The Natural Man in Evolution

Part of Mc Conkie's seventh objection is rather complex issue which is difficult to address though easy enough to state (most objections to evolution are this way, which is what makes lawyers such good proponents for IDC). He rejects evolution because it posits that we came from "lower" animals instead of from "higher" beings:

It is vain to belittle Adam and attempt to place him but a step ahead of some lower form of creature. Revelation speaks to the contrary. And, of course, the reasoning that concerns us here is: No Adam, no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no true religion, no purpose in life.

What makes this objection so surprising is that he hardly gives it any merit whatsoever. He only briefly mentions it in passing while discussing his thoughts concerning Adam. This is in stark contrast to his father in law
whose main reason for rejecting evolution was Darwin's "strange inversion of reasoning" that suggested that we came from the creatures below rather than the higher beings above. Joseph Fielding Smith simply could not conceal his utter contempt for such an idea:

This idea that everything commenced from a small beginning, from the scum upon the surface of the sea, and has gradually developed until all forms of life... is a falsehood absolutely... It is true that all life does come from the same source, but that is not the scum of the sea, a jellyfish or a pollywog... This false theory, which prevails in the world so extensively, is one that is debasing and not ennobling nor uplifting... Do you think that Adam, this great and important prince, the archangel before the presence of God, was a half-breed monkey?

In other words, we are too good to have come from monkeys. Nevertheless, the same people who cling most tenaciously to this doctrine of man's enobled nature are the first ones to lament at how we are but the dust of the earth, indeed, we are even lower than the dust because at least the dust obeys God. To say that we came from the dust of the earth, fine, but to claim that there was a gradual progression from the dust which culminated in us is somehow blasfemous. Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency in this?

Combine this with the doctrine of man's utter depravity before God. We are "born in iniquity and shaped in sin," and this is why the "natural man is an enemy to God." Well, which is it? Are we too good to come from animals or below even the dirt? Brigham Young noted this inconsistency in our beliefs concerning the nature of man:

"It is... universally received by professors of religion as a Scriptural doctrine that man is naturally opposed to God. This is not so. Paul says, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of God,' but I say it is the unnatural 'man that receiveth not the things of God.'... The natural man is of God."

It was with this quote in mind that a round table discussion regarding The nature of man in Mormonism was held in the Winter 1968 issue of Dialogue. The details of the discussion need not concern us here, only that we realize that appeals to our being too good probably are not as solid as many sometimes think.

Are we less than the dust of the earth? No, not literally. But when placed in comparison with the nature of God himself, our nature is quite lowly as the dust of the ground. But we believe that there is a continuum between the two natures, there is no unbridgable gap between the two. "As man now is God once was, as God is now, man may become." If our nature can be bridged to God, why can it not be bridged to dust as well?

Regardless of whether we can up from below or down from above, our natures are still what they are. The whole point of the plan of salvation when applied to self-existent spirits is that we are trying to become sons and daughters of God in a fuller sense. This is done, as we have noted, by accepting the gospel and the "articles of adoption" as Joseph called them.

One more thing we must discuss regarding this issue. That is progress. Some, including JFSII, have thought that evolution was synonymous with progression, but such is not the case. Evolution in its purest form does adopt any form of progression. Evolution does not work or progress toward any "end." Whatever survives is whatever survives be it viruses, bacteria, trees or humans. Therefore, there is no such thing as devolution.

This does not mean, however, that evolutionists don't acknowledge a continuous spectrum of intelligence. They acknowledge that man has become more and more intelligent thus enabling him to survive better, but this is not considered "progress" from an evolutionary standpoint. Intelligence is but one trick among many which organisms use to survive. The only progress recognized by evolution is surviving long enough to reproduce. Thus, appeals to "progress" don't mean very much in an evolutionary context. We will discuss these ideas as applied to the creation later.

Summary: Evolution is often dispised by many due to its saying that we came from lower life forms instead of from higher beings. Saying what our nature derives from, however, has little to do with what our natures currently are. Such an objection misses the point of evolution and the plan of salvation.