Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010

For any who may be interested--

When: Friday, 1 October 2010, 9:00am to 5:00pm MDT

Where: University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Marriott Library, Gould Auditorium

What: At the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010, we will explore the intersection of religion, science, spirituality and technology, from a transhumanist perspective. Transhumanism advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities, and observes that if our rapid technological evolution continues to accelerate then humanity will become a new species before the end of the 21st century.

Who: Keynote speakers for the conference include former director of the World Transhumanist Association, James Hughes; author of the Transhumanist Manifesto, Max More; and renowned LDS scholar and author, Terryl Givens. Sponsors of the conference are the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the Transhumanist Alliance of Utah.

How: Register online (http://transhumanism-spirituality.org) for a discount and reserved seating! Online registration is $50 ($25 for students) until 29 September. Registration on the day of the conference will be $80. Students with ID will be admitted to the conference free of charge, as space permits. Students wishing reserved seating are encouraged to register at the discounted student rate.



Continue reading...

Saturday, September 25, 2010

FARMS Review on the Book of Mormon, DNA, and Creationism

FARMS Review Vol. 22 No. 1 is up on the FARMS website. Two reviews are of particular interest here.

First is The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint by Ugo A. Perego, who is a geneticist at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. This article does not review a particular publication; rather, it is more of a topical review. Actually it has been available at FAIR for a few months now, and I have been remiss in not pointing it out. In fact, I recommend that you look at the FAIR version because it has some figures not contained in the FARMS version. (The FARMS PDF version has the figures, but the resolution is better at FAIR.)

This article ranks high on my list of authoritative articles about DNA and the Book of Mormon. It's written for lay people, but I'm afraid many will still find it too technical. (If anyone need help translating the jargon, I'm happy to help.) One of the things I love about the article is that from what I can tell it is straightforward and true to the science. For example, let's look at Figure 1.


This figure shows how mitochondrial DNA lineages are related to one another. Not only does the Y axis show the appropriate timescale (200,000 years), but it also helps to show how we know that all of humanity originates in Africa. See that cluster of lineages on the left? Those are African lineages. The extended group of lineages on the right are the rest of the world. You can see that they are basically a subset of the African lineages. (See also Figure 4.) Anyway, kudos to Perego.

Next there is an extended, withering criticism of Rod Meldrum's book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA, in Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA, by Gregory L. Smith.

Meldrum quit his day job to become a full-time for-profit (but still amateur) Book of Mormon geography researcher. He has formed his own organization, The Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism (FIRM) Foundation--OK, really. FIRM? And yes, the redundancy of FIRM Foundation is of his own making--that has three emeritus Seventies on its board. Meldrum places the Book of Mormon in the Great Lakes area (dubbed the "Heartland model.") and FIRM sells a variety of books and videos pushing their view (along with right-wing politics). This model has previously been highly criticized by FAIR, and others.

Smith's criticism extends beyond issues of geography to the young earth creationism (YEC) pushed by Meldrum, and the sanctimony it is all wrapped in. The connection between evolution, creationism, and Book of Mormon geography may seem strange at first glance, but it ultimately makes sense. In order to make his theory work, Meldrum has to savage multiple fields of science because they are interconnected. He can cherry-pick certain scientific findings to support him and justify it by asserting that scientists have been interpreting the facts all wrong because they labor under an atheist conspiracy. I should also note that evolution often serves as the whipping boy for all of the natural sciences. Got a problem with the Big Bang, or radiometric dating? Blame evolution.
I find this sort of fundamentalist thinking and distortion extraordinarily troubling, and it is one reason why I consider Meldrum's theories worthy of review. He distorts the status of this teaching for the Latter-day Saints, refrains from quoting any authorities who differ with his views, portrays his sources as more authoritative than they are, and insists that the scriptures require it, making any other reading or view "impossible." Therefore, anyone who disagrees is ignoring the "clear" teachings of scripture. And anyone who differs is automatically less zealous in upholding the scriptures than Meldrum. "There are faithful members of the Church that have a deep belief in evolution and have been able to reconcile their beliefs. . . . Please know that your beliefs are respected," we are assured (p. 149). Yet if my beliefs differed from Meldrum's absolutism, I wouldn't find much respect in his caricatured treatment.
It seems clear that Smith does not share Meldrum's (YEC) views. With that in mind, I think Smith hits the nail squarely on the head with this passage.
At the same time, we cannot always allow misrepresentation of a point of view to proceed unchallenged, lest some be misled. Those given false information often learn later that their trust was misplaced. They then complain that "the church" (rather than "a member of the church") taught them falsehoods because misinformation was presented in a church context draped in the trappings of the gospel. Even if evolutionary theory is false in every particular, we do the cause of truth no service by creating strawmen, misrepresenting it, or minimizing the evidence offered in its behalf. We must deal with its most robust case if we are not to lead others to assume we were either ignorant or disingenuous—neither state being a good apologetic. And if we are right to oppose evolution, any efforts that do not fully address the depth and breadth of the best evidence are doomed to failure.
I have not read the whole review yet, but what I have has been excellent, and I already know that I will have more to say, either about it or based on it.

Also, check out the Editor's Introduction where the "Heartland model" is compared to a weed that needs to be pulled from the garden of Mormon scholarship.

Finally, I offer my praise to FARMS and FAIR for providing a platform for the criticism that this kind of stuff deserves, and for joining the atheist conspiracy taking a general stance that is largely consonant with science.


Continue reading...

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

BYU's Barry Bickmore Helps Organize Takedown of Monckton

Since launching his blog, BYU's Barry Bickmore has quickly become a prominent defender of climate science. I've noticed increasing references to him on the leading popular blogs and websites dealing with global warming. Now he has kicked it up another notch.

Last May, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the reliability of climate science in the wake of 'Climategate.' Several scientists were invited to testify. The lone witness invited by the Republicans was Christopher Monckton.

Bickmore, a proud Republican himself, has been quite critical of Monckton on his blog. In fact, according to Bickmore,

A few weeks ago, Monckton e-mailed the president of my university asking him to check on my mental health, because I had been publishing all kinds of lies about him and sending him hate mail! (Nothing came of it, in case you were wondering, and I’m still working at the old day job.)
Now Bickmore and four others have assembled responses to Monckton's testimony by 21 climate scientists, that refute Monckton's claims. The report is titled, Climate Scientists Respond (PDF).

The Guardian has an article: 'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science

For more information and links, see Skeptical Science.

Oh, yes. Go Cougars!


Continue reading...

Monday, September 20, 2010

Steve's Primordial Soup: God and the Universe

Last spring BYU biologist Steven Peck (i.e. SteveP of Mormon Organon and BCC) had an article published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought titled, "Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution" (PDF). His is one of the few (maybe only?) serious attempts I know of to explore how LDS theology can embrace evolution. The article focuses on broad concepts rather than particular scriptures or General Authority statements.

When I first began writing this post I started by summarizing the paper. However, I found that I was wasting a lot of pixels simply re-stating what was already written in the article. So instead I am going to split this into several posts and focus on parts of the article of interest to me.

First let's look at five general views Steve describes as to how God may relate to the universe.

Flat Religious Naturalism - There is no supernatural. God = nature.

Evolving Theistic Naturalism - God is an emergent property of nature.

Atemporal Theism - The traditional view the God exists outside of time and transcends the universe.

Temporal Theism - God is God, but he can be influenced by the world. He can see all logically possible futures, but no particular future is predestined.

Eschatological Theism - God intervenes to assure that contingent events occur as needed in order to fulfill his purposes.

Surprisingly (to me), Steve sees Flat Religious Naturalism as potentially compatible with Mormon theology, but not Evolving Theistic Naturalism. With our doctrine of the eternal nature of matter in mind, he writes:

[M]atter could be broadly conceived to include God, spirits, and intelligence as part of the “finer” or “purer” matter thought to make up the extended “universe.” In this context, flat religious naturalism might be conceivable in the LDS faith, as it has few answers to questions about why the universe exists as it does and embraces the idea that its constituent substances are eternal. This matter includes the intelligences that eventually became God by taking on His mantle. Therefore, mystery and awe at this scale may be the only appropriate response.
That seems like a better fit with Evolving Theistic Naturalism to me. Where did gods begin to be? How about somewhere out in the multiverse, eternal elements came together through a process of Darwinian selection in such a manner that gods emerged, propagated and spread into new universes. To my mind, this fits Evolving Theistic Naturalism but is in the same spirit of how Steve sees LDS theology fitting with Flat Religious Naturalism. So what is the real distinction here? Is it just a matter of defining terms, or whether we're talking about our universe or the multiverse, and our God versus some ancestor god? What am I missing?


Further posts in this series:

Steve's Primordial Soup: An Embodied God

Steve's Primordial Soup: Natural Evil
Steve's Primordial Soup: Teleology
Steve's Primordial Soup: Odds and Ends

Continue reading...

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The Pleasant Side of Digging up the Dead

There is apparently an honest-to-goodness conference being advertised where geocentrism--the idea that the solar system and the rest of the universe revolves around Earth--is going to be exhumed and the attendees will attempt to breathe life into it. (See Galileo Was Wrong: The Church was Right.) The whole thing could be a hoax, but these days you never really know.

When I first read about the conference my first reaction was anger that such a settled theory--Nay, Fact!--would still be seriously questioned by mentally competent adults. But that was before I read some of the nice explanations that blossomed around the blogosphere explaining why geocentrism is wrong. Now I feel fortunate because I learned some things.

Below are three links for your reading pleasure. Each has material not found in the others, so read them all.

1. Geo-xcentricities; you too can be Galileo with just a pair of binoculars (and gaffer tape)

2. Geocentrism: Was Galileo Wrong? - Don't miss the movie of Jupiter!

3. Geocentrism? Seriously?






Continue reading...

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Science Scorned (by the Right)

This week's Nature has an editorial, Science scorned, that expresses some of my own concerns. I've pasted the whole thing below. Both republicans and democrats should find this worrying.

“The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go”.

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.
Just in case you wonder whether Limbaugh actually said what was attributed to him, yes he did--and more.


Continue reading...

Updates on Climate Scapegoats

I'm late passing these items on, but here you go.

First, a judge denied VA attorney general Ken Cuccinelli's demand for the University of Virginia's records relating to climatologist Michael Mann. However, I don't get the feeling that this story is over yet.

Second, Rajendra Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC and has been accused of conflicts of interest and inappropriately profiting from his position. Would you be surprised to learn that an independent audit found no evidence of such things and that the original story alleging such things has been retracted? No, me neither. Apparently, instead of making millions and millions of dollars off of his work, he only brings home about: £47,000 (~$72,400), none of which comes from the UN.


Continue reading...

Friday, September 03, 2010

My Required Reading

I've added a new feature to my right sidebar: Required Reading. Each link is to a collection of resources that I consider essential reading in order to be informed on the topic. I tend to forget that some of my readers are new to the subjects discussed here and may be looking for additional material. Where possible I have included online publications, but I've also included book recommendations. Although there are only a couple of categories listed right now, I plan to add more.

My criteria for adding material is still somewhat fuzzy. I have generally avoided linking to my own material, and I've tried to limit the suggestions to books or published papers. However, there are exceptions. The collection is also admittedly biased. It's not an attempt to be comprehensive; it's what I think you need to read in order to be up to speed, particularly with respect to the intersection of Mormonism and science. (Having said that, I am open to suggestions, but no promises.) As such, it will remain a work-in-progress, so check back from time to time.

Go read and enjoy!


Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP