In 2008 the Pew Research Forum released the results of their survey on the religious landscape in America. (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=392)

One of their survey questions was: “Do you believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth?”

This question addresses a belief in common descent which claims that humanity evolved from lower life forms.

Here are the percentages of people answering yes to that question, stratified by religious affiliation.
Picture
If the Pew Forum’s sample of Latter-day Saints is representative of the larger Mormon population, then it appears that 22% of us believe that humanity evolved from lower life forms. This result is in line with my expectation that about 2 out of every 10 Latter-day Saint accepts that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved. Note that the national average for accepting common descent is 48%.

It is not surprising to see Catholicism above the national average (58%) because the Catholic leadership has formally endorsed evolution. However, I was somewhat surprised to see Jewish (77%) and Protestant (51%) above the average. Any ideas on why they are above the average? How do you feel about where Mormons are relative to other religions

I've included a similar survey question below. It will be interesting to see what kind of results we get on mormonsandscience.com. Of course this survey is not scientific. (It lacks random selection [representativeness] and does not control for multiple responses, although I hope you vote just once.)
 
 
Picture
(In a previous post I presented reasons for accepting entropy as a rational explanation for the existence of God. In this post we’ll consider whether the same can be said for the Anthropic Principle.)

The Anthropic Principle (AP) concerns the relationship between the laws of nature and the presence of life. A general definition of the AP is as follows: The laws of the universe are fine-tuned to allow life to exist. If the laws were changed ever so slightly, life would not exist. 

Here are some examples.

Example 1. “If the nuclear force were only a few percent weaker, then a proton could not combine with a neutron to form a deuteron. If this were the case, no deuterons would be formed in the sun and hence no solar fuel would exist. As a result, the sun would not shine (‘burn’), but would merely be a cold ball of inert gas—precluding the possibility of life on Earth.” (http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/anthropic-principle)

Example 2. A slightly stronger gravity force would result in “a smaller universe of larger, brighter, shorter-lived stars, that will eventually collapse in on itself again in a Big Crunch. Most, if not all stars would be binary, trinary, or larger systems. Any planets orbiting these stars would have to go very fast to avoid a fiery demise inside their parent stars, and would be slung around wildly by their multiple suns. Any planetary system in this universe would be devoid of a stable, safe harbor for life, and relative stability is a vital prerequisite for the evolution of complex life forms. Life here would probably get to no more than amino acids, much less true life, before one of the planet’s parent stars went nova or the planet was torn apart and swallowed into one of the stars. It would not be a place to develop living creatures as complex as ourselves.” (http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/coincidence.htm)

There are different forms of the anthropic principle. The one form that most scholars agree upon is the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). This principle claims that conditions in the universe are such that they allow life to exist. If this statement did not create a “eureka moment” for you, you’re not alone. We already know that the conditions of the universe are such that they allow for life by virtue of the fact that we exist. Thus while everyone agrees with the WAP, it is a tautology (a necessary and unproductive truth).

Are other anthropic principles more substantive? They are, but they are also more controversial. Here they are.

Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) - the universe must have the properties it has for life to exist.

Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) - the universe needs conscious observers to bring it into existence. (There are philosophical and quantum mechanical reasons for this claim.)

Final Anthropic Principle - because the universe is fine-tuned, intelligent life forms must come into existence, and once they do, they never become non-existent.

The main point of this post is that some believers like to invoke the SAP as evidence for the existence of God. If the universe must have certain properties for life to exist, and we exist, then we may conclude that the universe was specifically designed for the purpose of sustaining life. As a latter-day saint, I wholeheartedly accept the SAP premise, but it lacks rigor. I advise against using it as a rational argument for the existence of God.

The problem with marveling at a fine-tuned universe (and invoking God as the first cause) is that we could not do otherwise. Imagine that there are 10 multiverses (10 multiple universes) in existence. If 5 of those universes are fine-tuned to allow human life, then people in those 5 universes will necessarily marvel over the fact that their universes are fine-tuned. Some of them will even propose a god as the designer. If the other 5 universes are not fine-tuned, then there will be no one to question why their universes are not fine-tuned.

IMO, for an argument to be considered rational, it must win out against less rational opposing arguments. But if just one argument is possible (in this case, concluding that it is amazing that our universe is fine-tuned), then there is no way that the argument can win out over other competing arguments. Without a competing argument, we cannot declare a winner.

Moreover, just because there are no competing arguments, it does not mean that the one argument we have wins by default. Under these circumstances, the argument we have is a tautology – nothing more than a statement that is necessarily true. Tautologies do not carry much weight in scientific and philosophical debates.

In sum, we know that the natural laws in our universe could be different, and we know that if they were different, life would not exist. However, if the laws of nature were different, then we would not exist to ponder these issues. Thus we can entertain just one possibility – that it is amazing that our universe is fine-tuned to support life.

Being limited to just one position does not result in a rational argument. We must be able to acknowledge and refute counterpositions in order to make an argument rational.
 
 
Most latter-day saints are familiar with the first law of thermodynamics. It is the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can be transformed, but never created nor destroyed. Fewer of us are familiar with the second law of thermodynamics which is unfortunate because the second law provides rational, scientific-based evidence for the existence of God.

The second law of thermodynamics states that matter in a closed system will move toward a more disorganized state until it reaches equilibrium. If we assume, from an atheistic viewpoint, that all matter in the universe came from a closed system that was the Big Bang, and that there is no Creator, then the overall level of disorder in the universe should be increasing. However, we see evidence of highly organized planetary and biological systems all around us. Does this prove the atheists wrong?

Not quite. Disorder, or entropy as it is sometimes called, may decrease in areas of a system by chance alone. Put differently, it is possible for matter to randomly coalesce into highly ordered states (low entropy) by chance.

I am reminded of a Star Trek Next Generation episode where “Q” (an omnipotent and chaotic being from another world) took Captain Picard back in time to when a primordial soup of inorganic material coalesced to form the first proteins that started life on earth (a process called abiogenesis). Q looks into the soup and says, “See this? This is you.” Then he regretfully informs Captain Jean-Luc Picard that his actions inadvertently disrupted the chance ordering of protein molecules, thus halting the formation of life on earth.
While this Star Trek story is fanciful fiction, it bears some truth. All inorganic material necessary for forming complex systems capable of sustaining life is present in the physical universe. And it is possible that inorganic matter could randomly arrange itself into complex, life-sustaining systems. The second law of thermodynamics allows for this possibility, but it also suggest that such an event is unlikely. 

Here's an example that illustrates the improbability of this sort of thing happening.
Look around the room you are in. Draw an imaginary line through the center of the room. Oxygen molecules are dispersed throughout the room keeping you alive. If we think of your room as its own system, we would say that the oxygen molecules are in a highly disordered (high entropy) state. They are more or less evenly dispersed.

Now, what are the chances of the oxygen molecules randomly assembling on the opposite side of the room from where you are seated, assuming no outside force is at work? If this happened, the oxygen molecules would have moved to a more ordered (low entropy) state and you would suffocate and die. Thankfully the chances are nigh to impossible, but it could happen.

The same goes for the creation of life (abiogenesis). There is a chance that inorganic particles could randomly form complex systems capable of sustaining life; it is, however, improbable. It is less likley than oxygen molecules randomly gathering on the other side of your room. The chances of abiogenesis happening by chance are so slim that it is rational to look for an outside entity like God to account for the presence of life.

Warwick University philosophy professor Roger Trigg agrees. He said, “It’s much simpler to believe in God who created the one universe, rather than saying there are an enormous number [of universes] and we just happen to be the one that’s come up in this way [by chance].”
 
 
Picture
Like me, I am sure many of you have said prayers for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. We cannot know the full impact of our prayers. We only know that prayer is a real force in petitioning God for blessings. James 5:16 teaches that “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man [and woman] availeth much.”

I think the prayers of the righteous are availing much for people in Haiti. Here is a story that supports that assertion. 

How long can you survive without water? Scientific estimates on how long we can survive without water vary, depending on conditions such as temperature and exposure to sun. Most estimates seem to be around a week, give or take a few days. A website on survival puts the estimate at about 8 days when the average temperature is about 85 degrees Fahrenheit. http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water/

Yesterday in Haiti, rescuers pulled a 5-year-old boy named Monley from his collapsed home. The boy endured 8 days without food and water in a small, dusty space buried beneath the rubble. After the rescuers pulled him out, he spread his arms and put on a big grin that touched the hearts of hardened US rescuers and energized everyone present with feelings of thanksgiving and hope.

Perhaps your prayers on behalf of Haiti played a role in preserving the life of this precious child. His survival is a miracle. May God continue to bless him with the peace and courage he will need to live on without his parents who died when their home collapsed.
 
 
Picture
Sheldon Killpack’s recent DUI arrest created a lot a buzz on Utah talk radio shows these last few days. On January 15th a Utah Highway patrolman spotted Killpack driving in an erratic fashion in the Millcreek area. Killpack was pulled over, failed a field sobriety test, refused a breathalyzer test, and was booked into the Salt Lake County Jail.

