@Phillip Brantley: You did in fact explain that science limits …

Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.

@Phillip Brantley:

You did in fact explain that science limits its study to “natural” causes; that science cannot, by definition, investigate the “supernatural”.

I agreed. Those who are “natural” cannot search out the “supernatural” or demonstrate that only a supernatural power can create this or that feature of a living thing or other artifacts of the universe. Your only problem, of course, is that you seem to have defined all efforts to detect any kind of intelligent design behind any phenomenon in nature as “philosophy/religion”, not “science”.

When asked to explain how you would know that something like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, if found on an alien planet like Mars, would strongly suggest intelligent design, you responded that such a determination was obvious because of your “feelings” of design… but not science.

Your main problem, you see, is that you won’t admit that the need to invoke intelligent design to explain certain phenomena is a key part of many mainstream sciences… real sciences. The process by which intelligent design is invoked by these sciences is itself a scientific process that is not dependent upon understanding the actual nature of the proposed designer beyond the fact that the designer is intelligent. It doesn’t matter if the designer happens to have access to supernatural powers as well. All that matters is that the designer is, evidently, very intelligent.

This is not just a religious/philosophical conclusion my friend. This is a valid scientific conclusion. And, the science involved doesn’t go away when one starts considering something other than granite cubes, crop circles, radio signals, and the like. The science doesn’t go away when one starts considering certain features of living things that show the very same features of design to a much more striking degree…

You just don’t think the religious implications of such hypotheses are scientific. That’s fine, but the religious implications of a discovery do not remove the scientific basis of the discovery itself… i.e., that, at the very least, a very very high level of intelligence was most likely required to explain various features of living things and of the basic structure of the universe. You can do with that scientific conlusion whatever you like, but what you do does not remove the science, and predictive value, behind that conclusion.

Yet, you argue:

The conventions and rules of science do not allow you to do this [suggest that the designer of various phenomena in nature may be “natural”].

You’re obviously mistaken. Upon what basis is the “Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” or SETI a valid science if the “rules of science” do not allow for one to detect the need for non-human intelligence to explain certain phenomena? Do you know the scientific basis for SETI? I don’t think you do…

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.

In order to be rational, the scientific community must be consistent in how it applies the “rules of science”. If intelligent design can theoretically be detected in certain features of radiosignals and granite rocks via scientific methodologies, then it is quite obvious that these same methodologies can be applied universally to detect the need to invoke intelligent design as the origin for other types of phenomena as well.

I think your argumentation is too cute, but that is just my lay opinion.

My “too cute” arguments are the very same ones used by forensic scientists, anthropologists, and SETI scientists. If you care to study the scientific basis for detecting design, you’d find their arguments even more “cute” than mine! 😉

You, as a lay person who has never really had to struggle with determining the difference between “natural” vs. “intelligent” causes in your professional practice (as I have had to do as a pathologist), don’t really understand that a scientific methodology is vital to determining the degree of confidence one can present for the proposed ID hypothesis to explain a given situation.

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.

You have no idea what they are. You’re simply assuming that Judge Jones does… when he really doesn’t.

Why have you avoided explaining to me how you know that a highly symmetrical granite cube is the most likely result of intelligent design? – outside of your “feelings” of design? Hmmmmm?

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?

Because, the basic methodologies of intelligent design are scientific and are used by many mainstream fields of science. If ID is scientific when it comes to studying radio signals or granite rocks, then why is it not scientific when studying various features of living things?

You simply can’t answer this question, and neither can anyone else in 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.

They are also theoretically possible for an amorphous granite rock. Yet, you don’t automatically assume design when you see an amorphous granite rock. Why the difference?

You don’t understand that the answer to this question is key to understanding the whole science of ID. You can’t simply say that the granite cube is “obviously” designed without any further reasons for why it is so obviously designed while the amorophous rock next to it is not so obviously designed. How do you make this determination? Put it into words…

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.

Not any more theological or philosophical than assuming that an alien intelligence may design a narrow band radio signal embedded with mathematical tags or a highly symmetrical polished granite cube.

You don’t have to know the reasons for the artifact in front of you or the actual identity of the designer to know that the artifact was, in fact, intelligently designed.

Again, if a highly symmetrical polished granite cube (1.5 meters on each side) happened to be found on Mars, everyone would quickly assume that intelligent design was involved without knowing the actual identity or motives of the designer – or even if the designer had access to only natural or supernatural powers. That information simply isn’t needed to quickly determine the need to invoke intelligent design.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot transmogrify the theology/philosophy of Intelligent Design into science.

It’s already been done by mainstream scientists my friend. You’re way behind the game.

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.

Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance, but I personally haven’t found your understanding or presentation of the science involved in these issues to be all that informed or persuasive. You don’t seem to wish to even discuss the basic methodologies of science when it comes to detecting design in many fields of science. Because if this it is very difficult for your readers to understand the implications of these methodologies for the particular debate surrounding LSU.

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.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging the SDA Church, and its institutions, to stand up for its own stated fundamental beliefs on origins – and to be consistent and transparent with all of its members.

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.

As deemed “correct” by those who view themsevles as informed, like you, but who are just as ignorant as to what is truly the correct and most rational course of action.

I will need to take a pause in my commentary. I will give you the last word.

I appreciate your efforts thus far. It would be easier for both of us, however, if, in the future, you would at least try to substantively address the fairly simple questions I’ve posed to you – specifically regarding how you are able to tell that a granite cube is obviously designed while an amorphous rock sitting right next to it is not so clearly the result of intelligent design?

I dare say that your honest effort to address this question would open up your mind a great deal when it comes to understanding the issues surrounding the LSU situation in the SDA Church.

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.