Eugene Shubert

Sean,

Do you know why Educate Truth is always censoring relevant discussions like they are the Gestapo and there is no tomorrow? I wanted to reply to your posts to me but it seems that the thread "La Sierra Academy students weigh in on creation/evolution debate" has been deleted.

You affirmed my understanding of Maxwell's m.i.th:

By the way, Eugene, I must say that I do agree with you when it comes to your views and many of your comments regarding A. Graham Maxwell's Moral Influence Theory of Christ's Atonement. Good work there on a very subtle and difficult problem for the SDA Church today...

And, not wanting to be inconsistent, I alerted you to the following challenge:

I see the merit of their scientific philosophies and reject your ultra-fundamentalism. Instead of defining science with the certainty of irrefutable and unambiguous ideas, you want to reduce scientific creationism to what the Bible says. I simply can’t imagine well-informed Adventist scientists accepting your point of view.

To which you replied:

Nothing in science is absolutely certain or irrefutable. The same is true of useful religious ideas. If anything were "irrefutable", you wouldn't need science to support it. Science is only needed when the data set that is available is limited and the prediction deduced from the limited data set less than certain.

If you actually read the information on my website and knew me just a bit better, you'd know that I do not reduce creationism simply to "what the Bible says". Creationism is based on empirical evidence that supports what the Bible says. This is the scientific basis for believing in the reliability of the biblical texts - testable empirical evidence that is potentially falsifiable.

Let me ask you, upon what basis do you believe in the existence of God? - or the reliability of the Bible as a Divinely inspired source of information? - warm fuzzy feelings? or empirical evidence of some sort? What is your "reason" for the "hope that is in you"?

Sean Pitman

Hi Eugene,

I don't know why this particular thread was deleted from EdTruth...

- sp

Eugene Shubert

Sean,

I believe in the existence of God and the divine inspiration of Scripture by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with scientifically verifiable evidence.

Mathematics has a high probability of being irrefutable. Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics involves the absolute certainty that conceptually an atlas of all logically consistent theories of physics exists. I agree with David Hilbert and his philosophy of science. Consequently, I define a scientific theory to be a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

The problem with Intelligent Design, including all the quasi-scientific fundamentalist arguments for creationism that rank below it, is identical to the errors of Darwinism. Both sides, in essence, advocate imperfect arguments and appeal to Occam's razor to assert what they feel are the most reasonable conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. Unfortunately, both camps are arguing from probability and do not disclose their most fundamental unprovable assumptions. And both sides falsely insinuate that there can only be one logically consistent interpretation of empirical data. What's wrong with elevating the standards of science higher than that?

Christians argue from their view of science for the truth about the Bible and God. Atheists argue from the same body of knowledge for their preferred religious faith in gradualism and methodological naturalism. Sadly, this controversy is resolvable but most combatants in the fight don't want it resolved. They refuse the path for peace. They especially do not understand why Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics is a call to the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.

Sean Pitman

Your argument for your belief in the inspiration of Scripture via your sense of the Holy Spirit isn't helpful to me. I have no such impression which I can point to which I can readily distinguish from indigestion or just plain wishful thinking.

Also, your notion that mathematical theories are essentially irrefutable which it comes to their correlation with the real world in which we live is also false. See argument from Gregory Chaitin as to why even mathematics has its clear limitations when it comes to what can be definitively known.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that science, by its very nature, is limited and, to a certain degree, subjective. It cannot be more than what it actually is - a useful but limited tool which can narrow the field to where truth may be found, while never actually finding absolute certainty. The controversy between most atheists and/or theistic evolutionists and creationists is not resolvable precisely because scientists are human too - and come to the table with bias just like everyone else. This is unavoidable in a certain sense. The very best we as individuals can do is to be aware of our own bias and how it can color how we perceive reality.

We should be careful that our desires do not overwhelm are higher logical God-given minds when it comes to determining what we really do "believe" to be true. This is why I think your blind-faith based belief in God isn't helpful and is in fact dangerous... distinctly unChristian as far as I understand the basis of the Christian Gospel. The Christian Faith isn't based on some sense of the Holy Spirit alone - but on solid physical empirical evidence. God gave us higher logical intelligent minds for a reason - so that we would use them. He therefore appeals to that higher reason in his efforts to win us to himself. God does not expect or desire blind faith believers...

Sean 

Eugene Shubert

Sean,

Am I right in interpreting your words that you never or rarely have a sense of the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

Ah, the limitations of mathematics! That is a most beautiful subject.

The British author, mathematician, & philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) wrote, "Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." — Mysticism and Logic (1917) ch. 4.

That line is wonderfully true and full of meaning. Russell was referring to set theory. It's the foundation of all mathematics yet contains profound mysteries if we dig too deeply. For example, Dr. Errett Bishop, perhaps the most famous of my math professors at UCSD, taught that set theory is "God's mathematics, which we should leave for God to do." 

I love these statements by Bishop and Russell because those of us who have studied mathematics at a deep level know—or should know—that we must tread softly and with great humility in science. It's a wonderful contrast to the conceit of atheistic physicists who boast that they understand how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness.

Mathematics is not subjective. I do not have a blind-faith based belief in God. It is false to insinuate that perceiving the Holy Spirit is indistinguishable from the feeling of wishful thinking or indigestion (Matthew 12:32).

If you had asked me for scientific evidence against Darwinian evolution, I would have replied that the strongest argument that I know of against Darwinism is evolutionary biologists also accepting the pseudo-science of the biomedical establishment. http://everythingimportant.org/AZT

Sean Pitman

When it comes to determining if the Bible is true or not, no, I have not had what I can recognize as any sort of direct or internally derived Divine revelation. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, not because of direct Divine revelation, but because of the internal empirical evidence within the Bible itself. I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to you in such direct ways. All I'm saying is that this argument of yours, while it may be very helpful for you, is not helpful for me. It simply isn't convincing for someone with my own experience and background.

Sean 

Eugene Shubert

Creationism is the totality of all empirical evidence that supports what the Bible declares about origins. In other words, creationism, as defined by Sean D. Pitman, M.D., is based on a faulty methodological error.

Sean, you should be able to recognize your mistake. The exact same error is present in the bad science of mainstream biomedical researchers that refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of what the AIDS dissidents are saying in the controversy over the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. The analogy that I'm highlighting is clearly evident in a 2-minute segment found at 48:33 to 50:23 minutes into the 2-hour video at http://everythingimportant.org/AZT 

Sean Pitman

Sorry Eugene. I think you are confused regarding the nature and value of scientific methodologies and regarding the basis of determining the Divine origin of the Scriptures. Your claim to direct Divine inspiration as the basis for your knowledge that the Bible is "true" is very similar to my LDS friends who claim that the Book of Mormon is "true" because the Holy Spirit has told them so - despite the fact that there are so many historical errors in the Book of Mormon; so many that it has no resemblance at all to historical reality as determined by very clear scientific research.

Again, if your religion and your science are completely at odds, something is wrong with either your religion or your science... Even the Bible warns us to "test the Spirits"... 

Eugene Shubert

Sean,

My religion and my science are in perfect harmony, mostly because I teach that God is orthogonal to physics. And I have an endorsement for my position from both the Spirit of prophecy and from the scientific philosophy of the man that taught Albert Einstein how to derive the equations of general relativity. 

Sean Pitman

Good for you ; )

Sean Pitman

Sorry Eugene. I think you are confused regarding the nature and value of scientific methodologies and regarding the basis of determining the Divine origin of the Scriptures. Your claim to direct Divine inspiration as the basis for your knowledge that the Bible is "true" is very similar to my LDS friends who claim that the Book of Mormon is "true" because the Holy Spirit has told them so - despite the fact that there are so many historical errors in the Book of Mormon; so many that it has no resemblance at all to historical reality as determined by very clear scientific research.

Again, if your religion and your science are completely at odds, something is wrong with either your religion or your science... Even the Bible warns us to "test the Spirits"...