What is so shocking about this arrest?

Killpack is Utah’s Republican Senate Majority leader (he has since resigned).

Killpack is a member of the LDS church.

Killpack is a married man with 4 kids, ages 11 to 20.

Killpack’s father was killed by a drunk driver several years ago.

Killpack has been an advocate for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving

People are scratching their heads and asking, “Why!?”

As a psychologist and someone who has studied the characteristics of addiction, I’ll give an answer.

Addiction (or dependence as it is often called in clinical circles) has two dimensions. There is (a) physical dependence and (b) psychological dependence. Most people who become addicted to a substance, food, lifestyle, and behavior must learn to cope with these two facets of dependence. 

Physical dependence is short-lived, in most cases lasting only a few days to a few weeks. In the case of alcohol/ethanol dependence, physical dependence is short-lived, usually ending after the ethanol has completely left the body. If Killpack wasn’t drinking on a frequent basis, then I doubt that physical dependence was his problem.

It is more likely that Killpack has a serious problem with psychological dependence. Psychological dependence is a strong emotional attachment to a substance or activity. Psychological dependence can last a very long time, sometimes years and even a lifetime. Its length and severity varies significantly from one person to another. This type of dependence is what causes people to relapse into old habits. 

They say, “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.” This saying is a stark warning of the dangers of psychological dependence. In the case of Killpack, it was apparently strong enough to make a politically successful conservative LDS family man screw up in a major way. 

I wish him all the best in overcoming his problem.
 
 
Picture
There is a man who once had a drinking problem and a foul mouth problem. But he has two redeeming values that made up for his personal shortcomings – he believes in the sanctity of marriage and he believes in living within your means. It was the latter, his commitment to fiscal conservatism, that catapulted him from a local news reporter to one of the most successful provincial premiers Canada has ever known. 

(For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, a province is the equivalent of a state, and a provincial premier is the equivalent of a state’s governor.)

During the early 1990s when most Canadian provinces where growing their provincial debts with massive deficit spending, a different kind of politician ascended to the premier’s office in Alberta. His name is Ralph Klein. “Ralph”, as he preferred to be called, campaigned on the promises of cutting deficit spending and repaying Alberta’s 23 billion dollar debt. 

After he was elected premier in 1992, Ralph quickly went to work cutting wasteful government programs. He reduced spending on the arts and on burgeoning social programs for welfare recipients. He even offered to buy bus passes for welfare recipients who wanted to move to other provinces with more generous welfare programs. Ralph closed expensive and outdated medical facilities, laid off unneeded health care workers, and even rolled back the salaries of all government funded employees a few percentage points, including his own. 

I was a student in Alberta when all this was happening. I saw an old hospital in Lethbridge, Alberta named St. Marks get torn down because it was an old building and services could be absorbed by a newer medical facility nearby. I worked in social services with handicapped adults to pay my bills, and heard many people at work gripe about Ralph’s policies of fiscal restraint. Ralph got on a lot of people’s nerves with his unusual ways, but I sensed that what he was doing was good for Alberta, and history has shown this to be true.

True to his campaign promises, Ralph eliminated deficit spending and, in 2005, paid off Alberta’s 23 billion dollar debt. Thanks to Ralph’s fiscal conservatism, Alberta is now one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada. It is the only province without a provincial sales tax. His brand of fiscal conservatism has spread to other provinces that are trying to come to terms with deficit spending and massive debts.

Finally, rather than becoming a life long politician, Ralph voluntarily stepped down as premier in 2006. He went to the premier’s office to bring fiscal responsibility to Alberta. Once that mission was accomplished, he resigned.

Ralph Klein was an unusual politician. I wish there were more like him, especially during these times of life-long politicians and out-of-control deficit spending.
 
 
When we were kids we all learned that it is wrong to speak half truths you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar, well, all of us that is except for the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

On December 25, 2009 a Nigerian terrorist boarded a Northwest airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. He paid cash, did not check in luggage, and apparently did not have a valid passport (a required document for travel on all US bound flights). As the plane approached Detroit, the terrorist tried to ignite a bomb hidden in his underwear. Thankfully his ignition source (a syringe full of acid) failed. The bomb simply smoldered. A quick thinking Dutch passenger subdued the terrorist and thwarted additional attempts to ignite the bomb. If the bomb had gone off, experts say it could have blown a hole in the fuselage or ignited the plane’s fuel tank, killing everyone on board. 

Letting a known Nigerian terrorist suspect onto a US bound flight without a passport is bad enough. Seeing our Homeland Security Secretary hum and haw about what happened makes everything worse. 

On CNN Napolitano claimed that disaster was averted because “the system worked.” In Napolitano’s mind the working system is a failed ignition source and a brave passenger. If the Homeland Security Secretary’s system is a failed ignition source and a brave passenger then we are all in trouble. I assume that when she stated that the system worked she was not referring to the failure to locate the bomb during screening, to allowing a suspected terrorist onto the plane, and to allowing someone without a passport onto the plane. 

Napolitano mislead the American people while a crisis was unfolding. In a way her actions are akin to a child telling her mom that she is not taking a cookie while her hand is in the cookie jar. 

Friends, psychological science has shown that people are surprisingly resilient during crises and catastrophes. During tragic moments like Pearl Harbor and 9-11, people pull together and try to make things better. Such behavior is a testament to the values of hope and prosperity underlying the American collective psyche.  

However, there is no greater threat to hope and prosperity in a time of crisis than poor leadership. During times of crisis we look to our leaders for guidance and inspiration, but when someone like Napolitano “reads” a crisis completely wrong, there is no guidance and inspiration; rather there is frustration and fear. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security should have publicly thanked the Dutchman, declared that something went wrong, and then reassured the American public that she is going to find out what went wrong and fix it! This is the kind of leadership the American public deserves in a time of crisis.
 
 
Harmonizing scientific and religious truths is a noble pursuit. Harmonization is fairly straight forward when scientific theories and gospel doctrines are in relative agreement. Challenges to harmonization arise when gospel truths and current scientific theories disagree. Disagreements will always exist for the simple fact that science is an imperfect and changing endeavor. Progress in science means that our best scientific theories are never 100% consistent with gospel truths. Science changes – gospel truths do not. 

When differences arise, should we trust religion or should we trust science? It depends. If religious truth claims come through direct revelation such as scripture and revelation, then we should definitely go with religion. On the other hand, if religious truth claims come from theological conjecturing, of which there is plenty, then science may be right and religion may be wrong. In any event, properly interpreted revealed truth always trumps science. 

Here are some examples.

If science claims that the sun will expand and eventually destroy the earth, we know that they are wrong because modern day revelation tells us that the earth will not be completely destroyed. Rather it will be celestialized and receive a paradisiacal glory.    

If science claims that we need to restrict population growth or else we will overpopulate the earth and exhaust our resources, we know that they are wrong because the Lord has declared otherwise. Elder Russell M. Nelson recently reminded Mormon military surgeons and students in Bethesda, Maryland of this revelation when he responded to concerns about overpopulation by saying that “there is room and enough to spare.” (Church News, Nov. 18, 2009)

And if science claims that Adam and Eve’s immortal bodies were created through macroevolutionary processes, we know that it’s wrong. If macroevolution was indeed used to create Adam and Eve’s bodies, then their bodies were created by two processes, namely natural selection and random mutation in the genome. Yet revelation tells us that the creation of the first man and woman was purposeful and directed. It was not left to the vicissitudes of undirected, random processes as orthodox neo-darwinism supposes. 

Should we throw out scientific theories that disagree with revealed truth? No. As mentioned above, science is an imperfect and changing endeavor. What is important is that scientists shake off the shackles of theoretical dogma and earnestly seek truth. If they do, science will self-correct and steer toward the absolute truth of things as found in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
 
There are a wide variety of scientific beliefs among LDS scholars. Generally this is a good thing. A variety of perspectives on scientific-doctrinal issues for which the truth has not been revealed facilitates discussion and discovery. A true scholar entertains diverse viewpoints.

When Paul was teaching the Greeks on Mars Hill, many left the theatre when he taught them doctrines that they disagreed with. Do you remember who stayed behind to hear the rest of Paul’s sermon? Those who felt the spirit in Paul’s teachings stayed, and philosophers who were curious about Paul’s “new” ideas stayed. 

In any mormon scholarly debate, we should be willing to listen to credible diverse viewpoints. We should be less like the people who left the stadium in a huff when Paul said something they disagreed with, and more like the philosophers who were willing to hear Paul because he had something new to offer. 

Intellectual debate is the essential to scientific-theological discovery. Scholarship is a social activity. Progress is made when credible viewpoints are freely exchanged in the marketplace of ideas. Viewpoints that are founded on facts, reason, and a sound interpretation of scripture should be welcomed in the marketplace of ideas, even if we disagree with them.

Nothing kills a vigorous debate faster than hostile language. Name calling and insults like “You do not know what you are talking about” have one thing in common: they are attacks on personal character. Attempting to discredit people's viewpoints by assailing their character or personal beliefs is called an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks usually result when people respond in haste or when they feel frustration over not being able to persuade people to think differently. An ad hominem attack is not a legitimate argument. 

