Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
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?
That’s just it. I’m not asking anyone to “have faith” in my position because I said so. Who am I? Nobody! Why should you believe me vs. the vast majority of the experts?
You see, what I’m asking is not for faith, but for others to ask and try to answer certain key questions for themselves. I’m asking others to do their own investigation into the actual science involved and stop believing things just because this or that “expert” said so. Start learning and understanding the information directly – for yourself. A real scientific understanding requires personal investigation, testing, and understanding.
Otherwise, you’re just a member of faith-based fundamentalist cult who goes to a different church. You have no personal understanding outside of what your “authority” tells you.
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.
There is good reason to begin one’s search for truth in any field of study by considering the opinions of the experts in that field. However, if this is as far as you’re willing to go, then you really aren’t thinking for yourself. It has often happened throughout history that the majority of experts, in multiple fields of study, have been proved wrong by an “amateur” who happens to have had special interest in a particular concept. In fact, it is a reality in science that a fantastic theory can be proved wrong by just one “ugly fact”.
My question to you is, can you answer my questions or not? If you cannot, if the only reason why you cling to your beliefs is because you feel you stand with the majority of experts, that’s fine. It’s even reasonable to a certain degree. But, it isn’t scientific when it comes to addressing the questions at hand. It is a faith-based position that simply isn’t useful beyond blind appeals to authority – exactly the same as any religious fundamentalist would do. It is just that you’re appealing to a different source of authority that happens to be more popular among certain circles that you believe to be more credible is all.
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’ve been debating and asking questions of mainstream scientists, to include a few famous ones, for almost 20 years now. No one, no one at all, has been able to explain how random mutations can be directed by a function-based selection mechanism, like natural selection, to produce anything beyond very very low levels of functional complexity.
This is THE fundamental problem for neo-Darwinism. Their mechanism simply doesn’t work and nobody knows how to make it work – nobody (not even you).
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 do appreciate your concern, but I’m still waiting for an answer to my question on natural selection…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…
The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.
What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.
Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).
In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.
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.
