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...

Moses as Dr. McCoy

Over at Times and Seasons, Dave has a nice post, Genesis and Genre, that reviews several perspectives on what kind of writing Genesis is. It fits with some of my posts here regarding concordism, but that's not what I want to discuss at the moment.

Down in the comments, R. Gary expressed the probably common opinion that Moses witnessed the creation in detail, something he has done on this blog before. The scriptural support for this is Moses 1:27:

And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

I think it is unclear whether Moses saw a panoramic view of the history of the earth, or just a cross-section at that time. Sometimes I imagine Moses stepping into a large command-and-control center for a few minutes, with all kinds of real-time information flowing in. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Moses had a panoramic vision.

I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek that I saw as a kid. Aliens had captured Mr. Spock and removed his brain, and Dr. McCoy was under pressure to surgically replace it before Spock's body died. This was a task beyond McCoy's ability and knowledge, so he used an alien machine to temporarily enhance his knowledge. But he could only do so once and still live. McCoy emerged from the machine marveling, "A child could do it." The surgery began and McCoy worked quickly. However, as time wore on McCoy's enhanced knowledge began to fade, his comprehension became foggy, and the surgery became more difficult. Capt. Kirk tried to spur him on, reminding him that "a child could do it," but eventually McCoy was left to his own abilities. Fortunately Spock was now conscious and with his help, and through trial and error, McCoy was able to finish off the job.

Back to Moses: He was only able to comprehend what he saw "by the spirit of God." Even if he saw and understood everything about the earth, by the time he wrote his account he was back to his normal self. What could his mortal mind remember of his experience? What comprehension would he retain? I think that it would have been as ephemeral as a dream.

Of course, what exactly Moses saw and remembered is a matter of speculation. But if his experience was like Dr. McCoy's, there is reason to think that it isn't relevant to science.

---

Continue reading...

Utah's Legislature Goes for Climate Science Denial

Last week Utah's House of Representatives voted 56-17 for a non-binding resolution urging the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide, ostensibly because they fear it will hurt Utah's agriculture. OK, that's understandable; no problem. It's their job to represent the interests of their constituents and seek the best policies. Unfortunately, this concern for Utah's economy is accompanied by an attempt by several House members to become to climate science what Chris Buttars was to evolution.

This has been brewing since at least last fall, which prompted 18 BYU earth scientists to write the House and urge them not to embrace fringe views. (See Open Letter (PDF).)

You can read the bill here. It includes amendments that changed some of the more inflammatory language, like "conspiracy" and "gravy train." That's right; the person who composed this resolution--Rep. Kerry Gibson, apparently--used the words "gravy train".

Anyway, the bill is nonsense almost from beginning to end. It's also self-contradictory. If I may paraphrase: Scientists have been fudging data to make it look like the earth is warming, but it's not. But if it is, the warming is natural. Or if it isn't natural, it's because of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are not used anymore. And that explains why the natural, non-existent, artificial warming has leveled off over the last 12 years.

Also of interest are some of the comments reported in the Salt Lake Tribune.

[Rep. Gibson] said there is mounting evidence that humans can't influence their environment...

That's actually a paraphrase, so I have to hope he didn't say that. Because if he did, not only is it asinine, it is contradicted by his own bill where he attributes warming and then cooling to human use (and then non-use) of CFCs.

Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, staged a defense of carbon dioxide, saying it is an odorless gas that is "essentially harmless to human beings" that is unrelated to air pollution and can actually encourage plant growth.

Thank you, Rep. Noel, for the science lesson. But I'm sorry, that is not a serious argument. In the physical world nothing is an unadulterated good in unlimited quantities.

Rep. Noel thinks he knows what is really behind all the fuss about climate change: population control.

But Noel defended the "conspiracy" wording, pointing to an out-of-print textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, written in the 1970s by biologist Paul Ehrlich, Ehrlich's wife, Anne, and physicist John Holdren about the potential hazards of unchecked population.

The Kanab Republican, referring to Holdren as the Obama administration's "energy czar," read from passages of the 1,000-plus-page tome about population-control alternatives that included abortion and forced sterilization. He did not share the authors' conclusion: that voluntary population-limiting methods are "a far better choice." [I think that means that Noel failed to mention the conclusion, not that he disagrees with it. -- LDSSR]

"Now, if you can't see a connection [of a conspiracy] to that," the legislator said, "you're absolutely blind to what is going on. This is absolutely -- in my mind, this is in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe."

Don't forget fluoride! Fluoridation of water has to be somewhere in there too!

The icing on the cake in all of this is the call for an apology from BYU and the 18 scientists who wrote the letter last fall. To their credit, both BYU and its scientists say there will be no apology. I guess those 18 scientists feel free to speak their mind since they aren't dependent on the "gravy train" of state funding for their jobs.

Personally, I think the House owes the citizens of Utah an apology for passing a resolution filled with nonsense, and for indulging in conspiracy thinking to the point that they have latched onto any dissenting views and ignored the expertise coming from one of their state's major universities.

---

Continue reading...