I am as conservative as the day is long, which leads me to ask, “Why am I criticizing Utah’s conservative Sutherland Institute in this blog post?” I am criticizing the organization for biased reporting of survey findings on marriage in order to make those findings support its political agenda. 

I call it like I see it when it comes to science, and as I see it, the Sutherland Institute is AWOL (Along Way Out to Lunch) on its interpretation of the results of a 2006 American Community Survey on immigration.

BYU’s Daily Universe reported on the Sutherland Institute’s findings. Here is some of what the Daily Universe reported on 08/31/2009:

A recent study released suggests that the influx of Hispanic immigrants into Utah is strengthening marriage in the Beehive State.

The Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based research organization, released a study comparing Utah citizens and illegal immigrants. The study analyzed factors such as hours worked per week, English fluency, state inmate population and marriage comparisons.

The study showed that the “marriage decisions of non-citizen Hispanics suggest illegal immigrants are strengthening the family in Utah.” The data, from the 2006 American Community Survey, showed that in Utah, 66.6 percent of adult citizens are married and 69.2 percent of adult non-citizen Hispanics are married.

Derek H. Monson, a policy analyst for Sutherland and lead author of the publication, said . . . “According to our research, undocumented immigrants are continuing valuable cultural trends that will in turn help strengthen other marriages by association.”

In addition to comparing marriage rates, the study compared Utah citizen and Hispanic non-citizen divorce rates. The study found that of the adult citizens in Utah, 9 percent are divorced, while non-citizen Hispanics have a divorce rate of 3.1 percent.

“The more successful marriages there are, particularly in a world of high divorce rates, the stronger the institution of marriage will be,” Monson said.

So what is wrong with the Sutherland Institute’s study on illegal immigration and marriage? There are two major problems. 

First, I obtained a copy of the 2006 American Community Survey (from which the Sutherland Institute drew its conclusions) and found that it did not collect data on immigration status, thus generalizations to illegal immigrants are not justified. Yet the Sutherland Institute spun the demographic data to make it sound like the results could be extended to illegal immigrants. 

Second, the Sutherland report states that the institution of marriage is strengthened by having more illegal immigrants because they have fewer divorces. Hmm? Since when did divorce rates become an appropriate barometer for measuring respect for marriage? I don’t know about you, but I know a lot of divorced people who highly respect marriage, which is why they tend to get married again. Divorce rates are more a reflection of marital conflict and cohesion than they are a reflection of respect for the institution of marriage. 

To make legitimate conclusions about whether illegal immigrants in Utah are strengthening the institution of marriage, researchers would have to do at least three things: (a) define what it means to ‘strengthen the institute of marriage’; (b) adequately find ways to measure ‘strengthening the institute of marriage’ (called an operationalization); and (c) collect data on those measures from a sufficiently random sample of illegal immigrants. 

The Sutherland Institute did none of these things. It spun the 2006 American Community Survey data to make the claim that illegal immigrants are “saving” marriage in Utah. This blunder reflects either political bias or insufficient understanding of research methodology, or both. Either way, no good.
 
 

Dear Reader,


Recent blog posts at mormonsandscience.com about macroevolution and common descent have created quite a stir (for example, see here, here, and here). While I have argued that confirmatory evidence of macroevolution is not available, some readers have argued that confirmatory evidence is available.


I therefore conducted a search of hybrid species and life forms in transition on the internet. I went to various sites including the pro-evolution Talk Origins Archive website which has an excellent article titled 29 evidences for macroevolution. The results were shocking (hence the title).


It turns out that there is abundant evidence for macroevolution and that evidence is is sufficiently confirmatory. I thus abjure my formal skepticism and declare unequivocally that macroevolution is real. I've gathered some of the best evidence. After looking over some of this evidence (presented below), I am sure that you will come to the conclusion, if you have not yet done so, that macroevolution is a fact!




Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

You people who disagree with this evidence are just a bunch of creationist hacks. I suggest you spend less time at the Discovery Institute for the Scientifically Challenged and more time reading legitimate sources.

I was once branded an ID'iot" - now I too have seen the light.

(Just a little humor, folks. I hope you had a good laugh.)
 
 
Back in 1991 when I attended the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, I met a Born Again Christian student named Michelle. When I found out that she attended a university bible study group, I asked if I could attend. She said yes and a week later I was introduced to the group. I knew that they would have a problem with a Mormon in the group, but it was a nondenominational gathering and I wanted to find out how they would react to me being there.

At a meeting with about 10 students, the leader, an assertive young man in his mid-twenties, asked me questions to find out more about my beliefs. He asked, “Which church do you go to?” I replied, “A nearby church.” He asked, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ?” I replied, “Yes, I’ve accepted him as my Lord and Savior.” He asked, “Do you believe in the bible?” I replied, “Yes, I believe it is the word of God.”

I answered all his questions truthfully with the intent of showing the group that I shared many of their religious beliefs. In fact the beliefs we had in common outnumbered our differences. However, I knew that eventually they would discover that I am a Mormon. The questions continued.

“Why do you want to join our group?” I replied, “Because I like discussing the bible with others.” Then he went back the original question: “What is the name of your church?” “The Church of Jesus Christ,” I replied. I could see the wheels turning in their heads as they tried to figure out what church that was. Then one girl hit on it. “You mean the church of latter-day saints!?” she blurted. I replied, “That’s right.”

“So you’re a Mormon,” the leader said. He continued: “You can’t join our group.” “Why not?” I replied. “I want to study the bible with you and I believe in Jesus Christ.” Then someone said what I expected to hear all along: “You don’t believe in the same God that we believe in.” Members of the group then proceeded to give me several of the anti-Mormon talking points I heard on my mission. The group leader then called for a break at which point I left.

I know my friend Michelle was embarrassed by their behavior. Although she was a Born Again Christian and I a Mormon, we spent lots of time together. I guess you could say we dated for a short while, but we were more friends than anything else. We discussed the bible. We went to sporting events together. She asked me to take her to the Cardston Temple open house after it was renovated. And she invited me and my wife over to her and her husband’s place for dinner after we both married.

Recently I thought about how posting articles on evolution at mormonsandscience.com is a bit like going to the Christian bible study group. Those who attack my evolutionary posts sound a lot like the bible study group members. “You don’t know the true Jesus - You don’t understand evolution.” “You reject the true God - You reject evolution” (when actually I accept a lot of evolution). “You don’t belong in our group because you are not a believer - You should not be commenting on evolution because you are not a natural scientist.” “Your LDS church is full of falsehoods - Mormonsandscience.com is pseudo-science.”

It did not matter to the bible study group that I thought that they believed in the true God, that they embraced many correct Christian principles, and that their religion was mostly correct and good. Because I was Mormon I was heretical. In likewise manner, it does not matter to LDS evolutionists that I accept a great deal of evolution, that I believe that they understand science fairly well, and that I think that their acceptance of common descent is reasonable given the evidence. Because I reject common descent, they accuse me of being a misguided and confused scholar.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not pleading for acceptance. It does not hurt my feelings when people post nasty replies to my evolutionary posts. I do not care that I was kicked out of the Born Again Christian bible study group (I expected it), and I do not care that pro-evolution latter-day saints make false accusations against me and my site. I am confident and comfortable in what I write and that is all that matters to me.

The similarities between my experiences at the bible study session and mormonsandscience.com illustrate how intolerant and stupid people sound when they impugn me and others latter-day saints for not accepting common descent. 

I am happy to say that, like my Born Again Christian friend Michelle, I receive comments at mormonsandscience.com from a couple of pro-evolutionists who are courteous and respectful. Notwithstanding our irreconcilable differences and spirited debates, we get along well and respect one another. I hold them in high regard as I did my friend Michelle. They know how to get along and disagree without being disagreeable, a Christian quality.
 
 
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.  
 
 
Christosophy is a word I coined to describe the process of mixing of philosophy and Christianity.  Unfortunately christosophy was common during the early years of the Christian Church. There are two main reasons for its presence. Scholars who joined the Christian faith during the era of great persecution from the Romans embraced christosophy in the hopes of making Christianity more appealing to the state, while other early members embraced christosophy as a means of finding truth after apostolic authority was taken from the earth. As will be shown, both endeavors drove the church further into obscurity and darkness.

An early sign that the Apostasy was afoot was the rise of Gnosticism during the late first century. Gnostics, as they were called, were largely concerned with esoteric and mystical explanations about an unknowable god, who we are, where we came from, and how we got here. Gnostic metaphysical speculations on these and other matters drew criticism from Christian traditionalists such as Irenaeus and Tertullian (2nd century AD), who accused the gnostics of polluting church doctrine with philosophy and mysticism.  Despite the noble efforts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others to protect Christianity from outside influences, philosophy and mysticism eventually infiltrated Christian doctrine. Efforts to combine Christianity and philosophy surprisingly came from within.

