@Sean Pitman: Sean Pitman: Hmmmmm, “A remarkable structure that evidenced the …

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Pauluc.

@Sean Pitman:

Sean Pitman: Hmmmmm, “A remarkable structure that evidenced the skill of a tool making species of some sort” – on Mars?By what rational argument would you come to that conclusion?How do you know that such an artifact was not produced by some mindless natural mechanism? – such as wind, precipitation, or unusual weathering?

Indeed, but upon what basis would you classify such a pattern in granite as requiring deliberate design?Upon what is your interpretation based?

You yourself just proposed the need to invoke intelligent design to explain the origin of a granite cube – even if found on an alien planet without any additional evidence or associated artifacts.Upon what basis?What is your rational scientific argument and can it be generally applied to other artifacts and other materials besides granite?That’s the only question in play here.I don’t want a magical answer.I want a rational scientific argument from you for why you’d come to this ID conclusion for a granite cube on an alien planet.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

I came to no ID conclusion. That is your interpretation. I did what any human would do whether a tool using tribes-person in Africa or a 21st century scientifically educated person. I would recognize that this object did not conform to the characteristics of raw objects seen in the natural world but did conform to some of the characteristics of human artefact. I would classify it as a product of human or human like devising.

If I saw a hole in the ground with a silky thread lining and I would immediately think that this was not a raw object of the physical world but was one that a living organism such as a spider would produce. It is an artifact of a spider. Do I think that it is some product of “intelligent design”. Unfortunately no I would think it simply a product of a living organism that changes its environment. Just so your cube.

It has nothing to do with scientific understanding it is simply pattern recognition and classification of objects as manipulated or raw.

If I was superstitious and conformed to the model of understanding seen in positing a God of the unknown I would think it may be of divine origin but few in the 21st century who have the accumulated literature of science and the accumulated experience recorded therein would do so since experience tells us that there is natural explanation for most novel objects generated by living organisms that manipulate their environment in a multitude of ways.

I’m afraid I cannot help but consider your ID hypothesis an argument based on incredulity, a refined god of the gaps argument that sees unexplained physical objects as magical or divine.

In you work as a pathologist how do you know a cell is malignant? In a word, pattern recognition and its attendant classification. And how do you know something is novel? Some form of hierarchical classification going from the known classifications that you recognize to the unknown that you do not and classifying it by cell lineage and features you do recognize as indicating a particular pathological process.

Pauluc Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: Remember, science (and rational thought in general) isn’t based on what might be known in the future, but upon what little is known right now.

You are absolutely right. But how do you know what is known right now?

Science as a process has defined a repository of scientific knowledge that is open scrutable and freely accessible. The peer reviewed literature.

Otherwise we are in the position that I can claim that I modelling myself after your paradigm of Da Vinci have a personal repository of knowledge that informs me and shows that you are totally wrong but I do not wish to let you know what that data is.

On the other hand I might accept as you seem to do that science is simply the knowledge that is in the world as a result of logical thought by individuals. Nowdays that would be any information on the internet which resulted from someone asking a question to address an hypothesis.

You and I know that most of what is on the internet is simply common wisdom and prejudice even if apparently following scientific processes of gaining knowledge.

Before you can make any statement of what little is known you must establish what your criteria for knowledge “science” is.

Science as accepted by most scientists has done so, you have not and the result is you have some woolly notion that “science” can be the basis of religion and faith.

You have not distinguished between the EG White use of science in its classical sense as simply knowledge whether coming from experience faith or revelation and Science as a modern enterprise based on a method including hypothesis generation experiment and communication of that information by the accepted method of peer reviewed publication.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean

Now that you seem to have rejected and frustrated my perfectly rational use of your defined method of science

“.. presenting a hypothesis that is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. That’s science my friend”

to validate astrology with my falsifiable hypothesis about predictions of travel I really am not sure we can ever agree on definitions and practice of science.

Like Leonard seems to have done I will take my leave and wish you the best for your personal activity and faith journey. I will continue to pray for you and seek that God frustrates your intentions toward LSU like he used the curse of Balaam against Gods people.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Bruno:
unfortunately I would be less certain than you seem to be.

On one hand he is board certified and trained in an orthodox medical institution and in the army where I would expect he was properly indoctrinated into evidence based medicine which is the medical equivalent of the methodological naturalism of science.

But from what he has expressed on this site I would be somewhat wary of his iconoclastic stance and clear antagonism to any expertise. This could mean that he was unable to work within a team or accept that anyone else could be right or have views or any value. In medicine we usually consider such a maverick a “cowboy” and I for certain would be reluctant to use a “cowboy” within my team team. I would have to be guided by those who had experience and seek recommendation from those with medical knowledge.

Essentially I would seek peer review just as I do in science.

I would also be some reservations about the impact of fundamentalist thinking on delivery of medical care. Would he perform an abortion or would he treat a patient with AIDS acquired through MSM? My impression is that he does compartmentalize his professional activity and his fundamentalist religious views but his militant actions against LSU does give me pause and raises concern.


Recent Comments by Pauluc

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.