Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
Where does intelligent design creationism fall into this landscape. I like most scientists do not see it as having any value in contemporary science. Ignorance is an important driver to science which is quite happy to admit we do not have a scientific explanation either because there are questions that cannot be addressed by science or for which the experiments have not been done. Science says this is our method which includes methodological naturalism. It has given us the basis for all the goods we enjoy. if this method cannot be applied it is not part of science. It says we will continue to use this method to explore the vast areas of ignorance. Contrary to Sean’s assertion neither I nor science assert that it will solve everything in the future but I would certainly assert I will continue to apply this method.
You did in fact say that, based on the past, you believe that future discoveries will continue to support your position that some mindless mechanism produced the diversity of all life on this planet – even if the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS proved to be limited to very low levels of functional complexity as I claim. You therefore reject a key element of science – i.e., the potential for falsifiability of your primary position. Your position is effectively immune from testing or even the potential of falsification because of your appeal to some as yet unknown future discovery.
Also, how is it that children are able to learn about the world in which they live? Do they not form testable hypotheses? How would you describe their learning process? – if not by a form of scientific reasoning with which we all are born?
ID wants to answer every question with an assertion that if we dont have natural mechanism or if we can construct based on our incomplete models and knowledge a statistical improbability then there must a designer be.
If this is not the basis of SETI, what is? I ask you again, upon what basis do you yourself argue that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube is a “blindingly obvious artefact”? You’ve argued that this conclusion is based on “pattern recognition” – which is obviously not the case since other materials can produce the very same pattern via mindless mechanisms alone. How then do you know that the material of granite cannot produce this sort of pattern by a mindless natural mechanism? Certainly you weren’t born with this understanding – right?
It is simply the teleological thinking of Paley and does not have any impact on the conduct of science.
How is Peley’s argument any more teleologocal than SETI’s argument or your own argument that a highly symmetrical granite cube is a “blindingly obvious artefact”? You simply refuse to respond to such questions no matter how many times they are presented to you. Yet, you’re clearly being inconsistent here.
We need both religion and science. As he says Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean.
Again, you’re not being consistent here. On the one hand you claim that certain things, like highly symmetrical granite cubes, are “blindingly obvious artefacts” of intelligent design while other things, like any biomachine within a living thing, is clearly the result of some mindless natural mechanism – even if that mechanism has yet to be disocovered. This seems to me to be a philosophical position that is far beyond even methodological naturalism as it is applied in other fields of science. At the very least, try to be consistent in your application of your own scientific arguments.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).
In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.
For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?
As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.
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.
