Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Sean Pitman.
No Sean it is written in the Scriptures. According Genesis 6 account the flood was all about the spiritual beings or Angels (bənê hāʼĕlōhîm) mating with human women and generating men of renown that manifest some of the supernatural; the risk of course being that they would perhaps eventually become immortal maybe by a process of back-crossing which would remove all traces of mortality.
Oh please. The “sons of God” statement here is a reference to those who still worshiped God – not to angels mating with humans. This passage in Genesis 6:1-5 twice describes the Nephilim as being “men”, using two different Hebrew words. It does not use the Hebrew words used to describe angels. Beyond this, Adam was called a “son of God” after all – as are Christians who follow after Christ (Luke 20:36; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26, Psalms 82:6). Jesus also explained that angels are neither male nor female and therefore could not have mated with humans even if they wanted to (Luke 20:34-36 and Matthew 22:30). Also, Mrs. White clearly explains this passage as follows:
For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain’s descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, “and they took them wives of all which they chose.” – Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p.81
This is obviously the most reasonable meaning of the text and consistent with the overall claims of the Bible – to include the comments of Jesus about the reasons for the Flood and how the evils that resulted in the Flood will be seen again in this world just before the Second Coming.
And you wonder why I suggest you do not parse me correctly. How can you imagine I have no concern about empirical evidence when I have said repeatedly that I work as a scientist and have applied that method to understand the world using a process of hypothesis testing experimentation and publication which are the core activities of science.
As you very well know, I’m talking about empirical evidence as an integral part of religious faith. You clearly reject such a concept and define religious faith as equivalent to post-modern wishful thinking. I think you’ve made yourself abundantly clear in this regard.
You either have to have a very lay superficial knowledge of everything or your genius must be astounding to have read the primary literature in all relevant fields of knowledge.
I have in fact read a great deal of literature on a number of topics. I’ve especially studied the potential and limits of the evolutionary mechanism in great detail over 20 years. I dare say I know something about it. And, I don’t really care if you or anyone else agrees with me. If you don’t have a counterargument that makes sense to me, I’m not going to say that your position makes sense when it doesn’t – given what I’ve learned about the topic.
Beyond that you are being a little duplicitous to suggest that post-modernisms of subjective nonsense when you are yourself are using post-modern arguments in your criticism of any aspect of the enterprise of science with which you disagree. In you enthusiastic attack on “conventional” science you claim that there are biases and a world view involved in the practice of science. Indeed there are as has been recognized both by Kuhn and by a post-modern writers such as Lyotard.
There’s a difference between recognizing biases and arguing that biases cannot be overcome or that in reality no absolute truth exists nor can anyone learn about or approach these external truths that exist outside of the mind in any kind of objective manner. That’s the difference between my position and the self-contradictory claims of postmodernism.
You imagine that a post-modernist who discounts the value of dominant meta-narratives must per se discount the value of the scientific enterprise with its search for models of reality based on naturalism and empirical evidence and discard it as simply subjectivism. This shows your lack of appreciation of what science is as a human enterprise or the eclecticism of post-modernism.
If by “eclecticism” you’re arguing that many postmodernist aren’t consistent, I agree. You seem to function just fine outside of the strictly postmodernist mindset in your lab, but not so when you’re talking about religion and suddenly start using wishful thinking once again without an appeal to anything in the empirical world. For you, postmodernism is like a light-switch that you can flip on or off at will.
As you will see from reading the text there is not really much distance between Kuhn who you seem to enthusiastically accept and Lyotard.
Many of the things Kuhn said did indeed seem to be supportive of the postmodernist viewpoint. Kuhn did describe science at large as a subjective enterprise where nothing happens until there is a sudden and dramatic “paradigm shift” within the scientific community. For example, Kuhn himself argued that ideas that have been rejected by contemporary science (that heat, for example, is caused by phlogiston or that mental health is regulated by humors in the body) have been rejected not because they were wrong but because they no longer served the needs of scientists. In other words, the truth is up for grabs. There is, according to Kuhn, “no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community.” Kuhn compared paradigm shifts within the scientific community to the switches in perception put forward by “Gestalt psychology” (like the popular example of a picture that is seen as a duck suddenly being seen as a rabbit – identical to the picture of the young woman and the hag that you previously presented as an illustration of your “gestalt” ideas of truth).
I would argue, of course, that this is an irrational view that attacks the whole rationality of the sciences or the basic usefulness of scientific methodologies at large – and opens the way for extreme subjectivity. However, I would agree with Kuhn where he argues that a popular “paradigm” is often upheld within the scientific community in an authoritarian manner. In this sense, Kuhn compares scientific groups to the ruling classes of Orwell’s “1984” where anyone who disagrees with the dominant scientific paradigm is “read out of the profession.” I believe that this is what is happening with the paradigm of neo-Darwinism and even philosophical naturalism within the scientific community today.
