Comment on Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions by Sean Pitman.
Really? Darwin “did not address origins”? – and neither do modern evolutionists? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the title of Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”?
So, please do explain my “mistake”. Please do explain how Darwinism, to include the claims of modern evolutionary scientists, are not actually about the “origins” of anything – not really. I’m sure many others would be most interested in your explanation of this as well…
Also, while you’re at it, please do explain to me how Darwinism is not actually tied or at all related, really, to the philosophy of naturalism…
Until then, it seems to me that William Provine was right. In the words of his 1998 Darwin Day speech the University of Tennessee he noted something that is downright obvious to those who honestly consider these things:
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998).
A year later Provine wrote:
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. (No Free Will, 1999 p.123)
Earlier in his career he wrote in some detail:
“In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” (Academe, January, 1987, pp.51-52)
Evidently, you don’t agree. But, how is Provine mistaken here? – in your understanding of Darwinism and the very closely associated naturalistic philosophy that usually goes with it? – especially since I’ve personally heard you say that you wouldn’t know what to tell your own granddaughter if she asked you, as an evolutionist, for some evidence of God’s actual existence?
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
I will certainly admit it if things change on this topic – as I have done in the past.
As an aside, though, where have you ever admitted to any one of the numerous fundamental problems for neo-Darwinism? Where is your viable evolutionary mechanism? Where is your explanation for high detrimental mutations rates that would have killed off all slowly reproducing organisms on this planet (like all mammals for instance) within less than a million years? or radiocarbon in dinosaur soft tissues that is far too high and uniformly consistent to be a contaminant? or the non-independence of amino acid racemization dating despite your original claims? or the preserved proteins and DNA fragments in dinosaur soft tissues? or the lack of expected erosion over hundreds of millions of years? or the widespread purity and uniformity of thick coal and sandstone beds over huge areas? and on and on and on?
These human footprints in Crete are only one small additional piece of a rather large puzzle that already has the clear weight of evidence strongly against the neo-Darwinian story of origins and strongly in favor of the biblical version of past events.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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…