@Emeritus: As a Seventh-day Adventist believer first and as a …

Comment on Intelligent Design – Science or Religion? by Sean Pitman.

@Emeritus:

As a Seventh-day Adventist believer first and as a physics teacher second, I interpret Dr. Pitman’s presentation to mean that Intelligent Design belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

I’m not sure how anyone who actually watched my presentation could come to this conclusion? I’m not sure how I could have been any more clear in suggesting that the human ability to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various features of our universe can be done in a very scientific manner?… as is the case for anthropology, forensics, and even SETI?

The same arguments used to support the hypothesis for design in these mainstream sciences can also be used to support the design argument for living machines as well.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
@Emeritus:

Providing only two nonstandard definitions is being unreasonably selective and that makes me wonder why you are ignoring the definition of science as understood by all the notable discoverers of the laws of nature.

Now it all comes clear. You’re Eugene Shubert – the one who thinks that HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS (Link). The one who talks directly with God, has prophetic understanding, and is the fulfilment of William Miller’s dream.

On your website you wrote:

By faith and prophetic understanding, I believe that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Miller’s dream… The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by me. ( Link )

I’m sorry, but you’re hardly in line with mainstream science, philosophy… or even the religious views of the Adventist Church.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
@Emeritus:

Dr. Pitman’s arguments are trivial. Real science is nontrivial. Therefore, Dr. Pitman’s lecture really wasn’t about science. Dr. Pitman might have discovered that his lecture actually misrepresented science if he had presented a thorough review of the meaning of science.

Please do present the “real” definition of science and its meaning for us so that I can move beyond my own trivial understanding of it.

After all, as far as I’m aware, the basis of science is in fact very simple and intuitive. As one of my university professors put it, “Science is a very basic BS detector.”

While the implications of scientific methodologies may be quite important and non-trivial, there’s really nothing fancy about science itself – about the basic scientific method and forms of scientific reasoning. It seems to me that even children use a form of scientific reasoning during the process of learning new and useful information about the world in which they find themselves.

So, for you to suggest that the very basis of science is this mystical complex enterprise is just a bit surprising to me – given that you are actually an emeritus professor in some field of science yourself as your moniker suggests.

I would therefore be very interested in your own non-trivial definition of science and what it “means” – contrary to what I presented in my lecture. Specifically, please do explain to me how science is in fact unable to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various features of our universe in which we live?… how this is all just “philosophy”?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I think that there can be a reasonable combination of the best of modern medicine as well as the best of healthful living and natural remedies such as exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, “forest bathing”, good sleep, vegan or at least a vegetarian diet, etc…


Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
You opted not to get vaccinated during the pandemic, for whatever reason, but did not advise others to do the same. That’s fine. I think you probably increased your own risk a bit, but that’s far better than giving medical advice to others when you don’t know for sure that you’re right – especially for those who were at higher risk than you. It’s also good that you supported others who did choose to get vaccinated.

As far as SDA hospitals and organizations, I agree that there has been some drift from the ideal. I’m not happy that so many non-SDAs are hired to work in and to be leaders. I’m also disappointed that there isn’t a lot more emphasis, direction, and teaching with regard to healthful living. There are some who are doing this, like Dr. Roger Seheult. However, there does seem to be a lack of an organized or official emphasis on how to living healthful so as to avoid having to use so many medications for chronic conditions that are largely self-inflicted. Now, I do sympathize that quick fixed and pills are what most patients want. Most doesn’t want to give up their back health habits, so doctors often just give up and give their patients what they want. Still, this does not excuse the lack of effort along these lines in our hospitals and medical schools. Also, more should be done to spread the Gospel Message in our hospitals as well…


Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Thank you for your kind words and support. I really appreciate it very much!


Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I’m fine with open dialogue, but that includes presenting and at least understanding things from the GC’s perspective and why the significant majority of SDAs and GC delegates believe that the GC did the right thing during the pandemic and with the original 2015 statement on vaccines.


Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
So, it’s impossible to be a doctor who promotes the best of modern medicine as well as the best natural remedies and still be a follower of Jesus? Really? Not even Ellen White could be saved then…