Son of a Neandertal

I've been slow to mention this, but I want to briefly comment on the publication of the draft of the Neandertal genome. The question that has received most of the attention is this: Did humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) interbreed with Neandertals?

Until recently the only evidence on which to base an answer was the morphology of the skeletal remains combined with dating indicating co-existence in Europe and the Middle-East. Initial genetic evidence based on mitochondrial DNA seemed to indicate that there was not any interbreeding, although certain human genes--it could be argued--hinted at the opposite conclusion.

Now that we have a draft of the Neandertal genome--a composite from three individuals--it appears that ancient Neandertals and humans did indeed engage in some limited interbreeding. To understand how the scientists arrived at this conclusion, we need to back up for a moment.

Several lines of evidence indicate that all living humans can trace their genetic roots to Africa. Basically, Africans have the most genetic diversity of all groups of humans. And whether you look at mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome, or other genetic markers, when you group them according to relatedness, all non-Africans are essentially a subset of what is found in Africa.

Africa was the birthplace of both Neandertals and modern humans. However, Neandertals had already left Africa by the time humans began spreading throughout the world. They co-existed in some parts of the world for thousands of years, and then around 30,000 years ago Neandertals went extinct.

With that in mind, the scientists compared the Neandertal genome with the genomes of several people from around the world. They found that for a small portion of the genome, the persons from France, China, and Papua New Guinea are more closely related to Neandertals than either are to Africans. The picture will be refined as more genomes are used for comparison, but we now have a broad outline. To put it crudely, at this portion of the genome, Africans have the original 'modern human' version, but Europeans and Asians have the Neandertal version. This suggests that at some point along the way--probably fairly early in the human expansion from Africa--there was some interbreeding.

Since I'm of European descent, I wouldn't be surprised to find that I share the Neandertal version. I guess it's time for an identity crisis.

For more knowledgeable commentary than mine, see Carl Zimmer and John Hawks (an actual anthropologist).

---

Continue reading...

BioLogos and the ANE Context of Genesis

Among the features of BioLogos are a collection of "Scholarly Essays." Two that I want to highlight here, and that I think should be read together, are: "The Biblical Creation in its Ancient Near Eastern Context" by Joseph Lam, and "Biblical Creation and Storytelling: Cosmogony, Combat and Covenant" by Brian Godawa (see link above). These essays are similar to resources I highlighted in my earlier post, Taking Joseph and Brigham's Advice with Genesis.

Both essays address the themes, motifs, and purposes of the creation account in Genesis 1, particularly in relationship to the Ancient Near East (ANE). I am not going to re-hash them; go read them. But I do want to comment on something from the Godawa essay.

First I should say that it makes sense to me that Moses and the Israelites were not prepared to hear about many of the scientific facts and ideas that we take for granted. They weren't dumb, they simply lived in another world. A crash course in physics, geology, and biology probably would not have been that helpful. But even if we accept this, why would God make up the particular story we have in Genesis and the Book of Moses? I think Godawa may have hit on part of the answer.

One of the functions of ancient creation narratives is to literarily encode the religious and political overthrow of one culture by another. When a king or kingdom would rise to power in the ancient world, they would often displace the vassal culture’s creation stories with their own stories of how their deities triumphed over others to create the world in which they now lived....

God was preparing Israel to displace the pagan Canaanites and their gods both physically and literarily, so He inspired this authorship of the creation account to express that ancient Near Eastern motif of justifying transcendent authority and land ownership with a creation story.

I think this is a significant idea for understanding why God would give a less-than scientific/historical account of the creation. It wasn't just that the people would not understand much of what we take for granted, although that was probably part it. God's people needed a creation story that would help to give them a sense of identity and explain why the God of their small nation was superior to the gods of the surrounding empires, and worthy of worship. It was also going to have to compete with the stories of the gods of those surrounding empires. Since they lived in the ANE, it makes sense that God would use the surrounding themes and motifs and re-formulate them into a new creation story with its own theology. A creation account involving millions of years and impersonal, poorly understood laws of nature just wouldn't cut it--and given the culture, it might sound plain crazy.

