Why My Son Said He Didn’t Believe in Evolution — and Why That Troubled Me

Tweet

by Rob T:

“Some people believe in evolution, that we came from apes. But I think they’re wrong because it’s not in the scriptures.”

Those words came from the mouth of my 5-year-old son recently. They took me by surprise, not because of his opinion, but because he was thinking of this issue and forming a personal stance. Was I underestimating his intelligence and awareness of such profound matters? That’s likely.

Impressed as I was that he could articulate this thought, I also was troubled by what he said.

Shouldn’t I have rejoiced, as an LDS parent, that my child took a firm stand with what I believe to be the word of God?

MMM Mail 4: Dear Einstein, Do Scientists Pray?

Tweet

by Seattle Jon:

Phyllis, a sixth-grade Sunday school class member at The Riverside Church, wondered if scientists pray. Who better to write to and ask than Einstein.

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

Einstein replied a mere five days later, sharing with her his thoughts on faith and science:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

I like the way Einstein manages to capture the sublime sense of wonder that science can evoke in a way that is possible to describe as "religious." What do you think?


Seattle Jon is a family man, little league coach, urban farmer and businessman living in Seattle. He currently gets up early with the markets to trade bonds for a living. In his spare time he enjoys movies, thrifting and is an avid reader. He is a graduate of Brigham Young University and the Japan Fukuoka mission field. He has one wife, four kids and five chickens.
Image credit: Getty Images.

Guest Post: Warnings From Outer Space

Tweet

Our universe filled with galaxies: worlds without number

Our home galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to contain 100-400 billion stars, with 10-20% of these being like our sun. In March of 2009, NASA launched the Kepler Observatory to search the Milky Way for habitable planets. Data from this space telescope are now being analyzed and reveal a wealth of fascinating information. One study found that 22% of sun-like stars are orbited by rocky planets in the 'Goldilocks Zone' which allows liquid water to exist at its surface and therefore be habitable for life. Now, a new study using computer modeling suggests that the 'Goldilocks Zone' may be 10 times wider than originally conceived.

The Andromeda Galaxy

Astronomers estimate that at least two billion and as many as 60 billion planets are therefore capable of sustaining life in the Milky Way alone. Consider then that the visible universe* contains up to 500 billion galaxies and 30 billion trillion stars. The numbers are beyond comprehension. Science is gradually proving what we have long known:

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. (Moses 1:33)

Thus, I Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made . . . and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof. (Abraham 3:11-12)

The idea that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists is actually pretty common, and certainly not new. Surveys in the US and UK put the number of believers in intelligent extraterrestrial life as being between 60 and 70% of the population.** SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has been patiently listening for radio waves from our intergalactic neighbors for many years using high-tech telescopes. Despite of its lack of success, SETI isn't giving up. I'm therefore seriously thinking of forwarding the decisive 'white paper' on this subject so they can rest a little easier. I recently stumbled onto it while my plane was stuck on the tarmac.

Living on Mars?

Tweet

by Pete Codella (bio)

I listened recently to the radio with fascination as a spokesperson for the Mars One Foundation spoke about their effort to colonize Mars with humans in 2023; in just 10 years. They’re currently accepting applications from earthlings interested in a one-way trip to the Red Planet.

She described all the technology, partners and preparations now underway to make the human mission to Mars a reality. She said in no uncertain terms that it will happen.

When questioned about why they would want to send humans to live on Mars, her response shocked me.

Before I tell you what she said, you should know that I am a Star Wars and Star Trek fan. I’m not a fanatic, but I always see and enjoy the movies. I also believe space exploration will continue to be part of our existence.

Ulysses Contracts

Tweet

by Seattle Jon (bio)

Ulysses and the Sirens by Otto Greiner, 1902

I think we've all heard the story of the Greek hero Odysseus (English: Ulysses) and the Sirens. Brave and curious Odysseus wants to hear the famous songs of the Sirens, but aware that, when the time comes, he will be unable to resist the Sirens' beautiful songs (which are really a deathtrap), Odysseus advises his men to secure him firmly to the ship's mast. That way, he can listen to the song without being lured to his untimely death.

