Comment on The Reptile King by Professor Kent.
Rich Constantinescu: if someone would take EGW as saying â€œdeductions of scienceâ€ means there is no false science, just one true science that is totally contradictory to the Bible and we must choose to live in blind faith without it that is wholly inconsistent with the other many statements by the same author who talks about true science revealing God whereas false science doesnâ€™t.
That’s your point? Glad you clarified it (though all I did was ask questions about Ms. White’s statement, not your point). So who exactly is this supposed “someone” whom you are suggesting believes Ellen White says we must choose to live in “blind faith?” (By the way, if you think I’m using Ellen White with such a perspective, you’re obviously very mistaken.)
And your point still begs the so-obvious question: is it no longer “true science” if the findings reveal something other than “God’s wisdom and power?”
I can ask more questions, this time about human manipulation of nature rather than our study of animal behavior. Was development and successful deployment of the atom bomb not “true science” because it revealed something far more sinister than “God’s wisdom and power?” Does development of biological weapons constitue something other than “true science” for similar reasons? You offered a simple untwist of the knot by saying “an enemy has done this,” so is it not true science if we study how “an enemy has done this” since it reveals something other than “God’s wisdom and power?” Again, how literal do you wish to interpret Ellen White’s comment? Did God tell her verbatim what to write in that passage because every single word in the quote is correct? Is there a reason you can’t answer these questions without pulling the you-missed-or-ignored-my-point card?
Let me be clear, Pastor Constantinescu, I have utmost respect for scripture and Ellen White. But I don’t think she penned what she intended to become a rigorous definition for what is and is not science. And Ellen White makes clear that what we see in nature has been greatly marred, and does NOT fully represent God’s intent, design, or character. This is exactly why Satan can exploit reliance on human reason and science ahead of God’s word in scripture.
Professor Kent Also Commented
The Reptile King
I meant to write regarding salvation science, “showing how the body and spirit can escape both DEATH and the confines of this planet.”
David Read: The line of questioning Iâ€™ve engaged in since you mentioned Matthew 18 was to lead you to the idea that, in the abstract, in principle, one who believes in the historicity of Gen. 1-11 ought to do origins science using a model or paradigm that assumes the truth of that history. Was I mistaken in assuming that you would be able to reason in principle, beyond the concrete realities of your personal situation?
Right. And by your reasoning, one who believes in the historicity of the Gospels ought to do resurrection science, showing that a human body after three days of decomposition can return to life. One should also pursue salvation science, showing how the body and spirit can escape both science and the confines of this planet. Sadly, those in your camp are obsessed with origins science to the neglect of resurrection and salvation science. Why is that?
Some of us prefer to look ahead rather than behind, and for that we become the target of insults, scorned for the way we think and reason.
David Read: So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
David, I don’t know how to answer your question. I have no interest in paleontological research. I have no interest in microbiology (to explore origins), limited interest in systematics (to explore ancestor-descendent relationships), and while I find biogeography fascinating, the evidence overwhelmingly rejects the hypothesis that contemporary life forms dispersed from a single location (Noah’s ark).
I would love to produce evidence to support the veracity of Genesis, but most claims involved supernatural acts that cannot be tested by science. And what is the point? At best, I might discover something that I already believe in. At worst, I might discover something that goes against my faith, and if I go with the evidence as Sean Pitman states he would, then what have I done for myself?
I’m sorry if this is not what you wish to hear. I will simply take God at his word…and if I understand you correctly, you apparently do the same.
By the way, I saw your remark at Spectrum in which you referred to me as your friend. I appreciated that. (Some here probably think of me as their enema ;p ). We are, first and foremost, brothers in Christ.
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.