An evening with Daniel Peterson

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sigh.

We did get LDS geneticists to respond.

Neither they nor we have even the slightest interest in arguing that "genetics is an unreliable science."

I'll repeat this again in a little while.

[_silentkid]

Amazon has no description of this item.

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

Would you mind uploading a scan of the cover? It'll look a little more professional that way (and, I prefer judging books by their covers). If you send me a free copy, I'll be happy to upload scanned images to Amazon for you. I might even post a description of the product.

[_Analytics]

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

Thanks for the link. I wonder if most Mormons nowadays were raised with the impression that there's always been a constant war of science vs. true religion a la the historical conflict thesis, especially when applied specifically to the LDS faith. Based the datum with which I’m most familiar, I’d adamantly disagree with this. I was raised with the belief that “true science” would ultimately vindicate “true religion”, and it is in fact good to be learned (as long as you don’t get too full of yourself and stop listening to God).

That being the case, I wonder what's the point of your point.

It seems to me that the related question most pertinent to your audience is whether or not the scientific evidence contradicts the world view that is taught by the Book of Mormon. As far as I’m aware science doesn’t contradict the limited geography model, but it certainly does contradict the doctrines of the Creation and Fall in the Book of Mormon. It seems to me that the later issue is the more pertinent one. After all, if the Creation and Fall are metaphorical or allegorical or whatever, what’s preventing the Atonement from being the same?

[_The Dude]

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.

If you know of a specific case where a religious person (especially one with a PhD in genetics or biology) says that a faith-based book counts as objective evidence, then I would be very interested in discussing it. Otherwise, it sounds like you are putting words into somebody's mouth. "Mere faith based" is what religion is all about.

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.

Yep. I guess they were important but not numerous. If you want to argue about DNA and the Book of Mormon, I suggest a better approach would be to examine the text of the Book of Mormon and see if the "important but not numerous" scenario fits what the Book of Mormon says. As well, there should be evidence of vastly overwhelming numbers of "others". Such evidence is thin and, upon close examination of apologetic writings compared to the full Book of Mormon text, quite laughable. Don't argue about the DNA, argue about the text. This is the only way forward on this issue.

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.

So? This is religion! Lower your standards on this point or risk looking like you don't get it. You are kind of swinging at thin air.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That being the case, I wonder what's the point of your point.

I pointedly made a point of explaining the point of my point in my lecture last night, where it was to the point to make that point. I point out that, if I'm not mistaken, the lecture will shortly be up on the web somewhere, where critics will, to the point of nausea, be able to score points by pointing out the points on which I'm either incompetent or lying

As far as I’m aware science doesn’t contradict the limited geography model, but it certainly does contradict the doctrines of the Creation and Fall in the Book of Mormon. It seems to me that the later issue is the more pertinent one. After all, if the Creation and Fall are metaphorical or allegorical or whatever, what’s preventing the Atonement from being the same?

An interesting theological issue.

[_dblagent007]

Now that Ray has gone off the deep end, it looks like the Dude has taken over the job of providing a token defense of Mormonism when challenged by ridiculous criticisms and logic (of course, the dude recognizes, like Ray, that there are other more legitimate reasons to criticize Mormonism).

[_Imwashingmypirate]

"DNA" is an anagram of "Dan." :-)

LMAO... Made me laugh out loud. Gotta love humour! Hehe, it's funny that at School, some lecturers don't like my random comments whereas the head of the dept doesn't mind, he said you need humour for electronics. Tehe, it was good. I am almost averaging a first which is great considering I am either asleep or absent during lectures. Haha.



Ohhh Ohohoh do the smilies work?

Since when?

[_Ray A]

Now that Ray has gone off the deep end...

(I'd better enjoy the smilies until January 1.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Since Daniel C. Peterson is a poster on this very thread, maybe he can address marg's point instead of lamely referring us to his book.

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.

That's funny. I have zero tolerance for apologists who use references as a diversionary tactic. Why don't you tell us all once again that you don't trust D. Michael Quinn's writings, and then, when asked to explain, why don't you provide us with a series of links to FARMS Review articles?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks for the excellent and fair-minded summary, Dr. Shades. This is precisely the sort of content we need more of on this board.