Mathematical Chances of Evolution 01/13/2012
Here's a brief thought. If Adam and Eve's bodies were created through evolutionary processes, then the chances of their bodies being created in the expressed image of the Creator were very small, sort of like 1 in a million. But, as the following clip shows us, even with 1 in a million, there's still a chance! 7 Comments Atheists and agnostics are kind of in the same boat when it comes to the supernatural. Atheists reject a supernatural being while agnostics claim that there is no way of knowing if such a being exists, so they go about their business as if he doesn’t. How many scientists are atheists? How many are agnostic? The answers depend on what area of science we’re talking about. The following data may surprise you. According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, about 34% of all scientists surveyed said that they are either agnostic or atheist. When the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found that natural scientists are much less likely to believe in God than social scientists. In a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists declared that they were either atheist or agnostic, much higher than all scientists in general! (SOURCE: Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.) Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey, a whopping 87% of evolutionists deny the existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject the idea of evolution being directed toward an “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.) Finally, according to a 2007 national survey of faculty at colleges and universities, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics. (SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious are America’s College and University Professors? Feb. 6, 2007.) Why are people in the biological and natural sciences more likely to be atheists or agnostics? Oh . . . could it have something to do with evolution? Here is how evolution contributes to atheism and agnosticism. At a fundamental level, evolution is mechanistic. By mechanistic I mean that evolution makes two ontological assertions about the fundamental nature of the natural world, namely that materialism and efficient causation rule the world. Materialism is the belief that the fundamental nature of the world is physical material. Everything that truly exists is made up of matter. In a manner of speaking, what matters is matter. There is no such thing as the non-physical. Spirits are not real, neither are your thoughts, emotions, and personal sense of identity - these are nothing more than the actions of electrochemical processes in your nervous system. And efficient causation is the belief that events or change result from natural laws acting on physical material. There are no supernatural, spiritual, or cognitive sources of change. Also there is no purpose or agency in events; there are just the unintentional forces of nature which determine how matter is to behave. Mother Nature is like a blind watch maker that creates a beautifully complex world without a purpose or goal in mind. There are no inherent problems with interpreting natural world events using a mechanistic-laden theory like evolution, as long as people recognize the limitations. Evolution has its faults, but so does practically every other scientific theory. If we restricted science to only perfect theories, there would be no science. Problems arise when impressionable minds embrace evolution’s mechanistic underpinnings, when they accept mechanism as reflecting the way the world really is, as a sort of ontological reality. When President Ezra Taft Benson said that “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” I think that he was partly, if not wholly, referring to evolution’s atheistic allure. The antidote to evolution’s and any theory’s atheistic allure: Faith in the Lord. What is the Deal with Deism? 11/15/2011
During the 17 and 18th centuries, Western Europe entered into a period known as the enlightenment. The enlightenment gets its name from the fact that people living during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times compared to previous generations. With regard to science, they were right. They witnessed unprecedented scientific discovery. However, at the same time, the enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day. Efforts to minimize the role of deity during the enlightenment were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). These philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth. As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments and few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty. One can imagine how the theist pioneers of modern science might have felt about the secularization of science. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. Regarding the enlightenment, he wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals." I am certain that the same could be said for other theists like Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo. As the influence of deity was being removed from science, some scholars filled the void by championing a watered down belief system known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment." In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation he left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that he had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function. Why is deism popular today? The answer is that it allows us to recognize a supreme creator while preserving the notion that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. Thus we can go on with science and focus on natural law-driven processes without having to consider the possibility of other forces. This fits nicely with our modern understanding of science as being concerned with natural, not supernatural forces. Sounds good, right? While believing in a creator is better than believing in none at all, there is a downside to deism. Because it rejects divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement. Consider also that if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then he is unknowable. The belief that he is unknowable has led to some obscure deistic conceptions about God. For example, according to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the god of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’” I think it would be difficult communing with such a god. Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.” Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have influenced scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? Certainly it would be difficult communing with such a god, but then again, why pray when no one is really listening? Finally, because scientific deists are not big on prayer, they are unlikely to petition the creator for assistance in their endeavors. How many missed opportunities has science encountered? I wonder where science would be today if most scientists humbled themselves in prayer and asked for help? We will never know. Equally important is the issue of ingratitude. The creator is the main benefactor of scientific knowledge and discovery, yet deists who don’t realize this are unlikely to give thanks for breakthroughs. In the true spirit of the enlightenment, they think that science and reason did it all. Joseph F. Smith put it this way: In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things. In the next post we will take a look at scientific atheism. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 11/10/2011
Well, it is going down just like I said it would. In a previous post I wrote about how the gay activists have an underlying goal in mind when it comes to marriage - that is repealing the federal defense of marriage act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Click here for the latest efforts by the Democrat-controlled Senate to repeal DOMA. Why is repealing DOMA a major goal of the gay activists? It's not really about letting gay people marry so that they can enjoy a life of monogamous committment within the bonds of holy matrimony. And it's not really about getting access to insurance and other benefits traditionally reserved for heterosexual spouses. While those two motives do apply in some cases, the real purpose for repealing DOMA is more sinister from a traditional Judaeo-Christian perspective. The real reason for repealing DOMA is that it is a major barrier to normalizing same-sex relations in America. If DOMA is repealed there will be nothing but a few churches standing in the way of normalizing same-sex relations in America, and even some of the churches are giving in to pressure. Gay people deserve respect and, in some cases, our sympathies - it is certainly difficult being gay in a largely heterosexual world. But this does not mean that Christians should kowtow to the gay activists' demands. Latter-day Saints have been urged to take a stand for traditional marriage, not because we are anti-gay, as President Hinckley put it, but because we are pro-marriage. Taking a stand will certainly lead to more strife in the future, not because Latter-day Saints are unfairly prejudice or discriminatory, but because we recognize that marriage is a divinely appointed union between a man and woman. (Gentle reminder: This is not a venue for venting or attacking the doctrines of the LDS faith.) Charles Darwin and his wife Emma were a bit of an odd couple in a spiritual sense. Spiritually speaking, Charles withered like a plant while his wife Emma grew like a tall and vibrant tree. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in their views on suffering. In 1866 Charles wrote the following about suffering: “It has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of natural sequence of events, i.e., general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God.” This quote evidences that Darwin fell prey to the atheist trap of thinking that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then why is there so much suffering in the world? Interestingly the correct answer to the question of suffering was right in front of him. His wife Emma held the answer. Here is what she said about suffering: “I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God’s hand, and to try to believe that all suffering and illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds and to look forward with hope to a future state.” She is saying that suffering is a refiner's fire that proves us worthy of exaltation by testing our diligence. How different were their views! Their spiritual differences were also manifested in their choice of literature. Emma enjoyed reading uplifting Christian writings. Darwin, on the other hand, enjoyed books with agnostic leanings. On one occasion in 1869 while the young American writer Henry James visited their home for lunch, he observed Emma reading Fervent Prayer while Darwin read The Index. The Index was “a newspaper produced by a group of disaffected American Unitarians and philosophical unbelievers” who rejected the “authority of the Bible, Church, or Christ.” Darwin was a regular contributor to the newspaper and shared its humanist doctrines with his family, occasionally becoming “indignant with anyone who doubted their complete accuracy.” Poor Emma. Darwin's spiritual emptiness was difficult for Emma. Before marrying Charles, Emma spoke openly about her concern with the spiritual void that existed between them. To her disappointment, that spiritual void still existed later on in life. Because of his resolute agnosticism she was unable to share her religious beliefs of faith, hope, and peace with Charles. Emma remained steadfast in the faith through good and bad times while her husband wavered. She tried to build up her children’s faith while her husband challenged it. Science heaps praise upon Charles. I am heaping praise upon Emma. If the most important work we do is within the walls of our own homes, then she deserves credit for raising her children in righteousness and teaching them to honor and fear God – the most important accomplishment in any era. When I was taking an undergraduate class in neuropsychology I did a research project where I went into the community and collected data from persons with a disability. The purpose of the research was to better understand how disability affects every day conscious experience. I decided to interview blind people about what it is like to dream. The professor approved my project and a short while later I found a couple of willing participants through the national association for the blind. As I interviewed the blind participants about their dream experiences I came to the realization that I probably should have selected another topic. Why? My interviewees and I could not come to an agreement on what it is like for a blind person to dream. It wasn’t that they didn’t dream; they did dream. It’s just that no matter how hard I tried, I could not capture the essence of their dreams. I could not understand what they were describing because I have never experienced being blind. I