Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Sean Pitman.

The logic for my analysis?

1] A polished granite cube is observed

2] by whom is it observed. To progress beyond observation there will need to be an observer who is able to compare against some comparitors. This assumes within the observer a brain and some memory of other objects with which to compare. An insect may well recognize this as different but is unlikely to have categories beyond expected and different. A full ontological analysis depends on an organism with a brain and intellect that has considerably more capacity for categorization and comparison. Such a brain would then ask;

2] is this naturally occuring?

In our (Homo sapiens) experience such an object cannot be made by natural physical forces acting on stone.
It could be a crystal but crystals are homogeneous in composition and this is a complex crystalline rock that is always naturally derived from volcanic activity and is amorphous in shape.
In our experience such an object is made by a living thing that can alter their environment
a] because it has a flat polished surface and
b] because the geometric shape is in a complex structured rock.

Very good. I’m with you so far.

3] Since living things actively modify their environment. This is likely to be an artefact of a living organisms

We know that many living organisms make nests hives tracks tunnels and webs and manifest behaviours that look intelligent such as hunting and social or community interactions. We know that birds construct quite elaborite nests and displays. There is a gradation of the ability to use tools and to have adaptive behaviour. We have to ask which of the characteristics that we know of living creatures are responsible in this instance. Among all the things we have classified what fits?

Right… (we’ll discuss the origin of complete behaviors and abilities in living things later).

4] What sort of organism?

It is a geometric shape that although it does occur naturally such as cubic zirconium or pyrite this is a cube constructed using a compound rock not found in nature in this form so the agent must have either copied a natural cubic form or possibly have had an abstraction or conception of a cube.

It has a polished surface which means there must have been some mechanisms to work a rock with hardness greater than 7.

Excellent!

5] What are the living creatures that understand geometry and have the tools to construct this object.

All that we know of with these characteristics are humans.

Yes, but we are on an alien planet where no humans are known to have visited before…

6] We conclude that the only living creatures with the tools to accomplish this are humans.

If we then postulate that this is on Mars. We then have to introduce some mechanism of how we observe it on Mars. We the observers must have the technology to get there and conclude that the constructor is equivalent in technology.

At least equivalent…

All of this process is simply comparing the object against the categories of objects we know and the living organisms and their artefacts. That may be logic and categorization but it is not science.

Yes, it is science just as anthropology is science because one’s choice of categorization is testable and potentially falsifiable. It’s called taxonomy (general) – “the practice and science (study) of classification of things or concepts, as well as the principles that underlie such a classification” (Link). To argue that taxonomy, in any of its forms, is not a valid science is certainly not mainstream…

And, as already pointed out to you, the hypothesis of a true artefact is in fact falsified all the time in anthropology and forensics. There are many published examples of this. You could be wrong about your granite cube hypothesis. There could be some as yet unknown “raw” natural mechanism that produces such cubes on certain alien planets. You don’t know for sure. You’re just hypothesizing based on limited information and making a prediction, the truth of which is not absolutely knowable. That’s science – the science of classification and prediction.

It does not involve the process of science formally defined as both method and repository of knowledge. You of course can say that science will use observation, construction of hypothesis, testing experimentally but it does not become science until it is a formal testing of a specific hypothesis by experiment and reporting that experimental data.

Testing is done all the time or else there could be no falsification of the hypothesis of design. Again, such falsifications do and have often occurred in forensics and anthropology. That is why these are in fact valid sciences and why the conclusion of intelligent design, as you’ve just explained, is backed up by scientifically valid arguments… arguments which have been tested, have established predictive value, and are open to the potential for future falsification upon further testing and examination.

My formulations assumes those of conventional science.

1] Science is methodological naturalism
2] There is a methodological naturalistic explanation for change in living organisms and the development of species; variation and natural selection

You’d be right if no creative limits to your naturalistic mechanism were ever discovered. You’d be wrong if such limits were discovered. That is why the a priori assumption that such limits cannot even be considered is not a valid scientific position.

3] There is a supernatural realm which we ascertain by faith and which cannot be ascertained by any method using methodological naturalism.

This position is not externally distinguishable from wishful thinking…

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

In contrast your logic appears to be

1] observe a polished granite cube.
2] several steps or categorization probably not unlike what I have described.
3] conclude that the cube is man made or at least derived from a human like population
4] conclude it is an example of intelligent design since
a] it has evidence of design something that cannot arise by known natural means.
b] it has evidence of manipulation design that required some intelligence.
5] objects that are not constructed by physical forces are evidence of this process of intelligent design.
6] all objects showing evidence of design must therefor be derived from an intelligent designer

Good so far… and seemingly identical to your position.

7] all living things are different to objects constructed by simple physical forces (water ice and sun and physical chemistry)
8] QED all living things from the complex cell with its biomolecular structures and biomachines cannot be explained by sun water ice and physical chemistry therefore they must be the product of intelligent design
8] There must be an intelligent designer and that is the Judeo-Christian God.

No. Given the empirical evidence of a living thing, all by itself, one could not rationally conclude that the Judeo-Chrsitan God was responsible. What one could rationally conclude, given knowledge as to the low-level limits of the Darwinian mechanism (RM/NS), that a very high-level intelligence was involved that cannot readily be distinguished from what one would expect from a God or God-like intelligence of some kind.

Your formulation seems to assume certain things.

1] Science should not rely on methodological naturalism but allow for miracles as causation in generating hypothesis.

No. Science should allow for the discovery of true intelligently designed artefacts – even if these artefacts happen to be found within living things or the fundamental structure of the universe.

2] The writing of science (peer reviewed literature) are biased and skewed and little or no value

No. I use the peer reviewed literature all the time in my job as a pathologist. I also have no problem at all with the observations of mainstream scientists. I don’t think scientists are, by in large, deliberately deceptive or skewing their reporting of their observations. These reported observations can, in general, be trusted with a high degree of confidence. What cannot often be trusted are the conclusions of scientists with regard to what their observations mean – i.e., their actual hypotheses which are often not testable or potentially falsifiable (not scientific; not anything more than just-so story telling).

3] There is no adequate methodological naturalistic explanation for change in living organisms and the development of species. They are the product of divine intervention.

There is in fact no known mindless natural mechanism that can explain the functional complexity of living things beyond the level of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (or codons of DNA). So, the very high degree of functional complexity that does in fact exist beyond this level within every living thing strongly suggests that an intelligent agent was involved with the production of these features. Was this intelligent agent “Divine”? That cannot be said from the study of these artefacts alone. However, the intelligence involved was certainly most magnificent indeed – not unlike something I’d expect from a Divine Designer…

4] There is a supernatural realm which is the explanation of most of what we see around us.

Yes, but this understanding is not derived from the study of living things alone…

5] we can understand the supernatural by the processes of “True science” which is an empiricism based on construction of hypothesis and testing them personally and anecdotally.

Valid science can be done on a personal level – true. And, our understanding of God can certainly be influence by studying the “works of His hands” – as the Bible itself points out again and again in both the Old and New Testaments.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman