Comment on Adventist Education–at the crossroads? by Sean Pitman.
Dear Dr Pitman
Upon reading your conversation with Mr Long on Atoday’s SDA Education-Crossroads blog, I found myself having a comment and a question that might be better answered on mail than in the blog format. You mentioned Kuhn’s theory of science, and are therefore aware that paradigm shifts, if Kuhn is correct, are not caused by the prevailing theory having many unexplained and perhaps inexplicable questions but by a rival paradigm answering at least as much of the data including the problem questions in a better way. For example, the first people to adopt Kopernikus astronomy did not do so because Ptelemy’s had many errors but because it was easier to calculate astrology using Kopernicus method. Having that in mind, I wonder why the best that critics of modern biology seem able to do is to find fault with it. In the botany systematics lab where I work/study, it really makes no difference had the current theory of evolution had twise as many errors or faults, for there does not as far as I know exist a competing model which could be used analyse the data. Neither “your model is wrong because…” nor “God made it…” is at all helpful for daily science work.
Considering this, it frustrates me to read what you (and others at other times) wrote:
“The fact remains that the historic SDA perspective on origins is supported by a great deal of evidence – I personally believe that it is supported by the significant weight of evidence. Scientific reasoning strongly suggests to me that current popular theories of origins are painfully mistaken. As just one example, the Darwinian mechanism of evolution (RM/NS) is clearly untenable beyond very low levels of functional complexity. There are no examples of evolution in action beyond very very low levels of functional complexity and, if you actually sit down and do a bit of statistical analysis, you will find that higher and higher levels of functional complexity are exponentially harder and harder to achieve in a given span of time.”
You begin by stating that the historic SDA perspective on origins is supported, but you never get into detail on what evidence this is, let alone what the SDA perspective on origins looks like on a scientifically operative level. Suppose you were to write a paper using sequences from 5 different loci including nuclear genes from 10 different primate species, what does the model based on the SDA perspective on origins that your analysis method is based upon look like? What kind of analysis will you be using and how do they treat the core data? Does such a working model even exist?
Could it be that the great deal of evidence which you mention only operates on your second sentence, namely for the purpose of disqualifying the currently popular theories in science? If so, this evidence is a problem for the theories in question but not much more. When we remember that a paradigm is not truly threatened by questions it cannot answer, but only by a competing paradigm which can explain all the data incorporated in it in addition to answering the outstanding questions. Does such a competing paradigm exist that does not operate as follows:
miracle3.gif
You have studied these questions more thoroughly than I and may have answers to my questions and concerns. I am anticipating your reply.
Sincerely
Anonymous
Hi Anonymous,
Your comments and questions are thoughtful and very compelling to many people. Your essential argument seems to be that it doesn’t really matter how good or how bad a given scientific model or theory may or may not be as long as there isn’t any other better model available. In other words, as long as there isn’t anything better, one must work with what one has despite it’s numerous flaws since it’s the best we have. Does that about sum up your main argument?
At least one problem I see with this basic argument is that it goes against the scientific principle of theoretical falsifiability. A truly scientific theory should be set up in such a way that it can be falsified regardless of if any other better explanation is or is not available. If a theory is not even theoretically falsifiable (regardless of what other viable theories do or do not exist), it really isn’t very helpful scientifically. A demonstrably false theory is not better than no theory at all. A theory that is effectively falsified should not be used just because no other reasonable theory is available. It’s better to simply say, “I don’t know” than to continue to present something that is known to be false as a solution to a given problem or phenomena.
Beyond this, especially when it comes to the origin and diversity of life on this planet, there is a much better “model” available compared to the popular mainstream theory of evolution. That model is a model that invokes intelligent design (ID).
At this point, let me digress a bit and note that I really like the cartoon you included at the bottom of your E-mail where a “miracle” is invoked in the middle of a mathematical argument. Of course, scientists universally shy away from invoking “miracles” to explain natural phenomena – or do they?
Let me pose a scenario. Say you walk into your house and on the table there in your kitchen is a freshly baked beautiful chocolate cake. It looks good. It smells good. It tastes really really good. What can be said about the origin of this chocolate cake? – scientifically? Detailed mathematical and chemical models can certainly be produced for the interaction of the various elements as the cake was being cooked, etc. But the production of the final form of the cake, with all the ingredients introduced at just the right time and place, is very difficult to put into the language of chemistry or mathematics alone. Something is missing…. and that something is the explanation for the specific order of the materials that make up the cake and how those materials interact with a specific level of heat at just the right time and for just the right length of time. In other words, an explanation for the informational complexity that was required to produce the cake is lacking in basic mathematical or chemical formulas. In fact, this required pre-existing informational complexity is so great that you would no doubt instantly assume that someone with access to at least a human level intelligence made the chocolate cake that you just ate. In short, a small “miracle” did in fact occur from the perspective of purely mindless naturalistic processes (miracles are relative things you know). If someone asked you what it would take to produce such a cake using only mindless nturalistic mechanisms you would no doubt say, “It would take a miracle”. This is why you reject the “mindless miracle” hypothesis in favor of deliberate intelligent design in such situations.
