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.
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.
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.
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.)
One of the unusual things about war is that the soldiers who fight them could be friends with their enemy, under different circumstances.
Union and Confederate soldiers who faced off against each other at the bloody battle of Gettysburg could have been fishing buddies under different circumstances.
American and German soldiers who shot at each other across the morbid wastelands of eastern France could have been hunting buddies under different circumstances.
Americans who struggled to take out a German pill boxes atop the cliffs at Omaha Beach on D-Day could have been camping buddies with the Wehrmacht soldiers under different circumstances
It is therefore not surprising that long after war’s end, after stinging memories of the savage struggle between life and death have somewhat faded, we see heartfelt expressions of friendship, glimpses of what might have been under different circumstances.
 Left: Dead on the field at Gettysburg.
Right: Confederate and Union soldier embrace as friends in 1938 at the 75th anniversary of Gettysburg.
 Left:WWI soliders remove dead comrade from Flander's Field in 1915.
Right: American serviceman smiles as he comforts young, frightened German soldier near the end of the War.
 Left: Attack at Pearl Harbor.
Right: Japanese Dive bomber Zenji Abe and friend US Serviceman Richard Fiske unite for Pearl Harbor service. (Zenji was repentant of his country's surprise attack on the US).
 In WWII captain Charlie Brown was flying his cripled B-17 flying fortress across occupied Europe and back to Britain when a German fighter pilot was dispatched to finish him off. When German fighter pilot Franz Stigler, a decorated pilot with over 25 confirmed kills, neared the heavily damaged B-17 and saw dead and wounded US airmen throughout the plane, he would not engage. Rather than shoot down the plane as ordered, he waved Capt. Brown on the correct course toward Britain and escorted him safely across hostile territory. Franz (left) and Charlie (right) became good friends 40 years after the war had ended.
Franz reported back to his unit that the B-17 went down over the Channel rather than face court-martial which may have ended in the loss of his life. If he had shot down Charlie's B-17 that day (his third), he would have earned the Knight's Cross Medal.
I think the prophet Joseph Smith said it best when he wrote to a former enemy of the church, “Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”
In the 1980’s Dire Straits sang “I want my MTV”. After reading this, you might be singing, “I want my Vitamin D3”.
Two and a half years ago I attended a healthcare research conference where Dr. Brent Muhlestein, a cardiologist and researcher, shared some interesting findings on the benefits of Vitamin D.
Dr. Muhlestein and his team followed a group of patients over 50 and with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. They measured levels of Vitamin D during routine care visits and tracked new diagnoses of heart disease. They found that patients with very low levels of Vitamin D (< 15 ng/ml) were 1.77 times more likely to die, 1.45 times more likely to develop artery disease, 1.78 times more likely to have a stroke, and 2.00 times more likely to develop heart failure than patients with normal levels of Vitamin D (>30 ng/ml).
One year later I attended a research forum where Dr. Muhlestein again presented data on Vitamin D. In addition to the accumulating cardiovascular benefits, he presented other research showing that Vitamin D helped regulate other functions such as blood pressure and glucose control, and control inflammation, suggesting benefits for arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes, to name a few.
And six months ago when I happened to get on an elevator with Dr. Muhelstein, I asked him how his Vitamin D research was coming along. He said that things still looked promising and that it would be nice to have something as simple as Vitamin D to help them treat patients with cardiovascular disease. Currently many of his heart patients are on Vitamin D therapy.
How much Vitamin D should people take? Dr. Muhelstein pointed out that many people are Vitamin D deficient, and that for some, the 400 IU available in most multivitamins may not be enough. For now it seems that taking higher doses of Vitamin D does not put most people at risk. Even increasing Vitamin D intake to 1,000 to 5,000 IU a day may be appropriate if there are no health and genetic risks. It is not hard to find supplements with these higher doses nowadays. I’ve seen supplements with 2000 and even 5000 IUs per dose in my local supermarket.