In scholarly debates it is not appropriate to call people jerks, idiots, or intellectual midgets etc. just because they hold different viewpoints. Even if we believe someone is a jerk, we should refrain from using such language for the simple fact that it stifles debate. 

I am not perfect when it comes to communicating in a scholarly manner. On a few occasions I have written something in haste and later changed my text when I realized the language was too harsh. (Posting a harsh comment on someone else’s blog and not being able to take it back is a real bummer – it’s up there for the whole world to read over and over again.) 

Here’s a thought that helps me stay cool in lively exchanges. It is that a scholarly debate is more about exchanging ideas than it is about changing ideas.
 
 
Picture
Somebody screwed up.

On November 29th, 2009 an Arkansas parolee with a long criminal history walked into a coffee shop near Lakewood, Washington, pulled a gun, and killed four police officers. 

Dead are officers Mark Renninger (39 years), Tina Griswold (40 years), Ron Owens (37 years), and Greg Richards (42 years). The Police chief said that “They were good people. They were great cops, [and] they will truly be missed.” Why did they die? 

Somebody screwed up.

They also had families – spouses and children. This woman is now a widow, and the little boy in her arms is without a dad. He no longer has a father who will teach him to work, learn, love, play, and to be a man. Why has this family been devastated?
Picture
Somebody screwed up.

The murderer, Maurice Clemmons, should never have been on the street. In 1989 when he was 17 years old, Clemmons was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery and other charges. He was sentenced to 108 years. While in prison, he broke prison rules more than 24 times – sometimes violently. Shortly after being paroled in 2000, he was convicted of robbery in Ouachita County in 2001. He was paroled again in 2004. He should have been in prison.

Who screwed up?

In my opinion, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is largely to blame. Huckabee commuted Clemmons’ sentence in 2000.  County Prosecutor Larry Jegley opposed Clemmons' parole in 2000 and 2004, but pressure from Huckabee won Clemmons’ release. Said Jegley: “[If Clemmons] had stayed locked up like the jury wanted him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/huckabees-clemmons-pardon_n_375020.html).

It appears that Huckabee has demonstrated poor judgment when offering clemency.  Huckabee pardoned or reduced sentences for 1033 convicted criminals during his 10.5 years as governor of Arkansas - that is 2 times more pardons and sentence reductions granted by all three previous governors combined (Bill Clinton, Frank White and Jim Guy Tucker) over a 17.5 year period! In one famous case, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Wayne DuMond, a man arrested for murder in 1972, sexual assault in 1973, rape in 1976, and rape in 1984. In the late 1990s, Huckabee commuted DuMond’s prison sentence and DuMond was released in 1999. Two years later he raped and killed Sarah Andrasek who was pregnant.  

Prosecutors in Arkansas claim that Huckabee “was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him.”  Furthermore, convicts like Clemmons who appealed to Huckabee's Christian sensitivities were more likely to be released. It appears that convicts who demonstrated a “change of heart” and involvement with religious ministers in prison won sympathy from Huckabee, even if their crimes were violent.
(http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/11/30/mike_huckabee/index.html).

Why did Huckabee screw up?

It may be that Huckabee, a southern Baptist minister, screwed up because he does not understand Christian forgiveness. Forgiveness is a spiritual phenomenon, not a behavioral phenomenon. Forgiveness is sincerely letting go of the animosity and anger. It is a willingness to accept the offender as a child of God, as someone who is loved by the Creator. Notice that there is no action or doing in this definition of forgiveness. The actions and behaviors that ensue from forgiveness are not forgiveness in and of themselves; they are the byproducts of forgiveness that may or may not arise. 

My guess is that Huckabee thinks that forgiveness is defined by action. He probably thinks that forgiveness is releasing and making free again, before the price of sin is paid. If he does, he is wrong. It is possible to forgive while demanding justice. This is how God works. He is merciful and extends forgiveness to all of us, yet His mercy and forgiveness always satisfy the demands of justice. In other words, a price is paid for every sin. There is no free lunch in heaven and mercy is not allowed to rob justice.

In a manner of speaking, Huckabee has offered free lunches (prison releases) without satisfying the demands of justice (requiring convicts to pay their debts to society). Perhaps he fails to realize that it is possible to forgive while, at the same time, keeping dangerous criminals off the streets until their debt to society is paid in full. 

I may be wrong about Huckabee's understanding of forgiveness and mercy - I hope I am. Whatever the case may be, releasing violent criminals like Clemmons was wrong.
 
Google Analytics