[Part 9 in a multi-part series on Science & Religion from an LDS perspective.  Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8]

In the previous section, we looked at how evolution may be reconcilable with creationism in general.  Now let’s look at some specifics regarding the Biblical account of man’s creation: Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden.

What’s the fundamental difference between humans and animals, from a gospel perspective?  It’s unclear whether animals, including pets, have the equivalent of ‘spirits’ that continue to exist after they die, but even if they do, it should be clear that there is a large difference between any such spirits and the spirits of man.

The spirits of man, according to the gospel, are literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  Those spirits were present in the premortal life, where we heard and accepted the plan of salvation.  The concepts of ‘sin’, ‘repentance’, as well as the power of Christ’s Atonement apply to human spirits and human spirits only—there is no evidence animals are capable of sin, nor have any need to repent, nor will be partakers of celestial glory in our Father’s kingdom.

The true gospel definition of “Man” (male and female) consists of one of those advanced spirit intelligences joined with a physical body.  This is significant because it is, in fact, the existence of that advanced spirit that defines Man, not the shape of the flesh it resides in.

What this idea implies, though, is that Adam being the “First Man” means, by definition, he is the first conjunction of one of Heavenly Father’s spirit children with a physical body on the Earth.  It does NOT necessarily mean that Adam was the first living organism with the physical form of homo sapiens.  Since “Man” is defined by the spirit inside, not the physical appearance of the body, we have an opening for the idea that Adam’s physical body may have had literal biological ‘parents’, but who do not count themselves as “Man” in the true sense because they were not tabernacles for God’s spirit children.  They would have been, essentially, nothing more than slightly advanced animals.  (Insert your own joke about things not having changed much...)

This idea potentially provides the answer to the philosophical question, “Did Adam and Eve have navels?”, and additionally provides a linking point to evolutionary processes, which may have taken simple life-forms through natural selection until the proper ‘human’ form was created, at which point God’s spirit children had an appropriate ‘home’ for mortal existence and the true history of Man could begin.

The primary obstacle in reconciling this idea with LDS philosophy is a simple one: the common “No Death Before the Fall” teaching—that before Eve and Adam partook of the forbidden fruit and were cast out of the garden, they could not die, and (more relevantly) neither could anything else.

The “NDBF” teaching has a multitude of examples from LDS leaders, past and present, who have used it as an (indirect) argument against evolution:  that evolution, naturally, could not have been the primary process responsible for earth life if death and rebirth (a fundamental requirement of natural selection over time) was not possible before the Fall.  (There’s even a church blog both named for and devoted to this teaching…)

Is this a fundamental incompatibility with the ‘creation through evolution’ idea?  Depends…   The key question with “No Death Before the Fall” becomes: starting from when?

Was there No Death from the beginning of the Earth’s creation until the Fall?  Or from the beginning of Adam’s creation (i.e. the entrance of his spirit into his physical body) until the Fall?  Or perhaps No Death only within the bounds of the Garden of Eden? 

This is an important question, as the latter two options create philosophical room for a period of time in Earth’s history where there was death (and thus an opening for evolutionary processes to take form) before the creation of Adam and the Garden. 

The best supported idea in NDBF is that Adam and Eve could not die before partaking of the fruit.  This fits within everything else we know both about the plan of salvation and Adam’s part in it, and is fairly non-controversial.

The less supported idea is that nothing else in the Garden of Eden could die before Adam Fell—there’s no direct evidence of this in scripture, and could perhaps be considered illogical if you presume that Adam and Eve would have had to eat living things in the Garden anyway.

The idea with even less direct support than that, however, is that outside of the Garden (and in the time before the Garden was created) nothing could die either.  This is the element that is most in conflict with a potential creationism/evolution reconciliation…and is the element that has the least direct evidence to begin with.

In fact, one could argue that Adam and Eve being cast out of the garden after the Fall (as they were now subject to death), suggests that death was a reality outside the garden all along—that the garden was a ‘symbol’ of heaven where the rules may have been different, but—in the same measure that the spirits of mankind tainted with sin cannot return to the Father’s presence--that post-Fall Adam and his family were no longer suitable to be in the garden, but were instead suited to be on the outside in the mortal world where death was already a reality.

With this idea, the “No Death Before the Fall” teaching can still be literally true…and not a true obstacle towards evolution having a part in creation, since we’ve created an upper bound in time and location where NDBF was actually in force.

The vast majority of NDBF teachings have similar characteristics—they are focused primarily on Adam and Eve not being subject by death before the Fall, and only imply indirectly (if at all) that other living things inside or outside of the Garden were immune from death at the same time...which is the part that needs to be true if it is to truly serve as an anti-evolution argument.

The most recent example of NDBF teaching comes from the March 2008 Ensign.  From Elder Packer:  "Adam and Eve ventured forth to multiply and replenish the earth as they had been commanded to do.  The creation of their bodies in the image of God, as a separate creation, was crucial to the plan.  Their subsequent Fall was essential if the condition of mortality was to exist and the plan to proceed."

The aforementioned NDBF blog concludes based on this that “If the condition of mortality could not exist without the Fall, then it clearly did not exist before the Fall.”  But that’s not directly implied in the statement itself…

The Fall was essential if the condition of mortality for Adam and Eve was to exist, certainly.  They needed to become subject to death in order for the plan to proceed.  But as with most NDBF statements there’s still nothing authoritative in this statement that suggests that every living thing other than Adam and Eve could not die before the Fall either, nor suggests any reason why that being true would have been vital to the plan of salvation in the first place.  In reality, having other living things (especially outside the Garden) subject to death changes nothing about Adam and Eve’s path into mortality, and the plan of salvation in general.

We should note again that this path of reconciliation is still based on speculation and personal opinion—ideas of how things could be, rather than based on hard evidence or specific scriptural inferences as to how things definitely are.

My interpretation of NDBF statements suggests that they are far less conclusive than others have interpreted them to be on the subject.  (Your mileage may vary...)   However, I believe there is still room in the Church, even with the creation account as given, and the NDBF doctrine as taught by many past leaders, for true evolutionary processes to have played a part in both Adam’s creation and life in general.  There just isn’t enough direct information about the condition of the Earth outside of Adam and Eve themselves to make conclusive arguments about what could die and what couldn’t.  As a result, I maintain 'creation by evolution' is still a valid theory in regards to reconciling science and religion.

Next: Joseph Smith and multi-dimensionality