Google Webmaster Tools
 
Harmonizing science and religion is a noble pursuit and one that is consistent with the Lord’s instruction to avoid contention. Harmonization is fairly easy when overlapping scientific and gospel teachings agree. However, complete harmonization eludes us because several gospel doctrines are at odds with science.

Disagreements between the gospel and science will continue to exist for the simple fact that science is imperfect and ever changing. The very thing that makes science so wonderful, namely that it is a self-correcting endeavor, precludes it from being 100% consistent with the gospel. If we ever claim that a scientific theory is absolutely consistent with the gospel and then see that theory change later on, then that theory never was completely consistent with the gospel as we had supposed.

Will complete harmony ever be achieved? Yes, most likely during the millennium when the Savior returns and circumscribes all truth into one great whole. Until such time, what shall we do when differences arise? Should we trust religion or should we trust science?

If a religious truth claim arises from theological conjecturing, of which there is plenty in the church (nothing wrong with this though), then science may be right and religion may be wrong. Remember that our understanding of the gospel is continually evolving. The Lord gives us gospel truths line upon line, precept upon precept, according to our righteousness. Consider that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is made available, it might change our understanding of some gospel principles, even to the point of bringing them more in line with established scientific theory.

On the other hand, if a religious doctrine comes through direct revelation such as scripture or prophetic edict, then we should definitely go with religion.

Here are some examples.

Science claims that the sun will expand and eventually destroy the earth. We know that is false because modern day revelation tells us that the earth will be celestialized and receive a paradisiacal glory.   

Science claims that we need to restrict population growth or else we will overpopulate the earth and exhaust our resources. We know this is false because the Lord has declared “there is room and enough to spare.”

Science claims that Adam and Eve’s immortal bodies were created through macroevolutionary processes. We know this is wrong because the scriptures and prophets teach us that the creation was a purposeful and directed process, not something left to the vicissitudes of natural selection and random mutations (even if those processes are sufficient to create a living human being). 

So what are we to do with scientific theories that disagree with revealed truth? Should we throw them out with the trash? No. Science is the best we’ve got when it comes to understanding the natural world. As long as we rely on the arm of the Lord, He will bless our science to progress, self-correct, and steer humankind toward the absolute truth of all things.
 


Comments

Kit link
09/01/2011 18:49

I agree with most of what you have said, but don't necessarily think that it has been given through "direct revelation" that Adam & Eve were products of a "directed process." I imagine God could have set up the conditions for evolution to occur and then let it work until appropriate bodies were ready. I don't think we should prematurely lock ourselves in a small theoretical box until the Church (through the Prophet) comes out with an official statement on the matter (which it does not have with regard to evolution).

Reply
raedyohed
09/01/2011 22:42

This post started out great. There's even a shot at theological conjecturing, (though some examples of popularized conjectures would be nice.) The notion of future revelation bringing us more in line with settled science is a given, but needs to be mentioned in some quarters.

So it had a nice opening, but you lost me at "On the other hand..." Why go to the effort of explaining how further understanding, either of a spiritual or scientific nature, could shape and reform our religious notions, only to list three tenuous religious speculations as examples of where religion should trump scientific theory? Besides, all of these are contrived non-issues.

Case in point: when I hear an argument that includes something along the lines of "Science claims that Adam and Eve’s immortal bodies..." I kind of tune out. What scientific claim are we talking about here, and how does it relate specifically to the immortality of Adam and Eve? Perhaps what you are thinking of falls more in the category of theological conjecturing.

Arguably science-as-observation-and-reason is Godly, and inasmuch as one relies on it one relies on God. Just the same could be said about prayer for instance. On the othet hand, science as a sociological phenomenon absolutely needs the guidance of a higher power, and I think it has had it historically, despite the infighting, politicizing, falsifying, and other generally bad behaviors that tend to permeate such human endeavors.

Reply
S.Faux link
09/02/2011 01:52

Could it be that our understanding of the gospel is imperfect and ever changing -- especially since we overtly believe in continuing revelation? Scripture would not be doing its job if it tried to give the details of quantum mechanics. I also believe we strain the purpose of scriptures, when we try to turn them into geology. Someone really needs to explain to me why I should stop attending church because I know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Often, I see clashes between science and religion as quite artificial and even boring. The true gospel does not require me to believe in falsehoods, wherever they are found. I am grateful the temple interview does not contain a single question about geology!!

Reply
Dave C.
09/02/2011 10:08

Kit,

"I imagine God could have set up the conditions for evolution to occur and then let it work until appropriate bodies were ready."

- While I reject theistic evolution, I respect people like yourself who may accept this view. Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist. You may enjoy his book The Language of God.

Reply
Dave C.
09/02/2011 10:25

raedyohed,

"three tenuous religious speculations"

- I agree that they are tenuous in the sense that someone may be saved in the kingdom of God regarless of his or her views on whether the earth will be destroyed, whether there are enough resources to spare, and whether the creation of humankind was purposeful. Such viewpoints have no bearing on whether one is saved in the kingdom of God. However, I think the doctrinal teachings on these "tenuous" matters is very clear.

"Arguably science-as-observation-and-reason is Godly, and inasmuch as one relies on it one relies on God. Just the same could be said about prayer for instance. On the othet hand, science as a sociological phenomenon absolutely needs the guidance of a higher power, and I think it has had it historically, despite the infighting, politicizing, falsifying, and other generally bad behaviors that tend to permeate such human endeavors."

- Very well said! Thanks for dropping by.

Reply
Dave C.
09/02/2011 10:33

S.Faux,

I certainly feel that as our understanding of the gospel grows, and as new information comes to us through the Spirit, we will learn new things that might change our old understanding. Perhaps even new gospel truth may bring our personal theology more in line with established science. At the same time there are some absolutes in the gospel that will not change much.

There will be former Islamists, Buddhists, evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, and macroevolutionists in the Kingdom of God ;)

Reply
Brad W.
09/02/2011 12:22

In a discourse given in the Tabernacle in April 1856, President Brigham Young said, "Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.

He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."

President Benson has said that, "the prophet is not required to have any
particular earthly training or credentials to speak
on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
Sometimes there are those who feel their
earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior
to the heavenly knowledge which God
gives to His prophet on the same subject. They
feel the prophet must have the same earthly
credentials or training which they have had
before they will accept anything the prophet
has to say that might contradict their earthly
schooling. How much earthly schooling did
Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on
all kinds of subjects. We
encourage earthly knowledge in many areas,
but remember, if there is ever a conflict
between earthly knowledge and the words of
the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and
you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you."

Reply
raedyohed
09/02/2011 12:36

For there to be a certain conflict between a scientific claim and a religious doctrine they each have to rise to the same level of detail, scope, and application. I just don't see that happening in any of the cases you cite.

For e.g. you are the one making the assumption that D&C 104:17 is a refutation of Malthus. Now that's certainly interesting, and something worth investigating, but other than offering it as a hypothetical conflict, you haven't shown that it actually MUST be a conflict. In other words, Malthus might be right, and you just misread the scripture. Perhaps, like any blessing, it is conditional on good stewardship.

This is my main point, and S.Faux says basically the same thing; there really aren't any fundamental conflicts when you begin to pick apart both sides' positions. Rather, I see much more in the way of mutual circumscription, with moral value and purpose on the one hand, and natural process and history on the other.

Reply
raedyohed
09/02/2011 12:41

I would add to that, in light of Brad W.'s comment, that the wise thing to do if you think there is a conflict is to study what you can, don't worry, don't forget your personal testimony, and don't leave the church.

Reply
Dave C.
09/02/2011 15:10

raedyohed,

"that the wise thing to do if you think there is a conflict is to study what you can, don't worry, don't forget your personal testimony, and don't leave the church."

Now that is something we can all agree on, eh?


Reply
John Willis
09/03/2011 21:12

In response to Brad W's quote from President Benson's speech on "14 principles in following the prophet"
you should be aware of the fact that President Benson's gave that talk before he became president of the church.

IN President Kimball's son Edward's book on his fathers presidency"Lengthen your stride" he points out that Brother Benson was called on the carpet by President Kimball after he gave the talk. Any quote from that talk should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
(Yes I know it was quoted twice in a recent general conference by two members of the seventy. repetition does make an error right.)
President Kimball under the positve influence of his brother in law Henry Eyring Sr. avoided making dogmatic statements abous some of the issues discussed in this post.

We need to following in Brrther Eyring's and president Kimball's footsteps.

Reply
Brad W.
09/06/2011 16:11

Nothing made Bruce McConkie less popular in the academic community than his open objection to the theory of evolution as an answer to the question of man's origin. His 1982 article "Christ and the Creation," published in the Ensign and written at the request of the First Presidency, details some of the major scriptural conflicts between the theory of evolution and the scriptures. The publication of this article was preceded by a powerful speech entitled "The Three Pillars of Eternity," delivered in 1981 at a Brigham Young University devotional. In that address he illustrated the incompatibility of the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

Handwritten notes among his papers indicate he intended either to speak or to write more forcibly on this matter than he had. "Evolution," one note reads, "is not a science; it is a religion. It is not an objective analysis of what is found in a test tube; it does not involve experiments that all researchers can duplicate. It is, rather, a mass of theoretical postulates by which its devotees seek to explain the origin and destiny of man without reference to revelation."

As a preacher of the gospel, he felt obligated to question the tenets of evolution and did so, knowing he would be labeled a bigot for having done so. He noted that in true science, no offense is taken when someone attacks a tenet, because facts stand on their own.

Reply
Brad W.
09/06/2011 17:21

Elder Boyd K. Packer has observed that if the theory of evolution applies to man, there was no fall and therefore no need for an atonement, nor a gospel of redemption, nor a redeemer. The matter is really quite simple. Because Adam was the son of divine parents, he had an immortal body without blood. The Fall caused blood to enter his veins. It was a blood fall that required a blood atonement. One cannot tamper with the story of the Fall without tampering with the story of the Atonement. If it was not Adam who introduced blood and its companion death through his transgression, then we had better find out who did and when it happened so that the necessary corrections can be made in the plan of salvation.

In a further attempt to harmonize evolution with the gospel, some have separated man from the evolutionary process. They concede that man is the creation of God but maintain that the earth and all other life forms were created by evolution. Yet we know that all life forms were represented in Eden and like Adam and Eve were subjects of the Fall. Because of Adam they too will die and because of Christ they too will have claim upon immortality and eternal life. On the matter of the resurrection of animals Joseph Smith said: "Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you the revelations are not true" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 291). To argue for the existence of life forms that were not subject to Adam's fall is to argue at the same time that they are not redeemed through Christ's atonement. Such an argument places God in the awkward position of creating that which he does not have the power to save.

Reply
john willis
09/06/2011 17:47

I have no desire to get in a flame war with Brad W. I suspect both our minds are made up and won't be changed by facts.

However as with his quote from President Benson's talk you should be aware that after Brother McConkie gave his talk on the "Seven Deadly Heresies"in which he condemed evolution he was called in by President kimball to discuss the talk . Brother McConkie revised his talk to make it clear that it was his personal opinion ot church doctrine. Again this is documented in Edward Kimball's book "lengthen your stride"

This is not the time or place to discuss the pros and cons of evolution.
My study of the topic in the church has convinced me that there are two traditions in the church. One is the joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith,
Bruce R. McConkie , Boyd K. Packer anti-evolution tradition. The other is a B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A.Widstoe, Henry Eyring Sr. pro-evolution tradition.

Both are valid approaches but again NEITHER is offical church doctrine.

I sustained Brotehr McConke as a prophet seer and revealtor. His last conference talk and his testimony of Christ was the greatest testimony of the Savior I have ever heard or expect to hear.

However this does not mean he was an infallible guide to scientific matters.

Borther Henery Eyring Sr's letter to Joseph Fielding Smith on evolution in the early 1950's is a much more reasonable approach to these issues to anything brother McConkie or Brother Packer has ever written or said on this topic.

Reply
shajanm
09/08/2011 00:54

I have struggled for several years to reconcile my faith and science. <a href="http://science-and-religion.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/04/understanding-religions-christian-faith-as-a-reflection.htm">Christian Faith as a Reflection of Nature</a>
Still a long way to go..

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply

Google Analytics