I recently heard this story retold on NPR's RadioLab (Episode: Help!). The show's creators told the story of Zelda Gamson, who'd tried for decades to stop smoking. Part of her wanted to quit, but another part just didn't want to let go. They asked the question, "How do you win a tug-of-war with yourself?"

Spoiler: Zelda quits smoking. But how did she win the tug-of-war? She cut a deal with herself. She told a friend that if she ever smoked again she would give $5,000 to the Ku Klux Klan. Say what?! Well, Zelda thought the KKK so unbelievably "heinous" that the thought of them having her money was more powerful than the urge to smoke. And she quit cold turkey.

According to neurologists, we are many "people" on the inside, different parts of our brains that fight and argue and don't always agree with one another. The trick is none of these different people exist simultaneously. And for many of us, the person in charge - the one in the moment who wants things now – is the stronger one. You just need to think about shopping and food to know this is true.

But, if you can pit your short-term desires not against your long-term plans but against an immediate feeling of dislike or disgust, you essentially trick the person who wants it now and make the tug-of-war more evenly matched. Zelda, for example, changed her personal tug-of-war from smoking now vs. longer and healthier life later (smoking always won) to smoking now vs. paying the KKK 5K now, and that was enough to do the trick.

This approach is called the Ulysses Contract and is a combination of insight, foresight, and ingenuity. What contracts have you made or will you make with your future self?

Top Ten (Clean) Twitter Picks

Tweet

by LJ (bio)

I first joined Twitter in 2008 to prove to a company they should hire me as their social media coordinator. When I didn't get the job, I abandoned my account for a few years because a) I didn't see the point of Twitter and b) I didn't know how to use it anyway. Hence why I wasn't hired.

Now that I've joined the scads of smartphone-addicted-robots in America, I turn to my phone for entertainment should my brain ever fall to rest. Twitter is my favorite--I can streamline my social media to only include people who spit out pithy punch lines that are (mostly) free of smut.

Without further ado, I present my Top Ten (Clean) Twitter Picks:

Inspirational
C.S. Lewis Quotes (@CSLewisDaily). The best place to turn for a daily dose of my favorite honorary emeritus apostle.

Brits
Rowan Atkinson (@OfficialMrBean). His feed is funny, but also purely self-depricating and never mean.

Science
Science Porn (@SciencePorn). Tasteless name, awesome facts and photos.

Factoids
Google Facts (@GoogleFacts). Several mind-blowing little facts a week. Note: there is the occasional sex-related fact, but nothing crazy.

Novelty Feeds
Modern Seinfeld (@SeinfeldToday). These tweets are plots of would-be Seinfeld episodes, and they're dead on. My personal favorite so far: "George dates the model who is 'the face of Duane Reade.' Kramer is furious to learn that she's not actually a pharmacist." Runners up include Sixth Form Poet (@sixthformpoet) and Very Short Story (@VeryShortStory) for pure quality content.

I Sense a Disturbance in the Nuclear Family Force

Tweet

by MAB (bio)

Behold the nuclear family.

I was thinking about this metaphor recently: the family as an atom. I guess my incomplete thoughts began to crystallize when I discovered the interesting "atomic structure" of my son's friend's family. But more on that later.

First, let's consider the metaphor a bit. I know this is a silly thing to do, since most metaphors break down under even the slightest scrutiny, but in this case at least it helped me dust off a few neural connections made 20 years ago in high school chemistry. Apologies in advance to those who know more about this than me (and there are many of you), I will likely make some wild leaps through my flawed logic and incomplete knowledge, but hope to have some fun along the way.

So, if the family is an atom then I guess the parents are the nucleus, mom is a proton and dad is a neutron. Or vice versa, I'm confused about this. I made the dad the neutron since (1) it weighs a bit more and (2) from the pulpit on Mother's Day I seem to hear that mothers are the biggest force for positive good in the world. On that sentiment I'm neutral (ha!). That leaves the kids as electrons orbiting the parents. In our house, at least, they still weigh less than us, which fits the model, and when they aren't playing video games they orbit us in antics and laughter. To take the metaphor further, we often know their position but not their momentum (what will he "be" when he grows up?), and when we try to inquire into their lives we inevitably change their trajectory. So that's the uncertainty principle and the observer effects in action. I think this metaphor could go further with quantum mechanics invoking fields of influence, etc., but I'll leave that up to the theoretical physicists. Same goes for the Higgs Boson as the God particle, that's just too easy-hard.

That makes the traditional family a Helium atom, which depending on the number of your children, leaves you in a variety of states:

Electron children	Family charge and notes
0	Your charge is -1 and you are eagerly seeking a child
1	Your charge is 0, you're noble but your kid is spoiled - everyone knows that
2	Your charge is +1
3	Your charge is +2, beyond this point there is a good chance your kids will fly out of orbit
...	...

Note that if you are single you are a Hydrogen atom and your electron is a dog or a cat. Or, if you are divorced, I guess it could be a child.

Okay, that was all probably ridiculously over-thought and even callous at times. So I think I should stop with the metaphor and just use normal words to describe "exotic" elements I've seen over the years, elements that defy the standard model of nuclear families.

Can We Accurately Describe History?

Tweet

by Seattle Jon (bio)

Trying to describe the past as it actually was is a real challenge. I put forward that it cannot be done. Why? Because of the limitations all of us share in approaching any past happening, limitations that no analytical skill or linguistic or statistical tool can transcend. Taken from Richard D. Poll's History and Faith: Reflections of a Mormon Historian, these six limitations are:

Perspective: Each of us looks at what is happening from a certain point of view; we cannot see it in the round. We have invented machines that do a better job of looking at a thing from all sides than we are able to do with our human perceptions.

Bias: We bring not only a point of view to every event but also prejudices. We may think our approach to books and articles is relatively neutral and dispassionate, but bias—prejudgment—concerning subject or author had something to do with our decision to read and it will certainly affect what we retain.

Memory: Each of us can remember occasions, either amusing or stressful, in which efforts to recall a relatively recent conversation generated differences about the content and even the conclusions reached. Memory affects all events.

Records: As time and distance affect our memories of an event, we confront our dependence upon documents and artifacts and the problem of the incompleteness and impermanence of all records.

The Origin of Man

Tweet

by Saint Mark (bio)

A few years ago, I fulfilled one of the five things I want to do before I die: I went to the Galapagos Islands. It thrilled my soul to swim in a bay with a penguin, three sea lions and a marine iguana. As I walked the archipelago, I couldn't help but feel that the Galapagos Islands and the adolescent stage in which its flora and fauna exist are a microcosm of Genesis, when God formed the earth.

I believe, as Joseph Smith believed, that the earth is billions of years old and that it was a form of evolutionary development which saw the earth develop from disorganized matter to organized matter, from single-celled organisms to a Pre-Cambrian explosion of multi-celled creatures that eventually became the plant and animal life we now dwell among.

Having sailed in the same bays and around the same islands as Charles Darwin in The Beagle, though, my intuition diverged from Darwin's. I did not extend that evolutionary development to Mankind. Although there were other Neanderthals who appeared like Man, Adam was not one of them. I believe Eve and Adam were the first Woman and Man on the earth. They are my ancestors and the entire human family flows from them.

The Evolution of My Faith

Tweet

by MAB (bio)

Tadpoles are awesome. This young one here is just barely growing its front legs. I used to catch them as a child in rural central Utah and watch them as they grew legs, lost their tail and turned into frogs. I like the fact that they disprove the notion that swimming creatures can't evolve and walk (or hop) out of the water.

I was a fairly typical latter-day saint boy in small town Utah. I went to church every Sunday and tried to pay attention. I was well versed in Book of Mormon stories that my teachers told to me. When I got into high school, though, and took the standard physics and biology classes, everything changed. Learning about genetics, and evolution especially, was a significant and powerful experience that affected me much like a religious awakening. I began to wonder about the discrepancies between scientific and religious thought. Many things were insignificant, and easily reconciled. But questions remained, and when I asked people about them I either got conflicting information or was told I would have to wait to get an answer.

Evolution on My Mind

Tweet

Image: "Charlie" by Mike Mitchell

Is it just me or has evolution been in the air lately? Jon Huntsman recently announced, with his tweet heard ‘round the world, “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” In a recent interview he added, "I believe in evolution. I think it’s part of God’s plan." Mitt Romney seems to take a somewhat similar position.

Mormon Matters released a fascinating podcast on the subject of evolution. To honor the centennial of the 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University, host Dan Wotherspoon, along with James McLachlan (philosophy and intellectual history professor), Duane Jeffery (BYU emeritus biology professor), and Steve Peck (current BYU biology professor) discuss the controversy as well as other issues relevant to evolution and mormonism. I highly recommend it.

Modern Mormon Men takes a similar position to the LDS church regarding evolution: None. Neither we, nor it, take an official stance. However, two of our contributors do have positions and have decided to share them with us (that’s right—we’re at this again). They will be posted tomorrow morning.

A note regarding this format: Although we sometimes choose to feature posts from two separate contributors on a given subject, and although those posts likely regard the topic with different approaches/conclusions, the posts are not necessarily intended to be a point/counterpoint debate with each other. Rather they are just two different stories from two different contributors. As always, we welcome a healthy discussion, and also ask you to be nice.

-Scott Heffernan

Can the Future Influence the Past?

Tweet

by Scott Heffernan (bio)

Imagine you have an important test to take. You study beforehand and then you take the test. What if I told you you can increase your score by also studying after you take the test?

There are some fascinating experiments being conducted by Cornell Professor Daryl Bem. And this is not some crackpot “doctor” you might see on The Secret or What the Bleep!? He is one of the most widely published and respected psychology professors in the country.

In one of the studies participants are shown 48 words (one at a time) on a computer screen, then asked to recall as many as possible. Participants type as many words as they can remember and that is the score they receive on the test. Then they are shown 24 randomly selected words from the list and asked to type them again. Obviously this would help participants better commit these words to memory. But the test is over by this point, the scores are set.

Test results showed that participants were better able to recall words that they had retyped after the test. Dr. Bem states, "The results show that practicing a set of words after the recall test does, in fact, reach back in time to facilitate the recall of those words." What the what? Can we somehow feel the future? Are events that are occurring in the future affecting the present?

What are your thoughts on retrocausality and precognition? Is time linear? Does this have any doctrinal implications? Fascinating stuff!

See NPR’s (more professional) report here and Dr. Bem’s original article here.

Am I Just a Bunch of Synapses?

Tweet

by MAB (bio)

I think I'm just a bunch of interconnected neurons. The essence of who I am, seems to me, to be nothing more than that.

I don't know what to make of the commonly held belief that we are made of body and spirit that together form a soul. It doesn't make sense to me for a few reasons. Take sleep for instance. If I have a spirit that forms the essence of who I am, makes decisions and so forth, then what happens to it when my body sleeps? Personally, I think my brain goes through the various sleep cycles, I dream, etc. But rarely do I remember what happens while I sleep because of course I am unaware or semiconscious. It would seem that if I had a spirit it would not need to sleep and would continue to be aware even though my body slept. I know there are a lot of very smart people researching how our brains manage all the sensory data, make decisions and so forth to create an overall stream of conscious. That research, like a lot of brain research seems to be in its infancy so maybe things will make more sense as new information becomes available.

Another reason I am baffled by the body + spirit = soul concept is because the essence of who we are seems to be tenuous. I think our personalities can change in drastic, permanent and nearly instantaneous ways that shouldn't, to my way of thinking, apply to immaterial spirits. Obviously, we mature as we age so that's one form of change. As we mature we probably make wiser decisions. Drugs can also change a personality. Steroids are an easy target here with their common side effects such as aggression. Do steroids make a spirit more aggressive? If so how do drugs (material) impact the spirit (immaterial)? Could it be that our spirits are filtered through imperfect bodies and come out distorted? That seems less likely to me for some reason. I think psychoactive drugs change body chemistry and the way a brain works. To my way of logic that's the reason someone behaves differently. A brain is behaving differently, not a spirit. Drastic and nearly instantaneous changes in a personality can happen after injury to certain portions of the brain. Another sad example is Alzheimer's disease, where victims exhibit personality change as the disease takes hold of their brains.

To me the idea of a soul is perhaps incorrect, incomplete, or maybe just oversimplified. But there is a good chance I don't understand the idea of a soul very well. I certainly don't understand precisely how a brain works.