Eugene Shubert

Sean,

You keep demonstrating the truthfulness of my earlier claim that your view of science is that of Christian fundamentalists. Aren't you in effect denying or refusing to acknowledge the fact that many atheists have advanced science in many wonderful leaps of brilliant contributions? 

Sean Pitman

You're not making any sense Eugene. I'm a medical doctor with subspecialties in clinical, anatomic, and hematopathology. Of course I recognize that much of science, to include medical science, can be done without the need for the invocation of a God or God-like intelligence. The problem is that many features of the world and of the universe cannot be rationally or scientifically explained without the ID hypothesis. I call it the ID-only hypothesis. And yes, it is a valid scientific hypothesis that generates very good predictive value when it comes to explaining the origin of certain types of phenomena in the natural world. Your position that the Holy Spirit directly tells you the answers to these questions just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

Eugene Shubert

And it's because you are a M.D. that I mentioned the pseudo-science of mainstream biomedical researchers and postulate the same level of submissiveness to the theory of evolution.

The insistence that secular scientists should admit that it has been proven that the ID hypothesis has a role to play in science is just another symptom of being a fundamentalist. Another fundamentalist trait is to put words into the mouths of others. I never said that the Holy Spirit revealed anything to me about science. 

Sean Pitman

You said that the Holy Spirit revealed to you the truth of the Biblical Scriptures - and has given you visions/dreams of other truths and privilaged information. That, my friend, is not significantly different from the LDS claim that the Holy Spirit reveals to them the truth of their Scriptures, the Book of Mormon. That argument just doesn't help me. Sorry. I also do not agree with your view of biomedical research - not even when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

Eugene Shubert

Sister White taught that dreams and visions from the Lord "contain their own proofs of their genuineness." I'll let you figure that out. I believe that Steve Starman's dream verifies my 3-scenario interpretation of the book of Revelation. But you certainly don't need to read Starman's dream to believe the obvious. My revelations on Scripture can easily be verified by examining Daniel and Revelation in the new light that I've received and checking every detail by the grammatical-historical method. I doubt that there is even one uniquely Mormon doctrine in the Bible that satisfies grammatical-historical exegesis.

Why are the AIDS dissidents Kary Mullis, molecular biologist and Nobel laureate, and Peter Duesberg, professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrong in their challenges to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?

Sean Pitman

Why do you think the dreams and visions of Mrs. White were from God? vs. the Book of Mormon? vs. the Bible? The grammatical-historical method?

The historical-grammatical method is an investigation of the original meaning of a text in its historical and literary contexts in order to determine the original meaning that the original author of the passage in question wished to convey to the intended audience. I don't think that this particular method alone is going to help anyone decide between the Book of Mormon and the Bible or the writings of Mrs. White as far as which text is more or less, or even equally, Divinely inspired. In order to determine the likely input of the Divine, you have to have actual evidence that goes beyond the text itself - i.e., a comparison of the text to what one thinks one knows about empirical, testable, potentially falsifiable, physical reality...

Sean Pitman

As you note, dreams and visions from God do indeed "contain their own proofs of their genuineness" - proofs which can be shown to be consistent with empirical reality and the rest of the proven Word. These proofs you speak of cannot be derived by looking at the text and the text alone. A comparison with empirical reality is also needed. The biblical authors themselves explain how to test the claims of those who have supposedly received dreams or visions from God. The claim of a message from God should not be blindly received, but should be tested in a scientific manner with what is known about empirical reality. Examples of such proofs, which the biblical authors themselves describe, include consistently fulfilled prophecy, various superhuman manifestations (i.e., "miracles"), and a character of the message consistent with the Fruits of the Spirit - i.e., "By their fruits you will know them".

This is a form of scientific support/evidence that carries with it useful predictive value. Without this sort of testable empirical evidence, your dreams simply aren't helpful to anyone besides yourself (and likely not even yourself). They are no better than my vague feelings of indigestion which I experience on occasion - - i.e., blind faith or wishful thinking...

