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.)