Picture
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
 


Comments

Tim

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 3:29:29 pm

I agree that evolutionary biologists are a little more defensive than other scientists. It would be nice if they didn't have to fight off criticism from people who don't know all that much about biology, from people who have never even taken a course in evolution, or read a real-life evolution textbook.
Until that changes, and people accept that evolutionary biology is good, solid science, and is not atheistic in nature (despite what some on both sides of the evolution/religion debate believe), then things won't change.
Meanwhile, if someone can provide solid scientific evidence that macroevolution does not happen, there are some very wealthy people that would pay excellent money for that evidence. Go for it. If you can do it, you'll be rolling in the creationist's dough. And who knows? If your evidence is strong enough, you might become the most famous biologist to ever live.
But first, you'll have to study that biology...

 

Dave C.

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 6:25:35 pm

Tim,
IMO, the assertion that someone must take a class in biology and evolution before commenting on evolution in a reasonable manner is another manifestation of the arrogance I wrote on. Granted, someone without such an education would not be qualified to speak on a number of issues, specifically latest research findings etc. But the fundamental tenets of evolution are fairly straight forward because it is a parsimonious theory. It can be summed up as unguided environmental selection acting on unguided random mutations.
For your interest, I have taken a college course in biology where I got to mate fruit flies and study micro changes in the lab, etc. I have also read books on evolution, although not peer reviewed journal material.
As for macroevolution, the onus is on the macroevolutionists to prove their theory. Neither I nor any other skeptic is obligated to prove the theory false, although I have lots of doctrinal quotes and scriptures which strongly indicate that theistic evolution is nigh to impossible.
I'll have to continue to make money the hard way :)

 

Jason C

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 8:37:17 pm

Keep up the good and interesting work, Dave C. You have a regular reader in me.

 

Tim

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 5:15:39 am

Henry Eyring, in "Reflections of a Scientist," has some excellent things to say about science. He was a chemist, not a biologist, and so he focused on the age of the earth (he understood it is ancient, and he strongly disagreed with the prophet at the time about this point); he didn't have much to say about evolution, as it wasn't his jurisdiction.
A few things he did say. First, he said that both the titles "evolutionist" and "creationist" carried with them way too much baggage, and he rejected both titles. Second, he told a story of an intelligent ape at a zoo, and said that he thought there was no disgrace in being distantly related to such an animal. Third, he stated how he felt that evolutionary biologists were doing honest science.
Eyring was not a prophet, and I don't accept him as such, but, as probably the most successful LDS scientist, and also as a brother-in-law to President Kimball and a father to President Eyring, I think he's a voice that shouldn't be ignored.
There's a lot more to discuss here, but I don't have the time for it right now. As always, thanks for posting comments, even if they're not the most polite comments out there; that's to be respected.

 

Dave C.

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:25:11 am

Tim,
Thanks for the information on Henry Eyring. I have not read his book, although I plan to in the future. I talked with Eyring's grandaughter about her grandpa one day at the BYU Salt Lake Center where we worked together for a while. She did not remember too much about him, so we spent most of our time discussing her dad and his academic interests. She said her dad was not scientifically-minded like her grandpa, so he went into business and finance instead.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 9:49:39 am

Jason,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. This site supposedly gets about 100-200 hits every day, but I think a large proportion of these are "Google spider bots" searching for content. I am not sure if many people are reading this blog because I don't get many comments. With the exception of yourself and a few other people, it seems many of the comments I get are from people who do not share my criticism of evolution. It seems I am too conservative in my thinking. Oh well.
Cheers!

 

Mike

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 7:16:44 am

Sorry for that comment being misposted to the wrong article. It was meant to go elsewhere. At any rate, I will pay better attention in the future. :)

I am familiar with Eyring's position and it is something that will probably embarrass him no end when he finds out it is mathematically impossible for evolution to have played any role in the creation of this magnificent world.

There is nothing less scientific than the dogma of Darwinism, and I know that will upset those whose education has been misspent in the pursuit of a mirage, but so be it.

Yes, I know, poor uneducated Mike. What an intellectually impoverished cretin. Take pity on the poor blighter. He should read more evolution until he 'gets' it. If anyone disagrees with Darwinism its only because they are stupid and Darwinists are smart.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:39:27 am

Re: "Yes, I know, poor uneducated Mike. What an intellectually impoverished cretin. Take pity on the poor blighter. He should read more evolution until he 'gets' it. If anyone disagrees with Darwinism its only because they are stupid and Darwinists are smart."

LOL. I have been called this sort of thing for so long that I consider it a badge of courage for those who dare oppose the evolutionist juggernaut.

 

Mike

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 4:49:27 am

Yes, I read a comment on Amazon once where the writer stated that he was a science teacher and anyone who couldn't understand that evolution was a fact was too stupid for words. I think these were the same sort of folks as those who promoted blood letting in the late 1800s in our 'finest' universities.

 

Brian Duffin

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 8:39:06 pm

Congratulations on one year blogging! I'm not a frequent commenter, but a frequent lurker.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics