The conclusion that Biblical prophecy has been accurately fulfilled is …

Comment on The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos? by Sean Pitman.

The conclusion that Biblical prophecy has been accurately fulfilled is dependent upon history – upon the historical sciences.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

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?
Bill,

It is impossible for us to reason and be rational beyond the reasoning capabilities that God has given us. And, if God has given us the powers of reason, the ability to consider cause and effect and predictive power, I do not think He then expects us to turn off these God-given abilities when considering the claims of the Bible.

To argue that we should discard our reasoning abilities to blindly follow the claims of any person or collection of writings is not in line with what God has given me. The Bible does not appeal to blind faith or a form of fideism to support itself, but to a basis in rational thought founded on empirical evidence. There are good reasons, scientific reasons, to conclude that the Bible is of Divine origin.

Again, you yourself cannot help but appeal to the historical sciences as a basis to support your claims for Biblical prophecies as the best evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible. Therefore, I suggest that you resist claiming that the Bible trumps science and rational thought when the Bible itself appeals to various forms of scientific investigation and rational thought to support its own credibility.


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


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