Comment on Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall by Sean Pitman.
Telephone Game vs. Oral Traditions
You don’t understand the nature of orally transferred historical accounts – i.e., oral traditions. They aren’t like your telephone game example. They are far more consistent over time for several reasons (Link).
//www.youtube.com/v/thSVItUTHdM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
1)They are passed on to large groups of people who, collectively, remember the details of the story better than if it were passed on between individual people.
2) They are passed on by people trained from early childhood to remember the details of the story – a story repeated over and over and over again by numerous people who all agree on the details of the story.
3) The details of the story are considered important to remember by many people, and great effort is made to transmit these details accurately.
It is for such reasons that the collective “core” of historical accounts of some famous historical figure, like Alexander the Great, can be trusted with a fairly high degree of confidence – to include the details of his numerous battles and even the details of conversations he had with various people. That’s quite amazing if you think about it, and not at all like the telephone game you play with your students. After hundreds of years useful historical information can be and clearly has been maintained in such cases.
Beyond this, it doesn’t matter if the Bible was written by numerous authors. What matters and what adds to the credibility of the Bible is that these authors agree. That is why having four different authors write about the life and death of Jesus, each with a different take and different details about various events, add to the credibility of their accounts. If there were only one account or if the various authors presented identical details of various events, this would take away from the overall credibility of their story – as it would in any court case where multiple witnesses were describing the same event. Beyond this, the testable elements of their writings can be empirically tested for accuracy against other sources and currently available empirical evidences.
As far as the Genesis account in particular, I’ve already explained to you how your Documentary Hypothesis has lost credibility over the years. It now seems most likely that one author (Moses) did in fact write the Genesis account. Did he use other sources? Most likely. However, he also claims to have spoken “face-to-face” with God Himself about all kinds of things. Given the truth of such a claim, it it’s hard to come up with a more original source that God. Of course, how does one test the credibility of such a fantastic claim? By testing those elements that can be tested. That’s how. What about redactions? The evidence is that there were no substantial redactions of the writing of Moses aside from some updates of various names of cities or the spelling of various words and the like – nothing which substantively changes the details of the stories themselves.
Why then believe that the Genesis account is historically accurate? – that it isn’t just some fanciful legend? If the empirical evidence is most consistent with the Genesis account, like I believe it is, then the Genesis account gains credibility as real history – even with regard to those specifics that cannot be directly tested (just as is the case for the history of Alexander the Great and other historical figures of antiquity). For example, if there is evidence that life has not existed on this planet for millions of years, not even 100,000 years, that life is very young indeed compared to the claims of mainstream scientists, this adds a great deal of credibility to the Genesis account of origins – to include the literal 7-day creation week. The fact that the 7-day weekly cycle is of ancient origin and that the circadian rhythms of pretty much every living thing is governed by a circaseptan (7-day) cyclical rhythm is also in line with this argument (Link). The arguments for the requirement for intelligent design to explain various aspects of the universe and of living things is also far more consistent with the Genesis account of origins than the self-assembly story of mainstream scientists. It all starts to add up more and more and more in favor of the Biblical account of origins.
Is this some form of absolute proof? No. Of course not. It’s all about the weight of evidence. Which argument is most consistent with the currently available evidence? But, you seem to want more than the weight of evidence. You seem to want direct demonstration or some form of absolute proof. You accuse me of “attempting to argue [that] we can absolutely trust historical accounts.” That’s not at all what I said. You seem to think that science is about producing “absolutes”. Well, I’m sorry, but science doesn’t work that way. Historical sciences in particular are not based on a direct or in any other way absolute reproduction of past events, but on the weight of evidence as to what most likely took place. There is nothing definitive here. It’s all based on the weight of evidence. That is why one’s conclusions could always be proved wrong, or shown to be most likely wrong, given additional evidence.
It is at this point that I part ways with the likes of Drs. Cameron and Kent and others like them who appeal to “faith” to give them a form of absolute assurance. Such an empirically blind faith, in my book, is no better than wishful thinking. It is emotion-driven faith based on what one wants to be true – regardless of what the evidence can or cannot tenably support. Again, I’m not talking about absolute proof here. I’m talking about a faith that is consistent with the weight of evidence.
This is why I say that if Darwinism is true, Christianity is a lie. They are antithetical stories. Both cannot be true. They cannot be harmonized. That is why I would leave the SDA Church, and Christianity as well, if I ever was presented evidence that showed that neo-Darwinism is in fact the most tenable explanation of origins. Such a demonstration would, for me, clearly falsify the claims of the Bible and undermine its overall credibility. The maintenance of “faith” in the face of such evidence simply wouldn’t be rational – as Dr. Cameron would agree. His faith need not be rational or at all related to the weight of empirical evidence. My faith, on the other hand, must be in line with the weight of empirical evidence as I am able to understand it.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
He became a Christian in his first year of Unversity and science or evolutionary models had nothing to do with it.
I agree. Where did I suggest otherwise? His personal view of Christianity is not related to his view of science or evolution. They are independent topics in his mind – as is the case with you and others like Kenneth Miller.
I think you have certainly given an incorrect interpretation of his statement which was nothing about changing his mind about any particulars of science but about him now being judged by his Christian views and not only his science.
Hardly. He has changed his opinion about what is and what isn’t the scientific basis of origins. He no longer believes that the neo-Darwinian story of origins is scientific. That’s a significant change of position for him with regard to his scientific position on Darwinism – or at least the Darwinian mechanism which he no longer believes is scientifically tenable.
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
I’ve repeatedly given you evidence for the recent creation of life on this planet, for the inevitable degeneration of complex life over time, for the requirement for high level creativity and intelligence and design to explain even the most simple of living things and various biomachines within all living things, and for the overall credibility of the Bible on the topic of origins which fills in gaps in knowledge and does in fact go beyond what the empirical evidence itself can support. After all, if all of the claims in the Bible could be directly demonstrated, one wouldn’t need the Bible. The credibility of the Bible, as I’ve already explained to you, is based on those elements that can actually be tested and evaluated in a potentially falsifiable manner. These tests give credibility to those claims that cannot be directly tested – such as the Virgin Birth, the literal 6-day creation week, or the Resurrection.
In contrast, I fail to see where you have presented any argument against any of this or against anything the Bible has to say on origins, or the position of the SDA Church, beyond a simple appeal to the authority of the opinions of others. Where is your own argument that you think you personally understand? Present an argument against any of the evidence I’ve presented in this forum for several years now. You have yet to do so as far as I can tell.
I already know that I’m in the minority when it comes to the opinions of mainstream scientists. Telling me this over and over again simply isn’t helpful when it comes to explaining or getting me to see and understand why I’m wrong. For example, why not present some specific argument that explains the Darwinian mechanism to me and how it works beyond low levels of functional complexity? Have you even tried to do this? No, you haven’t. Or, present some specific argument that explains away the problem of the high detrimental mutation rate for slowly reproducing organisms. Have you done this? No, you haven’t. Present an argument for the preservation of proteins and DNA in dinosaur bones for 60 million years – in the face of kinetic chemistry experiments that strongly suggest that such long-term preservation is highly unlikely. Have you done this. No, you haven’t. What about the problem of continental or mountain erosion rates? Nothing from you. The list goes on and on and on.
So, if the best you have is to tell me that my ideas aren’t popular, but you don’t personally know why, I’m sorry, but that’s just not helpful to me. I’m just not interested…
Debate between Stephen Meyer and Charles Marshall
Good points…
The problem isn’t with the speed or rate of radioactive decay or that God is trying to deceive us by giving false or misleading information. The problem is that the various ways of measuring time within the geologic/fossil record do not agree with each other – by many orders of magnitude. And, these problems are not outdated or based on “40 year old” papers. These problems are modern problems, some of which are of very recent discovery – to include the genetic evidence that slowly reproducing creatures are sustaining far more detrimental mutations than can be eliminated from their gene pools by natural selection, resulting in an inevitable deterioration of their gene pools (devolution) toward eventual genetic meltdown and extinction. All of these factors play into the obviously designed nature of complex life and the biosphere within which it lives.
The fact is that the significant weight of evidence currently in hand strongly favors the concept of a recent arrival of life on this planet and a recent and very rapid formation of much of the fossil record.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
