Google Webmaster Tools

Life on Other Worlds

10/28/2009

3 Comments

 
We know through modern revelation that there are other inhabited planets. Have you ever thought about how exciting it would be to visit other worlds? Even the thought of communicating with other worlds is fascinating. We could ask them what diseases they have cured and what technologies they have developed. We could also ask them about their belief in deity and whether they have heard of the Atonement. It would be exciting to compare notes.

Chances are that such communication will never take place because of the vast distances separating us from exosolar planets (planets outside our solar system). Until we discover Star Trek Warp Core technology that enables us to propel humans at speeds exceeding the speed of light (something that is theoretically impossible according to Relativity), back and forth visitations are improbable. And until we develop a faster than light form of communication, active 2-way interstellar communication is also improbable. Other worlds are just too far away.

The Lord positioned his populated worlds far apart for a wise purpose. Can you imagine how disruptive it would be to the Lord’s plan if we contacted other telestial, mortal worlds like ours? They might tell us that their prophets are saying that the Son of God was crucified on another world. We might reply, “Yes. That happened here 2000 years ago!”

Or what might happen if we contacted a post-judgment telestialized or terrestialized world? They might say something like: “You guys better keep the commandments or you will end up where we are.” I am not even going to speculate on contacting a celestialized world because I don’t think it is possible. Imagine if we tried to reach a celestialized planet by space travel. Our spaceships would burn up on approach because it could not withstand the glory of a celestialized world. And if we tried to communicate with them they would know it beforehand and jam our incoming transmissions.  

Ok, I am having fun with this, but the point is that the Lord doesn’t want us to know much about His other worlds right now. When the Lord showed Moses this earth, Moses asked the Lord to tell him things “concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof.” The Lord agreed. Then the Lord showed Moses other worlds which He had created. Moses got a little greedy and asked the Lord to tell him things concerning other worlds in “the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.” The Lord replied with a gentle rebuke: “Moses, my son, I will [only] speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest.” In His infinite wisdom the Lord withheld information about other worlds.

Our knowledge about other worlds will likely be limited while in mortality. I am fine with that. When the Lord returns He will reveal mysteries in the heavens and earth. I can wait. Until then we will have to rely on our limited scientific knowledge and imagination.
3 Comments
 

Scientific American's Jan. 2009 Article on Evolutionary Psychology

10/26/2009

5 Comments

 
In the January 2009 special edition of Scientific American there is a scathing report on evolutionary psychology (EP). The report raises concerns about the way evolutionary psychology is being carried out and the truth claims it is making. The article was written by Dr. David Butler, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University.

I should point out that Butler believes that our mental capacities evolved, however, he is skeptical of the truth claims being made in EP. He says that many of the “grand and encompassing” claims lack rigorous empirical evidence. The claims may be correct, but EP does not have sufficient evidence to back them up.

Here are the four concerns he raises.

1. We cannot know our ancestors’ psychological traits.
EP claims to understand the adaptive problems that our Pleistocene ancestors faced. An understanding of these adaptive problems is essential to understanding how the human mind evolved. Yet, Butler points out, the paleontological record provides few clues about the challenges our early ancestors faced. It also says very little about their social interactions which would have played a major role in shaping how the human mind evolved to cope with social challenges. Without knowing the social and physical challenges they faced, we know very little about their psychology. If we do not know the psychological starting point, we cannot know how evolution shaped their minds.

2. Evolutionary psychologists are limited in their use of comparative methods.
To better understand how and why our adaptive mental traits evolved, one must do comparative research (i.e., compare the development of similar traits in a nearby species). However, Butler points out that our nearest living ancestors do not possess many of the same psychological traits that make us uniquely human (e.g., verbal language). Thus we lack crucial evidence needed to uncover our psychological evolutionary history.

