Our Naturalized God

Michael Shermer raises some good questions about naturalism and God.

He writes:

Continue Reading

If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity, because for any question about nature—the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever—if your answer is “God did it,” a scientist will ask, “How did God do it?, What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?” and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief. One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his creation tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: which laws and forces were used to create specific natural phenomena, and in what matter were they used? how did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God’s recipe for, say, gravity, or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask: what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient and omnipotent being? Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature—super nature, or supernatural—and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

As a younger man, Shermer was an evangelical Christian and no doubt much of the opposition he deals with comes from evangelicals. A naturalized God would be anathema to orthodox Christianity, yet right at home in Mormon theology.

It seems to me that the tension between science and Mormon theology has much more to do with specific statements and scriptures and their bearing on prophetic authority, than with the big questions. We don't know many answers to the big questions, but we are not afraid to ask them and we expect different answers than our orthodox Christian brethren--something that I think that we sometimes forget.

Continue reading...

BYU Newsnet Articles on Evolution

I put this post together a couple of days ago. With the recent vigorous discussion at Millenial Star, now seems as good of a time as any to get it out.

I was poking around on BYU's Newsnet search archives and found just a few articles dealing with evolution within the last decade or so. The most significant ones are here and here. If you are familiar with the BYU Evolution Packet (available on the sidebar) and how it came about, then you won't learn much new.

Nevertheless, the articles are positive and the statements made by the faculty interviewed are reassuring. The articles also contain a few details that may not be well-known. For example, the second article contains information that I have only seen in an interview with Duane Jeffery that was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, but is not yet freely accessible.

Continue Reading

When BYU started discussing an undergraduate evolution course in 1970 and 1971, Jeffery received a brief admonition from President Harold B. Lee, later to become president of the Church of Jesus Christ, and then in the church's First Presidency.

"You tell those guys to teach the best and most rigorous course you can," President Lee said. "Just don't get on any bandwagon and beat the church with it."

With President Lee's approval, Jeffery began teaching the evolution class in the 1971 Fall Semester.

In the Dialogue interview, Jeffery says about that class:

...over the years, so far as I am aware, we have had two complaints from students to the administration. Both of those have been from students who were rather interested in cultivating a relationship with people upstairs and thought this was a good way to do so. One of them wrote to our president [I assume this is the University president--LDS-SR] and said, "My grandfather and I have done a pamphlet that clearly sets this whole story straight, and we'd be happy to meet with you, after you have chastised these faculty members here, and show you how God really did things." Our president was not particularly interested in being so instructed, so that sort of died there, but I know of only two such cases.

Our introductory biology course, where students have less background, often generates more negative response. One of the instructors of the course is a former mission president, and he makes certain that his students get a solid exposure to evolution. One of our vice presidents told me he can always tell when that instructor gets to the evolution part of the course, just from the letters he receives from parents. But so far as I know, we've only had those two complaints about the evolution class itself. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35:4)

One of the articles contains a reference to the article in BYU Magazine, Things of the Earth.

Continue reading...

Joseph Fielding Smith: Flying Enthusiast

In contrast to his views on space travel, Joseph Fielding Smith became a flying enthusiast. Through some friendships with members of the National Guard, he was able to take some flights in jets.

Continue Reading

The news of Elder Smith's avid interest in jets circulated around Church headquarters with lightning speed. Everyone was surprised; most seemed delighted; a few were probably envious; and at least one was appalled. That one was President J. Reuben Clark, who was obstinately opposed to flying and who used his considerable influence and authority to keep all his brethren out of the air. On one notable occasion, following a meeting where it was decided that one of the brethren would fly to Washington, D.C., President Clark sought out the brother, who was one of his protégés, and said "Look, kid, you go by train." (As related to the author.) President Clark had flown in a plane only once, which was apparently enough to convince him that it was dangerous and not an acceptable way for him or anyone else to travel. So, when the president of the Twelve took up flying in jets, President Clark launched a campaign to get him to stop. While he was reluctant to order his apostolic senior, President Smith, to cease and desist as he had done with his protégé, President Clark hinted that he ought to give it up. It was then that Elder Smith sought to turn the tables and convince President Clark of the safety and the joys of jetting. How he did it remains a mystery, but two years after President Smith began to fly in jets, he persuaded President Clark to accompany him to the airport to at least check the plane out...

One thing led to another and both Elders Smith and Clark went on a plane ride that day.

As far as is known, President Clark never again went up in a plane, carrying his aversion to flying to his grave. President Smith, on the other hand, continued to enjoy his hobby as often as he could find time to do so.

...Elder Smith never attempted to reconcile the inconsistency of that view [that man should stay on earth] with his carefree enjoyment in flying at 30,000 feet above the planet in a sabre jet. Undoubtedly, President J. Reuben Clark would have immensely enjoyed his attempts to do so.

(Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God, by Francis Gibbons.)

(Any ideas on who that protégé of Clark's was?)

Continue reading...

Joseph Fielding Smith: The Glory of the Sun

In the last post I speculated that Joseph Fielding Smith may have believed that the moon was in a terrestrial state. I do not know whether this was the case or not, but the following passage shows his belief concerning the sun.

I found the passage in The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. and John Stewart. The context is a letter written by the then Elder Smith to one of his sons serving a mission.

Continue Reading

Joseph Fielding offers it as his opinion, for instance, that glorified beings live on the sun. It was a hot summer day in Salt Lake City, July 18, 1948, the day before his 72nd birthday anniversary, when he was writing to Milton in Argentina, and his interest had turned to the sun: "The weather here for several days has been really warm. . . . We have no complaint coming, however, for we depend upon the sun for most everything. If it were not for the sun we would have no rain, no water to drink, for it is the sun which draws the water up into the sky and then lets it down again. The grass would not grow; the trees would not bloom and there would be no fruit. Everything would wither up and die. . . . We know that we could not exist if we did not have the good old sun to warm us and provide us with what we have. . . .

"But there is something still more important than all of this about the sun. Contrary to the teachings of the astronomers and men of science-these great men who think they know it all-the sun is not gradually throwing off its heat and eventually after eons of years it will [not] become a cold dead world like the moon. I do not know just how dead the moon is, but that is another question. . . . It is my judgment and belief that the sun is a celestial body. It has previously passed through its death and had its resurrection, just as it is decreed that this earth shall do. No man ever saw the face of the sun, so far as I know, for it is surrounded by a cloud. This cloud is what the astronomers see. It is very apparent during an eclipse, but the sun is veiled so that we cannot see its surface. Moreover, I believe that it is inhabited. Why not? If we ever have the privilege of dwelling on a celestial earth-and this earth will become such-we will have to endure 'everlasting burnings.'

"If you have a copy of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith turn to page 347 and read what the Prophet said. The Lord dwells in 'everlasting burnings.' If we are worthy of celestial glory we will do the same. In Heb. 12:29, we read 'For our God is a consuming fire.' This means that anything mortal, corruptible, could not endure his presence. Joseph Smith could not have stood the presence of the Father and the Son, when he saw them in glory, except he was protected by the Spirit of God. It was the presence of that power that protected the three companions of Daniel when they were thrown into the fiery furnace. Moses said that if the Spirit of the Lord had not been with him he would 'have withered and died in his presence, but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.' (Moses 1:11.)

"Of course the scientists know so much about this earth and the universe, so much more than the Creator of them knows, that all this is foolishness to them, but I tell you, son, what I have written is true. . . . We know nothing of the spiritual forces and conditions existing in the spiritual world, or existence, except that which the Lord has revealed. But we know this, that eventually, based upon the atonement of Jesus Christ, everything which is now mortal will after the resurrection become spiritual. Beings that become celestial will also shine like the sun and they will radiate energy from their bodies, not like radium, but with a radiation that will never end. This is the condition of the sun. It radiates energy, but that energy is not diminishing and will endure forever. After the resurrection our bodies, if we are faithful, will radiate and have a luster that would be blinding to mortal eyes, unless the power of the Lord protected them." He then quotes rather extensively from Brigham Young regarding the celestial state of the earth in a distant day, and adds the comment, "Well, son, such doctrine is foolishness to the wise men of this world, but it is true!" (p.294-296)

Continue reading...

Joseph Fielding Smith: Man and the Moon

You may have heard that Joseph Fielding Smith once said that man would never get to the moon. The topic came up on another blog recently, so I thought I would assemble what I could find on the topic.

Continue Reading

1. Joseph Fielding Smith's Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. II contains the following passage:

When man was placed on this earth it became his probationary, or mortal home. Here he is destined to stay until his earth-life is completed, subject to all the mortal conditions outlined in the beginning. There is no prophecy or edict ever given that mortals should seek dominions beyond this earth while they dwell in mortality. Here we are, and here we should be content to stay. All this talk about space travel and the visiting of other worlds brings to mind vividly an attempt long ago made by foolish men who tried to build to heaven.

This earth is our destined earth home. With this in mind, wise men will be content and will wait until the time comes when this earth is cleansed and purified from all sin for heavenly visits, and in that day they will come. (p.191-192)

The question that he was responding to asked about whether space travel might play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy, such as the return of the ten tribes. The answer should be read in that context.

2. According to Francis Gibbon's biography, Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God,

[Elder Smith] took a dim view of space travel. During a stake conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on May 1 and 2, 1962, a reporter questioned him about the plans of the United States to put a man on the moon. "I answered that they might, but evidently if so he might have difficulty to get back again." This comment was picked up and reported by the national wire services, producing a wholly unexpected reaction. "I am flooded by letters in relation to it," wrote the apostle, "with some editorial criticism." Although he never answered publicly, he confided this response to his diary: "The fact is . . . mortal man has no business trying to get on the moon, for earth is a probationary state and in mortality we are expected [to stay on] this earth." (p.371)

3. The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. and John J. Stewart, treats the same episode as #2 above.

President Smith questioned the wisdom or worth of the government's expensive efforts to place men on the moon. In recent years the rumor has circulated around the Church that President Smith once prophesied that men would never reach the moon. The falsity of this report is apparent from the fuss that was raised back in 1962 when he commented on the moon venture. In his journal for May 1 and 2, 1962, he observed, "When in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I was interviewed by a reporter. He asked me about the endeavor to place men on the moon. I answered that they might, but evidently if so he might have difficulty to get back again. This was sent out as a dispatch to newspapers all over the U.S., and I am flooded by letters in relation to it, with some editorial criticisms. Why such a fuss? . . . This remark apparently disturbed a great many people. The fact is, however, although I did not say it, man-mortal man-has no business trying to get on the moon, for earth is a probationary state and in mortality we are expected [to stay on] this earth." He did not say whether the letter writers were upset because he said that man might get on the moon, or because he said they might have a difficult time getting back. Perhaps there was some criticism from each side. (p. 322-324)

4. Quinn's biography of J. Reuben Clark contains this note:

As an example of Apostle Smith's rejection of science, he instructed a stake conference in 1961: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." See E, 848 (entry for 14 May 1961), with commentary a few days later in George S. Tanner diary, JWML. Smith wanted this view to be taught to "the boys and girls in the Seminary System." (Chapter 7 note 79)

This is also in Quinn's Extensions of Power, a book I do not have. I understand that the book does not give a source for the quotation. If anybody knows the ultimate source, please provide it.

5. An essay attributed to Joseph Fielding McConkie contains this:

I was present on at least one occasion when President Smith said it. It was a Sunday dinner at our house. My grandfather, Oscar W. McConkie, had asked President Smith if he thought the Lord would allow us to get to other worlds and communicate with the people on them. President Smith indicated that he did not. He reasoned that because the atonement that Christ worked out on this earth applies to all the creations of the Father, that our getting to other worlds and discovering that they had the same Savior and the same plan of salvation would dispense with the necessity of our accepting the gospel on the basis of faith. To dramatize the point he said, "I don't even think the Lord will let men get to the moon."

I concurred with President Smith's reasoning then and do so now. What he said, in my judgement, was right. The illustration he used to dramatize his point has since proven to be in error. It, however, has nothing to do with the point he was making.

6. [Edited to include quote provided in comments below]

"Now I say this is a probationary existence. We are placed here on probation. The people in our land, as well as in foreign lands, are all going crazy over getting to the moon, setting up headquarters there, and so forth. I think the Lord sits in the heavens and laughs at our foolishness. He does not have to do like He did in the days of the building of the Tower of Babel, come down to take a look. But I think he sits in the heavens and smiles at the foolishness of mortal men." ("We Are Here to Be Tried, Tested, Proved," BYU address, October 25, 1961.)

Pres. Smith's skepticism about space travel seems to come from the silence of the scriptures on the matter. He was not the prophet when the statements were made, and his sentiments were apparently common at the time. An additional thing to consider is that some of his commentary was apparently in response to talk of colonizing the moon or other planets. In that regard, his opinon has not been contradicted yet.

It is interesting to note that Pres. Smith seems to have believed that the moon was in some way superior to the earth--perhaps in a non-mortal state. Given the scriptural symbolism, he may have thought that the moon was a terrestrial world (in the sense of the degrees of glory). This may be likely, as will be seen in a forthcoming post.

(FAIR has an article on the nature of prophets that touches on Pres. Smith's view of space travel.)

Continue reading...

Spilling My Guts

I need to be a more efficient blogger. I enjoy digesting and commenting on material, but there is so much it is getting backed up. To increase efficiency I am going to start providing more links with less comment. (You are welcome to comment on the links, of course.) I think this will free me up to digest actual science papers, or compose my thoughts on topics I am more interested in.

So here are some links I've been wanting to pass along.

Continue Reading

This discusses how the evolution of some water insects can be studied by resurrecting old eggs.

PZ Myers has a nice post on how evolution has made the development of certain flies more complex--no extra intelligent designing needed. Read this earlier post on the same topic as well.

At The Panda's Thumb they wonder why the germ theory of disease is not considered a religion by anybody. Meanwhile, PZ Myers brings attention to this crackpot.

