Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
In otherwards your statement is not scientific is it , because such evidence is not subject to being falsifiable is it?
Not true. It is empirically-based and it is subject to fallibility. If you could find any other rational way to explain it, the ID-only (or the God-only) hypothesis would be effectively falsified as the only rational solution to the cause of a given phenomenon… as I’ve already mentioned. It is the very same reason why the SETI hypothesis is also potentially falsifiable and why the ID hypothesis for a highly symmetrical polished granite cube is falsifiable. It’s the very same argument.
You’ve tried to argue that superior technology could explain the miracles of Jesus – that Divine power wouldn’t be required to explain such miracles and that you’d still have your doubts even if you were to personally witness such demonstrations. You’re basically arguing that there’s always the possibility of being wrong, so you’ll always be skeptical regardless of the evidence presented. While it is true that it is always possible to be wrong, to be tricked or misinterpret the evidence, after a point it is no longer rational to be skeptical, to refuse to act based on the weight of evidence in hand – just because there remains the possibility of error. For example, if you did happen to win the lottery 10 times in a row, I would hypothesize that you cheated. Could my hypothsis be wrong? Yes, of course it could be wrong. However, the odds would be strongly against this possibility given the evidence in hand. The same thing is true of someone being raised from the dead after decomposing in the grave outside of Supernatural power.
Yet, you will refuse to believe until absolute evidence in provided – until there is absolutely no possibility of error. I’m sorry, but this is not a rational or a scientific mindset.I think you must realize this, but are just trying to save face here. I just don’t believe that you’d be this resistant to such demonstrations. But, even if you would be resistant to this extreme degree, your own arguments would still invoke higher levels of intelligent design to explain such phenomena.
In any case, I do see myself as applying the very same degree of scrutiny to the biblical claims that I apply to evolutionary claims. I see the biblical claims as being supported by the clear weight of empirical evidence just as I see the claims for certain features of living things being intelligently designed supported by the clear weight of empirical evidence. I’m not claiming absolute evidence here or perfection of demonstration. I’m only claiming what any real scientist claims – that the weight of evidence that is currently in hand clearly points in a particular direction. And, as far as the Bible is concerned, the very same thing is true. The biblical claims that are in fact open to testing and potential falsification have proven themselves, to me, to be very resilient in the face of continued attacks over the centuries. It’s the claims of the biblical critics that have been shown to be false, time and again, while the claims of the Bible have been vindicated over and over and over again.
Of course, there are those who disagree with me on both counts. I’m certainly in the minority – obviously. Of course, that’s irrelevant if no one can present falsifying evidence against my falsifiable positions – positions which are in fact easily falsifiable if the evidence where actually available. You certainly have brought nothing to the table that remotely challenges anything I’ve presented regarding intelligent design or Biblical credibility. All you’ve done is demanded absolute proof, not the weight of evidence. You don’t seem willing to step out on your own and question the status quo; to do your own thinking for yourself regardless of what anyone else (like Ben Clausen or the vast majority of modern scientists) thinks or says. Where are these arguments you find so convincing for the evolutionary mechanism? – beyond appeals to the authoritative claims of others which you don’t personally understand beyond the fact that a bunch of apparently smart people disagree with me?
What is your counter evidence for your opposing position? Prove me wrong… show me how a mindless naturalistic mechanism could actually do the job in a reasonable amount of time beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
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.
