Understanding Widtsoe, Talmage, et al

Reading through the writings of some of our earlier brethren regarding evolution, one finds some strange passages. These passages are found in the writings of John A. Widtsoe, James E. Talmage, Sterling Talmage, and even Joseph Fielding Smith. Rather than try to catalog them, a couple of examples may suffice.

In Evidences and Reconciliations, John A. Widtsoe wrote, "The law of evolution or change may be accepted fully. It is an established fact so far as human power can determine. It is nothing more or less than the gospel law of progression or its opposite."


In Can Science Be Faith-Promoting (pg. 154) Sterling Talmage wrote:

...the scientists who have followed Darwin and tested out his theories have found that natural selection has some bearing on the minor changes but that the great changes come about through mutations or the relatively sudden appearance of characteristics that cannot be ascribed to either heredity or environment. Many of these mutations seem to prepare the species for a succeeding environment in a way that suggests a foreshadowing of function.... The cause of mutations is as mysterious as is the origin of life; but many scientists are ascribing it to the design of some controlling intelligence, and the strict materialists are losing ground in scientific circles.

Two concepts are represented in the above passages: First, that evolution is a form of progress, and second, that mutation is more important than (and even refutes) natural selection. (As an aside, notice also Sterling Talmage's God-of-the-gaps comment on mutation. Alas, the materialists lived to fight another day.)

Most people probably would not notice such passages, however, they should seem strange to anyone familiar with evolution. What in the world are they talking about? How are mutations antagonistic to natural selection? The answer is in the history of science and in forthcoming posts I will briefly discuss that history.

Other posts in this series:
1. LDS Commentators and the Eclipse of Darwinism
2. Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and the First Presidency

---

Continue reading...

Monkeys and Monty Hall

An article in the New York Times, And Behind Door No. 1, a Fatal Flaw, reports on a forthcoming paper that argues that the outcome of experiments dealing with monkey choice of M&M color are due to statistics rather than psychology. The article relates this to the Monty Hall Problem, which is a fun counterintuitive mental exercise.

Here’s how Monty’s deal works, in the math problem, anyway. (On the real show it was a bit messier.) He shows you three closed doors, with a car behind one and a goat behind each of the others. If you open the one with the car, you win it. You start by picking a door, but before it’s opened Monty will always open another door to reveal a goat. Then he’ll let you open either remaining door.

Suppose you start by picking Door 1, and Monty opens Door 3 to reveal a goat. Now what should you do? Stick with Door 1 or switch to Door 2?

It is easy to think that the choice boils down to a 50-50 shot. However, if you switch you will win 2/3 of the time. My way of thinking of it is this:

By choosing one door, you only have a 1/3 chance of choosing the correct door. This means that there is a 2/3 chance that you are wrong. Now let's say that it is your policy to always switch when given the option. When you switch you are, in effect, choosing the other two doors--you just get to discard the incorrect door.

I wish I was perspicacious enough to have seen that when I first encountered the problem, but I fell into the 50-50 trap. Anyway, the monkeys and M&Ms are interesting too. There is a nice graphic that explains that issue quite clearly.

---

Continue reading...

Expelled Exposed

Have you been following the story of the forthcoming movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

Here's the short version: It's a documentary, hosted by Ben Stein, that has two major themes: (i) that "Darwinists" persecute and discriminate against anybody that questions Darwinian orthodoxy (i.e. espouses Intelligent Design), and (ii) that Darwin is basically responsible for the atrocities of Stalin, Hitler, and eugenics [1]. Last year a number of prominent science and evolution defenders were asked for interviews for the film under false pretenses, and now the film is being shown in a number of private screenings around the country. At one recent screening, biologist-professor-atheist-blogger PZ Myers (who is interviewed and thanked in the film) was denied admittance to a screening for which he had legitimately signed up. However, the rest of his party was allowed in, including Richard Dawkins, who apparently was not recognized. The filmmakers have tried to spin this ridiculous and rather ironic episode, but it remains ridiculous.

Anyway, the NCSE has set up a website, Expelled Exposed, that will be their official response page. For now, it is a collection of links to news stories and film reviews. I'll keep the link on the sidebar for a little while for easy reference.


1. Mormons were not immune to eugenic ideas. In fact, George Q. Cannon espoused such ideas before Charles Darwin or Francis Galton published their major works, and eugenics served as an apologetic argument for polygamy. See Eugenics at By Common Consent.

---

Continue reading...

Two GA Quotes on Concordism

The following are two (relatively obscure) quotes with a bearing on concordism:

First from Brigham Young (see also this one) [1]:

When the Lord had organized the world, and filled the earth with animal and vegetable life, then he created man. . . . Moses made the Bible to say his wife was taken out of his side--was made of one of his ribs. As far as I know my ribs are equal on each side. The Lord knows if I had lost a rib for each wife I have, I should have had none left long ago. . . . As for the Lord taking a rib out of Adam's side to make a woman of, it would be just as true to say he took one out of my side.

But, Brother Brigham, would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?

No, not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the truth when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toadstool. I would not accuse your mother of lying any more than I would Moses. The people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that [were] not for them, the same as your children do when they want to know where their little brother came from, and he answered them according to the level of their understandings, the same as mothers do their children.

The second is from former Apostle (1917) and counselor in the First Presidency (1951-59), Stephen L. Richards [2]:

What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret [God] in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter, even though he be inspired, present an interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed?

1. Brigham Young, October 8, 1854, in Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, pg. 197-98, as quoted in Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, pg 92.
2. Stephen L Richards, "An Open Letter to College Students," Improvement Era 36:451-453, 484-485. June 1933.

---

Continue reading...

Rejecting Concordism

I occasionally stroll over to American Scientific Affiliation to have a look at some of their free articles. The ASA is an organization of Christians interested in science, and their arguments and discussions over science and religion are frequently transposable to an LDS context. Although I'm not really sure who he is, I have enjoyed the more recent articles written by Paul Seely.

Today I want to highlight "Concordism and a Biblical Alternative: An Examination of Hugh Ross’s Perspective" (pdf). It is a book review and opens with discussion of the Flood, but my interest here is with the discussion that follows beginning on page 42 under the heading, "A Biblical Approach to Science and Scripture."

Concordism is the expectation that scriptures and science/history should match. This is a natural expectation; why would we expect anything else? Seely lays out some reasons why we should expect otherwise, and some of his arguments are quite at home in Mormonism. His main points are as follows:

1. In giving man dominion over the earth, God delegated discovery of natural truths to all people (i.e. believers and unbelievers) and therefore does not give such details in his revelations.

2. When the biblical writers rely on human sources, mistakes may be incorporated into scripture. "The idea that inspiration will correct or avoid all factual errors in a biblical historian’s sources is not taught in Scripture nor borne out by the phenomena of Scripture."

3. "God’s revelation is organically related to the people to whom it is given and consequently is sometimes accommodated to culturally pre-ingrained ideas." Examples include the permissibility of divorce and slavery.

4. Such accommodation is needed in order facilitate communication, and even belief.

5. "God is not lying or erring, therefore, when his Word does not agree with the findings of modern science because the science per se which he has incorporated into Scripture is not a revelation from God but is simply an accommodation to the science of those times."

To Mormons most of this is uncontroversial, although the specific application may be. Things get a little more tricky when the teachings of ancient prophets are refracted through the revelations of Joseph Smith (e.g. Moses and Abraham). We have to wonder, do the revelations reflect (i) ultimate scientific/historical truth, (ii) accommodation to the ancient prophet's culture, or (iii) accommodation to Joseph's culture (or maybe a mixture of the three)? Committed LDS scholars are of divergent opinions on this question.

Seely again:

By the time of the writing of Genesis, the Israelites already had these ideas about creation, the flood, and the post-flood world deeply ingrained in their culture. As with their ingrained beliefs about easy divorce and slavery, these beliefs about early human history were too imbedded to be summarily contradicted. The original false theology in these traditions was radically revised in the light of the revelation given to Abraham and his descendants, and historical details could be altered in part, but the pre-embedded historical outline could not be changed.

These things were also ingrained in Joseph Smith's culture, and that may explain why our additional scriptures also do not contradict them (see 1-5 above). If Joseph had no reason to question the accuracy of these traditions (e.g. Biblical chronology was still thought to apply to human civilization until around 1860), should we expect his revelations to overturn or alter them?

Thus, Seely argues that we need not twist scripture or science to make them match, nor need we reject one in order to accept the other.

We are reading the divine revelation given to a people from a historically distant and far different cultural background. We need to appreciate the cultural context of those first readers and of God’s condescension to them. Instead of insisting that God and Scripture live up to our expectations that the Bible fit the findings of modern science, we would do better to accept and learn from what God has actually done, read the Bible strictly for the purposes for which it was given, and pursue science with an eye to uncovering the truths of creation to the glory of God.

[Note: For previous posts that touch on concordism, see my new category label, scriptural concordism.]

---

Continue reading...

Q&A with Henry J. Eyring

Henry J. Eyring, the author of Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring, was gracious enough to field some questions from LDSSR, for which I thank him.

1. As our scientific understanding continues to expand, the tension between science and religion continues. How is Henry Eyring relevant to a generation that never knew him? How can he help them in their efforts at reconciliation?

Though each generation sees a new wave of scientific discovery, the religious and ethical issues raised by those discoveries are fundamentally the same. The perspectives offered by Henry Eyring are, in that sense, timeless. See his statements on page 247 of the book, under the heading, "It Was Ever So."

2.Elder Neal A. Maxwell said that Hugh Nibley’s obvious loyalty to the Church gave him greater latitude in expressing his opinions. Do you think this was also the case with Henry?

Henry seems to have been trusted for his combination of professional capability, pure motives, and consistent obedience. It is a example for which I am personally grateful.

3. The book indicates that Henry and Joseph Fielding Smith were friends. Beyond the encounter arising from Henry’s review of Man, His Origin and Destiny , were there other circumstances that brought them together?

I'm not aware of interactions other than those noted in the book. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that his respect for President Smith was real.

4. Was your undergraduate major in geology inspired by your grandfather? Why not physics or chemistry?

My love for geology was the gift of boyhood mentors at BYU-Idaho, Madison Junior High School (in Rexburg) and BYU. I wasn't good enough at mathematics to compete with my forebears in either physics or chemistry, but I love the study of the physical earth.

5. In your geological studies, did you sense any conflict between science and religion? How was Henry’s perspective helpful to you?

I was blessed to have my grandfather's views conveyed to me from boyhood. As a result, my scientific studies only added to my faith.

6. The book states that President David O. McKay used Henry as an unofficial science ambassador. Did Presidents Smith, Lee, or Kimball use him in a similar manner?

President McKay served for more than 15 years after he first invited Henry to speak for the Church. Henry's efforts seem to have become habitual, and when President McKay passed away he kept right on going. My guess is that subsequent Church presidents simply let him roll along.

7. Were there any correspondence gems that did not make it into the book?

Space did not permit me to include many of the touching thank you letters that he received from friends and strangers. In 1977, for instance, one young man wrote the following:

Dear Brother Eyring:

It's been two weeks since I had the opportunity of spending two hours talking with you. I wanted to write and tell you "Thanks" for spending that time with me. Through your care and wisdom and the sincere critiquing of my words and desires, new prospects of education, vocation and interest were sparked. Gerontology is a fascinating area of study; preparing youth and adults for this very important part of life is the basis of my desire in this field. I plan to pursue advanced degrees in health sciences and education and eventually teach at the college level the "Science of Aging."

Again I would like to thank you for your desire, care and concern, and for allowing Friday, September 16 to be remembered as "a day when someone's precious time was spent in behalf of another." I really enjoyed our visit!

8. In your research for the book, did you find anything that surprised you?

I was surprised by the extent to which Henry's faith rested on Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision. He seemed to accept that as a fundamental religious "postulate," the bedrock that made his faith unshakeable. As far as I can tell, his father gets much of the credit for that.

9. Can you explain Henry’s relationship to Carl F. Eyring (for whom the BYU building is named)?

Carl was Henry's uncle. He did research with Millikan at Chicago and seems to have had a great influence on Henry's older sister Camilla [wife of Spencer W. Kimball -- LDSSR] when she was studying at Brigham Young Academy. Camilla returned one summer to Arizona and told Henry that he ought to get a PhD. He was one of many immediate family members who took that advice.

10. Were you the grandson that, according to Henry, said, "I am not a 'unbeam, I'm Henry Johnson Eyring!"?

I am the one. When I was about that age my grandfather came to live with us for several weeks while he received radiation treatment for prostate cancer at Stanford, where my father taught. It was a sweet time. I remember Grandpa as the fellow who peeled oranges and cracked walnuts for me.

---

Continue reading...

Book Review: Mormon Scientist

Henry Eyring died before I was old enough to know or care who he was. As far as I can remember, I first became aware of him during college, and only because of my interest in science and the accessibility of the Internet. With the publication of Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring, Henry is once again in the limelight and a new generation can become familiar with him. This new biography is written by his grandson, Henry J. Eyring (who was urged to do so by Elder Neal A. Maxwell), and draws on Henry's former books, archived materials, articles published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (see below), and the memories of his children, including President Henry B. Eyring of the First Presidency (and father of the author). The book is published by Deseret Book and during my recent trip to Utah I observed that it was being heavily advertised.

Among Church members who know his name, Henry Eyring is probably known for three things: (i) his commitment to the Church, (ii) his commitment to--and successful career in--science, and (perhaps less-well known) (iii) his bold but diplomatic face-off with Joseph Fielding Smith, then president of the Quorum of the Twelve. In light of the above, and given the position of President Eyring, I wondered what to expect from the book.

If you are looking for a reconciliation of science and religion you will be disappointed. Henry did not attempt reconciliation; he accepted contradiction and couched his views on science in terms of the genius of God while shunning dogmatism. Although it is portrayed as genuine, I have to think that his vagueness was also strategic. He often repeated his father's advice to him that "in this Church you don't have to believe anything that isn't true." Statements like that emphasize the broadness of Mormonism and allow people of different persuasions to see in it what they want, while avoiding becoming locked into conflict with any particular Church leader. Nevertheless, the book is peppered with Eyring's words of wisdom, some of which science-enthusiasts may want to appropriate for their own use.

The book provides a survey of Henry's life, beginning with his youth in one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico, and then charting his scientific career. Although some sense of his research accomplishments is given, the book avoids technicalities and readers need not have a background in science. Most of the book focuses on his role as ambassador between science and religion, as well as personality traits that made him unique. I did not previously know that he was actually assigned by the First Presidency (under David O. McKay) to unofficially represent the Church in science-and-religion discussions. However, he did not use that fact to bolster his position.

Among faithful Church members, it would have added great weight to his arguments to say, "I speak regularly at the request of the First Presidency, and they're supportive of my views." The temptation would have been especially great when well-intentioned Church members criticized his scientific views as evidence of weak faith or even heresy.... He discretely stood on his own authority and took his lumps, because that was part of the job. (p. 208)

Henry's famous face-off with Joseph Fielding Smith is recounted in a respectful but forthright manner. The same forthrightness characterizes discussion of Henry's parents; not only was his father polygamously married to sisters (something that, at a young age, Henry decided was not a good idea), the second marriage took place in 1903, well after the 1890 Manifesto. By way of explanation the book states,

However, polygamy was still legal in Mexico...and Church leaders in the Mormon colonies continued to selectively encourage polygamy until a final worldwide prohibition was issued by the First Presidency in Salt Lake City in 1904.

Although that statement glosses over some of the sticky issues surrounding post-Manifesto polygamy, I was surprised to see it treated at all. My guess is that many Church members will find such a thing surprising.

I found a few points to quibble with, but I don't think they are worth mentioning here. Overall the book makes for light reading, with only excerpts of representative letters used. I hope that someone will assemble and publish more of his correspondence. Also, readers should know that the focus of the book is firmly on Henry. Other family members are mentioned from time to time, however readers should not expect to gain direct insight into their views (i.e. President Henry B. Eyring's views).

Sadly the Church does not currently have a scientific mentor--someone who commands the respect and support of both leaders and laity, and can serve to ease the tension between science and religion. For this reason, I hope that Mormon Scientist will be read widely in the LDS community.


Resources:

Mormon Scientist has an associated website: mormonscientist.org. There you can read a free chapter, and Henry Eyring's books, The Faith of a Scientist and Reflections of a Scientist, will be made freely available--a wonderful idea!

In addition, interested readers may want to consult the following:

1. A Dialogue with Henry Eyring
2. Agreeing to Disagree: Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith (original article here)
3. Harvey Fletcher and Henry Eyring: Men of Faith and Science (original article here)
4. The Deseret Morning News interviewed Henry J. Eyring here.
5. My own Q&A with Henry J. Eyring is here.

---

Continue reading...

My Visit to Utah's Museum of Ancient Life

I was in Utah earlier this week. In addition to getting in some skiing (Conditions were almost perfect. And FYI, I would rate myself as a solid intermediate.), I went to the North American Museum of Ancient Life at Thanksgiving Point. I wasn't really expecting much from it, but I have to say that I was impressed. It's not the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, but I don't think it's that far behind, either. And it's more child friendly.

Unfortunately we were on a tight schedule, so I didn't get to look it over closely (i.e. read the display signs). The geology was presented in a straightforward manner, but now that I think about it, I don't remember much discussion of evolution--perhaps I missed it. Yet I am suspicious that in order to make the museum successful, they avoided the issue. For example, although they had a fossil (or cast?) of one of the earliest birds, I did not see any discussion of birds descending from dinosaurs. Now I wish I had paid better attention; I got distracted taking the pictures below.



In order to give a sense of geological time, they have a series of gears that represent various time-scales. Here my daughter is turning what represents one year. If you ever see the million-year wheel move, let me know.


I'm proud to say that I knew what this display represented the moment I saw it, and without reading the label--the Precambrian.


This is part of the trilobite display. I would like to find my own trilobite fossil some day.


This is one of the display rooms. There's a T-rex in the back, some dinosaur eggs on the bottom right, and a rack of various skulls hanging in the upper-right.


There is a model river where you can see erosion in action, as well as watch dinosaurs get buried or uncovered.


Here my daughter and I work on a pretend fossil dig, brushing away sand to uncover the bones.

There are also some movies (which we did not watch). So if you are in Utah and in the mood for some natural history, go check out the museum. I think that both you and your kids will have a good time.

---

Continue reading...