Mormons and the Multiverse

The physical plausibility of the Mormon conception of God appears to be inversely proportional to his necessity. Let me explain.

The Big Bang poses some problems for Mormon theology. Run the tape of time backwards and the universe reaches a point where it is so hot and dense that it is hard to see how God could exist within the universe, to say nothing of an infinite hierarchy of gods or eternal intelligences (whatever those are). Last year Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought published "Eternal Progression in a Multiverse: An Explorative Mormon Cosmology," (pdf link) by Kirk D. Hagen. The basic idea is that this universe is only a part of a larger multiverse, and this gives our theology a door out of this universe. (See also Clark's post on this topic at Mormon Metaphysics.)

Creationists of various stripes (including intelligent design) have argued that certain aspects of this universe (eg. fundamental constants) that are conducive to life on this planet have been designed--that the universe just happens, by chance, to have the features necessary to make our existence possible seems too improbable. Therefore it is likely that God designed the universe.

Some scientists have responded that--whatever the merit of that argument--the concept of a multiverse renders the argument irrelevant. Of all the universes that make up the multiverse, some will have the properties needed for life. We live in one of those universes. (For a recently published example of this kind of argument, see here.)

But Richard Sherlock doesn't like this argument at all. In his FARMS Review essay, "Mormonism and Intelligent Design", he writes:

What critics have resorted to is a wildly imaginary but inventive claim that there may be an infinite number of parallel universes. At one time it was suggested that the universe might go through an infinite number of expansions followed by contractions, a big bang and a big crunch, if you will. This idea, however, has been refuted by recent data. But no problem. The hypothesized infinite multiverses will do equally well. We might be simply the universe that was "organized" in the design-specific manner that it appears to be. The other universes or multiverses as they are called may be "organized" in much less inviting ways. Or maybe they started and failed, collapsing back on themselves or flying apart. The question is why would one want to multiply entities for which we have absolutely no evidence? The reason for the multiplication is not science, for the appeal to hidden entities or forces violates what scientists claim to seek above all else: explanation, not mystery. The reason is the deeply held faith in materialism and in the equally strong article of faith by some against God or divine design.

And so we come full circle. Do we insist on God's necessity and accept the problems of the Big Bang, or do we invoke the idea of a multiverse and give up cosmic improbability?

---

Continue reading...

Behe Picks Up Other End of Stick

Michael Behe, of Darwin's Black Box fame, has a new book out titled The Edge of Evolution. I have not seen it yet--and frankly, I doubt I will read it--but critical reviews have been coming in, which I will link to below. Apparently, the gist of the book is that, in addition to re-iterating 'irreducibly complexity', Behe calculates the probability of a malaria drug resistance gene arising and uses that as the standard by which one can declare a mutation to have been designed or not. Or something like that.

It has long been apparent that if the argument of design is to be taken seriously, then it must apply to pathogens and parasites as well. Behe apparently takes that step with this quote:

Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve's children died in her arms because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.

Well, at least he is consistent. (Of course, the designer of malaria need not be God; it could have been Satan. Take your pick. And welcome back to an age where diseases are caused by God's cursing or Satan's meddling.)

Anyway, here is some further reading:
Of cilia and silliness (more on Behe) - wherein Nick Matzke discovers the irony that malaria undercuts Behe's argument about the irreducible complexity of cilia.

Not for the faint of heart: the continuing dismemberment of Michael Behe - which contains links to a number of reviews.

See especially Sean Carroll's review in Science.

---

Continue reading...

Entropy

An article at PLoS Biology discusses research into thermodynamics and evolution. The article is interesting in its own right, but it contains a nice summary of the concept of entropy that I thought I would reproduce here.

Entropy is a powerful but slippery concept. One reason for both its power and its slipperiness is that several different branches of physics have been able to formulate the second law of thermodynamics independently. This has meant that other fields, such as computing and ecology, can use the concept of entropy, and so entropy takes rather different forms in different systems.

In thermodynamics, entropy is uselessness. An energy gradient, such as a difference in temperature, can be used to do work. But as the gradient levels out, the energy is transformed into useless heat in equilibrium with its surroundings. In statistical mechanics, a system's entropy is the number of possible arrangements of all its microscopic states that yield any particular macroscopic state. Maximum entropy is the most probable, and most disordered state. For example, for 1,000 flipped coins, the most likely, and also the most entropic state, is 500 heads and 500 tails. This form of entropy has also been called “mixedupness”: a far greater number of molecular arrangements yield a cup of white coffee than yield a black coffee with a layer of milk sitting on top of it.

In information theory, entropy is uncertainty. The most entropic systems are those in which one is least certain what is coming next. In a very orderly message, such as a string of identical letters, the next letter is predictable. Such a system has no entropy. A string of random letters is very noisy, carries no information, and has the maximum possible entropy. This formulation of entropy was devised by the mathematician Claude Shannon, who also gave his name to a measure of biodiversity, the Shannon index. This index expressed how evenly individuals are distributed within a number of categories. The more categories, and the more equal the number of individuals in each, the greater the biodiversity; this is mathematically equivalent to a measure of entropy. In the most diverse ecosystems, a naturalist has little or no idea what species she will find next.

---

Whitfield J (2007) Survival of the Likeliest? PLoS Biol 5(5): e142

Continue reading...

BYU Instructor Featured in Science

This week's Science has a news story about BYU instructor Duane Merrell, who is grooming high school science teachers.

Merrell, who has received a presidential teaching award and numerous state teaching honors, teaches three courses that form the core of the physics education curriculum (along with more traditional education courses and student teaching). Students must complete all but three courses of what's needed for a traditional physics degree, and many students find a way to cram those additional courses into their schedule. Merrell's goal is to connect the pedagogy with the science so that these future teachers "will have multiple ways to engage their students." Despite a heavy teaching load, he tries to get off campus and into the schools as much as possible, checking on the progress of the students, offering tips on how to present a lesson or lab, and helping them prepare for the profession they have chosen. ...

So far, Merrell is making his presence felt. BYU's annual production of science teachers exceeds those for many states, let alone individual institutions, which suggests he's doing something right. [bolding added]

I guess it's about 15/year. I hope all of those teachers don't plan on staying in Utah.

---

"BYU Takes Team Approach Led by a Master Teacher" [no link; subscription required]
Science 1 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5829, p. 1272

Continue reading...

Mormon and Evangelical Youth: Similar, But Different

A new book looks at religion, teenagers, and sex morality chastity. As reviewed in Slate:

Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17...

Sheesh.

Definitely out of the question is an Asian-American who attends church weekly—84 percent of them are virgins. A Mormon is a long shot. They are unlikely to have sex and if they do, they don't tend to repeat the experience.

Can't think of a suitable witty reply, so moving on...

After controlling for all factors (family satisfaction, popularity, income), religion matters much less than religiosity. ...The ideal conditions are a group of pledgers who form a self-conscious minority that perceives itself as special, even embattled.

We've had that down since---1830?

When evangelical parents say they talk to their kids about sex, they mean the morals, not the mechanics. In a quiz on pregnancy and health risks associated with sex, evangelicals scored very low.

And that ignorance--apparently--has consequences.


The book is Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus.

(via Red State Rabble)

Continue reading...

Creation Museum

In case you missed it, Answers in Genesis is in the news with the opening of their expensive ($27 million) new creation museum.

The NCSE has coverage here and here (see additional links at bottom).

If you are near Kentucky and want to part with $20 (adults, $10 kids), you now have another option. Just keep in mind that portrayals of dinosaurs and people getting along together, does not make it so. (I suppose whether they would get along might make for an interesting discussion. However, the point is moot because they are separated by about 65 million years.)

Continue reading...

Evolution, Elder Nelson, and Benson's Fifth Fundamental

At BCC there has been discussion over a recent statement made by Elder Nelson to the effect that he does not accept evolution. As a commenter pointed out, this is not really surprising given past statments. The commenter continued:

I just finished teaching a college-level course in organic evolution, and Elder Nelson’s comments would probably have earned him a D on an essay question–not for his views, but for his understanding of the topic.

I think the same could be said for Elder Packer, the only other current Apostle that I am aware of that has made explicit and public anti-evolution statements. It can be frustrating.

But I am reminded of a famous speech by (then) Elder Ezra Taft Benson--"Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet":

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

Fortunately the full strength of this quote does not apply here (although it does raise some interesting questions that will have to wait for another day), but there is tension. What to do?

My approach has been the following: First, I like to think that Elder [whoever] and I both know some things that the other does not--that if we could fully communicate our experience and knowledge, we would at least come close to an agreement. Maybe that is naive or wrong, but it allows me to have respect for their experience, knowledge, and office without having to surrender my mental faculties.

And second, I try to look past their specific argument to what they are really defending. Most likely, it is something that I also believe. This allows me to agree with the over-arching message, even if I disagree with particulars. (An example of this approach is a previous post I wrote about Elder Packer.)

Continue reading...

Kitcher On Design

Our public library system has a used bookstore where they sell off extra books--for cheap. Fortunately we only recently found this out, or else who knows how much money we would have dropped at that place.

Anyway, I picked up Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosphy, which contains a number of short essays from a variety of authors (ancient and modern) on a variety of topics. One chapter is taken from Philip Kitcher's book Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. I encountered a different excerpt from his book previously, and I've been impressed with Kitcher's analysis. (I almost checked the book out from the library once, but it literally smelled bad and I decided that I could not abide it for bedtime reading.)

Kitcher's book was published in 1983, when 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' was a prominent issue. However, some of it is just as applicable to Intelligent Design (or versions of it) as a purported legitimate science.

...if we take the idea of a single creative event seriously, we must view it as the origination of an entire system of kinds of organisms, whose needs themselves arise in large measure from the character of the system. ...The needs are not given in advance of the design of structures to accomodate them, but are themselves encompassed in the design [italics in original].

Perhaps a way of re-stating that is that one cannot separate the problem from the solution. If you say that our immune system is designed to defend us from germs, then you must also say that at least some germs are designed to kill us. Or, our atmosphere protects us from solar radiation--but why must there be solar radiation in the first place? Or--an example Kitcher brings up--why must ruminants have complicated digestive systems that require the help of bacteria rather than have the right enzymes to process cellulose in the first place? It is hard to get anywhere with such questions from a design perspective.

So we encounter the strategy exemplified by [Henry] Morris: Talk generally about design, pattern, purpose, and beauty in nature. There are many examples of adaptations that can be used--the wings of bats or "the amazing circulatory system," for example. But what happens if we press some more difficult cases?

...Since no plan of design has been specified, Creationists have available another all-purpose escape clause. But it is precisely this feature of Creation "science" that impugns its scientific credentials. To mumble that "the ways of the Creator are many and mysterious" may excuse one from identifiying design in unlikely places. It is not to do science.

In my view, this is not to say that God does not have any plans, it is just folly to try to merge the general plans described in scripture with the physical world, in a specific way, and call it science.

Continue reading...