@Professor Kent: Sean, just a hypothetical question: BIBLICAL CLAIM: Man can

Comment on The Credibility of Faith by Sean Pitman.

Sean, just a hypothetical question:

BIBLICAL CLAIM: Man can be formed from a lump of dirt.

TEST: The Miller-Urey experiment suggests that amino acids, but not living cells, can be created from a prebiotic soup. No one has ever seen living cells, much less complex organs and systems emerge from dirt. (One caveat duly noted: absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.)

QUESTION: Does this constitute falsification of the Bible?

As already noted above, there is some debate over if the Miller-Urey experiment simulated the correct atmosphere of the prebiotic soup. Many scientists believe that the atmosphere of the pre-biotic Earth was an oxidizing atmosphere. Yet, the Miller-Urey experiment requires a reducing atmosphere. There are, of course, many fairly recent papers suggesting various ways to maintain the reducing quality of the atmosphere needed for the production of organic molecules.

The problem, of course, is that this is all irrelevant. The generation of basic amino acid building blocks, building blocks that are on very very low levels of structural and functional complexity, says nothing about how these basic building blocks could self-assembling to produce the minimum structure necessary to sustain the simplest living thing (a much much higher level of specific structural and functional complexity)…

As carefully explained by the likes of Stephen Meyer in his excellent new book, Signature in the Cell, the extreme fine tuning and precise arrangement needed to create the simplest living organism is far more in line with the hypothesis of deliberate design that it is with any known non-deliberate force of nature.

Does such evidence for ID prove the need for instant formation? No. However, it is not at all inconsistent with instant or very rapid intelligent production.

Again, you fail to see the difference between falsifying evidence and consistent evidence when it comes to evaluating a scientific hypothesis. Science isn’t about proving a hypothesis true, which can’t be done by science. Science can only disprove potentially falsifiable hypotheses. Those hypotheses that avoid being disproved by all the tests brought to bear thus far gain predictive value, but are never fully proved. There always remains the potential for future falsification – – though this potential is felt to be less and less likely with the passage of time and more and more successful testing.

So, does the Miller-Urey experiment falsify the Bible’s claim that lumps of dirt can be turned into biological systems with very high levels of functional complexity? – with the use of very high level intelligent design? In a word, No! Of course not…

If anything, the Miller-Urey experiment helps to highlights the limits of mindless self-organization of basic building blocks. That’s it. It doesn’t remotely challenge the falsifiable hypothesis that higher levels of functional complexity/information require the outside input of pre-existing higher-level information of at least the same quality or greater. In other words, the Miller-Urey experiment helped to support the scientific concept of meaningful/functional informational entropy (FIE). Like thermodynamic entropy, FIE always increases over time and it doesn’t flow uphill…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Credibility of Faith
@George Hilton:

I do not for one millisecond take the position that I believe without evidence. However, a large amount of my evidence is not based on what most scientists would consider â€œscientific data.â€ My faith is based on a consortium of evidence. Some of it is scientific, some of it is metaphysical, some of it is prophetic, and some of it is experiential. The truth is, I have no proof whatsoever that my source of authority is superior to that of Muslims. There is plenty of reason in my mind to believe that there is, but that is unlikely to be sufficient to convince many of them.

Many people forget that science requires leaps of faith beyond which the data actually goes. That’s what science is all about – making educated leaps of faith that cannot be absolutely proven to be true. The same thing can be true of religion.

I see all empirical data is “scientific data” and I think that science can be and must be done, ultimately, by the individual. Again, science isn’t about absolute “proof”. Science never proves a hypotheses or theory to be absolutely true. Science can falsify hypotheses or theories, but it can never fully prove them.

As far as convincing someone else that your own hypothesis is the correct one among many options, that’s a different story. What seems favored by the weight of evidence from your particular perspective may not seem so conclusive from someone else’s perspective. As you point out, there are many factors involved when it comes to making decisions as to what is and is not most likely true – and not all of these factors are based on logical reasoning. There is also the factor of personal feeling or desire or motive.

Since only God can accurate judge the motive or hearts of us humans, the best we can do is share what has been so convincing and helpful from our own perspective. The rest is up to God and the promptings of His Holy Spirit… as you also point out.

My whole point here is to explain that one’s own personal choice as to what is and is not most likely true should be based on more than some sort of internal feeling or strong impression. It should be based on the weight of available empirical evidence. You list biblical prophecy as one of your evidences, for example. You suggest that the evidence of prophecy is not “scientific evidence”. Yet, scientific reasoning can indeed be employed in the evaluation of the hypothesis of fulfilled prophetic statements: Were they really fulfilled in actual history? Were they really made before they were fulfilled? What is the statistical value of the prophecy regarding the need for Divine or superhuman input vs. the alternate null hypothesis of random chance?

These questions can be tested and potentially falsified via forms of scientific investigation and logical arguments based on the weight of empirical data. This sort of investigation is a form of scientific reasoning.

Again, while such scientific reasoning may not reach the level of absolute proof, while it may not be able to convince everyone, “even if someone were raised from the dead some will not believe…” (Luke 16:31), it doesn’t mean it isn’t valid scientific reasoning from your own perspective… and potentially useful for other candid minds who sincerely come to you and ask you the reason for the hope that is within you… a reason that is something more than an internal impression that is only useful for you as a valid reason…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

The Credibility of Faith
@Professor Kent:

So the conclusion to all of this appears to be that, for SDAs, science and evidence trump faith. I completely disagree, but so be it.

If “faith trumps science and evidence”, as you suggest here, then what conclusion can one make except to see this as an argument for blind faith? – faith that is not based on any kind of scientific reasoning or evidence? – faith in a particular point of view that can stand even if all available evidence is pointing in a different direction?

In short, how is your faith in the Bible, faith that is not based on science or evidence of any kind, superior to the same type of faith expressed my LDS or Hindu or Muslim believers in the superiority of their own sources of authority compared to your Bible? How are you so sure you’re right and they’re wrong? How do you know that your “faith” is superior to theirs? Upon what basis do you make such a bold assertion? – a basis that would have general appeal to candid minds beyond your own?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

The Credibility of Faith
@Professor Kent:

I respectfully disagree, even though I believe in the latter, non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Is it not uncharitable of you to argue that the vast majority of scientists are obviously wrong? wrong in their claim that the biblical notion of a recent creation of life on this planet has in fact been clearly falsified by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence? I mean, every time I suggest that anyone might be mistaken you suggest that I’m being uncharitable. How about you then? Does the same argument apply to you?

You see, you’re not just disagreeing with me here. You’re disagreeing with the majority of mainstream scientists who think that your claim to the non-falsifiability of the biblical short-age model of origins is obviously mistaken – that this model for the origin of life on this planet has clearly been falsified by the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence. The very fact that you yourself recognize that empirical evidence can indeed be brought to bear against the biblical position on origins should be enough to convince you of potentially falsifiable nature of the biblical account (in the same manner that many of the historical statements in the Book of Mormon are open to potential falsification and have in fact been falsified).

The only basis that you have consistently forwarded to believe that the biblical claims are still correct despite all the falsifying empirical evidence is your “faith” in the Bible despite all the physical evidence to the contrary – faith that is largely supported by what you feel are the impressions of the Holy Spirit along with a few relatively weekly supporting empirical evidences in the form of fulfilled historical prophecies. That’s it. That’s all you’ve really argued for as far as I’ve been able to tell.

From a rational basis, your claim that the biblical position on origins is not at all subject to empirical testing or the falsifying weight of empirical evidence simply doesn’t hold water for the vast majority of intelligent minds who have thought seriously about this issue…

It is fine if you want to believe despite in the face of what you consider to be the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence to the contrary. Just don’t call your belief or faith anything other than blind faith – i.e., faith that isn’t based on the weight of empirical evidence. Faith that is based on something other than the empirical evidence is blind to that particular type of evidence since it doesn’t take it into serious account.

The kind of faith that is independent of the weight of physical evidence may be helpful for the individual, but it really isn’t helpful when it comes to convincing minds that do not have access to whatever other type of non-empirical evidence you seem to have access to. I certainly do not have access to this other type of evidence that seems so convincing to you in the face of the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence to the contrary.

I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com