Comment on Intelligent Design – Science or Religion? by Emeritus.
@Oink: 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.
Emeritus Also Commented
Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Is Intelligent Design Science or Religion?
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.
The reason your arguments are philosophical and not scientific is that they are all too trivial. No real science is as trivial as having to decide the obvious.
Sean Pitman: 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. … 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”?
First, on the definition of science, I do hope you realize that you’re just repeating the unsophisticated logic of the Discovery Institute and according to Michael Behe, the Institute’s chosen witness to testify in the now infamous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, that to broaden the accepted definition of science to include Intelligent Design, then the definition would also be broad enough to include astrology. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Second, I must emphasize that you only invoked two definitions of science in your lecture to decide the question, “Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?”, and both of those definitions are extremely nonstandard. 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. I interpret your quote from Richard Feynman as a misrepresentation of science. If you really wanted to cite an authority like Feynman, why didn’t you reveal his very precise thinking on the definition of science?
I do not recall saying that science is unable to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various features of our universe. My view is simply that the existence of the Creator is obvious (Psalm 53:1) and that even a good dictionary definition of science reveals that you’re not characterizing science properly.
Recent Comments by Emeritus
Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney
Seven times the law of God says, “You must purge the evil from among you.” Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7. This is not a weeding out of tares from precious wheat but simply having the discernment and courage to reveal a true and unmistakable distinction between living things and toxic sludge.
Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney
I look forward to a great show of the power of law and a lawsuit against LSU.
Blasphemy of a Different Kind
God may have brought about this “accidental recording” to accomplish what the GC should have done years ago. I truly believe that He can override the circumstances here…and it is a shame on the GC that they didn’t do it when they should have.
The GC will not escape. God holds them responsible for their silence while God’s true messengers are being abused in all the lower echelons.
“The Lord will work to purify His church. I tell you in truth, the Lord is about to turn and overturn in the institutions called by His name. Just how soon this refining process will begin I cannot say, but it will not be long deferred. He whose fan is in His hand will cleanse His temple of its moral defilement. He will thoroughly purge His floor.”–Lt 4, 1895.