Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Sean Pitman.
@Pauluc:
It is, in short, one thing to wonder whether evolution happens; it’s quite another thing to wonder whether adaptation is the mechanism by which evolution happens. Well, evolution happens; the evidence that it does is overwhelming. I blush to have to say that so late in the day; but these are bitter times.”
Now, was that so hard? Really? Thank you for finally admitting what I’ve been saying all along…
Why is it always so difficult to get most evolutionists to admit, right upfront, that they have absolutely no idea how or by what mechanism evolution happens beyond low levels of functional complexity? As you’ve just highlighted, evolutionists are always very adamant that, because of shared similarities between all living things in a hierarchical pattern (aka: the Tree of Life) and their interpretations of the fossil record, common descent happened; that all life originated from a very simple common ancestor to produce all the diversity and complexity of life that we see today – all without the need for any intelligent input along the way. But, when it comes to actually demonstrating a viable mindless mechanism with such creative powers, powers to produce the high level functional differences found within living things (or even computer software programs), they’re completely at a loss. They have absolutely no idea (beyond fanciful just-so story telling that is).
How can this be? If the reality of evolution is so clearly understood as a real “science”, then how can it be that there is no known mindless mechanism that has the power to explain the existence of very high levels of functional complexity?
You guys simply assume that it happened. You tell your just-so stories about this morphing into that over vast periods of time by mindless mechanisms when you have no viable mechanism. No mechanism! How does this fact not cause you guys to take a step back? How are you so sure that the amazing functional complexities of living things must have been the result of a mindless process? – completely undirected by any form of outside intelligence? You simply don’t know beyond a great deal of bluster, smoke, and mirrors as far as I can tell. You’re just making it up as you go along telling just-so stories about how the mechanism must have been mindless. How can you tell these stories knowing, as you evidently do, that you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back up your stories beyond statistically untenable extrapolations from very low levels of functional complexity?
I’m sorry, but this isn’t what science is all about. Science produces testable hypotheses and theories that give rise to useful statistically-based degrees of predictive value. Where is the measurable predictive value to your assertion that a mindless mechanism did the job? Where is your science my friend?
Unfortunately that is no explanatory model that could compete with a naturalistic models based on mutation, contingency/selection and stochastic processes [regarding the “organization of beta defensins”].
You’re talking about the origin of patterns here without any consideration of the functionality of the systems themselves. When you start considering the origin of the actual functionality of systems within living things, at higher and higher-levels of functional complexity, your models based on “mutation, contingency/selection, and stochastic processes” are helpless beyond bluster and just-so story telling devoid of testable predictions. Where is your predictive value? Where is the demonstration of such evolution in action or even relevant statistical analysis for any of your suggested mindless mechanisms? Where is the science?
What you’re trying to do is suggest that certain types of patterns are more consistent with a mindless naturalistic origin than with any kind of deliberate design. And, I would agree that various mindless mechanisms are indeed able to produce certain patterns that are evident in living things – to include the nested hierarchical patterns that are generally found throughout the “Tree of Life”. However, such patterns are not outside of the creative realm of deliberate design (as evidenced by various NHPs within computer systems such as object oriented programming and the like). How then does one tell the difference regarding the origin if these features in living things? If you actually had a viable mechanism that could explain not only the pattern of similarities evident in living things, but the existence of high-level functional differences, there would be no useful way to tell the difference and the most rational default would be in favor of mindless mechanisms producing the whole thing. However, the catch is that there is no known mindless mechanism that remotely comes close to producing higher-level functional systems. The only known creative force that is predictably able to produce such high-level functional systems in a reasonable amount of time is driven by deliberate intelligence – period. End of story.
So, the evidence that is actually available strongly suggests that high levels of functional complexity only arise with the outside aid of deliberate intelligent design. Therefore, where is the science for your bald assertions to the contrary? Do you and other evolutionists simply have a need to remove life and its high levels of functional complexity from all possibility of having an intelligent origin? Upon what basis is this effort motivated? Certainly it isn’t a scientific basis. Rather, it seems to me to be much more philosophically or religiously motivated. You seem to have a need, for some strange reason, to exclude God, or any kind of deliberate intelligent input, a priori from any possible involvement with the origin of life or its amazing functional complexity and diversity. That’s not science. That’s philosophy…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@pauluc:
This nicely encapsulates the evangelical zeal I have increasingly seen acolytes of Richard Dawkins and the new atheists who embrace ET as a antidote to the nihlism that characterized the “old” atheists and gives meaning in the present of mortality salience.
Since when does Richard Dawkins find ultimate meaning in life? – beyond what can be self-generated or enjoyed for the here and the now? or for however long one’s offspring may live in the terminal universe? – a universe with a limited life span? As far as I’m aware he is right in line with the likes of William Provine who wrote:
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
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.
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
“Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address
And, speaking from the perspective of Darwinism, I think that the modern atheists, like Dawkins and Provine, are right on the money here. Also of interest, and worthy of consideration in this particular discussion, Provine went on to write:
I obviously agree with Gould about intelligent design in organisms, but I think also that a real disagreement exists… Gould said it’s fine to believe that God created all creatures through the laws of science but this is basically deism, considered atheism in Isaac Newton’s day.
Gould described his own personal view as “agnostic,” appropriately conciliatory in pursuit of NOMA. Did he treat his own scientific theories in a similarly agnostic way? Did he say he is an agnostic about the concept of punctuated equilibria, one of his favorite theories? … Gould, Thomas Henry Huxley (inventor of the term), and Charles Darwin all billed themselves as agnostics, although they somehow avoid being agnostic about natural selection. Gould appeared to be saying that religion is fine as long as it can’t be distinguished from atheism in the natural world.
Darwinism, Design and Public Education (2003) p.507-8
To summarize, it was Richard Dawkins who said:
I have a certain niggling sympathy for the creationists, because I think, in a way, the writing is on the wall for the religious view that says it’s fully compatible with evolution. I think there’s a kind of incompatibility, which the creationists see clearly.
– Adventures in Democracy March 8 2010 2.20
Without the hope of God or an eternal life in a better place after we die in this life, upon what basis is there any real ultimate meaning or purpose to life?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Indeed. Which, I suppose, is why Dr. Taylor claims to believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God. However, when asked, Dr. Taylor also says that he knows of no good evidence to support his belief in even the basic existence of God that he could honestly share with his own granddaughter. In this sense, his form of agnosticism goes a bit deeper than what you’ve referenced here.
Also, the idea that one can accept the fantastic claims of the Bible about Jesus’ divine origin, life, death, and resurrection, but reject other Biblical statements on the origin of life on this planet is just a bit inconsistent… which was the main point of my essay.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@pauluc:
You’re right. I originally understood your comment as suggesting that Adventists believe in the existence of a conscious soul independent of the body. Now that I re-read your comment, I misunderstood what you actually said. My apologies.
Sean
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…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
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.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
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.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
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.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
