Hugh Hewitt Show, the Book of Mormon and DNA

In case you missed it. Hugh Hewitt had on LA Times writer William Lobdell last week talking about his article concerning DNA "rocking" the faither of Mormons.

Tonight, Dr. Dan Peterson and Dr. John Butler give the other side of the story.

Decide for yourselves


MP3 File

Transcript here

DNA, Book of Mormon, Hugh Hewitt and the Mormon Response

Tonight on the Hugh Hewitt show: Dan Peterson, Phd., BYU and Dr. John Butler, DNA expert for the NIST respond the the LA Times article.

Don't miss it. 5:20 (Pacific) / 8:20 (Eastern)

Ill post the audio after I get it.

Cheatsheet: Pro and Con: NSA Program - Eavesdropping

Like I did with the Miers debate (see here), I've put together a starting list of Pro and Con arguments around the NSA eavesdropping.

This is by no means exhaustive, but you get the idea. I'll be organizing this more thoroughly as the week goes on. (As you can see, I'm not yet through all of the CON resources - but I'm trying my best to give them a fair shake.


CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CHEATSHEET

Old News, New Attacks

A front page LA Times story today by William Lobdell brings up the three-year old claim that DNA evidence somehow disproves the Book of Mormon.

Lobdell has written articles on Mormons before with varying degrees of fairness and accuracy.

Here are my questions and comments in response to the article:

Why is this coming out now? - The Southerton claim (and before it the Murphy claim) is nearly 4 years old. Why is this article surfacing now and on the front page? The high level immediate import alludes me.

Heresy? - I'm not certain where Lobdell claims that church leaders have "dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed." I know of no major statements by church leaders to the same account. The Church press release in response to the article says:

Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex.

This response (one of the only responses that the church has given) can hardly be described as "dismissed as heresy".

Get your Mormonism right - Lobdell claims: "Mormons believe these scriptures restored the church to God's original vision and left the rest of Christianity in a state of apostasy." Any Mormon will tell you that the church was restored through Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and not as some interpretation derived from the Book of Mormon. Eternal marriage, temple worship, genealogy research for proxy rites, lay priesthood... none of these are found in the Book of Mormon.

Mormons value the Book of Mormon for the insightful spiritual themes of the tome and as a vindication of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. In short, if the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was a prophet, ergo, the Church is true. But the teachings of the Church were revealed primarily through the prophets, not from reading the Book of Mormon.

Native Americans or Peruvians? - Lobdell quotes President Gordon B. Hinckley speaking to a conference in Peru: "As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi [patriarch of the Lamanites], whose sons and daughters you are,... I think he must be shedding tears today, tears of love and gratitude…. This is but the beginning of the work in Peru."

What this has to do with a DNA study on American Indians is unclear. Mormons believe that certain decendents of the Americas do indeed come from the first family of the Book of Mormon. The study that Southerton explored speaks to Native Americans.

Hemispherical or Limited Geography - It is true that for the first 100 years of the church, leaders and members believed that the geography of the Book of Mormon encompassed both North and South America. The Book of Mormon speaks of a "narrow neck of land" connecting the Northern and Southern regions of the people. The assumption was that this "neck" was Panama. Lobdell implies that the church and church apologists changed their tune after the Southerton DNA studies. This is patently false. As early as the 1950s Mormon scholors were promoting a limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon.

Anti-Mormon - In his interview with Hugh Hewitt it was noted that Southerton is a ex-communicated Bishop. In the article Lobdell also alludes to the ex-communication of Thomas Murphy. It should also be noted that there was a very active anti-Mormon force helping (and in some cases funding) Murphy and Southerton. Credibility is not a strong factor.

The evidence - First, it should be noted that the "evidence" that Southerton and Murphy point to was never gathered for the specific hypothesis they support. It should also be noted that this same theory (that DNA evidence from people today should match to other DNA of other people from other ancestors) would also disprove many of the demographic assumptions in the Bible.

Here's my own take on the issue which was published two years ago:
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040331battle.html

Next I give you the following; we've refuted this claim with serious scholarship for past 6 years. There's nothing new to the story:

"DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2003) Interviews, information, and overviews of the issues surrounding DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Michael R. Ash, Is An Historical Book of Mormon Compatible With DNA Science?. This FAIR Brochure summarizes the flaws in claims that recent DNA evidence shows the Book of Mormon to be non-historical.

Kevin L. Barney, "A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event."," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, February 2003) A review of an article on DNA and the Book of Mormon that appeared in Anthropology News.

Brant A. Gardner, "The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, January 2003) A review of what DNA studies can and, more importantly, cannot tell us about the Book of Mormon.

Cooper Johnson, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2002) Some say that DNA research can disprove (or prove) The Book of Mormon. This article examines a presentation on the subject by Dr. Scott R. Woodward at the 2001 FAIR Conference.

Greg Kearney, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, October 2003) A very apt cartoon draws attention to the double-edged sword presented by criticisms of the Book of Mormon based on DNA studies.

D. Jeffrey Meldrum, "The Children of Lehi: DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, November 2005) In his 2003 FAIR Conference presentation, Meldrum addressed a number of the arguments being raised by anti-Mormon critics related to DNA and the Book of Mormon. Meldrum points out that the internal claims of the Book of Mormon text cannot be refuted using current DNA studies, despite the desire of critics to press such studies into service. The Book of Mormon text deals with the ideas of a covenant people being a blessing to genetically unrelated peoples and cultures, and allows for a genetic impact by the immigrant Israelites that would not be detectable today. Meldrum concludes by asserting, "Ultimately we are impressed by the realization that the fundamental question of the veracity of the claims of the Book of Mormon lies beyond the ken of modern DNA research."

Daniel Peterson, "Random Reflections on the Passing Scene," (2003 FAIR Conference presentation.) Dr. Peterson explores many current areas of interest including atheism, DNA studies, and the need for LDS apologetics.

David Stewart, DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Scott Woodward, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," (2001 FAIR Conference presentation.)

"The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo: FARMS, 2000), 66-84

John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003), 36-37 Recent claims concerning the supposed absence of DNA evidence in support of the Book of Mormon caused the author to investigate more closely what the record itself has to say on the topic. This short essay indicates why the author is still a believing member of the Church.

Jeff Lindsay, "Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon," (December 2002) Lindsay's article addresses the DNA attacks that typically rely on several faulty assumptions about the Book of Mormon and leave out important scientific details about the DNA evidence.

Jeff Lindsay, "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon?," (2003) Updated from 2002

D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003), 38-51 The questions "Who are the children of Lehi?" and "How can we reconcile Book of Mormon perspectives with modern DNA data?" are issues of great importance to a number of Latter-day Saints and other people. The authors present this essay in an attempt to facilitate some reconciliation.

Brent Lee Shelton and Jonathan Marks, "Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity," (City Unknown: Council for Reponsible Genetics, 2002) While not directly citing DNA in relation to the Book of Mormon, this article provides an interesting viewpoint that indicates why DNA tests cannot provide conclusive proof of whether a person belongs to a specific ethnic group (such as Lamanites).

John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003), 6-23 This article provides a framework within which the quality and aptness of questions about DNA studies on Native Americans and their implications for Book of Mormon history should be approached. The authors raise a set of issues that anyone should confront when thinking clearly and honestly about the subject.

John A, Tvedtnes, "Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I," MeridianMagazine.com (17 July 2005) In this three-part series, LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, examines the popular anti-Mormon claim that DNA research disproves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

John A. Tvedtnes, "Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II,"

John A. Tvedtnes, "Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III,"

Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003), 24-35 Some persons have announced that modern DNA research has conclusively proved that the Book of Mormon is false and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. These claims err scientifically in that they are based on the naive notion that DNA provides infallible evidence for ancestry and descent in sexually reproducing populations and that the results from such analyses are straightforward, objective, and not laden with assumptions. Moreover, proponents of this naive view blindly ignore decades of theory associated with DNA sequence evolution and data analysis and rarely speak to the extremely tentative nature of their conclusions.

Michael F. Whiting, "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, January 2003) A 45-minute video presentation concerning DNA and the Book of Mormon. An excellent resource that explains the problems in drawing definitive conclusions about the Book of Mormon based on DNA findings.

Living Vicariously Through Hugh Hewitt

It is every conservative's dream to question Helen Thomas for 20 minutes. Really, I could live the rest of my conservative fantasies through Hugh Hewitt. (full transcript here)

HT = Helen Thomas
HH = Hugh Hewitt

Halfway through the Interview Helen gets confused.

HT: Who are you?

HH: I...

HT: Who am I talking to?

HH: Hugh Hewitt.

HT: Am I talking to a journalist?

HH: Yes. Yes, for a long time. I'm just curious about what's gone wrong...

HT: Tell me about your career. What have you really done?

HH: Well, it's not nearly as impressive as you.

HT: Where did...yes, it's...it's very important to me. Where did you work?

HH: PBS for ten years.

HT: PBS?

HH: Yes.

HT: Well, that's a good credential.

HH: There you have it. See? I'm...

HT: But then you decided to switch over?

HH: To switch over to what?

HT: God knows what you are.

...

HH: Why should you guys have a special position in the White House press corps that you don't have to answer questions?

HT: Because in journalism, you're supposed to play the story straight, whatever the facts are, and we're doing that.

HH: Well, that doesn't go to why you should...you know, who made you folks queens and kings that you don't have to answer who you voted for, what you...do you own a gun, Helen?

HT: Are you kidding?

HH: No.

HT: Are you kidding?

HH: No. I think it's an interesting question. Do you support abortion rights?

HT: Do you own a gun?

HH: No. Got a cannon, but no gun. No, just joking.

HT: (laughing)

HH: Helen, I just wonder, why do journalists...

HT: Do you support abortion...

HH: ...get all upset when...

HT: Do you support abortion rights?

HH: No, I don't. I'm a pro-lifer.

HT: Ahh. I see.

...

HT: Why don't you ask some legitimate questions?

HH: Well, if in fact...would it be significant if you had voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter? Would that be significant?

HT: No. No, because I...

HH: You did vote for them, didn't you? I got it right.

HT: I...I worked for United Press International for more than fifty years, and I wrote straight copy. I was never, never accused of bias.

HH: But you did...

HT: I did not bow out of the human race. I permitted myself to care, to believe, to think. But I assure you, I assure you that it did not get in my copy. And can you say the same thing?

HH: But Helen, I'm saying. You did vote all those years, didn't you?

HT: No, but you're bias has come through. You're not asking legitimate questions.

HH: Why am I...

HT: You are bating people.

HH: Why is this not legitimate?

...

HT: It's none of your business, because it has nothing to do with my copy and my work, and you've called me because I'm a journalist.

HH: But wouldn't it be significant if you were in fact a card-carrying, long time Democratic...

HT: No, it would not. I told you that I wrote straight copy for more than fifty years until I became a columnist.

HH: And...but I understand that. And that can be perfectly true...

HT: And it's very possible. Have you been a straight reporter?

HH: Yes. I did reporting for PBS for ten years, but I'm a conservative.

HT: Even with what you believed and so forth?

HH: Of course.

HT: Were you able...

HH: I'm just transparent.

HT: Were you able to do it?

HH: Of course, Helen.

HT: In a factual way?

HH: Do you think that what makes you a journalist is the fact that you won't tell people who you voted for?

HT: Did I say that? I told you that I was a straight, factual reporter for more than fifty years.

HH: And now you're an opinion columnist.

HT: That's right.

HH: And so now you can tell us who you voted for.

HT: And I don't think it's your business who I voted for.

HH: All right.

HT: And I don't think you have the right to ask anybody that question.

HH: Why not? It's a free press, isn't it?

HT: Well, it's not a fair question. It's...

HH: You want to censor my questions?

HT: It's a secret ballot.

HH: Of course. You don't have to answer, but why should you censor my questions?

HT: Because you are looking for trouble, that's why. You're not asking legitimate questions. That has nothing to do with the current situation. That's why.

HH: It's actually just...

HT: You have an undercurrent campaign going on in your own mind.

HH: An undercurrent campaign? No, I actually have a very open campaign to suggest that the White House press corps is biased and liberal. I mean, that's just my belief. I believe I have lots of evidence for that. Do you know any conservatives in the White House press corps?

HT: God yes.

HH: Who?

HT: And anyway...

HH: Who?

HT: I don't have to name names.

...

HH: Why don't you like George Bush?

HT: I don't like people who want a war.

HH: And you just think he really just decided to go to war...and is Iraq better off today than it was four years ago?

HT: No. Watch...I want you to read...I want you to look at these pictures of these detainees and prisoners of war. And you will really be so disturbed. Why don't you...

HH: What did we do?

...


HT: Look, are you...I'm talking about human beings. Why don't you try to think of the people you've killed. All of us. It's all on our hands.

HH: Helen, again, I think it was a good thing...

HT: I'm so sorry that you don't care about people who've been slained, thousands and thousands. I mean, worry about them.

HH: What about...

HT: They can't vote.

HH: Helen...

HT: Okay, goodbye.

Click.

No Delay, Vote Campbell

I mean that literally.

While I have been a supporter of Delay's through this ordeal and while I still think the charges against him by the DA are baseless, there is no doubt that Delay has been swept up in the machine that brought the Republicans to power.

As Rich Lowry described it:

They came to Washington with an agenda. They built a machine to support that agenda. And as the agenda faded, the machine itself and its not-always-high-minded imperatives took on more prominence. A conservative who works closely with Congress interprets the Jack Abramoff scandal this way: “It’s when the Republican majority lost their moral high ground. The government became their government. The process became their process. The outsiders became the insiders.”

It is in this light and the hopes that the Republicans can hold the majority in the House that I endorse Tom Campbell, currently running against Tom Delay in the 22nd District of Texas.

I know Tom's family and I can say without hesitation that he is the right man to take on and replace Delay.

For more info go to: http://www.campbellcongress.com/

"Recalibrating" the message

Love this little article from Roll Call about the Dems recalibrating the Leftist version of the "Contract for America":

"A senior Democratic aide said the party is still split over some aspects of the agenda, including both timing and substance. ... 'There is disagreement in the group,' said the aide. 'There’s been disagreement. The disagreement goes back about nine months.'" (Roll Call, 2/6/06)

link

Boehner Today

Here is a photograph of the newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner speaking inside the Conference meeting:

More 2005 FEC Stats

2005 Stats	RNC	DNC
Number of itemized donations*	35400	16200
Total itemized donations (All '05)	$45,631,940	$17,473,568
Total unitemized donations (All '05)	$55,037,836	$32,158,148
Total receipts (All '05)	$105,382,510	$56,052,473
Total disbursements (All '05)	$86,078,568	$56,242,404
Total disbursements (Dec '05)	$8,162,819	$4,522,836
Cash on hand (close of '05)	$33,971,253	$5,861,879

*An itemized donation is a donation over $200

Couple of notes:

• It looks like there is some truth to the Deaniac $20 donors. Democrats nearly doubled the amount of itemized donations with donations under $200. In fact, that number seems very high. Just as a comparison, the DNC raised approx. $14,000,000 in unitemized donations in 2004. The number still pales in comparison to the RNC but the ratio of itemized to unitemized is very high.
  
• By comparison, most strategists expect a significant drop in unitemized donations, especially after a presidential election year. For example, the RNC raked in over $100,000,000 in unitemized donations in 2004. That was nearly cut in half in 2005 donations (as expected).
  
• Unitemized donations seems to be the only thing the DNC excels in. As indicated before, "Cash on Hand" is very low. By comparison, at the end of the 2004 the DNC had $6,000,000 left which was to be expected considering they spent over $365,000,000 in 2004. To come out of an non-election year with less money is not a happy position.
  
• One more note. While the Deniacs may be alive and well, by deduction we could reason that the GOP has a larger donation base. I can't prove it but the ratio of total donations to number of donators leads me to think so.

More to come

UPDATE: I'm told by a reliable source that the GOP had 1,000,000 individual donors in 2004.

Ouch! Where'd the money go Howard?!

Drudge alluded to this the other day and now we have the details. January 31st marks a filing deadline for the FEC. Now that we have the actual numbers, Dean really does have a lot to answer for:

	RNC	DNC
Beginning Cash on Hand (12/01/05)	$31,993,325	$7,330,642
Total Receipts (ending 12/31/05)	$10,140,749	$3,054,075
Total Disb	$8,162,820	$4,522,837
Ending Cash	$33,971,254	$5,861,880

RNC had 4 times as much money to begin with in December, received 3 times as much in donations, spent twice as much as the DNC and has 5 times as much cash on hand. Ouch, is all I can say.

Scanned images of the FEC Reports :

RNC

DNC Report