Google Webmaster Tools
 
Picture
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.

 


Comments

05/27/2009 9:20pm

Dave C:

You seem to be using correlations to make causal arguments. First, the Eckland et al. study concludes that scientists are NOT running away from religion in large numbers. Even if biologists have slightly lower levels of involvement in religion, it is a mistake to conclude evolution drives people away from God -- such would be bad statistical logic.

On the other hand, I'm sure we are eye-to-eye that Dawkins' argument is bad logic, poor philosophy, and a bad use of science -- that is, evolution is true, and therefore God almost certainly does not exist. His recent book made my job as an evolutionary educator much harder.

The glory of God is intelligence. So, I don't think testimonies of God are as fragile as you seem to argue.

By the way, I have never found any suggestions in scripture that clearly suggests how the spirit interacts with the body. To me, the brain is a pure mechanism, such that when the right parietal lobe is damaged, then left-sided "neglect" may well occur. These individuals often complain that a stranger is climbing in bed with them. These patients are referring to the left side of their bodies, which they no longer recognize as part of the "self."

Do we simply suggest that half the spirit went off-line in such a case?

I am skeptical that Mormonism creates a "proper" way to do science -- except in generic ways, such as: be honest, work hard, "be not afraid," and pursue the truth.

Reply
05/28/2009 12:11am

Upon re-reading with a slightly more clear mind, and being less fogged by general anesthesia (really true), I support your admonition to teach evolution, flaws and all. I am not detecting this time around the worry about "fragile" testimonies, I perceived during the first reading.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I tend to make more errors when half my brain is tied behind my back.

One flaw is the rather human tendency to use "evolution" as a "<i>Deus ex machina<i>" explanation. E.g., claiming that human conscious evolved (and I think it did) really explains little or nothing. Maybe there are multiple consciousnesses? How can we define them? What are they good for?

I do think the tectopulvinar pathway represents an unconscious visual center that we humans share with lizards. But, that claim only begs the question of why other organisms (like us) supplement with a thalamo-striate system associated with consciousness. It evolved. Yes, but why?

To me, religious and scientific domains of explanation do not overlap very much, if at all. They seem orthogonal, like the necessary axes of a Cartesian plane. (Hmmm, did I just commit a dualistic sin by alluding to a Cartesian theater?) Oh, I definitely better just go back to sleep, before I have to write another "takeback."

Reply
05/28/2009 7:40pm

Some interesting statements.

I have seen many cases of the effect of evolution causing people to doubt God that bit more. Most evolutionists themselves and their supporters promote this mentality. My science teacher at school, being a classic example.

The fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution is that it is both impossible to scientifically prove and impossible to disprove. The only way to actually prove or disprove such a claim as the evolution of the species is to actually have a time machine or aliens displaying footage.

However the idea you present on the brain, S. Faux is somewhat different as I have one at this present time. I have found 3 levels of being (the one I have invented in this life, the one I invented upon recieving a spirit body and the one I always had as an intelligence.

I have died twice, and was completely closed down in the body except for my spirit sitting in the dark in the centre of my body - no brain being used to think with.

Our intelligence uses the brain to make the body do things. If a particular part of the brain is affected our intelligence has trouble making adjustment. Thus 2 people can loose exactly the same amount of brain, yet one walks again and the other doesn't.

Also there are many people who are born with almost no brain whatsoever, who think and live as normally and long as you or I.

So much for thinking grey blobs.

The only thing that has been proven is that electrical impulses are created (for some unscientifically known reason) in the brain that create movement etc, and that that part of our intelligence we have created here, resides their. But you will note that the part of our intelligence we created during the spirit body time lodges in our central torso area (thus the feelings in our heart).

Evolution shouldn't be taught as science, because it is as likely a story as many other stories we could come up with to make wild assumptions of our origins using the same data, if I had the same funding and time.

Let's stick to science in science classes. We have enough known facts. Let's teach them, eh?

Reply
Dave C.
05/29/2009 8:39am

S.Faux,

I wish you a speedy recovery after your shoulder surgery.
As you know, some parts of the human brain bear a striking resemblance to the brains of lower life forms, especially the more "primitive" parts such as the hindbrain structures (pons, medulla, cerebellum). These uncanny similarities justify the use of rats in human neuropsychological research. One of my grad school friends showed me how he put a rat into a head brace, cut through the skull bone, and inject neurotransmitter agonists or antagonists into parts of the brain. He did this research to learn more about how the human brain operated. A rat brain is an amazing model of the human brain. No one can deny these sorts of similarities with lower species.
There are two competing arguments that explain this similarity. One is that we evolved from lower life forms, and the second is that it evidences a common designer who "re-uses" effective principles of design. From a purely rational standpoint, I think both explanations are credible (Of course, I don't need to tell you which one I believe).
BTW, I added a link to your site on the Link page.

Reply
Dave C.
05/29/2009 9:04am

DougT,

Your experience in the science classroom corroborates my views on the undercurrent of atheism in some evolutionary courses. I vehemently oppose assertions by evolutionary teachers to the effect that evolution proves there is no god. This is akin to me saying that the scientific evidence I have presented proves there is a god. These sorts of arguments are irrational and inappropriate for secular schools.

