mormonsandscience

The Lord told the first man to take care of the earth he made for him (Moses 3:15). Therefore, it seems important that Latter-day Saints be mindful of the planet they are given to dwell on. But what of all this discussion about Global Warming? Much in the way of doom and gloom is presented to the public for the future of our planet, and Global Warming has become a hot topic (pardon the pun). There’s no question that it is happening, but exactly what is causing it and whether it is something to fret over is debatable. To ask, “Is Global Warming real?” is not the proper question, but rather, “Is Global Warming caused by mankind?”

The popular notion is that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases which trap heat in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases form approximately 3% of the atmosphere, 95% of which is water vapor from clouds.[1] Water vapor is “by far the most important [i.e. atmospherically influential] greenhouse gas.”[2] The remainder of the greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, Ozone, and N2O, but the most common of these is CO2.[3] CO2 is made out to be the big villain, yet it absolutely pales in comparison to the greenhouse contribution of water vapor (clouds). CO2 is not as major of a contributor to the greenhouse effect as probably most people think.

The truth is, CO2 accounts for 0.037 % of the atmosphere of the earth,[5] and only a small fraction of that is caused by human activity. CO2 from human activity is “a small fraction in the single digits percentage-wise” of the total planetary output of CO2.[6] The vast majority of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is actually from natural sources (so is the earth killing itself?). This is an important point because it suggests that even if all human activity were to completely cease, it would still have a very negligible affect on the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remember hearing on the radio some time ago an environmentalist saying that the death of trees from the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the entire transportation industry of Canada that year. Surprisingly, he did not see the futility in trying to fix this situation, but instead proposed a very expensive idea in which the dead trees would be quickly removed and replaced with new trees in order to help “fight climate change.”

It should be very plainly stated that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring molecule. In fact, plants require CO2 for photosynthesis. Anti-CO2 environmentalists talk about “being green,” but if you want to see green, then we need CO2! CO2 is necessary for plant life, which is the staff of life for the rest of the planet, so its presence has an indirect beneficial effect for the entire earth. Warmer temperatures are helpful, too, and an increase in temperature is projected to be “beneficial to human health.”[4]

What if Global Warming is bad, though? And what if it is caused by the CO2? If you stop to think about it a moment, if greenhouse gases are really the problem when it comes to Global Warming, then really your very existence is a threat to the planet, since every time you exhale you expel CO2 and water vapor, two key greenhouse gases! While this would only be a miniscule contribution, it would nonetheless be true. But it should be noted that the Lord is seemingly not concerned about that, since his command to multiply and replenish the earth “remains in force” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World).

There is more data that shows the inconsistency of carbon dioxide as a cause for climate change. Scientific analysis shows that CO2 levels increase or decrease after an increase or decrease in temperature, not the other way around. This indicates that CO2 does not drive climate change, but it is actually the product of climate change.[7] Based on this data, it appears the anti-CO2 environmentalists have it backwards.

The temperature of our planet has been in fluctuation throughout its history. This is normal. In the middle ages, the earth experienced a warming period in which Vikings farmed Greenland.[8] This warm era in the earth’s history is associated with prosperity, wealth, and progress for mankind, not devastation.[9] Following this medieval warming period, a global cooling set in which lasted for hundreds of years. We are currently coming out of a long cooling phase in the earth’s temperature cycles.

Consider the above graph, which compares temperature, CO2 levels, and the Sun’s radiation. You will notice that during the post WWII era, when industrialization - and therefore CO2 levels - were likely at an all-time high, temperatures dropped. Between about 1945 and 1975, temperature and CO2 moved in opposite directions (on the graph)! That’s the opposite of what was supposed to happen if you think CO2 is the culprit. Temperatures dropped so much during this time of unprecedented industrialization, in fact, that there was fear that the earth was heading into another ice age. Some of the readers of this blog may themselves be old enough to remember the ice age scare of the 60’s and 70’s. Does any of this scare frenzy seem familiar to our own time?

The true source of Global Warming, that is, the thing that is making the earth warmer, appears to be – brace yourself – the Sun! The Sun is the proverbial “elephant in the room,” being unduly ignored in this issue. Fluctuation in the Sun’s radiation matches extremely well with the data compiled of temperature highs and lows in the past.

Perhaps the biggest problem with information about Global Warming is that it has become highly politicized (after all, scare tactics regarding it were popularized by a certain ex-vice president). The media has chosen the side of the apocalyptic, doom-filled view, and made it appear as though all credible scientists feel that way. But “Literally tens of thousands of scientists have signed the Leipzig, Heidelberg and Oregon declarations/statements/petitions protesting the abuse of the science and the politicised goings-on” surrounding this issue and the UN’s stance on it.[10]

In truth, the warming phenomenon that the earth is experiencing is a natural cyclical occurrence that people should not be alarmed about, least of all Latter-day Saints who enjoy a unique perspective on the future of the earth. We might as well enjoy the warm weather while it lasts, because it won’t last forever.

(Editor's Note: Can we retract the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from the spin doctor of manmade global warming, Al Gore?)

[1]http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Weather%20and%20climate.pdf on Dec. 20, 2008.
[2] Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, on The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[3] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[4]http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html on Dec. 18, 2008.
[5] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[6] Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, on The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[7] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[8] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=120 on Dec. 20, 2008.
[9] The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[10] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=120 on Dec. 20, 2008.

Post #2 on Intelligent Design (ID) (see below) argues that ID is scientific, as long as it focuses on natural processes and approaches these in an empirical and rational fashion. But perhaps the more important question is: “Is ID science rigorous?” Let’s take a look at how well ID satisfies commonly accepted criteria of scientific rigor.

Testable Predictions – A good theory allows us to frame testable hypotheses.  Does ID allow us to make predictions about what is going to happen or what has happened in the past, and are we able to investigate these phenomena in an empirical manner? 

Sure. The theory of ID can produce hypotheses that may be tested in an empirical manner.  For instance, a common ID hypothesis is that there are systems that are irreducibly complex. (Irreducible complexity is the idea that some living mechanisms are too complex to have arisen through the gradual process of natural selection because each part must be in place for the structure to function.) We can test this hypothesis by looking for irreducibly complex systems in nature.  In time more complex hypotheses such as “biological systems smaller than size X designed to carry out functions of sophistication Y are irreducibly complex” may be possible.

However, to the best of my knowledge irreducible complexity (IC) is currently limited to “let’s go out and find evidence for IC.” What is lacking is some sort of manipulation of the IC process in the laboratory that would allow conclusions like: We manipulated biological system X in our laboratory and, true to our prediction, the system evolved irreducibly complex mechanism Y because of our manipulation.  In my opinion, this limitation puts IC on the same level as macroevolution – there is plenty of evidence in the real world supporting both hypotheses, but currently neither is capable of being subjected to crucial tests in a controlled laboratory setting. Two limiting factors are (a) in the case of macroevolution, a very long time is required for new life forms to supposedly evolve, and (b) in the case of IC, we know very little about the intelligent design language and whether or not we can influence it.  

Presently evolution has the upper hand on testability and predictability because we are able to manipulate genomic and environmental events in a way that allows us to test and predict microevolutionary events. If ID is to become a viable competitor, it will need to generate the same level of testability. According to influential historian of science Thomas Kuhn, new, competing scientific theories gain credibility when they offer fruitful alternatives to explaining existing phenomena and predicting new phenomena.  Anyway, ID is a relatively new science; we’ll see what happens in the next few decades. 

Falsifiability – A good theory is falsifiable. Does ID allow for risky predictions that will allow us to prove that it is false?

