At least be honest with what I said. There was …

Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.

At least be honest with what I said. There was no eventual. I did not and do not accept that the extroplation from artefacts clearly designed by intelligent life have anything to do with the the origins of that life.

I never claimed that you said otherwise. The point here is that, at the very least, you would recognize things like highly symmetrical granite cubes or the arrangements of otherwise natural rocks in the photographs above as true artifacts of “creative intelligence”. Of course you still believe that the intelligent agents themselves “evolved” over time or were somehow naturally produced as “emergent” properties of the universe – for some very strange reason. Yet, despite this, you still admit that certain artifacts are “blindly obvious” and do in fact require creative intelligence to rationally explain their origin.

They can be explained as emergent properties of that life and the recognition of artefact is blindingly obvious because all intelligence we can empirically test or know is based on neural systems and brains which have evolved for pattern recognition. Of course we can consider the caveat that there can be thinking machines but they remain embodied in a physical substrate. That is the science.

As George himself as so eloquently demonstrated, “pattern recognition” by itself is not enough to detect the true artifactual nature of a given phenomenon. The very same shape or pattern that is so clearly artifactual when exhibited in the material of granite is not so artifactual when exhibited in the material of pyrite or salt (which can naturally self-assemble to produce highly symmetrical cubes without the need to invoke intelligent design). So, you’re clearly mistaken when you say that the ability to recognize true artifacts is nothing but “pattern recognition”. You also need some background information regarding the material itself and how it is likely to interact with various mindless forces of nature. That’s where the science of detecting design comes into play. That is the basis of various mainstream sciences that are looking for true artifacts in nature – like SETI, anthropology, and forensic science.

To accept that there is even any disembodied intelligence is a leap and an act of faith that we as Christians see as the basis for meaning, beauty and purpose. It has no support in empirical science as scientists would understand it despite your strident and unfaltering insistence.

Everything in science requires a “leap of faith” beyond what can be absolutely demonstrated or known with absolute certainty. The fact is that the evidence for the intelligent origin of the universe is so striking that most physicists suspect that there was mindful purpose behind its origin. In fact, many physicists are now suggesting that the universe constantly requires intelligent input – that it is nothing short of entirely depending upon the mind of God – that it appears, in fact, to be a type of mental projection (a “holographic universe”).

Science is not so constrained as you claim where it cannot detect, with very good predictive value, the artifictual nature of various phenomena that are so magnificent that the responsible designer would require access to intelligence and creative power that you would not be able to distinguish from what a God or God-like mind would possess.

Dont imply that I have accepted your ID/creationism. I have not.

I would never think to suggest otherwise. At least I hope that I never suggested or implied that your thinking comes remotely close to the level of an IDist much less a creationist! … even if you might be slightly closer to it than a few others (like George for instance).

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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…

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…

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…

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

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.

Sean Pitman

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

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.

Sean Pitman

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

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.

Sean Pitman

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…

Sean Pitman