I agree with Jeff Kent What a surprise. ;-) It is …

Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.

I agree with Jeff Kent

What a surprise. 😉

It is commendable that you see yourself as a crusading iconoclast that has no truck with consensus or acceptance that others may have better insight and understanding than yourself.

That’s not what I said. What I said is that if something doesn’t make sense to me I’m not going to accept it just because that is the consensus view. You seem to be arguing that anyone who goes against the consensus view is insane and/or hopelessly arrogant and self absorbed. Well, my friend, that’s what many famous scientists have done throughout history – gone against the popular opinions and “wisdom” of the day when it didn’t make sense to them personally.

However I would make a couple of points

1] You can speculate as much as you want about hypotheses and science but until you do the experiment and publish the result you are not a scientist.

Oh please. Then only those whom mainstream scientists allow to publish are scientists? Really?

As I’ve mentioned before, you’re naive to believe that there is no bias in publishing against the IDist perspective. Just look what happens to those who dare to publish anything supporting ID in mainstream journals…

2] If proposing an hypothesis makes you a scientist then everyone is a scientist. There is no end of “I thinks” about the place.

Everyone can be a scientist or think scientifically – even children are able to use forms of scientific reasoning and thinking to solve problems or invent new things. Hypothesis formation and testing is innate to humanity at large – pretty much from infancy.

Truly then, as long as the hypothesis is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner, why isn’t it a valid scientific hypothesis? Because it goes against mainstream thinking? Because no one will publish it in their mainstream journals for fear of the repercussions?

3] What makes a scientist is the testing of an hypothesis by experimental comparison to reality and publishing the resulting data

The first part I agree with. The second part no. Publishing the results in mainstream journals does not make a hypothesis right or wrong or anything. The fact that a hypothesis can be and has been tested in a potentially falsifiable manner is completely unrelated to if it has or has not been published in this or that particular journal.

4] You keep saying someone else can test your hypotheses. No, a real scientist proposes his own hypothesis and tests it himself. No real scientist is interested in testing your hypothesis particularly when you are not at all engaging in the process of science.

I’m not saying that someone else can test my hypothesis. I’m saying that many people already have tested my hypothesis many times – and published the results. It’s been confirmed over and over again. There’s simply no point repeating what’s already been done. The implications should already be overwhelming to the scientific community at large – if it were not for their deep seated philosophical antagonism to the obvious implications.

5] And no, having a publication does not necessarily make you a scientist. As I have said before your publications are stamp collecting not hypothesis driven and you have not even tried to pursue the only publication you have that may be construed as hypothesis driven. Why is that?

Again, publication or no publication. It’s entirely irrelevant to the question of if a hypothesis is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner.

6] You paint yourself as a rugged individualist and iconoclast but in really the evidence suggests that you are simply a hired gun for a highly conservative agenda.

I’m not being paid for this, if that’s what you’re suggesting. Any expenses incurred have come out of my own pocket. I don’t even ask for donations.

a] You are a militarist who cannot see that there is anything beyond lethal force or the threat thereof to bring about a peaceful society. Do you really see the Kingdom of Heaven as based on the threat of lethal force? By your words you make the royal law of love nothing but a meaningless platitude and you certainly would have nothing to do with kenosis.

Note that the Kingdom of Heaven only functions without the threat of lethal force because all the bad guys are excluded – by force. All those who would wish to harm or hurt anyone for personal gain are forcefully blocked from entry into Heaven – against their wishes to harm those who live there. Consider also that when a bad guy and his angels did rebel in heaven, that there was a physical war and he and his rebellious angels were forced out.

The Royal Law of Love is not opposed to a police force in this world to uphold civil society. The Bible itself supports this concept. If you don’t believe me, try living in any state in this world that has no police force to enforce civil law and order.

What you are promoting here is not the Law of Love, but a state of anarchy in this world.

b] You criticize science but only extremely selectively; only the science that would conflict with your preconceived religious views.

You mean I only criticize what doesn’t make sense to me? You think one has to be all or nothing? That one has to either accept everything or deny everything? Come on now. No scientist acts like this.

c] When it comes to an iconoclastic approach to religion or the supernatural you certainly do not offer any except for a critique of those who would actually think a little more deeply about their religion.

Some find my “critiques” and the evidences that are most convincing to me helpful. Others do not.

d] Like others accepting a fundamentalist view of EG White and the canonical writings as inerrant you construct a robust critique of science manifesting extreme confirmation bias that is really predicated on an unwillingness to confront the reality of the scientific data found in the canonical source for science the peer-reviewed literature.

And you are obviously free from any degree of confirmation bias – extreme or otherwise.

But no, I do not believe in the inerrant of Mrs. White or the Bible. I believe that Mrs. White and the Biblical prophets were given privileged visions of actual realities, past, present and future, which they described and tried to explain in their own words with their own limited knowledge and educational background. I just believe it is very hard to get some things wrong. For example, it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to recognize, “It got dark, then it got light, then it got dark again…”

e] There is a flip side to your certainty and your naive assumption that you can understand and evaluate all of science. You imagine that you have won an argument when your opponent no longer replies but seem to dismiss the possibility that they are simply fatigued and stunned. I would suggest anyone who wants to see the trajectory of such a discussion google Pitman and Morton, Pitman and Pharyngula, Pitman and talkorigins

Not at all. I rarely if ever think I’ve “won” a discussion with an ardent evolutionist – like you. I don’t have these discussions because I think I’m going to convince those who strongly oppose me. I have them for those who read along who have yet to make up their minds – as well as for my own benefit. I’ve learned a lot from discussions like these over the years.

Also, I find it interesting that you think you know me and my motivations so well. Why would you suggest that I would think that if someone leaves a discussion that I’ve somehow “won” it or that I “dismiss the possibility that they are simply fatigued and stunned”? Of course you’re right here. Where have I even suggested anything to the contrary? Of course most who disagree with me stop replying, not because they are convinced, not at all, but because they are, as you say, simply fatigued or tired or find further discussion with me pointless. I’m sure you feel the same way. Take hope then in the knowledge that if you stop posting to this forum that I’ll still believe you feel exactly the same way until you actually say otherwise. No victories here I’m afraid…

You guys should look at these discussions like I do. Your goal should not be to convince me – since I’m very hard headed and all and pretty much hopeless. Your goal should also be to appeal to those who read along, but rarely comment, or, perhaps, on rare occasion, learn something you didn’t already know…

Another thing, why do you think I actually post comments like yours and Jeff Kent’s on my own forum? Do you think I’d post them if I felt that my position was actually substantively threatened by you guys and your obvious “genius” and the authority of the majority you bring to the table? if I didn’t actually think that your comments would end up helping out my own position? – like any good foil?

“The defining characteristic of all arguments with creationists is how damned ignorant they are. I’m sure many scientists have been stupefied into stunned silence when they first encounter these people; these advocated of creationism are typically loud and certain and have invested much time and effort into apologetics, but when you sit down and try to have a serious discussion with them, you quickly discover that their knowledge of basic biology is nonexistent.” PZ Myers

It’s so classic for PZ and others like Richard Dawkins to paint all those who would challenge them as “ignorant, stupid, or insane… or evil.” You’ve accused me of all four of these yourself. So what? Call me what you will, but I’ve studied biology and genetics and information theories just enough, for many years now, to smell a very large rat when it comes to the creative potential of random mutations and function-based selection. It just doesn’t get the job done and no one, not PZ or any Nobel Prize winner, has been able to produce anything explaining how it possibly could be done beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. This is without even getting into the overwhelming evidence for the informational decay of all slowly-reproducing gene pools… which you simply dismiss out of hand based, not on knowledge or empirical evidence, but on blind faith that somehow some way it just can’t be true. Talk about extreme conformational bias…

All this aside, what’s really interesting to me is that none of you guys are willing to substantively address simple questions regarding certain fundamental claims of neo-Darwinism – such as how the mechanism of RM/NS really works or how natural selection deals with the high detrimental mutation rate in slowly reproducing gene pools. If these questions are so simple and easy to resolve, it should be no problem for you to find some reasonable answer in some journal somewhere – right? Where’s the science for the mechanism behind your claims? Hmmmmm?

Anyway I welcome you expression of your views and hope you will eventually appreciate that Grace and love can overcome evil and that you do not need to use evil to overcome evil.

Well, if promoting the idea that an employee should not expect a paycheck for undermining the employer, then I guess I’m evil . . . or at least promoting the use of evil tactics? Or, what about calling the police if someone with a gun was trying to break into my house and threaten the lives of my wife and children? You’d never do that now, would you? Call the police to come help you with their evil guns and all if your family were being threatened? Because that would be using evil to overcome evil? Perhaps I’ll just ask the gunman if he wants a glass of cool water or some lemonade instead of calling the police? I’m sure that would have stopped the guy who attacked and killed so many at Sandy Hook Elementary too. Why didn’t someone think of that? All he needed was a bit of love and he would have stopped in his tracks – right? Why on Earth did anyone call the police at a time like? They must have been evil to think to stop his murderous rampage with force rather than love! right? The children themselves are expendable at times like this? – how could I forget? Our love is reserved for those killing the children? Have you forgotten about the ones being killed? What about them?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…


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.