Sean Pitman: I’ve published several papers in medical prominent medical journals …

Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by pauluc.

Sean Pitman: I’ve published several papers in medical prominent medical journals myself. That’s quite different from publishing against the mechanism of the ToE in a mainstream journal. No one publishes “regularly” against the very basis of the ToE.

You clearly published cited work early in your career (2003-2007) but have not done so since then. You clearly could write a paper my only question is why not? Are you really so jaded as to think that no indexed journal will publish anything new iconoclastic and innovative? As I have said before that idea truly beggars belief.

I think it rather an oversimplification to suggest that there are no critiques of Darwinian evolution and natural selection in the literature. Have you actually been to the literature to look at this? What is the denominator for your zero publications? There are actually very few publications on the grand scheme of evolution. What you find are many many research papers about specific experimental observations not grand handwaving ideas based on reviews of the existing literature. But each of these relate in some way to the grand theme of natural selection. If you do look at the literature on lmits natural selection genetic drift you will find that the vast majority is about what you would consider “microevolution” which you would not really consider evolution at all. This is because you have an arbitrary distinction between macro and micro evolution that most biologist would not make. I you truly want to publish you will have to generate a paper that fits within the scope of the journal just as you did with your pathology publications. You are not trying to pin your 95 theses on the Cathedral door. And dont even think about trying to game the system with a rubbish paper like Meyers did in a taxonomy journal.

Have you talked to Leonard Brand or others who publish regularly on evolution? I am sure that they would be happy to provide critique and guidance. I certainly would be delighted to see you publish your work.

pauluc Also Commented

Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Having read through all the recent exchanges I have to confess I am absolutely wrong as you suggested repeatedly. I thought you were actually interested in education and truth as your site advertises. That you grock the process of science and had some desire to communicate your ideas in the forum of science. Reluctantly I have to admit it does not appear so. I offered some advice as I do have a committment to education and science. I am clearly wasting my time here and am increasingly confident that your “my way only” approach to communication means you will never ever publish your work in the scientific literature. I will go back to my graduate students who do appreciate any help I can provide and are actually interested in doing good research and publishing their work for the world to read.

Grace.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”

Sean Pitman: What experimental data would you suggest? A non-beneficial gap distance is the data. The implications of such a gap distance are obvious. No additional experimental data is needed to tell you that a mechanism of random mutations takes exponentially longer to get across such a gap distance (on average) with each linear increase in the gap distance. That conclusion, though very simple, completely undermines neo-Darwinism.

Unfortunately this sort of dogmatic ill thought out statement is not taken seriously as is evident from responses to you at pandas thumb, pharyngula scienceblog and other sites.

1] I have suggested the relevant experiments. Dont fixate on bacterial flagella and abstractions like sequence space. Most people dismiss it as a theoretical model disconnected from reality. Think mammalian evolution.

2] It does not at all undermine neo-Darwinian evolution eather for theistic evolutionist or for you who accept completely a neo-Darwinian basis for speciation in post-flood biology


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”

Sean Pitman: However, I do appreciate your concern for my reputation 😉

Indeed I may well have been in error in underestimating your fame. The evolution crackpot index even has an entry for 100 points inspired by you.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/11/11/the-evolution-crackpot-index/

As one commentator suggests in outing you.

“After spending zillions of moments wading through Sean Pitman’s neutral gaps before reaching the other side, I am very gratified that these Gaps are worth more than a full Pitman, 26^1.41345418475 = 100. ”

I do worry that your dogmatic statements and polemic do not help to pursuade like a published study with measured and reasoned arguments would.


Recent Comments by pauluc

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.