Review of Pratt's "Millenial Science"

During my senior year at BYU (1999-2000), I ran across the book Charting a New Millenium: The Latter-day Saints in the Coming Century, published in 1998 by Apsen Books. It is a compilation of essays by LDS professionals (some of them well-known) giving their perspectives of where we stand and what the new millennium may bring. The lone essay on science was written by John Pratt (Ph.D, astronomy) and titled “Millenial Science.” Why he was chosen as the one and only LDS representative of science is not clear to me, since his interests are in calendars and chronology, and it looks as though he does very little peer-reviewed research. The answer may lie in the fact that he is the science editor for Meridian Magazine, which is run by Maurine and Scot Proctor—also the editors of this book. On a whim, I recently re-read Pratt’s article and decided to share my thoughts about it.


Continue Reading

First the positive: I think the article has a pretty good discussion of the scientific method and the limitations of it. Essentially, hypotheses are proposed (based on previous observations or experiments) and then are tested experimentally. Based on the results the hypothesis is either revised or new hypotheses are proposed in order to investigate new questions. In my experience, science is not quite as formulaic as is sometimes suggested; nevertheless it is important that research be hypothesis driven.

The article differentiates successful scientific theory from ultimate truth. It is important to keep in mind that no matter how well a theory is supported, in the end it may not represent “things as they really are.” For a number of reasons, science cannot answer all questions. Furthermore, science is always tentative because tomorrow’s findings may supercede today’s understanding. We therefore cannot expect ultimate and eternal truths from science. That’s not to say that the methods of science cannot uncover some ultimate truths—we just cannot be absolutely certain when it has occurred. However, I would add that certain hypotheses and theories can be so well supported that we call them facts--like the germ theory of disease, for example.

Also, the article lists some revealed truths that we must keep in mind as we evalutate scientific findings. Examples include: God created the earth, we are children of God, we have free agency, and God knows the end from the beginning. To his credit, the author cites the idea of the earth having been created in seven twenty-four hour days, or even seven one thousand-year periods, as a forced interpretation of scripture.

Dr. Pratt spends a large portion of the article evaluating evolution, which is where most of my criticisms are directed. First a general observation: it is interesting to me that much of the criticism of evolution comes from non-biologists. Why physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and lawyers feel qualified to critique evolution is a mystery to me. It is almost condescending—as though biologists are not very bright because anybody can master evolution, and reveal its flaws, with relative ease. Speaking of lawyers, some of the arguments in the article seemed familiar to me. I turned to the bibliography and found Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, listed. Phillip Johnson is, of course, one of the prominent leaders of the Intelligent Design [creationist] movement.

Dr. Pratt’s main argument seems to be that evolution does not measure up to the scientific method. He claims that it cannot be falsified—a claim sometimes made by creationists. First of all, broad and well-supported theories are not often overturned by single contrary findings because sometimes the findings are anomalies, or often they can be reconciled with the overall theoretical structure without too much effort. It is a steady accumulation of contrary findings that precipitates scientific revolutions. Nevertheless, I will list several ways evolutionary theory could be falsified (or greatly modified), especially if more than one were true:
1. If fossil species were randomly distributed throughout geological strata.
2. If closely related species (according to evolutionary theory) showed little genetic resemblance to one another. Even if we allow for two species to share the same basic set of genes, they should show little similarity in genetic organization, such as which genes are on which chromosome, or even the number of chromosomes. Furthermore, they should not share distinctive genetic features that serve no function.
3. If developmental patterns of closely related species were dissimilar.
4. If the geographic distribution of taxa through history showed no particular patterns.
5. If closely related species used different DNA combinations (codons) to code for amino acids.

Of course, in each case listed above the opposite is found. Part of the strength of evolution is that multiple fields of science-geology, genetics, paleontology, developmental biology, anatomy, physics, etc.--support it. If evolution is false or not “scientific,” there ought to be a great amount of discord between these fields of study. (For more evidence of evolution and ways it could potentially be falsified, see here.)

In an ironic way, Dr. Pratt actually undercuts his own argument. After stating that good scientific theories should make risky predictions, and that the presence of transitional fossils is a risky prediction, he suggests that the principle of reusing a good design is the simplest explanation for the existence of whales. He has raised a case where the risky prediction of transitional fossils (not to mention genetics and developmental biology) supports the land origin of whales’ ancestors.

Another irony, in my mind, is raised by Noah’s flood. It is evident that Dr. Pratt believes that the flood was universal, and he proposes that Noah packed enough different “kinds” of animals onto the ark in order to allow for the biological diversity we see today. (This appears like an implicit admission that some evolution has occured.) There are almost 5,000 species of mammals and 10,000 species of birds (Mayr, What Evolution Is), not to mention reptiles or amphibians—and new species are being discovered every year. One of the criticisms creationists often make is that we do not observe new species being generated by macroevolution. This criticism is flawed for reasons I will not deal with here. However, even if Noah was able to fit a large fraction of the known mammal and bird species on the ark, the pace of diversification (evolution) that would be needed in order to reach the current level of biodiversity would be much faster than even evolutionary theory suggests has occured. In other words, the proposal about Noah’s ark, it seems to me, requires more (faster) evolution than evolutionary theory does--and we should be witnessing it today. Each person can make up their own mind as to whether the flood was universal or not, but it seems to me that his charge of willing ignorance concerning the flood (based on 2 Pet. 3:4-7) can cut in more ways than one.

Two final points. First, Dr. Pratt seems to think that genetics is not compatible--and even contradicts--evolutionary theory. However, genetics is well within in the modern synthesis. Second, he claims that "science need not be atheistic." I agree, but I think it is a mistake to drag science into the broader culture war over the place of religion in public society. Science has not fared well when controlled by relgious dogma. Until the millenium comes and God reveals more specific information, I believe we should let scientists conduct their research in peace.