Sean Pitman, M.D.: Forget creationists, even mainstream scientists don’t agree …

Comment on LSU forms faith in evolution by Eugene Shubert.

Sean Pitman, M.D.:
Forget creationists, even mainstream scientists don’t agree on “the” definition of science. You certainly haven’t presented a definition with which everyone agrees.

The best and most irrefutable definition of science, as well as the set of all relevant variations of the essential idea in science, obviously exists. Science is whatever the discoverers of the laws of nature, i.e., what the noteworthy scientists, say science is.

Where’s the error in letting the great consensus of accomplished investigators of nature define science?

Here is a short list of legitimate scientists according to my definition that I think you obviously disagree with:

“No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.” — Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Florentine painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, and inventor, in “Treatise on Painting.”

“Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, … But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics.” — Galileo Galilei.

“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” — Ernest Rutherford.

“The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.” — Richard P. Feynman.

Feel free to expand this list with the names of other famous scientists that you insist are in error at the level of mere definition.

Here is my next challenge for you:

If we’re willing to accept how the majority of accomplished investigators of nature have defined science, then I think we’ll find that dictionary.com has the most relevant definition and the correct order of lesser meanings:

science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.

Eugene Shubert Also Commented

LSU forms faith in evolution

Victor Marshall:
Eugene, since you are preeminently qualified in things scientific, I will also here post your self-proclaimed qualifications in another very important field: “…my credentials really are unbelievable. By faith and prophetic understanding, I suppose that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Miller’s dream… The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by me…” “I believe that I had a revelatory experience somewhat comparable to the Apostle Paul and William Miller… At the end of those 3 incredible weeks I had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out… I was supernaturally driven to study the book of Daniel and was in a constant state of being continually overwhelmed by revelation. At the end of it I was a Bible scholar that had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out.”
“I can not be accused of bias. For those who understand my notes I think it’s obvious that the conclusions I came to were given to me by God… God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism:…” – Eugene Shubert ‘The New William Miller’

That’s a very clever way to condemn my opinion. You are imputing to me the empty boasts of the Intelligent Design movement, which is big on claims but has no results. When it comes to theology, science is the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I have bookfulls of new results that agree with this science. Those are my qualifications. You should have cited those links.


LSU forms faith in evolution

BobRyan: On the contrary – Intelligent Design is a science that has not only been proven – it has been proven to the point of commercial viability. Consider the case of the “SCAN” function of your radio tuner in your car.

That’s a bad example Bob. All car radio tuners are built to focus in on signal strength, not intelligence. You are right though, such a radio could be built that could filter out loud noise but then the extremely annoying long screech that precedes public service alerts, which announce possible tornadoes, wouldn’t be heard. However, there is nothing new or special about intelligently designed filters that could detect intelligent signals for such a simple feat of engineering to be called a science all by itself.

Do you have a degree in a scientific field Bob?


LSU forms faith in evolution

JohnB:
@Eugene Shubert: “The real problem is that mainstream creationists completely misunderstand the definition of science.”
Are you sure about that Eugene? Or is this just another over-generalization?

I’m sure and the only thing I’ve ever over-generalized is the Lorentz transformation. Consider how persons in the Intelligent Design community respond to criticisms that ID isn’t science:

On 12 February 2010, the blog uncommondescent.com quoted this criticism of the ID movement in their article, Darwinian Desperation: Petition to Re-Classify “Non-Science” Books:

“Science can be defined as the process of using empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses in the effort to increase our understanding of the world around us. ID seeks to answer many of the same questions about life on Earth that science does. However, the two differ drastically in that ID invokes supernatural explanations to explain natural processes, while science explains natural processes using empirical data. As the study of ID does not involve the use of empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses, it cannot be considered a science under any circumstances.”

Here was their rebuttal:

“Someone needs to tell these guys that there simply is no widely accepted, widely agreed upon definition of what science is, so invoking a particular one to justify their animus against ID isn’t all that helpful.”

As is plainly self-evident, that response is no defense unless the majority of noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature disagree significantly on the definition of science.

Sadly, the Intelligent Design movement is in denial. There is a significant agreement on the definition of science among world-class scientists. It is absolutely shameful for informed Christians to not know this. There is nothing Christian or logical in refusing to accept An Irrefutable Definition of Science.


Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert

Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a “foxhole mentality” among their student devotees – convincing them that it is “us against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creation”.

That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
Since you have offerred no response to points raised – the point remains.in Christ,Bob  

I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”

Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?

The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

Stephen Vicaro:
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!

No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence” to the probability – we get “NIL”.

You’re speaking gibberish. “NIL” means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.

You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

Richard Sherwin:
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!

It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).

So grow up and stop practicing deceit.