Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Sen. Buttars' Bill Looking Less Likely

Passage of Utah Senator Chris Buttars' "origins-of-life" bill is looking less likely. From the Deseret News:

The origins-of-life bill sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, has already passed the Senate. But it could run into trouble in the House, where Majority Whip Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, has said he can't support the bill. Huntsman suggested the bill may never reach his desk and said if it does, then "we'll do what we think is right" based on his previous opposition to mixing religious beliefs and science in the classroom. "What I have seen most recently is not an origins-of-life bill. It's been watered down to a relatively benign statement, and where it goes from here is anybody's guess," the governor said.


(via Eyring-L.)

Continue reading...

Monday, January 30, 2006

Species is as Species Does

Martin Brazeau is a graduate student who recently published a paper in Nature about ear evolution in lobe-fin fish. (Well, more accurately, evolution of the area of the skull that later became ears.) Anyway, he also blogs at The Lancelet and has some interesting posts.

Let me refer you to his three-part series "Species is as species does."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

He describes the biological species concept, what it means for paleontologists, and its ultimate root in creationism. Along the way he gives a couple of interesting comparative anatomy lessons. (Interesting if you've never had comparative anatomy, like me).

Continue reading...

Friday, January 27, 2006

Bias in the Brain

The New York Times has an article that describes research on brain activity and politics. (For MSNBC coverage, see here.)

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected. ...

In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession.

The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.

The Republicans in the study judged Mr. Kerry as harshly as the Democrats judged Mr. Bush. But each group let its own candidate off the hook. ...

Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.

It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "

My opinion: I imagine these results apply to a wide range of topics--especially religion. For heaven's sake, how many conversations revolve around contradictions (real or alleged) in scripture--especially when the conversation is between people of different denominations?

It also seems plausible to me that in trying to escape one bias, you can easily run into the arms of another. Next to turning into a vulcan, perhaps the best we can do is try to identify our biases and understand their roots.

Continue reading...

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Biology-Type Posts Worth Reading

I've collected another batch of blog posts that I think are worth reading.

Continue Reading


First off are a string of posts by P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula (which has moved over to scienceblogs.com).

Deficiencies in modern evolutionary theory: Describes what some of the real controveries and problems in evolutionary theory are.

Two legged goats and developmental variation: Reminds us that phenotype and morphology are a result of gene expression and interaction with the environment. Did you know that there are six variations in the branching of the human aorta?

Vertebral variation, Hox genes, development, and cancer: In a somewhat similar vein, this post discusses the governance of vertebrae number. I learned here that sometimes people can have an extra set of ribs--above the first pair.

Also see his response to Orson Scott Card and Jonathan Wells.


Gene Expression has 10 Questions for Ken Miller.

Carl Zimmer deals with parasites and their ability to influence behavior. In particular, there is a proposed link between toxoplasmosis and some schizophrenia.

I'll cut it off there. More to come.

Continue reading...

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Uncovering Brigham Young

I recently picked up the manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young on a whim to see if it contained a quote I thought I remembered. Sure enough, on page 197 was this passage:

Continue Reading


Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. ... If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth (DBY, 258–59).
I'm glad the writers/compilers of the manual saw fit to include this passage. However I thought there was more to Brigham's statement and I noticed the ellipsis, so I looked up the source reference.

Here is the passage from Discourses of Brigham Young, by John A. Widtsoe (p. 258-259). The red indicates text left out of the manual. For the most part, it is confined to the paragraph preceeding the passage in the manual.
I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ, from the Christian world, for
our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth.
The text in the place of the ellipsis was interesting, but I thought I remembered more than that, so I went to Widtsoe's source. (Note that Widtsoe gives no indication that any text has been left out.) Here is the passage from the Journal of Discourses (14:115-117). The red indicates text left out of Widtsoe's passage.
It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ, from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth.

I thought this was curious since the preface to DBY states, "No liberties have been taken, in this book, with the words of Brigham Young." I'm guessing that in this instance liberty was taken because Brigham's view of Moses and the creation story had fallen on hard times.

So there's my little detective story. I like the quote in the manual; I like the full passage better.

Continue reading...

Sunday, January 22, 2006

The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism

The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, published by Signature Books, is one of the best single books on science and Mormonism. Though incomplete and a little dated (published in 1993, with many of the articles published much earlier), it contains a number of classic essays and original research articles (some slightly modified from their original published form). I purchased my copy about four years ago, and am glad to have it.

Sadly, the book is now out of print. The good news is that most of the articles collected in the book are available online. Most of them come from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, but a few others are available elsewhere including one article from the Ensign.

Below I have reproduced the Table of Contents with links to each available article. (In some cases more than one source is provided.) I hope this will serve as a useful resource.

Continue Reading



Editor's Introduction: The Mormon Retreat from Science

1. Scientific Foundations of Mormon Theology.
(Also available here.)
David H. Bailey

2. The New Biology and Mormon Theology
James L. Farmer, William S. Bradshaw, and F. Brent Johnson

3. The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University
Gary James Bergera

4. Inner Dialogue: James Talmage's Choice of Science as Career, 1876-84
Dennis Rowley

5. A Turbulent Spectrum: Mormon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy
Richard Sherlock

6. The B.H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair (Combined article from here and here.)
Richard Sherlock and Jeffery E. Keller


7. Harvey Fletcher and Henry Eyring: Men of Faith and Science
Edward L. Kimball

8. Agreeing to Disagree: Henry Eyring and Joseph Fielding Smith (Originally published under a different title.)
Steven H. Heath

9. Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface
(Reprinted here, and also available here.)
Duane E. Jeffery

10. Organic Evolution and the Bible
Eldon J. Gardner

11. Fossils and the Scriptures
(Also available here.)
Morris S. Petersen

12. Adam's Navel
(Also available here.)
Keith E. Norman

13. Astrophysics and Mormonism: Parallel Paths to Truth
(A different but somewhat similar article is available here.)
R. Grant Athay

14. Science: A Part of or Apart from Mormonism?
Richard Pearson Smith

15. Eternal Progression: The Higher Destiny
L. Mikel Vause

16. Science and Mormonism: A Review Essay
Craig J. Oberg and Gene A. Sessions

Epilogue: An Official Position
William Lee Stokes

Continue reading...

Thursday, January 19, 2006

New Book Released: Mormonism and Evolution

[Update: See below.] The Deseret News reports on a new book published by Greg Kofford Books.

That's the backdrop [ie. Buttar's bill] for a slim little book, hot off the presses, written by Utah Valley State College physics professor William E. Evenson and Brigham Young University biology professor Duane E. Jeffery. Titled "Mormonism and Evolution: the Authoritative LDS Statements," the book is a compilation of statements made by or sanctioned by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from 1909 to 2004. "There has been a belief, for years and years and years, that Mormonism and evolution are diametrically opposed," Jeffery said in a recent phone call. He hopes the book will illuminate the grayer areas of the church's position. Jeffery calls himself a "theistic evolutionist."

Included in the book are four official First Presidency statements released in 1992 by Brigham Young University in a special "evolution packet" for students. In 1999 the packet was distributed to all teachers in the Church Education System. According to Evenson, "the LDS Church has really been careful over the years not to get into a box where they are taking a position that later gets undermined by science and other developments of human knowledge. I don't think that's well understood by people who would like to have this be a settled issue."

A reading of the official statements, which also include 12 that are not a part of the "BYU packet," shows a subtle evolution of response. In 1909, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund of the First Presidency wrote that Adam is the "primal parent of our race" and that the church "proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity." In a 1992 section on evolution in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the church-sanctioned entry reads that: "The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again." It ended with a reiteration that "Adam is the primal parent of our race." Ten years later, President Gordon B. Hinckley was quoted as saying, "What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."

You can read about the book and purchase it here. Based on the table of contents and the appendix, it doesn't look like there is much new here for those familiar with the history of this issue. Unfortunately I doubt I'll be able to buy it for a while. If anybody out there gets their hands on it I would be interested in a report, especially on the quotes by President Hinckley.

(via Red State Rabble)

Update: From what I can tell, the book contains two quotes from President Hinckely. One of them is apparently quoted in the story above (I've seen that one before). The other comes from an Institute devotional in 1997. Most likely it is the April 15, 1997 devotional published in Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley Vol. 1: 1995-1999.
"People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago."

Continue reading...

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Two Items on Buttars

The Deseret News has two recent articles on Utah Senator Chris Buttars' education bill, here and here. (hat-tip to Justin B.)

There's not much new in these so I won't add it to the collection on the sidebar. I noticed this passage:

In an attempt to rally support for SB96 from the Eagle Forum, Buttars shared an anecdote about a mother who said her two daughters were told by a teacher that they evolved from animals.

"It totally destroyed their faith," Buttars said.

He accused scientists of overstepping the truth by putting forward evolution as the only explanation for how humans came to exist as they do today."
Not sure what to say about that, so I'll leave it alone.

I also noticed this poll.



Buttars might want to focus his efforts on math class first.

Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP