 The Good
Unlocking the secret of evolution, which is that natural selection acts on random genetic mutations, has greatly enriched our understanding of the natural world. This understanding has lead to scientific breakthroughs in genetics, medicine, pharmaceuticals, computer science, and in learning how variation arises within species. These breakthroughs have had a positive impact on our society, whether we realize it or not (Source: Scientific American, January, 2009 issue).
The Bad
The theory of evolution contains theoretical assumptions about the world that are inconsistent with the doctrines of the restored gospel. At a fundamental level, evolution is mechanistic. By mechanistic I mean that evolution makes two ontological assertions about the fundamental nature of the natural world, namely materialism and efficient causation.
Materialism is the belief that the fundamental nature of the world is physical material. Everything that truly exists is made up of matter. In a manner of speaking, what matters is matter. There is no such thing as the non-physical. Spirits are not real, neither are your thoughts, emotions, and personal sense of identity - these are nothing more than the actions of electrochemical processes in your nervous system.
Efficient causation is the belief that events or change result from natural laws acting on physical material. There are no supernatural, spiritual, or cognitive sources of change. Also there is no purpose or agency in events; there are just the unintentional forces of nature which determine how matter is to behave. Mother Nature is like a blind watch maker that creates a beautifully complex world without a purpose or goal in mind.
The Ugly
Unfortunately we cannot simply pay attention to the Good while ignoring the Bad in evolution because the Bad has ugly consequences. The Bad provides an impetus for people to not believe in God.
According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, 66% of all scientists surveyed said that they believed in God. Pretty good. But when the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found startling differences. Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists.
Other studies support these results.
According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists are either atheists or agnostics, much higher than all scientists in general! (SOURCE: Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)
Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading evolutionists, a whopping 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.)
And according to a 2007 national survey of faculty at colleges and universities, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics! (SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious are America’s College and University Professors? Feb. 6, 2007.)
The scriptures teach us that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” It appears that one of the fruits of the theory of evolution is atheism, or it may be that evolution biology attracts atheists. I expect that both are true, but given that, as President Ezra Taft Benson observed, “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” it is fairly safe to conclude that evolution is driving some people away from God.
So what should we do? Well we can’t just stop teaching evolution; it is an important part of science (look at the “Good”). As a scientific theory it has its faults, but that is no reason to stop teaching evolution either. If we start restricting science education to only theories that are perfect, soon there would be no theories left to teach. Science is not perfect. It is an ever progressing and self-correcting manmade endeavor.
From an LDS perspective, I think the key is to make LDS youngsters aware of the mechanistic assumptions underlying evolution. We commit a grave injustice by pretending that evolution is free from faults, especially those faults that are at odds with the gospel. More importantly, we need to help our youth develop a strong testimony of the gospel so that they will not be deceived by evolution’s atheistic allure. In other words, the perfect mix is a good understanding of evolution (including its underlying assumptions) and a strong testimony of the gospel. With a sound understanding of evolution and the gospel, we can celebrate the Good without fearing the Bad and the Ugly.
I have been unpleasantly surprised by intellectualizations among some mormon scholars. In the scholarly context, an intellectualization is using excessive reasoning to avoid anxiety that arises from confronting legitimate gospel arguments that challenge one’s secular, scholarly viewpoints.
Intellectualization is alive and well among the scholarly ranks.
Last month I gave a presentation at the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities conference on allowing recognition of God in science. A good article on my presentation appeared in the Deseret News (see previous post).
It seems that some mormon scholars are VERY concerned with what I had to say. In response to the excellent Deseret News article, some have mentioned the limits of including God in science. I wholeheartedly embrace many of their viewpoints (S. Faux’s blog is a good example). Unfortunately, others have overreacted, as evidenced by those who incorrectly assume that I was advocating a god-of-the-gaps or theocratic scientific movement. To these people I say: “You don’t know what you are talking about. You weren’t at my presentation where I clearly pointed out that I was not advocating theocratic science, intelligent design, or creationism. I am calling for a return to the way things were during the Scientific Revolution. If you don’t know what science was like during this time period, then read some history. Here is a hint – it was largely like science today with one exception, it was acceptable to acknowledge God.”
Those who are guilty of intellectualizing my topic are the conference goers who strongly opposed my presentation. They were there when I gave my talk, they don’t like what I had to say, and they are coming up with dumb rationalizations to justify their disagreement. Here is an example:
As an active Mormon I am uncomfortable with the thesis proffered by Mr. Collingridge. And from what I understand so were others at the MSH conference. According to my professor who attended the conference, another scholar asked what exactly a God-inclusive scientific discourse would look like to which Mr. Collingridge had no definitive answer, suggesting that it was his role simply to pose the idea and not to come up with examples of science/God discourse. Another scholar asked why Mr. Collingridge's examples of God-in-science discourse were limited strictly to the West given that science is an international discipline and asked if he would be comfortable with a scientist from India introducing Vishnu or Brahma discourse into science to which Mr. Collingridge had no answer other than he would not be comfortable with that. According to my professor, only about half of the audience clapped after his presentation.
Here is why this is an empty rationalization: this person says he is uncomfortable, but fails to provide a rigorous justification for his discomfort. The arguments he gives lack rigor. He attempts to "reason away" his discomfort with a gospel truth that contradicts his secular beliefs about science.
Here is what I mean.
Yes, someone at the conference asked me what a God inclusive science should look like. That person used superconductivity as an example. I replied that I did not know what a God inclusive science in superconductivity should look like – I am not a superconductivity scientist! Superconducting scientists who believe in God should decide for themselves how to recognize the Creator. Who am I to constrain what they should or should not say about God? I have no problems figuring out how to acknowledge God in my own discipline, namely psychology.
Yes, someone sitting next to me on the panel asked my how I would feel about recognizing gods from eastern religions. I replied that I would not feel comfortable with it. Here is why: I worship the one true God of heaven and earth, not Vishnu or Brahma! I am not completely comfortable with people acknowledging dumb idols and mythical gods. Are you?
Yes, it sounded to me like only half of the people applauded when I sat down. I said in my presentation that several of them would not feel at ease with what I was saying, so their lack of enthusiasm just proves my point, which is that the wave of secularism that has swept over science has succeeded in making us think that science must preclude God. Those who withheld their applause have fallen prey to this grand deception.
What are the sources of these dangerous intellectualizations? Pride in one’s abilities and learning come to mind. The scriptures teach us that to be learned is good, if one hearkens unto the counsels of God. There were plenty of learned people at the conference. Are they failing to hearken unto the counsel of God to give thanks and recognize His hand in all great blessings by opposing the idea that science should be more God friendly? Just a thought. I am not judging.
We recognize God in government because He gave us the Constitution. (This recognition does not impede our ability to govern in a rational and sound way.) We recognize God in the legal profession because He gave us our laws. (This recognition does not impede our ability to judge in a rational and sound way.) Why not more fully recognize God for the great blessings He has given us in science? (Recognizing deity need not impede our ability to carry out science in a rational and sound way.)
I believe that we no longer acknowledge God in science because of the “false spirits which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world” into believing that science is completely devoid of God.
 Last week (May 9, 2009) I gave a presentation at the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities conference on God in science. In that presentation I argued for acceptance of recognizing God in scientific discourse, much as was done during the 17th century Scientific Revolution.
After my presentation I was approach by a young lady named Molly Farmer, a writer for Deseret News. She asked me where I work and what I do for a living. Naturally I was curious about whether she would write an article on my presentation. Well, she did. It is a great article that captures the essence of my presentation in a very nice way. Her article can be viewed here. I highly recommend it.
There have been a number of replies to the article at Deseretnews.com. There are the obvious criticisms from atheists – I expect no less from them. But what’s unusual are the criticisms from some Latter-day Saints, from members of our faith who think that God should be precluded from science. Take, for example, this comment from a mormon biologist.
As a biologist and active member of the LDS church, I see no problem with the absence of God in scientific writing. Collingridge's argument makes as much sense as complaining that not enough economists address their belief in God.
This biologist seems to be unaware of the fact that we have been commanded to give thanks to God for all blessings and to recognize His hand in all good things. As I point out in my book Truth & Science: An LDS Perspective, the Lord is the main benefactor in science. Through the Light of Christ He inspires scientific progress. Why then should we not recognize His hand in science? We do it in government because we recognize that He gave the Constitution and laws for this country, then why not in science?
Members who agree with this biologist should carefully consider the following words from the Prophet Joseph F. Smith:
In all the great discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, “We have done it.” The individual says, “I have done it,” and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth, but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.
Did you read that carefully? It is saying that God is displeased with modern science because it has become accustomed to not recognizing His hand in scientific discovery. If this biologist has a problem with recognizing God in science, then he/she must take issue with the fact that Newton, Galileo, and Descartes mentioned deity in their influential scientific treatises.
I suspect that the real reason why this biologist does not want God mentioned in science is that he/she does not want a gospel critique of the theory of evolution. You see, several LDS biologists accept the fallacy that evolution is completely compatible with LDS doctrine. They are absolutely mistaken. While there are some areas of agreement between the gospel and evolution, there are definitely areas of disagreement (peruse my evolutionary posts for good examples). Several LDS biologists hope to perpetuate the “compatibility” falsehood by forestalling a careful comparison between LDS doctrine and the assumptions underlying evolution.
|
RSS Feed