Comment on La Sierra Academy students weigh in on creation/evolution debate by Eugene Shubert.
Sean Pitman M.D.:
Many people really do think that religion is for the brainless and that it has no relationship to real science
Aren’t most religions making people brainless? Where is the evidence that Seventh-day Adventist scientists define science in a way that distinguishes them from the world?
Sean Pitman M.D.:
As far as Iâ€™m concerned, Iâ€™ve been convinced by extensive investigation of the available data over the course of many years, â€¦, that the biblical claims, specifically regarding a literal creation week and Noachian Flood, are supported by the significant weight of scientific evidence available today.
I believe that there is scientific evidence for the Noachian Flood but none for a special creation lasting exactly six days and God resting on the seventh day. Where is the evidence that even a respectable minority of Adventist scientists believe that there is scientific evidence for the creation week?
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
Sean Pitman, M.D.:
Determining the reliability or dependability of a witness (which includes written texts) falls into the realm of science. Such a determination can be shown to carry a useful degree of predictive value and is therefore a form of science.
I believe that only a few believing Seventh-day Adventist scientists would agree with you. Richard P. Feynman said, “The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.” David Hilbert, the mathematician who taught Einstein how to derive the equations of general relativity, believed that all science should be reduced to mathematics. I see the merit of their scientific philosophies and reject your ultra-fundamentalism. Instead of defining science with the certainty of irrefutable and unambiguous ideas, you want to reduce scientific creationism to what the Bible says. I simply can’t imagine well-informed Adventist scientists accepting your point of view.
It’s good that you believe the Bible but what evidence demonstrates that most believing Seventh-day Adventist scientists agree with your definition of a scientific theory?
There is a lot of evidence for special young earth creation â€“ but nothing for exactly 7 days except the Bible evidence.
Presently, there is no absolutely compelling evidence for a special young earth creation. There is certainly no known scientific evidence demonstrating that creation took seven days. Therefore, anyone who claims to be able to test the difference between a 1-day creation theory versus a 6-day creation theory doesn’t even understand the definition of science.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a â€œfoxhole mentalityâ€ among their student devotees â€“ convincing them that it is â€œus against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creationâ€.
That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.
Since you have offerred no response to points raised â€“ the point remains.in Christ,Bob
I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”
Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?
The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!
No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of â€œsequenceâ€ to the probability â€“ we get â€œNILâ€.
You’re speaking gibberish. â€œNILâ€ means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.
You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!
It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).
So grow up and stop practicing deceit.