Posts
All Comments
Lincoln Cannon, of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, is embarking on a multi-post review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. I have not yet read the book, though I am broadly familiar with his arguments. Anyway, I'm betting that Lincoln's treatment will be interesting. The link to the first post is below, and I may collect the others here as well.
Part 1
Part 2
In time for Halloween, Skeptical Inquirer has an article that takes a critical look at ghosts, vampires, and zombies of folklore and film. Here is something I learned: the concept of zombies has some surprising (for me) reality behind it.
Happy Halloween!
It may surprise you, but the phrase "after their own kind" is not found in the scriptures. I can't find it anywhere; not in Genesis or anywhere else. For all of the talk about the scriptures teaching that all life was to reproduce after its own kind, you would think that the phrase would exist, but it doesn't. You can find "after [their/his] kind," but never "own kind." (I am happy to be corrected, if anybody finds it.)
Am I nit-picking? The scriptures teach the basic idea, right? Well, the best examples come in the discussions of grass and trees with their seeds and fruit. The most explicit is Abraham 4:11-12 with "...the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth...
But when it comes to animal life, it is always the earth or waters bringing forth the animals "after [their/his] kind." Does this mean the same thing?
...whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind;"
Maybe, but I think there are several reasons to think otherwise. First, I think the phrase could easily be read to mean "according to their similar varieties." In support of this I quote from Genesis 7:14 regarding animals entering Noah's ark:They [Noah's family], and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
(See also Genesis 6:20) This language clearly refers to groups of similar animals rather than the perpetuation of essential types.
Second, as I've said before, these passages seem to be at home with spontaneous generation. Whether or not the ancient Hebrews believed in spontaneous generation is irrelevant. The point is that our mind fills in the unstated assumption that the animals accumulated via reproduction. It seems quite possible that an ancient mind would fill in different assumptions.
Third, if you follow the Smith/McConkie school of thought, these passages cannot refer to reproduction. This is because both Joseph Fielding Smith[1] and Bruce R. McConkie[2] claimed that, like humans, animals could not reproduce until after the Fall. Given that, Moses and Abraham were apparently not describing the reproduction of animals.
Actually, this whole discussion seems superfluous because nobody--including biologists--disputes the basic observation that offspring are like their parents, and I view Genesis (and related scriptures) as a representation, rather than an account, of Creation. My main point is that a phrase commonly attributed to the scriptures does not exist, and--secondarily--that some passages presumed to be equivalent to that phrase can be easily interpreted differently.
References:
1. Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. V, p. 116.IF there was any creature increasing by propagation before the fall, then throw away the Book of Mormon, deny your faith, the Book of Abraham and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants!
2. Bruce R. McConkie, "Christ and the Creation", Ensign, Jun 1982, p. 9.This command [be fruitful and multiply]—as with a similar decree given to man and applicable to all animal life—they [fish and fowl] could not then keep, but they soon would be able to do so.
Speaking of BYU professor Jack Sites, he was profiled in the Winter 2003 (as Justin pointed out) and Winter 2004 issues of BYU Magazine. Back in June 1986 his research was highlighted in BYU Today (a forerunner of BYU Magazine), and the article mentioned evolution. Paul C. Richards, a former director of Public Communications at BYU, recalled a letter that the university received in response.I am not only embarrassed but concerned almost to anger that our church university would support the activities and theories such as those of Dr. Jack W. Sites whose article appears on page 15. His work is funded in part by the church, meaning by the members' tithing.
The editor responded with a polite and somewhat conciliatory letter. Unsatisfied, the complainant responded with a letter containing the usual arguments of, creation took 6,000 years, no death before the Fall, and reproduction of life-forms after their own kind.
How can an activity antagonistic to the gospel truth of reproduction only after its own kind, as well as the very clear teaching of our Latter-Day Prophets...be sanctioned by BYU.Truth is truth, whether simplistic and perhaps naive to "the world" or not. Why shouldn't Dr. Sites and BYU rather be using our church resources to disprove evolution?
The writer also sent a letter to the president of the Church (Ezra Taft Benson).Since I cannot understand, accept, nor resolve in my mind what BYU is doing in this area, my Priesthood leader, not understanding it either, suggested I write to you.... How can BYU conduct research to prove speciation through "evolution" when the scriptures and our Prophets and Apostles teach that these are erroneous philosophies of men?
Although there may have been others, Richards only remembered complaints from this one individual.
President, I thoroughly support the inspired leadership of the Church by yourself and all general authorities.
Reference:
Paul C. Richards, "Does Paying Tithing Make You a Voting Shareholder? Brigham Young University's Worldwide Board of Trustees," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 26, Number 3, Fall 1993.
I noticed at BYU Speeches, that you can sort by topic, so I decided to check out what 'science' speeches they have. It's pretty slim pickings; not all of the speeches are freely available (as html or mp3), and some of the talks are not really about science. Below are a few of the speeches I liked.
1. Discovering Truth (Eyring, Henry B.) This is probably the best of the 'spiritual' speeches. Many of these types of talks are built according to the formula of "secular learning is great and all, but here's what is really important." This talk treats both science and spirituality with (genuine, I think) respect.
2. Herpetology, Biodiversity, and Human Well-Being (Sites, Jack W.) This is a straight-up science talk--a rarity, unfortunately. The occasion appears to be his winning of the Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Faculty Award. Even without visuals, I liked it and thought it was worth listening to. (For some reason I'm thinking that Jack Sites is not LDS. Does anyone know?)
3. Exploding Stars, Expanding Universe (Moody, J. Ward) This is also fairly straightforward science. Since the introduction is by Merrill J. Bateman, my guess is that this was a "Forum" speech. (Those are campus speeches given in the slot of the weekly Devotional, but that are not focused on gospel living.)
4. Was Einstein Wrong? The Difference Between Things We Don't Know and Things We Can't Know. (Turley, R. Steven) This one is about quantum mechanics. It is a little difficult to follow without the visuals, especially during the thought experiments. Just as Lehi used the qualities of a valley to teach his sons how they should behave, toward the end of the talk some parallels are drawn between quantum mechanics and how we should live. (I think they are a little distracting, and listeners should beware the naturalistic fallacy.) Toward the beginning of the talk, he says that he likes science because nature is God's handiwork. I think it's great that he feels that way. Sometimes I get the feeling that perhaps such statements are almost an apology for why an LDS person would be interested in science--as though nature is only interesting insofar as it reflects God's greatness, but does not merit study in and of itself. Maybe that is one reason why Dr. Sites's talk was one of my favorites. It just assumes that reptiles are worth studying and discussing.
I'll post this without comment. Read the whole article if you are interested.
Abstinence until marriage has emerged as a primary policy goal in efforts to promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health—in the United States and increasingly world-wide. While few would argue with abstinence as a personal choice (no one should be forced to have sex), there are serious questions about whether government promotion of abstinence should be a public health goal. Marriage is not free of HIV risk. Early marriage—particularly of young women to older, sexually experienced men—carries a substantial risk of HIV infection. Around the globe, a young woman's primary risk of HIV infection is often through sex with her husband [1].
Sexual intercourse is almost universally initiated during adolescence worldwide. By age 20, 77% of young people in the US have initiated sex, and 76% have had premarital sex [2]. By age 25, over 90% people have had sex, with only about 3% waiting for marriage. Over the past 40 years, the median age at first intercourse has dropped (and stabilized) to age 17 in most developed countries [3]. Even more dramatic, however, has been the increasing age at marriage. In the United States, between 1970 and 2002 the median age at first sex for young women fell from 19 to 17 years, while the median age at marriage rose from 20 to 25 [4]. These enormous demographic changes stand in sharp contrast to the modest impact of health education in promoting abstinence or the small decline during the 1990s in sexual activity.
If you like science and technology and are interested in their potential to better the human race, then you might be interested in the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA). The MTA was formed by a group of LDS (and some non-LDS) who see technology as playing a role in the fulfillment of prophecy, especially as it concerns the health, longevity, capacity, and immortality of humans. As outlined in their affirmation:(1) We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive.
(2) We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end.
(3) We feel a duty to use science and technology according to wisdom and inspiration, to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with future advances, and to persuade others to do likewise.
The MTA wrote an article for the March 2007 Sunstone that outlines their ideas. Transhumanist terminology can seem strange: neo-humans, post-humans, technological singularity, and so forth. But if you read the article, I think you will find that the authors did a good job of relating such science fiction to the gospel and things you already believe. Even if you can't see yourself adopting transhumanist ideas, I think you will find the article interesting, and perhaps even faith promoting.
For convenience, below is the Transhumanist Declaration of the World Transhumanist Association, with which the MTA is affiliated.(1) Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.
(2) Systematic research should be put into understanding these coming developments and their long-term consequences.
(3) Transhumanists think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it.
(4) Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations.
(5) In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological capabilities. It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. On the other hand, it would also be tragic if intelligent life went extinct because of some disaster or war involving advanced technologies.
(6) We need to create forums where people can rationally debate what needs to be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
(7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform
General Conference wasn't too shabby for science, as far as GCs go. I noted two things:
1. Henry B. Eyring was called into the First Presidency. He has an undergraduate background in physics, experience in social sciences, and, of course, is the son of Henry Eyring. His online biography states: It was in this laboratory of a home where President Eyring learned to cherish learning, and where his dad taught that science and religion were not mutually exclusive.
I would have sustained whoever was called, but President Eyring's background--among others of his good qualities--made me a little extra happy to do so.
“He figured God was the Creator, his own science was just a poor approximation of trying to understand what the Lord did,” President Eyring says of his father. “He never found any conflict at all of any kind and we never felt any. ... Dad’s idea was if you live a decent life and have the Holy Ghost and you’re fairly intelligent, you’ll find the truth one way or another.”
Coincidentally, just a few days before Conference, I listened to his talk, "Discovering Truth," given back in 1983. I think it is worth a listen (text is not available).
2. Richard G. Scott gave the scientific method some prime time. The talk is similar to a talk that he has given before (and that I blogged about here).
And check out the links included in his footnotes: The Particle Adventure and An Atlas of the Universe. Both are new to me, and come from a Conference talk. Sweet.
The New York Times has an article about the dramatic melting of Arctic ice this summer. There is also an accompanying interactive graphic that illustrates it.
I guess we should expect the Ten Tribes to appear from the middle of the earth soon.
(Just in case, that was a joking allusion to an old folk-doctrine/theory that the lost tribes of Israel live inside the earth.)
Consider the following quotation:
Many of you will encounter, if you haven't, traditional rational arguments for the existence of God. They are all of them afflicted with fallacies. They presuppose in the premises what they claim to demonstrate in the conclusion. And, further, they presuppose in their premises something about the very nature of God.Who said that? Bertrand Russell? Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens?
© Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
