Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
The reason I cited it was that you should be aware that questioning mechanism in no way questions the underlying basic premise…
What? Questioning the creative potential of the Darwinian mechanism in no way challenges the core belief that some as yet unknown mindless mechanism really did do the job? You do realize that Darwin would never have become famous if he had not presented a mindless mechanism as the engine of origins that seemed feasible to many scientists of his day and even of our day? If one undermines the Darwinian mechanism, or in any other way successfully challenges all known mindless mechanisms as far as their ability to produce higher levels of functional complexity, one seriously undermines the modern theory of evolution as well. That’s why so many evolutionists are so ardently opposed to Stephen Meyer’s excellent new book, Signature in the Cell.
Remember now that Meyer, like you, believes in common descent (as do some other IDers like Behe, etc.). Meyer, like Behe and others, just believes that some form of intelligence must have been involved with the process of descent over time when it comes to explaining the origin of functional systems and meaningful information at higher levels of functional complexity. I see that as a clear step in the right direction…
In any case, most evolutionists realize the problem that a lack of a viable mindless mechanism brings to evolutionism in general (not you of course). It is for this reason most hang onto the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS so ardently despite its many fundamental flaws and very clear statistical limitations beyond very low levels of functional complexity – because they don’t know of any other option and because they are as devoted to the mistaken definitions of “methodological naturalism” that you are evidently using.
Let me as you a simple question: How can you be so sure that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube had to have been deliberately designed, that no as yet unknown mindless mechanism is likely to be found that could do the job, while a rotary flagellar motility system in a bacterium was clearly produced by some as yet unknown mindless process over vast periods of time?
Let’s look a bit at your appeal to your belief in “methodological naturalism” as a basis of science. Let’s assume that you’re correct; that methodological naturalism really is the basis of science. I ask you, where does methodological naturalism exclude the scientist’s ability to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain a given phenomenon? like a polished granite cube? or an arrowhead? or a murder victim? or a narrow band radio signal tagged with “the first 50 terms of the Fibonacci series”? You see, we are talking about ‘natural’ levels of intelligence here. After all, humans are both “natural” and “intelligent” and we have no problem detecting certain human activities vs. the mindless process of nature despite the fact that the ID hypothesis is being used. Even higher levels of intelligence beyond that currently attained by humans can theoretically be detected by science you know (just ask the anthropic scientists).
One of your problems, when it comes to living things in particular, is that you continually confuse arguments for common descent with arguments for a mindless mechanism as the source of all forms of functional complexity. That’s not a valid scientific assumption. Demonstrating evidence for common descent isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that a mindless mechanism did the job. This notion is not an automatic scientific default nor is it testable or potentially falsifiable. If you don’t have a valid mindless mechanism to explain a given feature in nature, a feature that is known to be within the realm of deliberate design, why do you default toward believing that an as yet unknown mindless mechanism probably did the job? Where is the scientific justification for this conclusion?
I ask, yet again, where is the science here? Where is the predictive value for this a priori assumption of mindless mechanism? – beyond just-so story telling and/or personal religious or philosophical preferences? Where is the evidence for the notion that any mindless mechanism can come remotely close to doing the job in what anyone would call a reasonable amount of time (i.e., something less than a trillion years)?
One final thought. You cite your belief in Jesus as the Son of God, yet Jesus believed in the literal Genesis account of origins. He believed in a literal creation week, that all mankind descended from Adam and Eve who were created directly by God Himself. Jesus also claimed to have knowledge of His own pre-existence, to include direct personal knowledge of Abraham as well as Lucifer’s fall from Heaven – “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18). Here we have something of a quandary. On the one hand we have Jesus, whom you yourself claim to be God, saying that He has direct knowledge of events that you, being just a human being, claim to have never taken place. How is it rational to believe in Jesus as God, yet, at the same time, believe that many of His claims to historical knowledge were absolutely false? Does this not make Him out to be a liar? Or, was he just overly affected by his human condition and surroundings? – a product of His times? – not truly having access to such privileged information as He seemed to claim?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Effective atheist, closet creationist, close to classic IDist or creationist?
Are you sure it is my agnosticism that is changing rather than your opinion of what I am?
I didn’t say that you were effectively an atheist. What I said was that your arguments for agnosticism were effectively atheistic. There’s a difference. Your arguments for God’s likely existence are obviously the opposite of atheistic – certainly not agnostic either.
After all, someone who claims to believe that the existence of God is “likely”, because of ultimate origin arguments, doesn’t match most people’s concept of an “agnostic”.
So, please do forgive me if I am still way off base regarding your true position…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
You have transported me from an atheist to a closet creationist in the width of a thread my friend. 🙂 I wonder what you will create me as next?
What have I done? – besides point out that someone who claims that God’s existence is “likely”, based on arguments for ultimate causation requiring a God-like intelligence and creative power, isn’t what most people would call an “agnostic”?
