Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[LifeOnaPlate]

So your evidence is a rumor from Simon Southerton? Not compelling, sorry.

[sethpayne]

So your evidence is a rumor from Simon Southerton? Not compelling, sorry.

LOAP, if the source was someone other than Southerton, would you dismiss it so readily?

While I don't agree with all of Southerton's conclusions, I've not known Southerton to be dishonest.

[DrW]

So your evidence is a rumor from Simon Southerton? Not compelling, sorry.

If this activity took place as Southerton has stated (and the concerned scientific community believes that it did), it would be tantamount to academic and scientific fraud if the data were purposely withheld from publication, especially since such data would serve to strengthen the case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Knowing full well what such a disclosure would mean to the reputation of BYU, do you actually believe that the Church or BYU would make public any information about such activities if they were not forced to do so? Since the work was privately funded, the Church and BYU have the legal right (but not the ethical right) not to disclose it.

Sorry, survey says Southerton on this one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP, if the source was someone other than Southerton, would you dismiss it so readily?

While I don't agree with all of Southerton's conclusions, I've not known Southerton to be dishonest.

I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty, though I have seen substantial errors in the assumptions Southerton has made in regards to the effect DNA testing has on Book of Mormon authenticity. I've seen quite thorough responses from LDS scholars and I haven't seen any substantive responses to them from Southerton or anyone else who cites him as a reliable source. I have seen a lot of terse dismissals, however. And these dismissals differ from my dismissal of Southerton herein insofar as DrW has provided nothing other than a rephrasing of a claim Southerton supposedly made whereas responses to Southernton were published in peer-reviewed journals by competant scholars who have demonstrated competency in other publications and under their real names, not internet pseudonyms.

Further, even if this event supposedly occurred it would remain to be shown why any studies weren't published. The underlying accusation involves motive and ethics, and such things are more subjective and difficult to demonstrate than the actual "fact" that a study didn't get published. But we haven't even established that such a thing has occurred. To the contrary, from my standpoint I see a critic of my religion giving me second-hand information without any evidence aside from "so-and-so said so." I wouldn't accept such an argument in this regard if he was appealing to DCP, Mother Theresa, or Barack Obama. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. (Or is it putting?)

Let me be very clear: If DrW wants to criticize my faith on the grounds of reason and science and other things he is going to need to do much more than simply bear his testimony and rely on appeals to authority which haven't even been authenticated themselves. Let me reiterate, if some study was done and not published we would need to discover why by evaluating the best information we have on the issue rather than presuming that such a thing is the result of paranoid and ignorant religionists.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If this activity took place as Southerton has stated (and the concerned scientific community believes that it did), it would be tantamount to academic and scientific fraud if the data were purposely withheld from publication, especially since such data would serve to strengthen the case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Knowing full well what such a disclosure would mean to the reputation of BYU, do you actually believe that the Church or BYU would make public any information about such activities if they were not forced to do so? Since the work was privately funded, the Church and BYU have the legal right (but not the ethical right) not to disclose it.

Sorry, survey says Southerton on this one.

Again, on the grounds of reason and argumentation you have failed to bring anything compelling to the table. You have made a bald assertion, and one thats is not even first-hand, about alleged conspiracies to suppress information on DNA studies at BYU. You've provided no evidence and now you appeal to the absence of evidence as the proof that your position is sound and compelling. This is, however, not compelling in the least. To demonstrate why, I will respond to your "survey says" with one of my own. Please note that this is merely an example, and not an argument I am actually advancing. I am demonstrating with a hypothetical answer why I believe your response is not compelling:

Simon Southerton is making claims about BYU regarding DNA studies that cast a poor light on the University, but more directly as applied by DrW, the LDS Church. Both Simon and DrW are former members who like to spend time criticizing their former faith. Southerton is a bitter apostate, of course he will make up a story or blow something out of proportion in order to bolster his perspective and make the church look bad. He is angry that he used to spend time at LDS activities, spend money for LDS tithes, and otherwise waste his time participating in something he now sees as a sham. Thus, he is willing to get back at the organization by demonizing it and spreading rumors in order to discredit it.

