John A. Widtsoe and I Agree on Evolution

04/14/2010

Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree. When it comes to understanding the limits of evolution, he hit the nail on the head.

Detractors will immediately accuse me and Dr. Widtsoe of not understanding science and evolution. We’ll let the evidence speak for itself. He had a PhD and was the author of 7 scientific books and over 76 articles on chemistry and agriculture. I have a PhD and have written 1 scientific book and (co)authored 11 articles for peer-reviewed scientific journals.

To begin with, he and I agree that the law of evolution is an undeniable fact of nature. “[T]here seems to be a steady process by which unorganized matter is being organized into more and more complex forms. . . .[C]reation as a whole has been and is moving forward, becoming more complex, evolving and creating.”

Now the steady development of life forms on earth has led some to conclude that all life “must have descended from a common ancestor.” The belief that all life descended from a common ancestor is not factual; it is an inference from the facts. Widtsoe correctly argued that “inferences from the facts . . . must be treated as hypotheses or theories.” Hypotheses and theories like common descent are just scientific best guesses about the way the natural world operates. As such, they are subject to revision and refutation. Very few theories achieve lasting law-like status that has been ascribed to well-tested theories like gravity and relativity.

The following statement by Dr. Widtsoe demonstrates his far reaching wisdom on this issue. He wrote: “If the difference between fact and inference had been held clearly in mind, much of the absurd talk on the subject would have been eliminated.” He did not tell us what he meant by “absurd talk,” but I am confident that I know what he was talking about. By “absurd talk” he was, in all likelihood, referring to scientists claiming that common descent is a proven fact when it is not.

Like Dr. John A. Widtsoe I am all for evolutionary research. I support scientists’ efforts to develop evolutionary principles and test evolutionary hypotheses. I declare that most who teach and/or research evolution are true scholars and I respect them as such. But those who endeavor to convince others that common descent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are selling ocean front property in Arizona. Believing, teaching, and researching common descent are fine as far as I am concerned; trying to convince people that science has proven common descent is not. On this matter, Dr. John A. Widtsoe and I agree.

Comments

S.Faux link

04/15/2010 4:35am

Dave C:

In my opinion John A. Widtsoe would have believed in common descent if he had known about DNA and the universal genetic code.

DNA sequencing eliminates (rules out) all vestiges of so-called "intelligent design" or "special creation" speculations, which themselves are preconceived theological conclusions. The story of evolution is literally written in our DNA, and THAT is NOT imaginary ocean front property.

Of course, there is a God, and all of creation is His. But, naturalism , natural process, and Darwinian evolution are NOT AT ALL incompatible with divine purpose and design. Natural process, to me, is God's language.

You are right to suggest that empirical science does NOT prove anything. But, frankly, I do not know any scientists who think "such and such" is PROVEN. So, I am unsure what you are arguing against.

Even so, maybe it is this: common descent and evolution should be considered scientific facts, which are propositions that have withstood scientific scrutiny repeatedly, time and time again, such that denial defies the obvious.

DNA sequencing statistically supports common descent. The probability that the sequences are leading us astray is so close to zero that I am unsure God could tell the difference.

Therefore, evolution can be considered a law (as you state in paragraph 3). However, in paragraph 4 you imply that evolution does not have the status of gravity. In fact, evolution has MORE formal (published) empirical support than gravity, and it is better understood.

Your arguments effectively reject nearly the essential findings of genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. But, I appreciate your skepticism. Skepticism is also part of science. But, your brand of science that rejects common descent is literally on the verge of extinction without any chance of revival -- which for me raises a question.

The question is: How can our beloved religion continue to prosper in this age of booming science and information by denying common descent?

To me, DNA is the writing of God, and the message is one of common descent. Such a message should give us a sense of unity with ALL of God's creation. Thus to me, I don't understand all the energy that is spent fighting against Darwinism, which indeed promotes a grandeur of life.

Thus, as science instructors (which we both are), do we not need to give our students the tools to understand that the overwhelming findings of science are NOT the enemy of God? I worry about those Latter-day Saints who are confronted with 21st century data and who have only 18th century tools of understanding. In the battlefield of ideas, they will not survive.

