Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.
You also wrote:
3. Many critics of La Sierra do not understand the difference between truth and fact, so in their confusion they allege that the teaching of mainstream science as fact undermines doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that are true. Aside from the fact that practitioners of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic reject that allegation for theological reasons, the allegation also stands rejected as a matter of science. As stated by Judge Jones, who understands that there is a difference between fact and truth, “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.†P. 64.
It seems like neither you nor Judge Jones really understand the difference between facts and truth either. Science doesn’t make factual conclusions in the absolute sense of the word. Science takes facts or observations and uses them to make predictions that are tentatively thought to be “true” with a certain degree of confidence that is always less than 100%. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science.
Also, as already noted, the court didn’t seem to understand that the basic concepts of intelligent design are an integral part of many mainstream sciences – to include forensics, anthropology and even SETI. To conclude that ID, in its basic claims, is not science is simply revealing a gross ignorance of what science is as well as the scientific basis for detecting the need for design to explain certain phenomena.
4. Many critics of La Sierra argue that methodological naturalism is atheistic science. A self-imposed convention of science is that it limits its search for answers to natural causes. Science does not reject the view that there may be supernatural causes but simply does not attempt to study them. The Kitzmiller court makes clear that limiting your study to natural causes does not mean that you reject that there are supernatural causes. P. 65-68.
Again, the basis of the scientific detection of the need for intelligent design to explain certain phenomena does not require an attempt to identify any other feature of the proposed designer.
This is the primary mistake of this particular court opinion – and it’s a big mistake.
There is no inherent need to qualify the proposed designer as being “supernatural” – though some features of the universe demand a level of intelligence that is so superior to our own as to be indistinguishable from a designer who may well be “supernatural” from our own perspective.
5. The Kitzmiller opinion chronicles a political, cultural, and social movement in American society. Many of the characteristics of that movement are reflected in the political, cultural, and social movement agitated against La Sierra. There is much to be learned from studying how the Kitzmiller court resolved the issues.
While interesting, this particular aspect of the court’s opinion is truly irrelevant to the question of if the basic methods used to detect the need to invoke intelligent design as an explanation for a given phenomenon is or is not “scientific”.
I wish the critics of La Sierra would admit what they are attempting to accompish. The most charitable description of what these critics want is for our schools to stop teaching science and instead teach natural philosophy. But I think a more evident description of what they want is that our schools stop teaching science and teach natural philosophy, while representing to students that what they are being taught is science. There is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for that sort of deception.
What I personally want is for our students to be exposed to the very real scientific arguments for intelligent design for various features of our universe and for the rational credibility of the biblical perspective on origins – which is also scientific in that it is testable and potentially falsifiable as is any valid scientific hypothesis/theory. Such an exposure should be presented to our students, along with the presentation of the mainstream position, by those who are actually supportive of the Church’s position on origins as the most rational explanation for the world in which we live.
If our students cannot have full trust that their science teachers will be honest with them, then how can they have full trust that their theology teachers will be honest with them.
Just because a science professor understands the weight of evidence to favor the biblical model of origins does not mean that this professor is therefore being dishonest by definition. That’s a silly argument.
The harm that Educate Truth and other critics of La Sierra have inflicted upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church is enormous. These critics do not seem to understand that if the Church is not seen as an honest broker regarding science, it will not be seen as an honest broker regarding theology.
I ask again, what is the harm in asking our schools and our church at large to simply be honest and open with the entire membership as to exactly what is being taught to our own young people in our own schools? What is the problem with asking for consistency and transparency?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
My Goal for La Sierra University
@Professor Kent:
Intelligent Design – framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
– Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot be created by an intelligent designer.
– Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can be created by an intelligent designer.
– Falsifying the null hypothesis: humans succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions (this would mean that God is not alone in the capacity to create).
– Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
– My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for abiogenesis (below). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified, as stated above. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth, nor would it inform us that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Genesis 1. Thus, Intelligent Design as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally am willing to accept.
It is quite clear that God is not the only one who can create functionally complex machines, to include biomachines. Humans have in fact created the first functional fully synthetic genome, from scratch, that actually works.
