[Part 3 in a multi-part series on Science & Religion from an LDS perspective.  Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2]

One of the primary characteristics of working with incomplete ‘explanation-schema’ is that speculation becomes a fundamental part of the process.   One takes what one knows, places it within the framework of existing theories, and then makes guesses as to what the rest of the picture might look like.  They are usually educated guesses, of course--not random--but speculative guesses nonetheless.

This is true of both science and religion.  “Speculation” by itself is not a problem—in fact, it is arguably a vital part of the learning process for both science and religion.  Speculation in science leads to new directions of study—new theories that can be tested and analyzed, and then either added to the main theoretical framework, or abandoned.  Speculation in religion leads to new ideas and questions, which (as the D&C shows) has historically been the key catalyst when receiving new divine guidance and revelation.

The problem with speculation comes when those educated guesses are not recognized as such, and treated as fact (or ‘gospel’) before they are actually supported with anything concrete.  (Often this serves as a source of great embarrassment when those guesses turn out to be wrong…)

Many on both sides of the science and religion divide get themselves in trouble when they have part of the truth, but feel they KNOW conclusively what the rest contains and (especially) what it doesn’t.  One of the biggest obstacles to scientific and religious progress is human hubris.

In the previous section, we mentioned briefly the history of solar system theory, culminating in Kepler’s discovery of elliptical orbits.   One of the big hang-ups in coming to a correct picture of the solar system—even from Kepler himself—was that scientists were for the longest time unwilling to sacrifice the idea of circular orbits, even when evidence suggesting otherwise started to mount.

The reason?  Circles, you see, are “perfect” and “pure” shapes, and more readily fit into those early scientists’ ideas of how a “perfect” God would have created the universe in the first place.  (We should note here that virtually all early scientists were religious believers as well and themselves found no conflict between science and religion.)

Ellipses, on the other hand, are just flawed and distorted circles—‘imperfect’ shapes, unbecoming of a perfect God.  If God WAS going to create the solar system, surely He’d have used the more aesthetically pleasing circles, right?

This kind of stubbornness is a good representation of a common and fundamental problem when trying to view religion through the lens of science (or vice versa): the impact that human bias can have when looking at how something IS, versus how you think it should be.

Oftentimes, the word ‘perfect’ is used to mean ‘perfect AND simple’-- something easy to understand.  When complex factors are added, the concept of ‘perfection’ is lost, even though complex systems—including ellipses—can be perfect in their own way.  (Kepler’s laws regarding elliptical orbits are in fact relatively simple and straight-forward, showing that ellipses have their own symmetry and simplicity—“perfection” if you will…)

There’s a joke about a man who’s working on the roof of a tall building.  As he’s attempting to grab a tool from his toolbox, he slips and starts sliding down the roof, heading precipitously towards the edge and a long fall to the ground below.  Recognizing he might be seriously injured or killed, he offers one of the most sincere (and quickest) prayers of his life.  “God, please save me!  Help me, and I’ll do anyth…”

Suddenly, his pants catch on a protruding nail and his fall is averted.

“Oh…never mind!” he says.

Many people, regardless of belief, have opinions about how God works in the world today (or would, if He existed), which often take the form: “IF God exists, then _____”

(“If God exists, then there wouldn’t be suffering in the world.”)

(“If God exists, then He would make Himself known in some obvious way, like a giant throne floating in the sky or something…”)

Oftentimes, the thought pattern to determine faith is fairly simple:

1. If God exists, then X would be true.
2. I see no evidence X is true.
3. Therefore God must not exist.

The problem is (2) is taken as all the proof of (3) that is necessary, when the validity of this thought experiment is entirely dependent on whether (1) is an accurate assumption in the first place.  How do we *know* if God exists, X would be true?

It is interesting how often even religious believers assume God (if He exists) MUST work outside of science and natural law.  In the anecdote above, did God save the man falling off the roof?  (No, silly, it was the nail…  Because, apparently, if God *were* to save him, He would have done it some other way, like—I don’t know--a giant hand reaching out of the sky or something…right?)

Take the question: where do rainbows come from?

The religious believer might answer that they were created by God as a symbol of His covenant with Noah after the flood.  Someone with a modern science background might conclude instead: No, God didn’t “create” rainbows, they are a natural phenomenon caused by the refraction of sunlight through moisture in the atmosphere.

Like the nail on the roof, the idea of the natural refraction of light replaces God.  The unspoken assumption is that IF God existed, and were responsible for rainbows, it would NOT be through natural laws of the universe involving light and moisture, but through some other means.  Something…well, more complex and difficult to explain, presumably.

Science largely rejects the idea of God creating the Earth with the unspoken assumption that IF God existed, He would have created the world and mankind differently than through evolution, therefore creationism must be false. 

Likewise, religious believers say basically the same thing with the opposite conclusion:  we don’t know exactly how God created the Earth (the Bible is short on details), but He certainly would NOT have done it through evolution…therefore evolution must be false.

All of this guesswork contains the same basic flaw as the idea that “If God existed, he would have created the solar system using perfect circles rather than ellipses…”  For an omnipotent being who doesn't share a lot of details, we seem pretty sure how God MUST do things, don’t we…?

Again, the question here is whether one has to be false at the expense of the other.  Why assume God MUST work outside of natural processes?

Let’s propose a new hypothetical:  Evolution is one of many natural processes God used to create the Earth.

Can this statement be conclusively disproven with any known scientific fact?  Can this statement be conclusively disproven with existing scripture?

With this one simple statement we’ve bridged the gap between science and religion.  No more can science say creationism must be false because, unlike evolution, there’s no scientific evidence for it—because under this theory all evidence for evolution IS scientific evidence of creationism.  No more are we bound by the unproven notion that creationism must lie outside of science, because we start with the hypothesis that God Himself works inside of science.

In the early days, scientists (also religious believers) made discoveries with the view that they were explaining HOW God did things, not looking to replace the very idea of God with mathematical equations.  In modern times, this seems to be largely lost:  somehow, paradoxically, having simple explanations that are easy to understand for natural phenomenon are considered more ‘proof’ of divine Creation than having immeasurably complex explanations.  (As if random processes are capable of creating complex structures and systems…but an all-powerful God is not.)

Beware of the trap that speculation and hubris creates for both science and religion.  Beware of any thought that takes the form of “I don’t understand why He would have done it that way, so it must be false.”  Or: “That’s not how *I* would have done it, so it must be false.”  Beware of any thought that attempts to presume that God *couldn’t* have done it that way, therefore…

Next: The role of faith and testimony in science