@Thinker: It isn’t a matter of truth being unable to

Comment on Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising? by Sean Pitman.

It isn’t a matter of truth being unable to survive scrutiny. Everyone should carefully scrutinize his/her faith (as well as their church) on a regular basis to see if it really is or is not representative of the best “truth” that is currently known – also known as “present truth”.

However, church employees (like pastors and teachers) are not hired to promote ideas that are fundamentally opposed to the currently stated goals and ideals of the church. That would be counter productive to the organizational structure of the church. Shouldn’t Reebok be able to withstand scrutiny and competitive ideas? Of course, but you won’t see Reebok actually hiring someone to advertise for Nike…

If you or anyone else finds yourself so “progressive”, far beyond the fundamental positions of the church as an organization, how can you hope to be recognized as part of the organization? – much less a paid representative? It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong in your views. If you want to be part of an organization, you must work with where that organization happens to be – or join or form another organization that is more in line with your current views.

Also, while the human understanding of truth is, or at least should be progressive to at least some degree, there are certain basics that should be solidly established and unshakable in one’s mind. If your “truth” is so relative and post-modern that it can change so easily with popular opinion on such fundamental issues, what’s the point in holding to doctrinal beliefs of any kind as “fundamental”? – something worth dying to uphold? Why believe that anything in the Bible was Divinely inspired over that of any other religious book, moral fable, or just-so story? For that matter, why believe in the existence of a personal God who loves you, died to save you, and will come to resurrect you from the dead and take you to His home to live forever someday? How do you know that this fantastic Biblical claim isn’t just another “metaphor”? Or, have you progressed beyond such fairytales as well?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@Thinker:

I am not on here to explain mainstream Christianity to you beyond the basic differences I already pointed out between it and fundamentalism.

Yes, but why even be a Christian if you don’t believe the Bible? – if you don’t believe in the credibility of the stories about who Christ really was?

Also, you’re just fooling yourself to think you’ve somehow escaped fundamentalist thinking. You think you’ve gone from a blind faith religion to a rational form of thinking by accepting the conclusions of neo-Darwinists. In reality you’ve simply traded one form of fundamentalist religion for another that is more popular.

You’re now just a Darwinian fundamentalist, still believing based on blind faith that the mindless Darwinian mechanism (RM/NS) did the job without really knowing how this is remotely possible. Sure, you’ve got plenty of just-so stories and a spectacular imagination to fall back on, but where’s the science? Where are the testable, potentially falsifiable, hypotheses to back up your stories? Where’s the statistical analysis, predictive value, or demonstration for higher level forms of evolution?

You won’t even try to answer these questions because you really can’t. No one can and no one has because the statistical odds are so dramatically opposed to the untenable claims of the neo-Darwinists. There’s absolutely nothing in literature in support beyond very very low levels of functional complexity – nothing.

So stop badgering me. If you don’t understand it, read some books and stop mischaracterizing what I said.

Hey, you’re the one who came to me, remember? You’re the one posting to my website here. If you don’t like your ideas being questioned, go post your ideas in forums where everyone already agrees with you – like a true fundamentalist who likes to be patted on the back all the time by those of the same persuasion…

Also, how have I mischaracterized anything that you’ve said? I’ve only asked you a few basic questions for the purpose of clarifying your position.

Your implication that mainstream Christians aren’t really Christian is typical fundamentalist fare. I’m among the many who disagree. Frankly I think it’s quite arrogant to imagine that one’s own sincerity trumps that of others merely because their understanding of things religious is different from yours.

I don’t question your sincerity or the sincerity of those who call themselves Christian while claiming that Jesus was not born of a true virgin woman, did not cure the deaf or blind or raise the dead, nor was himself raised from the dead (like Kenneth Miller). Such may be ever so sincere and earnest, but certainly don’t represent any useful or rational form of Christianity.

To be honest, Richard Dawkins, William Provine, and the like are much more rational given their initial conclusions. For example, William Provine, late professor of biological sciences at Cornell University, gave a very interesting speech for a 1998 Darwin Day keynote address in which he pointed out the following:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

No gods worth having exist;

No life after death exists;

No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;

No ultimate meaning in life exists; and

Human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Provine also wrote, “In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.” – Academe January 1987, pp.51-52

It seems to me that Provine was right. Darwinian-style evolution is just one more argument for the philosophical position of “Naturalism” – a position that suggests that everything within the physical world, everything that we can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell, is ultimately the result of non-deliberate mindless forces of nature. These forces do not have feelings or care about you or me or our feelings regarding what they are or are not doing to us or for us.