Daniel Gibson and his colleagues at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides, consisting of about 1.1 million base pairs. Having assembled the genome inside a yeast cell, they transplanted it into a cell from a closely related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. After the newly made cell had divided, the cells of the bacterial colony that it formed contained only proteins characteristic of M. mycoides.The success clears the way for developing and testing new variants of existing organisms.
“With this approach we now have the ability to start with a DNA sequence and design organisms exactly like we want,” says Gibson. “We can get down to the very nucleotide level and make any changes we want to a genome.”
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3502/synthetic-genome
So you see, among known natural processes, only those with access to intelligence can come remotely close to producing the functional informational complexity that we see in every living thing. No other non-deliberate force of nature, that is currently known to science, comes remotely close (see further discussion of this particular point below).
This is the very same argument used to detect design behind highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, Stonehenge, the SETI radio signals, and the like. There is no fundamental scientific difference. It is the very same argument based on the very same logic.
Evolutionary Theory – I assume Sean refers to abiogenesis, framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
All scientific theories are framed as possibilities since science isn’t about determining absolutes. If one could ever absolutely falsify or verify anything, science would no longer be needed at that point. Science is only useful when there is less than perfect knowledge…
– Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot arise spontaneously through natural processes.
– Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can arise spontaneously through natural processes.
– Falsifying the null hypothesis: experiments succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions.
– Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
– My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for intelligent design (above). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth. Thus, abiogenesis as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally have not been willing to accept.
You misunderstand the concept of falsification.
Consider a situation where one of our Mars rovers comes across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring 1.5 meters on each side. In the center of each of the six faces of the cube there are geometric etchings 5.0 cm in diameter carved to a depth of 0.5 cm.
The obvious scientific conclusion of intelligent design for such a situation would be overwhelming. This is true even though all non-deliberate natural processes have not been evaluated or entirely falsified as a potential cause for such an artifact.
You see, if you were able to completely falsify all potential explanations for a given artifact, you wouldn’t need science. Science is based on making conclusions given information that is always very incomplete. Science is based on taking this very limited information and making the best predictions you can make given what is currently known.
When it comes to explaining the origin of such granite cubes and the informational complexity of all living things the scientific conclusion is that no mindless force in nature that is currently known comes remotely close to doing the job while natural agents that have access to at least human level intelligence are able to actually produce such artifacts or to get much much closer to their production.
That, in a nutshell is the scientific argument for ID.
Your comments, Sean, seem to suggest that you believe that Intelligent Design is science and that abiogenesis cannot be (but perhaps I’m not understanding your comments).
Both ID and non-ID hypotheses can be presented in line with scientific methodologies. Neither hypothesis can be absolutely falsified or confirmed since the achievement of absolutes is impossible in science. Science doesn’t deal with absolutes, but only with probabilities that are always less than 100% certain.
So, the real question here is, which hypothesis carries with it the greatest predictive value given what is currently known? – not what might be known in the future?
Given what is currently known, intelligent design comes far far closer to explaining the informational complexity that is seen in living things compared to any known non-intelligent force of nature.
So, the most rational, the most scientific, conclusion, is, for today, that intelligent design is the most rational explaination for the origin of life and much of its diversity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
My Goal for La Sierra University
@Professor Kent:
Egyptian pyramids
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: Pyramids are evenly distributed across the landscape rather clustered in the vicinity of human civilizations; no sources of the rock used to construct the pyramids can be located; pyramids do not contain human artifacts, including hieroglyphics that explain some details of the culture and the contents within the pyramids.
– My conclusion: I believe there is sufficient evidence to accept this hypothesis, and that the intelligent designers likely to be humans. I can’t reject whether God himself was the intelligent designer of at least some pyramids, because I can’t figure out how to falsify this possibility (i.e., any quest to confirm that God created the pyramids ain’t scientific).
So you can scientifically detect design after all? even if thousands of years old? Glad to see that you’ve reconsidered your original statement.
However, I must say that I fail to see how an “even distribution” of pyramids across the landscape would tend to “falsify” the ID hypothesis for their origin. I also fail to see how a failure to identify the source of stone used in their construction would tend to falsify the ID hypothesis. Also, before the meaning of hieroglyphic carvings was deciphered, it was quite clear that these hieroglyphs were deliberately carved by intelligent design (even without being able to absolutely falsify the hypothesis of non-deliberate design) and that they most likely had some kind of function/meaning. Beyond this, even without any such hieroglyphs at all, the pyramids themselves would be clearly detectable as being the result of intelligent design and construction… even if only one such pyramid existed and even if it was built without any hieroglyphs or any other evident reason for its construction. Even if such a pyramid were found all by itself on an alien planet like Mars it would still be scientifically detectable as having been the result of ID.
Remember also, this isn’t about detecting the actual identity of the designer. This is only about detecting intelligent design regardless of who the designer may or may not have been.
A highly symmetrical polished granite cube
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: minerals with perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes can be found in nature, or their formation by natural processes can be observed.
– My conclusion: A visit to any museum that exhibits presumably naturally produced minerals (i.e., those unearthed from mines) should reveal various minerals that adopt a range of perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes, and some can even be produced by mixing solutions together in a lab. Mineral surfaces often appear highly polished. I think the evidence is sufficient that a highly symmetrical polished cube could plausibly result from natural causes apart from human intelligent design.
This isn’t true for granite, which does not form such highly symmetrical geometric structures naturally as do other materials. Why else do you think I specified that the material in the cube was granite?
If you don’t think that the discovery of such a cube, on Mars for example, would cause an international sensation, even among scientists, you’re quite clueless about the natural abilities of granite.
As for your discussion on if the designer was God or not, again, that’s irrelevant to the scientific detection of intelligent design by itself.
Clearly, Sean, you disagree in that you believe such a cube can be produced only by a human. However, your logic seems flawed: just because I see a rocket and conclude it was made by humans does not mean I can conclude that God created the humans that made the rocket.
It is quite clear that such a cube can only be produced, ultimately, by intelligent design – human or otherwise. Your arguments about God being the designer are, yet again, irrelevant to the scientific detection of design for such artifacts.
SETI’s detection of complex, highly patterned radio waves
– Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
– Falsifying the hypothesis: radio waves similar to those intercepted by SETI’s receivers can be generated naturally.
– My conclusion: SETI hasn’t detected anything, so why are you making a big deal about this?
You can’t go “fishing” unless you know ahead of time how to recognize when you’ve actually caught a fish.
The basis of SETI is important in this regard because there would be no point in even looking at radio signals if it was theoretically impossible to scientifically detect intelligent design behind certain patterns or other features of radio signals.
It is for the very reason that the detection of certain features in radio signals would be so clearly artefactual, the result of intelligent design, that SETI is a real science – regardless of if it is ever successful or not. The potential for success is there because of the basic science of ID – a science which you still don’t seem to really understand.
You keep confusing the search for ID with the search for God. They aren’t the same thing. The search for ID is distinctly different from the search for God. It is for this reason why the basic science behind ID does in fact follow true scientific methodologies.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
My Goal for La Sierra University
@Phillip Brantley:
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.
No one is arguing that there aren’t philosophical or even religious motivations for some who hold to various forms of intelligent design theories. Such beliefs and motivations are irrelevant, however, when it comes to the basic science of intelligent design.
As already noted, intelligent design theories can be and are based, all the time, on real scientific methodologies that are employed by many mainstream scientists in many mainstream scientific disciplines – like anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.
For Phil (and Jeff Kent) to simply dismiss all forms of intelligent design theories just because of the motivations of some shows his lack of understanding regarding basic scientific methodologies. He doesn’t seem to understand the very definition of science. He argues that I’m the one changing the rules of the game when he joined the game without seeming to understand the rules to begin with.
Perhaps it is for this reason that he seems unwilling to answer very simple questions on science and how scientists are able to detect design behind various relatively simple artifacts. He simply refuses to substantively address such questions because he simply doesn’t know the mainstream scientific basis behind the detection of intelligent design.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
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.
