Considerations when saying that Mormons are Anti-Science

[_malkie]

deleted - it's a waste of time arguing Joseph's non-use of the quote feature with Simon. To hold an MPhil he (SB) really seems sometimes to lack critical thinking skills.

[_jon]

Except, The chronology in LDS scriptures (topical guide) state that Adam was 6,000BC and that the global flooding affecting Noah occurred c4,000BC.

That seems at odds to what science has shown...

[_thews]

4. The Church will not get stuck in the position of issuing potentially embarrassing definitive statements against science. Those questionable pronouncements of the past were said by Men who did not have the full light of an electron microscope.

You're painted into a corner here, because the men who didn't have the full light of an electron microscope were supposedly taking directly to God. To then imply the LDS church won't issue potentially embarrassing statements against science, if you acknowledge the LDS church won't release the KEP or show the very seer stones that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon, they are also hiding potentially embarrassing (damaging) history from their members. If Mormonism embraces the scientific method's process of critical thought, then the null hypothesis needs to be weighed with the evidence of its truth claims, without the need to rely on blind faith based on feelings one is told they will feel by accepting Joseph Smith's truth claims. If you wish to argue science in defining the null hypothesis, let's break down the DNA issue.

http://20truths.information/Mormon/dna.html

Despite claims by LDS prophets to the contrary, science does not support the view that Native Americans are of Jewish stock. For example, there is no blood antigen evidence for native Americans being related to the Jews. Natives of North and South America (and Pacific Islanders) have genetic alleles that can be traced exclusively to Asia. Mitochondrial DNA is transmitted unilineally, and is therefore not watered down by intermarriage-even the mitochondria of a single remote ancestor of a group would likely show up at least occasionally in tests.

As noted by geneticist Simon Southerton:

"I began searching for research papers having some connection with American Indians or Polynesians. Because I was familiar with plant genetics I became interested in recent research on the DNA of American Indians. The principles of DNA analysis are applicable to all living things so it was relatively easy to jump from the plant to the animal kingdom. I rapidly accumulated many scientific papers comparing the mitochondrial DNA of American Indians from numerous tribes with the mitochondrial DNA of other populations around the world. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child each generation. It is essentially a female genealogical lineage, or a maiden name if you like, stored in the mitochondrial DNA sequence. This part of the total DNA genome is used for population studies in many animal species. It is very simple to study because the mitochondrial genes don't get rearranged each generation like most genes, which are inherited as a mixed bag from previous generations. I was equally interested in more recent Y-chromosome DNA studies. Male lineages, much like DNA surnames, are passed from father to son and clearly reveal male genealogical lineages.

from Jeff Lindsay:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

While the Church has never taken an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon (contrary to errant insinuations or claims of some people peddling errant models centered in North America), we can look to Joseph Smith himself for the idea that Mesoamerica might be considered as the land of the Nephites, and apparently even for the idea that Zarahemla, in the "land southward," might be north of Panama in Mesoamerica.

In the above, notice how Jeff Lindsay's argument rests on what could be and not what is. The same could be said for the argument that <2% of the sites in Mesoamerica have yet to be excavated, so what might be found could prove Mormonism is true.

To your OP, Mormonism is anti-science.

[Guest]

Moksha,

All of your carefully crafted apologetic claims as to the sudden enlightenment of Mormonism when it comes to science can be readily refuted by reference to the pernicious pronouncements of one Boyd K. Packer (simply the worst among many offenders in Church leadership positions).

Sorry. But in the opinion of this scientist, and every other non-Mormon scientist I know, the Mormon Church will have to wait at least one more generation, and in this time purge itself of fatally uninformed leaders like BKP, before it can claim that it is not anti-science.

I stand ready to provide any number of examples of anti-science pronouncements by Mormon leaders (such as the one above by President Monson).

[_harmony]

I stand ready to provide any number of examples of anti-science pronouncements by Mormon leaders (such as the one above by President Monson), some of which would no doubt get your thread moved to a lower kingdom.

What have the GAs said that would get Moksha's thread moved down?

[_sock puppet]

Moksha,

All of your carefully crafted apologetic claims as to the sudden enlightenment of Mormonism when it comes to science can be readily refuted by reference to the pernicious pronouncements of one Boyd K. Packer (simply the worst among many offenders in Church leadership positions).

Sorry. But in the opinion of this scientist, and every other non-Mormon scientist I know, the Mormon Church will have to wait at least one more generation, and in this time purge itself of fatally uninformed leaders like BKP, before it can claim that it is not anti-science.

I stand ready to provide any number of examples of anti-science pronouncements by Mormon leaders (such as the one above by President Monson), some of which would no doubt get your thread moved to a lower kingdom.

I think it will take three generations to advance that distance institutionally among Mormonism, whereas that same distance would only take one generation in most other institutions.

[Guest]

The Nehor,
TS Monson was not referring to pseudo-science, but to good science that he is forced to view as "inconvenient". There is a difference, although many Mormons (apparently you among them) seem to have a hard time recognizing it.
___________________________
Harmony,
Sorry. When I wrote the above post I was in a hurry and thought I was on the Celestial Forum. Will edit my post appropriately.

In response to your question, however, some of the anti-science things that GA's have said (and the appropriate responses to them), which would move this thread out of the CF (if it were there), include BKP's recent claim in conference (referring to gays) that God would never make an individual "that way". Science has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that, in fact, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a natural inborn (genetic and/or epigenetic) trait that is found in a wide variety of species. I believe that tagging BKP as a clueless anti-science homophobe would have probably resulted in the thread being taken out of the CF.

When it comes to anti-science statements BKP does not stop there. He claims that the "mantle" is superior to the intellect and that some truths are not important. In other words, BKP claims that one seeking truth should take the word of a willfully ignorant individual who believes that he holds some kind of magical priesthood power and can therefore make truth claims about biology, cosmology, geology and history, which are to be believed by his followers, even when such claims are pure nonsense with no basis in fact. It is hard to think of a behavior that is more anti-science than making truth claims which have no basis in fact.

Among the GA's of this generation we also have a number of others who are avowed creationists (can't get more anti-science than that), blatant racists (such as SWK and his "white and delightsome" comments regarding American Indian children taken from their parents to live with Mormon families in Utah) anti-Semites, misogynists, and those who ignore or twist facts of science and history in an attempt to defend their unfounded beliefs to their followers and the wider world. Those who would claim that unfounded belief should supersede science are anti-science by definition.
______________________________________

sock puppet ,

Please note that I said "at least" a generation. Three generations (or more) may well be needed.

[_TrashcanMan79]

"I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”

-Thomas S. Monson, Science-Hater

That he is opposed to pseudoscience makes him a "Science-Hater"?

Huh......

I don't get the impression Monson is referring to pseudoscience in this quote, and I am curious as to how you do.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Apropos: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/541 ... 1209002575

[_beefcalf]

I concur with DrW and Trashy. Thomas S. Monson was not referring to pseudo-science.

Pseudo-sciences include intelligent-design, homeopathy, magnets-that-heal, and ALL other forms of alternative medicine. Dressing up your belief-system with scientific jargon and calling yourself an 'Institute' does not lend credence to your claim of being a 'science'.

Science:
Gather the facts. Form a Hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Discard hypothesis if it does not fit the facts.

Pseudo-Science (and religion)
Determine the hypothesis: Discard or impugn all facts which do not support the hypothesis.

With Science, we stumble towards the truth.

With Pseudo-Science and Religion, we stumble over the facts while ignoring the truth.