Friday, June 10, 2005

Religion at the Zoo?

About a month ago, George Will wrote a column which included this paragraph:

Some Christians should practice the magnanimity of the strong rather than cultivate the grievances of the weak. But many Christians are joining today's scramble for the status of victims. There is much lamentation about various "assaults" on "people of faith." Christians are indeed experiencing some petty insults and indignities concerning things such as restrictions on school Christmas observances. But their persecution complex is unbecoming because it is unrealistic.

This story from CNN.com might be the kind of thing Will is talking about.
The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue.
Get out of here! A Hindu elephant next to the elephant display?

Continue reading...

Thursday, June 09, 2005

NCSE on Utah and ID

The National Center for Science Education released an news brief about the push for the inclusion of intelligent design (or "divine design", as Sen. Buttars unwisely called it) in public schools. It summarizes a couple of newspaper articles, and editorials in reaction.

Utahns concerned about the threatened "divine design" legislation are encouraged to get in touch with Duane Jeffrey, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University and a member of NCSE's board of directors, at duane_jeffery@byu.edu.


Another interesting excerpt:
The Eagle Forum's Ruzicka explained her motivations for supporting the threatened legislation: "What an insult to teach children that they have evolved from a lower life to what they are now, and then they go home and learn that they are someone special, a child of God. ... This is not right."

I can see Ruzicka's point of view. But while we're talking about insults, oh nevermind.

Continue reading...

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

BYU Biology Faculty Quoted

I was reading Red State Rabble (here and here) and saw that BYU was mentioned. The reason was because of an article in MetroWest Daily News titled God, science and "Intelligent Design." The article quotes three BYU (Provo) faculty, as well as some other religious scientists. I'm providing the relevant passages, but you'll have to read the article for more context.

Continue Reading


Likewise, Keith Crandall, professor of integrative biology at Brigham Young University, says that many freshman walk into his biology classes believing Mormonism dictates creationism, unaware that church leadership articulated a policy of no position on evolution in 1925. Crandall describes the process by which he teaches evolution using his own research on HIV mutations which select for drug resistance, and, in companion discussion, illustrates how core creationist arguments differ from orthodox Mormon theology. Nevertheless, says David McClellan, also a biology professor at BYU and a practicing Mormon, if the subject comes up in a discussion at church, "I still get a few people telling me it's `Evil-Lution.'"

That part about no position since 1925 may not be quite accurate, but that is a topic for another time.
********
The "design by complexity" argument posits that nature's complexity demands an intelligent designer. "This is too complex to have evolved, so God must have made it." But what if science can show how it could have evolved? "You lose all motivation to do any research once you declare that `this could only be the mark of a designer,'" says BYU biology professor Dr. Duane Jeffery. "You don't want further study to prove you wrong."

********
"They (Intelligent Design proponents) don't even understand evolution," says BYU's Keith Crandall. "The scientists they find are not biology researchers. They're not in the right field so they simply don't know the realities. They need to understand the arguments."

********
(This last quote is in the context of social and political issues.)
BYU's Jeffery worries that private parochial and home-schooling will increase because more people are unwilling to let their children be taught evolution. "How will those kids be able to participate meaningfully in the discourse that goes on in our society, and then cast responsible votes?"

There are several things here that I want to comment on, but will do so later.

Continue reading...

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Oh No, Not in Utah

Via The Panda's Thumb comes this article from the Salt Lake Tribune. Utah may be the next battle ground in the fight over including intelligent design in school ciricula.

Continue Reading


But the moral-crusading group Eagle Forum, which has often flexed its muscle on Utah's Capitol Hill, argues a community has a right to teach its values to its children.

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, plans to lead the fight for instruction of divine design in Utah public schools. He wants to defuse some of the expected controversy by avoiding the term "creationism" altogether.

Instead, he favors "divine design," sometimes called "intelligent design," which "doesn't preach religion," he said. "The only people who will be upset about this are atheists."


I was afraid this day would come. I don't understand why Sen. Buttars thinks this is needed, when a good chunk of the kids in Utah attend relgion classes, oh about-- every day. Fortunately the U of U and BYU are committed to good science, which should help to deflect some of the scorn that could come Utah's way.

It's interesting--the Discovery Institute argues that intelligent design is not about religion. They have to or else they risk losing in the courts, just like "creation science" did. Yet people like Buttars make it about religion. The ID movement just might be destroyed (legally speaking) by its own supporters.

Continue reading...

Friday, June 03, 2005

T. Rex Bone Indicates Gender and Relationship to Birds

Several months ago I briefly blogged about the discovery of a Tyrannosauraus rex bone that, when de-mineralized and rehydrated, appeared to have retained structures of soft tissue. The same authors (Mary Schweitzer, et al.) are back with another paper in Science which builds on the last one, with interesting results.

Reuters via MSNBC.com reports:

Continue Reading


The bone tissue is strongly similar to that made inside the bones of female birds — and no other living type of animal — when they are producing the hard shells of eggs just before they lay them, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

"In addition to demonstrating gender, it also links the reproductive physiology of dinosaurs to birds very closely. It indicates that dinosaurs produced and shelled their eggs much more like modern birds than like modern crocodiles," Schweitzer told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Female birds produce a layer of bone tissue called medullary bone when they are laying eggs. It is rich in calcium, providing minerals that would otherwise be leached from harder bone material, leaving the bird susceptible to fractures.



This image shows medullary bone (MB) and cortical bone (CB) of T. rex.

Since dinosaurs are thought to be the ancestors of birds, this finding makes sense and strengthens such an argument.

For more on dinosaurs and their relationship to birds, see this page at The Tree of Life web project, which is a pretty cool site--it's worth wandering around.

Creationists were unphased by the last paper--in fact they apparently saw it as evidence supporting young-earth creationism. (For more on this, see here.) It will be interesting to see how they spin this paper.

Update: Coverage from National Geographic News.

Continue reading...

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Blood, The Fall, and Intelligent Design

According to current LDS theology, blood is a distinctive part of mortal life. Although Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the Garden of Eden, their bodies did not contain blood. The Bible Dictionary states, "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood" (see BD, "Fall of Adam"). Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

Continue Reading


Eating of that forbidden fruit subdued the power of the spirit and created blood in [Adam's] body. No blood was in his body before the fall. The blood became the life thereof. And the blood was not only the life thereof, but it had in it the seeds of death. (Seek Ye Earnestly, p.81)


That there was no blood before the fall is a relatively recent concept. From what I have been able to find, Joseph Fielding Smith appears to be the first person to have taught it. In regard to the origin and support for this teaching, Robert J. Matthews has written:
That there was no blood in the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall, and that blood came as a result of the Fall, is not categorically stated in any one passage of scripture, but leading doctrinal teachers such as President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie have declared that such was the case. This conclusion is scripturally based and takes into account that blood is the mortal life of the body (see Gen 9:2-6; Lev. 17:10-15).

A further point supporting the conclusion that Adam and Eve had no blood in their premortal, non-death bodies is that we are assured by the Prophet Joseph Smith that resurrected beings do not have blood but possess bodies of flesh and bones "having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." The Prophet also said, "When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." In speaking of the place where God dwells, the Prophet said, "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." (See also 1 Cor. 15:50.)

This much we know about blood: (a) it is a vital part of our mortal lives and is basic to the reproductive process of mortals; (b) it was the agent of redemption in the atonement of Jesus Christ, he shedding his blood to redeem all people from the effects of the Fall and, upon the condition of repentance, from their personal sins; and (c) blood will not exist in the bodies of resurrected beings. With these known facts it becomes evident that blood is the badge of mortality, and since it will not exist in the deathless bodies of Adam, Eve, and their posterity in the resurrection, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that blood did not exist in the deathless, premortal bodies of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. (Man Adam, p.45)
In passing, it should be noted that while blood is a vital part of our mortal bodies, and that of many animals, it is not a component of many mortal life-forms (plants, for example).

Blood fulfills a number of important roles in the body. It's most notable role is to deliver oxygen to cells and remove carbon dioxide waste. It also facilitates the transportation of many substances through the body including nutrients, hormones, and components of the immune system. Because it is so vital to life, there are mechanisms in place that help to keep us from losing blood, ie. clotting.

The formation and regulation of clotting involves a number of proteins, all of which are encoded in our genes. Inherited deficiencies in these genes can lead to such conditions as hemophilia. It is beyond the scope of this post to detail the interactions of these proteins, such as in the clotting cascade. (See here for further reading.) It is sufficient to know that the regulation of clotting is complicated and impressive.

Elder Russell M. Nelson has commented several times on the wonders of the human body, including the ability of blood to clot. (See, for example, “The Magnificence of Man,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 64.) The regulation of clotting has also been discussed by Michael Behe in his book, Darwin's Black Box. In his book Behe claims that the clotting cascade is an irreducibly complex (IC) system, which means that if any component of it were removed, the system would fail. Since it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that the whole system could have been fully developed by natural means, all at once, and since the system would not confer any advantage to an organism if it was developed one component at a time, Behe argues that this system has been intelligiently designed. Presumably, the "designer" is God. If Behe is correct, his argument would seem to add scientific support to the sentiments of Elder Nelson, and some undoubtably see it as such. (Whether or not Behe is correct is beyond the scope of this post.)

In thinking about the Fall, a natural question arises: Why was it necessary? Why did God create things in a paradisiacal state rather than a mortal state? In his criticism of evolution, Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote:
Latter-day Saint theology recognizes God as the creator. Thus the labor of creation must be godlike. God does not do shoddy work. Having completed the work of creation, he declared it "very good" (Moses 2:31). (Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions, p. 158-162.)
While the scriptures have much to say concerning the consequences of (and redemption from) the Fall, they have little to say about the reason for the Fall. Robert J. Matthews expressed this opinion:
If God had created man mortal, then death, sin, and all the circumstances of mortality would be God's doing and would be eternal and permanent in their nature whereas if man brings the Fall upon himself, he is the responsible moral agent, and God is able to rescue and redeem him from his fallen state. (Bible! a Bible!, p. 187)

Apparently McConkie sees anything less than a paradisiacal creation as "shoddy" and ungodlike. Matthews sees the Fall as a way for God to avoid responsibility for our mortal condition.

There may be other explanations, but I do not find either of these explanations compelling, which leads to the point of this post: If God does not create anything "shoddy" (and therefore ungodlike) and has no responsibility for mortal conditions, how can we say that God designed or created blood, the hallmark of the Fall? We can widen the question to include all things that are in a fallen condition, since the scriptures state that all things testify of Christ. In fact it was God who issued the curses that would characterize mortality for Adam and Eve. If we take the scriptural account literally, thorns and thistles were apparently previously unknown to earth. This means that either God had previously created such plants but held them in a dormant state, or he created them when Adam and Eve fell. The same can be said for blood or any other biological characteristic of mortality.

If we are to exclude any role for evolution in the creation of life on this earth on the grounds that God either does not create, or cannot be responsible for, anything that is less than perfect, then it seems to me that we have to relinquish his role in the creation of anything that characterizes fallen conditions, including blood. Conversely, if God has created (in a direct way) aspects of our mortal condition, then we cannot say that using evolution in the creative process would be "shoddy" and ungodlike. If evolution is to be rejected as a tool which God uses to create, it will have to be on theological grounds other than its imperfect nature.

[This is a cross-post from Mormons and Evolution. Please comment there.]

Continue reading...

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Andromeda

This news story from National Geographic says that the nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is three times larger than previously thought.

I don't know how significant that is--mostly I just wanted an excuse to post the pretty picture below. Also, I know from personal experience that with a simple pair of binoculars you can see Andromeda. You just need to know where to look. It kind of looks like a faint whispy cotton ball. I wonder if anybody over there is looking at us.

Continue reading...

Dept. of HHS Asks PNAS Not to Publish Paper

Science news reports:

In an unprecedented move, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to pull a bioterrorism-related paper that the journal planned to publish online on 30 May. The journal took the paper off its publication schedule on 27 May and has been reviewing it internally.

The paper, by mathematician Lawrence Wein of Stanford University and graduate student Yifan Lu, models how bioterrorists could wreak havoc by slipping a small amount of botulinum toxin into the U.S. milk supply, and it spells out interventions that the government and the dairy industry could take to prevent this nightmare scenario.


Apparently the government objects to some of the details contained in the paper. This is one of those tough science/law/national defence issues--when should scientific findings NOT be published? Apparently Wien wrote and Op-Ed in the New York Times that describes his paper. PNAS could go ahead and publish the paper, scrap it, or modify it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP