Extreme Fundamentalism Or Orthodoxy?

[Nomad]

While searching for something else, I recently stumbled on this website: ScriptureHistory.com

It is apparently the work of a faithful Latter-day Saint, and one who has been published by FARMS. And yet he is also at odds with what I thought were "mainstream" LDS views towards science, as well as the consensus opinions about things like Book of Mormon geography and other apologetic stances.

For those of you who are believing LDS on this board, how do you view some of the viewpoints expressed on this site? Are these views radical or orthodox?

For example, he claims there is widespread and obvious evidence of a global flood here.

And here he claims that Carbon-14 dating is wrong.

Here he seems to argue for a young earth.

And there is more. Much more. Hardly any current LDS scholarship escapes his criticism.

So, how do you folks see it?

[kamenraider]

The stuff relating to geology is pretty nutty, I think. I don't know if it would be considered unorthodox though. I don't think the Church has any official position about the age of the earth.

[Isaac]

So, how do you folks see it?

That scientists are seldom unified on anything...

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I think it goes back to the the fact that there is no revelation on the matter, just many different interpretations of the same limited scriptural data. He's welcome to believe as he likes as long as he doesn't teach it as doctrine and acknowledges other views.

[William Schryver]

While searching for something else, I recently stumbled on this website: ScriptureHistory.com

It is apparently the work of a faithful Latter-day Saint, and one who has been published by FARMS. And yet he is also at odds with what I thought were "mainstream" LDS views towards science, as well as the consensus opinions about things like Book of Mormon geography and other apologetic stances.

For those of you who are believing LDS on this board, how do you view some of the viewpoints expressed on this site? Are these views radical or orthodox?

For example, he claims there is widespread and obvious evidence of a global flood here.

And here he claims that Carbon-14 dating is wrong.

Here he seems to argue for a young earth.

And there is more. Much more. Hardly any current LDS scholarship escapes his criticism.

So, how do you folks see it?

This is none other than the famous (mostly in his own mind) David G. Stewart! Apparently he is teetering on the brink of the deep end.

[thesometimesaint]

He is free to believe, publish, and write anything he likes. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has to agree. 8)http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=post&do=edit_post&f=11&t=29511&p=1208292941&st=0

Edit Post

[The Dude]

Extreme fundamentalism or orthodoxy? It's neither. It is stark pseudoscience and LDS apologists have not done enough to separate themselves from David Stewart MD. They happily publish his wacky theories alongside their own. I guess they feel they are in such a dire conflict that anybody who can feign erudition is a welcome champion.

[thesometimesaint]

The Dude:

I doubt that he even lurks on this MB. But what do you expect of the members here? We do not speak for the Church, and all we really do is voice an opinion.

[William Schryver]

Extreme fundamentalism or orthodoxy? It's neither. It is stark pseudoscience and LDS apologists have not done enough to separate themselves from David Stewart MD. They happily publish his wacky theories alongside their own. I guess they feel they are in such a dire conflict that anybody who can feign erudition is a welcome champion.

I know for a fact that Stewart is not viewed as a "welcome champion" among most LDS apologists. In fact, I think he's increasingly becoming unwelcome as a "defender" of the faith, what with his out-of-control authoritative pronouncements. His latest target (seen on the website Nomad referenced above) is John Sorenson and the entire band of LGT proponents. That's certainly not going to make him many friends in apologetic circles. Indeed, I would venture to say that we've seen the last of David Stewart's name under the FARMS imprimatur.

[charity's child]

I don't think everything he says is total bunk. Some of it actually makes a little sense. I think he just carries it too far. For instance, disputing uniformitarianism. Do you believe canyons were carved inch by painful inch through a long process of erosion? If so, check out this site about Dry Falls and the incredible coullees in Washington State. http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html

What was once considered ludicrous, that canyons were actually formed through a series of cataclysmic floods, is now accepted geology. What say you?

[William Schryver]

I don't think everything he says is total bunk. Some of it actually makes a little sense. I think he just carries it too far. For instance, disputing uniformitarianism. Do you believe canyons were carved inch by painful inch through a long process of erosion? If so, check out this site about Dry Falls and the incredible coullees in Washington State. http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html

What was once considered ludicrous, that canyons were actually formed through a series of cataclysmic floods, is now accepted geology. What say you?

When it comes to Dr. Stewart, I think sometimes it's not so much what he says, but how he says it. I'm actually fine with people questioning so-called consensus science from time to time. I think that's healthy. I'm just put off by someone who speaks as though there could be no question about his opinions being the gospel truth, and is so quick to viciously denigrate anyone who disagrees with him.

As for canyon formation, go to Natural Bridges National Monument in southeastern Utah. I, for one, am inclined to believe that it was formed by masses of water in a short period of time rather than through gradual erosion over eons. But I'm no geologist. (Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.) That's just how it looks to me.

[charity's child]

When it comes to Dr. Stewart, I think sometimes it's not so much what he says, but how he says it. I'm actually fine with people questioning so-called consensus science from time to time. I think that's healthy. I'm just put off by someone who speaks as though there could be no question about his opinions being the gospel truth, and is so quick to viciously denigrate anyone who disagrees with him.

As for canyon formation, go to Natural Bridges National Monument in southeastern Utah. I, for one, am inclined to believe that it was formed by masses of water in a short period of time rather than through gradual erosion over eons. But I'm no geologist. (Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.) That's just how it looks to me.

I've seen pictures. Reminds me of Bridge of the Gods over the Columbia. I wonder where Utah's water source was?

[LifeOnaPlate]

My personal fav:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/040618uranus.html

[BCSpace]

He's welcome to believe what he wants on issues not defined by LDS doctrine and still be considered to be believing LDS. If he teaches that we must believe these creationist things upon which LDS doctrine does not speak, then he is on the high road to apostasy. So likewise, if I ever taught that LDS must accept evolution theory, I would be on that same high road.

I find nothing about science that conflicts with LDS doctrine so of course I disagree with this fellow. For example....

Thoughtful persons should immediately recognize several serious problems with the claims of contemporary scholars. We are told that the human brain has not changed significantly in over 100,000 years, yet that there was no cultivation of land and that humans lived exclusively a hunter-gatherer existence after 100,000 years of stagnation. Humans are resourceful. We have seen dramatic technological innovation in just the past ten years, and the course of recorded history demonstrates remarkable innovation even in the earliest antiquity. Yet we are to believe that ancient humans â?? who shared the same brains and cognitive capacity that we do today â?? lived exclusively as hunter-gatherers for over 100,000 years, for over 20 times the length of entire recorded history, until the ideas of permanent settlements, crop cultivation, and the domestication of animals ever occurred to anyone? Such a claim is patently ludicrous. It is made more ridiculous by the belief that permanent settlements â?? which allegedly had never been made over the prior 100,000 years â?? suddenly, independently, and near-simultaneously came into being all around the world. Such implausible claims transcend the level of mere coincidence and invoke faith in consensus dogma far beyond reason.

This assumes that human spirits were placed in homo sapiens right from the start. I find there is plenty of room to think, for example, that there were homo sapiens around for tens of thousands of years until the placement of humans spirits into Adam and Eve and their subsequent Fall starts producing evidence of civilization.

[The Dude]

I don't think everything he says is total bunk. Some of it actually makes a little sense. I think he just carries it too far. For instance, disputing uniformitarianism. Do you believe canyons were carved inch by painful inch through a long process of erosion? If so, check out this site about Dry Falls and the incredible coullees in Washington State. http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html

What was once considered ludicrous, that canyons were actually formed through a series of cataclysmic floods, is now accepted geology. What say you?

I say his characteriziation of geology as "uniformitarianism" is bunk. It's a strawman. I'm no geologist but I know from watching PBS, reading National Geographic, and flipping through weekly issues of Science and Nature, that there are dozens of examples of cataclysms. Geologists define and characterize these examples, so when creationists use these very examples to challenge so-called geological "uniformitarianism" they are not challenging real science but a strawman of their own creation.

Finally, showing that there have been local cataclysms is not the same as showing there was a particular global cataclysm. It shouldn't surprise us that most things that were once considered ludicrous are still considered ludicrous (e.g. global flood).

[Joshu]

Is this the same guy that gave the talk at FAIR last year refuting DNA evidence against the BoM?

[The Dude]

I found this on Stewart's page. He's talking about our debate last year in the Pundit's Fourm.

Genetic Dating

I dealt only briefly with genetic dating issues in my 2006 article, DNA and the Book of Mormon. A more complete discussion of the problems and limitations of genetic dating issues can be found in my debate with a Ph.D. cancer researcher and ex-Mormon critic, on the FAIR boards here. The site requires free registration to view the discussion. An archived version of the discussion (no registration required) can be found here: page 1, page 2. In this discussion, I demonstrate that existing genetic data is fully consistent with the entry of modern â??Native Americanâ? populations into the Americas as recently as 2500 years ago. Readers can consider the arguments and data and make their own decisions about how solid genetic dates are. Most readers I have heard from have expressed that I have demonstrated that the dates have far more uncertainty and margin of error than critics would like them to believe.

I concede that the dates geneticists have estimated do have a large margin of error, however, when markers are considered within the framework of marker interrelationships (see my last post in the Pundit thread), it sweeps away the margin of error that makes it possible for Stewart to claim "existing genetic data is fully consistent with the entry of modern â??Native Americanâ? populations into the Americas as recently as 2500 years ago."

Genetic markers are related in family trees: A - A' - A'' - A'''. Stewart likes to focus on the most recent marker (A''') and say that scientists estimate that marker is new enough to have reached America within Book of Mormon history, so it could be Book of Mormon people. The problem is, the parent markers are also in America and could not have reached America so recently no matter how you wiggle and twist their dating estimates. When this larger picture is considered it uncovers Stewart's true argument: indeed A, A' and A'' came to America greater than 10,000 years ago but the offspring marker - A''' - represents Lehi arriving just 2,500 years ago! Meanwhile, the parsimonious explanation from non-LDS scientists is that A''' simply arose on this continent from the other A's who were already here. There is simply no justification for peeling it away from it's relatives and calling it a new migration from the Old World. Stewart did not anwer this.

[The Dude]

Is this the same guy that gave the talk at FAIR last year refuting DNA evidence against the BoM?

Yes