A “Christian Agnostic”?

By Sean Pitman

Ervin Taylor

Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. He is also a long-time supporter, executive publisher, and contributor to the “progressive” journal Adventist Today and is a fair representative of the face of “progressive” Adventism in general. As an ardent progressive Adventist, he has been a fairly active antagonist against some of the historic pillars of Adventism to include the efforts of this website to support and promote the stated goals and ideals of the Adventist church as an organization within our own schools – especially regarding the church’s position on origins.

It has never been a secret that Dr. Taylor is adamantly opposed to the Church’s position on a literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago, promoting instead the mainstream evolutionary view of the origin of life over billions of years on this planet, or that he openly questions many of the other “fundamental” doctrinal positions of the Adventist Church.  At one of his lectures a few years back he was asked what he would tell his own granddaughter if she were to ask him for evidence of God’s existence, to which he replied, “I don’t know.”  Just yesterday he essentially repeated this very same agnostic perspective in one of his comments within this forum:

I have always been attracted to the position of Christian agnosticism. (Many, many years ago, at PUC I gave a talk with that title, as I recall, during a week of spiritual emphasis.) (Link)

What does it mean to be a “Christian agnostic”?  or an “Adventist in good and regular standing” when one believes in very few of the “fundamental” goals and ideals of the organized church?  And, perhaps more importantly, why would our own Adventists leadership invite a “Christian Agnostic” to come and regularly lecture our own young people, at schools like PUC and LSU, on the virtues of agnosticism?  to promote Christian ethics without promoting the promise and sold hope of Christ?  and the future reality of our world made new as it was originally intended to be (without the use of the evils of pain and death employed by natural selection or the ‘survival of the fittest’)?

Of course, when presented with specific questions regarding his various beliefs that directly undermine the fundamental positions of the church, Dr. Taylor, and others like him, argue that they believe in the “family model” of Adventism whereby one need not believe in or support the doctrinal positions of the church in order to be considered a good member or even an official representative of the church.  Evidently, one does not even need to be all to sure as to the evidence supporting God’s very existence to be a good “Adventist”.

Yet, when pressed, Dr. Taylor says, perhaps for political reasons in certain settings, that he does actually believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, born into this world from a virgin woman and raised from the dead after three days to ascend to heaven to intercede for us with the Father.  It seems strange to me, therefore, that Dr. Taylor and those like him seem so eager to accept the fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible when it comes to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but reject much of the rest of what the Bible claims regarding historical realities which seem to disagree with their own understanding of mainstream science.  How is the Bible remotely credible on the one hand while being so far off base on the other?

Dr. Taylor suggests that those who actually believe all of what the Bible claims about historical realities are living in Alice’s Wonderland.

If a belief in the what the Bible says about about the origin of life on this planet is like living in Alice’s Wonderland, then so is a belief in the far more fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible regarding the origin of Jesus, born of God the Father to a virgin woman, raised from the dead after three days, and taken to Heaven to commence with the rest of the Plan of Salvation for those who claim to believe in such fairytale nonsense! – like Dr. Taylor!

Why do those like Dr. Taylor claim to live within one Wonderland, full of irrational baseless nonsense, but laugh at those who accept all of what the Wonderland Book has to say about the place?

I suggest that such individuals, as brilliant as they think they are, aren’t being consistent with themselves. They’re trying to fit within two “incommensurate worlds”. It simply doesn’t work… Mr. Hatter.


First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come… But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

2 Peter 3:3-6; Isaiah 5:21; Proverbs 26:5; 1 Cor. 1:18

 

 

701 thoughts on “A “Christian Agnostic”?

  1. ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?

    1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.

    2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.

    This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.

    BobRyan:
    It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.

    1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.

    2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.

    3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.

    4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.

    The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.

    Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.

    My pleasure.

    Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?

    There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.

    That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.

    There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.

    It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.

    You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.

    You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.

    Nice try —

    As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. ken: I confess that I am not a molecular geneticist and I may not even understand the full import of your question. I did go online though and found an article that seems to suggest the opposite to what you are saying. Please see the link below.
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

    My claim has been that blind faith evolutionism provides no “mechanism” observed in nature that would provide for its’ amoeba-to-horse story telling.

    If you propose that the chimeric recombination of existing amoeba genes ( as illustrated in your proposed chimeric Jingwei that left mosquittos as mosquittos for millions of years) is how the amoeba acquires all the coding genes needed to become a horse (say the word billions and billions as often as you like at this point) – then you are alone in the claim that chimeric combination of existing amoeba genes can account for all the genes in a horse.

    But IF they could show that horse genes are nothing more than recombinations of exiting amoeba genes – You would at least have a proposed mechanism that suits your need.

    I grant you that.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. Re Bob’s Quote

    “You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.”

    Hi Bob

    I don’t think so, but I stand to be corrected if you can direct me to the precise question I asked. Sorry, you are not entitled to reinterpret my questions to suit your own fancy. I don’t agree with that contextual hermeneutic. 🙂

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Ok Ken I have a question for you —

    Are you wanting to have it this way ..

    ken: Hi BobThanks for taking the time and effort to reply. I appreciate it.I am really trying to understand your mindset.

    On one hand you say evolution is a hoax because no one has witnessed the actual mechanism of how macro evolution works.

    On the other hand you matter fact talk about people living for 900 years. Never seen anyone live that long, have you?

    Your agnostic friendKen

    Or are you wanting to have it this way…?

    ken: Re Bob’s Quote“You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.”

    Hi BobI don’t think so, but I stand to be corrected if you can direct me to the precise question I asked. Sorry, you are not entitled to reinterpret my questions to suit your own fancy. I don’t agree with that contextual hermeneutic. Your agnostic friendKen

    Are you really taking some objectivity with you in this discussion or just trying to find new ways to say ” I refuse to consider that”??

    We both agree with the principle of free will and I am not trying to force you to believe anything. You are free to choose as you wish and let the chips fall where they may.

    in Christ,
    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Hi Bob

    Good stuff, you directed me to the ‘precise’ question I asked: “Never seen anyone live that long, have you?”

    Here is the question you said I asked: “You asked about the mechanism that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible”

    Precisely speaking, these are different questions. The first question makes no reference to a mechanism but talks about ‘seeing’ people. Big difference.

    However, I think I understand how you became confused. The paragraph before the first question, which does not pose a question, talks about a ‘mechanism related to ‘macro evolution’ , not a mechanism related to long ages of life recorded in the Bible. Or perhaps you are saying macro evolution and long ages of life recorded in the Bible are the same thing. 🙂

    Objectively,

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Re Bob’s Quote

    “If you propose that the chimeric recombination of existing amoeba genes ( as illustrated in your proposed chimeric Jingwei that left mosquittos as mosquittos for millions of years) is how the amoeba acquires all the coding genes needed to become a horse (say the word billions and billions as often as you like at this point) – then you are alone in the claim that chimeric combination of existing amoeba genes can account for all the genes in a horse.”

    Hi Bob

    Amoebas becoming horses, did I say that! Weren’t we talking specifically about genomes acquiring coding genes?

    As I said, I’m not a molecular geneticist and was just forwarding research that in my laymen’s mind suggested that genomes could acquire coding genes. By the way I think the research was about fruit flies not mosquitoes. 🙂

    Please don’t shoot the messenger!

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. Hi Sean

    Thanks for your comments regarding evolving new genes with novel functions. That seemed to me be what the literature was saying in contrast to Bob’s point that this did not happen. It seems that coding genes do evolve in genomes, at least in fruit flies.

    I appreciate your caveat as to the limits of novel complexity that such phenomena will cause. This seems to be in line with Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Am I getting the gist of your argument?

    As a laymen I have no expertise in this area but I am keen to learn and will keep looking at the extant literature. Unfortunately with Bob I’m finding the discussion is devolving into polemics and mischaracterization of what is being said. Bob, rather than pointing fingers, I want apologize for my contribution to such methodology and ask for your forgiveness. However I don’t think I can rationally debate anything anymore with you so I’ll refrain from future comments on your posts. In that sense you have won my friend!

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. To Sherriff Kime

    Still standing out here on Origins Street asking directions.

    However I looked down at my holsters and saw my six shooters were missin’. Was that you pah’d, or maybe Miss Lydian or Deputy Eddie, or the Universal Marshall? You fine folks have a way of disarmin’ a feller.

    Dang ole question marks anyway. Oh well guess I’ll try to make a lasso out of them and rope me some wily truth.

    Ken wearing the black Stetson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. Re Wes’s Quote

    “But somehow for every carbon-dated fossil that shouted at me, the Krebs Circle shouted louder.”

    Hi Wes

    Your reference stirred a ghost of a memory of studying ATP in first year biology.

    Could the Krebs cycle have evolved and if so how?

    I went online and found the following article. Looks like there are a number of questions outstanding but at least scientists are trying to tackle the issue.

    I couldn’t find anything more current but am interested in learning more if you could guide me.

    http://www.metabolismo.biz/web/wp-content/uploads/Krebs-cycle.pdf

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. Re Kreb’s Cycle – Irreducibly Complex?

    Hi Wes and Sean

    I did some more reading as to whether the Kreb’s cycle, circle.(KB) is an irreducibly complex, metabolic mechanism, ergo proof of design.

    Apparently there is a simpler anabolic metabolic pathway called the gloxylate cycle found in plants, bacteria, fungi and microorganisms (GC) It uses three of the five enzymes in KB and shares many of the intermediate steps.

    GC seems to be absent in animals, but is found in the early stages of nematodes(worms).

    Could GC have been a precursor to KB? Is the fact that it is found in worms a clue as to how it might have evolved to KC in animals?

    I’ve cited the Wikipedia link below for your reference.

    I may be way out to lunch on this, not having your medical and scientific expertise, but I thought it was worth looking at.

    I look forward to your comments

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyoxylate_cycle

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. From the start – have pointed to a known proven mechanism that is known to create a result – that does not just “happen” on its own.

    The mechanism is known and observed to function just as claimed.

    BobRyan: Given that the YEC model has the ONLY mechanism known to actual “science” that can create something from nothing or that can design and manufacture a complex system such as a computer – I see no problem with YEC and actual science.

    Letting the YEC model stand up against the blind-faith fictions of evolutionist who have no mechanism for creating or evolving life at all known to work in actual “science”, makes perfect sense (even given the rich history of hoax, fraud and deceit used to promote evolutionism over time.)

    But of course – complaints to be expected – no matter how obvious the point.

    ken: Re Bob’s Quote

    “But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”

    Hi Bob

    Thanks for your comments.

    This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument.

    Indeed – that “Life of the cell” presentation is pretty hard to ignore in a “yes but I choose blind-faith atheism anyway” fashion.

    BobRyan: But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.

    It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.

    it is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.

    It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.

    The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.

    Notice that in the point made above – I specifically talk about the acquisition of new coding genes – NOT simply “recombining existing” information already present in the genome – as if that will ever be a “mechanism” that can get you from amoeba to horse.

    Ken: That seemed to me be what the literature was saying in contrast to Bob’s point that this did not happen. It seems that coding genes do evolve in genomes, at least in fruit flies.

    Ahh – the bait and switch. Your task was to point to “the mechanism” by which evolutionism is supposed to work.

    My challenge to you is that no new genetic information is added to the genome over time and so you come up with “recombining existing information” already present in the genome as if that will suffice as the mechanism to get blind-faith evolutionism off the ground for its amoeba-to-horse alice-in-wonderland adventure.

    I simply point out that recombining old already existing information in the same genome – is never going to get you to going on your amoeba-to-horse adventure.

    You will be stuck with an amoeba recombining its already existing genetic information. You merely shuffle the same deck of cards – and staple one to the other in some cases. But you do not add bricks, steel, mortar and paint to your set of building materials.

    The point remains. No mechanism yet identified for blind-faith evolutionism.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Re Wes’s Quote

    “But considering the outburst your question marks unplugged (beware when you shoot off those things), you don’t want more, do you? ”

    Hi Wes

    In investigating the pathway of the WKOC (Wes/Ken Ontological Cycle) I want to investigate every single, enzyme of faith and science down to boson level. I want your best and I’ll give you mine: fully, civilized, humanely, without deceit and no holds barred.

    Do I want more? You bet. Maybe you can make an armchair physician out of me. I think you’ll find me a most willing student of all things.

    Now back the the similarities between the Krebs Cycle and the Gloxylate Cycle…. Why? Are both wheels of a more primitive cycle, or are they both independent, irreducibly complex, unicycles?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. @ken: Re. yours of Oct 3, 12:05 AM, 4:29, 4:56 PM, re. http://www.metabolismo.biz/web/wp-content/uploads/Krebs-cycle.pdf, (“Evolution of the enzymes etc. etc.”) about which you besought our guidance.

    Friend, hast thou hung out with us so long and yet require guidance against every googley little http://evo/puff/puff/bulismo\\risible.reducibility.//^\\buzz//tweettweet.HTML.pdf.?

    But seriously, without the standard evolocutionary plug-ins (“During the origin and evolution of metabolism, in the first cells, when a need arises for a new pathway…”) encrusting the otherwise ever-expanding and ever-more glorious Cycle, what is needed is not guidance but exuberance.

    No wait! You already got guidance from Enrique Mele ́ndez-Hevia, Thomas G. Waddell, Marta Cascante, when they slipped this in — or slipped and let it in: “In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells.” How did that get in there?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. I would add to that cyclist – list

    ABC news apparently admits to the obvious in that regard.

    I give you the work of the greatest designer, greatest artist, greatest scientist ever discovered

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. Hi Wes

    Although I enjoyed your artful reply you did not address the similarities between the KC and GC.

    It is wonderful and honest that the referenced scientists think the KC could not have been better designed. But isn’t how it got to the point the question? If KB was created at first instance as the perfect design why the need for the GC? And why the similarities between enzymes and pathways?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. @ken:

    It is wonderful and honest that the referenced scientists think the KC could not have been better designed. But isn’t how it got to the point the question? If KB was created at first instance as the perfect design why the need for the GC? And why the similarities between enzymes and pathways?

    It is an error to assume, without further demonstration, that similarity of structure and even of function is definitive evidence of origin via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations/natural selection from some common ancestral state.

    While such similarities do in fact suggest a common origin of some kind, that common origin may be a common intelligent designer. There is also the proven possibility that the more simple system actually devolved from the more complex system over time (as is the case for TTSS toxin injection system in bacteria, which devolves from the much more complex flagellar motility system in bacteria over relatively short periods of time).

    So, how does one rule out the necessity of intelligent design to explain two different systems that look similar in structure and perhaps in basic function? How does one scientifically determine, to a useful level of predictive value, that a particular mindless mechanism could or could not reasonably have done the job? Well, one has to consider the functional differences themselves. The similarities are very easy to explain via mindless mechanisms of various kinds. However, the functional differences are not so easily explained beyond very low levels of functional complexity. It’s all about the differences. The functional differences are key here – key to the detection of the requirement for intelligent design to explain a given phenomenon.

    That’s the problem with the just-so stories of evolutionary progress you’ll often find in literature. They are just that – just-so stories without any demonstration in the lab or any real statistical analysis with regard to the ability of mindless mechanisms to produce the required functional differences between the systems in question.

    When it comes to enzymatic cascades, to include the citric acid cycle, the complexities involved are not generally significantly more complex than the most complex single component part. The reason for this is that the overall system does not require a specific 3D structure in order for it to work. An enzymatic cascade works in a sequence whereby each individual part works independently from the other parts in the enzymatic cascade.

    That is why such cascades are not nearly as functionally complex as a system with an equal number of parts where the function of the system requires that the parts work in harmony with each other, at the same time, in a specific three-dimensional arrangement with each other – as is the case for the flagellar motility system. The flagellar motility system is far far more complex that an enzymatic cascading system with an equal number of protein/amino acid parts or building blocks.

    Such systems of functional complexity, when they require more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid parts, do not evolve from anything else, regardless of structural similarities with other systems of function. The functional differences require structural differences that are just to statistically large to cross, at such levels of complexity, in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time via any known mindless mechanism.

    It is for this reason that the hypothesis that only an intelligent agent could have produced such a high level functional system in a reasonable amount of time gains superior scientific credibility.

    Many different sciences that are based on the ability to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various phenomena in nature (such as anthropology, forensic science, anthropic science in physics, and even SETI science) are all based on this basic logical argument for design. There is no fundamental difference…

    So, there you have it, the scientific “ID-only argument” in a nutshell.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. Hi Sean

    I really enjoyed your fine reply.

    I understand and appreciate the argument that biological similarites could point to common descent or common design.

    I also agree that the job of evolutionary biologists is to fill the gaps between organisms to illustrate common descent.

    I think I understand what you are saying about the functional complexity of the Citric acid cycle not being significantly different than its component parts. Would it be fair to say that you and Dr. Kime may differ on this point or am I reading more into your comments than I should?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    My father is a Deist and thinks there is a design to the universe, ergo a Designer. The jury is still out for me in that regard but I am keeping an open mind.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. Hi Sean

    Even if life and the universe can be deconstucted to show naturalistic cause and effect events to explain everything therein, it does not necessarily mean there is no Grand Designer thereout.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. @Ken:

    Even if life and the universe can be deconstucted to show naturalistic cause and effect events to explain everything therein, it does not necessarily mean there is no Grand Designer thereout.

    That’s right. However, such a situation would mean that the Designer of such a universe couldn’t be empirically detected by those living within it. Such a Designer would be in the same category of garden fairies, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While there is no solid empirical evidence for the existence of these entities, neither is there evidence that definitively falsifies their existence. A God in such a category would be effectively worthless and a hope in such a God would be no more rational than hope placed in the existence of little green men living in the middle of the moon.

    Fortunately for us, the God of our universe has left us abundant empirical evidence of his existence and even his character which can only rationally be explained by someone with access to intelligence and creative power than cannot readily be distinguished from a God or a God-like being.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. @Ken:

    I think I understand what you are saying about the functional complexity of the Citric acid cycle not being significantly different than its component parts. Would it be fair to say that you and Dr. Kime may differ on this point or am I reading more into your comments than I should?

    I agree with my cousin Wes Kime that the CAC is highly complex and integrated indeed and that is was most likely designed essentially as is given all of the other systems that depend upon its function in many diverse life forms. However, I do not know if he holds my understanding of functional complexity or if he would point out that the CAC, being a cascading enzymatic system, is far less functionally complex than a system with a similar number of parts where all the parts are required to be in a specific 3D arrangement with each other – as is the case for flagellar motility systems or something like ATPsynthase. Such systems are far more functionally complex for their size and are therefore far less able to evolve from anything else with novel functionality via any known mindless mechanism.

    This is why I use, as examples of clear design, systems which require the specific 3D arrangement of over 1000aa (to include multiprotein systems).

    My father is a Deist and thinks there is a design to the universe, ergo a Designer. The jury is still out for me in that regard but I am keeping an open mind.

    Your father is in good company, especially when it comes to some of the most famous modern physicists and mathematicians currently alive – to include quite a few Nobel Laureates. It seems like more physicists believe in some kind of God than do biologists – which is one reason I suggest that physicists must be smarter, on average, than biologists.

    What is ironic, however, is that the most simple living thing is far more functionally complex (i.e., requires a far greater degree of fine tuning to function) than are the finely tuned fundamental constants of the universe which allow complex life to exist – a degree of fine tuning that has convinced so many physicists that there must be a God. If the universe is so clearly designed, because of its extreme fine tuning, living things should be much more clearly recognized as requiring design.

    Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better at telling just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds involved with crossing the growing non-beneficial gaps between functional systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. BobRyan: I give you the work of the greatest designer, greatest artist, greatest scientist ever discovered

    I notice that simply looking at the evidence is not pleasant for some of our reviewers.

    I am wondering if a “turn from all disconfirming evidence” is not a pattern for agnostics and atheists.

    I am wondering if there might be even one or two SDAs visiting here – and using that same model when their cherished stories in blind faith evolutionism are not supported by observations in nature.

    Could it be that such observations as the above – would result in negative responses?

    Could it be? – 😉

    None are so blind as those who “will not see” – they exercise their “free will” to turn from every evidence.

    Notice how the “world” in the review of the evidence above on ABC news was NOT so quick to “deny all” and turn a blind eye.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related

    So how is it that such non Christian sources are more open to objectivity and fact – than some of our diehard agnostics and TE’s here?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. Sean Pitman: Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds

    What “science” favors “good storytelling” over “observations and statistical probability”?

    Answer – “junk science religion”.

    And this is why Collin Patterson was complaining. He was a confirmed atheist evolutionist until the day he died. Yet he too observed this junk-science religion element among his peers and was repulsed by it.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Collin Patterson – Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history – said:

    Patterson – quotes Gillespie’s arguing that Christians
    “‘…holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'”

    Patterson countered, “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has…we know it has taken place.'”

    “…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…

    “…,strong>Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean

    Once again you have drawn me in with your egregious comment;

    “Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better at telling just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds involved with crossing the growing non-beneficial gaps between functional systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity” – Sean Pitman

    I do not at all understand your hostility toward biologists that do experimental work and publish their work in peer reviewed journals. Why should you effectively call them liars simply because their conclusions do not agree with your unpublished and unscientific prejudices?

    Why the negativity? I know you might see the strength of your argument in nitpicking the argument of others as an approach that sees evidence for God resident in our ignorance has nowhere else to go but to concentrate on failure and inadequacy because the bigger the whole the more room for God. This whole article seems predicated on that idea. Why do you see your certitude vindicated in attacking an Adventist scientist who happens to have acknowledged thr lack of trite answers to some difficult questions and limited certainty in life.

    I note that the adequacy of your arguments about mathematical modelling was raised in a blog post about protein sequence space in 2009 and Drysen the author of the paper you critiqued suggested “..Sean Pitman who needs to stop being obsessed with computer-based numerology and do some reading and talk to some practical protein scientists.”

    I would go further and suggest you start doing scienc by proposing clear testable models for your understanding of origins. Test your model of protein evolution experimentally and report the results. That is the basis of real science. Until you publish your hypothesis driven research findings in the peer reviewed literature you have not effectively advanced your ideas beyond the mass of ignorance that is the blogosphere.

    Try one of the PLOS of BMC journals on evolution or biology. It will be much more helpful, creative and satisfying than attacking the ideas of others in blogs like pharyngula or talk origins or in the lay press.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. @Pauluc:

    I note that the adequacy of your arguments about mathematical modelling was raised in a blog post about protein sequence space in 2009 and Drysen the author of the paper you critiqued suggested “..Sean Pitman who needs to stop being obsessed with computer-based numerology and do some reading and talk to some practical protein scientists.”

    Drysen is no better than other biologists in his just-so story telling devoid of any real science that produces useful predictive value based on actual statistical analysis beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Drysen evidently doesn’t yet grasp the published concept of levels of functional complexity and how different levels affect the distribution of potentially viable protein-based sequences in sequence space. He simply doesn’t seem to have a clue that his extrapolations from low levels to high levels are mathematically unsupported and untenable.

    My point isn’t to simply be negative, but to show people the bald unsupported claims of many mainstream scientists which simply aren’t scientific. They are nothing more than fanciful just-so story telling. That’s it.

    Also, I really don’t need to publish the basic concepts in play here regarding levels of functional complexity or how protein sequence space is affected. These ideas have already been published and are available in mainstream literature.

    This isn’t simply a “God of the Gaps” argument. It is the very same argument used by various forms of science which hypothesize the need to invoke intelligent design all the time – as in anthropology, forensics, and SETI. Simply asserting that “evolution happens” without a viable mechanism beyond very low levels of functional complexity is not science. It is nothing but blind faith and false extrapolations from very limited examples of evolution in action. Life scientists should simply admit this fact instead of pretending that they actually have a viable evolutionary mechanism to explain complex systems. They don’t. That’s a fact for anyone who cares to do just a little bit of personal research.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean I am really confused now. You are on one hand arguing against a blind faith that would accept Christian faith as based on the revelation of Jesus. You seem to intimate that Christianity must instead be based on evidence and not blind faith but you now seem to be suggesting that the scientific literature in the life sciences is “nothing but blind faith and false extrapolations from very limited examples of evolution in action”.

    You further seem to have descended into a gnosticism that indicates that there is no need for Christians to do original research and publish and participate in science because all the evidence you need is already in the literature if you can only understand it right.

    Simple basic questions.
    1] Do you believe in science as hypothesis testing and is this a route to understanding?
    2] Can Christians legitimately participate in this activity and publish their findings?
    3] Are biologists doing science in good faith or they all bewitched by the devil and deluded?
    4] How does a simple biologist know which are the just-so stories and which are true?
    5] How do you decide which are the evidences that can legitimately be used to build faith and which are not?
    6] Is there such a thing as Mortons demon and how will I recognize it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. @Pauluc:

    Sean I am really confused now. You are on one hand arguing against a blind faith that would accept Christian faith as based on the revelation of Jesus. You seem to intimate that Christianity must instead be based on evidence and not blind faith but you now seem to be suggesting that the scientific literature in the life sciences is “nothing but blind faith and false extrapolations from very limited examples of evolution in action”.

    When it comes to evolution in action beyond very low levels of functional complexity, yes, there is nothing in scientific literature, beyond blind faith, to support the notion that the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely capable of doing the job – nothing. There is no demonstration and there are no relevant statistical models. There is simply no science to support the RM/NS conclusion at all for systems with minimum functional complexity requirements beyond the 1000aa level. There are only just-so stories. That’s it. It is simply assumed, blindly and without evidence to support the mechanism, that mindless mechanisms were somehow able to do the job.

    The currently available evidence strongly suggests that this belief in the magnificent creative powers of RM/NS is not only blind, but is completely irrational – directly contrary to everything that is known about protein sequence space and the distribution and exponentially increasing rarity of viable sequences at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.

    If you think I’m so obviously wrong, based on the little you’ve read of my ideas online, please do present just one example of evolution in action or a relevant statistical model where the mechanism of RM/NS is shown to likely to produce, in a predictable period of time, any qualitatively novel system of function in a given gene pool which requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (to include multiprotein systems where the proteins must be specifically arranged in 3D space). If you find such an example, I’d be very very interested. So far, I’ve been unable to do so.

    The only thing you will find in literature in this regard are papers discussing the sequence or structural similarities of higher-level systems compared to the lower-level systems from which it is assumed they evolved. The problem with these papers is that they do not discuss the minimum structural differences required to evolve from one to the other. They do not discuss the statistical problems for RM/NS to produce these minimum structural differences in a reasonable amount of time. They simply assume, blindly, that it happened somehow because they know, from their interpretation of the fossil record, that it had to have happened. They do not, however, have any idea how RM/NS could actually have done what they believe it did in just a few billion years (a drop in the bucket compared to the time that would actually be needed to produce just one qualitatively novel system of function that requires a minimum of just 1000 specifically arranged aa residues (i.e., trillions of years wouldn’t be enough time).

    You further seem to have descended into a gnosticism that indicates that there is no need for Christians to do original research and publish and participate in science because all the evidence you need is already in the literature if you can only understand it right.

    Original research is great. I’ve published a few papers of my own. There is always and will always be more to learn and understand. However, the relevant concepts regarding levels of functional complexity for protein-based systems, and what happens to the distribution of viable sequences in sequence space at different levels of complexity, have already been published in literature.

    Simple basic questions.
    1] Do you believe in science as hypothesis testing and is this a route to understanding?

    Yes.

    2] Can Christians legitimately participate in this activity and publish their findings?

    Absolutely.

    3] Are biologists doing science in good faith or they all bewitched by the devil and deluded?

    I’m sure they are honest and sincere. This has nothing to do with the morality of a person or his/her standing before God. I think that evolutionary biologists are wrong and misguided. They may not understand that what they believe regarding the evolutionary mechanism isn’t really based on science. Regardless of the purity of their motivations however, they are painfully mistaken on this particular topic.

    4] How does a simple biologist know which are the just-so stories and which are true?

    Just-so stories have no backing by scientific methodologies. They have no testable predictive value since they have no basis in observation or relevant statistical analysis. You can’t actually measure or test the likelihood that a just-so story is more or less true compared to the opposing or null hypothesis.

    5] How do you decide which are the evidences that can legitimately be used to build faith and which are not?

    All evidences can be used to build faith. It is just that the “evidence” presented must actually have some valid testable, potentially falsifiable, predictive value that can actually be measured statistically vs. other competing options or hypotheses. In other words, there has to be some way to measure the likelihood that your story is more or less likely true compared to other competing stories or hypotheses. It must therefore be testable in a way that produces measurable predictive value.

    6] Is there such a thing as Mortons demon and how will I recognize it.

    Personal bias is always present and the best one can do is recognize that one’s own previously established biases will always come into play when analyzing new data (see my next post on dinosaurs evolving from birds). I’m not immune from personal bias and neither are you. No one is.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Dinosaurs Evolved from Birds?

    As another fairly recent potential example of devolution compared to popular notions large scale evolution over time (in addition to the flagellum to the TTSS toxin injector example noted above), a number of mainstream scientists are starting to question the popular idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Rather, they are arguing that it went the other way around – that certain creatures that have been classified as theropod dinosaurs are actually flightless birds.

    “Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus,” Ruben said. “We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around.”…

    The old theories were popular, had public appeal and “many people saw what they wanted to see” instead of carefully interpreting the data, [Ruben] said.

    ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)

    So, we have yet another example, if confirmed, of devolution in action – the same mechanism that produces flightless birds on windy islands or cavefish without eyes. This form of “change over time” is very easy to explain since it is far easier to break something via mindless mechanisms than it is to create a working complex system to begin with via any known mindless mechanism.

    Again, look as you might, you will not find an observed example in literature of evolution in action beyond very very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., beyond the level of 1000 specifically arranged aa residues), nor will you find a mathematical model that makes any useful predictions as to the success of the mechanism of RM/NS at various levels of functional complexity over a given period of time.

    In short, faith in the RM/NS mechanism as the primary source of creativity in evolutionary biology for the production of higher level systems of function within gene pools is nothing but fairytale wishful thinking – not science.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean Pitman November 6, 2011 at 12:52 am

    “Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better at telling just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds involved with crossing the growing non-beneficial gaps between functional systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.”

    *********
    I am reading a little book authored by Robert Piccioni, a physicist who took the time to calculate the chance of life being the result of an accident, and he concluded that such a chance occurrence is for all practical purposes almost equal to zero. The title of his book is “Can Life be Merely an Accident?”

    He is also the author of another book dealing with this issue. The title is “Everone’s Guide to Atoms Einstein and the Universe.” He is not an Adventist, but he is convinced that the universe was the result of the work of a designer.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. Hello Sean and Wes

    I’ve been enjoying the posts and learning a lot from the discourse. I simply can’t match your knowledge or that of Pauluc when it comes to molecular evolution.

    As a layman though, it strikes me though that if novel coding genes arise all the time in genomes that given enough time macro evolution will occur. I like the idea of using mathematical models, among others to test this concept. Have you ever read about the Game of Life invented by the Cambridge mathemetician James Conway? The game illustrates that with a few simple rules ( far simpler than the physical laws of the universe) complex structures will evolve and even repeat themselves from random combinations. It appears as the structures were designed as compared to having been formed by random combinations of squares. Of course molecules are far more complex than two dimentional squares. But given enough time and potential for a vast number of random combinations to occur, driven by natural selection as evidenced by micro evolution, wouldn’t structures of functional complexity occur?

    Regarding Sean’s suggestion that the Krebs Cycle may have devolved to simpler metabolic processes in some organisms, this raises many questions. Are all life forms devolving to less and less complex organisms? Are organisms utlilizing components of the Kreb’s Cycle, younger in age than KC organisms? Will horses eventually devolve back down to amoebas? 🙂

    Wes, in light of Sean’s comments I’m interested in yours as to whether the Krebs Cycle is irreducibly complex or may have evolved from a series of enzymatic cascades?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. Hi Nic

    The books by Piccioni sound very interesting.

    Deism has been around for some time. The more it can be buttressed by science the more rational, as oppossd to philosophical or rellgious, it will become. Then the natural theological outcome will be which religion, if any, is more rational than the others. When it comes to comparing prophets this becomes problematic.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. @Ken:

    As a layman though, it strikes me though that if novel coding genes arise all the time in genomes that given enough time macro evolution will occur. I like the idea of using mathematical models, among others to test this concept. Have you ever read about the Game of Life invented by the Cambridge mathemetician James Conway? The game illustrates that with a few simple rules ( far simpler than the physical laws of the universe) complex structures will evolve and even repeat themselves from random combinations. It appears as the structures were designed as compared to having been formed by random combinations of squares. Of course molecules are far more complex than two dimentional squares. But given enough time and potential for a vast number of random combinations to occur, driven by natural selection as evidenced by micro evolution, wouldn’t structures of functional complexity occur?

    Various computer models have indeed generated what is often cited as “complexity”, via mindless mechanisms, but they have not generated novel functional complexity beyond very very low levels. The general understanding of complexity, as in greater degrees of non-predictability, is not the same thing is functional complexity. Functional complexity is a measure of the minimum structural threshold requirements needed to achieve a particular type of functionality. Beyond very low levels of functional complexity, nothing has been generated by any mindless mechanism, without the input of deliberate intelligent design, in biology or in computer simulations. After all, if one could figure out how to produce truly novel functional complexity without the need to use intelligent designers, one would make a fortune in computer programming without the need to pay human programmers.

    The reason why low level evolution can occur rather rapidly while levels of functional complexity just a little bit higher cannot be realized in a reasonable amount of time is because there is not a linear relationship between time and evolvability at higher and higher levels of functional complexity. Rather than linear, there is an exponential relationship so that as one considers systems of qualitatively novel functionality that have greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements the average time required for any mindless mechanism to discover these systems in sequence space increases exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

    So, while it might superfiecially seem reasonable that given enough time, “microevolution” will simply add up to produce “macroevolution”, this simply isn’t true when one stops to consider the statistical probabilities involved at higher and higher levels of functional complexity – again, its an exponentially increasing problem for RM/NS.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. @Sean Pitman:

    Concerning examples of evolution you say

    “If you find such an example, I’d be very very interested. So far, I’ve been unable to do so.”

    This in the context of the statement

    “If you think I’m so obviously wrong, based on the little you’ve read of my ideas online, please do present just one example of evolution in action or a relevant statistical model where the mechanism of RM/NS is shown to likely to produce, in a predictable period of time, any qualitatively novel system of function in a given gene pool which requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (to include multiprotein systems where the proteins must be specifically arranged in 3D space).”

    I do indeed think you are wrong but you have introduced so many caveats and defined so closely and narrowly what you are looking for that it becomes futile and meaningless to offer any specific response.

    That you are very very interested in considering any additional information that may be contrary to your position I am increasingly sceptical if history is the judge. Previous discussions on evolution and protein structure and functional selection, the origins of gene families and genomic organization such as that on b-defensins, alu repeats in primates according to ID and stochastic and selective process, population size and “genetic meltdown”, fossil DNA and protein, the relationship between phenotype and alleles in small populations in your flood model and the nature and assumptions and process of science including paradigm shifts. Not to mention our private emails concerning your low view of scientists, dating and ice cores initiated after you censored my post on this site.

    For me the interaction have been one way. I do understand more about you with each of your posts but I have no illusion that you appreciate any other perspective as anything other than simply wrong.

    What I find particularly disappointing in this thread is first that you attack a Erwin a scientist who has rigorously and actively tried to understand dating methods and attempt to reconcile this with his understanding of the Gospel but secondly that you now wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of what is real science and yet be so unwilling to propose and test your hypotheses in the only arena that matters the peer reviewed literature.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. No one will ever demonstrate to Sean Pitman’s satisfaction an exception to the 1000-fsaar threshold of the evolution of complexity for several reasons that come to my mind (and I’m sure there are others):

    1 – There is no practical way to identify the exact number of “fairly specified amino acid residues” (fsaars) for novel increases in functionality among metazoans (i.e., the problem of uncertainty). Sean can’t tell you, for example, exactly how many amino acid residues were involved for the evolution of the scorpion’s stinger, the evolution of its gland, or the evolution of its various venom components. Sean simply has no clue. But unless God created the deadly stinger to function as it does today, I can’t imagine its evolution requiring any fewer than 1000 amino acids.

    2 – The beginning and endpoint for what constitutes Sean’s imagined “1000 fsaar threshold” cannot be precisely stated. How many fsaars would comprise the origin of several novel venom proteins, for example? If three new 400 aa proteins evolve, resulting in a potent venom comprised of a sum of 1200 new aa that function unlike any prior venom enzymes, would this exceed the threshold (i.e., the problem of summation)? If a complex structure that served one function became modified at, say, 12 aa per generation until it began to function very differently 100 generations later, was this a 1200 fsaar change (i.e., the problem of accumulation)? If a protein dependent on three genes, each coding for 400 aa subunits, acquired a new function after gene duplication and tinkering, would this qualify as exceeding the threshold (the problem of gene duplication)?

    3 – Because Sean rejects any and all analyses based on phyogenetics, he will not allow any kind of historical reconstruction of traits to infer the evolution of a complex trait (i.e., the problem of constrained inference). The only possibility for demonstrating to Sean a 1000+ fsaar change is for something that might take place within a few centuries–the narrow window of time that detailed natural history observations have been available to give us a benchmark for change. Sean is typical of creationists in demanding a “show me an example of such change.” Of course, the evolutionists will tell you that the accumulation of change can take thousands or millions of years (i.e., generations), but Sean and other creationists demand that it happens within decades or centuries so that it can be “observed.”

    4 – Any example of change that introduces higher levels of functionality can be met with one simple objection: God made it that way (i.e., the problem of origin). One might consider clear-cut examples of predation or parasitism, but these are no less problematic. God could have created the scorpion with its stinger, venom gland, and venom, for example, to sting a succulent plant and thereby create a hole in the plant that provides the scorpion a home.

    My conclusion: it is not worthwhile to pursue this type of discussion with Sean. One simply cannot reason with these constraints to change. And who gives a monkey’s hairy behind, anyway.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. @Sean Pitman:

    Concerning examples of evolution you say

    “If you find such an example, I’d be very very interested. So far, I’ve been unable to do so.”

    This in the context of the statement

    “If you think I’m so obviously wrong, based on the little you’ve read of my ideas online, please do present just one example of evolution in action or a relevant statistical model where the mechanism of RM/NS is shown to likely to produce, in a predictable period of time, any qualitatively novel system of function in a given gene pool which requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (to include multiprotein systems where the proteins must be specifically arranged in 3D space).”

    I do indeed think you are wrong but you have introduced so many caveats and defined so closely and narrowly what you are looking for that it becomes futile and meaningless to offer any specific response.

    That you are very very interested in considering any additional information that may be contrary to your position I am increasingly sceptical if history is the judge. Previous discussions on evolution and protein structure and functional selection, the origins of gene families and genomic organization such as that on b-defensins, alu repeats in primates according to ID and stochastic and selective process, population size and “genetic meltdown”, fossil DNA and protein, the relationship between phenotype and alleles in small populations in your flood model and the nature and assumptions and process of science including paradigm shifts. Not to mention our private emails concerning your low view of scientists, dating and ice cores initiated after you censored my post on this site.

    For me the interaction have been one way. I do understand more about you with each of your posts but I have no illusion that you appreciate any other perspective as anything other than simply wrong.

    What I find particularly disappointing in this thread is first that you attack a Erwin a scientist who has rigorously and actively tried to understand dating methods and attempt to reconcile this with his understanding of the Gospel but secondly that you now wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of what is real science and yet be so unwilling to propose and test your hypotheses in the only arena that matters the peer reviewed literature.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. Sean

    Concerning your fixation with the numerology I can use R and bioconductor probably better than the average biologist but like lawyer jokes the adage about “lies, damn lies and statistics” resonates because it has some basis in reality. Biologists use statistics to decide what is the likely among the possible processes and hypotheses. Statistics and mathematics are tool in biology not the reality. Particularly annoying I find the abuse of post hoc probabilities which are largely meaningless and depend on the rigor of your definition of the dependent variables proposed as precedent to the outcome. Bayes and the savy gambler understood the real purpose of statistics.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Ken: As a layman though, it strikes me though that if novel coding genes arise all the time in genomes that given enough time macro evolution will occur.

    The coding genes do not simply “arise” as you imagine. The only examples you have given are of the “re-shuffle” variety taking their own “existing information” – and shuffling with a bit of “card damage” for good measure as they do so.

    When you were pressed about how this “reshuffle” mechanism would ever allow the genome of the amoeba to become the genome of the horse – you simply dodged the point claiming that you were never intending that your “reshuffle” idea was the mechanism by which that happens.

    Now we seem to want to “have it both ways”.

    Interesting.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. BobRyan: I would add to that cyclist – list

    ABC news apparently admits to the obvious in that regard.

    I give you the work of the greatest designer, greatest artist, greatest scientist ever discovered

    Hey – mentioning the ABC news link above – gets even more negative responses from our “sacrifice all for evolutionism” readership.

    How is that happening?

    Do those readers now consider ABC News to be evil?!!

    Fascinating!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. BobRyan: Notice how the “world” in the review of the evidence above on ABC news was NOT so quick to “deny all” and turn a blind eye.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related

    So how is it that such non Christian sources are more open to objectivity and fact – than some of our diehard agnostics and TE’s here?

    Note that the end of that ABC News review – suggests that this information is actually a big plus in terms of getting objective unbiased open-minded viewers to be interested in biology.

    How sad some of the all-for-darwin readers stopping by here – view it as a “bad thing”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Ok – then – continuing our review of the “incredibly obvious” such that even our atheist evolutionist non-SDA friends get much more of “the point” than those inside the SDA church devoted to 3SG 90-91 “disguised infidelity”.

    The first example – atheist evolutionist Collin Patterson – senior paleontologist British museum of Natural History.

    The second example – the case of world renown atheist cosmologist Martin Reese and also world renown atheist and theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind talking about the issue of “statistical improbability” in an example where they objectively admit to the problem rather than junk-science evolutionist methods of turning a blind eye to the problem.

    All of which is “just more bad news” for the die-hard (sacrifice-all on the altar of evolutionism) – 3SG 90-91 disguised guys.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. Ok – starting with the case from Cosmology first – since our “deny all” guys are so used to ignoring whatever well known atheist evolutionist admit to being problems with evolutionism.

    We will just watch 7 minutes of this video to “get the point” (more viewing allowed of course if your deny-all for disguised infidelity mindset will tolerate it).

    http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#docid=-7044753105944203252

    Starting at the 15 minute point and viewing until the 21 minute point.

    BOTH cosmologists and physicists admit to the problem of “fine tuning” in the universe and appear willing to ignore the problem “hoping” that a 1 in 100 chance of all tuning variables being “just so” can be ignored for the truly “devoted” religion of ‘there is no god’.

    But then in this video they are confronted with a relatively NEW tuning factor – one that is 1×10^120 !!! This is fine tuning at a level far beyond 1 in 100. It is at level where even THEY admit they cannot turn a blind eye and so must “make something up” out of thin air hoping to avoid the problem.

    (Yet of course evolutionary biologists turn a blind eye to that sort of improbability every day in their devotion to junk-science religion)

    The question for anyone allowing themselves to “look” at the problem – is how is it that the “disguised infidelity” guise would ever be convinced by an argument from “probability” when they are already engaged in ignoring evidence EVEN the cases where world leaders in evolution and atheism are admitting to a problem??!!

    The Bible “predicts” that those who turn from MORE light – will be MORE blind than those outside the church living in darkness.

    How interesting that it proves to be true.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Collin Patterson – Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 – said:

    Patterson – quotes Gillespie’s arguing that Christians
    “‘…holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'”

    Patterson countered, “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has…we know it has taken place.'”

    “…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…

    “…,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

    ==========================

    Question – when was the last time LSU students heard an LSU biology professor being so up front and honest about the problems observed in blind-faith evolutionism?

    Surely our LSU guys can muster the honesty to keep up with atheist evolutionists like Patterson!!

    Or … maybe that is asking too much.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. Hi Wes

    Could you please answer my previous inquiry? Thiis goes towards the issue of whether the perception of design is empirical or influenced by faith. I want to understand why your view of the Kebs Cycle as a sacrosanct design influences your faith in Genesis 1. As I said to you earlier the quid pro quo is that I will answer any of your questions pertaining to my agnosticism.

    “Wes, in light of Sean’s comments I’m interested in yours as to whether
    the Krebs Cycle is irreducibly complex or may have evolved from a series of enzymatic cascades?”

    Thanks
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Thanks
    Your agnostic Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Re Sean’s Quote

    “So, while it might superfiecially seem reasonable that given enough time, “microevolution” will simply add up to produce “macroevolution”, this simply isn’t true when one stops to consider the statistical probabilities involved at higher and higher levels of functional complexity – again, its an exponentially increasing problem for RM/NS.”

    Could you please direct us to the links towards these studies? I’m interested in whether they contemplated modular vs. linear molecular evolution.

    Thanks
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. Ken, what do agnostics believe regarding the origin of matter and energy in the universe? I assume an agnostic would simply answer “I don’t know,” but maybe I’m being naive. Did energy and matter always exist or did they have a beginning? If they had a beginning, which the Big Bang posits, did they spontaneously appear out of nothing following natural laws, or did an intelligent power design and create them? I’d love to know your thoughts on the issue.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. Hi Eddie

    Great question

    It would be difficult to speak for all agnostics as their views likely vary. I think it is fair to say that all agnostics have not concluded if there is or is not a God. Why that is the case likely varies depending on the reasoning of the agnostic in question.

    But I can certainly speak for myself. As you have read about my ‘spiritual’ journey, regarding my quid pro quo to Dr. Kime, you understand my background and the search for God. That search has been greatly aided by my involvement in Educate Truth over the last few years.

    I think astrophysics holds many, but not all, of the answers to your questions. I think the truth about reality is far bigger than the universe that we can perceive. If Einstein is right about time being relative, what existed before the start of time in this universe?

    If we are not capable of understanding infinity, or first cause, or infinite regression, are our very notions of ‘God’ or the nature of God naive and limited to present knowledge? I believe so and that our concept of God is constantly evolving – a moving target.

    Creation ex nihilo? Show me nothing. I see six letters of the alphabet, which is likely something.

    My 16 year old son -faster, brighter, and definitely a lot better looking than his old man- says that he thinks matter and energy have always existed. You know what? I don’t have much of an argument against that, if time as we know it did not exist before the Big Bang.

    As to design, what I wonder, even if there are many metaverses, why ours has laws that allow matter to coalesce and ultimately form life. Why gravity? Is that the pull of God towards its Divine Heart? – if you will excuse my poetic license. I can hear my friend Wes chuckling 🙂 Random quantum fluctuation or Designer loaded dice? Don’t know my friend but I will keep pondering and looking at Science for clues.

    Regarding religions, after many years of studies, contemplation and opening myself up, I think they are all social constructs. Regarding an individual’s connection to God, how can anyone judge, know, or feel what others actually experience? Who is to say that on a nice day when I watch my black lab swim in the river and bring me a stick, that I am not experiencing God at Its finest? That is why I think we all need to be tolerant and open minded about others’ spiritual experiences.

    Eddie, I hope this answers your questions but I am willing to address them more fully if I have not done so.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. Re: Can Ken count?!

    “Show me nothing. I see six letters of the alphabet, which is likely something.”

    Actually seven but when one is dealing with nothing what is the difference between six and seven? Really its nothing. :}

    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. ken: Actually seven but when one is dealing with nothing what is the difference between six and seven? Really its nothing. :}

    Unless, of course, you’re talking about which day of the week is the Lord’s day. 😉

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. Ken, thanks for the response. It’s pretty hard to explain how all the energy and matter in the universe managed to exist eternally in an infinitely minute volume of space until, one day, for some unfathomable reason, matter and energy spontaneously exploded with a complex set of natural laws that was exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a universe capable of supporting life.

    Many SDAs do not accept the Big Bang and some consider SDAs who do accept the Big Bang as heretics. But the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is increasingly difficult to deny. And as Einstein realized, the implications of a universe with a beginning favor theists more than atheists (and, for that matter, agnostics).

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Re Eddie’s Quote

    ” ken: Actually seven but when one is dealing with nothing what is the difference between six and seven? Really its nothing. :}

    Unless, of course, you’re talking about which day of the week is the Lord’s day. ;)”

    Touche’ Eddie!

    As they say: God moves in mysterious ways…perhaps even with the mistakes of agnostics?

    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. @Ken:

    Could you please direct us to the links towards these studies? I’m interested in whether they contemplated modular vs. linear molecular evolution.

    Both “modular” and “linear molecular” evolution are in the same boat with regard to the exponential reduction in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. There is simply no significant advantage of one vs. the other when it comes to the job of finding novel functional systems within sequence space.

    The dramatic expansion of minimum likely gap distances at higher and higher levels of functional complexity in sequence space translates into an exponential increase in the average amount of time required to achieve success – regardless of the mindless search mechanism chosen to randomly explore sequence space.

    The studies that have been published have been on the nature of sequence space at different levels of functional complexity and how higher levels of functional complexity dramatically reduce the ratio of viable vs. non-viable sequences within sequence spaces that contain higher and higher level functional systems.

    If you are really interested in this topic, I present the arguments and the published evidence on my website at: http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. Re: A Chair in Intelligent Design at LSU

    Dear Drs. Pitman, Kime, Taylor et. al.

    Preamble

    A short while ago I was rightfully challenged and called out of my agnostic closet by Dr. Kime. Dr. Kime gave a very personal and moving account as to his origin of faith in Genesis.

    In a most gentlemanly and Christian fashion, he alluded to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. No offence taken, but the meaning could have been not more clear to this agnostic.

    So I looked in the mirror and had a little chat with the severest judge I know. That resulted in a personal response of my own. That is not enough, because words without deeds are gilded, empty vessels.

    Here is what I propose. That we lobby for and fund an interdisciplinary chair in Intelligent Design at LSU. That Dr. Pitman be the first one to occupy the position. I agree to be the first one to donate money to the position. As well I agree to act as a volunteer on a Steering Committee to help define, establish and fund the position. Drs. Pitman, Kime and Taylor would sit and have a major role in such a Committee.

    Why do I do this?:

    1. I respect the efforts of Drs. Pitman and Kime’s attempts to try marry faith and science.

    2. Intelligent Design, while not yet a science, is worthwhile to examine empirically. (yes I know of its origins, the court case, the stance of the public school system and the claim as it just being a back door attempt of creationists). But I think it can have a broader appeal and should not be simply dismissed out of hand.

    3. It may well be a way to bridge a gap between the progressive and conservative elements of Adventism. ie. Biology students are still taught that evolution is the mainspring of biology in biology class but are required to take the interdisciplinary ID class that argues and presents evidence contrary to it.

    4. I acknowledge a moral debt of honour to Dr. Kime, which I can assure you I take as seriously as your faith in God.

    I would like to hear from Drs. Pitman, Kime and Taylor on the viability of this suggestion, as well as any you, to see if this suggestion has any merit.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Ken –

    Good luck getting LSU to be “agnostic enough” to allow Pitman the same level of input and participation at LSU as they have already given Taylor.

    Their model is a bit more along the “committed to blind faith evolutionism” line of pursuit rather than “agnostic one way vs the other” as you seem to presuppose.

    Curiously – after all these debates with Sean and years on this board – you still remain dedicated to the “Design seen in nature is not science” myth.

    Fascinating!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. @ken: Greetings, friend, a quick aside specifically anent my post to you with a PS mentioning Christ’s addressing Judas, in the very act of betrayal, as friend. Uncomfortable with the posts then appearing expressing discomfort from being addressed as “friend” by an agnostic, I wanted to show that Jesus Himself, whom we wish to emulate, felt no such discomfort, ever. It was not a comment directing you to go look in the mirror. In any case, if you sensed it as such, we all should run to our own mirrors, on the double. Hmmm… What’s that I see! Advanced ectropion (sagging and eversion of the eyelids) with blearedness and tearing, alas senile, but the beam in there is no help. (Biblical allusions, several, but I’ll spare you the texts.)

    Anent the proposed LSU Chair of Intelligent Design, would it be endowed?
    W.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. @Professor Kent:

    The beginning and endpoint for what constitutes Sean’s imagined “1000 fsaar threshold” cannot be precisely stated. How many fsaars would comprise the origin of several novel venom proteins, for example? If three new 400 aa proteins evolve, resulting in a potent venom comprised of a sum of 1200 new aa that function unlike any prior venom enzymes, would this exceed the threshold (i.e., the problem of summation)? If a complex structure that served one function became modified at, say, 12 aa per generation until it began to function very differently 100 generations later, was this a 1200 fsaar change (i.e., the problem of accumulation)? If a protein dependent on three genes, each coding for 400 aa subunits, acquired a new function after gene duplication and tinkering, would this qualify as exceeding the threshold (the problem of gene duplication)?

    You still don’t seem to understand the basic concepts of specificity or functional complexity – despite the fact that these concepts have been well defined in mainstream literature.

    As I’ve already explained to you, at least a couple times now, a protein-based venom comprised of three different proteins, each 400aa in size, does not equal a system that requires a minimum of 1200 specifically arranged aa residues in 3D space. Rather, what you are describing is a system of three separately acting proteins where no specific 3D orientation between the proteins themselves is required to achieve the particular type of function in question to a beneficial degree of activity. Such a system, as with the enzymatic cascades described above, is not significantly more functionally complex than the most complex single protein within the system which does require a specific 3D arrangement of a given minimum number of aa residues.

    As far as complex systems which clearly require far more than 1000 specifically arranged residues, but which are currently used for malevolent purposes, such as stingers on scorpions, etc., they certainly did not evolve from less complex systems. They were either designed by some intelligent designer (not necessarily God) or they devolved from some higher-level system as in the case of the TTSS toxin injector system in bacteria which devolved from the more complex flagellar motility system.

    In any case, can you cite any example of evolution in action that actually produces such a higher level system by any mindless mechanism? As far as I’m aware, there simply are no such examples in literature.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. @Pauluc:

    I do indeed think you are wrong but you have introduced so many caveats and defined so closely and narrowly what you are looking for that it becomes futile and meaningless to offer any specific response.

    I don’t get your objections here? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to tell the difference in functional complexity between different types of systems? – like the difference between a protein-based function that requires a single protein of just 10 specifically arranged amino acid residues vs. one that requires a minimum of 10,000 specifically arranged residues within 50 different specifically arranged proteins? Can one not tell the difference here? – as to which one is more functionally complex?

    Do you really not understand that some things are more functionally complex than other things? What is so hard to understand about this simple very basic concept?

    If a system requires more specifically arranged parts to work to produce a given type of function is it not clear that this type of function is at a higher level of complexity compared to a different type of function that requires fewer parts or less specificity of the arrangement of parts?

    This isn’t rocket science you know. These simple concepts have been described in published mainstream literature. Also, the nature of sequence space, to include the exponential decline in viable vs. non-viable sequences for sequence spaces that contain systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity has also been described in literature.

    Not to mention our private emails concerning your low view of scientists, dating and ice cores initiated after you censored my post on this site.

    I never censored your posts on this site to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps Shane inadvertently deleted some of your posts?

    In any case, back to the topic actually at hand, all I’ve asked you to do is to present any example of evolution in action producing any novel system of function beyond very low levels of functional complexity – i.e., a system that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.

    It’s a very simple concept. Why act like you don’t know what I’m talking about?

    What I find particularly disappointing in this thread is first that you attack a Erwin a scientist who has rigorously and actively tried to understand dating methods and attempt to reconcile this with his understanding of the Gospel but secondly that you now wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of what is real science and yet be so unwilling to propose and test your hypotheses in the only arena that matters the peer reviewed literature.

    If you can’t answer my very simple question, just say so. Otherwise, you know as well as I do that mainstream literature is not unbiased with respect to what it will and will not publish on this topic in particular. Just ask Richard Sternberg or Stephen Meyer what happens (Link).

    Beyond this, the relevant information regarding the creative powers of RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity has already been published, as already noted for you.

    As far as Erv Taylor is concerned, he goes around attacking the most basic goals and ideals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding the literal 6-day creation week in particular, suggesting that those who believe in such fairytale nonsense are either completely ignorant or in some other way self-deluded to the point of living in Alice’s Wonderland (his own words). Yet, he himself is even more inconsistent in his acceptance of the existence of God and of Jesus as the Son of God, born of a virgin woman, and raised from the dead after three days to go back to Heaven to intercede with the Father on our behalf.

    I’m simply pointing out the rather obvious inconsistencies of Dr. Taylor’s position here – which seems to be lost on you since you have also been fooled into believing that mindless mechanism can somehow build men out of mud given enough time and raw undirected energy.

    If you don’t see the difference between just-so story telling and science, if you don’t see the need for real scientific hypotheses to be based on measurable predictive value (i.e., some form of statistical odds analysis), then you simply don’t understand how science really works – and neither does Erv Taylor.

    Concerning your fixation with the numerology I can use R and bioconductor probably better than the average biologist but like lawyer jokes the adage about “lies, damn lies and statistics” resonates because it has some basis in reality. Biologists use statistics to decide what is the likely among the possible processes and hypotheses. Statistics and mathematics are tool in biology not the reality. Particularly annoying I find the abuse of post hoc probabilities which are largely meaningless and depend on the rigor of your definition of the dependent variables proposed as precedent to the outcome. Bayes and the savy gambler understood the real purpose of statistics.

    I know you don’t like statistics and think statistical analyses of hypotheses are all suspect and subject to manipulation for various agendas, but if you don’t have some sort of backing to produce some kind of predictive value to support your hypothesis as superior to competing hypotheses, you’re not doing science.

    And, we aren’t talking post-hoc probabilities here. We are talking about making meaningful predictions of the creative potential of the mechanism of RM/NS at various levels of functional complexity. The concept of functional complexity has been well defined in literature. I’m not simply making up my own definitions here. Different levels of functional complexity occupy different types of sequence space. The sequences spaces that contain higher-level systems have an exponential reduction in the ratio of potentially viable (and beneficial) protein sequences. This produces a statistical effect on the odds of evolvability of functionally novel protein-based systems which can be used to make scientifically valid predictions as to the effectiveness of RM/NS at a given level of functional complexity over a given span of time. These predictions can be tested and potentially falsified – as with any valid scientific hypothesis.

    Such is not true for your just-so stories about how RM/NS must have done the job in the past even though you have no observable higher level examples nor do you have any statistical basis for your stories that can actually be used to produced useful predictive value for your assumed mechanism. Therefore, in what sense of the word are your just-so stories for the creative powers of RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity “scientific”?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. Hi Wes

    Sorry if I misunderstood the betrayal lesson – a little too elliptical for me I’m afraid. In any case I appreciate your explanation.

    No amount of cynicism, paranoia or enmity is going to prevent me from offering friendship to anyone here. If some choose to reject it, I will not retract the offer. It is what it is and will remain so. If only one person feels that friendship I will feel grateful. Moreover that friendship has been graciously returned to me, notwithstanding my apostate ways. There lies grace.

    Yes I think the proposed chair should be endowed and I will be happy to make the first contribution and fund raise.

    Hope that helps.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. @ken:

    Perhaps or perhaps not. The work of science will continue and conjecture will fill in the gaps in the interim.

    Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

    Let’s say that one of our rovers on Mars happened to come across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube that measures 1 meter on each side. Let’s say that in the middle of each face on the cube there happened to be a geometric carving that measures 10 cm in diameter.

    How long do you think scientists would actually “conjecture” before the vast majority would suggest the obvious discovery of a true artifact? – i.e., an intelligently produced phenomenon? Do you not think that such a find would hit the front page of every newspaper in the world?

    You see, while science should indeed progress and continue to search for additional evidence and explanations, this doesn’t mean that science never helps one come to conclusions that make the most sense given the evidence that is currently in hand.

    That’s what science is all about – making conclusions as to what is most likely true based on the limited information that is currently available.

    Could a scientific conclusion be wrong? Absolutely. If one had perfect knowledge, science wouldn’t be needed. It is only when information is limited that science is useful. Yet, science wouldn’t be useful at all if one refused to make decisions or act because of the potential for error.

    This is one of the reasons why I think agnosticism is kind of a cop out to be honest. Agnosticism seems to me to be an effort to avoid risk or the taking of sides on an controversial topic – an effort to avoid any chance at potential error. Now, I do agree with you that no one can be absolutely certain about the truth of anything that exists outside of the mind – about the true nature of anything in the universe in which we live. However, this doesn’t mean that we have absolutely no valid or reasonable ideas as to what is most likely true regarding the meaning of certain observations within the universe given the information that is currently in hand – as limited as it may be. The information that we do have and do think we understand says something to us about what is most likely true. Could we be wrong? Sure, but that doesn’t mean we should say that we don’t have any rational basis for making choices where there is still a potential for error.

    Specifically, we can have at least some idea as to the likelihood of God’s existence. We can have a very good idea with very high predictive power – much much higher than the predictive power of the intelligent design hypothesis for the polished granite cube mentioned above…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. Hi Sean

    Thanks for your comments.

    I would think at first blush that someone had made the cube if such a cube wasn’t normally found in nature.

    Then again a rainbow looks like a divine work of art until one knows the physics that created it. The same idea could be applied to snowflakes, crystals, the universe – don’t they at first blush appear to be designed instead of occurring vis a vis nature?