As far as the theories of Duesberg and Mullis, I think they are clearly mistaken in their arguments against the HIV/AIDS connection - i.e., the weight of evidence is strongly against them in my understanding of this evidence (and I know just a bit about HIV/AIDS given that I have a subspecialty in hematopathology). Do you really know how the HIV virus works? I dare suggest that you would not want to test out this virus on yourself. I really don't think you're that confident in your claims here. The same goes for Duesberg and Mullis. See if their willing to go HIV+ to put their lives on the line for their theory (as at least Duesberg has been seemingly willing to put the lives of many others on the line over this issue).

Sean Pitman

So you see, just because a person has done good scientific work in one area or aspect of science doesn't mean that this person is always logical or their theories tenable in all aspects of scientific investigation. This is why one must consider the evidence and employ scientific reasoning for ones own self if the subject at hand is of any personal importance - instead of always depending upon arguments from authority figures alone. This also highlights my original point that scientific conclusions always contain a degree of subjectivity and bias - even for Nobel Prize winners.

Of course, you may disagree, but in order to disagree convincingly, you have to argue based on some form of testable scientific hypothesis which is at least potentially falsifiable in observable time. And, the weight of evidence that you present must be considered to have a similar weight in my own experience and understanding of this topic if you wish to convince me. You may claim that I'm simply too ignorant of the facts involved, and that may be. This is where past experience and a degree of subjectivity come into play when it comes to the conclusions of all regarding what actual reality is or is not. There is simply no way around this bias problem since we are all, by nature, subjective creatures. We simply cannot know the truth about the world outside of our own minds with absolute certainty. We can approach truth, but we can never realize it with perfection this side of eternity. This is the nature of science and of all methods of searching out "truth".

Eugene Shubert

OK. You have persuaded me that you don't know enough about Daniel and Revelation to know if my interpretation is even reasonable. That's fair enough. It's not surprising to me that a fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist has no interest in revelation.

As for the two-hour documentary http://everythingimportant.org/AZT, all I know for sure is that its claims are extremely deep and that your rebuttal is extremely shallow.

Sean Pitman

We haven't even discussed Daniel or Revelation beyond the idea that any text thought to be inspired by God has to be tested and found consistent with known empirical reality. In my opinion, and after much research into both Daniel and Revelation, I've found that the prophecies in these books match up very well with known historical reality. This is why I give the metaphysical claims of these books so much weight - because the physical claims and predictions of the future found in these books can be so clearly and dramatically verified. You do know that my father is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor who has done extensive research into both Daniel and Revelation... I grew up with this stuff ; )

As for your disbelief regarding the HIV/AIDS connection, I simply do not have the time or interest to try to convince you beyond the simple statement that I am a medical doctor with a subspecialty in hematopathology. I have studied and treated HIV/AIDS extensively. And, I don't find your bald assertions or the arguments of Duesberg and Mullis remotely convincing. Sorry. Not everything that is sensational is true you know...

Eugene Shubert

OK. You have now confirmed that you don't even know what the issues are in Daniel and Revelation but you have a good excuse for that. You are the son of a Seventh-day Adventist pastor. Sorry, I have never heard of him.

Since you brought up rank and worldly status, I do have a question that pertains to it. I have read that Nazi medical ethics can be bought at Loma Linda University and that this major Seventh-day Adventist institution was complicit in a corporate strategy to relax existing environmental regulations and to permit long-term perchlorate contamination in drinking water. Is that true?

If that is at least possible, then is it reasonable for me to conclude, as part of your medical training at Loma Linda, that your mind has been guided through a required adjustment process and that now you're too busy dispensing AZT to even investigate and justify your own practices for yourself?

Sean Pitman

As I've already explained to you, I have extensively investigated the mechanisms of HIV infection and the pathophysiology of AIDS as a result - I dare say far more than you have. I am also very well aware of the HIV/AIDS deniers and their arguments. I just don't find them remotely convincing given what I think I know about HIV and AIDS. What amazes me is your arrogance and condescending attitude given your background - as if it is absolute impossible that you could even theoretically be mistaken - - on anything from religion to physics to medical science. I guess that is the prerogative of a the "New William Miller" who gets messages straight from God? Well, I for one am just a bit underwhelmed... sorry.

