LDS Writers on Amerindian DNA

[Daniel Peterson]

It is common among certain critics of Latter-day Saint faith to assert that research into Amerindian DNA has decisively disproved the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. A number of Latter-day Saints have responded to this claim (from backgrounds in such fields as genetics, biochemistry, anthropology, and biology). Several of these responses have been published by FARMS:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

Many of the critics, however, have been notably unimpressed. (Whether most of the critics have actually read the responses, however, remains unclear, even doubtful.) The Latter-day Saint respondents, they often say, are incompetent hacks who are regarded by real scientists and scholars with amusement if not downright contempt.

It's probably worth pointing out, therefore, that, in the December 2004 issue of The Atlantic (Monthly) a special eighteen-page section reports the results of the "2004 Service to America Medals" competition. The medals (with stipends) are awarded to outstanding U.S. government workers by the publisher of The Atlantic and the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization dedicated to revitalizing the federal workforce. The awards include "Federal Employee of the Year," as well as medals in seven categories such as Justice and Law Enforcement, National Security/International Affairs, and Social Services.

Among the four "Finalists" this year in the category "Called to Serve" was John M. Butler. Dr. Butler, a biochemist, is employed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. His specialty is forensic identification using DNA. (His textbook on the subject won an award from the British Medical Association in 2001; he was granted a Presidential Early Career Award in 2002.) The report in the Atlantic does not state for what achievement he was nominated. Presumably it is related to his leading role in the DNA identification of remains from the World Trade Center. More can be learned about Dr. Butler at

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/butler.htm

Dr. Butler evaluated and critiqued the DNA-related articles published in FARMS Review 15/2 (2003) and himself wrote a short piece entitled "A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist" for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003).

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...W9ucy9kbmEucGhw

Here on this board, Dr. Butler was among the FARMS writers dismissed by "religiously free" as lacking any expertise in genetics.

Dr. Keith Crandall, another DNA researcher at BYU, published an article in a recent issue of Dialogue on the question of Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon and is consulting with the author of a forthcoming FARMS essay on the matter. Dr. Crandall's work on the genetic "Tree of Life" appears in the current issue of what is arguably the foremost American scientific journal, Science.

http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=...04/Nov/crandall

And, of course, the international attention garnered by the molecular biological research of Dr. Michael Whiting, another of the FARMS authors, has already been widely noted.

[Kozaru]

Among the four "Finalists" this year in the category "Called to Serve" was John M. Butler. Dr. Butler, a biochemist, is employed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland. His specialty is forensic identification using DNA. (His textbook on the subject won an award from the British Medical Association in 2001; he was granted a Presidential Early Career Award in 2002.) The report in the Atlantic does not state for what achievement he was nominated. Presumably it is related to his leading role in the DNA identification of remains from the World Trade Center. More can be learned about Dr. Butler at

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/butler.htm

Dr. Butler evaluated and critiqued the DNA-related articles published in FARMS Review 15/2 (2003) and himself wrote a short piece entitled "A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist" for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003).

I was going to cut and paste Dr. Butler's list of Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals and Books. Very impressive list of 66 peer reviewed papers.

It took me awhile to scan the list for FARMS contribution. I didn't see any.

[Metatron99]

Dr. Peterson,

But surely you must understand that as soon as these respected scholars start discussing issues that affect their religious sentimentalities and allegiances, they simply cannot be reputable or correct; the amount of 'cognitive dissonance' would be too great to come to a contrary conclusion so they (subconsciously, mind you) look at the data and can only see it as validating their view, even when any thinking person could see that it is otherwise! I mean, isn't it an established fact that everyone will defend their cherished beliefs to the end even when the facts are screaming against their views; they simply cannot act otherwise!! If this is true, which, as everyone knows, it is, then surely presenting the scholarly accolades of FARMS contributors demonstrates nothing!

Kevin Winters

P.S. If anyone didn't see the sarcasm in this...it was meant to be sarcastic.

[religiously free]

D.P: Here on this board, Dr. Butler was among the FARMS writers dismissed by "religiously free" as lacking any expertise in genetics.

You have been bringing this up so many times within the last month Daniel that I have to address it otherwise it is apparent you won't stop. I dismissed FARMS scientists in the discussion in comparison to Spencer Wells a researcher for this Out of Africa theory who wrote the book as well. I admit I worded it poorly and it sounded like I was dismissing them as genetic scientists. I really was comparing them to S. Well but it didn't come out that way. I apologize I made a mistake, and poorly worded what I really wanted to convery. What I meant was I accept the OUt of Africa theory when it comes to Indians coming from Asia and I would defer to him as opposed to any FARMS scientist who may disagree with him. I really didn't mean I dismiss them entirely as genetic scientists and again I apoligize for my poorly worded post which came off sounding like that.

To explain further, I give Spender Wells more credibility when it comes to this particular theory in relation of where Indians came from than to any FARMs scientist who may may disagree. That doesn't mean they are wrong but because FARM are not the researchers in Y DNA for this theory, because their findings which might oppose OUt of Africa theory to my knowledge has not been peer reviewed, because they are biased in favor of supporing the BOM ...much greater care is required in evaluating what they say.

As it turns out when I went to FARMS and read an article...(sorry atm I can't remember the fellows name) ..but he essentially said that science is irrelevant to the BOM's story line...from the church's point of view. What he said was that the church makes no claim who exactly the Lamanites were..consequently, if the story line does not say clearly who or where the Lamanites came from there is no testable hypothesis for science to test...and therefor science is irrelevant.

So all this talk about BOM scientists and what their expertise is..is only important if these BOM scientists are actually countering any scientific claims in existence and if their findings actually say something about the BOM which support its authenticity. To my knowledge genetic science says nothing in support of the BOM. The less the BOM claims, the less there is which can be verified.

Here is that exchange you are referring to in which you say I dismiss the BOM scientists.

Me (previous post) You previously said there can be no evidence to prove the BOM true. That being the case, you've admitted it you have no evidence to support the BOM. On the other hand if you read Spencer Well's book which has no axe to grind against mormonism you will learn the long held belief promoted by mormonism that N.A. indians were of Hebrew descent is not supported by the evidence. Now I realize loop holes can be found and denials made that that was ever the church's position but I have looked at the evidence that is source documents posted on the net which show church officials making it clear that their belief was N.A. indians were descendants of the fictional Lamanites of the BOM. I certainly am no expert on mormonism or on the evidence against. At some point upon being made aware and the evidence is strong and stacks up against mormonism and decision needs to be made. It appears you've made a decision and have decided finding evidence can not be done for mormonism. That indicates to me you are in denial because if you truly were honest and believed you'd still think you'd find evidence.

D.P previously:

[Daniel Peterson]

I was going to cut and paste Dr. Butler's list of Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals and Books.

[Daniel Peterson]

You have been bringing this up so many times within the last month Daniel that I have to address it otherwise it is apparent you won't stop.

You didn't know what you were saying then, RF, and your most recent post plainly demonstrates that you don't know what you're saying now. Until you understand the issues -- until you can at least identify what the salient issues are -- there's no point in conversing with you on the topic.

Oh yes: You were also wrong, as we both know, in your claim (which was based on absolutely nothing, not even a nodding acquaintance with their articles) that the FARMS DNA authors were or are "paid to be apologists for Mormonism." We shouldn't let that go unmentioned.

[noel00]

In an issue for 2004 Systematic Entomology some papers were published which dealt with Whitings stick insect article in Nature magazine. Some scientists have challenged his paper and present their reasons. Southerton told me he sees the influence of FARMS in his (Whiting) presentation (arrogant) and says Whiting model is flawed. His tone is that basically those who disagree with him are imbeciles.

[Daniel Peterson]

In an issue for 2004 Systematic Entomology some papers were published which dealt with Whitings stick insect article in Nature magazine. Some scientists have challenged his paper and present their reasons.

That's the way science is done. It's a matter of constant criticism and revision. Whether they're right or not is a separate question. (Are you competent to judge it, noel00? Or do you merely hope that Dr. Whiting can be discredited?) And even if Professor Whiting's specific molecular biological proposal regarding insect evolution were someday proven incorrect, that would not demonstrate him to be the scientific incompetent that some critics of the Book of Mormon desperately need and want him to be. (Einstein corrected and improved upon Newton.) Nor would it demonstrate Whiting's points about Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon to be false.

Southerton told me he sees the influence of FARMS in his (Whiting)  presentation (arrogant) and says Whiting model is flawed.  His tone is that basically those who disagree with him are imbeciles.

Simon says. Do you have anything besides ad hominems? Even if Dr. Whiting were "arrogant" and thought himself surrounded by "imbeciles" -- I know him, and would disagree with the characterization -- would that somehow prove him wrong?

Nothing you've said supports the anti-Mormon myth that Professor Whiting (let alone any of the other FARMS contributors) is an incompetent buffoon and a laughingstock. In fact, the publication of several papers in Systematic Entomology devoted to Professor Whiting's proposal on insect evolution would seem to demonstrate precisely the opposite, and to reveal him as a scientist whose work is internationally noticed.

[emaughan]

Some scientists have challenged his paper and present their reasons.

Ahhhh!! Stop the presses - a scientist was challenged by his peirs?!

Sorry, I could not resist.

P.S. More and more I grow to hate how public education is failing to educate people - especially in science.

[CLee]

It scarcely matters, though, since peer review isn't absent from FARMS. (Of course, if you know more about FARMS publication procedures than I do, I hope you'll feel free to enlighten me.)

FARMS is peer reviewed? Perhaps you would enlighten us about this?

[Daniel Peterson]

FARMS is peer reviewed?  Perhaps you would enlighten us about this?

I realize that the supposedly total lack of peer review at FARMS is an important element of the creed over on the "Recovery" board and in certain other places, and a subject of much mocking rhetoric, but the simple fact is that articles and book manuscripts submitted to FARMS for publication are subjected to a blind peer review process much like that at any other academic venue. The people who run FARMS are academics. We know the procedure. We've participated in it. We know its value and its limitations. We've replicated it.

[cinepro]

but the simple fact is that articles and book manuscripts submitted to FARMS for publication are subjected to a blind peer review process much like that at any other academic venue.

I don't know how other academic venues do it, but if you guys would print author's responses to the FARMS book reviews, that would be really, really cool.

[CLee]

FARMS is peer reviewed?

[juliann]

Then perhaps you would share with us the "Peer Review" process as applied by FARMS.

Perhaps you could share your standard of peer review and we could then compare that to FARMS.

[Daniel Peterson]

[Then perhaps you would share with us the "Peer Review" process as applied by FARMS.

There's nothing complicated (or suspicious) about it.

Author submits manuscript to editor. Editor (joined, usually, by associate editors and publication director, and occasionally by staff and board members) makes initial decision whether to do anything with manuscript or not. If decision is positive, editor makes copies (usually two or three) of author's submitted manuscript. Editor sends one copy to (each of usually two or three) qualified people to recommend for or against publication, and if vote is positive, to make suggestions for possible improvement. Reviewers, working anonymously and, so far as it is possible, typically without knowledge of identity of author, carry out assignment, and return their recommendations to editor. If majority vote is against publication, editor typically rejects manuscript. If majority vote is for publication, editor typically accepts manuscript, taking into account any recommendations. Manuscript then proceeds through normal editorial process (which may involve further input from staff and board members, and will certainly involve considerable input from various editors).

You were expecting something discreditable, perhaps?