3. EP is stuck in the Pleistocene era.
Butler says that EP relies too heavily on the Pleistocene era when describing the evolution of human psychology. He quotes the oft used statement “our modern skulls house a stone age mind” as evidence of this problem. He says “The idea that we are stuck with a Pleistocene-adapted psychology greatly underestimates the rate at which natural selection and sexual selection can drive evolutionary change.” For instance, the more recent agricultural and industrial revolutions presented challenges that greatly shaped human psychology. We are not locked in a stone-age mindset.

4. Some EP truth claims rest on shaky empirical evidence, and always will.
EP claims that it has uncovered human psychological adoptions. Much of the data supporting these claims were gathered with paper and pencil surveys (questionnaires). Forced choice questionnaires do not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims about how psychology adapted to social and physical environmental challenges. Thus, “the evidence needed to substantiate accounts of adaption…is scarce. And this isn’t the kind of evidence that is likely to materialize; such evidence is lost to us, probably forever.”

I have found that the same sort of arguments may be used against common descent. Specifically, as far as common descent is concerned, we cannot know exactly what took place back when organisms were supposedly evolving from one species into another because we were not there. Our evidence for common descent is largely driven by the historical fossil record. Try as we might to paint a picture of what happened, we cannot be certain. Moreover, decisive evidence that evolution across life forms will always be lacking because of the long period of time required to observe these supposed processes at work.

One final thought. Butler is not suggesting that EP close up shop. He is just pointing out its limitations and cautioning it from making unsupportable truth claims. In the same way I am not suggesting that common descent scientists stop their work. I am just pointing out its limitations and cautioning it from making truth claims that lack definitive evidence.
5 Comments
 

Should Testaments Have Been Filmed in North Eastern US?

10/08/2009

9 Comments

 
I am sure you have seen the LDS Church film Testaments. If Testaments were made today with the same producer and director, it would have a North American backdrop (not central America) and the actors would be clad in Buffalo furs (not loin cloths and thin dresses) – so says Testaments filmmaker Keith Merrill.

In a recent presentation at the Book of Mormon prophecies conference in Midway, Utah, Merrill said that he now believes that BofM events took place in the area of the United States. He said that he cannot wait to redo the film and put buffalo in it (instead of an exotic monkey named “Chio”?). 

How would this film be received by the LDS community? It would be difficult to pull off because so many Latter-day Saints are used to the paradise, jungle imagery in Testaments. There is less glamour in history’s portrayal of the ancient native American lifestyle than there is in history’s portrayal of the ancient Central American lifestyle. Conditions in North America were much harsher than they were in Central America. Visit some Anasazi ruins in Southern Utah or look at some earliest photos of native Americans and you get an idea of the struggles North Americans faced long ago.

So if Merrill had his way, we might see an plain looking Laneah sitting on the ground, wearing buffalo furs, gnawing on piece of dried meat while Jacob pulled critters out of her hair. And Kohor’s caravan might be comprised of corn, furs, and dried fish rather than fruit, jewelry, and precious stones from the sea. Regardless of whether these images are a true representation of how things used to be, I think that a North American Testaments would have to be somewhat consistent with our anachronistic expectations of what life was like for ancient North American societies. 

Why did Merrill change his mind on the location for BofM events? He was persuaded by recent DNA evidence gathered by Rod Meldrum. Meldrum argues that scientific DNA evidence points to Nephites and Lamanites living in the same area where the church was founded. If the evidence was enough to change Merrill’s mind then perhaps it is somewhat convincing, to say the least. 

If you want to see the evidence in favor of a North American setting, I suggest viewing Meldrum’s DVD titled “DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography” (available for purchase from Amazon - click here). If you want to read a critical perspective on this theory from LDS scholars, I suggest reading the critique of Meldrum’s DVD by FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research - click here). 

I have always believed that Central America is the setting for the BofM, however, I am willing to change my mind if the evidence definitively points to North America (I am skeptical though). Location aside, what is important, as Testament’s filmmaker Keith Merrill points out, is not the location - it is our testimony that the BofM is true. 

I couldn’t agree with him more.
9 Comments
 
Google Analytics