@Academic: Just because things may not …

Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Sean Pitman.

@Academic:

Just because things may not be random from God’s perspective does not mean that certain things don’t appear to be quite random and non-predictable from yours and mine. – Sean Pitman

My point was that your philosophy is flawed. You endorsed a pseudo-scientific belief of the Philistines — that random or “chance” occurrences take place outside of the direct will of God (1 Samuel 6:9). I accepted straightforward commonsense (1 Samuel 5).

The question is: Why is your “common sense” so straightforward? What is so obviously scientifically correct about your common sense? How do you know when this or that phenomenon obviously requires the input of deliberate design of any kind much less the input of a God-like intelligence?

It is easy to say that everything is the direct will of God. The problem here is that there are many things which are in fact non-predictable from your perspective; things that really do appear random or indistinguishable from the product of some non-intelligent force(s) of nature. Can you not tell the difference between those things that can be explained by the action of a tornado vs. those things that require the input of intelligent design on the level of the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci? or Michelangelo?

Can you not tell that the particular comments you just wrote in this forum were not written by the apparently random typing of a monkey? Do you not see that this is clearly a very unlikely hypothesis? – compared to the hypothesis that deliberate design was required on at least the human level of intelligence and creativity? – scientifically?

The ID-only hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. – Sean Pitman

Then what is preventing you from carrying out the experiment?

You carry out the experiment yourself on a daily basis. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to distinguish what anyone wrote in this forum from apparently randomly generated gobbledygook…

Let me ask you a question. What experiment would you suggest to demonstrate that the sentence that you just wrote here did in fact obviously require the input of intelligent design? I know upon what scientific basis I would make this argument, but I’m curious to see if you understand the basis behind those modern sciences that do invoke the need for ID to explain various phenomena…

You seem to be repeatedly suggesting that science cannot detect the need for any kind of intelligent input behind anything. Besides the fact that your argument defies common sense, what do you think is the basis of anthropology, forensics, or SETI? – sciences which are based on the detecting design? Do you know? If so, please do explain it to me.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:

Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid? – Sean Pitman

I have. The fact that we’re back to this conversation should make clear to you (as it no doubt is to others) that we are at an impasse. You will continue to denigrate faith, and I will continue to defend it. Except that I’m finished doing so.

I don’t remember where you’ve defended your position beyond simply claiming that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Do you not claim that your faith in the credibility of the Bible is superior to someone else’s faith in the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? – based what? You say that there need be no basis in science or evidence. You say that, “faith trumps science and evidence”. So what then is your ultimate basis for assuming the superiority of your faith in the Bible vs. other competing options?

If faith does in fact trump science and evidence, upon what basis is one able to tell which faith is correct? – faith in the Bible? – or the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How does one tell the difference if faith does in fact “trump science and evidence”?

Again, this is a sincere question and I’d be most interested in a serious response to this question. So far I’ve only seen you make fun of this question. I haven’t seen where you’ve even tried to seriously address this particular question. Why not?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:

Science is the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions. We cannot experiment with any of the 3 options (evolution, ID, Biblical Creationism), since nobody was around when these events took place and there is no experiment that could be devised to observe any proof. But, solid evidence is abundant, and it is all in the Bible, which we should all be exploring OUTSIDE the realm of any mystic, who will invariable mislead us.

You reference the historical fulfillment of prophecy as evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible. Yet, the study of history and the notion that certain specific events actually happened in history, is based on a form of scientific reasoning known as abductive reasoning.

This abductive scientific reasoning includes your reference to “the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions.” While scientific methodologies never absolutely prove anything, they are open to testing and the potential of falsification – as are your notions regarding the true nature of history and fulfilled prophecy. These ideas of yours could, at least in theory, be falsified by additional information which you are not currently aware.

So, in short, your idea that the Bible has superior credibility is based on certain forms of scientific arguments and empirical data. You are not appealing to internal features of the Bible alone. You are in fact comparing internal statements of the Bible with external information within the world outside of the Bible to see if they match. That’s a scientific concept… a scientific argument which is open to testing and potential falsification with the weight of evidence. In other words, if the biblical statements did not match the weight of evidence for a particular interpretation of historical reality, this would work against biblical credibility…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:

Is this choice [to believe that the Bible is more credible than other competing options] simply based on a deep feeling or desire? Or, is there some sort of empirically-based reasoning involved? – a form of science? – Sean Pitman

Personally, for me, it comes down to the shape of my toes… – Prof. Kent

Why try to make fun of my question? You yourself seem to recognize the need to appeal to at least some sort of empirical basis for belief in the Bible over other competing options – as in your appeal to certain historically fulfilled Biblical prophesies as evidence, empirically-based evidence, for the greater validity of the Bible.

Yet, when someone comes along and suggests that we need to believe the Bible, even given a situation where every bit of empirical evidence is against the validity of the Bible, you support such arguments as well. It seems to me like you’re trying to straddle the fence…

How is such a position, a position of belief or faith in the credibility of the Bible even when all empirical evidence is against it as far as one can tell, superior to those who hold that some other source of authority is superior to the Bible because they have “faith” in this other source (regardless of any empirical argument) or because they Holy Spirit, or some other spirit, has given them some kind of internal impression?

Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid?

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.