It’s been enjoyable having you. I wish you all the

Comment on The Creator of Time by Sean Pitman.

It’s been enjoyable having you. I wish you all the best. Someday, if I’m right, everything will be made clear and you will see your Maker face-to-face. Of course, if I’m wrong, neither one of us will be the wiser…

By the way, I am not a “young Earth creationist” or “YEC”, but something a bit different – a young life creationist (YLC). Of course, from your perspective it makes little difference. 😉

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Creator of Time
Again, if you personally don’t know why I’m wrong, or why someone like James Tour, a renown synthetic chemist, is wrong, why are you arguing with me here? You personally don’t know why I’m wrong, but you’re sure someone else does? – by faith? That’s the best you have? How many times have I heard that one before? Come on now. Your position, as with certain religious fundamentalists, is based entirely on your blind faith in the correctness of the claims of others, not a personal understanding of the issues in play.

Now, this faith of yours is great for you, but completely unhelpful for me or anyone else who wishes to have a personal understanding based on a reasonable explanation (like James Tour for instance) – an explanation that goes beyond a had wave and an appeal to some authority figure(s) who have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation themselves and make Nobel Prize winners and synthetic chemists afraid to admit as much in public forum much less publish anything counter to the prevailing dogma of the day (Link). This is especially true for someone, like me, who has studied this topic in great detail for many years and who is in fact able to explain the clear limits of the evolutionary mechanism and precisely why, statistically, these limits exist at the lowest levels of functional complexity (Link).

I’m sorry, but your faith in the claims of scientists and your arguments from authority have no explanatory value and are therefore entirely unhelpful to me. As Carl Sagan once wrote: “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’ … Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.” (Link).

Why not at least try to figure it out for yourself? – see if you can understand it in a way that allows you to explain it to others who at least have a background in and basic understanding of biology and genetics?

“You see I get the design argument…”

How is that? How do you “get” the design argument when it comes to the origin or diversity of living things? – or even non-living things? You’re not even able to admit a clear difference between the origin of snowflakes and highly symmetrical granite cubes. You actually believe that the evolutionary mechanism is viable and that the arguments for abiogenesis are at least plausible and that the fine tuned features of the universe are at least theoretically explainable via the multiverse concept. Why? Because of some personal understanding of the topics? No. Because of your blind faith in the claims of popular scientists – that’s it. Otherwise, you evidently have no real understanding as to what you’re talking about when it comes to the creative potential and/or limitations of the evolutionary mechanism – or any other possible mindless naturalistic mechanism to explain the origin of life or of the universe itself. You also claim that it’s absolutely “impossible” to produce the modern biodiversity of land animals in just a few thousand years, starting from what could fit on an Ark, but you evidently have absolutely no personal understanding as to why (even though I’ve given you some pretty good hints as to why it is possible).

“but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion.”

Perhaps that’s because you don’t understand how science works? Consider, for example, that the existence of gravity was detectable before anyone had any idea as to how gravity actually works. You see, knowing how something exists isn’t required for you to know that it exists. This means, of course, that if, theoretically, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, or prophets or miracles in general, of any kind, where to actually exist in the empirical world, then science, or any rational person for that matter, would in fact be able to detect such things if and when something were to happen outside of what mindless natural mechanisms could themselves explain (after a detailed investigation of course). It is only when mindless naturalistic mechanisms can reasonably explain a particular phenomenon that the “miraculous” would not be clearly recognizable to the rational person behind that particular phenomenon. If, for instance, one has no more evidence for their god than for the “celestial teapot” or the “spaghetti monster”, then there’s no good reason to believe in that god.

In short, then, as previously pointed out, science is not limited in its ability to detect the existence of the miraculous, if it ever theoretically occurred, but only in its ability to explain the miraculous…

I ask you, again, if you personally saw someone raised from the dead, whom you knew for sure was dead and rotting in the grave, you still wouldn’t believe what you saw with your own eyes? Of course you would believe it and so would everyone else, even scientists – despite an inability to explain how it happened. You see, its just not reasonable to claim that scientists or otherwise rational people are unable to even detect the miraculous – even if it were to theoretically occur (even if they were to see it with their own eyes and touch and examine it with their own hands). You’re clearly mistaken here…

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.

The Creator of Time
A “Rational Wiki” quote? – about proof and disproof? 😉

First off, science isn’t about absolute proof, but the weight of evidence. Nothing can be absolutely proved in science – only disproved. The power of science is in the ability for the hypothesis in question to resist disproof, thereby gaining predictive value. This means, of course, that a valid scientific hypothesis must be testable in a potentially falsifiable manner.

Now, as far as the particular claim that ID hypotheses are not and cannot be falsifiable (and by extension any notion or hypothesis of God-like activity isn’t falsifiable either), it’s clearly not true or modern sciences that actually detect ID wouldn’t be possible – like forensics, anthropology, and SETI. As previously noted for you, the ID-only hypothesis can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner – quite easily. All you have to do to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is show how something else could more reasonably explain the phenomenon in question – and the ID-only hypothesis is neatly falsified.

For example, if you can find a mindless naturalistic mechanism that can reasonably explain the origin of a highly symmetrical granite cube, you would neatly falsify the hypothesis that only ID can explain the origin of the cube. Short of this, however, the ID-only hypothesis gains a great deal of predictive value based on the strong weight of evidence that is currently in hand. That is why it is possible to tell the difference between the most likely origin of such a granite cube vs. a snowflake or the like.

The same is true for the God-only hypothesis. As I’ve explained for you multiple times now, there are various levels of phenomena that require various levels of intelligence to explain. As higher and higher level phenomena require higher and higher levels of intelligence and creative power to explain, one eventually comes to a point where the level of required intelligence and creative power is so high that it cannot be readily distinguished from what one would normally attribute to a God or God-like being. It is for this reason that if you yourself saw someone you knew was dead and decaying in the grave, raised to life at the word of someone claiming to be God, even you would tend to believe this claim – and rightly so. That means, of course, that the detection of God-like creative power is rationally detectable, at least in theory, given the presentation of such evidence.

Philosophical naturalism, on the other hand, is not at all testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It is not even theoretically possible to falsify a theory that is dependent upon evidence that you have yourself proposed will show up at some undetermined time in the future. It is therefore not a science or otherwise rational, but is on the same level as wishful thinking – just not helpful.

_______

As an aside, I have to also point out that the claims for the creative potential of the evolutionary mechanism presented on this particular “Rational Wiki” webpage are not backed up by demonstration or reasonable statistical analysis or workable genetic theories – at least not beyond very low levels of functional complexity. They’re nothing but just-so stories. I mean, why hasn’t James Tour been convinced by this stuff? Because, there’s simply no science here… as you would know if you did your own independent research into the potential and limits of the evolutionary mechanism. Their claims regarding “flagellar evolution” are a case in point when it comes to glossing over the details and not understanding the exponentially growing problem of finding novel beneficial sequences in the vastness of sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity: Link

The Creator of Time
Again, I fail to see where you’ve explained the creative potential of the evolutionary mechanism? – or admitted that humans are able to rationally detect intelligent design and the miraculous when it occurs? What about my simple question about the origin of highly symmetrical granite cubes? – as compared to snowflakes? Still avoiding a direct response to this simple question? Why?

But anyway, on to the standard obligatory philosophical arguments, which I’ve heard countless times now, that evolutionists, like yourself, predictably forward when questioned as to the actual “science” behind their claims:

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.

Beyond the fact that there is no such thing as absolute “proof” in science, only predictive power based on the weight of evidence, where is the double standard in giving credence to numerous eye-witness accounts from those who put their very lives on the line? suffering torture and death for what they said they saw with their own eyes? something these simple naturally-timid men clearly weren’t lying about regarding the resurrection of Jesus in particular, but sincerely believed to be true? and, moreover, backed up by numerous amazing independently-verifiable historically-fulfilled prophecies?

In comparison, you believe in a fantastically miraculous story of historical events for which there is no eyewitness account… nor is there any viable natural mechanism whatsoever to make your story remotely likely. Yet, you, for some very strange reason, pick this brutal fairy tale, “red in tooth and claw”, to believe? Why? Because it’s the popular myth of the day? with scientists who also have absolutely no idea how their own proposed mechanism could possibly do the job? You base your faith on the claims of others without any additional evidence that you yourself can understand? and you claim that I’m the one who has nothing but blind faith to go on?

Again, explain to me how the Darwinian mechanism actually works like you believe it does. Can you explain it or not? If you can, I’ll certainly recant my own position. You won’t even have to bother explaining abiogenesis to me…

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.

Why not get a bit more specific here? Explain to me why, precisely, you believe that the modern biodiversity of animal life could not have started with a set of animals that would have fit on the Ark? I mean, it’s very easy to make such claims. It’s another thing entirely to explain why you actually believe such claims…

As a relevant aside, you do realize that most modern breeds of dogs, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane, were produced in the last 200 years or so? Most modern dog breeds are the products of the controlled breeding practices of the Victorian era (1830-1900). How is that possible? See: Link. See also: Link

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.

Again, you keep saying this like it is self-evident. Where has science ever demonstrated any natural “cause and effect mechanism” for any functionally complex system requiring multiple parts working together in precise ways, at the same time, beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity? – that doesn’t require the input of design?

I’m sorry, but in this universe of ours, that just doesn’t happen. That is precisely why science is in fact able to tell the difference between things that do and that do not require the input of intelligent design to explain. Your position, on the other hand, would make such a distinction impossible…

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.

First off, how is a granite cube “irreducibly complex”? You see, irreducible functional complexity, beyond very low levels, is only one of many things that cannot be explained by mindless natural mechanisms. And, if one can actually admit this, which you have yet to clearly do, it is only rational to see which way the turtles are actually going. The turtles didn’t create themselves and they aren’t traveling in the direction of continued self improvement. Rather, the turtles were clearly created from above and, without outside help, they will naturally continue to travel in a downhill direction. They will continue to degenerate over time toward eventual genetic meltdown and extinction. It’s a form of informational entropy that cannot be avoided by natural mechanisms for slowly reproducing creatures – which is just one of the reasons why complex life on this planet cannot be millions of years old. The detrimental mutation rate is simply far far too high for complex life forms to exist that long – much less evolve toward higher and higher levels of complexity as Darwinian evolutionists would have you believe. That notion is simply not consistent with the known facts of how this universe works.

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.

No. I dismiss these efforts because they go against what is already known as far as the limits of natural mechanisms are concerned. It’s like scientists searching and searching for a natural mechanism to explain the origin of the driftwood horses pictured above – or a highly symmetrical granite cube. Such an effort is pointless nonsense because the limitations of natural mechanisms are already known here.

Beyond this, science isn’t based on what might be discovered in the future. Science is based on what is currently known right now. And, based on what is currently known, the Darwinian mechanism is simply untenable as a creative force of nature. It just doesn’t work and cannot work beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity. And, the stories behind abiogenesis are even more unreasonable – by far! That is as close to a definitive fact as is possible to achieve in science. It is for this reason that some of the best biochemists in the world, like James Tour, don’t understand how the evolutionary mechanism could possibly do what evolutionists claim it did. Now, if you think you know better, by all means, present your evidence. I assure you, you’ll be the very first one to do so.

Until then, continuing to cling to the potential that some future discovery might change this reality is based on nothing more than personal philosophy or a form of naturalistic religion – not science.

And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty 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, 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.

Look, I don’t care if you want to start with basic arguments for intelligent design. Clearly, that’s where I’m trying to start with you after all. That’s where all atheists and agnostics like you must start. That’s the first steppingstone toward discovering the reality of God. But, so far, you haven’t even taken the very first step. You actually believe that the Darwinian mechanism can explain all of the diversity of life on this planet! You actually believe that living things can spontaneously generate from non-living things! Hey, until you can move from this current position of yours, of course you’re going to think that the claims of the Bible are nonsense! I would too if I believed like you believe. If I thought that the Darwinian mechanism was a viable mechanism, I’d leave the church and religion in general behind – just like you.

Have at it then! Cross examine away! I’ve been cross examined a few times in court and I’ve always enjoyed it. I’m sure that this time will be no different. 😉

Your problem here, of course, is that you simply don’t understand the actual science in play. You’re a lawyer who doesn’t seem to understand how genetics or genetic mutations work. It seems to me as though you haven’t yet educated yourself on how random mutations and natural selection actually work or the fact that there are limitations to the functional informational complexity that can be generated with this mechanism.

Now, if you honestly believe that someone knows better than I do as to what is going on here, present this information to me. Host a debate or do some cross examination of your own! But, don’t keep spouting off that you are so sure that I’m wrong and that you’re right when you haven’t even started to investigate the topic or evidence in question for yourself – when all you have is faith in the claims of others.

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.

Look george, I’ve been honestly and very carefully looking into this topic now for over 25 years. I have absolutely no desire to trick myself or to believe a lie. I’d rather know the actual truth even if it isn’t attractive to me. And, so far, at this point, I honestly see no “rational contradiction” in my current understanding of origins. And, I see no true humility in blindly accepting the just-so stories of popular scientists regarding origins – especially after having studied the topic in significant detail for myself. After all, even Galileo was accused of not be “humble” for not accepting the position of the “experts” in his day… as though he had no right to have an independent opinion based on his own personal study and understanding.

The fact of the matter is, I once thought there might be something to the Darwinian story of origins and I decided to find out for myself if it could work. I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. And, the more I studied the potential and limits of the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection, the more and more clear it became to me that there is a specific limit beyond which this particular mechanism simply cannot go. Statistically, this mechanism is limited to the very lowest levels of functional complexity this side of a practical eternity of time. It just doesn’t do and rationally cannot do what you evolutionists claim it did. And, I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion. Is James Tour, a top synthetic biochemist, not being humble when it comes to his own conclusion that the Darwinian mechanism seems quite untenable as a creative force?

Beyond this, genetic mutations are mostly a detrimental force of nature. Detrimental mutations, which far outnumber beneficial mutations, build up over time in gene pools and cause slowly reproducing creatures to inherit more and more of these detrimental mutations over time. In other words, evolutionary mechanisms that do exist in nature, naturally tend to go downhill over time – not uphill. Evolutionists have it exactly backward.

After I realized this, that the mechanism for evolution was simply untenable, this was my starting point to realize that there was in fact a way to detect intelligent design in living things – which isn’t a very far step at all from concluding that this intelligent designer is most likely God or, at the very least, God-like.

That was my starting point.

Now, until you can actually present some real empirical evidence as to why I might be wrong, what do you really have to go on? Where is your argument outside of the very common and oft repeated statement that most scientists disagree with me? So what? Can you personally explain why I’m wrong? – or why someone like James Tour is wrong? If not, how are you being at all helpful or informative here?

I suggest that you take on a bit more skepticism yourself when it comes to the basis of your faith in the “experts” of the day and actually look into the underlying basis for the popular claims of popular scientists that you seem to accept at face value – without much personal investigation on your own part. Sit down and actually do the math for once. Calculate, for yourself, the odds of random mutations and function-based selection creating anything new beyond the very lowest levels of functional complexity. I think you will be greatly surprised at what you discover…