have not experienced the world the way they experienced it. It’s nearly impossible to describe something to someone who has no experience with the sensory modality needed to experience the thing being described. After a pleasant dining experience at a restaurant, I might describe a tasty meal you have never tried as being slightly sweet. Well that is not a problem for you because you’ve tasted sweet before. You can appreciate in some small way what the meal tastes like. But for someone who has never tasted food before, this sort of understanding would be impossible. For a person without taste buds, sweet might as well be nonexistent. In fact, if we all lacked taste buds, there would be no such thing as sweet in this world. Now most people can taste just fine so we don’t hear denials about sweetness. But what if there was a sensory modality that many people had never experienced? If enough people had no experience with that sensory modality, there might very well be talk about that modality not existing. There is such a modality – spiritual experience. Have you ever wondered why it is so difficult to convince an atheist that God lives? A believer may go on and on about spiritual experiences that tell him or her that God lives, but if the atheist has never had a spiritual manifestation, has never known what it is like to feel the Spirit, it is nearly impossible for the atheist to know what the believer is describing. In fact, without having had a similar experience, the atheist might deny the reality of the believer’s spiritual experiences. It is not that the atheist is being mean spirited or claiming that the believer is a liar. Rather, the atheist cannot grasp the concept of spiritual experience because he or she has never had one. In a way, to the atheist, such things do not exist. Of course the first step in overcoming this spiritual ontological void is to basically say, “Gee, there are so many people out there claiming to have had spiritual experiences, they might be real. Perhaps I will humble myself, open my eyes so to speak, and seek out these experiences for myself.” This is exactly what is meant in religious terms as opening one’s eyes. In the scriptures, reference is made to “opening one’s eyes of understanding” that one may see and know. The concept of opening one’s eyes refers to discovering a whole new world of spirituality that one did not know existed by being humble and seeking out the spirit. Without humility and effort the atheist will remain blind to the world of spirituality and it will appear to him or her as though it does not exist. The scriptures indentify certain persons who are at risk for remaining blind to the Spirit. They are the learned and those who think they are wise. These people are least likely to humble themselves and seek out the Spirit. Isn’t it interesting that among those whose claim to fame is knowing a lot about this or that, many do not know that the spiritual is real? I reality they don’t know as much as they think they know and they are less wise than they think. Here’s to hoping that they open their eyes of understanding (Dave lifts his water cup into the air and then takes a sip). New Evidence Confirms Macroevolution 09/22/2011
It turns out that there is abundant evidence for macroevolution and that evidence is is sufficiently confirmatory. I abjure my formal skepticism and declare that macroevolution is real. - Case closed    During the 18th century enlightenment secularists drove God out of science. Today secular humanism and evangelical atheism continue to peddle the false notion that there is no place for the Creator in science. This falsehood has taken root in science, so much so that most Christian scientists, including many LDS scholars, believe that science should be devoid of deity. They are mistaken. While it is true that science does not involve the supernatural, it is also true that we can recognize God in science without hypothesizing Him in scientific explanations. Long ago deity was widely recognized during the 17th century scientific revolution. It was a time of scientific progress that saw an end to unproductive religious-sponsored science (i.e., Scholasticism). It was also an era that gave us the scientific method, unprecedented rapid discovery, and famous theistic scientists like Newton, Galileo, Clerk-Maxwell, and Boyle. Fast forward a few hundred years. During the late 20th century, secularists drove God out of education. During those decades secular humanists and evangelical atheists succeeded in getting the courts and society to buy into the false notion that there is no place for God in schools. Gone are prayers. Gone are religious Christmas songs and pageants. However, schools are still free to celebrate the occult as evidenced by hallways replete with Halloween regalia at the end of October. It is fine to put up a ghost, but not a wise man. It is fine to put up a skeleton, but not a shepherd. It is fine to portray a wolf howling at a pale moon, but not a child looking up in wonder at the Star of Bethlehem. It is fine to talk about gifts of candy, but not gifts of frankincense and myrrh. And it is fine to portray a witch, but not baby Jesus. Secular humanists and evangelical atheists are winning. They are well on their way to achieving three of their main objectives. To remove all references to God from science – done. To remove all references to God from schools – done. To remove all references to God from public venues – almost there (see below). Clergy and their prayers have been banned from participating in 10 year 9-11 memorial. Mayor Bloomberg has gone out of his way to ensure that no clergy speak or say a public prayer at the event. Has this guy been spending too much time on the phone with the Council for Secular Humanism, or has he been golfing with evangelical atheists? Probably not, but something is definitely amiss. Mayor Bloomberg’s press secretary Stu Loeser provided an explanation. He said that this anniversary was planned 10 years ago with the victims’ families in mind. “The structure for this program was designed 10 years ago, with the consultation of a lot of families of those who died, and it is primarily for the families,” Mr. Loeser said. Perhaps many of the victims’ families asked that no clergy deliver spiritual messages or prayers. That does not surprise me. In a recent NOVA presentation on the 9-11 attacks, family members were interviewed and several said that they were still upset with God. Others said that 9-11 led them to doubt the existence of an all knowing and all good