@pauluc: You wrote: For SETI the hypothesis is that if there …

Comment on The God of the Gaps by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

You wrote:

For SETI the hypothesis is that if there is life and intelligence in space then there will be a signature in some output from that source which is similar to those humans as intelligent material beings produce. Seeing a signature of intelligence in this context is fine but do you then assume that any signal is from a supernatural source as you seem to want to do for origins?

I basically agree with this statement – aside from the fact that I would not “assume that any [artifactual/designed] signal is from a supernatural source.” That projection simply isn’t true.

I would also like to re-emphasize that the argument for SETI is two-fold. First, for intelligently designed radio signals to be detected they must be well beyond what known mindless processes produce and they must be within the realm of what at least human-level intelligence can produce. Both elements of the argument are necessary for the scientific detection of ID in certain features of radio signals. In any case, at least you’ve admitted that SETI is based on the scientific ability to detect the need for intelligent design – i.e., that SETI is a form of ID science.

Beyond this, let me say again that the argument here isn’t for a supernatural origin for the intelligence needed to produce the signal. The argument is simply that intelligence from some intelligent source of some kind would obviously be needed to explain certain types of radio signals – especially those containing something like the first 50 terms of the ever popular Fibonacci series (to quote Seth Shostak). Of course, as the level of intelligence required to explain various phenomena increases, eventually it gets to a point where the required intelligence and creative power is so great that we, from our very limited perspective, could not tell the difference between the required intelligence and that of a God or God-like being. The fact may be that the level of intelligence may actually be quite “natural”, even for someone powerful enough and intelligent enough to produce our entire anthropic universe, but there simply would be no way to tell for sure. In fact, the whole concept of “natural” vs. “supernatural” intelligence is a relative concept… relative to the perspective of the observer (you should actually watch the video of my lecture on this topic).

It seems clear to me that virtually all the practicing scientists who would accept the anthropic principle and Fred Hoyles original ideas of “intelligent design” for the universe do not accept a God of the gaps or YEC.

I never said that the scientists I quoted supported young-earth creationism (I’m not even a young-earth creationist. I’m a young-life creationist) or even the need for a God to explain the origin of life on this planet. What I said is that they had come to the conclusion that very high levels of intelligent design were in fact required to explain certain features of the empirical universe in which we live. In fact, for certain features of our universe, there are many scientists who have come to the conclusion that a God, or at least an intelligence not readily distinguishable from a God or God-like being, was most likely responsible. They claim that this conclusion was forced on them by scientific methodologies – not religious faith. And, as already explained, the ID-only hypothesis, while being a form of the God of the Gaps argument (as all scientific hypotheses really are), is a valid scientific theory because it is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. In comparision, this is unlike the a priori assumptions of methodological naturalists who completely exclude the possibility of any kind of deliberate design, on any level (natural or supernatural intelligence), as being responsible for any feature of living things or even the ultimate origin of living things… before even getting started with scientific investigations. Such original conclusions, before science methodologies are even begun, is not science, but philosophy or a form of empirically-blind religious faith.

It is irrelevant to my main point that these scientists still accept Darwinian evolution for the diversity of life on this planet – of course they do. This fact is well known by anyone at all familiar with this topic. The point is that your basic argument that intelligent design theories are never scientific and cannot be universally applied is mistaken. Your only real beef is over the detection of the “Supernatural”. And, on that point, I agree. The need to invoke the creative powers of a God cannot be proven by science. I agree. The infinite cannot be demonstrated or proven by the finite. However, the need to invoke creative intelligence on various levels, to include very very high levels of intelligence, can be demonstrated by science. This point is really not arguable.

The only real question that remains, then, is if there is a valid naturalistic explanation for living things and their diversity or not? If there is, then intelligent design theory is effectively falsified for all aspects of living things. If not, then intelligent design theories, on at least the naturalistic level of design, can be presented as perfectly valid scientific conclusions…

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


The God of the Gaps
@pauluc:

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.