Morgan Jones Pearson
At the beginning of the new book, "Let's Talk About Science and Religion," is a quote by President Russell M. Nelson. It reads "All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory, or by revelation from the Lord, it is compatible." Jamie Jensen, a professor at Brigham Young University is a believer that as we seek to reconcile science and religion, we can more fully see the hand of God in our lives. That is what she has tried to help students at BYU see, and it is what we hope to help you see through our conversation today. Dr. Jamie Jensen received her PhD in biological science education from Arizona State University in 2008. She began working as an associate professor in the College of Life Sciences at BYU in 2010. In addition to the wide range of biology classes, she teaches at BYU her research focuses on developing and assessing undergraduate biology curricula to help students think more deeply and build bridges between science and religion. This is All In, an LDS Living podcast where we ask the question, what does it really mean to be all in the gospel of Jesus Christ? I'm Morgan Pearson, and I am so excited to have Jamie Jensen on the line with me today, Jamie, welcome.
Jamie Jensen
Thank you.
Morgan Jones Pearson
I am so anxious for people to have the chance to read this book. I absolutely loved reading it myself. And felt like I learned a lot. And I think that's the goal. So I wondered, just to start us off in the books introduction, you and your co-author talk about how you've observed how a deeper knowledge of science can affect one's belief. So I wondered, What have you learned over the years of teaching in how to best teach science in a way that protects students from losing faith?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, that's a great question. And I can't take all the credit for this. Honestly, I stepped into this having colleagues who had gone before me over the past 30 years who had been using something similar to the approach that we use, just sort of, not as scientific or as specified, as we've used it, we've now defined the processes our reconciliation model, and we've studied it, but they were doing it long before me. And I'm grateful because when I came to BYU, a million years ago, I experienced that same method. And so for me, it was a great strength to my testimony. But I will say that over the years that I've been teaching here at BYU, I have seen many kinds of tragedies where I have students who come into my classroom, who have been somehow forced to look at science as in direct opposition to their faith. So they're seeing this false dichotomy. And they come to me in a crisis, that if this isn't true, then what else isn't true? And so that's what we're trying to prevent. My co-author, Dr. Seth Bybee, and I have spent a lot of time looking at the the actual causal mechanisms behind what we're doing in the classroom. And we're finding that if we can give students a bridge, if you will, between their religious faith and the science that we're teaching, like we offer it ahead of time, and don't wait until they hit this crisis where something maybe doesn't make sense with what they'd heard in their Sunday school class or whatever. And we give them that bridge ahead of time, it makes the process so much more smooth, and we protect students from losing their testimony over something scientific.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Do you feel like you've seen that change at all over time? Like, do the students' concerns evolve over time? Or does it remain pretty consistent as it relates to science?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, that's a good question. We actually have some, like 30 year longitudinal data, at least on evolution, acceptance and the way that they're viewing God and His role in creation. And it has actually changed quite a bit over time. I think that part of it is that science curricula and state standards have have improved and become more comprehensive at the K-12 level. And so our students are coming in having had more exposure to these scientific topics like evolution or climate change or reproductive technologies. They're having more coverage of that in the high schools. And so I think the students themselves have learned, at least a little bit how to deal with it now, but they might not be dealing with it in a way that that is going to be most productive. And that's where we come in and help them deal with it in a more productive way. But they've been forced to confront these things a lot more, I think, now than 30 years ago. And we see this in the data that we've collected from 30 years ago. And then today, we see a lot more. I actually had students that just finished a project on this, they were looking at perceptions of God. And what we found is that 30 years ago, it was more of a incomprehensible I can't possibly try to decide how science and religion go together. And then today, we're seeing a lot more of students viewing God as a scientist, as someone who's using the tools of the natural world to bring about His Majesty and His plan. And we didn't see that as much years ago. So there's some of that transition. I'm not sure where that's coming from, per se, but I do think it's that they've been forced to have to deal with it more, because they're seeing more in that they're getting a better comprehensive coverage of science in high school.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Interesting, super interesting. So Jamie, you and Seth, start this book out, by outlining the fact that the scientific process is not entirely different than the process of gaining a testimony. But that these two things are separate studies. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, so the process itself is fairly similar, right? We make observations, we gather data, we analyze those data, we come to a conclusion, that process, funnily enough, is the same in our spiritual lives and we gain our testimonies. As it is, in science, when we're gaining information about the natural world, the difference, the main difference is in the evidence. So the evidence when you're dealing with science, the evidence is tangible. It's something that you can measure with quantitative type, instrumentation. And it's something that's shareable. Like, I can show the data that I've collected to someone else, and they can draw conclusions from it. Whereas when you're building a testimony, and you're gathering spiritual evidence, that evidence is still real. It's still measurable, but the instrumentation we use is different. So instead of using thermometers, or rulers or calipers, we're using our spiritual eyes, personal revelation, feelings that are inside, and it's just as real, but it's not as tangible. And one of the key differences is that it isn't, I shouldn't say it's not shareable, it's shareable. And that you can share your testimony, but it's not transferable. I can't transfer those data that I've gathered to you, you have to gather those data for yourself. But the nice thing is, we know from the scriptures that if anyone lacks wisdom, they can ask God, like this process of gathering evidence is open to everyone. But as I tell my students, just like I had to learn how to use gel electrophoresis, or DNA sequencing, these tools are hard to use. It's the same thing for spiritual evidence, we have to learn over time, how to use that instrumentation, you know, how do you decide whether it's just your own personal thoughts or whether it's God speaking to you, how do you? How do you interpret scripture? These are all tools that we have to learn how to use just like we learn how to use laboratory equipment. And so that's something that people feel like, "Well, it's just gotta be instantaneous for me if it's spiritual," but it's not. It's the same learning process growing process, just the data slightly different.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Well, and I think one thing that you point out in the book that I thought was so interesting was that there's this big S science and little s science and that the big S science are the things that have been proven over time again, and again and again. And then you have the stuff that's kind of in process, and recognizing that our testimonies are also kind of in process anyway, I'm trying to put it into my own words, but I just thought that was such such a good point. You mentioned already kind of this false dichotomy between religion and science being pitted against one another. Why do you think that we so frequently do that?
Jamie Jensen
So the blame in my mind can be placed on both sides of the argument? Right? So scientists, those who maybe grew up without any kind of religious belief, tend to discount that kind of way of knowing just because they're unfamiliar with it. You know, we also have the ill intent people like the militant atheists who are pushing an agenda, that science is somehow atheistic, and an antithesis to belief. And so we've got it on that side where that's been pushed, that's an agenda that's been pushed for a long time. And then at the same time, on the flip side, we've got a militant religionists who have insisted that you can't have religious belief and accept science, or that insists that there's only one way to interpret Scripture for instance, or that insists that we can't study the creation, that the creation happened a long time ago, and nothing that was happening then is happening now. And so we have it coming from both sides, very famous people like Richard Dawkins on the science side and Ken Ham on the religious side that have set up this false dichotomy. And most people just haven't thought about it enough to know. Either way, right? They haven't really hashed it out to decide, is this really a dichotomy? They just take what they've been told.
Morgan Jones Pearson
So that makes sense. So you have a whole chapter in this book called sciences agnostic. And you write this "When we say that science is agnostic, we mean that science cannot prove there is a God any more than it can prove that there is not." And you also Jamie gave a BYU devotional which I watched in preparation for this that I really enjoyed, where you said, "There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God." I think there may be some listening who may struggle initially or bristle at that, because of the scripture in Alma that says all things denote there is a God, can you explain why you say science is agnostic? And how that can be true while all things can still denote that there is a God?
Jamie Jensen
I love this question. And we've gotten it quite a few times since there's so much in this question. So first, when I say that science is agnostic, agnostic means without belief, right? And so science as a process is inherently without belief. We don't say we believe in gravity, we don't say we believe in evolution, we just look at the data, interpret and say the data seems to show, this is the best explanation. So we say that the evidence supports evolution, or the evidence supports the fact that gravity exists. Every time I drop something, it falls. But there isn't any belief involved. And so from that perspective, when we're talking about God, there's no way for me to scientifically prove that there is a God, just as there is no way for me to scientifically disprove that there is a God and I love this thing. I don't even know who said it. I use it all the time. But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Right? So just because there isn't evidence for a God, scientific evidence, tangible, measurable, shareable, transferable evidence that there is a God, that doesn't mean He doesn't exist. So that's one thing to keep in mind. But the other issue with that scripture, and Alma 31 if you're not familiar with that story, if people are listening, Alma is talking to Korihor, he's an antichrist, he's saying, there's no evidence of God. There's no way you can show me that there is a God. And Alma says that famous scripture that that all things denote, there is a God and I firmly believe that all things denote that there is God. However, that's not how you gain a testimony. So I couldn't go to my colleagues who grew up without belief and say, See this tree over here and how amazing photosynthesis is. Surely that is evidence of a god. That doesn't work for someone who hasn't gained that testimony through spiritual evidence. And I was actually reading President Kimball's second century address for BYU. And he made the point that we as BYU professors need to be bilingual. And what he was meaning is that we need to be totally fluent in the language of science and be able to speak to our science colleagues, and we need to be totally fluent in the language of of the Spirit and be able to speak to our religious colleagues and to the students. And for me, this scripture came to mind in Alma 30, that I have to be able to explain science without invoking God as an explanation. I have to be able to say this is how this could have occurred. This is what the evidence shows, this is what we believe happened. And then once you've gained a testimony through spiritual evidence, so that's what has to come first. You have to have a testimony using spiritual evidence only. That God really is real. And then when you turn around with those new eyes, and you look at the world everything does denote there's a God and then it's easy for me to see that. All of life and all of the complexities of the cell and the body and all of that, they do bear testimony that God is very real. But I can't use that as my testimony. because that's not something that we can actually use scientific, physical, tangible evidence, something and you have thinking, in your mind, is this something that someone who doesn't believe in God would accept as evidence that there is a God and it brings up? When we try to do that, it's a common mistake that people make called the God of the gaps, which I've got a whole chapter in there on that as well. So when you're trying to use physical scientific evidence, to prove that there is a God, you're falling into the trap of a God of the gaps, right? You're saying, well, since science can't explain this, isn't it so amazing, therefore, it must be God. And then when science does explain it, all of a sudden, where did your God go? And that's why I like to emphasize that you need to build your testimony on spiritual evidence, which is just as real and the process is just as as real. But it's different. You build your testimony. And then once you've done that, then yeah, you look around and everything denotes there is a God, but everything to know as a god to believers, to unbelievers. It doesn't work that way.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Fascinating. And you also point out that viewing science as agnostic, keeps us from viewing it as a threat to our faith. Can you explain why that is?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, so as soon as you start to put God in for explanations, for example, of what science can't explain, then you've got this dichotomy that if science can explain it, then God's not real, you know, or if science can't explain it, then God's real and that shouldn't be but then also, a lot of people that I've spoken to, in my line of work that are non religious scientists have a mistaken impression that science is atheistic. So they're almost using a reverse of the God of the gaps because they're in that same dichotomy, right? Because science can explain it, therefore, there's no need for God. And so if you're trying to use science to prove there is a God, you're falling into the same pitfall that the atheists are trying to use science to prove that there's not. And so you've got to step back from that and say, the evidence of God is non-tangible. It's not scientific, it's above nature. It's not natural evidence. It's above nature. And it's not something science even touches. Science doesn't have any kind of belief system. And so that viewing science is agnostic is protective. It's not pitting them against each other.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Jamie, in your BYU devotional, you quote Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health who said, "I began a journey to try to understand why intellectually sophisticated people could actually believe in God. And to my dismay, I found that atheism turned out to be the least rational of all the choices." Why do you think in your study of science and having taught students for so long, why do you think Collins found that?
Jamie Jensen
I think it goes back to that absence of evidence, right. So the idea that God does not exist is based on a belief system of absence. That's what's so funny about it is that, because there isn't any evidence, therefore, that proves something, which seems from a scientific perspective, if you were to tell me I was gonna base my belief or my theory on the lack of evidence, I would tell you, you were crazy. And that's what atheism is, it's a belief in the lack of evidence, and I used another quote, in my devotional about, you know, if a fisherman says "whatever I can't catch in my nets doesn't exist," then that would be you know, "if I can't find it with my fishing pole or my fishing net, then it doesn't exist." And it's the same idea, right? If you can't find God with physical evidence, therefore he doesn't exist. The more scientifically accurate thing to say is that if you can't find it with your nets and your instrumentation, then we have no idea if it exists or not, we have to hold off judgment. And so I think it seems crazy to base a theory off of a lack of evidence. It's not a normal scientific literature.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Well, and another thing that I wanted to point out, and I kind of alluded to this earlier, but you talk about how there is uncertainty in both science and religion. How do you feel like we become comfortable with that uncertainty? I think uncertainty is hard in many aspects of life and not just when we're talking about science and religion. But how do we become comfortable with uncertainty and why should we not let uncertainty lead us to throw out what we do know?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, so I can tell you my story of becoming more comfortable with uncertainty in the scientific realm. So growing up I just ate up science and I read textbooks cover to cover, and I loved everything about it. But a textbook isn't necessarily that big S science. And so it just presented everything as if we knew everything. And I remember getting into graduate school and having my professors say, well, we just don't know that. And I thought, What do you mean, we don't know? Like, I had this impression that science knew everything, because that's how textbooks are presented. So it's no wonder that students struggle with this uncertainty, because they've been through a school system that declares everything as fact, like, we know everything there is to know. And I remember experiencing that. So the farther I got in academics, the further my degrees went, the more I realized, wow, we really don't know very much. And that's the whole basis of my master's thesis. And the whole basis of my dissertation was tackling questions that we didn't know the answer to. And all of a sudden, for me, at least, I had great advisors who fostered that curiosity. And to me, the not knowing was almost cooler than the knowing because it meant, "oh, this is something that I can study and contribute to the field." But it took me all the way through my PhD to realize that so most of my students, they're coming right out of high school, and all they see is the definitive textbook presentation of biology. And then on the flip side, if you look at religion, especially our religion, right, and not knocking our religion, I'm a faithful member. And I think our church is awesome. But we have sort of this real big emphasis on gaining a testimony and being sure, and I always use this example, knowing that these kids get up to the pulpit in their seventh and they're like, I'd like to prove your testimony. I know this church is true. I know. I know. I know. And I think "You're seven, are you sure that you know?" But we train them to say that. It would be so much better if we train them to say, "Well, gosh, I think the church is true, or my parents seemed to know the church is true. And I believe my parents." And getting these kids more comfortable with the fact that hey, it's okay that you don't have a full blown testimony right now. But there's a lot of things that I've learned as I've gotten older that I don't know about the church, you know, things that I don't know about my own spirituality that I'm growing. But here's the problem, if I didn't have that experience, and maybe it's because of science, that I had that experience that "Oh gosh, turns out there's a lot of things we don't know, it wasn't that surprising in my religion, that there were a lot of things I didn't know. But kids who come up through a system where maybe in their families it was "You have to know, you have to know, you have to know in religion," and then they go to school and everything seems so sure, when they have something that conflicts or they don't know, they have a serious crisis of faith. And it's just because they've never been confronted with that uncertainty. So I think as teachers, we have a huge responsibility to change the way that we teach science or expose students to areas where there are holes, like I try to push my students a little deeper than the textbook and say, Hey, here's something we don't know. And get them familiar with that idea that you don't know things. And I would say the same needs to be done from a religious perspective, I'm just not exactly sure whose job that is. Maybe the parents say "That's okay that you don't know everything, you're not in danger of losing your testimony, you're not on a slippery slope to where...you're just growing and learning and it needs to be more of a culture that it's okay to be unsure. And I love that, quote, what's the quote? "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." You know, if something doesn't seem to make sense, just be patient. Just push pause, be okay, be comfortable with that. Now, from an evolutionary perspective, we as humans are not comfortable with uncertainty because if you're uncertain and you don't make a move, the lion would get you or whatever, right? So we have that inner sense of discomfort with being uncertain, but we kind of have to override that.
Morgan Jones Pearson
I love that so much. I think you did such a great job explaining that. Another thing that you warn against in the book, you and your co-author, is against dogmatism. Can you explain for listeners what that is and how it is harmful?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, so this goes right along with the uncertainty, right? If you are dogmatic, you see the world in one way, and there's no other way to see it. And so I have a lot of colleagues who are scientists who grew up without belief and they can sometimes be very dogmatic that science is the only way to understand or know things. But on the flip side, I also have people that I know that are very dogmatic about maybe one way that they're interpreting the scriptures, right? I was actually just at a conference where somebody was insisting that it was actually from the Koran. We were doing a conference on evolution in Islam. And he had the belief that there was only one way to interpret the scripture, and he was very dogmatic about it. But the problem was, there were people in the room that had interpreted it other ways, and had started to bring science and religion together. And then his dogmatic statement was shaking their faith, they were thinking, "Oh, maybe I'm wrong." And so not only is it harmful to you to be so dogmatic because then you have blinders on to additional information. But being dogmatic and out loud and very vocal about it can harm other people's testimonies when they're trying to make sense of things. And you're insisting that there's only one way to look at the world.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Absolutely, I completely agree. And I think that is one thing that we see repeatedly, kind of within our own faith tradition and it's been great in the last little bit, it seems like people kind of have a little bit of a opening of minds, which is great. You and your co-author advise that we base our faith on correct evidence, that's an important thing as well. For those who haven't read your book, how do we know what correct evidence is? And what do we need to look out for in terms of false evidence?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, so that had to do both with pseudoscience and with a God of the gaps. And so the idea of God of the gaps, I've kind of explained, it's where you decide to base your testimony on gaps in scientific understanding, right? "If science can't explain it, therefore, it must be God and that's where my testimony lies," and we've talked about already how that is dangerous in the fact that science is ever progressing. And when science does explain that gap for you, your testimony is in danger. The other thing that we see commonly happening is the infiltration of pseudoscience as a way to somehow protect people from losing their testimony. And it turns out, it does more damage than than good. So for example, there are several alternative models, if you will, for evolution, that had been proposed by groups. And I've actually had a deep conversation with some of these group members whose intentions are beautiful, their intentions are we want students not to leave the Church. And if evolution is threatening, then let's provide them with an alternative view that will allow them to ignore the evidence and and stay in the Church. But what happens is that they they buy into this maybe for a minute, but we don't live in an age today, where students' only source of information is the Encyclopedia Britannica that was on your shelf at home, like that's what I grew up with. And so if I had a question, if it wasn't in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I was like, Oh, well, I guess I won't know, right. But now, they can just open Google and you can find all the information about evolution in five minutes. And so we can't give them something pseudoscientific because they're going to find the other information. And then I actually had a student who came to me and said, "I was taught this alternative. And you're now telling me that evolution is a real thing. And now I'm wondering if this was wrong, maybe everything else about my religion was wrong." And he said, "I doubt the very existence of God, because I've been taught something that's false." And so I would caution people, don't teach false science, like attack the science right in your home, in a reconciliatory way, say, This is what the science says, and this is how we can reconcile of their religion. And if we can't, hey, we're just not sure yet. We're gonna hold off, we're gonna stick to our core principles of the gospel until we know more. Our testimony needs to be built on strong spiritual evidence that you've gathered through the proper channels and through the proper way Moroni outlines it, you need to pray about it and feel and do your studying. And you need to have your testimony based on that. And you need to avoid pseudoscientific explanations that maybe make you feel good for a minute, but are contrary to what the science is actually saying.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Well, and kind of along those lines, Jamie, you encourage parents to teach real science in the home in your book. And I wondered as somebody that is far from a scientist, you say use these words bathed in the light of the gospel, and I feel like I'm like, Okay, that is something that I'd like to do, but I probably will do a terrible job like I have very little confidence in my ability to teach real science to my kids. So what would be your advice? Or how would you you encourage parents to do that, especially if they're not? Science people? What does that look like in practice?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah, that's actually a tough one, right? We don't have a lot of resources. So one, I'd say read the book, right, because we've tackled some of those big ones in the book, in a way that's bathed in the light of the gospel. But I would encourage parents to reach out to experts in the field who also happen to be faithful, faithful members of our church, or even other religions. So I actually work with quite a few different religions across the country and world now. And there are a ton of scientists that I know personally, that are religious believe in God, and have found ways to reconcile this. And lots of them have written books like Francis Collins' book "Language of God," fantastic book if you want to learn about DNA and the Human Genome Project, and how that can mesh. And like our book, we go through evolution and climate change and reproductive technologies and things like that. But there are a lot of people and we've also included an additional reading section in the book that kind of highlights some of those books that have tackled these issues from a faithful perspective. So I think doing your homework finding those people that you know are theists who believe in God. Now, if they're a member of the Church, even better, but there are so many wonderful Christians and and Muslims, I've just met a whole ton of them that are very faithful to God, who have thought about these issues and have offered advice. So parents don't have to do it on their own. But it does take a little bit of digging. And that's unfortunate. We're working to get resources out there. Yeah. So it is a challenge if you're not a scientist, to tackle this, but hopefully, over time, we'll get more resources out there.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Just like everything else in parenting, not easy. And that is the name of the game. That's okay. You conclude the book, and I appreciate you highlighting the resources that are available in the book, you conclude the book by helping us better understand a number of kind of these harder to understand scientific topics. You begin with evolution. And you've mentioned evolution many times throughout this podcast. So I think it will be great to be able to help people better understand this. In your BYU devotional you said that your colleagues at ASU surveyed more than 1000 college students and found that 48% believe that in order to accept evolution, you have to reject God. You then say this misconception is harmful and counterproductive to science and religion as it drives an unnecessary wedge between these two ways of knowing science is no more atheistic than it is theistic. And you have talked about this, like I said throughout our conversation today. So I wondered, why was it important for you to emphasize this? And why can Latter Day Saints actually be open to some of these scientific theories? And maybe you can help us better understand evolution specifically, without fear of diminishing faith?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah there's a lot in there. So yeah, going back to the study by my colleagues at ASU. This is a huge misconception. And this is a misconception that's been largely promoted by the scientific community. And so that's something that we do a lot of work on, I do a lot of work on educating educators, science educators, because if you look at the statistics, that it's something like 89% of our student body, across the country, right? 89% believe in God. But when it comes to biologists that number like biology professors, that number drops to 25%. And if you get to evolutionary biologist that numbers like 10% So there's this mismatch. And it's not because they've actually looked at it. It's not because as they were learning evolution, and whatever they were leaving Christianity, that's not it. It's that generally those that are studying it, or being drawn to it didn't grow up with any faith. So it's not that science was destroying their faith. It's just that they came up through a different, they were raised differently. But they're the ones that are communicating the science to the students, which is a huge cultural mismatch. And so a lot of our work is done with biologists trying to teach cultural competence like how do you talk to a religious person in a way that allows for faith to be there. And so these principles that we talked about in the first part of the book, like understanding that science is agnostic, being comfortable with uncertainty, not using a God of the gaps, these things are actually beneficial for both non religious scientists to understand, as well as religious people to understand these are just basic principles of understanding the nature of science better. And when it comes to evolution, for instance, most of the research shows that there's a very strong correlation between a student's understanding of the nature of science and acceptance of evolution. And that's not a coincidence, right? That if you understand how science actually works, it's less of a threat to your faith. And so I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done in helping students to understand the nature of science. And so same thing, you know, as church members, if we want to delve into some of these controversial topics, I would say, you know, my first advice is make sure that you understand the principles of the gospel, and you're holding firm to those, but none of the principles of the gospel talk specifically about any of these scientific topics, but understanding going into it with the understanding that God is real, and that God's in charge, and that God was part of the creation that needs to be first and foremost. But then from there, you know, exploring the science can be a beautiful and faith promoting thing. If you're willing to see God as someone, as a scientist who's using the laws of nature, to bring about his purposes, then all we're really doing is studying the hand of God. Right? And that shouldn't be threatening at all. I mean, half the time I come across something, I discover something new and think, "Oh my goodness, God is amazing. Like, wow, that was really well orchestrated." Many of you view it from that perspective, it doesn't have to be faith diminishing. But I think it's tricky, right. That's why a book like ours is needed, so that people who aren't scientists can get at least a very cursory overview of these topics. There's so much more that needs to be discussed and the reason I mentioned evolution so much is that that's where my research program has mainly focused. So we look at science and religion, reconciliation, but specifically, evolution has been a really big part of that. And so we've done a lot of research on evolution specifically. So when I try to help my students understand what I'm talking about. So like I said, first and foremost, God is the Creator, the creation is a very real thing. God was in charge. But the way that God did it is not revealed in the Scriptures. And that's one of the things that helps our students a lot is that most of them are unaware of what Genesis even was, like, who wrote it, and why they wrote it, and what genre Genesis belongs to. And so we do a little bit of that. And there are lots of ways to interpret what's written in Genesis, and then we have modern revelation on top of that, which basically says that our Church is neutral towards evolution, including human evolution, that we don't have a stance on evolution, and that we're just leaving that to the scientists to figure out what's going on. And so if we can view evolution, as the tool of creation, so God created everything on Earth, but He did it through an evolutionary mechanism, which quite frankly, is brilliant. He knew what He was doing. And including humans, right? That we this an evolutionary mechanism, and it doesn't diminish God's power. It doesn't make us as humans any less special as the pinnacle of His creative process. We are still children of God. All we're talking about is the mechanism through which He created everything on earth. And so that's kind of how we encourage our students to look at it. We call it theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism, that evolution could be a tool but there's a lot of unknowns. The most common question we get is, where do Adam and Eve fit in? And the answer is, we don't know. There's no modern revelation on it. And scientifically, we can't. We haven't figured it out and there's really no way to figure out where Adam and Eve fit in. There's a lot of places they could fit in. And I don't think any scientist who understands the nature of science, I don't think any of them would say, Well, Adam and Eve can't be real. There's no reason they can't be, it's the same thing with God, right? There's no evidence for or against Adam and Eve. Now, if you're trying to be prescriptive and say, well, it had to bottleneck to two individuals, and that's it and that's putting limits on what God can do. And there's no scripture that would indicate that that had to be that prescriptive. And so we're trying to help students think of it in lots of different ways and if students come and ask me about Adam and Eve, I tell them, hey, come to my offices talk about it. And then I give them like five different ways they can think of Adam and Eve because we just we don't know, we don't know. But it's important to realize how real evolution is because it does play a role in your lives. Now, most people think, how does evolution even affect me, you're probably oblivious to the ways that evolution affects you. But all of the medical research that's done, and all the scientific research that's done and benefits your life has been based on the idea that humans evolved. And so you benefit from it, even if you don't realize that it's a real thing, or that it affects you. And so our whole goal is to help students be knowledgeable of what the science is saying. So they can make wise decisions about their health, about stewardship, about getting vaccinations, whatever it might be. And realizing that this in no way diminishes the power, or majesty of our Creator, who is behind the whole process.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Let me ask you one follow up to that, just because I feel like I can anticipate the question that might come out of this, which is, if the Church hasn't come out on one side or another, and has remained neutral, why do you think that is, if evolution should be the that answer? Does that make sense?
Jamie Jensen
And yeah, why have they not come out and said? So they haven't come out in made some official declarations about any science that I can think of. I mean, we don't have an official declaration on gravity. And we don't have an official declaration on other theories. We don't have one on germ theory. That's another theory that pathogens cause disease. And we don't have an official declaration on that. So that's why I think it probably hasn't happened is that this is just not a precedent of the Church to make official declarations on scientific topics. There's a really great statement in 1910, where the First Presidency said that which is demonstrated, we accept with joy. And so that's, I think, as church members, what we have to decide, is this a scientific concept that's been sufficiently demonstrated? And if it is, we accept it with joy. If it's not, we hold off judgment. And we wait for more, more information, right? And so in my mind, as I have studied evolution for decades now, it's sufficiently demonstrated in my mind, so I accept it with joy. Same thing with germ theory, or gravity or atomic theory, or, you know, these are things that I put at the same level as evolution. And as long as it's sufficiently demonstrated, I'm good with it. But I think probably the reason we don't have an official declaration is that the Church doesn't usually make official declarations on scientific theories that I'm aware of.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Okay. Yeah, no, that's super helpful. Well, Jamie, this has been so helpful and so informative. I appreciate your time so much. My last question for you is, what does it mean to you to be all in the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Jamie Jensen
Yeah. So to me, that means that everything you do you do with an eye single to the kingdom, the building of the kingdom and your testimony of our Savior. And so when I do my science, I always have the kingdom first in my mind, and what does this mean for the salvation of God's children? What does this mean for my own salvation? And it seems funny, like, you know, when we're dealing with with natural selection, or germs in a petri dish, how does that possibly relate? But it's all part of God's creations that we're studying. And so I view my discipline as studying God's creations. And in that respect, I feel like I'm all in. I don't want to ever do any kind of science that would be contradictory to the gospel, because the gospel is most important. And it goes back to that idea that if something doesn't make sense, you should doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith–the faith comes first. And the other things will fall in line if we're just patient. So to me, being all in is just keeping my eyes single to the glory of God.
Morgan Jones Pearson
Perfect, thank you so much. I've really appreciated...like I said, I'm not a scientific person so the chance to pick somebody like your brain is a blessing and I know it will be to so many so thank you.
Jamie Jensen
Oh, yeah, and I appreciate being asked to be on the show. This is a great topic.
Morgan Jones Pearson
We are so are grateful to Jamie Jenson for joining us on today's episode you can find let's talk about science and religion and desert bookstores now. Big thanks to Derek Campbell of Mix at Six Studios for his help with this episode and thank you for listening. We'll be with you again next week.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai