When I first moved to Seattle I met a man who asked me "Well what do you think about all the DNA evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is false?" This was news to me, especially considering that as an active member of the LDS faith I have read the Book of Mormon several times and that I am in Seattle to get a PhD in studying DNA. As it turns out, in the never ending battle to ruin what can be a very happy marriage between Religion and Science, the Book of Mormon has, in recent years, had DNA evidence added to it's would be list of "reasons this can't be true". Interestingly some of this controversy has it's origins right here at the university where I currently study. Some years ago, an anthropology graduate student, who coincidentally was a member of LDS church, decided to look at the Book of Mormon's claims that the America's were visited and inhabited by travelers who belonged to the tribes of Israel and who consequently became ancestors to what would become the Native Americans. I don't really know what he did exactly as I have not found any related published works in any major science or genetics journal, but presumably he looked at some set of DNA markers in modern Native Americans and modern Middle Easterners to look for matches. He didn't find any, leading him to conclude that the historical claims the Book of Mormon makes are not true, which basically calls into question it's relevance as a book of scripture. He was not the only one to ever make these claims. Now admittedly, I don't have my PhD yet, but neither did this man when he made these assertions. Still I am comfortable in saying that the Book of Mormon need not worry about such attacks from DNA evidence. To truly answer this question of relating historical populations based on modern DNA would take an experiment that can't help but have gaping holes and one that is forced to make several assumptions. This is because of limitations in both the relevant history and in modern applications of DNA investigations. I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone, but this book* does an excellent job of illustrating just how difficult and implausible it is to really make these accusations. Plus it teaches some biology and genetics to boot! It is written by members of the church and so it is easy to assume that these individuals would be biased. Thats true, but I think you would be hard pressed to support that any detractors of this material or the Book of Mormon itself are from an unprejudiced sort. Any way I was surprised with how much I learned about genetics and the Book of Mormon despite the fact that I have studied both for a large chunk of my life. It is a fascinating topic. Unfortunately, treated inappropriately or with too much haste can lead to inaccurate or incomplete conclusions, sometimes with unfortunate consequences. Regardless of what DNA ever says about the Book of Mormon, the book itself makes no direct claims regarding it's genetic heritage. Spending too much time searching for any may only result in missing the chance to learn for yourself about what a remarkable book it is. In the church's last General Conference, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said it very well:"Faith will not come from the study of ancient texts as a purely academic pursuit. It will not come from archaeological digs and discoveries. It will not come from scientific experiments. It will not even come from witnessing miracles. These things may serve to confirm faith, or at times to challenge it, but they do not create faith."
I know that my faith in the Book of Mormon and in genetics has not be shaken up by any of this, but it has directed my studies and efforts resulting in an even greater appreciation for both.
*Technically this isn't a book. It is a collection of essays and papers, but it is bound like a book and works just like a book so it gets the review treatment.
2 comments:
Nice work. I was hoping that you would review this when I saw it in your reading widget. It has always seemed strange to me that DNA criticism has become the most popular "smoking gun" against the Book of Mormon when it is one of the easier criticisms to explain away/discredit. DNA is probably the most important scientific discovery ever but it has acquired this quasi-magical-authoritative status in modern imagination. Like when someone says "DNA evidence" in a trial or on the news, it becomes instant "proof," without any need to actually look at the science itself. I'm afraid, Tom, that you may be wasting time doing actual science when you could simply say "DNA proves I'm right" and win every argument, no matter what about.
"DNA proves that you should go out with me."
Do you think that could work?
Post a Comment