Sean Pitman: …

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Pauluc.

Sean Pitman:

I am sorry you cannot follow my logic.

Perhaps that’s because you haven’t even tried to present the “logic” behind your conclusion for design for a granite cube on Mars?What is the rational basis for your hypothesis of at least human-level design and creativity?

The logic for my analysis?

1] A polished granite cube is observed

2] by whom is it observed. To progress beyond observation there will need to be an observer who is able to compare against some comparitors. This assumes within the observer a brain and some memory of other objects with which to compare. An insect may well recognize this as different but is unlikely to have categories beyond expected and different. A full ontological analysis depends on an organism with a brain and intellect that has considerably more capacity for categorization and comparison. Such a brain would then ask;

2] is this naturally occuring?

In our (Homo sapiens) experience such an object cannot be made by natural physical forces acting on stone.
It could be a crystal but crystals are homogeneous in composition and this is a complex crystalline rock that is always naturally derived from volcanic activity and is amorphous in shape.
In our experience such an object is made by a living thing that can alter their environment
a] because it has a flat polished surface and
b] because the geometric shape is in a complex structured rock.

3] Since living things actively modify their environment. This is likely to be an artefact of a living organisms

We know that many living organisms make nests hives tracks tunnels and webs and manifest behaviours that look intelligent such as hunting and social or community interactions. We know that birds construct quite elaborite nests and displays. There is a gradation of the ability to use tools and to have adaptive behaviour. We have to ask which of the characteristics that we know of living creatures are responsible in this instance. Among all the things we have classified what fits?

4] What sort of organism?
It is a geometric shape that although it does occur naturally such as cubic zirconium or pyrite this is a cube constructed using a compound rock not found in nature in this form so the agent must have either copied a natural cubic form or possibly have had an abstraction or conception of a cube.
It has a polished surface which means there must have been some mechanisms to work a rock with hardness greater than 7.

5] What are the living creatures that understand geometry and have the tools to construct this object.
All that we know of with these characteristics are humans.

6] We conclude that the only living creatures with the tools to accomplish this are humans.

If we then postulate that this is on Mars. We then have to introduce some mechanism of how we observe it on Mars. We the observers must have the technology to get there and conclude that the constructor is equivalent in technology.

All of this process is simply comparing the object against the categories of objects we know and the living organisms and their artefacts. That may be logic and categorization but it is not science.

It does not involve the process of science formally defined as both method and repository of knowledge. You of course can say that science will use observation, construction of hypothesis, testing experimentally but it does not become science until it is a formal testing of a specific hypothesis by experiment and reporting that experimental data.

My formulations assumes those of conventional science.

1] Science is methodological naturalism
2] There is a methodological naturalistic explanation for change in living organisms and the development of species; variation and natural selection
3] There is a supernatural realm which we ascertain by faith and which cannot be ascertained by any method using methodological naturalism.

======================================

In contrast your logic appears to be

1] observe a polished granite cube.
2] several steps or categorization probably not unlike what I have described.
3] conclude that the cube is man made or at least derived from a human like population
4] conclude it is an example of intelligent design since
a] it has evidence of design something that cannot arise by known natural means.
b] it has evidence of manipulation design that required some intelligence.
5] objects that are not constructed by physical forces are evidence of this process of intelligent design.
6] all objects showing evidence of design must therefor be derived from an intelligent designer
7] all living things are different to objects constructed by simple physical forces (water ice and sun and physical chemistry)
8] QED all living things from the complex cell with its biomolecular structures and biomachines cannot be explained by sun water ice and physical chemistry therefore they must be the product of intelligent design
8] There must be an intelligent designer and that is the Judeo-Christian God.

Your formulation seems to assume certain things.

1] Science should not rely on methodological naturalism but allow for miracles as causation in generating hypothesis.
2] The writing of science (peer reviewed literature) are biased and skewed and little or no value
3] There is no adequate methodological naturalistic explanation for change in living organisms and the development of species They are the product of divine intervention.
4] There is a supernatural realm which is the explanation of most of what we see around us.
5] we can understand the supernatural by the processes of “True science” which is an empiricism based on construction of hypothesis and testing them personally and anecdotally.

Pauluc Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: Remember, science (and rational thought in general) isn’t based on what might be known in the future, but upon what little is known right now.

You are absolutely right. But how do you know what is known right now?

Science as a process has defined a repository of scientific knowledge that is open scrutable and freely accessible. The peer reviewed literature.

Otherwise we are in the position that I can claim that I modelling myself after your paradigm of Da Vinci have a personal repository of knowledge that informs me and shows that you are totally wrong but I do not wish to let you know what that data is.

On the other hand I might accept as you seem to do that science is simply the knowledge that is in the world as a result of logical thought by individuals. Nowdays that would be any information on the internet which resulted from someone asking a question to address an hypothesis.

You and I know that most of what is on the internet is simply common wisdom and prejudice even if apparently following scientific processes of gaining knowledge.

Before you can make any statement of what little is known you must establish what your criteria for knowledge “science” is.

Science as accepted by most scientists has done so, you have not and the result is you have some woolly notion that “science” can be the basis of religion and faith.

You have not distinguished between the EG White use of science in its classical sense as simply knowledge whether coming from experience faith or revelation and Science as a modern enterprise based on a method including hypothesis generation experiment and communication of that information by the accepted method of peer reviewed publication.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean

Now that you seem to have rejected and frustrated my perfectly rational use of your defined method of science

“.. presenting a hypothesis that is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. That’s science my friend”

to validate astrology with my falsifiable hypothesis about predictions of travel I really am not sure we can ever agree on definitions and practice of science.

Like Leonard seems to have done I will take my leave and wish you the best for your personal activity and faith journey. I will continue to pray for you and seek that God frustrates your intentions toward LSU like he used the curse of Balaam against Gods people.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Bruno:
unfortunately I would be less certain than you seem to be.

On one hand he is board certified and trained in an orthodox medical institution and in the army where I would expect he was properly indoctrinated into evidence based medicine which is the medical equivalent of the methodological naturalism of science.

But from what he has expressed on this site I would be somewhat wary of his iconoclastic stance and clear antagonism to any expertise. This could mean that he was unable to work within a team or accept that anyone else could be right or have views or any value. In medicine we usually consider such a maverick a “cowboy” and I for certain would be reluctant to use a “cowboy” within my team team. I would have to be guided by those who had experience and seek recommendation from those with medical knowledge.

Essentially I would seek peer review just as I do in science.

I would also be some reservations about the impact of fundamentalist thinking on delivery of medical care. Would he perform an abortion or would he treat a patient with AIDS acquired through MSM? My impression is that he does compartmentalize his professional activity and his fundamentalist religious views but his militant actions against LSU does give me pause and raises concern.


Recent Comments by Pauluc

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.