Also, Kuhn did seem to modify his postmodernist views of science over time. Kuhn did actually believe in absolute truths and a reality that exists outside of the mind. Kuhn actually objected to purely relativistic arguments and insisted in “The Road Since Structure” that the world had an objective existence. Kuhn even argued that scientific exploration is bound by the nature of that world. I would argue that same – that there are indeed subjective biases that should be recognized and efforts should be made to overcome these biases, but that it is actually possible for the honest seeker for truth to discover and learn, even on an individual basis, more about the world that exists outside of the mind regardless of the personal or collective biases that may also exist.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
Again, the basic ability to recognize love and exhibit love does not “have to be taught” by parents. A child will also naturally feel guilty for doing harm to another – without the need to be taught about feeling guilty for doing wrong. On the other hand, if you were correct, those who did not have good parents, or had no parents at all, would have an perfect excuse before God for why they didn’t choose to act lovingly toward their neighbors. They would feel no guilt or remorse for anything wrong that they did. After all, according to your argument, no one is born with a conscience – or an inherent knowledge of any kind of moral right or wrong to any degree. You claim that the conscience does not exist at all before one is taught, by one’s parents. You claim that there is no way to know right from wrong unless one is taught by some outside source of information. However, in reality, no one has such an excuse because all are in fact born with an internally-derived conscience regardless of the goodness or training, or lack thereof, of one’s parents.
It is a studied fact that a very young child naturally knows what is right regarding the Royal Law of Love on at least a very basic level… and is naturally attracted to it. This knowledge is hardwired – by God. That is why, yet again, Paul described this ability among the heathen as “natural” – not something that they had to learn from their parents, but understood by having the Law written on their hearts by God (Romans 2:13-15). This Biblical claim is actually backed up by modern research that shows that very young babies do in fact have an innate sense of right and wrong (Link).
And, Ellen White also speaks of children having a God-given conscience that must be considered in their training. They are not like animals that are born without a conscience:
The training of children must be conducted on a different principle from that which governs the training of irrational animals. The brute has only to be accustomed to submit to its master; but the child must be taught to control himself. The will must be trained to obey the dictates of reason and conscience. – Ellen White, January 10, 1882
So, here we have a child being born with inherent God-given gifts of both reason and conscience. Such gifts are created as internally-derived gifts by God. Call it “hocus pocus” of you want, but God is in fact a Divine creator who is well able to create such gifts with no less ability than He is able to create the universe or the complexities of the living human body. Therefore, it is not the parents who create the original ability for “enmity” against evil within their children. Parents do not get the credit for this basic ability to judge right from wrong. After all, it is God who said that He is the one who would create this enmity against sin within the human race (Genesis 3:15). He did not leave this up to us to create within our children. It is God and only God who creates the conscience in each one of us. Our responsibility toward our children is to train them on how to apply, maintain, grow, and guard their God-given gifts of reason and conscience. We nurture the plant that God has made, so to speak, but we did not create the original seed from which the plant was made able to grow.
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
And we see that God “puts” grace and enmity between Satan and the children of Adam. It is not something naturally passed on from Adam to his offspring.
Of course it is God who puts the enmity between us and Satan. It is a miraculous act on the part of God. However, the fact remains that God has given us to recognize and understand the “beauty of Holiness”, to know good from evil, from birth. Now, it is also true that all children are born with a fallen nature. However, this does not negate the fact that God has also given them to be born with an inherent God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
“Fundamentalism”
One more thing Paul. As far as one of your favorite pejorative charges of “fundamentalist” is concerned, not everyone who believes in the fundamental claims of a group or organization is “fundamentalistic” when it comes to why one believes this or that or in the arguments used to support and promote one’s position to others. In other words, there is a difference between what one believes and why one believes it.
For example, the “reasons” for your faith are identical to the reasons that my fundamentalist friends of various religions have for their faiths. You all appeal to an internal feeling or “gestalt” type of sensation as the basis of your faith. That’s very different from the reasons I give for why I believe the way I do – i.e., based on “the weight of evidence” that is empirical, testable, and potentially falsifiable.
To illustrate further, you believe in the fundamental claims of neo-Darwinism. Does that make you a “Darwinian fundamentalist”? Not in and of itself – at least not with regard to why you believe like you do or the arguments you might use to defend your Darwinian position. It all depends upon the reasons why you believe that the main claims of this or that group are most likely correct. Are your beliefs based on reasonable and/or logical arguments? Are they based on what you perceive to be the weight of empirical evidence? Are your beliefs at least potentially falsifiable? If so, you’re really not “fundamentalistic” in why you believe like you do or the way you try to promote your position.
The same can be true for the Christian and even for the Adventist…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
