Regular readers of M* may know there is an ongoing debate between the pro-evolution crowd and some of us who are skeptics. To sum up: I am skeptical of macro evolution but willing to accept it may have happened with a Creator’s guiding hand. But for the meantime color me doubtful. Others, including our brilliant Clark Goble, and a supporting cast of scientists at the fascinating web site Mormons and Evolution are politely but insistently critical of doubters like myself. Clark, for example, has said repeatedly that evolution is “settled science.”
Well, I have some new thoughts to add to the debate, and I wanted to post them here. I’d like some input from our scientific friends (who consistently amaze me with the depth of their knowledge).
The following argument is made by John Pratt, the science editor at Meridian magazine. Here’s the entire article by Brother Pratt. I disagree with many points made by Brother Pratt, but I think this argument is incontrovertible. Perhaps Clark and Jeffrey, Jared, Mike and Christian can come up with believable counter-arguments. We shall see.
Q5. If science only concerns what is observable, and if God remains hidden, then would there be a proper place for God in scientific journals? Isn’t the real reason that God is not mentioned in scientific journals because he has no place there, rather than a result of a Satanic conspiracy to keep him out?
A5. As an example of how God might fit into scientific articles, consider articles about the origin of life on earth. There could be a whole array of scientific hypotheses put forward, all of which could lead to scientific tests, especially in the field of genetics. For example, there could be a theory that a) atoms just came together by themselves, forming all plant and animal life with no need for a Creator; b) same as a) but directed by a Creator; c) same as b) with the requirement added that spirits are needed for life; d) all instructions for life were encoded by the Creator into the first single cell, which was then left on its own to evolve into all plants and animals; e) several separate kinds of plants and animals were created, which are not related to each other at all, but rather share similar “good design” features; f) the various kinds of plant and animal life were transplanted to the earth; g) the real creation was all done in the spirit world where DNA codes were written, and the physical creation consisted of planting seeds, watering them, etc.; and h) God’s creations are never “left alone” but God is actively involved with all of his creatures.
This list could obviously be extended, but the point here is that only theory a) is allowed in scientific journals today because it is “unscientific” to mention God. Thus we are only allowed to discuss and teach in science classes the one theory that God has told us explicitly is guaranteed to be false, namely that God was not involved at all.
What will scientific journals be like after the Savior returns, and the Millennium is fully underway? Will we not still have schools where youth are taught science? Will they still learn Kepler’s laws of astronomy and Newton’s laws of physics? Will they study genetics and be taught how to understand the DNA code of life? I think so. But what about theory a) above, the atheistic theory of organic evolution, the only one taught in most schools today? Will it be taught any more at all? Will it still be forbidden to speak of the Creator in science classes? Of course not.
Re-reading this, I think John Pratt makes some excellent points. A refusal by the scientific world to accept God in any of its respected experiments these days makes for incomplete studies and false science. As any student of the history of science will know, Sir Isaac Newton and even Einstein accepted the existence of a Creator. Isn’t scientific study incomplete without this factor?
Another and related question for our scientific observers: Do they honestly believe that the study of science in a Millennial world will be the same as it is now? Obviously, this is pure speculation, but isn’t it safe to say scientific study will be very different then?
And, lastly, if science classes are incomplete without factoring in the “God factor” in their experiments, isn’t there room for at least bringing that up in evolution or astronomy classes?