# On Human Origins: A Baha'i Perspective

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Craig Loehle, On Human Origins: A Baha'i Perspective, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Published in the Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2, number 4 (1990)
> © Association for Bahá’í Studies 1990
> 
> On Human Origins: A Bahá’í Perspective
> 
> Craig Loehle
> Abstract
> The question of human origins has been one of the major points of conflict between scientific and religious views. The
> scientific account of human evolution poses difficulties for those who demand a literal interpretation of scripture and
> believe in a special, divine origin for humanity. These difficulties are resolved by the Bahá’í writings, which view human
> evolution, spiritual development in the individual, the advancement of civilization, and the progress of religion as all
> representing a single fundamental developmental process and spiritual principle underlying all of creation. Rather than
> being in conflict with the theory of evolution, the Bahá’í Faith itself incorporates an evolutionary worldview.
> 
> Résumé
> La question de l’origine humaine constitue l’une des plus importantes sources des conflits entre les points de vue
> scientifique et religieux. L’explication scientifique de l’évolution humaine pose des problèmes à ceux qui exigent une
> interprétation littérale des écrits saints et une origine divine spécifique de l’humanité. Ces difficultés sont résolues par les
> écrits bahá’ís, qui considèrent que l’évolution de l’homme, le développement spirituel de l’individu, l’avancement de la
> civilisation, et le progrés de la religion sont tous les volets d’un seul processus fondamental du développement et du
> principe spirituel régissant la création tout entière. Ainsi, plutôt que d’aller à l’encontre de la théorie de l’evolution, la foi
> bahá’íe englobe une vision évolutionniste du monde.
> 
> Resumen
> El tema de los orígenes humanos has sido uno de los principales puntos de conflicto de parecer entre la ciencia y la
> religión. El relato científico sobre la evolución humana presenta obstáculos para quienes insisten en una interpretación
> literal del texto sagrado acompañada de un orígen especial y divino para la humanidad. Estos problemas hallan su
> resolución en los escritos bahá’ís que contemplan a la evolución humana, al desarrollo espiritual en el individuo, al
> avance de la civilización, y al progreso de la religión, como representando todo un solo proceso de desarrollo
> fundamental y principio espiritual que sustenta a toda la creación. A lo contrario de eslar en conflicto con la teoría de la
> evolución, la Fe Bahá’í incorpora dentro de sí un punto de vista evolucionario global.
> 
> A     s science has advanced, it has increasingly come into conflict with religion. The history of active conflict goes back
> to the Middle Ages. Almost every aspect of science was initially opposed by the Church, particularly astronomy,
> geology, and medicine (Boorstin, The Discoverers). Galileo was forced to recant. While in earlier periods religion had
> the upper hand, including the power to ban books and imprison heretics, today science has the upper hand and sits in
> harsh judgment of religion. The ordinary person sees the evidence of the power and authority of science every day.
> Consequently, if some aspect of religion seems to clash directly with a scientific principle, there is a tendency to reject
> religion outright. This conflict is most evident in the case of evolution. The theory of evolution does not merely shake the
> certainty that the Bible is literally true by contradicting Genesis; it attacks the foundation of religion itself. If the Adam
> and Eve story is wrong and we evolved, then it would seem that God did not create us; we are nothing special; and in fact
> it is pure chance that we are here at all. This contradicts the whole theme of religion that the world was created for a
> purpose and that life has meaning. Furthermore, if we are just one species of animal, then it seems exceedingly unlikely
> that any divine power is guiding our destiny. As animals, we would also be unlikely to have a soul, an essential
> component of Christian theology. While some compromise positions have been attempted, the result is a watering down
> of Christianity that takes the passion and certainty out of it. There is no real resolution to the dilemma posed by evolution
> within the context of mainstream Christianity, and as a consequence many have turned away from religion. It is
> interesting that the primary aspect of science actively resisted or denied today by those who are religious is the theory of
> evolution and the evolutionary explanation of human origins. In surveys of adults or even college students, a substantial
> minority and sometimes even a majority do not accept scientific accounts of the origin of the universe, life, and
> humanity. These people state that they accept the biblical version of origins as literally true.