The introduction of philosophy into Christianity was largely the work
of scholars who, after converting to Christianity, combined religion and
philosophy in an attempt to make Christianity more appealing to nonbelievers,
especially the Romans who were persecuting Christians. One Greek scholar who devoted himself to this task was Clement of Alexandria (circa ad 150–215). As a theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria in Egypt, Clement promulgated the belief that the Church would be held in higher regard and gain more converts if its beliefs were blended with ancient Greek philosophy. He therefore set out to “Hellenize” Christianity by combining Church doctrine with Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato.

After Clement died, his student, Origen (circa 185–254 ad), continued
the effort to infuse Church doctrine with Greek philosophy. Origen was a
highly respected theologian and scholar in his day. Amid the confusion over
doctrinal issues that prevailed during the third century, Origen observed
that “there are many who profess to believe in Christ who disagree among
themselves not only in small and minor matters, but rather about the great
and the greatest matters.” These disagreements largely centered on the
nature of the soul, resurrection, Holy Spirit, and incarnation of Christ.
Origen believed that doctrinal truths could be discovered through intellectual
study and reasoning, and thus set out to resolve doctrinal disagreements
through personal study and theological discussions.

Origen’s efforts to settle doctrinal disputes through study and discussion
produced less than satisfactory results. Admitting defeat, he declared,
“If anyone can find out anything better, or confirm by more evident proofs
the assertions he makes concerning the Holy Scriptures, let such conclusions
be accepted in preference to [mine].” Thus we see how, as the spiritual
apostasy was taking hold, “the foundations of doctrine had shifted
from prophetic revelation to human reason.” This shift from prophetic
authority to human reason was inevitable, given that priesthood authority
to speak and act in the name of the Lord was taken from the earth. Without
spiritual guidance from prophets and apostles, people began to rely on
human reasoning to find answers to doctrinal questions.

Christian beliefs were gradually transformed as scholars and theologians
infused church doctrine with philosophy. Nineteenth century Greek
historian Edwin Hatch remarked, “It is therefore the more remarkable
that within a century and a half after Christianity and philosophy first
came into close contact, the ideas and methods of philosophy had flowed
in such mass into Christianity, and filled so large a place in it, as to have
made it no less a philosophy than a religion.” This influx of philosophy
transformed many of the fundamental truths of the gospel into mystical
and confusing doctrine.

Take, for example, the basic principle of faith. According to Hatch, “under the influence of contemporary Greek thought, the word Faith came to be transferred from simple trust in God to mean the acceptance of a series of . . . propositions in abstract metaphysics . . . concerning Him, His nature, relations, and actions.” Indeed this was a time when many plain and precious truths of the gospel were being lost (1 Nephi 13:26) and people were seeking the word of the Lord, but not finding it (Amos 8:13).

(Source: Truth & Science)
 
 
Unfortunately, following the death of Paul and the other apostles, apostolic authority was taken from the earth and the gospel of Jesus Christ fell into obscurity and darkness. This decline in spiritual truth and apostolic authority corresponded with a sharp decline in secular scholarship, indicating that as the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were being lost, so too were secular truths being lost.

The simultaneous loss of both was not a coincidence. The spiritual apostasy and wickedness of man diminished the enlightening power of the Spirit of the Lord. Because so much of humanity’s secular knowledge comes from the Spirit of the Lord, this diminishment affected mankind not only spiritually, but secularly as well. As the power of the Spirit of the Lord waned during the apostasy, so too did mankind’s ability to receive enlightenment.

The spiritual apostasy contributed to the decline of secular knowledge in another way. During the apostasy mankind tried to compensate for the loss of spiritual enlightenment and apostolic authority by appealing to human reason. The philosophical contributions of ancient Greek scholars were monopolized by misguided theologians and scholars who wanted to settle doctrinal disputes and make Medieval Christianity more appealing to the masses. The works of famous scholars like Plato and Aristotle now served the interests of a powerful apostate church.

Because the church controlled a large number of educational institutions and most medieval scholars were clergy members, few people dared interpret Classical Greek principles in a manner contrary to the teachings of the church. Those who attempted to enlighten mankind faced reprisal from the church if their ideas opposed church doctrine. The hijacking of Classical Greek philosophy by dogmatic religious authority, diminished blessings from the Spirit of the Lord, and the loss of priesthood authority all combined to create the Dark Ages. 

(Source: Truth & Science)
 
 
Given that deists believe that the Lord’s influence in the world following the creation is essentially non existent, it is worthwhile asking why deist scientists choose to believe in God.

Surely some choose to believe because of an inexplicable inner sense that He lives. Other deists take a more rational approach and argue that life, with all its complexities, could not have come about by chance; therefore there must be an intelligent force which started it all. Whatever their reasons for believing, deists are largely concerned about preserving the belief that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. This belief justifies their focusing solely on natural, law-driven processes, usually to the point of rejecting notions of divine influence. Moreover, many deists believe that because science is able to uncover the laws of nature, and that such laws are the only forces at work in the world, science is therefore the only reliable source of truth. This belief, known as scientism, is sometimes taken to extremes by those who declare that science will one day reveal all there is to know about the world. 

In a way, deism is like having your cake and eating it too. With deism you can believe in God and accept scientism. But as the Savior taught, "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (3rd Nephi 13:24). By accepting scientism and denying divine intervention and revelation, deists are clearly worshiping scientific mammon.  

A redeeming value of deism is that it advocates a belief in divine creation. This positive aspect diminishes, however, when theological implications of deism are taken into consideration. Because of its stance against divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement which is central to the Plan of Redemption. Also, if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then it follows that He is unknowable. The belief that He is unknowable has led to some obscure conceptions about the nature of God. According to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the God of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’”  This author’s god exists in the creations and natural events where he eludes reason and science. 

Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.”  Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have been expressed by influential scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.  Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? How can anyone commune with such a god? 

Another concern with deism is that if the creator does not reveal himself, then humankind cannot know the purpose of creation. To know that this world was created for the purpose of “bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:29) engenders respect for the Lord and enables us to find meaning in His creations. Such sentiments are conspicuously absent in deistic understandings of nature. For example, in Skeptics and True Believers, deist and science author, Chet Raymo, expresses amazement over the Hubble Deep Field photograph which shows over 1500 galaxies in one photo of the night sky. His wonderment stems from being able to witness those galactic structures, knowing what they are, and having some knowledge of the natural processes by which they came into existence. 

I am similarly amazed when I look at the Hubble Deep Field hanging on the door in my office. Yet there is so much more to my amazement when I view the Hubble Deep Field. I also feel immense respect for the greatness and power of God. I am amazed that, notwithstanding His greatness and power, He is merciful, just, and loving (Alma 42:15; 26:37). Furthermore, notwithstanding His innumerable creations, He is keenly aware of each of us and concerned about our well-being (Matthew 7:11; Mosiah 4:21). And I am amazed that He wants to share His creations with us, and have His children partake in similar creations (D&C 98:18; 132:19-20). Such claims would constitute intellectual heresy in the eyes of deists because they do not realize that the Lord’s purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). 

Lastly, because deists do not believe that the creator is involved in the world, they are unlikely to petition Him for assistance in their scientific endeavors nor will they give thanks to Him for their scientific talents and discoveries. In reference to the sin of ingratitude in scholarly work, Joseph F. Smith said,

In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.

We need to give thanks to Heavenly Father for every blessing we receive (D&C 46:32), something which is difficult to do if we do not believe that He grants blessings. Because He is the ultimate source of Light and truth that enlightens mankind, we owe a debt of gratitude to Him for all the scientific and technological discoveries that have enriched and prolonged our lives.

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Canada has socialized medicine and a government run, single payer insurance system.  I work in healthcare in the US and have heard several times that the US can’t go the way of Canada. I have also heard talk radio saying that the Canadian model doesn’t work.

I am writing this post to defend the Canadian healthcare model. Here are 5 positive and 2 negative observations about Canadian healthcare.

Positive.

1. In all my years of growing up in Canada, I have never once had a problem with getting quick primary and catastrophic care in Canada. Whenever I called my primary care physicians, I was in the doctors’ offices within 0-3 days. When a surgeon and I agreed that I needed elective surgery, that surgery was scheduled within 3 weeks. And whenever I went to the ER, I was seen within 1-2 hours, sometimes less.

2. Canadian healthcare is not free. Everyone pays a premium because fair and equitable premiums are automatically deducted from your paycheck. I think this is a good way of ensuring that everyone pays into the system – there are very few freeloaders in Canada. Also, premiums are automatically adjusted based on income, so poor families pay less. Making sure that everyone pays something into the system prevents the “entitlement” mentality (“I deserve care even if I don’t pay for it”).

3. If you get real sick in Canada, you don’t lose your home and risk bankruptcy.

4. If you require catastrophic care in Canada, you get it quickly. Last year my uncle had a massive heart attack. He was flown to Vancouver and in surgery with a specialist the very next day. He had follow up surgeries a few weeks later in a timely fashion. 

5. The story about the Canadian premier from Newfoundland who recently went to Florida for heart surgery that we keep hearing about was not denied heart surgery nor was he placed on a long waiting list in Canada. He was offered surgery in Newfoundland that would have saved his life, but he opted for an alternative, less invasive procedure by a specific physician in Florida who was recommended to him by someone else. So this is not a case of someone not being able to get decent care in Canada. It is a case of a wealthy politician shopping around for a specific doctor and procedure that was more to his liking.

Negative.

1. Last year I attended a healthcare conference where data were presented showing that the cost of healthcare is rising at an alarming rate in nations with socialized care. So Canada’s socialized medicine is not controlling costs very well. Obama’s insurance reforms will not, in all likelihood, bring rising costs under control. I believe that controlling rising costs can be achieved by changing the culture of healthcare delivery.

2. Canada does not have a co-pay system. Absence of co-pays leads to unnecessary visits at primary care and ER facilities. A co-pay is needed in Canada. It would force some Canadians with mild conditions like sore throats and coughs to think twice about whether they need to see a doctor, assuming they tend to run off to the doctor at the first sign of a cold .

So there you have it - one person’s viewpoint. Whether the Canadian model would work in American is unknown, but it works fairly well for Canadians.
 
 
            Following the 16th century scientific revolution, Western Europe entered into a period known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, which lasted for most of the 18th century, gets its name from the fact that people who lived during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times. They believed that they were living in an age that was far more civilized and advanced than previous generations. With respect to science, they were correct; theirs’ was a prosperous time unmatched by the previous millennium. Unfortunately, however, the Enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day.     

            Belief in an active and purposive creator began to wane as Enlightenment scholars downplayed the role of God in the universe. Efforts to minimize the role of deity were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). The philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth.  As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments as few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty.

            One can imagine how the theist pioneers of the scientific revolution might have felt about the secularization of the science they helped build. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. He wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the Enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals."  I am certain that the same could be said for Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo.

            As the influence of deity was being removed from science, many scholars began championing a watered down belief system about God known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment."  In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation, He left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that He had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function. Most importantly, as McConkie also pointed out, deism rejects Christianity because the Savior's divine mission of redemption and His earthly miracles violate the deist concept of divine uninvolvement.   

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Picture
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17).

During the 19th century, chemists struggled with discovering how identical carbon atoms combined to form different compounds. This mystery was solved in a most wondrous manner by a chemist named Friedrich August Kekule (1829-1896). 

Kekule was returning home late one night after discussing chemistry with his friend, Hugo Muller. While riding home on an open bus through the deserted streets of London, he said:

I fell into a reverie, and lo, the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. . . . I saw how, frequently, two smaller atoms united to form a pair; how a larger one embraced the two smaller ones; how still larger ones kept hold of three or even four of the smaller; whilst the whole kept whirling in a giddy dance. I saw how the larger ones formed a chain, dragging the smaller ones after them but only at the ends of the chain.

Kekule spent much of that night drawing the shapes he saw in his dream. His sketches illustrated how carbon atoms create different substances by forming links and chains. This vision led to Kekule’s theory of organic molecular structure.

Sometime after this discovery Kekule dedicated himself to studying aromatic benzene, a hydrocarbon found in aromatic substances such as scented oils and spices. Benzene does not follow the same rules of organic molecular structuring that Kekule had discovered in his first dream. After laboring for seven years to unlock the secrets of the structure of benzene that accounted for different aromatic properties, Kekule had another revelatory dream. He recalled:

I was sitting writing at my textbook but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. This time the smaller groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more acute by repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation: long rows, sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis.

This dream led to Kekule’s discovery that carbon atoms also form rings. 

Kekule’s dreams of carbon atoms forming chains and rings answered the question of how identical carbon-based compounds produce different substances. This discovery spawned an organic chemistry industry which today provides indispensable coal-tar products such as dyes, plastics, detergents, and drugs. His dreams also unlocked mysteries of life on earth, for all organic life depends on the capacity of carbon atoms to form molecular chains and rings as they did in Kekule’s dreams.

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
Google Analytics