[Bob Bennett]

For what it's worth, having been on both the reviewing and writing end of peer reviewed scientific journal papers, this sounds pretty typical. That being said, I suspect someone, somewhere will find a way to make the process sound suspicious when FARMS does it, thereby discrediting FARMS and by some odd line of reasoning, thereby 'prove' the Church is not true.

[sidewinder]

"John M. Butler. Dr. Butler,....won an award from the British Medical Association in 2001; he was granted a Presidential Early Career Award in 2002.)"

"Dr. Crandall's work on the genetic "Tree of Life" appears in the current issue of what is arguably the foremost American scientific journal, Science."

When do you expect they will win the presidential award for their work in BOM DNA?

There are very smart and educated people of all kinds of "crackpot" pursuasions.

While I don't think the issue is peer-review, it would be interesting to see one of these brilliant LDS scientists impress their respective scientific communities with the results of their dark explorations in substantiating the mythology of occultic documents.

Newton, you mentioned, likely the greatest scientest ever, would have been even greater had his alchemy panned out. Not to mention if Jesus returned in 1914 (or thereabouts). Instead, what he did excel in was enough to secure his godlike status as a scientist, despite the fact that probably 90% of his life's research, much of which was probably more important to him than what he's remembered for, was garbage.

[Kozaru]

The FARMS peer-review issue has been covered here.

[Wunna Dem Marminz]

The FARMS peer-review issue has been covered here.

It's been covered here too. Please note the lack of valid critical response to my questions. Here they are again:

It seems to me that the two relevant criteria you need to be a peer reviewer for a FARMS article is:

#1 Education or experience in the secular disciplines related to the paper you are reviewing. For example, Michael F. Whiting, who published a paper in FARMS about DNA and the Book of Mormon, holds a Ph.D. in entymology, performs DNA research, has been published in scientific journals, has received multiple NSF grants to conduct this research, and he is the director of BYU's DNA Sequencing Center. His peer group includes people with similar credentials.

#2 Education or experience in the specific LDS topic the paper addresses. For example, if the paper is about Lamanite genetic signatures, you need to know BoM claims on who the Lamanites were, where they came from, and where they went. Knowing people's opinions about what the BoM says is not as good as knowing what the BoM says.

Now, here's my questions: Do we all agree that the best quality peers meet both criteria? If 1 and 2 are necesary, who are FARMS' peers? Surely, many people that satisfy #1 exist, but who out there satisfies both of them?

Wunna

[Daniel Peterson]

When do you expect they will win the presidential award for their work in BOM DNA?

When the federal government establishes a state religion -- necessarily Mormonism -- and begins issuing grants to support theologically-committed denominational research. In the meantime, there's that pesky Constitution.

There are very smart and educated people of all kinds of "crackpot" pursuasions.

Which, while it insinuates that Drs. Butler, Crandall, and Whiting (and Sorenson and Meldrum and Stephens and Sorenson, and Roper and Stubbs) are of the "'crackpot' persuasion," actually proves nothing at all.

Consider the following syllogisms:

Some humans have cancer.

Jones is human.

Therefore, Jones has cancer.

Some seemingly upstanding citizens are really drug kingpins and murderers.

Cunningham seems to be an upstanding citizen.

Therefore, Cunningham is really a drug kingpin and murderer.

They are, of course, transparently invalid.

While I don't think the issue is peer-review, it would be interesting to see one of these brilliant LDS scientists impress their respective scientific communities with the results of their dark explorations in substantiating the mythology of occultic documents.

[Bob Bennett]

Straining at a gnat...

It was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

[Bob Bennett]

Sidewinder:

While I don't think the issue is peer-review, it would be interesting to see one of these brilliant LDS scientists impress their respective scientific communities with the results of their dark explorations in substantiating the mythology of occultic documents.

BB: One wonders if it would be possible to cram more insinuations of crackpot-ism in one sentence. Note the words Sidewinder uses - 'dark explorations', 'mythology' and the ever-popular 'occultic'. What is it, specifically, about the aforementioned scientists' papers that could be described as 'dark explorations'? What is there about the Book of Mormon itself that is 'occultic'? What is the definition of 'occultic' that makes you think the Book of Mormon fits it? Why use these clearly perjorative words when they fail to accurately describe the papers and documents in question? Poisoning the well, perhaps?

[Daniel Peterson]

The FARMS peer-review issue has been covered here.

Has it? You think that "covers" it? Yes, you probably do. Oh well. I won't comment on the deep irony of someone faulting the FARMS peer review process while imagining that comments from the objective analysts on the "Recovery" board constitute the final word on any issue relating to Mormonism.

But let's suppose, for a moment, that your link really did cover the topic adequately. Let's suppose that there is no legitimate peer review whatsoever at FARMS.

How would that demonstrate that the arguments of Drs. Whiting and Crandall and Butler, et al., were wrong, or unworthy of serious attention? How would it demonstrate that they were, even temporarily, incompetent buffoons and laughingstocks? How could it even begin to demonstrate that they are incompetent buffoons and laughingstocks generally?

Newton's Principia underwent no peer review. Nor, for that matter, really, did Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, or James Clerk Maxwell's famous equations. Darwin's Origin of Species never saw anything remotely like today's peer review process. Typically, a good argument is a good argument before peer review; peer review doesn't create a good argument, it simply filters out (some) bad arguments.

There's a certain desperation evident in your failure to come to grips with the real issue, Kozaru, and your manifest eagerness to change the subject.

[Daniel Peterson]

Straining at a gnat...

It was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Dang. I started to write Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and somehow got sidetracked.

FARMS is a fraud. The Church is false. There is no God.

But it's been corrected, so no damage. Muchas gracias.

[Matt Andrews]

It seems to me that peer review is particularly useful for those of us who are not experts in the field in question.

I do not have any kind of degree in physics. If Albert Einstien gave me an article he had written on the theory of relativity, I would not be able to judge its merit. If, I were to read the article, and know that several other physicists thought it a worthy contribution, that would help. If hundreds of scientists over a hundred years had all agreed it was a great theory, and used it to further scientific knowledge with great success, then I would feel pretty comfortable in thinking of Einstein's work as trustworthy.

(It is rare, of course, that my opinion on relativity matters to anyone, including myself.)

Likewise, I am not a geneticist, or a biologist. I have a friend who is, and so I can ask him about the DNA of Amerindians, but frankly, he's just one guy, and while I believe he is a very honest man, and an excellent researcher, I don't know if he's missed something important or not.

I think the previous poster was right that few impartial geneticists would be able to say much about what the Book of Mormon or Church leaders say about the origins of Native Americans.

They would, however, be able to comment on the genetics portion of both pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon arguments. Some never-Mormon source with very little stake in the controversy reading through articles or books and being able to say things like: "I know nothing about the Book of Mormon, but the author is correct in his interpretation about what one might expect to see, or not expect to see, in mitochondrial DNA of native americans if they were decendents of group such and such. In paragraph four of page 36, however, I would add a qualification..."

That would, I think, be a very helpful thing, if you could find geneticists willing to do so.

In the absence of this (on both sides), a guy like me is left with this from all the debate:

1. I have no idea how accurate the arguments are on either side. I can think of reasons why both sides might be biased in favor of their conclusions.

2. Both sides agree there is no evidence that Native American groups are decended from ancient Hebrews. (With considerable disagreement about whether there is evidence that they are not.)

3. Both sides think there is a possibility that Native Americans groups are not primarily of Hebraic origin. (With considerable disagreement about whether this is detrimental to Mormonism.)

(Are 2 and 3 accurate?)

[My personal opinion, if anyone cares (and they probably shouldn't), is that I, and many other Mormons, may have been wrong about Nephites and Lamanites (as genetic groups separate from, say, Asiatic groups) being the principal ancestors of Native Americans today.]