Now, can you see how I am making claims here that do not have sufficient warrant? The warrant is the (usually unstated) assumption that forces the argument to be compelling. Instead of offering good warrant, however, you (and I in my hypothetical) have offered poor warranty, rendered even poorer because it is entirely self-serving and lacking any nuance whatsoever.

I hope this clears things up more.

[Calm]

Life, I just sent you a PM.

Dr. W, the lab 'incident' is not completely unfamiliar to this message board. Some of us have even talked to the people directly involved.

Based on this, I second Life's CFR. I want to see some sort of documentation or at least confirmation by someone placed to know that this is what actually happened as opposed to just a reported rumour by someone not directly involved in the project.

[DrW]

Again, on the grounds of reason and argumentation you have failed to bring anything compelling to the table. You have made a bald assertion, and one thats is not even first-hand, about alleged conspiracies to suppress information on DNA studies at BYU. You've provided no evidence and now you appeal to the absence of evidence as the proof that your position is sound and compelling. This is, however, not compelling in the least. To demonstrate why, I will respond to your "survey says" with one of my own. Please note that this is merely an example, and not an argument I am actually advancing. I am demonstrating with a hypothetical answer why I believe your response is not compelling:

Simon Southerton is making claims about BYU regarding DNA studies that cast a poor light on the University, but more directly as applied by DrW, the LDS Church. Both Simon and DrW are former members who like to spend time criticizing their former faith. Southerton is a bitter apostate, of course he will make up a story or blow something out of proportion in order to bolster his perspective and make the church look bad. He is angry that he used to spend time at LDS activities, spend money for LDS tithes, and otherwise waste his time participating in something he now sees as a sham. Thus, he is willing to get back at the organization by demonizing it and spreading rumors in order to discredit it.

Now, can you see how I am making claims here that do not have sufficient warrant? The warrant is the (usually unstated) assumption that forces the argument to be compelling. Instead of offering good warrant, however, you (and I in my hypothetical) have offered poor warranty, rendered even poorer because it is entirely self-serving and lacking any nuance whatsoever.

I hope this clears things up more.

So, let me get this straight. You are wiling to accept, without reservation, the fantastical claims of a 19th century treasure seeker that he saw God, Jesus Christ, and an angel and under the angel's instruction translated ancient records claimed to be a history of Hebrews in America between about 600 BC and 421 AD when there is overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.

Yet you are not willing to accept the contemporary first hand acounts of a reputable, published and internationally known scientist and scholar when there is NO evidence contrary to his claims, not even an denial from BYU?

Supernatural thinking at its best.

[DrW]

Life, I just sent you a PM.

Dr. W, the lab 'incident' is not completely unfamiliar to this message board. Some of us have even talked to the people directly involved.

Based on this, I second Life's CFR. I want to see some sort of documentation or at least confirmation by someone placed to know that this is what actually happened as opposed to just a reported rumour by someone not directly involved in the project.

Asked and answered. Please read my earlier posts on the subject. A more than adequate and published reference has been provided.

If you have published evidence to the contrary, I would be more than happy to consider it.

[Calm]

Asked and answered. Please read my earlier posts on the subject. A more than adequate and published reference has been provided.

If you have published evidence to the contrary, I would be more than happy to consider it.

Interesting that you are willing to accept this particular accusation without question and feel no need to do additional research to either confirm it or deny it before publishing it as a fact in your post.

[littlechild]

There is a fatal problem with your use of the term magical thinker and with your view on evolution. The verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation supports evolution. (Therefore, someone who accepts evolution is not a magical thinker.)

At least, that's the claim. It's bunk.

Evolutionary theory has has extraordinary predictive power in many fields of science, including biology, pharmacology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology, and physiology, to name a few. The supernatural creation theory is not supprted by objective evidence, cannot be the basis of a scientifc hypothesis, has no predictive power whatsoever, and is of absolutely no value to science. In fact, it represents anti-science in one of its most virulent forms.

Again, bunk. There are reputable scientists who make the claim that evolution has produced very little if any measurable benefits - to biology, or any other field of endeavor. Close your eyes some more.

So, if you ever depend on a prescription medicine to save or improve your life, have an advanced surgical procedure, or obtained therapies for cancer or a myriad of other diseases, please remember that these advances are based on the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, we would not have many or most of them.

The supposed ability of prescription drugs to improve the quality of life is also in question. My father died an early death because of prescription drug use. Many people's lives are impaired, not assisted, by pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical use is implicated as being at least the third largest cause of death. All pharmaceutical drugs of which I am aware have detrimental side effects that science thus far has been unable to erase. Some of these are fatal and many of them seriously harmful. And tell me in what way does evolutionary theory generate pharmaceutical knowledge? I'm all ears.

A supernatural being that is believed by some to have created the earth did not bring these to you, evolutionary science did.

That's mathematically impossible. Read "No Free Lunch" by William Dembski. There isn't enough time in the universe for dead inanimate material to self organize into a living breathing soul. You are a victim of your own desire to deny reality.

[juliann]

Yet you are not willing to accept the contemporary first hand acounts of a reputable, published and internationally known scientist and scholar when there is NO evidence contrary to his claims, not even an denial from BYU?

Supernatural thinking at its best.

This is getting downright funny. A very hostile somebody talks to somebody he was referred to by somebody....and somebody is expected to prove something didn't happen because somebody at BYU didn't deny what somebody said somebody said?

It doesn't get much better than this.

[littlechild]

There is a fatal problem with your use of the term magical thinker and with your view on evolution. The verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation supports evolution. (Therefore, someone who accepts evolution is not a magical thinker.)

CHALLENGE: Show me any "experimentation" that demonstrates conclusively and decisively the main claims of evolution, i.e., that is reproducible, and shows clearly that any species originated from another distinct, morphologically discrete species. In other words, raise this from the level of the hypothetical and magical belief systems of Dawkins and Myers and Sagan, and manifest it in reality.

You made the claim. Now produce it in fact.

Oh, and one more thing. Please know that I do not accept the testimony of men - I accept an objective experiment done in 'double blind' fashion. I know scientists are men of integrity and thus they understand the need to remove their own subjective belief systems from muddying the results of the experiment, don't they? We wouldn't want them to color or taint the results in an effort to maintain their preconceptions and prejudicial opinions, now would we?

[Calm]

This is getting downright funny. A very hostile somebody talks to somebody he was referred to by somebody....and somebody is expected to prove something didn't happen because somebody at BYU didn't deny what somebody said somebody said?

It doesn't get much better than this.

I have to admit I don't get how he's calling this a "contemporary first hand" account of what happened with the lab when at best SS is paraphrasing what someone at the lab told him.

I'd also like to see a list of the "concerned scientific community" that agrees with SS.

[DrW]

CHALLENGE: Show me any "experimentation" that demonstrates conclusively and decisively the main claims of evolution, i.e., that is reproducible, and shows clearly that any species originated from another distinct, morphologically discrete species. In other words, raise this from the level of the hypothetical and magical belief systems of Dawkins and Myers and Sagan, and manifest it in reality.

You made the claim. Now produce it in fact.

Oh, and one more thing. Please know that I do not accept the testimony of men - I accept an objective experiment done in 'double blind' fashion. I know scientists are men of integrity and thus they understand the need to remove their own subjective belief systems from muddying the results of the experiment, don't they? We wouldn't want them to color or taint the results in an effort to maintain their preconceptions and prejudicial opinions, now would we?

Little Child,

Please accept my apologies. I do not have the time to go over the scientific basis of the theory of evolution for you. There are literally thousands of sources of this material available over the internet. If you can post on a message board you certainly have the skills to find them for yourself.

If you want to review a good reproducible and highly coherent data set, you might want to enter molecular genetics evolution as search terms in Google. That will get you started. Last time I checked, this combination returned more than 4 million hits.

Unfortunately, I believe that reviewing the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution for you would do about as much good as reviewing the scientific evidence for the theory of gravity.

[DrW]

Interesting that you are willing to accept this particular accusation without question and feel no need to do additional research to either confirm it or deny it before publishing it as a fact in your post.

This is a published, citable first hand account of a free-will conversation between two reputable scientists wherein one scientist freely disclosed information to another scientist. It is not a rumor. It is a well reviewed and publicly available account of scientific research.

Also please note what I said.

If

this activity took place as Southerton has stated (and the concerned scientific community believes that it did), it would be tantamount to academic and scientific fraud

if

the data were purposely withheld from publication, especially since such data would serve to strengthen the case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I made no accusations. I stated two related facts.

[Calm]

This is a published, citable first hand account of a free-will conversation between two reputable scientists wherein one scientist freely disclosed information to another scientist. It is not a rumor. It is a well reviewed and publicly available account of scientific research.

Also please note what I said.

If

this activity took place as Southerton has stated (and the concerned scientific community believes that it did), it would be tantamount to academic and scientific fraud

if

the data were purposely withheld from publication, especially since such data would serve to strengthen the case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I made no accusations. I stated two related facts.

While you used "if" in certain of your comment, other comments seem to offer it as a given: "this highly unethical anti-science institutional behavior only came to light when Simon Southerton" for example.

Have you read this?: http://www.fairblog.org/2009/02/06/current...nites/#more-418

Those familiar with SS's behaviour in this arena have reason to want to have more than just his word about something.

[wenglund]

This is getting downright funny. A very hostile somebody talks to somebody he was referred to by somebody....and somebody is expected to prove something didn't happen because somebody at BYU didn't deny what somebody said somebody said?

It doesn't get much better than this.

Ahh...but it does get better. The somebody dscribed above did what you just described, and this in the process of claiming that other people's thinking is "magical".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DrW]

wenglund and calmoriah,

I have cited a published and publicly available document in support of my statement that there is evidence of unethical scientific behavior at BYU. I did not claim that such behavior took place, I stated that there was evidence for such behavior.

When you have published and publicly available evidence to the contrary, such as a published denial by BYU, or a peer reviewed paper describing the work on the 3000 samples, I will be glad to consider it.

And sorry, calmoriah, copies of message board posts cobbled together on FAIRS just doesn't do it as far as I am concerned. Message boards are just that.

[wenglund]

Wade Englund's proposal:

Wade Englundâ??s suggestion to substitute "religious epistemology" or "religious paradigm" for â??magical thinkingâ? completely misses the point. The problem is not religion. The problem is the assumption of an active and ongoing influence of the supernatural (or "magic" as far as secularists are concerned).

And here I thought you were earnestly asking a question, rather than making a point. Clearly, I was thrown a bit by the question mark at the end of your sentence. [scratching head]

Anyway, I am also having trouble keeping up with your ever-shifting definition of "magical thinker". First you defined it as "nonscientific causal reasoning", then you defined it as "belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary", next you defined it as thinking which assumes "an active and ongoing influence of the supernatural", and now you define it as thinking which doesn't entail "verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation". When you finally solidify your jello-y definition so it can be nailed to the wall, please let us know.

Also, it helps to understand the context of the OP, and since you ironically seem to be struggling more than others in getting the actual point, let me help connect the dots for you. First, it was written by an LDS apologist. Second, it was posted on a message board devoted to informally and generally discussing LDS issues. Third, it is addressed to the general population of people participating informally on the LDS discussion board. Fourth, it quotes another LDS apologist writing to a general LDS audience regarding material written about Mormonism. Fifth, it quotes a non-LDS who is respected among LDS critics and quoted by them in LDS discussions, regarding the inappropriate use of the the word "magc" in relation to religious beliefs in general. And, sixth, reference was made therein to a post on this LDS discusion board in which LDS religious beliefs were compared to "magical thinking" of "a spoilt, self-absorbed nine-year-old Edwardian girl."

Do you you see the thread of commonality in each of those dots? Is the thread of commonality "science" and the use of the term "magic thinking" among scientists?

Clearly, when read in context, it is obvious that the point of the OP has nothing to do with the way certain people within the soft or pseudo-sciences may use the term academically, as a "turn of art", within their respective professions, but instead how the term is often misused in general religious discussions, and discussions of the LDS religion in particular, and this because of how the term is generally understood and meant. One would have to work very hard not to see this. But, somehow you managed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

wenglund and calmoriah,

I have cited a published and publicly available document in support of my statement that there is evidence of unethical scientific behavior at BYU. I did not claim that such behavior took place, I stated that there was evidence for such behavior.

You evidently are suffering from a serious case of irony deficiency, so let me be of some assistance to you here as well. Your stated belief didn't involve "verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation", and is thus "magical". It amounted to believing and quoting what you read in published and publically available documentl, which is comparable, in principle, to religionists believeing and quoting published and publically available scripture. As such, and according to your own "thinking", your citation is "not evidence". Furthermore, your stated belief is "held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary", and is thus, by your own "reasoning", "magical thinking". Did you get it that time? You should since it is your own words coming back to bite you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

And sorry, calmoriah, copies of message board posts cobbled together on FAIRS just doesn't do it as far as I am concerned. Message boards are just that.

So Ugo Perego's account, a man who works directly with Scott Woodward and who was involved in the actual 'doings' to a great extent gets a total dismissal simply because his report of the events are online, while Southerton's defamation of Woodward is respected by you because he managed to get someone to publish his stuff.

If the account given does not satisfy you, why don't you just write Scott Woodward or Ugo to find out the actual story?

[juliann]

And sorry, calmoriah, copies of message board posts cobbled together on FAIRS just doesn't do it as far as I am concerned. Message boards are just that.

No need to be sorry. That is an blog article that gives names, places and dates rather than "somebody".

This month in the scientific journal Current Biology, Woodward co-authors a research paper that clearly demonstrates that the ancestors the American Indians arrived in North America over 15,000 years ago via two routes from Asia (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)01618-7). The founders brought 5 major maternal DNA lineages with them, named A, B, C, D and X. One group of founders brought the X lineage to the region adjacent to the Great Lakes as they migrated between ice sheets across what is now central Canada. The other group followed the Pacific coast, probably bringing the other four DNA lineages (A, B, C and D).

It is more than a bit odd that Woodward is publishing about Asian ancestory while Southerton is insisting his research lab was closed because that was all that was found. You are about to run into the same problem Murphy, Metcalfe and Southerton have. The Mormon scientists have much more impressive credentials and have always said DNA evidence is inconclusive either way. Southerton admitted that on the Signature website....and it was removed.

[Calm]

No need to be sorry. That is an blog article that gives names, places and dates rather than "somebody".

No, no, Juliann. It's much more scientifically valid to simply report what "somebody" says than to actually quote the individual's words, one must only be sure and place that report in a "publishable, citable account". Ugo's efforts to accurately represent SS's words by actually using them is an obviously worthless attempt and no one need pay any attention to it.

Perhaps DW will accept a report from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.searchscribe.com/Health/ADD-art...DNA-article.htm

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems to me that DrW's arguments in this thread have sufficiently been shown to demonstrate magical thinking by his own definitions(s).

Asked and answered. Please read my earlier posts on the subject. A more than adequate and published reference has been provided.If you have published evidence to the contrary, I would be more than happy to consider it.

Calmoriah has given you some info, as have wade and juliann. I hope you consider it.

[littlechild]

Little Child,

Please accept my apologies. I do not have the time to go over the scientific basis of the theory of evolution for you. There are literally thousands of sources of this material available over the internet. If you can post on a message board you certainly have the skills to find them for yourself.

If you want to review a good reproducible and highly coherent data set, you might want to enter molecular genetics evolution as search terms in Google. That will get you started. Last time I checked, this combination returned more than 4 million hits.

Unfortunately, I believe that reviewing the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution for you would do about as much good as reviewing the scientific evidence for the theory of gravity.

And you couldn't pull it off anyway. Evolution is a scam that suits your worldview and thus you will continue to toss around terms you neither understand nor can defend intelligently.