@Thinker: I got your drift just fine the first time. …

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

@Thinker:

I got your drift just fine the first time. The problem is that you didn’t answer any of my questions regarding your basis for belief in the Divine origin of the Bible, Jesus as the Son of God, His birth from a truly virgin woman, His death and resurrection, or even the existence of the Christian-style God to begin with. Why aren’t these stories all “metaphors” just like the Genesis story of creation?

By the way, the Genesis stories of creation (chapters 1 and 2) seem to me to be two different ways of describing the same thing. The are simply complimentary accounts of creation, not contradictory accounts. The same is true of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. They are complimentary, not contradictory. If they were exactly the same in every detail, they would actual be suspect of not having been independently written by different eyewitnesses, reducing the credibility of the accounts. The fact that they are different, providing different details from uniquely different perspectives adds credibility to their fantastic claims.

Also, if you understand the evolutionary mechanism so well, and how RM/NS can produce the vast diversity of highly complex biomachines in just a few billion years, without the input of any form of intelligent design, please do explain it to me. And, while your at it, please do explain how the rapidly degenerating genomes of slowly reproducing creatures (like all birds, mammals and reptiles, for instance) managed to avoid rapid extinction much less persist and evolve over hundreds of millions of years? Talk about blind fundamentalist faith in something which you yourself don’t remotely understand…

The fact is that you are a fundamentalist. It is just that your fundamental beliefs are based on the popular opinions of those whom you personally consider to be “experts” or authorities. It is just a different form of religious belief, no less fervently held on a “fundamental” level. You strongly believe, on a fundamental level, that popular scientists and secular theologians are right and those who hold minority opinions regarding the Bible, such as the literal view of the Genesis account of origins, are clearly out of touch with reality. The problem is, your views are no less religious or “fundamental” than those you accuse of being stuck in the Dark Ages in a blind-faith religion… no more open to criticism, testing or potential falsification.

In any case, if you’re simply against Adventist-“fundamentalism”; if you truly don’t believe anything on a fundamental level, what’s the point? Is there nothing that you hold to be fundamentally true with regard to the existence of God as your personal friend and Savior? Nothing worth any personal risk on your part? Nothing worth dying for even if it happens to be the minority opinion? You’re always going to go with the flow? What would you have done if you found yourself in Nazi Germany? – just go right along with popular opinion regarding the Jews? Where do you draw the “fundamental” line beyond which you will not go regardless of if the heavens fall? – even if no one else alive on Earth were to agree with you?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

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


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.