> Active attacks on evolution continue today in the public school arena with “creation science” and attempts to
> remove evolution from textbooks. Particularly disturbing are blatant distortions of scientific method and evidence,
> especially in evolution and geology (documented and refuted in Strahler, Controversy). For example, some claim that the
> vast deposits of bones of prehistoric animals were all laid down in Noah’s flood and represent animals that did not make
> it onto the ark. Bones of early hominids are asserted to be put there by the devil to confound us. The response from
> scientists is equally vigorous, resulting in a heated debate in the scientific and popular literature.1 Scientists have also
> mounted attacks on religion in general and claim to prove that God does not exist (Kaye, Meaning).
> A brief explanation of what evolution comprises helps to clarify the roots of the conflict. The theory of
> evolution as currently understood is based on a set of well-tested premises and extensive data (Futuyma, Evolutionary
> Biology).
> • The morphology, physiology, and behavior of all organisms is determined by their genetic code, stored in DNA,
> interacting with environmental factors;
> • When genetic information is passed to the next generation, transmission is not perfect. Recombination mixes the
> traits of the parents. Information is lost or altered via mutations, deletions, inversions, chromosome doubling, and
> other mechanisms;
> • Natural selection acts on organisms via differential survival and fecundity, favoring those traits best adapted to the
> circumstances that the organism must face (e.g., climate, predators);
> • Chance effects influence the course of evolution, particularly via extinctions.
> When we trace our earliest ancestors back several million years, Africa appears to be the cradle of both ancient
> and modern forms (Lewin, “Africa”). While very primitive humans (Homo erectus and later Neanderthal) spread out
> from Africa to Europe and Asia over a million years ago, modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago
> (Lewin, “Africa,” “Modern”; Stringer and Andrews, “Genetic”). About 100,000 years ago modern humans spread out
> from Africa in a great wave and supplanted preexisting early humans in Europe and Asia (Lewin, “Africa,” “Modern”).
> This date thus represents the beginning of the worldwide spread of humanity and the earliest date for racial differentia-
> tion. Such a recent origin for the races means that most racial differences are rather superficial and trivial (Stringer and
> Andrews, “Genetic”). Interestingly, the oldest remains of modern humans outside of Africa are dated 92,000 years B.P.
> (Before Present), from Mount Carmel, Israel (Stringer, “Eden”; Valladas et al., “Dating”), the location of the world
> administrative center of the Bahá’í Faith.
> The period around 10,000 years ago represents a unique crisis and turning point in human history. During the
> period 12,000 to 10,000 B.P., rapid global warming caused the retreat of the global ice sheets of the last glaciation. This
> rapid warming was accompanied by massive shifts in local climates and vegetation such as expansion of the grasslands in
> the American West. Animals previously adapted to cold climates, particularly larger mammals, were unable to adapt, and
> many became extinct. By 10,000 B.P. the large mammal herds in most areas outside Africa, upon which early humans
> had depended, were either reduced in number or extinct. We can think of this time as the historical expulsion from the
> Garden, in a sense. This crisis forced people into new food sources including fishing, more sophisticated hunting
> techniques, and agriculture (Geist, Life), thus leading directly to the establishment of more advanced culture and
> technology. In particular, the earliest dates known for domestication of both plants and animals are in the period 12,000–
> 10,000 B.P. from the Middle East (Simmons et al., “Neolithic”). The period around 10,000 B.P. is when the earliest
> villages (permanent settlements) were established, also in the Middle East.
> While a priori not goal-directed, evolution has tended to produce, particularly in mammals and birds, more
> elaborate sensory modes, greater homeostatic control of physiology, increased care of young, and larger brains, because
> these traits enhance survival. We humans are the beneficiaries of these trends. This evolutionary progression is
> marvelous to behold and full of small miracles, but the concept that we arose by a purely physical process is anathema to
> many because it removes purposefulness from the universe. It leaves a watch without a watchmaker, a body without a
> soul, a universe with no meaning or order or feeling. Thus, the part of evolution attacked most vehemently has to do with
> human origins and the origins of the universe, i.e., with God as Creator. Even Wallace, codiscoverer with Darwin of
> evolution, maintained that everything had evolved except human beings, who were a special creation.
> In place of faith, some attempt to find ethical roots in evolution itself. By understanding the way in which
> humanity evolved socially and genetically, they hope to discover a basis for social order and ethics. In the tendency for
> evolution to create more complex forms (Burhoe, “Civilization”; Dobzhansky and Boesiger, Human Culture), they seek a
> general organizing principle (complexity, integration, system, world-mind) from which moral imperatives can be derived
> (e.g., Burhoe, “Natural,” “Civilization”; Campbell, “Conflict”; Davis, “Evolution”). As we will see later, such ideas
> though incomplete are not incompatible with Bahá’í belief. Some have used the principles of natural selection (the
> “selfish gene”) as a basis for guidance for society (review in Kaye, Social). Unfortunately, the “selfish gene” provides
> only very limited guidance on ethics (e.g., it is not adaptive to kill your relatives) and almost none on larger social issues.
> Wilson (Biophilia), as another example, argues that we are genetically evolved to have an attraction or affinity to all
> forms of life. Most of these writers seek to replace the (to them) outmoded social order based on religion with one based
> on the guidance inspired by evolution. While the above-cited authors tend to view evolution in terms that lead to the
> derivation of humanistic values, such need not be the case. Social Darwinism and Monism, as propounded by Ernst
> Haeckel and other German philosophers of the nineteenth century (Stein, “Nazism”) reflected a worldview that applied
> the struggle for existence logically to human society, with the struggle being between nations (races). The superior race,
> the Aryans, was seen to have a right to take land away from inferior peoples. Exterminating the “lesser” races, the old,
> the ill, or the deformed was not viewed as criminal but as a matter of racial hygiene. This rationale was explicitly
> incorporated into Nazism and carried out (Stein, “Nazism”) with horrible consequences. Evolution per se is thus an
> insufficient basis for a human moral order. The problem with extrapolating Nature’s order to human society is that
> multiple moral codes are compatible with Nature, many of which lead to societies in which few of us would willingly
> live.
> If evolution and religion were marriage partners, we would be tempted to diagnose “irreconcilable differences”
> and grant them the divorce they both seem to seek. However, the consequence of admitting failure here is, as we have
> seen, mental turmoil and massive loss of faith. Furthermore, both evolution and religion claim to embody solutions to the
> same set of moral and social issues. Medicine can extend life but reduces its meaning. Psychology claims hegemony over
> understanding our behavior but is powerless to give us values and comes to absurd conclusions like “open marriage”
> being healthy. Where is the solution to this conflict?
> What is needed is a synthesis within which religion is compatible with evolution, without creating
> pseudoreligions, such as social Darwinism or secular humanism. Such a synthesis is not only possible but has already
> been achieved in the Bahá’í Faith.
> 
> Science and God’s Existence
> Before specifically dealing with evolution and human origins, it is necessary to clarify the Bahá’í views on science. It is a
> fundamental, central teaching of the Bahá’í Faith that science and religion are in harmony. The Bahá’í Faith emphatically
> and explicitly accepts scientific accounts of the creation of the universe, our planet, and life on Earth. The current
> scientific explanation (Hawking, Time) is that the known universe began as a fireball (the Big Bang) 10 to 20 billion
> years ago and that our solar system formed from the dust of space much later. At the instant of creation, all original
> matter was concentrated at a single point or singularity of unimaginable heat and density, which then exploded outward
> and gradually cooled. What happened “before” this time is unknown. Some would argue that “before” the Big Bang has
> no meaning because time did not even exist then. Although the Bahá’í writings specify that God has neither a beginning
> nor an ending, Bahá’u’lláh states the following regarding “the beginning of creation”:
> 
> ...this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions. Wert
> thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the
> same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been
> revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds.... His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning
> that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and
> originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.
