Review: “The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution”

Review: “The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and Evolution” (BYU Life Sciences, edited by Jamie L. Jensen, Steven L. Peck, Ugo A. Perego, and T. Benjamin Spackman, 2025)

From a scientific standpoint grounded in empirical data and the Biblical creation model of fully formed kinds with built-in genetic diversity (Genesis 1), this BYU Life Sciences volume is a collection of essays by LDS scientists and educators. It promotes the acceptance of Darwinian evolution as compatible with the restored gospel. The book defines evolution as descent with modification and change in the genetic composition of a population. It presents observable allele-frequency shifts as evolutionary change. It claims macroevolution is simply scaled-up microevolution. It cites genetic and fossil data (for example, about 98 percent human-chimp similarity and chromosome 2 fusion) as evidence for common ancestry with apes about 7 to 8 million years ago. It reinterprets Genesis and the Fall non-literally to accommodate deep time and pre-Adamite humanoids. One proposed reconciliation treats Adam as the first humanoid advanced enough to covenant with God rather than the literal first man created from dust.

While the volume accurately notes some observable variation, its core claims rest on scientifically untenable assertions, logical fallacies, and selective data presentation. It ignores robust peer-reviewed evidence of genetic degeneration. It overstates genome similarity. It misrepresents fossil intermediates. It equates adaptation with evolution. This is precisely the equivocation that obscures the absence of new genetic information. This is not rigorous science but a compromise driven by academic and financial pressures to gain secular acceptance rather than stand as a light in a world that demands conformity to naturalism.

Misuse of “Evolution” and Equivocation on Adaptation

Chapters such as “Wonderful Forms of Life Have Been and Are Being Evolved” (Kummer and Jensen) define evolution broadly to include natural selection, mutation, and allele shifts (for example, antibiotic resistance and skin pigmentation). These are presented as proof of ongoing evolutionary change. This is deceptive rhetoric. Peer-reviewed analyses show such changes involve sorting, loss, or minor shuffling of pre-existing genetic information within created kinds. No novel, functional information is generated. John C. Sanford’s foundational work on genetic entropy demonstrates that mutations overwhelmingly degrade genomes over time. Natural selection cannot prevent the accumulation of near-neutral deleterious mutations. This leads to inevitable decline rather than upward evolution.

The book’s examples fit the Biblical model of rapid post-Flood adaptation from Ark-derived genetic richness (high initial heterozygosity followed by bottlenecks). They do not support Darwinian transformation. Claiming these as evolution is classic equivocation designed to imply common descent without evidence of the required information increase.

The Micro- versus Macro-Evolution Fallacy and Lack of New Information

The volume dismisses the micro/macro distinction. It asserts macroevolution is simply the large-scale result of many microevolutionary events differing only in scale. This is a scientifically bankrupt assertion refuted by information theory and empirical limits. Peer-reviewed modeling (for example, Sanford’s Mendel’s Accountant simulations) shows that even with generous parameters, populations cannot accumulate the millions of coordinated mutations needed for new complex systems. Instead, genomes decay. Mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious or neutral. Beneficial ones are rare and trivial. No peer-reviewed study has documented the origin of a single new functional gene or protein fold via unguided processes. This is precisely what macroevolution demands.

The book’s treatment of human evolution (Bybee’s chapter) is particularly weak. It cites outdated 98 percent human-chimp similarity. Recent full-genome comparisons, accounting for indels, structural variants, and non-aligned regions, reveal only about 85 percent overall similarity. This is devastating to common-ancestry claims. The alleged chromosome 2 fusion (supposed evidence of human-chimp divergence) has been refuted. The purported fusion site is a functional promoter in the DDX11L2 gene. The alleged cryptic centromere lacks expected telomeric repeats or inactivation signatures. Peer-reviewed genomic data show it is not a fusion scar but designed sequence.

Fossil claims fare no better. The book implies a smooth progression from ape-like ancestors. In reality, after 150 plus years of searching, paleoanthropologists have only fragmentary remains (fewer than 2,000 specimens) with no clear intermediates. Proposed links are routinely reclassified as fully ape or fully human.

The Scientifically Untenable “Adam as First Advanced Humanoid” Hypothesis

The volume’s concordist or theistic-evolution framing, that Adam and Eve may have been pre-Adamite humanoids advanced enough for covenant relationship while bodies evolved, lacks any empirical support and contradicts genetic data. Human genetic diversity is far too low for a multi-million-year evolutionary history. It fits a recent origin from a small founding population (Noah’s family) with rapid post-Babel diversification. Pre-Adamite populations would require unobserved massive genetic bottlenecks and impossible mutation rates without genetic entropy overwhelming the lineage. The hypothesis also fails to explain the sudden appearance of fully modern human behavior, art, and technology in the archaeological record with no evolutionary precursors.

Jamie L. Jensen’s Statements on the Insufficiency of Knowledge and the Demand for Acceptance (Non-Tolerant View)

Jamie L. Jensen, a co-editor and frequent contributor, explicitly argues that mere knowledge of evolutionary science is insufficient. She insists on full acceptance of evolution, often framing resistance or literal creation views as problematic. Her research and writings in connection with the book reveal a non-tolerant stance that pressures religious students toward acceptance rather than allowing informed disagreement.

In her published work tied to these themes, Jensen and collaborators state that conflation between knowledge and acceptance contributes to a “knowledge gap” between Judeo-Christian and non-religious people. They treat acceptance (not just understanding) as the desired outcome. One paper title and abstract emphasize “Offering alternatives to biblical literalism may be the key to increasing the public’s acceptance of evolution.” This directly implies that biblical literalism must be undermined or replaced to achieve acceptance.

Another study from Jensen’s lab uses the “predictive Factors of Evolution Acceptance and Reconciliation (pFEAR) Instrument” to predict and increase evolution acceptance among religious students. The goal is not neutral education but measurable shifts toward acceptance. A related paper notes that “Role model, compatibility, and knowledge lead to increased evolution acceptance,” yet frames knowledge as a tool that must culminate in acceptance.

In the context of the book and her teaching approach, Jensen promotes a “reconciliation approach” explicitly designed to help religious students “remain faithful” while increasing their acceptance of evolution. Student feedback quoted in related BYU Studies material praises her for making religion and evolution “not trying to contradict one another” so students can accept evolution more easily. This approach goes beyond presenting facts. It actively works to remove perceived conflict and foster acceptance.

Jensen’s position reveals a non-tolerant view: knowledge alone is deemed insufficient if it does not lead to acceptance of macroevolution and common descent. Dissenting views (such as young-earth creation or strict literalism) are treated as barriers to be overcome through reconciliation strategies rather than respected as legitimate alternatives. This intolerance aligns with broader academic pressures but contradicts scientific humility, which should allow open inquiry and disagreement based on evidence. It also pressures students of faith to conform rather than critically evaluate the data.

Internal Contradictions Among the Book’s Authors and Contributors

The volume is an anthology. Multiple authors contribute essays. This leads to noticeable inconsistencies in positions. Some contributors advance concordist views. They attempt to integrate a historical Adam into an evolutionary lineage. Other chapters lean non-concordist. They treat the early chapters of Genesis as primarily symbolic or reflective of ancient Near Eastern cosmology rather than literal historical or scientific accounts. For example, chapters by Kyle R. Greenwood and Avram R. Shannon emphasize Genesis as using ancient cultural frameworks to convey theological truths. In contrast, Seth M. Bybee’s chapter on the scientific evidence for human evolution presents fossil and genetic data as supporting common ancestry with apes. This implies Adam must fit into that evolutionary timeline. Discussions of death before the Fall also show tension. T. Benjamin Spackman’s chapter explores the history of interpretation and questions a strict no-death-before-the-Fall doctrine. This differs from more traditional literal interpretations held by some Latter-day Saints or implied in other parts of the book. These differences reveal that the volume fails to present a unified or coherent reconciliation. Instead, it offers a patchwork of personal opinions that sometimes conflict.

Contradictions with Teachings of Church Prophets and Leaders

The book also contradicts clear and repeated statements from past prophets and First Presidency declarations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 1909 First Presidency statement titled “The Origin of Man” explicitly declares that Adam was the first man of all men and the primal parent of our race. It rejects the idea that man developed from lower orders of the animal creation as theories of men. The 1925 statement affirms the same position. Yet the book promotes or accommodates precisely these rejected ideas through theistic evolution, common descent, and suggestions of pre-Adamite populations or Adam as an advanced humanoid selected from an evolving group. It attempts to soften these statements by placing them in historical and scientific contexts in Spackman’s chapter. This undermines their doctrinal authority. Strong teachings against evolution by President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie are similarly downplayed or reinterpreted. These leaders affirmed no death before the Fall as fundamental doctrine and rejected human evolution. President Gordon B. Hinckley also reaffirmed belief that Adam was the first man of the human race. The book’s framework effectively erodes these prophetic declarations in favor of evolutionary accommodation for academic acceptance.

Financial Incentives: Grant Money Directly Tied to Teaching and Researching Evolution

A particularly revealing aspect of the book and its authors’ work is the direct financial linkage between promoting evolution and external grant funding received by the BYU College of Life Sciences. Co-editors and contributors such as Jamie L. Jensen and Seth M. Bybee have secured substantial National Science Foundation (NSF) grants explicitly framed around evolutionary research. For example, in 2020 a team led by Bybee and Jensen received a 2.3 million dollar NSF grant to study the evolutionary history of dragonflies and damselflies (odonates), including mapping their genealogy and building databases centered on evolutionary narratives. The College maintains dedicated grant specialists, budget templates for NSF and NIH proposals, and internal matching funds (up to 5,000 dollars or more in some cases through programs like Grants on the Edge) awarded specifically to faculty who successfully obtain external grants. This creates a clear incentive structure that rewards alignment with evolutionary orthodoxy.

This is not incidental. Federal agencies like the NSF explicitly prioritize proposals that incorporate evolutionary perspectives, as seen in programs such as Leveraging Innovations From Evolution (LIFE). BYU Life Sciences faculty who teach or publish on evolution gain access to these resources, enhanced research infrastructure, student mentoring funds, and career advancement. Internal college grants further supplement successful external recipients. This ties departmental budgets and prestige directly to evolutionary framing. The book itself emerges from this environment, where reconciling the gospel with evolution facilitates continued eligibility for such funding streams.

These financial realities expose a strong motive for compromise. In a competitive academic landscape, rejecting macroevolution risks losing grants, publications, and institutional support. Promoting theistic evolution allows BYU scientists to maintain funding flows while appearing faithful. Yet this prioritizes worldly resources over empirical rigor and scriptural consistency. Scripture calls believers to be a light in the world (Matthew 5:14-16), not to conform for financial or academic gain. The volume exemplifies how grant-driven incentives can subtly shape theological and scientific output, subordinating truth-seeking to institutional self-interest.

Broader Scientific and Theological Weaknesses

The volume ignores genetic entropy’s implications for deep time. It assumes natural selection creates information (contradicted by decades of data). It treats Genesis as non-historical ancient cosmology. Scientifically, this is indefensible: soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, high mutation loads, and the absence of observed upward evolution all align with a young creation and rapid adaptation model. The book’s harmony is one-sided. Science must be accommodated while Scripture is reinterpreted.

In sum, this volume does not advance knowledge. It propagates scientifically questionable claims to justify evolutionary acceptance for institutional and professional gain. True science, observation, testing, and falsification, reveals adaptation within kinds, genomic degeneration, and no mechanism for macroevolution. The data overwhelmingly support Biblical creation: fully functional kinds from the start, with designed adaptability expressed rapidly after the Flood. Readers should reject this book’s narrative and test its claims against rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence rather than academic consensus or funding pressures (1 Thessalonians 5:21). BYU’s promotion of such material, tied as it is to evolution-linked grants, prioritizes worldly approval and financial benefits over scientific truth and scriptural fidelity.