mormonsandscience

Wow. This post was not what I expected based on the title of your blog. Maybe you rename the blog "Mormons Against Science"...

It sounds to me that you want to send the department back 200 years to the days of William Paley's "Natural Theology."

If the new Natural Theology department is going to continue with Paley's dead end, then I wonder if it will be able to place its undergraduates into medical school, PhD programs, and into industry. Actually, such students should be systematically avoided, since they know nothing but a dot on a chalkboard.

I am an evangelical Christian and I found your article , both interesting and honest , not least because I am currently blogging against a number of Mormons all of whom are defending evolution . If you would go to 'American Spectator - Huntsman Test'in the google search engine , you will see the debate , I would welcome your contribution .

It is an official teaching of the Church that Adam brought death into the world (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&index=4&sourceId=c49e0bbce1d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____), if doctrine published on the "Gospel Topics" portion of the Church's official website is any indication of the Church's teachings. Most people would readily recognize that this teaching is an obvious contradiction to millions of years of evolution prior to man. If a person sees no conflict between these things or believes they have found some strange way to reconcile them, they should recognize that they are in a small minority, and should not act as though the main body of the Church are the ones who are out of the way.
I see nothing wrong with BYU professors being honest about the obvious differences between such Church teachings and evolution. It is strange that such an idea should meet up with so much opposition. Especially when the agenda of BYU professors goes against the grain of teachings of many of the Church's highest authorities. For instance, the BYU professors would scoff at the Flood, yet this month's First Presidency Message has Pres. Monson referring to Noah and his Flood as though it is a literally true event.
You know Dave, you'd think that quoting prominent General Authorities on this issue would have some effect. But to those who have set up Darwin as their prophet, none of that matters. To them, Darwin is the greatest prophet, and supersedes the scriptures, Church publications, the Prophet Joseph Smith, you name it. If ever there is a conflict of any sort, Darwin always wins.
I am always annoyed, too, when people act as though something like macroevolution is so established that it is a fact, even though it has never been observed or demonstrated. They ignore the fact that they are exercising belief to subscribe to such notions, and bully others who do not wish to believe that mutations can do something they have never been observed to do. They say people are denying science by not believing in something that has never been demonstrated. I note an unfortunate twist of irony in this circumstance. I wish more understanding and civility would exist in these discussions.

"Can someone please tell me how a godless and directionless theory of the descent of mankind is in harmony with a purpose-driven and divinely-directed theology of creation?"

Doesn't this type of argument show too much? After all, Newtonian physics is godless and directionless and doesn't this stand in direct conflict with all the teleological motion we observe in the world?

In other words, the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is non-teleological doesn't seem to preclude God's directing it "somehow."

People do terrible damage when they claim that one must choose between the Church and science.

Do you think the brethren are unaware of what we teach at BYU? Are you saying the current brethren have gone astray and need a course correction? I take it you don't believe they are inspired in their approach to running BYU? I'm sure they'd love to hear more about their misdirection by your more insightful take on 'the truth'. Send them a letter about how they need to correct things they are in charge of and let them add it to the appropriate pile of the many letters they get on that point. Some humility, such a Bruce R. McConkie quoted on the revelation on the Priesthood, is warranted:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Contrary to your demand for course correction, the Board of Trusties, who are the living lights are running things with wisdom and revelation. No course correction is needed. If there is, they will do it through revelation not through misguided attempts from those who believe in fixing the current brethren and want to go back to when the truth was taught correctly (e.g., Members of the Fundamentalist LDS Faith). Maybe you could start your own Church and School. You could call it Scientology, no wait that's taken.

Jeff, you wrote,
"Newtonian physics is godless and directionless and doesn't this stand in direct conflict with all the teleological motion we observe in the world?"

If you pick up a book called "Truth & Science: An LDS Perspective" and read the chaper on Isaac Newton, you will learn that Newton's theory was not godless. The French Philosophes and deists that followed Newton made his theory godless. Newton believed that God's intervention was needed to keep the universe in order, and He hoped that his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia) would bring people to a greater recognition of God's role in the universe.

Now that sounds a lot different than the godless theory that Darwin gave us.

Geoff, you wrote,

"Maybe you rename the blog "Mormons Against Science..."

Thanks, but I was thinking more along the lines of "Mormons against spiritually heretical science..."

Tim, wrote "I've already been down that road with him. He's convinced he understands science (including evolution) and nothing will make him change his mind."

First Correction: I understand science because I DO SCIENCE. And I understand legitimate evolutionary truth claims because I read the philosophy of science.
Second Correction: Something will make me change my mind on the legitimacy of the theory of common descent, that is a well-controlled lab experiment that turns a fish into a salamander. (I'll keep waiting).

Tim, if you accept wholeheartedly that the theory of common descent is consistent with the doctrines of the restored gospel, and your biology professors taught you that, then they have done a big disservice to you, IMO.

True science will always agree with fundamental gospel doctrines. It appears that you have been duped into thinking that macroevolution is true science, and thus the rush to reconcile it with religion. Be a good scientist and start questioning the validity of macroevolution's truth claims.

I compare them to each other because both of them, although well-versed in their respective fields, choose to attack a field that they know very little about.
I see that as a form of pride.
They may be humble men in other respects, but spending significant time attacking something you don't at all understand...I see that as a very prideful act.

I stand by my comment. You didn't' address the substance. Who do you think runs BYU?

And you've really got to learn what an ad hominem attack means. It doesn't mean to questions someone's views or challenge their take on the world. Yours is flawed and pointing out how is not an ad hominem attack.

Steve,
"You didn't' address the substance"

Because the substance is irrelevant, that is why! Anyone can question the scholarly viewpoints of the Biology Dept. all day long; it is called scholarship.

Who runs BYU? You don't.

There you go again insulting my intelligence about ad hominem attacks. When you get flustered with my arguments you start writing things like:

-You are ignorant because you have not read Origin of Species.
- You are not a true scientist.
-You do not understand science.

Those are ad hominem attacks. It ususally means that you've grown weary of engaging people's criticisms with rigorous, scholarly debate.

"You are ignorant because you have not read Origin of Species.
- You are not a true scientist.
-You do not understand science."

I never said you were ignorant.

Let me spell out the logic so you can address my question, which you seem to be avoiding.

A. You think BYU needs a course correction because every member of the Biology Department believes in evolution.
B. BYU is run by the Board of Trustees.
C. You think BYU Board of Trustees needs to correct BYU's course (as they are the only ones that can).
D. The Board of Trustees includes President Thomas S. Monson as its president.

Following the above:

E. You think President Thomas S. Monson needs a course correction.

I know you will say I've attacked your person, and that I don't run BYU (which is true) and that you will need to slap my face with a white glove and claim you have been dishonored. But deal with the logic chain. That is all I'm asking.

And no I don't believe the Board of Trustees endorses everything at BYU, (they trust the science with the scientists) but I promise if anyone tried to teach that abortion was a-okay they would not last a second. If there is course correction needed they are the ones to do it. Hence your post can only be addressed to them.

Jeff,
Please find answers to your questions.

1. Do you see the non-teleological nature of virtually ALL scientific laws and theories in the physical sciences as being in contradiction with a teleological universe designed by God?
- Only those that postulate a theory of the diversity life and the complexity of mankind while purposefully leaving God out of the equation.

2. If so, why pick on evolution when most of science is your true target?
- Because evolution is the only theory of the diversity of life and complexity of mankind that purposefully leaves God out of the equation.

3. If not, why not? (And more importantly, why can't this same reason be applied to the perceived conflict between evolution and God?)
- I don't pick on other scientific theories in the same way I pick on evolution because, first, other theories don't make dogmatic assertions that they cannot support and then boast that they have the absolute truth, and second, other theories are less concerned with the subject of the creation of life.

Let's deconstruct this:

Because X is the only theory of Y that purposefully leaves God out of the equation.

Fill in the X and Y from any scientific theory and Y it's subject matter.

So all the sciences you know bring God into the equation except evolution? Maybe you could list those for me.

Dave,

You are STILL missing the point, and I'm running out of ways to make it clear. I'll approach the point from three different angles:

My point is this: if teleological being like you, me, and maybe even God can operate within a context where non-teleological laws like Newtonian mechanics hold without there being any contradiction, why can't the same be said for Darwinian evolution?

Why can't God create species within a context of Darwinian evolution in the same way that a construction worker builds a house within a context of Newtonian mechanics?

After all, domestication is no more and no less than teleology operating within the context of (non-teleological) Darwinian evolution. If breeders can use selection why can't God do something similar?

Jeff,
I am sorry, but if I am STILL missing the point, then perhaps you were not articulating it very well. Nevertheless, I think you've raised thought-provoking questions.

Of course the laws which God used to create humanity do not have to appear teleological to us mortals. And yes, I concede that God could have used evolution to create mankind. But evolution, by definition, negates god-directed, ordered, purposeful creation.
How so? It relies on undirected, random processes.

On the other hand, the underlying assumptions of Newton's mechanics (even if they lack telos) do not negate the creation of a house by an intentional being. Evolution's randomness, I believe, negates the idea of intentional creation.

You seem to be on the cutting edge of thinking about these issues. I think it would be great if you posted an article presenting your views on this particular issue. I would read it.

Jared,
You wrote: "More likely, [the faculty member] meant that [evolution] is compatible with belief in God, the Restoration, faith, repentance, the ordinances--basically anything required for a temple recommend, which I would argue are the actual fundamental doctrines of the restored gospel."

I would be very pleased if this were the case.

Tim,
What is a "50% fish and 50% amphibian"!? I read the commandment "after their kind" to mean that two 100% fish (of the same species) cannot mate and reproduce a 100% amphibian. Again, how do you read the commandment "after their kind" which is mentioned after the placing of each form of life upon the earth?

"But evolution, by definition, negates god-directed, ordered, purposeful creation.
How so? It relies on undirected, random processes."

This is exactly what I am disputing. This is exactly where you go wrong, on a number of counts.

First, Neo-Darwinian evolution is the NON-RANDOM selection of random mutations. Why couldn't God effect those non-random selecting forces just as breeders do? In other words, evolution is not "random by definition."

Second, it has been established that not all mutations are entirely random. They aren't being directed by any creator or anything like that, but they aren't entirely random either. (Read Evolution in Four Dimensions for a great overview of this.) In other words, mutation is not ENTIRELY random by definition either.

Third, evolution, by definition, does not negate that God did any thing to direct creation. Rather, is simply negates the claim that God was necessarily involved in the process. It simply doesn't say anything about Him, for or against. In other words, even if evolution is random by definition, this doesn't preclude of possibility of God directing it somehow.

Fourth, and closely related to the third, the randomness of evolution simply amounts to the claim that the future cannot cause the past. That non-random selective process can only operate on the genetic material that is already in place. What genetic material there is to work with will only depend upon PAST selective forces, not future ones.

This is the same way that Newton and Descartes overthrew Aristotelian physics which posited that the future of an object being in its natural place causes its past movement. When they took the teleology out of physical laws, they did not take teleology out of the physical world, just as when Darwin took the teleology out of biological laws, he did not take the teleology out of the biological world.

Brad,
There is not a single evolutionary biologist out there that would disagree with you about the fact that two 100% fish can't mate and produce a 100% amphibian. If you "read the commandment "after their kind" to mean that two 100% fish (of the same species) cannot mate and reproduce a 100% amphibian," then you're in total agreement with evolutionary biologists.
Some examples of animals that aren't fully amphibian but aren't fully fish:
Tiktaalik
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
I'll let you look into transitional fossils, etc. on your own...but there's some very interesting stuff there (including the fact that we can successfully predict where we'll find new species of these transitional fossils, based on the age of exposed rock surfaces).

