Mormon Matters Evolution Podcast

I almost forgot to mention this: In August the Mormon Matters podcast had an episode devoted to Mormonism and evolution with participants including James McLachlan (professor of philosophy and religion Western Carolina University), Steven Peck (SteveP; professor of biology at BYU), and Duane Jeffery (emeritus professor of zoology at BYU). The discussion runs through a basic history of the interaction of evolution with the Church and BYU, and then turns to a collection of auxiliary issues. It's a nice discussion and I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.

I've never met or corresponded with Duane Jeffery, but I always enjoy listening to what he has to say and am a fan of his efforts. (Got that? Good.) So let me shift and say that I think he made three questionable claims that need better substantiation.

They are:

1. That the Improvement Era 1910 Priesthood Quorums Table came from the First Presidency (@ 30:00). The basis for this claim seems to come from the fact that Joseph F. Smith was one of the editors of the magazine. However, although we often disagree, I agree with R. Gary that the evidence that the statement represents the position of the First Presidency, or even just Joseph F. Smith, is weak. I do think its publication was significant--Joseph F. Smith could have stopped it or later published a repudiation of it. So my interpretation is that Joseph F. Smith and the First Presidency did not find it objectionable, but that it did not have their imprimatur.

2. That the 1925 First Presidency statement, "Mormon View of Evolution," is the official church position: (@ 32:00) "If there is an official church position, this has got to be it." The basis for this claim seems to be that because the statement is more recent than the 1909 statement, it has priority. The 1925 statement consists entirely of quotes from the 1909 statement, but never mentions it. So it makes sense to think of the 1925 statement as representing the most current (!) position, and I think Jeffery's statement would have been uncontroversial in, say, 1928.

However, as a practical matter I think it is a difficult position to defend because i) the Feb 2002 issue of the Ensign published the 1909 statement as the Church's official position, ii) the 1909 statement has at times been distributed to people inquiring of the Church's position, and iii) the 1925 statement is pretty much ignored as a reference in Church manuals, in contrast to the 1909 statement.

I imagine Jeffery might defend his statement as follows: In a presentation given in 2004, he said that the publication of the 1909 statement in the Ensign was somewhat controversial behind the scenes, and that BYU was assured by the First Presidency that it's publication did not supersede the BYU evolution packet. And as published in his book, Mormonism and Evolution, inquiries to the Church are not always answered with the 1909 statement. So I can see where he might be coming from.

My opinion--and I speculate that Jeffery would agree with me--is that the question of the Church's position on evolution is not resolvable to a single sentence or to one statement. It is better represented by the BYU packet, which consists of several statements made or authorized by the First Presidency, preferably informed by a sense of the history.

3. That the traditional Mormon view of natural law has largely been abandoned since the mid-1950's (@ 1:25:00), partially because of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. I would be interested in a fuller justification for this statement. As I recently pointed out, Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage wrote almost identical passages regarding miracles and natural law. I'm open to Jeffery's statement--anecdotally it seems true, and perhaps it boils down to a matter of interpretation--but I would like to see more evidence that such is the case.

Again, I'm a fan of Duane Jeffery, but these are things that I would not be comfortable repeating to others without better evidence.

All that aside, give the podcast a listen. I think you'll enjoy the conversation.

---

Continue reading...

Getting Gods Out of Genesis

Over at Times and Seasons, Ben S. has a post up about how translation of the Old Testament into English doesn't necessarily convey the original meaning because of the differing cultural contexts. You should read the whole thing, but I especially liked this part and want to post it here as part of my own collection.

Several times in Genesis 1, curious circumlocutions appear. There’s no mention of the sun or moon, but “greater light” and “lesser light.”... And lastly, though we have the world bifurcated into water and dry land, the seas are mysteriously plural. All of these are explainable via polemical context. First, both the sun (shemesh) and moon (yareach) were also the names of those deities outside Israel, just as Ra designated both sun and sun-god in Egypt. We can see echoes of shemeshas the name of a (solar) deity in Israelite place names like bet-shemesh (Joshua 15:10), ir-shemesh (Joshua 19:41), and en-shemesh (Joshua 18:17), as well as in Sampson (shimshon). Genesis polemicizes against these deities; Not only are they creations, as opposed to co-creators as in some accounts, but their names are not even mentioned to avoid any hint of polytheism.

Similarly, the name for the sea (”yam”) was also the name of a prominent deity. Hebrew, as far as we can tell, did not have a full range of words for different-sized bodies as ocean, sea, lake, pond, puddle, etc. (think: Sea of Galillee), so it couldn’t simply substitute another term, but instead pluralizes to seas, yammim.

---

Continue reading...

John Welch's Reading List

As described in my last post, John Welch recently gave a talk at BYU about science and religion, at which he distributed a list of suggested reading. Thank you to "mapman" for sending me a copy, which I have made available here.

Looking over the list, I see a number of interesting books and articles that I look forward to checking out. Of course no list can be comprehensive, but I was a little surprised and disappointed to see some works left off of the list, such as articles by Duane Jeffery, David Bailey, or Steven Peck. (I note that Welch, the editor of BYU Studies, included only a single article from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. And an ad for a free trial-subscription of BYU Studies [1].) It's also curious that among the entries from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Organic Evolution" and "Origin of Man" are not included.

Actually, after looking through the list some more, I can't help but wonder if Welch farmed the compilation out to an assistant, or if he's actually read all of the articles. First I noticed that the section, "Selected Physical Science and Mathematical Articles in BYU Studies," also contains biological articles. "Big deal," you say, "you're just being pedantic." OK, fine; maybe so. But beyond that, can somebody explain to me why the "Beta-Lysin" article by Donaldson was included on the list (or why it was published in BYU Studies in the first place)? I have a hard time believing that Welch read that article and decided that it made a worthy contribution to relating science and religion.

Several of the works have been highlighted in posts on this blog. They are listed below with links to my posts.

• Boyce, Duane. "Of Science, Scripture, and Surprise." FARMS Review 20:2 (2008).
• Eyring, Henry J. Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring. Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2007
• Grandy, David. "Ideology in the Guise of Science."FARMS Review 19:2 (2007).
• Sherlock, Richard. "Mormonism and Intelligent Design." FARMS Review 18:2 (2006).
• Welch, John W. "The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.
• Widtsoe, John A. Joseph Smith as Scientist (1920). (Also here.)
• Bushman, Jess R., "Hutton's Uniformitarianism," BYU Studies 23:1 (1983).
• Walker, Steven C., "Selling the Soul of Science for a Pot of Message: Evangelizing Atheism in The God Delusion," BYU Studies 47:1 (2008)

Enjoy!


Notes:

1. BYU Studies articles older than two years are available for free.

---

Continue reading...

John Welch on Science and Religion

A little over a week ago, John W. Welch gave a talk at BYU titled, "Forging a Friendly Alliance between Mormonism and Science." Welch is arguably the most influential LDS scholar (for lack of a better term) around. His résumé includes discovering chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, founding FARMS, editing BYU Studies, and sitting on the editorial board of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Summaries of his talk are available here and here, with the first link also containing a short audio interview. My favorite quote from the Daily Universe article is the following:

“Our ongoing task is to be building bridges,” he said, “even if it means laying ourselves down as a bridge over troubled waters, taking fire from both sides.”

To do so, Welch said Mormons must stop “shooting [them]selves in the foot with bad arguments,” and read current publications on the connection between LDS beliefs and modern science.

I like to think that I've been a board in that bridge.

The article goes on to say that Welch gave out a reading list that he compiled, but I can't find any details. Does anybody know what was on the list?

In related news, one of the stories highlighted on the main webpage of the Deseret News today (earlier, it was one of the rotating stories) is "Science and faith discussion evolving to a place of harmony." There are a couple of quotes from Welch in there as well.

---

Continue reading...

Two Quotes on Miracles and Natural Law

Guess who wrote this:

There are thousands of miracles performed today, wonders that would astound our grandfathers could they suddenly see them. These miracles are as great as turning water into wine, raising the dead or anything else. A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural laws. Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law. The healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, giving eyesight to the blind, whatever it may be that is done by the power of God, is in accordance with natural law. Because we do not understand how it is done, does not argue for the impossibility of it.

Several years ago I was somewhat surprised to find this passage in Man, His Origin and Destiny (p. 484), by Joseph Fielding Smith. It's part of a long tradition in Mormonism, so in that sense it should not have been surprising. But I wasn't expecting President Smith to sound so naturalistic.

Compare it to this quote from Jesus the Christ (p. 139) by James E. Talmage:

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.... The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. Achievements made possible by modern invention of telegraph and telephone with or without wires, the transmutation of mechanical power into electricity with its manifold present applications and yet future possibilities, the development of the gasoline motor, the present accomplishments in aerial navigation—these are no longer miracles in man's estimation, because they are all in some degree understood, are controlled by human agency, and, moreover, are continuous in their operation and not phenomenal. We arbitrarily classify as miracles only such phenomena as are unusual, special, transitory, and wrought by an agency beyond the power of man's control.

They are remarkably similar--so much so that you could swap them and nobody would know the difference.

---

Continue reading...

If I Had a Side Blog (#4)

1. How does the drought in Texas stack up against over one hundred years of history? The Texas state climatologist explains, and it's worth reading. He also explains what he thinks it has to do with global warming.

2. This mormon butterfly was half-female, half-male. What was its spirit?

3. Naming and shaming: The Dr. Oz Show claimed that apple juice it tested contained unsafe levels of arsenic. The FDA says that Oz is wrong, in no uncertain terms.

4. And while we're at it, there's no evidence that antioxidants are good for you. In fact they may even be bad.

5. By the way, did you know that Senator Orrin Hatch helped exempt the supplement industry from the oversight given to other drugs and health products?

6. It was 20 years ago this month:

---

Continue reading...

The Refutation of Roy?

The week before last, the resignation of the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing over the publication of a paper by Roy Spencer was the talk of the climate-oriented blogosphere. Last week there was a further development--climatologist Andrew Dessler published a paper critiquing claims made in publications by Spencer and Lindzen (both well known for skepticism of human influence in global warming).

I've been holding off blogging about this in order to let the dust settle somewhat. As I understand them, Spencer and Lindzen both think that changes in clouds can actually drive climate change, as opposed to the prevailing view that clouds are important secondary factors. Also wrapped up in the controversy is how much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, which is referred to by the term 'climate sensitivity.'

Here is a quick re-cap of the mini-controversy as I understand it: Climate sensitivity has been inferred chiefly from paleoclimate sources, and is generally estimated to be around 3 degrees C. Spencer does not accept the paleoclimate estimates; he thinks they are too uncertain. At any rate, everyone would like a way to determine climate sensitivity in the present. Dessler previously published a paper that used satellite data to infer climate sensitivity. Spencer's latest paper argued that there are uncertainties that muddy the waters such that accurate sensitivity cannot be determined. In making his argument, Spencer's paper claimed that there is a discrepancy between satellite data and IPCC models. Although relatively modest in its claims, Spencer and the press talked up the paper as though it implied a low climate sensitivity and represented David slaying Goliath. Dessler's latest paper criticizes Spencer's for using an equation that potentially violates the first law of thermodynamics, and for using observations and models that maximize difference between the two. Other models and observations more closely mirror one another.

Spencer is defending himself on his blog and has levied his own criticisms of Dessler's paper. Unfortunately, Dessler does not have a blog so it's not clear what his take is on Spencer's comments. According to Spencer, the two have exchanged emails and may be coming to a better understanding of one another, though probably still disagreeing. It is clear that the drama will continue.

Actually, what's going on here is not unique to climate science. Every branch of science has its differing schools of thought that struggle for dominance. The difference here is that more of the general public is paying attention and choosing sides, so that what would normally be a nerd-fight that nobody cares about, has become a proxy for ideological and political battle.

If you want to dig in to the claims and counter-claims, it gets technical fast. So at this point I will kick it over to the following links, which help explain what's going on.

RealClimate has a calm reflection on the scene: Resignations, retractions and the process of science

Skeptical Science:

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper

Barry Bickmore posts:

Roy Spencer Persecuted By Own Data

Roy Spencer Responds With More Shoddy Statistics and Excuses

Roy Spencer's response:

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study


Andrew Dessler's video explanation of his paper:

---

Continue reading...

It's a Shame About Roy

Several weeks ago climatologist Roy Spencer (prominent for his stance that humans are not important contributors to global warming) published a paper that was widely reported, especially in conservative media, as casting large doubt on global warming. One prominent LDS blog heralded it as a "major wrench" in global warming theory, and when I urged caution and suggested that they were overstating its conclusions and importance, I was thanked by being told that I am "a totalitarian." Now the editor of the journal in which it was published, Remote Sensing, has resigned. He concluded that the paper was flawed and should not have been published, and he also protested the way the paper was promoted as supporting conclusions that it did not in fact support. Spencer and his supporters are crying foul, and the drama will continue. Rather than dissect the whole thing, I will simply provide some links for people who want more information.

The Editor explains himself.

This BBC story gives the basics.

BYU geologist Barry Bickmore has a nice summary and roundup of links.

Media Matters has a great explanation of the controversy, along with critique of how the paper was reported by conservative media.

---

Continue reading...