What to Think of Wise?

Kurt Wise is a young-earth creationist who earned a Ph.D. at Harvard as a student of Stephen J. Gould (of all people). In Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Donald Prothero mentions Wise and quotes something he has written (I have included a little more than is quoted in the book):

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

I find myself conflicted over this position. His intransigence in the face of clear evidence is anathema to science--and in my view, personal growth--and for that I feel indignation. Yet I also maintain beliefs that lack the evidential support that I would like, and so I also feel compassion and empathy. Is Wise to be admired or disdained?

I think Prothero gets it about right.

I have no problem with his belief system.... If he labeled his ideas as religiously inspired, that would be fine. But he continues to pretend that he is following the rules of science; he wears the label of scientist and promotes his particular brand of "science" to unsuspecting people who are impressed with his Harvard Ph.D. but don't realize that he admits that he stopped doing science [a] long time ago.

I don't know to what extent Wise is guilty of the sins that Prothero attributes to him--I do know that Wise is considered one of the more honest creationists because he eschews some of the false or misleading arguments that some creationists use--but I think that Prothero's basic point is correct.

Commenting on Wise's quote above, Richard Dawkins asks,

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.

I'll bet that Kurt Wise has his share of scars.

---

Continue reading...

The Transition of a Young-Earth Creationist

This week's Science has a news article that features paleontologist Stephen Godfrey's transition from young-earth creationist to scientist. The context is non-LDS, but I think it captures some of what John A. Widtsoe was talking about. Unfortunately the article is not freely available, but I've put some highlights below.

He was raised in a conservative Christian home where his father, a Sunday-school teacher, regularly led family Bible study after dinner, and the family attended Church each week.

Godfrey entered college convinced that scientists were engaged in a vast conspiracy to promote evolution. At Bishop's University in Sherbrooke, Quebec, he majored in biology and lived at home, several kilometers away. In one sense, his studies had little effect on his faith. "You can learn facts, and you can do really well on exams and not believe" what you're learning, he says.

Wanting to get to the bottom of the truth about evolution, he enrolled in graduate school. He was able to work with fossils in the laboratory without needing to confront his beliefs, but fieldwork strained his belief that fossils were laid down during Noah's flood.

Godfrey held out from embracing evolution, however, until after moving in 1989 to Drumheller, Alberta, dubbed the "dinosaur capital of the world" because of its diversity of fossils. Godfrey often drove southeast to Dinosaur Provincial Park, passing through a landscape of sediments laid atop one another: deposits from freshwater and terrestrial environments in one, marine organisms and mollusks in another, and a third that mimicked the first, a mix of fossils from fresh water and land. "These animals were living here in this same place, but they couldn't have all been there at the same time," he says, a fact that was irreconcilable with flood geology. It was then that "the rest of the young-Earth creationist ideas kind of exploded."

--------------------------

Godfrey ran through bitterness, anger, and disappointment about having been deceived for so many years. He sought out creationists and confronted them. Late in graduate school, he and his devout Christian wife, mother-in-law, and mother attended a weekend symposium at a Bible school in New York state, where Godfrey says he angrily stood up at the end of a talk and argued passionately with the speaker.

It was there, and in conversations during holiday meals, that Godfrey's parents realized that he had changed. Deeply unhappy, they worried whether their son could endorse an old Earth and remain a Christian. ... Godfrey's father eventually asked that he stop mentioning evolution, as the topic was too upsetting to the family, who believe that their afterlife depends on embracing creationism.

--------------------------

Trying to articulate where his religious beliefs stand now, Godfrey's eyes fill with tears. "It's been so long, a lifelong struggle, to sort out," he says. He has flirted with atheism but found it too depressing. Several years ago, he stopped attending church for a year before returning. He believes in God today, he says, but tomorrow may be different.

--------------------------

Like many creationists-turned-evolutionists, Godfrey is conflicted about how, and how forcefully, to press his case. In 2005, he and his brother-in-law Smith published Paradigms on Pilgrimage, a book describing their own transition and making the case for evolution. His father prayed that it would not be published, and Godfrey did not send his parents a copy. He thought his book would change minds among creationists but isn't sure it has.

"I haven't" read it, says his younger sister Esther Godfrey, of Sherbrooke. "I'm feeling it's a very odd way of viewing the Bible, if you can choose which parts you believe literally and not literally." Esther Godfrey is not sure what turned her brother away from a young Earth, as they've never discussed it. "I know he saw something at some point, maybe a fossil, and thought the Earth has to be old," she says. "That is what I've heard."

--------------------------

When it comes to his children, Godfrey's not sure what they believe nor how firmly to steer them. Certainly, he says, they are exposed to creationist teachings. Of all his children it's his youngest, 4-year-old Victoria, who shows the strongest penchant for science. Wandering the beaches near her home, she often asks to bring home bones she finds, just as her father did years ago. Will her view of the world make room for evolution? Godfrey watches and waits and wonders whether to step in.

