Southerton Responds to FARMS Review

Simon Southerton has responded to Ryan Parr's review of Losing a Lost Tribe in the latest FARMS Review. (hat-tip to Justin B.) I've read both documents, but I am somewhat hampered by the fact that I lack any specialized training in genetics or anthropology, nor have I been able to delve into most of the references contained in each document. I also have not read Southerton's book. So I'll just provide my impression.

Continue Reading

As far as the issues of science go, I think Southerton probably has the upper hand. Parr himself says that Southerton has presented the genetic picture accurately, and I'm not aware of any other LDS scientists who have disputed this. Like Southerton, I too wondered what the paper on fish had to do with Parr's point, and as I expressed previously, I was concerned about Parr's use of the word "coalescence." I did find a source that seemded to vindicate Parr, but clearly Southerton thinks that Parr used the wrong word. Perhaps who is right on this point is not significant.

If Southerton presents the main science correctly, then the argument is really about whether the Book of Mormon scenario is feasible given different assumptions (i.e. limited geography) and finding analogous situations elsewhere. Another secondary point of contention is whether Mormon theology is flexible enough to accommodate those assumptions.

My initial impression is that Southerton is strong on the science but weak on theology. That is, I think he underestimates the ability of the church members to adjust to demonstrated facts. It is a little ironic that elsewhere he has said that he went public on this issue to force the Church to change, but then argues that it cannot change. I think this passage is a manifestation of this kind of thinking:

During his undergraduate and graduate studies, Parr would have become aware of the considerable archaeological, anthropological, and now molecular evidence that the North American continent was widely populated at least 13,500 years ago and that the original Asian ancestors arrived in the continent in excess of 15,000 years ago. Because of Parr's church experience, he will also be aware that many readers of the FARMS Review are unprepared to accept such early dates for the colonization of the Americas...Parr deftly avoids mentioning the presence of people in the Americas as long as 13,500 years ago, an admission that would only raise further questions among many Latter-day Saint readers.

My guess is that he underestimates readers of FARMS. After all, it has been pointed out in a previous FARMS publication that the very fact that the model of colonization involves such ancient dates undercuts the criticism of fundamentalist anti-Mormons.

I must say I was surprised by this statement:

In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America's past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research.

How is it that Southerton only relatively recently arrived at his new-found skepticism? Either Southerton is not quite honest or his was the faith of a sweet innocent boy. I've known since at least I was a teenager that the Smithsonian does not use the Book of Mormon as a research guide--a fact not infrequently pointed out in anti-Mormon literature, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone affirm otherwise. Regarding archaeological evidence--well that is probably a nuanced issue that cannot be dealt with here.

Taking him at his word, I think he does raise a legitimate point--and that is that both apologists and members must be careful. Apologists should make their best case, but be careful not to over-reach. Members need to build their faith on the right foundation and maintain an element of skepticism--even regarding the apologists.

Whether Southerton, Murphy, FARMS, or FAIR, we need to make sure each stays honest in this debate.

Continue reading...

Science Blog Deluge

Bloggable material has been raining down upon me for the last couple of days, and I've been unable to respond to any of it. Here is a weak attempt with hope that I can come back and fill in a little more later.

Continue Reading

First up is the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial. It made big headlines so most of you are probably somewhat familiar with it. The judge (a G.W. Bush appointee) came down hard against the ID side. His opinion is 139 pages long. If I don't get any of the books I want for Christmas, maybe I'll get it all read. The Panda's Thumb is all over the decision.

Next is a new article at Meridian Magazine by John Pratt. There has been some discussion of this article at Millenial Star. I'll save some time in my response by saying this: what he said.

Let me also say that I find myself in agreement with Pratt on a number of things. For example:

To me the universe is a big puzzle that the Lord expects us to solve as best we can with scientific methods. The scriptures are like the answers to the odd numbered problems at the back of the book, which we should learn from because they were written by the great Teacher. When the Savior returns, he might correct our papers when he reveals just how the creation really was done. At that time there could very well be a lot of surprises because many things have been "hidden" from us (D&C 101:32-33). Hidden means they were not observable, and hence "unscientific," but they were true just the same. When they are revealed, they will become "scientific."

I also agree that there may be other forces or laws that we don't know of. That's fine, it's just that science cannot do anything with such things. But in the meantime, don't the workings of physics, genetics, molecular biology, and germ theory counts as things that have been hidden?

You know, for as dogmatic as scientists are supposed to be, when you look at leading textbooks and the scientific literature you find a lot of careful wording. Things like "it is presumably," "it is thought that," "it is still unclear," and so forth.

I think I'm going to cut this post off here, because the next item deserves a post of its own.

Continue reading...

Animals, Men, and the U.S. Constitution

(via Evolutionblog) Here is something interesting from the Eagle Forum, the right-wing organization that Utah senator Chris Buttars is involved with.

Continue Reading

Fact v. Fiction #1: Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians — but also evolutionists who label themselves "theistic evolutionists" — argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?

Fact v. Fiction #2: Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled. There are additional "Fictions" being hurled by evolutionists against creationism, and we will consider these in our next "Briefing." As the battle moves into the courtroom again, WE MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THE TRUTH! (all emphasis in original)

Deep thinkers, those Eagle Forum folks are. They might want to have a talk with medical schools that use animals to illustrate principles of [non-animal] human physiology, or scientists who test drugs on animals with the bizarre notion that the results might apply to [non-animal] humans.

But the preceeding passage brings up something of interest to me, and that is religious attitudes toward the U.S. Constitution. I'm not much of a political philosopher; mostly I just listen to talk radio and read the news. On the conservative side, especially the among the religious right, you hear a lot about God's inspiration behind the Constitution, something I accept. However, some people treat it as if it was dictated by God on Mount Sinai and almost raise it to the status of inerrant scripture. This presumably feeds the originalist--living constitution divide. Stories (folk stories?) like the one of Benjamin Franklin advising the drafters to pray probably contribute to this view.

Imagine my suprise when I read this passage in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling:

Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards and president of Yale College, had not long before lamented that the United States formed its Constitution "without any acknowledgement of GOD; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even his existence." How could the nation not be "a smoke in the nostrils of JEHOVAH."

So how is it that Dwight viewed the Constitution as an abomination but today's religious-right elevate it to near-scripture status? Can anybody recommend a treatment of the history of religious views of the U.S. Constitution?

Continue reading...

A New Mormon Dichotomy

Carl Zimmer has an essay in the New York Times where he describes an experiment his daughter participated in. The objective of the experiment was to compare how humans and chimpanzees learn. The upshot is this: when a treat is placed inside a clear box and the subjects (human or chimp) are shown how to open the box, but with extra superfluous steps involved, children will go through the extra steps while chimps cut to the chase and just open the box. The interpretation is that humans often learn through imitation; chimps don't.

So what's a Mormon spin to this?

Continue Reading

Well it strikes me that Church is a big exercise in imitation. The concept of example permeates just about everything we do. We are to act like Jesus, follow the Brethren, we have ordinances (rituals) and perform them in a certain way, we illustrate principles with stories, our scriptures and history have many examples of doing things for unknown reasons, and so forth. But we also realize that just "going through the motions" is not satisfactory and that our imitation should lead to genuine behavior and character, otherwise it is dead work.

It seems to me that imitation has advantages in that it helps us to get started on the path of gaining certain attributes and gives focus to our actions. Yet it can also be unhelpful and even harmful, even in a Church or gospel setting. Sometimes there is something to be said for the chimpanzee method of skipping the imitating and going straight for a result. A question we often face, even if we don't ordinarily think of it this way, is whether to imitate or not.

And so, allow me to add to the Mormon dichotomies: Iron Rod vs. Liahona, Internet vs. Chapel (I'm not even sure I know what that one means), and Humans vs. Chimps, or in other words, Imitators vs. Agents.

Continue reading...

Zion is Fled...from the Gulf of Mexico

In sacrament meeting today, a woman stated authoritatively that the City of Enoch was located where the Gulf of Mexico is, and that the city and the land under it was plucked up--which is why the Gulf of Mexico exists. The first time I heard this idea was in seminary back in high school. Since then--well I'm not sure I've ever heard it since. I decided to see what I could find on where it comes from.

Continue Reading

The only documentary evidence I found comes from Wilford Woodruff's journal. This entry is a two-for-one.

March 30, 1873: At evening prayer circle: President Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri, and when Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden, he went about 40 miles to the place which he named Adam ondi Ahman, and there built an alter of stone and offered sacrifice. That altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it, as did many others, and through all the revolutions of the world, that alter had not been disturbed. Joseph also said that when the City of Enoch fled and was translated, it was where the gulf of Mexico now is; it left that gulf a body of water (emphasis added - LDSSR).

Assuming Joseph did say such a thing, it is unclear whether he meant the whole Gulf of Mexico (~615,000 square miles). Another issue to consider is that the Gulf of Mexico as we know it did not form until after the break-up of Pangaea (see below).

An article in the March 1913 Improvement Era expressed this opinion:

It matters little whether one believes Joseph Smith...said the city of Enoch was taken out of the Gulf of Mexico, or that he was scientifically and historically accurate in every statement; but it makes a vital difference whether or not one believes that Joseph Smith was the prophet of this latter day dispensation, and the revealer of mighty truths for the exaltation of man.

Agreed.

Continue reading...

Pacifier Greatly Reduces Risk of SIDS

Take that, you bink snobs!

A new study has found that use of a pacifier during sleep reduced the chances of a baby suffering from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) by 90 percent. Furthermore, pacifiers eliminated the increased risk associated with babies who slept on their stomach or in soft bedding--factors that have been shown to increase the risk of SIDS as much as 10-fold.

Continue reading...

Tarrying in the Flesh

The New York Times has an interview with Michael R. Rose, an evolutionary biologist who has been able to alter the life spans of fruit flies through selective breeding. Here are some excerpts:

Continue Reading

Q. Why do scientists need to embrace evolution to do longevity research?

A. Because the common assumption is that young bodies work and then they fall apart during aging. Young bodies only work because natural selection makes them healthy enough to survive and breed.

As adults get older, natural selection stops caring about them, so we lose its benefits and our health. If you don't understand this, aging research is an unending riddle that goes around in circles.

Q. You are known in the genetics world for manipulating the life span of fruit flies. Can you describe your very famous experiment?

A. My experiment was to let my flies reproduce only at late ages. This forced natural selection to pay attention to the survival and reproductive vigor of the flies through their middle age.

The flies evolved longer life spans and greater reproduction over the next dozen generations. This showed that natural section was really the ultimate controller of aging, not some piece of biochemistry.

Q. Why was it important to manipulate the life spans of fruit flies?

A. Because it showed that aging isn't some general breakdown process, like the way cars rust. Aging is an optional feature of life. And it can be slowed or postponed.

This implies that controlling human aging does not require the violation of some absolute scientific law. Postponing human aging is not like building a perpetual motion machine or faster-than-light space travel. It is a scientifically reasonable thing to try.

This doesn't mean it will be easy, or even that it is the best thing to do with our medical resources. But it's not a completely crazy idea.

----

Q. What will it take to increase human life span from present levels?

A. There's not going to be one magic bullet where you take one pill or manipulate one gene and get to live to 500. But you could take a first step, and then another so that in 50 years' time, people take 50 or 60 pills and they live to be 200.

Leaving aside F.D.A. approval, it looks like we are about 5 to 10 years away from therapies that would add years to our present life span. For now, pharmaceuticals will be the primary anti-aging therapy.

After another 10 years or so, the implantation of cultured tissues will become common - especially skin and connective tissues. Reconstructive surgery is certain to become more effective than it is today.

Eventually, we will be able to culture replacement organs from our own cells and repair damage using nanotech machines. All of this will increase life span.

Q. What does religion have to say about all this tinkering with life span?

A. That depends on the religion. About five years ago I was at a meeting convened by the Templeton Foundation to address the ethical question of postponing human aging, and in particular, the possibility of biological immortality, as opposed to immortality in heaven.

And the Christian theologians at this meeting were clearly horrified whereas the Jewish theologian was saying, "Yes, we like this."

In East Asian cultures, you have a split between the Confucian tradition, which is very much for self-sacrifice, versus the Taoist tradition, which very much espouses the idea of living longer. So there's this split there, too.

The evolutionary explanation of aging is quite interesting, but that's not my focus here. The question of the moment is to what degree should we extend life? Certainly death is a part of the plan of salvation; we would be miserable without it, according to Alma. On the other hand, probably few people actually want to die. If we gain the ability to extend life--quality life, should we? I'm not against it in principle, but there would certainly be economic and other ramifications. Do we want to start regularly living to, say, 120 years?

Continue reading...

Church Policies: Euthanasia and Prolonging Life

This is part of a series of posts containing information on Church policies on medical and scientific issues.

Euthanasia:
"A person who participates in euthanasia--deliberately putting to death a person suffering from incurable conditions or diseases--violates the commandments of God."


Prolonging Life:
"When severe illness strikes, Church members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be looked upon as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable."

(CHI 11-5 and 11-6, 1989, as quoted in "Policies, Practices, and Procedures" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.)

Continue reading...

Duane Jeffery's SSE: A Continuing Dialogue

Duane Jeffery's article, "Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface" is essential reading for anyone interested in the history of the relationship between science (especially evolution) and the Church. It appeared in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 8 No. 3, and is available here and here. What appears to be less well-known is that several issues later (Vol. 9 No. 3) another article was published titled, "Seers, Savants and Evolution: A Continuing Dialogue." (Available here.)

This second article consists of three letters responding to the first article followed by Duane Jeffery's response to the letters. Although written over three decades ago, much of the article is just as applicable now--some of it, perhaps, more so. It is worth reading and I am providing some of my favorite excerpts here along with a few comments of my own.

Continue Reading

Prophetic Infallibility

On all of the above issues [concerning creation scriptures] (and many others), no matter which interpretation one may accept, one is forced to reject at least some teachings of some prophets. The pain in that process stems purely from the erroneous doctrine of prophetic infallibility. Even Joseph Smith, whom we traditionally view as closest of all in his intimacy with God, openly rejected the idea. Others of his successors have done likewise (cf. "SSE," fn. 6). We must internalize the validity of that rejection; the doctrine of prophetic infallibility is foreign to Mormonism.

On the Atonement

Mr. Eatough represents that evolution (he does not qualify it; it appears that he means any form of it, fully-theistic or otherwise) negates the atonement. I have heard this assertion many times over the years; but for the first time I can now openly query the writer: why? Please reflect very carefully on what the atonement is and does, and then tell me why. But I serve warning in advance: the usual arguments given in LDS literature are not firmly based. Be very very careful of your steps; that originally solid-looking footing turns rapidly to a morass of quicksand.

As far as I am aware, Jeffery has never publically elaborated on this point. I would like to know his insight here, but I think I may have some idea as to what he means.

The Alternative, Design

Unfortunately...there are people, and they are not at all rare, who do deny that any form of evolutionary processes occur, who sincerely feel that if they admit the validity of even one tiny piece of evolutionary biology, they will have permitted into their religious values the tip of a wedge which cannot be stopped and which they view with near horror. (We have Church writings which bolster that belief!) Every semester I meet a number of students who are very uncomfortable with the development of pesticide resistance in mosquitoes, warfarin resistance in rats, etc. Though some person will assert that these incontrovertible developments via mutation and selection have nothing at all to do with real evolution, still these trivialities cause considerable discomfort to many of our people. It is a deeply sincere position. And what do such persons offer as an alternative to explain the incredible adaptation visible in nature? Design—pure, thorough, and simple. As before, I make no attempt to pursue that question in depth (cf. "SSE," p. 44, and fn. 10). The Snows appear cognizant of the limitations of the position, and specifically circumvent it; from their point of reference the word "capricious" is quite probably inapplicable. But I doubt that theirs is the prevailing belief in the Church; even our current Family Home Evening manual comes dangerously close to falling into the trap. For trap it is, and an old one. Indeed, it was right on this issue that Darwin the clergy candidate got his start on wondering about species—and, interestingly, his response provides an excellent case-example of the very kind of thing Brigham Young was extolling (in his quote, p. 49, fn. 36, "SSE"). Under those intense concepts of design, capriciousness is really a very mild word, even an understatement. Sociology and history, for starters, readily establish the point, without even beginning to invoke the detail of biology. It is the posit of intense design that bestows such problems, of course, and it was to that that my remarks were directed. I infer that the Snows find capriciousness in God to be intensely repugnant; I share their disdain. It seems time, then, that we eschew those peripheral doctrines which inescapably confer it on Him. Nature's adhering to a design by a benevolent being may well exist, but the concept seems to be not defensible on the level at which it is so often claimed.

Yes, that was all one paragraph.

On Understanding

...Eatough seems to feel that if I show any sensitivity at all to any form of evolution, I am thereby a fellow-traveller with, and a brazen champion of, the extreme anti-religious element, that I am demanding total and unconditional religious capitulation. That is his inference, not my implication, and totally contrary to the entire message of my article. Contrary to his assertion, I did not spell out any specific view of evolution in the entire article; other reviewers have rightly noted that point. I am a biologist, yes; a geneticist, yes, and I have access to all the flexibility of data interpretation that exists in those fields, but in this arena I am not bound by many of their limitations. The game we are playing in this search for truth is one of synthesis, not one contrived of extreme religionists on one hand and extreme anti-religionists on the other, each shouting epithets but never listening.

Explaining Facts

[W]hile I would not begin to claim that we can understand all of God's direct actions—indeed I assert that we cannot even identify them all—I do maintain that it is folly to characterize Him in such a way that He becomes duplicitous and/or irrational. And that is precisely what he becomes with virtually all of the anti-evolution arguments with which I am familiar. For, invoking a critical point not heavily made by the Snows, whatever method "God used" must eventually square with all the "factual" data...And when we adopt such a test (comprehensiveness of explanation, etc.) the superiority (n.b., I do not say "absolute truth,") of hypotheses which propose that some form of theistic evolution was involved becomes quickly apparent; the others, so far as I have observed, place God in an untenable position. For example, it seems to me quite reliable to "believe" that fossils exist. Their interpretation may well merit discussion; it seems to me that their legitimacy as remnants of previously-living organisms really does not. Evolutionary biology, of course, makes an attempt—a very good one—to explain them. Among others, one prominent anti-evolutionary commentator of high LDS rank had another explanation: "Well, of course we know that Satan just put those things there to deceive us." I cannot but wonder if persons who postulate this idea fully realize how widespread fossils are. They are found through and through virtually every major land mass known—if Satan really made all that, who then is the Creator of the earth? If nature indeed testifies of diety (a long-standing and still-in-vogue theological injunction), of which "diety" does it thus testify? And what is its testimony? For if the hypothesis be accepted, then God is a party to this by allowing such a monumental hoax, and indeed we have conferred on Him duplicity of truly staggering proportions! A witness of that sort, it appears to me, God can well do without.

Of course, the key claim of the Intelligent Design movement is that we can identify God's direct actions. Like Jeffery, I believe it to be a doubtful claim. But he makes a larger point here that is often lost: The "factual" data, not just from paleontology, but a number of fields including comparative genomics and developmental biology, must be accounted for somehow. LDS writers often invoke the Fall as somehow explaining what we see, but such an "explanation" is as vague as explaining the classical trinitarian God as a "mystery," nor does it come free from the problems with intense design mentioned above.

Continue reading...

BYU Scientists Convert Matter Into Mormonism

My brother sent me this article from the Onion. It's more silly than funny, in my opinion, but you might crack a smile.

BYU Scientists Convert Matter Into Mormonism

Continue reading...

Mexican Footprints: Not Likely

Earlier this year some scientists claimed to have found footprints preserved in Mexico dating to 40,000 years ago. These would pre-date the accepted dates for the first humans in America by over 20,000 years.

A brief report in this week's Nature casts doubt on the footprints. Using two dating techniques, including argon isotope analysis, the actual volcanic ash that the supposed footprints were preserved in dated to 1.3 million years ago. This date pre-dates the earliest Homo sapien fossils (found in Africa) by over a million years. Apparently the first group of scientists used carbon dating on material above the footprints, which is not reliable past 40,000 years.

It is formally possible that the footprints were those of an early Homo species, but without further evidence it is considered unlikely. These authors conclude that most likely, they are not really footprints.

news@nature.com summary

Continue reading...