Intellectual Dishonesty From Evangelical Critics On Bom Dna?

[Hamilton Porter]

I've heard many Biblical fundamentalists try to level the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, without even mentioning that DNA studies have disproved the notion that all humans descended from a primal couple (hence Adam and Eve as we know it could not have existed).

Granted, our evangelical critics are generally less-educated than our secular, mostly ex-Mormon, critics and aren't aware that dishonesty entails not only lying but not using arguments that can be used against themselves. Many aren't even aware that DNA have disproved Adam and Eve.

But there are also professional-looking "countercult" sites guilty of this inconsistency. They don't mention the DNA issue with Adam and Eve at all.

A literal Adam and Eve from whom all people descended is even less defensible than the BOM solely based on scientific grounds. There are genetic principles for which we cannot detect Lehi's genetic signature (genetic drift, founder's effect, population crashes). The only scientific defense for Adam and Eve is "genetics is evolving."

[thesometimesaint]

Hamilton Porter:

Someone had to be the first.

Right now the best genetic scientists can do is Eve was a member of a group of about 20-40 individuals. Because of the limits of male research DNA Adam will probably remain a genetic mystery for at least a while longer.

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton Porter:

Someone had to be the first.

Right now the best genetic scientists can do is Eve was a member of a group of about 20-40 individuals. Because of the limits of male research DNA Adam will probably remain a genetic mystery for at least a while longer.

20-40? I heard at least 10,000.

[Mudcat]

I've heard many Biblical fundamentalists try to level the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, without even mentioning that DNA studies have disproved the notion that all humans descended from a primal couple (hence Adam and Eve as we know it could not have existed).

Hi HP,

I don't understand why the concept, that at present we have no genetic proof of a literal Adam and Eve, implies that there is intellectual dishonesty on the part of critics? These critics are simply arguing that there doesn't seem to be good evidence for Hebrew genetics to be found amongst Indians and that sort of thing.

I haven't paid much attention to the DNA argument.. gets a bit over my head. Likely because I am generally less-educated than the secular, ex-LDS sorts of folks

But, I mean they are two entirely different topics. Both certainly involve genetic but they are not the same. From what I can tell from my skiming the topic on the net.. there is a posited DNA "Adam" and a DNA "Eve" that are seperated by 50,000 years or so. Theses references seem to be to the first common male and female anscestors we all have in common. IOW the closest common denominator, this by no means suggests that there wasn't a common denominator that preceeded these discoveries. So a literal Adam and Eve, though unproven as yet is not an implausible scenario.

From my understanding they are still working on this sort of thing and don't have all the answers available.

Granted, our evangelical critics are generally less-educated than our secular, mostly ex-Mormon, critics and aren't aware that dishonesty entails not only lying but not using arguments that can be used against themselves. Many aren't even aware that DNA have disproved Adam and Eve.

Bold mine. Again I am not as familiar with the topic as you seem to be. Do you know if there is any documented evidence on the net that corroborates your statment.

If this is correct, not only would it present a challenge to Christians in general, but it would lay another genetic challenge at LDS as well I would think.

Regards,

Mudcat

edited - syntax in the first paragraph.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mudcat

[cinepro]

Considering the importance of a literal Adam and Eve to LDS doctrines, I'm not sure that's the best response to DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon.

[Hamilton Porter]

Hi HP,

I don't understand why the concept, that at present we have no genetic proof of a literal Adam and Eve, implies that there is intellectual dishonesty on the part of critics? These critics are simply arguing that there doesn't seem to be good evidence for Hebrew genetics to be found amongst Indians and that sort of thing.

I haven't paid much attention to the DNA argument.. gets a bit over my head. Likely because I am generally less-educated than the secular, ex-LDS sorts of folks

But, I mean they are two entirely different topics. Both certainly involve genetic but they are not the same. From what I can tell from my skiming the topic on the net.. there is a posited DNA "Adam" and a DNA "Eve" that are seperated by 50,000 years or so. Theses references seem to be to the first common male and female anscestors we all have in common. IOW the closest common denominator, this by no means suggests that there wasn't a common denominator that preceeded these discoveries. So a literal Adam and Eve, though unproven as yet is not an implausible scenario.

From my understanding they are still working on this sort of thing and don't have all the answers available.

Bold mine. Again I am not as familiar with the topic as you seem to be. Do you know if there is any documented evidence on the net that corroborates your statment.

If this is correct, not only would it present a challenge to Christians in general, but it would lay another genetic challenge at LDS as well I would think.

Regards,

Mudcat

edited - syntax in the first paragraph.

Mudcat,

there was never a time when the human population was under 10,000.

There are sound genetic principles for which cannot detect Lehi's genetic signature: genetic drift, founder's effect, and population crashes. Yet I have never any scientific argument salvaging a literal Adam and Eve, except that "genetics is evolving."

[Hamilton Porter]

Considering the importance of a literal Adam and Eve to LDS doctrines, I'm not sure that's the best response to DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon.

I don't really think so. Notice that article you linked to is entitled "Lessons from Eve." It's the lessons that are important, not her actual existence.

[Log]

I don't really think so. Notice that article you linked to is entitled "Lessons from Eve." It's the lessons that are important, not her actual existence.

Yep, a mythological Eve works just as well as a mythological Jesus, or even a mythological God - so long as we get something useful from the story, it really doesn't matter if it's true, does it?

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[Storm Rider]

I've heard many Biblical fundamentalists try to level the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, without even mentioning that DNA studies have disproved the notion that all humans descended from a primal couple (hence Adam and Eve as we know it could not have existed).

Granted, our evangelical critics are generally less-educated than our secular, mostly ex-Mormon, critics and aren't aware that dishonesty entails not only lying but not using arguments that can be used against themselves. Many aren't even aware that DNA have disproved Adam and Eve.

But there are also professional-looking "countercult" sites guilty of this inconsistency. They don't mention the DNA issue with Adam and Eve at all.

A literal Adam and Eve from whom all people descended is even less defensible than the BOM solely based on scientific grounds. There are genetic principles for which we cannot detect Lehi's genetic signature (genetic drift, founder's effect, population crashes). The only scientific defense for Adam and Eve is "genetics is evolving."

I have always felt that the vast majority of Christian anti-Mormon critics use arguments blindly. They use one standard against Mormonism and a totally different standard for their own church of choice. It is not surprising to find this, but it does demonstrate an intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

[cinepro]

I don't really think so. Notice that article you linked to is entitled "Lessons from Eve." It's the lessons that are important, not her actual existence.

Sorry Hamilton, but when it comes to LDS doctrines, that dog won't hunt.

When it comes to creative thinking, the LDS on this board are hard to beat. But at some point, these ideas become totally out of bounds for what can be considered "LDS". That doesn't mean they aren't good ideas, or worth considering.

But some of them, like a non-literal "Eve", are describing something not contained in (and contradictory to) LDS thought as defined by the scriptures, the Prophets and Apostles, Church publications and curriculum.

There are some gray areas in LDS teachings that can be bent and tweaked to fit different opinions, but the idea of a non-literal Eve isn't bending and tweaking. It's burning a big chunk of it to the ground and rebuilding.

Edited April 21, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Too add, theorizing Eve into an allegory or metaphor means we also have to recharacterize Adam as well. This means there is something seriously wrong with D&C 107:

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

Once we start making these people into metaphors, we have to figure out what was happening in the scriptures when we are told that these people interacted with other people and did things (like, help create our planet). Does this mean the people (and deities) they are interacting with are also metaphors in a metaphorical story?

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

there was never a time when the human population was under 10,000.

That's a bold claim and it doesn't seem realistic. If we were to take the evolution of man as a given, I don't per se, but for the sake of discussion... at least 10,000 homo sapiens would have had to simultaneously evolve from whatever was before them simultaneously for your premise to work out. This seems far flung. Assuming a direct creative intervention towards mankind then 10,000 plus would have to have been created simultaneously to get your premise through. This also seems far flung. Have you got any support for that?

There are sound genetic principles for which cannot detect Lehi's genetic signature: genetic drift, founder's effect, and population crashes. Yet I have never any scientific argument salvaging a literal Adam and Eve, except that "genetics is evolving."

You were the one said you had proof there wasn't a literal Adam and Eve, I have yet to see it and don't find your carte blanche dismissal as elevating the level of discussion on the topic.

My primary objection was that it seems all facts regarding human genetics and history have not been established. For you to declare that there is no Adam and Eve, I would anticipate some sort of proof to that and am hopeful you will present it at some future point.

As to your objections about BoM DNA, I think we could agree that some genetic facts do seem to be established and based upon what we do know we don't find much in way of evidence that Hebrews were in the America's. Certainly your objections... genetic drift, etc. could be possible but their possibility doesn't mean they are highly probable.

Regards,

Mudcat

[zerinus]

I've heard many Biblical fundamentalists try to level the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, without even mentioning that DNA studies have disproved the notion that all humans descended from a primal couple (hence Adam and Eve as we know it could not have existed).

Granted, our evangelical critics are generally less-educated than our secular, mostly ex-Mormon, critics and aren't aware that dishonesty entails not only lying but not using arguments that can be used against themselves. Many aren't even aware that DNA have disproved Adam and Eve.

But there are also professional-looking "countercult" sites guilty of this inconsistency. They don't mention the DNA issue with Adam and Eve at all.

A literal Adam and Eve from whom all people descended is even less defensible than the BOM solely based on scientific grounds. There are genetic principles for which we cannot detect Lehi's genetic signature (genetic drift, founder's effect, population crashes). The only scientific defense for Adam and Eve is "genetics is evolving."

Actually, If you are arguing from a biblical literalist point of view, all human DNA should be traceable to one common ancestor Noah, who lived around 4,000 years ago, according to Bible chronology. That makes their job even harder, using DNA as an argument against the Book of Mormon.