Creation Mega-Conference

[Update: The "continue reading" link has been fixed.]

Recently the folks from Answers in Genesis put on a "Creation Mega-Conference" at Liberty University in Virginia. This was an opportunity for hardline creationists to come together and discuss why science is misguided and, apparently, sell lots of books and DVDs. This event was covered by The Pandas Thumb and Reason Online. Given the diversity of opinion among Latter-day Saints on such matters, I'm sure reactions to the coverage will vary. Some will be disappointed in the way their own point of view is treated, but I think I can guarantee that even McConkie-types will find some misguided arguments. Actually, I think I'll use this post to try my first blogpoll. (See the sidebar. It's anonymous--vote!)

Below are the links to the coverage.

Continue Reading

The Panda's Thumb:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Reason Online:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Continue reading...

Paper Fingerprints

There is a paper in this week's Nature that takes advantage of something I've never really thought of before, but should have: No two pieces of paper are exactly alike.

Continue Reading

On the microscopic level, there are variations in the arrangement of the fibers and such. The authors report that they can scan paper with a laser and transform those irregularities into a digital code, which can be used as a fingerprint. They were able to re-scan and successfully reproduce the fingerprint after the paper was soaked, baked, or crinkled up and then flattened out. This would also work for plastic and cardboard.

Most existing security validation schemes rely on a proprietary manufacturing process that would be difficult for a fraudster to reproduce (for example, holograms or security inks). Our findings open the way to a new approach to authentication and tracking — even the inventors would not be able to carry out a physical attack on this fingerprint as there is no known manufacturing process for copying surface imperfections at the required level of precision. There is no need to modify the protected item in any way through the addition of tags, chips or inks, so protection is covert, low-cost, simple to integrate into the manufacturing process, and immune to attacks directed against the security feature itself.

A patent has been filed. I wish I had thought of that.

Continue reading...

Cats, Taste, and Pseudogenes

Well, darn. I've been wanting to do this post for several days and actually started on it last night, but was unable to finish. Now I see that PZ Myers at Pharyngula has beat me to it. Well, I guess I should be grateful since it saves me the trouble, and his explanation is probably better than mine would have been.

There is an interesting article in this month's PLoS Genetics about why cats are indifferent to sweets. (PLoS stands for Public Library of Science, a great new paradigm for science publishing--for the consumer at least. All articles are free to read, distribute, etc.)

Continue Reading

Here is the synopsis:

Although sweet sugars are ubiquitous in human foods, they are seldom added to cat food, and owners usually do not feed sweets to their cats. This is because, in contrast to most other mammals, both domestic cats and their wild cousins, the big cats, do not show a preference for and, most likely, cannot detect sweet-tasting compounds. Other than this sweet blindness, the cat's sense of taste is normal. The molecular mechanism for this unique behavior towards sweets was not known, until now. Sweet compounds, including sugars and artificial sweeteners, are recognized by a special taste bud receptor composed of the products of two genes. The authors found that in cats, one of these genes is not functional and is not expressed. (It is called a pseudogene.) Because the sweet receptor cannot be formed, the cat cannot taste sweet stimuli. During the evolution of the cats' strictly carnivorous behavior, selection to maintain a functional receptor was apparently relaxed. This research provides a molecular explanation for the common observation that the cat lives in a different sensory world than the cat owner.

If you got that, try the abstract:

Although domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) possess an otherwise functional sense of taste, they, unlike most mammals, do not prefer and may be unable to detect the sweetness of sugars. One possible explanation for this behavior is that cats lack the sensory system to taste sugars and therefore are indifferent to them. Drawing on work in mice, demonstrating that alleles of sweet-receptor genes predict low sugar intake, we examined the possibility that genes involved in the initial transduction of sweet perception might account for the indifference to sweet-tasting foods by cats. We characterized the sweet-receptor genes of domestic cats as well as those of other members of the Felidae family of obligate carnivores, tiger and cheetah. Because the mammalian sweet-taste receptor is formed by the dimerization of two proteins (T1R2 and T1R3; gene symbols Tas1r2 and Tas1r3), we identified and sequenced both genes in the cat by screening a feline genomic BAC library and by performing PCR with degenerate primers on cat genomic DNA. Gene expression was assessed by RT-PCR of taste tissue, in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry. The cat Tas1r3 gene shows high sequence similarity with functional Tas1r3 genes of other species. Message from Tas1r3 was detected by RT-PCR of taste tissue. In situ hybridization and immunohistochemical studies demonstrate that Tas1r3 is expressed, as expected, in taste buds. However, the cat Tas1r2 gene shows a 247-base pair microdeletion in exon 3 and stop codons in exons 4 and 6. There was no evidence of detectable mRNA from cat Tas1r2 by RT-PCR or in situ hybridization, and no evidence of protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Tas1r2 in tiger and cheetah and in six healthy adult domestic cats all show the similar deletion and stop codons. We conclude that cat Tas1r3 is an apparently functional and expressed receptor but that cat Tas1r2 is an unexpressed pseudogene. A functional sweet-taste receptor heteromer cannot form, and thus the cat lacks the receptor likely necessary for detection of sweet stimuli. This molecular change was very likely an important event in the evolution of the cat's carnivorous behavior.

Why is the interesting? You'll have to read Myers' post.

Continue reading...

You Don't Have to Be a Rocket Scientist...

...to appreciate watching the Shuttle lift off. If you have broadband, check out this feature from MSNBC.com. You can select three angles from which to simultaneously watch Discovery lift off. One of the options is the new camera mounted on the external fuel tank, which allows you to watch the boosters fall off, and then watch the fuel tank separate from the shuttle. Too bad the feed stops before the tank re-enters the atmosphere, that might have been cool to watch too.

Continue reading...

Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth?

The LDS doctrine of God differs from that of others in a number of ways. Probably the most prominent difference is our belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, presumably similar to the resurrected Jesus. This gives added meaning to our belief in Jesus's divine Sonship. Church doctrine also teaches that we are all the spirit children of God. A more obscure doctrine concerns the relationship of Adam and Eve (and by extension, all of us) to God--that Adam and Eve are physical children of God. I say "obscure" because I was unaware of it until three-fourths of the way through my mission. It is beyond the scope of this post to give a thorough historical tracing of this doctrine. Rather, I want to provide an overview of the support for this doctrine and some of my own observations. (I have touched on this topic before, here.)

Continue Reading

Background

I do not know exactly when this doctrine originated. Some cite this statement of Joseph Smith in support of the doctrine:

"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way." (TPJS, p. 373)

The idea that Adam was a physical son of God is a reasonable extension of this statement, but technically this statement was about the plurality of gods, not Adam's creation. Brigham Young was probably more responsible for bringing this doctrine out into the open. He denied that Adam was literally made of dust and insisted that Adam had a physical father, which was intimately tied into Brigham's Adam-God teachings.

It appears that in the decades following Brigham Young's death, the teaching that Adam was a physical child of God was retained by stripping it away from, and discarding, Adam-God. A 1910 Church manual stated:

Man has descended from God: In fact, he is of the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also. There never was a time, probably, in all the eternities of the past, when there was not men or children of God. This world is only one of many worlds which have been created by the Father through His Only Begotten. (Church Manual, Course of Study for Priests, 1910, under the subject "The Creation of Man")

Joseph F. Smith made this statement in 1913:

I know that my Redeemer liveth; . . . I know that God is a being with body, parts, and passions and that His Son is in His own likeness, and that man is created in the image of God. The Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our early parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I. (Deseret Evening News, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. III, p. 7. Also quoted in Deseret News: Church Section, Sep. 19, 1936, pp. 2 & 8)

In a 1912 letter to a mission president that dealt with a controversial speech by Brigham Young, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith included this statement:

But President Young went on to show that our father Adam, -- that is, our earthly father, -- the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being "Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days," and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, 265-267)

Further support might be drawn from the 1909 First Presidency statement, "Origin of Man" (also under Joseph F. Smith). This document affirms our spiritual relationship with God, but also contains statements that could easily be interpreted as supporting a physical relationship as well. (This document is available on the sidebar as part of the BYU Evolution Packet.)

Perhaps the most influential proponent in modern times has been Elder Bruce R. McConkie who wrote:

Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam's entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence. ("Son of God" in Mormon Doctrine)

This does not represent an exhaustive list of statements by Church leaders or publications that support this doctrine, but these are probably the most prominent.

Scriptural Support

As should be clear from the above discussion, the chief scriptural support for this concept comes from the New Testament and the Pearl of Great Price. A listing of Jesus's genealogy in Luke states, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38, italics in KJV and indicate wording inserted by the translators.) In his commentary on the New Testament, Elder McConkie affirmed that these words meant what they said. This scripture was also cited by the First Presidency in the letter quoted above. Also in the context of genealogy, the Book of Moses states, "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed" (Moses 6:22). No doubt some see the statement in the Book of Moses as the restoration of a "plain and precious" truth, yet there are facts that would seem to obscure its plainness.

The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is taken from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Joseph translated Genesis 1-17 (maybe even through 24) and then switched to work exclusively on the New Testament. After finishing the New Testament, the Old Testament was then completed. The JST corresponding to Luke 3:38 alters the words "Adam, who was the son of God" to read "Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth." Since Joseph's alteration of Luke occurred after he wrote Moses 6:22, it seems reasonable to question whether he intended the literal interpretation that some have made of these verses.

Chapter 6 of the Book of Moses, itself, suggests a figurative interpretation because after Adam is baptized he is told "Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." (Moses 6:68) Here, Adam's sonship is equated with the sonship (or daughterhood) that is offered to all of us. In a number of places, the scriptures refer to the status of a "son of God" as something one becomes through the Atonement (see John 1:12, 11:30, 34:3, and 45:8, for one example). A counter-argument to this might be that while Moses 6:22 has reference to Adam's physical relationship to God the Father, the other scriptures have reference to becoming a son of Christ, as explained by King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon.

Another scripture cited in support of this doctrine is Moses 6:8 which says, "Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God." Again, the term "children of God" is usually used in scripture to refer to God's covenant people. Some also equate the word "firstborn" with Adam's physical birth in Abraham 1:3, but other readings seem equally legitimate.

Interestingly, there is at least one scripture that contradicts this doctrine. Speaking of Christ, D&C 93:10 says, "The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him." Since God the Father is the father of our spirits, in what sense did Jesus make men if Adam is a physical son of God? Elder McConkie's solution to this scripture is to invoke the principle of divine investiture of authority--the actions and words of the Father can be attributed to the Son, and vice versa. (The Promised Messiah, p.63. Elder McConkie also gives an extended treatment to how one becomes a son of God. One is first adopted into the family of Christ, and then into the family of Elohim. See chapter 20.)

Current Treatment

Although this doctrine has appeared in talks and Church publications from time to time, it seems to be almost absent from current Church teaching. "The Family: A Proclamation on the Family," and Church manuals such as True to the Faith and Gospel Principles emphasize our spiritual relationship with God but say nothing of any physical relationship.

You are a literal child of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life. As His child, you can be assured that you have divine, eternal potential and that He will help you in your sincere efforts to reach that potential. ("God the Father" in True to the Faith, p.74)

In fact, none of the Church Educational System (CES) Institute student manuals dealing with the Old Testament, New Testament, Pearl of Great Price, nor the more general "Doctrines of the Gospel" manual, contain commentary on Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22 affirming the doctrine. (In most cases there is not any commentary on these scriptures at all.)

A search of the Ensign reveals only a handful of references to Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22, none of which are contained in an article or talk by a General Authority. As far as I can determine, there have not been any General Conference statements in at least the last 25 years supporting the doctrine either. In the October 1980 conference, Elder Mark E. Petersen gave a talk in which he specifically criticized Adam-God. In the course of the talk he said:

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ. Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous! Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are. Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.

This is one example of an Apostle emphasizing Adam's (and by extension, our) spiritual relationship with God, but leaving any physical relationship untouched (or in this case apparently denied.)

Conclusion

The concept that Adam and Eve were physically born of Heavenly Parents is a natural extrapolation of our mortal experience and fits reasonably well within the overall structure of Mormon theology. It has been believed and taught by some of the best men of this dispensation. However, although I am not aware that the doctrine has ever been specifically repudiated, the dearth of support for it from LDS leaders for almost a generation leads me to conclude that it is considered an unsettled, and perhaps speculative, matter by current leadership.

[Update: In his 1976 book, Adam: Who Is He?, Elder Mark E. Petersen refers to Luke 3:38 in three places (pages 5, 13, 59), although without much elaboration. His 1980 talk notwithstanding, it is possible that he believed the doctrine.]

[Update: In his 1982 book, Noah and the Flood, Elder Mark E. Petersen specifically argued against the above interpretation of Luke 3:38.]

[This is a cross-post from Mormons and Evolution. Please comment there.]

Continue reading...

Jewish Catacombs Built First

A paper in this week's Nature discusses the dating of some Jewish catacombs in Rome. The authors obtained organic matter, used in the construction of the catacombs, and performed [14]C radiocarbon dating. It appears that the Jewish catacombs were built at least 100 years before the Christian ones. The last paragraph of the article:

This evidence indicates that the Villa Torlonia catacomb came into use in the second century AD, a century before the building of the earliest Christian catacombs started. Given that Roman Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Jews and Christians continued to interact until well into Late Antiquity, it is possible that Christian funerary practices were influenced by Jewish ones. This could explain the similarity between the oldest of the early Christian underground cemeteries and the Jewish Villa Torlonia catacomb, particularly considering that Callixtus, the deacon in charge of developing the Christian catacombs, came from the Jewish quarter. However, confirmation awaits radiocarbon dating of the Christian catacombs.

I don't pretend to know the significance of this, I just thought it was interesting. Maybe someone out there can elaborate.

(Radiocarbon dating: Jewish inspiration of Christian catacombs A Jewish cemetery in ancient Rome harbours a secret that bears on the history of early Christianity. Leonard V. Rutgers, Klaas van der Borg, Arie F. M. de Jong and Imogen Poole)

Continue reading...

Intelligent Design: A Personal View

Readers of this blog will have noticed that I speak ill of "intelligent design," and may wonder why that is. Why, as a believing Latter-day Saint, do I not support such a concept? There are number of reasons, some of which I have expressed in previous posts. Nevertheless, I thought it might be helpful if I concentrate some of them in one post, which I will link to on the sidebar and update as I feel inclined. Extensive critiques of intelligent design are available in books and on the internet.

Continue Reading


First, I want to make something clear. Please note that intelligent design is not just the belief that God played a role in the creation of this world and life on it. It is not just the belief that our existence is intended. Intelligent design makes specific claims about an approach to science and how designed features can be identified. I am not at all hostile to belief in a role for God in the creation of this earth. My criticism is directed toward the approach to science that intelligent design takes and the claims and actions of the Discovery Institute.

Definitions

Intelligent design (ID), as promulgated by its leading advocate, the Discovery Institute (DI), is the concept that certain features of this universe and living things are sufficiently complex that their existence is best explained by an intelligent cause. ID proponents claim that designed features in biology can actually be identified as having been designed. Their chief argument for design is a concept called irreducible complexity (IC). The idea behind IC is that since some biological features have many interacting parts that are all necessary for the function of the feature, the feature must have been designed because it could not have gradually come into existence by natural selection. ID advocates have proposed several candidates as being IC including the bacteria flagellum (used for swimming), the blood clotting cascade, and features of the immune system.

If something has been intelligently designed, then there must have been a designer. Who is the designer? Formally, ID proponents do not say. It could be a person or thing that we would call God, but not necessarily. It could be a race of aliens. ID advocates argue that the identity of the designer is irrelevant--it does not change the fact that something was designed.


Methodology

I mentioned that the concept of irreducible complexity is one of the chief tools that ID proponents have put forth to identify intelligent design. Critics have pointed out that this is just the argument from ignorance re-cast with a fancy name. Invoking IC is to say "We can't see how this could possibly have evolved in a step-by-step manner, it therefore must have been designed." The problem here is that establishing that no known mechanisms could have produced a biological feature does not mean that a mechanism will not be found in the future. IC essentially declares a dead end to research on that area.

You may be thinking, "Well maybe we could create a list of potentially IC systems and then if any get overturned, no big deal. Eventually we'll have a solid list of irreducibly complex, and therefore intelligently designed, systems." There are two problems that I see with this. First, is a matter of apologetics. Critics of evolution would be loathe to ever give up anything that ever had the "scientific" stamp of intelligent design on it. Given the way current science is distorted by some, the ability of scientists to make corrections in the future would be that much more difficult were they to even tentatively label something as intelligently designed. Each item on the list would become not only a scientific battle, but a religious battle as well. Second, if we are going to label things "intelligently designed until further notice" based on IC, and then further evidence causes us to remove that label, then IC really has no power to detect intelligent design in the first place. Let's look at a couple of specific examples.

First is the RAG1 gene, which is critical for a functioning immune system. Two excellent posts at The Pandas Thumb describe how the concept of irreducible complexity is undermined by recent research. (See here and then here. Also see here for treatment of blood clotting, another proposed IC system.) I will not waste time explaining them in detail--please read them. To summarize, the origin of the RAG1 gene and the DNA sequences it works on have been unknown and Michael Behe thought this supported his concept of IC. Recently, other genes have been identified which point to a plausible origin. When Behe protested that he would not be satisfied without the layout of a detailed evolutionary scenario (that borders on omniscience), he showed how useless a tool IC is--it is really just another term for incredulity.

Now let's look for a moment at viruses. If anything deserves the label of irreducibly complex, and therefore intelligently designed, it is viruses. Thus far, I am unaware of any treatment of viruses by ID advocates. Viruses are parasites of host cells. They have genomes that encode some genes involved in their replication, but they are still utterly dependent on their host for many things. Some viruses have genes, critical for their replication, that are unknown anywhere else. Sounds like IC to me. Yet, even though the origin(s) of viruses is a difficult subject to deal with under non-ID assumptions, progress is being made. Some virus families can be grouped together into larger families based on certain similarities. A recently discovered virus is helping to bridge the gap between a group of viruses and cellular life because it contains some extra genes, related to cellular genes, that are not found in the other viruses it is grouped with. It is like one person, in a group of people holding hands, reaching out to grab the hand of someone in another group. This is a small but significant step in uncovering the origin of these particular viruses.

Now let's look back at irreducible complexity and intelligent design. If the scientific community had accepted the concept of IC, the potential precursors to the RAG1 gene and the potential tie between cellular life and some viruses would probably never have been discovered because it would be assumed that further investigation into origins would be fruitless. Why would anyone waste their time probing the origin of something declared to be intelligently designed? These recent examples support my conclusion that ID's approach to science is not just flawed, it brings discovery to a halt.

Cultural Movement

When put into a larger context it is hard to believe that ID proponents actually have the best interest of science at heart. This is because the ID movement is really part of a calculating cultural/religious movement. The motives behind this movement have been well established, not by inference, but by the writings of the leaders of the Discovery Institute themselves. I will not detail the agenda of the DI here; you can follow this link for further reading. While I might agree with some of the cultural ends that DI hopes for, I find their tactics distasteful--especially in regard to science.

Because most scientists have been unimpressed by the claims of ID, proponents have waged a public relations battle to get ID accepted by the public. Presumably they hope that this will result in public pressure being applied to the scientific community to change their ways. Needless to say, many scientists find this distressing because it constitutes an end-run around the scientific process that has worked so well, and presents the danger that scientific findings and research will be dictated by the religious beliefs of the public majority.

Interestingly, the strategy may back-fire. As the public has become aware of the promotion of intelligent design some are seizing it to accomplish their own ends. The latest example is Sen. Buttars of Utah threatening to introduce intelligent design, or "divine design," as he called it, into the public school curriculum. The distinction between theory and religion that the Discovery Institute has tried to make is apparently lost on people like Buttars. Similar things are happening in other states as well, which increases the possibility that courts will tie ID to religion and therefore find it unconstitutional as curriculum in public school science classes.

One of the mantras of the ID proponents is that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Recently a number of ID proponents testified in Kansas hearings dealing with school science curriculum. (These hearings were covered by Red State Rabble.) When asked about basic scientific issues such as the age of the earth and common ancestry, a number of the ID "experts" expressed doubt or rejection of the current scientific view, in spite of the fact that the official position of the Discovery Institute is that ID does is not necessarily incompatible with those concepts. I have seen one high-ranking person from the Discovery Institute express disbelief in common ancestry then cite a type of evidence, that clearly supports common ancestry, to defend one of their poster IC systems. In other words, the same type of evidence that he thinks supports his case for a certain IC system also supports common ancestry. So he is apparently willing to accept evidence that supports ID but ignore other implications of that type of evidence. To me, that is not following the evidence wherever it leads. If ID is not incompatible with common ancestry or a 4.5 billion year-old earth, as the Discovery Institute claims, why the reservation? It is almost certainly on religious grounds. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not science.

Theological Implications

If proponents of ID are correct--that there are objective ways to determine whether something is intelligently designed in biology--then we will have to follow that proposition wherever it leads. This may cause theological discomfort for some because, assuming God is the designer, it makes God responsible for having designed things such as viruses. Measles, smallpox, and polio are all viruses that are exclusively human pathogens. Can theology account for the intelligent design of these agents of death and disability? I mentioned before that viruses are utterly dependent on host cells for their replication. However, the host is not passive. It has defense mechanisms that help to obstruct the actions of the virus. On the other hand, viruses have various methods of disabling those defense mechanisms. Can theology accommodate God's design of viruses, human defenses to those viruses, and virus's counters to the human defense? Are we prepared to attribute hallmarks of a fallen world to the actual design of God? This is a philosophical and theological question, but it is one that must be faced if intelligent design is accepted.

Conclusion

Like many others, I look forward to the day when science can be reconciled with scripture. Although the intelligent design movement seems like a step in that direction, I believe it actually constitutes a backward step for both science and religion. I believe that God was involved in the creation of life and I have some speculations about how he may have been involved, but they remain personal speculation and they cannot be tested by science--at least not yet. So when I am critical of intelligent design, I am not criticizing a belief in God's role in creation. I am criticizing an approach to science, the public relations campaign that accompanies it, and the distortion of the scientific method.

Continue reading...

Southerton and Murphy: Could It Have Been Different?

In a statement attributed to Simon Southerton, he tells his motivation for writing his book. "I wrote Losing a Lost Tribe because I want to pressure the church to change its teachings and doctrines that are racist and wrong. Native Americans and Polynesians are not descended from Israelites and they are not the descendants of the imaginary cursed Lamanite race." This is a rather negative take on what the DNA evidence strongly points to--that the majority of Native American and Polynesian genetic ancestry comes from Asia. As such, it contradicts what many members of the Church believe(d), or assume(d), would be the case. It may not be welcome information, but it is what it is.

Let's forget Southerton and Murphy for a moment and go back a few years to when this topic was below the surface. Imagine a young, faithful scholar--let's call him John Sorenson Jr.--who has studied the issue of genetic ancestry and realizes that the science does not match popular belief. He is still a believer and has pure motives--he just wants people to know the truth.

1. Should John Jr. publish his findings?
2. If so, where should he publish? One assumption might be that having it come from FARMS or BYU Studies will make it more acceptable because they are "faithful" sources. What if neither of them are interested?
3. His publication will likely attract attention. How important is tone versus substance in determining whether church members (especially the Brethren) will smile or frown upon his work?

Keep in mind that the information in John Jr.'s publication is being taught in university courses--he's just the first one to put two and two together for the public. It's only a matter of time before someone does it. Might it not as well be him rather than a critic?

I ask these questions because I believe that this issue could have been broached without causing alarm within the Church, if it had been done the right way. Perhaps I am wrong. Could it have been different?

Continue reading...