Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[Avatar4321]

What seems odd to me is Foxtrot's obviously unscientific approach to the correlation of LDS belief and scientific research. Of course, the alternative approaches he might make use of on this matter might not appeal to him anyway (I'm thinking of the social sciences specifically). Oh well. Either way, it is sort of funny to realize that he's electing to spend his time talking to people over the internet whom he's never met, and whom he believes are delusional. Makes it hard for me to understand why he'd spend time that way. Seems there are a lot more productive things he could be doing with his time.

I thought that was kind of odd too. I mean when I hear someone talking about science, I expect them to use a scientific approach to what they are doing.

Also, considering the scientific approach to God that the Book of Mormon teaches, I find difficulty with the whole "Mormonism and science are incompatible" schtick. I mean seriously, How many religions provide multiple witnesses and tell people to experiment on the Word and ask God for themselves?

[Avatar4321]

For the record, I assume that by

[Avatar4321]

Can you be more specific? Take for example the religious claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans, placed on this planet some 6,000 years ago.

Are you saying that its delusional to believe that the claim that man arrived on earth some 6,000 ago can be tested scientifically?

If you want the heart of it. yes. It is delusional to believe that we can test anything that happened thousands of years ago scientifically.

See, much of the scientific research into what has happened in the past is based on the assumption that scientific laws acted the same way then that they do now. Unfortunately, until someone invents time travel, it would be impossible to prove this assumption correct.

We can make educated guesses based on the presumption that Natural law worked the same way in the past as it does now, but we can't truely scientifically test it to determine whether or not our assumptions are accurate.

You learn more by honestly recognizing the limitations of what you are trying to do. but too many people never question assumptions. Especially in science. it's rather an oxymoron sometimes.

[Avatar4321]

You apparently do not understand why ID is not science.

You might want to do something about your misunderstanding on this issue in the near future.

And you apparently dont know what science is.

Which really is a shame.

For the record, consensus is not science.

[DonBradley]

I have a small suggestion for you. When defending Mormonism, you might keep in mind that you are doing so from the inside. Sometimes things look a lot different from out here.

For an outsider, your denial that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual gains precious little support from the group of apologists that show up daily on MADB, or from FAIR or FARMS for that matter. It does not gain support from Church leaders who boldly state that the mantle is

[44Foxtrot]

Well, if he is going to pursue this reasoning, then yes, he has to.

Avatar,

I have already responded to the issue of females as potential employees. In case you missed it, and you apparently did, sex and race are genetic traits. They are a function of nature, and an individual can effectively do nothing to change them. Religion is mostly a self acquired worldview. It is a function of nurture, if you will, and as adults we have to take individual responsibility for what we believe. A female applicant would be evaluated exactly as would a male applicant, and would probably be more likely to be hired because we get very few qualified female applicants.

The best engineer we have in one of our field offices, and one of the best engineers in the company, is a female from Eastern Europe. I hired her on the spot the first time I met her. To make sure she did not change her mind, I wrote her a personal check for her first month's salary at our first meeting.

I have also worked for several female scientists and technical managers over the years. A woman I worked for at MIT was one of the best scientists I ever met.

I see that you have made a number of other posts on this thread. If you don't mind I won't be responding to them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

Indeed I have. RIchard Dawkins is a highly regarded and accomplished biologist, who has made important contributions to society in science, philosophy and popular culture. I would say that his work is required reading for anyone interested in science, and especially in biology.

Highly regarded accomplishments aside, his atheism is of the Kindergarten variety.

More importantly, have you read The God Delusion?

Not all the way through. Picture yourself reading a long, tedious and confidently ignorant book on Creationism attacking evolution and you'll get an idea of why I didn't bother finishing.

ps- I noticed you overlooked my post about the Pres. Packer talk, "The Candle of the Lord," which you keep referring to. I would appreciate some feedback.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This claim is anti-empirical in that it flouts the considerable evidence to the contrary.

As I mentioned, that's the irony. Foxtrot's own position on Mormonism's "anti-intellectualism" is, as per his own definition, delusional.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Second, you could offer specific critiques of LDS apologetics and thought that 1) are fair--i.e., accurately represent what's being criticized and 2) aren't fundamentally anti-Mormon--i.e., don't aim or claim to undermine the system of spiritual convictions that define a Latter-day Saint. To represent Mormon thought in a way that Mormons would not recognize or to attempt to undermine LDS faith are both tickets to nowhere.

Precisely. His toss-away comments about FAIR and FARMS are a perfect example of failing to responsibly engage other perspectives. He sweeps entire organizations aside without recognizing any diversity among them, without engaging any actual points, without acknowledging a scale of quality, etc. Well put.

I'd suggest deciding what is you really want--to help raise the intellectual bar in Mormondom or to attack Mormonism itself. You can't effectively do both--though you can certainly fail at both in the attempt.

Again, well said. Sorry to sound like a cheerleader, but your posts are a breath of fresh air.

[dougtheavenger]

You are almost right. Nobody hired me for this job. I founded this company with two partners. We recently merged with another firm and have now started spinnig off. I am the managing partner of the first company and President and CEO of one of the spin-offs.

The ex-Mormon CEO of our partner company and I had a talk about this thread over lunch today. I related to him, in general terms, some of the comments. All I can say after our little chat is that if you don't like what I have to say about the problems we have with overt religionists, you would really be upset with him.

So you are a businessman, not a scientist but you feel competent to hire people to fill scientific positions or do you mean engineering positions which is a bit different. Most companies use others in the field to do a tech interview. Anyhow, let me ask you this.

Observed Y-chromosome mutation rates run between 21 per 10,000 (Weber & Wong) and 28 per 10,000 (Kayser). When these mutation rates are applied to Y-chromosome mutations such as M3, along with average generation lengths of between 20 and 30, ages between 2000 and 2500 years ago are the result. In other words, most American Indians are descended from a single ancestor who lived between 150 BC and 500 BC. Should scientists just accept this? SHould they just scrap existing theiries to accomodate this observation?

[USU78]

Anybody besides me notice that 44F has backed off considerably from the most outrageous of the "observations" in his OP since he started playing defense?

[maupayman]

By the way, it is worth noting that most bigots think they have good reasons for their bigotry. They don't see themselves as bigots, but as simply right-thinking.

Right, they'll do things like justify their bigotry with the word of God and revelation......

[oats]

If I'm understanding correctly, you work with an abundance of people raised in the LDS church. Some are still active, some have excommunicated themselves. You did your PhD work as an active Mormon, were hired by MIT as an active Mormon, and later chose to leave the church, alleviating about 90% of your cognitive dissonance.

I read through you posts and I have not noted anything that would indicate being an active LDS is a hindrance. You built your scientific foundation (I presume, given your experience at MIT with a female working in science) as a Mormon. I understand you have an employee/colleague that proselytizes more than he works. That is too bad. Given the responses on this thread, and my personal experience, it seems like these actions are nearly universally undesirable in a workplace.

My question is how professing LDS beliefs and living an LDS lifestyle has anything to do with scientific capacity, based on your own experience?

I don't feel like discussing the points about the 'slippery slope' you mentioned before, in regards to being selective about what ideas to profess. It's all theoretical and not worth talking about. People do what they do and it seldom follows the paths projected by our feeble logic.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Right, they'll do things like justify their bigotry with the word of God and revelation......

Yes, or with the power of reason and empirical observation.

[Jason]

Anybody besides me notice that 44F has backed off considerably from the most outrageous of the "observations" in his OP since he started playing defense?

I have noticed that he claims to be a co-founder of a company that has millions of dollars to lose.

One would think he has better uses for his time than arguing with delusional people.

[dougtheavenger]

Now to the issue of Mormons in science. In one of my posts on the earlier thread, I stated that the fundamental problems (or disadvantages) that religionists (and especially Mormons) experience in the practice of science is reflected by the absence of Mormons among Nobel Prize laureates. Even though MADB members dismissed this fact as evidence of a problem with science in Mormonism, this fact has been mentioned in articles by faithful Mormons concerning the problems Mormon scientists have in overcoming Mormon-centered education and culture in their professional lives.

In addition to the Nobel Prize data, I asked the board if anyone knew how many Mormons were members of the National Academy of Sciences. No definitive answer was given.

A recent survey shows that only 7% of the members of the National Academy believe in a personal God. Since well over 70% of the US population claims religious belief, it is pretty clear that religious belief is not correlated with good science. Considering these numbers, it is not very likely that there are any Mormons among the 2000 NAS members. Nonetheless, I looked a little further into the situation.

While the National Academy does not list the religious affiliations of its members (for obvious reasons) it does list their academic institutions or industrial affiliations. Among the some 2000 individuals listed as the NAS members, not a single one has a listed academic affiliation with BYU.

The University of Utah had at least one. A little further up the road in Idaho, there were several from state schools. By the time one reached Eastern Washington, WSU had at least 4. Further west still at the University of Washington (where I graduated) there were more than 30.

So we have a relatively small state university in the agricultural region of Eastern Washington with a student body of some 20,000 with at least 4 members of the National Academy, as compared to the much larger flagship Mormon institution of higher learning with a student body of some 34,000 with no members - not one.

To the south Colorado Nevada and Arizona also had a total of about a dozen members in their colleges and universities. Among the foreign countries that have members in the American National Academy, Israel was a standout with more than a dozen. Even the University of London, where I did my graduate work, has a few National Academy members. Mexico, Russia, Poland and Germany were among the other foreign countries with NAS members.

There is a great deal of evidence from the literature that anti-science and anti-intellectualism is rampant in Mormon religion, thought and culture. This message rings out loud and clear from the talks at General Conference to the articles in Church magazines and literature, to comments on MADB.

On other MADB threads, for example, one actually sees Mormons who are willing to ignore the overwhelming physical against a global flood, or the genesis creation, or evolution, and choose instead to base their worldview on demonstrably false myths for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Surveys show that in terms of acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, the only religious group scoring lower than Mormons were the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The claim that Mormon culture and belief do not constitute a handicap when it comes to the practice of science does not seem to be supported by the data. The counter-claim, that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-science, is supported daily by faithful Mormons from the highest Chrch leaders down to individuals on this board who state their belief in a global flood, genesis creation, and the preeminence of the statements by Mormon leaders over physical evidence in making decisions regarding what to believe about the world.

Television, the artificial heart and fry sauce. Interestingly, the list of famous Mormon scientists does not include Philo T Farnsworth who invented TV. I guess that is because he didn't have a PhD. Then again, these lists may not be exhaustive. It is notable that the invevtor of electric television is not among Nobel Prize winners, and neither is the inventor of the artificial heart.

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

http://en.wikipedia....hilo_Farnsworth

http://famousmormons.../inventors.html

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_lds_inv.html

[Jaybear]

Anybody besides me notice that 44F has backed off considerably from the most outrageous of the "observations" in his OP since he started playing defense?

How shocking. He tempered his opinion after considering the opinions, arguments and viewpoints of others.

Clearly there is no room for him on this board.

[stemelbow]

How shocking. He tempered his opinion after considering the opinions, arguments and viewpoints of others.

Clearly there is no room for him on this board.

Yep...score one for them delusional mormons.

Sometimes we just can't let things go, huh?

[maupayman]

Yes, or with the power of reason and empirical observation.

Right, people will find a way to be bigots, if that's what they choose. Its just ironic that a mormon would get so wound up about bigotry, given the church's history.

[LifeOnaPlate]

dbl.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right, people will find a way to be bigots, if that's what they choose. Its just ironic that a mormon would get so wound up about bigotry, given the church's history.

Your post makes absolutly no sense. So, lets say I go along with you that the church was indeed bigotted in the past. Why can't we as mormons point out some one else's bigotry? Keep in mind that I was not born until the late 70's, I cannot be held responsible for the so called bigotted past.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Right, people will find a way to be bigots, if that's what they choose. Its just ironic that a mormon would get so wound up about bigotry, given the church's history.

That's sort of like saying "It's just ironic that a human would get so wound up about bigotry, given the history of humanity."

[Jaybear]

Your post makes absolutly no sense. So, lets say I go along with you that the church was indeed bigotted in the past. Why can't we as mormons point out some one else's bigotry? Keep in mind that I was not born until the late 70's, I cannot be held responsible for the so called bigotted past.

Obviously, the objection to religious based bigotry presented here is personal, not principled. No one here cares one bit, for example, that BYU PRESENTLY openly discriminates against atheists in its hiring practices, regardless of whether a person's (non)religious belief has any bearing on job performance.

[44Foxtrot]

Anybody besides me notice that 44F has backed off considerably from the most outrageous of the "observations" in his OP since he started playing defense?

What I would say is the he has toned down his comments. (His bigoted dastardly agenda apparently still has some flexibility.)

I wouldn't say he was playing defense exactly (except in the sense that most on this board do not share his worldview).

Perhaps he has said what he wants to say and is now providing some backstory to help clarify his position.

[maupayman]

That's sort of like saying "It's just ironic that a human would get so wound up about bigotry, given the history of humanity."

Not all associations, or religions, have had bigotry as part of their doctrine and practices. There is a difference.