Eugene Shubert: I have been arguing for improving …

Comment on LSU forms faith in evolution by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Eugene Shubert:
I have been arguing for improving the definition of science, starting with what the world’s best scientists have said. You obviously reject the very foundation of science.

I haven’t rejected the foundation of science since I believe that scientific methodologies are the very best we have to approach useful concepts of truth. What I have rejected, is your suggestion that science can be made perfect, devoid of subjective biases and the potential for error or falsification.

Sean Pitman, M.D.:
Mathematical tests are not enough to determine a true scientific theory from a false one.

Eugene Shubert:
The point of my list is to show a respectable agreement on the true character of science, not to select one scientific theory above another. The perfect synthesis is achieved in David Hilbert’s philosophy of science.

Science is all about the ability to accurately select one theory above another competing theory or explanation. Which one among multiple potential explanations is most likely correct or at least most correct? That’s what science is all about… answering that question.

David Hilbert, while indeed a very smart man who contributed a great deal to mathematics and the physical sciences, was mistaken in his most cherished idea that theoretical uncertainties could be eliminated from the physical sciences… or even from mathematics.

Hilbert’s attempt to support axiomatized mathematics with definitive principles, which could banish theoretical uncertainties, ended in failure. How so? Because, Gödel demonstrated that any non-contradictory formal system, which was comprehensive enough to include at least arithmetic, cannot demonstrate its completeness by way of its own axioms. In 1931 Gödel’s incompleteness theorem showed that Hilbert’s grand plan was impossible as stated. (Wikipedia)

Beyond this, Hilbert didn’t even deal with the problem of the subjective nature of the human scientist who thinks to employ scientific methodologies. As Kuhn first pointed out, the problem is that science is affected by the human element – by the past experiences or lack thereof of the human investigator together with the passions, desires, and inconsistent motives of the human nature. All of these affect, even if subconsciously, the interpretation of different scientists in different ways as they look upon the very same data. This is why different scientists who agree to use the same “methods” of investigation can and often do come to very different conclusions or interpretations of the very same data before them. This problem, as Kuhn notes, is inescapable.

I’m sorry Eugene (aka: “The New William Miller”), but you also are subject to this very same problem – and are subject to errors in your thinking and understanding of the world in which you live. It is actually possible that your ideas of what you think is “true” could actually be wrong. The same is true for my ideas of what I think is most likely true. I could be wrong.

So, I’m afraid that you have not eliminated the subjective aspect of scientific investigation. I know you claim that God talks directly to you and all in dreams and visions, but aside from this sort of direct Divine revelation, science is indeed subjective and imperfect, subject to error. But, if a person really does have direct Divine revelation regarding any particular phenomenon, as in your case, what’s the need for scientific investigation of it anyway?

It all boils down to one simple question Eugene. That is, can you predict the future of anything in the world that exists outside of your mind with absolute perfection?

Obviously, the answer to that question is no – at least if you are honest with yourself. What does this mean? It means that regardless of the scientific method you choose to use to help you in your prediction, you could still be wrong given the actual results of the test of your hypothesis/theory… hence the requirement for the testing of all scientific hypotheses/theories.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

LSU forms faith in evolution
I’m wondering why the Adventist Review published LSU’s above listed advertisement as the full back page cover of its latest World Edition? Don’t the staff at the Adventist Review know that they are contributing to the false impression LSU is trying to cultivate about their support of the SDA Church as an organization? – that they are actually subverting what the Church says it is trying to promote as basic fundamental pillars of the Adventist message?

Very frustrating…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU forms faith in evolution

Eugene Shubert: “Science can be defined as the process of using empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses in the effort to increase our understanding of the world around us. ID seeks to answer many of the same questions about life on Earth that science does. However, the two differ drastically in that ID invokes supernatural explanations to explain natural processes, while science explains natural processes using empirical data. As the study of ID does not involve the use of empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses, it cannot be considered a science under any circumstances.”

There are entire scientific disiplines devoted to the concept of detecting the need for intelligent design – – to include forensic science, athropology, and yes, even SETI science. All of these mainstream sciences are based on the detection of evidence for intelligent design (ID).

The same is true when it comes to detecting the need for ID behind certain features of biological complexity. One does not need to prove the need for “supernatural” intelligence (which is impossible for natural intelligences to do by the way) to determine that a very high level of intelligence was certainly required to produce high levels of biological functional complexity – with very high degrees of scientific predictive value.

Those who argue that ID Theories produces no useful predictions in science are simply mistaken – even when it comes to mainstream sciences. The detection of the need for intelligent design to explain certain phenomena is most certainly within the realm of scientific investigation.

For further discussion of this concept see:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU forms faith in evolution
Foundational SDA Pillars of Doctrine to “Stand Forever”:

Regarding the efforts of the professors and leadership of some in SDA schools of “higher education” to challenge and remove some of the fundamental “pillars of Adventism”, especially with regard to a literal six-day creation week, the following comments of Mrs. White are quite relevant:

When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…

[Satan] knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, and make them believe that the work the Lord designs for them to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe…

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

— Ellen White, Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

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.