Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
Sorry I may well be obtuse but I would have thought that it is magical thinking to discard the perfectly naturalistic explanation of purposeful goal directed change in biological systems based on random changes and selection for fit to an environmental condition for a belief in such changes as reflecting the acts of an invisible intelligent designer.
Aren’t SETI scientists looking for the works of an invisible intelligent designer? If they find the radio signals that they’re looking for, will they not conclude the existence of an intelligent designer behind their formation even though the designer remains invisible to them? – detectable only by the works of his/her/its hands?
Why then would you accept, a priori an explanation which invokes some as yet unknown mindless natural mechanism to explain complex biomachines within living things? – even if you were to concede that Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS is incapable of explaining such high levels of functional complexity this side of a practical eternity of time? How is this notion of yours remotely scientific or rational? – especially in the light of your claims that such things would otherwise be classified as “blindingly obvious artefacts”? What is your position based on besides magic and hopeful appeals to future discoveries?
Similarly many would think that using miracles as an explanator of everyday natural events is using magical thought.
Who is invoking miracles of any kind, or even intelligent design of any kind, to explain everyday natural events?
Am I mistaken in thinking that you want to discard methodological naturalism which looks for natural causation for a science that includes study of miracles with supernatural causation?
You are mistaken to suggest that supernatural miracles are required to explain artefactual features within living things. The features under discussion here (granite cubes, radio signals, flagellar motors) do not require a Godlike level of intelligence to explain. They do, however, require intelligence to explain.
Why are you so worried that some may extrapolate beyond what can be scientifically supported to conclude that God was the likely designer of these machines? – that God can create things that humans could also create? Why do you care so much if some people may form religious conclusions based on the design inference? Regardless of if you do or do not find religious significance in the detection of design behind true artefacts of nature, the fact that they remain true artefacts of intelligent design, by scientific determination, should not be affected.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).
In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.
For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?
As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.
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.
