Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
How is it that those who side with you on this topic are the ones of “good faith” while I am not responding in equally “good faith”? How can you possibly judge my motive on this issue? I do think that Jason and Nick honestly believe that neoDarwinism is true and that the evidence in its favor is essentially overwhelming. Why not extend the same courtesy to me and how I feel about my position?
In any case, Jason Rosenhouse, who is actually replying to my comments on his own blog, clearly doesn’t understand how the evolutionary mechanism works at various level of functional complexity. He’s a mathematician, not a biologist. He knows, mathematically, how it must work if the theory is actually true (via a nice little closely-spaced line-up of steppingstones in sequence space). However, he doesn’t seem to yet realize that this imagined scenario doesn’t remotely represent known reality when it comes to applying this mathematical concept to real biological systems and protein sequence space. Sequence space simply isn’t set up like he imagines.
Nick Matzke, on the other hand, has tried, valiantly to be sure, to invoke conversion mutations to explain how this problem can be overcome. Of course, the problem here is that conversion mutations simply reproduce the same structure/function – usually at a lower level of functionality compared to the original. They don’t produce any qualitatively new structure/function. And, they don’t tend to narrow the non-selectable gap distances at higher levels of functional complexity. Matzke’s own proposed steppingstones in his published papers on flagellar evolution present steppingstones that are themselves dozens and dozens of required mutational changes away from each other – a gap distance that is simply uncrossable by random mutations in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time.
And, not even you understand how the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely tenable beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. You’ve even admitted as much in this forum. If you have no idea how evolution can work beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity that exist within all living things, why are Earth do you think it still works? I know, because of the “circumstantial evidence” cited by Rosenhouse in our debate – evidence which is almost entirely based on how you and Jason and other evolutionary scientists think that an intelligent designer would or would not behave (not upon some actual evidence for how your mechanism could tenably have done the job).
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
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.