> That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of
> existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that
> which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. (Tablets 140)
> 
> Note that this passage was written in the late nineteenth century, before any hint of our current concepts of
> cosmology. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers (Questions, 183–84, 196–97) to the gradual process of the formation of the Earth,
> though he does not mention the Big Bang. Bahá’u’lláh specifically dismissed literal interpretations of the Bible that give
> the age of the Earth as between 5,000 and 6,000 years:
> 
> The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long
> period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. (Gleanings 163)
> 
> He goes on to state:
> 
> Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man
> can compute. (163)
> 
> Note that these statements were made prior to 1890, when few scientists accepted either a great age for the Earth or the
> existence of other planets with life. Life on at least a few other planets outside our solar system is now viewed by many
> scientists as almost inevitable (Swartzman and Rickard, “Extraterrestrial”). “Fixed stars” (those that are true stars and not
> a part of a binary-type system) are in fact the only kind likely to have planets. The origin of life on Earth as simple
> organisms with subsequent evolution to higher forms (discussed further below) is granted in the Bahá’í writings
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions 180-84). There is also no quarrel with the fossil record. No claim is made that prehuman bones
> were placed there by the “devil” to confound us, as claimed by “creation scientists.” Bahá’ís do not accept reincarnation
> and do not emphasize miracles as a basis for faith. The Bahá’í writings on the topics of greatest conflict between science
> and religion, therefore, are not in conflict with science.
> To be compatible with science, religion should be internally consistent, and its predictions should be accurate.
> There are false and unscientific disciplines, such as astrology, which can explain everything but predict nothing. ‘Abdu’l-
> Bahá explained many times that religion is logical and can be studied using the tools of logic. In this context, a religious
> account of human origins must be both internally consistent and consistent with science. It is important first of all to
> clarify the Bahá’í view of causation. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that events in the world may have three causes: natural law,
> chance, and divine Will (Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith 342). Natural law includes the law of
> gravity, laws of physics, and other laws that operate in a regular, predictable way. These laws are manifestations of God’s
> purpose in that God established these laws, but they operate independently of active divine intervention. Examples of
> chance include radioactive decay of any particular atom, lightning strikes, and Brownian motion. It is noteworthy that at
> the time ‘Abdu’l-Bahá expounded these ideas, most scientists tended to hold a rigid Newtonian view of the universe in
> which apparent randomness was merely the result of our limited perspective. Current work in the fields of dynamics and
> chaos reveals unpredictability (and hence chance) to be both fundamental and irreducible, similarly in quantum
> mechanics. The third operative force is divine Will. In earlier periods, divine Will was popularly assumed to be
> responsible for the fall of every leaf and drop of rain. In the Bahá’í view, such detailed manipulation of the natural world
> violates the existence of free will in humans, upon which our spiritual progress depends: Without free will, we cannot
> choose to do good and therefore cannot be held accountable for doing evil (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions 248–50). The
> necessity for free will leads inevitably to the existence of an imperfect world (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions 248). God
> intervenes only to further the goal of humanity’s cultural evolution. God’s Will operates according to its own set of
> divine Laws and manifests itself particularly clearly in the person of the prophet and in the events that surround Him.
> Divine Will is popularly perceived as producing “miracles,” but it is also manifest in terms of revelation, dreams, visions,
> and coincidences. Such events surround the person of the prophet and propel religious events forward. For Bahá’ís,
> although divine Will is a force that operates in the world today and can affect individual lives, not everything that hap-
> pens can be called God’s Will. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains, there is a large component of chance and natural law in the
> world, and we can never be certain whether or not some event in our lives is part of God’s Plan.
> 
> Human Evolution
> Having explained the Bahá’í concept of causation and law, I now return to the issue of human evolution. In the Bahá’í
> view, humanity did not merely evolve accidentally, but rather it was God’s purpose for creation that humanity arise
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions 196–97). Humanity’s origin can be viewed as the unfolding of God’s Plan. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá uses
> the analogy of a seed holding within it the potential of the tree. Similarly, the earliest life contained the potential for
> humanity, though not in the sense of a mere unfolding, as in the earlier view of the homunculus curled up in the sperm
> cell. Geneticists discredited this view years ago because of the role of chance in evolution (Dobzhansky and Boesiger,
> Human Culture). Evolution is influenced by three major components of chance: chance mutations, chance extinctions,
> and chance migrations, Humanity was thus not preordained in a programmed manner because anyone of hundreds of
> chance events could have deflected the path actually taken by human evolution.
> The Bahá’í view is not that the earliest life literally had a step-by-step plan for evolution but rather that it
> contained the potentialities that unfolded because of evolution, which, as has often been remarked, tends gradually to
> produce higher, more complex forms. In this view, the unfolding of higher forms by degrees is the way that God works.
