Comment on Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall by george.
@ Pauluc and Dr. Pitman
Firstly, Pauluc I am not offended by the allusion, by link, to Dr. Pitman as a crackpot. And I know you did not directly call him that but you certainly directed the readership to that link to show that Dr. Pitman is treated by the scientific community with scorn. For what purpose? Gentleman, as I am sure you have gathered, I am not a Christian but I am often appalled by how Christians of different theological stripes treat each other. In my books human respect is paramount and doesn’t have to flow from any belief in god(s) but from inner moral conviction.
As we have been discussing Professor Tour, I posted the further comment from the cited link by Dr. Pitman. Of particular interest is his reference and endorsement of Pascal. Science cannot prove or disprove God. Prof Ford understands this and that is why he does not subscribe to ID to buttress his faith. First Cause – perhaps of a metaverse, of which there is evidence- will likely always remain an unknown. Man will continue to anthropomorphize God to provide a mystical explanation for creation and meaning for ‘human’ life. New forms or iterations of religion will continue to arise to address this issue as few have the stomach to face the potential accidental existence of human life; notwithstanding the weight of the objective scientific evidence supports that notion. And that weight cannot be wieghed by one individual. If Dr Pitman, as a scientist, is going to succed in his quest he is going to have to persuade the scientific community he is right – like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkings etc. And that does mean that the ‘greats’ were absolutely right as the history of science demonstrates.
Notwithstanding I do not have it, I do not disparage faith. But if the attempt is made to link it to physicsl reality then such faith must be put to the absolute critical tests to ensure it doesn’t supplant objective human inquiry. In this Dr. Pitman, I can assure you I am absolutely not disingenous and I hope to provide a humble counterpoint on your excellent forum. For this ongoing opportunity I gratefully thank you.
“I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal), one of the finest scientists, mathematicians and inventors that the world has ever enjoyed, and also among the most well-respected and deepest thinking Christian apologists, wrote in his Pensees 463, “It is a remarkable fact that no canonical [biblical] author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him. David, Solomon, etc., never said: ‘There is no such thing as a vacuum, therefore God exists.’ They must have been cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, all of whom have used proofs from nature. This is very noteworthy.’” As Kreeft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft) points out in his commentary on Pascal’s Pensees, “If the Scripture does not use nature to prove God, it can’t be the best strategy. Notice that Pascal does not say that there are no good proofs of God or that none of them begin with data from nature. Elsewhere, he specifies merely that such proofs are psychologically weak, but he does not say they are logically weak. More important, they are salvifically weak, [meaning that] they will not save us. If nature proved God clearly, we would not have to search for him with all our hearts.” Pascal further writes in his Pensees 429 , “This is what I see that troubles me: Nature has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt and anxiety; if there is a God supporting nature, she should unequivocally proclaim him, and that, if the signs in nature are deceptive, they should be completely erased; that nature should say all or nothing so that I could see what course I ought to follow.” Though 350 years since Pascal penned his dilemma, as a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove ID using my most sophisticated of analytical tools. I share Pascal’s frustration. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if, when scientists had obtained the first molecular resolution images of human DNA, it had self-assembled (a thermodynamic process) into the Hebrew script to say, “The God of Heaven and Earth was here.”? But it did not, and I suppose that the wonder would have elicited no love from the skeptic anyway. Therefore, God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him.”
Table of Contents
george Also Commented
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
“Again, I encourage you to continue your search along these lines and look closely at the evidence for the creative potential and limitations of mindless naturalistic mechanisms – like random mutations and natural selection. If you do your own detailed research along these lines, I’m extremely confident that you will being to realize that only intelligent design on a very high level can explain living things, or even many of the complex subcellular machines within living things. This was in fact the first steppingstone for me when I began to wonder if God really did exist.”
And let me say you have been a an articulate advocate for ID in this regard. I can’ t fathom rationally why evolution would have a cut off point and life seems to adapt to an endless plethora of harsh living conditions. This does not seem to be designed but rather the result of RMNS. However I understand your arguments, if not the molecular biology, behind the limits of the evolutionary mechanism beyond low levels of functional complexity.
But, as we have discussed before, if you are right about ID, then this raised the spectre of an intelligent designer that designed for life and death, and disease in sentient creatures, including humans. In my estimation to think of a life designer who would design for death in children ( cancer) is monsterous! The apologetic of Man’s sin caused by the eating of the forbidden fruit causing all human suffering, is to me the most creative, alllegorical story ever written. Secondly would be the Noachian flood where many innocent children and other sentient creatures would have been destroyed by malice. What monster would do that?
So, on theodicy alone, independent of evolution and cosmology, I think the Biblical story of origins and the flood is creative fiction. I find the leap from the first stepping stone from ID to the biblical God to be a gap I can’t jump :).
When it comes to theology and the idea of a perfect God, such an entity in my estimation cannot perform like a petulant child who on what hand pulls wings off flies, then on the other would sacrifice part of himself by allowing a piece to die. I think rhe idea of a non intervening entity, a cosmic dice thrower makes much more scientific sense and morsl sense given the weight ofnthe evidence and a human rational understanding of morality. And in this my good, deliberative, thoughtful, compaasinate friend, I can assure you I am not veing disingenous but speaking from heart and head.
My thoughts are with you on this Good Friday.
All the best
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
” From the purely naturalistic perspective, there is no real morality – no real right or wrong. Everything is morally neutral with each individual determining his/her own personal moral “truth”.
Yes, this is what an existentialist would argue (including me). However Kant argued for a categorical imperative for moral precepts based on human reason. The codification of laws, including the Ten Commandments, is society’s attempt to socialize morality.
My observation is human morality sits on a broad spectrum. Some do good naturally and some do bad naturally. However, through reflection and hard work we can improve ethically. For a guy like me it is really hard work as I am constantly fighting self interest and pride!!!!!
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
Well said and fairly stated.
Recent Comments by george
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.
I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.
Respectfully
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”
And back to you
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”
How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”
So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?
You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?
Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?
You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.
You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.
Cheers
The Creator of Time
Hi Sean
Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.
Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.
You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.
You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.
Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.
Cheers
