Keith A. Crandall's Careless DNA Claims

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Then your definition of bad science makes no sense and furthermore misses the point of the thread. Simon was actually pointing out demonstrable errors, not criticizing the use of science to attempt to prove religious claims.

If you think the study has nothing to do with whether the Lamanites, Nephites or Jaredites really existed then I'm afraid you haven't read the Scriptures enough. The Book of Mormon states in multiple places that they spread over the face of the land. Nephi was basically promised that they would still be around in considerable number when the Europeans came. This limited geography model really doesn't work if you actually read the book. That is why the church tought for over a hundred years that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It was science that forced apologists into the limited geography model so how can you claim that these studies don't go to the issue?

You've failed to show that Simon has engaged in bad science.

That is really a silly set of assertions, so let me ask you a question (and let's see if you can answer it). Do you believe the primary job of science is to prove or disprove religious claims? If so, then I can see why you have such a bizarre approach to the topic. If not, then I really don't see why you are wasting my time?!?

No, it's not the primary job of science. What does that have to do with anything? So you're saying that if science reaches a conclusion that has the effect of blowing a religious claim out of the water, no one is allowed to point it out? Who is being silly now?

[_Tobin]

No, it's not the primary job of science. What does that have to do with anything? So you're saying that if science reaches a conclusion that has the effect of blowing a religious claim out of the water, no one is allowed to point it out? Who is being silly now?

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

[_tapirrider]

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

Scientists have a responsibility to respond to misinformation. This isn't about disputing religious beliefs.

"If we allow fantasies of the past to be presented as fact with no response, we become accessories in the misinformation and miseducation of our students and the public at large."
http://www.drabruzzi.com/FEDER_Irration ... eology.pdf

Dr. Southerton is responding to misinformation, and that is not a waste of time. It is something that credible scientists need to do. He has communicated with a fellow scientist who publicly stated an erroneous claim. Dr. Crandall is an accessory in presenting a fantasy as a fact.

Religion is not the issue being disputed, it is about the need for scientific facts to be presented accurately. Dr. Crandall is allowing his own presentation to continue to miseducate and Dr. Southerton has rightfully called him out on it.

[_moksha]

Not really. That isn't a scientific journal or anything a real scientist would take seriously. If Keith wishes to engage or not engage Simon, that is up to him. It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone.

Basically any any all statements made within Church publications or uttered at Brigham Young University are out of bounds for this type of counter analysis or criticism, except on an optional individual basis.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

No, it's not the primary job of science. What does that have to do with anything? So you're saying that if science reaches a conclusion that has the effect of blowing a religious claim out of the water, no one is allowed to point it out? Who is being silly now?

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

Ever hear of Lawrence Krauss or Neil Degrasse Tyson?

[_Tobin]

Not really. That isn't a scientific journal or anything a real scientist would take seriously. If Keith wishes to engage or not engage Simon, that is up to him. It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone.

Basically any any all statements made within Church publications or uttered at Brigham Young University are out of bounds for this type of counter analysis or criticism, except on an optional individual basis.

I think scientists who use their professional publications and forums to comment on religious matters should have their qualifications seriously questioned by their peers.

[_Tobin]

Ever hear of Lawrence Krauss...?

Yes, and what he does outside of his field of study is his own business. Do you think his peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers?

[_Arrakis]

Tobin is just afraid scientists will turn their attention to space traveling alien gods with advanced technology who show up at the most inopportune moments.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Ever hear of Lawrence Krauss...?

Yes, and what he does outside of his field of study is his own business. Do you think his peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers?

Isn't that what a blog is? Something he does outside his field of study? What Simon does is a lot less than what Krauss does. Krauss engages in debates and puts out films like the unbelievers.

Have you seen Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about intelligent design? AND Dawkins may rub a lot of regular people the wrong way, but he is well respected in the science world.

Simon is doing nothing unusual or untoward. Science teaches us about the world we live in. Sometimes that includes laying religious claims to rest. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it's just the way it is.

[Guest]

GrandMoffTarkin,

I'm tired of you wasting my time and repeatedly dodging the problem presented directly to you in a number of posts. Do you think Lawrence Krauss's peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers? I believe that is essentially what Simon is doing. He is using his professional credentials in genetics to attack a religion and I don't think that is appropriate.

I know you wish to give Simon a pass to misbehave because he is attacking something you hate as well. However, your clear lack of scruples is not my concern.

Tobin