How much Vitamin D should you be taking? That’s something to discuss with your doctor. If you have not yet heard of the newfound benefits of Vitamin D, chances are you could benefit from a prudent increase beyond what you are currently getting in your regular diet.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100315/vitamin-d-supplements-lower-heart-disease-risk
There are certain things that are difficult for mere mortals to conceptualize. One that I find particularly challenging is the LDS doctrine of “There [being] no such thing as an ultimate beginning, a time prior to which there was nothing” (Quote taken from Mormon Doctrine). From a mortal perpsective it seems like there should be a beginning to the universe; this is one reason why the Big Bang theory is so popular - it postulates a definite moment in time when everything began. How could there be no beginning?
Something funny about the idea of “no beginning” is that it is equally difficult to conceptualize the opposite, of there ever being a beginning. If we assume for a moment that there was a beginning to the god-created universe, then we must ask, who created the first god? An all-powerful being could not have just "poofed" into existence.
If you spend too much time thinking on the apparent impossibility of both positions, you run the risk of experiencing a minor ontological crisis over whether the things we call life and the universe really exist. Thankfully Descartes provided a temporary escape from these sorts of existential crises. Regardless of whether there was or was not a beginning to the universe, you can be certain that you exist in a universe by virtue of the fact that you are thinking about these very issues. Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am!
But wait, there's more.
Another influential philosopher named Bishop Berkeley (namesake of Berkeley University) pointed out that for something to exist, including ourselves and the universe, it must be perceived. He called it “Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived. You've no doubt heard the statement, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” Bishop Berkeley asks us to consider whether the tree even exists at all if no one ever perceives it.
If you are skeptical of the need for something to be perceived in order for it to exist, you are in good company. Einstein was very skeptical of esse est percipi. The notion of something having to be perceived in order for it to exist led him to quip, “When no one is observing the moon, is it still there?” He obviously believed that the moon exists even when no one is observing it. So if Einy rejected esse est percipi then the matter is settled, right? Not quite. Esse est percipi is supported by experiments in quantum mechanics.
Consider a classical quantum mechanics study where electrons are fired one at a time from an electron gun through a double slit barrier. When the positions of the electrons are registered on a screen behind the barrier with no one present, the single-fired electrons create an interference pattern that can only be explained by the electrons behaving like a non-physical wave of potentialities after leaving the electron gun. However, when people stand at the barrier and observe electrons going through the slits, the electrons go back to being physical particles as evidenced by the pattern they leave on a screen. The upshot of all this is that when no one observes the electrons they behave like non-physical probability waves, but when people observe the electrons, they behave like physical particles.
Dr. Quantum describes this process well. Click on the video below.
So how do we reconcile esse est percipi and the quantum slit experiment with our common sense notion that physical things continue to exist even when they are not being perceived by mortal beings? The answer is the Light of Christ.
The Light of Christ is a divine source that emanates from the presence of God. It gives him instant knowledge of everything throughout all His creations. It is that Light by which He knows at an instant how many hairs are on the top of our heads. It is that Light by which He knows instantly that a sparrow died and fell to the ground in the mountains even though no one else knew it ever existed. It is that Light by which God perceives all things, thus bringing all things into continual existence.
 Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling that arises when people hold opposing viewpoints or beliefs.
Have you ever felt this way? If so, how did you deal with it? Most people deal with cognitive dissonance in one of two ways. One approach is to change views and beliefs to bring them into harmony. This may be called the healthy approach because it prompts an analysis of salient issues and personal values. Analysis may produce new insights on important issues, and assessment of personal principles may increase self-awareness of embraced values.
The second approach to coping with cognitive dissonance involves what are called defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are psychological coping strategies that hide or mask the underlying problem. Defense mechanisms are undesirable because they prevent people from dealing with and resolving the source of the mental discomfort. Common defense mechanisms for coping with cognitive dissonance include blaming, justifying, and denying. So, in other words, people experiencing cognitive dissonance may try to blame others for their opposing beliefs or for feelings of discomfort, try to rationalize their opposing viewpoints, or deny that their viewpoints are in opposition or that they produce discomfort.
The other day while driving through the streets of Salt Lake City, I noticed two interesting bumper stickers on the same car. One sticker read “Protect Wildlife”. The other was a pro Planned Parenthood bumper sticker. I thought about those two stickers for a few seconds and then realized that they convey somewhat opposing ideas.
Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice and pro-abortion organization, particularly when it comes to resorting to abortion as a form of selective birth control. Planned Parenthood advocates killing human fetuses when pregnancies are unwanted. Then there is the Protect Wildlife sticker which advocates going to great lengths to protect animal species, such as denying residential, commercial, or needed infrastructural development permits to protect a small animal.
Hmm? Is it okay to kill a human fetus but not okay to kill an endangered rodent? Is it okay to kill a human fetus but not okay to disrupt the nesting grounds of an endangered bird?
I am not saying that we shouldn’t protect wildlife. (Please, no comments on how we need to be good stewards of the earth. I am on board with that message.) This post is about thinking that it is okay to end a human life while thinking that it is not okay to kill an animal.
How do more liberal leaning folks who embrace these opposing viewpoints deal with the inherent conflict? My guess is that most resort to defense mechanisms - approach #2 above. They either deny that there is a conflict; blame conservatives for messing up the world; or attempt to rationalize their opposing viewpoints by saying things like “It is more important to protect a woman’s choice than it is to protect a human life” or that “A fetus does not have a right to life until it is born.”
A thoughtful analysis (a’la approach #1 above) will reveal that these two viewpoints are disharmonious and that one should be dropped, preferably the Planned Parenthood viewpoint.
Hello, LDS scholars. Look at your bookshelf, now back at mine. Now back at your bookshelf, now back to mine! Sadly your bookshelf doesn’t have all the LDS science books that mine has, but if you stopped buying vampire love stories, it could look like mine.
Ha ha.
This post is about “must have” books for Latter-day Saints who are interested in the relationship between Mormon theology and science. I’ve compiled a list of books that LDS scholars should consider acquiring and reading, especially those who fashion themselves as experts on Restoration theology and science. Some of these are out of print and may be hard to find.
Please respond if you know of a book that should be added to the list.
Thanks.
List of Books Covering LDS Theology and Science
1. Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS Theology (Clark)
2. Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology (Erich Paul)
3. Science and Mormonism (Melvin Cook & Garfield Cook)
4. Earth: In the Beginning (Eric Skousen)
5. Science and Your Faith in God (Henry Eyring et al.)
6. Joseph Smith as Scientist (Elder John A. Widtsoe)
7. Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective (Dave Collingridge)
8. The Case for Divine Design (Frank Salisbury)
9. Divine Engineering (David Brems)
10. Mormons and Science: Setting the Record Straight (Rodney Brown)
11. Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Henry J Eyring)
12. (Your recommendation)
 Some evolutionists assert that macroevolution (evolution across life forms) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They also assert that macroevolution has been proven to the same extent as other theories like Relativity and gravity. I argue otherwise on both counts.
It is true that convincing evidence for macroevolution exists, which is why I would never claim that evolutionists are dummies. (Were it not for the teachings of the gospel, I would, in all likelihood, be an evolutionist.) Even Mormon evolutionists have plenty of reasons to believe in macroevolution. By the way, just for the record I also believe that many evolutionists will go to heaven, as will many Buddhists, Muslims, and Baptists, to name a few. (Having a perfect knowledge in this life, something we all lack, is not a prerequisite for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.)
This post is about the quality of evidence for macroevolution in comparison to the quality of evidence for other well-accepted scientific theories. For example, I submit that evidence for macroevolution, notwithstanding being impressive, is not on par with the evidence for Relativity. Relativity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while macroevolution has not. To support this assertion, let’s compare two impressive studies, one in transitional fossil research and the other in time-space curvature.
The Amazing Discovery of TiktaalikTen years ago researchers Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Jennifer Clack decided that the best place to look for an elusive transitional fossil bridging the divide between fish and tetrapods was in Nunavut in northern Canada. This region, although now in the Arctic Circle, was once thought to be near the equator and to have a warm climate. So in 1999 they sent research teams to Ellesmere Island to look for transitional fossils in an area where an intermediate animal would most likely be found.
After 5 years of digging with little success and the realization that their exploration would soon come to an end, the researchers made a profound discovery. They found several fossils of a fish-tetrapod looking animal. The animal had characteristics similar to a fish, but with skeletal characteristics akin to a crocodile. Its skeletal structure enabled it to support itself on land and water and the presence of spiracles (small holes) on its flat head suggests that the animal had primitive lungs, in addition to gills.The researchers hypothesis was confirmed. It is an amazing discovery.Eddington’s 1919 Journey When Einstein introduced his theories of Special Relativity and Relativity in the early 1900s his ideas created a stir. Back then Newton was still revered as the undisputed champion of science and the thought of anyone challenging Newton’s ideas was considered heretical. However Einstein boldly challenged Newton’s ideas. He argued that space and time are not constant as Newton had supposed; rather space and time differed based on one’s state (hence the name “relativity”). Yet at the time there was very little empirical evidence to support Einstein’s ideas. Searching for ways to test Einstein’s theory, scientists decided to study the light from stars next to a fully eclipsed sun. If Einstein was right then the sun’s gravity well would cause the light from ‘nearby’ stars to bend and thus appear shifted in the dark sky. And so in 1919 a British research team headed by Sir Arthur Eddington went on a distant journey to view a solar eclipse on Principe Island near the coast of Guinea in West Africa. It was cloudy during the days leading up to the eclipse and a heavy thunderstorm rolled through the team's location on the morning of the much anticipated event (May 29th). The research expedition was in jeopardy of failing, nevertheless, Eddington and his team set up their instruments and hoped for a miracle. Minutes before the eclipse when the sky was still overcast, anxieties grew as the moon moved in front of the sun and the sky darkened. Then suddenly, before the eclipse reached totality, as if by supernatural fiat, the clouds parted revealing the corona of the sun and surrounding stars. The team quickly snapped their photos.The photos revealed that light from ‘nearby’ stars (in the Hyades star cluster) had indeed shifted, as Einstein predicted. The sun’s gravitational pull shifted the position of the stars an average distance of 1.6 arcseconds. It was an amazing discovery.
The Crucial Experiment: The Crux of the MatterTiktaalik’s discovery provides reasonable evidence for accepting macroevolution, and Eddington’s eclipse study provides reasonable evidence for accepting Relativity, but the quality of evidence from these two studies are not on par. The essential difference is that one was a crucial experiment and the other was not.A crucial experiment is one where a do or die scenario is set up that allows us to tentatively decide on the truth or falsity of a theory. Relativity was subjected to a do or die test, and it survived. The bending of starlight around the eclipsed sun allowed us to ascertain with a great deal of certainty that Einstein was right. If the light had not bent, we would have good reason to conclude that Einstein was wrong and we might still be going with Newton’s theory.Tiktaalik, although an important and impressive discovery, was not a crucial test of macroevolution. By this I mean that Tiktaalik did not create a situation where the theory of macroevolution was subjected to a do or die scenario. If the Ellesmere research team had never discovered Tiktaalik then the theory of macroevolution would not have been any worse off. Explanations might have included, “Well, we’re not looking in the right place,” or “We just have to keep looking.” The quality of scientific evidence hinges, among other things, on the possibility of finding something false. Scientific theories that have been repeatedly subjected to crucial tests and survived have earned the status of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Those that have not been subjected to crucial tests have not earned the status of proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I look forward to the day when macroevolution will be subjected to crucial tests. Until then, we must be content with the currently available evidence, which is fairly impressive to say the least.
|
RSS Feed