Comment on Another Student’s Perspective of La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.
There’s nothing scientific about the story of single celled organisms eventually evolving into humans over hundreds of millions of years via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. This just-so story is not supported by demonstration or relevant statistical analysis. It has no predictive value beyond low levels of functional complexity, and it has been effectively falsified by the statistical odds against any kind of Darwinian-style evolution beyond very low levels of functional complexity this side of trillions of years of time (not the mention the evidence that slowly reproducing gene pools are and have always been inevitably devolving, not evolving).
The fact of the matter is that evolution does not happen and is extremely unlikely to happen beyond the level of systems that require a minimum of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to achieve a particular type of function.
You yourself base your own belief in the creative potential of the Darwinian mechanism, not on your own understanding of how it works or could have worked, but on faith, blind faith, in the authoritative claims and just-so stories of others. You admittedly don’t understand the nature of protein sequence space or the ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences at various levels of functional complexity. You therefore cannot predict how evolutionary progress will change at various levels of functional complexity – and neither can anyone else. Where then is the “science” behind neo-Darwinism?
Really, modern neo-Darwinism is built more on smoke, bluster, and mirrors, a very strong religious-type fervor and a mystical blind-faith in the just-so stories of Darwinists who call themselves “scientists”, rather than on true, testable, potentially falsifiable, science. I’m sorry, but the Biblical claims are far more in line with the weight of true scientific evidence than are the philosophically-based claims of most modern scientists…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Table of Contents
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.