S.Faux link

04/15/2010 6:55am

Dave C:

Don't take my comments as a negative attack on you. I respect your theological foundations. Even so, I enjoy the bantering back and forth.

On the drive to work, I thought about Widtsoe's book "Rational Theology." I really do seek a rational theology that is informed by science as part of its "revelatory" process. Don't misunderstand. I would never argue that science should make prophets obsolete. I don't believe that at all. But, I do not believe prophets are infallible either. Nor do I think their domain of expertise is science.

Consequently, I do think that as an "umpire" of science that I need to "call them as I see them." I really think we Latter-day Saints will become a less effective force in the world if we deny the very foundations of science that are overwhelming supported by scientists in general.

Latter-day Saints do NOT believe in creeds. To me, "creationism" is creedal. To me, evolutionary biology is not creedal because it allows itself to evolve line upon line, truth upon truth.

Proceed. I enjoy your thoughts, even while disagreeing with them. Believe me, on Sundays we would attend the same priesthood meeting and study out of the same manual.

R. Gary link

04/15/2010 11:35am

S.Faux,

What Widtsoe -might-have-believed-if- is clearly "ocean front property in Arisona."

What he actually said was, "Clearly the theory of evolution has added nothing to our understanding of the beginning of things. The ancient view that God is the creator of all things is still the best, because it is true." (Improvement Era, July 1951, p. 531.)

And please take note that I'm not arguing against gravity. I'm just holding you to what Elder Widtsoe actually said. You can't expect anyone to be impressed with words you put in his mouth half a century after he died.

R. Gary link

04/15/2010 11:40am

Dang! I keep forgetting that this web host is stuck in the 1980s and can't do html.

S.Faux link

04/15/2010 12:30pm

R. Gary:

I prefaced my remark with "In my opinion." My opinion is based on the fact that Widtsoe fully understood that scientists revise their opinions based on data. Further, I believe he was seeking a true rational theology.

But, you are correct. My opinion about Widtsoe is mere wishful thinking. (That sentence adds nothing and could be removed).

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Stan

04/15/2010 1:21pm

I think it's fine that you agree with Dr. Widtsoe. He was a very intelligent man. I agree with S. Faux though in that the amount of confirming evidence for evolution since his death would likely have either convinced him, or silenced his criticism.

btw, your argument from authority in the second paragraph really makes you look desperate for credibility. I'm just sayin.

Dave C.

04/15/2010 1:42pm

SFaux,

"Your arguments effectively reject nearly the essential findings of genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology."

- Last week a friend and I debated whether evolution is good or bad science. I declared unequivocally that evolution is good science and that common descent is a reasonable inductive inference from evidence garnered from genetics and comparative anatomy. Thus I don’t consider myself rejecting the genetic, anatomy, and paleontological evidence. As convincing as the evidence from these sources may be, they lack gold standard evidence arising from the crucial experiment which is showing in a controlled setting that one life form can evolve into another distinct life form. This is not an unreasonable request as common descent makes big claims with equally large implications.

The lack of gold standard evidence combined with Restoration doctrine which asserts that the creation was purposeful and directed (contrary to the tenets of orthodox neo-Darwinism as I understand them) make it easy for me to deny the reality of common descent. Were it not for my theology, SFaux, I might openly declare that “Thou hast almost convinced me to be an evolutionist.”
Your comments sound a lot like those from Francis Collins – a compliment as I admire Collins and enjoyed his book The Language of God immensely. When the Savior gathers everyone for the big Q & A session where He reveal secrets in the earth unknown to man (D&C 101:32-34) either you or I will turn with a smile and say, “I told you so.” Or we will turn to each other and say with equal surprise: “Who knew?” The important thing is that we are standing there together.

Dave C.

04/15/2010 1:57pm

Stan,

" think it's fine that you agree with Dr. Widtsoe. He was a very intelligent man. I agree with S. Faux though in that the amount of confirming evidence for evolution since his death would likely have either convinced him, or silenced his criticism."

- I'll agree that the evidence that has accumulated since his death might have influenced the strength of his opinion were he still alive. At the same time, given that rational thinkers continue to embrace his viewpoints, his opinion may not have changed much.

"your argument from authority in the second paragraph really makes you look desperate for credibility."

- Some previous posts on this topic have not relied solely on appeals to authority. This post appeals to Widtsoe with the intent of changing things up a bit.

S.Faux link

04/15/2010 3:12pm

Dave C:

I am relieved that you took my responses the correct way.

Yes, I too look forward to that heavenly graduate course on Genesis Biology that tells us how the creation took place. Further, I look forward to standing at your side as a fellow student. I hope Widtsoe teaches the class.

Rob Osborn

04/15/2010 10:55pm

I am going to stae emphatically that evolution isn't "fact"! They know more about electricity and yet it is still electronic theory. And don't go intot he whole semantics of "theory", I fully understand all the varied angles and usages of th eword.

I get tired of people, especially learned scientists, referring to evolution as fact. Pro evolutionists say it is as established as "gravity". Is that really so? What does the evidence really say? It says exactly this--

"Life-forms share similarities, some more than others."

For that matter, all things in the universe share similarities. But what does all these similarities prove? Nothing! Its all conjecture without hard seen documented evidence. And no, we are not talkinga bout differences in beetles or finches beaks or even the color of moth wings.

So, we should be very careful in saying that evolution is fact. Very few things in actual science get labled as "fact" and evolution does not merit the rare "fact" status required by sciences strict standards. In scientific terms, only things like the differences between cold and hot are facts, or the differences between gold and silver. Even "gravity" and the way it attracts is "theory". Evolutionists use trickery though to equate an apple falling to the ground as the "fact" of gravity and then equate this "fact" as being the same type as evolution being "fact".

Let me just say this- yes I can take a hundred different types of things and drop them from a skyscraper and they will all fall showing the "fact" that they fall to a theory we call gravity, but yet we can't even document one single species across taxa lines and somehow it gets the same status as all the stuff falling to the ground from the skyscraper....I don't think so!

Rob Osborn

04/15/2010 11:07pm

Here is a scenerio-

Suppose, one day in the lab some scientists realizing the similarities between the chimp and the human do some gene splicing and create a half human half chimp species- two in fact- a female and male. And then suppose that somehow that new species had a few side effects maing them astonishingly smart yet brutal warriors, and the chimp-men take over the planet in a cruel but evil war and in time all humans become extinct. then at some later date hundreds of millions of years later a new evolved species (intelligent like us) find these "chimp-men" and conclude the "fact" of evolution as seen in the bones.

Let me ask this. Just because we may share similarities with another species does not provide any evidence that nature evolved us out of them or such. For all we know, God made all of us similar and yet different at the beginning becuase it shows the benelovence of a loving creator in showing to us that we should show compassion upon our animal friends because they too are created similar to us and thus share similar states of feelings.

S.Faux link

04/17/2010 5:44am

I always love Rob Osborn's comments -- even while disagreeing with them. Just for his benefit, let me state unequivocally, that evolution (common descent) is scientific fact.

It is as factual as gravity, the wetness of water at room temperature, the speed of light, the bacterial basis of disease, and the negative charge of electrons. The vast majority of scientists would agree with me.

We LDS can pretend evolution is a failed abstraction, but the result will be to alienate the vast majority of the scientific world -- a world that needs our LDS foundations MORE THAN EVER.

Dave C.

04/17/2010 9:19am

SFaux,

"evolution (common descent) is scientific fact"
- Only in the minds of those who embrace the common descent interpretation of the scientific evidence. From a strict perspective, it is true to say that common descent is fact-based, meaning that it is rooted in scientific facts, but as an interpretation of that evidence it is not a factual theory.

I find the comparisons of gravity with common descent to be quite amusing and I think that evolutionary scholars know better than to put both on an equal footing. Let's run a quick comparison of the two.

