@Phillip Brantley: You wrote: Dr. Pitman, your analogies do not work. …

Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.

@Phillip Brantley:

You wrote:

Dr. Pitman, your analogies do not work. You ask me if I were to find an object such as an arrowhead that is clearly designed by an intelligent mind, would I believe that it was designed by an intelligent mind. That is like asking me if I were to find an object that is red, would I believe that the object is red.

How do you know that a granite rock that looks like an arrowhead, or a highly symmetrical polished cube, was obviously designed by an intelligent mind? What if such an object was found on an alien planet, like Mars, by one of our rovers? How would you determine that it was the result of deliberate design vs. the potential production by some mindless process of nature? What mechanism would you use to make this determination? – that doesn’t invoke your concept of science? I’d really like a response to this question…

You see, there is no automatic or “by definition” assumption of design for various objects like arrowheads or highly symmetrical polished granite cubes. In theory, such objects could be produced by mindless forces of nature. Though remote, the odds for such events are finite. In contrast, this in not the case for a red object being red or a circle being circular. A red object is red by definition and a circle is circular by definition. There is no testing or investigation necessary to demonstrate that a red object is in fact red or a circular object is in fact circular. In contrast, a great deal of investigation and prior knowledge of the potential and limits of both deliberate and non-deliberate forces of nature is necessary before intelligent design can be rationally invoked as being the most likely explanation for a given object or phenomenon. This is why the basic ability to detect design is dependent upon scientific methodologies with the potential for testing and falsification.

Do you not understand the difference?

The Kitzmiller loser rejects explanations 4-9 [see Brantley's list] for the origins of the arrowhead, because of his or her theological/philosophical beliefs about the nature of God and the supernatural. He or she then says, “The arrowhead looks like it was designed by a human being.” And that concludes the inquiry.

Not if the arrowhead was found on an alien planet like Mars. What I’m proposing to you is a universal method for detecting design in any part of the universe… not just on planet Earth where humans are the obvious agents with access to intelligence.

You see, if a highly symmetrical chipped piece of stone with a sharp end on one side closely resembling an arrowhead were found on Mars, or any other alien planet, that would be evidence of an intelligent origin regardless of humans were clearly not involved with its origin. The same would be true if a highly symmetrical granite cube were found on Mars by one of our rovers or if a radio signal were found coming from deep space tagged with the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci series.

In contrast, the scientist does not take a position regarding whether explanations 4-9 for the origins of the arrowhead are true. Science limits its study of the world to natural tools and mechanisms, because absent this limitation, science is indistinguishable from theology or natural philosophy. Therefore, the scientist does not endeavor to determine if explanations 4-9 best describe the origins of the arrowhead, because the existence and actions of God and other supernatural beings are not, by definition, scientific questions.

Again, you are missing the entire point. The identity of the intelligent agent does not need to be known, be that agent natural or supernatural. It doesn’t matter when it comes to the scientific determination of the need to invoke high levels of intelligence to explain the existence of a given object or phenomenon.

The fact is that science can detect the need for intelligence, even non-human intelligence, to explain the existence of various phenomena. Therefore, your argument that the basic ability to detect intelligence is beyond the realm of science is clearly mistaken. This ability is an integral part of many sciences and always has been.

You’re just upset that some people go beyond the basic ability to detect the need for intelligence and try to identify more of the identity of the designer – to the point of suggesting that certain levels of design cannot be readily distinguished from a God or God-like power by anyone from the human perspective.

The scientist may occasionally step out of his role as a scientist and express a theological/philosophical opinion, because he is a person who might be interested in the perspectives from other disciplines, but that is not the work of science.

Again, many scientists, to include modern Nobel Laureates, disagree with you in your claim that all efforts to invoke an intelligent cause for certain types of natural phenomena are, by definition, theological or philosophically based. That notion simply isn’t true.

Both the scientist and Kitzmiller loser conclude that explanation 3 is the most tenable, but the Kitzmiller loser arrives at the conclusion through theology/philosophy rather than science.

Your point #3 reads as follows:

“A natural entity such as a human being made the arrowhead through the use of natural tools and mechanisms.”

A human being isn’t just any “natural entity”. A human being who can make an arrowhead is a natural entity who just so happens to have access to a fairly high level of intelligence. There are many other mindless “natural entities” out there that cannot produce such things. The question is, can science help one to determine the limits of what mindless natural processes can do vs. what intelligent agents can do? – be those intelligent agents natural or supernatural? The obvious answer to this question is yes. Science can very clearly help one to determine when an object is a likely artifact – the product of deliberate design.

The scientist and Kitzmiller loser next see a bird. The Kitzmiller loser says, “This bird is a complex creature. Just like the arrowhead, the bird looks like it was designed. But I can’t design a bird, so it must have been created by a supernatural being.” And so he or she accepts one of the explanations 4-9 for the origins of the bird. And that concludes the inquiry.

I can’t make a snowflake either but I don’t think a snowflake is clearly the result of deliberate design vs. mindless natural processes. The difference between a living thing and a snowflake is quite clear in that a living thing cannot be produced by any known mindless process of nature while the at least human level design comes the closest to producing the informational complexity needed to approximate at least the most simple of living things. For examples, human engineering has now produced the first fully synthetic working bacterial genome. No known mindless process of nature comes remotely close.

So, the most rational conclusion is that living things had to have been the result of a designer with access to higher levels of intelligence and/or technology than I currently can access.

This conclusion caries with it far more predictive power than the popular suggestion that some mindless natural mechanism was most likely responsible… a mechanism for which there is no evidence and no illustration.

In contrast, the scientist once again takes no position regarding whether explanations 4-9 are true. Instead, he or she using natural tools and mechanisms seeks to determine how the bird originated. He studies the bird and finds that the natural evidence differs from certain theological/philosophical views. He or she might ultimately choose to defer to those theological/philosophical views. But the scientific inquiry has value and integrity, no matter where the data leads and no matter how strong and persuasive that data may be.

You’d have a point if in fact there were any reasonable evidence to suggest that the informational complexity needed to produce the most simple of living things, much less a bird, could be produced by any known mindless mechanism. If this were in fact the case, it would be much much more difficult to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain things like arrowheads or highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, Stonehenge, radio signals with mathematical tags, and the like. Why? Because some mindless natural mechanism could also have just as easily been responsible…

The reason why science can in fact detect design so easily in certain cases is because of the very clear limits of what known non-deliberate forces of nature can do in a reasonable amount of time.

Intelligent Design is a branch of theology/philosophy. It is not science, principally because it rejects the rules of science.

Not my version of intelligent design. Again, the basic concept of intelligent design is in fact an integral part of many mainstream sciences. The basic process of detecting design can be universally applied throughout the universe. This concept isn’t mere philosophy or religion… despite the fact that the results of this scientific process may in fact have religious implications for many people.

The dishonorable Intelligent Design proponent is like a person who comes to the baseball game carrying a hockey stick and puck and demanding that the game be played under different rules. The honorable Intelligent Design proponent goes to the ice rink and does not object to what happens at the baseball game.

And you’re trying to turn baseball into hockey. The basic rules invoked to detect design are not outside the ballpark of science. You’re getting confused by the politics surrounding the debate and are not focusing on the actual rules of the game – which are in fact the same basic rules of science.

It is time for transparency and consistency. Even the most cunning grifter will end the Big Con once he or she has been caught.

Caught at what? What have I said that is contrary to the rules of science? All I’ve said is that scientific methodologies are in fact well able to detect the need for intelligent design to explain certain features that exist within the universe in which we find ourselves. That is a true statement that no one can rationally deny – especially given that many mainstream sciences are actually built upon this ability.

The only real argument here, therefore, is not over if the ability to detect design is or is not within the realm of science (it clearly is), but is over the idea that intelligent design can in fact be detected by these very same scientific methodologies as being the required origin for various features of living things (vs. various proposed non-intelligent mechanisms).

So, stop being so disingenuous and concentrate on the real issue in play here…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

My Goal for La Sierra University
@Professor Kent:

Intelligent Design – framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
– Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot be created by an intelligent designer.
– Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can be created by an intelligent designer.
– Falsifying the null hypothesis: humans succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions (this would mean that God is not alone in the capacity to create).
– Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
– My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for abiogenesis (below). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified, as stated above. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth, nor would it inform us that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Genesis 1. Thus, Intelligent Design as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally am willing to accept.

It is quite clear that God is not the only one who can create functionally complex machines, to include biomachines. Humans have in fact created the first functional fully synthetic genome, from scratch, that actually works.


Daniel Gibson and his colleagues at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides, consisting of about 1.1 million base pairs. Having assembled the genome inside a yeast cell, they transplanted it into a cell from a closely related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. After the newly made cell had divided, the cells of the bacterial colony that it formed contained only proteins characteristic of M. mycoides.

The success clears the way for developing and testing new variants of existing organisms.

“With this approach we now have the ability to start with a DNA sequence and design organisms exactly like we want,” says Gibson. “We can get down to the very nucleotide level and make any changes we want to a genome.”

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3502/synthetic-genome

So you see, among known natural processes, only those with access to intelligence can come remotely close to producing the functional informational complexity that we see in every living thing. No other non-deliberate force of nature, that is currently known to science, comes remotely close (see further discussion of this particular point below).

This is the very same argument used to detect design behind highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, Stonehenge, the SETI radio signals, and the like. There is no fundamental scientific difference. It is the very same argument based on the very same logic.

Evolutionary Theory – I assume Sean refers to abiogenesis, framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth

All scientific theories are framed as possibilities since science isn’t about determining absolutes. If one could ever absolutely falsify or verify anything, science would no longer be needed at that point. Science is only useful when there is less than perfect knowledge…

– Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot arise spontaneously through natural processes.
– Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can arise spontaneously through natural processes.
– Falsifying the null hypothesis: experiments succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions.
– Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
– My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for intelligent design (above). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth. Thus, abiogenesis as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally have not been willing to accept.

You misunderstand the concept of falsification.

Consider a situation where one of our Mars rovers comes across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring 1.5 meters on each side. In the center of each of the six faces of the cube there are geometric etchings 5.0 cm in diameter carved to a depth of 0.5 cm.

The obvious scientific conclusion of intelligent design for such a situation would be overwhelming. This is true even though all non-deliberate natural processes have not been evaluated or entirely falsified as a potential cause for such an artifact.

You see, if you were able to completely falsify all potential explanations for a given artifact, you wouldn’t need science. Science is based on making conclusions given information that is always very incomplete. Science is based on taking this very limited information and making the best predictions you can make given what is currently known.

When it comes to explaining the origin of such granite cubes and the informational complexity of all living things the scientific conclusion is that no mindless force in nature that is currently known comes remotely close to doing the job while natural agents that have access to at least human level intelligence are able to actually produce such artifacts or to get much much closer to their production.

That, in a nutshell is the scientific argument for ID.

Your comments, Sean, seem to suggest that you believe that Intelligent Design is science and that abiogenesis cannot be (but perhaps I’m not understanding your comments).

Both ID and non-ID hypotheses can be presented in line with scientific methodologies. Neither hypothesis can be absolutely falsified or confirmed since the achievement of absolutes is impossible in science. Science doesn’t deal with absolutes, but only with probabilities that are always less than 100% certain.

So, the real question here is, which hypothesis carries with it the greatest predictive value given what is currently known? – not what might be known in the future?

Given what is currently known, intelligent design comes far far closer to explaining the informational complexity that is seen in living things compared to any known non-intelligent force of nature.

So, the most rational, the most scientific, conclusion, is, for today, that intelligent design is the most rational explaination for the origin of life and much of its diversity.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


My Goal for La Sierra University
@Professor Kent:

Egyptian pyramids
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: Pyramids are evenly distributed across the landscape rather clustered in the vicinity of human civilizations; no sources of the rock used to construct the pyramids can be located; pyramids do not contain human artifacts, including hieroglyphics that explain some details of the culture and the contents within the pyramids.
– My conclusion: I believe there is sufficient evidence to accept this hypothesis, and that the intelligent designers likely to be humans. I can’t reject whether God himself was the intelligent designer of at least some pyramids, because I can’t figure out how to falsify this possibility (i.e., any quest to confirm that God created the pyramids ain’t scientific).

So you can scientifically detect design after all? even if thousands of years old? Glad to see that you’ve reconsidered your original statement.

However, I must say that I fail to see how an “even distribution” of pyramids across the landscape would tend to “falsify” the ID hypothesis for their origin. I also fail to see how a failure to identify the source of stone used in their construction would tend to falsify the ID hypothesis. Also, before the meaning of hieroglyphic carvings was deciphered, it was quite clear that these hieroglyphs were deliberately carved by intelligent design (even without being able to absolutely falsify the hypothesis of non-deliberate design) and that they most likely had some kind of function/meaning. Beyond this, even without any such hieroglyphs at all, the pyramids themselves would be clearly detectable as being the result of intelligent design and construction… even if only one such pyramid existed and even if it was built without any hieroglyphs or any other evident reason for its construction. Even if such a pyramid were found all by itself on an alien planet like Mars it would still be scientifically detectable as having been the result of ID.

Remember also, this isn’t about detecting the actual identity of the designer. This is only about detecting intelligent design regardless of who the designer may or may not have been.

A highly symmetrical polished granite cube
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: minerals with perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes can be found in nature, or their formation by natural processes can be observed.
– My conclusion: A visit to any museum that exhibits presumably naturally produced minerals (i.e., those unearthed from mines) should reveal various minerals that adopt a range of perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes, and some can even be produced by mixing solutions together in a lab. Mineral surfaces often appear highly polished. I think the evidence is sufficient that a highly symmetrical polished cube could plausibly result from natural causes apart from human intelligent design.

This isn’t true for granite, which does not form such highly symmetrical geometric structures naturally as do other materials. Why else do you think I specified that the material in the cube was granite?

If you don’t think that the discovery of such a cube, on Mars for example, would cause an international sensation, even among scientists, you’re quite clueless about the natural abilities of granite.

As for your discussion on if the designer was God or not, again, that’s irrelevant to the scientific detection of intelligent design by itself.

Clearly, Sean, you disagree in that you believe such a cube can be produced only by a human. However, your logic seems flawed: just because I see a rocket and conclude it was made by humans does not mean I can conclude that God created the humans that made the rocket.

It is quite clear that such a cube can only be produced, ultimately, by intelligent design – human or otherwise. Your arguments about God being the designer are, yet again, irrelevant to the scientific detection of design for such artifacts.

SETI’s detection of complex, highly patterned radio waves
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: radio waves similar to those intercepted by SETI’s receivers can be generated naturally.
– My conclusion: SETI hasn’t detected anything, so why are you making a big deal about this?

You can’t go “fishing” unless you know ahead of time how to recognize when you’ve actually caught a fish.

The basis of SETI is important in this regard because there would be no point in even looking at radio signals if it was theoretically impossible to scientifically detect intelligent design behind certain patterns or other features of radio signals.

It is for the very reason that the detection of certain features in radio signals would be so clearly artefactual, the result of intelligent design, that SETI is a real science – regardless of if it is ever successful or not. The potential for success is there because of the basic science of ID – a science which you still don’t seem to really understand.

You keep confusing the search for ID with the search for God. They aren’t the same thing. The search for ID is distinctly different from the search for God. It is for this reason why the basic science behind ID does in fact follow true scientific methodologies.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


My Goal for La Sierra University
@Phillip Brantley:

David, the “wedge strategy” has relevance in the current discussion because it establishes that even the founders of Intelligent Design understood that Intelligent Design does not constitute science but is instead a religious and philosophical idea. Indeed, the origins of the Intelligent Design movement demonstrate that this movement is a continuation of the “creation science” movement under a different label.

No one is arguing that there aren’t philosophical or even religious motivations for some who hold to various forms of intelligent design theories. Such beliefs and motivations are irrelevant, however, when it comes to the basic science of intelligent design.

As already noted, intelligent design theories can be and are based, all the time, on real scientific methodologies that are employed by many mainstream scientists in many mainstream scientific disciplines – like anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.

For Phil (and Jeff Kent) to simply dismiss all forms of intelligent design theories just because of the motivations of some shows his lack of understanding regarding basic scientific methodologies. He doesn’t seem to understand the very definition of science. He argues that I’m the one changing the rules of the game when he joined the game without seeming to understand the rules to begin with.

Perhaps it is for this reason that he seems unwilling to answer very simple questions on science and how scientists are able to detect design behind various relatively simple artifacts. He simply refuses to substantively address such questions because he simply doesn’t know the mainstream scientific basis behind the detection of intelligent design.

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.