A response to "Prophets or Evolution"

As my readers already know, this is not a blog about current events or people. It's a blog about ideas, memories, and aspirations. So, I'm a little hesitant to begin my next post, and you will see why. There is someone out there for whom, I have something to say.


There is a man in Kansas,who claims that Einstein, Darwin, and most every other scientist since the turn of the 19th century, is a fool. This man, of course, is NOT a scientist, himself. He has two degrees: one in mathematics, and the other in accounting; yet, he claims to be an expert in physics, medicine, and the life sciences. In fact, he has even proposed alternative hypotheses to Einstein's theory of general, and special relativity, the origins of and "cure" for cancer, and the unifying theory of life science, evolution. What's more, all of these "theories" work conveniently well with the creationist world view. It would seem that Isaac Newton has been reborn, and brought back "natural theology" to the modern world! But, as you know, looks can be deceiving, and in this case they certainly are.


What we have here is no inspired genius, no scientific revolution, no evidence, no workable, peer reviewed, tested hypothesis for anything useful. No, what we have here is a self-styled "intellectual," who understands just enough about science to be dangerous-- the kind of person you wouldn't want to be chemistry partners with. He knows just enough about science to misconstrue it, and mislead those who know even less than he does. A true quack.

That said, you may ask, "why do I care? I mean, if this guy is just another quack, then he's harmless, right? Let him quack away!" I wish it were that simple. You see, this man, R. Webster Kehr, happens to be a member of my church, and he publishes his works with the line "An LDS Perspective" in the title, as if he speaks not only for the church as a whole, but even to the church as a whole. He's one of those people I spoke about before, who want to draw battle lines between science and religion, even if those lines should put members of his own church on the outside.

I have not read these works in detail, nor do I encourage it. I don't intend to meticulously debunk his "theories," as Ken Miller does the assertions of Intelligent Design in his books. To do so, I would need the experience and resources of a real scientists, which I am not, yet. And I will not pretend that I am, as does this man. But, in my short time as a student of these sciences, I have learned enough about the method employed by scientists, and the scientific community, to know that if it can't be reproduced; if it can't be supported by evidence; if it can't be tested; if it lies in the face of other accepted and supported hypotheses, and makes not attempt to reconcile and explain these disparities, then it is not science: it is speculation. Men are free to speculate, but science is not like politics or religion: science need not give equal time and consideration to the musings and whims of anybody and everybody.

This man claims that the reason why his ideas remain in obscurity, is because the scientific community is biased and narrow-minded, and will not seriously consider his claims. To me, this is like a mediocre high school athlete whining that the NFL or the Olympics won't let him in, because there are 'qualifications' he doesn't meet. How bureaucratic and pedantic of them!

Boo hoo, poor you.


In response to the inclusion if "An LDS Perspective," in the title of his pseudo scientific/theological ramblings, I must exercise a little more self-restraint. Honestly, this infuriates me. I would like tell him many things; however, I do not wish simply to react, but to offer a heart-felt, and measured reply. After all, religion is different from science, as I said before, and the same standards of peer-review and empiricism cannot be applied to it. The realm of religion depends upon the supernatural to provide the truth, in the form of revelation and inspiration. And we are not enemies, but brothers of the same faith, and I have no desire for that to change.

Brother Kehr,

When you imply that as members of the church, we are faced with the ultimatum of choosing between the fruits of human reason, or faith in revealed truth, uttered by modern prophets, I wonder if you have considered the consequences of such a demand, or if you have the power to make it. Our Heavenly Father is not a God of confusion; His mysteries do not hide in the darkness that lies beyond human comprehension, but in the light of understanding. God wants us to understand that light, and He wants us to use all our faculties in doing so. He did not create a universe which "seems" to have had a beginning, or a world which "seems" to have been shaped by eons of natural processes, or life which "seems" to have evolved from a common ancestor. If He did, then it would "seem" that God is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. And that, my brother, is ridiculous.

Ask yourself, "Do I really wish that all the members of the church who believe in evolution [or the other sciences you have attacked] would leave?" Do you expect those of us who have found in science a meaningful, useful, and enlightening world view, to abandon it, because you say so? Or because Heber J. Grant said so 100 years ago (before the modern synthesis I might add)? Or because, occasionally, one of the apostles will make a remark in passing about their own views on the subject? Let me remind you that none of the presidents of the church, have said that the natural sciences are incompatible with the teachings of the Restored Gospel. Believing in evolution and science is not wrong, and is not a sin. We are not asked if we disbelieve Darwin, in order to get a temple recommend or take the sacrament.

Science tells us nothing about morality, and to blame science for immoral behavior is non-sequitur. People justify their actions with faulty reasoning all the time. Almost every decision people make is influenced by their subjective feelings, and not by logic and reason. Evolution has made us that way, and most of the time it works quite well; as evolution selects against making decisions that are bad for the individual and the species. However, I know that when I sin, it is not because I believe in evolution, or disbelieve in the words of the prophets. It is because I am human: weak, selfish, imperfect, mostly irrational, and driven by carnal desire and pride. But that is not all I am.

Evolution has made me this way, but it has also endowed me with the ability to think, to feel, to love, and to learn. All of these things give me an advantage as a human being. It has also given me the ability to contemplate the very existence of God, and my relationship with Him. If you throw out evolution, you had better have some way to account for my motivation, my relative fitness, and "seeming" relatedness to all other life forms on this planet, and it had better be good. More than simply "God made it that way." As we know, an argument that answers everything, answers nothing.

I ask you, please, do not alienate God's children from his family and kingdom over something so trivial as the origin of man, and the universe. Yes, trivial. Trivial because the existence and power of God is in no way related to His direct arbition to their origins. God exists whether or not He personally created the world, or breathed life into a ready-made Adam; whether or not the universe is 10 billion years old, or 7 thousand; whether or not we are apes, or angels incarnate. He has the power to save us whether or not He personally made us. The power and existence of God are not limited by the reach of science, or the extent of natural law over the universe. We who believe in God, need not fear what science can do to Him, or to our faith. Fear is the opposite of faith.

If you really care about my salvation, and that of your brothers and sisters, bring out the things that unite us, and not those that divide us. With charity, love, and the proper priesthood authority, tend to your own family, those under your charge, and if you feel you must address the church as a whole, stick to what you know: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, endure to the end... You know, the basics.

And if you really feel that you've got something new to offer the scientific community, then bite the bullet and submit your stuff to some real scientists who can test it, and stop crying about the system being unfair. Who knows? Maybe you'll be vindicated, but I doubt it.