Dr. Pitman, your analogies do not work. You ask …

Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Phillip Brantley.

Dr. Pitman, your analogies do not work. You ask me if I were to find an object such as an arrowhead that is clearly designed by an intelligent mind, would I believe that it was designed by an intelligent mind. That is like asking me if I were to find an object that is red, would I believe that the object is red.

The following are just some of the many theoretical explanations for the origins of an object, such as an arrowhead:

1. The arrowhead is uncaused. It has always existed.
2. The arrowhead was caused by non-intelligent natural forces.
3. A natural entity such as a human being made the arrowhead through the use of natural tools and mechanisms.
4. God made the arrowhead through the use of natural tools and mechanisms and dropped it into the woods at some undetermined point in time.
5. God made the arrowhead by manipulating and giving direction to non-intelligent natural forces.
6. God spoke the arrowhead into existence without any reliance whatsoever on natural tools and mechanisms.
7. God cursed an unspecified object and it became an arrowhead.
8. God made an unspecified object, such as a beach ball, but made it appear to look like an arrowhead.
9. Some supernatural entity other than God, such as Satan, made the arrowhead in some fashion described in explanations 4, 5, and 8.

The Kitzmiller loser rejects explanations 4-9 for the origins of the arrowhead, because of his or her theological/philosophical beliefs about the nature of God and the supernatural. He or she then says, “The arrowhead looks like it was designed by a human being.” And that concludes the inquiry.

In contrast, the scientist does not take a position regarding whether explanations 4-9 for the origins of the arrowhead are true. Science limits its study of the world to natural tools and mechanisms, because absent this limitation, science is indistinguishable from theology or natural philosophy. Therefore, the scientist does not endeavor to determine if explanations 4-9 best describe the origins of the arrowhead, because the existence and actions of God and other supernatural beings are not, by definition, scientific questions.

The scientist understands that because of this limitation he or she imposes upon the inquiry, the generated data may not necessarily be true. All the scientist can claim is that the data is factually valid to the degree warranted by the natural evidence. The scientist may occasionally step out of his role as a scientist and express a theological/philosophical opinion, because he is a person who might be interested in the perspectives from other disciplines, but that is not the work of science.

Both the scientist and Kitzmiller loser conclude that explanation 3 is the most tenable, but the Kitzmiller loser arrives at the conclusion through theology/philosophy rather than science.

The Kitzmiller loser argues that his or her inquiry falls under the umbrella of science, even though he or she expressly rejects most of what characterizes the field of science, principally methodological naturalism in the study of origins. And the Kitzmiller loser says, “I arrived at the same result as the scientist regarding the origins of the arrowhead. Therefore, my method of doing science is just as legitimate as the scientist’s method for doing science.”

The scientist and Kitzmiller loser next see a bird. The Kitzmiller loser says, “This bird is a complex creature. Just like the arrowhead, the bird looks like it was designed. But I can’t design a bird, so it must have been created by a supernatural being.” And so he or she accepts one of the explanations 4-9 for the origins of the bird. And that concludes the inquiry.

In contrast, the scientist once again takes no position regarding whether explanations 4-9 are true. Instead, he or she using natural tools and mechanisms seeks to determine how the bird originated. He studies the bird and finds that the natural evidence differs from certain theological/philosophical views. He or she might ultimately choose to defer to those theological/philosophical views. But the scientific inquiry has value and integrity, no matter where the data leads and no matter how strong and persuasive that data may be.

Intelligent Design is a branch of theology/philosophy. It is not science, principally because it rejects the rules of science. The dishonorable Intelligent Design proponent is like a person who comes to the baseball game carrying a hockey stick and puck and demanding that the game be played under different rules. The honorable Intelligent Design proponent goes to the ice rink and does not object to what happens at the baseball game.

It is time for transparency and consistency. Even the most cunning grifter will end the Big Con once he or she has been caught.

Phillip Brantley Also Commented

My Goal for La Sierra University
Bob Ryan, I am sure you understand that Intelligent Design need not be taught exclusively by a faculty member of the theology/philosophy department. One of the science teachers could teach the course, possibly in tandem with a theologian or philosopher, and the students taking the course could receive theology/philosophy credit. Obviously, the class would be specifically targeted to science majors.

You seem to be bitter about the science community’s classification of Intelligent Design as non-science. I don’t think that an untoward motive on the part of the science community is involved. Look at all of the other non-sciences that have been voted off the island: alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, medical quackery using magical elixirs, telepathy, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, naturopathy and other alternative medicines, pyramidology, etc.

These non-sciences share a common characteristic with Creationism and Intelligent Design: with few exceptions they are theological/philosophical by nature.


My Goal for La Sierra University
Dr. Pitman, there is a difference between saying that A is classified as X and saying that you wish A was classified as X.

You can argue that you wish Intelligent Design was classified by the science community as science, but you cannot argue that Intelligent Design is presently classified by the science community as science.

We know that the science community does not classify Intelligent Design as science based in part on the following:

1. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.

2. The Kitzmiller court ruled based on expert testimony submitted that Intelligence Design is not science. This holding of the court has never been overruled or placed into question by any other court.

3. The Intelligent Design movement has not published properly peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals.

You can utter the usual arguments that the science community is prejudiced against Intelligent Design, that many scientists are atheists, and that there are bad reasons why the science community has refused to classify Intelligent Design as science.

But you cannot argue, without incurring the risk of presenting yourself as being out of touch with reality, that Intelligent Design is presently classified as science.

I think a credible effort to adhere to honesty and transparency in your argumentation requires you to concede this point.


My Goal for La Sierra University
David, the “wedge strategy” has relevance in the current discussion because it establishes that even the founders of Intelligent Design understood that Intelligent Design does not constitute science but is instead a religious and philosophical idea. Indeed, the origins of the Intelligent Design movement demonstrate that this movement is a continuation of the “creation science” movement under a different label.

Nobody is arguing that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a Seventh-day Adventist school in a theology or philosophy class. You could even teach Intelligent Design in a pop culture class. What we rightfully object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class.

You could argue that science students should be required to take certain theology/philosophy courses in order for them to receive a well-rounded education. I don’t think anybody is opposed to that idea, either.


Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.

[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]


Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []

Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.

Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.


Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.

I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.


Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.

It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.

In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.

Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.


La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.

Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?