As someone who has studied the philosophy of science at the doctoral level, I strongly urge you to change your views on evolution not being scientific. Such statements minimize the credibility of your other arguments, which are quite sound. Evolution is a broad spectrum theory, covering several different areas. Some branches of evolution (i.e., microevolution) conform very well to the traditional hypothetico-deductive model of science, which is framing and testing hypotheses in a controlled setting.

Now people who claim that evolution is not scientific are usually referring to the common descent area. True, we cannot investigate common descent in a controlled laboratory setting, but conducting laboratory research is not the sole defining principle of science. Science is much more. It is theorizing, observing, and conjecturing. Evolutionists who research common descent are theorizing, observing, and conjecturing. Yes, they are doing science, just not the kind of science we all wish they could do, which is setting up a falsifiable, controlled experiment to test common descent because there are limitations, the most important being the need for millions of years.

I like your views on intelligence and consciousness, etc. I am very curious about how the 3 states of being you mentioned influence each other. There’s the eternal intelligence, the premortal spiritual, and the conscious experiences we gain in this life. Questions I often ask are what kind of influence does our intelligence have on our present conscious experience, and what kind of influence, if any, do our mortal conscious experiences have on our intelligence and spirit?

Your thoughts on these questions are appreciated.

Reply
05/30/2009 9:43pm

Great post. As someone who seriously considered BYU's Theoretical Psych PhD program (and opted for neuropsychology - not at BYU though), I always appreciate anything that reminds me of Brent Slife or any of our other esteemed BYU psychology philosophers. :)

One of my goals in life, at least online, is to try and teach people the underlying assumptions of modern science that you are well-familiar with - biological determinism, reductionism, and so forth. Some people are highly offended and cannot seem to suspend their disbelief about these topics often raised in the broader field of epistemology. Some people are quite open to the "infallibility" of science being challenged while most others are vehemently opposed. It's just not something most are taught at any level in school, even college or graduate programs.

It's kind of like the reaction a lot of people have to Kurt Godel's work - they either accept it, in short that math is not perfect, or deny it, or just ignore it (not that too many are even familiar with his work).

As a scientist, I accept evolution with the qualifier that the gospel always trumps science. What is true and not true about science might not be known until the next life. But for now, I accept evolution (at least, much of it) because it's the best scientific theory we have that explains a wide range of the natural sciences.

Reply
Dave C.
05/31/2009 8:14am

Jared,

I am sooo glad to hear from someone who appreciates what I am trying to communicate here. Brent Slife is a very accomplished theoretician and a good theologian. He and Dr. Richard Williams raised awareness of the problematic philosophical underpinnings of science. Their work was timely because science has been raised to such a high level in our society. Modern scientism plus atheistic secular humanism results in a sort of scientific idolatry.

People often misconstrue this sort of theoretical talk as being anti scientific. They are mistaken. I do science, you do science, and Slife does science, but we recognize its epistemological limitations and the ontological inconsistencies of scientific methods with the realities of the things being investigated (e.g., using a method that assumes determinism to investigate human agency).

As you point out, these sorts of arguments sometimes result in hostility from others. I have really felt this hostility from evolutionists who think I am just another anti-scientific creationist. I am not opposed to evolution, I am just trying to point out its epistemological limitations and inconsistencies with the gospel. While I accept much of evolution, I think that recognizing its limitations is important if the theory is to continue growing toward the truth.

Good luck in neuropsychology! You probably made a good choice going into neuro. Graduates from the T&P program always have to specialize in something else to ensure employment, which is why I emphasized stats and research design. With your background in the theory and philosopical issues and a graduate degree in neuro, you are good to go.

Reply
06/01/2009 7:56pm

Perhaps I haven't explained myself correctly. In stating my opposition to the origin of the species, I mean as an explanation for the existence of all species, including man. I don't dispute survival of the fittest and some evolutionary transformation within a species. But I believe that there are Celestial parents to all basic species.

I support total intelligent design. However I am willing to believe that lions and tigers may have come from the same parents (for example).

As to our basic make-up, I have learnt a lot from romantic motivations. Also after much effort to establish communication between my parts. Being sick of being divided with myself on what I really wanted - my mind wanting this, and my heart wanting that.

I have actually had brief statements from my intelligence part - truly and eternal part. I have easy communication with my spirit (heart).

Our spirit resides in our torso area, and can actually shrink itself (manipulate spirit matter) with ease. I have seen this in myself and another person.

I'm still learning about the spirit area of thought. It seems to have different viewpoints - ie. can think as a child in some areas, yet is highly intelligent and powerful in others.

Reply
DougT
06/01/2009 9:52pm

"In stating my opposition to the origin of the species, I mean as an explanation for the existence of all species, including man. I don't dispute survival of the fittest and some evolutionary transformation within a species."
- Sounds good to me. We are on the same page.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply


Google Analytics