DCP claims no one has refuted LDS archeological evidence in the past 3 decades

[Philo Sofee]

So-called Intelligent Design may not be overtly anti-scientific but I don't like it. It seems to me to be trying to look as scientific as it can, but in a shifty way. I haven't read enough of it recently to point to any specific examples of what I mean, but I have the feeling that when ID people show some impressively rigorous-looking data or argument, they're trying to sell you the house. The arguments and data are usually fine as far as they go, but the conclusions drawn also depend on some dubious unstated assumptions. The typical ID argument avoids drawing attention to those.

Look and see whether an ID book or paper includes a thick chapter or section examining the possible weaknesses of the ID conclusion. If it does, judge whether the discussion is serious or whether it's more just, "Nothing to see here, move along."

Also look to see whether the discussion of possible weaknesses focuses on technical details, or whether it addresses basic assumptions. Focusing on technical details can be good if in fact there are serious problems in the details, like the possibility that a crucial set of measurements could just all have been wrong. It can also be a "nothing up my sleeve" ploy, however, that simply diverts attention from the real issues. And it can be cargo-cult science that goes through a lot of scientific-sounding motions while overlooking absurdly basic issues, like building a radar dish from bamboo.

All true, and then again, it can really have something to it. Which is why I am looking into it.

[Philo Sofee]

The Discovery Institute is not anti-science. It is not pseudo science either. It is basing its claims on the science proper. Just because they have a different interpretation does not mean it is anti-science. That is just incoherent nonsense. I honestly don't see the Discovery Institute as a ruse, rather more realistically as another interpretation against the already outdated orthodoxy. The interpretation is coming from within by the scientists themselves, instead of from without from the religious interpretations. There is literally.... literally nothing in Stephen C. Meyers writings which can be classified as "anti-science." That is simply ridiculous. Show me where you find in his books (he has 4 of them) he comes out against science proper as an evil. Of course, he is debating and refuting scientists, but that can in no way be seen as anti-science. He uses science and loves it. It is more than obvious in his numerous You Tube conversations/debates.

Let me start by admitting I may be rhetorically going too far with my characterization here. And then add to that I don’t really want to get into it even though I went out of my way to say what I did. I mean to say I think, as ignorant as I am, I’m at least kind of on track on Stephen Meyer and the Discovery I. But I also lack much more than having read a few things to that effect. I’d have to spend some time, like you and drumdude suggested, digging back into things to really put a valiant effort into supporting my comments. And I’m not feeling interested enough right now, as plenty remains on my plate.

And I’ve noticed I’ve been too disagreeable lately for the sake of being disagreeable. I don’t like when I get that way…it’s a fine line to disagree on the adventure of learning and discovering hoping to challenge oneself maximizing one’s effort and being disagreeable simply to support one’s own biased take. And i think I’ve been bouncing back and forth over that line a bit too much. That’s all to say I think I’ll back off this some and wish you well on your own adventure digging more into it. In the meantime I’ll see if I can muster up the desire to dig deep as it were. If I do and happen upon some interesting information I’ll be sure to come back and share.

Thanks for the comments, Philo, and keep up the good work.

No worries. I mean, 90% of the time I am wrong, so I keep looking for that 10% window...

[Kishkumen]

The evidence DCP offers gemli on a regular basis:

1) Joseph Smith couldn't have known how to insert early modern English (distinct from KJV English) into the Book of Mormon.
2) The Book of Mormon is too complex to have been dictated in the amount of time without a rock in a hat.
3) The plates were inarguably real because so many witnesses saw them.

LOL!!!

Ugh.

I just shake my head in disbelief at these various pieces of evidence. Weak, weak, weak.

[drumdude]

Patrick: "Here is another analysis by another LDS scholar on why LDS scholars are justifiably ignoring Carmack and Skousens[sic]:"

It's not an analysis and it offers no real explanation as to why their work is being "ignored." It simply says that it is being ignored. Even that is dubious, but, of course, assuming it to be true, there are various potential explanations for the alleged "ignoring." (For instance, Carmack's and Skousen's work is fairly dry and technical.)

But the fact that work is "ignored" doesn't prove it false or bad. Anybody even minimally versed in the history of science can easily rattle off a list of work (e.g., Gregor Mendel's genetic experiments, Yuri Knorozov's decipherment of Maya glyphs, Ignaz Semmelweiss's pioneering work on antiseptic procedures, Alfred Wegener's proposal of continental drift, and so on and so forth) that was initially ignored and later on turned out to be both true and vitally important.

[drumdude]

Patrick: "Here is another LDS scholar (the late Bob Crockett) who disagrees with Carmack/Skousen"

Bob Crockett was a good guy, but he wasn't a linguist and his objections are both frivolous and, on the whole, long since adequately addressed.

Is this the best that you can do? Really? Some comments on a message board?

Patrick: "For starter, Brant Gardner has some very harsh things to say about Carmack/Skousen's research:"

Yes, he does. In terms of substance, though, it's pretty weak sauce.

And you can't seriously be claiming that posts on a discussion board are the equivalent of lengthy and complex academic articles and book chapters. Really? Is that what you're claiming?

DCP is similar to a boy who is courting girls who are way above his league. DCP says of their rejection “but I’ve put so much effort into courting you, you can’t just reject me with a no! You have to put equal effort into telling me why you don’t take my advances seriously!”

DCP - scholars are telling you politely, “no.” They don’t need to waste time addressing your frivolous “scholarship.” They just aren’t that into you, honey.

[Kishkumen]

I think what anyone can expect from DCP is that he will defend practically any viable rhetorical position that makes the factual truth of Mormon claims look plausible with whatever rhetorical tools it takes to defend them.

Any engagement with him on these issues is an absolutely pointless waste of good time, and that is not because any of these defenses of the literal antiquity of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham is time well spent in any conceivable circumstances. Because there is no time well spent here, unless one is engaged in a purely rhetorical exercise.

There is a passage of children's literature that well sums up the value of Mopologetics:

“Because, my young friends,” he muttered sourly, “what could be more important than doing unimportant things? If you stop to do enough of them, you’ll never get to where you’re going.” He punctuated his last remark with a villainous laugh.

“Then you must―” gasped Milo.

“Quite correct!” he shrieked triumphantly. “I am the Terrible Trivium, demon of petty tasks and worthless jobs, ogre of wasted effort, and monster of habit.”

“But why do only unimportant things?” asked Milo, who suddenly remembered how much time he spent each day doing them.

“Think of all the trouble it saves,” the man explained, and his face looked as if he’d be grinning an evil grin―if he could grin at all. “If you only do the easy and useless jobs, you’ll never have to worry about the important ones which are so difficult. You just won’t have the time. For there’s always something to do to keep you from what you really should be doing…”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Because, my young friends,” he muttered sourly, “what could be more important than doing unimportant things? If you stop to do enough of them, you’ll never get to where you’re going.” He punctuated his last remark with a villainous laugh.

“Then you must―” gasped Milo.

“Quite correct!” he shrieked triumphantly. “I am the Terrible Trivium, demon of petty tasks and worthless jobs, ogre of wasted effort, and monster of habit.”

“But why do only unimportant things?” asked Milo, who suddenly remembered how much time he spent each day doing them.

“Think of all the trouble it saves,” the man explained, and his face looked as if he’d be grinning an evil grin―if he could grin at all. “If you only do the easy and useless jobs, you’ll never have to worry about the important ones which are so difficult. You just won’t have the time. For there’s always something to do to keep you from what you really should be doing…”

This feels like it’s a low-key critique of capitalism and slave morality. Heh.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

There is an unfortunate elipsis in the text that must be restored:

"Don't try to leave," he ordered, with a menacing sweep of his arm, "for there's so very much to do, and you still have over eight hundred years to go on the first job."

There you go. Leave arguments with DCP forthwith. He is happy to give you a giant pile of sand and a pair of tweezers to move it.

[Dr Exiled]

The Early Modern English claims have to be the dumbest around. No work has ever been done by Carmack to eliminate the possibility that Joseph Smith's common speech patterns were Elizabethian and that this is where the supposed Early Modern English comes from, if it is there at all. Also, combine that with the fact that Joseph Smith was trying to sound old world biblical to trick his audience and that can easily be why these Early Modern English constructions are found, if there. Carmack found Early Modern English in the supposed temple plot "revelation" and in the early "revelations" in the D&C as well as in the Book of Mormon but didn't find it in later "revelations" from Smith. So, Smith used this old world way of speaking as part of his performance. At the time the early "revelations" were being made, he was trying to trick backwoods people that more easily bought the 1611 Bible language as how God would be speaking. Later, he probably figured that the performance needed to change for his new more skeptical non-backwoods dupes in Ohio. Finally, no outside scholar has verified that there is Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon and if it is significant or just the product of wishful thinking a la Rasmussen.

Bottom line, no evidence of Nephites and so all these other claims need to be looked at with a huge amount of skepticism because they are being used to cover up for this fact.

Anyway, I agree with Kishkumen on the tediousness of fighting the likes of DCP on this. No matter what, he won't be moved from his unsupported position and will squirm and skate around looking for ways to tie his opponents up in irrelevant rhetorical knots, looking for victory while avoiding having to prove his case.

[Dr Exiled]

This feels like it’s a low-key critique of capitalism and slave morality. Heh.

- Doc

Yup. I thought the same thing. Keep ''em doing busy work so they can't protest and fight against where it counts.