The Biblical authors and Mrs. White disagree with you. …

Comment on Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand? by Sean Pitman.

The Biblical authors and Mrs. White disagree with you. They all agree that the signature of God is identifiable in nature – in the works of His own hands.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand?

Sean said, “True science and religion will agree,….”

Of course you are wrong Sean. There is no way by anything that is rational in science that could or would affirm that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That is pure supposition. And science would never concur nor affirm such a reality or even possibility.

You do realize that I’m directly quoting Mrs. White here? “In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God, for both have the same Author. A correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony.” — Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258.

Also, it is not “pure supposition” that a God or at the very least a God-like being is required to rationally explain the origin of the universe and of living things on this planet. This requirement is based on the very same logical inferences used to proposed intelligent design theories in multiple scientific disciplines (like forensics, anthropology and even SETI science).

Creation is a miracle. Science does not consider miracles any part of natural law science. Every miracle of God is beyond natural law science.

All forms of intelligent design, even human level intelligence and creative abilities, are “miraculous” in a certain sense. That doesn’t mean, however, that science is therefore unable to detect their activity. Science can detect that certain artifacts discovered in nature are mostly likely the result of deliberate intelligent design – with a very high degree of predictive value that is also, at the same time, subject to at least the potential of falsification.

Sure, you can affirm a miracle has happened. When Jesus healed the blind man, all the people could see a miracle had happened. But no one tried to explain it by way of natural law science. In fact, they all affirmed it was far beyond natural law science. The blind man himself said the same thing.

Again, science is not limited to hypotheses or theories that invoke only mindless naturalistic processes. Science is perfectly capable of hypothesizing the requirement for very high levels of intelligent design to explain various artifactual observations.

Science can affirm that something is here but can not affirm how it got here by way of a miracle. By definition a miracle is “super natural”, meaning, beyond a natural law explanation.

Science doesn’t need to explain the exact mechanism for how the designer produced a super advanced alien space craft, or even a simple highly symmetrical granite cube, before science can determine that such things required the input of intelligence. You’re confusing the scientific ability to detect the need for various levels of intelligent design with the requirement to explain how the intelligent agent did the job. This simply isn’t required in order for science to detect design – even God-like intelligence and design.

So you may well discredit a lot of phoney ideas science presents for origins as being inconsistent. And evolution has no consistent argument for origins. But neither does creation. And you can not prove creation by science.

You cannot absolutely prove anything by science. However, you can most certainly use scientific methodologies to produce highly useful predictive value for the “God-only” hypothesis.

The bible affirms itself by its own evidence by way of prophecy. Sure, the prophecies come true and we can affirm this evidence like the healed blind man. But the evidence only affirms that miracles are beyond scientific “falsification”. Hopefully, no one denies evidence based on scriptural declarations of history and future events. But this will give us no “scientific” evidence the God created the world by way of a miracle. None of us were even here to testify that we saw what God did as in the case of the healed blind man.

The determination of the credibility of prophetic statements is based on the empirical comparison between that which was predicted and the available evidence that the prediction came true in real history. Such an evaluation is based on the historical sciences. Such can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner. Therefore, prophecy is not “self affirming”. Useful prophecies are affirmed by external empirical evidence – i.e., a form of science. And, the consistent fulfillment of such adds credibility to their source, the Bible, and everything else the Bible says that cannot be directly tested in a falsifiable manner…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand?
True science and religion will agree, as Mrs. White pointed out, since they both have the same Source. If they didn’t agree, there would be a problem with one or the other.

To reference a recent article by Leonard Brand on this topic:

“In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God, for both have the same Author. A correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony.”— Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 258.

If we have a correct understanding of how science operates what its limitations are, as well as its strengths—we can have increased confidence that harmony really does exist between true science and true religion.

http://ssnet.org/blog/2013/01/what-science-can-and-cannot-do/

Consider also that there have been many religious ideas and interpretations of the Bible that have been effectively falsified by scientific discoveries – the clear weight of empirical evidence. Even certain interpretations of Biblical prophecies promoted by the early Adventist pioneers were proved false by the empirical evidence that clearly countered their predictions (i.e., Jesus simply didn’t show up as predicted). Truly then, if the testable claims of the Bible are determined to be inconsistent with empirical reality the Bible rightly loses credibility (either that or the specific interpretations of the Bible that have been falsified lose credibility). Of course, for those honestly searching for truth, God is quite able to provide them with plenty of empirical evidence that is more than adequate for a rational belief and faith in the credibility of His Word.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Science and Faith Walking Hand in Hand?
@pauluc:

Science is based on skepticism – the effort to try to falsify the hypothesis in question.

In any case, my professor did say what he said. I remember it vividly because he didn’t actually use the word “baloney” in his description. I kind of had to water what he really said down a bit for publication here and on SSNET. I’m not sure what original reference he got it from, if any outside of his own independent conclusion. After all, it is downright obvious that all scientific methodologies are based on a very simple rational concept to help weed out potential truth from error.

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.