Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by George.
“Are you seriously telling me that you can’t tell that this pile of sandstone rocks, the pile that forms the round ball-like structure, required the input of intelligent design? Are you really trying to tell me that you do not have enough background knowledge, scientific knowledge, to make a rational judgement as to the origin of this structure? – a structure created with otherwise natural-looking rocks?”
“You’re just not being honest at this point”
Dr. Pitman, take a deep breath and gain your composure. Please read my posts again. Did I ever comment on the sandstone rocks at all? Have I ever commented on SETI or are you conflating that withnsomething else that I said? How can I be dishonest about something I haven’t even commented on?!!! I don’t think I have ever accused you of being dishonest. You are so overcome with your zealousness that you are right and there cannot be any rational argument against intelligent design that you unfortunately have lowered yourself to an ad hominem attack. That is indeed unfortunate sir. I have tried to patiently argue that apparent to the human eye design may not be intelligent design at all. I have given you examples of that. I have patiently explained to you on many occassions that hypothetical highly polished granite cubes of which there is no evidence are in my estimation are not particularily relevant to the issue of intelligent design. I have patiently pointed out that scientists have presented evidence- disputed yes! – of a metaverse, but you conclude there is none.
Now you can call me dishonest or irrational but don’t you realize this is exactly the same type of attack people use against creationsits. So what does that accomplish to say the other side is not honest or crazy? How does that aid civilized debate?
I know you feel strongly about your position and I am prepared to treat your personal comments against my intellectual integrity as being stated in the heat of the moment. I’m quite fond of you Sean, so I don’t take any personal offence. I don’t think you alone have a franchise on intellectual honesty and rationality though 🙂
Take care, your God bless you
George Also Commented
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
“Ok George, here’s the deal. I’m not going to have a further discussion with you until you honestly and directly answer my questions regarding the origin of my highly symmetrical granite cube or the balanced rocks pictured above. Until then I just don’t see the point as I see no common ground to talk about anything else regarding origins.
Until then, I wish you all the best… and God’s speed.”
While I respect your point of view I feel like a cow being herded into the Pitman debate corral! Then again, as you are making it abundantly clear, it is your site which and you can control the debate.
I wish you and my friend Wes all the best as well. Farewell
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Oh, and by the way, lest I be accused of being a fence sitter, I do not believe the biblical God exists. I think such a deity has been invented by Man in man’s image out of fear, ignorance and culture. I believe the Bible is a much redacted text that incorporate previous cultural creation, flood stories and resurrection stories.
However, that does preclude whatsoever the possibility of God- or for lack of a better term a creative force- the nature of which we likely do not understand. The nafure of our universe however ‘may’ over some clues as to such a force.
There you go!
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
“One does not even need to know if God is good or evil before one can know that, either way, an extremely powerful God-like creative power clearly exists behind the origin of various ”
You do undrestand I am an agnostic, right? I certainly acknowledge the possibly of this, merely because of my own concious existence and what science has provided educate us about the nature of the universe and life.
I suspect, but cannot prove, or understand, that there is some force – which Man calls God(s) – behind the First Cause- the origin of matter in a dynamic state. However my human temporal understanding of First Cause- outside of this univesrse- may be quite flawed if Time started with the Big Bsng. What was there before the Big Bsng? God? A potential for the Big Bang?
And I appreciate what you are trying to do to establish ID as a scientifc discipline. I do believe that our dialectic helps to explore the parameters of that proposed discipline. But I do not understand how hypothetical polished granite cubes or SETI is particularily relevant to the Intelliegent Design of the universe. Sorry!
However I do think ‘we’ are making progress by jointly exploring the topic and it’s linkage to the biblical God through your professed credibility of the Bible. Your approach to use ID to firstly establish a creative God like force evident in the universe – but not necessarily the biblical depicted God – is quite rational in my humble opinion. That is very frightening to many Adventists because they see it as making faith the lapdog of science. Others Adventists, who have concluded that science cannot corroborate God, YLC , YEC or the resurrection of Christ – and have perhaps become theistic evolutionists- are worried that you are stripping faith of its sine qua non: to believe and not know, sometimes in contrast to peer reviewed science! But your great mentor, the esteemed Dr. Kime, sees you as a hero as you brilliantly attempt to bridge science and faith as progressive truth under the Adventist paradigm. I share his admiration for your efforts.
Moreover, you and Dr. Kime have caused me to deeply explore the empirical and philosophical basis for my agnosticism, for which I am ‘eternally’ 🙂 grateful. By understanding what you are attempting to do as a first step: to recognize a god like signature in the design of the universe independent of theodicy, I have gained a better appreciation for my own agnosticism. Is there a concious design to this universe? For me the jury is still out on that as there is great evidence of mindless design that appears to be governed by the physical laws of the universe. However, why do those laws exist? Intellligent Design? Certainly possible! Can such design be detected? That is an ongoing debate as cause and effect mechanisms of the universe contine to explain many features of the universe that previously were assigned to design, miracles or an intervening God. Philosophically I am concerned that ID not simply be the default mechanism to conclude there is design if science has not yet determined how phenomena have occured naturally under the existing laws of the universe.
Hope that helps
Recent Comments by George
The Creator of Time
In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.
I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.
The Creator of Time
“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”
And back to you
The Creator of Time
“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”
How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works
The Creator of Time
“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”
So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?
You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?
Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?
You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.
You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.
The Creator of Time
Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.
Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.
You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.
You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.
Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.