Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Phillip Brantley.
Dr. Pitman, allow me to continue to labor with you.
I listed 9 theoretical causes for things such as arrowheads, highly symmetrical cubes on Mars, and chocolate cakes. I then explained to you that scientists self-limit their study to only natural causes (1-3).
You have attempted to vitiate this distinction between natural causation and supernatural causation by arguing that God may be a mere natural person who is more intellectually and technologically advanced than we are. And by positing God as a mere natural person whose acts are natural rather than supernatural, you smuggle into the domain of science the study of God (or as you term it Intelligent Design).
The conventions and rules of science do not allow you to do this.
What you refuse to acknoweldge is that neither of us gets to decide what the conventions and rules of science are. It is the science community that decides. I think your argumentation is too cute, but that is just my lay opinion. Therefore, you should understand that I am not trying to persuade you what the rules and conventions of science should be. I am merely stating to you what they are.
In essence, you criticize Seventh-day Adventist science teachers for adhering to the conventions and rules of science, which expressly characterize Intelligent Design as non-science. Why should these teachers be blamed for what the conventions and rules of science are? And why should they, as science teachers, teach non-science material while representing to students that the material is science?
You still want to talk about the highly symmetrical polished granite cube on Mars. You analogize to objects that are clearly designed or probably designed, (which is the analogy’s premise that you force me to accept), and then challenge me to explain how I know that the cube as compared to an amorphous rock is more likely to be a result of intelligent design. Your analogy breaks down, because the premise you require me to accept is not something I do accept. I reiterate that any of the 9 possible explanations I previously described are theoretically possible for the cause of the cube.
You want to argue (or at least permit the inference) that because we can determine (according to the conventions and rules of many different disciplines) that some things like chocolate cakes are designed by human beings, we can also make a determination that some things like finches are designed by a personal God, impersonal God, or alien. This argument is theological and philosophical by nature, because it rests on one’s beliefs about the characteristics of a personal God, impersonal God, or alien, all of whom are not testable by natural tools and mechanisms. Even the necessary premise to Intelligent Design that such an entity would ever design anything is profoundly theological/philosophical.
No matter how hard you try, you cannot transmogrify the theology/philosophy of Intelligent Design into science.
There are many Seventh-day Adventists who because of their ignorance regarding science and the relationship between science and theology, are incapable of understanding what occurs in an Adventist university science classroom. I think critics of La Sierra should take care not to inflame the irrational passions of these confused people.
I would encourage you not to disparage the Seventh-day Adventist Church and those persons, (many of whom like myself believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood), who disagree with you.
These are not open issues that we are discussing. What is preventing a quick and amicable resolution to the controversy is not uncertainty about the right course of action but a political hesitancy that reflects an apprehension that many Church members who are uneducated, undereducated, and mis-educated about the issues, will become upset notwithstanding the correctness of the approach adopted.
I will need to take a pause in my commentary. I will give you the last word.
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?
