The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
And you don’t think it “ill-informed” to forward your as yet undiscovered “life enzymes” to try to explain the very clear limitations the Darwinian mechanism? You seem to have this inkling that random mutations and natural selection really aren’t up to the job. Yet, you still want to cling to the neo-Darwinian perspective. So, you’re willing to dream up some kind of enzymatic process to bridge the gaps, a process which has yet to be detected, in order to maintain it? – regardless of how magical and completely non-scientific your enzymatic stories may be?

I ask you then, what kind of “vision” are you and the rest of your so-called “scientific” friends trying to sell here? You “do science for a living” so you should have at least some understanding of the basic science behind the mechanism for your theory. Where is it? Where is your science?

What really mystifies me is that you’re trying to make religion into a form of irrational blind-faith mysticism – a form of fideism. That’s not how faith is defined in the Bible. The Bible defines a faith that is based on evidence – empirical evidence. Did the faith of Jesus’ disciples not increase after they saw, with their own eyes, the Resurrection of Jesus? Did not Paul argue that without this empirical basis for Christianity, that all hope was “in vain”?

You have to realize, as a someone works in various forms of scientific research projects for a living, that all scientific methodologies require a leap of faith beyond that which can be absolutely known or knowable. That is where hypotheses and testable potentially falsifiable predictions about the future and predictive value come into play. Therefore, even in science, a form of faith is a requirement. Empirical evidence and faith always walk hand-in-hand for any rational scientific methodology and for any rational religious position. After all God is the Author of all useful scientific understanding, the natural world, and the Bible. Rightly understood, they can only be in harmony with each other.

So, I challenge you to present some real science here in this forum. What do you really know regarding the science beyond your mechanism? Is the very best you have truly an appeal to some mystical “life enzymes”? Really? How is that “science”? Where is the testability or “predictive value” for such suggestions?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
As you know, Darwin himself was only professionally trained as a theologian, not a scientist. What then does it matter what degree one has if he/she makes a valid observation? Why not directly address that observation instead of sidestepping the actual argument in favor of the usual, and meaningless, pejorative attack on the person’s profession or background? – the same meaningless and rather desperate argument that the intelligentsia of the day used against Jesus by the way…

What is strange here is that people, like you, will devote their whole lives to dreaming up stories without actually producing any empirical support for their stories, and yet have the temerity to call their stories “scientific” for no other reason than that they are in line with popular opinion…

Again, where is your demonstration or relevant statistical analysis for the creative potential of random mutations and natural selection at various levels of functional complexity?

Oh, I know, your argument of some kind of “life enzymes” or some other such nonsense is supposed to pass as “scientific”…

Really now, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist before one can recognize the complete lack of any real science behind such a fantasy world. Why not just admit it and say, “It was a miracle and beyond the purvey of any science”? At least that would more accurately reflect neo-Darwinism for what it really is – a pseudo-scientific religious/philosophical position with fundamentalist believers who will not question the basic tenets of Darwinism no matter what weight of empirical evidence.

In short, if you have an argument, a real scientific argument, present it. Don’t just list off a bunch of references published by those who share your own philosophical perspective and cite their sheer number as being somehow impressive (i.e., reference mining). Present a real argument already… one that can actually be empirically tested and potentially falsified (unlike your “life enzymes”…). In other words, it would be far far more interesting if you would at least try to actually rebut some specific observation presented by Dominic Stratham (or me) with some actual counter observation or evidence that goes beyond something as magical, meaningless, and off-handed as “life enzymes”…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
I believe you’re mistaken. The Bible does refer to the empirical world and empirical evidence of God’s Signature in nature quite specifically – in both the Old and New Testaments. So, it seems quite clear to me that all evidence can be used, to include the evidence of fulfilled prophecy and evidence of God’s Signature in nature, to add to the overall “weight of evidence” as to the origin of the Bible and a better understanding of what the Bible is saying (i.e., better interpretations of the Bible).

Beyond this, your appeals to historical evidences for fulfilled prophecies are, yet again, based on science or empirical evidence – on the weight of evidence that must be learned over time (evidences that are not based on inherent knowledge). These evidences are therefore not some kind of absolute demonstration nor have you been given perfection of knowledge or understanding beyond the weight of evidence. The claim of perfection and absolute knowledge is God’s prerogative alone. The human position of faith cannot be based on perfect understanding or absolute knowledge, but upon the weight of evidence.

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.