Science vs Religion

I've been reading the biography of Henry Eyring, a Nobel prize-class chemist who was also a very orthodox Mormon. The title of the book is "Mormon Scientist". One facet of the book that fascinates me is the discussion throughout about Dr. Eyring's ability to reconcile science and religion.

"I have been announced as a student of science. But I also like to think of myself as one who loves the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For me, there has been no serious difficulty in reconciling the principles of true science with the principles of true religion, for both are concerned with the eternal verities of the universe.
And yet there are many people, and particularly among our youth, who regard the field of science and the field of religion as two wholly different spheres, the one entirely separated from and unrelated to the other. In fact, there are those in both fields who have done themselves and the causes to which they give their interests a distinct disservice in teaching that the two are opposed and that they cannot be harmonized with each other."

As a scientist myself, MS in botany, BYU 1976, this subject is of great interest to me (OK, I was a scientist 30 years ago and not since, but I'm still interested in science).

"Henry argued that apparent conflicts between science and religion are the result of incomplete understanding, an inevitability given our modest intelligence relative to God's. In the case of the creation of man and the Earth, for instance, he recognized the incompleteness of both scientific and religious understanding of the complex processes involved. He was sure, though, that however man and the Earth were created, "God was at the helm."

Dr. Eyring wrote this response to a person who had written him about a scheme for "dismantling Evolution once and for all."

"As a devout Latter-Day Saint the important fact for me is that the Lord is directing the affairs in His Universe, not exactly how He does it. Whether or not some organic evolution was used or is operating seems to me to be beside the point. He is infinitely wise. I just work here. If He told me in detail how He works I'm sure I wouldn't understand much of it. The effort spent on the crusade you envision would be better spent trying to understand a little better how God works. Sorry if we see things a little differently."

When asked by one of his scientific colleagues who was also a member of the church, "How do you think it was?" referring to the apparent problems with evolution and early man, Dr. Eyring replied "I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been."

In response to another letter from a crusader with a scheme to defend religion against science, Dr. Eyring wrote:

"We are not told who Adam's father was. To me the important thing is that Adam is the spirit child of God. He came into this world when he received a mortal body. The Fall consisted of becoming subject to death, and everyone born into the world is subject to death and so partakes of this fallen state with Adam. Finally, through the atonement we will all receive a resurrected body.

Whether Adam's father lived on this earth or somewhere else would seem of secondary importance to me. Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve, his wife, became our first parents.

If God did or did not use organic evolution to prepare the bodies to house His spirit children I remain unconcerned. I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution, like everything else, should stand or fall on its merits. Being trained as a geologist, it answers many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the Gospel."

This attitude of Dr. Eyring's reminds me of something Hugh W. Nibley wrote in an essay entitled "Before Adam". Hugh Winder Nibley was one of Mormonism's most celebrated scholars. The following is a quote from that work.

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God. This is the book of remembrance from which many have been blotted out. They have fallen away, refused to choose God as their father, and by so doing were registered in Satan's camp. "Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom." (Moses 7:37.) Can we call them sons of Adam, bene-Adam, human beings proper? The representative Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, to name only the classic civilizations of old, each fancied themselves to be beings of a higher nature, nearer to gods than others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands. And yet they did not deny humanity to them. Adam becomes Adam, a hominid becomes a man, when he starts keeping a record. What kind of record? A record of his ancestors—the family line that sets him off from all other creatures."

If you are worried about how new scientific discoveries (which seem to occur almost weekly) may or may not have a bearing on some aspect or other of the revealed Gospel, a good place to get information about scientific discoveries and their relationship to the Church is the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR). FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice.

Another very interesting essay by Dr. Nibley is "Archaeology and Our Religion". The continuing debate of Science vs Religion, with the particular science debating religion being archaeology, is discussed, with archaeology (is it a science or an art?) coming out looking rather ragged.

A recent article in the Deseret News shows how a seemingly small discovery can change an entire scientific outlook. Who knows when the next discovery will occur? Who knows how the landscape of scientific knowledge will change?

Friday, April 4, 2008 Deseret News

Humans in N. America over 14,000 years ago WASHINGTON (AP) — New evidence shows humans lived in North America more than 14,000 years ago, 1,000 years earlier than had previously been known. Discovered in a cave in Oregon, fossil feces yielded DNA indicating these early residents were related to people living in Siberia and East Asia, according to a report in Thursday's online edition of the journal Science. "This is the first time we have been able to get dates that are undeniably human, and they are 1,000 years before Clovis," said Dennis L. Jenkins, a University of Oregon archaeologist, referring to the Clovis culture, well known for its unique spear-points that have been studied previously. Humans are widely believed to have arrived in North America from Asia over a land-bridge between Alaska and Siberia during a warmer period. A variety of dates has been proposed and some are in dispute.