---

Continue reading...

The Scars of John A. Widtsoe

I have loved the following quote ever since I encountered it several years ago. It comes from the preface of Joseph Smith as Scientist, written by John A. Widtsoe. It also seems like an appropriate introduction to a couple of forthcoming posts.

In the life of every person, who receives a higher education, in or out of schools, there is a time when there seems to be opposition between science and religion; between man-made and God-made knowledge. The struggle for reconciliation between the contending forces is not an easy one. It cuts deep into the soul and usually leaves scars that ache while life endures.

---

Continue reading...

Book Review: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

In his foreword to the book, Michael Shermer calls Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters "the best book ever produced on [creationism]." I have not read many other books on creationism, so I cannot comment on Shermer's assessment. However, I agree that it is a fine book and I recommend it for those who want an introduction to creationism, paleontology, and what fossils tell us about the history of life.

Donald Prothero is a professor of geology and paleontology whose career extends at least back to 1980, and he occasionally draws on personal experience when making his case. These experiences give additional weight to his descriptions of fossils--some of which he has studied firsthand--and his explanations of paleontological concepts. For example his treatment of the often misunderstood and abused concept of punctuated equilibrium is clear, and agrees with what I had read elsewhere. (In short, it is the the paleontological application of Ernst Mayr's concept of allopatric speciation.) Perhaps the most notable feature of the book is the many illustrations and photographs depicting either fossils or concepts. (The color plates can be viewed here.) These are quite helpful as aids to understanding and visualizing Prothero's descriptions, and are probably the book's greatest strength.

The chapters are divided into two parts. The first part deals with background issues like the nature of science, the history of creationism (you can read that chapter here), and an introduction to evolution and systematics. The second part is essentially a tour of the history of life on earth from the origins of life to modern humans. Special emphasis is given to transitional fossils between major groups such as fish and tetrapods, dinosaurs and birds, and synapsids and mammals. Short of picking up a paleontology textbook, this is probably one of the friendliest and most convenient introductions to major fossil groups that you will find (or at least that I know of so far).

The final chapter addresses the question of why any of this matters. A number of reasons are given including scientific competitiveness, separation of church and state, and medical progress. Ultimately I think this chapter is probably superfluous. Lovers of science value evolution for its own sake and despise creationist arguments for their corrosive effect on science and public understanding. Those who read the book and still cannot accept evolution will not finally be moved. Nevertheless, it makes for interesting reading.

Now for my complaints:

1. I found a surprisingly high number of grammatically incorrect or jumbled sentences. They occurred frequently enough that I thought that they detracted from the book. Also, in at least a couple of places Prothero dates his writing of a particular passage by referring to current events, which is fine except that it looks funny when he dates a passage to 2005, but then on the next page references a 2007 book. Hopefully future editions will at least fix the English.

2. The enormous scope of the subject is such that Prothero could not frequently dwell on details and still produce a readable popular-science book. Readers who are interested in more details will find many references for further reading. However, the attribution of some claims and quotes are poor. For example reference is made to a New York Times article, but no citation is provided, and quotations used to introduce chapters or subheadings frequently list the author but without the reference from where the quote was taken.

3. Because the subject matter is so broad, Prothero was bound to make some mistakes, especially outside of his own field. For example, the "central dogma" is popularly misunderstood to mean that information flows exclusively from DNA --> RNA --> Protein, so phenomena such as retrotranscription of RNA --> DNA is sometimes claimed (e.g. in this book) to represent a violation of central dogma. But central dogma as originally advanced by Francis Crick is nucleic acid (DNA or RNA --> Protein); retrotranscription is therefore not a violation of central dogma. (In fairness, although central dogma was first advanced by Francis Crick, apparently James Watson later gave a differing version [DNA --> RNA -->Protein], and this is the reason for confusion. Crick's version has not been overturned.)

Another mistake is evident in this passage:

Molecular phylogeny emerged in the 1960s with very crude methods.... Other methods compared the strength of the immune response (more closely related organisms have stronger immune responses than distantly related organisms, because the former have more genes in common than the latter).

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Stronger immune response to what? No reference is provided, but it appears to me that Prothero is a little confused. In early studies rabbits were immunized with human albumin, and then the reactivity of the rabbit antibodies to the albumin protein of various apes and monkeys was evaluated. The strength of reaction indicated similarity of proteins (i.e. fewer mutations), which suggested a closer relationship. (This was before the days of DNA sequencing.)

3. Again, because of scope, Prothero does not usually get into the nitty-gritty of creationist arguments. Creationists will probably complain that he has not given their arguments a full hearing, and occasionally they may have a point. This is unfortunate because some may conclude that Prothero cannot answer the details of creationist arguments.

However, don't let my gripes get in the way. This is not the first book I would recommend to someone with no previous knowledge of evolution, but it very well might be the second.

---

Continue reading...

Believing Weird Things

I've been reading Why People Believe Weird Things on part of my work commute. On two separate occasions, I've been asked by co-workers what I was reading. Showing them the book, I half-expect them to say, "Aren't you one of those people?"

The final chapter is "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things." Shermer's criteria for a claim being weird is if it is (i) not accepted by most people in a field of study, (ii) logically impossible or highly unlikely, and/or (iii) supported only by anecdotal or uncorroborated evidence. His summary for why smart people believe such things is,

[S]mart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

I couldn't help but think of the claim that, for Mormons, higher education correlates with religiosity. I guess we are in a no-win situation; if we aren't stupid we are good at justification. But there is some truth here, because Mormons are generally the first to admit that their basis for belief is not solely--or even primarily--a rational one.

And so we go to a deeper question: Are non-rational beliefs illegitimate? That's a discussion for another day, but I'll conclude with an interesting quote from Martin Gardner, as quoted by Shermer (p. 275-76).

Skeptics and scientists are not immune. Martin Gardner--one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement and slayer of all manner of weird beliefs--classifies himself as a philosophical theist or, a broader term, a fideist. Gardener explains,

Fideism refers to believing something on the basis of faith, or emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons. As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. More than that I think the better arguments are on the side of the atheists. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that really is against the evidence. If you have strong emotional reasons for metaphysical belief and it's not sharply contradicted by science or logical reasoning, you have a right to make a leap of faith if it provides sufficient satisfaction.

---

Continue reading...

Valentine's Day Science: Solution to the Single Man's Dilemma

It's a problem that haunts many single men I have known: If I marry this girl, how do I know I won't be missing out on an even better one?

Math provides the solution:

[G]o on roughly 10 first dates, with mates who are close to your ideal. If after 10 dates there’s someone you want to go back to and he or she is available, then go for it. But give yourself those 10 first dates.

---

Continue reading...

Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice: That's the name of the Saudi Arabian police squad that is making sure that Saudi Arabians are protected from Valentine's Day.

I think BYU students should adopt the name for the Honor Code office. Spread the word!

---

Continue reading...

Notable Quotes of Sterling Talmage

I previously introduced the book Can Science Be Faith-Promoting? by Sterling Talmage. Below I have collected a few of what I thought were notable quotes. All italics are as printed in the book.

These first three quotes are from "An Open Letter to Joseph Fielding Smith." Sterling first sent a copy to his father, James E. Talmage, who wrote in reply, "I think it should be put into final shape an sent to its intended addressee without delay.... The conditions are peculiar but in my judgement and in that of certain others it is well to follow the course indicated."

In your boyhood and in mine, the statements of the general authorities of the Church were considered to be final; nobody in good standing in the Church presumed to question them. Today this is not so, and I believe for only one reason, namely, that some of the authorities have made statements that are not worthy of belief... [pg. 213]

My observation has convinced me that positive misstatements by men in authority regarding facts on which they are not informed constitute a stimulus toward skepticism many times more potent than any amount of the whispering regarding the [white horse prophecy], which you so rightly condemn. [p. 214]

But laying all personal feelings aside and speaking solely in the interest of the educated young people of the Church, I feel that if you continue to go outside your field and off your subject, invading at every opportunity the field of earth science in which you are so obviously not well informed, I shall feel justified in letting no chance pass, in speech or writing, to prove point by point that our faith is not founded on absurdity. [p. 215]

If I were forced to make a choice between an acceptance of the truths of nature and some of the stupid, fiatistic dogmas of certain miscalled "fundamentalist" sects, I would choose the truths of nature without any compunction whatever. Fortunately, I am not forced to make such a choice, since I have been taught from my early youth that the gospel is broad enough to include all truth. [p. 155]

...in spite of the definite proof that the total span of earth duration cannot be as brief as seven thousand years, the back part of my mind was still harassed by the echo of a thirty-year-old sermon: The Doctrine and Covenants says that it is! In such a manner, can a misfounded faith persist, even in the face of a truth that flatly contradicts it. [p. 174]

There are some other gems, but I'll leave it at that for now. In fairness I will end with a quote from a letter of Joseph Fielding Smith to Sterling.

There is nothing in all the world so dear to me as revealed truth--the gospel with all its amplifications received through the word of the Lord to his prophets, even in our own day. When I think I find something which tends to destroy the faith of the youth in these revelations, or which is hurtful to this truth, I have opposed it with vigor and have freely expressed my views.

---

Continue reading...

Satanic Panic

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, by Michael Shermer, is similar to Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. Both cover some of the same ground, including witch-hunts. Shermer discusses some of the psychological and sociological factors that can help mass hysteria--such as witch-hunts--take off, and then turns to the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s and 90s. Satanic cults that did terrible things to animals and babies were perceived as reaching epidemic proportions.

"In the 1970s, there were rumors about dangerous religious cults, cattle mutilations, and Satanic cult ritual animal sacrifices; in the 1980s, we were bombarded by books, articles, and television programs about multiple personality disorder, Procter & Gamble's "Satanic" logo [see above; LDSSR], ritual child abuse, the McMartin Preschool case, and devil worship."

I was a little young and insulated from such things in the 80s, but the list jogged my memory (what about Dungeons and Dragons?). By this time I was thinking of all the Satanic charges fired by anti-Mormons (e.g. pentagrams on the Salt Lake Temple). Continuing:

And the 1990s have given us the ritual child abuse scare in England, reports that the Mormon Church was infiltrated by secret Satanists who sexually abuse children in rituals, and the Satanic ritual abuse scare in San Diego. [pg. 107]

Infiltrated?! According to Ed Decker types (Good ol' Ed. What's he up to these days?) Mormonism was Satanism--in disguise (that's a FARMS link, just in case you were nervous). But Mormonism was just one source of Satanism for Ed. One of my prized possessions (no pun intended--or is it?) is one of Ed's tirades against freemasonry, wherein he shows that the street layout of Washington D.C. has masonic symbols and that the White House is at the southern point of a pentagram--which is why our nation is under siege by the forces of darkness. He bemoans the fact that good Christians who join the Masons unknowingly swear oaths to Satan. Good stuff, but I digress.

As coincidence would have it, just a few days ago I happened to read the Church's policy on Satanism and the occult in the CHI (they're against it). A 1991 letter from the First Presidency advised that they not be topics in Church meetings. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that:

At the present time [~1992; LDSSR], symbols related to Satan have become so prevalent that the warning voices of leaders in the Church have again been raised concerning some people's fascination with the power of evil.

Outgrowths of the hysteria, perhaps? Given the Glen L. Pace memo episode (must read), I think so.

[Addendum: Over at DMI, Kevin Barney provided a link with more information about the Satanism scare in Utah.]

[Further Addendum: This post was discussed on a BCC Zeitcast.]

---

Continue reading...

Thinking Like a Greek

A few weeks ago, for whatever reason, I was thinking of the following quote from Duane Jeffery's Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions (pdf):

In conclusion, the distinction between “cosmic history” and “event history” does seem to be a useful one. A framing of the scriptures as cosmic history perceives that scriptural writers primarily intend to teach moral lessons and make it clear that Deity operates in the affairs of men, bolstering in the minds of adherents a sense of meaningful place in a larger scheme of things. This is distinguished from “event history,” the type to which we are presently accustomed and which apparently became the norm only with the Enlightenment. It has been said that in order to understand these distinctions and the nature of scripture as cosmic history, we must learn to think like Hebrews, not like Greeks. Modern society, it seems, thinks like Greeks.

I acknowledge my own personal bent toward “thinking like a Greek,” though I try to blend Hebrew understandings with the science and general approach to the world I derive from the Greeks. But even as I say this, I strongly believe that most of the challenges facing our modern world must be addressed by thinking like a Greek.

It occurred to me that I seemed to remember a similar quote in an Institute manual. I finally found it (having searched the wrong manual a couple of times) in section 54-7 in the New Testament manual:

Sometimes the reader of Revelation is startled by some of the imagery and symbolism used by John. They seem almost bizarre at times in their unusual nature. This is due, however, to a basic difference in cultural background and the use of language. Most members of the Church today are products of Western (Occidental) civilization. The occidental peoples tend to use language like a contractor uses building materials: he builds structures which are concrete in detail and form. But the oriental world, of which the Holy Land was a part, is more artistic in its use of language. Words are but colors with which the artist paints verbal pictures. Thus, the Oriental is usually more concerned with effect than with form and detail. Westerners say the sun is rising, while an Arab may say that it leaps from its bed of sleeping.

John, of course, being Jewish, was a product of Oriental, not Occidental, culture. So his depiction of the Savior as having a sharp, two-edged sword protruding from his mouth is perfectly acceptable, even though the Western mind trying to picture that image concretely may find it somewhat jarring to the sensitivities. To the Eastern mind the symbolism is most appropriate, for such a person is more concerned with the effect of the symbol than with its detail. Pushing the images and symbols of John’s writings for literal interpretation will lead to baffling and sometimes grotesque pictures. But if one remembers the Oriental’s love of imagery, such things as beasts with seven heads and ten horns, armies compared to locusts, and prophets with fire coming from their mouths (11:5; 19:15) will become beautiful and profound symbols of eternal truth.

Although the quotes treat slightly different topics, both highlight the cultural context of scriptural writers and the confusion that can happen when we impose our context onto theirs.

---

Continue reading...