Interesting statement. One might consider it a classical example of …

Comment on LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department by Sean Pitman.

Interesting statement. One might consider it a classical example of projection.

How is it an example of projection? You are in fact suggesting that the answer may lie undiscovered somewhere, so it really doesn’t matter that you don’t know what it is yet. You are confident, in any case, that the answer will be found. How is this a scientific position? Science isn’t based on what might be found in the future. Science is based on what is already in hand – what is already known.

The conclusion that a particular phenomenon is most likely a true artefact of design isn’t based on what might be known in the future. It is based on what is known right now. Therefore, it isn’t I who am invoking the GoG argument – it’s you. I know it’s ironic that you, “the scientist”, feel the need to invoke the GoG argument, but you clearly are doing so.

I do not pretend to know much of the immensity of existing human knowledge much of which is documented in the scientific literature. I admit I am ignorant on many things but on the possibility of a natural law explanation for much of the physical universe I appeal only to the history of science which has for the last 300 years progressively explained the natural world by natural process and natural law without recourse to miracles. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in modern evidence based medicine of which you are of course a part. Why if you no longer explain disease in terms of humours, spirits and demons do you not admit to the same processes in other areas of biology? To me it seems blindingly obvious.

Oh, so now you’re appealing to history as your basis of support for some as yet unknown and undiscovered mindless mechanism? Because history has proven that such explanations are always eventually found for all phenomena that were once thought to be the result of deliberate design?

Again, how is this “scientific”? How is this position testable and potentially falsifiable? This position of the inevitable discovery of some as yet unknown mechanism is not scientific since it is not testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It may be verifiable, but that’s not what makes a hypothesis scientific. A scientific position cannot be based on what might be found in the future, but upon what is currently in hand right now.

In any case, I knew that you would present this argument. That is why, in my previous response to you, I explained that this argument of yours undercuts all efforts to detect design behind anything. If accepted, it effectively undercuts science itself. Again, let’s say that SETI scientists discover what they claim is a clear example of an artefactual radio signal coming from outer space. You could take your very same argument and say, “There’s no way that you can be absolutely sure of this conclusion because history has shown that all such apparent artifacts will one day be proven to be the result of some as yet unknown mindless naturalistic mechanism.”

You see the problem? You could argue the very same thing for my classic example of a highly symmetrical polished granite 1 x 1 x 1 meter polished granite cube found on Mars. In fact, given your position here, it would be impossible to present you with anything that you would accept as being a true artefact of deliberate design because you could always argue that you are ignorant of all knowledge and therefore cannot accept the artefact hypothesis for anything until you become omniscient.

Again, this is a ridiculous non-scientific position being promoted, ironically, by a man who does science for a living…

It is you not me that is appealing to supernatural explanations after you conclude, based on incomplete knowledge and data that some things that most of science for the last 150 years has considered likely of natural cause is naturally impossible and can only be explained by a celestial intelligent designer.

I never argued for the identity of the designer from a scientific perspective. What I argued for is intelligent design of a true artefact. You’re the one arguing for some as yet unknown and undiscovered mechanism which you claim must be there because of the history of detecting such mechanisms. Again, your position is the one that is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific. Your position undermines the very process of science and scientific reasoning. It is an irrational position that depends and actually invokes omniscience as the only thing that can oppose or potentially falsify your position. You want absolutely definitive proof before you’ll change your mind. That, my friend, is a philosophical faith-based position – not a true science that is based, not on absolute proof, but upon the weight of evidence that is currently in hand.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department

Im sorry Sean but your whole critique seems to be based on a specious argument on your part.

I said that Science is based on methodological naturalism which means

1] Natural law explanations and not the miraculous are the provenance of science.

Is human-level design “miraculous”? or outside of “natural law”?

Where am I arguing for the “miraculous” any more than a SETI scientist would be arguing for the miraculous when arguing that a certain type of radio signal or granite rock is a true artefact of intelligent design?

2] If you cannot couch the question in terms of an hypothesis with testable natural mechanism it is not science.