    For me, agnosticism is the optimal state of inquiry precisely because we can’t know the exact, empirical truth about the divine. Take evolution for example. I don’t look at it with a faith or non faith bias. In my mind it is irrevelant to the existence or non existence of God. Have the vast majority of evolutionary biologists been duped, fooled or coerced into thinking it is correct? Unlikely but possibly. Could the theory be wrong? Possibly. Can the burgeoning discipline of Intelliegent Design punch holes in it. Maybe, and wouldn’that be nice! That remains to be seen by the majority of scientists, not that the majority is always right!

    As to God, it is not merely the existence but the nature of God that agnostics concern themselves with. History, faith, philosophy and science all factor into the nature equation. The nature of God appears to be a moving target. Just look at religious schisms, or the very nature of this Adventist debate to appreciate that.

    Respectfully, rather than a copout, I submit agnosticism is the pinnacle of rationalism when it comes to considering all the evidence as to a temporal understanding of the divine.

    What about that chair at LSU?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. Sean Pitman: Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

    Let’s say that one of our rovers on Mars happened to come across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube that measures 1 meter on each side. Let’s say that in the middle of each face on the cube there happened to be a geometric carving that measures 10 cm in diameter.

    How long do you think scientists would actually “conjecture” before the vast majority would suggest the obvious discovery of a true artifact? – i.e., an intelligently produced phenomenon?

    Let us now say that those scientists had a religious conviction that “there are no Martians” no other intelligent life anywhere but earth.

    So when they see something like that on Mars they begin to “play with the probability” they begin go imagine some very improbable never-observed volcanic activity that would create buildings, and art work on the walls, in a long sequence of “just so” stories.

    They then go looking for patterns in the sand that in some ways resemble a door, or a swirl on the art work, or a rock sorta in the shape of a door hinge.

    Then they say that after billions and billions of years – these odd little happenings all get together in a cluster of odd happening – volcanic reactions to create those “buildings” with “art” on the wall.

    Then when they figure out that the odds against all of this are against they by 1×10^120 – they say “well if we had an almost infinite number of other universes then the odds of this happening on ONE planet in ONE of those universes is not so bad”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. But of course — if those buildings were found all over Mars – under about 2 feet of sand – the “there is no Martian” religionists would then say “well apparently these are normally found in nature on Mars – so nothing new here”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Sean

    With characteristic certainty you claim

    “I never censored your posts on this site to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps Shane inadvertently deleted some of your posts?”.

    Yet digging through my emails I find this correspondence once again addressing my concern about your low view of science and lack of conformation to the standard practices of science which is methodological naturalism. Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:52:14

    Hi Paul,

    I deleted your post because it used needlessly inflammatory and pejorative words and phrases and is not remotely accurate. I have a high regard for science and scientists in general. While there are some who deliberately set out to support a naturalistic philosophy at all costs, most scientists are not in this category. Most scientists do indeed honestly believe that their experiments and conclusions are performed in “good faith”. The very same thing is true of our ideas and conclusions. Just because we might disagree with most mainstream scientists on certain particulars does not mean that we aren’t being scientific or that either of us is acting outside of “good faith”.

    If you wish to modify your post to remove at least the pejorative elements, feel free to do so for reconsideration.

    Sincerely yours,

    Sean

    @Ricky Kim:
    I admire your sanguine spirit but I’m afraid you fundamentally mis-understand this site. You approach truth in a totally flawed way and seem to be interpreting science as an endeavour done in good faith. The protagonists for this site do not understand the process of arriving at truth in this same way but believe that science is not something we can accept in good faith but is just another faith endeavour where observations are constructed and interpreted with a hidden agenda ie it is the work of the Devil and reflects the desire of scientists themselves to support their own naturalistic philosophy that has at its core a deep desire to deny God.

    In other contexts this would be called projection. Once you understand this mindset you will quickly understand that argument using conventional logic is a futile exercise as many of us with more hope than good sense have found to out chagrin.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Sean you claim

    “If you don’t see the difference between just-so story telling and science, if you don’t see the need for real scientific hypotheses to be based on measurable predictive value (i.e., some form of statistical odds analysis), then you simply don’t understand how science really works – and neither does Erv Taylor”

    These are indeed serious claims so I proposed an hypothesis and looked at some statistics.

    My hypothesis was that in terms of the practice of science you probably do not know as much as you think you do. I proposed to test this by looking at the most ruthless of scientific measures bibliometrics. I proposed that you have a significantly stronger record of publication of experimental research than those you accuse of having no idea.

    Lets see according to Scopus Sean D Pitman has published 7 papers between 2004 and 2007.
    2007 Granular acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A case report and literature review
    2006 A 70-year-old woman with acute renal failure
    2006 Hodgkin lymphoma-like posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (HL-like PTLD) simulates monomorphic B-cell PTLD both clinically and pathologically
    2006 5q- syndrome in a child with slowly progressive pancytopenia: A case report and review of the literature
    2004 What is anaplastic large cell lymphoma? [1] (multiple letters)
    2004 Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Associated with Epstein-Barr Virus Following Cardiac Transplant
    2003 Pathologic quiz case: A 70-year-old woman with long-standing shoulder pain

    This is commendable as many MD would have no publications but other than arguably the case series on HD none of these are hypothesis driven.

    The Hirsch index is 3 and you have been cited a total of 33 times.

    For Ervin Taylor Scopus lists 57 publications a hirsch index of 9 and citations of 883

    For me Scopus lists 91 publications a Hirsch index of 19 and 3105 citations.

    Statistically and by objective criteria who do you think ” simply don’t understand how science really works” ? I agree I think this would suggest that the hypothesis is false.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. @ken:

    I would think at first blush that someone had made the [granite] cube if such a cube wasn’t normally found in nature.

    That is exactly the basis of detecting design in numerous scientific fields – like anthropology, forensics, and SETI.

    Then again a rainbow looks like a divine work of art until one knows the physics that created it. The same idea could be applied to snowflakes, crystals, the universe – don’t they at first blush appear to be designed instead of occurring vis a vis nature?

    It is impossible to detect the need to invoke deliberate design vs. the non-deliberate products of an apparently mindless nature without having prior experience with the material in question as it relates to various mindless forces of nature. That’s why the detecting of design is a science that requires some investigative work. The more investigation that is done, the more confident one can be in one’s design hypothesis.

    Can one ever become completely confident in one’s ID hypothesis? No. As in any real science, one can improve the predictive value of the hypothesis, but one cannot absolutely prove the hypothesis to be correct without perfect knowledge.

    For me, agnosticism is the optimal state of inquiry precisely because we can’t know the exact, empirical truth about the divine.

    My point is that you can’t know exact empirical truth about anything in the universe that exists outside of your mind. You can’t know for sure if any of your ideas about how the universe works are really true with absolute certainty. All such conclusions require a leap of faith to one degree or another. That’s the nature of science. Yet, if you saw a the type of granite cube I described above, you wouldn’t describe yourself as “agnostic” with regard to the most likely origin of the cube. You would say, as would most people, “Given the information that is currently available to me, this cube was most likely designed.”

    The same is true for evidence of God’s existence. While we cannot know with absolute certainty, we can say that, “Given the information that is currently available to me, the God hypothesis carries the greatest predictive power.”

    Take evolution for example. I don’t look at it with a faith or non faith bias. In my mind it is irrevelant to the existence or non existence of God. Have the vast majority of evolutionary biologists been duped, fooled or coerced into thinking it is correct? Unlikely but possibly. Could the theory be wrong? Possibly. Can the burgeoning discipline of Intelliegent Design punch holes in it. Maybe, and wouldn’that be nice! That remains to be seen by the majority of scientists, not that the majority is always right!

    There you go, you just said that you believe it unlikely that the majority of biologists have been duped. That means that you’re not truly agnostic in this regard. You actually favor a particular position in this discussion. So, why not just admit that?

    I know you like to think of yourself as non-biased in this discussion, but you’re really just kidding yourself. Everyone is biased to one degree or another. Even you, if you are honest with yourself, do in fact favor certain positions over others.

    As to God, it is not merely the existence but the nature of God that agnostics concern themselves with. History, faith, philosophy and science all factor into the nature equation. The nature of God appears to be a moving target. Just look at religious schisms, or the very nature of this Adventist debate to appreciate that.

    I agree. However, one has to start somewhere. If you don’t believe in the existence of a God or a God-like entity, you’re not going to concern yourself with trying to investigate the nature of God any further. So, determining that a God most likely exists in some form or another is the first step toward a relationship with God.

    Respectfully, rather than a copout, I submit agnosticism is the pinnacle of rationalism when it comes to considering all the evidence as to a temporal understanding of the divine.

    I respectfully disagree. It is fine to admit that one may always be wrong, but the avoidance of all risk of being wrong, of taking on any position because of the the potential for error, isn’t rational at all. It is anti-scientific at its core.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. @pauluc:

    Hmmm, I stand corrected. I didn’t remember that you had been so pejorative and derogatory in your false accusations as to our position and attitude toward evolutionists. Given your original comments, it seems like you were just a bit out of line with the comment guidelines of this forum – accusing us of suggesting that evolutionists work for the Devil or are otherwise inherently evil for their belief in evolutionism? – or that they have a “deep desire to deny God”? What?

    I know you want to make this to be an issue of personal morality, but it isn’t. As I’ve said before, I have nothing personal against evolutionists nor do I think that evolutionism, in an of itself, affects one’s standing before God. Some of my best personal friends are evolutionists, agnostics, or outright atheistic. Their advantage is that they do not claim to represent the SDA Church nor do they expect a paycheck from the church for promoting their views – which is a moral issue in my book.

    In any case, I do think that editing comments that falsely try to make this a moral issue is perfectly appropriate. This idea is not something we want promoted on this website. Sometimes such comments may get through, but that is not our intent. It is just that it is difficult to keep up with all comments and screen them appropriately in all cases.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. @pauluc:

    Statistically and by objective criteria who do you think ” simply don’t understand how science really works” ? I agree I think this would suggest that the hypothesis is false.

    It is indeed strange that scientists who are quite good at doing real science in various disciplines of science are apparently unaware that they aren’t doing science when it comes to their conclusions on the creative potential of RM/NS. Scientists are simply not immune from the trap of trying to pass off just-so story telling as real science – even within mainstream science journals.

    For example, in his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin says:

    Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed for in Brooks and Wiley’s theory, but only as a minor influence. “It can affect survivorship” says Brooks. “It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.”

    – Science, 1982, no. 217, pp. 1239-1240

    Consider also the following relevant thoughts:

    “To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with ‘natural selection’ are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability.”

    Cohen, I.L. (1984) Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities , New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81

    “I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken – and their number is steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel still stands – mainly, as said before, because nobody has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a tangle of contradictions – the fourth phase of ‘Crisis and Doubt’ in the historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”

    – Koestler A., “Janus: A Summing Up,” Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185.

    Of course, there are many who argue that RM/NS is not a true tautological argument; that this mechanism can be used to make real testable predictions regarding evolutionary progress and/or limitations. And, to a certain extent, I agree. However, when it comes to stories about higher levels of evolution beyond single-protein enzymes or enzymatic cascades, Mendelian-style variation, and various forms of devolution (the loss of pre-established systems of function), I fail to see any predictive power for the evolutionary mechanism that can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner. Beyond this, there are also no statistically-based models for making such predictions in literature.

    It is for this reason that I argue that arguments for the creative potential of RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity are tautological just-so stories that are not testable by real life experiments or even by relevant statistical analysis.

    So, you tell me, what is your “scientific” evidence, your scientific reasons, for believing in the creative powers of mindless evolutionary mechanisms beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Please, do explain to me the real science behind the mechanism of RM/NS. Show me the measurable predictive power of your mechanism to make predictions of success at various levels of functional complexity in a testable potentially falsifiable manner…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    P.S.

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. Dear friends

    No matter what the naysayers say I am not discouraged. I understand the agenda and the ridicule, mockery and the contempt in a way is ironically complimentary. Sorry, I won’t engage in that fashion. They really only hurt themselves in the long run. Forgive them, and me as well, because I’ve got a long way to go beside the road of love on my agnostic fence.

    Keep your minds, but especially your hearts open, and you will find grace.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Re Sean’s Quotes

    “You see, while science should indeed progress and continue to search for additional evidence and explanations, this doesn’t mean that science never helps one come to conclusions that make the most sense given the evidence that is currently in hand.

    That’s what science is all about – making conclusions as to what is most likely true based on the limited information that is currently available.”

    I agree with you on this point 100%.

    My agnosticism relates to the existence and nature of God, not to the findings of science.

    The vast majority of biologists, even Adventists!, think that evolution, to date, presents the most plausible theory for the origins of life on earth. I agree with them and not just because they say so but for other reasons such as: an undergraduate degree in biology, study of the literature, debate on this site, evaluation of intelligent design, evaluation of faith based creationism, the implausibility of that biological diversity of life stemming from the Ark, the science on the age of the earth, cosmological science regarding how the building blocks of organic life were created….etc.

    It is looking at all these factors that has led me to think evolution is the best explanation ‘to date'(emphasis added) for the origins of life on earth.

    However that does not mean the theory is correct or only partially correct i.e the mechanisms that drive it. It does not mean that you and others may someday prove a golden thread of design joins all of creation together and points to the hidden divine hand. Nothing is science is sacrosanct, even Einstein’s theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light is now being questioned. That’s the great value of science as a progressive, objective tool of human progress- it keeps looking and has no problem updating or throwing out that which does not make empirical sense.

    However to say there is no God thus no designer, or that any creative force deemed to be God be circumscribed by a particular interpretation of a particular holy text is not science. It is bias plain and simple.

    When it comes to alleged bias on my part, please look at what I have offered to do notwithstanding my opinion, ‘to date’ on evolution: help fund a chair in Intelligent Design. Does that offer a clue as to my objectivity?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. Y@Sean Pitman:

    Sean

    You are absolutely right and I am not denying that my comments were anything but uncomplementary and that you have the right to delete. Sometimes the frustrations does leak through and for that I do apologize. I try not to mimic anything like the rawness of the comments about you on Pharyngula though the level of frustration is not dissimilar. As to the mode of operation of this site and to the understanding of your supporters I make no apology.

    Who said this?

    “There are many today who passionately want to believe and show that life and the universe are self-created, because do not want the burden of moral accountability, of knowing that there is a creator God by whom they will be judged.”

    None other than David Read unquestioningly your most popular commentator but in a more moderate moment on Spectrum.

    I think if you read back through comments on this site by BobRyan, Holly, Faith, Kevin Peterson and Bill Sorenson you will also find that they view scientists that may disagree with their prejudices and literalism as morally defective.

    Unfortunately the ability to search for comments on here seems to have been removed and google does not seem to index the site so I cannot give you the time and thread.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Good luck getting the brethren at LSU to accept anyone who supports a literal 6-day creation week or who questions the macroevolutionary potential of mindless evolutionary mechanisms. – Sean Pitman”

    Hi Wes

    I’m trying my friend, really trying to get the entrenched untrenched. Difficult task.

    Dr Taylor, can you please provide some positive suggestions here? Is there not room to explore ID from a multi – disciplinary perspective without undermining the teaching of evolution at LSU?

    Hope springs eternal in the heart of the optimistic agnostic.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. @Sean Pitman:

    You seem to have it back to font when you say;

    So, you tell me, what is your “scientific” evidence, your scientific reasons, for believing in the creative powers of mindless evolutionary mechanisms beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Please, do explain to me the real science behind the mechanism of RM/NS. Show me the measurable predictive power of your mechanism to make predictions of success at various levels of functional complexity in a testable potentially falsifiable manner…

    Science works by proposing an hypothesis and testing it. What I say is irrelevant and should not in any way be the basis of your activities.

    As I have repeatedly said, formulate your hypothesis, test them experimentally and publish your results.

    You have proposed them loosely

    1] The vast genetic potential of the post-deluge animals (from a mere 4000 years ago)
    2) The finding of DNA in dinosaur fossils of age 4000 years
    3] The 1000 fsaar limit
    4] The ability to explain genomic structure and the chaotic structure of gene families by ID

    Its time you put up if you want to attain any scientific credibility. As for me you know who I am perhaps if you want to critique my molecular genetics publications you should start with our papers on chimp and human MHC and the trans species hypothesis and propose some experiments to explain that by an ID paradigm.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. @Pauluc:

    Its time you put up if you want to attain any scientific credibility. As for me you know who I am perhaps if you want to critique my molecular genetics publications you should start with our papers on chimp and human MHC and the trans species hypothesis and propose some experiments to explain that by an ID paradigm.

    I’m sorry, but you seem to be confusing topics. Remember, the particular topic under discussion here is the creative potential of the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Is this assumption based on real science? – or is it nothing more than just-so story telling devoid of any testability or useful predictive value?

    You seem to be arguing for a theory of common descent via some mechanism other than ID. That’s not quite the same thing as arguing for the scientific credibility of RM/NS producing anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity – not even close as far as I can tell.

    Why not just admit the fact that you have no idea how RM/NS works at higher levels of functional complexity? – that you simply assume it did the job because you having nothing better? – not because your conclusions for the abilities of RM/NS are actually based on real testable science that produces useful predictive value?

    Again, I agree with you that certain patterns indicate a common origin of some kind. Similarities are very easy to explain via mindless mechanisms over time. I just don’t agree with your assumption that the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely capable of producing qualitatively novel functional differences beyond very low levels – even over billions of years.

    As far as I can tell, you have yet to substantively address this particular question regarding the assumed creative potential of your proposed mechanism beyond just-so story telling. It is a common response to simply dismiss my questions as “unpublished” when one really has no clue how to answer them. This is nothing but a debating tactic used to try to divert attention from the fact that there is no good answer to the questions being asked – at least not that you are personally aware (and you’re in very good company by the way).

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. @ken:

    My agnosticism relates to the existence and nature of God, not to the findings of science.

    Yes, but your understanding of science leads you to believe that God, if He does exist, is effectively undetectable in any sort of empirical rationally-understandable manner. In other words, your view of God seems to place God in the same category as Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As Dawkins cleverly explains, if you’re agnostic about God, why not be agnostic about the tooth fairy or the celestial teapot as well?

    “It is often said, mainly by the ‘no-contests’, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal’s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”

    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    So, you see, effectively you aren’t an agnostic about God in the same sense that you are about Santa Claus or garden fairies… are you?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. Since Ken asked this question, I will be happy to respond. I suspect that the usual cast of characters on this web site will not believe me, but my understanding is that the concept of “intelligent design” (ID) is discussed at least in some LSU biology classes at the beginning of a quarter as part of discussing the differences between scientific and non-scientific approaches to a given subject matter. However, since main stream biological science and science in general does not view ID as falling within the purview of science and the subject of the course is biological science, my understanding is that it is only commented on as a current topic in popular discourse and then the class moves for the rest of the quarter talking about science.

    Thus, it would seem that the topic is already given an appropriate amount of time in a science class. Perhaps, the School of Religion or the LSU Department of History might wish jointly to consider hiring someone with academic credentials dealing with the history and philosophy of science– perhaps someone trained by Professor Ronald Numbers at the University of Wisconsin. That would be the appropriate place to talk about ID in detail. That’s also the appropriate place to talk about young life and young earth Creationism since these topics are most appropriately discussed in theological classes, not in science classes.

    While I’m at it, an idle comment: Is it just me, or does there seem to be more and more “negative” checks on the comments posted by the hyperorthodox of late on this site? Interesting.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. @Ervin Taylor:

    My understanding is that the concept of “intelligent design” (ID) is discussed at least in some LSU biology classes at the beginning of a quarter as part of discussing the differences between scientific and non-scientific approaches to a given subject matter… Mainstream biological science and science in general does not view ID as falling within the purview of science and the subject of the course is biological science…

    So, I guess that anthropology, forensic science, and SETI aren’t really scientific enterprises? – since they are based on the ability to detect deliberate design in nature? Perhaps these topics should only be discussed in religion or philosophy classes? Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency here?

    You see, this is the main issue in play and the one of the main purposes of this website: It all revolves around the notion that ID can’t be scientific by definition and therefore cannot be presented as an kind of valid scientific hypothesis in science classes within our schools except to thrash ID-proponents and explain how ID is nothing more than “pseudoscience” – that the topic of the origin of all forms of life and biological diversity must only be taught, in our science classes, from the perspective of the creative potential of mindless mechanisms of nature.

    Now, I know that this is the mantra of the majority of mainstream scientists, but upon what basis can anyone simply declare it impossible to detect the deliberate activity of an intelligent agent within the material of DNA, protein building blocks, or other features of living things? – simply because they are living things? That’s it?

    For example, upon what basis can SETI scientists detect the need to invoke the intelligent design hypothesis for various assumed artefactual features of ratio signals, but living things are, by a priori definition, the result of mindless mechanisms? How are such a priori conclusions remotely scientific?

    It seems to me that it is only because of your assumption that the mechanism of RM/NS is actually capable of doing the job that the possibility of ID could reasonably be excluded from the discussion of the origin of life and/or its vast diversity. However, given the fact that all you have are just-so stories, not science, to support the creative potential of such mindless mechanisms beyond very very low levels of functional complexity, upon what rational basis is ID excluded as a potentially valid hypothesis?

    You see, if the mechanism of RM/NS fails, then so does your claim that the ID-only hypothesis cannot be studied as a valid scientific explanation.

    It is for such reason that all of our schools need to hire science professors who actually believe that the intelligent design hypothesis isn’t just a philosophical or religious notion; that it can in fact be proposed in a scientifically rigorous, testable, potentially falsifiable manner that produces far more predictive value than mainstream evolutionists have yet generated for RM/NS (which is nothing when it comes to explaining the origin of higher-level biosystems).

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    P.S.

    While I’m at it, an idle comment: Is it just me, or does there seem to be more and more “negative” checks on the comments posted by the hyperorthodox of late on this site? Interesting. – Erv

    If you got a few more of your friends to stop by and vote you could really thrash us “hyperorthodox” Bible-thumpers good and proper! 😉

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. Re Sean’s Quotes

    “Yes, but your understanding of science leads you to believe that God, if He does exist, is effectively undetectable in any sort of empirical rationally-understandable manner.”

    That depends on one’s definition of God. But regarding the biblical iteration of God, I’d say science demonstrates such deity is a human construct without empirical validity. Query: why couldn’t God be everything, a matrix of all matter, energy, time manifesting itself in innumerable forms over infinity? That broader, albeit theistic definition, would be more in line with current science than the Hebrew/Christian definition of same. As an agnostic I consider this as a possibility, even without empirical validity.

    ~

    “In other words, your view of God seems to place God in the same category as Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

    Nope, because seemingly by their definition they don’t proclaim to be the be the alpha and omega. But I would say that my view of the biblical God would place Him in the same category as the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, the Muslim God, etc. I don’t think there is any empirical basis for any of them based on the defrocking of mythology by science.

    Now, as a man of science think what an empirical stretch it is for you to validate your view of God based on Adventist theology. On what empirical basis can you say that EGW had visions of the truth? The investigative judgment comes to mind. As a scientist, if you can take off your faith hat for just a moment, can there be any empirical basis for such a belief?

    So Sean, I put it to you non pejoratively: is your understanding of God more guided by your faith than your science and can you objectively separate the two?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Re Erv’s Quote

    “Perhaps, the School of Religion or the LSU Department of History might wish jointly to consider hiring someone with academic credentials dealing with the history and philosophy of science– ”

    Thanks for your comments Erv.

    The above would be a start in any case, rather than abject cynicism.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. Ervin Taylor: it is only commented on as a current topic in popular discourse and then the class moves for the rest of the quarter talking about science.

    Thus, it would seem that the topic is already given an appropriate amount of time in a science class.

    No die-hard atheist could have said it better Erv – well represented.

    Meanwhile your own atheist cosmologist fellow believers – have admitted to far more than you are willing to admit to – in “actual science”.

    http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#docid=-7044753105944203252

    Why not step up to the plate and at least find the objectivity to join them in that level of honest discourse? Why do you find that so difficult?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. ken: Is there not room to explore ID from a multi – disciplinary perspective without undermining the teaching of evolution at LSU?

    Richard Dawkins does offer some help along those lines. Suggesting a number of areas where science that does not fit blind-faith evolutionism might be allowed in a university as long as it is not in the science classroom.

    You are right to seek help from Erv Taylor as one who is well in line with “our agnostic friend” – and with some of our more “up front” atheist friends. You all appear to be wearing the same arm bands.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. @Ken: Re. your several recent enquires mainly about and around the Krebs Cycle directed at me and me and Sean, I haven’t been ignoring you. Sean has been doing the heavy lifting and I’ve been sitting back and listening to him, and learning a lot, and admiring, as I trust you have. He has more than met your enquiries, more directly and comprehensively, in greater depth and detail, and with fewer antics, than I can.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. So then – in the round of Sean-Ken dialogue this makes #1247 over 2 years or is it #1248?

    Ken our agnostic friend remains totally convinced that blind faith evolutionism is the only real science and refuses to even address the topic of “finding signs” that intelligent life even exists — even though theoretically he should be willing to admit that humans exist and leave evidence (artifacts) indicating that humans are not rocks.

    When one question is answered – he simply moves on to another.

    When an interesting door is open such as the “finding of some artifact” he simply flees the topic since it is leading to a conclusion he prefers not to accept.

    And in the end – after years of back and forth – he comes up with the same “non-science inter disciplinary Erv Taylor please join in” suggestion as he could have made when his time on this board was only at day 1, hour 1, minute 1 on this board.

    Fascinating reading for all!

    Instructive for all!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. Re Wes’s Quote

    “@Ken: Re. your several recent enquires mainly about and around the Krebs Cycle directed at me and me and Sean, I haven’t been ignoring you. Sean has been doing the heavy lifting and I’ve been sitting back and listening to him, and learning a lot, and admiring, as I trust you have. He has more than met your enquiries, more directly and comprehensively, in greater depth and detail, and with fewer antics, than I can.”

    A more than fair response from a fair friend.

    Thanks
    Ken, still friendly but feisty like the independent Scot in my DNA.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. Dear friends

    No matter what the naysayers say I am not discouraged. I understand the agenda and the ridicule, mockery and the contempt in a way is ironically complimentary. Sorry, I won’t engage in that fashion. They really only hurt themselves in the long run. Forgive them, and me as well, because I’ve got a long way to go beside the road of love on my agnostic fence.

    Keep your minds, but especially your hearts open, and you will find grace.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. @ken:

    That depends on one’s definition of God. But regarding the biblical iteration of God, I’d say science demonstrates such deity is a human construct without empirical validity.

    There you go. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that the Biblical God is nothing more than a human construct and that the real God, if he does exist, is no more empirically detectable than any other human construct or view of God – or garden fairies for that matter.

    Pardon me for saying so, but when it comes to a belief in the existence of a God that is rationally detectable, you seem to be much more atheistic than agnostic.

    In a lot of ways that’s a better position to be in compared to the position of “having no idea.” You have what seem to be very clearly defined ideas regarding the detectable existence of a God or God-like being. You simply don’t believe in such a being at this point in time. Yet, if you one day see evidence for such a being, that you are actually able to understand and appreciate, you seem to be open to changing your mind. That’s good!

    Query: why couldn’t God be everything, a matrix of all matter, energy, time manifesting itself in innumerable forms over infinity? That broader, albeit theistic definition, would be more in line with current science than the Hebrew/Christian definition of same. As an agnostic I consider this as a possibility, even without empirical validity.

    Something that can be anything and everything is not testable or falsifiable and is therefore not more in line with current science than is the Judeo Christian view of God – a view which is far more subject to testing with the potential of falsification.

    If God is ever to be rationally/empirically detectable by us humans, he must present himself in a way that we can recognize as requiring the existence of intelligence and power that cannot readily be distinguished by us from an entity with access to what we would term God-like powers and abilities.

    “In other words, your view of God seems to place God in the same category as Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” – Sean Pitman

    Nope, because seemingly by their definition they don’t proclaim to be the be the alpha and omega. But I would say that my view of the biblical God would place Him in the same category as the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, the Muslim God, etc. I don’t think there is any empirical basis for any of them based on the defrocking of mythology by science.

    We are talking about detectable existence here. What I hear you saying is that you recognize no empirical evidence to support the existence of any entity that you would classify as a God of any kind. In fact, you argue that you recognize no empirical support for any non-human intelligence of any kind – God-like or otherwise. So, when it comes to detectable existence, you do in fact place God in the same category as garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster – i.e., you see no positive empirical evidence for their existence even though you cannot absolutely prove their non-existence.

    I therefore ask you the same question again: Are you agnostic with respect to garden fairies, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I’m quite curious to see your response to this classic Dawkins’ retort.

    Now, as a man of science think what an empirical stretch it is for you to validate your view of God based on Adventist theology. On what empirical basis can you say that EGW had visions of the truth? The investigative judgment comes to mind. As a scientist, if you can take off your faith hat for just a moment, can there be any empirical basis for such a belief?

    It’s the same empirical basis for establishing Biblical credibility – i.e., do those elements that can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner stand up to testing? Are they consistent with apparent empirical reality? If so, the metaphysical claims of the Bible gain credibility as well. If not, they lose rational/scientific credibility or “predictive value”.

    It’s very much in line with establishing the credibility of a witness in a court case. The predictive value of the non-testable or non-verifiable claims of a witness increase or decrease based on if certain testable elements of the testimony of the witness can be shown to be true or false.

    So Sean, I put it to you non pejoratively: is your understanding of God more guided by your faith than your science and can you objectively separate the two?

    As I’ve tried to explain to you before, it is impossible for anyone, including you, to completely remove personal bias from one’s understanding or interpretation of the available empirical evidence. In fact the very process of science itself requires one to make leaps of faith beyond what can be absolutely or definitively proven. One cannot separate faith from science or give one supremacy over the other since they are intimately intertwined and dependent upon each other – as Dr. Kime has explained much more eloquently than I.

    I know you like to fancy yourself as much more objective, not so much blinded by leaps of faith, compared to those who claim to believe in God or those who claim that God doesn’t exist, but you are just fooling yourself. You are no more inherently objective about these things than are the rest of us. Your opinions are just as colored by your past history and experience and mental capabilities as mine are. For me, the best I can do is to admit that I have my own biases and at least be aware of the fact that I am biased as is everyone else.

    That’s why everyone needs to make up his or her own mind with regard to the meaning of the evidence as he/she understands it before God. This is also the reason why only God can accurately judge the heart of a person because only God knows what a particular individual really knows and understands.

    As far as I can tell though, you’re a good soul. I hope you don’t mind my questions as they are sincere and are not intended to be pejorative or personal in any way. I very much like and even envy your style and hope one day to get together. If you’re ever up in the Redding area, do look me up.

    Your friend,

    Sean

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. @Sean Pitman:

    “You seem to be arguing for a theory of common descent via some mechanism other than ID.”

    Indeed I am

    “That’s not quite the same thing as arguing for the scientific credibility of RM/NS producing anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity – not even close as far as I can tell.”

    And why would I argue for the simplistic model of random mutation and natural selection that as you do rightly appear to understand

    “…. Why not just admit the fact that you have no idea how RM/NS works at higher levels of functional complexity? – that you simply assume it did the job because you having nothing better? – not because your conclusions for the abilities of RM/NS are actually based on real testable science that produces useful predictive value?”

    On this I can do nothing but point you to the literature that does critiqued the simplistic random mutation/natural selection models that do not take account of the extensive work on variation and diversity within the many genomes now available. See for example the papers;
    Lynch The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. PNAS 2007 104:8597
    Fernandez and Lynch Non-adaptive origins of interactome complexity Nature 2011 474:502

    Non-adaptive mechanisms of evolution and population genetics rather than RM/NS are being increasingly researched as the basis of complexity. I do not have any particular position on this debate. NS is undeniable but beyond that there are almost certainly significant non-adaptive .

    I can really do nothing better than to echo the words of Jerry Fodor in his essay “Against Darwinism”.available on his web site on the deficiency of the neo-Darwinian construct as you have formulated above and which you ask me to defend.

    “If a kind of creature flourishes in a kind of situation, then there must be something about such creatures, (or about such situations, or about both) in virtue of which it does so. Well, of course there must. Even Creationists agree with that. None of this should, however, lighten the heart of anybody in Kansas; not even a little. In particular, I’ve provided not the slightest reason to doubt the central Darwinist theses of the common origin and mutability of species. Nor have I offered the slightest reason to doubt that we and chimpanzees had (relatively) recent common ancestors. Nor I do suppose that the intentions of a designer, intelligent or otherwise, are among the causally sufficient conditions that good historical narratives would appeal to in order to explain why a certain kind of creature has the phenotypic traits it does (saving, of course, cases like Granny and her zinnias.) It is, in short, one thing to wonder whether evolution happens; it’s quite another thing to wonder whether adaptation is the mechanism by which evolution happens. Well, evolution happens; the evidence that it does is overwhelming. I blush to have to say that so late in the day; but these are bitter times.”

    Unfortunately when it comes down to it your only argument is against the common view as was illustrated in your response to questions on the organization of the beta defensins in earlier posts. Your response was that this gene family organization was perfectly intelligible in terms of design but we just are not smart enough to know the design parameters. Unfortunately that is no explanatory model that could compete with a naturalistic models based on mutation, contingency/selection and stochastic processes.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. Re Sean’s Quotes

    Hello Sean

    “There you go. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that the Biblical God is nothing more than a human construct and that the real God, if he does exist, is no more empirically detectable than any other human construct or view of God – or garden fairies for that matter.

    Pardon me for saying so, but when it comes to a belief in the existence of a God that is rationally detectable, you seem to be much more atheistic than agnostic.

    In a lot of ways that’s a better position to be in compared to the position of “having no idea.” You have what seem to be very clearly defined ideas regarding the detectable existence of a God or God-like being. You simply don’t believe in such a being at this point in time. Yet, if you one day see evidence for such a being, that you are actually able to understand and appreciate, you seem to be open to changing your mind. That’s good!”

    That is totally correct my friend. That is where I am currently at but open to change if indeed I become convinced or decide to take a leap of faith towards Intelligent Design. As you know I’m intrigued by that idea and prepared to support further inquiries in that regard.

    ~

    “As I’ve tried to explain to you before, it is impossible for anyone, including you, to completely remove personal bias from one’s understanding or interpretation of the available empirical evidence. In fact the very process of science itself requires one to make leaps of faith beyond what can be absolutely or definitively proven. One cannot separate faith from science or give one supremacy over the other since they are intimately intertwined and dependent upon each other – as Dr. Kime has explained much more eloquently than I.”

    Sean, this is where I agree, but respectfully disagree as well. Let me explain further. As I stated in previous posts I think everyone has personal bias and sees things through their subjective, and sometimes subliminal personal lens (i.e. my father being a Deist- does this make me open or susceptible to ideas of Intelligent Design- quite possibly and I recognize it!) Epistomology 101 – are we all disconnected brains in jars hooked up to a computer thinking we are experiencing a reality that is but a dream? The Matrix movies-quite fascinating actually- are premised on this type of notion. So in this context I agree with you.

    But that is not the bias that I am talking about. The bias I am talking about is theism or atheism and I believe that an agnostic can be objective in that regard. I also think that scientists can do this if they can separate faith or non faith from their observations. In my opinion science is the objective barometer of reality that over time, over rules human subjectivity to the greatest degree possible. And I believe honest agnosticism is the most objective means to look through the lens of science without theistic or atheistic bias.

    Am I perfect or without personal bias? Goodness NO! Just ask my teenagers who catch me on every inconsistency or parental hypocrisy that I utter! 🙂 Can I look at the question of God, and more importantly the Nature of God, dispassionately and objectively? I think so but can only judge my view subjectively. Thus it up to unbiased others to rule on that. Oh where to find a jury of unbiased peers?

    I hope that distinction helps.

    “As far as I can tell though, you’re a good soul. I hope you don’t mind my questions as they are sincere and are not intended to be pejorative or personal in any way. I very much like and even envy your style and hope one day to get together. If you’re ever up in the Redding area, do look me up.”

    Thank you kindly. You have always treated me with the greatest of respect and I do hope I have done likewise. That fact is far more important than what you and I think about the Ultimate Reality. I have great admiration for your work and am prepared to support it in a number of ways. That is not just lip or blog service. Although this may not be the most appropriate venue (obvious to the more frequent attacks on my POV as of late!) I’d happy to correspond with you through private email. To that extent I give Shane my permission to provide same to you.

    I would love to meet with you alone, with you and Wes, with you, Wes and Erv, or any combination thereof, to discuss matters asundry. Erv, that applies to you as well. Could we all meet as gentleman, let our ideological hair done a bit and see if there is any room to advance the collective good of the Adventist faith? I’d gladly come to sunny California to do so 🙂

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. @Sean Pitman: Good morning, Sean,
    What! You wrote this at 3:46 AM PST? That’s what the time tag says! If possible, that’s more boggling than what you said in the post, which I haven’t quite digested yet, being too early, 11:51 AM, time for my noon nap. But seriously….this thread has turned golden, a tapestry of value may be developing.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. Re Wes’s Quote

    I concur.

    Moreover I see more than a thread of goodwill developing that can move matters forward in a positive manner. I look forward, if desired, to being a part of that.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply