Google Webmaster Tools
 
Atheists and agnostics are kind of in the same boat when it comes to the supernatural. Atheists reject a supernatural being while agnostics claim that there is no way of knowing if such a being exists, so they go about their business as if he doesn’t. How many scientists are atheists? How many are agnostic? The answers depend on what area of science we’re talking about. The following data may surprise you.

According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, about 34% of all scientists surveyed said that they are either agnostic or atheist. When the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found that natural scientists are much less likely to believe in God than social scientists.

In a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists declared that they were either atheist or agnostic, much higher than all scientists in general! (SOURCE: Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)  Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey, a whopping 87% of evolutionists deny the existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject the idea of evolution being directed toward an “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.)

Finally, according to a 2007 national survey of faculty at colleges and universities, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics. (SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious are America’s College and University Professors? Feb. 6, 2007.)

Why are people in the biological and natural sciences more likely to be atheists or agnostics? Oh . . . could it have something to do with evolution?

Here is how evolution contributes to atheism and agnosticism.  

At a fundamental level, evolution is mechanistic. By mechanistic I mean that evolution makes two ontological assertions about the fundamental nature of the natural world, namely that materialism and efficient causation rule the world. Materialism is the belief that the fundamental nature of the world is physical material. Everything that truly exists is made up of matter. In a manner of speaking, what matters is matter. There is no such thing as the non-physical. Spirits are not real, neither are your thoughts, emotions, and personal sense of identity - these are nothing more than the actions of electrochemical processes in your nervous system. And efficient causation is the belief that events or change result from natural laws acting on physical material. There are no supernatural, spiritual, or cognitive sources of change. Also there is no purpose or agency in events; there are just the unintentional forces of nature which determine how matter is to behave. Mother Nature is like a blind watch maker that creates a beautifully complex world without a purpose or goal in mind.

There are no inherent problems with interpreting natural world events using a mechanistic-laden theory like evolution, as long as people recognize the limitations. Evolution has its faults, but so does practically every other scientific theory. If we restricted science to only perfect theories, there would be no science.

Problems arise when impressionable minds embrace evolution’s mechanistic underpinnings, when they accept mechanism as reflecting the way the world really is, as a sort of ontological reality. When President Ezra Taft Benson said that “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” I think that he was partly, if not wholly, referring to evolution’s atheistic allure.

The antidote to evolution’s and any theory’s atheistic allure: Faith in the Lord.

12 Comments
 
 
It turns out that there is abundant evidence for macroevolution and that evidence is is sufficiently confirmatory. I abjure my formal skepticism and declare that macroevolution is real.

- Case closed



Picture
Picture
Picture
8 Comments
 
 
. . . Regarding Evolution.

When I criticize the Bush and Obama administrations for their spendthrift budget policies, it does not mean that I am anti-government.

When I express discontent with BYU Idaho’s non-shorts policy and BYU Provo's non-beard policy, it does not mean that I am anti BYU.

When I criticize the Utah Jazz for not picking Jimmer, it does not mean that I am anti-Jazz.

When I express discontent with my employer's new immunization policy requiring all healthcare employees to get flu shots, I am not being anti-healthcare.

On the contrary, I support the government, I support BYU, I cheer for the Jazz, and I support my employer.

Finally, when I criticize evolutionists for saying that evolution across life forms and common descent have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I am not being anti-evolution.  On the contrary, I support macroevolutionary research and evolution education in schools. Furthermore, I am a dye-in-the-wool microevolutionist.

It seems that every time I post an evolutionary article, someone criticizes me for being anti-evolution. Such criticisms are misguided. In science there is no “You are either 100% with us or against us” attitude. This attitude smacks of scientific dogma and is oppressive to critical thinking, a hallmark of science. Science should adopt a tentative stance toward all theories, even those that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because, as history has shown, theories are not perfect.
20 Comments
 
 
Secular learning is a blessing. Secular knowledge enlightens  minds, enriches lives, and empowers people to accomplish great things. It should come as no surprise that the Lord has said “to be learned is good” (2 Nephi 9:29). At the same time, however, secular learning can be a curse. It can ensnare us by causing us to forget the Lord. This ensnaring potential explains why the Lord added caution to the previous statement. He said, “to be learned is good if one hearkens unto the counsels of God.”

Faith can be weakened by secular learning. At greatest risk are those who study from mechanistic theory books in one hand while letting go of the iron rod with the other. They allow themselves to be carried away by the mist of secularism and eventually abdicate their childhood faith. They wander away from the teachings of the gospel because they do not hearken unto the counsels of God. Ezra Taft Benson acknowledged this problem when He said, “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel.”

This is what happened to Charles Darwin.

You see, Charles was a brilliant naturalist. He greatly advanced our understanding of evolutionary processes that create variety within species. But like so many others, the more he studied evolution, the more he loosened his grip on the iron rod of faith. The study of evolution was not to blame for his faltering faith. On the contrary, his study of evolution was a good thing. His faith faltered because he did not “hearken unto the counsels of God” while studying evolution. Remember: studying evolution = good; not hearkening unto the counsels of God while studying evolution = bad.

Let’s take a closer look at his digression from believer into agnostic in his own words. The following are excerpts from the “Life and Letter of Charles Darwin”.

1. He was once a believer.
During these three years (1836-1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst aboard the Beagle I was quite orthodox [in Christian belief] and remember being laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an…authority on some point of morality.

2. He had a spiritual witness that God lives.
[T]he most unusual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward convictions and feelings which are experienced by most persons…. I was led by such feelings…to the firm conviction of the existence of God.

3. Atheistic influences in evolution worked on him gradually.
But I had gradually come by this time to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than sacred books of the Hindoos…. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become…I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

4. His disbelief grew little by little.
I was unwilling to give up my belief,…but I found it more and more difficult…to invent evidence that would suffice to convince me [to believe in God]. This disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted for a single moment that my conclusion was correct.

5. Natural selection led him away from God.
The old argument from design in nature…which formerly seemed so conclusive, fails now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.

6. He let go of the iron rod.
[Once] I deserved to be called a theist,…[now] I must be content to remain an agnostic.

This post is not a diatribe against science and evolution. Studying science and evolution is cool and highly recommended. The Lord wants us to study scientific theories (see, for example, D&C 88:78). What is neither cool nor recommended is allowing science to displace faith.

Science usually displaces faith when the two disagree. So what should we do when science contradicts fundamental gospel principles? The answer is to recognize that scientific theories are constantly changing and being replaced by better theories; hence science is not perfect. A scientific principle that contradicts a fundamental gospel truth today may be replaced by a scientific principle that is consistent with the gospel tomorrow.

It also helps to remember that our understanding of how the Lord created and governs the natural world is not perfect. The gospel is silent on most natural matters. However, when the Lord comes again He will reveal secrets regarding life, the earth, and the heavens, things currently not revealed in the gospel (D&C 101:32-34). We may be surprised to learn that some of these secrets are consistent with modern theories of science.

(Note: mechanistic refers to scientific theories that explain natural phenomena solely by physical material and physical forces.)
4 Comments
 
 
Chapter 1

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of scholarly wisdom, it was the age of scholarly foolishness. It was the epoch of unheralded scientific progress, it was the epoch of scientific dogma. It was the season of scientific light, the season of scientific darkness. There was an explanation for the origin of species, including the theory of common descent, and there were those who rejected it. This period was like recent periods in that some of the noisiest scientific authorities insisted on evolution being wholly accepted, for good or for evil, and not being subjected to comparisons from competing theories.

There was a king with an australopithecine jawbone and a queen with a pseudogene identical to a chimp's sitting on the throne of natural science. And there was a lowly scholar with evidence of extremely complex cell systems on the lower throne of intelligent design.

It was the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven. Spiritual revelations had been conceded to humans throughout history that God created mankind. Mr. Darwin had recently attained his two-hundredth birthday, a birthday heralded by the sublime announcement of a half fish and half tetrapod fossil named Tiktaalik discovered in the Canadian tundra. Even though Darwin had been laid to rest over 200 years ago, evolutionists rapped out their message, just as they had done this very year last past. Mere messages in the evolutionary order of events have lately come to the people from a congress of evolutionary scientists, messages which, strange to relate, have proved more important to the human race than any communications yet received through any of the variety of the religious brood.