> Individuals, cultures, species, knowledge, and individual intelligences must all go through a process of development. As
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states:
> 
> For the supreme organization of God, and the universal natural system surround all beings, and all are subject to
> this rule. When you consider this universal system, you see that there is not one of the beings which at its
> coming into existence has reached the limit of perfection. No, they gradually grow and develop and then attain
> the degree of perfection. (Questions 199)
> 
> In specific reference to Darwinian evolution, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states:
> 
> Moses taught that the world was brought into existence in the six days of creation. This is an allegory, a
> symbolic form of the ancient truth that the world evolved gradually. Darwin can refer to Moses for his theory of
> evolution. God did not allow the world to come into existence all at once, rather the divine breath of life
> manifested itself in the commanding Word of God, Logos, which engendered and begot the world. We thus have
> a progressive process of creation, and not a one-time happening. Moses’ days of creation represent time spans of
> millions of years. From Pythagoras to ibn-i-Sína (known as Avicenna) to the “faithful brothers from Basra,”
> through Darwin and to the blessed manifestations of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh, both scholars and Prophets have
> testified to the progressive creative action of the Logos (divine breath of life). The Darwinian and monistic
> theories of evolution and the origin of species are not materialistic, atheistic ideas; they are religious truths
> which the godless and the deluded have unjustifiably used in their campaign against religion and the Bible.
> (Cited in Khursheed, Science 90)
> 
> A more elaborate explication of this view is given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
> 
> ...it is evident that this terrestrial globe, having once found existence, grew and developed in the matrix of the
> universe, and came forth in different forms and conditions, until gradually it attained this present perfection, and
> became adorned with innumerable beings, and appeared as a finished organization.
> Then it is clear that original matter, which is in the embryonic state, and the mingled and composed
> elements which were its earliest forms, gradually grew and developed during many ages and cycles, passing
> from one shape and form to another, until they appeared in this perfection, this system, this organization and this
> establishment, through the supreme wisdom of God.
> Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth,
> like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to
> another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power.
> It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees
> attained this shape, this form, this beauty, and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at
> once appear in this form: neither did it then become the manifestation of the words “Blessed, therefore, be God
> the most excellent of Makers.” Gradually it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it
> attained this form and beauty, this perfection, grace and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the
> development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and
> development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from
> form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and
> Divine Law. (Questions 182–83).
> 
> A significant remaining question is whether human beings may be viewed as a special creation. The Bahá’í view
> is both yes and no. Yes, because humanity was in the eye of God from the beginning, and He created us; no, because we
> progressed through various forms rather than being created in one moment from clay. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains:
> 
> Let us suppose that there was a time when man walked all his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and
> alteration is like that of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Although it changes in all ways, and grows and
> develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species....
> To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape,
> changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period—in the same
> way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species—that is,
> man—and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore; this change of appearance, this evolution
> of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress [i.e., if we
> admit, for example, that man had formerly been a quadruped, or had had a tail], does not prevent the species
> from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity
> and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, “We will
> make man in Our image and likeness.” He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful and more graceful.
> Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener
> become finer, sweeter and acquire more freshness and delicacy. (Questions 193–94)
> 
> It is perhaps not easy to understand how human beings can be a special creation and still have evolved. This is a
> subtle concept. A further quotation from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá helps clarify this.
> 
> The reflection of the divine perfections appears in the reality of man, so he is the representative of God, the
> messenger of God. If man did not exist, the universe would be without result, for the object of existence is the
> appearance of the perfections of God.
> Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this
> terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the
> beginning which bas no beginning, to the end which has no end, a Perfect Manifestation always exists. This
> Man of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man. For the noblest part of the tree is the fruit,
> which is the reason of its existence. If the tree bad no fruit, it would have no meaning. (Questions 196–97)
> A final note is needed on interpreting ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s discussions of human evolution. Some Answered
> Questions, quoted in large measure above, was recorded from verbal answers given to a Bahá’í pilgrim, Laura Clifford
> Barney, during the years 1904–1906. Parts of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s answers appear contradictory but upon closer inspection
> are not. For example, at one point ‘Abdu’l-Bahá argues that the possession of vestigial organs does not prove the absence
> of special creation but concludes the discussion by admitting that humans have passed through various forms. It seems
> clear that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is using a pedagogical device here. He is refuting the principal arguments of materialists so as to
> break the questioner out of any confining notions or preconceived ideas, thus allowing his explanation to be effectively
> heard and understood. The introduction to the book notes that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is more pedagogical here than in his other
> works. Quoting single sentences out of the context of the entire passage could thus be construed as opposing evolution,
> which is not the case. In the above section, I therefore focused on his concluding paragraphs to the individual sections, in
> which he presents his final arguments.
