Statement from Joseph Fielding Smith: "CANNOT BELIEVE BOTH GOSPEL AND EVOLUTION. I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so." "If you believe in the doctrine of the evolutionist, then you must accept the view that man has evolved through countless ages from the very lowest forms of life up through various stages of animal life, finally into the human form. The first man, according to this hypothesis known as the "cave man," was a creature absolutely ignorant and devoid of any marked intelligence over the beasts of the field." Source: Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 19 Comments Percentage of Mormons Who Accept Evolution 02/08/2010
In 2008 the Pew Research Forum released the results of their survey on the religious landscape in America. (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=392) One of their survey questions was: “Do you believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth?” This question addresses a belief in common descent which claims that humanity evolved from lower life forms. Here are the percentages of people answering yes to that question, stratified by religious affiliation.  If the Pew Forum’s sample of Latter-day Saints is representative of the larger Mormon population, then it appears that 22% of us believe that humanity evolved from lower life forms. This result is in line with my expectation that about 2 out of every 10 Latter-day Saint accepts that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved. Note that the national average for accepting common descent is 48%. It is not surprising to see Catholicism above the national average (58%) because the Catholic leadership has formally endorsed evolution. However, I was somewhat surprised to see Jewish (77%) and Protestant (51%) above the average. Any ideas on why they are above the average? How do you feel about where Mormons are relative to other religions I've included a similar survey question below. It will be interesting to see what kind of results we get on mormonsandscience.com. Of course this survey is not scientific. (It lacks random selection [representativeness] and does not control for multiple responses, although I hope you vote just once.) In the January 2009 special edition of Scientific American there is a scathing report on evolutionary psychology (EP). The report raises concerns about the way evolutionary psychology is being carried out and the truth claims it is making. The article was written by Dr. David Butler, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University. I should point out that Butler believes that our mental capacities evolved, however, he is skeptical of the truth claims being made in EP. He says that many of the “grand and encompassing” claims lack rigorous empirical evidence. The claims may be correct, but EP does not have sufficient evidence to back them up. Here are the four concerns he raises. 1. We cannot know our ancestors’ psychological traits. EP claims to understand the adaptive problems that our Pleistocene ancestors faced. An understanding of these adaptive problems is essential to understanding how the human mind evolved. Yet, Butler points out, the paleontological record provides few clues about the challenges our early ancestors faced. It also says very little about their social interactions which would have played a major role in shaping how the human mind evolved to cope with social challenges. Without knowing the social and physical challenges they faced, we know very little about their psychology. If we do not know the psychological starting point, we cannot know how evolution shaped their minds. 2. Evolutionary psychologists are limited in their use of comparative methods. To better understand how and why our adaptive mental traits evolved, one must do comparative research (i.e., compare the development of similar traits in a nearby species). However, Butler points out that our nearest living ancestors do not possess many of the same psychological traits that make us uniquely human (e.g., verbal language). Thus we lack crucial evidence needed to uncover our psychological evolutionary history. 3. EP is stuck in the Pleistocene era. Butler says that EP relies too heavily on the Pleistocene era when describing the evolution of human psychology. He quotes the oft used statement “our modern skulls house a stone age mind” as evidence of this problem. He says “The idea that we are stuck with a Pleistocene-adapted psychology greatly underestimates the rate at which natural selection and sexual selection can drive evolutionary change.” For instance, the more recent agricultural and industrial revolutions presented challenges that greatly shaped human psychology. We are not locked in a stone-age mindset. 4. Some EP truth claims rest on shaky empirical evidence, and always will. EP claims that it has uncovered human psychological adoptions. Much of the data supporting these claims were gathered with paper and pencil surveys (questionnaires). Forced choice questionnaires do not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims about how psychology adapted to social and physical environmental challenges. Thus, “the evidence needed to substantiate accounts of adaption…is scarce. And this isn’t the kind of evidence that is likely to materialize; such evidence is lost to us, probably forever.” I have found that the same sort of arguments may be used against common descent. Specifically, as far as common descent is concerned, we cannot know exactly what took place back when organisms were supposedly evolving from one species into another because we were not there. Our evidence for common descent is largely driven