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. 

 


Comments

Doc

Mon, 11 May 2009 4:58:39 pm

It is amazing to me to take a look at history and see the grief anyone who ever makes a revolutionary discovery gets. It happens in Science to this day, even with all its very real anti-religious bent, which began in a fight that has been going on since the days of Galileo.

We are all very uncomfortable with the idea that something we "know" might be wrong. It is a dangerous thing to be right in matters where established men are wrong. Just ask Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Copernicus, or Galileo.

Personally, I am more than happy to acknowledge God and the wonder of creation in all I learn in science, but at the same time I know the dangers of dogma.

Scientists can be dogmatic with or without religion. It's human nature. However, it is a nature that often intensifies when you make orthodoxy the standard for righteousness. If there is one thing we all want, it is to be RIGHT.

So we happily throw out ideas we disagree with as crank, quackery, or woo on one side and heresy, satanic, and evil on the other. It all really just boils down to trying to win an argument through name calling rather than on any merit. At its root is pride and all the enmity between man and man it creates.

In the end we all divide into our little tribes, isolate ourselves from foreign, untrusted ideas and become closed off from any hope of ever really learning the truth. The closed mind is the root of ever learning, and never recieving the truth.

I don't especially care for academic hostility to religion in the sciences, but I do think I understand why things are this way. It certainly isn't ideal, but when you can counter any data you don't like with "but that goes against God" you have a very real roadblock to scientific discovery.

I have to think we poor mortals are better off avoiding that by divided the magisterium into areas without overlap, at least until we can learn more in 5 minutes from God in his heaven than in several lifetimes here on Earth. Call it pragmatism for a fallen world.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 11 May 2009 8:59:04 pm

Doc,
I'll second most of the ideas you effectively articulated. I admire Stephen Jay Gould for his efforts to mitigate the conflict that exists. While I find it difficult to abide by the NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) that he advocated, I have no problem with others who do. As you point out, it may be the best approach we have right now for ensuring a peaceful coexistence.

 

S.Faux

Thu, 14 May 2009 7:39:47 am

Dave C.:

What is wrong with the following? "One can praise God using science, but one cannot use God IN science."

Where in the history of science has the concept of God (i.e., abandoning naturalistic approaches) made a scientific advance?

Can scientists be inspired by God? Of course. Can scientists be religious? They are.

I just do NOT see (after more than 30 years in the field) the large atheistic trends in science that you seem to propose. Give me data.

Further, as an outsider to BYU, I see no evidence that BYU Biologists are somehow less religious than BYU non-Biologists. Do you really mean to suggest some kind of conspiracy theory?

What I do appreciate about your views is that you are pro-God and pro-Science. What mystifies me though is that you seem to argue that religion should shape science, or at least alter its tone.

Where am I missing the boat?

I have listed you on my blog, and I am pleased to read your thoughts.

 

Jared*

Thu, 14 May 2009 6:56:25 pm

[Whoops, sorry for the empty comment.]

Along with S. Faux, I can't help but wonder if you are more concerned about God getting credit than he is. But beyond that, science is the systematic application of reasoning processes that everybody uses everyday. Your complaint should apply as well to crime detectives, investigative reporters, mechanical engineers, attorneys--in short, anyone who uses their brain.

I'm happy for God to get lots of credit, but I confess that I don't like the idea that my own brain is totally useless unless God intervenes.

I think you illustrate part of the reason invoking God in science leads to problems. At least two of the architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis were religious. But you are not content with theistic evolution, you want a 'gospel critique' of it, which implies using standards of one particular denomination (or one school of thought within that denomination). Putting God in science is asking for sectarian squabbles that we can do without.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 15 May 2009 1:52:58 pm

Jared*,

I am not advocating replacing scientific reasoning with faith-based reasoning. Science can stay with its old techniques of objective reasoning and empirical observations. I am also not calling for replacing scientific mysteries with god-of-the-gaps arguments.

I am calling for a broader acceptance of acknowledging God in scientific discourse. The legal profession acknowledges Him and His authority in swearing oaths, but it does not resort to prayer in an attempt to determine, for example, guilt in a criminal trial.

Our government recognizes God through prayer and a national day of prayer, yet it does not invoke God when drafting legislation. Science should allow similar recognition of God, but currently it is not acceptable to do so because people incorrectly assume that science is completely godless.

I hope this makes it more clear.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 15 May 2009 2:05:21 pm

S.Faux,

I agree with most of your assertions. The problem as I see it is that God is not acknowledged in science today to the same extent that He was acknowledged during the scientific revolution. There are 2 main reasons for this: enlightenment ideals and secular humanism. In fact, it is unacceptable to acknowledge God as the Lord of the universe and the architect of the laws of nature (note that this should happen without invoking God in scientific explanation). It is unacceptable because we have taken the notion that science is godless too far.



 



Leave a Reply

Google Analytics