Intelligent design, less favoured on the whole as to matters scientific than its evolutionary sister, rolled with exceeding smoothness downhill, making arguments for intelligence and advancing it. Under the guidance of her overlords at the National Center for Science Education, evolutionism entertained herself with such “humane” achievements as sentencing ID to have its hands cut off, its work deemed unscientific, and its publications burned because it had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of royal evolutionists which passed by in review. It is likely enough that, rooted in the dark hallways of university natural science departments, there was growing resentment, discussion of when ID was to be put to death. ID was a movement already marked by the National Center for Science Education as unscientific, a movement to be brought low and sawn in two, to be placed into a sack and a knife thrust into it. It is likely enough that in the rough houses adjacent to universities, IDers there were sheltered from the evolutionary dogmatism of that very day, relegated to the pseudoscience mire by their punitive overlords. But those IDers, though they worked unceasingly, worked silently, and the evolutionary establishment did not hear them as they went about with muffled tread. Rather, forasmuch as to entertain any suspicion that they were awake, was to be traitorous.

In science, there was scarcely any mention of the evidence for design, just much evolutionary boasting. Mention of daring predictions of fossil finds, biological homologies, and genetic information, took place in science rooms every night. Meanwhile university scholars rejecting common descent were cautioned not to come out with their views before gaining tenure. The university IDer in the dark was an evolutionist Kool-Aid drinker in the light, but, being once recognised and challenged by his fellow faculty members, was shot out the university doors and forced to go away. University departments are waylaid by evolutionists who wish to shoot ID dead. Not wanting evolution to get shot dead itself by the religious community, and recognizing their failure to demonstrate macroevolutionary processes with certainty, they called on the magnificent potentate, Judge John E. Jones III to stand and rule on their main competitor, Intelligent Design.

Evolutionists in Dover fought battles with the ID, and the majesty of the law fired blistering questions, loaded with lawyer’s tricks and leading questions. Prosecutors snipped off pieces of the bacteria flagellum and argued that it was still functional. Meanwhile, university natural science departments went in search of contraband ID, as evolutionists fired accusations at the IDers, and IDers defended their views against the mob, and nobody outside of the scientific establishment thought any of these occurrences much out of the common way. In the midst of them, evocations of Judge Jones’ ruling, ever worse than useless, was in constant requisition; fueling long rows of accusations of ID as being re-packaged creationism, a mere scientific chimera. They ended the career of a faculty IDer on Saturday who had been taken on Tuesday; now, rejecting ID papers by the dozen, and now burning Signature in the Cell at the door of the National Center for Science Education; to-day, attacking the credentials of anyone who supports ID, and tomorrow preaching that it is not scientific to believe that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. 

All these attacks, and a thousand like them, came to pass in and close upon the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven. And now the evolutionists work unheeded; with the large jaws of scientific and judicial dogma, they carry their appointed dominance with a high hand. Thus in the year two thousand and eleven did they conduct their greatnesses, proposing that myriads of creatures big and small evolved from a common ancestor along Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life that lay before them.
9 Comments
 
 
Recently I watched NOVA’s show on the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design trial. The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania was accused of promoting Intelligent Design instruction in the classroom, a move which, the plaintiffs claimed, violated the separation of church and state First Amendment clause. The show’s producers were decidedly one-sided in that they clearly favored evolution over intelligent design. This did not distract me from seeing beyond the bias. Enough facts are presented to get a good idea of what really happened.

There is so much that can be said about the trial. Nevertheless, I limit my comments to three objective opinions.

1. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, presented a strong case for evolution. It clearly demonstrated that evolution is science and that it belongs in the classroom. Even though I don’t agree with some things Ken Miller says, he is very knowledgeable and was a very strong witness for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also did a good job of examining the ID proponents, in particular Michael Behe, and of revealing the true motive underlying the Dover school boards efforts to get ID into the classroom (# 3 below).

2. The defense, represented by the Thomas-Moore Law Center, screwed up. They did not present an adequate defense of ID. Why not? Because ID heavy hitters from the Discovery Institute did not testify, although they were supposedly asked to do so.  The defense of ID was left to a few scholars and lawyers who could not adequately present and defend ID. Imagine the LDS church being put on trial for being a cult. Rather than sending apostles to defend the LDS faith as being a religion, we send a few knowledgeable lay members to defend the church. This is what the ID movement did. The ID heavy hitters stayed away – a colossal mistake.

3. The federal judge, John Jones, got it right on one count and screwed up on another. I think the judge correctly ruled that the Dover School board was trying to get elements of creationism into the classroom. Doing so violates a 1987 Supreme Court ruling banning creationism in schools. From the NOVA presentation it is fairly evident that some board members were sneaking creationism into schools on the back of ID. I am pleased that the judge put a stop to efforts to promote clandestine creationism.

Unfortunately, however, allowing creationists to advocate for ID led to a mischaracterization of ID as being unscientific. The Discovery Institute should have seen this coming. They should have gotten involved and made sure that ID was not mixed with creationism, that ID was not proven ‘guilty’ by association. They did not. Discovery Institute IDers should have testified and, if necessary, distanced themselves from the actions of the school board members. They did not. They stayed home.

The failure of the Discovery Institute to defend ID led to the judge’s mistaken ruling that ID is not scientific. The judge attempted to settle the question of whether ID is scientific by applying some conveniently prepackaged demarcation criteria. While demarcation criteria like falsification and empirical observation are important, what qualifies as scientific is largely driven by social forces within the scientific community, and these forces change over time. In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler’s astronomical observations led him to hypothesize that the moon caused tidal activity on earth. The scientific community, including the eminent Galileo, rejected this work and claimed it was unscientific. Back then the idea of something afar influencing tides on earth smacked of the occult and spiritualism. However, eventually Isaac Newton’s work on gravity changed the scientific community’s opinion of Kepler’s work – it was scientific.

In 2005 a federal judge had the audacity to rule by judicial fiat that ID is not science. He should have known better. The scientific community decides what is science, not a lawyer in robes.
150 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
 
 
Picture
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.
Picture
The Amazing Discovery of Tiktaalik

Ten 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 Matter
Tiktaalik’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.
16 Comments
 
 
Back in 1991 when I attended the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, I met a Born Again Christian student named Michelle. When I found out that she attended a university bible study group, I asked if I could attend. She said yes and a week later I was introduced to the group. I knew that they would have a problem with a Mormon in the group, but it was a nondenominational gathering and I wanted to find out how they would react to me being there.

At a meeting with about 10 students, the leader, an assertive young man in his mid-twenties, asked me questions to find out more about my beliefs. He asked, “Which church do you go to?” I replied, “A nearby church.” He asked, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ?” I replied, “Yes, I’ve accepted him as my Lord and Savior.” He asked, “Do you believe in the bible?” I replied, “Yes, I believe it is the word of God.”

I answered all his questions truthfully with the intent of showing the group that I shared many of their religious beliefs. In fact the beliefs we had in common outnumbered our differences. However, I knew that eventually they would discover that I am a Mormon. The questions continued.

“Why do you want to join our group?” I replied, “Because I like discussing the bible with others.” Then he went back the original question: “What is the name of your church?” “The Church of Jesus Christ,” I replied. I could see the wheels turning in their heads as they tried to figure out what church that was. Then one girl hit on it. “You mean the church of latter-day saints!?” she blurted. I replied, “That’s right.”

“So you’re a Mormon,” the leader said. He continued: “You can’t join our group.” “Why not?” I replied. “I want to study the bible with you and I believe in Jesus Christ.” Then someone said what I expected to hear all along: “You don’t believe in the same God that we believe in.” Members of the group then proceeded to give me several of the anti-Mormon talking points I heard on my mission. The group leader then called for a break at which point I left.

I know my friend Michelle was embarrassed by their behavior. Although she was a Born Again Christian and I a Mormon, we spent lots of time together. I guess you could say we dated for a short while, but we were more friends than anything else. We discussed the bible. We went to sporting events together. She asked me to take her to the Cardston Temple open house after it was renovated. And she invited me and my wife over to her and her husband’s place for dinner after we both married.

Recently I thought about how posting articles on evolution at mormonsandscience.com is a bit like going to the Christian bible study group. Those who attack my evolutionary posts sound a lot like the bible study group members. “You don’t know the true Jesus - You don’t understand evolution.” “You reject the true God - You reject evolution” (when actually I accept a lot of evolution). “You don’t belong in our group because you are not a believer - You should not be commenting on evolution because you are not a natural scientist.” “Your LDS church is full of falsehoods - Mormonsandscience.com is pseudo-science.”

It did not matter to the bible study group that I thought that they believed in the true God, that they embraced many correct Christian principles, and that their religion was mostly correct and good. Because I was Mormon I was heretical. In likewise manner, it does not matter to LDS evolutionists that I accept a great deal of evolution, that I believe that they understand science fairly well, and that I think that their acceptance of common descent is reasonable given the evidence. Because I reject common descent, they accuse me of being a misguided and confused scholar.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not pleading for acceptance. It does not hurt my feelings when people post nasty replies to my evolutionary posts. I do not care that I was kicked out of the Born Again Christian bible study group (I expected it), and I do not care that pro-evolution latter-day saints make false accusations against me and my site. I am confident and comfortable in what I write and that is all that matters to me.

The similarities between my experiences at the bible study session and mormonsandscience.com illustrate how intolerant and stupid people sound when they impugn me and others latter-day saints for not accepting common descent. 

I am happy to say that, like my Born Again Christian friend Michelle, I receive comments at mormonsandscience.com from a couple of pro-evolutionists who are courteous and respectful. Notwithstanding our irreconcilable differences and spirited debates, we get along well and respect one another. I hold them in high regard as I did my friend Michelle. They know how to get along and disagree without being disagreeable, a Christian quality.
10 Comments
 
 
Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree. When it comes to understanding the limits of evolution, he hit the nail on the head.

Detractors will immediately accuse me and Dr. Widtsoe of not understanding science and evolution. We’ll let the evidence speak for itself. He had a PhD and was the author of 7 scientific books and over 76 articles on chemistry and agriculture. I have a PhD and have written 1 scientific book and (co)authored 11 articles for peer-reviewed scientific journals.

To begin with, he and I agree that the law of evolution is an undeniable fact of nature. “[T]here seems to be a steady process by which unorganized matter is being organized into more and more complex forms. . . .[C]reation as a whole has been and is moving forward, becoming more complex, evolving and creating.”

Now the steady development of life forms on earth has led some to conclude that all life “must have descended from a common ancestor.” The belief that all life descended from a common ancestor is not factual; it is an inference from the facts. Widtsoe correctly argued that “inferences from the facts . . . must be treated as hypotheses or theories.” Hypotheses and theories like common descent are just scientific best guesses about the way the natural world operates. As such, they are subject to revision and refutation. Very few theories achieve lasting law-like status that has been ascribed to well-tested theories like gravity and relativity.

The following statement by Dr. Widtsoe demonstrates his far reaching wisdom on this issue. He wrote: “If the difference between fact and inference had been held clearly in mind, much of the absurd talk on the subject would have been eliminated.” He did not tell us what he meant by “absurd talk,” but I am confident that I know what he was talking about. By “absurd talk” he was, in all likelihood, referring to scientists claiming that common descent is a proven fact when it is not.

Like Dr. John A. Widtsoe I am all for evolutionary research. I support scientists’ efforts to develop evolutionary principles and test evolutionary hypotheses. I declare that most who teach and/or research evolution are true scholars and I respect them as such. But those who endeavor to convince others that common descent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are selling ocean front property in Arizona. Believing, teaching, and researching common descent are fine as far as I am concerned; trying to convince people that science has proven common descent is not. On this matter, Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree.  
22 Comments
 
Google Analytics