"Fact, Fable, and Darwin" at Meridian Magazine

This article at Meridian Magazine was brought to my attention by discussion at Mormon Metaphysics. Clark's post and the ensuing comments are worth reading.

The thrust of the article is that even die-hard evolutionists have hidden doubts about the ability of evolutionary theory to explain the origin of species, that it was evolutionists that picked the fight with religion, and that while we wait for the ultimate truth to emerge, "why not lift the requirement that high school texts enshrine Darwin's failed attempt as an eternal truth?"



Continue Reading


My first criticism of the article is technical--there is no documentation. (My brief attempt to locate the original article failed, so I do not know whether it contains footnotes.) Critics of evolution have a history of taking quotations out of contex. I'm not accusing Stark of this, but without references for his quotations, anyone who wants to check up on his accuracy will have a difficult time.

This article perpetuates the unfortunate practice of basing criticism of evolution on Darwin's supposed flaws (or those of his associates). It is as though evolutionary theory came forth fully formed from Darwin--but this is not the case. He certainly laid a strong foundation, but he knew nothing of genetics, or example. Moreover, varying theories of evolution were advanced until the modern synthesis in the 1930's and 40's. And while this article makes much out of missing transitional fossils, there is not a hint that other lines of evidence support current evolutionary theory including biogeography, developmental biology, molecular biology, and genetics.

The second part of the article is really getting at the culture wars. Stark argues that it was the evolutionists who took the fight to Christianity. He writes, "Atheism was central to the agenda of the Darwinians. Darwin himself once wrote that he could not understand how anyone could even wish that Christianity were true, noting that the doctrine of damnation was itself damnable."

This ought to get our blood boiling, right? Well as Latter-day Saints, maybe we should first remember that we don't believe in the doctrine of damnation either (that is, as taught by traditional Christianity.) And in fact, who was it that wrote of:

murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell.

In the last General Conference, Elder Holland quoted John Taylor:

"Whoever heard of true religion without communication with God? To me the thing is the most absurd that the human mind could conceive of. I do not wonder," said Brother Taylor, "[that] when the people generally reject the principle of present revelation, skepticism and infidelity prevail to such an alarming extent. I do not wonder," he continued, "that so many men treat religion with contempt, and regard it as something not worth the attention of intelligent beings, for without revelation religion is a mockery and a farce. . . . The principle of present revelation . . . is the very foundation of our religion. "

Should we really be taking offense at Darwin and Huxley's scorn? Given our own faith's contempt for burdening tradition (at least in the early years) and the context in which he lived, I do not think that we should sit in judgment of Darwin.

I have little argument with the last paragraph of the article, except that I disagree with the stand he takes on textbooks in high schools. But I'm out of indignation, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.

(By the way, I never answered the question of who wrote the passage railing against the "creeds of the fathers." But you probably already knew it was Joseph Smith, as contained in D&C 123.)