Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU by Jorge.
Sean and George
Gentlemen, I don’t know which of you or if either of you is right or wrong but am enjoying your respectful debate. I too struggle with the concept of a caring creator. However, notwithstanding our biology, humanity under many religious umbrelllas and secular humanism, presses forward. Is this in itself evidence of a spiritual dimension in Man, or rather altruism than can be explained away as part of our sociobiological makeup?
Be well my friends and continue your respectful, courteous dialogue.
Jorge Also Commented
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Dear Dr. Pitman
Are you being entirely fair with our friend George? Don’t we rely on Newton and Einstein for their expertise? We can’t all be experts in these complicated fields can we? I see no problem with experts debating experts but I don’t think we can start substituting laypeoples authority for that of experts or else their would be little purpose for higher education. We may as well start telling kindergarden children their opinions are better thsn their teachers!
Certainly we all must come to our own conclusions about reality but to suggest we can work everything out for ourselves would likely take trillions of years. 🙂
Jorge the naive
“What are the odds that any single character mutational change (like to ajdf jai elamdi pwnz) will be meaningful much less beneficial?”
Even though I am not a scientist and do not have an advanced understanding of mathematics wouldn’t the odds here be 50/50? If an added single character mutational change, no matter how long the string preceding it, has the chance of being either beneficial or non beneficial is that not like a coin toss each time?
Science is knowledge which use can be put to good or evil. It is morally neutral but helps Man rise out of superstition and ignorance.
The capacity and choice for Love lies in each human heart irrespective of religious belief or non belief. Man, to trancend doctrinal tribalism, needs to eschew entrenched positions and practice humanism. Dr. Pitman understand this but sees more hope in promoting and supporting his YLC position over mindless Nature or hybrid concepts such as theistic evolution. Whether I disagee or agree with him is not at all important in my mind.
Your arguments are very interesting and I enjoy your posts. If all is cosmic accident why is there even a possibility of same if there is no hidden design?
Recent Comments by Jorge
“Of course, the determination of the identity and/or motives of a designer requires additional information. This is where the Bible comes into play… and the evidence it reveals for its Divine origin and the credibility of its claims regarding the origin of the universe, life on this planet, suffering and death on this planet, and God’s plan and motive for the creation and re-creation of this world.” – Sean Pitman
But not just the Bible, but all creation stories from all cultures that attempt to make sense out of existence, correct? Of course, which one, if any, can be shown empirically to be correct? This is where a certain degree of faith and acculturation plays a road as ID is a modern form of Deism.
Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
“You miss the point entirely…”
Perhaps you do as well. The point is that the modern world does reliesm on its scientists for expertise in their ‘specific’ areas. It does mean that an educated mind cannot appreciate that expertise or such expertise cannot be rendered understandable, at a certain level, for the layperson. Otherwise how could such expertise ever be debated in a public forum such as a court of law.
You consider this a blind faith appeal to authority, where the individual has no opinion of his own. But an educated, discriminating, person without expertise in scientific areas, can still use common sense to evaluate competing theories or the weight of the evidence and render an opinion. How so? By evaluating competing experts from a logical, rational perspective.
Your problem is you think you can substitute your expertise in fields where you do not have the education or training- i.e. geology ( movement of tectonic plates, erosion) and that your layperson’s opinion is not only equal to but superior to the vast majority of geologists, etc., in their fields. Then if people dispute your expertise you say prove it themselves don’t just appeal to the experts that counter you. Actually this is fine rhetoric on your part and you would have done well on the steps of the Acropolis with Socrates.
Now you like statistics. What are the chances that you and you alone are right in all the multi disciplinary fields that have to intertwine like strands of DNA to make a viable concept of YLC? Taking into account the vast majority of scientific evidence that militates against your, quite unique, model?
That’s the point pard, in my humble layperson’s estimation 🙂
Do you actually publish any scientific papers that are reviewed by the scientific community on yout theories? I don’t science has to be popular but surely it has to be criticslly examined by experts to see if theories hold water? I have read on your website, but it seems to be just commentary rather than your original research?
I trutly confess my lack of expertise on many topics including evolutionary biology, math, hemeuneutics etc. And I appreciate that you have spent a great deal of your time studying all these areas. But are you a master and expert in all of them? Do put it bluntly, why should anyone have faith in ‘your’ version of Science when you show antipathy and extreme bias against anything that goes against your hybrid blend of theology and science?
I know you are trying to win hearts and minds here but hubris is a very dangerous method when it comes to objectively persuading readers as to the correctness of your concepts. To claim that evolution is a just so fairy tale but your particular brand of creationism is clearly supported by the weight of the evidence is not doubt intrinsically convincing; but not so by most of your readers. Your argumentt regarding ‘faith’ in experts being equivalent to ignorance does not reflect the reality of a world of expertise. Experts in medicine, geology, biology, physics, chemistry gain that expertise for good reason. Might they be individually wrong? Might there be no findings by experts in their fields that might modify or change existing theories? Does Science continue to advance with new research? Of course! But to suggest that you can disprove the collective wisdom of the scientific community on many topics in which you do not have expertise strains the bounds of credulity.
On the other hand, if you and you alone are right, eventually the objective eye of the scientific community will come along test and support your ideas. In the meantime I suspect I suggest you try to get a job teaching your particular brand of creationism at an Adventist institution and see if it will withstand academic and scientific scrutiny.
I think you are a good man who does sincerely believe in what he advocates. But I also think that the objective eye of Science will always in time uncover ulterior motives of personal bias. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you being a man of faith and science but with affection and concern I hope you understand your human limitations. I do sincerly worry for you in this regard.
I am learning much from this debate and thank you all. This is a strange mix of science and theology. But Dr. Pitman, to suggest that: the weight of the evidence supports your specific, hybrid, YLC, gap theory, ID, low function RMNS to the candid mind – leaves me in a cloud of incredulity.
Our friend George raises an important point about science: we do rely upon experts in their fields of study. Are experts at time wrong? Certainly, but that is usually because other experts in the same field of study demonstate this. But after reviewing your website and your comments on Adventist theology -forgive me for saying so- it appears as if you are setting yourself up as an hybrid master of all fields and being very critical or defensive of those that criticize you. I am worried that you may not be seeing your very human fallibility.