are astute enough to see the glaring contradictions between evolution and the scriptures. No doubt many of the people that make up that 22% who believe in evolution are inactives who do not adhere to the teachings of the Church yet still identified themselves as “Mormon” for purposes of the survey. 

         It doesn’t make a difference if there is a faction of Mormons who believe in evolution. It doesn’t follow that these are the ones who are following the religion properly. Those who are following the religion properly are those who are basing their beliefs upon the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets. Heretics and dissidents appear in every religion, even the true one.

         As the scriptures say, “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14; D&C 121:34). Recall that in the Parable of the Ten Virgins, all ten of the women were affiliated with the bridegroom in name, for they were supposed to be part of the wedding party, but only those who diligently filled their lamps with truth were accepted at the great and last day (see Matt. 25:1-13). 



“It’s okay to deviate from the scriptures on the matter of evolution because it is a minor doctrinal issue.”


         At first thought it may appear that evolution is an issue of only minor doctrinal weight. ‘After all,’ one might be thinking, ‘who cares if we descended from animals or not, right? The Church is still true!’ But upon closer investigation we can readily see just why this issue is so extremely vital. Consider that the reason Jesus Christ came into the world was in response to the Fall of Adam. The Fall of Man triggered the need for the Atonement. If the Fall of Man did not occur, as evolution would seem to indicate very strongly, since it teaches of death before Adam, then the entire reason for Jesus Christ coming to the earth and dying falls flat on its face. Atheist G. Richard Bozarth understood this perfectly, and he remarked:


                               “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because
                               evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
                               Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
                               God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then
                               Christianity is nothing.”
                               (G. Richard Bozarth as quoted in Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 371).


         We can see, therefore that incorporating evolution into the Gospel is not an innocent thing at all. It actually undermines the Atonement, and therefore the very foundation of our religion. It is a dangerous departure from the truth.



“The Church authorities have given evolution their stamp of approval because it is taught at BYU.”


         The fact that evolution is taught at BYU is often touted by LDS evolutionists in an effort to demonstrate that the General Authorities are on their side, since they oversee Brigham Young University. This is silliness. By this logic then, any and every theory taught within the classrooms of BYU, an accredited university, is also endorsed by the leaders of the Church. If this were so, we would be required to accept all kinds of theories and false doctrines that do not correspond with the gospel. The wild and spurious psychological theories of Sigmund Freud come to mind as an example.

         The fact is that while the General Authorities allow evolution to be taught at Brigham Young University, which is appropriate in an accredited university for purposes of curriculum comparability with other major schools, they are not thereby endorsing evolution. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ezra Taft Benson proclaimed in General Conference of the Church that evolution, even though it is taught in Church schools like BYU, is falsehood:


                               “As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and
                               destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. President Joseph F. Smith referred to false
                               educational ideas as one of the three threatening dangers among our Church members. There is more than one
                               reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of
                               religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children; and if they
                               have become alert and informed as President McKay admonished us last year, these parents can help expose
                               some of the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, Karl Marx, John Keynes, and
                               others…. If your children are taught untruths on evolution in the public schools or even in our Church
, provide them with a copy of President Joseph Fielding Smith’s excellent rebuttal in his book Man,
                               His Origin and Destiny
                               (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, Oct. 1970, emphasis added).

         In addition to this, Elder Harold B. Lee remarked, This institution [BYU] must turn out the best scientists. We want them to turn out the best philosophers to be found in any of the schools. But we want those scientists and philosophers thus trained to measure the theory of their science and philosophy by the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ(Harold B. Lee, “Cram for Life’s Final Exam,” BYU Speeches, Jan. 5, 1954). The message is clear: while evolution is taught at BYU, it is not to actually be believed, and it is shown to be false when measured against the Gospel.



“The Church has no official position on evolution. Therefore it’s okay to believe in it.”


         This statement is misleading. This common phrase is derived from a private letter written by David O. McKay to Professor William Stokes. The letter contained the statement, “On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.” But as President Boyd K. Packer said,


                               “Letters to individuals are not the channel for announcing the policy of the Church. For several important 
                               reasons, this letter itself is not a declaration of the position of the Church, as some have interpreted it
                               to be. Do not anchor your position on this major issue to that one sentence! It is in conflict with the two
                               official declarations, each signed by all members of the First Presidency. Remember the revelation in the
                               Doctrine and Covenants, ‘Every decision made by . . . [the First Presidency] must be by the unanimous voice
                               of the same; that is, every member . . . must be agreed to its decisions. . . . Unless this is the case,
                               their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents
                               were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men’
                               (D&C 107:27, 29).”
                               (Boyd K. Packer, The Law and the Light, 1990).


         Why did President McKay privately write that the Church has no official position on evolution? Perhaps what he was meaning to convey was that a member of the Church will not be disciplined for believing in evolution. Notwithstanding this, it still follows that to believe in evolution is certainly out of harmony with the teachings of the Church. The truth is that the Church does have an official position regarding evolution, commended to the Church by no less than the united voice of the First Presidency, most notably in the 1909 document entitled “The Origin of Man.” That document reads:


“In presenting the statement [on evolution] that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation….

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. 

“True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

“Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known [i.e. from the scriptures], and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.”
(Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, “The Origin of Man,” 1909).





The Church does have an official position on evolution. The First Presidency in 1909 presented the Church with the official pronouncement entitled The Origin of Man, which any reader of average intelligence can see clearly denies evolution theory.

         Evolutionists in the Church go to great lengths to make it appear that this impressive document does not really say what it very obviously brings across to the reader, and often they choose to interpret it in very strange and convoluted ways. But we must keep in mind that the First Presidency issued this declaration to the generality of the Church, and therefore would have chosen to put it into words which would have been readily understandable to the average person. It is a very strained interpretation indeed, to suggest that some secret code or line of thinking is required to interpret it properly, or that it can be sidestepped through such means.

         Of course, evolutionists in the Church, in order to preserve their precious theory which they love better, have done just those very things. The First Presidency’s statement, “The Origin of Man,” was poorly received by evolutionists in the Church, which is no doubt the reason why the First Presidency (and subsequent First Presidencies) have not pursued the issue further by official declaration (except to reinforce the validity of “The Origin of Man” document and its doctrines). Amazingly, there are those who will not accept the will of the Lord, even from the highest authority in the Church and in an official capacity. Rather than fracture the unity of the Church because of reluctance of some to accept the official doctrinal declarations of God’s prophets, the Church seems instead content to teach the truth of the scriptures and not dwell long on the issue of evolution. To make absolute adherence to the truth about origins a required article of faith would cause a great schism of the less faithful who think they are learned, forcing them into a corner, so to speak, and putting them in circumstances in which they must choose (for many would choose their theory instead). Whereas a measure of allowance on the matter, without disciplining those who hold the heretical view of Darwinism, may allow many of these misguided souls to nevertheless find salvation.

         “The Origin of Man” document establishes beyond reasonable question that the genesis of man did not occur through evolution. In addition to this, it is also very evident that the Church also has an official position on the Fall of Man and the fact that there was no death before the Fall (see True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference, p. 56-57). These things, once accepted as truth, necessarily cancel out evolution theory. 





         This article has shown evolution to be in conflict with the scriptures on more than thirty major points. If the scriptures are our guide to true doctrine, why do many still seek to cling to evolution theory, given its abundant conflict with the revealed word of God? On any other issue, such numerous inconsistencies would cause the false doctrine in question to be readily discarded. So why are some members of the Church holding so tightly to evolution? It is because they believe evolution first, the scriptures afterward. They set up Darwin as their great prophet, and the true prophets are derided inasmuch as they speak ill of their precious theory. Fundamentally, when a person decides to accept evolution in favor of the scriptures, it is because they do not really believe fully in the word of God. And no one can accept evolution and the scriptures, as they are opposed to each other. The Savior said, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other” (Matt. 6:24). Evolutionists within the Church try to force their theory into the scriptures, or they ignore the scriptures in favor of their theory. In doing so they are choosing evolution over the scriptures, and are therefore holding to evolution and despising the true message found in the scriptures.

         If the scriptures are true, then evolution must be false. This article establishes that beyond question. By that same token, if evolution is true, then the scriptures are false and untrustworthy. These two things are mutually exclusive – they cannot both be true. Yet the scriptures are our primary link with heaven, our handbook for understanding the doctrine of the kingdom. If they are false, our religion is false. As President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “You cannot be a faithful member and reject the scriptures – Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price – for these are the standards of our faith. If you accept them you cannot accept organic evolution, for they are diametrically opposed” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 276).



Make a free website with Yola