Picture
Mormons and science is one year old.  

I started this site because I wanted to share my ideas with others and gain a better understanding of the relationship between science and the gospel from others. I believe that we can enrich our understanding of both by integrating them. This integration is largely inspired by the Prophet Brigham Young’s mandate for Lattery-day Saints to gathering in truth and bring it to Zion. By bringing scientific truth to Zion, we enlighten our understanding of the gospel and increase our appreciation and knowledge of the handiwork of God. Bringing scientific truth to Zion also enlightens our understanding of scientific principles and facilitates our quest for truth in science. 

In an attempt to bring scientific truth to Zion, I have written posts covering the physical sciences, social sciences, health sciences, and quantum mechanics. There are also a few posts on political issues and the history and philosophy of science. So far, for the most part, the response from readers has been positive. I thank you all for your thought-provoking comments. 

Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. Disagreement is welcome when it is done in the right spirit. There are many different perspectives in science and there are different viewpoints on gospel teachings for which we lack certain knowledge (i.e., things that God has not yet revealed). By fostering an open and amiable exchange of perspectives, this site provides members with the opportunity to “try out their views” in the marketplace of ideas and discover new viewpoints.  

Over the last year there have been a couple of unexpected surprises. One came a few weeks ago when I posted an article on the homosexual community’s efforts to redefine marriage. Several non-members and even some members posted comments in direct opposition to the church’s stance on same-sex marriage. Why someone favoring same-sex marriage would want to read a conservative, Mormon-themed blog and post comments contrary to the teachings of the LDS church is beyond me. 

Another surprise is the response to my evolution posts from members who are theistic evolutionists. Now I have no problem with theistic evolutionists sharing their views on the creation on mormonsandscience.com and at BYU where I teach. A willingness to explore theistic evolutionary ideas is a sign of good scholarship. What is surprising, however, is the undercurrent of arrogance and dogma that currently exists among some within the macroevolutionary community. 

This recent comment, posted by Mike, expresses my concern very well. He wrote:

The evolutionary world is in a twist about their pet theories, they love to style their struggles as backwoods religionists (we poor pathetic rubes) vs. intellectual heavyweights (the smart, superintelligent evolutionists). They seem to portray Darwin as a demigod, and his theory as absolute fact, and don't seem at all capable of applying critical thought to their own theories. They laugh, they sneer, they condescend, they kick out from their midst anyone who dares question them. It's not peer review anymore, it's peer pressure.

The bottom line is this: in our post modern evolutionary world, there is no room for dissent, no room for questioning fundamental tenets of macroevolution which, it is claimed, have been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” This attitude is reflected in the following statement on recent challenges to the well-accepted theropod dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis.  James and Pourtless observed that, among evolutionists, “Criticism [about the hypothesis] has usually been dismissed, often with the [misleading] claim that no more parsimonious alternative has been presented” (James, F. C. & Pourtless, J. A. [2009]. Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses, Ornithological Monographs, 66, 1-78). 

The same dogmatic adherence and arrogance has, I believe, fueled personal attacks against those who oppose macroevolution. While there is nothing wrong with being committed to one’s favorite scientific theory, it is unscholarly to personally criticize scholars who hold opposing viewpoints.  

Why has it come to this? I think that evolutionists’ aggressive posturing may have something to do with the backlash against unreasonable challenges from creationists who have tried to get biblical creation in the schools and evolution out of the schools. These challenges (in particular, the 2004 Dover Trial Of Pandas and People debacle, and the 1912 Scopes Trial) have the evolutionists circling the wagons and standing guard with plenty of ammunition to keep the wolves away, and understandably so. Unfortunately, they’ve grown trigger happy. Instead of just keeping the wolves at bay, they are now taking shots at anything that moves, at anyone who opposes macroevolution.

Anyway, I look forward to more informative discussions and novel ideas from readers. I hope you are enjoying the posts and will continue visiting on a regular basis.

Sincerely,

Dave Collingridge
 
 
Picture
(Update2: This post has become a lightening rod for people who oppose the LDS Church's stance on gay marriage, thus I am ending comments on this topic - Dave

Update1: Readers, while submitting comments is open to everyone, please note that this is a conservative blog that attempts to stay true to the doctrines of the LDS faith. Comments that decidedly oppose the LDS Church's fundamental position on gay marriage will be removed. This is not a venue to voice opposition to the Church's position nor to ridicule fundamental LDS beliefs.  Thank-you for your cooperation.  - Dave) 

I played high school and college basketball. A strategy that teams often use when a game reaches a crucial point is the full court press. The full court press is an effective way of throwing the opposition off kilter and disrupting normal play. Amid the confusion, the pressing team hopes to steal the ball or force a turnover that will clinch victory.

Full court presses don’t just happen in basketball. They happen in life as well. Recently there have been full court presses on traditional Judaeo-Christian values. One that is particularly evident nowadays is the full court press on traditional marriage.

Homosexual activists have stepped up efforts to normalize homosexuality. They have succeeded in gaining medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships (e.g., granted to federal government workers in June 2009). In California they have succeeded in getting the gay lifestyle into elementary school curriculum with the proviso that kids cannot opt out (passed May, 2009). Currently efforts are under way to pass federal gay hate crime legislation. And there are efforts to remove the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” on gays serving in the armed forces.

It may surprise you to know that none of these accomplishments is the ultimate goal of homosexual activists. The grand prize is to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by former President Bill Clinton. It states that the federal government recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that no state can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Gay activists are trying to tear down this law because it prevents them from normalizing the homosexual lifestyle. If DOMA falls, then the gay community will have successfully legitimized its sexuality.

While I support treating gay and lesbians with respect and dignity in all areas of society, and I understand their wish for same-sex employment and insurance benefits, I am a bit confused by their desire to marry. Why am I confused? I am confused because marriage represents mutual commitment to fidelity and a long term relationship, however, generally speaking, homosexual partnerships are anything but stable. In fact, many are full of promiscuity.  

Here’s the evidence:

* In a survey of gay men living in San Francisco, 28% reported having sex with more than 1000 partners (Psychology Today, 1981)

* In a study of homosexuals who kept sexual journals, the average number of annual sexual partners approached 100 (New England Journal of Medicine, 1980)

* Gay activists Kirk and Madsen admitted that “[T]he cheating ratio of married gay males, given enough time, approaches 100% (After the Ball).

* In 1984, the American Psychological Association Ethic’s Committee reported that the fear of AIDS had lowered gay men’s promiscuity from 70 partners per year in 1982 to 50 partners per year in 1984 (USA Today, November 21, 1984).

* According to recent research, 43% of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, 61% have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15 partners (Sexual Organization of the City, Chicago University Press, 2005).

* A recent survey found that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. 20% of homosexuals surveyed have had 51-300 different sex partners, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300 (Agape Press, September 2006).

Indeed, it appears that, as gay advocate and author Gabriel Rotello put it, “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions” (Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, 1998).

I don’t mean to denigrate all homosexuals - I am sure that plenty of them live in stable relationships - but the fact of the matter is that, on the whole, homosexual relationships are characterized by infidelity. Putting aside the issue of attempting to normalize homosexuality, all this begs the question: Why marry if marriage does not fit the type of relationship you want to live in?

What is marriage? Marriage is hard work. It is learning to love each other more and more as you grow older and less attractive. It is about sacrificing your wants and needs for those of the other. It is about developing a stronger bond as you work through hardships and trials. It is about raising young children who frequently cry, disobey, fight, and make messes. It is about committing yourself emotionally, spiritually, socially, and sexually to one person for a lifetime. It is about building a loving relationship to stand the test of time.

To the homosexual community I say, if this is not what you want or are willing to commit to, then leave marriage alone!

If the DOMA is repealed, I predict that our fundamental understanding of marriage will gradually be transformed to be more inclusive of the unstable homosexual lifestyle. In fact, transforming marriage may very well be the goal of some activists. According to the playbook of one gay activist, after winning the “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, . . . [we’ll] redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (Michelangelo Signorile, OUT Magazine, December, 1994).

If our society allows a radical altering of the divinely appointed institution of marriage, this will, as stated in the Proclamation on the Family, “bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

The best way to beat a full court press is to implement a good offensive strategy. Whatever your strategy, be proactive and don’t let the people in the great and spacious building make you shy away from taking a stand for traditional marriage. There is too much at stake.



 
 

According to the prophet Joseph Smith, the spirit world is not on some distant planet or star, nor is it millions of miles from earth. The world of spirits is right here, around us. He also taught that many of the righteous spirits in the spirit world are able to observe our actions and hear our thoughts. Sometimes they are saddened by the things they see us do and think.

The best scientific explanation for two entities being in the same location where only one is able to view the other is dimensionality. Dimensionality is a Euclidian concept that refers to the number of specific points needed to define any location within space.

We live in a 3 dimensional world where we are able to define any point in our space with 3 spatial dimensions (up or down the y-axis, left of right on the x-axis, and in or out on the z-axis). In our 3rd dimension world we are able to view 1 and 2 dimensional space because they are lower than our 3rd dimension. Yet, an entity restricted to 1 or 2 dimensional space would not be able to experience our higher 3rd dimension world. 

Know where this is going?

Could it be that the spirit world is in a higher 4th dimension of space? If this is true and we apply the same logic, then spirits in the 4th dimension would be able to see our 3rd dimension world, but we would not be able to see their world. All the while our two worlds could be in the same location because the 3rd dimension exists within the 4th dimension.

Here are a couple of short video clips that describe this process in greater detail. The videos describe a fictional 2 dimension world called Flat Land and its relationship to a 3 dimension world. The denizens of 2-D Flat Land are unable to “see” our 3-D world but we are able to see them because we are in a higher dimension. The first video is a comic description of Flat Land by Dr. Quantum (may be skipped). The second video is a more sophisticated but easy to follow presentation of Flat Land by Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan also gives some insight into the mind boggling essence of the 4th dimension, the possible location of the spirit world.

Are we like the Flat Landers, living in a lower dimension than the 4-D world of spirits, unable to see their world, yet being visible to them?  Or is the world of spirits in a dimension higher than the 4th, possibly the 5th or 6th? These are interesting questions to ponder.

 
 
Picture
Time is wasting
Time is walking
You ain't no friend of mine
I don't know where i'm goin'
I think I'm out of my mind
Thinking about time

- Hootie and the Blowfish

These lyrics from the 1996 hit song Time sums up the influence of time in our modern world - we are obsessed with time! There are pros and cons to this obsession with time. Modernity’s productivity and efficiency is largely a product of our ability to agree on deadlines and start and stop times. Yet when we view time as an unavoidable objective entity that influences every aspect of our lives, then, as Hootie points out, obsession with time can result in a sort of mild neurosis, created no less, by something that is not real.

Time is not an objective reality, it is a human construction. Humans “create” time to make sense of change in the world. For our ancient ancestors, time was attached to changing seasons because an understanding of the seasons was important to their survival. Seasons dictated when to plant, hunt, harvest, and prepare for drought and cold weather. For example, in ancient Egypt time was tied to the rising of the Nile River, which, the Egyptians noted, occurred when the star Sirius arose above the horizon just before sunrise. 

Because the ancients used time to represent reoccurring events, their understanding of time was cyclical. For them the planting and harvest seasons were not events that came and went; they were events that continually repeated themselves. A classic example is the way in which Egyptians returned to “year 1” every time a new pharaoh came to power, a practice that has created angst among more than a few modern Egyptologists trying to figure out when one kingdom ended and another began. By using time to prepare for important cyclical events, the ancients made time conform to natural events. 

Things are much different today. Rather than viewing time as change, time is now viewed as a linear sequence that drives change. Linear time, as it is sometimes called, is the modern belief that time is a causal force that flows in a linear fashion, like an arrow. There is the past extending behind us and the future extending in front of us. In between lay the present, the knife point representing the here and now. We are locked into the present, never able to move forward into the future and never able to retreat back into our past. 

Linear time is so commonplace in our society that we have reified it, which is to say that we have characterized it as a real entity. With reified time, we make our lives conform to time rather than making time conform to our lives. This modern view of time has us locked into the present, determined by an unchangeable objective past, and ever moving forward into an unknowable future! Is it any wonder that this state of affairs creates anxiety for Hootie and others!?  To make matters worse, because time comes and goes in a linear fashion and is real, when it is gone, it is gone for good, so we should not waste it. 

If this modern concept of time has created some angst in your life, here are some thoughts to consider.

Time is not real. It is a human construct built to make sense of change. It is not the final arbiter of when events should and should not occur. You do not have to eat lunch at noon; you can eat when you are hungry. There is no such thing as an objective past determining your present circumstances, and there is no such thing as an objective unknowable future. The past is merely a conscious perception of what was, and the future is merely a conscious perception of what may become. In a manner of speaking, the past, present, and future simultaneously exist in the here and now, in your conscious experience.  

When we de-reify and de-linearize time in our minds, time becomes less of a disinterested task master and more of a way of representing change. De-reifying and de-linearizing time may also help us more fully appreciate our agency and the importance of living and delighting in the here and now. It may also help us gain somewhat of a godly perspective on things. God’s work is not driven by time schedules; it is driven by His infinite goodness and wisdom. And God does not have an objective past and future.  The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal now” (Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism).
 
 

There are certain things which are difficult for us mortals to conceptualize. One that I find particularly challenging is the notion of “There [being] no such thing as an ultimate beginning, a time prior to which there was nothing” (Mormon Doctrine). It just seems like there should be a beginning somewhere in the past.

What is unusual about the doctrine of “no beginning” is that it is equally difficult to conceptualize the opposite, that there ever was a beginning. If I say there was a beginning to the god-created universe, then who created God? Identifying a cause for a god-created universe just begs the question, “Who is responsible for God’s existence?” If our cause was a divine creator, then who created our creator, and who was his creator, and so on? Indeed, cosmological speculation about a “first cause” creator that cannot possibly exist leads to a hopeless infinite regression.

By reflecting on the apparent impossibility of both positions (beginning vs. no beginning), we run the risk of experiencing a minor ontological crisis over whether any of this life is real. This issue goes beyond the false reality created by the Matrix as portrayed in the popular sci-fi movie. We are, in a sense, asking, “Who created the Matrix? And “Who created the Matrix’s creator?”

Thankfully Descartes provided a temporary solution to these sorts of existential crises. Regardless of whether there was or was not a beginning, we exist as evidenced by the fact that we can think about these very issues. Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am!  Descartes’ cogito ergo sum does not solve the problem of an infinite regress of identifying the first cause, it only assures us that we are real, or does it?

The importance of thinking does not stop at cogito ergo sum. Other influential philosophers and theologians have convincingly argued that for the physical world to exist, it must be perceived. Bishop Berkley (namesake of Berkley University) put it this way: “Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived! The essence of esse est percipi is that for something to be real, it must be perceived. Take the old familiar question: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” However, in the current discussion, the question becomes: “Does the tree even exist at all if no one ever perceives it?” If you think this is a bunch of malarkey, you are in good company – Einstein was very skeptical of esse est percipi. The whole notion of something having to be perceived in order for it to exist led him to quip, “When no one is observing the moon, is it still there?” as if to suggest, of course it is there!

Not so fast! Esse est percipi is supported by experiments in quantum mechanics.

In one renowned quantum mechanics study, electrons are fired one at a time from an electron gun through a double slit barrier. When the positions of the electrons are registered on a screen behind the barrier, the single fired electrons create an interference pattern that can only be explained by the electrons behaving like a non-physical wave of potentialities after leaving the electron gun. However, when we observe, at the barrier, which slit the electron goes through, the electrons go back to being physical particles.  The upshot of all this is that when no one observes the electrons they are non-physical waves, but when we observe the electrons they are physical particles.

Confused? Don’t worry. Dr. Quantum describes this process very well. Click the video below.

So how do we reconcile the presence of sound philosophical arguments and quantum mechanical evidence supporting esse est percipi with our common sense belief that things, including ourselves, continue to exist even when they are not being perceived by others? 

One possible answer is that God perceives all things through the Light of Christ. It is that Light which emanates from the presence of God and gives Him instant knowledge of everything throughout all His creations.  It is that Light by which He knows at an instant how many hairs are on the top of our heads.  And it is that Light by which He knows instantly that a sparrow died and fell to the ground in the high mountains even though no one else knew it ever existed. 

The Light of Christ ensures that everything is continuously perceived, thus bringing all things into existence.

 
Google Analytics