Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
Again you make your point by reference to the exception. This is patently not true. What you should have said was.
In exceptional circumstances it has happened some times in history that the majority of experts, in some fields of study, have been proved wrong by an “amateur” who happens to have had special interest in a particular concept.
Of course such an occurrence is the exception rather than the rule. That should be obvious without the need for elaboration. The fact is that exceptions to the rule are important. Exceptions, in this case, mean that experts are not 100% reliable in their conclusions. They aren’t God.
It is also not true that appeals to expert authority are somehow “scientific” in and of themselves. They aren’t. They have no inherent explanatory power when it comes to answering questions. It’s a faith based position, not a scientific position, just as much as any other faith-based appeal to some other source of authority is not scientific. Such a position is an unchangeable position outside of a change coming directly from the source of authority. Do you not recognize this as a faith-based position? – not a scientific position from the individual perspective?
Allowing for my revision of your statement to some level of credibility I am still left with your implication that you are such an ‘amateur” and certainly does nothing to ameliorate the charge of hubris.
Does it take some hubris to ask questions of the “experts”? – to question their conclusions? Certainly it does take at least some individuality and chutzpa to be skeptical, to try to be scientific in the evaluation of the evidence from one’s own perspective, when it flies in the face of popular opinion. It’s easy to be on the popular side… to go with the flow.
In any case, if my hubris, a simple question actually, is without foundation, it should be rather easy to put me in my place by at least trying to address my question regarding the creative potential of random mutations and natural selection at various levels of functional complexity within a given span of time…
Where is your math? Where is your demonstration? Where is any testable science or even a reasonable theoretical model regarding this particular question?
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.