1. GRAVITY: Pick up something and let it go. A crucial test of the law of gravity is that the item will fall to the earth. Trust me, if the item does not fall to the earth and there is no trickery involved, you will taken the first step toward falsifying the law of gravity. Karl Popper would have called this a crucial experiment because it gets at the heart of a theory and allows it to be falsified. It is the sort of test that is capable of providing first class evidence for or against a scientific theory.
2. COMMON DESCENT: A crucial test in this area is one in which the forces of evolutionary change can be duplicated in a controlled setting so that we can view its effects on a life form. That life form should then be shown to change into another life form over successive generations. If we are successful then we have the sort of evidence needed to claim that common descent is a proven fact, like gravity. This sort of test would provide first class evidence for or against the theory. I am still waiting for a crucial test of common descent. If this demand is unreasonable, and I believe it is, then evolutionists should stop putting their theory of common descent on par with gravity.

The methodological groundwork for deciding what comprises solid evidence for or against a theory largely came from Karl Popper. Many of his ideas are found in his book Conjectures and Refutations. His views on this issue are not perfect, but they seem to be the best that we have right now, and most of science accepts his views.

Stan

04/17/2010 8:37pm

S. Faux
"I always love Rob Osborn's comments"

I knew my patience would pay off. My reply would never have been so nice or given with equal authority.

Dave C.
"I am still waiting for a crucial test of common descent."

You know this will never happen and you are cowering behind this fact. You have admitted that your reluctance to accept common decent is based on your religious beliefs in previous posts. Please be honest with those not familiar with those posts and qualify your disbelieve as being religious in nature, not scientific.

Now, given that nature has provided your gold standard experiment countless times, and scientists have pieced together the results countless times with consistent results, can't you believe it like everyone else? Scientists piece together the residue and very notebook of nature for these gold standard experiments every time a genome is studied. If you came upon the foot of a cliff and saw pale rocks scattered about among dark rocks where the cliff top is the only source of pale rocks, would you think nature did a gravity experiment, or that God put those rocks at the bottom of a cliff. Not everything needs to be done in a laboratory. Every time a fossil is unearthed, evolution is at risk of being disproven. Every new gene sequence, new species and so on and so on can disprove evolution with a *single* sample that cannot be explained by the theory. With thousands of supporting *facts* gathered both in nature and in the laboratory, predictions fulfilled, a statistically *insignificant* body of relevant scientific critics, you have the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty to say 'Show me a Crock-o-Duck'.

Sorry I cannot be as nice as Mr. Faux

Stan

04/17/2010 8:50pm

"Restoration doctrine which asserts that the creation was purposeful and directed (contrary to the tenets of orthodox neo-Darwinism"

Sorry, forgot you did state your disbelief due to religious dogma in this post, though I agree with S. Faux, SteveP and other legitimate lds scientists and their interpretation of "Restoration doctrine". Now, if you could change the name of this blog to "mormonsandpseudoscience" we'll be good.

Dave C.

04/17/2010 9:43pm

Stan,

"You know this will never happen and you are cowering behind this fact."
- At least you put a smile on my face today.

"You have admitted that your reluctance to accept common decent is based on your religious beliefs in previous posts. Please be honest with those not familiar with those posts and qualify your disbelieve as being religious in nature, not scientific. "
- My reasons for not accepting common descent are religious and scientific. The lack of a crucial test only gives more credence to my religious views.

"Every time a fossil is unearthed, evolution is at risk of being disproven. Every new gene sequence, new species and so on and so on can disprove evolution with a *single* sample that cannot be explained by the theory."
- Because common descent cannot be subjected to a crucial test it is not capable of being falsified by one, two, or three tests. Contrary results would likely be explained away with ad hoc explanations and minor adjustments to the theory. Philosopher of Science Thomas Kuhn described the saving of theories in the presence of contrary results in a very eloquent way in his landmark book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." So I don't see common descent at risk of being falsified anytime soon.

"you have the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty to say 'Show me a Crock-o-Duck'"
- I don't see any cowardice or dishonesty in it at all. I see it as an enduring Achilles heel of common descent science.

"Sorry I cannot be as nice as Mr. Faux."
- I am used to this sort of communication from ardent evolutionists.
At the end of the day let's at least agree to disagree and not become enemies.

