February 23rd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
GetReligion and other blogs are fervently discussing the LA Times report (link dead) that DNA evidence may contradict Mormon scripture.
The use of science to refute religion to me seems dicey at best, especially when done by Jews and Christians.
Take the Biblical story of creation for example. Genesis 1 details a six-day creation. Scholars have taken the ages of people from the Old Testament, assuming that these lives are contiguous, and back-calculated a creation date somewhere around 6000 years before the birth of Christ. Yet radiometric dating and other “scientific” methods spot our earth’s age around 4.5 billion years. Wikipedia offers more information under the topic “Young Earth Creationism”.
As a subscriber to Biblical inerrancy (and for Christians this must be the case; if one can choose that Genesis 1 is errant, then one can choose any book or chapter to be errant), I accept the six days on faith. Adding up the ages of Biblical figures to get an age seems to be quite an assumption to make; it’s not divinely declared like the six days. Assuming 4.5 billion years of missing people in the Bible seems a bit of a stretch too. Current science is likely failing Biblical creation.
The Book of Mormon is incorrect because it contradicts Scripture, not because DNA proves the Book of Mormon is wrong.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I think science can be used to refute Mormonism to the extent that Mormonism is a fraudulant con game.
“Yet radiometric dating and other “scientific” methods spot our earth’s age around 4.5 billion years.”
Is there a reason you put “scientific” in quotes? Do you consider radiometric dating or some other methods not to be scientific?
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Heh. I was hedging it in terms of whether it was “true” or not.
If Scripture gives us one date and science gives us another, it is only appropriate to examine the assumptions in both methods. I imagine that curve-fitting the radioactivity of samples to half-life equations can lead to some statistical error.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
There are two basic kinds of science, operational science and origins science. Origins Science attempt to determine how something came about in the past. Now this is problemativcal at best. Why? Because the events that we are atempting to discover have 1) already happened, )2 are not reproducable, and 3) because of 1 and two not directly observable. This requires us to make a great number of assumptions about conditions in the past that we cannot validate in any way. For example, the radiometric dating that is mentioned makes a number of assumptions. Radiometric measuring uses the ratio of one element in relation to another element to determine relative age. Now we know the half-life of the radiometric element, but we do not know what the original values were, these must be assumed. Therefore, if our assumption is that the earth is old then we make allowance in our initial ratio to account for current ratios.
This topic can become extensive, but there are some excellant papers that have been written on the topic. http://www.icr.org has some papers on this subject from the lay-person point of view to the scientific papers on various ages, fossil layers, strata layers, atmospheric gas ratio’s, etc.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I am sorry, I realized that I did not directly address the text of this blog. The use of science to prove a religion is problematic because, science is ultimately man-based and flawed. Science, Operational Science, can find and show a great deal about our world and its makeup, but it is not a tool for use in the defense of the faith. Jesus Christ is the only answer.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:47 am
“I was hedging it in terms of whether it was “true” or not.”
Your reply defines a scientific method as one that yields, within experimental error, true results, while a “scientific” method yields results that are not true, especially when they disagree with Scripture.
So were the methods used by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and others in determining that the Earth moves around the Sun “scientific” (according to that definition) because they disagree with over sixty verses in Scripture that refer instead to the movement of the sun around the earth? Should we use the geocentric method, or the Tychonic variation, as the correct scientific (without quotes) method to produce astronomical results consistent with Scripture?
Using the “scientific” heliocentric method of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, in 1675 a Danish Lutheran astronomer, Ole Roemer, measured the time when one of Jupiter’s moons went behind the planet. The delay in the times measured when Earth was on the far side rather then the same side of the Sun as Jupiter led Roemer to conclude that the speed of light was finite and did not travel instantaneously. This meant that light coming from distant stars was light that had originated in the distant past. As telescopes and astronomy methods improved, star distances were measured in thousands, then millions, and billions of light-years.
Here on earth, the current natural isotopic abundance of fissile uranium-235 is 0.72 percent, not enough to cause a sustained nuclear fission reaction when natural uranium is surrounded by water. Today, nuclear power reactors need about 3 percent enriched uranium-235 in the fuel to operate using water as a moderator and coolant. About 1.7 billion years ago, the abundance of U-235 (with a half-life of 700 million years) would have been around 3 percent. during that time, in Gabon, West Africa, a buried uranium ore deposit, surrounded by groundwater, operated as a nuclear reactor on and off over a million years as heated water was driven off as steam, cooled, and later returned. This is the conclusion from scientific studies of the remains at the site, which include stable isotopes of elements such as neodymium, remnants of uranium fission that occurred long ago, and uranium ore with a U-235 content significantly less than the normal 0.72 percent. The radioactive fission products have long since decayed away.
Of course some will label the study of speed-limited light originating from distant stars, and the origin of the remaining fission products and depleted uranium in an African ore deposit as “origins science”. But the methods used by scientists in those cases are the same as the methods used for they label as “operations science.” Presumably those people would label scientific studies of stars less than six or seven thousand light-years away as “operations science” and the scientific study of more distant stars (as well as supernovas, blackholes, galaxies, nebulae, clusters, and pulsars) as “origins science”.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I think we’ve used quotes to run off into quite the tangent!
One of my favorite courses in college was called “History of Science”. We covered the worldview switches from geocentrism to heliocentrism to the universe having no center at all. One of the course’s main theses was that we started off with religion dictating a science (geocentrism as an example), then science divorcing itself from religion, and perhaps now we are on the cusp of science dictating a sort of religion, when called upon to explain things with theoretical particles, superstrings, grand unified theories, and so forth.
Science will change. Albert Einstein may look like Sir Isaac Newton in a hundred years’ time. That’s why I used the quotes; that’s why the hedge. It would perhaps be hilarious if space-time folded in such a way that the Earth was once again in the center of it all, and Pope Alexander VII gets the second to last laugh.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
The issue of the quotes, which I demonstrated with two examples, is that science should not be denigrated as “scientific” when it is only being scientific. If someone misuses science for their own agenda, then their use is unscientific, just as if there were any “dictating” or “divorcing” going on throughout history, it was among theologians and scientists, not science and (the Christian) religion.
Science may be used to expose religious quackery and scams as you noted in the news report about the Mormons.
Science may change, but more likely it be understood and practiced better in order to obtain more knowledge. Copernicus thought the orbits of planets around the sun were circles because circles are perfect and God would have made perfect orbits.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Your last comment that “Mormonism is wrong because it contradicts scripture” sure takes a lot for granted. For one thing, it assumes as fact something yet to be demonstrated. I think they call that “begging the question.” You might want to consider that there are many people who are familiar with scripture who think that it complements rather than contradicts scripture.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Alma, thank you for your courtesy, and welcome to NR.
What is said of Mormonism below is secondhand research, but I will link as much to KJV and Mormon scriptures as I can so that people can check it out for themselves.
Material for this section comes from: The Interactive Bible.
Christ’s Birth
KJV: Born in Bethlehem - Matthew 2:1
MS: Prophesied to be born in Jerusalem - Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10.
Origin of the term “Christians”
KJV: After Christ’s death and resurrection, at Antioch - Acts 11:26
MS: Nephites are named Christians 73-72 BC - Book of Mormon, Alma 46:13-16, verify date in notes at the top.
Length of darkness at the Crucifixion
KJV: Three hours - Luke 23:44
MS: Three days - Book of Mormon, Helaman 14:20-27, esp. 27.
Spiritual vs. corporeal nature of God the Father
KJV: God is spirit - John 4:23-24. Christ says a spirit does not have flesh and bone - Luke 24:39
MS: The Father has a body of flesh as tangible as man’s - Doctrines & Covenants, 130:22
The nature of these inconsistencies seems cut and dry, unless the Mormon scriptures have been abrogated by something later.
I do wish to bring up something, because this discussion has been informative. Looking at The Articles of Faith for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, point 3:
This is corroborated by the Book of Mormon, Second Nephi 25:23:
This is in contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9 (continuing with KJV):
Biblical scripture does not leave the door open for a man to obtain salvation by his own doing. Man is corrupt; all of our deeds are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). There is the Gospel, not of laws and ordinances, but of good news. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born incarnate, was crucified, died, and rose again, like the Scriptures said He would, as payment for the sins of the whole world. Those who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shall be saved.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Alma Allred is the Director of Parking and Transportation Services at the University of Utah. He has a B.A. in English from the University of Utah and teaches Mormon history at the University of Utah Institute of Religion.
Allred has written numerous articles on Mormonism, including a 38-page review against
Norman L. Geisler’s “Scripture”, in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism (9–49. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998)
Geisler is a Calvinist scholar profiled on Wikipedia
February 28th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I’m not quite sure how to provide the scripture links, so forgive me if this blows up in my face.
At first glance, your criticisms seem plausible; but they don’t withstand scrutiny.
(1) Christ’s Birth: The passage from Alma 7:10 is always tweaked in order to demonstrate a contradiction. It says Jesus would be born “at” rather than “in” Jerusalem. It also qualifies that as the “land of Jerusalem.” The word “at” is less specific than “in” and conveys a less specific connotation as in “near” or “by” or “in the direction of.” From the perspective of Mesoamerica, Jesus was born near, by and in the relative direction of Jerusalem. If you think “at” is enough of a contradiction, you might ask why people feel the need to always change it to “in” rather than using the actual text. I have spoken with others who insisted that “at” Jerusalem must mean “in Jerusalem” yet they’re not quite as rigid when I remind them that Peter sat and warmed himself “at” the fire. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:54&version=9
(2) Origin of term “Christian:”You think that the people of Antioch really spoke English? Of course, that’s rhetorical; the people of Antioch still speak Aramaic even today. Their term that we translate “Christian” is merely Luke’s Greek translation of their word and ours is a transliteration of the Luke’s Greek word Χριστιανούς. I would surmise that if the people of the Book of Mormon believed in Christ, they would have called Him some equivalent term like “Messiah” and His followers would have been called something like “Messiahites.” However, a good translator would recognize the modern equivalent as being “Christian.” This could really only be a legitimate complaint if ancient Americans spoke English back in 73 B.C. Do you think that’s likely?
(3) Length of darkness at the Crucifixion: If you will read verses 20 and 28 of the passage you cite from Helaman, you will see that the darkness reported in the book of Mormon is localized from their perspective. “there shall be no light upon the face of this land.”
… “and these signs and wonders should come to pass upon all the face of this land.”
(4) Corporeal nature of God: You realize that the logic you employ doesn’t even need to be revised to demonstrate the Jesus is not God? If God is spirit and Christ pointed out that His body of flesh and bones indicated He was not a spirit….” Now, I wouldn’t take that approach because I believe that Jesus Christ is God, but surely you see the problem of the passages you’ve put together? I’m new to this kind of forum and I don’t know how extensive of a reply is appropriate, but I assume brevity is the standard. Much can be said in defense of this LDS concept, but an adequate response would probably be too lengthy here.
(5) Rest assured that Mormonism does not countenance the idea that man can obtain salvation by his own doing. Even if understood as you suggest, the passage from 2 Ne. 25:23 says that it is still by grace that we are saved. The Book of Mormon points out that “all we can do” is repent. http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/24/11#11
http://scriptures.lds.org/mos/2/21-25#25 points out that nothing you do can earn you anything with regard to salvation. However, God requires obedience. Even you stipulate the necessity of baptism. I have Calvinist friends who would call that works based salvation. Hebrews 5:9 demonstrates that it is obedient believers who shall be saved.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
As far as my review of Geisler’s (actually poorly disguised Tanners’ book) follow the link to Amazon and see what kind of a review it merits even from an atheist.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I’d like to humbly correct Mr. Vehse (or Wikipedia, as the case may be). Norman Geisler is definitely NOT a Calvinist unless he recently moved in that direction. He has written “Chosen But Free”…a treatise countering Calvinistic theology.
Sola Fide!
February 28th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Allow me to clarify. Geisler refers to his system of belief as Moderate Calvinism but a book written to counter his “Chosen But Free” calle “The Potter’s Freedom,” by Dr. James White presents accurately what Calvinism teaches and counters most of Geisler’s theses presented in his work.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Geisler is about as much of a scholar as I am. Don’t trust him.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Ironic that James White introduced me to Geisler’s writings.