@Emeritus: Dr. Pitman’s arguments are trivial. Real science is nontrivial. …

Comment on Intelligent Design – Science or Religion? by Sean Pitman.

@Emeritus:

Dr. Pitman’s arguments are trivial. Real science is nontrivial. Therefore, Dr. Pitman’s lecture really wasn’t about science. Dr. Pitman might have discovered that his lecture actually misrepresented science if he had presented a thorough review of the meaning of science.

Please do present the “real” definition of science and its meaning for us so that I can move beyond my own trivial understanding of it.

After all, as far as I’m aware, the basis of science is in fact very simple and intuitive. As one of my university professors put it, “Science is a very basic BS detector.”

While the implications of scientific methodologies may be quite important and non-trivial, there’s really nothing fancy about science itself – about the basic scientific method and forms of scientific reasoning. It seems to me that even children use a form of scientific reasoning during the process of learning new and useful information about the world in which they find themselves.

So, for you to suggest that the very basis of science is this mystical complex enterprise is just a bit surprising to me – given that you are actually an emeritus professor in some field of science yourself as your moniker suggests.

I would therefore be very interested in your own non-trivial definition of science and what it “means” – contrary to what I presented in my lecture. Specifically, please do explain to me how science is in fact unable to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various features of our universe in which we live?… how this is all just “philosophy”?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
@Emeritus:

Providing only two nonstandard definitions is being unreasonably selective and that makes me wonder why you are ignoring the definition of science as understood by all the notable discoverers of the laws of nature.

Now it all comes clear. You’re Eugene Shubert – the one who thinks that HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS (Link). The one who talks directly with God, has prophetic understanding, and is the fulfilment of William Miller’s dream.

On your website you wrote:

By faith and prophetic understanding, I believe that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Miller’s dream… The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by me. ( Link )

I’m sorry, but you’re hardly in line with mainstream science, philosophy… or even the religious views of the Adventist Church.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
@Emeritus:

As a Seventh-day Adventist believer first and as a physics teacher second, I interpret Dr. Pitman’s presentation to mean that Intelligent Design belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

I’m not sure how anyone who actually watched my presentation could come to this conclusion? I’m not sure how I could have been any more clear in suggesting that the human ability to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various features of our universe can be done in a very scientific manner?… as is the case for anthropology, forensics, and even SETI?

The same arguments used to support the hypothesis for design in these mainstream sciences can also be used to support the design argument for living machines as well.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
If the DNA of a person does not get altered by the mRNA vaccines, then, by definition, these vaccines are not “gene therapy”. This is what was noted by Bayer itself in their response to the comments of Oelrich:

The Bayer group tells 20 Minutes that this is “an obvious slip.” “At Bayer, [les vaccins à] mRNA does not come under gene therapy in the sense that is commonly attributed to this expression,” adds the company. (Link)


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Come on now. The “viral genetic information” that is being used is limited to the production of the spike protein. That’s it. The mRNA sequence itself does not alter the DNA of a person – their actual genetic code. This vaccine is therefore NOT “gene therapy”. That claim is just nonsense in any meaningful sense of the term. And Stefan Oelrich never intended to suggest otherwise. He was only talking about future applications of the mRNA technology. He never claimed that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 function as gene-altering devices.

Bayer has responded noting that Stefan Oelrich was only talking about future applications of mRNA technology – not that the current mRNA vaccines alter the genetics of a person – which clearly doesn’t happen. The suggestion has been made that he misspoke regarding terms that he used, but that he never intended to suggest that the current mRNA-based vaccines modify the DNA of a person.

In any case, if you think otherwise, by all means, do share the mechanism by which this is likely to happen to any significant degree…


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
That would be concerning if it actually occurred, to any significant degree, in white blood cells – like T-cells and B-cells. However, contrary to the suggestion of the authors, this just isn’t the case and there is no reasonable mechanism whereby this might be the case.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
I’m not sure what’s going on in Qatar, but COVID-19 reinfection rates are not that uncommon here in the States – and there have been a fair number of deaths following reinfection. Again, several friends of mine have been reinfected and symptomatic. A cousin of mine was reinfected three times.

State health officials say nearly 11,000 people in North Carolina have been reinfected with COVID-19, dispelling a common belief that you can’t get the virus a second time. The Department of Health and Human Services said of the 10,812 reinfection cases, 94 people have died. It is also reporting that of those vaccinated, there have been just 200 reinfection cases. (Link)

While the rates are certainly much lower compared to those who have had no exposure to COVID-19 antigens (via infection or via vaccine), at around 1%, it still seems as though the vaccines offer at least comparable immunity without the risks associated with an actual COVID-19 infection. It’s not that I do appreciate the protective advantages of natural immunity. I’m very hopeful that natural immunity will substantially contribute to eventual herd immunity around the world. However, given the option, getting the vaccine is much better than taking a chance with a COVID-19 infection.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
That’s true. So, the question is if these limitations are substantial enough to reasonably overcome the conclusions of the authors. The fact remains that your own personal experience doesn’t seem to be the same as those published in papers like this one where there are actual reinfections for those who have previously had COVID-19. Several friends of mine have been reinfected and a cousin of mine has been reinfected three times…