Introducing this Section
 

We noticed a division in the types of religious discussions. Thus a suggestion from the audience arose that we could have one academic based discussion arena, where traditional academic formatting applied. It's not really intended to be a place where apologetics gets ramped up full force, testimony bearing or anything of the like.

If you wish to do that, use the standard religion section. Thanks for self-policing.

In other words, No Apologists Allowed

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia...s/noHomers.gif

Apologists are allowed. Apologia isn't.

I guess.

Apologists allowed, just use an academic technique, not just defensive argument.

SIEQ and Pelagius are well-acquainted with the academic techniques, but in some fields would be considered apologists.

Just for clarification, if there is a discussion about Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the American Indian and I post a link showing that mitochondrial DNA studies show how poorly mitochondrial DNA performed in Iceland trying to link known ancestors as little as 150 years back, does that amount to a defensive argument or an academic technique or something else?

Correct. It's more to discuss dispassionately scholarly, philosophical or theological observations. It can involve scriptural exegesis and the like.

The Icelandic study is a legitimate study, and citation to it is fine. I agree with your conclusions that the conclusions of the geneticists that no genetic links between the Middle East ancestry and Native Americans is overstated. Currently, no comprehensive studies have been conducted which would allow one to make that statement. The Cohen type mitochondrial studies are interesting in that the lack of findings is not insignificant, just not conclusive and may suggest a reason to reject Pratt's hypothesis of a hemispheric application of BoM.

There is a fine line, I suppose. Argument with exegesis and studies is certain apologia, but where the line is crossed can only be determined on a case by case basis. Just police yourself. If you want pure argument with academic allowance for oneself to be wrong or without surveying alternative interpretations, you're probably in the field of apologia.

Indy, I thought your DNA link was well within the bounds of the forum (even though it happened before its creation). I think one could surround it with a discussion that was too polemical, but you didn't do that if I recall correctly.

I agree. His citation was proper and not polemical. If one wishes to discuss genetic heritage, it is proper to understand the current boundaries which given studies provide. The Icelandic study shows the limitations of maternal mitachondrial studies.

I would like to officially lodge my protest of this new category. I think splitting the religion category like this is a BAD idea. I think both categories will be worse than the original religion category.