The very same type of argument is used in science all the time when it comes to detecting need for intelligent design to explain certain features found in the natural world. For example, this same type of argument is used in forensic science, anthropology, and even SETI science. As a specific hypothetical example, say that a NASA rover were to come across a highly symmetrical granite cube on the surface of Mars that measured exactly one meter on each side. You don’t think that such a find would hit the front page of every major newspaper in the world with the tag line, “NASA Finds Evidence of Intelligent Life on Mars!!!!”? Of course that’s what would happen.
So, onto your argument that the “Goddidit” model isn’t useful in your “daily science work”. First off, the basic theory of intelligent design need not explain the specific identity of the intelligent designer aside from the need for the designer to have been intelligent to at least a certain level of intelligence. You don’t need to know who, exactly, made your chocolate cake in order to know that whoever did it was intelligent to at least the human level of intelligence – right? The same thing is true for my hypothetical granite cube on Mars or for the narrow-band spectrum radio signals that SETI scientists are looking for.
But aren’t such arguments for ID based on falsifying models of mindless naturalistic origin? Of course they are. After all, if there is any viable model for the production of highly symmetrical polished granite cubes outside of deliberate design, that would call into serious question the ID-only hypothesis. The same thing is true for the origin and diversity of life. If any viable mechanism could be presented that could reasonably explain the origin and/or the diversity of life within a reasonable span of time, that evidence would effectively falsify the ID-only hypothesis for life and its diversity.
This means, of course, that someone like me who wishes to present the argument that life and its diversity can only be reasonably explained by appealing to a very high level of intelligence in play in the origin of life and its diversity, has better explain why the popular model of the origin of life and its diversity isn’t remotely tenable. Only if I can do that can I rationally conclude, scientifically, that the only other known origin of such high levels of functional complexity (i.e., Intelligent Design on a level indistinguishable by us humans as being a God or God-like) was most likely in play – just as you did with your chocolate cake…
Now, the only real question that remains at this point is if I can in fact demonstrate that the proposed evolutionary mechanism is in fact untenable beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. And, I think I can. But, that is an whole discussion all its own that is rather detailed. But, if you are interested in this evidence, please do visit my website for the details (www.DetectingDesign.com).
Or, if you prefer, I would also recommend an new book recently published by Stephen Meyer entitled, “Signature in the Cell”. This book is quite good and goes into the arguments listed above (and many more) in significant detail. You’d probably find it an interesting read at the very least.
Thanks again for your thoughts and comments.
Sincerely,
Sean
P.S. I hope you don’t mind if I post this exchange on the EducateTruth blog…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
@pauluc:
My point in quoting Davies’ review of Polkinghorne was to show that they base their ideas on God’s existence on evidence, on certain features within the universe, which they think can only be explained by deliberate intelligent design on the level of God-like intelligence. That is an intelligent design hypothesis on at least some level.
Just because those who appeal to intelligent design theories on at least some level may also believe in various aspects of the modern theory of evolution doesn’t mean that an ID theory hasn’t been invoked on at least some level. It has.
After all, even I believe in evolution via RM/NS as being responsible for many features of living things. Many features of living things are very well explained by neutral evolution or by low-level functional evolution. This doesn’t mean that all features of living things can be therefore be explained by RM/NS. It is this leap of logic or extrapolation of low-level evolution to much higher levels of evolution, within mainstream science, which isn’t scientific. Many features of living things go well beyond the creative potential of any known mindless mechanism while being well within the realm of ID. This is the very same argument used by Davies to support his belief in a God as the designer behind certain features of the anthropic universe.
By the way, I do know Norman McNulty. I’m just not familiar with his views on perfectionism – which is, in any case, irrelevant to this purposes of this particular website. Also, my transitional internship was completed at Eisenhower Army Medical Center (not an SDA institution) and my hemepath fellowship was completed at the City of Hope under the world-renown Lawrence Weiss (not SDA either).
I remain as perplexed as ever how you can hold views on the the nature of intelligent design as a natural phenomena and the requirement for faith to be subservient to reason and evidence but deny anyone in church employ any leeway to explore or articulate anything beyond what you consider truth.
It isn’t what I consider truth. It is what the Church as an organization considers to be fundamental “present truth”. All are free to join or to leave the Church at will. This is a free civil society in which we live – thank God. However, the Church, as with any viable organization, must maintain a certain degree of order and discipline within its own organizational structure if it is to survive. The Church simply cannot afford to hire those who are ardently opposed to the basic fundamental goals and ideals of the Church as an organization and who go around teaching and preaching against the fundamental positions of the organized Church.
You may not consider the organization of the Church to be all that important. I think that without organization, and the order and control that goes along with maintaining any organization, that the Church would quickly fragment into a meaningless hodgepodge of isolated groups with widely divergent ideas. The organizational aspect of the Church is what gives it its power to spread a unified Gospel message more effectively.
I appreciate your responses to my questions and the glimpses I have gained into the mind of a person who seems to discern truth and sees the justice in imposing it on others.
What employer doesn’t impose various rules and restrictions on its paid employees? – rules that are known upfront before the employee agrees to take the job? You very well know that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t be paid by an organization for doing whatever you want. You are paid to do what the organization wants you to do. If you don’t like what the organization wants you to do, you don’t have to take the job. Again, it’s as simple as that. This isn’t some deep philosophical mystery here.
It is self-evident, is it not, that when one takes on employment in an organization of one’s own free will, one is obliged to take on the restriction, the rules, of that organization. Is it wrong of Reebok to require its own employees to only promote and even wear Reebok shoes? Would it be wrong of Reebok to fire and employee for publicly promoting Nike as making a superior product?
Come now. If you really believe that Nike makes the better shoe, and you are bound and determined to be honest to yourself and tell everyone about the superiority of Nike, why on Earth would you expect to be paid by Reebok to promote Nike? You’re simply making no sense here. You’re basically an anarchist who thinks you deserve to be paid simply for your honesty. I’m sorry, but no viable organization works that way. An honest Catholic should work for the Catholic organization. An honest Baptist should work for the Baptist organization. And an honest evolutionary scientist should work for those numerous organizations who would be more than glad to pay such an individual for their efforts. Why should the SDA Church pay anyone who doesn’t actually want to promote what the SDA Church, as an organization, wishes to promote?
God bless and give you as much insight into his Grace.
Likewise. God is a God of order and disciplined government – not anarchy. All are free to come and enjoy the gifts of God as given through the inspired organization of the SDA Church. However, not all are free to expect payment from the SDA Church for their services since not all are well suited to be official representatives of the Church as an organization.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
@pauluc:
As already noted, challenging fundamental aspects of Darwinian evolution is not like challenging most other aspects of science. It is like challenging some fundamental religious aspect of most mainstream scientists.
It’s not like there aren’t very good scientific reasons for challenging the mainstream paradigm in many respects. A similar case, as already noted, is the fairly recent E-mail scandal over global warming: where scientists in charge of journals deliberately falsified data and blocked the publication of minority opinions from scientists with which they disagreed. The very same thing happened to Stephen Meyer when he tried to publish in mainstream literature. And, the one time he was successful, Richard Sternberg, the editor who was brave enough to publish a paper from an scientist supportive of intelligent design behind any aspect of our universe, was demoted and lost his job at the Smithsonian.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you comprehend the strong emotion and even religious zeal that mainstream scientists share for the defense of Darwinism against any fundamental counter within the journals that they control.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
@pauluc:
You wrote:
Every reference you give [regarding the Sternberg case] is filtered through a creationist source.
And all of the references you listed were filtered through evolutionist sources. The fact is that the original references in this case are clearly listed and are readily available. There is no cover-up of the actual facts involved in this case – to include Sternberg’s exoneration by the OSC and the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Those are the facts.
Yet, you write:
You must understand that we all start from certain assumptions. On origins you start from a certain reading of an inerrant canon and the writings of EG White. If you at all understand science it is based on the assumption that nature can be explained by natural law. To then inject miracles into that understanding is to subvert the core process.
Wait just a minute here! Since when does the detection of the need for intelligence to explain a given phenomenon violate scientific methodology? Since when is the detection of the need for intelligence to explain certain phenomena excluded from science by definition? Since when does the invocation of “natural law” mean that only “mindless natural laws” can be invoked in all situations?
Do you not realize that many fields of modern science are based on the ability of scientific methodologies to detect the activity of deliberate intelligence in play within our universe? – to include forensic science, anthropology, and even SETI science? Don’t tell me that when an anthropologist picks up a rock and declares that it has the features of a deliberately carved arrowhead that real science isn’t in play. Don’t tell me that when a man walks into his house and sees a freshly baked chocolate cake sitting on his kitchen table that rational, even scientific, thought isn’t involved in determining an intelligent origin for the cake. Don’t tell me that if one of our rovers were to find a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, measuring one meter on each side, on the surface of Mars, that such a discovery would not be hailed as evidence for the existed of non-human intelligent life by mainstream science.
You know as well as I do that these things are all true – that the detection of the “miracle” of intelligence in play within our universe is by no means beyond the powers of scientific investigation. Just because intelligence itself most certainly is a “miracle” from certain perspectives does not mean that it’s detection is beyond science. It isn’t.
The irony is as I have pointed out repeatedly you as a practioner of evidence based medicine (Admittedly I am making an assumption here as you have been LLU trained) do adopt a naturalistic approach to medicine. In this there is a clear disparity with your writings on origins.
I am board certified in anatomic, clinical and hematopathology (with a hemepath fellowship from the City of Hope under Dr. Weiss). I’ve also worked for several years as an urgent care doc back when I was in the Army and have been involved in a number of forensic investigations. You are ignorant to think that a “naturalistic approach” to medicine means that only mindless natural causes can be invoked to explain all situations that doctors encounter. If this were true, the crimes scenes I helped to investigate would never have been detectable as crime scenes. No one would have ever been charged with a deliberate crime of any kind if your notions and concepts of the “miraculous” and of “naturalism” were correct.
I hate to break this to you, but intelligence is “natural”.
I’m just hoping that you don’t actually teach this stuff in one of our SDA schools… but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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
