Joseph Smith and Phrenology

The subdivision of the brain into different functional areas is a basic concept that probably most people are familiar with. This understanding has roots that run through the discarded notion of phrenology, which was conceived in the late 1700's and made its way to America in the 1830's. The idea behind phrenology was that different functions of the brain were divided within certain areas of the brain, that the size of those areas translated into abilities, and that the shape of the skull was a reflection of the shape of the brain.

Phrenologists claimed that feeling or measuring the contours of the skull provided insight into a person's character. For example, a person might have a bump or depression in the skull indicating the presence or absence of honesty. Although there were skeptics all along, phrenology was generally discredited by the early part of the the twentieth century.(For more information, see The History of Phrenology on the Web, and The Skeptic's Dictionary.)

Davis Bitton and Gary Bunker have written about the intersection of phrenology with Mormons in their article, Phrenology Among the Mormons, in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Vol. 9 No. 1). It was a topic that even Joseph Smith weighed in on during the Nauvoo period. (Note: Apparently Michael Quinn's book, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, contains discussion of phrenology. I do not have the book; I would be happy to have someone summarize his discussion in the comments.)

Continue Reading

5 January 1841 -

Minutes: One night Joseph Smith said to D Ells [Dr. Josiah Ells] and to the congregation that he for a length of time thought on phrenology, and that he had a revelation, the Lord rebuking him sharply in crediting such a thing; and further said there was no reality in such a science, but [it] was the works of the devil. (Words of Joseph Smith, p.61)

2 July 1842 - With Joseph's permission, a phrenologist published his evaluation of Joseph in the Nauvoo Wasp. History of the Church contains the findings followed by this comment:

I give the foregoing in my history for the gratification of the curious, and not for [any] respect [I entertain for] phrenology. (HC 5:55)

6 May 1843 -

In the morning, had an interview with a lecturer on Mesmerism and Phrenology. Objected to his performing in the city. (HC 5:383)

13 and 14 October 1843 -

Dr. Turner, a phrenologist, came in. I gratified his curiosity for about an hour by allowing him to examine my head....In the morning, at home, having a long conversation with a physiologist and mesmeriser. I asked them to prove that the mind of man was seated in one part of the brain more than another. (HC 6:56)

(Note: the above quotations are collected in Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings by Larry Dahl and Donald Cannon.)

Joseph's skepticism of phrenology was apparently prophetic, but perhaps he went too far in his dismissal. Although the practice of phrenology was discredited, some of the underlying ideas have been shown to be correct. The functions of the brain are divided into specific areas, and in at least some cases function correlates with size.

In spite of Joseph's disapproval of phrenology, some Mormons continued to take an interest in the topic. Church leaders had differing views on it, but generally refrained from either endorsing or condemning. Bitton and Bunker note that, in some respects, phrenology had little to offer Mormons. Phrenology had a component of self-improvement to it--something already contained in Mormon theology. And whereas phrenology claimed to give insight into a person's character, providing strengths and weaknesses, Mormons had patriarchal blessings that, to some extent, did the same thing. By the middle of the twentieth century, the phrenology fad was dead.

Continue reading...

Discovering the Fountains of Life

A little over a month ago, a commenter (BrianJ) suggested that an interesting idea for a book would be a history of people's understanding of biological reproduction. A forthcoming book may not fit the bill exactly, but comes pretty close.

The book is called Generation: The 17th Century Scientists Who Unraveled the Secrets of Human Reproduction. Here's a description from Amazon.com.

Generation is the story of the exciting, largely forgotten decade during the seventeenth century when a group of young scientists—Jan Swammerdam, the son of a Protestant apothecary, Nils Stensen (also known as Steno), a Danish anatomist who first discovered the human tear duct, Reinier de Graaf, the attractive and brilliant son of a rich and successful Catholic architect, and Antoni Leeuwenhoek, a self-taught draper—dared to challenge thousands of years of orthodox thinking about where life comes from. By meticulous experimentation, dissection, and observation with the newly invented microscope, they showed that like breeds like, that all animals come from an egg, that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, and that there are millions of tiny, wriggling “eels” in semen. However, their ultimate inability to fully understand the evidence that was in front of them led to a fatal mistake. As a result, the final leap in describing the process of reproduction—which would ultimately give birth to the science of genetics—took nearly two centuries for humanity to achieve. Including previously untranslated documents, Generation interweaves the personal stories of these scientists against a backdrop of the Dutch “Golden Age.” It is a riveting account of the audacious men who swept away old certainties and provided the foundation for much of our current understanding of the living world.

The book received a favorable review in Nature, and there is a website dedicated to it with supplementary material. It looks like it is not available in the U.S. until August. I'll have to keep it on my list of books to read.

Continue reading...

Ark-eology

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a post on recent claims that Noah's Ark is in Iran. The evidence is so convincing that the widow of an astronaut thinks they just might have found it. You can read Ed's commentary here, and be sure to see his subsequent uncovering of a diploma-mill degree. The original story is here. Be sure to look at the pictures that appear to show petrified wood sticking out of the ground. Perhaps the photos will convince you. But remember, some think that the ark should be in Turkey.

In fact, it was just last March that other groups got excited about a satellite image of Mt. Ararat (not to mention another group that claims to have already found the ark), as reported in this WorldNetDaily article.

Three different locations and three different "arkish" formations--how will the true one be distinguished? I guess scientists could be called in, but they are generally a skeptical bunch with a propensity to come up with unpleasant results, so presumably some other test will need to be devised.