Really then, upon what rational basis would you argue that Provine is actually wrong? Where is the rational basis for the Christian belief in the historical existence of the God-man Jesus? in his life, death, and resurrection?

I regret you have not dispelled my distinct impression that fundamentalists worship cherished beliefs more than Truth. I can relate to that. I was there once.

You still are there…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@Thinker: @Sean Pitman:

I’m just curious to see if you have anything new or substantive to bring to the table beyond the usual just-so story telling and bald assertions? I have no need to “win” a discussion – especially one with an anonymous stranger where few if any will ever read the discussion. “Winning” depends upon the biases of the audience anyway…

Honestly, I’d be very grateful to you if you could actually show me the rational basis for the creative potential of the Darwinian mechanism beyond very low levels of functional complexity. I’d be overjoyed if anyone could explain it to me… or give me a single reference that even discusses the mathematical odds in support of RM/NS creating anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity…

No one, not even you, seems up to the challenge as far as I can tell – and I’ve been seriously studying evolutionary theories for many years now. I can only conclude, therefore, that you simply refuse to consider any question or challenge to your position – – that you are in fact a Darwinian Fundamentalist who believes the fantastic just-so stories for the creativity of mindless natural selection without the backing of any real testable, potentially falsifiable, science or empirical basis behind your beliefs.

As far as Christianity is concerned, I’ve only asked how you think mainstream Christians logically pick and choose which fantastic Biblical stories to take literally and which ones to take as being “metaphorical”?

You’re the one telling me that there are so many huge errors and contradictions in the Bible, to include the conflicting Gospel accounts about Jesus’ life, that none of it can really be rationally trusted beyond moral fables or metaphorical concepts.

I’m therefore just wondering if you actually believe, as the literal truth, the central claims of Christianity? – the claims about Jesus being God and/or raised from the dead? After all, many well-known “Christian evolutionists”, like Kenneth Miller for example, do not believe in the literal truth of any of the miracles attributed to Jesus. They do not believe that he was really born of a virgin or that he raised the dead or was himself raised from the dead. They believe all of these miraculous stories are “metaphors”… just like you seem to suggest.

I’m only wondering if you wish to clarify? Are you of the same opinion as Kenneth Miller? I’m wondering just how far you’ve taken your naturalistic notions toward their logical conclusions? In this regard I’m in full agreement with Richard Dawkins. There simply is no rational basis for any of the fantastic claims of Christianity, none of them, if you take neo-Darwinism to its most rational and logical conclusion. If the claims of neo-Darwinists are in fact true, there simply is no rational basis for any of the empirical claims of Christianity to be taken seriously…

Why then are you a Christian? – assuming that you do in fact claim the title?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@Thinker:

I haven’t just read “about” evolution. I’ve read and own the primary material. I’ve read and own “On the Origin of Species…” etc. I’ve read and own my own copy of “Finding Darwins’ God” by Kenneth Miller. I’ve read and own “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins… and many other such books and endless articles in mainstream science journals. I dare say that I’ve read more of the primary material on neo-Darwinism, written by mainstream Darwinian scientists, than you have… or even than most evolutionists have.

The fact is that none of these books or articles explain the question I asked you – and neither do you. Neither you nor anyone else has any statistical basis or demonstreation for your “theory” that the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS is remotely capable of doing what you all claim that it did.

That is why your “theory” really isn’t a scientific theory at all in that it isn’t based on statistical analysis or predictive value or demonstration of any kind beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

Again, if you think I’m wrong, it should be very very easy for you to reference any scientific article that explains the statistical odds of RM/NS producing anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity within a given span of time. The problem is that no such articles exist in scientific literature – none at all.

That’s why you haven’t fallen for real “science” here. You’ve fallen for a religious defense of the Darwinian doctrine. You’re a Darwinian Fundamentalist, just as passionate and blinded by your doctrinal beliefs as any Christian-style fundamentalist, who believes in the holy untouchable doctrine that some mindless mechanism can actually create fantastic novel systems of function beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Such a doctrine is not based on science, but on the bald just-so story telling of the true believers. There is no potential for testing these just-so stories in a falsifiable manner. There is only blind faith when it comes to belief in the creative potential of the Darwinian mechanism. Fossil and phylogenetic evidence don’t explain how your proposed mechanism either did or could have done the job. They don’t address this question at all…

I leave you with one simple question:

Do you believe that Jesus was really a God-man, born of a virgin woman, walked on water, raised the dead, and was himself raised to life and went to heaven after being dead for three days?

Do you believe such a fantastic Biblical claim about Jesus? – or is this all just metaphor too?

It’s a simple “Yes” or “No” question…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com