My knowledge and background in science have no bearing on …

Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.

My knowledge and background in science have no bearing on how science works. Science can be defined in various ways, and having hashed this out before, there is no reason to slug it out again.

So, which one of these definitions of science exclude intelligent design hypotheses from the realm of science? It seems to me like intelligent design hypotheses are only excluded, a priori, by mainstream scientists as valid hypotheses for philosophical reasons in certain situations (like investigating the likely origin of life or the origin of the universe or even the origin of Biblical prophecies) – not because of any definition of science.

Also, if you actually believe that God is the creator of everything, to include our human brains and the human ability to think scientifically, how can you not but conclude that any correct understanding and application of scientific methodologies would be calculated, by God, to lead the intelligent candid mind toward Himself? Certainly the Bible and Mrs. White argue along these lines:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Psalms 19:1

“God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.” – Ellen White, PP, p. 115

How then is any kind of true science, by definition, excluded from any kind of investigation regarding the existence or nature of God?

Therefore, I’m going to reiterate just one key element of science.

In my view and that of virtually all practicing scientists, science is limited to the natural world and cannot validate the supernatural. Your endless philosophical gloating nothwithstanding, God is supernatural, his creative acts are supernatural, his plan of salvation is supernatural, and his continuing interactions with life on this planet are supernatural. It takes a humble mind to concede that “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined” the fullness of God’s existence. God transcends the limits of science and human reason (including your reason, in my humble opinion).

The obvious truism that the finite cannot definitively demonstrate or prove or validate anything, much less the Infinite, in no way removes one from using scientific methodologies to produce useful predictive value for many kinds of hypotheses and theories (since science isn’t about absolute proof) – to include intelligent design theories to the level of a rational invocation of a God or a god-like intelligence. Such an ability is not at all removed from the realm of science – that is if such a being so chose to reveal himself in such a manner as could be detected, to a useful degree of predictive value, by empirical means.

Even famous atheists, like Richard Dawkins, admit this much. Dawkins often goes around saying that if God exists, why is he so hard to detect? Why is his signature so obscure? Why hasn’t he revealed himself more clearly? Dawkins doesn’t argue, as you do here, that it would be impossible to detect God’s existence regardless of the empirical evidence provided – given that God were actually willing to provide the required evidence needed for scientists to determine his existence.

I’ve reiterated this point endless times with you and you continually ignore it like you’ve never heard it before or like no well-known or famous modern scientist has ever presented this concept before. Yet, it is because of this very point that many scientists, to include numerous famous mainstream scientists and Nobel Laureates, have concluded that the empirical evidence favoring the existence of a God or God-like being at play in our universe is overwhelming. This is not because science is unable to detect evidence strongly suggesting the need to invoke intelligent design on the level of a God or god-like being, or a being indistinguishable by us from having god-like powers. On the contrary, for many of these men it is precisely because the empirical scientific evidence is so compelling that they feel forced to recognize such a Signature of design in nature.

For example, consider the following comments from the well-known mathematical physicist Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“It is quite a shock. From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as quoted in “There Must Be A God,” Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, p. 105

Or, consider the following thoughts along these lines from the Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies:

The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists…

The force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology…

The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.

Davies, Paul C.W. [Physicist and Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide],“The Christian perspective of a scientist,” Review of “The way the world is,” by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1354, pp.638-639, 2 June 1983, p.638

And, there are many more who argue along these lines – based on the weight of empirical evidence for the existence of some magnificent superhuman intelligence at play.

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-god-of-the-gaps/

Any further discussion of “science” on my part can end here. As you stated yourself, you show no regard for what others think science encompasses, including those who engage it as their livelihood and write treatises about it. You live in a world of your own making. Nothing I can write will convince you that anyone else could possibly possess a better understanding of science than you do, which apparently gives you the authority to persecute others who disagree.

What I said that if something doesn’t make sense to me then it doesn’t make sense to me. If you have an argument that you think is actually reasonable, present it in your own words. If it makes sense to me, I’ll accept it. If not, how can I? – just because you said so?

So far, you haven’t even tried to address the main points I’ve presented. You’ve simply repeated yourself, over and over again, that science cannot, by definition, detect God – even if God tried to reveal Himself through empirically detectable means. Come on now. It makes no sense that it would be impossible for God to allow Himself to be detected by scientific methodologies if these very same methodologies can detect intelligent activity on the human level or even alien levels of intelligence (i.e., SETI). Certainly then, any God worth His salt would be able to mimic at least human-level intelligence – and thereby become detectable as at least intelligent to some degree. Right? What’s so hard about admitting at least this much?

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.