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
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
