Podcast: Download (28.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Dr. David Stewart examines the issues surrounding DNA studies used to condemn the Book of Mormon. He concludes: “The recent explosion of molecular DNA data has led to a considerable increase in knowledge about our roots. However, some individuals have drawn and widely publicized conclusions far beyond those validated by existing data. The claims of critics that DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS teachings about Native American ancestry are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science and ignorance of history and scripture. There is still much we do not know about the genetics of ancient and modern populations, but careful study demonstrates that the teachings of LDS prophets are fully consistent with existing DNA data.”
The full text of this address can be found at FAIR LDS.
David Stewart, M.D., was raised in Massachusetts and Maryland. He was a presidential scholar at Brigham Young University, graduating with summa cum laude honors in molecular biology in just two years. He received his medical degree from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in 1999. He completed surgical internship and orthopedic surgery residency at the University of Texas Medical Branch and completed fellowship training in pediatric orthopedic and scoliosis surgery at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Dr. Stewart is a member of the Alpha Omega Alpha medical honor society and has received numerous awards for excellence in clinical practice and medical research and for his contributions to international health. He is fluent in several Eastern European languages and is active in international medical charity and education work in Eastern Europe and Asia. He served a full-time LDS mission in Russia and has written on LDS topics including church growth, missionary work, and DNA and the Book of Mormon. He lives in Las Vegas with his wife and young children.
I listened to Dr. Stewart’s talk last night and have been reading what seems to its basis: “DNA and the Book of Mormon” from FARMS Review: Volume – 18, Issue – 1.
I want to address the following passage.
“Studies seem to demonstrate that Native Americans have less mitochondrial DNA diversity than found among any other large group of comparable size and even less diversity than the much smaller modern Jewish population. The mtDNA research of D. Andrew Merriwether suggests that the mitochondrial genetics of Native Americans could be explained by a single migration [9], while others believe that there may have been two or three migrations from closely related groups. One writer insists that “most Indians of North America, and all Indians of Central and South America seem to be descended from this first wave of migrants. . . . Similarities in Amerindian languages, as well as in DNA, point to the conclusion that a very small group of migrants gave rise to this enormous, farflung assemblage of peoples in a relatively short time.”[10] Genetic evidence of one or a few closely related founding groups serving as the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of Native Americans is consistent with traditional Latterday Saint views of Native American origin from the Lamanites, Nephites, and Mulekites.
I see problems with the argument Stewart is making here.
First, reference 10 is simply a class handout written by Dr. Edward Vajda, a language professor at Western Washington University (Bellingham WA) for his “Introduction to Nomadic Cultures” class (East Asian Studies 200). It cites no research. It’s a weak citation.
What is more important, Vajda begins with the statement: “Virtually all scholars agree that the aboriginal populations living in North, Central and South America at the time of Columbus’ voyages originated from small groups of prehistoric immigrants from North Asia.”
Second, and similarly, the abstract to the Merriwether paper (reference 9) states:
“This overall [haplogroup] distribution is most parsimonious with a single wave of migration into the New World which included multiple variants of all four founding lineage types. … Alternatively, there could have been multiple waves of migration from a single parent population in Asia/Siberia which repeatedly reintroduced the same lineages to the New World.”
I just don’t see how these references support Dr. Stewart claim about consistency with “traditional Latter-day Saint views of Native American origin[s].” Rather, he seems to be selectively drawing on the “very small group” idea and hiding the very large disconfirming idea.
This is unsettling to me. Give me one good reason why I should not take this as disingenuous misdirection. The alternative is very weak scholarship – which might be confirmed when I read the balance of the paper.
JT
I just found link to Dr. Stewart’s video on the FAIR wiki site (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyZ_3RhTk0I).
When I listened to the audio podcast I assumed he was reading the talk, which, because of it’s relentless speed (especially through the technical parts) made it very difficult to follow and an unpleasant listening experience – and also why I guessed I could find the transcript.
I must say I am impressed by his feat of memorization, though at the same time it strikes me as a bit unusual and leaves one wondering about the depth of his understanding.
The Q&A portion starts at about 55 minutes in. Dr, Stewart seems to be reading the questions submitted from the audience.
Dr. Stewart first claims there exist no ancient DNA data for study and even if it were it there would still be ambiguous with respect to its ethnicity. I am skeptical of this … I’ll look into it.
He then responds to the question of whether DNA patterns can be used to establish migration patterns within the Americas. He says that without a knowledge of ancient Israelite genetics it is impossible to know what an ancient [American] proto-people should look like. The problem with this answer it too obvious to mention.
He skirts the north/south migration of Asiatic/Siberian peoples that he references IN HIS OWN paper.
Dr. Stewart goes on to say something about geographic bottlenecks in Central and South America, but this seems to contradict an earlier comment that the vast majority of all Native Americans (North and South America) are genetically closely related to an unusual degree – descending from Asia and Siberia.
He then simply begs off by saying “we have very few data points.
When asked whether he means to say that all Native Americans are descended from Book of Mormon peoples – that they came to an empty continent – he answers:
“Ah, I did not say that, and ah … I would say it’s not clear. I believe as LDS prophets have taught that Native Americans are in fact descended from Book of Mormon peoples, but as far as the proportionality, that is more of a religious question than a scientific question, which I will defer judgement.”
This is a stunning card to play given the context. It undermines his entire program.
Dr. Stewart is then asked to comment on what the approval of Murphy’s at University of Washington PhD dissertation says about his dissertation committee. When he begins his response with “Well …” the audience starts chuckling – I sensed smugness in this.
Stewart goes on to call into question the university’s “intra-institutional review standards” and says it “is more difficult to get something published in a prestigious national journal than it to pass muster with local faculty and, of course, his committee is not knowledgable about LDS things or LDS theology and probably has a fairly limited genetic or molecular biology background since his background is as an anthropologist, so I can’t comment beyond that.”
It is amazing that Stewart can actually stand there, given his own credentials and the peer review process for his own work, and say such a thing. I intend to find out which the University of Washington professors deserve such an criticism/insult. And to suggest that their lack of knowledge of LDS theology is relevant to their judgement is absolutely ridiculous.
This is shameful.
In the last question Dr. Stewart again avoids making any mention of Asia/Siberia origins of Native Americans and falls back on the “this is more a theological question than a scientific one.”
This is very sad. I feel sorry for the guy. He must be feeling squeezed by the tiny gap he’s trying to squeeze his faith into – a gap that leaves no longer any room for intellectual integrity.
Steve, this does not reflect well on you or FAIR. You really ought to be more selective about what you publish. I recommend you take this one down.
Hello JT,
Thank you for your comments. Most of your questions and concerns have been addressed in the full article and so I would suggest reading it as you acknowledged that you have not yet done so.
In regard to migrations, we agree that the DNA of native Americans has a high degree of homogeneity with DNA of modern south Siberian populations. Native American DNA dating to 2000+ years ago demonstrates genetic patterns which are generally similar to those of modern native Americans. However, there is little genetic data from Siberian or Mongolian populations 2000+ years ago, and so the question is whether these groups have occupied the same land area as they do today dating to the distant past as many have assumed without definitive genetic evidence, or whether these highly nomadic peoples may have once occupied different territories than they do today. This is an intriguing question which remains to be elucidated by ethnohistorical and genetic research. These and many other matters you raise are already addressed in the paper and do not warrant further response here.
In the talk and article, I introduce a variety of possibilities to demonstrate why the declarations of various critics that traditional LDS views are impossible or disproven, are premature and beyond the scope of present evidence. This is a very different matter than claiming that LDS teachings are validated by genetic data, which I have not claimed. As you correctly noted, I did not claim that all Native Americans are descended from Book of Mormon peoples. I personally could care less whether the traditional LDS views or contemporary revisionist views ultimately prevail, although I am personally more partial to limited geography theories for archaeological and ethnohistorical reasons rather than genetic ones. I have merely demonstrated that traditional LDS views of Amerindian origins may be plausible from the standpoint of available genetic evidence at the time, without claiming proof for them. My talk is directed primarily toward pointing out flaws in critics’ theories and raising possibilities for further evaluation, and the tentative and careful language throughout demonstrates as much.
There are, as you noted, some contradictory conclusions among studies published by different authors, many of which are likely be resolved or refined over time. This does not mean that various authors who have presented competing claims are necessarily bad or irresponsible scholars, however; reasonable people in possession of the same data can and often do disagree. My concern with critics is not merely with their conclusions but with processes which are unscholarly in failing to examine unproven assumptions or in making other leaps not supported by the evidence for partisan purposes.
I expect that in coming years, additional genetic data will be forthcoming as larger sample sizes significantly narrow the confidence intervals for genetic dating (some of which in published studies exceed an astonishing 500% range between the upper and lower 95% confidence limits denoting statistical significance), as historical mutation rates and intergenerational times which are now merely assumed or based on limited evidence become better established, and as additional ancient human DNA from across Asia and elsewhere is located and studied to clarify the ethnohistory and migration patterns of the ancestors of modern peoples, especially on the Asian side.
In sum, genetic research offers promising new tools which have revolutionized our understanding of human history in some ways, has reaffirmed what we already new in others, and promises to offer continued opportunities for discovery of the past. These important tools should not be neglected; however, neither should they be over-read or overextended beyond the reach of existing evidence. I look forward to the continued scientific process and anticipate in coming years the continued elucidation of points that are now unclear or matters of controversy.
Best wishes,
David Stewart