Also at The Panda's Thumb is an explanation as to why intelligent design is not science. Even when the folks at the Discovery Institute propose a testable hypothesis, they seem unwilling to acknowledge data that contradicts it. This post lays out a couple of interesting examples.

The ever-interesting Carl Zimmer has two recent posts. First is a discussion of how the different between human and chimpanzee malaria may be connected to the difference in our brain size. Then there is a discussion of essentialism--our brain's tendency to catagorize things--and one of the latest examples of a blurring of lines in biology--this time by a virus.

At National Geographic there are belching cows, problems with CSI (forensics), and the earth's core spins faster than rest of the earth.

John Hawks highlights a new paper that suggests that tuberculosis has been around for a long time.

And finally (via The Panda's Thumb):

In their attempt to show how important and relevant they are to science, the Discovery Institute likes to brag about the 400 scientists that are skeptical about Darwinian evolution. Many of those 400 are not biologists, and the statement that these scientists sign on to says nothing about intelligent design, but those seem to be technicalities to the DI. Anyway, one of those skeptical scientists, Robert Davidson, has withdrawn his name. Apparently he was originally excited about the prospect of bringing science and religion together, but has become disillusioned with the way the DI trashes mainstream science. You can read the article in the Seattle Times.


Whew. My plate's not clean quite yet, but much better.

Continue reading...

"Darwin's Theory...is Wrong."

Could those actually be the words of a real biologist? Yes. Michael Shermer explains in Scientific American.

Continue reading...

Physiologic Basis for Placebo Effect

A new study shows that the placebo effect is not all psychological. ScienceNow reports:

Continue Reading

New research indicates that when people expect a treatment to numb their hurt, their brains release endorphins, the body's own opioid painkillers. Experts say the findings are the first to nail down the molecular basis of the placebo effect.

Scientists have long suspected that placebos tap into opioid circuitry within the brain. Chemical blockades of these circuits abolish the placebo effect, and placebos increase blood flow to areas of the brain rich in opioid receptors. To obtain direct evidence that opioid receptors mediate the placebo response, neuroscientist Jon-Kar Zubieta of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and colleagues used a radioactive tracer molecule that sticks to vacant opioid receptors.

First, the team induced a painful, sustained ache in 14 men by injecting a salt solution into their jaw muscles. The researchers then scanned the subjects' brains using positron emission tomography, which locates the radioactive tracer. During one scan, the researchers offered no relief from the pain. During another, they told the subjects they were administering an experimental drug thought to ease pain, but instead gave only saline. When subjects got the placebo, they experienced a decreased sensitivity to pain, and their brain scans revealed occupied opiate receptors, an indication that opioids had bound to them. "This is not just a psychological phenomenon," says Zubieta, whose team reports its findings 24 August in the Journal of Neuroscience. "It is a real chemical mechanism."

This may not explain all placebo effects, but it is interesting.

The news article provides this link at the FDA for further reading.

Continue reading...

Global Warming: Why Are You Skeptical?

Global warming is not one of my pet issues, although I am becoming more interested in it. Judging strictly from the few conversations I've had with other members of the Church about it, my sense is that Church members tend to disbelieve that humans are causing global warming--or even that the globe is warming at all. Perhaps this is an American phenomenon--maybe the European and/or Asian saints are different. If this skepticism is indeed widespread, I wonder what it is rooted in and I'm hoping you skeptics out there will tell me. I can think of a number of potential reasons:

Continue Reading

1. I have a skeptical attitude toward most of science.
2. It is an issue championed by Democrats, so it is most likely a lie.
3. My favorite conservative talk-radio host doesn't believe it, so I don't.
4. God would not allow humans to cause such problems.
5. God made the earth to be able to take whatever we do to it.
6. I have looked closely at the science and I am just not convinced.
7. Dealing with global warming would involve government regulation of private enterprise, which I oppose.
8. Global warming is a part of the [insert conspiracy here] to dominate [insert object here].
9. If it was a real problem, Pres. Hinckley would alert us to it. Since the Brethren haven't said anything, I'm not worried about it.

You skeptics can comment anonymously if you like--or make up a name so we don't have utter confusion with several different people going by "anonymous". Why are you skeptical about global warming? If we take action (eg. finding alternative energy) what do we lose if human-induced global warming turns out to be wrong?

(BTW, See my last post if you have not already.)

Continue reading...

Christian In-Fighting About Global Warming

Apprently there is some in-fighting occuring among Christians regarding global warming--something that I think will spread. This article (via Chris Mooney) reports:


Continue Reading

Focus on the Family is issuing a strong response to a Christianity Today article that criticizes the organization and others in the evangelical Christian community who remain skeptical about the theory of global warming.

A recent Christianity Today article by Andy Crouch titled "Environmental Wager" argues that Evangelicals need to warm up to the idea that human beings are changing the climate by emitting large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The article takes a specific jab at "groups like Focus on the Family" that claim significant disagreement exists among the scientific community over the validity of the theory when, the author contends, "There is in fact no serious disagreement among scientists that human beings are playing a major role in global warming."

...Earlier this year, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals and about 100 other evangelical leaders issued a statement declaring that global warming is real and the result of mankind's actions. And Crouch, in his article, cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "whose scientific working group was chaired for many years by the evangelical Christian Sir John Houghton," and which concluded in 2001 that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Crouch noted that, according to Houghton, the panel's findings were vetted by more than 100 governments including the United States, and the evangelical science expert himself stated that "No assessments on any other scientific topic have been so thoroughly researched and reviewed."

However, Crouch's article argues that because the global warming theory is difficult to confirm experimentally, those vocal skeptics who question it tend to find a ready audience among evangelical Christians. He posits that this may relate to "another politically loaded issue," that is, the long history of antagonism between biblical faith and evolution.

Here a couple of links on global warming to check out, via RealClimate:

The 2001 IPCC report
The Discovery of Global Warming

Continue reading...

Uncovering Deception

The temperature of the conversation having been somewhat hot for the last couple of days, I'm providing some material to cool down with--an optical illusion. I think I can confidently predict that, unless you have seen this before, you will not believe it.

Here it is:

Continue Reading




You probably cannot believe it. It is impossible--it cannot be true. Well, scroll down and see what happens when I remove everything but the two squares.



You probably still think that I am deceiving you. I invite you to save the image (right-click) and open it in your favorite image software (even Paint, which comes with Windows, will work) and play with it yourself.

What really gets me is that even knowing the truth, I cannot see it correctly.

(The blog citation chain seems to end at Marginal Revolution.)

Continue reading...

Recent Material on Homosexuality

FAIR has a review of the recent Deseret Book offering, In Quiet Desperation: Understanding The Challenge Of Same-gender Attraction.

The Boston Globe has an article, What Makes People Gay?, that I think is worth a read.

IN THE COURSE OF REPORTING THIS STORY, I EXPERIENCED A good deal of whiplash. Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it. Ultimately, I accepted this as unavoidable terrain in the hunt for the basis of sexual orientation. This is, after all, a research field built on underfunded, idiosyncratic studies that are met with full-barreled responses from opposing and well-funded advocacy groups determined to make the results from the lab hew to the scripts they've honed for the talk-show circuit.

The article mentions two recent studies. I blogged about the one regarding pheromones here. A news summary about the one regarding fruit flies is here.

Continue reading...

Harry Potter and Mendelian Genetics

This week's Nature has a letter suggesting that Harry Potter be used to teach genetics.

Wizards or witches can be of any race, and may be the offspring of a wizard and a witch, the offspring of two muggles (’muggle-born’), or of mixed ancestry (’half-blood’).

This suggests that wizarding ability is inherited in a mendelian fashion, with the wizard allele (W) being recessive to the muggle allele (M). According to this hypothesis, all wizards and witches therefore have two copies of the wizard allele (WW). Harry’s friends Ron Weasley and Neville Longbottom and his arch-enemy Draco Malfoy are ‘pure-blood’ wizards: WW with WW ancestors for generations back. Harry’s friend Hermione is a powerful muggle-born witch (WW with WM parents). Their classmate Seamus is a half-blood wizard, the son of a witch and a muggle (WW with one WW and one WM parent). Harry (WW with WW parents) is not considered a pure-blood, as his mother was muggle-born.

In order to try out html tables I was going to do some Punnett squares, but they weren't quite right, and I'm lazy. Do them yourself.

Continue reading...

The Religion of Charles Darwin

[Update: Whoops--I forgot the link. It is fixed.]

Carl Zimmer has posted a discussion of Charles Darwin's views on religion. I recognized much of the material from his book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. (See the sidebar for a link to my review of the book.) It is worth reading--Zimmer beautifully tells a tale of pain and heartbreak which, perhaps, will make some view Darwin in a more human, and understandable, light.

"It is a disservice to Darwin, and to history, to turn his tortured, complex life into a talking point in a culture war."

Bonus: Zimmer briefly responds to Sen. Buttars' op-ed.

Continue reading...

Creationist Distortion: A Case Report, Part 2

In the last post, I described the misleading use of a Science article, "New Ages for the Last Australian Megafauna: Continent-Wide Extinction About 46,000 Years Ago," by a creationist museum. Here I want to highlight some redemptive value: learning in spite of distortion.

Continue Reading

As I scanned over the article my attention focused on this paragraph.

A review of 91 radiocarbon (14C) ages obtained for Australian megafauna before 1995 rejected the vast majority of ages as being unreliable, including all those younger than 28 ka before the present (B.P.). The remaining 14C ages were close to or beyond the practical limits of the technique, or were on materials that had ambiguous associations with the megafaunal remains. Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal older than 35 ka is problematic using conventional sample pretreatments. Consequently, 14C ages were used in this study only for comparison with ages of <50 [thousand years ago] obtained from optical dating of megafauna-bearing sediments and 230Th/234U dating of flowstones formed above and below megafaunal remains. Optical dating is a luminescence-based method that indicates the time elapsed since the sediment grains were last exposed to sunlight. The optical age corresponds to the burial age of megafaunal remains in primary deposition, whereas 230Th/234U dating gives the crystallization age of the flowstone, and thus a constraining age for remains above or below the flowstone. Support for the optical ages reported here is provided by their consistency with the 14C and 230Th/234U ages obtained at megafaunal sites where comparisons have been made. All three methods yield concordant ages within the time range of 14C dating, and beyond this limit the optical and 230Th/234U ages are in good agreement and correct stratigraphic order.

I want to note two things. First, there is discussion about some carbon-14-derived dates as being unreliable. I don't know what the basis of the rejection was, but some creationists cultivate the idea that scientists engage in broad conspiracies to cover up their errors. But who is it that discovers the errors? Any technique has subtlties associated with it and here is a prominent example of a discussion of them.

Second, I had not heard of optical dating before, so I looked around on the internet for an explanation. The basic idea is that electrons in crystals such as quartz get displaced when exposed to ionizing radiation. Light and heat can knock the electrons back into place, which results in a small amount of light being emitted from the crystal. When the crystal is buried, the electrons are not put back in place and the phenomenon accumulates. Under controlled conditions, scientists can expose recovered crystals to light and measure the amount of light emitted, which is proportional to the amount of radiation the crystal has been exposed to. (We all live in an unnoticed sea of background radiation.) By measuring the background radiation at the site the crystal was taken from and determining how much cumulative radiation the crystal was exposed to since burial, the age since its burial can be determined.

This is cross-checked with other radiometric methods, and I'm sure there are subtlties involved. What is beautiful to me is how these kinds of dating methods are derived from basic chemistry and physics and are able to support each other.

So The Museum of Earth History sought to convince me that humans killed of dinosaurs. Instead, they showed me that they abuse the scientific literature and introduced me to a new dating method. I guess thanks are in order.

Continue reading...

Creationist Distortion: A Case Report, Part 1

I was recently reading another blog which provided a link to a creationist museum. Out of curiosity I followed the link and entered the world according to The Museum of Earth History. This is a small museum in Arkansas where the basic idea is to display fossils in a setting consistent with a certain interpretation of the Bible. It gives the appearance of being "scientific"--it is a museum and there are fossils on display, after all. (Other similar museums already exist or are being planned--a trend that I find a little bit disturbing.) There is a webpage that provides information about some of the dinosaur fossils they have. Remarkably, each of them has a "Biblical History Dating" of 10,000 BCE.

Continue Reading

Anyway, I was poking around and was learning about why the dinosaurs became extinct. Of course they claim that the global flood played a role, but according to this museum, Noah saved some young dinosaurs on the ark. What really caught my eye was this passage:

The post-flood effects on all the animals were tremendous: the climate, habitat and continental form were all impacted greatly, making it difficult for animals to survive with the same ease as they did before the flood. Moreover, within 110 years after the flood, the human population began to disperse around the world. Most scientists today believe that human pressure was the most significant factor in animal extinction, including dinosaurs (Science, June 8, 2001, p n1819, 1888-1896). (Emphasis added.)

Oh really? I found that last sentence remarkable in several ways. First, it states that scientists believe that humans were responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Second, this of course means that scientists believe that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous. Third, it attributes most animal extinction to human involvement. (There have been many extinctions in the earth's history, most of them before humans were on the scene. Anyway, I would have thought that they would say the flood was most important.) Finally, an actual reference to a respected scientific journal was provided. Well, I knew that the first three propositions were utterly false (at least if we are talking about mainstream scientists, which the statement implies) but I just had to check out that reference. Would you like to guess what I found?

The pages referenced actually encompass two articles. (Unfortunately you have to have a subscription to access them on the internet. However, you should be able to find Science at your local library.) The second of the two articles reports the results of computer modeling that attempts to determine whether humans could be responsible for the extinction of certain large mammals in North America by over-killing them over 10,000 years ago. (Answer: It is seems that way.) There is no mention of dinosaurs.

The main article of interest here is "New Ages for the Last Australian Megafauna: Continent-Wide Extinction About 46,000 Years Ago," by Richard Roberts, et al. Here is the abstract:

All Australian land mammals, reptiles, and birds weighing more than 100 kilograms, and six of the seven genera with a body mass of 45 to 100 kilograms, perished in the late Quaternary. The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a "blitzkrieg" model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

Translation: All of the native animals in Australia weighing more than 220 pounds (and many of the ones weighing more than 100 pounds) went extinct around 46,400 years ago. One climatic event (Last Glacial Maximum) can be ruled out as the cause, but not other climatic or human impacts.

There is no mention of dinosaurs in the article. The closest thing to a dinosaur is Megalania prisca. There is also a turtle, a snake, and something related to crocodiles--but no dinosaurs. Also of interest is the fact that this paper relies on radiometric dating and determines that the extinction was 46,000 years ago. So in order to buttress their claim that scientists believe that humans are responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs, a paper is referenced that:

1. Makes no mention of dinosaurs.
2. Uses radiometric dating (which these creationists reject) to arrive at its conclusions.
3. Places the date of the extinction at 46,000 years ago, thus ruling out the Last Glacial Maximum (~20,000 years ago) as the cause of extinction. (Apparently these creationists believe that the earth did not exist 46,000 years ago. Certainly they don't believe dinosaurs or humans did.)

In other words, these creationists reject the foundation of the paper while trying to enlist a distortion of its conclusion (and its status as actual science) in support of their views. I think this is called "dishonesty." At the very least it is duplicity, and from what I understand it is not uncommon in creationist literature.


(Note: Actual scientists put the extinction of dinosaurs around 65 million years ago. Anatomically modern humans don't show up until about 200,000 years ago.)

Continue reading...

Sen. Buttars in USA Today

Sen. Chris Buttars recently had an editorial published in USA Today. (I've blogged on Buttars before here, here and here. If I have to cover him any more, I'm going to put a link to all my posts on him on the sidebar.)

Here is the meat of the editorial:

Continue Reading

These vehement critics claim that there are mountains of scientific proof that man evolved from some lower species also related to apes. But in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, in all these "mountains of information," there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man.

The trouble with the "missing link" is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing! The theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub.

I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.

Well, fossil evidence is only one component to the issue. Nevertheless, I'm no paleontologist, but I wonder how Buttars would respond to something like this?

Continue reading...

Pretty Much My Favorite Animal

From National Geographic News:

It's half lion, half tiger, and completely real. Now thanks to a cameo in the 2004 cult movie Napoleon Dynamite, the liger has leaped into the limelight, prompting fans to ask, What are they really like?

Continue reading...

Where are the Conservatives?

Recently, in response to a question, President Bush made some remarks that seem to support teaching intelligent design in public schools. This has resulted in fertilizer hitting the fan, so to speak. I don't have hard numbers, but I think it would be safe to say that the majority of scientists are Democrats--certainly it seems that the blogging ones are. As a result, I think their politics are exacerbating their anger in this case.

Continue Reading

John Hawkes analyzes the situation with a cool head. I think he makes some excellent points. His post is a bit long, so he provided an abstract.

ABSTRACT: Here, I argue that Bush's comments, while damaging to the cause of evolution education, are representative of most Americans' opinions. They reflect our public discourse, which emphasizes fairness. Being (or appearing) fair is much more important to the vast majority of Americans than knowing about the scientific method. Intelligent design creationism violates the scientific method in many ways, but most people neither understand nor care about this: this objection is perceived as "a technicality" rather than a fair division of content. For many years, science and religion have operated in "separate spheres" as a compromise, but the boundary between these has been greatly weakened. The best argument against including intelligent design in schools is that it simply doesn't work: it has led to no new insights, no discoveries, and no scientific results. Creationists continue to argue that this is because of widespread bias among the scientific community. I suggest the establishment of a monetary prize to find solid evidence of intelligent design, along the lines of the "X Prize" in aeronautics, or the "Millennium Prizes" in mathematics. If, as I expect, no evidence of intelligent design comes forward, it would be a solid step toward raising public awareness that ID has no place in the science classroom.

On the other hand, PZ Myers feels that, if anything, he has not been passionate enough.

I am a biologist. Like it or not, the Republican party is being led by religious zealots who are anti-biology, who publicly and vigorously oppose reason and knowledge and evidence in my field of study. This hasn't always been true, and it may not always be true (I hope), but right now and right here, it is inarguably the case. I will not throttle my criticisms of the despicable gang of anti-intellectuals who run this country because it might irritate all those millions of people who voted for George W. Bush; they were wrong and he is wrong and it is my responsibility as a scientist to oppose ignorance, especially ignorance that has power and influence. Let them find comfort and forgiveness for stupid mistakes in their religion, because I sure as hell am not going to give it to them.

I don't know what the answer is. Just as there are professional anti-Mormons who persist in spreading falsehoods no matter what contrary evidence is provided, there are professional creationists who will never stop doing the same to legitimate science. There is no winning over these people. What might help, however, is for religious conservatives who support science to speak up in greater numbers. They might be able to reach people in a way that many scientists cannot. This would give more opportunity for the average church-goer to say, "Well, I don't know about all that science stuff, but Mr. Jones is a great guy and he opposes teaching creationism and ID as alternatives to evolution. Maybe science isn't so bad after all."

Is there such a thing as a Repulican pro-science organization? (And I don't mean pro-science to the extent that the science supports the party platform.) I'm not aware of one. Maybe one should be created.

Continue reading...

It's Not Just the Liberals

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer has written a piece in Time arguing that faith, including intellignet design, should be kept out of science classes because it undermines the progress of bringing religion back into the public arena. Here are the first and last paragraphs:

Continue Reading

The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it. (Emphasis added.)

It seems to me that the popular culture war is being fought with winner-takes-all mentality, which I think is a mistake--for both sides.

(I try to keep LDS-SR free from politics. I will just note that in spite of what some readers may think, I do lean politically conservative and I am glad to see that there are other conservatives who share my lack of enthusiasm for the religious assault on science.)

Continue reading...

Gene Regulation and Morphology

There is an essay in the July issue of PLoS Biology by Sean Carroll discussing evolution of morphology by changes in gene regulation, as opposed to changes to the gene sequence itself. (Dr. Carroll has written a book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, which I plan to read.)

Although changes in genes get a lot of attention, some scientists think that the changes are not great enough to explain major morphological differences. Instead, Carroll argues that it is they way the genes are used that makes the difference. This may especially be true for genes that are used in a variety of tissues. It is one thing to mutate a gene that will be used in different ways in a number of tissues, and it is another to simply turn the gene on or off in a subset of those tissues.

Continue Reading

I think the main point of the essay is captured in this paragraph:

While we are often able to infer coding sequence function from primary sequences, we are generally unable to decipher functional properties from mere inspection of non-coding sequences. This has led to a bias in comparative genomics and evolutionary genetics toward the analysis and reporting of readily detectable events in coding regions, such as gene duplications and protein sequence evolution, while non-coding, regulatory sequences are often ignored. However, approximately two-thirds of all sequences under purifying selection in our genome are non-coding. One consequence of the underconsideration of non-coding, regulatory sequences is unrealistic expectations about what can currently be learned about the genetic basis of morphological diversity from comparisons of genome sequences alone. The visible diversity of any group is not reflected by the most visible components of gene diversity—that is, the diversity of gene number or of coding sequences. In order to understand the evolution of anatomy, we have to study and understand regulatory sequences, as well as the proteins that connect them into the regulatory circuits that govern development. (Emphasis added.)

The essay cites several examples in support of his argument, and those examples are captured in several figures. We'll look at two of them here.

Figure 1


The top line in this figure is a generic schematic of a stretch of DNA containing a gene. The black boxes represent portions of a gene. Our genes are usually broken up into several segments ("exons"). When the DNA is copied into RNA, the extra junk in between ("introns") is spliced out. The arrow indicates where the gene starts, and the red circle represents a section of DNA that helps regulate whether the gene is expressed or not. (A) shows what can happen when a gene is duplicated--the normal gene and regulation are retained while either the duplicated gene or its regulation can change due to mutaitons. This is thought to preserve the normal function of the gene while allowing nature to experiment with the duplicate. (B) shows only the regulatory region being duplicated and changed so that the original function is maintained, but with additional regulatory potential. Finally, (C) shows the development of a new exon which allows the gene to be spliced in different ways, thus increasing the functional capability of the gene.

Figure 2


(A) shows that differences in regulation of the gene, yellow, are responsible for differences in pigment pattern between two species of Drosophila (fruit fly). (B) shows that "the expression of the Pitx1 gene of vertebrates is inferred to be controlled by multiple elements (red circles). In pelvic-reduced stickleback fish, Pitx1 expression is absent from the pelvic region. This is proposed to occur through a selective loss of activity of the hindlimb regulatory element (cross through the red circle)."

The same gene, Pitx1, also plays a role in mouse hindlimb development (and presumably all vertebrates) as well as other critical aspects of development. (Deletion of the gene is lethal.) The scenario represented by Figure 2B makes it easier to imagine how snakes and whales lost (or mostly lost) their legs and pelvis. It wasn't (just) mutation of genes--it was a change in they way the genes were deployed. (Note: I don't think that it is yet known whether Pitx1 was involved in snakes or whales losing their legs, but that is beside the point.) I hope the book has more of these kinds of examples.

For more learned commentary, see here and here.

Continue reading...