I had an interesting experience two summers ago when a friend of mine who is British was visiting me. We were at a stake youth conference and, of course, he was the biggest attraction. Everyone wanted to talk to “British Chris” (Red shirt.) Kids were questioning him on what it was like to be British, they asked him about the pound. He pulled out a pound note and on it happened to be Charles Darwin. One of the kids disgustedly said that Darwin was evil, and that evolution was, in fact, not true. I was stunned. I didn’t, and still don’t, understand how you can deny the truth of the matter. To my eyes the truth of the matter is irrefutable. Animals change. Humans have changed. We are already taller than our ancestors were… and how do you propose that you explain the difference in skin color between a Swede and a Kenyan? Are they different species? No they aren’t. What worries me most is that there are those who seek to refute Darwin and evolution saying, “God created the earth,” creating a false dichotomy. Why can’t God and science go hand in hand? There is undeniable proof of the existence of evolution; yet there is no such proof of God’s existence—we rely on faith. But why can the two not meld? Could it be that evolution happens because that is the way God planned it? I certainly think so. And I would be inclined to state that Darwin was in fact a man inspired by God. He reveled in the creations of God.The conflict between the two has not always been that; a conflict. Thomas Dixon postulates that the struggle is a purely American construct stating “Creationism, and its pseudo-scientific offspring, 'Intelligent Design', are products peculiar to US history, the response of Christian fundamentalists to the Founding Fathers' separation of church and state.” In America we have a long history of religious fundamentalists. As a matter of fact we still retain much of our Puritan founders’ ideology. These groups left England and the old world behind. In England the Anglican Church initially had some quandaries but by the end of the 19th century most people had come to terms with Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Why then was America different? Why is it that America boasts a staggering 41% of weekly church-going respondents in a Gallup poll from 2009 who state that they don’t believe in evolution? It appears that this has always been the case in the US. Take the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. The case was brought about when the State of Tennessee passed a law banning the teaching of evolution. The ACLU swore to defend anyone who was willing to go up against this law. A school teacher in Dayton Tennessee, John Scopes stepped up to the plate. The trial was one of the most controversial the Supreme Court has ever seen. Each side had big names on their side. On the side of Darwinism and evolution was the well-known lawyer Clarence Darrow. Opposing him was the three-time presidential candidate and prominent fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan. The ACLU originally wanted to oppose the bill by stating that the two were not exclusive; that evolution does not in fact disprove the existence of God or the truth or supposed truth of the Bible. As the trial progressed Darrow moved away from this, instead focusing on literal interpretation of the Bible. In the end the trial became more about evolution vs. creationism than whether or not Scopes had taught evolution. This trial is cited as being one of the most ridiculous, bitter trials of the century. In many people’s minds it was considered a win for the religious fundamentalists, though shortly after the trial Bryan dies, thus stripping the fundamentalists of their most well-known national leader. Consequently, religious fundamentalists retreat into the background; the theory of evolution was dropped from most science curriculums. But this was not to last. In the 1960s there was great upheaval of and animosity towards all of the strictures of American society that were prevalent in the 50’s. During this period, traditional religious groups felt more and more like they were under attack. In 1968 a course was brought before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the law. As a result of the case the law was overturned. In their ruling the court stated “fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason for existence.” This is exactly what Darrow had argued during the Scopes trial. When the issue was brought back up it created a new kind of pseudo-science, intelligent design.
Thomas Dixon states, “The route from these developments in the 1960s and 1970s to recent debates about 'Intelligent Design' is a very direct one. If the allegedly anti-Christian theory of Darwinian evolution was going to be taught in public (that is, US state-run) schools, then the fundamentalists were determined they would find a way to get religious instruction into the classroom too.” To do this they thought of the idea of intelligent design. This theory states that the universe and all living things were designed by a sentient all-knowing being, i.e. God. While this sounds good in principle the basic definition doesn’t shed light on the full extent of the belief. Encyclopedia Britannica states “Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution.” They stated that the parts and systems of living organisms are so complex that there is no way that they could evolve without the systems failing and that they must have been created by an all knowing creator. To put it simply, according to them evolution isn’t real.
Heres a question. Which one of these famous scientists didn’t believe in God. From top to bottom, Isaac Newton, Henry Eyring, Albert Einstein, Nicolas Copernicus, or Galileo Galilee?
What make this claim preposterous are the numerous examples of the validity of evolution. But science does not mean there is no God. There are numerous famous scientists who both believed in God and in science. Take for example the father of modern science, Isaac Newton. He was both an incredible scientific genius, credited with discovering gravity, and a devout Christian. He found God in science and he saw science as being a way of explaining God. He once said, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Newton is not the only scientist who was also deeply religious. In the modern day, Henry Eyring a prominent Mormon scientist stated "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men."
These two scientists prove that you can believe in God while still being a legitimate well known, well respected scientist. In the end there is no conflict between the two. Science does not disprove God. In my life it has strengthened my belief in God. As Albert Einstein was so fond of saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." This is absolutely the case. Evolution without God is missing something, and God without evolution is in fact, dare I say it, lame.
