I feel like a lot of my life has been taken from me by the church, and although I view trying to help people out of the church as a good thing, the cost of my own time continues to accumulate. I'm taking the final steps to take my life back.
I'm moving into the phase known as "post-Mormonism" in which I don't talk about the church and don't think about the church. I'm not completely indifferent. When people ask me about the church, I'll be candid with them. When the church gets into politics I will still take issue with that. But, I'm moving on.
So, I won't be posting here anymore, but of course I'll leave everything up as it is.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
But how could Joseph have known ____?
This is an often-used counterargument to evidence against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. Take a look at this recent article, for example, in which apologist Daniel Peterson uses it (and twists some of the evidence to support his conclusions.) Hugh Nibley employed a similar strategy of looking for historical events and cultural practices that line up (often spuriously) with LDS claims, and then claiming that Joseph couldn't have known about them, so he must have been inspired.
Essentially, this kind of argument is a way of side-stepping contradictory evidence because you just can't fathom how Joseph could come up with something like the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. This is a fallacy, as it assumes that if the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired, then the only other option is that he made it up himself, with no help. In actuality, there are plenty of sources he could have gotten much of the Book of Mormon from. It's not my job to explain where it came from; if it's logically inconsistent with our world, then it's clearly not historical, and I'm not obligated to speculate on its origin any further.
Still, such arguments are flawed in another fundamental way: they lack a null hypothesis. If you're going to argue that Joseph got an unusually high proportion of "hits" or things he couldn't possibly have known himself, you need a standard of comparison. Even a blatant con could expect to get things right or "almost" right here and there. You'd need to know that Joseph got more things incidentally right than a known conman could expect to get, on average, were the conman to attempt to create a pseudo-religious document. Without this information, you're just showing that you don't know much about cons, the ability of some people to pull them off, and our general capacity as human beings to be duped.
Take, for example, the curious case of Frank Abignale, the man portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me if You Can. This man is famous for writing fraudulent checks and later conning his way into jobs as an airline pilot, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a professor of history at BYU, and many others.
Now, consider the high frequency of "hits" Frank would've had to use to get these jobs. A case could be made that Frank actually was an M.D., a lawyer, etc. (he actually passed the bar exam in Louisiana!) simply because he knew enough to pose as them. Such a claim would be absolutely ludicrous, but equally so is the claim that Joseph Smith, who clearly mistranslated the Book of Abraham, got enough "hits" or "near hits" that he must've been right about everything else, ignoring the fact that he was provably wrong.
There's also Mark Hofmann, whose skill at forgery and ability to invent documents that mimicked early church history was sufficient to fool the first presidency of the church into buying his creations and then defending them publicly. Eventually, of course, everyone learned that Hofman's creations were not historical. Yet, clearly there were enough "hits" in the content that top leadership deemed them credible.
For other examples, take a look at these amazing feats. How easy would it be to argue that none of these things could have happened without direct divine intervention?
This style of argument is common, because it provides a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable evidence directly, and it seems to be highly effective. Many Mormons seem to be sold on the idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have invented the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (even with help from his contemporaries.) Then again, Mormon-dominated Utah also seems to have an amazingly high tolerance of multi-level marketing business models, so maybe it would be helpful to start demanding a higher standard of proof before extending trust.
Essentially, this kind of argument is a way of side-stepping contradictory evidence because you just can't fathom how Joseph could come up with something like the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. This is a fallacy, as it assumes that if the Book of Mormon isn't divinely inspired, then the only other option is that he made it up himself, with no help. In actuality, there are plenty of sources he could have gotten much of the Book of Mormon from. It's not my job to explain where it came from; if it's logically inconsistent with our world, then it's clearly not historical, and I'm not obligated to speculate on its origin any further.
Still, such arguments are flawed in another fundamental way: they lack a null hypothesis. If you're going to argue that Joseph got an unusually high proportion of "hits" or things he couldn't possibly have known himself, you need a standard of comparison. Even a blatant con could expect to get things right or "almost" right here and there. You'd need to know that Joseph got more things incidentally right than a known conman could expect to get, on average, were the conman to attempt to create a pseudo-religious document. Without this information, you're just showing that you don't know much about cons, the ability of some people to pull them off, and our general capacity as human beings to be duped.
Take, for example, the curious case of Frank Abignale, the man portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me if You Can. This man is famous for writing fraudulent checks and later conning his way into jobs as an airline pilot, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a professor of history at BYU, and many others.
Now, consider the high frequency of "hits" Frank would've had to use to get these jobs. A case could be made that Frank actually was an M.D., a lawyer, etc. (he actually passed the bar exam in Louisiana!) simply because he knew enough to pose as them. Such a claim would be absolutely ludicrous, but equally so is the claim that Joseph Smith, who clearly mistranslated the Book of Abraham, got enough "hits" or "near hits" that he must've been right about everything else, ignoring the fact that he was provably wrong.
There's also Mark Hofmann, whose skill at forgery and ability to invent documents that mimicked early church history was sufficient to fool the first presidency of the church into buying his creations and then defending them publicly. Eventually, of course, everyone learned that Hofman's creations were not historical. Yet, clearly there were enough "hits" in the content that top leadership deemed them credible.
For other examples, take a look at these amazing feats. How easy would it be to argue that none of these things could have happened without direct divine intervention?
This style of argument is common, because it provides a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable evidence directly, and it seems to be highly effective. Many Mormons seem to be sold on the idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have invented the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham (even with help from his contemporaries.) Then again, Mormon-dominated Utah also seems to have an amazingly high tolerance of multi-level marketing business models, so maybe it would be helpful to start demanding a higher standard of proof before extending trust.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Mormons and moon people: are modern prophets trustworthy?
In Oliver B. Huntington's journal, he quotes Brigham Young as saying the following:
"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
Huntington's patriarchal blessing also mentioned that he would "have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."
See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen
Pretty silly. Obviously we know today that the moon is not inhabited. Now, to be fair: Joseph and Brigham and other early church members were not the only people who thought that there were people on the moon - it was a widely held opinion at the time, even backed by some scientists. So, Joseph and Brigham were simply products of their time in this respect.
I don't hold their incorrect belief against them, because they had no way of knowing that the moon was not inhabited. The troubling part is the fact that, not only did they teach that there were people on the moon (and sun) but they actually described them in rather meticulous detail. Manner of dress. Average height. Unusually long lifespan. Since these moon people don't actually exist, how could they possibly go into so much detail?
At this point, knowing what we know now, it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.
In summary: the problem isn't that Brigham thought there might be people on the moon. It's that he described them. He didn't make a good faith mistake. He lied.
There are other events in church history that are similarly troubling. One is the Greek psalter incident. The short version: a Professor Henry Caswall claims that, to attempt to uncover Joseph Smith as a fraud, he brought to him a Greek psalter (collection of psalms) and asked what it was. Joseph affirmatively responded that it was a "dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics."
As recounted by Caswall, Willard Richards later came to him and said that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man."
Caswall's reply:
"Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
The point I'm trying to make here is the same as Caswall's. If he didn't know what it was, why did he speak as if he did? It's misleading and dishonest at best.
One more example: as recorded in History of the Church, Joseph Smith prophesied the following: "the coming of the Lord...is nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." This was in 1835, so that would mean "the scene should be wound up by 1891." Was Joseph giving his opinion? If so, why was it so incredibly specific? 56 years is an oddly precise "opinion" to have.
To illustrate my problem with this, let me contrast these examples with what I would do. If you ask me when America will have its first female president, I can't answer you definitively because I simply don't know. So, being an honest person, I will do one of two things: I will either say "I don't know," or I will say something like "I imagine it will happen within the next 20 years." If I were to say "it will happen within 37 years," that would be an oddly and inappropriately specific pronouncement that is not merited by my knowledge. Wouldn't it be strange if my "opinion" was that we would have a female president "within 37 years?" Being an honest person, when I express my opinion, I don't dress it up as fact or prophecy.
Moon people, a Greek psalter, and the second coming. Hopefully you can see my point here. If prophets sometimes don't speak as prophets, why do they always act like they are speaking as prophets? And if you can later demonstrate that something a prophet said "positively, like an oracle" is absolutely false, how are you to trust everything else they say? How can you trust someone who declares something so specific without the slightest hint of doubt when they clearly know nothing about it? Why wouldn't they just humbly admit that they have no idea whether there are people on the moon or what those moon people look like?
At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
Huntington's patriarchal blessing also mentioned that he would "have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."
See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_moonmen
Pretty silly. Obviously we know today that the moon is not inhabited. Now, to be fair: Joseph and Brigham and other early church members were not the only people who thought that there were people on the moon - it was a widely held opinion at the time, even backed by some scientists. So, Joseph and Brigham were simply products of their time in this respect.
I don't hold their incorrect belief against them, because they had no way of knowing that the moon was not inhabited. The troubling part is the fact that, not only did they teach that there were people on the moon (and sun) but they actually described them in rather meticulous detail. Manner of dress. Average height. Unusually long lifespan. Since these moon people don't actually exist, how could they possibly go into so much detail?
At this point, knowing what we know now, it seems very much like we've caught a 5-year-old in a fantastical lie.
In summary: the problem isn't that Brigham thought there might be people on the moon. It's that he described them. He didn't make a good faith mistake. He lied.
There are other events in church history that are similarly troubling. One is the Greek psalter incident. The short version: a Professor Henry Caswall claims that, to attempt to uncover Joseph Smith as a fraud, he brought to him a Greek psalter (collection of psalms) and asked what it was. Joseph affirmatively responded that it was a "dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics."
As recounted by Caswall, Willard Richards later came to him and said that "sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man."
Caswall's reply:
"Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man, he has committed himself, for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that which he knew nothing."
The point I'm trying to make here is the same as Caswall's. If he didn't know what it was, why did he speak as if he did? It's misleading and dishonest at best.
One more example: as recorded in History of the Church, Joseph Smith prophesied the following: "the coming of the Lord...is nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." This was in 1835, so that would mean "the scene should be wound up by 1891." Was Joseph giving his opinion? If so, why was it so incredibly specific? 56 years is an oddly precise "opinion" to have.
To illustrate my problem with this, let me contrast these examples with what I would do. If you ask me when America will have its first female president, I can't answer you definitively because I simply don't know. So, being an honest person, I will do one of two things: I will either say "I don't know," or I will say something like "I imagine it will happen within the next 20 years." If I were to say "it will happen within 37 years," that would be an oddly and inappropriately specific pronouncement that is not merited by my knowledge. Wouldn't it be strange if my "opinion" was that we would have a female president "within 37 years?" Being an honest person, when I express my opinion, I don't dress it up as fact or prophecy.
Moon people, a Greek psalter, and the second coming. Hopefully you can see my point here. If prophets sometimes don't speak as prophets, why do they always act like they are speaking as prophets? And if you can later demonstrate that something a prophet said "positively, like an oracle" is absolutely false, how are you to trust everything else they say? How can you trust someone who declares something so specific without the slightest hint of doubt when they clearly know nothing about it? Why wouldn't they just humbly admit that they have no idea whether there are people on the moon or what those moon people look like?
At the very least, Mormon leaders should exercise a little more humility when talking about things they don't know anything about.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What is the LDS church's stance on evolution?
Mormon beliefs on evolution vary. There are millions of Mormons; some are scientists, some are professors, and many are just intelligent people who accept the evidence before them that shows that the biodiversity we see today emerged through the process of natural selection over a period of millions of years.
Faithful members that accept evolution will often say that the LDS church has no "official" stance or policy regarding evolution, so they're free to believe what they want. However, take a look at the following troubling figure from a Pew Research study:
It's clear that Mormons tend to accept evolution at a rate much lower than other religious groups. The percentage is less than half of the national average! This can't just be a coincidence, and I don't believe it is. It is clear to me that the Church is far from supportive of the concept of evolution through natural selection, and the statistics here show that something about church membership leads to a lower probability of acceptance of evolution, whether the church has an "official stance" on the matter or not.
(I couldn't find the exact phrasing of the question, but if it's anything like the title of the graph, I think it could have been worded better. Still, all groups were presented with the same question, so the fact that Mormons are so far below the rest is still very significant.)
Let's take a look at what past presidents of the church have said and classify their statements in three ways: explicitly against evolution, explictly for evolution, or unclear or not taking a position. We'll ignore Joseph Smith because he just wasn't aware of Darwin, and Brigham Young because, well, he was prone to rambling on anything and everything, and everyone always ignores Brigham Young.
Statements by presidents of the church
John Taylor: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature .... These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. ... [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God."
Wilford Woodruff: this is not very explicit, but in 1877, Wilford Woodruff had a vision of the founding fathers and "other eminent men and women." Included in these "eminent men" was Louis Agassiz, a scientist who was a prominent contemporary critic of Darwin and proponent of Biblical creationism.
Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
Joseph F. Smith: he made a few wishy-washy statements, but mostly denounced evolution, most famously in this First Presidency statement (1909). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a sample:
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men... Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
According to the Ensign reprint in 2002, this statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters." As an official First Presidency statement, it's the most authoritative thing we have from the LDS church so far.
Soon after the statement, he clarified that "the church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world" and "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us not matter where it may be found." But, he himself, through the office of the First Presidency, taught that it was incorrect.
Heber J. Grant: made a statement called "'Mormon' view of evolution" which is not very explicit.
George Albert Smith: “I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.”
David O. McKay: "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought ... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth."
While clearly a proponent of what would today be called "intelligent design" (which is clearly different from natural selection), McKay spoke about, but did not take a strong position on, evolution, but did suggest that science "sometimes leaves [one] with [their] soul unanchored."
Joseph Fielding Smith: a quote from his book, Doctrines of Salvation: "I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."
Harold B. Lee: "I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.
I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”
She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”
I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’ ” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”
She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error."
(First Presidency message, 1972)
Spencer W. Kimball: "We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."
Ezra Taft Benson: "As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."
Howard W. Hunter: "The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament? Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false? When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs? There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned. In great simplicity, the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: it's hard to classify Hinckley because he often made unhelpful statements like "I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago" that don't help us in determining whether he accepted evolution or not. My decision to color him red comes from this: "I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."
Thomas S. Monson: Monson is also somewhat on the fence, but the general theme of the following statement (which he's repeated multiple times in various settings, including a First Presidency message and in general conference) is belief in the Bible over "so-called science": "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
Other references to evolution by materials printed by the church
The 1909 first presidency statement by Joseph F. Smith was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. While the statement is old, this suggests continued support of the principles it taught.
The Old Testament study manual: "In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man." (It then quotes statements that denounce evolution by Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, and others.)
Conclusion
A collection of other quotes by LDS leaders that were not president of the church at the time can be found here.
You'll notice a lot of red and purple but no blue. The LDS church has never publicly come out in support of evolution as some other churches have done. Whether or not any of the statements constitute "official doctrine" is not a productive discussion. It's clear that, official or not, the message sent by the church consistently leads members to deny evolution, resulting in a membership with a very low rate of scientific literacy compared to the rest of the country.
A minority of Mormons do accept the reality of evolution (BYU does have a Biology department, after all.) Others believe that evolution applies to plant and animal life but not humans, which to me (a biologist) is an untenable position due to the obvious similarity and shared evolutionary history between humans, earlier hominids and other primates. No one has to follow the teachings of church leadership, though I do think it raises the question of why the church would consistently teach and support a viewpoint that is incorrect, misleading the majority of the membership on an interesting and important question.
If you find any further evidence (particularly anything that could be classified as explicitly supporting evolution), please let me know, and I'll add it to this list.
Note: the caption of the Pew graph is "% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth." I tried to find out whether this was the way they worded the question on the survey, but couldn't determine the exact wording used. If it is, it's not how I would have worded it; it's misleading, and some religious people that try to balance evolution and religion may answer no because they feel that the "best" explanation has to include god.
Still, this doesn't warrant throwing out the survey results entirely. People from any religious group taking the survey would have faced the same dilemma. The fact that Mormons are so dramatically below everyone else is still significant.
Faithful members that accept evolution will often say that the LDS church has no "official" stance or policy regarding evolution, so they're free to believe what they want. However, take a look at the following troubling figure from a Pew Research study:
It's clear that Mormons tend to accept evolution at a rate much lower than other religious groups. The percentage is less than half of the national average! This can't just be a coincidence, and I don't believe it is. It is clear to me that the Church is far from supportive of the concept of evolution through natural selection, and the statistics here show that something about church membership leads to a lower probability of acceptance of evolution, whether the church has an "official stance" on the matter or not.
(I couldn't find the exact phrasing of the question, but if it's anything like the title of the graph, I think it could have been worded better. Still, all groups were presented with the same question, so the fact that Mormons are so far below the rest is still very significant.)
Let's take a look at what past presidents of the church have said and classify their statements in three ways: explicitly against evolution, explictly for evolution, or unclear or not taking a position. We'll ignore Joseph Smith because he just wasn't aware of Darwin, and Brigham Young because, well, he was prone to rambling on anything and everything, and everyone always ignores Brigham Young.
Statements by presidents of the church
John Taylor: "The animal and vegetable creations are governed by certain laws, and are composed of certain elements peculiar to themselves. This applies to man, to the beasts, fowls, fish and creeping things, to the insects and to all animated nature .... These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. ... [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God."
Wilford Woodruff: this is not very explicit, but in 1877, Wilford Woodruff had a vision of the founding fathers and "other eminent men and women." Included in these "eminent men" was Louis Agassiz, a scientist who was a prominent contemporary critic of Darwin and proponent of Biblical creationism.
Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
Joseph F. Smith: he made a few wishy-washy statements, but mostly denounced evolution, most famously in this First Presidency statement (1909). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a sample:
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men... Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
According to the Ensign reprint in 2002, this statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters." As an official First Presidency statement, it's the most authoritative thing we have from the LDS church so far.
Soon after the statement, he clarified that "the church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world" and "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us not matter where it may be found." But, he himself, through the office of the First Presidency, taught that it was incorrect.
Heber J. Grant: made a statement called "'Mormon' view of evolution" which is not very explicit.
George Albert Smith: “I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.”
David O. McKay: "There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On this thought, science again leads a student up to a certain point and sometimes leaves him with his soul unanchored... For example, evolution's beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will impress the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say, that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought ... God is at the helm. God is the Creator of the earth."
While clearly a proponent of what would today be called "intelligent design" (which is clearly different from natural selection), McKay spoke about, but did not take a strong position on, evolution, but did suggest that science "sometimes leaves [one] with [their] soul unanchored."
Joseph Fielding Smith: a quote from his book, Doctrines of Salvation: "I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."
Harold B. Lee: "I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.
I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”
She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”
I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’ ” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”
She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error."
(First Presidency message, 1972)
Spencer W. Kimball: "We don't know exactly how [Adam and Eve's] coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us."
Ezra Taft Benson: "As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."
Howard W. Hunter: "The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament? Let us examine what the Master said when the disciples came to him as he sat on the Mount of Olives. They asked him to tell them of the time of his coming and of the end of the world. Jesus answered: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In this statement the Master confirmed the story of the flood without modernizing it. Can we accept some of the statements of the Lord as being true and at the same time reject others as being false? When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, and they discussed the matter of the death of her brother and the resurrection. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” Both of these statements, the one regarding Noah and the fact of the flood and the one in which he declared himself to be the resurrection and the life, were made by the Lord. How can we believe one and not the other? How can we modernize the story of the flood, or refer to it as a myth, and yet cling to the truth of the other? How can we modernize the Bible and still have it be a guiding light to us and a vital influence in our beliefs? There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection? If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church to be old-fashioned. In great simplicity, the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: it's hard to classify Hinckley because he often made unhelpful statements like "I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago" that don't help us in determining whether he accepted evolution or not. My decision to color him red comes from this: "I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."
Thomas S. Monson: Monson is also somewhat on the fence, but the general theme of the following statement (which he's repeated multiple times in various settings, including a First Presidency message and in general conference) is belief in the Bible over "so-called science": "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."
Other references to evolution by materials printed by the church
The 1909 first presidency statement by Joseph F. Smith was reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign. While the statement is old, this suggests continued support of the principles it taught.
The Old Testament study manual: "In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man." (It then quotes statements that denounce evolution by Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, and others.)
Conclusion
A collection of other quotes by LDS leaders that were not president of the church at the time can be found here.
You'll notice a lot of red and purple but no blue. The LDS church has never publicly come out in support of evolution as some other churches have done. Whether or not any of the statements constitute "official doctrine" is not a productive discussion. It's clear that, official or not, the message sent by the church consistently leads members to deny evolution, resulting in a membership with a very low rate of scientific literacy compared to the rest of the country.
A minority of Mormons do accept the reality of evolution (BYU does have a Biology department, after all.) Others believe that evolution applies to plant and animal life but not humans, which to me (a biologist) is an untenable position due to the obvious similarity and shared evolutionary history between humans, earlier hominids and other primates. No one has to follow the teachings of church leadership, though I do think it raises the question of why the church would consistently teach and support a viewpoint that is incorrect, misleading the majority of the membership on an interesting and important question.
If you find any further evidence (particularly anything that could be classified as explicitly supporting evolution), please let me know, and I'll add it to this list.
Note: the caption of the Pew graph is "% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth." I tried to find out whether this was the way they worded the question on the survey, but couldn't determine the exact wording used. If it is, it's not how I would have worded it; it's misleading, and some religious people that try to balance evolution and religion may answer no because they feel that the "best" explanation has to include god.
Still, this doesn't warrant throwing out the survey results entirely. People from any religious group taking the survey would have faced the same dilemma. The fact that Mormons are so dramatically below everyone else is still significant.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
500 questions about God and Christianity
It's not up to 500 yet, but this is an interesting blog that asks questions you may not have thought of before:
http://500questions.wordpress.com/
http://500questions.wordpress.com/
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Irrationality is one of the mind's natural defense mechanisms
Why are we so eager to defend our own existing beliefs?
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
The answer may lie in how our brains function. The human brain is a fascinatingly complex information storage system. It's not like a computer, encoding information precisely as bits that can then be retrieved exactly as they were stored. Rather, it forms fuzzy "networks" of neurons that contain not only pieces of information, but also the emotional context associated with that information.
For example, if I say to you the word "bear," or show you a picture of a bear:
...neurons containing information about bears are going to fire. But they also contain links to other information that will begin firing as well: forest, hunting, Yellowstone, picnic, grizzly, panda, dangerous. I'm not sure what your feelings on bears are, but when you think about bears, you retrieve an entire network of information and emotions. And the more time you spend thinking about bears, the more you read about bears, the more you learn about bears, the stronger this network will become.
Now if I say to you "Obama" or "Mitt Romney," a very different set of information and emotions comes up, depending on your feelings toward these two figures. You also likely visualize the colors blue and red, respectively.
These information networks are not abstract or ethereal. They make up a physical part of your brain. They exist physically, just as surely as your arm or your leg.
As you gain new information, your mind will store it and link it to existing networks. The most efficient storage mechanism is to seek out or interpret information in such a way that it will conform with preexisting structures and can simply reinforce them. It's easier to add to existing information than to tear down all of the existing networks (which would require dramatic physical changes within your brain) and try to replace them in light of new information. This is called confirmation bias, and it's very powerful.
Similarly, when we encounter information that is detrimental to our existing belief systems, the mind's natural response is to pit its existing neural structures against that information to discredit it. The more scary or dangerous a piece of information seems, and the stronger the underlying mental networks that disagree with it, the more mental effort one will exert to stop it from changing their mind. This phenomenon is known as disconfirmation bias.
When our mind holds conflicting information, it means that networks have sections of overlapping nodes but may have attached different significance to them. The brain will seek to interpret the information in a non-threatening way that resolves the conflict to a consistent state while preserving as much information and existing structure as possible. This condition can cause stress and anxiety until it is resolved and is known as cognitive dissonance. It can lead to justification of information that we believe in strongly but which conflict with each other.
Think of it as analogous to your immune system. Your mind is using psychological mechanisms to protect your existing beliefs, which actually form a physical part of your body, stored and networked within your brain.
When we hear an idea that conflicts with our beliefs, our brain's natural response is to try to discredit that idea, regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong. Understanding this may be helpful in overcoming it and being able to have rational discussions and even change one's own mind due to a compelling argument.
Intelligent people are often the most wrong
I like to cite Wikipedia when making claims, because I feel it's a fairly neutral, factual source that most people can agree on; it's certainly less partisan than either the Church's own website or a critic's, and it overwhelmingly cites sources for the information it contains. Take a look at the pages about Mormonism and you will find that they are presented in a very fair way, with Mormons allowed their own perspective as well, even when the evidence seems to refute it. Some will argue that "anyone can write whatever they want on Wikipedia," but because of the way it's set up, nonsense or incorrect edits are usually promptly removed. In fact, studies show that Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is very impressive when you consider that it's written and edited entirely by volunteers and contains orders of magnitude more information (a click on random just now got me this.)
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
So to me, Conservapedia is a very interesting phenomenon. Created by a lawyer and homeschooling advocate named Andrew Schlafly who felt that Wikipedia had a consistent liberal bias, Conservapedia "is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" (source: the Conservapedia page on itself.) It also lacks some of the strict citation and notability guidelines found in Wikipedia. If you've never heard of it, take a look at the front page for a second. Go on, I'll wait.
Current front-page topics include "Why does biblical creation matter?" "How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?" "Internet atheism failed in 2012" and "Evidences for a young earth and universe." Oh, and also, "Creation Ministries International is on the rise, evolutionism and atheism is NOT!" (That one is so true that they had to YELL it at you!) The authors of Conservapedia dispute many accepted scientific theories by arguing for a "conservative" view of natural phenomena which are completely non-partisan (but some of which, like climate change, might have ramifications which are seen as more in line with one party's value system.) Some favorite quotes: "The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and universe..." and "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution" and "The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments." Also, count the number of references to "Creation Ministries International" you find - on the home page right now, there are four. This seems odd considering Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creationist magazine.
It's as if there are two sets of facts: the set agreed upon by Wikipedia and scientists (and other "liberals") and the "conservative" version of the facts. But while people can have different opinions about philosophy or the significance of events, we live in a shared reality, so science isn't up for ideological debate. Science remains our best explanation of nature until new evidence is found that improves it.
I'd love to see Conservapedia compared to Britannica, but anyone who made such a comparison would undoubtedly be found guilty of a strong liberal bias.
I'm not a physicist or a climatologist, so I'll leave those topics to their respective experts. But, for fun, let's take a look at the Conservapedia page on evolution:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." Whether this is true or not (no supporting evidence is cited), it's irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a good explanation of the world around us. It merely serves to "poison the well" against proponents of evolution, causing the mostly religious audience of Conservapedia to feel threatened by the theory from the start.
An external source is then cited: "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." "Over 700" might sound like a lot until you realize how small a fragment of scientists that actually represents: about 0.054% of life and geological scientists in the U.S. Additionally, not all of these "scientists" are doctoral-level researchers, and may are in fields that are not directly related to evolution; three quarters are not biologists. This citation attempts to mislead viewers that there is scientific uncertainty on the topic, when in fact scientists have reached an overwhelming consensus on evolution.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory." This statement is misleading as well. Transitioning from "simple life forms to more complex life forms" would take billions of years, so obviously it isn't something that could reasonably be observed in a laboratory setting. Nevertheless, we have observed evidence of exactly this happening in the fossil record, and evidence of mutation causing significant changes to species resulting in speciation (members of the same species become so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce, forming a new species) has been observed in the lab and in the world around us within the past several hundred years. Examples include the greenish warbler and the Ensatina genus of salamanders.
The article also links to "15 questions that evolutionists can't answer." This list doesn't contain a single question that can't be answered. If you're interested in the answers, send me a message.
This is all just from reading the introduction. The article is, at present, over 20,000 words in length, and debating the whole thing isn't the point of this post.
And so, if you can see just how far off Conservapedia is when it comes to understanding and accepting facts, you might be tempted to label Schlafly and others that have contributed to his project as stupid. I can understand that. But, the astonishing fact is that he's not stupid. At least not in the usual sense of the word. He has a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a J.D. from Harvard. He's actually a very intelligent and motivated person, which gives him the ability to make very legitimate-sounding (but misleading) arguments about topics on which he is very clearly wrong.
Why do very intelligent people have a visceral reaction to evolution, and try to argue that the evidence doesn't support it, when it very clearly does? The answer is that it conflicts with their identity - evolution may have religious ramifications that some are unwilling to accept. So, these very intelligent people are engaging their intelligence, but not to find truth - they're using it to defend their identity and existing beliefs.
So, ironically, the smarter you are, the better able you are to defend your beliefs (even when they're wrong), and the less likely you are to respond to reasonable arguments against them.
As an added bonus, check out Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project," in which they rewrite the Bible removing parts they deem to have "liberal bias."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)