“Yes, we are – as is the case with my …

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

“Yes, we are – as is the case with my question about a highly symmetrical polished granite cube found on an alien planet. What is the non-human origin of the cube? Is it clearly intelligent and deliberate or not?” – Sean Pitman

Well pahd, let me give it another kick at the cat. I don’t know and this is why. Are there any forces of nature that could have caused such an object to appear the way it did?

Ever see a perfectly rounded pebble made smooth by the actions of the sea? If an alien landed on earth and didn’t understand the actions of the ocean upon rocks, the alien might wrongly assume such a highly symmetrical object was of intelligent and deliberate design? This would especially be the case it on its planet if such aliens manufactured smooth symmetrical rocks. Thus if the alien’s frame of reference was only its own and it tried to superimpose such understanding upon a force of nature the alien would conclude wrong.

The problem with ID is that it superimposes human understanding of design upon hypothetical aliens or supernatural entitie(s) that may have totally different design criteria. Can Man really judge the hypothetical design of the universe by a god based on human standards of design. I sure wouldn’t have designed the universe the way I see it, but then again I’m not a god. If random probability produced our universe as one of many, with a set of laws that allowed for the anthropic principle to prevail, such design may not be fathomable….yet.

george Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

“Again, true science and true faith must walk hand-in-hand. They do not rationally exist independent of one another.”

Well pahdner, this is where you have already trapped yourself. Because you strike me as a righteous chap- likely steeped in the tea of conservative Adventism from a young age I would reckon? And I know there is a brilliant mind percolatin’ in that cranium. But if the switch of true faith has been turned on you are going to bend the hand of science to make it fit your understandin’ of faith. Son, that’s not the way Science works. It’s oblivious to any religious, or for that matter non religious bias. It looks at the cold hard facts and isn’t afraid to change Its mind. Son, I don’t reckon you are goin’ to change your creationist mind set no matter what the objective weight of the evidence says. As for this ole cowpoke, I don’t know the truth but I’m always interested in veing instructed by Science as what isn’t. And I try to be respective of my religious friends because their faith is a purty special thing. What I can never seem to understand is why they think their brand is superior to another brand. They have to I guess or else the psychological self constructed walls of belief come tumblim done and fear of mortality or insignificance comes pourin’ in. But it is at that precise moment when a human grows up, in my humble estimation.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

“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.”

That’s a frank admission pahdner and I respect ya for it. But it is still a theological extrapolation. A God of the Gaps explanation. An alternative of course is to admit what we don’t know at the present time but to look for cause and effect mechanisms to explain as much as we can. That’s what Science does, and some mysteries such as the existence of the ultimate Creator it is not going to resolve.

Say for example in Jesus’s time they saw a feller talikn’ on a cell phone, or flyin’ a plane. Well a lot of those fellers would have likely concluded that chap was a deity. Seems to me your analogy to the low limits of the Darwinian mechanism amount to much the same thing: you don’t, at the present time, understand how that works, so you ascribe it to ID. Once upon a time we didn’t understand how life through natural selection adapts to many diverse, hostile environments. Now even the most ardent of creationists doesn’t deny microevolution. Because we understand how it works.

But pahdner, I just don’t see ya givin’ any scientific alternative to the origins of life on earth whatsoever and I see you puttin’ on your faith hat from time to time and talikin about the mind and heart of God. And pard, I’m fine with thst, you say some mighty wise and pleasin’ things about the Prime Feller. It’s just not scientific that’s all.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
“Keep searching. God is found by those who honestly want to find the truth – pahdner.”

I surely will son; but in my own fashion I think I already have: in the grace of the mystery of the unknown. You see oblvion doesn’t scare me but surrender to dogma does. In the end a man, or woman for matter, better have faith in himself and keep his eyes wide open about reality. Science is the sharp toothpick to keep those eyelids open, while dogma is the drug to make one snooze. Ya’ all stay wake now, pahd. πŸ™‚

Recent Comments by george

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though πŸ™‚
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. πŸ™‚