Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by Professor Kent.
Sean Pitman wrote these statements regarding two GRI staff scientists:
I disagree with Ben Clausen. The clear weight of evidence, as far as I’ve been able to tell, is strongly supportive of the SDA position on origins. The genetic, geologic, and fossil evidence all speak to a recent formation of life on this planet and to a sudden worldwide watery catastrophe that produced much of both the geologic and fossil records in very short order.
Gibson is mistaken to think that various views of history are not in any way testable in a falsifiable manner and are therefore not empirically based. There is plenty of physical empirical evidence to support the biblical model of origins which is both testable and potentially falsifiable and is therefore scientific.
Interesting but increasingly expected denigration of two GRI scientists, whom a number here, including Sean Pitman, have called to be fired for undermining the Church’s fundamental beliefs on origins. I thought I’d take a look at the “SDA position on origins” and see how falsifiable the claims really are. Here, I dissect Fundamental Belief #6, “Creation,” in entirety.
“God is Creator of all things”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“…and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity.”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
Incidentally, nothing changes if we add “literal 24-hour days”
“…and rested on the seventh day of that first week.”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“The first man and woman were made in the image of God”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“[The first man and woman were] the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it.”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
“When the world was finished it was ‘very good,’ declaring the glory of God.”
Is this falsifiable by science? NO
Is there plenty of physical empirical evidence to support this? NO
Hmmm…I’ve covered every word of this fundamental belief. If someone knows of published evidence to scientifically validate a single one of these claims, please provide a Google Scholar link to the study and, if you don’t mind, please relate the null and alternative hypotheses that were tested, the sample sizes used, and the statistical tests employed to test these hypotheses. I would be very interested to read that evidence.
But heck, we should still fire these GRI scientists. Maybe it’s the IRS, or their embellished resumes, or something else we just don’t know about. Surely they are liars and thieves! How dare they refuse to tell us what we demand to hear?!
Shall we similarly study the remainder of SDA Fundamental Beliefs?
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.
