Very good Sean. We now agree that apparent design in …

Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by George.

Very good Sean. We now agree that apparent design in nature does not necessarily mean intelligent design. So the author of the article I cited was wrong on his initial assumption of inputting a quite unique elaborate design to intelligence, hence an intervening God.

And, as you have indicated, there is a need of an investigative process to determine intelligent design as at first blush all design in nature is not intelligent. Agreed.

OK, let’s have some fun with flakes, of which I am likely one 🙂 ( Wes as an artist may enjoy this flaky analogy as well). Not Kellogg’s corn flakes but snowflakes. Say an artist of Wes’s pedigree decides to use materials ( ceramics, etc) to make an apparently identical snowflake in appearance to that which appears in nature. Right down to the fine feathered filigree. Then a talented photographer takes pictures of the two, indistinguishable to the human eye. Then the Kime Inquiry National Gallery (KING) agrees to host the two exhibited pictures side by side. Sean and George walk into the KING and observe the photographs not knowing the sources of the images. Which one would they decide comes from intelligent design vs mindless nature. Art imitating life and life imitating art. Intelligent and mindless design side by each ( as they say in Newfounfland bye’).

My point being that apparent intelligent design may not be so apparent at all. And, as natural snowflakes eloquently demonstate, mindless nature is able to produce quite elaborate designs. The question of course are what, if any, the limits of nature to design by cause and effect mechanisms and the laws of the universe over 13 billion years? And, as some- granted disputed- evidence suggests, a metaverse exists can we say definitively that our universe was intelligently designed and not rsndomly formed?

Now, as time, technology and scientific investigation have advanced we are better able to determine how cause and effect mechanisms ‘design’. If is a legitimate question to investigate what the limits of those cause and effect mechanisms are. However I don’t think at a specific technological or scientifc point in time one can can default to intelligent design as a scientific conclusion. At best one can say we don’t yet have the answers to what appears to be designed mechanisms in the universe.

Hope that helps to better explain my thoughts.

George Also Commented

“If you limit the free will agent to only hurting him or herself, you haven’t provided true freedom of will.”

Naturally, by how do you let that free human will change the perfect laws of the universe? Where does that human power come from? Doesn’t that require a wee bit of divine intervention to let the perfect universe unwind? Or did Adam and Eve have a different type of free will with magical powers that extant humans do not have?

“What are you afraid of?”

Not of my mortality or any promise of heaven, my friend. And not of compromising my intellectual freedom thorough religious or atheist bias. I don’t need certainty or hope. Those are temporal pablum.

Very glad that you agree there are imperfections in the universe. So does that mean an imperfect creator. an imperfect designer, ergo an imperfect God? What empirical evidence is there that the universe was once perfect and Adam esting a forbidden apple caused imperfection to occur? None is the only rational, non mythical answer – but saying so I don’t begrudge any there faith to the contrary, especially if it gives them hope in their daily lives. My mirror is most severe and the abyss most deep. And in facing that I am peace with myself. But I will fight ignorance tooth and nail, my friend, especially if religion disguises itself as reason or science.

That being said there may or may not be a design to this universe. In answer to your question what would convince me, I would have to be convinced that our universe is in fact not part of a metaverse where other possible universes with different properties are possible. I would also to understand if this universe is designed, why such a design if intelligently designed? If God marvels life why not design it on every planet? I would also need to see majority scientific peer reviewed support that macro evolution is not viable. You raise some interesting points but I don’t think you are an evolutionary biologist and have done little experimentation or research in the area. I appreciate this an appeal to authority, but at least it is an appeal to scientific authority as oppossed to holy books written by men 🙂

Hope that helps explain my position a bit more.

By the way, Dr. Kime’s diatribe on the relative, changing landscape of Adventism is outstanding. It is a microcosm of what happens to all religions over time and how they schism based on the wiles of Man to rest authority away from exisitng tenets or persons wielding power with orthodoxy. It’s why I say all religion is relative cultural phenomena, even the various iterations of the Bible. It will continue to change as new prophets and power brokers come along. Do you think EGW would hold court in today’s modern society? She was a anachronism of her time and that age’s credulity. There will be more prophets and rational cynics will be there to hobble their celestial ankles.

I wish you and my pard Wes a happy Sabbath,

This Adventist pastor had the courage to question things for himself.

Recent Comments by George

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