Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Sean Pitman.
@Academic:
I see that I made a careless mistake. I can easily correct my misstatement by adding two simple words. Nature is not self-acting; every particle of the universe moves as God dictates [or permits]; and God’s sovereignty includes God’s passive consent to the purposes and actions of all created living things.
Doesn’t solve the problem of apparent randomness from the limited human perspective – as already noted. Just because things may not be random from God’s perspective does not mean that certain things don’t appear to be quite random and non-predictable from yours and mine.
If the phenomenon in question goes beyond what all known apparently non-deliberate mindless forces of nature are capable of achieving …, the ID hypothesis gains rational support and useful predictive value. – Sean Pitman
Mainstream scientists label your presupposition as being antithetical to science.
Mainstream scientists use this very same argument to detect design. How do you think forensic scientists detect design? – or anthropologists? – or even SETI scientists?
There is apparent randomness or non-predictability on both the social and natural levels. …You may argue that God is still in control, but this is not a directly testable hypothesis subject to scientific evaluation or potential falsification. – Sean Pitman
And that is precisely why ID isn’t science.
ID isn’t based on the idea that intelligent design could explain a given phenomenon, but that only intelligent design can explain a given phenomenon. The ID-only hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. If it were not, there would be no anthropology, forensics, or SETI.
In this line, there are a number of papers that demonstrate the extremely unlikely potential of RM/NS to produce higher level functional information this side of a practical eternity of time. – Sean Pitman
I believe that conclusion is obvious to any clear thinker like Kurt Gödel. “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components.†(Kurt Gödel, quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.†in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).)
Nice assertion. Care to back it up with demonstration or relevant statistical support regarding the mechanism of RM/NS?
Upon what basis do you consider Meyer’s arguments unscientific? Have you read the paper? – Sean Pitman
Yes, I have read Meyer’s paper. I have also read your disapproval of the meaning of science on a webpage that highlights an irrefutable definition of science.
What is this “irrefutable definition of science” with which I don’t approve? Why not actually present the argument?
Meyer’s arguments are unscientific precisely because grasping at straws is not a scientific process. That’s the same reason that your arguments are antithetical to science.
Did I miss a real argument here against anything Meyer presented? Again, I ask you to explain how Meyer is really confused in his understanding of sequence space and how the mechanism of RM/NS is actually likely to find novel beneficial sequences within sequence space at higher levels of functional complexity – this side of a practical eternity of time.
So far, you’ve simply presented your assertions without any backing by demonstration or statistical analysis as far as I can tell. Where have you presented any real science to back up your position?
I think you’re the one “grasping at straws”, just-so stories, and even a bit of bluster. Please do present a real argument to support your claim that RM/NS is remotely as creative a mechanism as you believe it is. I’d be most interested in any serious effort to present such evidence.
What is your background by the way? – if you don’t mind my asking? For example, do you understand the concept of sequence space and its relevance to this particular discussion? If so, I’d like to hear your take on the nature of protein sequence space and how it does or does not change with increasing functional complexity of the systems under consideration…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:
Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid? – Sean Pitman
I have. The fact that we’re back to this conversation should make clear to you (as it no doubt is to others) that we are at an impasse. You will continue to denigrate faith, and I will continue to defend it. Except that I’m finished doing so.
I don’t remember where you’ve defended your position beyond simply claiming that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Do you not claim that your faith in the credibility of the Bible is superior to someone else’s faith in the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? – based what? You say that there need be no basis in science or evidence. You say that, “faith trumps science and evidence”. So what then is your ultimate basis for assuming the superiority of your faith in the Bible vs. other competing options?
If faith does in fact trump science and evidence, upon what basis is one able to tell which faith is correct? – faith in the Bible? – or the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How does one tell the difference if faith does in fact “trump science and evidence”?
Again, this is a sincere question and I’d be most interested in a serious response to this question. So far I’ve only seen you make fun of this question. I haven’t seen where you’ve even tried to seriously address this particular question. Why not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:
Science is the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions. We cannot experiment with any of the 3 options (evolution, ID, Biblical Creationism), since nobody was around when these events took place and there is no experiment that could be devised to observe any proof. But, solid evidence is abundant, and it is all in the Bible, which we should all be exploring OUTSIDE the realm of any mystic, who will invariable mislead us.
You reference the historical fulfillment of prophecy as evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible. Yet, the study of history and the notion that certain specific events actually happened in history, is based on a form of scientific reasoning known as abductive reasoning.
This abductive scientific reasoning includes your reference to “the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions.” While scientific methodologies never absolutely prove anything, they are open to testing and the potential of falsification – as are your notions regarding the true nature of history and fulfilled prophecy. These ideas of yours could, at least in theory, be falsified by additional information which you are not currently aware.
So, in short, your idea that the Bible has superior credibility is based on certain forms of scientific arguments and empirical data. You are not appealing to internal features of the Bible alone. You are in fact comparing internal statements of the Bible with external information within the world outside of the Bible to see if they match. That’s a scientific concept… a scientific argument which is open to testing and potential falsification with the weight of evidence. In other words, if the biblical statements did not match the weight of evidence for a particular interpretation of historical reality, this would work against biblical credibility…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:
Is this choice [to believe that the Bible is more credible than other competing options] simply based on a deep feeling or desire? Or, is there some sort of empirically-based reasoning involved? – a form of science? – Sean Pitman
Personally, for me, it comes down to the shape of my toes… – Prof. Kent
Why try to make fun of my question? You yourself seem to recognize the need to appeal to at least some sort of empirical basis for belief in the Bible over other competing options – as in your appeal to certain historically fulfilled Biblical prophesies as evidence, empirically-based evidence, for the greater validity of the Bible.
Yet, when someone comes along and suggests that we need to believe the Bible, even given a situation where every bit of empirical evidence is against the validity of the Bible, you support such arguments as well. It seems to me like you’re trying to straddle the fence…
How is such a position, a position of belief or faith in the credibility of the Bible even when all empirical evidence is against it as far as one can tell, superior to those who hold that some other source of authority is superior to the Bible because they have “faith” in this other source (regardless of any empirical argument) or because they Holy Spirit, or some other spirit, has given them some kind of internal impression?
Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
