Introduction and Episode Overview

John Dehlin [00:00:00] Mormon Stories Podcast takes a ton of work and depends solely upon listener support to keep this program alive. Please consider a donation today@mormonstories.org. Hello and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. My name is John Dehlin and I'm very excited to have you with us today. Today we have something a little bit different. A few months back in January, I had a professor at BYU contact me. His name is Dr. Michael McKay and he teaches a class at BYU called the History of Evolution in the BYU History department. And for a class assignment, what he did is he had all of his students work with him to interview a very well respected scientist named Michael Ruse. He's actually a philosopher scientist, but he is the author of a book entitled Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Which has been published by the University of Cambridge Press in 2001 and it talks about the relationship between science and religion. And so Dr. McKay along with his students interviewed Dr. Michael Ruse and put together a one hour presentation exploring the history of evolution, the history of evolution and religion and the implications for evolution on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the LDS Church. I think it's an interesting exploration. I personally was was delighted to see a BYU professor and his students talking and reading so openly about evolution and atheism and secularism on BYU campus. And I think you guys might enjoy it too. So as a follow on to my interview with Dr. David Bailey in what I hope to be a small series on science, here is Dr. Michael McKay with some of his BYU students doing that presentation and interviewing Dr. Michael Roos. Hope you enjoy it.

Meet the BYU Professor and His Students

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:02:08] My name is Dr. Michael McKay. I'm a historian of the history of science and medicine and I'm currently at BYU as a visiting instructor. I did my graduate work at University of York and I focused on the history of the body and the history of science and medicine. Several years ago, I came to BYU to teach not only a world history class, but a series of history of science and medicine classes. And so some of the things I focused on since I've been here are teaching the relationship between culture and science and culture, culture and medicine. At one point I was focusing on the science wars. For example, several of the classes that I taught were the History of Truth, the History of Truth is basically the science wars, and the history of 20th century science and the philosophy of 20th century science. I also taught the history of Philosophy, the History and Philosophy of science, which ran from the 18th century through the 19th century, and the history of surgery. So at BYU I've had a very robust experience with teaching in the history of science and medicine. And so this led to a class that I designed that in some ways is rather divisive at Brigham Young University. But interestingly, I found that it wasn't. So I taught last semester the history of evolution. And originally I thought evolution is a dirty word here at byu. And as I looked into it more and more, I found out that it really wasn't. And as I taught the class, I also found that within Mormonism, there are people that think it's a dirty word. But I think largely that's not the case, especially as I found out the devout evolutionists that teach in the biology department. So at first I thought that students at BYU would be afraid to sign up for this class. But in the end, I had an extremely positive experience in my history of evolution class. And I think in part that was because I attempted to make an extremely balanced or come from a balanced view between evolution and religion or the different versions of evolution and look at it in a very historical way. So I taught the history of evolution from James ussher in the 17th century to Darwin in the 19th century to Dawkins in the 20th century. We even looked at the Scopes trial and Michael Behe's work on intelligent design. And so this was a very broad ranging class going from geographies and, and time periods 17th century to the 21st century. And it turned out to be a very, very positive experience, as I said before. So one of the assignments that I gave, that we'll be presenting here is through podcast. In my other classes, we've done podcasts with Professor Harry Collins, who's a world famous sociologist of scientific knowledge, and, and Steven Weinberg, who received the Nobel Prize for physics in physics with his unification theory. The podcast is a great way for the students to read good books and also discuss with the authors what their book said. And so as I prepare these, I go out and I email or call these great authors and scholars and ask them if they'll speak with my students. And most of them agree to do so. This gives the students an ability to read scholarly work and then discuss it with the authors. And then in the podcast, they can

Guest [00:06:10] express

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:06:12] diverse opinions and express the knowledge that they gained from their interview and the books that they read. And evolution is probably the best, is probably the one that's turned out the best. Within these podcast assignments, it gave the students to discuss evolution on open ground. The students were able to express their own beliefs, but also put themselves in a position where they had to express beliefs that were perhaps divisive to them in the beginning. So the person that they've interviewed in this podcast is Professor Michael Roos. Michael Roos recently has published a book called Science and Spirituality Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science. Now, Michael Ruse is a true evolutionist, but he also believes that you can mix religion and evolution. The students read several of Michael Rus books. For example, can a Darwinian be a the Relationship between Science and Religion. And after they read the book or several of his books, they then interviewed him and we'll see some of the things that Michael Ruse commented on. But Roos, who may be famous, more famous than anything from his work in the courtroom in the United States, such as in 1981 when he testified in the case of McLean vs. Arkansas, which was an attempt to allow creation science into the classroom, which, which he ardently argued against. So Michael Roos, it's a pleasure to have him a part of this podcast, partly because he's one of the biggest names in evolution and he's extremely articulate. Additionally, perhaps the most beneficial advantage of interviewing Michael Roos is he says it how he thinks it is, both in religion and science, and he has a very, very strict and extreme, in some cases, opinion about these things. But overall, he can come off as extremely balanced. And we must remember that he is a well respected scholar. And so with that, we'll go right into the podcast.

Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?

James [00:08:48] The theory of evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, has traditionally been viewed as problematic for Christians. According to some of the most popular interpretations of the theory, evolution and Christianity were at each other's throats since the moment Darwin sent On the Origin of Species to the presses. After all, if Darwinism presents a world of brutal struggle, meaningless violence, and absolutely random teleology, where can there be room for a loving God? Christianity relies on the foundation that God is the ultimate creator and planner of the world. In his book entitled Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Michael Roos, a leading philosopher on Christian on Darwinian evolution and its intersection with religion, seeks to show that a Darwinian can be a Christian and likewise that a Christian can be a Darwinian. While he does not claim that science can or should answer questions of theology, Roos does propose that evolution is a truthful way for Christians to understand their world. BYU students in a History of Evolution class were recently privileged to interview Michael Roos about the concepts in his book. The broadcast that follows will include clips from the interview with Bruce that are relevant to a religious audience seeking to understand the interaction between science and religion. We've interwoven the interview with a commentary from a panel of representatives from a wide variety of positions. Our topics will range far and wide from the perceived disconnect between Christianity and Darwinism to Darwinism and Christianity in their own spheres. And finally, we will conclude with a brief discussion on what different perspectives Mormonism brings to the conversation. And now to introduce the panel.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:10:29] It might be helpful here if I interject and state that these students don't necessarily believe the things that they're arguing, which makes it much more interesting while you're listening to this podcast.

Guest [00:10:45] Hi, I'm Jeffrey. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and I will be arguing that Darwinian evolution is an inherently atheistic theory and that it violates the core tenets of Christianity.

Guest 3 [00:10:58] Hi, I'm Casey Wallerith and I will be taking the viewpoint of a neo Darwinian.

Guest 4 [00:11:04] Hi, I'm Olivia and I will be presenting different views from a few BYU undergraduate students who we recently interviewed for this segment.

Guest 5 [00:11:12] Hi, I'm Brett Hurst and I'll be representing Intelligent Design.

James [00:11:16] And I'm James. I'll be leading the discussion today. Before we go any further, we need to clarify some things about Darwinism, at least in the form it takes today. When Ruth says that he's a Darwinist, it doesn't mean that he takes on the Origin of Species as gospel, the way a Christian would take the Bible. Darwinism today, in fact, has relatively little to do with Darwin, other than the fact that Darwin started it all. Of course, people usually don't realize that it took a while for the theory of natural selection to actually catch on. And some of the earliest critics of the theory weren't theologians at all, but rather concerned scientists who thought that Darwin made some leaps he shouldn't have and rushed to conclusions all too quickly. So Darwinism, if it's fair to call the theory of evolution by natural selection by that name, underwent what historians, namely Peter Bowler, like to call an eclipse early in the turn of the 20th century. Objections to the theory came from a variety of angles, most claiming that Darwin did not provide an adequate hereditary mechanism for naturally selected traits to stick in local populations. Mind you, the concept of genes wasn't invented yet, so scientists didn't have a handy terminology to call heredity by. Even after the hereditary theory of Gregor Mendel, Salesian monk and avid pea grower, was rediscovered, scientists didn't match up his findings on the descent of particular traits to Darwinism right away. In fact, it wasn't even until the 40s and 50s that the eclipse ended and that modern Darwinistic synthesis began to emerge. History is vastly entertaining, but history's, well, history. What is Darwinism today? Well, it's probably something Darwin would have recognized, but it's hardly something he invented. Darwinism today, as Roose argued in his book, actually represents a variety of different interpretations, from the godless and blind determinism of Richard Dawkins to the sudden and unpredictable model of Stephen Jay Gould. All of these varieties, however, presuppose that man has been operated on by the same evolutionary laws that dictate the rest of the world. We are animals, and as animals, we evolve. Yet Christianity seems to make claims that there's something special about mankind. Either we're the literal spirit children of God, or we're his beloved creatures. But either way, God must have liked us a whole bunch to get himself crucified on our behalf. Our interview with Rus was then very much to the purpose of discussing how some of these Christian claims regarding the divinity of the savior, the place of mankind, and the active role of God in creating and maintaining the world relate to a seemingly random process of selection, which, by the way, implies a great deal of depth. Given that Darwinism is upheld by the majority of the scientific community, should Christians make concessions to it? Or is there simply nothing to concede because the two, science and religion, occupy completely different realms? The popular myth of evolution versus religion that we've inherited tells a story of bloody war. Yet this model is largely incorrect.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:14:25] As.

James [00:14:25] As Rus argues, the idea that Christians are pressed into a corner by Darwinism is somewhat misleading.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:14:31] What I'm trying to say is that if you're a Christian, then you believe that you're made in the image of God and that you've been given your power of reason to use it and try to understand the world generally. And traditionally, it's thought that one should try to be. How should I put it? One should try to understand the world that it. How it's been made. And if, in fact, it turns out that the world is something which comes about through evolution and these sorts of things, then it's your job to find out about it. So what I was trying to do was, you know, go from there and see what sort of implications and these sorts of things come about after that. So I didn't look upon it as trying to convert anybody or anything like that, but just basically saying, if you are a Christian, where does that lead you with respect to trying to understand the world and these sort of things? And so, as I say, I think it Leads very naturally into the question, well, what about Darwinism? What about this theory here? Other aspects of this theory which are going to be incompatible with my Christian faith? If you take a literalist point of view that the earth is 6,000 years old, it is going to come back. Or in your own case, if you believe that the native people in America are the lost tribes of Israel, then you're going to have conflict. So I did recognize that. But that's why, I mean, when I'm talking about traditional Christianity and I don't think traditional Christianity necessarily commits you to 6,000 year time span yet, even though

James [00:16:10] there may be some who would accept Darwinism in a heartbeat, the countervailing claims of Darwinism on Christianity are strong enough to make it a little problematic. How can God be a loving God when so much pain exists in the world? How could man be the pinnacle of God's creation if it's not apparent that there's any sort of progression or teleology within modern conceptions of natural selection? And finally, what does this all have to do with Mormons? It is to these questions that we will turn to next. Particularly how could this theory be incompatible with it?

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:16:42] Right, so here's a perfect time to turn to the panel. Let's stop and see what Jeffrey has to say about that.

Guest [00:16:51] Well, firstly, I have to take issue with the whole thrust of Professor Roose's argument. It seems he wants to paint believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as hyper literalist wackos who think all of science is a sham. I know science is a powerful tool. If science was all wrong, I couldn't have gotten into my car this morning. The real issue as I see it, is trust. Evolutionists would have us believe that the so called discoveries of science have invalidated the revealed word of prophecy. And I just won't stand for that. When a prophet of God speaks, it behooves us as believing Christians to stand behind his revelation as the literal word of God. Of course, I believe that all truth comes from God. And as such, I think there is significantly less disagreement between religion and correct science than some would have us believe. In fact, Brigham Young once said, every discovery in science and art that is really true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God. And I believe him. What does this mean? Well, this means that God has inspired certain scientists with the ability to discern true principles about God's creation. Take for example the fact that science teaches that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and prophets have confirmed that Earth was probably not created from nothing in six days. And this isn't a new teaching either. Brigham Young accepted the possibility of an old Earth way back in the early years of the Church. Consider this quotation. Geology is a true science, he said. Not that I would say for a moment that all its conclusions and deductions are true, but its leading principles are. They are facts. They are eternal. Whether the Lord made the earth, found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements, or whether he made it in six days or as many millions of years is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of man unless he give revelation on the subject. Close quote. So there you have it. The Lord hasn't told us how old the Earth is yet, and I for one have no problem accepting the possibility of an old Earth. But we do need to be careful, because science, and in particular evolutionary science, does make claims that directly refute the revealed Word of God. And in these instances it is incumbent upon us as Latter Day Saints to stand on the side of the prophets. I speak particularly about the evolutionary descent of man. Upon this point the There can be no question man did not evolve from monkeys. Joseph F. Smith made this abundantly clear in an official proclamation to the Church as early as 1909. It is held by some, he said that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The Word of the Lord declared that Adam was the first man of all men, and we are therefore duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown that the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God. Whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body or both, it commits us to the same conclusion. Man began life as a human being in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. And there you have it as plain as day. If Joseph F. Smith was a prophet, and if prophets speak for God, then man did not evolve from lower life forms. And nothing false science says can convince me otherwise. Does this mean that other lesser species can't evolve as well? Personally, I don't think they can, but I'm less confident on this point. What I do know is true scientific discovery is an inspired revelatory process. And no matter what scientists say right now, there will come a day when science proves that God is the direct creator of all life. The specific biological mechanism that God used for this purpose Seems trivial to me, but I do know that Darwinian evolution is not it.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:20:52] Right. That's a very good performance, Jeffrey. And I can see from what you've said you are interested in science, but it's a science that perhaps others wouldn't agree with. I think that you've taken a line following Joseph F. Smith that science isn't any good unless it's godly science. To take a different view, let's turn to Cayce, who's taking on a neo Darwinian viewpoint.

Student Panel Debates Science and Religion

Guest 3 [00:21:24] Cayce, first of all, I think you're twisting the meaning of science. What you're saying is that you'll accept whatever science fits your predetermined belief system and throw out the rest. You quote LDS prophet But science depends on evidence, not appeals to authority. Right now the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Darwinian evolution, including for humans. But you reject it based on your a priori assumptions, which means you can't really believe in science. When you say that true science and religion don't class, you're really saying that you'll pick and choose which science you want to accept based based on how it fits your religion, which is itself completely unprovable. You've provided a good illustration of what Dawkins meant when he said that science and religion cannot occupy separate magisteria. Your religion, or at least the prophets you quote, is making scientific claims that are simply incorrect. We know that organisms evolve, period. That's what the evidence tells us. As long as religion continues making claims that are basically scientific in nature, how can anyone even take it seriously? As for Roos, he claims that at least some version of Christianity is compatible with evolution. Which may be true, but a more important question is why a Darwinian would want to be a Christian. Natural selection and our knowledge of genetics have made God irrelevant. He is no longer required or needed as the agent for sustaining life and every new discovery just puts him further into retreat. Furthermore, Roos told us that ground level claims of Christianity are things like the orange. One must believe that Jesus Christ was a savior. But there's a lot more to it than that. Christianity teaches about miracles like the virgin birth, raising from the dead and resurrection. Things that are totally at odds with science. Can a Christian be flexible on these things? I doubt that most Christians think so. Certainly Mormons can't. Mormonism depends on strong historical claims about biblical and modern miracles. So you can have your religion or you can have your science, but you can't have both unless you're willing to make them completely separate. And Christianity can't do that.

Guest 4 [00:23:16] Actually, Casey, it seems that according to the Mormon students I interviewed, that Mormons can be quite flexible in some things, including the Bible, all while staying true to their faith. The scriptures are not giving us a first hand account of a detailed account of Genesis. They're telling us we are children of God. And that's as far as it goes.

Guest [00:23:35] I think a big part of it

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:23:36] is a lot of times I don't think we understand exactly what the scriptures tell us.

Guest 6 [00:23:39] And I think, I believe that the

James [00:23:41] scriptures are the truth.

Guest 5 [00:23:42] I think they tell us. I don't think they ever mislead us. But I think a lot of times

James [00:23:45] the way we interpret, I mean, you

Guest 6 [00:23:47] look at like, you look at the

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:23:48] New Testament and you know, the accounts of Christ performing the atonement and there's like nothing about it and we still don't really understand how he did it.

Guest 5 [00:23:55] And I think, you know, you could

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:23:56] say the same thing about the creation is, you know, it's a, it's a somewhat detailed account, but it really doesn't get into it. And like, it doesn't be like, well,

Guest 5 [00:24:02] the atoms combined and formed bonds, but it's very open.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:24:06] And I think, you know, I believe there was a creation, but I don't believe that we have really any idea

Guest 6 [00:24:13] of how God did it.

Guest 4 [00:24:14] Jeff, it sounds like although you are a very dedicated Christian, you still recognize that we don't know everything because God hasn't revealed it. You also made the comment about man being created after the image of God something very important to Latter Day Saint theology and that there is room for this to mean either a spiritual creation or a physical one. One of the students I interviewed also astutely commented on this. Whether or not it's completely undirected by God. To me, there's, I don't know with what I've learned is true spiritually. I think there's no question that of course he had a hand in it.

Guest 6 [00:24:52] I don't know of any scientific evidence

Guest 4 [00:24:54] that he did, but that doesn't mean that he didn't.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:24:57] Okay, that was very interesting. I think finding out what BYU students think about evolution can be extremely telling when we think about evolution in the LDS Church. Another perspective that is also extremely compelling to a lot of LDS individuals is the concept of creationism that developed in the United states in the 20th century, but also intelligent design, an attempt to use science in a way to justify biblical concepts or ways of understanding how there was an intelligent designer rather than just the very mechanistic concept of evolution. So we'll turn to another commentator. This is Brett, and he will be giving us a viewpoint of from an intelligent design perspective. This, however, in some ways may seem like a position that balances the other two positions. But I'd like to stress that this is an extreme point of view.

Guest 5 [00:26:06] Also, I think that we're being too rigid with the two belief systems. A person who finds value in both can realize that neither creationism nor Darwinism can explain everything. For example, Michael Behe says, although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. What he was saying is that evolution may be a fact, but the beginning of the process remains ambiguous, leaving room for design or creation. Therefore, both ideas are able to exist. Scientists and biblical literals both need to be willing to bend a little. I think science has proven beyond any doubt that evolution is real. We may not have the details 100% correct, but we're always learning more. Biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists and ecologists are using the same scientific methods as physicists and chemists, and the strength of their arguments is just as good. Evolution is a fact. It happens. But does this mean that faith must die? Of course not. Millions of people all over the world maintain belief in both evolution and God. Science does not and can't make strong claims about the forces that brought the universe into existence, and it would be wrong to try and make it do so. Intelligent design scientists believe that there is strong scientific evidence that the organic structures of the universe are the result of deliberate planning. But even if we disregard id, how can the inherent uncertainty of modern science forbid someone from believing that God put everything in motion? If scientists want to believe otherwise, that's fine. But don't try and push the implications of science farther than they can go. The same argument should be levied against Christian fundamentalists as well. It's naive to dismiss evolution without giving it any consideration. While I sympathize with the need to hold on to Christ's teachings and values, we need to admit to ourselves that much of our religious heritage is the product of tradition. And when concrete scientific evidence seems to contradict our religious traditions, it's important to see if there are other interpretations. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean that they can't believe in evolution too. As the famous Christian scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. From One believing Christian to another. Maybe it's time to find some common ground.

James [00:28:16] Well, if we take the student interviews as a good summary of Mormon belief, or at least a sample of Mormons under 25, it's apparent that there's a lot of diversity of opinion than people that contend science and religion are irreconcilable with would allow. Yet have we gone too far, perhaps, in wresting religion from its context to make it agree with science? Ironically, though Roose is a self avowed atheist, he nevertheless sees it as essential to maintain, in his words, a traditional standard of Christianity. Let's listen to Roose's argument. Pay attention to the way he defines bottom line Christianity.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:28:54] Does Christianity demand, for instance, that the priests be celibate? I mean, I think a lot of people would want to say no, it doesn't at all. Does Christianity demand that Jesus is the son of God? I would want to say yes, it does. So, I mean, sure, I think you can distinguish at least at some level between what I call bottom line issues for the Christian faith. And if you don't believe these, then you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. And other things where it would seem to be it's up for grabs. I mean, what is the meaning of the host? Is it literally the body and blood of Christ as the Catholics believe? Is it somehow infused as the Lutherans believe? Or is it something which is done purely in remembrance, as, you know, a lot of Calvinists and others believe? I mean, we're not sure that Christianity demands, you know, an absolute answer, although individual Christians often think that it does. But as I say, it does seem to me to demand something that at some level Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross for your sins.

James [00:30:02] We just discussed how Christianity and Darwinism might intersect or even collide. However, what does Ruth see as fundamentally different between the two?

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:30:12] My feeling is that if you're going to answer these questions, you've got to find some way of answering them by accepting the science. This is one of the reasons why, I mean, I suspect it must come out in the dialogue, if not in Canada, when you be a Christian. It certainly comes out in my most recent book. I'm always very dubious about scientific answers to theological problems. Oh well, you know, we've got an issue here. Let's invoke, you know, let's invoke arms races or something, or Simon Conway Morris tries to get direction through homologies that all organisms are going to be occupying the same niches and come up with the same solutions. Well, it may be true or it may not be, but the trouble is you're dependent on the science. It's like all those people who said, oh, mitochondria leave, Genesis is proved, or the Big Bang proves Genesis. Well, it doesn't, of course. I mean, tomorrow we decide the Bing Bang, there was something before the Big Bang. And, you know, there you are. Well, what, you know, it doesn't prove Genesis. And tomorrow we decide that mitochondria aren't as good for, you know, plotting human history as we thought. And so you're left with egg all over your face. So my argument has always been, avoid that. If you've got a theological problem, look for a theological solution. And I think that a whole question of randomness has to be put in those contexts. I mean, at the moment, I'm arguing that, you know, God lying outside time and space, at least the Christian God, I'm not sure about your God, you know, lying outside time and space could in fact create as many universes as he likes, a multiverse. But not from scientific reasons, theological reasons. And since humans did evolve, they could evolve. We know that they're going to at some point. So I think that would be a solution. I mean, whether it's an adequate one, I don't know. But I certainly, I'm always dubious about, as I say, scientific solutions to theological problems.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:32:23] Right, Okay. I think that's a. That's a very interesting comment. I think through this comment, first of all, we can see that Michael Ruse does not have a problem expressing particular opinions about particular religions, such as the LDS faith. But at the same time, he brings up a very, very good point. At what point do theological concerns move into a realm which science offers fantastic answers? This is a great question. At which point can we look at the two diverging epistemologies and begin to think about them in similar terms? Can one answer questions devised by the other? And in both cases, I think in the past that we have done this. With this in mind, let's turn to Jeffrey. Jeffrey, you've already expressed that you believe in some way that there is some sort of godlike science, or you've already overlapped the two, science and religion. So my question is, do you have to give up some tenets of religion in order to embrace scientific principles and the outcome of scientific practice?

Guest [00:33:51] There is no sacrifice here. There is only a question of the value of truth versus untruth. And as I see it, it is no great sacrifice to give up a lie. Ironically, this is the same justification that atheists Like Richard Dawkins use to support their bleak worldview. Give up God, they say, because God is a lie, and lies have neither grace nor power. And you know what? They're right. Lies do lack power. But God is no why. And only shallow thinking allows one to believe that he is even the discoverer of the scientific method. Francis Bacon understood this. It is true, he said, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism. But depth in philosophy bringeth men's mind about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go no further. But when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity. The great truth of nature is the reality of God, the eternal Father and his son, Jesus Christ. And anything which denies this reality must by definition be wrong. So, yes, I do choose to reject those claims of science which do not harmonize with the teachings of God. But as I said, I do not see this as a philosophically difficult thing to do because I am only giving up a shadow, a fiction of the overly imaginative mind of man. The scriptures themselves testify that the earth and all things that are upon it, the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form, do witness that there is a supreme creator. Does this sound like a reproof of science? Of course not. Real science is nothing more than the study of nature as it actually is. And because we as human beings are inescapable connected to nature, we are also inescapably connected to science. But I would like to reiterate the point that scientific theory and supposition, no matter how popular, have no power to overthrow the truthfulness of God or the reality of man's divine creation. Darwinian evolution is irreconcilable with true religion. And Joseph F. Smith made this clear when he said, you cannot believe in the this theory of the origin of man and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other. For they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so.

Guest 4 [00:36:20] Well, the fact of the matter, Jeff, is that the two can be reconcilable. Some of our students would agree with that.

Guest 6 [00:36:27] I just sometimes think of it as if you're putting together a big puzzle and there's a whole bunch of pieces. I Don't know. Sometimes I'm putting together a puzzle and it just doesn't seem like it's going to fit together. But even when you get down to that last piece and you have one piece to put in, if you look at it from any of three positions, none of them will fit, but only one does. So in my mind, we're putting together a huge puzzle. I think that all truth doesn't contradict with each other. It eventually fits together, but we have to understand the placement of each piece and understand them on a very, very specific level before we're ready to say how this whole picture looks in the end. So I think that, like was said earlier, we need more clear understanding doctrinally and from the Scriptures, and we need more clear understanding in a scientific way. But eventually I think we'll come to rectify and understand how they fit together.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:37:22] So you think they will come together

Guest 6 [00:37:25] insofar as it's truth? I think they come together. But wherever there's falsity in either realm, whether we have false interpretations or understanding of things that are said scripturally, or whether we have false understanding of the scientific background of things, I think that we'll see differences there that can't be overcome.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:37:47] Are you leaving room that there may be some truth claims that aren't solidified in religion also, or are you just claiming this about science?

Guest 6 [00:37:58] I don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would see it in both realms. I think that you're wrong.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:38:03] Okay, great.

Guest 6 [00:38:05] But I see enough. I see enough difference in what each of us believes individually in the church, in any number of the different doctrines, to say that. How could we claim that we as a church have a perfect understanding of any principle when even within the church, we have different understandings of that principle? So I think that insofar as our understanding itself of each of us individually is limited, that we have to leave room for our opinions, whether they are in a different doctrinal sense or in a scientific sense to be modified by truths insofar as they're truths that come from other sources as well.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:38:44] So can other. Sorry, one last question. Are we the only holders of truth as the Mormons, or could we alter our truths according to other religions who claim to have truth?

Guest 6 [00:38:56] Well, we quoted earlier a quote by Joseph Smith.

Guest [00:39:01] There's no right answer

Guest 6 [00:39:03] that says one of the fundamental principles of Mormonism is to accept truth. Let it come from whence it may. And so I think that there's probably truths in many areas, in many different types of thought. And I don't think that we are the holders of all of them and that there's people that would hold things that maybe we've discounted for the time until our understanding of them is clearer.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:39:29] Wow, this is an amazing quote. Partly because if you put this in context with what Jeffrey was speaking about before, the quote where Joseph F. Smith said that evolution and religion are irreconcilable, this quote seems amazingly balanced and actually against what Joseph F. Smith said. So my question here is, is are we as Mormons being wishy washy about this?

Guest 3 [00:39:59] I think Joseph F. Smith would be shocked to hear how enthusiastically our sample of students have attempted to reconcile evolution with their faith. But what I really think is interesting is that when pushed, they essentially admit that they accept science as claims about evolution. They definitely give it precedence over the kinds of claims that Jeff is making. I think that the students thought their opinions the grew, they'd realize that evolution is completely incompatible with the Mormon theology of creation though. You can't believe that God put a fully formed man and woman in a Garden of Eden where there was no death and remotely accept the possibility of evolution. It's just impossible. Evolution is based on random mutations and chance, not divine planning. And most mutations are actually worthless or harmful and are discarded by selection. So if you believe that God created everything, you have to wonder why he's not very good at his job. Besides that LDS scriptures say that everything was created spiritually before it was created physically. So does that mean that God created every intermediate species in spirit as well? Did he spiritually create poorly adapted mutations that kill off so many organisms? Does God just like it when so many creatures die? So these are the kinds of questions that a Mormon has to deal with. If he or she is going to accept evolution or say they accept it. At some point you have to face the facts and say, given what we know about evolution, what does this tell us about the nature of the God we worship? So actually, I think Jeff is right. Evolution is irreconcilable with Mormonism and the attempts to merge the two are ultimately wrong headed.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:41:25] Well, I think those are very valid and interesting points, but historically speaking, we must admit that from the emergence of evolution until today, people have attempted to reconcile religion and science. The American example is probably the best example, from the creationists all the way to the intelligent designers. With that said, let's turn to Brett and see what his perspective is.

Guest 5 [00:41:53] Do we have to sacrifice either? Like I said earlier, there are instances in which both ideas are allowed to coincide But I do agree with Roos here. If you claim to be a Christian, there are certain tenets of the faith that cannot be sacrificed, that is the atonement of Christ. I guess I would like to turn the question around on Roos and say, can a Christian be a Darwinian? And I would say that it's a lot harder for a Christian to have wiggle room when subscribing to evolution than it is for an evolutionist subscribing to Christian beliefs. But in certain instances, they can coincide. At its core, Intelligent design theory asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID isn't creationism, though. It doesn't try to prove or disprove the reality of God. William Dembsky made this clear when he stated Intelligent Design is not a form of anti evolutionism. Intelligent Design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation. Basically, ID tries to show that there is a spectrum of things from the simple to the complex, and that certain structures are irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity means that a structure is so complex that the probability of it having been formed by chance is less than the probability that it was intelligently designed. Irreducibly complex biological structures, like bacterial flagella depend on a huge amount of component parts, each of which has no purpose outside of the completed structure, meaning that undirected natural selection is not able to explain how they came together to form a working structure. Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Intelligent design scientists have identified such structures, and the irreducible quality of their specified complexity strongly suggests that they were designed and not randomly evolved. ID doesn't try to explain who this designer is, as that is beyond the capabilities of science. But it does try to prove that a designer exists. To me and to many others, it is hard to deny the existence of a creator, whether that be God or some other divine being. Because of the complexity of life forms, natural selection can account for everything in biology. But ID says you don't have to dismiss the reality of either.

Guest 4 [00:44:15] Actually, one of the students that we interviewed with would agree with what you just said about natural selection. Natural selection, if it really was, would there really be like really weak sick people and really strong people we probably all would be really strong people if it were just natural selection.

James [00:44:32] I have a question for you, Casey. There's been a lot of talk that, you know, this materialistic picture, you know, the Richard Dawkins kind of thing is spiritually unfulfilling. Because if you strip everything down to this bare bones, motivation kind of thing, where can there be any room for human ethics or human society or beauty?

Guest 3 [00:44:53] For that reason, I think that believing the universe is mechanistic doesn't mean that it isn't beautiful. It's actually amazing to see how nature adapts, balances and alters itself constantly. You've got millions of organisms in massively complex ecosystems and learning how everything interacts could occupy us forever. There is also an incredible complexity of the human brain itself. The beauty of science is that it gives us a means by which we can understand these processes that underlie things. It doesn't ask us to rely on unknown mysteries or put our faith in some mystical being. Scientists pushes the limits of human knowledge and constantly expands it. We may never learn everything, but we are never told that something is totally off limits or subject to faith. Nor does my philosophy require me to believe that anything goes because there is nothing outside of this world. In fact, it gives us even greater incentive to do good now because the world is all we've got. How many religious people have done terrible things because their religion promised some future reward in heaven? Or because they believe that God commanded it? That kind of thinking led the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites. According to the Bible's own account, it led to the crusades, to the September 11 attacks, to Mormons being driven from the US by other good Christians and so many other things. Religion is not the only excuse people have used to do awful things to each other, but it is a major one. And it supplies ready made labels for others and instant friends and and instant enemies. And there's a problem, evil as well, which Ruth mentions that if God created or structured the universe, then he's responsible for all of it. Good and evil. At some level, these are the kinds of ethical problems that bother me. Not recognizing that the universe is essentially mechanistic.

Guest [00:46:33] Cayce's arguments make no sense. And more importantly, they feel completely wrong. How can it possibly be beautiful? To strip the individual of all purpose and free to reduce the soul to mere mechanism destroys everything about it. Does not the fact that I am living, thinking, being demonstrate that there is some aspect of myself which is aware? And does this not mean that I have a will? I don't need fancy quotes to prove that I am something more than a bunch of colliding particles. I am alive. What greater proof can there be? Professor Roos and Casey can point out the atrocities committed in the name of religion all they want, but this does nothing to invalidate the benevolence of true Christianity. And for that matter, can't we put science under the same lens? Isn't it the blind materialism of science that produced the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, the atom bomb and the abortion epidemic? Atheists like Richard Dawkins try to explain this away by dismissing the social implications of Darwinianism, but they can't avoid the harsh truths of history. If life is nothing but the brutal survival of the fittest, then life has no meaning beyond the domination of the weak by the powerful. And personally, I can't think of a better definition for evil. So you see, the problem of evil is a human problem and not a religious one. And adopting a scientific philosophy that dismisses God, agency and the reality of the soul does nothing to fix this. In fact, it speeds up the process considerably.

Guest 5 [00:47:58] With all due respect, I think you're both making too big a deal over this. Don't Christians often marvel at the beauty of nature and its processes? And don't evolutionists frequently speak out against evils on the grounds of their inhumanity or barbarity? Granted that the argument over the existence of a creator is an important one, but regardless of the position you take, the beauty of nature and the importance of ethics are points both Christians and evolutionists agree on. We need to stop inventing things to fight over and get down to the real issues.

Guest 4 [00:48:25] Some of our students would agree that there's an issue here, but that they can still be compatible.

Guest [00:48:30] I have no problem reconciling my religious beliefs with theories of evolution. Everything seems to make sense. I do not believe in creationism. Well, definition of coming from ex nilo and all that. I do believe that God created and could set this process in motion as things occur now that they occurred the same fashion previously.

Mormonism, Evolution, and Non-Traditional Christianity

James [00:48:59] So we've discussed what Roos calls traditional Christianity. What about the decidedly non traditional branch of Christianity called Mormonism? When we interviewed him, Roos seemed particularly hostile to the faith, probably because, as Cayce has pointed out, the religion is certainly based on some rather bold historical claims.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:49:23] What I'm trying to do is talk about fairly standard Christianity, which is, you know, Augustine, Aquinus, Luther, Calvin. So do notice that? Well, I mean, I mean, what do I know about. I mean, you know, if you're going to give me a cliff. I'm sure I'm not going to pass it. But I mean, what do I know about Mormonism? I know it starts in the first part of the 19th century in upstate New York when Joseph Smith. Smith has his revelations. I do know that Smith had a great deal of trouble and ended up being martyred or being killed. I do know that under the leadership of Brigham Young and others, you moved out west and out to Utah. I do know that you had your trials and your ups and downs and that one of the big conditions for joining the union was to drop your, your claims about polygamy. I do know that you have your own sacred books which involve other aspects of Jesus and that you have related beliefs about, you know, as I say, the seven, you know, the lost tribes of Israel. And I'm also aware that theologically, without going into any detail, you have beliefs about the nature of the Godhead which I'm quite sure many Orthodox Christians, I don't mean Eastern Orthodox Christians regard as deeply heretical. I mean about the notion of God being a material being and that sort of thing. What I'm interested in is not in your religion per se, although clearly if your religion makes claims which violate science, then obviously then I am. But I'm certainly not interested in. In your religion as per, say, any more than I'm interested in, let's say, in the Seventh Day Adventists. I think it's all false anyway. I mean, look, I think, you know, what's going on on Good Friday is false, and I'm certainly not. So at one level, I'm certainly not picking out your religion above and beyond all others. Clearly, if at some level you think that the Godhead is material, you're laying yourself to, you know, scientific and other reputations or difficulties that the more traditional Christian who believes that God stands outside space and time is not the whole notion of the Golden Plates and everything like that in upstate New York. I mean, yeah, lunatic idea. It strikes me as being pretty daft, but it's an interesting question that you ask because then I would. Should I take Christianity at all seriously? What about, you know, Moses and burning bushes and that sort of thing? And the answer, of course, is that I personally don't. I mean, you know, if anybody tries to push on the notion of Noah and the Flood, you know, as I say, I went to the Creation Museum last year and saw their reconstruction of the ark and all that sort of thing. I mean, that strikes me as being just as nutty as, just as Nutty as the notion of Joseph Smith and his golden plates. So as I say, you know, because I'm trying to argue that science does not necessarily crush all of religion. It does not in any sense mean that I look upon religion as a reasonable faith, you know, a reasonable world picture for a grown up. So I mean, do understand the kind of position that I'm taking. But as far as I say, I mean some of those sorts of things, and I mean without going into great detail, I mean, you know, some of your thoughts about the Godhead or about the lost tribes of Israel, I mean, sure, people made those sorts of claims, you know, when you could get away with it, but you know, you can't get away with that sort of thing today.

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:53:20] Well, Dr. Roos obviously has some very striking points to make. So let's turn to Jeff. What do you think about all that?

Guest [00:53:30] Truthfully, I'm proud Professor Roos thinks Mormons are different from mainstream Christians. We are different because unlike many other Christians in America, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are willing to stand behind the revelations of their foreordained leaders as the literal word of God. Although I do agree with Brigham Young when he once said our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular, my faith testifies that the divine creation of man, the events of the Book of Mormon and the resurrection of the dead are historical truths. Science as it presently stands may not agree with those assertions, but quite frankly, science has it wrong. I can't speak on behalf of other religions, but Mormonism and Darwinian evolution are incompatible and that's a scientific fact. Does this mean that Mormons are strange? Probably, but it doesn't mean we're wrong. Sometimes someone has to stand up for the hard truth, even if it means getting a little mud on their face.

Guest 4 [00:54:29] Mormons may not be as unique as you think, Jeff. Mormonism can work with evolution.

James [00:54:34] I think that evolution and like the

Dr. Michael MacKay [00:54:36] church are completely reconcilable. I believe that I'm a creation or a evolutionist and a member of the church. I don't understand, like, I'm no scientist, but even I, like, understand the scientific evidence for evolution. And basically my personal belief is perhaps evolution is just the tool that God has used to create his creations. And so I think it's, to use the word, naive to assume that one

Guest 5 [00:55:01] is right and the other is completely wrong.

James [00:55:04] Ultimately, members of any religious faith, be they Mormons or Muslims, can come to terms with evolution in completely different and idiosyncratic ways. Science, as we have discovered, is an ongoing process of discovery and reinforcement, but it never has the power at any point to answer all of the question.

Dr. Michael Ruse [00:55:26] I'm a philosopher, and at some level I'm very much committed to reason and to dialogue and that sort of thing. And I mean, I feel very strongly, speaking as a philosopher, that it's my job to try to reach out and discuss things with people. It's like talking with you folks today. I mean, I look upon that as part of my job. Not that I'm trying to convert you or you're trying to. You may be trying to convert me, but I'm certainly not trying to convert you. But I do look upon this as. As a commitment to reasonable dialogue. I mean, that's why, for instance, I took extreme umbrage at that movie Expelled with Ben Stein, because there I thought he wasn't interested in dialogue. He was just interested in making evolutionists look stupid, you know, by asking questions which would then be spliced into different ways of doing things. And a lot of that, I thought that that was dishonest. But in as much as I could have. I mean, there comes a point, obviously with the creationists where I'm inclined to say, look, I think we're all wasting each other's time. I mean, I just don't want to do this anymore. But I think inasmuch as one can have dialogue, and particularly if one can have dialogue which can then, as it were, be given to young folks like you and your colleagues around the table there, then I think that's what I'm. That's what I'm paid to do, and that's what I'm doing. That's my job and my avocation. As I say, you've got to understand what I'm trying to do. I mean, clearly I believe in Darwinism, but even if I didn't, my arguments would be the same in the sense that I'm not trying to prove the truth of Christianity. I'm not even trying to prove the reasonableness of Christianity. I mean, regular Christianity, let alone your variant. That's not what I'm about. What I'm trying to say is we live in a world, a world of science. One of the major. One of the major theories of science is Darwinian evolutionary theory. And don't believe anybody who says, oh, well, you know, Darwinism is gone or something. I mean, that's what biologists do in biology departments these days. You buy any major textbook or on evolution and you are going to find that if you know, it's Darwin and natural selection all the way. I mean it has to be. That's the only way you can do the science. So now my question is, I mean a lot of scientists, I mean, you look at the blogs, say, you know Jerry Coyne's blog, why Evolution is True, or PZ Mars, you know, Farron Ginguler or whatever he calls it. I read people are saying non stop Christianity is false because of religion, because of science. Science is not neutral. They say science shows that Christianity cannot hold. And my question is, is this true? And very obviously I want to argue, no, it's not true. But as I say, I'm not in the business of defending Christianity as a true, any, any form of Christianity as a truth, as a true system. I mean, I can see virtues in it or certainly virtues and aspects of it. Of course I can, I can, I can respond, let us say, to the Bible as literature. I mean the story of Ruth seems to me to be a, an incredibly poignant story. I mean, and, I mean and all of the others, I mean I can respond to it and enjoy it and all of these sorts of things, but that's not where I'm at. That's not where I'm at now or ever in the sense that I'm not trying to make Christianity a reasonable belief system. What I'm trying to say is if I'm a scientist, then does being a scientist, and particularly being a Darwinian scientist, a commitment to full blooded Darwinism? Does this necessarily mean that I could no longer be a Christian? A lot of people like Richard Dawkins, and I think a lot of Christians would say yes it does. And I want to say, well, I'm not sure that that's so at all.

Guest 3 [00:59:35] S has been brought to you by James Perkins, Candace Burr, soon to be Candace Quetham. Congratulations, Jeffrey Tucker, Olivia Garrison and Casey Walworth. Special thanks to Bret hurst, Professor Michael McKay, and of course Professor Michael Ruse.

James [01:00:20] Are you sitting in that chair because God said you would be there? Are you sitting in that chair because there's an evolutionary incentive for you to be there? Isn't that just terrific of social, biological construction allowed you to sit in that chair and listen to us speak to you today? Is that the reason why you're learning?

Guest 3 [01:00:38] Is there a God?

James [01:00:39] Are you learning to get ahead of the world to, in other words, prove your fitness to a possible mate? Is that the whole purpose of education and is that the whole purpose of everything? You see the allure of using evolution or Darwinism as kind of a total system of meaning building has never, ever been eclipsed.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.