Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.
Sean, do you see any inconsistencies between your above juxtaposed statements. On one hand you are telling me it is apparent and evident what is intelligently designed and what is not from photographs. On the other hand you are saying we need to use science? Without explanation those pyrite chystals look like a Picasso retrospective to me? What say the artist Kime?
The origin of the highly symmetrical granite cube and the balanced rocks in the photographs above is “apparent and evident”, even to you, only because both you and I already have experience with sandstone and granite rocks. That past experience, and a form of scientific reasoning, is what makes these formations extremely obvious artifacts of deliberate design. If you’re an honest man, you must admit that the artifactual nature of these rock formations is extremely obvious. Even your scientific experts, whom you put so much faith in, would agree with me here.
Let’s look at one of these pictures again:
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? This isn’t a pyrite crystal there the elemental building blocks that can self-assemble into such structures. This is extremely clear – even to you. This is a structure comprised of natural sandstone rocks for goodness sake. And, you can’t tell if such a structure is or is not the product of intelligent design? Really? If course you can tell. You’re just not being honest at this point.
At least Dr. Paul Cameron (Pauluc) was eventually honest enough to admit this much – that these artifacts are quite obviously true artifacts of “creative intelligence” regardless of where they might be found in the universe. In fact, he used the phrase, “blindingly obvious” to describe their artifactual nature. You, on the other hand, are not being honest when you say that you can’t tell, when clearly you can.
The fact is that you and I both know, without any reasonable doubt, that such structures do in fact require the input of deliberate intelligence and creative design to explain – regardless of where they might be found in the universe. You know as well as I do that there is no reasonable basis to argue that such structures could be formed by any mindless natural mechanism – even given trillions of years of time anywhere in the universe. Why then are you acting like the origin of such a phenomenon is such a confusing mystery? given what you do in fact already know about the materials of both sandstone and granite? It’s not like you’ve never seen sandstone or granite rocks before. You have plenty of background knowledge with these materials to make an informed decision here, and you know it. You do in fact know that there is no real mystery here. You know that quite well – as would any reasonable person with a candid mind. As already noted, even your mainstream scientists, your expert authorities, would agree with me on this one – that these rock formations are “blindingly obvious” artifacts of intelligent design regardless of where they might be found in the universe. You just don’t want to admit it… for obvious reasons. You seem to see where taking this path would lead you…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Logic and our God-given reasoning abilities are what help us make sense of pictures like these and the world around us in general. And, that is why detecting the Divine Signature isn’t based on mere intestinal “gestalt” or indigestion after eating too many burritos at Taco Bell…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
I’m not sure why you feel the need to repetitively inform me, over and over again, with these very same pejorative observations of yours? You keep “leaving for good” and then coming back again and again with nothing new. I’m just not interested anymore. If you want to be interesting beyond your intestinal “gestalt” feelings of faith or truth, present some actually evidence, a rational argument of some kind, that goes beyond your personal subjective fideistic feelings and arguments from authority for why I, or anyone else for that matter, should listen to much less favor your perspective above the church’s perspective or even my own personal perspective. Now that would be interesting for a change…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Of which I am fairly well informed, having read the available scientific literature extensively, and with a great deal of effort to honestly consider and understand it, over the past 20 years or so. I dare say I’ve read a bit more about the science and debates surrounding the topic of origins than you have – from authors arguing from both sides of the issue. In fact, I read far more from the mainstream evolutionary literature than I do from the ID or creationist literature. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right in my thinking. However, it does mean that at least I’m very well informed on the topic. In other words, I’ll know when you’re just blowing smoke. However, if you see some specific error in anything I’ve said on this topic, beyond your various forms of “gestalt” sensations or bald appeals to arguments from authority, by all means present a real argument. I will honestly consider it to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I’m just not interested in talking about your subjective fideistic “feelings of truth” on science or religion any further…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…