An evening with Daniel Peterson

[_cinepro]

Sounds like an interesting presentation. Thanks for the report.

[_The Dude]

The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, edited by Daniel C. Peterson, addresses precisely such topics and is easily available from, among other places, Amazon.com.

Amazon has no description of this item. How many of the essays in this volume have already been published elsewhere? Did you include that nugget from David Stewart?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Amazon has no description of this item.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-DNA-R ... 718&sr=1-1

How many of the essays in this volume have already been published elsewhere?

All of them, except my introduction. That's the point of the book.

Did you include that nugget from David Stewart?

The book includes nothing from David Stewart.

[_The Dude]

Since DCP isn't going to engage, I will play devil's advocate in his place.

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.

It is speculative for you. The situation is not speculative if one already believes in the Book of Mormon.

As long as you are leaving the door open for a small group of Middle Eastern people to have entered the existing Asian population, DNA is no trouble for Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as a limited history.

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.

All true, but the genetic record cannot document every family that ever came to live among the American Indians. That leaves a glimmer of hope that is more than enough for many Book of Mormon believers (who read it as a limited history).

[Guest]

A FARMS Insights item on the book:

New Series Launched with Book on DNA Research

In the last few years, the topic of how DNA research fits in with the text of the Book of Mormon has become increasingly divisive. On the one hand, critics of the Church seize on recent DNA studies to claim that Native Americans are descended from Asian, not Middle Eastern, ancestors. On the other hand, faithful LDS scholars, including some of the most respected DNA researchers in the country, say the data from recent research is insufficient to deny or confirm the claims of the Book of Mormon.

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship has published several articles dealing with DNA and the Book of Mormon in its FARMS Review and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Now, for the first time, all of these articles will be available in one volume, entitled The Book of Mormon and DNA Research.

Edited by Daniel C. Peterson, The Book of Mormon and DNA Research is the first volume in a new series, The Best of the Maxwell Institute. This series will publish collections of articles on persistently important themes. The Book of Mormon and DNA Research will appear this summer and other volumes will follow periodically.

This new publication includes contributions by Book of Mormon scholars John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, who address the complex cultural, historical, and theological questions surrounding the Book of Mormon text. John M. Butler, the lead scientist in developing DNA tests used in identifying the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, discusses the difficulties with conducting ancestry studies, especially on ancient populations.

Other contributors include Michael F. Whiting, a BYU professor of biology; David A. McClellan, a geneticist; D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, biologists; Brian Stubbs, who studies population dynamics; and David G. Stewart Jr., a medical doctor. The studies offer different perspectives on how to deal with the DNA questions surrounding the Book of Mormon. However, many of the authors also emphasize that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon lies in the realm of faith, not science.

Materials from Butler's four informative BYU Education Week presentations are available here (posted under "Related Links"). For example, on page 17 of Butler's presentation entitled "Science and Religion: Can They Coexist?", I learned that Dr. Craig Venter has a prideful worldview. On page 11 of his presentation entitled "DNA and the Book of Mormon," I learned that Butler's article entitled "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research" was originally written for publication in the April 2004 Ensign, but it was pulled (it was later published in the FARMS Review).

[_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.

It is speculative for you. The situation is not speculative if one already believes in the Book of Mormon.

Surely even a religious individual can appreciate a faith based book can not be used as objective evidence. So of course the Book of Mormon or the Church can say or claim whatever they wish, but absent objective evidence to warrant claims..they are mere faith based assertions.

As long as you are leaving the door open for a small group of Middle Eastern people to have entered the existing Asian population, DNA is no trouble for Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as a limited history.

Granted but if the Book of Mormon is about important people, then evidence indicates they weren't significant in numbers enough to even show up in genetic data.

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.

All true, but the genetic record cannot document every family that ever came to live among the American Indians. That leaves a glimmer of hope that is more than enough for many Book of Mormon believers (who read it as a limited history).

It still reduces to the Book of Mormon being extraordinary claims unsupported with any objective DNA evidence, hence they are faith based assertions which lack reliablity.. Of course people can believe whatever they wish. All too often though religious apologists like to piggyback their religious claims onto science, in order to make their beliefs/claims seen credible and I suspect in DCP's talk he attempted to do just that.

It boils down to science doesn't disprove Book of Mormon or Church based faith claims, but that's mainly because the claims made can not be disproven. One can not prove..evidence of X disappeared if there never was evidence of any X to begin with. One can not prove red swans existed but died out, if there is no evidence of red swans ever existing to begin with. One can only prove by positive evidence. We know positively American Indians are of Asian ancestry. Any other ancestry from elsewhere without objective evidence is speculative or faith based religious assertions and as such lack reliability.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suspect in DCP's talk he attempted to do just that.

As a matter of fact, I explicitly declined to do just that.

See? Marg doesn't need to have actually read or heard something in order to have an opinion on it.

Some here may think it worthwhile to attempt discussion with such a person. I wish them joy.

[_marg]

I suspect in DCP's talk he attempted to do just that.

As a matter of fact, I explicitly declined to do just that.

See? Marg doesn't need to have actually read or heard something in order to have an opinion on it.

You are absolutely right..opinions can be based on strong evidence, weak evidence and no evidence at all.

In my experiences on the Net when science is brought up in conjunction with an individuals' religious belief, generally it is being used to add credibility to a religious claim or least give the appearance of credibility. It is science which has the reputation of established credibility and religious claims and faith based assertions which lack credibility. Hence the motivation especially for apologists to link religion to science. The methods to understanding the world are entirely different between science and religion. Religion asserts with no requirement for objective evaluation, hence one religious supernatural claim is no more reliable than another. Science relies upon objective evidence hence evidence and reasoning can be used to reach better explanations as additional data and insights are discovered. Scientific theories evolve, improving upon and replacing previous ones. There is no evaluation criteria for faith based religious claims, one claims is no better than another.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I have zero patience for the notion that familiarity with books and articles and serious discussions is no longer necessary in the day of the internet message board, and I won't indulge it.

Period.

Bravo!

And perhaps it helps that, if she buys the book, the author gets royalties. And if you don't want that point made, perhaps it would help if you just addressed her point, instead of hawking the book.

Perception is everything. Surely you don't want to add to Scratch's perception that you only do this for the money.
[...]

Unless you really do need the royalties. In which case, nevermind.

I hope this was said winkingly, because otherwise, sheesh.

[_moksha]

Why can't the get an LDS geneticist to explain why genetics is an unreliable science? Surely there are a couple on campus at BYU.

There are several reasons I can think of:

1. There is no reason to damage the academic reputations of any LDS geneticists via apologetic stances.

2. If they did provide such information, they would be the darlings of criminal defense attorneys everywhere, and Utah is very much a law and order state.

3. What they say might not jive with the overall apologetic message.

4. Apologetics are best handled by apologists.

.