Back Off, Man. I'm a Scientist.

That's probably my favorite line from the movie Ghostbusters. Being a science teacher, I’m keenly aware of how unfamiliar the general public is with the Scientific Method. So for your entertainment, a couple of my favorite humorous comics on the subject:


(here are links to the original sources if they're too small to read: Pic1   Pic2    Pic3)

As a rule, what is usually represented in movies, TV, and even textbooks is more often than not NOT what really happens. And how scientists go about doing what they do (the Scientific Method) is even more misunderstood. 

So here's a quick, non-scientific way of putting it: Say you want to find out why something happens the way it does. You and a group of friends think of 1000 different reasons why this might be the way it is. After making the list of potential reasons, you start systematically testing each one, and you prove that 999 of them are definitely not the correct reason. That one that you couldn’t disprove is likely on the right track. The next step is to get it published so other people can confirm your results, and collectively come up with another 1000 possible explanations to test. Eventually, after 10,000 reasons have been tested (by multiple labs) and only one is still standing, odds are that’s the reason. But it is only valid until it happens to be proven wrong at some future date.

In his search for a viable material to use in an incandescent light bulb, Edison tested thousands of materials to see what would work best. When asked about all the negative results, he said, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”

Here's a video clip from a science blog on YouTube that gives a good demonstration using a number-guessing game (you may have seen this on Facebook recently). No, really. Watch that clip (its only 5 minutes long). 

Science is often like that video clip. We find what doesn’t work and write it down for everyone so not everyone has to find the same dead-end that we did (though, it’s nice to have several other people confirm its dead-end status). Scientists want the ‘no’ to tell them what not to try again. It's like how a coach tells the team that a loss is more instructional than a win.

As an example, Einstein came up with relativity in 1905 and was unable to test it with the equipment readily available. But once technology was able to catch up with his vision, scientists couldn’t wait to start trying to disprove it. So far, every one of the tests has failed. At this point it’s probably safe to conclude that he was on to something.


Here’s where science is different from human nature (and religion) though. In the future, we may come across something that we can’t explain that seems to defy what we think. And when it does, they will find new equations and new ways to explain things. And then scientists (the good ones, anyway) will adjust their views to match the evidence and what has been observed.

For example, imagine someone says that man will never fly is invited to Kitty Hawk in 1903 to witness the Wright Brothers’ plane. After seeing flight achieved (and even after being allowed to test it personally) the person has 2 options: change his views to say that he was wrong about man never flying, or refuse to believe it and double-down on his statement by trying to discount what happened. 

Actually, something like this has happened in LDS history. Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never reach the moon. Come July 20, 1969, there was a particular step for mankind that happened. Later, when asked about it, he simply said, “Well, I was wrong.” He was presented with evidence, and adjusted his views. 




 I can respect him for that.



In a recent debate between Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ken Ham (the young-earth creationist museum guy), someone asked what it would take to change their mind about the views they held. 

One of the great things about the Scientific Method is that it doesn't allow us to start with the conclusion we want and work backwards from there. It makes us work from the ground up to find evidence for and against a hypothesis. Once we have both sides, we have to see which evidence is more compelling. 

Another aspect of science is that claims have to be falsifiable. A good scientist says to himself/herself, "If this hypothesis is true, I would expect to see x, y, and z. If the hypothesis is false, I would expect to see a, b, and c." So in the spirit of doing just that, I present two excellent lists.

A lot of quotes from LDS General Authorities and members seem to indicate that the Book of Mormon or the claimed number of members is a smoking gun for proof that Joseph was a prophet, the church is true, etc. There’s a poster who goes by the name of “Cinepro” on the Mormon Dialogue website. When asked what one piece of evidence would cause him to start believing in the LDS church’s claims, he responded with this beautiful piece of writing:

“I believe the surety of whether something is “true” or not doesn't rest on one piece of evidence or experience. The knowledge only comes piece by piece, question by question, almost like a sculptor chiseling away to reveal his masterpiece. So we don't have one experience or piece of evidence upon which we base our knowledge, we have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands. Different pieces of a puzzle that combine to make a coherent picture.

So, when people ask me “what would it take,” I respond that I'm not looking for one piece of evidence. I'm looking for a thousand. It should also be noted that I believe the burden of "proof" rests on the person making the claim, so I need evidence supporting the Church's claims before I will believe.

If the claims of the Book of Mormon were true, we would have every Mesoamerican researcher publishing papers saying, “You know, it looks like we have a colony of Christ believing Hebrews here.” And over the years, that belief would get more and more evidence, not less. There would be evidences of massive battles and wars of extinction around 400AD, metal plates with odd, Egyptian-like writing turning up in digs all over Mesoamerica, and vestiges of Biblical beliefs in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, the Tower of Babel, and the atonement turning up in central American murals and stelae. And the date of 33AD would be very, very notable for the huge change in population, and a consolidation of beliefs to pure, New Testament Christianity for hundreds of years over the entire proposed Book of Mormon geography. FARMS would publish article after article about how there really were horses and chariots and steel swords back then, instead of explaining why not.

God wouldn't hide Book of Mormon restoration evidences like the breastplate, sword of Laban, and Moroni's stone box.

Modern day spiritual claims would build up to an incredible “evidence”; you would see BYU conducting research breakthroughs in every field that surpass anything else in the world.

LDS artists, authors, filmmakers, and musicians would consistently amaze us with creations that surpass the skill of any gentile talent. LDS athletes would be breaking world records right and left, and BYU would have scores of championship trophies in every sport and field; with the priesthood, Holy Ghost, and “health in their navel(s) and marrow to their bones,” there just wouldn't be competition.

In every field, church members would show a level of knowledge and understanding that surpasses what could be done without the “Holy Ghost.”

Priesthood blessings would work more frequently than a placebo, patriarchal blessings would be more accurate than a $5 palm reading, and faithful church members would never, ever fall for medical, financial or any other kinds of scams, especially after praying about it.

When anyone says something that isn't the Truth in Church (including urban legends and Faith Promoting Rumors that aren't true), the whole congregation would know instantly by the spirit.

When a member of the ward is a child molester, or cheating on their spouse, they wouldn't be called to positions of authority; leaders would be especially inspired by the “spirit” to not put a child molester in charge of the 11-year-old Scouts.

Our prophets, seers, and revelators would make prophecies that are better and more accurate than Nostradamus, translate the Book of Mormon into other languages with a seer stone instead of the BYU translation department, translate the Book of Joseph so it could be added to the Pearl of Great Price where it should be, and reveal incredible knowledge that will still be consistent with science 200 years from now.

The JST would be used by every Bible scholar, because incredibly, it just gets more things right compared to the ancient manuscripts. And the JST would even be used by the Church, instead of being a footnote to the KJV. Or President Hinckley would finish the JST, and we would take the “translated correctly” part out of the Articles of Faith, because now it is translated correctly.

Official Doctrine wouldn't need to be defined after we know whether or not the Church leader was wrong. It would be clearly stated, without equivocation.”      - Cinepro


On the flip side, there is a really nice document known as the CES Letter to consider. It was created by Jeremy Runnells and addressed to a CES director who asked him to list his concerns about the history of the LDS church. It ended up being 76 pages long.

Besides being a very nice summary of the problems with church history and doctrine, one of the things it does magnificently is show just how many problems there are. Any one problem by itself is much easier to dismiss if that's all you're looking at. Having hundreds of problems all together shows that they are not “one little mistake,” but a pattern of willful, systematic deception. I fully realize that the leaders aren't infallible, and make human mistakes like the rest of us. But one would think that god wouldn't have let the "one, true" church have so many problems and cause so much confusion.

It's like the difference between charging someone with vehicular manslaughter for hitting and killing a pedestrian “by accident” one time, and charging them with vehicular manslaughter for hitting and killing 200 pedestrians on 200 separate occasions. In the latter case, it's not an accident, it's a hobby.

So it's not just the separate issues alone that are so problematic; it's the pattern. A pattern of behavior lends itself to understanding character. If someone was deceptive about these hundred pieces, how is it not reasonable to extrapolate that they were also deceptive about some other piece?

In my opinion, there isn't one, single "smoking gun" that disproves the LDS church's claims, though there are some big ones that ex-mormons commonly cite as the straw that broke the camels back, such as Lying for the Lord, the Book of Abraham papyrus, Joseph's Polyandry (not polgamy), or the changes to the temple ceremony. 

What I find is that the list of expected evidences for the church's claims comes up short, while the list of evidences against is overwhelming. Looking at the whole picture, it just doesn't make good, logical sense. 

(written by Joseph)