> From the above discussion we see that the Bahá’í view is inherently and fundamentally evolutionary. Biological
> evolution, individual development and cultural advancement are all aspects of one fundamental process. This is how God
> has ordained the world to work. Evolution is thus not in conflict with religion, rather, it is at the very heart of God’s
> purpose and way of working. This is a fundamentally new view of the very nature of religion, in distinct contrast to the
> static worldviews and philosophies of the past.
> We can recognize, therefore, three components in human origins. First, the law-like component of evolution
> gradually leads to higher forms. More recent, advanced organisms tend to have larger brains, greater internal
> homeostasis, and more advanced sensory abilities and adaptive behaviors. Larger brains increase survival and lengthen
> lifespan. Second, chance leads to random variations (e.g., many of the randomly derived differences among individuals)
> and random origins and extinctions. Third, I postulate (the Bahá’í writings do not specify this) that divine Will may have
> operated at times to help guide the process toward humanity; it was God’s intention from the beginning that humanity
> should arise. In this view, the same mode of action for God is postulated to have acted in the past as acts today; that is,
> subtle interventions that further God’s Plan of an advancing civilization for humanity. Thus, God’s role in human origins
> is one of a periodic intervenor in the natural process of development of higher forms called biological evolution. This is a
> plausible explanation: if you believe, from faith or evidence, that God is active in our world today as Bahá’ís believe He
> is, then God’s role in human origins can be seen as consistent with that belief.
> However, the role of chance in evolution is such a fundamental one that it leads to a scientific argument against
> God’s very existence, and thus it requires further examination here. All religions give humanity as the reason for the exis-
> tence of the world: God created the world so that we could inhabit it; He created us to know Him. Thus, a fundamental
> premise of all religion is that if humans did not exist, then there would be no reason for the world to exist, and thus God’s
> purpose would be unfulfilled. This line of reasoning runs into difficulty with the nature of the evolutionary process. Since
> there is a very high chance for something adverse to have happened to our ancestors (i.e., extinction), and since given a
> minutely different course of events we would look different, there is nothing to suggest that we followed any predestined
> course to arrive here in the twentieth century appearing just as we do (since we are supposedly made in “God’s image”).
> Thus, there is no “purpose” in life, and God does not exist. There is no resolution to this puzzle in the context of earlier
> religions, but there is in the context of the Bahá’í teachings. Current theology is too concrete and focuses on external
> appearances. Since we are made in God’s image, artists depict angels that look like us (though usually blond). ‘Abdu’l-
> Bahá states, however, that external appearances are of no consequence whatsoever. Thus, racial differences are
> meaningless from a spiritual perspective. It is our minds, our rational souls that distinguish us and enable us to know
> God. Thus, if we had evolved differently and looked different, it would be of no consequence to our spiritual state.
> While the exact path followed by human evolution is an improbable one, the evolution of sentient beings is not
> so improbable (Swartzman and Rickard, “Being Optimistic”). There was a dinosaur (Stenonychosaurus) that was bipedal,
> had opposable thumbs, and was quite intelligent for its type (Russell, “New Specimen”). That path could have led to
> “humans.” In our own history, there were several prehuman hominids that could have evolved further had they survived.
> The pygmy chimpanzee walks upright frequently and has much greater language capacity than the regular chimp or other
> apes. Who is to say that we could not be replaced by it if we destroy ourselves? The Bahá’í writings refer to other planets
> and other creatures and include them in God’s Plan. When we consider the infinitude of stars in the sky, if even a small
> percentage has planets with life, then sentient beings capable of knowing God are virtually inevitable. By ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
> definition, they would still be “in the image of God,” because the rational soul or intelligence is the distinguishing feature
> of “humans.” If God exists, it is probable that these beings have their own prophets, just as we do. Thus, we can conclude
> that the universe can have a purpose and that we are part of that purpose, even though chance does play a major part. In
> addition, as mentioned above, there may have been direct intervention by God in the evolutionary process. Bahá’í
> teachings state that the world-embracing civilization destined to arise in response to the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh will be
> the “final stage in this stupendous evolution” on this planet (Shoghi Effendi, World Order 43). This and similar
> statements point beyond our limited earthbound perspective toward a distant future in which civilization may extend into
> the galaxy. Perhaps we are part of a very big Plan indeed.
> Another aspect of this issue of chance conflicting with a divine Plan is the conflict with free will. If we have free
> will, then again it seems that there is no possibility for the existence of an overall plan. However, our free will is always
> constrained (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Questions 248–50). Consider the soldier in battle. The commanders have made plans and
> arrayed their forces, but each soldier still can be a hero or coward within that context. In the same way, both free will and
> chance are components of causation, but their existence does not rule out the existence of a grand scheme.
> Understanding our biological origins still leaves us with a riddle, for if we trace our ancestors back in time they
> become by degrees more primitive. At what point in this succession do we begin to see self-consciousness, higher-level
> thought, and other functions that are indicative of the rational mind? More specifically, at what point can we say that
> there is a soul? All the major religions are founded upon the supposition of a human soul, and if we only differ from the
> animals by degrees, then either we do not have a soul, or other animals also have a soul.
> While I cannot prove that other animals do not have a soul, it is the basic assumption of Christianity, Islam, and
> the Bahá’í Faith, at least, that human beings differ from animals in the possession of an immortal, higher, moral self: the
> soul. Such an assumption is not subject to proof. For the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to ask whether this
> assumption can be reconciled with our acceptance of an evolutionary origin for humanity.
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s (Questions 191–94) solution to this problem begins with an analogy. Consider the fetus in the
> womb. It goes through various forms, at one point having gills, at another a tail. Yet throughout these stages it is a human
> infant and has a soul since, in the Bahá’í view, the soul exists from conception. In the same way, human beings went
> through various forms throughout the evolutionary process but were still human, with a soul, from the beginning. God
> had a purpose for humanity and gave a special blessing to all our ancestors. As we go farther back in time to more
> primitive forms, the soul becomes more veiled, undeveloped, and less realized, but it still exists. Thus humanity is
> simultaneously a special creation and a product of evolution, different from animals in kind through possession of a soul
> but linked to the animals by lineage and physical attributes.
> The above view represents, as best I can reconstruct it, the Bahá’í view of human origins in terms of God’s Plan.
> It is neither a mathematical proof nor a laboratory study, and only further elaboration will fill in all the details. What it
> does offer, I hope, is a plausible middle ground between mental compartmentalization on the one hand and a choice
> between atheism and fanaticism on the other.
> In conclusion, in the context of the Bahá’í teachings it is possible to take both a religious view of evolution
> without altering science and an evolutionary view of religion without losing faith. I have attempted to demonstrate that
> God’s existence and influence do not conflict with science and evolutionary theory. Furthermore, developmental
> processes, of which evolution is one, are core concepts in the Bahá’í Faith. Humanity evolves, our spirits evolve, and
> society and religion evolve. We thus need not be afraid that teaching children about evolution will lead them astray or
> destroy their faith. It is also no longer necessary for the devout to fear science or rational argument. The rational mind, of
> which science is a fruit, is “God’s greatest gift to man” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks 41-43). But pure rationality
> (personified in technology), devoid of the unifying and humane themes of religion, will lead us to destruction. Religion,
> devoid of rationality, leads us inevitably to superstition and bigotry. With the two wings of science and religion in
> harmony, humanity can fly to far greater heights. Let it be so.
> 
> Notes
> 
> 1. See, for example, the cited works by Boxer, Kricher, Oliver, Rice, Shapiro, Strahler, and Zuckerkandl.
> Works Cited
> 
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Conversation with Dr. Fallscheer. P.9 in Sonne der Warheit. No. 1. 1921. Translation in Khursheed,
> Science and Religion, 1987.
> ———. Some Answered Questions. Trans. Laura Clifford Barney. 2d ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1981.
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh. Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Trans. Shoghi Effendi. 2d ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing
> Trust, 1976.
> ———. Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh. Trans. Habib Taherzadeh. Rev. ed. Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1982.
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Bahá’í World Faith. Trans. Shoghi Effendi. Rev. ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing
> Trust, 1956.
> 
> Bloom, A. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
> 
> Boorstin, D. J. The Discoverers. New York: Random House, 1983. Boxer, S. “Will Creationism Rise Again?” Discover 8
> (1987):80–85.
> 
> Burhoe, R. W. “Natural Selection and God.” Zygon 7 (1976):30–63.
> ———. “The Source of Civilization in the Natural Selection of Coadapted Information in Genes and Culture.” Zygon 11
> (1976):263–303.
> 
> Campbell, D. T. “The Conflict between Social and Biological Evolution and the Concept of Original Sin.” Zygon 10
> (1975):234–49.
> ———. “On the Conflict between Biological and Social Evolution and Between Psychology and Moral Tradition.”
> Zygon 11 (1976):167-208.
> 
> Davis, B. D. “Evolution, Human Diversity and Society.” Zygon 11(1976):80–95.
> 
> Dobzhansky, T., and E. Boesiger. Human Culture: A Moment in Evolution. Ed. B. Wallace. New York: Columbia
> University Press, 1983.
> 
> Futuyma, D. J. Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc., 1979.
> 
> Geist, V. Life Strategies, Human Evolution, Environmental Design. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978.
> 
> Hawking, S. W. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam, 1 988.
> 
> Hoagland, H. “Reflections on the Purpose of Life.” Zygon 6 (1971):28–38.
> 
> Kaye, H. L. The Social Meaning of Modern Biology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
> 
> Khursheed, A. Science and Religion: Towards the Restoration or an Ancient Harmony. Guernsey, England: One World
> Publications, 1987.
> 
> Kricher, J. C. Letter to editor. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 67 (1986):262.
> ———. Letter to editor. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 68 (1987):487–88.
> 
> Lewin, R. “Africa: Cradle of Modern Humans.” Science 237 (1987):1292–95.
> ———. “Modern Human Origins under Close Scrutiny.” Science 239 (1988): 1240–41.
> 
> Mühlschlegel, P. Auguste Forel and the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford: George Ronald, 1978.
> 
> Oliver, J.D. “Ecology and Creation.” Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 67 (1986):229–230.
> 
> Rice, S. “Creationist Ecology?” Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 67 (1986):8–10.
> ———. Letter to editor. Bull. Ecol Soc. Amer. 68 (1987):2–3.
> Russell, D. “A New Specimen of Stenonychosaurus from the Oldman Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta.” Can. J. Earth
> Sci. 6 (1969):595–612.
> 
> Shapiro, A.M. “God and Science.” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Oct. 1987, 47–51.
> 
> Shoghi Effendi. World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. Rev. ed. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974.
> 
> Simmons, A.H., I. Köhler-Rollefson, G.O. Rollefson, R. Mandel, and Z. Kafafi. “Ain Ghazal: A Major Neolithic
> Settlement in Central Jordan.” Science 240 (1988):35–39.
> 
> Stein, G.J. “Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism.” in Am. Sci. 76 (1988):50–58.
> 
> Strahler, A.N. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1987.
> 
> Stringer, C.B. “The Dates of Eden.” Nature 331 (1988):565–66.
> 
> Stringer, C.B., and P. Andrews. “Genetic and Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Modem Humans” in Science 239 (1988):
> 1263–68
> 
> Swartzman, D., and L.J. Rickard. “Being Optimistic about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” Amer. Sci. 76
> (1988):364–69.
> 
> Valladas, H., LL. Reyss, J.L. Joron, G. Valladas, O. Bar-Yosef, and B. Vandermeersh. “Thermoluminescence Dating of
> Mousterian ‘ProtoCro-Magnon’ Remains from Israel and the Origin of Modem Man.” Nature 331 (1988):614–
> 16.
> 
> Wilson, E.O. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
> 
> Zuckerkandl, E. “Creationism and Evolution.” Nature 334 (1988):376.
>
> — *On Human Origins: A Baha'i Perspective (Used by permission of the curator)*