by the historical fossil record. Try as we might to paint a picture of what happened, we cannot be certain. Moreover, decisive evidence that evolution across life forms will always be lacking because of the long period of time required to observe these supposed processes at work. One final thought. Butler is not suggesting that EP close up shop. He is just pointing out its limitations and cautioning it from making unsupportable truth claims. In the same way I am not suggesting that common descent scientists stop their work. I am just pointing out its limitations and cautioning it from making truth claims that lack definitive evidence. When I was finishing my PhD in Theoretical Psychology at BYU in 2003, a new psychology class arrived on campus – evolutionary psychology. At the time I was too occupied with completing my dissertation to check out what evolutionary psychology was about. I did my own investigation later on when I had more time. I was not impressed with what I found. In a nutshell, evolutionary psychology attempts to explain and predict human behavior using the principles and mechanisms underlying evolution. At a first glance this seems like a justifiable endeavor, especially for evolutionists. However, serious doubts about evolutionary psychology have recently been raised, not only among skeptics like me, but among die hard evolutionists as well. The Scientific American January 2009 special edition on evolution contains an article exposing four research fallacies in evolutionary psychology. It even goes so far as to call the new upstart discipline a “pop science”. Being labeled “pop evolutionary psychology” by Scientific American is not a good thing if you are a budding evolutionary psychologist. My beef with evolutionary psychology takes a different form. I am concerned that using evolution to explain human behavior reduces human actions to the lowest common denominator in the animal kingdom – hedonism. Hedonism is the idea that everything humans do is driven by the selfish desire to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. Hedonism is closely allied with natural selection because many of the things that bring pleasure contribute to our survival (e.g., food, sex). Indeed, hedonism may be seen as a catalyst for a species to engage in certain behaviors that facilitate its survival in a specific environment. Here’s the Big Problem, folks: Hedonism combined with natural selection creates a volatile mixture known as Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism originated with the English scholar Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). It is the belief that humanity advances through the principle of “survival of the fittest” (a term coined by Spencer). The crux of Social Darwinism is that in a society with limited resources, for one person to succeed, another must fail. This thinking has its roots in Darwin’s natural selection wherein the weak die and the strong survive. Recent events at a hospital in Illinois suggest that Social Darwinism is present in our society. Jill Stanek is a registered nurse who worked in labor and delivery at Christ’s hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. She “blew the whistle” on acts of barbarity committed against newborn infants in that hospital before an Illinois State Senate Hearing in 2001. Here is an excerpt from her testimony: “I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past 5-1/2 years. Christ Hospital performs abortions during the second and even third trimesters of pregnancy.” “The abortion method being called into question that Christ Hospital and other Illinois hospitals practice is called ‘induced labor abortion.’ This abortion technique sometimes results in infants being aborted alive. In the event that an infant is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, she or he is given no medical assessments or care whatsoever, but is left to die...and is given what my hospital calls ‘comfort care.’ Comfort care is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until the baby dies, although until recently even this was not always done. The baby is then offered to the parents to hold until he or she dies.” “If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, as is most often the case, it is left to nursing staff or support staff on the floor to hold the baby until he or she dies. And, until this past December, when staff did not have time or the desire to hold the baby, the baby was taken to our Soiled Utility Room and left there alone to die.” (Source: Illinois Right to Life Website) Jill Stanek was fired from Christ’s Hospital for testifying. She described her experience in this videotaped interview with Bill O’Reilly. The idea that it is acceptable to leave newborn babies to die because they are unwanted or less healthy than other babies is reprehensible to most folks. How can people justify this sort of thing? It's simple. From an evolutionary standpoint it is natural for a mother cougar to kill some of her kittens (due to limited resources) to ensure the survival of the others. Because humans are just another species in the animal kingdom that is influenced by laws of nature, it is acceptable for humans to kill unwanted offspring to increase the survivability of other humans. This is the type of scholar-babble you get from leading evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker who used the same argument to explain why Andrea Yates drowned her five young children in a bathtub in 2001. (Source: The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.) A final thought. Christ’s Church is sponsored by the United Church of Christ, a pro-abortion organization that has strongly supported the legalization of abortion since 1971. It is hard to believe that these horrendous acts took place in a hospital named after the Lord. I think the scripture found in Matthew 7:22-23 applies here. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” PS. On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants’ Protection Act into Law. Jill Stanek attended the signing ceremony. PPS. As far as I can tell evolutionary psychology is still alive and well. Humanity is Evolving! 09/30/2009
 Dear Gentle Reader, I don’t know about you, but I’ve grown tired of all the evolution skeptics saying: “If evolution is going on right now, then why haven’t we seen it in the human race over the last few thousand years?” Well at last we can put those silly arguments to rest. We now have solid evidence showing that humankind is evolving! That’s right folks; humanity is currently evolving and it will continue evolving into 2 species over the next 100,000 years – so says London School of Economics professor Oliver Curry. Curry, an evolutionary psychologist, reports that by the year 3000 (that’s about 1000 years from now) microevolutionary processes will breed men into “tall, handsome studs with deep voices, square jaws, and substantial [reproductive organs].” The ladies are not exempt from changes. Curry claimed that females will have “smooth, hairless skin, glossy hair, large eyes, and perky [mamillary glands].” Hmm, sounds interesting, even scandalous! But what about macroevolutionary changes - that is what we are most interested in, right? Here it is: Professor Curry says that in 100,000 years (that’s the year 102,009 for you doing the math), macroevolution will split the human race into two species. Yes! In your face anti-evolutionists! Curry says that there will be a species of “tall, slim, intelligent privileged” people, and a “short, squat, ugly, dim-witted race of servants.” Brilliant! (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm) Oh, I know what race I would want to belong to - the short, fat dim-witted race because in the year 102,009 the hard working short species will rise up and annihilate the tall, lazy species. And after annihilating the tall species of humans, members of the short species will place Randy Newman’s song “Short People” on the Index of Prohibited Songs. I further predict that after the annihilation, short academicians and evolutionists will become embroiled in a heated debate about whether they and the tall people evolved from the same ancestors (common descent). The evolutionists will say that the fossil record and genetic facts clearly indicate that common descent took place. The skeptics will demand more proof. They will insist that evolutionists prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they evolved from the same ancestor(s) as the repugnant tall, lazy people. Ah yes. Doesn't history seem to repeat itself? IS EVOLUTION A PROVEN FACT? 09/24/2009
Have you ever heard or read the phrase, "Evolution is a fact"? I am hearing this statement more often these days. What does it mean to say that evolution is a fact? It is important to note that this statement is most often construed as referring to the ontological status of the theory. In other words, it is a statement about whether the theory agrees with what is happening in the natural world. Now some people like to say that evolution is a fact because it is based on factual data like fossils and genetic data. I would argue that that saying evolution is a fact because it is based on factual data is a misleading argument and should be avoided. Fine. Now let’s move on. There are two major categories of research in science; there is theory explanation and there is theory testing (justification). Sometimes these two categories overlap and they share similar research characteristics, but they are very different. I bring up these two categories (theory testing and theory building) because sometimes evolutionists and others confuse them. This confusion leads to unjustifiable truth claims about evolution (more on this in a bit). When talking about the factuality of evolution, it is essential to distinguish between two types of evolution. Now I know that some evolutionists don’t like to distinguish between micro and macroevolutionary processes, and that’s fine; the distinction may not be important in their everyday work. However, the distinction is important when exploring the question “Is evolution a fact?” It turns out that one type of evolution has been subjected to rigorous testing and passed while the other has not. Microevolutionary processes within a species is a demonstrable fact. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with rigorous testing. Specifically, random genomic mutations and environmental selection have been shown to create change within a species. However, macroevolutionary processes across life forms is not a demonstrable fact. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then why do so many evolutionists and others claim that macroevolution is a fact? I think there are two main reasons for this mistake. First they confuse the theory description and theory testing processes, and second, they do not understand the kind of testing that justifies “beyond a reasonable doubt” truth claims. Much of the evidence for macroevolution is descriptive in nature. Here is what I mean. Macroevolution involves a lot of descriptive research wherein one goes out into the real world, gathers data, and best explains that data in a manner consistent with macroevolution. Gathering real world data and explaining that data in a manner consistent with a theory is an inductive process. Sometimes it is called making an inference to the best explanation or it is sometimes called ‘abduction’. Much of the real world data “fits” into the macroevolutionary theoretical framework, however, because the data are inductive in nature, they do not provide certain evidence of macroevolution. If you are feeling confused, the following example should help. Sherlock Holmes used induction when he collected observable facts and used those facts to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene. (It is interesting to note that Holmes said he was using ‘deduction’ - actually he was using ‘induction’.) In philosophical terms induction is going from particulars to a single explanation, and that is what Holmes did; he went from particular evidence to a single conclusion about who committed the crime. In the same way evolutionists collect facts in the natural world and explain or describe them using macroevolution (common descent). This too involves moving from particular field evidence to a single conclusion (macroevolution). Although the evidence may appear to support a conclusion, we cannot be certain that either conclusion is correct. Holmes never saw the crime being committed and an evolutionist never witnessed common descent (evolution from one life form to another). This sort of evidence does not lead to certainty. Yet evolutionists argue that macroevolution is on the same footing as relativity and gravity, because, they claim, relativity and gravity were built using the same inductive methodology. This is true. Relativity and gravity were built using the same inductive methods; however, evolution is not on par with these two well established theories. Why not? The answer is that macroevolution lacks rigorous testing; it has not been subjected to, and passed, tests of hypotheses to the same extent that relativity and gravity have. What macroevolution lacks are controlled crucial tests of its core tenets, and assuming that such tests could be carried out, the theory would also have to survive those tests. A major barrier to carrying out a controlled, crucial test is time – too many years are required to observe change from one life form to another. (Note that some evolutionists like to point to one species of salamander evolving into another “species”. I am talking about going from a salamander to another significantly different life form like a platypus.) On the other hand, relativity and gravity have been subjected to crucial tests of their core tenets, and survived. The last time you accidentally dropped something you unwittingly submitted gravity to a crucial test, and I am sure it passed (the item fell). In 1919 a research team led by Sir Arthur Eddington submitted relativity to a crucial experiment by measuring shifts in the Hyades star field near the sun during an eclipse. And in 1971 Hafele and Keating submitted relativity to a crucial experiment by measuring time differences in previously synchronized atomic clocks flown in jet airplanes. Relativity passed both tests. Because of these and other successes, we've elevated gravity and relativity to law-like status. For the time being they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt – macroevolution has not. So the bottom line is that microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution is not. This does not mean that macroevolution is necessarily false; it does mean, however, that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a manner of speaking, yes, it is still just a theory.  I am not an evolutionist, but I like evolution. Some parts of the theory of evolution are really cool, like explaining variety within species and how bacteria become antibiotic resistent. At the same time, however, some aspects of the theory are on shaky ground and apparently inconsistent with mainstream LDS theology. The notion that mankind evolved from lower life forms is one example. But as is the case with most scientific theories, you take the good with the bad. I am not an intelligent designer, but I like Intelligent Design (ID). The thing I like best about ID is that its central theme is consistent with LDS theology. According to Intelligentdesign.org, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” This statement sounds really good to me. It is a welcome breath of fresh air in an increasingly secular and godless science. But as we shall see below, ID also has its problems. Proponents of ID and evolution are currently in conflict with each other. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn might have called it a Revolution, but I am going to dispense with the academic jargon and use a more vibrant description: a boxing match. That right, right now there is a big slug fest going on between evolution and ID. Here is a description of the boxing match thus far. Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, let’s get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!! Welcome to the science battle royale! In the left corner we have evolution’s goliath. He weighs in at 150 years of hegemony in the natural sciences. In the right corner we have the upstart Intelligent Design. ID weighs in at 10 years of “can’t get no respect” in the natural sciences. As the two boxers meet in center ring to receive instructions, evolution bounces up and down in anticipation. Evolution points at ID and tauntingly says: “I own you! You’re mine! You’re going down, punk!” ID looks up in stoic fashion and doesn’t respond. After the opponents move back to their corners, evolution looks at the audience and shouts, “I pity the fool! He don’t belong in the same ring as me.” (Bell rings) Ding Ding Evolution comes out swinging with: “You’re not science! You’re repackaged creationism! Dover! Scopes! Monkey Trial! Pandas and People! Take that, you fool! Arrgh!” Many of the punches hit their mark, but ID is still standing. After the first round coach Dave says to ID: “You’ve got to publish in mainstream journals. Expunge creationist influences; they are not scientific. Don’t use legislation to gain access into schools. And above all, avoid embarrassing trials and text books! ” (Bell rings) Ding Ding Evolution comes out swinging with: “You say evolution lacks scientific rigor and should not be taught in schools? Well then you’re not getting into our universities! You ain’t even getting in BYU and Notre Dame, sucker! No grants! No tenure! No faculty positions! No research positions! No soup for you! Argh!” ID took a serious beating during that round. His right eye is swollen and he has trouble seeing. “Cut me!” he begs. Coach Dave grabs a razor blade and reduces the swelling by cutting above the eye. After patching the wound, coach Dave turns to ID and says: “Stop trying to restrict evolutionary education. You are not going to get ahead by stepping on evolutionists. Prove your metal by producing solid, scientific work!” (Bell rings) Ding Ding Now ID comes out swinging with credible science methodology. It is deflecting evolution’s punches by not limiting evolutionary education. It is also avoiding embarrassing books and court cases. It has learned that if it is going to gain respect in science, it must do so through scientific means. No one knows the outcome of this match. One thing is certain, however; it is going to be a difficult struggle for ID. Evolution is much larger and hits harder, but ID has one advantage that most evolutionists are unaware of; it is that most evolutionists have a prideful and arrogant attitude toward their theory. This pride among evolutionists may prove its downfall. In the Bible, Job teaches us that pride cometh before the fall, which you could say, in boxing terms, translates into "the bigger they are, the harder they fall." We'll have to wait and see. THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE 07/13/2009
A couple of weeks ago a very good post on abduction appeared on Mormon Organon (view it here). In that post, Mr. Peck correctly argues that abduction, or inference to the best explanation as it is sometimes called, refers to a sort of logical competition between theories. A theory that explains a body of evidence better than its rival theory is more reasonable to accept. If we apply this concept to theories on the origins and complexities of species, evolution is the clear winner, although probably more by default than anything else. But this explains why evolution is so widely accepted. It is simply the best scientific theory available for explaining the origins and complexities of life. ONE YEAR OF MORMONS AND SCIENCE 06/27/2009
 Mormons and science is one year old. I started this site because I wanted to share my ideas with others and gain a better understanding of the relationship between science and the gospel from others. I believe that we can enrich our understanding of both by integrating them. This integration is largely inspired by the Prophet Brigham Young’s mandate for Lattery-day Saints to gathering in truth and bring it to Zion. By bringing scientific truth to Zion, we enlighten our understanding of the gospel and increase our appreciation and knowledge of the handiwork of God. Bringing scientific truth to Zion also enlightens our understanding of scientific principles and facilitates our quest for truth in science. In an attempt to bring scientific truth to Zion, I have written posts covering the physical sciences, social sciences, health sciences, and quantum mechanics. There are also a few posts on political issues and the history and philosophy of science. So far, for the most part, the response from readers has been positive. I thank you all for your thought-provoking comments. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. Disagreement is welcome when it is done in the right spirit. There are many different perspectives in science and there are different viewpoints on gospel teachings for which we lack certain knowledge (i.e., things that God has not yet revealed). By fostering an open and amiable exchange of perspectives, this site provides members with the opportunity to “try out their views” in the marketplace of ideas and discover new viewpoints. Over the last year there have been a couple of unexpected surprises. One came a few weeks ago when I posted an article on the homosexual community’s efforts to redefine marriage. Several non-members and even some members posted comments in direct opposition to the church’s stance on same-sex marriage. Why someone favoring same-sex marriage would want to read a conservative, Mormon-themed blog and post comments contrary to the teachings of the LDS church is beyond me. Another surprise is the response to my evolution posts from members who are theistic evolutionists. Now I have no problem with theistic evolutionists sharing their views on the creation on mormonsandscience.com and at BYU where I teach. A willingness to explore theistic evolutionary ideas is a sign of good scholarship. What is surprising, however, is the undercurrent of arrogance and dogma that currently exists among some within the macroevolutionary community. This recent comment, posted by Mike, expresses my concern very well. He wrote: The evolutionary world is in a twist about their pet theories, they love to style their struggles as backwoods religionists (we poor pathetic rubes) vs. intellectual heavyweights (the smart, superintelligent evolutionists). They seem to portray Darwin as a demigod, and his theory as absolute fact, and don't seem at all capable of applying critical thought to their own theories. They laugh, they sneer, they condescend, they kick out from their midst anyone who dares question them. It's not peer review anymore, it's peer pressure. The bottom line is this: in our post modern evolutionary world, there is no room for dissent, no room for questioning fundamental tenets of macroevolution which, it is claimed, have been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” This attitude is reflected in the following statement on recent challenges to the well-accepted theropod dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis. James and Pourtless observed that, among evolutionists, “Criticism [about the hypothesis] has usually been dismissed, often with the [misleading] claim that no more parsimonious alternative has been presented” (James, F. C. & Pourtless, J. A. [2009]. Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses, Ornithological Monographs, 66, 1-78). The same dogmatic adherence and arrogance has, I believe, fueled personal attacks against those who oppose macroevolution. While there is nothing wrong with being committed to one’s favorite scientific theory, it is unscholarly to personally criticize scholars who hold opposing viewpoints. Why has it come to this? I think that evolutionists’ aggressive posturing may have something to do with the backlash against unreasonable challenges from creationists who have tried to get biblical creation in the schools and evolution out of the schools. These challenges (in particular, the 2004 Dover Trial Of Pandas and People debacle, and the 1912 Scopes Trial) have the evolutionists circling the wagons and standing guard with plenty of ammunition to keep the wolves away, and understandably so. Unfortunately, they’ve grown trigger happy. Instead of just keeping the wolves at bay, they are now taking shots at anything that moves, at anyone who opposes macroevolution. Anyway, I look forward to more informative discussions and novel ideas from readers. I hope you are enjoying the posts and will continue visiting on a regular basis. Sincerely, Dave Collingridge EVOLUTION: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY 05/27/2009
 The Good Unlocking the secret of evolution, which is that natural selection acts on random genetic mutations, has greatly enriched our understanding of the natural world. This understanding has lead to scientific breakthroughs in genetics, medicine, pharmaceuticals, computer science, and in learning how variation arises within species. These breakthroughs have had a positive impact on our society, whether we realize it or not (Source: Scientific American, January, 2009 issue). The Bad The theory of evolution contains theoretical assumptions about the world that are inconsistent with the doctrines of the restored gospel. 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 materialism and efficient causation. 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. 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. The Ugly Unfortunately we cannot simply pay attention to the Good while ignoring the Bad in evolution because the Bad has ugly consequences. The Bad provides an impetus for people to not believe in God. According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, 66% of all scientists surveyed said that they believed in God. Pretty good. But when the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found startling differences. Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists. Other studies support these results. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists are either atheists or agnostics, 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 of leading evolutionists, a whopping 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.) And 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.) The scriptures teach us that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” It appears that one of the fruits of the theory of evolution is atheism, or it may be that evolution biology attracts atheists. I expect that both are true, but given that, as President Ezra Taft Benson observed, “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” it is fairly safe to conclude that evolution is driving some people away from God. So what should we do? Well we can’t just stop teaching evolution; it is an important part of science (look at the “Good”). As a scientific theory it has its faults, but that is no reason to stop teaching evolution either. If we start restricting science education to only theories that are perfect, soon there would be no theories left to teach. Science is not perfect. It is an ever progressing and self-correcting manmade endeavor. From an LDS perspective, I think the key is to make LDS youngsters aware of the mechanistic assumptions underlying evolution. We commit a grave injustice by pretending that evolution is free from faults, especially those faults that are at odds with the gospel. More importantly, we need to help our youth develop a strong testimony of the gospel so that they will not be deceived by evolution’s atheistic allure. In other words, the perfect mix is a good understanding of evolution (including its underlying assumptions) and a strong testimony of the gospel. With a sound understanding of evolution and the gospel, we can celebrate the Good without fearing the Bad and the Ugly. | Welcome to the Religion and Science (R&S) Blog. Feel free to post your comments. Please be courteous.    CategoriesAll ArchivesJanuary 2012 |
RSS Feed