Sure. In fact, opponents of ID are hard at work falsifying the irreducible complexity (IC) hypothesis. This is a good thing because it means that a major hypothesis of ID is falsifiable. So has IC been falsified? Scholars like Ken Miller say yes. He claims that the creation of the bacterial flagellum (a complex, multi-part propeller system) can be explained by natural selection and is thus not irreducibly complex. He has pointed out that if we remove 40 of the 50 separate parts in a bacterial flagellum and left the 10 protein parts connected to the membrane of the cell, those remaining 10 parts may function as a Type-III secretory system. So this discovery refutes IC, right? 

In a strict Popperian sense, the answer is yes, but Popper’s theory of scientific progress is too idealistic - the correct answer is no. Science does not progress according to the strict falsificationist doctrine, and for good reasons which I will not go into here, but here are three important points to consider.  

First, scientific hypotheses are rarely in final form straight-out-of-the box, so to speak. At the first sign of contrary evidence, proponents don’t outright reject their hypothesis, much to the chagrin of their opponents. Advocates of a hypothesis usually modify the hypothesis to save it from rejection (called ad hoc explanations). As the evidence against a hypothesis builds and the hypothesis becomes overly complex due to constant modifications, then the possibility of outright rejection by the scientific community becomes a reality. Some say evidence against IC is mounting, so we will have to see what happens. 

Second, a crucial test of the secretory system is needed to provide more definitive evidence, yet no such test has been done.  Such as test might include taking the 10 genes that produce the part of the bacterial flagellum that connects to the cell membrane and replacing them with the corresponding 10 genes in the secretory system to see if a working flagellum results, and vice versa. This sort of test would establish whether or not the two mechanisms are truly similar.  

Third, by themselves, individual disconfirming tests rarely provide sufficient evidence to disprove a theory. Theories rely on several hypotheses and rejecting one hypothesis does not bring the whole theory crashing down. If research on the secretory mechanism ends up disproving IC, will this disprove ID? Well, it usually takes several disproved hypotheses to disprove a larger theory so the answer is ‘no’, that is, unless the theory rests on ONE major hypothesis. In this case, IDers would be wise to not place all their eggs into the irreducible complexity basket. If this is the case and IC falls, then ID will fall too.

Tentative Stance – scientists must recognize that their theories may one day be proven false. Are proponents of ID willing to accept that their theory may one day be proven false?

The idea that ID may be proven false is a HUGE problem here, folks. What sincere believer would be willing to consider that there is no God, or be willing to accept that there is no evidence of divine design in nature when the scriptures say otherwise? Here we see the real danger of tying up theology with science. If you bet your religious beliefs on a scientific idea being true, what happens when that scientific idea is eventually proven false, as so often happens? You could go into a faith crisis tail spin. 

I believe that ID proponents will hang onto their theory in a dogmatic fashion if disconfirmatory evidence builds. They will do this because of their religious convictions in God, but it is not very scientific to hold onto a theory that has been disproven. In the past, those who have held onto dead theories are often viewed as nonconformists who are unwilling to accept scientific progress. Thomas Kuhn says that these people often go to their graves holding onto dead theories. 

I have been fairly hard on ID with this last point, but I believe that it is risky to tie-up religious beliefs with science. I consider my religious beliefs infallible and my scientific beliefs to be fallible. Yes, I am more confident in the reality of my faith-based experiences than I am in the reality of scientific theories about the natural world.  

Now, to level the playing field on this issue, it is fair to say that evolutionists are equally dogmatic about evolution. This claim is evidenced by the way the evolutionary community has attacked ID from the get-go. I am not talking about the legitimate concerns with religious creationism; I am talking about the “you are crazy and unscientific to challenge evolution” attitude. This dogmatic attitude, which was effectively portrayed in Ben Stein’s film Expelled, is unscholarly. 

Concluding Thoughts 
ID can be scientific.  It is anti-scientific to deny a legitimate endeavor like ID a voice in the scientific marketplace of ideas. If ID has legitimate ideas to bring to the table, then let’s hear them out and then allow debate, refutation, and criticism. ID will live or die; either way, let the scientific process, not the political process, decide its fate. 

ID should not be rejected outright just because it presents a theory that challenges evolution. One of the virtues of science is that it is a democratic institution in the sense of encouraging an open and free exchange of ideas. It should never prematurely foreclose on legitimate ways of viewing the natural world. This, I believe, is the main message of Expelled.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific?  This post explores this issue by considering whether ID fits the traditional definition of science. 

Caution is needed when discussing whether something is a science because definitions of science vary as do the criteria by which we judge the scientific status of a discipline.  Yet I believe that by applying general principles it is possible to reach a coherent decision, a decision that most people familiar with the fundamental tenets of science can agree on.

Definition of Science
Most people agree that science is the study of the natural world.  By “natural” we mean phenomena that are empirical, rational, and explicable.  Empirical refers to phenomena that are directly or indirectly observable, rational refers to phenomena that can be understood in a logical and coherent fashion, and explicable refers to phenomena that can be explained through some natural, law-governed process.  

Let’s see how these criteria apply to religion.  Religion cannot be scientific because it involves phenomena that are not directly or indirectly observable, like spirits.  It also involves phenomena that exceed our capacity of human reason such as the Atonement.  And it involves phenomena that cannot be explained through natural law-governed processes, like miracles.  Now this does not mean that miracles, spirits, and God do not exist – it means that they are not scientific.  They are faith-based concepts which is exactly how God intended them to be.  

Clearly religion is not scientific and modern science was never intended to investigate religious phenomena, but what about ID?

The basic tenet of ID is that there is physical evidence of intelligence, information, wisdom, and purpose in nature.  That is all there is to it, but it is somewhat disingenuous to leave it at that.  Clearly an underlying assumption is that the source of this intelligence and wisdom is God.  However, in order for ID to qualify as scientific, deity must be left out of the picture when engaging in scientific investigations because deity is supernatural, not natural.  Moreover, the results of ID investigations cannot be presented as evidence ‘proving’ the existence of a supernatural being because the supernatural is outside the domain of science.  

If ID can avoid these traps, it can be scientific because it offers empirical, rational, and explicable ways to investigate natural phenomena that reveal intelligence and wisdom.  Put differently, the physical evidence for intelligent design is empirical, rational, and explicable in terms of natural laws, notwithstanding those laws being decreed by a supreme being. 

Is it possible to carry out rigorous scientific work while believing that God is manifested in the things you are studying?  Yes.  Some of the greatest scientific minds did just this.  Galileo's, Boyle's, Copernicus', and Newton’s theism in no way diminished their scientific rigor.  These pioneers of modern science spoke of deity, thanked deity, and occasionally mentioned deity in their writings, but they did not let their belief in God get in the way of their rigorous scientific work, nor did they use their science to ‘prove’ the existence of God.  

IDers have to walk a thin line here.  In order to stay on the side of science they need some ground rules, including the rule: "Thou shalt not make deity the center focus of ID".  To make deity the center focus of research is to make science subservient to religious beliefs.  If this were to happen we would digress to the religion-science relationship that existed in the Dark Ages.  In the centuries following the death of the apostles, the Catholic church embraced Neo-Platonism to make the church more appealing to its critics and persecutors, and during the 13th century the Catholic Church hijacked Aristotelian teachings and incorporated them into its doctrines to prevent dissention.  Both of these events had long term negative consequences for both science and Christianity.  I can say with absolute confidence that we do not want to go there.

I think that the scientific community has the right to be skeptical of ID.  The scientific community has already had to defend science from religious creationist intrusions.  The ID community needs to prevent its more spirited members from pushing the envelope – any more “goofs ups” like the 2004 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial and I dare say that ID will lose all credibility before being given a fair chance to prove itself.  I hope this does not happen.  In any event, ID must proceed with caution.

Sum: ID satisfies the traditional definition of science as long as it focuses on the natural manifestations of intelligence and wisdom inherent in nature.  Any attempt to make deity the center focus of ID investigations will render ID non-scientific by traditional standards.  Indeed, the scientific status of ID is tenuous because the logical source of this intelligence and wisdom is God.  But if the pioneers of 16th century Scientific Revolution could keep their beliefs in God separate from their science, even though they claimed to be studying the handiwork of the Creator, then so can ID.  IDers just need to remember that science considers the natural world, not the supernatural.     

In the next post we will look at whether ID satisfies the standards of rigorous scientific activity.  We will look to the philosophy of science (e.g., falsification, testability, etc.) and contributions from men like Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos for answers.

This is the first post in a 3-part series looking at Intelligent Design  (ID).  In this post I discuss the essence of ID.  

The current debate surrounding ID is overly influenced by emotions.  We often see emotions rise to surface in people’s comments on ID.  There are believers who claim that anyone who attempts to silence ID is a godless scientific materialist.  And there are scientists who claim that anyone favoring ID is a delusional and irrational IDiot.  As it turns out, they are both wrong.  There are theistic scientists who firmly oppose ID, and there are rigorous scientists who favor ID.

It is always a good idea to up front about your personal biases when discussing divisive issues, so here are a few of my biases.  First, I am a theist. Second, I regret the rise of secularism in science that began with the Enlightenment.  Third, I strongly believe that religion belongs in our Sunday schools and not in our secular schools.

Here is a question: If people want to learn about the Mormon Church, who should they talk to?  You will probably agree that they should talk to Mormons.  More specifically, they should talk to Mormon missionaries.  Likewise, if people want to learn about what ID is all about, they should talk to ID proponents, especially those who are tasked with educating others on ID.  For this reason I went to the Discovery Institute to learn about ID.  The Discovery Institute is the leading “think tank” on intelligent design.

Here are seven points characterizing the ID movement, followed by some comments from me.

1.   The basic tenet of ID is that there is undeniable evidence pointing to intelligence in the design of nature.  

--- I agree that creation points to God.  I don’t see a problem with this claim. 

2.   ID is a scientific enterprise.  

--- This claim depends on whether ID fits the traditional definition of science, and whether it satisfies the traditionally accepted criteria for being called a science.  I am not sure if ID satisfies these criteria - honestly, I am skeptical.  The next post will focus on this issue.

3.  ID is not creationism.

--- From what I’ve read so far, I tend to agree -  I have found no biblical narratives in ID.  Even if ID is an outgrowth of the creationist movement, it is unfair to classify it as such if it has truly separated itself from creationism.  IDers say they are not pushing creationism, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  As long as they are not planning a bait-and-switch on us, I have no problem here. 

4.  Evolution should be taught in schools.

--- Yes, IDers are pro-evolution in the sense that they claim that it belongs in science curriculum.  

5.  Science education needs to consider the weaknesses behind evolutionary theory. 

--- I wholeheartedly agree.  Far too many evolutionists have gone around claiming that evolution is irrefutable.  These sorts of claims are disingenuous.  Microevolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, macroevolution has not.  Sure there is evidence supporting macroevolutionary processes, but don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that it is a certainty.  If have posted comments on this issue in this blog (listed in the "evolution" category).

6.  Teaching ID in schools does not violate the separation of church and state.

--- I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it all depends on whether you define church as referring to a belief in God or organized religion.  I don’t think that believing in God is a religion in the way that Mormonism, Catholicism, and Protestantism are religions.

7.  Teachers should not be forced to teach ID. 

--- The Discovery Institute does not want ID politicized.  They say that if ID is to gain credibility, it should be done through the scientific process, not political fiat.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Lastly, the Discovery Institute is advocating a reserved approach to getting ID in school education.  They do not like the approach taken by the Pennsylvania Dover School District in 2004.  That school district required teachers to read a statement favoring ID.  In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that followed, a conservative and supposedly religious judge named John Jones ruled against the school board.  I think these events have made the Discovery Institute more cautious – in fact they now urge teachers to avoid mentioning ID and to focus instead on the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

I hate to see ID politicized.  Politicization and federal mandates are not what science is about.  If ID has legitimate scientific claims, then let’s see what it’s got.  If it is a rigorous and promising line of research, then it will slowly work its way into the scientific community and gain credibility.  If it is not promising and rigorous then it will die and go the way of alchemy.  Unfortunately it may never get a fair shake because so many in the scientific community are anti-anything-resembling-god (a point brought out in Stein’s movie Expelled).  What are you atheists so afraid of?

In the next post I will discuss whether ID is scientific by looking at whether ID satisfies the traditional definition of science.  

Shortly after the Civil War, the Union Army Surgeon General stated that mid 1800s medicine was “at the end of the medical Middle Ages.”  This statement acknowledges that during the Civil War era, the medical profession was ill-prepared to handle diseases, infections, and war wounds.  Their lack of knowledge on what caused disease, how to avoid infections, and how to treat wounds contributed to the death and suffering.  This was a time when more soldiers died from disease than battle wounds, and checking into a field hospital was often a death sentence.  

The following excerpt from the journal of Carl Schurz, a Union commander at the Battle of Gettysburg, describes the horrors of Civil War surgical procedures.  After 5000 years of human history, this was the best surgical approach that humanity had to offer.  

“To look after the wounded of my command, I visited the places where the surgeons were at work. . . . At Gettysburg the wounded-many thousands of them-were carried to the farmsteads behind our lines. The houses, the barns, the sheds, and the open barnyards were crowded with the moaning and waiting human beings, and still an unceasing procession of stretchers and ambulances was coming in from all sides to augment the number of the sufferers.   A heavy rain set in during the day - the usual rain after a battle and large numbers had to remain unprotected in the open, there being no room left under roof. I saw long rows of men lying under the eaves of the buildings, the water pouring down upon their bodies in streams. 

Most of the operating tables were placed in the open where the light was best, some of them partially protected against the rain by tarpaulins or blankets stretched upon poles.  There stood the surgeons, their sleeves rolled up to the elbows, their bare arms as well as their linen aprons smeared with blood, their knives held between their teeth, while they were helping a patient on or off the table, or had their hands otherwise occupied; around them pools of blood and amputated arms or legs in heaps, sometimes more than man-high.  Antiseptic methods were still unknown at that time. 

As a wounded man was lifted on the table, often shrieking with pain as the attendants handled him, the surgeon quickly examined the wound and resolved upon cutting off the injured limb. Some ether was administered and the body put in position in a moment. The surgeon snatched his knife from between his teeth, where it had been while his hands were busy, wiped it rapidly once or twice across his blood-stained apron, and the cutting began. The operation accomplished, the surgeon would look around with a deep sigh, and then - "Next!"  And so it went on, hour after hour, while the number of expectant patients seemed hardly to diminish. 

Now and then one of the wounded men would call attention to the fact that his neighbor lying on the ground had given up the ghost while waiting for his turn, and the dead body was then quietly removed. Or a surgeon, having been long at work, would put down his knife, exclaiming that his hand had grown unsteady, and that this was too much for human endurance - not seldom hysterical tears streaming down his face. 

Many of the wounded men suffered with silent fortitude, fierce determination in the knitting of their brows and the steady gaze of their bloodshot eyes. Some would even force themselves to a grim jest about their situation or about the "skedaddling of the rebels." But there were, too, heart-rending groans and shrill cries of pain piercing the air, and despairing exclamations, "Oh, Lord! Oh, Lord!" or "Let me die!" or softer murmurings in which the words "mother" or "father" or "home" were often heard.”

Look how far medical knowledge has come in just 150 years!  We are light years ahead of where we used to be during the Civil War, and yet it did not take light years to get where we are; it has taken less than two centuries.  Why has incredible progress taken place during the last 100 years and not during the previous 5000 years?  Answer: The Restoration and the concomitant outpouring of the Light of Christ.  We are living in a wondrous time foretold by the prophets of old.  The blessings of the fullness of the gospel extend far beyond religious domains.