We live in a universe. The “uni” in universe refers to one, meaning there is one universe. Universe has been one of those enduring concepts of science that has remained unchanged for many years. Well, as is the case with most other seemingly infallible scientific theories, Newtonian mechanics and luminiferous ether come to mind, new evidence is challenging this age-old theory.

Recent evidence suggests that there may be multiple universes. Scientists are suggesting that we may live in a “multiverse” instead of a “universe”. A multiverse can be conceptualized as a compilation of soap bubbles, each containing a separate realm or universe. Particularly intriguing is the idea that some of these multiverses are parallel universes.

Parallel universe was developed by Hugh Everett in the early 1950s. Hugh Everett theorized parallel universes to explain uncanny outcomes in quantum experiments (I won’t go into the details of those results here). Parallel universes are branch-offs from other universes. Many are like our universe with a few important exceptions. For example, in a parallel universe there may be someone exactly like you, but a “you” who won 32 million in the Powerball Lottery. Another might be a universe where the Axis won WWII, where Lee Harvey Oswald’s shot missed President Kennedy, where Elvis Presley stayed thin and lived to a ripe old age, and where a lightning strike missed the inorganic soup in the primordial earth and thus mankind did not evolve (hm?). Anyway, If such places exist, they would be just as real and tangible as the universe in which we live.

I can accept the idea of multiverses, but have a difficult time with the notion of parallel universes. When viewed from the perspective of the grand master plan called the Plan of Salvation, I just don’t see how there can be a seemingly infinite number of people just like me who are living alternative realities based on different outcomes to events in my lifetime. However there is a sense of parallel universe or alternate realities in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is the Manifesto on polygamy by Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration I.

The Lord showed President Woodruff what would happen if the Church did not stop polygamy. He wrote:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.

This revelation is astounding! The Lord did not suggest what might come to pass. The Lord did not show Woodruff what might happen. The Lord showed him exactly what would happen if polygamy did not stop. It is almost as if the Lord was giving President Woodruff a glimpse into a parallel universe where polygamy did not end. Could such a place really exist?
 
 

Orson F. Whitney was an early 20th century apostle, poet, academician, writer, and Millennial Star editor who had some very strong things to say concerning the proper order of things. According to Whitney, God gives secular blessings to achieve His purpose of bringing to pass the eternal life and immortality of man. Because the Restoration is directly connected to bringing to pass the immortality of man, Whitney claims that all secular blessings serve the interests of the Restoration or Mormonism.

Here are Whitney’s bold claims:

Mormonism is not only Scriptural, but natural, reasonable, and philosophical. The laws of nature, known or unknown, are its laws. The truths of philosophy are its truths. The arts and sciences are its handmaids and co-laborers in the great cause of human redemption. 
God sends His philosophers into the world; His scientists, His artists; His poets, painters, and musicians; His warriors, patriots, reformers; inventors and discoverers—just as He sends His prophets and apostles; for the benefit of mankind, and for His name's honor and glory. All have lived and labored and died for Mormonism, whether they knew it or not. 
These claims may seem arrogant, presumptuous; but they are the claims of Mormonism, the claims of truth, which always appear arrogant and absurd to mankind. They are susceptible of proof, however; God, Himself, vouches for their authenticity. It is because I have learned that they are valid claims, that I am a Mormon.  (Source: Orson F. Whitney, Contributor, Vol. Viii. January, 1887. No. 3. 84.)

So the next time you witness great art, literature, science, and technology, try thinking about those things in the context of the purpose they serve in bringing to pass the great plan of redemption. Is it possible to do so? 

I tend to see such things as being separate from the restored gospel. There are two exceptions, however. Many latter-day secular blessings were inspired by the Light of Christ which has been poured out in greater abundance upon the earth because of the Restoration. And many scientific and technological advances (e.g., computer, travel, television etc.) have been given to fulfill the 3-fold mission of the Church which is to perfect the saints, redeem the dead, and proclaim the gospel. 

Beyond that, I have a difficult time seeing how the Sound of Music, Mona Lisa, vampire love stories, Josh Groban, and Ferraris are handmaidens to the restored gospel. With the exception of the vampire love stories, these are examples of wonderful artistic achievements that may have been inspired, but are they necessarily handmaidens to the Restoration?

Perhaps "potential" is the key issue here. These wonderful achievements have the potential to be handmaidens of the Restoration. Ferrari could give cars to the missionaries. The Mona Lisa may be sold and the revenues sent to the general missionary fund. And Josh Groban may one day be baptized and sing for "MoTab" (although I must say his powerful rendention of "Oh Holy Night" has helped to bring to past the purposes of God by inspiring countless people at Christmastime).

Who knows? 

I think I'll go listen to some Josh Groban.

