Will said in a comment on a previous post:
“If my criticism seems over the top, try running this article by a real biologist and see what kind of reaction you get.”
As a matter of fact, when I took biology at the University of Nebraska in 1970-71, I discussed these things with Dr. Charles O. Ingham, the PhD. biologist that taught the upper division course on evolution. He told me that he didn’t believe evolution but taught it as a theory. He assured me that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith had it right about evolution: It was impossible because there was no death before the Fall.
Ingham wasn’t only my biology professor, he was also on our stake high council in the only stake in Omaha at the time. I asked him how he could teach evolution if he didn’t believe it, and he told me he taught it because he knew a lot more about it than anyone else in the department. Mormon scientists are funny that way, they get really conflicted over evolution, and they study it a lot more than other scientists do.
The fact is, there are “real biologists” who don’t believe in evolution. But they have to keep their mouths shut. They have been shouted down by their peers. The theory of organic evolution has become a religious-like dogma among professional biologists, and dissenting would jeopardize the careers of the dissenters. Such dogma is not science but secular religion posing as science. It is the existence of such dogma among professional scientists that early in my life caused me to lose a lot of respect for science. Oh, how I wish there was a “true” science just as there is a true Christianity. The trouble with scientists is that they are men and therefore fallible and imperfect. Because of this they are proud, and they glory in their errors, because they fall in love with their pet ideas, and are not willing to look outside the box for other explanations for the data.
As long as scientists “have a testimony” of evolution, they will never discover the real reasons for what they see. Tell me, how many scientists are trying to discover the mechanism that makes the communication of prayer possible? If the answer is “None,” why is that? Are they so sure there are no basic principles that they are overlooking in their investigations? The reality of prayer implies a physics that is utterly beyond the paradigms of modern science. Maybe if scientists were a little more open minded we would discover that mechanism and a whole new understanding of physics would be added to what we already know. As it is, they don’t even bother to look for one. The same problem exists in virtually all other scientific fields, especially in the so-called social or “soft” sciences. Mankind’s ignorance is truly profound.