I agree. The hypothesis is that only an intelligent designer of some kind (doesn’t have to be a supernatural designer) produced the object or phenomenon in question. That’s it. This hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. All one has to do to effectively falsify this hypothesis is show a mindless natural mechanism producing something similar.

3] Science is circumscribed and limited. There are many questions outside of science and natural mechanism.

Such as? Upon what rational basis does one choose to believe someone or some book who claims to have superhuman powers or origins? This seems to me to be an empirical question that requires empirical evidence and rational arguments. This isn’t a subjective question regarding the meaning of life or if you enjoy vanilla ice cream…

4] Natural mechanism has been successful in understanding the natural world and only the natural world and is likely to be so in the future.

Is a highly symmetrical polished granite cube not within the natural world? Is it not a clear artefact of intelligent design? Is this conclusion not supported by methodological naturalism? Is this conclusion therefore somehow outside of the realm of science?

This you construe to be an argument for a God of the Gap. To sustain that argument however you have to

1] first redefine science and natural mechanism as God an extremely idiosyncratic definition of God but necessary if you are to attribute to me a invocation of God as an explanation for any gaps

Your “god” of the gaps is not a personal god, but mindless nature. You plug in this mindless god into any gap where it is not yet known how any mindless natural process could have done the job. Yet, you argue that some future discovery will explain this current gap in knowledge with a demonstration of how mindless nature actually does it. That is your version of the GoG argument.

The ID-only hypothesis, on the other hand, is not a GoG argument since it is testable and potentially falsifiable. This is not true of your position. Your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable. That is why it can be used to explain anything and everything without any fear of being proved wrong. That is why your argument explains nothing and is not a scientific position.

2] claim that I am arguing that everything that is unknown is within the domain of science or “my God”

No. That’s not my claim at all. What I said is that your argue for a mindless mechanism to explain any and all phenomena even though you don’t currently have such a mechanism in hand. You propose that some future discovery will supply this missing information. This argument of yours is equivalent to a non-testable non-falsifiable GoG argument. It is just that the “god” part of the equation that you’re appealing to here is some kind of mindless natural mechanism – i.e., Nature Herself.

This requires you to attribute to me philosophical naturalism, which you have ,dishonestly I believe, done. Completely ignoring that I have repeatedly and consistently said that natural mechanism is concerned with process in the natural world and nothing more.

What you’ve said is that there is no empirical evidence or rational argument to support the existence of a God or God-like being… that everything within the empirical world, everything, can be explained by mindless naturalistic mechanisms. That notion rationally leads most who take on this position toward philosophical naturalism. Many people simply do not consider fideism as a viable option (but perhaps these are simply too “right brained” to understand).

You have redefined the accepted definition of science to claim I am using it as a universal explanation and redefined science as all possible knowledge and now suggest to George that Intelligent design is right by default unless someone else can prove it wrong.

I never said that ID was “right by default”. The opposite is true. I would assume a mindless mechanism by default when approaching a new phenomenon. However, I would not assume this position once I discovered that the phenomenon in question clear goes well beyond what any known mindless mechanism can explain. If a phenomenon is clearly beyond any known mindless natural mechanism and is within the realm of what known intelligent agents can produce, then the most rational scientific conclusion is that the phenomenon in question is a true artefact of intelligent design.

This is exactly the same argument used by forensic scientists, anthropologists, and even SETI scientists. It would also be your argument if our highly symmetrical granite cube happened to be discovered on an alien planet like Mars.

In comparison, you’re the one claiming that mindless mechanisms of nature are “right be default” – even though you wouldn’t make this claim for a highly symmetrical polished granite cube. You’re simply being inconsistent. And, your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable (i.e., a GoG argument).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
The GoG argument is one that invokes an explanation that is not tested or testable to explain a given phenomenon. My hypothesis of intelligent design is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. All one has to do is demonstrate a non-intelligent natural mechanism to explain the phenomenon and my hypothesis is neatly falsified. This is not true of Paul’s position where he argues for some future discovery to explain the phenomenon. That position is not testable or falsifiable. It is therefore a true GoG argument…

See the difference?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
No. Mindless naturalistic mechanisms can and do explain many things – like the degenerative changes that result in disease and death over time…


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.