Creation Museum

In case you missed it, Answers in Genesis is in the news with the opening of their expensive ($27 million) new creation museum.

The NCSE has coverage here and here (see additional links at bottom).

If you are near Kentucky and want to part with $20 (adults, $10 kids), you now have another option. Just keep in mind that portrayals of dinosaurs and people getting along together, does not make it so. (I suppose whether they would get along might make for an interesting discussion. However, the point is moot because they are separated by about 65 million years.)

Continue reading...

Evolution, Elder Nelson, and Benson's Fifth Fundamental

At BCC there has been discussion over a recent statement made by Elder Nelson to the effect that he does not accept evolution. As a commenter pointed out, this is not really surprising given past statments. The commenter continued:

I just finished teaching a college-level course in organic evolution, and Elder Nelson’s comments would probably have earned him a D on an essay question–not for his views, but for his understanding of the topic.

I think the same could be said for Elder Packer, the only other current Apostle that I am aware of that has made explicit and public anti-evolution statements. It can be frustrating.

But I am reminded of a famous speech by (then) Elder Ezra Taft Benson--"Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet":

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

Fortunately the full strength of this quote does not apply here (although it does raise some interesting questions that will have to wait for another day), but there is tension. What to do?

My approach has been the following: First, I like to think that Elder [whoever] and I both know some things that the other does not--that if we could fully communicate our experience and knowledge, we would at least come close to an agreement. Maybe that is naive or wrong, but it allows me to have respect for their experience, knowledge, and office without having to surrender my mental faculties.

And second, I try to look past their specific argument to what they are really defending. Most likely, it is something that I also believe. This allows me to agree with the over-arching message, even if I disagree with particulars. (An example of this approach is a previous post I wrote about Elder Packer.)

Continue reading...

Kitcher On Design

Our public library system has a used bookstore where they sell off extra books--for cheap. Fortunately we only recently found this out, or else who knows how much money we would have dropped at that place.

Anyway, I picked up Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosphy, which contains a number of short essays from a variety of authors (ancient and modern) on a variety of topics. One chapter is taken from Philip Kitcher's book Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. I encountered a different excerpt from his book previously, and I've been impressed with Kitcher's analysis. (I almost checked the book out from the library once, but it literally smelled bad and I decided that I could not abide it for bedtime reading.)

Kitcher's book was published in 1983, when 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' was a prominent issue. However, some of it is just as applicable to Intelligent Design (or versions of it) as a purported legitimate science.

...if we take the idea of a single creative event seriously, we must view it as the origination of an entire system of kinds of organisms, whose needs themselves arise in large measure from the character of the system. ...The needs are not given in advance of the design of structures to accomodate them, but are themselves encompassed in the design [italics in original].

Perhaps a way of re-stating that is that one cannot separate the problem from the solution. If you say that our immune system is designed to defend us from germs, then you must also say that at least some germs are designed to kill us. Or, our atmosphere protects us from solar radiation--but why must there be solar radiation in the first place? Or--an example Kitcher brings up--why must ruminants have complicated digestive systems that require the help of bacteria rather than have the right enzymes to process cellulose in the first place? It is hard to get anywhere with such questions from a design perspective.

So we encounter the strategy exemplified by [Henry] Morris: Talk generally about design, pattern, purpose, and beauty in nature. There are many examples of adaptations that can be used--the wings of bats or "the amazing circulatory system," for example. But what happens if we press some more difficult cases?

...Since no plan of design has been specified, Creationists have available another all-purpose escape clause. But it is precisely this feature of Creation "science" that impugns its scientific credentials. To mumble that "the ways of the Creator are many and mysterious" may excuse one from identifiying design in unlikely places. It is not to do science.

In my view, this is not to say that God does not have any plans, it is just folly to try to merge the general plans described in scripture with the physical world, in a specific way, and call it science.

Continue reading...

Romney on Evolution, Again

From The New York Times:

Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, surprised some observers when he was not among those Republican candidates who raised their hands last week when asked at the Republican presidential debate if they did not believe in evolution. (Senator Sam Brownback, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo said they did not.)

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He passed on Intelligent Design too. Thank you, Mitt!

(via The Panda's Thumb)

Continue reading...

A Brief Review of Intelligent Design

I've given Intelligent Design a rest for a while, but I think it's time to dust it off for a few posts.

To start off, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has several commentary-type articles devoted to evolution, and at least some of them appear to be freely accessible. (The Panda's Thumb provides a list.)

I haven't looked through many of them yet, but I want to highlight "Biological design in science classrooms", by Eugenie C. Scott and Nicholas J. Matzke. (As part of the NCSE, they were heavily involved--especially Matzke--in the Kitzmiller v Dover case.)

The article lays out a brief but thorough history of the ID movement, some of its claims, and the scientific response, including some of the facts that came out during the trial.

Frankly, I don't know how anybody familiar with the ID movement can think it is about good science. It is clear that ID has its roots in creationism and is more ideological than scientific. And I do not agree that accepting ID means accepting most of evolution and natural history because it is clear that many of its proponents do not. The ID movement has pitched a big tent. In fact, in my mind, the claim that ID is compatible with most of natural history is another facet of the movement's duplicity because its proponents distort, disparage, and obfuscate concepts that ID is 'technically agnostic' on at every turn.

But what if we strip out the politics, legal issues, and the Discovery Institute? I plan on a couple of more posts that will focus more on the idea of ID and less on the current embodiment of it.

Continue reading...

FARMS and Physics

I recently highlighted several essays in the FARMS publication, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant. I want to return, briefly, to the chapter, "'And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," by John Gee, William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson.

The essay argues that the Book of Abraham is presented from a geocentric point of view. In answer to the question of why God would teach Abraham using a "false" conception, the authors suggest that (i) God teaches according to our human limits of understanding, and (ii):

the geocentric view of the cosmos is not, strictly speaking, false. If modern relativistic physics has taught us anything, it is that there is no absolute space, and thus no privileged point for observation of the cosmos except as has been established by convention. The geocentric system was abandoned, in the last analysis, not because it was incorrect but because, as it had developed with its cycles and epicycles, it was too complex and cumbersome. ...it would still be possible today, in light of modern relativistic physics—and if we were willing to subject ourselves to the difficulty of doing so—to construct a description of the universe that assumes the earth to be at the center.

As currently indicated on the sidebar, I am reading Timothy Ferris's Coming of Age in the Milky Way, and he made a point that I had not thought of before, and if I understand correctly, means that the quote above is incorrect (aside from the historical reason for rejecting geocentrism).

(Note: you physicists and astronomers out there--tell me if I've got this right or not.)

From a geocentric point of view, the farther away the stars are, the faster they have to move in order to circle the earth. Astronomically speaking, you don't have to get very far (I guess a circumference of one light year) before the velocity of the stars would have to exceed the speed of light in order to circle the earth every year. This would violate a fundamental principle of relativity. So the irony here is that the authors invoke relativity to support a notion that actually contradicts relativity. Sure, we could generate such a description, but it would remain "false."

Is this right or am I missing something?

Update: Whether the issue I raise has merit or not may depend on the assumptions of the model. But I'm encouraged that at least one person has noticed the problem before. See A Critique of Geocentricity.

Continue reading...

The Achilles Heel of Ouija

In a recent post, I drew attention to a test of dowsers that was performed in Australia. Toward the end, James Randi attributed the workings of dowsing to the ideomotor effect.

Ideomotor action refers to the unconscious effect of suggestion on muscular movements [1]. Phenomena attributed to ideomotor action include: dowsing, facilitated communication, messages from ouija boards, and other various practices in spiritualism and alternative medicine.

Ouija boards? I have no experience with this myself, but apparently the Achilles heel of ouija boards is elegantly simple: a blindfold.

---

1. For a good primer on ideomotor action, see How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action, by Ray Hyman.

A few years ago, Dr. Hyman was on an episode of Scientific American Frontiers, on PBS, that dealt with dowsing. You can read the resulting Q&A here.

Continue reading...

Book Finished: Man, His Origin and Destiny

I finished reading Joseph Fielding Smith's Man, His Origin and Destiny. I thought it would provide some good blogging material, but now I find that I don't really have the steam for it. I think there are several reasons for this:

1. It is a long book; it has many extended quotations and the arguments tend to wander. You would be better off reading the "Evolution" entry in Mormon Doctrine for the main points, and I and others have had a go at that already.

2. It was published in 1954; a lot has been discovered since then. It would be quite time consuming to address the scientific issues raised, and for what? To say that we now know many things that he didn't?

3. Although the book is available on Gospelink, it has been out of print for decades. I think most people don't even know the book exists; surely even fewer have read it. So why spend time on it?

4. To be fair, I think he makes some good points from time to time. Unless I want to look like I just enjoy beating up on dead prophets, I would need to dig out some of those points. But see #1. Another problem is that good and bad can be so intertwined that it is hard to cut out the bad without at least appearing to reject the good as well.

Let me add that one valuable thing about this book--for the time it was printed--is that it has a nice collection of material in one book. Included are (i) the 1909 First Presidency statment on the origin of man [1], (ii) 'The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve', (iii) a First Presidency letter to Samuel Bennion regarding Adam-God teachings, and (iv) accounts of Heber C. Kimball and company's demonic confrontation.

So overall, I think it best to defer to Henry Eyring's diplomatic review. This is not to say that I won't draw on the book for blogging at all, but it will probably be limited.

---

1. As pointed about by Duane Jeffery (see note 41 here), the 1909 statment incorrectly reads, "primal parent of the race" rather than the correct reading, "primal parent of our race."

Continue reading...