I really have nothing further to say to you, except for the the fact that I'm very glad, for both of our sakes, that God loves, and will save, stupid people ; )

ProfessorNotKent wrote:

This brings me to my conclusion: the most vocal critics of LSU and evolutionism in your Church (whom you seem to defend) happen to be those with essentially no valid credentials. This I find hysterical.

I don’t mind one bit that the most vocal creationists by worldly standards have no appropriate credentials in a legitimate science. The real problem is that mainstream creationists completely misunderstand the definition of science.

Forget creationists, even mainstream scientists don’t agree on “the” definition of science. You certainly haven’t presented a definition with which everyone agrees… now that would be a miracle ; )

The best and most irrefutable definition of science, as well as the set of all relevant variations of the essential idea in science, obviously exists. Science is whatever the discoverers of the laws of nature, i.e., what the noteworthy scientists, say science is.

Where's the error in letting the great consensus of accomplished investigators of nature define science?

Here is a short list of legitimate scientists according to my definition, most of which I think you obviously disagree with or misunderstand:

What is Science?

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in." — Richard P. Feynman.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard P. Feynman.

"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." — Richard P. Feynman.

"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." — John von Neumann.

"Contrary to what I once thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accurately formulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them. It began with the invention of a possible world, or a fragment thereof, which was then compared by experimentation with the real world. And it was this constant dialogue between imagination and experiment that allowed one to form an increasingly fine-grained conception of what is called reality." — François Jacob, as quoted in William Calvin's The Cerebral Symphony.

"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought." — Albert Einstein.

"The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." — Albert Einstein.

"All of science is uncertain and subject to revision. The glory of science is to imagine more than we can prove." - Freeman Dyson.

"I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed." — Max Born (1882-1970) German Physicist. Nobel Prize, 1954.

"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover." — Bertrand Russell.

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know." — Bertrand Russell.

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." — Ernest Rutherford.

"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, ... But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics." — Galileo Galilei.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." — Galileo Galilei.

"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." — Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Florentine painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, and inventor, in "Treatise on Painting."

Please note:

(Feynman explicitly assumes that mathematics is the language of science):

(The nature of science - Feynman's analogy of science and chess):

:

Feel free to expand this list with the names of other famous scientists that you insist are in error at the level of mere definition.

Here is my next challenge for you:

If we're willing to accept how the majority of accomplished investigators of nature have defined science, then I think we'll find that dictionary.com has acquired a perfect synthesis and lists the correct order of lesser meanings:

science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

I have been arguing for improving the definition of science, starting with what the world's best scientists have said. You obviously dismiss the very foundation of science and refuse to tolerate unbelief. 

"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." — Richard P. Feynman.

The point of my list is to show a respectable agreement on the true character of science, not to select one scientific theory above another. A perfect synthesis is achieved in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Can you "know something" about the physical world that exists outside of your mind with absolute certainty?

I have explained, in great detail, my acceptance of scientific orthodoxy in the light of David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. If you don't know what the answer is from that perspective, then you are obviously admitting your ignorance of science. 

There is a simple pat answer for every useless philosophical question. For philosophers and non-scientists like yourself that are uncertain about the meaning of reality, consider an obviously straightforward retelling of the following scientific reply by Richard P. Feynman:

"Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." — Richard P. Feynman.

Update (December 15, 2013):

Here is a video of Stephen C. Meyer admitting that Intelligent Design isn't science. Meyer argues that ID should be classified as a science anyway and that lowering the standards of scientific rigor (to make ID acceptable) should be tolerated because the legitimate meaning of science has been lowered already to justify calling Darwinian evolution science. I take that as an admission by him that he prefers to not exalt the highest standard of science but to cheapen it considerably.

Michael Behe also argues for lowering the standards of scientific rigor. That's crazy. Stephen M. Barr, Professor of Physics, University of Delaware, is reasonable. Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, and the rest of the Discovery Institute political movement, are unreasonable. I strongly encourage you to watch the following excellent debate on this subject: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science?

The Quintessential Language of Science | The New Theory of Descent with Modification | The Quintessence of All Physical Law