An important process that all scientists and science majors have to go through is the the discovery of their personal internal interplay between science and religion. I would claim that everyone has to do this, but more specifically people that face it every day. Those that set the discussion aside and try not to address it or make a solid opinion make a decision by indecision, which is almost never a good idea.
I was in a (*big breath*) History and Philosophy of Science with an Emphasis on Biology class (phew! Long name!). I absolutely loved it. Every day we would discuss something about the history or philosophy of science, discussing its developments historically, and the assumptions that have to be made to use science as a method of learning. Since I am at BYU, a major part of the course was the interplay between science and religion. Since the course has an emphasis on Biology (there isn't a Physics equivalent, so Physics Teaching majors get to take this class, too), there was a huge part on evolution, and how that fits with religion. We had a ton of class discussion, and my professor exposed us to a lot of the different views out there. I would love to say that our discussion was unbiased, but that would be a horrible lie, I know. First of all, we are mostly LDS scientists, so we wanted to find a way to make it work, and secondly, even a teacher trying as hard as Dr. Peck was to have an unbiased opinion will always fault towards a bias. That is human nature. It is very difficult if not impossible to find any unbiased information (actually, this was a huge discussion in our class - is science subjective, against all of its claims?). Anyway, I have been reading a lot of articles and a few books, and really been enjoying our class discussion on the subject. I have come to some conclusions that really ring true to me, and although I am still pondering how science and religion fit together in my life, I have really found my own personal sense of peace about the whole thing.
But after I had thought through everything so thoroughly, I tried to share what I thought was enlightenment with a few of my friends, and failed miserably. I left with the impression that they thought I was a raging liberal secularist, and that somehow my views were against our religion. I may have offended them. I also left with the feeling that although I had found peace, I had failed to express my basic beliefs that everything else was founded on. So to make myself feel better, and to really pin down what it is I believe, I am going to make you all read about it. :) If you disagree with me, that's okay. Don't be offended. Tell me what you don't agree with. If you think I totally missed the mark, let me know. I can't possibly talk about everything here, either. There is a lot I don't know. Keep that in mind. My biggest goal is to make you think about it, and hopefully open your eyes to what the discussion really is. It's gonna be long. I'm sorry in advance.
Defined
Science, defined by Dictionary.com noun: the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.
An important part of the discussion is what you define science and religion to be. I really like this definition. Science really is a search for truth, and the scientific method is the way that science finds that truth. The assumption that has to be made is that all truth can be observed and measured, and that there is no truth that cannot be measured - that there is no reality beyond that which we can see with our senses. Otherwise the scientific method wouldn't be good enough to find any truth. Of course, religion does not use this assumption. In fact I would claim that true religion goes beyond what can be measured, and really the point of religion is that there is more than just the obvious reality. Religion is not science, and cannot be studied by science, because a belief in God requires faith, and faith is "not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if you have faith ye hope for things
which are not seen, which are true." (Alma 32:21, emphasis added) The feeling the spirit is not something that can be measured, and we are even taught that everyone feels the spirit differently. Science requires that experiments are not only explainable by physical laws and measurable (which feeling the spirit is not), but also that it is repeatable, which if it is different for everyone, it is not. [Note: I do think it is cool that the scriptures encourage us to use something similar to the scientific method to test out the truth of the word. Alma 32 talks about this, and so does Moroni 10:4-5. However, this still doesn't fit under the definition of science today because it is testing the existence of something that cannot be explained by physical laws.] Another important aspect of science is that it is refutable. It has to be possible to disprove a theory, or it can't be called science. The existence of God can't be tested or disproved, so a belief in God is not scientific. That doesn't mean that isn't true, it just means that the assumption science is based off of fails in this case. Religious belief is a very personal thing, something you can't just teach someone is true - they have to learn it for themselves.
I'm starting to realize that I could talk forever about this subject. I could write a book, just like all those other people that have opinions but really aren't experts on a subject. That no one would read. So I am going to get to my main points - miracles and science (because isn't that the main conflict anyway?) and evolution (oooohh the "e" word!!).
Miracles. Scientists often look at them with the "yeah, but what
really happened" kind of attitude. Like there is something perfectly understandable going on here, and we just don't have all of the information. But the thing is, religion is really based around miracles, and specifically Christianity is based around the miracle of Christ's resurrection. You can argue against the literal reading of a lot of scripture, but that is something that cannot be ignored without disregarding what he did for us. In order for his story to be the center of a person's religious belief, they actually have to believe that indeed he did die, and actually did rise from the dead on the third day. He broke the bands of death. So where do universal natural laws fall in here? How can we make it work? Do we believe that God keeps natural laws when it is convenient, but then breaks them when it isn't? Do we believe that God can really go around breaking laws when he wants to? But don't the scriptures teach that God must obey laws or he would "cease to be God" (laws of justice and mercy Alma 42, be unchanging Mormon 9)? My personal opinion follows closely to what is stated in the Bible Dictionary (although, technically speaking, the Bible Dictionary isn't scripture. It is subject to change, and is just a representation of the best scholarly knowledge we have about these subjects. Read the preface).
"Miracles. An important element in the work of Jesus Christ, being not only divine acts, but forming also a part of the diving teaching. Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable. Miracles should not be regarded as deviations from the ordinary course of nature so much as manifestations of divine or spiritual power. Some lower law was in each case superseded by the action of a higher."
God performs miracles by obeying a higher law, not by breaking lower ones. This really fits with my view of the nature of the universe.
Okay.
Evolution. The scary topic. The unapproachable. Before I begin, I would first like to express my pet peeve. I absolutely hate it when people argue against evolution without knowing anything about it. You know what I am talking about - those people who have living room discussions about how stupid scientists are for believing in evolution - how dumb can those scientist people be? - without ever looking into what those scientists are saying, the evidence they are using to back up the claim, or even trying to really understand the topic! What ever made you an expert? Have some humility! I am not claiming to be an expert, but I have looked into it. I admit that there is a lot I don't know. By all means, don't believe anything I say just because I say it. Don't believe anything your dad or bishop says about evolution just because they say it either. Do your own research.
Of course, if the church came out with an official stand, I would follow God's direction. However, I haven't found anything that says the official church stand on the
method of the creation of the earth. I have found quotes of a lot of opinions on evolution, many of them conflicting by different apostles. Anti-evolutionists point to the book by Joseph F. Smith called "the Origin of Man", but after he published it, the church actually made an official statement that what he wrote was his personal opinion, and not doctrine (Interestingly they also made it clear that those who wrote against him also weren't speaking doctrine. Neither side has the church's support). Here are a few of the clearest quotes I have found.
"It is said in this book (the Bible) that God made the earth in six days. This is a mere term, but it matters not whether it took six days, six months, six years, or six thousand years. The creation occupied certain periods of time. We are not authorized to say what the duration of these days was, whether Moses penned these words as we have them, or whether the translators of the Bible have given the words their intended meaning. However, God created the world." ~Brigham Young
So first of all, I think we can do away with the young earth theory. I personally believe that the earth is older than a few thousand years, and it sounds like Brigham Young thinks it doesn't really matter how long it took. The important part is that God did, indeed create the world.
The real question of evolution in our religion is the evolution of man. As I have heard many people say, "I am okay that evolution happens, I have accepted that species can change. The part I don't believe is that man evolved." I completely understand that this is the hard part. In fact, it is still hard for me to reconcile the two thoughts in my mind - the special creation of man in the image of God or the evidence that science has offered of man's evolution. There is a fossil record of the stages of man's evolution. I believe in science and that it is one way to learn truth. Teaching science will be my career someday as a Physics teacher. I can't really just pick and choose what major theories to believe - that seems finicky and proud (thinking I know best). There is a load of evidence supporting evolution. So how do I deal with this? Here are some quotes for you to chew on.
Referring to quotations about the creation of man in the scriptures the Improvement Era in 1910, edited by Joseph F. Smith, prophet at the time said
"These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject. Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."
Here are some official Church statements.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes…The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again" (D&C 101:32-33) (Official Statement by the First Presidency in 1909, repeated in 1925 emphasis added).
"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: “adam is the primal parent of our race” [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931]
So the church really hasn't said that evolution of man couldn't have happened. We do believe that man is made in the image of God, and that we are the children of God. We do believe that Adam was the beginning of "man", whatever that means. So if I believed in evolution, where would it switch over from those humans that we evolved from to those that are in the image of God and have spirits that are spirit children of God? When did it start counting as the people that Christ would someday die for? If there was an Adam and Eve that were the beginning of our human race, why doesn't the fossil record (and human genes for that matter - one of the best evidences for evolution) show a bottle-neck of two parents that fathered our whole species (Not to mention a second bottle neck at Noah)? But if I don't believe that evolution happened, if I believe that God created all species basically as they are, and that there was no death before the fall of Adam, and therefore no evolution, how do I justify myself as a scientist? How do I ignore all the evidence? How can I be so choosy?
One of the most comforting quotes I have ever heard was given by Deiter F. Uchtdorf in a CES fireside. It wasn't really the point of his talk, but it captured my attention.
"Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received. Because we see imperfectly in mortality, not everything is going to make sense right now. In fact, I should think that if everything did make sense to us, it would be evidence that it had all been made up by a mortal mind. Remember that God has said: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Nevertheless, you know that one of the purposes of mortality is to become more like your Heavenly Father in your thoughts and in your ways. Viewed from this perspective, searching for answers to your questions can bring you closer to God, strengthening your testimony instead of shaking it. (see Matthew 7:16-20; John 7:17; Alma 32:41-43)."
So it is okay for me to have these questions. It doesn't make me a bad person to believe in science as long as I keep my faith strong. Asking these questions can bring me closer to God if I turn to him for answers, and believe that the answer is there. I do believe that Christ literally came, that he lived, died, and rose again on the third day to save me. I believe that in a very real, literal sense I can be saved and become perfected, and live with God forever. Maybe God did use evolution. That's okay. He knows the eternal, highest laws that I can't even comprehend right now, and his actions obey them. He knows all things, and someday I can become like him, and I will know all things, too. So I can live with the fact that everything doesn't line up perfectly right now, because I know it will. In the meantime, I will continue learning, and trying to find the best truth available to me right now.
"Our religion.. .embraces every principle of truth and intelligence pertaining to us as moral, intellectual, mortal and immortal beings, pertaining to this world and the world that is to come. We are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes, where it originates, or who believes in it...
A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold; he embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation, and if men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention." ~ John Taylor
