@Phillip Brantley: So, the language of the Court’s decision is …

Comment on Strumming the Attached Strings by Sean Pitman.

@Phillip Brantley:

So, the language of the Court’s decision is so mysterious that one has to be a lawyer to understand it? and even then, as in the case of David Read, the language may still be too mysterious? For example, what did the Court mean when it made the following statement?

“The program’s validity turns on two questions: 1) Does each of the recipient schools offer a broad curriculum and secular subjects? 2) Do the school’s secular classes consist of information and coursework that is neutral with respect to religion?

This test insures that the state’s interest in promoting the intellectual improvement of its residents is advanced through the teaching of secular information and coursework, and that the expression of a religious viewpoint in otherwise secular classes will provide a benefit to religion that is merely incidental to the bond programs primary purpose of promoting secular education.”

Are you saying that the Court didn’t mean what it seemed to say here? I mean, I think I’ve read the majority of your comments on various websites regarding this matter, to include your comments regarding the response of LSU, and all I’ve found is your basic argument that there’s no problem because (and I paraphrase):

“There’s no such thing as ‘creation science’. All attempts to argue along these lines amount to nothing more than ‘pseudoscience’. The SDA position on origins is a faith-based religious position that is supported only by the documentary method of biblical interpretation – not any form of significant empirical evidence or true ‘science’. This conclusion has been affirmed by the vast majority of theologians and scientists and even in a court of law [as in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case that you often cite as evidence to support your position]. Therefore, if the SDA position is presented as the faith-based religious perspective that it really is, there is no conflict with the language of the bond agreement.”

Doesn’t that about sum up your position Phil? In other words, if LSU were to attempt to present the SDA perspective on origins as, not just a faith-based position, but as something scientifically superior to the neo-Darwinian position, having the greater support of empirical evidence, that effort would indeed violate what seems to me to be very clear language within the bond agreement… or am I still too simplistic in my understanding of the language in the Court’s decision to really appreciate this distinction and/or the arguments you’ve been making along these lines?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley:

I’m sorry Phil, but Dr. Kime isn’t the only one who understood you as arguing that “boilerplate language” does in fact lessen the legal weight of the language when it comes to trial. If that is not what you were saying, please do clarify your position for us.

Also, I’ve read the California Supreme Court decision. The language used, boilerplate or not, seems quite clear. It clearly says that the bonded buildings cannot be used to promote sectarian views in a preferential manner.

By your own admission, the SDA perspective on origins is defined, by the State, as “sectarian” or otherwise “religious”. It would seem reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the language of the Supreme Court would not allow for the preferential promotion of the SDA perspective on origins in any bonded building… right?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley:

The major basis for opposition to what LSU has been doing is that LSU has been actively undermining the Adventist position on origins for a very long time – telling students that the Adventist position is rationally and scientifically untenable; that the neo-Darwinian position is actually true, and the Adventist position false, based on “overwhelming” empirical evidence. That’s the problem.

You have no problem with this because, as you’ve made very clear, you believe the creationist position to be based on nothing but “pseudoscience” and empirically-blind faith. You actually declare that the Adventist position on origins is no more than a faith-based doctrine which does not belong in any real university science curriculum, much less the primary basis of the curriculum.

That’s where we have a problem… and that is why you do not address such questions when I pose them to you.

You know that the Court’s decision would not allow the Adventist position to be presented, in any bonded building, as any kind of valid scientific counter to the neo-Darwinian position on origins. As David Read said over on the Spectrum blog:

We want creation science to be taught as science, in a scientifically rigorous manner, not merely as faith. (Link)

Of course, such a “fundamentalist” effort would be in clear violation of the language of the bond agreement – as you well know. The language in this regard is quite clear. It is not at all clouded in mystery so that us non-lawyer types can’t understand it – contrary to your rather condescending suggestion that us simpletons best not even try to read the document for ourselves… that we’d better just trust you lawyers to explain it to us. Please…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

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.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

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.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

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.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com