Brad,

You are simply asking at what point does somebody become bald? In fact, it's even more complicated than that since there is no such thing as a "true" essence in a species. You just have clusters which together we call a species, but no point of which can non-arbitrarily be defined as the "true" archetype of the species. In other words, there is no 100% member of a species. All of them are something like 99.9%, and given a lot of generations, those .01%'s can really add up.

Just as there is no non-arbitrary point at which a person becomes bald, or at which a person becomes an adult, so too there is no non-arbitrary point at which a new species begins.

C'mon, you can figure it out.

First, few people have ever lived long enough to see the .01%'s add up enough.

Second, the question of when they have added up enough can only be answered arbitrarily.

Third, as long as animals are still giving birth to animals that are still 99.9% like them they are still multiplying after their own kind. But this doesn't mean that the .01% can't add up all the same.

I really shouldn't have had to spell that out.

Ugh. Suppose we take 1000 people standing at roughly the same point in a field. Now say that every minute, on the minute, each person takes 1 step, no more, no less, in a random direction. After a full year of this, we can expect some of these people to be very far away from each other. Your question is like asking how this can possibly be without breaking the 1 step rule.

The "own kind" rule applies to individual animals, not species since species don't "multiply" really.

Sorry. Typo. Google "Rassenkreis."

Tim and Jeff,
Okay, okay, I'm smart enough to read between the lines. Neither of you guys can answer my question so you have to resort to the old adage, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. But Jeff, I have to admit, "the 'own kind' rule applies to individual animals" was a good one.

Brad,

I don't think you are really trying.

Anyway, leading creationists don't equate species with kind, so even by creationist standards you are tilting at windmills.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie had to say about "after his kind":

"Appended to this command to multiply was the heaven-sent restriction that the creatures in the waters could only bring forth "after their kind," and that "every winged fowl" could only bring forth "after his kind." There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another (see Moses 2:20-23; Abr. 4:20-23).

The crowning day of creation is at hand. In its early hours, the great Creators "made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind." And the same procreative restrictions applied to them that apply to all forms of life; they too are to reproduce only after their kind."

Well then, I guess it's a good thing that biology is not my chosen discipline, but merely a hobby.
:)
I think the scripture you're referring to is emphasizing worldly learning (which science, religion, and many other fields are a part of) and "the truth" refers to the gospel--basically, the elements of a testimony. I can learn about faith, repentance, the Spirit, God's love, the First Vision, etc., but I don't really have a knowledge of it until it's instilled into me--and that only happens through living it (see Alma 32), and the Spirit.
"The truth" is better than "ever learning," but you have to agree that "ever learning" trumps "ignorance/refusal to learn." And I'm not sure that you can come to the knowledge of the truth if you refuse to learn anything.
The First Presidency has said, "Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do
with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."

Tim,
I believe it was Brigham Young who said that all knowledge was the gospel. I don't mind leaving geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology to scientific research until those scientific researchers declare that god is a fantasy and that religion is nothing but ancient myths and legends that losers hang onto. We who are members of the only church on the earth that receives direct revelation from God should not ignore Prophets and Apostles who have come out directly against the Darwinian theory of macroevolution. To say that they are not learned in these scientific areas and that they have no right to disagree with Darwinian evolution, is a slap against the source of their inspiration and knowledge, God himself. Why do you think they have published these opinions? It's because pure Darwinian evolution leads people (even Mormon college students) away from God and toward a naturalist explanation for the source of life on earth. They publish these opinions, because they are desperately concerned with the salvation of the souls of mankind.

Jeff,

Yes, a lot of imagination is needed to conjure up a scenario where God leaves up to random mutations the creation of a species that is supposed to be created in His image. He would need to do a lot of environmental manipulation to select mutations that are favorable, and that is assuming that favorable mutations occurred at all.

As for theistic evolution, I am with Joseph Fielding McConkie on this one: It "is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man."

"the mutations are only random in the sense of there being no backwards causation"
--Can you explain this one some more.

"You are claiming the evolutionary science claims that God couldn't have intervened"
--Not quite. The assumptions underlying evolutionary science appears to negate God-directed creation.

"You just keep asserting that random and God are in conflict without any argument at all."
--Bull crap. As I have said before, man was created in the image of God. If God left mankind's creation to random mutations (notwithstanding God-directed selection processes), there are too many possible permutations and possible outcomes for the creation to have been successful.

Even the Human Genome Project Chair Francis Collins recognizes the validity of this argument, and I don't think that anyone else in the world understands the human genome better than he.

Dave, it looks like you have stirred a hornet's nest. I think you have stuck your neck out on the line for the sake of science...the thick irony is that "scientists" are attacking your objectivity. I once had someone tell me that "all of the evidence suggests evolution (meaning 'macro-evolution')." I wondered after that, "Does it really, though?"

Is it not possible to believe something so much to the point that what is not actually evidence can be re-interpreted to be evidence? My background is in interpretation of literature. I have read and come up with thousands of well-thought interpretations on various works of literature, but in the end, ANY and ALL interpretation is biased by the interpreter's preconceived notions. It is unavoidable.

The finding of so-called missing link hominid bones could be such a case. Does such a find support macro-evolution? Or does it simply mean that there are humans of all shapes and sizes? I saw a "dwarf" human the other day who walked much like a chimp. I have seen many a person reminiscent of those artistic renditions of what a homo-habilus must have looked like.

Or is it more that "much of the evidence is interpreted to suggest evolution"?

We have a convenient way of making the brethren as ignorant or as enlightened as we need them to be.

Jeff,

"This is what you keep asserting without supporting argument"
--Disagree

Sure, Newton's theory can be boiled down to matter in motion, the 18th century philosophes helped with this, but it has nothing in it that contradicts the gospel doctrine of the creation. On the contrary, for Newton it was a work that was meant, in part, to recognize God.

Newton declared: "When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work w/th considering men for the beleife of a Deity & nothing can rejoyce me more than to find it usefull for that purpose."

HMMM. Let's see what Darwin said about his great work: "I would give absolutely nothing for [the] theory of natural selection if it required miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."

"There just doesn't seem to be any principled reason why we can't be as comfortable with the idea of God and evolution as we are with the idea of God and physics."
--I am fine with other people accepting theistic evolution, although I don't think that I ever will. It seems like you have all your ducks in a row on this issue, and I think that is great. I am not going to call theistic evolutionists stupid, at least not as long as they have thought through the issues and have their reasons.

I have my own rational and theological reasons for rejecting theistic evolution. With rational people of the same religion taking different sides on the issue, I would expect the biology department faculty to recognize the differences, rather than pretending there are none.

Jason,

Thanks for your input. Yes, a hornet's nest, but an educational one at that. It is interesting to see the diversity of opinions on this issue.

You know, Jason, if I were Darwin and didn't know better, I think that I would have come up with the same theory of common descent that he came up with. But I know better because I have the advantage of having the doctrines of the restored gospel at my disposal.

As you point out, the evidence for macroevolution is quite convincing, but it is Sherlock Holmesian in the sense that Darwin put some of the clues together and built and explanation. This is called making an inductive generalization. Yes, just as Holmes and Watson may have a different opinion about what the crime evidence says, two people can have a different opinion about what a peculiar fossil is saying about the origins of species.

Because evolution is a lone standing theory (there are no serious competitors currently), all the evidence is interpreted within the framework of neo-darwinism. So, as you point out, most of science believes in macroevolution so strongly that the data are often made to fit the theory, even if the fit is a poor one.

This is not misguided intellectual rambling, as some may argue. Everything I've asserted is consistent with the great philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's description of how science progresses. Thomas Kuhn would say that evolution is currently in a state called "normal science" because there are no serious competitors. And so we work away with evolution as though nothing is wrong with it.

Well, there are some rumblings in the scientific community from people who are starting to question the supremecy and infallibility of evolution. There is also an emerging competitor called intelligent design which evolutionists are trying hard to squash for no other reason than it is a competitor.

Theories come and go, but rarely within a single lifetime. No theory that was once considered infallible has ever stood the test of time, that includes Newton's mechanics, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, and the earth-centered geocentric theory.

Matt,

"Merely quoting past authorities is not scholarship, and proves nothing"
--Merely mentioning general authorities who in some way favored evolution is not scholarship and proves nothing. Besides, most of those people were probably referring to microevolutionary processes.

Any theory of creation that posits unguided and random processes as the mechanism for producing mankind IS incompatible with the gospel. I don't know how you read your scriptures, but mine tell me that an intentional and purposeful God created humanity.

Before you try to convince me that evolution is somehow intentional and purposeful, consider what Nobel Laureate Francis Crick said. Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, wrote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

It seems many have forgotten.

Now, if BYU biology faculty happen to see harmony between macroevolution and the gospel, then that is fine. I even expect them to share these ideas with students. But when they endeavor to "dispel the myth that the two are incompatible," they have gone too far.

Jeff,

I think that the intentions behind those who create the theories say a lot about the theories themselves. Scientific theories are the creation of man, not God. You talk about Newton's mechanics and Darwin's evolution as though they are infallible. So this is one problem about taking as though God "uses" a certain scientific theory to create the physical/natural world.

As I see it, the theory of evolution contains certain atheistic assumptions about the creation, Newtonian mechanics does not. I understand that you disagree, and that is fine.

Neither you nor I are going to "win" this argument. This blog is not about winning arguments; it is about exploring ideas. With that in mind, I thank you for your contribution.

I am sorry I missed this year's Mormon Scholars in the Humanities. I would love to have heard your presentation and the others on that panel. Do you know if audio will be posted at some point, or if your paper will be posted somewhere I can read it?

I was guided to your site by one SteveP, evolutionary biologist. I am glad to be so directed, because I love these quotes. 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.

What are the dates these statements were given?

Because you may not believe in biological evolution, but Mormon doctrinal evolution is a fact.

You have one prophet and one apostle. I understand how you can argue these men "speak on behalf of God," thus extrapolating that these statemets could be inspired. OK.

But... where you really messed up is by adding Joseph Fielding McConkie... why would his opinion matter? That made this post a joke. I can also get a lot of irrelevant people giving opinions of all kinds to support all sorts of fallacies.

I don't know who Steve Peck is, nor do I care.

I was new to this blog, I followed a link to it. I am sorry, didn't mean to disturb the party.

By your answers (or lack thereof) I realize this isn't a scholarly type of post, and that you don't seem to follow any credible structure whatsoever. Therefore, discussing the issue is pointless. Especially if you are going to back your theses with people like JF McConkie. And yes, in this discussion, he is very much irrelevant. He doesn't represent any official church authority, and he doesn't represent scientific authority.

No need to answer, I won't be showing up any more.

My reading of Genesis tells me this about the creation: God created a physical world that was without death. Adam and Eve were placed in that world. Adam and Eve made their choice to become mortal, and the earth was made mortal. Evolution pertains to a mortal world of death, not to an immortal world without death. Thus, evolution couldn't have been used in the creation of the immortal world, but it could have been used in the change of the world to a mortal world.

I don't see any conflict between the Fall of Adam and evolution. Those who see a conflict are trying to place evolution in the creation of the immortal world instead of the creation, later on, of the mortal world.