The Church's New Institute Manual Makes the Divine Sonship of Jesus a Scientific Issue

The Church is introducing new 'cornerstone' religion courses for Church universities and Institutes of Religion. One of these courses is titled, Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel, with a manual of the same name. The seventh lesson of the manual is titled, Jesus Christ—God’s Only Begotten Son in the Flesh. After laying some scriptural groundwork, students are encouraged to think of physical traits they inherited from their mother and father. They are then taught to think of Jesus, Mary, and God the Father in the same manner, with support from this passage in Jesus the Christ, written by Elder James E. Talmage.

That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; … In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 81).

Terryl Givens has written that,

LDS biblical interpretation has tended more toward fundamentalist literalism than historically nuanced or figurative readings. This is largely a product of Mormonism’s origins in a time when Common Sense theology was dominant....Parley Pratt set the tone for Mormon scriptural exegesis with recurrent attacks on those who would “spiritualize” the Bible, rather than read in the plain, literal sense [1].

Reinforcing this literalism was the attempt of Parley and Orson Pratt, as well as John Widtsoe and James Talmage, to fit Joseph Smith's teachings into a theology "amenable to contemporary standards of scientific understanding [2]." Indeed, elsewhere in Jesus the Christ Elder Talmage explained that miracles are simply higher manifestations of natural law, not violations of it.

When Elder Talmage wrote his book a century ago, heredity was an observed phenomenon about which almost nothing was known. The passage above was a sensible thing for Elder Talmage to write for readers of the time, and its inclusion in the new manual speaks to its persuasive power today--when most people still only have a vague sense of the basis for heredity [3]. However, today the mechanism of heredity is well understood. So if we are to let science into the conversation, as Elder Talmage invites us to, then we need to talk about biological and genetic principles and details. Are these topics that can profitably be brought to bear on Jesus' divine sonship? It may seem vulgar to speak of such things in the context of the atonement, but that is the door the writers of the manual open by highlighting Elder Talmage's optimistic appeal to science and philosophy.

Using the lens of science a variety of questions could be raised. Instead, for now let's confine ourselves to this question: What possible relevance could genetics ("the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity") have to the resurrection or any other of Jesus' abilities? The manual directs as follows (bolding in original):

As students respond, make sure they understand the following truth: As the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, Jesus Christ was able to perform the Atoning sacrifice, which required Him to endure more than a mortal person could, and thereby fulfill His role in the Father’s plan. In addition, because Jesus had power over death, He had the capacity to rise from the dead. Make sure students understand that if Jesus Christ had been born of two mortal parents, He could not have overcome death or endured the infinite pain and suffering of the Atonement. If He were born of two immortal parents, He would not have been subject to physical suffering and death.

On what basis should such assertions be made? Several scriptural prophets including Enoch, Moses, Elijah, John, and the three Nephites were each given a kind of "power over death" (D&C 7:2), without heredity playing any role. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Any number of miraculous interventions could have been used to prevent Jesus from dying before his mission was accomplished. Further, it is unclear what inherited property could cause a dead body to rise back to life, and since all people are promised the resurrection (Spencer W. Kimball, echoing Brigham Young, taught that it is an ordinance), I don't see why we would even need to posit one.

Remember that in a gospel context death is the separation of body and spirit, with resurrection being the reuniting of the two. Are we to believe that a physical property of Jesus' decaying body made it possible for his spirit to re-enter it? If the decision to initiate resurrection was made by his spirit, how can inheritance be relevant? You would think that the mere fact that Jesus was "God himself"--the premortal Jehovah, would be a sufficient explanation. (And simply as a matter of internal consistency, if, according to Church teachings, it was possible for Adam and Eve to change from immortality to mortality, why wouldn't it be possible for Jesus to do the same if both parents were immortal?)

The atonement and resurrection are incomprehensible, and fundamentally remain mysteries to us. Is anything gained in multiplying the mystery by asserting the necessity of unknown inherited factors? Is such detail clearly supported by the scriptures? And might we unwittingly put stumbling blocks in the paths of students by invoking the authority of science where it probably doesn't belong?

Let's be careful about claiming science in support of doctrine. Especially those doctrines we know very little about.


Notes:
1. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity, p. 18.
2. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity, p. 126.
3. I think most people know that heredity involves genes and DNA, but don't really know much more than that. I once had a conversation with a highly intelligent and educated friend in which he told me that he did not understand the difference between a gene and the genome. Based on his career path, there was no particular reason why he should have.

---

Continue reading...

The Only Time I Met Elder Scott it was Kind of a Disaster

In memory of Elder Richard G. Scott, I thought I would share my only personal interaction with him.

While attending BYU as an undergraduate I got a job at the Missionary Training Center (MTC) helping to provide audio/visual support for the various programs. Each week there was a Tuesday evening devotional which was produced by our team. The speakers ranged from leadership within the MTC to members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Usually the work was pretty straightforward: setting up equipment, doing the camera work, and so on. However, there were occasional special requests.

One week Elder Scott was the scheduled speaker and we got word he had some Powerpoint slides that he wanted us to project during his talk. Rather than send them ahead of time, Elder Scott was to personally deliver the file on a disk. At the appointed time I met him in the lobby to receive the disk. I asked him how he wanted to handle the presentation; did he want to advance the slides himself? He said no, he wanted us to take care of that and explained that he would tell us when it was time for the slides to be shown. He then showed me the signal he would use to indicate that the slide should be advanced. He held his right arm up in front of him, his elbow bent and palm down, then swung his hand out to the side--like a pianist running his fingers up the keyboard. I vaguely remember suggesting some alternatives, but that was the signal he wanted to use.

I dutifully took the disk to the control booth and loaded the file on the computer. Usually I liked to spend some time getting familiar with a speaker's presentation so that I could have a sense of what was in it and how it would flow. However, on this occasion I didn't have much of an opportunity to look it over. Elder Scott had arrived only a few minutes before the beginning of the devotional, and before long it was time to start the production.

The program progressed and eventually Elder Scott stood to speak. After some introductory remarks he got into the substance of his talk and eventually requested that we show the first slide. I was manning the computer in the control booth across the room, and brought the slide up to view. I soon discovered that, like most of us, Elder Scott made gestures with his arms and hands as he spoke, and it was not always clear whether he was giving his special signal or simply moving his arm while talking. This difficulty resulted in some bumps in the flow of the presentation. Even worse, as he continued his talk the slides were evidently not in the order he expected them, or perhaps some were missing. At a certain point he asked for the next slide, which I advanced to. But it wasn't the one he wanted. So I advanced to the one after that. After a few (eternal) moments of playing a game of bouncing around the slides, Elder Scott abandoned the slides altogether and we stopped showing them. I think it's a good bet that all the missionaries attending thought I was incompetent.

I didn't have an opportunity to speak with Elder Scott afterward, but what was I going to say anyway? That it was his fault I couldn't always discern his signal or that the slides weren't quite right? If memory serves, we later got word from our boss that someone up the chain wasn't happy with our performance that night. I explained what had happened and I think that was pretty much the end of the matter--at least as far as I was concerned.

I don't know if there's a moral to the story, it's just what happened [1]. Looking on the bright side, in a weird way I counted it a privilege to have looked foolish on behalf of an apostle (i.e. nobody was blaming him for the difficulty), and it turned the relatively routine experience into a story. But a smooth presentation would have been better.


Notes:
1. Standard caveats about memory.

---

Continue reading...

Vaccination is Not a Partisan Issue...Yet

During the last U.S. presidential election cycle, Michelle Bachmann was briefly seen as the Republican primary front-runner. Her downfall from that position was catalyzed when she claimed during a debate that the HPV vaccine could cause "mental retardation." Earlier this year a measles outbreak at Disneyland brought the issue of childhood vaccination to the public attention, resulting in California passing one of the strictest school vaccination laws in the country. Meanwhile, in the immediate aftermath of the measles outbreak, a variety of politicians, including some (then) potential Republican candidates, expressed less than solid support for vaccination.

Donald Trump has believed, since at least 2007, that childhood vaccinations cause autism. The issue was raised in the second Republican primary debate earlier this week.



Ben Carson gently and correctly noted that studies have not found any connection between autism and vaccines. Unfortunately, he and Rand Paul, the other physician in the debate, ultimately indulged Trump's idea of spreading vaccinations out. This led the New Yorker's Jon Chait to complain,

It is depressing that a presidential field with two doctors cannot even produce sensible views on medicine, let alone anything else. The party’s decades-long flight from empiricism and reason shows no sign of abating.

But in the Washington Post two graduate students of political science write that CNN should not have raised the question at all.

We fear that if party elites continue to polarize, the cues present in the press could begin to undermine the societal consensus on childhood vaccinations. Why are we reasonably sure this is the case? Because we have seen this movie before, with global warming....

We fear we may begin to witness a similar dynamic on vaccines. Republican elites are increasingly voicing skepticism of the medical science consensus. The media sees this as fitting a pre-established narrative that Republicans are hostile to science, and thus CNN asked the GOP field a question about vaccines in front of a record breaking national audience of 23 million people.

It would not be surprising if Democratic elites leap at this opportunity to solidify their own science-based credentials and make it a campaign issue, particularly if someone like Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination. These cues are then communicated to the public through the press, and we may be off to the polarization races.

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the public ought to be informed that a leading contender for the U.S. presidency has crackpot views about vaccination. In normal times such views would bring a chorus of condemnation that would endanger presidential ambitions, as seen with Bachmann in the previous cycle. However, Donald Trump has shown himself to be impervious to shame. Apparently he cannot say anything ridiculous enough that would cause his supporters to abandon him, and attempts of the media--even Fox News(!)--to hold him accountable for his antics are, in the minds of supporters, more evidence that elitists are trying to manipulate the masses and keep a bold truth-teller from succeeding. Thus, whether they wanted to or not, Carson and Paul soft-peddled their criticism of Trump and ended up legitimizing his views.

I have a hard time seeing why CNN is responsible for that...other than the way the debate questions were constantly framed around Trump's views. If the media avoided this and other topics for fear of politicization, well wouldn't that just be interpreted as another manifestation of media elitism (i.e. that the simpletons of America are too dumb to risk discussing an issue in a political context)?

I do not think that vaccination will ever be as polarizing as climate change. Whereas addressing climate change is perceived by many as a threat to prosperity, vaccination is generally viewed as an enabler of prosperity. And whereas the consequences of error in judgment for climate change are delayed or almost imperceptibly gradual, the consequences for error in vaccination are more immediate and severe. However, vaccination is more sensitive to dissent; successful vaccination policies require a high degree of compliance.

Ultimately, if vaccination becomes a politicized issue Republicans will have nobody else to truly blame but themselves. If they and their outlets will give full support to vaccination, then by definition it won't be a political issue--at least between Republicans and Democrats. But if they voice skepticism, I don't think you can blame CNN for reporting it.

---

Continue reading...

Observing the Past to Refute Cranks in the Present

No one seems to care about the difference between observations (or 'facts') and inferences like creationist-types do. That's not to say that the distinction is unimportant or that scientists don't pay any attention to it, but creationists really care about it. That's because in order to make the world fit within their scriptural boundaries they have to discount large amounts of science from a variety of fields. However, they can't just dismiss science without looking like medieval relics, so they take upon themselves the task of separating 'true science' from 'false science' so that they can appear to be sophisticated lovers of science. One of the simplest ways to make that separation is to insist that the unacceptable parts of science are actually stacks of unreliable and/or un-provable inferences. Thus any statement about the ancient past or processes that occur over long periods of time can be met with the simple question: Were you there?

Before getting to my main point, I can't help but comment on how radically skeptical such people would be in general if they were more consistent in their pedantry, because inference is everywhere. Nor, I think, do they realize how many unobjectionable 'facts' are actually built on inference. Pick up any molecular biology journal, for example, and you will find lots of measurements. But those measurements are often done using indirect methods (because nobody can directly observe a molecule) [1], and the phenomena they measure are often correlates or indicators of broader phenomena. However, today's inferences become tomorrow's facts as they are demonstrated to be reliable and useful in advancing knowledge. As Stephen J. Gould put it, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Occasionally accepted facts are revised as their underpinnings are probed in more detail--often because of advancements in technology. It's just the nature of the beast. Or life in general, really.

That brings me to my main point. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) advocates and provides support for teaching evolution and, more recently, climate science in schools. Their most recent Reports periodical has a fun article, Yes, We Were There, by a physicist (and Christian) named Antoine Bret. After setting up the 'Were you there?' issue, Bret describes several interlocking observations that show that the laws of physics have been constant for over 30,000 years--less than a drop in the bucket of the accepted age of the universe, but more than the Biblical age of the Earth.

The progression of his argument is as follows:

1. Stars have been measured to be 30,000 light years from Earth by the parallax method, which is based on trigonometry. Approximately 30,000 light years away is the limit of detection for this method, but he chose it because it is the most direct method in terms of observation.

2. We can measure the spectra emitted by the elements in those stars, which match those of the elements on Earth. The signature spectra are explained by quantum mechanics, in which the speed of light is a key component. This shows that the speed of light has not changed in the last 30,000 years. So unless you want to say that God created the universe with light already in transit (something hardcore creationists believe), these observations show that the universe is at least (!) 30,000 years old.

3. Various types of supernova beyond 30,000 light years away have been observed, and the nuclear decay of their elements tracked. The rates of radioactive decay match those on Earth.

Bret concludes:

Physicists do not hold that the laws of physics haven’t changed over the last 30000+ years because of a uniformitarian prejudice. They hold it because this is what they observe....for all practical purposes, “we were there” to see it.

I suspect that it might be more accurate to say that physicists had no reason to think that the law of physics had changed, but that these observations simply add direct support to their confidence.

So does this argument prove that the laws of physics haven't changed? I'm sure there are counter-arguments to be made. For example, I guess you could argue that the Earth was in a special bubble where the laws of physics were different from those of the stars. But where are the observations that would substantiate that?

Notes:

1. I'm thinking of things like western blots, ELISA, or especially flow cytometry. We run various controls to be confident in the results, but the end result is technically an inference. Similarly, blood cholesterol is measured via a series of chemical reactions that result in a color change, which is measured by light absorbance. Is your LDL number really a fact? You can see how this game can be played to the nth degree.

---

Continue reading...

Pro-Evolution Article in Interpreter

Last week the LDS journal Interpreter published a pro-evolution article, The Theory of Evolution is Compatible with Both Belief and Unbelief in a Supreme Being, by David M. Belnap. As I read the article I was waiting for the 'but' moment, but I was pleasantly surprised that it never really came. Belnap made no apologies for evolution, and even used some of his own research in constructing 3D models of viruses from 2D images to make a point that randomness, coupled with selection, and be constructive.

The article covers a lot of ground quickly, which limits its persuasive power, in my opinion. Anti-evolutionists will think he is making empty assertions. And I thought the weakest part of the essay was when he tried to show that the Genesis 1 account isn't that different from what we know from paleontology and geological history. That's not an exercise that I think is needed, because Genesis was written for a pre-scientific people. Nevertheless, I applaud his overall effort and Interpreter for publishing it.

P.S. Several days passed from when I read the article to when I looked at the comments after it. As you might expect, it was off to the races with doctrinaires and cranks sounding off. Wade into it if you wish, but I don't have time for trying to clean up that kind of garbage anymore.

---

Continue reading...

There is More Regulation of Your Dog's Medicine than Your Dietary Supplements

Did you know that in the U.S. drugs for animals are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which means that they must be shown to be safe and effective, and are manufactured under tightly controlled conditions?

Did you know that dietary supplements for people generally receive little-to-no scrutiny by FDA?

Last week's Science had a nice story of one physician's David-and-Goliath fight against tainted supplements. It all began when Dr. Pieter Cohen noticed that patients taking the same weight loss supplement started getting sick. This started him on a quest of testing various supplements for extra substances (chemicals, hormones, etc) and his work is getting the FDA's attention.

To understand the regulatory issue, you need some background. The dietary supplement industry is practically a libertarian's dream:

THE MODERN SUPPLEMENT ERA began in 1994, when Congress passed the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act, or DSHEA (pronounced duh-shay-uh). In the decades before, the supplements industry was overwhelmingly focused on vitamins and minerals. Much of the regulation centered on recommended daily allowances of products like vitamin C, iron, or calcium.

DSHEA established the first broad framework for regulating supplements. It also gave supplements a legal definition: as substances intended to “supplement the diet,” containing “dietary ingredients” such as herbs, botanicals, or vitamins.

At the same time, the law sharply curtailed FDA's power. Companies were not required to notify FDA provided the dietary ingredient had a history of use before the law was passed. For the first time, DSHEA allowed them to make claims on the label suggesting supplements affected the structure or function of the body—for example, by boosting the immune system or protecting prostate health. And DSHEA codified a loose arrangement: Under the law, as FDA notes on its website, “unlike drug products that must be proven safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, there are no provisions in the law for FDA to ‘approve’ dietary supplements … before they reach the consumer.” The agency can act only after a supplement is on the market and evidence shows it's unsafe.

The article is accompanied by a graphic that says that "prescription and illegal drugs are routinely found in supplements." It has two examples of supplements that are supposed to help with sexual enhancement. Any guesses what was found in them? Answer: Viagra. The article gave me a little more sympathy for athletes who claim that they didn't know their supplements contained a banned substance. They really may not have known!

FDA has a Q&A page about supplements. It's worth reading through the whole thing, but check out this gem:

Do manufacturers or distributors of dietary supplements have to tell FDA or consumers what evidence they have about their product's safety or what evidence they have to back up the claims they are making for them?

No, except for rules described above that govern "new dietary ingredients," there is no provision under any law or regulation that FDA enforces that requires a firm to disclose to FDA or consumers the information they have about the safety or purported benefits of their dietary supplement products. Likewise, there is no prohibition against them making this information available either to FDA or to their customers. It is up to each firm to set its own policy on disclosure of such information.

The next time you are in the pharmacy, have a look at all of the products with the disclaimer that their claims have not been evaluated by the FDA.

I'm going out on a limb here, but my sense is that straight-up vitamins and similar products are not the main problem (though they may indeed be a waste of money [1]). Rather, in my opinion products that are claimed to actually help some kind of performance (strength, sexual, weight loss, etc) are more likely to have some kind of drug or hormone to help produce the desired effect, or the illusion thereof. Most people who take a multivitamin or similar product are not going to notice any substantial difference in their health, nor will they care. But when it comes to, say, weight loss supplements, consumers will expect to see some progress. The balance of incentives and disincentives to play fast and loose with the truth and your safety are quite tilted toward the manufacturer.

The irony of course is that many consumers of dietary supplements are operating under the illusion that they are avoiding 'unnatural' substances, or that the law wouldn't let manufacturers put claims on the bottle that are not true. In reality, most consumers don't really know what they are consuming, and don't realize how little evidence manufacturers need behind their products.

You have been warned.


Notes:
1. Most people get all the nutrients they need from their diet. However, I fully accept that some dietary supplements may be helpful for some people.

---

Continue reading...

Book of Mormon DNA Apologetic Arguments Have a Shelf-life

There have been a couple of scientific advances on Native American origins this summer. First, DNA was finally isolated from the 9,000 year-old Kennewick man (KM) and it is clear that he is closely related to several current Native American tribes. Some had argued based on skull morphology that KM was more closely related to Australians and that his ancestry was outside of the East Asian/Siberian mainstream. However, the genetic evidence now puts him firmly within the Native American mainstream.

The second finding, reported by two separate groups a couple of weeks ago, is that some Amazonian tribes have a small DNA contribution from a common ancestor of indigenous Australians and Melanesians. This Boston Globe article is one of the better ones I have seen (and it has a nice accompanying graphic). It is very easy to get confused by the differing interpretations of the data. From what I have read, it boils down to this: Does the Australian DNA come from migrants who came into the New World around the same time as the East Asians/Siberians (>15,000 years ago), or later through the Aleutian Islands around 9,000 years ago? Some news articles use the terms ancient and recent without being clear about the associated dates, which can lead people to imagine evidence of trans-Pacific voyages. That is NOT what is proposed here.

At first glance this has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. The Asian ancestry of Native Americans is nothing new, and the timing of the migrations inferred from the above studies occurred long before the Book of Mormon chronology. Defenders might even point out that the added complexity that has been discovered shows that we must remain open-minded about Native American genetics because surprises do happen. However, there may be subtle implications for the future of Book of Mormon apologetics, which rely heavily on the population genetics principles of founder effect, genetic bottlenecks, and genetic drift.

To make things easy, I'll break my point up into several bite-sized propositions:

1. Although the exact genetic signatures that the Jaredites/Lehites would have carried are unknown, each advance in characterizing the ancient origins of Native American genetics helps to establish the background from which Jaredite/Lehite markers would stand out. We may not know exactly what we are looking for, but we have an increasing ability to recognize markers that are unusual.

2. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome types are particularly sensitive to genetic drift, etc.--a point made in the two papers describing the Australian connection. Originally most ancient genetic research focused on mtDNA and Y chromosomes because they were easier to deal with. However, the technological advances in recovering and sequencing autosomes (i.e. most of the genome) have greatly improved in the last decade.

3. Autosomal markers are more resistant to disappearing from populations. It's one thing for mtDNA or Y chromosomes (which are inherited by daughters and sons, respectively, as a block) to go missing; it's another for all traces of autosomes (which mix by recombination each generation) to disappear. As an example, scientists initially ruled out interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals based on mtDNA differences. However, once the Neanderthal genome was sequenced, it became clear that modern humans of ancient European decent got about 4% of their DNA from Neanderthals (which went extinct ~30-40,000 years ago).

4. The increased ability to recover and sequence DNA from ancient remains means it is probably only a matter of time before a variety of genomes dating from Book of Mormon times--and in the favored locations--are recovered. It is one thing to explain why modern Native Americans do not show any genetic relationship to the Middle East; it is another to explain why two thousand year-old Mesoamerican remains do not show any genetic relationship.

I am not suggesting that genetic studies are going to definitively disprove the Book of Mormon as an ancient American record. What I am suggesting is that, as the science around Native American origins progresses and the realm of plausibility contracts, the current arguments that Book of Mormon defenders advance with respect to Native American DNA will begin to wear thin. That is, unless a pre-Columbian Middle-Eastern genetic signal is discovered. But if that happens, we won't need the current arguments any more. So either way, we are marching toward their expiration date.

---

Continue reading...

BYU Tears Down Another Piece of My Past (WIDB)

It seems like every time I visit my undergraduate alma mater another construction project has destroyed a building of significance to me. Most recently, the Widtsoe building (WIDB) was torn down in May/June after the new Life Sciences building was dedicated. As a microbiology major, I spent a lot of time in the WIDB (and waiting for the elevator). And since most of that time was in my junior and senior year, I also associate it with the vast career unknown that lay before me at the time.

Here's a fun memory: As part of a micro lab class we had to culture the aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in our own poop! When the time was right, I took the little cup I was given to a bathroom in the southwest corner of the sixth(?) floor and...ready, aim, fire. This was all kind of awkward, but really, would you rather culture your own poop or someone else's? I then nonchalantly (I like to think) walked over into the lab and swabbed my specimen onto agar plates. (Meanwhile, over in the Tanner building, students were learning how to make money.)

I recognize the need for the university to update facilities, but it would be nice if they could leave a few buildings more or less the same so that I can show my children and grandchildren the actual locations of my memories. 'I once cultured my own poop in a building that used to be right there' just doesn't have the same punch.

Here is a time-lapse video of the demolition of the WIDB.

---

Continue reading...