@Richard Gates: I certainly agree that our church deserves to …

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

@Richard Gates:

I certainly agree that our church deserves to get what it pays for – as any employer expects the employee to actually fulfill the job description that was originally agreed to when the employment contract was signed.

The moral obligation of a paid representative is to both the employer as well as to the customers of the employer…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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


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:

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

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
@Ron:

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
www.DetectingDesign.com


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
www.DetectingDesign.com


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

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
www.DetectingDesign.com


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
www.DetectingDesign.com