Comment on The God of the Gaps by Sean Pitman.
@BobRyan:
1. I suppose you meant to say “IF evolution actually existed, were actually real – then it would be careful not to violate 2LOT in the way that Isaac Asmov claims it does”.
No. Regardless of if Darwinian evolution is real or not, it wouldn’t violate the 2LoT at all. Period. Again, there is plenty of thermodynamic potential to drive evolutionary progress. That isn’t the problem with the ToE.
Your argument appears to be more hypothetical than “observed in nature” – since it is unclear how much physics “bending” would be needed to make something that does not actually exist in nature – “work”.
No physics bending is needed. The reason why evolution doesn’t “work” beyond very low levels of functional complexity has nothing at all to do with the 2LoT. That is why you should never argue that this is the reaon.
2. By way of context – I am the one that on this board has been insisting that every chemical reaction – whether in living systems or non-living systems demonstrates the 2LOT without “an appeal to the sun” if you take into account the reaction and its immediate surroundings. I show that in the case of water melting and water freezing to demonstrate the point.
Again, there is plenty of thermodynamic energy available to drive genetic mutations. And yes, this energy is ultimately derived from the Sun. You simply don’t graps the concepts in play here and you are making yourself look needlessly foolish.
My reason for demonstrating the case with Asimov is to make the point that evolutionists are arguing their case against known science. Which is to say that “they are the ones” claiming that their story telling requires a “vast decrease in entropy” over a span of billions of years of time – at the level of all of planet earth.
There certainly have been some evolutionists who have claimed this, but they are also mistaken. There is no decrease in thermodynamic entropy between a young man and an old man (given that they are essentially the same weight and composition of proteins and fats, etc). Yet, there has been a significant change in informational entropy. There is also no significant difference in thermodynamic entropy between a single celled organism and a single celled zygote in the human body. However, there is a big difference in meaningful information. See the difference?
Just because someone else makes a bad argument doesn’t mean that you should repeat it – even if the argument came from the opposing side. It only reflects on you.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
The God of the Gaps
@Ervin Taylor:
Indeed… something we actually agree on. 😉
The God of the Gaps
Pauluc:
You wrote:
Thanks for responding although I do think you mischaracterization my position. I do believe I have articulated it sufficiently already on this site. To justify it again is unnecessarily tedious.
I may be rather dense here, but as far as I can tell the only thing you’ve been clear on is your notion that whatever mechanism produced life and its diversity on this planet, it wasn’t intelligent. After all, it was you who wrote:
Darwinian mechanisms may or may not be sufficient but natural mechanisms are most likely.
If by “natural mechanisms” you mean mindless natural mechanisms, then how is this statement remotely scientific? It’s a sincere question on my part. I fail to see how you’ve presented any testable argument regarding your proposed mechanism for either the origin or diversity of life beyond very low levels of functional complexity? How is the hypothesis of a mindless mechanism, without any input from any intelligent source of any kind, testable? How is it scientific?
I have never pretended my religious views are hypothesis driven. They are my merely my honest attempt to understand the infinite and are clearly amenable to change just as my science is open to growth and revision.
Great! Again, I’m happy if a faith that is independent of empirical evidence works for you. It just doesn’t work for me is all. I know you think that’s a horrible thing, but that’s just the way I am. For me, a useful faith is something that is based on testable evidence that can potentially be proved wrong – exactly the same as any valid scientific theory.
I do not pretend that I am expert on all areas and disregard established expertise but I accept in good faith. My scientific expertise can be established from my published peer reviewed work.
I’m sure you’re quite good at what you do. That doesn’t mean your being scientific when it comes to your notions as to the mechanism that likely produced life and/or its diversity on this planet. Please, present something testable to support your assertions in this regard. Otherwise, I fail to see how your position for the powers of mindless natural mechanisms can rationally be called “scientific”? How does your hypothetical mindless mechanism produce more predictive power than a natural mechanism that has the backing of an intelligent mind of some kind?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
In contrast to my acceptance of complementary roles of science and religion and faith you have a view that denigrates blind faith as a path to understanding of the transcendent and claim you must only accept in religion what is supported by the predominance of scientific evidence.
I’m glad empirically-blind faith works for you. It just doesn’t work for me. I go where I see the weight of evidence leading. I put very little stock in emotion-driven faith or some deep impression in the soul or a “burning in the bosom” when it comes to the truth of Jesus, being born of a virgin, his miraculous life, death, and resurrection – and other such miraculous claims about the true nature of empirical reality. Where is the empirical evidence to back up such fantastic claims?
Sorry. I have a weakness for the rational…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