In short, your “agnostic” arguments are the very same ones used by atheists like Dawkins and Hawking and your “God likely exists” arguments are essentially the same ones used by IDists and creationists. How then can I be faulted for suggesting that you’re not really an agnostic or an atheist? While you’re not a classic creationist or IDist by any means, you seem to me to be, at least for now, far closer to such than to pure agnosticism… which is a very hard position to hold, in its pure form, for very long I would think. Certainly Hawking couldn’t do it for long. Eventually one decides, like you, to try to figure out which way the turtles seem to be going…
Of course, you could end up falsifying my hypothesis… 😉
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Now I think Hawkings thinking about our universe has evolved since he wrote Brief History of Time, because he is looking at turtles ( metaverses) a level or two upwards. However Grand Design implies grand designer doesn’t it. Can design ever be mindless?
Yes, Hawking has apparently evolved, or devolved if you prefer, from the position of agnosticism to atheism since he wrote A Brief History of Time.
As far as your question as to if a “design” can be “mindless”, the answer to that question is yes – depending upon what you mean by the term “design”. As far as we can tell, anyway, what appears to be “mindless nature” does in fact have certain creative powers (discussed further below).
Who or what created the matter for the first turtle? Ever seen a turtle appear out of nothing, ex nihilo?
This is exactly the reason why many scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the “first cause”, whatever it may be, had to itself have been eternal. Of course there are those, like Hawking for instance, who argue that something can indeed come from nothing… but that belief certainly isn’t scientific in that it is not testable in a falsifiable manner and has no useful predictive power.
I told you I was intrigued by Intelligent Design and Deism didn’t I? And I still say that creation of the original matter for the original universe out of nothing is not a rational proposition. Why? Because science and mathematics can not explain infinity, first cause or infinite regress. And philosophy doesn’t seem to do much better (Munchhausen Trilemma).
Now you’re sounding like a creationist 😉
Can turlles read? For their sake I’ ll state it again: when the atheists, sceintists or philosphers rationally explain to me how ‘original’ matter and energy, that ultimately led to intelligent life, arose out of the mindless void, then I’ll become an atheist.
Me too! The only difference between you and I is that you are impressed with the unlikely appearance of original matter/energy out of nothing without a pre-existent eternal intelligence, while I am also impressed by the origin of the informational complexity needed to get otherwise random non-directed energy/matter to produce useful stuff. Consider that the origin of useful information is just as problematic for the atheistic mindset as is the origin of basic energy/matter itself (By the way, atoms and basic atomic particles are informationally rich, as are the fined-tuned fundamental constants of the universe).
If a faith construct ever satistifactority answers my questions then I’ll join that religion. (All come up relativistically short so far).
Science itself is a faith construct. You cannot make any conclusions as to the likely nature of empirical reality without taking a leap of faith, to one degree or another, beyond that which can be absolutely known.
This was Wesley Kime’s point in arguing that faith and science are forced to walk hand-in-hand. This is also the point of well-known philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn. You simply cannot avoid taking on a “faith construct” of some kind – no one can. The only choice any of us really has is which faith construct to take on…
Part of the problem is what we mean by mindless. Can a human mind know the mind of God?
Not in totality of course since we are finite and God, by definition, is infinite. However, we can known what God has given us to know about himself. In other words, we are capable of comprehending certain limited aspects of God.
What may appear as mindless nature may not be mindless at all if we figure out the Grand Design. I think both Einstein and Hawkings understood and understand this dilemma. In fairness and with great respect I think in what you and Dr. Kime in your own way are trying to do as well: marry faith to science for a more fuller and optimistic view of reality. Please note, especially my friend Wes, that I have stated that this is laudable. Not toying around here, I mean what I say.
Faith and science are already married since one cannot exist without the other. It is just that some fail to recognize when they are in fact taking leaps of faith.
Beyond this, you seem to be making the same point that the founders of modern chaos theory made. In short, randomness cannot be proven. What appears to be a random sequence from one perspective may actually be determined by a simple formula from another perspective. The same thing is true about what appears to be the result of a mindless mechanism. Ultimately, from a different perspective, the same phenomenon may have been known or produced by some deliberate purpose.
The problem, of course, is that our perspective is limited. We can only deal with the limited information that we currently understand. So, the best we can say is that certain phenomenon appear to be the result of apparently mindless mechanisms while other phenomena (like highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, or your automobile) much more clearly require the input of deliberate intelligence.
Might I be stretching the boundaries of agnosticim in saying that even though I cannot prove it – because ultimate creation ex nihilo and infinite regress makes no sense to me – the case for an ultimate grand designer/ force makes more rational, ‘likely’ sense?
You are definitely stretching the boundaries of agnosticism to argue for God’s “likely” existence. This is why I have been saying for some time now that you are not a true agnostic. You are a closet creationist to at least some degree. You present some of the very same arguments used by intelligent design advocates and even creationists in favor of the very likely existence of a God or God-like intelligence behind it all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
