@Phillip Brantley: You wrote: I believe in the biblical account of

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

You wrote:

I believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood.

Why do you believe in a literal 6-day creation week and a worldwide Noachian Flood that killed all land animal life save those on the ark? Why do you believe in a story that most of the educated world thinks is nothing but a fairytale for children?

When I’ve asked you this question before you eventually cited prophecy and your own experience with God and his Word as evidence that is undeniable to you.

One might think that in your appeal to prophecy as evidence that you are in fact appealing to a form of external empirical evidence to support your faith in the superior credibility of the Bible. But, of course, you reject any empirical support and cite prophecy only to establish the “internal consistency” of the Bible.

Really, then, all you have is your own personal experience with God and your feelings as to what is and is not true (similar to your feelings that granite cubes and chocolate cake are the result of intelligent design outside of any appeal to empirical evidence).

While such feelings and personal experiences with God may be very helpful and fulfilling for the individual who has such feelings and personal experiences, how effective are such internal arguments when it comes to presenting a convincing reason why someone else should also consider the claims of the Bible to be superior to the claims of mainstream scientists? Upon what basis are you able to convince a young person that the Bible’s version of history is more likely true than that of the vast majority of mainstream scientists who are telling this young person that the Bible is nothing but legend and allegory? – not real history?

By seeking recognition of the fact that Intelligent Design is not science, I am in no way denigrating Intelligent Design, which is theological/philosophical by nature and in many ways compatible with the biblical account of creation. There is no offense intended by placing Intelligent Design in the theological/philosophical realm where it belongs. Indeed, I believe that truth lies in the theological/philosophical realm rather than in science.

Based on what? Science, by definition, is a method by which truth can be separated from error to various degrees of certainty. Upon what basis, in your opinion, can theology/philosophy determine truth, regarding the empirical world in which we live, to a greater degree of certainty than that obtained using scientific methodologies?

I do not believe that evolution theory is compatible with the biblical worldview. But I recognize, as I must, that evolution theory is at present mainstream science. What Faith may not understand is that there is not to my knowledge one Church leader or theologian who disagrees with me on this point.

You’d be correct if you had said that evolutionary theory is believed by most mainstream scientists. You’re mistaken, however, to argue that science is defined by the majority opinion of mainstream scientists. That is not true. Scientific methodologies function independent of the conclusion of the majority of individuals who claim to use these methodologies.

You forget that science is not free from the biases of the scientists. It is for this reason that different scientists looking at exactly the same set of empirical data and using the very same methodologies to evaluate the data, can come to very different conclusions as to what the data means. It happens all the time. And, as it turns out, the majority opinion is often wrong.

5 The fifth approach is to emphasize the probative value regarding what the Bible says about origins. Not only should there be increased study of the biblical account of creation but also the hermeneutical approach to Scripture formally endorsed by the Church in 1986.

If you can cite no convincing reason why the Biblical account of origins should thought of as more reliable than the opinion of mainstream scientists, no one is going to care how clear the hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible may be.

You could say, “Biblical hermeneutics clearly show the what the authors of the Bible were trying to tell us.” – and, for the most part, you’d be right! – with very little argument. However, if Biblical hermeneutics do not match what people understand of empirical reality via scientific or other methodologies, who cares? You’re not going to convince the vast majority of intelligent young people by telling them that they should believe Biblical hermeneutics even when the hermeneutics directly counter what you yourself admit is the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence and scientific discovery regarding empirical reality.

Given this suggested approach of yours you might as well do one of two things:

1) Shut the doors of your science classrooms.

2) Revoke the “fundamental” position of the Adventist Church on origins.

Those are your own two practical options because otherwise, you’re going to lose the vast majority of your students to the conclusions of mainstream scientists. Very very few are going to identify with your beliefs in a literal 6-day creation week based on empirically-blind faith alone.

The Adventist Church actually realizes the truth of this. It is for this reason that the church at large is so up in arms over the LSU situation. The church, as an organization, knows that the hiring of science teachers who tell their students that the Adventist perspective on origins is scientifically untenable and empirically irrational is very effective in undermining the confidence in these young people in the Biblical model of origins and the overall credibility of the Bible as the Word of God.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

My Goal for La Sierra University
@Professor Kent:

Intelligent Design â€“ framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
â€“ Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot be created by an intelligent designer.
â€“ Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can be created by an intelligent designer.
â€“ 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).
â€“ Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
â€“ 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 faithâ€“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 â€“ 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…

â€“ Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot arise spontaneously through natural processes.
â€“ Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can arise spontaneously through natural processes.
â€“ Falsifying the null hypothesis: experiments succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions.
â€“ Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
â€“ 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 faithâ€“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 Iâ€™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
â€“ Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
â€“ 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.
â€“ My conclusion: I believe there is sufficient evidence to accept this hypothesis, and that the intelligent designers likely to be humans. I canâ€™t reject whether God himself was the intelligent designer of at least some pyramids, because I canâ€™t figure out how to falsify this possibility (i.e., any quest to confirm that God created the pyramids ainâ€™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
â€“ Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
â€“ 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.
â€“ 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.

SETIâ€™s detection of complex, highly patterned radio waves
â€“ Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
â€“ Falsifying the hypothesis: radio waves similar to those intercepted by SETIâ€™s receivers can be generated naturally.
â€“ My conclusion: SETI hasnâ€™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 â€œwedge strategyâ€ 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 â€œcreation scienceâ€ 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