Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.
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’).
At least you’re starting to think about the problem. Of course, as your illustration nicely points out, the detection of design requires that one knows what the material in question is and has some background experience with that material as it interacts with various forces of nature. Why do you think I specifically chose the material of granite, rather than pyrite, when arguing that a highly symmetrical granite cube would be a clear artifact of intelligent design? Knowledge of the potential and limits of the material in question makes a big difference – as you yourself know full well.
My point being that apparent intelligent design may not be so apparent at all.
Not true. Apparent intelligent design is not apparent until one has investigated the phenomenon in question, determined its material, and has some prior experience with the material in question regarding its potential and limitations in various natural environments. After all, not even you would question the intelligent origin of the rock formations in the photographs I’ve presented – even if found on an alien planet. Why not? Because you know that such formations are well outside of the creative powers of all known natural forces this side of a practical eternity of time (or a practically infinite number of universes). That is why your multiverse argument is meaningless and why you yourself don’t really subscribe to it and all that it implies.
And, as natural snowflakes eloquently demonstate, mindless nature is able to produce quite elaborate designs.
And yet, somehow, you’re still able to recognize that a highly symmetrical granite cube is outside of what mindless nature can produce (as many of the rock formations in the pictures I’ve presented to you). Again, your conclusion doesn’t rationally follow your argument nor are you being consistent…
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?
Ok, given 14 billions of years of time, do you think it is remotely likely to find a highly symmetrical polished granite cube anywhere in the universe as a product of any mindless force of nature? – or any of the rock formations I’ve shown you so far in this forum? Of course you don’t. You know full well that you would recognize any of these phenomena as clear artifacts of intelligent design regardless of where they happened to be found in the universe. Your appeal to a multiverse is simply inconsistent with what you would actually conclude – or what any other rational person would conclude. The multiverse argument is in fact, as I’ve already explained, fundamentally opposed to scientific reasoning and methodologies.
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.
Oh please. Are you telling me that you would not recognize a highly symmetrical granite cube or any of the rock formations are true artifacts of intelligent design if they happened to be found on an alien planet? You would really argue that “we don’t know yet” what produced these formations? – that you have absolutely no idea if they are or are not intelligently designed? That’s such a ridiculous proposal that I don’t think you actually believe what you’re saying here. You’re basically arguing that SETI science is effectively impossible – even in theory. You’re saying that it is scientifically impossible to detect a true artifact as the result of intelligent design regardless of the nature of the artifact. That’s an absurd position that is completely opposed to basic scientific methodologies as well as numerous mainstream sciences that are based on the ability, the scientific ability, to recognize true artifacts of intelligent design with very high predictive value.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Logic and our God-given reasoning abilities are what help us make sense of pictures like these and the world around us in general. And, that is why detecting the Divine Signature isn’t based on mere intestinal “gestalt” or indigestion after eating too many burritos at Taco Bell…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
I’m not sure why you feel the need to repetitively inform me, over and over again, with these very same pejorative observations of yours? You keep “leaving for good” and then coming back again and again with nothing new. I’m just not interested anymore. If you want to be interesting beyond your intestinal “gestalt” feelings of faith or truth, present some actually evidence, a rational argument of some kind, that goes beyond your personal subjective fideistic feelings and arguments from authority for why I, or anyone else for that matter, should listen to much less favor your perspective above the church’s perspective or even my own personal perspective. Now that would be interesting for a change…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Of which I am fairly well informed, having read the available scientific literature extensively, and with a great deal of effort to honestly consider and understand it, over the past 20 years or so. I dare say I’ve read a bit more about the science and debates surrounding the topic of origins than you have – from authors arguing from both sides of the issue. In fact, I read far more from the mainstream evolutionary literature than I do from the ID or creationist literature. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right in my thinking. However, it does mean that at least I’m very well informed on the topic. In other words, I’ll know when you’re just blowing smoke. However, if you see some specific error in anything I’ve said on this topic, beyond your various forms of “gestalt” sensations or bald appeals to arguments from authority, by all means present a real argument. I will honestly consider it to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I’m just not interested in talking about your subjective fideistic “feelings of truth” on science or religion any further…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…