Mormon Scholars in the Humanities is an association that explores the relationship between religious and secular scholarship.  Last year their annual conference was held at Southern Virginia University.  This year’s conference will be held on May 8th and 9th at BYU Provo and Aspen Grove, Utah.

The theme of this year’s conference is Religions and Critical Practices: Prospects for Scholarship in the Humanities. I will be a presenter at this year’s conference.  The title of my presentation is From the Inspired Scientific Revolution, to the Spiritually Unenlightened Enlightenment, to Atheistic Secular Humanism in Science.

Here is a brief outline of what I'll have to say:

The 16th–17th century Scientific Revolution has long been recognized as the period that ended the scientific dark ages and ushered in an era of rapid discovery. Pioneers of the Scientific Revolution, scholars like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton were instrumental in breaking the bands of apostate religious dogma that hung over people’s minds.  Some of their greatest contributions include encouraging free-thinking societies, preparing the earth for the Restoration, and laying the groundwork of modern science.  They were devout believers in God, yet notwithstanding their theism, they demonstrated that it is possible to accept and recognize deity while producing rigorous scientific work.  These pioneers would be uncomfortable with the atheistic secular humanism that arose during the 18th century Enlightenment and is now endemic in science today.  The commonly held belief that science must avoid any recognition of God is a grand deception.  By rejecting God, secular humanists are turning the blessings of modern science into a curse - as the apostle Paul prophesied, they are ever learning without coming to a knowledge of the truth. 

If you are looking for interesting presentations and engaging discussions on issues exploring the crossroads of LDS theology, philosophy, history, and science, I recommend attending this year’s conference.  If you wish to join the association, memberships are only $10 per year.

For a synopsis of presentations by Latter-day Saint scholars during previous conferences, visit here and then click on current newsletters.

Ciao!

In aviation it’s called a “course correction”.  When a flight crew realizes that they’ve deviated from the pre-established direction of flight, they correct their course.  

It seems the BYU Biology department needs a course correction.  

The biology department’s mandate is to teach the science of biology, including evolution, within the light of the gospel.  I am sure they are doing an excellent job of teaching the principles of biology and evolution, but when it comes to integrating the principles of biology with the principles of the gospel, they’ve goofed.  They are way off course.  That’s right; if they were NASA, the Mars rover would have crashed landed on Venus.

A faculty member recently said, “We [the biology department] spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible” (Feb. 9, 2009 BYU newspaper, The Daily Universe).  In other words, they are teaching that the doctrines of evolution and religion are in complete harmony.  I can only assume that this statement includes the restored gospel.   

Can someone please tell me how a godless and directionless theory of the descent of mankind is in harmony with a purpose-driven and divinely-directed theology of creation?  BYU biology professors who do not recognize these inconsistencies between the evolutionary and gospel accounts of the creation of mankind need to do some reading.  Those who avoid the conflict by compartmentalizing dissimilar gospel and evolutionary teachings and then tell their students that the two are compatible are being disingenuous.  In either event, a course correction is needed.

Apparently I am not the only member of the church who has pointed out the glaring inconsistencies between gospel and evolutionary accounts of the origin of mankind.   

Joseph Fielding Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding McConkie, and Boyd K. Packer also recognized the inconsistencies.  Here is what they said:

Joseph Fielding Smith
“This idea that everything commenced from a small beginning, from the scum upon the surface of the sea, and has gradually developed until all forms of life, the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea, and the plants upon the face of the earth, have all sprung from that one source, is a falsehood absolutely.  There is no truth in it, for God has given us his word by which we may know.” 

John Taylor
According to gospel doctrine, “The principles [of creation] do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from their Maker. There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and its operations can go no further.”

Joseph Fielding McConkie
"Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?  No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall. Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man."

Boyd K. Packer
"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. . . . Each is a child of God. He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors."

It is time for the BYU biology department to change course on their approach to evolution and Mormonism.  First, they need to stop spreading the myth that Mormon theology and evolution are in complete harmony.  Second, they should study the underlying differences, acknowledge that differences exist, tell their students about the inconsistencies, and let their students make up their own minds on the matter. 

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.

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.  

Do you believe that natural remedies have the potential to heal wounds and cure diseases?  I do because in Alma 46:40 it says that the Lord provided humanity with “many plants and roots [of excellent quality]...to remove the cause of diseases.”  Yet if you are like me, you rarely turn to natural remedies.  Like so many of you, I have taken a few herbs (the legal kind) and tried a couple of holistic remedies, but never knowing if they really worked, I quit.  

What is wrong with this picture?  Everything.  The Book of Mormon tells us that there are plenty of high-potency natural remedies out there, but we have insufficient knowledge about what they are, where to find them, and how they work.  Granted, there is literature on the efficacy and uses of herbs, but it is limited, especially in comparison to the literature on pharmaceutical drugs.

Drug development is a multi-billion dollar per year industry.  Drug companies pour millions of dollars into testing drugs to uncover their potential benefits and drawbacks.  The FDA drug testing process is standardized to optimize benefits and minimize harm to humans and animals.  Before releasing a drug to the public we want to know everything there is to know about it.  We want to know where it works, why it works, who benefits, and who does not benefit.  

Why hasn’t our pharmaceutical industry given equal attention to natural remedies?  If plants and herbs can heal and cure disease, then why are we not investigating natural resources with equal rigor?  By expending all of our resources on synthetic drugs we are ignoring half of the possibilities.  We’ve put all our eggs into one basket (the drug basket), and left the natural remedies basket largely empty.  I hope that I am not the only person who has a problem with this.  I believe that many people have died and countless others are leading less than healthy lives because we have largely ignored natural remedies.

We have not pursued natural remedies with the same rigor because natural remedies cannot be patented.  You see, when a drug company develops a new drug, the company is allowed to put a patent on it so that no one else can develop and sell the same drug.  Pharmaceutical patents are generally a good thing because they enable companies to recover and the millions they spent on testing and development, and make a profit. Without this protection there would be no incentive to develop drugs.  After a company has recouped its costs and made some money, a patent usually expires and other companies are allowed to make generic versions of the drug and sell it at a lower price. 

If a pharmaceutical company is unable to patent a natural remedy, then there is no financial incentive to develop and test herbs, plants, and roots – so they don’t.

This situation needs to change.  We could start by allowing drug companies to patent natural remedies.  By allowing patents, we will facilitate the rigorous testing of herbs, plants, and roots.  Until then, we will largely be in the dark about the best plants, doses, and combinations of natural remedies to use to treat injuries and cure diseases. (Mormons and Science 09.08)