Obviously I don't know whether this is actually correct, but it seems plausible to me.

---

Continue reading...

BioLogos

If you haven't taken the time to look around BioLogos yet, you should. The BioLogos Foundation was founded by Francis Collins, the former head of the government's contribution to the human genome project, and current head of the National Institutes of Health. The organization is dedicated to helping bridge the divide between science and religion. BioLogos largely reflects an evangelical Christian point of view, and so it's probably best described as a Christian-theistic view of of science. However, it rejects creationism of both young and old-earth types, as well as Intelligent Design.

I'm not particularly informed on the who's-who of religious scholarship, but it looks to me like they've got some quality people contributing content. For example, Peter Enns (whose book, Inspiration and Incarnation I discussed here) has been an active participant.

In the year that it has existed so far, BioLogos has been at the center of at least two controversies. First, Francis Collins was criticized for mixing science and religion, especially after he was nominated to head the NIH. Perhaps in response, Collins resigned from the organization when his government job began. On the broader issue of mixing science and religion, I have some sympathy with the critics--I do think that Collins makes scientifically indefensible statements from time to time. However, based on what I've seen so far, my opinion is that the general criticism is too harsh. I think most of the material is true to the scholarship from which it is drawn.

The second controversy revolved around the resignation of Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary. Waltke gave an interview that was posted on BioLogos wherein he said that mainstream Christianity is going to have to come to terms with evolution. Apparently his public acceptance of evolution was too much for the seminary. He initially asked BioLogos to remove the video--while reaffirming its content--and BioLogos complied. But I guess the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and Waltke resigned.

I plan on drawing attention to some of their content in future posts, but in the meantime go have a look around at BioLogos.

Continue reading...

Climategate: Another Investigation, Another Exoneration

Last week a panel appointed by the University of East Anglia released the results of their investigation into the scientific publications of the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The committee consisted of 11 members who were chosen in consultation with the Royal Society. The report is an easy read and is available here. In summary, the panel:

- Found no evidence of fraud or inappropriate manipulation of data.
- Found that statistical methods were not always the best, but it was not clear that use of better statistical methods would substantially change the results and conclusions.
- Recommended that CRU involve professional statisticians.
- Recommended better data storage and documentation.

Of the investigations launched since the breaking of Climategate, three have released reports. The first was an investigation of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, which I covered here. The second was conducted by the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons (their conclusions here). And this is the third. Although some of these investigations have found things to criticize, none of the investigations thus far have found anything that would significantly alter the state of the science, nor have they found any scientific dishonesty. I don't expect that further investigations will find otherwise, but we will see.

For more on this latest report see Discover Magazine's coverage here and here.

---

Continue reading...

Testimonies I'd Like to Hear at Church

Mormon Scholars Testify is an online collection of essays by LDS scholars of various types that explain why they believe in the Restored Gospel. It's not all high-fructose correlated corn syrup, either. For example, take this passage from Grant Hardy:

I am still bothered by a number of things—the lack of direct archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, its anachronistic quotations from Second Isaiah, polygamy, the Mountain Meadows massacre, our exclusive reliance on the King James Bible, our tendency to mythologize our history, our preference for sentimentality over substance, our quickness to label honest disagreements as anti-Mormonism, our devotion to the Boy Scouts, and my own impatience when the church doesn’t speak out more forcefully on moral issues such as torture or access to healthcare.

Or this from Ron Hellings:

I have heard people say that science and religion are two paths to truth. I do not believe that. There is only one path to truth, and to me it seems closer to science than it is to what passes for religion in most people.

Or Armand Mauss:

Much of what I can’t claim to know is routinely included in the testimonies of other Latter-day Saints, whose conventional lists of what seems true and certain to them leaves me baffled at their apparent spiritual attainments.

Yet if you read the full essays, you will find that each is ultimately faith affirming. Perhaps it would not be appropriate--particularly because they would be misunderstood by some, but I wish I could hear more of these kinds of testimonies in our Sacrament meetings.

---

Continue reading...

Q&A with a Member of the Creation Committee

I am excited to present an exclusive interview that LDSSR conducted with Jacob, a member of the Creation Committee.

LDSSR: Thank you, Jacob, for agreeing to this interview. Could you begin by telling us about your job.

Jacob: The Creation Committee oversees and implements the Lord's creation projects in the universe.

LDSSR: So do your projects include the whole universe or more limited areas?

Jacob: Well, the committee oversees the whole universe, but we are sub-divided into regional areas. So, for example, I am on the part of the committee that oversaw your solar system.

LDSSR: OK. Well let's get to the heart of the interest of my readers. Could you tell us more about the time frame and method of creation?

Jacob: Sure. The time frame for Earth and its solar system was six days that would be equivalent to a total of your six thousand years. The methods of creation are proprietary, I'm afraid, but I would say that your Book of Abraham gives a pretty good summary of it.

LDSSR: On the one hand that isn't very surprising. It is what you get in Sunday School, after all...

Jacob: Precicely.

LDSSR: ...but I wondered if you could help me square that with our scientific investigations.

Jacob: That's a big issue--probably more than we can discuss in detail--but one thing you need to understand is that the Creation Committee operates in coordination with other committees that have their own missions.

LDSSR: Can you give some examples?

Jacob: Well, for example, there's the Evidences and Faith Committee. Their mission is to make sure that mortals need to exercise faith. So they make sure that evidences of God aren't too compelling, or in some cases, that the evidence leads in the wrong direction. So, for example, it was their decision to scrub DNA that could support the Book of Mormon. That kind of thing.

LDSSR: Were they also responsible for the portion of the Book of Abraham papyri that were burned in the Chicago fire?

Jacob: Yes, exactly.

LDSSR: Did they have to be so destructive?

Jacob: Well, again, they do their work in cooperation with other committees. Two others involved with that were the Trials and Adversity Committee as well as the Mortal Expiration Committee--we like to call them the Death Squad. The folks on the Death Squad really like the challenge of taking out as many people on their list as possible with one event, while leaving people not yet appointed to die. In a strange way, they find aesthetic value in efficiency.

LDSSR: That's kind of disturbing, but I guess it sort of makes sense. But returning to the scientific evidence--so you're saying that the idea that radioisotopes, and fossils, and DNA, and so forth--that it is all a deception--that that's true?

Jacob: We prefer to say that it is a test. By their very nature, tests involve some deception. But it isn't deception for deception's sake. It's part of a test.

LDSSR: If that's true, it's elaborate beyond comprehension.

Jacob: Oh, those guys from the Evidences and Faith Committee really pay attention to detail. I mean, you don't want to be the one responsible for messing up the mortal probation of several billion souls; I can tell you that.

LDSSR: Well, OK. But don't they go overboard?

Jacob: It's better to be more convincing than less.

LDSSR: But doesn't that run counter to the whole reason for the test? I mean, you've fundamentally deceived--or tested--billions of people in a very convincing way. Don't most of them fail?

Jacob: Actually the success rate is better than you would think because most people don't believe what scientists say, no matter how good the evidence...

LDSSR: I guess I should have seen that coming.

Jacob: ...so really, the worst performers are the scientists, but they make up a tiny fraction of the whole.

LDSSR: So all of that careful scientific investigation and testing amounts to nothing?

Jacob: Well, that kind of irony is popular up here. You know, the first shall be last and the last shall be first--he that is least shall be the greatest--the wise shall be foolish and the foolish shall be wise--and so on.

LDSSR: Why was the test limited to those who lived after the scientific revolution? What about all of those people who lived during times--most of history, really--when God's existence was assumed?

Jacob: Well, again, this gets back to the different committees. For much of mortal history, nature did indeed seem to support the existence of God. However, technology was limited so, as per the Trials and Adversity Committee, people faced a lot of sickness, pain, and death. The Proclaiming the Gospel Committee really needed technology improvements in order to finish up their work in the last days. The question became, how do you give these mortals such technological advancements--which they will use to eliminate their trials of sickness, pain, and death--and still test them? So it was a trade off. The Evidences and Faith Committee and the Trials and Adversity Committee worked together to ensure that a reduction of pain, and so forth, through technology would be accompanied by false scientific conclusions to test their faith--

LDSSR: --made using some of that same technology. Wow. That's...incredible.

Jacob: Hey, these guys are professionals.

LDSSR: I guess our time is up. Thanks so much for your insights.

Jacob: You're welcome. And happy April Fool's Day.

---

Continue reading...

Did Hugh Nibley Quote Mine Galileo?

While reading Hugh Nibley's The World and the Prophets as a missionary, I was struck by something he wrote about Galileo. Nibley was making the point that pure objectivity in science is an illusion and that our preconceptions affect what we see.

Listen to the great Galileo reporting his observations of Saturn. Others had suggested that there were rings about the planet, but there was no place in Galileo's system for such nonsense; he speaks as the pure observer: "I have resolved not to put anything around Saturn except what I have already observed." Couldn't he see the rings, then? He could indeed; his telescope was quite adequate for the task, and yet, looking right at Saturn, he did not see them: "I, who have observed it a thousand times at different periods with an excellent instrument, can assure you that no change whatever is to be seen in it. And reason, based upon our experiences of all other stellar motions, renders us certain that none ever will be seen." On the strength of direct observation this great scientist categorically denied that the rings of Saturn existed, though they were as plain as day before him; he denied that there ever was any change in the planet's appearance—though it was constantly changing before his eyes; and he declared that no changes ever would be seen in it to the end of time. How could he speak with such finality? Because his past "experiences of all other stellar motions" had completely conditioned him to what he should see and not see. [p. 271]

As I said, I was struck--by how blind and intransigent Galileo was.

Last week I happened to come across that passage again and I thought I would take a deeper look. I looked at Nibley's endnote: S. Drake, ed., Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 101-2. I don't have a copy of the book, but I found that I could search it for "Saturn" at Amazon.com. Here is the passage that Nibley quoted.

For the same reason I have resolved not to put anything around Saturn except what I have already observed and revealed--that is, two small stars which touch it, one to the east and one to the west, in which no alteration has ever yet been seen to take place and in which none is to be expected in the future, barring some very strange event remote from every other motion known to or even imagined by us. But as to the supposition of Apelles that Saturn is sometimes oblong and sometimes accompanied by two stars on its flanks, Your Excellency may rest assured that this results either from the imperfection of the telescope or the eye of the observer, for the shape of Saturn is thus: oOo, as shown by perfect vision and perfect instruments, but appears thus: [picture of bulging oval] where perfection is lacking, the shape and distinction of the three stars being imperfectly seen. I, who have observed it a thousand times at different periods with an excellent instrument, can assure you that no change whatever is to be seen in it. And reason, based upon our experiences of all other stellar motions, renders us certain that none ever will be seen, for if these stars had any motion similar to those of other stars, they would long since have been separated from or conjoined with the body of Saturn, even if that movement were a thousand times slower than that of any other star which goes wandering through the heavens.

Alright, now let's go over Nibley's claims.

1. "Others had suggested that there were rings about the planet" - I can't disprove this statement. However, from what I can find, credit for the suggestion that Saturn has rings goes to Christiaan Huygens in 1655, by which time Galileo was dead (d. 1642).

2. "Couldn't he see the rings, then? He could indeed; his telescope was quite adequate for the task" - This is contradicted by Nibley's source. On page 74, the book explains that Galileo had discovered "the curious shape of Saturn, which his telescope was unable to resolve into the well-known rings, and which he interpreted as being caused by two stationary satellites adjoining the planet."

3. "this great scientist categorically denied that the rings of Saturn existed" - see numbers 1 and 2.

4. "he denied that there ever was any change in the planet's appearance—though it was constantly changing before his eyes" - He did deny that Saturn changed appearances (although whether or not it had by that point is a matter of speculation). However, Galileo's original observations of Saturn took place beginning in 1610. Toward the end of 1612 the two "stars", that Galileo had previously observed flanking Saturn, disappeared. Galileo wrote:

Now what can be said of this strange metamorphosis? That the two lesser stars have been consumed, in the manner of the sunspots? Has Saturn devoured his children? Or was it indeed an illusion and a fraud with which the lenses of my telescope deceived me for so long--and not only me, but many others who have observed with me?

What had happened was that Saturn was positioned such that its rings were viewed edge-on from Earth, making them invisible. By at least 1616 Galileo could see the "stars" again, although he still didn't know that they were rings.

5. "he declared that no changes ever would be seen in it to the end of time" - Yes, but his point was that if the two "stars" were moving (i.e. orbiting Saturn) then he would have been able detect the motion.

6. "his past 'experiences of all other stellar motions' had completely conditioned him to what he should see and not see" - His past experience was with Jupiter and its moons. One would think that he would have been conditioned to see the "stars" orbiting Saturn rather than remaining stationary.

In summary, it appears that Nibley got pretty much everything about Galileo wrong. Of course people make mistakes--I'm not arguing that Nibley intended to misrepresent Galileo. And Nibley's larger point is right; our preconceptions can color what we see. And it's certainly possible that I'm missing something that would justify Nibley's take on Galileo. However, for now I conclude that Galileo was a better observer than Nibley thought and, ironically, Nibley may have been his own object lesson in lack of objectivity.

Further Reading:

Historical Background of Saturn's Rings

The Galileo Project: Saturn

---

Continue reading...

Anti-Uniformitarianism or Causes Without Effects

Mormonism has a long history of viewing miracles as being in accordance with the laws of nature. Brigham Young said:

The providences of God are all a miracle to the human family until they understand them. There are no miracles, only to those who are ignorant. A miracle is supposed to be a result without a cause, but there is no such thing. There is a cause for every result we see; and if we see a result without understanding the cause we call it a miracle.

Similarly, Parley P. Pratt wrote:

Among the popular errors of modem times, an opinion prevails that miracles are events which transpire contrary to the laws of nature, that they are effects without a cause.

If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken.

Uniformitarianism

With this in mind, I want to highlight a 1983 BYU Studies article, "Hutton's Uniformitarianism", by (retired?) BYU professor of geology Jess R. Bushman. Uniformitarianism is sometimes misunderstood, but Bushman explains it clearly.

Uniformitarianism, or cause and effect, is a very important and basic concept in geology. The heart of the concept is that there is order and regularity in the operation or functioning of natural laws. This consistency is what gives significance to cause-and-effect patterns. What we see happening today helps us to identify the results of natural processes which were active million of years ago. We observe ripple marks being formed by wave action on beaches today; when we see similar ripple marks in ancient sandstone, we use cause and effect or uniformitarianism to suggest that the ripple-marked sandstones were once part of an ancient beach....

Violent events such as volcanic eruptions, which are convincing evidence that not all change occurs slowly, are still part of uniformitarianism change so long as there is a pattern of cause and effect that reflects the orderly function of natural laws.

Uniformitarianism is traditionally contrasted with catastrophism.

Catastrophists support the idea that the earth is just a few thousand years old, and they are determined to discredit the evidence of slow gradual change. They insist that rates of erosion, for example, were much more rapid or violent in the past than they are today. Catastrophists ignore the cause-and-effect relationship which indicates that if you change the rate you also change the results. For example, if the rate or energy of stream erosion is increased to that which occurs with a destructive flood, it produced thicker and coarser deposits with numerous erosion channels within the deposits. On the other hand, very fine grained evenly laminated sedimentary deposits indicate that deposition occurred in low-energy quiet water. The rock record contains evidence of not just the type of process but also the rate at which it occurred.

Bushman's descriptions are probably accurate enough today, but they belie some of the historical excess and nuances of these competing approaches to geology. (Bushman notes that Charles Lyell was the source of some of that excess.) The rest of the essay presents uniformitarianism as it was described by James Hutton, followed by some supporting statements from Mormon tradition and scripture, including the quote above by Brigham Young.

Causes Without Effects

Modern criticisms of uniformitarianism are usually religious in nature. In fact, two such articles have appeared in the Ensign [1], and similar writings exist elsewhere in LDS literature. Donald Parry, the author of one of these articles, described uniformitarianism as follows:

Uniformitarianism...proposes three primary concepts: (a) there were no processes (such as geologic processes) operating in the past which are not operating now; (b) there are no processes operating now which were not operating in the past; and (c) process rates have not changed.

To be fair to Parry, there have been some historical excesses in defining and applying uniformitarianism, as noted above. But notice the contrast between the descriptions offered by Bushman and Parry. Bushman's definition focuses on concern for cause-and-effect relationships; Parry's definition is an obvious intellectual straight-jacket.

Parry's version of uniformitarianism is easy to reject, and that serves the purpose of his article, which is to support the reality of a global flood. But he and other similar critics usually excuse themselves from doing the needed rearrangement of cause-and-effect relationships. This allows them to cast doubt on science without engaging it. If I may invert Brigham and Parley's critique, their miracles are causes without effects.

The Earth Divided

To use a different example, let's consider the division of the continents. According to one Biblical interpretation, following Noah's flood the continents were separated as indicated by Genesis 10:25.

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

The observed distances between the continents today requires that this separation--which allegedly occurred a few thousand years ago--was a catastrophic event. A number of scientific lines of evidence support the idea that the continents have joined and separated over time, and the theory of plate tectonics describes how the movement of the continents is possible. However, these movements have been measured and are on the order of inches (or centimeters) per year. Superficially, it appears that we have a simple choice to make based on whether we are willing to believe that movement of the continents has always been slow. Why couldn't a catastrophic or miraculous event cause quick separation?

Can a rock change its stripes?


We need to look deeper [2]. Mid-ocean ridges are mountain ranges on the ocean floor where seafloor spreading occurs as tectonic plates move away from each other. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge runs north-south between the the Americas on the west, and Europe and Africa on the east. At these ridges magma is released, cools, and adds to the crust. Magnetic minerals within these volcanic rocks align with the earth's magnetic field and are frozen in place as the lava cools. Periodically the Earth's magnetic field reverses, and these reversals are reflected in the alignment of the magnetite in the crust. Mapping of the ocean floor has revealed that mid-ocean ridges are sandwiched between symmetrical bands of rock with differing magnetic polarity. These bands can also be dated radiometrically and compared to other volcanic rocks on land, and scientists have found that there is good correspondence in the magnetic polarity of land and ocean rocks of the same age. These ages also show that the magnetic field reversals occur on the order of tens of thousands of years. This is strong evidence that the movement of the continents has been a slow and gradual process.

Dismissing the accepted time period for the continental movements as mere uniformitarianism without explaining these findings just won't do. If South America and Africa were ripped apart by a catastrophe, or even a miracle, the resulting gash in the Earth's crust would have to be filled with something--presumably with the magma underneath. Under such a scenario we would expect the magma to cool more-or-less simultaneously, and the magnetic polarity of the newly formed crust should be uniform. Furthermore, the new crust should give a uniform radiometric date. But this is not what is found. To ignore this contradiction and maintain a catastrophic separation of the continents is to decouple cause and effect by asserting that a catastrophic event caused the effects of a gradual process.

Conclusion

When viewed as concern for cause-and-effect relationships, it becomes clear that the principle of uniformitarianism provides a foundation for reasoning that extends into everyday life. Instead of an arbitrary assumption born of human arrogance, it is a practical guide in a lawful universe, which is why Bushman sees ties between uniformitarianism and LDS theology. This view also reveals most criticism of uniformitarianism to be scientifically empty rhetoric that subtly undermines the basis for belief in a lawful universe.

---

Notes:

1. The Flood and the Tower of Babel and The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

2. See This Dynamic Earth, especially here and here.

---

Continue reading...