<![CDATA[mormonsandscience - Religion & Science Blog]]>

<![CDATA[mormonsandscience - Religion & Science Blog]]>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:03:11 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Education and Religiosity: Mormons Buck the Trend]]>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:38:59 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/09/education-and-religiosity-mormons-buck-the-trend.htmlChristian religions across America are concerned about the effects of education on religiosity, and with good reason – past research shows a negative correlation between level of education and religiosity. In other words, data show that as level of education rises, level of religiosity drops. Here’s some data for all Christian religions.

However, there is one Christian religion that bucks this trend. For this religion there is a positive correlation, meaning that as education level rises, so does religiosity. That religion is Mormonism. This unusual positive correlation between education and religiosity among Mormons even made it into the Wiki article on “religiosity and intelligence”. Here’s some religiosity data for Mormons.

Why does Mormonism buck the trend that exists among other religions? I think that latter-day revelation on the importance of learning plays a role. The Lord has instructed us to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study” (D&C 88:118). He is not just referring to scriptures here; He is referring to all good books. Christian religions that reject latter-day revelation have not accepted this instruction from the Lord - they have not gotten the message that the Lord wants us to continually learn.

The LDS faith is also unique in the sense that it lays all its cards on the table. It encourages people to thoroughly explore its doctrines of salvation and the lifestyle it engenders among its members. It encourages people to study the Book of Mormon and revelations from the prophets – go ahead and scrutinize the teachings, ask questions in church classes, and talk with others about church doctrine. With regard to the doctrines of salvation, there is nothing to hide.

The fact that educated Mormons score relatively high on measures of religiosity suggests that they are finding harmony between what they’ve learned in their studies of the gospel and in their studies of science, philosophy, arts, and literature. If this harmony did not exist, measures of religiosity would certainly be lower among educated Mormons.

I have found much harmony between my religious and secular studies; these have strengthened my testimony. At the same time, however, I have found some inconsistencies, particularly between science and religion. Inconsistencies have not created a faith crisis in my life, nor should they. Inconsistencies between secular and religious learning should not be shunned – they should be sought out and explored with the understanding that secular knowledge is continually evolving, as is our knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven.

Acknowledging inconsistencies between secular and religious learning is an important step in moving closer to the truth of all things.

Sources of graphs: Princeton Religion Research Center
Other sources: The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht; Secularization, Higher Education, and Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht and Tim B. Heaton.

]]><![CDATA[Why is "Unaffiliated" the Fastest Growing "Religion" in America?]]>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:11:37 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/08/why-is-unaffiliated-the-fastest-growing-religion-in-america.htmlThe recent defection of renowned novelist Anne Rice from organized religion has some religionists taking stock of the state of organized religion in America. Things don’t look good. The current state of organized religion may be described like a patient in medical shock: weak pulse, shallow breathing, and pale skin. What is driving down the number of parishioners in the pews? I don’t think secularism is largely to blame. I think certain doctrines from the pulpit are the culprit.

Do you return missionaries remember what it was like to encounter ardent evangelicals and their closely allied believers, Born Again Christians? I do. They were good people alright, good people like those you find in any LDS church house on a Sunday morning, yet I could not understand why they so firmly accepted a doctrine of salvation rooted in simply affirming acceptance of Christ. No matter how many times I quoted the familiar phrase, faith without works is dead, they downplayed the importance of works, claiming instead that we are saved by faith and grace, not by works.

Downplaying the importance of works was bound to have ramifications on behavior, and it is. Recent polls indicate that the “saved by grace, not by works” chickens are coming home to roost (to borrow a phrase from Obama’s former minister, Reverend Wright).

Consider, for example, that evangelical pollster George Barna found that Born Again Christians are more likely to divorce, and University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus found that evangelical adolescents who believe in abstaining from premarital sex are more like to be sexually active at an earlier age than Mormons, mainline protestants, and Jews. Are these the sort of polling results we would expect to find among believers who are continually reminded that salvation is largely about faith and not works? Perhaps. Author Ronald Sider calls it the “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”. In his book by the same name, he asserts that “By their daily activity, most Christians regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is their Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate their allegiance to money, sex, and personal [self-gratification].”

This sort of treason is present in all Christian churches, but why is it increasingly becoming a concern among evangelical and born again churches? Perhaps the “saved by grace, not by works” doctrine is sending an unintended message, that it is okay to sin a little as long as you accept Jesus as Lord. Is this doctrine and its accompanying laissez-faire attitude toward works, particularly works of a sinful nature, contributing to the hypocrisy that is pushing people like Anne Rice out of organized religion?

Finally, changing doctrine away from traditional Christian teachings is also contributing to defections from organized religion. Consider that in 2009 the American Evangelical Lutheran Church voted to remove the celibacy requirement for gay ministers, a vote which opened the door for openly homosexual Lutheran ministers. In the same year (2009), the Lutheran Church lost almost 91,000 members or 48 congregations, largely due to the aforementioned vote.

Like Forrest Gump, I wish I could end by saying, “That’s all I have to say about that.” Yet this sort of post demands a closing comment. I used to think that it is better for someone to be in a mosque, church, temple, or synagogue on a Sunday morning than at home watching football; now I am not so sure. If I had to choose between someone being at church listening to an openly homosexual minister downplaying the importance of good works in obtaining salvation, or being at home on a Sunday morning, I might chose being at home (reading scriptures and good books instead of watching football ;) ]]><![CDATA[On Using Unwanted Embryonic Stem Cells For Research]]>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:17:45 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/08/on-using-unwanted-embryonic-stem-cells-for-research.html

On September 25, 2006 President Bush used his veto powers for the first time. What did he veto? A bill allowing federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research. (I wish he had used his veto powers on big spending bills, but that is another story.) The veto was a welcome blessing for many religious folks, but seen as a curse for many folks stricken with degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Multiple Sclerosis.

At the bill signing ceremony, children who started out life as frozen embryos designated “to be discarded” were brought to the center stage. The image of President Bush and parents holding these precious kids tugs on your heart strings and makes you glad that the kids were given a chance at life instead of being tossed into the bio-trash bin. But as usual we need to set emotions aside and rely on research and reason when seeking a clearer understanding of what is going on.

Most people, including Christian folks, don’t have issues when couples with fertility problems use in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization involves fertilizing an egg (ovum) with a sperm outside of the womb. One approach is to inject a sperm directly into an egg (called intracytoplasmic sperm injection). The fertilized egg, called a zygote, is then placed in an incubation chamber and cultured until it reaches the embryonic stage of development, at which time it is transferred to a woman’s uterus.

Because embryos fail during the incubation phase, or fail later after being transferred to a uterus, multiple embryos are created. Why go to all the trouble and expense of creating a single embryo that might fail? It seems reasonable to create multiple embryos. But what happens to the extra embryos when a pregnancy is successful, assuming the parents want no more children? They are discarded.

Where is the uproar over discarding embryos? There really isn’t any. If there isn’t a fuss over discarding unwanted embryos, then why the fuss over using ‘unwanted’ embryos for stem cell research? It seems to me that people opposing embryonic stem cell research should also be opposing discarding embryos with equal fervor, but they aren’t.

Are we, as a society, morally obligated to give every frozen embryo a chance at life? Does tossing out an unwanted embryo translate into a spirit not having a chance at life? I think most Mormons would say no. Wouldn’t it be great if every unwanted embryo were given to adoptive parents? Yes, but that does not always happen for one reason or another. If it is acceptable to discard unwanted embryos created for birth, then why not use them for stem cell research?

Good news: Adult stem cell research is proving much more promising that embryonic stem cell research. This will hopefully prevent the creation of embryonic stems cells for research purposes and minimize the use of unwanted embryos in research - a win win situation for everyone, inlcuding people who may one day be adopted as embryos.

]]><![CDATA[Mormonsandscience is 2 Years Old]]>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:57:30 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/07/mormonsandscience-is-2-years-old.html

Well friends, another year has past and it's now time for some reflections on operating this site. Whenever I think of something lasting 2 years I think of a mission. Unlike a mission that ends after 2 years, mormonsandscience will go on for now. I know this is disappointing to those of you who would like to see mormonsandscience permanently released (ha), but mormonsandscience is turning out to be something more like Stake Seventies who were never released. (Back in the day when sacrament meetings were in the evening, Stake Seventies were called from the ward membership.)

Sometimes I feel like I am running out of ideas to post on, which is silly because there are many more interesting topics to explore. It is not that I am lazy, it’s just that I have other things vying for my attention like kids, writing a book, writing another book after the previous book is written, and work. However, I am committed to providing thought provoking posts on science (and occasionally politics) on a regular basis.

Thanks to those who are regular visitors. According to the stats meter, mormonsandscience receives an average of 200 hits per day. That is nothing to boast about and half of those are probably bots, but at least 100 of you find the site worthwhile.

Thanks to those who post comments. I welcome all comments except, of course, those that are mean spirited. Unfortunately 2 months ago I was compelled to turn on the “approve comments” setting. Some of the comments were not appropriate while others were auto comments selling tennis shoes or whatever else. Several of the good comments I receive express views that are contrary to mine. If I had to choose between (A) mormonsandscience being a ‘group think’ forum where everyone pats each other on the back and we all see things the same way, or (B) mormonsandscience being a forum where people explore and express divergent viewpoints with the goal of uncovering truth and bringing it to Zion, I would choose B.

I’ve added some resources to mormonsandscience to help LDS students and researchers. There is a page for asking statistical and research design questions, a page on how to use G*Power (a free power and sample size calculation program), and a page on how to use R (a free statistical analysis program). These R and G*Power pages are meaningless (and perhaps nauseating) to many of you, but to students and researchers they can be very useful, so please tell others if you think they might be interested.

Finally, when an acquaintance at the BYU Salt Lake Center told me that he was making $200 a month on Google ads, I thought, “Hey, my personal slush fund could benefit from a $200 cash injection every month.” So I set up Google ads and . . . well, they aren’t there anymore. Too many advertisements like “Click here to discover the shocking truth about Mormons” and “Click here to learn more about Joe Smith’s Mormon bible” kept popping up. Ergo, advertisements are gonzo.

As always, thanks for dropping by.

Sincerely,

Dave

]]><![CDATA[What's Behind Legal Challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act]]>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:53:56 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/07/whats-behind-legal-challenges-to-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html

Recently homosexual activists have succeeded in gaining medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships (e.g., granted to federal government workers in June 2009). In California they have succeeded in getting the gay lifestyle into elementary school curriculum with the proviso that kids cannot opt out (passed May, 2009). And in Montana they have succeeded in getting a school district to consider sex education for young children that includes instruction on same-sex intercourse.

It may surprise you to learn that none of these accomplishments is the ultimate objective of homosexual activists. Their grand prize is to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. DOMA states that the federal government recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that no state can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The activists are working hard on getting DOMA repealed. One of their covert operatives, an activist judge named Joseph Tauro from NY, recently ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Don’t be misled about activists’ reasons for repealing DOMA. Repealing DOMA is not about allowing gay couples to marry for the sake of being married. It is about normalizing homosexuality. Even some activists who read this post will be surprised to learn this fact. It is not about marriage; it is about getting society to approve of the homosexual lifestyle.

If DOMA is repealed, I predict that our fundamental understanding of marriage will gradually be transformed. Indeed, transforming marriage may very well be an objective of some activists. According to the words of one gay activist, after winning the “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, . . . [we’ll] redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (Michelangelo Signorile, OUT Magazine, December, 1994).

If our society allows a radical altering of the divinely appointed institution of marriage, this will, as stated in the Proclamation on the Family, “bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

As Latter-day Saints we have a moral obligation to support Judaeo-Christian values and, in particular, traditional marriage. Find out what’s going on in your schools and communities and get involved.

]]><![CDATA[NASA's Weird Mandate From The President]]>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:10:04 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/07/nasas-weird-mandate-from-the-president.htmlWhen Charlie Bolden was appointed chief of NASA, President Obama gave him 3 mandates (direct quotes from Mr. Bolden):

1. “He wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math.”

In my opinion, great.

2. “He wanted me to expand our international relationships.”

In my opinion, good (International Space Station).

3. “Third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

What!? Islam has been in the throes of scholarly and scientific darkness since the 13th century AD.

In Truth and Science, chapter 4, I mention Islam’s important yet limited contributions to science. I also point out that a Islamic religious backlash against scholarship during the Middle Ages resulted in the death of Muslim scholarly learning and progress.

Now, having made the previous point, I will say that Islamic scholars were indirectly responsible for the re-awakening of classical Greek science and learning in the West. Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes (Latin names) preserved and commented on Aristotle’s works, and it was their writings that re-introduced the West to the lost teachings of Aristotle (i.e., rationalism, empiricism) around 1200 AD. The rediscovery of Aristotle's works helped bring the West out of the Dark Ages, but to associate this accomplishment with NASA is quite a stretch.

The President ought to leave recognition of Islam’s contributions to the history writers and let NASA concentrate on space science. ]]><![CDATA[Sign O' The Times]]>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:29:05 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/07/sign-o-the-times.htmlThe apostle Paul was right - these are perilous times. Here are some things that have been on my mind lately.

If the massage therapist's accusations against Al Gore are true, that would mean that for 8 years we had both a sex crazed president and sex crazed vice president running the country. If Al is lucky, she will turn out to be a covert global warming denier.

The BP oil gusher is still gushing, creating an unparralled environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The gusher has me thinking about Revelations chapter 8 and the second destroying angel.

(Revelations 8:9) When the second destroying angel poured out his vial upon the earth, "the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.”

(Revelations 8:8) When the second angel poured out his vial, "the third part of the sea became [as] blood."

(Revelations 8:8) When “the second angel sounded . . . it [was as though] a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea."

Now people are mad and they want BP to pay, and rightfully so. But if we kill BP and big oil, aren't we just hurting ourselves? Currently we don't have a viable alternative fuel technology to take the place of oil.

I am all for developing cold fusion technologies. Sure in the early 1990s the University of Utah's Pons and Fleischmann were branded scientific village idiots, but they were onto something big - they were onto a great idea that has the potential to solve most of our energy woes. If a Mr. Cold Fusion was good enough for Doc Emmett Brown, then one would be good enough for my home and automobile.

]]><![CDATA[How well do you know this woman?]]>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:50:53 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/06/how-well-do-you-know-this-woman.html

How well do you know this woman? Do you want her to be the next Supreme Court justice? She's never been a judge, and her paper trail is short, but is that enough to prove that she is not a clear and present danger to the Constitution?

Share your feelings in this online poll.

]]><![CDATA[Posthumous Recognition for Scientists]]>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:25:14 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/06/posthumous-recognition-for-scientists.htmlSometimes respect and honor take a while.

In 1543 Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published his groundbreaking work De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres). That book proposed an astronomical model that put our sun, not the earth, in the center of the solar system. He published it in the same year as his death so as to avoid retribution from the Catholic Church. When he died, Copernicus was laid to rest in an unmarked grave, a most unassuming burial for such an important figure in modern science.

Copernicus finally got the respect he deserves. In May 2010 (nearly 500 years later) his body was exhumed and he was given a hero’s burial in the tomb of the cathedral where he labored as a church canon and doctor. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/after-467-years-copernicus-gets-a-heros-burial-1980493.html

In 1632 Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei published his work Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The book argued in a somewhat hypothetical manner, that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the solar system. Galileo was eventually arrested and given a trial by the Inquisition. He was guilty of heresy, of openly supporting and teaching sun-centered theories (heliocentrism). He was put under house arrest.

Galileo finally got the respect he deserves. In October 1992, Pope John Paul declared that the Inquisition had incorrectly convicted Galileo. In 1998 (over 400 years after Galileo death), the Church erected a statue of Galileo in the Vatican walls and the current Pope Benedict praised his contributions to astronomy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/vatican-rewrites-history_n_153232.html

Finally there is Isaac Newton. Newton was an accomplished biblical scholar and theologian. He espoused two views that were considered vehemently heretical by most of Christendom (and still are). He believed that the Father and the Son are separate individuals. He also believed that there was an apostasy during his lifetime and that the true church of Jesus Christ was not upon the earth. He looked forward to its restoration.

Unfortunately, Newton has not yet gotten the respect he deserves for these two theological viewpoints. It may be a while before that respect comes – like, say, the Second Coming. At the Second Coming when the whole earth learns the truth about the godhead and the Restoration, I think Newton will get the respect he deserves. Of course, among the latter-day saints, he has already gotten the respect he deserves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

]]><![CDATA[Recent Report in Pediatrics on Kids Raised by Lesbian Parents]]>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:56:19 -0700http://www.mormonsandscience.com/1/post/2010/06/recent-report-in-pediatrics-on-kids-raised-by-lesbian-parents.htmlA recent research report in the journal Pediatrics suggests that children of gay parents are not adversely affected by their parents’ sexual orientation. Results showed that kids raised by lesbian parents are psychologically well-adjusted and even experience fewer behavioral problems than kids raised by heterosexual parents.

This report is creating quite a stir.

As a statistician and researcher who has both published and evaluated peer review articles for professional journals, there is always a room for debate when it comes to arguing the legitimacy of results. There are questions such as: Was the study adequately powered? What is the effect size? What kind of test was used? What sampling method was followed? Who funded the study? While these are important issues in the debating the results of the aforementioned study, I shall leave these issues to groups that have much more interest in the issue than I.

I do not find the results of the study surprising. It does not surprise me that children of lesbian parents are psychologically well-adjusted. Why should a lesbian not be a good parent in terms of loving, providing, and caring for her child? I want children of lesbian parents to do well; I want them to be just as well-adjusted as children from homes with heterosexual parents. In a way, the results or this study are good news – I want psychologically well-adjusted kids no matter what the home environment is like.

For me there is a more important issue that the study did not address. I want to know what effect growing up with lesbian parents has on one’s morals. Put differently, I want to know if the kids of lesbian parents are morally well-adjusted, in a Judaeo-Christian sense. Do they ever receive Christian teachings which tell them that homosexuality is a sin? Are they taught that sexual orientation is merely a matter of personal preference?

I suspect that lesbian parents are downplaying the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint which is that homosexuality is a sin. They are likely emphasizing the homosexual viewpoint which is that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. So my concern does not center on psychological adjustment; it centers on moral adjustment.

If lesbian parents are teaching their children that homosexuality is normal, then that teaching is contributing to the normalization of homosexuality in our society. This is a dangerous trend. The normalization of homosexuality could lead to our nation’s downfall. Mosiah put it this way: “if the time comes that the [greater] voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land” (Mosiah 29:27).

The concern is not psychological adjustment; it is moral adjustment.]]>