Of course the amazing biodiversity on earth, specifically adapted to …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU by george.

of course the amazing biodiversity on earth, specifically adapted to different environments ( kangeroos in Australia) does not support your argument but rather the evolution of progressive life forms from common ancestor antecedents.

george Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Strange that you agree that the RMNS mechanism works at the micro evolution level. In other words you agree that mindless natural selection works in nature. But then you appeal to math and probabilities to indicate it won’t work at the macro level. Well then you need to provide your actually mathematical formulae to demonstrate or counter the extant papers. I don’t turn to mathematicians to give me expert advice on pathology pard, but I would certainly seek your advice on that topic 🙂

The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
By the way pard, thanks for your kind Christian wish for my welfare. I hope for your sake you are right as my view of reality is certainly less rosy. I’m afraid Science and Religion are two different disciplines which don’t mix. I don’t begrudge anyone a belief in God, power to them. However I think the Hebrew God depicted in the Bible is a human creation and not supported by evidence. Time and time again, Man through the arduous application of scientific principles has been able to root out the cause and effect nature of phenomena in our universe. I believe that trend will continue notwithstanding the wide variety of religious beliefs as to ours and the universe’s origins. Dr. Pitman’s approach, including the use of ID to wedge open the door connecting the rooms of Science and Theology is quite impressive and rhetorically persuasive, especially with the added subtle sweetener of eternal salvation 🙂 It’s a lovely sentiment. But apart from man made artifacts he has not demonstrated what artifacts or how organic life was intelligently designed. Nor has he demonstrated why or how God like design would be comparable to human design. Like mixing apples and oranges.

The great value of this forum is that it is not merely limited to the narrow examination of what is taught at LSU. That is the tip of the larger ontological iceberg. But Dr. Pitman has an agenda, to marry Science to biblical creation and that needs to be critically examined. Most interesting.

The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
“The problem is with the odds of realizing the beneficial mutation to begin with – anywhere within the population. These odds get exponentially less and less likely with each step up the ladder of functional complexity”

So if the problem is with the “odds” it is a math problem isn’t it?

Recent Comments by george

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