Google Webmaster Tools
 
I thank everyone who wrote comments on the previous post. The discussion was spirited yet largely civil. I think the discussion appropriately represents both sides. Regardless of what side of the debate you’re on, the exchanges are informative!

And now for something new.

I used to say that I didn’t know how Adam’s body was formed. My best guess was that the Lord somehow formed his body from the elements of the earth. (A potter gathering clay from the earth and forming it into a pot is a helpful analogy.) However, after studying the issue of Adam’s creation, I have come to an unexpected conclusion about how his body was created.

He was born, just like you and me.

The Lord taught us that Adam was “born into the world by water, blood, and the spirit (Moses 6:59). Joseph F. Smith taught us that Adam was “also born of woman, the same as Jesus and you and I.” Brigham Young taught us that “mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet.” He also taught that Adam “was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” And BH Roberts taught that “we are brought forth by the natural laws of procreation, so also was Adam and his wife in some older world.”

For a more thorough coverage of the evidence regarding Adam’s birth, see Ryan’s article on this issue at his Loyal to the Word website.
http://loyaltotheword.synthasite.com/the-manner-of-adams-creation.php

I have not yet formed an opinion on who his biological parents are. Some have suggested God, but I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten child of the Father in the flesh.

89 Comments
 
 
I am not a scholar of religion or science but I do have an abiding interest in both.  Like many boys growing up, I was interested in cavemen.  I think I was always fascinated that these people could survive under such adverse circumstances with not much more than rocks and spears.  When I was a senior in high school, I even wrote my senior English paper on the findings and research of Louis S. B. Leakey (a pioneer in the research of early man) .  I have probably watched every documentary on early man that has ever been shown on PBS.  Fast forward to the mid 1990s when I was browsing one day through the FARMS articles that Deseret Book used to sell in their stores.  I chanced upon an article by Hugh Nibley called “Before Adam”.  It was the title that first captured my interest because until then I had never pondered the connection between cave men and Adam and Eve.  That article was the beginning of my immense fascination and interest in the writings of Hugh Nibley and my religion.

After reading almost everything Nibley has written, I have come to refer to him as the thinking man’s Mormon.  Before Nibley, I had limited my religious studies to the few hours I spent in church each Sunday.  After Nibley, I have come to regard the Gospel as the most fascinating subject I have ever encountered because it encompasses all knowledge, even scientific knowledge.

Since Nibley, I have discovered several other LDS authors who have expanded my interest in my religion and the origin of man.  At the top of the list would have to be Joseph Fielding Smith.  He was the Prophet when I was on my mission and to be honest, he kind of scared me because he looked so stern and serious.  But a few years ago I read his book, Man, His Origin and Destiny and I discovered a man of amazing knowledge and insights on a wide range of religious and secular subjects.  I could not believe that this man did not even have a graduate degree in anything.  Another LDS author that really surprised me is Alvin R. Dyer.  His books, Who Am I? and The Meaning of Truth are two of the most scholarly and faith building books I have ever read.  Finally, Eric Skousen’s book, Earth in the Beginning is definitely in the top five of the best books I have ever read.  If you have ever wondered how it all began and why we are here today, you have to read this book.

Personally, I cannot see how any serious student of the Gospel and science can reconcile the supposed differences between the two without having read the above mentioned books.

Brad Wightman
MLS, MBA

168 Comments
 
 
The idea that bringing up differences between science and religion is perilous because it causes persons to give up either science or their faith is rather silly. Macroevolution comes to mind as an example.

There are inconsistencies between gospel teachings and the notion that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved from lower life forms. Teachings contrary to macroevolution in the form of scriptures and statements from past and present apostles abound. These inconsistencies should be openly discussed in the LDS scientific community, if people choose to do so, as long as it is done with respect.

Our scientific and faith-based understandings are continually evolving. (Pardon the pun.) Some members thought that blacks would not be granted the priesthood until the millennium – they were wrong. Some members went into faith crisis mode when the priesthood was granted to all worthy males. And some scientists thought that the theory of luminiferous ether was an absolute truth – they were wrong. Some scientists likely went into crisis mode when ether was debunked.

Latter-day Saints don’t have to go into crisis mode when inconsistencies between gospel teachings and their favorite scientific theories arise. In science, challenges often bring us closer to an understanding of truth. Scientific progress happens when we have an open mind and allow criticism.

And so it goes with macroevolution. It is okay for people to discuss the differences between macroevolution and the gospel. Macroevolution is not sacrosanct. It is not immune from intellectual and theological challenge. No theory is perfect, and if the future resembles the past, it may eventually get replaced by a better theory.

Raising theological, intellectual, and methodological concerns with macroevolution is not a direct assault on science; it is critical thinking.

Vive la difference!

7 Comments
 
 
Elder Russell M. Nelson:
“Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species or organic evolution from one form to another. . . . To me, such theories are unbelievable. . . . It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of those who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved.” Source: The Power Within Us. (Deseret Book).


Elder Boyd K. Packer:
"The rules and principles [of creation] are in the scriptures. The revelations make it very clear that mankind is the offspring of Heavenly Parents. We have in God our Father and a Heavenly Mother the pattern of our parentage. . . . No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded them in the Creation. They reproduce after their own kind. They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that. Every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget a reptile. . . .  Each is a child of God. He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors."
Source: Children of God. www.byub.org/talks/Download.aspx?id=1774&md=pdf

23 Comments
 
 
Most of those who commented on ID in the last post are opposed to Intelligent Design (ID), and for different reasons. It is one thing to oppose a theory; it is another to question its scientific credentials. Does ID fit the traditional definition of science?  Here we go.

Criterion 1. Empirical Phenomena.

Empirical refers to phenomena that are directly or indirectly observable. Now ID claims that there is empirical evidence of intelligence, information, and wisdom in nature. Their focus right now is on finding evidence of design in cells. A hypothesis that they’ve latched onto is irreducible complexity (IC). IC is the belief “that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or less complete predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.” Because it is possible to gather empirical data concerning the complexity of living systems, ID meets this criterion.  

 Criterion 2. Testable Predictions. 

A scientific theory generates testable predictions. To be sure, we can test IC by looking for irreducibly complex systems in nature, so ID makes testable predictions. There is not much more to say on this matter. I will add, however, that some have claimed that IC has been debunked because evolution has provided more rigorous, plausible evolutionary explanations for complexity. The fact that proponents of an opposing theory lay claim to a better explanation does not make ID and its IC hypothesis any less testable. The issue of which theory best explains a phenomenon is another matter altogether and has little bearing on the testability issue. 

Criterion 3. Falsifiability.

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. It’s kind of funny, but this is a good thing for IDers because it means that a major hypothesis of ID is supposedly falsifiable. So, in a way, opponents of ID are helping to guarantee its scientific status by trying to falsify its core tenet. Well, 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. Miller claims that this discovery refutes IC. Miller’s refutation suggests that ID posits falsifiable hypotheses

Criterion 4. Tentative Stance

Scientists should 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 supreme intelligence, or be willing to accept that there is no evidence of divine design in nature? Here we see the danger of tying up theology with science. If you closely ally your religious beliefs with a scientific idea, what happens when that scientific idea is eventually proven false, as so often happens? Tying up religious beliefs with scientific theory is risky. When scientific theories closely allied with religious belief fall, it sends people into a faith crisis tail spin. This is a potential problem, yet I haven’t seen anything which suggests that IDers have not taken a tentative stance.

Criterion 5. Crucial Experiments 

Crucial experiments are investigations that allow us to definitively decide between two competing theories, or, in other words, they are experiments that allow us to definitively conclude that a theory is false. This criterion is not an all or nothing issue - a theory is not automatically labeled unscientific if it cannot produce crucial experiments. This issue is a matter of degrees. The more crucial experiments a theory generates, the more rigorous it is. Has ID produced crucial experiments? Not yet. To the best of my knowledge ID is currently limited to “let’s go out and find evidence for IC,” sort of thing. What is lacking is 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 an irreducibly complex mechanism Y. Before ID’s critics start opening the champagne bottles, I wish to point out that macroevolution has the same limitations. There is plenty of evidence supporting macroevolution, but to date it has not generated crucial tests due to limiting factors such as that it takes a very long time for new life forms to evolve.

Sum: For now, ID satisfies the traditional definition of science. It offers an empirical, rational, and testable approach to investigating complex systems. ID must be careful, however. Any attempt to make the supernatural the central focus of ID will render ID non-scientific by traditional standards. ID’s critics should take note that it is decidely anti-scientific to deny ID a voice simply because it challenges one’s favorite theory or because it reminds one of a nonscientific endeavor like creationism. If ID has legitimate discoveries to bring to the table, then let’s hear them out and allow debate, refutation, and criticism to take their normal course. ID will live or die. Either way, we should let the scientific process, not politics, decide its fate. 

45 Comments
 
 
Dear Reader,

Please answer this skill testing question before continuing with the rest of the post.

“What movement makes a claim about the natural world that is consistent with the gospel, yet despised by several prominent LDS science bloggers, hated by 99.9% of the BYU Department of Biology faculty, and even distrusted by famous LDS author Orson Scott Card?”

If you said Intelligent Design, you are right.  

Why do so many LDS scholars despise ID? This is the first post in a 3-part series which seeks to answer this question.  

I am sure most of you have heard about intelligent design. Discussions surrounding ID are polarizing and have the tendency to stir up strong emotions on both sides of the debate.

Personally I am not an IDer, yet I am intrigued by it central tenet. It advocates a perspective consistent with LDS theology, that intelligence created the complex natural world in which we live. However, simply making a claim consistent with LDS theology doesn’t make ID a legitimate and worthwhile endeavor.

In order to truly understand ID, I am stepping out of the emotionally charged atmosphere and evaluating ID from an empirco-rational perspective. These posts contain commendations, criticisms, and cautions. I do not grant favors to ID just because I like its central tenet. Any paradigm wanting acceptance by the prestigious scientific community must satisfy the standards of modern science on its own merits.   

Let’s take a close look at the merits of ID.

The Discovery Institute is the leading “think tank” on intelligent design. I went to its website and found 7 major claims of the ID movement. I present each claim along with evaluative comments.

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

Taken at face value, there is nothing in this tenet that precludes ID from being scientific. Notice that it does not claim that the source of intelligence is God. If it said that the intelligence is a supernatural deity, then that would be problematic because science concerns itself with the natural world, not the supernatural. However, ID does not explicitly invoke deity which is good because science deals with the natural, not supernatural.

Claim 2.   ID is a scientific enterprise. 

ID is seeking full acceptance by the scientific community. It wants to be treated as a first class scientific pursuit. Whether it deserves to be called a science depends on whether its actions fit the traditional definition of science, and whether it follows an accepted scientific approach. The second post will address this issue.

Claim 3.  ID is not creationism.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical, young earth creation perspective of the world. Many critics of ID claim that ID is repackaged creationism or a rebranding of creationism; however, just saying so does not make it so. The Discovery Institute says that it is not creationism and I’ve seen nothing in today’s ID which indicates that it is creationism. However, there is evidence to suggest that ID is an outgrowth of creationism. Nevertheless, we must judge ID by what it is today, not by its historical roots.

Claim 4.  Evolution should be taught in schools.

That’s right, ID accepts evolution as scientific. ID is pro-evolution in the sense that it claims that evolution belongs in the science curriculum. 

Claim 5.  Science education must explore the weaknesses of evolution. 

Sounds good, as long as the counterarguments are empirico-rational, and not religious in nature. Evolutionary hypotheses are not irrefutable. Like every other scientific theory, it has its weaknesses. Evolutionists should willingly entertain the theory’s weaknesses; this will make the theory stronger or possibly lead to its replacement by a better theory. Either way, we are moving closer to the truth about the natural world and that is a good thing.

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

I agree. ID does not explicitly state the existence of God. Even if it did, I still don’t think there would be a constitutional problem. The separation of church and state refers to organized religion, not a personal belief in deity. Believing in God is not quite the same thing as Mormonism, Catholicism, and Protestantism.

Claim 7.  School teachers should not be forced to teach ID. 

The Discovery Institute does not want ID politicized.  If ID is to gain credibility, it must be done through the scientific process, not political fiat. The Discovery Institute opposes the Pennsylvania Dover School District’s 2004 attempt to mandate teaching ID into the school curriculum. The school board’s misguided efforts led to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial wherein ID was misrepresented and misjudged by Judge John Jones. The judge’s ruling set back the ID movement tremendously. 

In the next post I discuss whether ID satisfies the traditional definition of scientific activity. Some critics claim that it does not.

15 Comments
 
 
It is wonderful to see all the advances in science over the past 200 years. Humankind has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. Why? Recent scientific progress is a direct blessing of the restored gospel. We live in the latter days, the fullness of times, a time when, the apostle Paul prophesied, the earth would be full of truth. This includes spiritual and secular truth. Ours is a time when people dream dreams and have marvelous insights, a time when the Light of Christ is being poured out in abundance, enlightening people’s minds and giving them knowledge.

Such progress is not limited to science. It happens in other areas as well. I recently came across an example in economics. I thank Ryan for pointing out a book by economist and author Angus Maddison (1926-2010). In 2001 Maddison wrote a magnum opus looking at the economic prosperity of nations over the last 2000 years. Maddison found that several of the world’s economies made huge advancements after 1820.  (For more information on Maddison and his work, visit his website at http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm or visit the website for the Groningen Growth and Development Center which he founded at http://www.ggdc.net/.)

Just one more example of remarkable progress that is tied to the restoration of the gospel.

2 Comments
 
 
Picture
We live in a universe. The “uni” in universe refers to one, meaning there is just one universe. Universe is 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 the age-old concept of a single universe.

Recent evidence suggests that there may be multiple universes. Some scientists believe that we live in a multiverse instead of a universe. To conceptualize a multiverse, think of a room full of floating bubbles. Each bubble contains a separate realm or universe. Sounds intriguing, eh? Well the multiverse theory gets even more fascinating when we consider possible relationships among those universes. Owing to discoveries in quantum mechanics, there is evidence to suggest that some universes may be parallel.

The theory of parallel universes, developed by Hugh Everett in the early 1950s, posits that some universes are branch-offs of other universes. A parallel universe contains a reality similar to another universe; what differs between the two is that a single event turned out differently in one universe, at which point reality took a different course for that universe. 

For example, in a universe parallel similar to our universe, there may be someone exactly like you living the life you now live with one exception – the “you” in the parallel universe won 3 million dollars on a game show. Or there is a parallel universe where everything is the same except that the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor did not happen, where the sunlight caused Lee Harvey Oswald to sneeze as he pulled the trigger and thus he 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.

While I can probably accept the idea of multiverses, I cannot accept the notion of parallel universes. When viewed from the perspective of the grand master plan of the Lord (i.e., the Plan of Salvation), I don’t see how there could be a seemingly infinite number of people just like you and me living alternative realities based on different outcomes to events. However, there is intriguing evidence of parallel universes 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 exactly what would happen if the Church did not stop polygamy. President Woodruff 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 astonishing. The Lord did not suggest what might come to pass nor did He show Woodruff what might happen. The Lord showed him what would happen if polygamy did not stop. It is almost as if the Lord was giving President Woodruff a glimpse into a parallel reality where everything is the same except for the fact that in the parallel world, the practice of polygamy did not come to an end. 

Could such a place really exist? I don’t think so. I think this revelation was made possible by the fact that the Lord knows all things, including the exact details of what might have been had we taken different paths in our lives. This is an amazing concept. His omniscience includes not only what has happened and what will happen, but what might have happened both in the past and the future!

Indeed His omniscience is beyond mortal comprehension.
10 Comments
 
 
Well, I am trying to keep things merry for the Christmas season by avoiding hard hitting and controversial issues. It’s important to smile and be thankful during the holidays. In keeping with this sentiment, this brief blog is on a technological invention that provided a great boon to science - the printing press.

Here are a few of huge benefits:

1. The printing press made it possible for people to catalogue and disseminate scientific information so that others did not have to rediscover what had already been learned. 

2. People could read their own copies of the Bible and therefore come up with their own interpretation of scripture. This loosened the shackles that the Church had on the minds of people. With the printed word of God in their hands, people learned to think and discover truth for themselves.  

3. Printing made it possible for more people to get educated and carry out scientific experiments.

The discovery of the printing press was not without its drawbacks, however. Watch the short video below for an illustration of some of the problems that arose as the printing press grew in popularity.

1 Comment
 
 
I teach a college course on research design. One of the topics is surveys and privacy. I tell the students that marketing surveys are infamous for collecting people’s private information, especially those attached to product registration forms. 

Have you ever wondered what your income, age, and the number of people living in your house have to do with registering a new stereo or appliance? Nothing. Companies are collecting information for marketing purposes, and some of it is very personal. Being asked to surrender that kind of information is really no different than a stranger coming up to you on the street and asking:
1. What is your race?
2. How many people are in your home?
3. What are your hobbies?
4. Do you have credit cards? If so, how many?
5. How much money do you make?
6. How old are you?

Kind of freaky, eh? 

Many people don’t realize that this is an invasion of privacy, which might explain why many people don’t seem to realize that submitting to a scan or invasive pat down at the airport is also an invasion of privacy. Taking nude photos or touching the breasts of our wives and daughters at the airport is not a necessary evil to ensure safe travel – it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, plain and freakin’ simple.

How did we get here? I don’t blame the president. I don’t blame the bosses at the TSA. I don’t even put all the blame on terrorists. I blame this invasion of privacy on those who have perpetuated the falsehood that it is wrong to profile.

“Oh no!” you say. We sheeple have been taught that it is wrong to profile (i.e., stereotype). “We can’t do that.”

Baloney. You do it all the time. That’s right. You stereotype all the time (i.e., form impressions of people based on past experience with similar looking and sounding people). You do it whenever you talk to a stranger. You do it whenever you walk away from a suspicious looking stranger. You do it whenever you ask someone for help on the side of the street or at a gas station. Stereotyping is human nature. Stereotypes are sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect - the fact that they are sometimes incorrect does not mean that we should ignore them. They are useful guides.

So enough already. Enough frisking of caucasian grandmothers with Utah accents. Enough patting down young American children who look like they’ve just gotten out of school. Enough frisking of WW II veterans carrying US passports. And enough taking nude photos of hispanic, native, black, and caucasian young women who dress and talk like Americans.

Enough already! 

See that foreigner over there who dresses and talks like an easterner and carries a Saudi Arabian passport? That is the guy you should be giving an enhanced pat down because he dresses and talks like the kind of people who are currently trying to kill us. See that American over there who is dressed like a gang banger and looks like he could have weapons stored in his baggy pants? That is the guy you should be taking nude photos of. See that foreigner over there with a one-way ticket who is not checking any luggage? That is the person who should be taken aside for questioning. 

Americans have been brained washed into thinking that stereotyping is un-American and a violation of our liberties. Rather than rely on useful stereotypes, we require everyone to go through nude body scanners or intrusive pat downs. In the name of preserving liberties (by not stereotyping), we’ve surrendered liberties (by subjecting everyone to scans). Are we living in some sort of bizzaro world?

A final note. No country faces more threats from terrorism than Israel, but Israel does not require its citizens to go through scanners or enhanced pat downs at airports. They don’t even have scanners. So how does Israel handle its security at airport check points? That’s right – it profiles. 

(Please, no comments on the definition of stereotyping. I’ve read, studied, and taught this subject. And no comments on whether the scanner photos are really nude photos – they are sufficiently revealing to raise concerns. Also, I oppose any kind of stereotyping [accurate & inaccurate] that results in harmful discrimination.) 
4 Comments
 
Google Analytics