The evidence in support of the metaphysical claims of the …

Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by Professor Kent.

The evidence in support of the metaphysical claims of the Bible come in the form of those physical claims of the Bible that can actually be subjected to tests with the potential of falsification. If those claims of the Bible that can be tested are shown to be false, the credibility of those claims of the Bible that cannot be tested declines accordingly

You have three obvious problems to contend with.

1. Proving falsifiable claim A of the Bible (e.g., Jesus was a real person) does not prove, no matter how much you wish to believe, unfalsifiable claim B (examples: Jesus was born of a virgin; Jesus created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago; Jesus never sinned; Jesus was resurrected). Do you not see the logical flaw here?

2. Your obvious challenge is to devise an experiment to falsify the most remarkable claims of creationism, such as the examples of claim B above. You refuse to concede that those claims cannot be falsified and therefore there is no scientific evidence for them. You can’t bring yourself to be honest and tell readers one simple truth: many SDA fundamental beliefs cannot be supported by physical evidence, i.e. science. You know the truth, but you don’t dare breath it. Yet you attack others who know the truth and state it honestly, like certain GRI scientists.

3. Your next problem is that if you allow some evidence to support the Bible and then conclude the remainder of the Bible is valid, the same holds true for evolutionism. If some evidence supports evolutionism, then the remainder of evolutionism is true. Somehow I don’t think you’re comfortable with the latter, so I suggest you rethink the former. Do you not see the logical flaw here?

Professor Kent Also Commented

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
So, good doc, if I said you were “bold” and “bald,” would I be correct on one point, both, or none? Just curious. And what think ye of me? You can ask!

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Doc, I do understand the distinction between the two words. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen accusations of “bald” and “bold” assertions in the same context, and this is why I’m both bemused and confused by the diction. I’d suspect a typo, except that the fingers used for the letters “a” and “o” are on different hands. Maybe it’s an unconscious word choice error.

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Sean Pitman wrote

It is one thing to make bald assertions like this.

I may be the only one, but I find the diction with this oft-repeated phrase rather confusing. Perhaps this is because I’m follicularly challenged. Roughly half the time I read about “bald” assertions here, and the other half it’s “bold” assertions. Is there a difference between a “bald” assertion and a “bold” assertion? Someone please help me understand.

Recent Comments by Professor Kent

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.

Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.

Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.

Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.

I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.

While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.

He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.

What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?

As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.

I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.

Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.

Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.

SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.

I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.

Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:

o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago

None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.

Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:

[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]

The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]

Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!

I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.

Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.