Continue reading...

Coulter Criticism

The criticisms of Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism are starting to come in--specifically, the portion of the book taking on evolution. The folks at The Panda's Thumb appear to be dividing the work up and posting on their own blogs. I mentioned the book and a few of my impressions here. Below I will collect substantive criticisms and make this index available on the sidebar for a while. The links will be grouped by blog (or website).

Continue Reading

Pharyngula
No Evidence for Evolution?: Gives general information on how to find and read about evidence for evolution.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Let the Criticism Commence: General comments with some evidence for evolution. Also discusses the duplicity between what Intelligent Design proponents claim for their theory versus the arguments they make, using peppered moths as an example.

The Panda's Thumb
Clueless: Following Discovery Institute writings, Coulter accuses scientists of fraud for using peppered moths as an example of evolution.

EvolutionBlog
Is Natural Selection a Tautology?: Jason from EvolutionBlog discusses the tautology argument. Money quote: "...it has never once happened in the history of science that a theory achieves mainstream status, only to fall apart when a clever outsider notices a simple logical oversight."

The Loom
Behold, For *I* am the Giant Flatulent Raccoon!: Carl Zimmer discusses a passage that was apparently inspired by one of his articles.

Talk Reason
Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evoution, Part I: Coulter's reliance on secondary sources leads her into errors.

Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evoution, Part II: Deals with Coulter's treatment of paleontology.

Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution, Part III: Focuses on Archaeopteryx.

Continue reading...

Why Homosexuality Exists: Some Hypotheses

Homosexuality is not my favorite subject, and to the extent that I am interested in it, it's mostly on a theoretical level. But PZ Myers at Pharyngula commented on the same article I blogged about a few days ago, and I think his comments are worth reading if you are interested in why homosexuality appears in nature. He lists several reasonable hypotheses. Contrary to what you might expect, he does not favor a strict genetic connection. Rather, his view is that it is a by-product of the commonalities between men and women in the developmental process, sort of like why men have nipples.

As he notes, there may be multiple mechanisms.

Continue reading...

Ann Coulter on Evolution

Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, has several chapters devoted to bashing evolution. Naturally this has has caused a little bit of rumbling around the science-oriented blogosphere. Many of the commenters are politically left of center, so they already have reason to dislike her based on politics.

William Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, claims to have helped Ann. I briefy perused the book at the store a few days ago and it sure looks like she had input from DI types (which seems to be confirmed.) It has many of the distortions and talking points that the DI has been putting forth--even some old creationist chestnuts like "survival of the fittest is a tautology." I also saw some bold sweeping assertions about, say, the fossil record. Now you and I both know that she isn't any kind of expert on paleontology, and given that evolution is firmly a part of paleontology, the experts wouldn't back her up. But that doesn't stop her from pronouncing the fossil record as devoid of evidence for evolution.

Coulter's angle, of course, is that Darwinism is the religion of godless liberals. Well I suppose it could be, but what to do about folks on her team--Christians and conservatives--that accept evolution? People like George Will or Charles Krauthammer, or any other number of people? Clearly the dichotomy is not how she is drawing it.

If there is value in that part of the book, it may be that it concisely lays out current anti-evolutionary arguments, with spice. But if you read the book, at least read some mainstream science to go along with it. Or easier, visit the Talk.Origins index to creationist claims--I'm confident that you will find much of what she has written has already been dealt with.

P.S. I once had occasion to meet Ann Coulter and sit at her table at a dinner. At the time I had no idea who she was.

Continue reading...

Non-Human and Gay

Seed Magazine (a magazine dedicated to science and culture) has an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It focuses on one (transexual) biologist's attempt to change the way biologists look at sexuality. You have to get to the end of the article to see that most evolutionary biologists remain skeptical or think that the role of homosexuality is being exaggerated, but the article does raise some interesting points. The main argument is that sexuality is not only about reproduction--that it builds social relationships and helps individuals to get along.

For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn't only about multiplying. Sometimes, as in the case of all those gay sheep, dolphins and primates, animals have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds..."

"Same-sex sexuality is just another way of maintaining physical intimacy," Roughgarden says. "It's like grooming, except we have lots of pleasure neurons in our genitals. When animals exhibit homosexual behavior, they are just using their genitals for a socially significant purpose."

That's all fine and good, but I thought this was a bit much:

Being gay or straight seems to be an intrinsic and implacable part of our identity. Roughgarden disagrees. "In our culture, we assume that there is a straight-gay binary, and that you are either one or the other. But if you look at vertebrates, that just isn't the case. You will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay. Other human cultures show the same thing." Since Roughgarden believes that the hetero/homo distinction is a purely cultural creation, and not a fact of biology, she thinks it is only a matter of time before we return to the standard primate model. "I'm convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It's just such hard work."

Um, maybe in some circles, but otherwise, dream on.

Here's a final quote:

At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it.

Nature sure is diverse. Appeal to it with caution.

Continue reading...

Pufferfish and Ancestral Genomes

PZ Myers of Pharyngula has a nice discussion of the publication of the pufferfish genome and the interesting things that can be inferred by comparing it with the human genome. It looks like he originally wrote it a couple of years ago and is re-posting it. It may not be late-breaking news, but it is still interesting and worth a few minutes of your time.

(It even has some pretty pictures, and I heard he's serving refreshments too. Still not interested? Well, you're in charge of folding up chairs afterward.)

Continue reading...