Compton was heavily involved all the way along. He was actually Fermi’s boss in Chicago, and Compton was the one who appointed Oppenheimer to lead the big team that designed the bomb. For details about Compton’s activities with the bomb project, see his book, “Atomic Quest.”

Yes, I did find a few criticisms of Compton’s religiosity by his peers; I quoted a couple of them on the final page of the essay (Dec issue, page 251). By and large, however, his peers deeply respected him, sometimes b/c of his faith but more often in spite of it. The one common criticism involves an incident during the Manhattan Project. Compton told about this on pp. 109-110 of his book, “Atomic Quest.” At a critical point during the organization of the project, when it was being decided whether it was a military, scientific, or industrial project (it was really all 3), Compton spoke to a large group of “research and administrative heads.” He “reminded them of the story of Gideon, as he selected from a much larger band the three hundred who were most eaget to press the attack against the Amalekites. I had to make the decision according to my best judgment. This would be to enter into as favorable an agreement as we could with some competent engineering or industrial concern. Those who wished to remain on the project with such associates would be most welcome.”

Several scientists remembered this meeting and did not appreciate the way in which Compton handled it. It isn’t clear to me, however, whether their negative memories owe more to the seemingly arbitrary fashion in which Compton announced his decision, or to his use of the Bible in doing so.

As for evolution, Compton’s views were typical for liberal Christians of his generation, including distinguished biologists such as Henry Fairfield Osborn. The whole shebbang of evolution from molecules to man made no sense unless it was guided by God–though without miracles. Compton himself used the term “intelligent design” in 1940 (see Sept issue, p. 180), and in some ways his views would fit in with those of ID advocates today. In other ways, however, they would not–esp his disbelief in miracles (including the bodily Resurrection) and his full acceptance of human evolution. (I realize that ID is officially silent on both of these points, but nearly all ID advocates probably affirm miracles and deny human evolution; they also probably think that ID provides some support for both of those positions.)

This is a very good question. First, the state of affairs you refer to was not narrowly confined to physics, but (as far as I can tell) involved scientists in all fields. Among those Christian scientists who wrote about science and religion at that time, there were hardly any traditional Christians–hardly any who could have said the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers.

Was this just an absence of visibility? Perhaps so; perhaps there were a large number of Christian scientists with traditional beliefs, and they just didn’t write about this so we can’t see them easily when we look back today. This is possible, but unlikely. We know (for example) that around 1930 nearly all of the “eminent” scientists who were religious (a fairly large subset of the “eminent” scientists at the time) were either Unitarians (and thus by definition not traditional Christians) or else members of “liberal” denominations (the survey I am thinking of used that term). Virtually none were Baptist or Catholic, for example. I know of only two “fundamentalists” who were eminent scientifically, and one of them was a actually physician not a laboratory scientist.

This is not true today, not at all. Why was it true then?

Perhaps b/c the intensity of the “fundamentalist-modernist” controversy drove many people, even very thoughtful people, out of the middle. There are more options today, religiously, and thus more places where scientists and other Christians can find comfortable places in which to dwell.

There were scads of scientists in the 19th century who were traditional Christians, including the top geologist in America (James Dwight Dana) and the greatest American scientist around the Civil War (oceanographer Matthew Maury). The pendulum has indeed swung back, though only part-way. What accounts for this great shift? Many factors, IMO, including evolution as one of those many factors. (It’s a mistake IMO either to reduce this to evolution or to ignore evolution entirely.)

Randy

I’m not sure any of these are satisfactory. Why do you think this is so?

I also wonder whether this is a change from the 19th century? If so, what brought about such a change? Is the pendulum swinging back? Why?

Randy