Baha’i Perspectives on Evolution
A new book presents a comprehensive review.
Charles Darwin was not a particularly good writer and thought the process boring but necessary. His On the Origin of Species (1959) was dry and hard to read. But in that book, he was able to synthesize ideas from several disciplines into a coherent theory that sparked one of the greatest revolutions in scientific history. He proved, without a doubt, that the earth is old, and that populations evolve by natural selection. He proposed, “probably all of the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form…”
In the book, he also never mentioned whether the theory should apply to the human race, because he knew of the hornet’s nest that would be stirred up. It wasn’t until 1871 that he published The Descent of Man, making clear that his evolutionary theory should be applied to human origins. Then the hornets came out of their nest. (Nobody cares where frogs come from, it’s the question of human origin and purpose that really matters.)
To get a proper view of how much has changed, consider that in 1925 John Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. That’s right, he was arrested for teaching evolution, and fined $100. The law was upheld as constitutional. By 1987, evolution was on trial again, and the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism could not be taught in public schools, according to the constitution. A full reversal in 62 years.
This showdown between the book of Genesis and Darwin’s revolution is at the heart of the debate over science and religion. The side of science has outright won the battle, and this conflict has a lot to do with the steady decline of Christianity in the west.
The Baha’i Faith is a religion that formed in the late 19th century and has millions of followers spread into almost every country. So the question should arise: what does the Baha’i Faith teach about human origins? The answer is complicated, in part due to conflicting interpretations among Baha’i authors.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá directly addresses Darwinian theory in the books Some Answered Questions, chapters 46–51, and The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 504–508 (2012 ed.). They were derived from talks in 1906 and 1912, respectively. I recommend reading all the material, since it is nuanced and interpretations vary. Generally, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá viewed Darwinian theory as correct in the sense that species evolve over a long time from a primitive, embryonic form, but He disagreed with the idea that humans came from animals. He also taught that the essence of humanity was pre-existent, and has always existed, even before the earth formed, referring to an archetype that is inherent to the universe. He argued against some of the evidence for common ancestry and repeatedly compared the development of the human species over evolutionary time to the development of the fetus. Though in its early stage a human fetus may appear exactly like a fish or other vertebrate, it is nevertheless distinctly human in potential. In the same way, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said that humans developed over millions of years from a primitive form that was distinctly human in potential, and not animal.
The Baha’i perspective on human origin was almost completely aligned with science in the first half of the 20th century, but not entirely aligned. The 1987 US Supreme Court decision was just a recognition of a growing social awareness that evolution was true, including the idea of a single universal common ancestor, an idea that conflicted with the apparent meaning of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. As the century came to a close, many Baha’is dedicated themselves to resolving this tension by exploring the language and context, suggesting that the apparent meaning was just an unfortunate semantic mistake, and the real intention was supportive of universal common ancestry. From 1990 to 2009 there were at least 19 books and articles from 16 authors trying to address the Baha’i approach to evolution, and very few questioned the common ancestry of humans and apes. They emphasized the eternal “species essence” in the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, concluding that the evolutionary process was destined to generate a creature capable of pondering its own emergence, with a material lineage from the animal, but attracting the eternal human spirit.
Though it is praiseworthy to question an interpretation of scripture that conflicts with established science, not everyone was convinced by these conclusions. Ian Kluge wrote in 2009,
There is no question that `Abdu’l-Baha’s views on human evolution are in conflict with current scientific thought in regards to the origins and history of humankind. However, this does not necessarily undermine Baha’u’llah’s teaching that science and religion should be in harmony unless one adopts the view that religion must uncritically agree with science on all its pronouncements at all times. Logically this is untenable for the simple reason that science itself changes its views — sometime profoundly — and no text, revealed or not, can adopt all the successive scientific beliefs on a given subject without falling into self-contradiction and, thereby, ceasing to be useful as a guide.
(Some Answered Questions: A Philosophical Perspective’, in Lights of Irfan, vol. 10)
Kluge voiced my own conclusion. The discourse trying to resolve the tension over human origin failed to mention a remarkably simple idea: science can change. This should not be such a radical idea. When responding to a letter questioning Abdul’-Baha’s statements on human origin, Shoghi Effendi responded,
We don’t believe man has always had the form of man, but rather that from the outset he was going to evolve into the human form and species and not be a haphazard branch of the ape family. You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts…
(Shoghi Effendi, Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, pp. 85–6.)
But what is there to write about? The case for common origins is practically impenetrable, and opposition to it can associate you with the insanity of creationists. Should Baha’is view the issue as an unfortunate semantic mistake, turn to questioning the science of evolution and be painted as nut jobs, or conclude that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá made incorrect statements about evolution? Of all the options, only the first is palatable, but it leaves a bit of ambiguity.
I started down the nut job path around 2010, investigating evolutionary science to see if there was any potential for a paradigm shift in understanding evolution. With an open and skeptical mind, I decided to recuse myself from the politicized culture war and try to observe reality, regardless of the consequences. I needed to test whether there was an understanding of evolution that could support the independent descent of many species back to some primitive form of development. I laid out a hypothesis of how things might work and what could be discovered in the future to validate the theory. To my surprise, much of the predicted evidence was unfolding right before my eyes among mainstream researchers arguing for a new understanding of evolution.
I recognize that any reasonably intelligent person should outright dismiss the idea that an untrained religious adherent could successfully synthesize ideas into a coherent theory that questions the modern evolutionary paradigm while supporting a religious doctrine. Well, I agree with that, but I tried anyway.
I compiled the results over more than a decade, and recently published On the Originality of Species. I also went back and took a very detailed look at the authenticity and translations of the source material, the writings of Shoghi Effendi, letters from the Universal House of Justice, and the extensive discourse among Baha’is. Aside from the documentation of a new theory, it is the most comprehensive analysis of the Baha’i perspective on evolution ever compiled, and has many never-before published resources that will be an important bedrock for anyone interested in the topic.
I distinctly remember walking my kid to kindergarten and she asked, “I came from you, and you came from your parents. They had their own parents, and it goes on and on… so who were the first people?” The answer is incredibly important. The answer says a lot about purpose and meaning and has a very strong social influence. For all of human history, people answered this question with a variety of myths that satisfied their curiosity while giving them some positive social or spiritual aspiration. This has been replaced with a cold mechanical answer that verges on demeaning. Prominent science writers believe humans were stumbled upon during a blind walk through the limitless genetic space.
The new theory of evolution is deterministic and repeatable, suggesting pre-existence and intention. It will leave you inspired and hopeful.