 
 

A couple of weeks ago a very good post on abduction appeared on Mormon Organon (view it here). In that post, Mr. Peck correctly argues that abduction, or inference to the best explanation as it is sometimes called, refers to a sort of logical competition between theories. A theory that explains a body of evidence better than its rival theory is more reasonable to accept. If we apply this concept to theories on the origins and complexities of species, evolution is the clear winner, although probably more by default than anything else. But this explains why evolution is so widely accepted. It is simply the best scientific theory available for explaining the origins and complexities of life.

Mr. Peck also effectively pointed out that most theories are created through accumulating observation and empirical facts. The process of collecting empirical facts and creating a suitable theory that explains those facts is sometimes referred to as an inductive generalization. Put differently, an inductive generalization involves moving from many observations to a single, explanatory theory. Many great theories like evolution have been created via inductive generalizations. Creating scientific theories through inductive generalizations is not a theoretical faux pas or scientific weakness; it is just one aspect of how science progresses.  

So far we have only considered the logic of theory discovery. As stated above, scientific abduction plays a role in determining which theories gain prominence. It also plays a role in determining which theory will be singled out for confirmatory investigation, however, the process of confirming a theory through testing is different from abduction.

The most common approach to confirming scientific theories is the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model of science. In short, the H-D model of science involves deducing observational hypotheses from a theory and testing those hypotheses in a controlled setting. If the results are consistent with the theory’s expectations, then the theory is tentatively confirmed. If the results are not consistent with the theory’s expectations, then the theory is tentatively disconfirmed.

Not all H-D tests of hypotheses are created equal. Influential philosopher of science Karl Popper pointed out that an ideal test of a hypothesis is one that is falsifiable and addresses, as much as possible, the core tenets of the theory. Popper called it making a risky prediction.

Theories that repeatedly survive falsifiable tests and risky predictions gain “certainty” status; we become so certain of their truthfulness that we start calling them laws instead of theories. Theories that have repeatedly survived falsifiable, risky predictions include Relativity, gravity, and the Germ Theory of Disease, to name a few.

Now, because of lengthy time requirements needed for testing falsifiable macroevolutionary hypotheses that make risky predictions a’la the H-D model of science, macroevolution has not risen to the same level of certainty we typically associate with Relativity and gravity. Relativity and gravity have repeatedly undergone crucial testing. In most cases, the results of these tests have been confirmatory (i.e., 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington solar eclipse expedition, atomic clocks in airplanes, and every time you drop your pen it falls, as predicted.)

I don’t have a problem with people saying that they personally accept the certainty of the theory of common descent. Evolution’s pre-eminence in the game of scientific abduction makes this statement legitimate. I do have a problem with people claiming that macroevolution and common descent have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, the scarcity of confirmed falsifiable and crucial tests of macroevolutionary processes does not warrant such claims.

Sources: (Philosophy of Science: A to Z by Stathis Psillos; Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues by Curd & Cover; Philosophy of Science: A Short Introduction by Samir Okasha.)

 
 
Picture
Over the last decade there has been a massive influx of health care information into the public domain through the internet. Physicians have responded to the increase in public information by entering into a collaborative relationship with well-informed patients. Gone are the days where “The doctor knows best.” Today many clinicians prefer working with well-informed patients to come up with best treatment options. In health care it is sometimes called “empowering the patient.”

A few years ago my baby daughter underwent surgery to fix a displaced hip. The surgery was successful, but my daughter still needed regular x-rays to check the position of her hip. On one visit the orthopedic surgeon wanted to do a 360 degree CAT scan to check the placement of the hip. Now she is a very competent surgeon, and equally important, she is a good communicator. I felt comfortable expressing my concern with subjecting the hip to high levels of radiation from the CAT scan. There had already been plenty of x-rays, and I wanted to minimize irradiating the hip. The surgeon respected my opinion and, after some discussion, presented an alternative that everyone was happy with.

Unfortunately, there is a sinister side to our health care information age. It has perpetuated health care conspiracies. You probably know someone who is very skeptical about the health care profession. You’ve probably heard someone say that health care wants to keep people sick because revenue comes from sick people. These attitudes are not only misleading, they are damaging.

Last week I talked with one of my brothers who is a physician. He said that occasionally he encounters people who do not want to take medication because they think it is not God’s will, or they are “suspicious” toward the medical profession because of something they read on the web. I also talked with my sister who is a labor and delivery nurse. She said that occasionally she encounters couples who reject medical advice for the same reasons. In my sister’s case, extreme skepticism has led to infant deaths and injuries.

As I explain in my book Truth and Science, modern science is a gift from God. Notwithstanding the pitfalls of modern health care, God has given us medical and pharmaceutical discoveries to prolong people’s lives in the latter days. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists may fail to realize that the medicine or technology that can improve their quality of life may be a gift from God or an answer to their prayers.

When interacting with the medical profession, I say get informed, get involved, and recognize God's blessings.

 
Google Analytics