@Emeritus: Providing only two nonstandard definitions is being unreasonably selective …

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

@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

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
@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


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
Come on now. The antigens were detected in very small amounts due to the “ultralow detection limits of the Simoa assays” that were used. Just because very small amounts of spike protein antigens end up in the plasma does not discount the “basic science” that the spike protein produced by the vaccines does in fact anchor itself, generally speaking, to the surfaces of the cells that produce it following vaccination.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Again, this paper doesn’t present an actual mechanism for harming the human immune system as already explained to you. Let me know what the authors say – if they ever respond.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
I thought you’d appreciate it – given the irony of it. After all, this is just basic science here. The authors here are not claiming something novel that has no mechanistic basis. There are many other places where you can read up on the mechanism of how the spike proteins are presented on the surfaces of the muscles cells where they are produced (Link, Link, Link, Link).


Pastor Ivor Myers and Medical Panel Discuss COVID-19 and Vaccines
The mRNA vaccine are now fully approved by the FDA (no longer under EUA). The technology itself is not “experimental” in any meaningful sense of the world since it has been around now for over 30 years with extensive use in other applications. The current use to produce a small part of the COVID-19 virus, the spike protein, to teach the human immune system how to fight the live virus better when exposed, functions in the very same way as traditional vaccines – and is highly effective as well as having very rare serious side effects. Those who cite VAERS don’t generally understand the purpose of the VEARS data system that is maintained by the CDC and the FDA. The VEARS system is not meant to establish causation, but rather to detect unusual patterns of correlation. This is a key misunderstanding for many people. As far as the human immune system is concerned, the fact is that the human immune system, while certainly amazing, isn’t perfect in this world and tends to degrade over time as we age. That is why vaccines have turned out to be such a God-given gift to humanity, having saved millions upon millions of lives. Also, historically, vaccine mandates are nothing new. Vaccines have long been required to work in various jobs, particularly as medical providers, and to attend schools around the country.

All that being said, I do agree that the current general mandates for the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 will tend to be less effective compared to other methods… with the exception of those working in places like hospitals or nursing homes. Such medical providers working with the most vulnerable should be required to be vaccinated. For most other people, medical exceptions and even religious exemptions are still recognized and honored in this country.


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)