An evening with Daniel Peterson

[_Analytics]

Thanks for this transcript. I'd like to respond to one of Peterson’s points.

• DCP talked about how most people nowadays were raised with the impression that there's always been a constant war of science vs. religion. He talked about how, in reality, that's not quite true: Many of the leading religionists were scientists and vice-versa. For example, one of Galileo's chief defenders later became the pope, etc.

Most scientists, like most people, are religious. However, noting that scientists are religious doesn’t mean that there hasn't been a constant war between science and religion. “Religion” is a view of reality based upon cultural traditions, conjecture, superstition, and feelings. Science is a method of using a rigorous analysis of the empirical evidence to ascertain the nature of reality.

As long as it has exisisted, science has been consistently and systematically attacking and dismantling religious views of the universe, forcing religious views to either be dogmatically adhered to despite the science, abandoned, or re-invented in light of scientific reality.

Individual human beings who are deeply religious can be and are great scientists, but when they are acting as scientists they are attacking religious views. In their own mind, they might compartmentalize the issues, privately reject what the scientific evidence implies, revise their religious beliefs, or put the issues “on the shelf”. Just because they deal with the tension one way or another doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

[_marg]

Thanks for this transcript. I'd like to respond to one of Peterson’s points.

• DCP talked about how most people nowadays were raised with the impression that there's always been a constant war of science vs. religion. He talked about how, in reality, that's not quite true: Many of the leading religionists were scientists and vice-versa. For example, one of Galileo's chief defenders later became the pope, etc.

Most scientists, like most people, are religious. However, noting that scientists are religious doesn’t mean that there hasn't been a constant war between science and religion. “Religion” is a view of reality based upon cultural traditions, conjecture, superstition, and feelings. Science is a method of using a rigorous analysis of the empirical evidence to ascertain the nature of reality.

As long as it has exisisted, science has been consistently and systematically attacking and dismantling religious views of the universe, forcing religious views to either be dogmatically adhered to despite the science, abandoned, or re-invented in light of scientific reality.

Individual human beings who are deeply religious can be and are great scientists, but when they are acting as scientists they are attacking religious views. In their own mind, they might compartmentalize the issues, privately reject what the scientific evidence implies, revise their religious beliefs, or put the issues “on the shelf”. Just because they deal with the tension one way or another doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

DCP also shouldn't be using examples of back in Galileo's day. Back in Galileo's day there wasn't much choice to not be religious. I'm not sure I'd agree with you that most scientists are religious. I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the hard sciences most are not.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are there continuing tensions between some elements of some religious doctrines and certain aspects of current scientific thought? Absolutely. This is too obvious either to deny or to require specific mention.

And it has little if anything to do with my point.

This little wikipedia item might help, though much, much more can be said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Do you know if they asked any of the actual authors of the book to speak?

I don't.

But it's not particularly unusual or outlandish to ask the overall editor of a book with multiple authors to talk about the book as a whole.

I can say that Professor Michael Whiting, one of the authors, has let it be clearly known that, for the foreseeable future at least, he's said everything on the subject that he cares to say, that he considers the question frivolous, and that he would like to be left alone to continue his genetic research in the laboratory.

http://lifesciences.BYU.edu/old/FacStaf ... aspx?ID=84

And Dr. John Butler, another of the authors, has been entirely willing to speak on the subject (even doing so at least once at BYU Education Week), but he lives and works near Washington DC:

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/butler.htm

DCP also shouldn't be using examples of back in Galileo's day. Back in Galileo's day there wasn't much choice to not be religious.

Just a word of caution: It might be wise for some to withold their pronouncements on what DCP should or should not have said, and on the inadequacies of what DCP said, unless and until they're actually familiar with what DCP said.

[_Trevor]

Most scientists, like most people, are religious.

Interesting. I heard something quite different.

[_marg]

[*]With that in mind, it's vastly more difficult to trace genetic lines back to a specific family that lived many centuries earlier than that, especially A) due to the fact that we know nothing about Ishmael's wife, and B) due to the Native Americans' genetic bottleneck that occurred post-1492.[/list]

What difference does it make if genetic information doesn't trace back to a specific family. The genetic information with regards to American Indians is positive evidence indicating their ancestry is Asian. There is negative evidence or absence of evidence for Middle Eastern ancestry. Even if somehow some small group came over from the Middle East and their genetic data was diluted out of existence in current American Indians, that would indicate they would have been a relatively insignificant group, however it would be speculative that such a small group ever existed.

[_Dr. Shades]

Can they not find one PhD with a field related to genetics to carry the banner on the LDS position?

Apparently they have. Dr. Whiting at BYU has touched on it, whereas Dr. Butler, op. cit., has proven much more willing to pick up the gauntlet.

Why can't the get an LDS geneticist to explain why genetics is an unreliable science?

The theme wasn't that genetics is an unreliable science; DCP's point, overall, is that genetic testing isn't always as neatly revelatory as we'd like or expect it to be.

M. Gerald Bradford, executive director of the Maxwell Institute. He gave the opening prayer.

An "opening prayer"? Geesh, that seems a bit pious for a bookstore presentation.

In FAIRness, Mr. Bradford was taken completely off-guard by the request. The call for an opening prayer was made by the bookstore owner at the last second.

Shades, thanks for taking the time to type this up.

You're certainly welcome. Too bad you weren't there.

So, is it fair to conclude that Daniel knows he is unqualified to give this presentation and that he was the likely candidate because:

1. he lives nearby,
2. he edited the book,
3. he's a big name apologist who would draw people to the site, even though it's not his area of expertise?

Well, in FAIRness, he also made it clear that he's been following and keeping close tabs on this issue from its very inception.

So... he's trying to tie Iceland to the Nephites? Wow. That's seems like a stretch to me.

Don't get me wrong; he wasn't tying (sp?) the two groups together; he was using the Icelanders' genetic test results as an example of such tests not being the neat, tidy things we might otherwise expect.

Did he explain the genetic bottleneck post-1492?

He didn't need to go into much detail; he touched on how European diseases, especially smallpox, wiped out a great many Native Americans, and how open warfare eliminated many more, etc. Ergo, there are far fewer remaining to test than there would've otherwise been.

Throughout the presentation, DCP quoted several things that online critics have said vis-a-vis this issue.

Did he cite them properly? (there seemed to be a problem with his cites the last time he referred to online critics' ideas)

He didn't cite them at all.

Would you say this presentation was an adequate way to get the apologetic message out to the maximum amount of people?

Oh, I'd say that it was what it was. DCP responded to an invitation, the bookstore got exposure, the faithful got an evening of edification, etc. You know, one of those "everybody wins" scenarios.

Was the audience generally pro-LDS?

Overwhelmingly. I'm willing to wager that I was the only disbeliever in attendance.

In other words, was he preaching to the choir, in that some of these attendees at least knew he was part of FAIR?

Yes, although I wouldn't say it was so much as "preaching" (since that implies that the audience already knows the contents of the communication) as it was a run-down of current events.

Brant Gardner.

No comment from or about Brant?

I had originally typed in "The only pro-LDS scholar willing to go head-to-head with beastie on Mesoamerican issues," but I thought the information would be redundant.

George L. Mitton, one of the editors of the FARMS Review and occasional author therein.

Did you speak with him?

No. Truth be told, I was merely informed that he'd also been there; assuming I even saw him, I didn't know who he was.

Louis Midgley. [SNIP!]

So... he didn't tear your skin off about Chapel/Internet Mormons? Perhaps his reputation is undeserved.

He probably doesn't know about the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon dichotomy, since to my knowledge he hasn't spent any time on message boards.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, . . . Of course, he didn't know that I was "Dr. Shades," though :-)

Why didn't you tell him?

Why bother? The "Dr. Shades" identity is small potatoes indeed; I doubt it would've even registered.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, . . . a kinder, warmer, friendlier, and nicer man you couldn't possibly meet. [SNIP!] Our brief interaction may not qualify me to make this observation, but if it's possible to "radiate Christlike-ness," then he did it.

That's an absolutely apt characterization of Richard Anderson.

Cool! Glad I nailed it.

Thanks for this transcript. I'd like to respond to one of Peterson’s points. . . Most scientists, like most people, are religious. However, noting that scientists are religious doesn’t mean that there hasn't been a constant war between science and religion. [SNIP!]

I agree with everything you wrote, but in this case I'm just the messenger.

What difference does it make if genetic information doesn't trace back to a specific family.

That's a great question, but most likely indicative of the fact that I was confused by that portion of the presentation. Dr. Peterson, will you kindly elucidate that part?

[_Daniel Peterson]

[*]With that in mind, it's vastly more difficult to trace genetic lines back to a specific family that lived many centuries earlier than that, especially A) due to the fact that we know nothing about Ishmael's wife, and B) due to the Native Americans' genetic bottleneck that occurred post-1492.[/list]

What difference does it make if genetic information doesn't trace back to a specific family. The genetic information with regards to American Indians is positive evidence indicating their ancestry is Asian. There is negative evidence or absence of evidence for Middle Eastern ancestry. Even if somehow some small group came over from the Middle East and their genetic data was diluted out of existence in current American Indians, that would indicate they would have been a relatively insignificant group, however it would be speculative that such a small group ever existed.

Daniel C. Peterson, ed., The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, is easily available from, among other places, Amazon.com.

[_silentkid]

I can say that Professor Michael Whiting, one of the authors, has let it be clearly known that, for the foreseeable future at least, he's said everything on the subject that he cares to say, that he considers the question frivolous, and that he would like to be left alone to continue his genetic research in the laboratory.

I like Dr. Whiting. He's a good guy. It's nice to hear that he's stepping back from the apologetics. What about Crandall? Was he there? If you need some new blood, I've got a friend who was recently hired as an associate professor in the same department.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What about Crandall? Was he there?

I don't think so. I didn't see him, anyway.

If you need some new blood, I've got a friend who was recently hired as an associate professor in the same department.

I don't know that we need to say too much more about the topic for the moment. But I'll keep your friend in mind for possible future exploitation.

[_marg]

What difference does it make if genetic information doesn't trace back to a specific family. The genetic information with regards to American Indians is positive evidence indicating their ancestry is Asian. There is negative evidence or absence of evidence for Middle Eastern ancestry. Even if somehow some small group came over from the Middle East and their genetic data was diluted out of existence in current American Indians, that would indicate they would have been a relatively insignificant group, however it would be speculative that such a small group ever existed.

Daniel C. Peterson, ed., The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, is easily available from, among other places, Amazon.com.

Ok let me rephrase this, It makes little difference that genetic information of American indians doesn't trace back to a particular family. Statistically genetic markers indicate ancestry of American Indians is Asian, from I believe approx 10,000 years ago. Genetic markers can be approx dated as to when they occurred. It is because of this that scientists can theorize migration route moderan man from about 100,000 years ago around the world. When groups separated and where migratory groups went.