"S. Faux, SteveP and other legitimate lds scientists and their interpretation of "Restoration doctrine". Now, if you could change the name of this blog to "mormonsandpseudoscience" we'll be good."

-Now now, that's not very nice, is it?
When someone does not agree with our scientific beliefs that does not give us a license to demean them.

Stan

04/17/2010 10:31pm

Dave C.

"Now now, that's not very nice, is it?"

You're right, and I'm sorry. But why can't you open your eyes! You're so close! Gaaaaahhhhh!!! =:)

Dusty R

04/19/2010 2:14pm

Dace C said ---> "Detractors will immediately accuse me and Dr. Widtsoe of not understanding science and evolution. We’ll let the evidence speak for itself. I have a PhD and have written 1 scientific book and (co)authored 11 articles for peer-reviewed scientific journals."

How many of those publications actually have anything about evolutionary biology in them? (I think you told me your book has a single short paragraph or something to that degree.) More specifically, are there ANY criticisms for/against evolution in any of your 12 total published sources?

There's this palpable trend among anti-evolutionists who plainly appear to believe that if they toot their horn loud enough that they have a PhD (in *some*thing, and it doesn't really matter what) and emphatically slap it on the covers of their books after their name, that the general, uneducated (in the natural sciences) public will then go, "Huh! THIS guy has a PhD, and he actually supports the same anti-scientific stuff that Glenn Beck (who has no college education, BTW) says nightly about evil evolution being taught in schools!!! And he has an actual PhD! How exciting!!"

"I mean, aren't all PhD's the same? I suppose a PhD in psychology makes you an expert in ALL sciences! Surprised I didn't know it worked like that...how cool!"

Once again, this shows that IDers -- or rather, the self-named cdesign proponentsists -- thrive on ignorance.

As Stan said, this to me, is an apparent desperate need for credibility.

You can see the same "But-I-have-a-PhD!!!" ranting behavior on the covers of many creationists' books. The children's book author, E. Norbert Smith, is one example.

Funny how EO Wilson, Shubin, Coyne, and other biologists don't feel the need.

Dave C.

04/19/2010 4:16pm

Dusty,

Such an acrimonious response. Frankly I don't know where to start with this nonsense so I won't.

By way of recommendation, you won't get too far in scholarship, science, and academia with these sorts of statements.
You are welcome here as long as your comments are constructive. If you don't have anything constructive to bring to the table then it's probably best that you don't show up for 'dinner'.

Dave C.

04/20/2010 10:00am

Dusty,

I've deleted your comments because they do not contribute to the discussion on Dr. Widtsoe's paper.

May I point out a few things:
1. Someone does NOT have to have a degree in evolutionary science or have published in evolutionary science to comment on it.
2. I bring up my publication record and that of Widtsoe's to prove one point - that we understand science.
3. You treat my psychology PhD lightly, but what you fail to realize is that it is a degree in Theory and Philosophy, with an emphasis on research design and data analysis. (I am not a counselor.) My education was geared to understanding the ontology, epistemology, the truth claims we can make from studies, the assumptions underlying studies, how to plan studies, and how to analyze data.

Now, evolution is a theory. It is rooted in a naturalist philosophy, it makes truth claims, it carries underlying philosophical assumptions, it conducts studies and collects data. My education DOES qualify me to comment on these issues.

Dave C.

04/20/2010 7:16pm

Good luck in grad school, Dusty. You are welcome to drop in and post comments to keep me on my toes. Please make sure that your comments are constructive and courteous.

Ray

05/28/2011 8:17am

The scientific view of evolution may be just an "inference" from the facts, as Dr. Widtsoe said, but it is an inference that is ongoing and includes an almost daily addition of new facts. Furthermore, incorrect inferences over time are usually discarded as new facts are discovered. I suspect that the reason there is no competing theory is that those who don't accept evolution base their disagreement, not on facts, but on authority. I think Dr. Widtsoe, who was both a man of faith and of science -- were he to come back -- would encourage us to keep discovering facts and keep drawing those inferences.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

John A. Widtsoe and I Agree on Evolution

Comments

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives