Are Book of Mormon Studies Scientific?

I recently discussed characteristics of science and pseudo-science. As an exercise I thought I would see how Book of Mormon studies aimed at establishing historicity fare under the criteria. I casually follow the back-and-forth between critics and apologists, so I welcome contributions or corrections from those more knowledgable than myself.

Continue Reading

First lets look at the criteria of pseudo-science:

1. It has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

The answer to this part seems pretty obvious--certainly as applied Native American origins and culture.

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory toward solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

This certainly applies to the institutional Church, but then the Church is not in the business of science. As for believing scholars, I think it is demonstrable that they do make attempts to develop solutions. The selectivity issue is a little more difficult because it ties into ultimate beliefs regarding the Book of Mormon. Those for or against historicity have at least some evidence in their favor, so charges of selectivity could be made in both directions. Also, Book of Mormon scholars are a loose and varied group, so generalizations about selectivity may not be accurate.

Now for characteristics of science:

Independent Testability: If the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not directly falsifiable, are there auxilary hypotheses that can be tested? A few immediately come to mind, though there are others. First there is the origin of at least some Native Americans. So far the evidence--as interpreted by secular scholars--has been largely negative, which some would view as falsification of the book's historicity. However, additional auxilary hypotheses have been proposed that entail a limited geography and limited to negligable genetic contribution to surviving Native Americans. Such hypotheses may be justifiable, but it is hard to see how they are testable.

Another line of inquiry concerns geological changes that might have occured at the time of Jesus' death. For example the hypothesis that the cataclysms of 3 Nephi are due to volcanic activity is testable in principle--at least to the level of correlation. (See here for one inconclusive investigation.)

There is also the approach that seeks Near Eastern characteristics in the text (dicussed a little more below).

Unification: The two main competing theories for the origin of the Book of Mormon are either that it is an ancient book, or a 19th century work. I don't think either theory has brought unification to the data; I think it is fair to say that there are favorable and unfavorable data on each side.

Fecundity: Hugh Nibley pioneered the approach of looking for congruences between the Book of Mormon and the ancient Near East culture from which it purportedly originated. This approach has given rise to much of the supporting information with which readers of FARMS publications would be familiar (Hebraisms, chiasmus, etc) and has been relatively fertile. Doing the same with mesoamerica has not yielded as productive results yet. But in both cases the fecundity has thus far been one-way; so far, outside scholarship has not been illuminated by the Book of Mormon--to my knowledge.

So are Book of Mormon studies scientific? My overall opinion is that they are not--at least not yet. This is not to say that they are not scholarly, that they cannot ever become scientific, or that no issues can be addressed scientifically. I just think that, on the whole, Book of Mormon studies have not assembled a critical mass of scientific characteristics to qualify as science. I would place them on the borderlands between the poles of pseudo-science and science. Am I wrong?

Continue reading...

Philosophy of Science: Demarcation of Science

I am a philosophy neophyte. So I decided to check out a book at the library that caught my eye: Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by E.D. Klemke. Frankly most of it doesn't look that interesting to me, but I did read--and enjoy--two essays dealing with the demarcation of science from non-science (including pseudo-science). It turns out that defining what is science--and what is not--is not always easy. But it can be important when it comes to public issues like what kinds of things should be taught in public schools.

Continue Reading

The first essay is "Why Astrology is Pseudoscience" (pdf) by Paul R. Thagard. The content of the article is obvious from the title. Thagard proposes these basic criteria for determining that something is pseudo-science:

1. It has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory toward solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

An interesting implication of this is that something can be legitimate science at one time and pseudo-science at another.

The second article is "Believing Where We Cannot Prove," by Philip Kitcher. This is apparently a chapter taken from his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Unfortunately I can't find an online copy. Kitcher lays out three basic characteristics of science:

1. Independent testability--A commonly cited characteristic of science is that it can be falsified. In other words, a scientific idea has to be vulnerable to being disproved. This characteristic was articulated by Karl Popper. However Kitcher points out that philosophers of science have long known that it is insufficient for identifying science because its application ends up either including or excluding everything. If a scientific theory consists of a bundle of hypotheses and assumptions, it is always possible to modify or discard part of the bundle, thus rendering the theory resistant to falsification. Creationists have figured out how to play this game and use it against scientists, charging that creationism is just as scientific as secular science. Kitcher calls this naive falsification.

Part of his solution is that scientific theories will have auxilary hypotheses that can be tested independent of the original theory. His example is that Newton's laws of motion and gravity explained the oribits of the planets very well--except for Uranus. Faced with the problem, Newton's theories could have been discarded as false (naively falsified). Instead it was hypothesized that another planet was affecting Uranus's orbit. A critic could charge that this was just ad hoc rationalization except for one thing--it was a testable hypothesis. In fact it turned out that another planet was indeed involved--Neptune.

2. Unification--Good scientific theories will explain much using a few simple statements, and will invoke the same reasoning processes or problem-solving-strategies for new questions. His example here is that the motion of the planets are explained by a few fundamental principles--not a patchwork of rules for individual planets.

3. Fecundity--In finding answers to questions, scientific theories turn up additional questions to be addressed, and answers will be sought using the principles contained in numbers one and two above.

Continue reading...

A Little General Conference Humor

I've never actually been on Temple Square during General Conference, but I understand that groups of protesters are a regular feature. Sometimes the protesters, in an attempt to shock, display temple garments. These people must know how offensive this is to many LDS people, but apparently feel justified in ridiculing other people's underwear.

I have a vision of something I would love to see. Someone (or a small group) with thick skin ought to join the protesters dressed only in the most ridiculous underwear available. I'm talking males in leapord bikini underwear, Sponge-Bob boxers, etc. These folks should hold large signs that say "Mormon underwear is silly!" Perhaps if weather or decency laws are an issue, mannequins could be used.

If the protesters cannot be shamed, they can at least be counter-mocked satirized.

Continue reading...

A Little General Conference Skepticism

General Conference is coming, with its familiar look, feel, and sound. Most of the speakers will read their speeches off of teleprompters. However a few may stare directly into the cameras, displaying impressive memorization abilities as they give their polished address. But these speakers almost certainly have not memorized their speeches. Rather, they are transmitting a recording of their speech--or components of it--to a tiny earpiece and reciting what they hear. How do I know this?

1. I have first-hand knowledge of a situation where a General Authority was to give a speech at a particular venue, but in the preparation there was concern that some of the lights might be a source of interference in the radio transmission.

2. After the above experience, I had a conversation with someone who was intimately involved in the production of General Conference. I asked them whether any of the speakers actually memorized their talks and was told that, no, they use the method I described above. (I suppose that the late Elder Haight--whose vision was too poor to read the teleprompter--could be an exception, but his speeches seemed largely extemporaneous and were not the polished look-in-the-camera type.)

3. Recently a relative told me of a time when they attended an event where a General Authority spoke using this method. As a result of some kind of interference, the recording was audible over the sound system so that the audience could hear the prompt and delivery.

Now I don't have a problem with this method; it is essentially an improvement on the teleprompter. And I would certainly conceed that those who employ this method are capable of memorizing their speeches. However sometimes in casual or church settings, in a moment of Church-leader-cheerleading, the ability of some General Authorities to recite their speeches is used as evidence of their remarkable memory which, in turn, is evidence for how great their abilities (natural or supernatural) are. These leaders undoubtably do have great abilities, but I think that the methods they use to aid them should be recognized for what they are.

Continue reading...

Comparing Creation Accounts

I recently discussed a little bit of Biblical scholarship and its bearing on the creation story in Genesis. Taking a more allegorical or poetic view of the Genesis creation account--particularly considering its cultural context and current scientific understanding--is a tempting way to go. However given that the other LDS creation accounts build upon the Genesis framework, one might be excused for hesitating before throwing Genesis into the bin of pre-scientific mythology. Furthermore, the accounts in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham bill themselves as the words of God. After relating the familiar account of the creation and the episode of the Garden of Eden, Moses 4:32 states:

And these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses, and they are true even as I will; and I have spoken them unto you.

Even among believing LDS scholars there is debate over the extent to which Joseph's "translations" consisted of restoring original text versus adding prophetic insights or clarifying difficult passages. But even when the creation accounts are taken on their own terms, we find that the Moses passage quoted above need not be interpreted as endorsement of an overly-literal approach.

Continue Reading

Latter-day Saints inherited the Genesis account as part of their Christian background, and the accounts of the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the temple were received over a period of time, in that order. Although there are obvious similarities between them, there are some interesting differences as well [1].

Genesis --> Moses --> Abraham --> temple

As we move from Genesis to the temple, the days of creation become less important. Although the days of Genesis and Moses have a literal sense to them, Abraham begins to blur the lines of interpretation by also refering to them as times. In the temple account the days have no astronomical or time significance at all. Furthermore the creative acts of each day are divided somewhat differently in the temple account, resulting in a slight change of order that is more consistent with the scientific scenario. A couple of other details of the temple account--that I leave as an exercise for the reader--also seem more consistent with science.

My point here is that regardless of how accurately the various creation stories reflect God's words, none can be held up as the gold standard of reality without clashing to some degree with other accounts. When we also consider the fact that at least some elements of the Garden of Eden story (creation from the dust, creation from a rib, opposite trees and fruit) have been identified as figurative by Church leaders such as Brigham Young, Spencer W. Kimball, and Bruce R. McConkie, it becomes clear that Moses 4:32 cannot constitute an endorsement of scientific accuracy.

So if the creation accounts as recorded in Genesis, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham do not reflect scientific accuracy, what are they? My suggestion is that the answer comes from language that introduces the temple creation account: they are representations.

---

1. The LDS Church Educational System's Institute manual for the Pearl of Great Price contains a convenient table, A Harmony of the Creation Accounts.

Continue reading...

Earth from Saturn

From NASA:

Not since NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft saw our home as a pale blue dot from beyond the orbit of Neptune has Earth been imaged in color from the outer solar system. Now, Cassini casts powerful eyes on our home planet, and captures Earth, a pale blue orb -- and a faint suggestion of our moon -- among the glories of the Saturn system.

Earth is captured here in a natural color portrait made possible by the passing of Saturn directly in front of the sun from Cassini's point of view. At the distance of Saturn's orbit, Earth is too narrowly separated from the sun for the spacecraft to safely point its cameras and other instruments toward its birthplace without protection from the sun's glare. ...

At this time, Cassini was nearly 1.5 billion kilometers (930 million miles) from Earth.

The inset in the upper left is a magnified view of the dot in the upper right quadrant of the full picture.

By the way, you can see Saturn's rings with a rather modest telescope. The telescope I got for my ninth birthday was nothing special, but it was enough to see Saturn with its rings, and Jupiter with its moons.

Continue reading...

Genesis in Context

Having discussed the day-age theory (here and here) I will now briefly stick a toe into the waters of biblical scholarship. I am certainly not an expert, but I have picked up a few things here and there.

Many scholars believe that the Torah shows evidence of multiple authorship--a school of thought known as the documentary hypothesis. They argue that the creation story in Genesis is actually composed of two separate stories. The first recounts the days of creation culminating in the creation of man, while the second begins with the creation of man, then animals, and then woman. Furthermore, scholars see evidence that the creation story draws on the symbolism and existing mythology of surrounding ancient cultures [1].

Continue Reading

The day-age theory, and other such constructions, are built with underlying assumptions of concordism--that is, that the description of creation in the scriptures and the findings of science should ultimately match up. However, some biblical scholars argue that concordist assumptions are ill-founded. But how could we expect anything other than concordance when God describes the creation?

To set the scene consider this quote from Elder James E. Talmage:

The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation [2].

If Genesis was not intended as a science textbook, what was its intent? According to Christian theologian Conrad Hyers,

Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to read it - including evolutionists who may dismiss it as a pre-scientific account of origins, and creationists who may try to defend it as the true science and literal history of origins. For most peoples in the ancient world the various regions of nature were divine. Sun, moon, and stars were gods. There were sky gods and earth gods and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Though for us, nature has been "demythologized" and "naturalized" - in large part because of this very passage of scripture - for ancient Jewish faith a divinized nature posed a fundamental religious problem. ...

The fundamental question at stake, then, could not have been the scientific question of how things achieved their present form and by what processes, nor even the historical question about time periods and chronological order. The issue was idolatry, not science; syncretism, not natural history; theology, not chronology; affirmations of faith in one transcendent God, not creationist or evolutionist theories of origin [3].

In its laying out the days of creation, scholars point to poetic and numerological elements of Genesis 1. For example the days of creation relate to one another as illustrated below.

1. light divided : 4. sun, moon, and stars
2. waters below separated from sky : 5. fish and fowl
3. dry land and vegetation : 6. animals, insects, and man
7. rest

In summary, it seems to me that a good case can be made that the creation narratives are meant to be poetic rather than scientific, and were originally formulated as a response to surrounding polytheistic cultures. Attempts to reconcile them with modern scientific understanding distort their original meaning and purpose.

(More to come.)

---

1. For elaboration of the documentary hypothesis and the creation accounts in an LDS context see Keith Norman's Adam's Navel and Anthony Hutchinson's A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered. See also Kevin Barney's Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis.

2. The Earth and Man, by James E. Talmage.

3. Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts, by Conrad Hyers. See also The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No, as well as the LDS Bible Dictionary entry for "Idol."

Continue reading...

Day-Age Difficulty

In my last post I discussed John A. Widtsoe's enthusiasm for the day-age theory and his rooting it in the Book of Abraham. However the day-age theory did not originate with the Book of Abraham and it appears that Latter-day Saints did not adopt it for about 30 years after the Book of Abraham was published.

But is the day-age theory helpful?

On Thursday, October 19, 1899, a person identified as "A.W." published an editorial in the Millenial Star about science and the scriptures. After asserting a day-age interpretation of the days in Genesis chapter 1, the piece states:

One thing is most certain, and that is that the order of creation as described in Genesis is strictly in line with that recorded in the "great stone book." First vegetation, then aquatic animal life, and following that the fowls of the air, next the land animals, and last of all, the crowning work, man.

This account, written thousands of years before geology was ever thought of as a science, and agreeing so exactly in order, should put an indelible stamp of authenticity on the Bible account of creation. (p.665)

This statement brings up one of the chief difficulties with the day-age theory--the order of the days. I'm not enough of a historian of science to know whether the statement was accurate in 1899, but I know that it is not accurate now. Some conflicts between the order of days and the order in the fossil record (not to mention cosmology) might be explained away depending on the assumptions and interpretations one makes, but a rather recalcitrant fact is that fowls appear relatively late in the fossil record as descendants of the dinosaurs, and with insects and mammals already on the scene. Another difficulty is the fact that sea creatures appear prior to terrestrial vegetation. (For the major events of the geologic time scale, see this Wikipedia entry.)

On the simple matter of chronology, the day-age theory is insufficient for reconciling Genesis 1 with the fossil record.

(More to come.)

Continue reading...

Joseph and the Day-Age

In Joseph Smith as Scientist, John A. Widtsoe puts forth the thesis that Joseph Smith anticipated modern science. In the chapter, "Geological Time," he notes that although Joseph's re-working of Genesis in the Book of Moses (1830-31) left the days of creation in tact, the Book of Abraham (1835-1842) uses both 'day' and 'time' in way that can be interpreted in a more expansive manner. Widtsoe then writes:

Continue Reading

Now, then, we must remember that Joseph Smith made this translation long before the theologians of the world had consented to admit that the Mosaic days meant long periods of time; and long before geology had established beyond question that immense time periods had been consumed in the preparation of the earth for man.

Joseph Smith, the humble, unlearned, despised boy, unfamiliar with books and the theories of men, stated with clear and simple certainty, if his works be read the the eye of candid truth, this fundamental truth of geological science and the Bible, long before the learned of the world had agreed upon the same truth.

Standing alone, this fact might be called a chance coincidence, as result of blind fate. But recalling that it is one of many similar and even more striking facts, what shall be said, Has ever imposter dared what Joseph Smith did?

Although it has been particularly popular in LDS circles, the approach to interpreting the days of Genesis as long periods of time has been used in mainstream Christianity also, where it is known as the day-age theory. The roots of the day-age theory extend back at least to 1681 in the writings of Thomas Burnet, a chaplain to King William III, where he intepreted the Genesis days as unspecified lengths of time [1]. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon argued in 1778 that the earth was some 75,000 years old and that the days of Genesis were indefinite periods of time--as long as physics needed [2].

In 1823 George Stanley Faber, an Anglican, began advocating the day-age theory [3]. It became more popular starting in the mid-1840s when Hugh Miller and Robert Shaw adopted it, and thereafter became one of two popular methods of reconciling Genesis with geology [1]. (The other is known as the gap theory.) The day-age theory was not confined to Europe; in an 1833 publication Benjamin Silliman, a geologist and chemist at Yale, quoted Scottish geologist Robert Jameson regarding a more expansive interpretation of the days in Genesis, and in an appendix to a geology text (1839, but possibly in earlier editions also), Silliman himself argued for the day-age interpretation.

Was John Widtsoe a little over-exuberant? As far as I know, Joseph Smith never discussed the length of the creative periods. Clearly Joseph was not the first person to extend the days of Genesis--if that is what he intended--though he was early in the trend. As far as I can tell, it was not until the Saints were in Utah that discussion of the periods of creation began, with Brigham Young and Orson Pratt[4], in 1871, advocating (or at least open to) long periods of time. There seems to be a gap of at least 29 years between the Book of Abraham and open LDS discussion of the day-age interpretation.

I plan to continue this discussion in a future post.

---

References:

1. Report of the Creation Study Committee, at Reasons to Believe (an old-earth creationist organization)

2. Changing the Public's Perception of Evolution - Christian Origins of Evolutionary Thought, National Center for Science Education (a pro-science organization)

3. Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related?, Answers in Genesis (a young-earth creationist organization)

4. In Orson Pratt: Prolific Pamphleteer (Dialogue Vol. 15 No. 3), David Whittaker notes (#28):

Pratt functioned in Mormonism [reconciling scripture and science] as Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864), a Yale professor of chemistry and natural history, did for New England audiences during the same period. While evidence is lacking, it is possible that Pratt attended some of Silliman's lectures in the 1830s while doing missionary work in the Boston area, a claim made by Jules Remy, A Journey to Great Salt Lake 2 vols. (London, 1861), 2: 12ff.

Continue reading...

Straining at Lunar Gnats

This week's Nature has a news story concerning the Muslim lunar calendar. Apparently a group of American Islamic scholars has agreed on a unified lunar calendar.

This need to see the new Moon dates from the time of the Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. And there is a reluctance to switch from what people believe Mohammed required, regardless of whether a scientific approach might be more convenient — in fact doing so is seen by many Islamic scholars as coming close to committing a sin. ...

But the naked eye remains the method of choice throughout the Islamic world, and is one of the main reasons a unified calendar has so far proved elusive. According to this tradition, a new lunar month begins the morning after a sighting of the thin crescent Moon — some 24 hours after the birth of a new Moon.

That's difficult for countries in the Northern Hemisphere, because thick clouds often hide the crescent Moon. And in countries at higher latitudes, such as in Scandinavia, the crescent is invisible to the naked eye. When this happens, mosques in northern Europe and North America tend to follow decisions in other countries. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are favourites, but even they often celebrate Islamic festivals on different days.

Hasan is confident that the US decision will prompt a rethink in Saudi Arabia, where Moon-sighting causes frequent controversy. Saudi Arabia does have an Islamic calendar based on lunar tables, known as the Umm al-Qura calendar. This was developed by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, the country's science ministry, and is used for all non-religious purposes. But human sightings are still used to determine dates for religious festivals. Moreover, anyone can claim to have seen the Moon — the authorities are duty-bound to listen, and sometimes accept news of a sighting even if this does not agree with the dates in the lunar calendar. [italics added]

This happened last year, when the Saudi government decided, with just ten days to go, to revise the date for the annual Hajj pilgrimage because of a claimed Moon sighting — even though astronomical calculations showed such a sighting to be impossible. The sudden change led to chaos in the organization of the three-day event, which attracts 2 million people from more than 150 countries.

Sheesh.

Speaking of the moon, last weekend NASA crashed a probe into it resulting in a flash of light that was visible from earth (though not with the naked eye, I think). Nature used the occasion to put together a special feature about the Moon. It is freely available; I recommend this slideshow.

Continue reading...

Skepticism for the Church

We often think of scientific skepticism as a weapon used against the Church, but it does serve a defensive purpose from time to time. Occasionally people attempt to exploit the Church's unique claims in an attempt to deceive. The Kinderhook Plates and the Hofmann forgeries are two prominent examples.

Two lesser known examples are discussed in Edward Kimball's Lengthen Your Stride draft manuscript.

In the 1950s a Dr. Jesus Padilla claimed to have found some small plates in a Mexican tomb that had characters from the Anthon transcript on them. In 1978 a BYU professor, Ray Matheny, determined that they were forgeries based on a) their uniform thinness, which could only be accomplished by modern sheet rolling, b) the engraving was done with tools not used anciently, and c) only characters from the Anthon transcript that had been published in a missionary tract were on the plates.

In 1975, missionaries in England met a man named Bert Fuchs who had brass plates, a sword, and cystal lenses in a bow. He claimed that his grandfather obtained them in Peru and told him to offer them to the Church whose representatives quoted certain scriptures. Initially parts of his story checked out, however as time progressed his story had inconsistencies. Also BYU professor Paul Cheesman determined that the characters resembled the Anthon transcript and Kinderhook plates, that the holes in the plates had been drilled, and found that the "sealed" portion was blank. (Wouldn't it be funny if the sealed plates actually were blank?) Fuchs, having been baptized, was excommunicated. Unfortunately a Church member, knowing that they might be fake, had given $18,000 to Fuchs to ensure that money did not become an issue.

Continue reading...

I Shall Henceforth Be Known As Jared*

As I mentioned earlier, I've noticed one or more additional Jareds popping up in the bloggernacle and decided I should distinguish my name somehow. I appreciate all of the input; I received some creative suggestions, but it ultimately came down to Jared* and lsrJared. I decided to go with Jared* because it is just a minor modification, it is easier to type, and the asterisk kind of gives a wink or shine quality, I think. It may take me some time to fully implement the change as I may forget occasionally.

So remember, I'm basically the same old Jared, just a little more decorated.

Continue reading...