supreme being. It comes as no surprise then that at least some of the families, angry from what happened to their loved ones, want no open spiritual expressions. I am sympathetic. They are having a difficult time reconciling spiritual beliefs with what happened on 9-11. We should remember that tragedy in the form of loosing a loved one to disease, accident, carelessness, or hatred comes to all of us – none are immune. It is natural to ask God, “Why did this happen?” But as is often the case, there are no clear answers. I know that God does not take good people from the earth by making a teenager die in a violent car crash, by making a child get run over by a cement truck, by making a young wife or husband fall ill to cruel disease, or by making a mother or father die at the hands of a terrorist. I also know that when tragedy strikes, God wants us to turn to him in prayer and humility. Why does He want us to turn our hearts to Him in the face of tragedy? So that He may bless us with sublime peace and comfort that only comes through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In reference to banning prayer from the 9-11 memorial, Rudy Washington who was deputy mayor of NYC during the 9-11 attacks said, “This is America, and to have a memorial service where there's no prayer, this appears to be insanity to me. I feel like America has lost its way.” He is right. America is losing its way - away from God. Public prayer asking God to help the victims’ families and the nation heal is what we need. It will help us find our way to God. It will help us find the sort of peace that only comes through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When Science and Religion Collide 09/01/2011
Harmonizing science and religion is a noble pursuit and one that is consistent with the Lord’s instruction to avoid contention. Harmonization is fairly easy when overlapping scientific and gospel teachings agree. However, complete harmonization eludes us because several gospel doctrines are at odds with science. Disagreements between the gospel and science will continue to exist for the simple fact that science is imperfect and ever changing. The very thing that makes science so wonderful, namely that it is a self-correcting endeavor, precludes it from being 100% consistent with the gospel. If we ever claim that a scientific theory is absolutely consistent with the gospel and then see that theory change later on, then that theory never was completely consistent with the gospel as we had supposed. Will complete harmony ever be achieved? Yes, most likely during the millennium when the Savior returns and circumscribes all truth into one great whole. Until such time, what shall we do when differences arise? Should we trust religion or should we trust science? If a religious truth claim arises from theological conjecturing, of which there is plenty in the church (nothing wrong with this though), then science may be right and religion may be wrong. Remember that our understanding of the gospel is continually evolving. The Lord gives us gospel truths line upon line, precept upon precept, according to our righteousness. Consider that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is made available, it might change our understanding of some gospel principles, even to the point of bringing them more in line with established scientific theory. On the other hand, if a religious doctrine comes through direct revelation such as scripture or prophetic edict, then we should definitely go with religion. Here are some examples. Science claims that the sun will expand and eventually destroy the earth. We know that is false because modern day revelation tells us that the earth will be celestialized and receive a paradisiacal glory. Science claims that we need to restrict population growth or else we will overpopulate the earth and exhaust our resources. We know this is false because the Lord has declared “there is room and enough to spare.” Science claims that Adam and Eve’s immortal bodies were created through macroevolutionary processes. We know this is wrong because the scriptures and prophets teach us that the creation was a purposeful and directed process, not something left to the vicissitudes of natural selection and random mutations (even if those processes are sufficient to create a living human being). So what are we to do with scientific theories that disagree with revealed truth? Should we throw them out with the trash? No. Science is the best we’ve got when it comes to understanding the natural world. As long as we rely on the arm of the Lord, He will bless our science to progress, self-correct, and steer humankind toward the absolute truth of all things. Hello LDS Scholars 08/23/2011
 "Hello, LDS scholars. Look at your bookshelf, now back at mine. Now back at your bookshelf, now back to mine! Sadly your bookshelf doesn’t have all the LDS science books that mine has, but if you stopped buying vampire love stories, it could look like mine." Ok guys, it’s time to update the list of LDS science-themed books. A few months ago I listed 11 books for LDS scholars interested in science and LDS theology. Some readers recommended books not included in the original list. Thanks for your contributions. Here is the updated list. Divine Engineering (by David Brems) Earth: In the Beginning (by Eric Skousen) Joseph Smith as Scientist (by Elder John A. Widtsoe) Mormons and Science: Setting the Record Straight (by Rodney Brown) Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (by Henry J Eyring) Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS Theology (edited by Clark) Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology (by Erich Paul) Science and Mormonism (by Melvin Cook & Garfield Cook) Science and Your Faith in God (by Henry Eyring et al.) Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective (by Dave Collingridge) The Case for Divine Design (by Frank Salisbury) New Additions Reflections of a Scientist (by Henry Eyring). Thanks Tim. The Truth, The Way, The Life (by BH Roberts). Thanks R. Gary. Key to the Science of Theology (by Parley P. Pratt). Thanks Jared. And the Moon Shall Turn to Blood: The Very Last Days (By Anthony E. Larson). Thanks Anthony. Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements (By Evenson & Jeffery). Thanks Tim Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding (by Stephens et al.) Thanks Tim | Welcome to the Religion and Science (R&S) Blog. Feel free to post your comments. Please be courteous.    CategoriesAll ArchivesJanuary 2012 |
RSS Feed