Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.
So something science shows to be impossible is evidence not only that it is possible, but that it also happened.
Do you really not grasp the difference between demonstrating the science for the potential and limits of non-intelligent naturalistic mechanisms vs. demonstrating the science for the potential and limits of intelligent design at various levels of intelligence? Let’s not be deliberately obtuse here. This concept isn’t that difficult.
So, let’s try this one more time…
What science has shown to be highly unlikely is that a dead person will not be brought back to life by mindless naturalistic mechanisms. I fully agree with this conclusion. I don’t believe this is possible – for even the simplest forms of life. I think that the weight of scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of this theory – despite the argument of naturalists to the contrary.
Now, consider that this isn’t the same thing as hypothesizing that life could be produced by someone with access to very high levels of intelligence – to include god-like intelligence. This second hypothesis is not the same as the first hypothesis. I think most reasonable people can grasp this much.
Of course, the demonstration that the first hypothesis is true isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that the second hypothesis is also true. The second hypothesis must also be based on testable evidence that can then be extrapolated to lend the second hypothesis some useful predictive value.
Support for the second hypothesis comes in the form of studying the origin of complex machines and other functionally complex systems (such as language or functional information-based systems). Where do they come from? Beyond very low levels of functional complexity, they all come from either pre-existing systems or machines that are just as functionally complex, or more so, than those functionally complex systems that are produced. Or, they are produced by intelligent design. They are never produced by non-intelligent natural processes that exist at lower levels of functional complexity. And, the higher the level of functional complexity, the greater functional complexity, and/or intelligence, of its source (or Source).
So, you see, a pattern emerges. This pattern can rationally be used to extrapolate regarding the origin of higher and higher level systems of function – to include the origin of living things, all of which exist at very high levels of functional and meaningful informational complexity. And, the hypothesis that is based on the reality of this pattern can be tested in a falsifiable manner. All it would take to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is to show some non-intelligent mechanism producing the artifact in question – or at least how it could likely be done in a reasonable amount of time.
As with all forms of science that are involved in the detection of the need to invoke high levels of intelligent design, the hypothesis of ID requires two questions:
1) Can the artifact in question be produced, in a given span of time, by any known mindless naturalistic mechanism?
2) Can the artifact in question be produced by intelligent design or at least can known intelligent agents get closer to producing the artifact in question compared to any known mindless naturalistic mechanism?
If the answer to question #1 is “No”, while the answer to question #2 is “Yes”, then the most rational scientific conclusion is that intelligent design was most likely involved in the origin of the artifact in question. The higher the level of functional complexity of the artifact, the higher the level of intelligence that would have to be hypothesized to explain its origin.
And you people really think I’m the one who misunderstands science?
When it comes to people who actually do understand the potential and limits of science, yes. I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to have a good grasp on what science is or isn’t; nor do you seem to understand the difference between faith and wishful thinking…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…
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.
