By Sean Pitman
Some may wonder why Shane, David and I, and many others in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are so concerned over the fact that mainstream evolutionary theories are creeping into our schools? Why is it a problem that the theory of evolution is being promoted as the true story of origins, in our schools, in direct conflict with the Church’s position on a literal 6-day creation week?  What’s the big deal? Who really cares? After all, isn’t it enough to know Jesus? Why is the Church’s stand on origins so critical? After all, as Eddie asks below, who has ever been converted from atheism to Christianity through apologetic arguments for creationism? – especially young-life creationism?
“Many Christians have lost their faith because of the empirical evidence for long ages of life on Earth. Do you know of any atheist who became a Christian because of the empirical evidence for life on Earth being less than 10,000 years old?”
First off, there aren’t that many true atheists. Only about 1.6% of Americans describe themselves as atheists and 2.4% as agnostics (we won’t even talk about ‘atheists in foxholes’). And, when people do end up referring to themselves as atheistic, in a public manner, they’re usually pretty set in their ways, having passionately made up their minds against the idea of God. Because of this, it is pretty hard to convert a self-proclaimed atheist.
Yet, I know of a number of former agnostics or atheists who became Christians due in no small part to the evidence for creation – to include the evidence for a recent arrival of life on Earth: Walter Veith, Clifford Goldstein, Rick Lanser, Jerry Bergman, and John Sanford to name a few.
Really though, such examples are meaningless when it comes to my own basis of faith and a solid hope in the future… and the faith of many who remain Christians because of the evidence in support of the Biblical account of origins.
More to the point, as you point out, many many people do in fact leave the Church because the Church is not offering them good apologetic arguments to counter the prevailing opinions of mainstream science.
Various studies, to include one reported in the book, Already Gone (by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer) and the following report, by an evolutionist, on a pole taken by the Montana Origins Research Effort (M.O.R.E.) in 2011, support your argument:
“But let’s talk about a fact that we could both agree on: People are leaving the church because of the creation vs. evolution issue. It was stated several times during the conference that 66 percent of the young people in their church were not returning after college. When polled, the number one reason for leaving was because of their religion’s stance on evolution.” (Read More…)
Obviously then, hiring scientists who promote the mainstream perspective, or offer nothing but blind faith to counter it, only exacerbates the problem. Flipping your argument around, if the Church were able to provide better empirical arguments for its position on origins, I think even you would agree that such evidence would play a big part in keeping people in the Church. After all, if they’re leaving in droves because of the empirical evidence against the Church, if this evidence is effectively countered, such an effort would obviously play a key role in keeping a great many people in the Church.
Sure, a few like you may stay in the Church in spite of the perceived weight of evidence against it or because of empirically blind faith alone. But, for many many people, blind faith arguments just aren’t good enough. They aren’t appealing to many rational people who will follow where they think the empirical evidence leads. The Church should be urgently trying to help such people, people like me, who actually need to see the weight of empirical evidence favoring the Church’s perspective as a basis for rational faith. The Church would only be contributing to the vast exodus from its own doors, especially among the youth of the Church, by failing to substantively address the arguments of mainstream scientists that are being brought against it – according to your own argument.
“Let me be transparent about my personal position: I believe in a young age of life on Earth, but not because of the empirical evidence. I see through a glass darkly and I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Whatever happened in the past happened. Other matters are more important.”
Again, empirically blind faith must be a wonderful thing for you and others who share your view. The problem is that many like me don’t understand a faith that is not backed by empirical evidence as rational or personally meaningful. Simply choosing to believe contrary to what I understand to be the weight of empirical evidence would be, for me, a form of irrationality – kind of like living a lie.
I therefore remain in the Church because I actually see the weight of evidence as strongly favoring the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals – to include its position on origins (a position which I consider to be one of the most fundamental aspects of Adventism and Christianity at large).
This is why, if I ever became convinced of Darwinism or long-ages for life on Earth, I would leave the SDA Church and probably Christianity as well. I might still believe in a God of some kind, but certainly not the Christian-style God described in the pages of the Bible.
Obviously many people feel the same way. They simply cannot see themselves clear to be a member of any organization that is so fundamentally opposed to what they perceive to be rationally true. I, for one, strongly sympathize with this mentality and see a great need to meet the needs of this very large community – many of whom are our neighbors and close friends.
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule…incessant ridicule. In Christ’s name, no less.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs I’ve said before, I accept evidence for God, just not the kind that can be readily subjected to scientific scrutiny.
This site happens to be the only place I’ve ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster–and I have yet to see any evidence for his or her or its existence.
As for Santa Claus, I have seen plenty of evidence for his existence as well as for the existence of his flying sled and reindeer, which is why I am a firm believer. Remember those documentaries about Tim Allen signing the “Santa Clause”?
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
If none of God’s works could possibly be subject to scientific scrutiny in a manner that would lead one to accept the God hypothesis as the most rational explanation for the phenomenon in question, where would be the rational evidence for God’s existence (or even that of the SIMPLFONC) – as superior to the evidence for the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?
Need some help from Tim Allen on this one?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentYour answer to the 3SG 90-91 question appears to be yet another creative dodge…
How “unnexpected” — 😉
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent, your wit is too much (LOL). I think your right. We need to love the TE’s even if we disagree with them. I wish that all would come to see the need for this.
I have to say that over time I have really warmed to your defense of faith and common decency. Thank you for that. Have a blessed day!
Madeline Langmire(Quote)
View CommentThere are many issues that we can speak to – including the idea of dumping the Investigative Judgment doctrine by “some”, or the rejection of the Bible as the Word of God by “some”, or the Lev 18 issues list for which even pagan nations would be destroyed by God or…
But it just so happens that this entire site happens to be dedicated to the problem that is called in 3SG90-91 “The worst form of infidelity” within the Christian church – which is the T.E. problem.
That is not the case over there at that huge SDA discussion board – “ClubAdventist”.
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/activetopics/7/1.html
Over there we have every topic under the sun under discussion in a fashion that is not merely the Spectrum “big-left-tent” but is in fact a true “big-tent” board.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent never endorsed that position.
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
To the contrary – his direct response to the 3SG 90-91 argument that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible is “look at all the TEs that exist out there”.
The argument is that because some group of X people are T.E. (ie. because T.E’s “exist”) then the T.E. position must not undermine faith in the Bible to the point that 3SG states.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKent – your argument that if enough people sign up for it then it must make sense – is the classic “ad populum” logical fallacy.
But 3SG90-91, and even Darwin are still correct that trying to marry the Bible to belief in evolutionism is illogical and it undermines acceptance of the Bible.
We strongly affirm the fact that everyone has the free-will to believe anything they wish no matter how flawed the logic they choose to use in doing so.
But since there are a lot of SDAs that are not going to simply dismiss 3SG90-91 as some silly idea, and even more who will not turn a blind eye to the fact that even Darwin himself admitted to the problem with marrying the Bible to evolutionism.. the “everybody is doing it” opening you are trying to make for T.E. will have limited success in this context.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment3SG 90-91 states the same point that Darwin stated – which that evolution (when fully understood) destroys faith in the Bible (when read for what it says).
Thus 3SG calls the T.E. position the worst form of infidelity in that it is infidelity in disguise.
Your response is of the form “yes but T.E. EXIST and it is delusional to say they do not exist”.
The argument from 3SG was never that “T.E’s do not exist”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentTheistic evolution certainly destroys faith in the Bible for some. I am not a theistic evolutionist. Professor Kent is not a theistic evolutionist. We are NOT defending theistic evolution. But whether you like it or not, there are millions of others who accept theistic evolution AND maintain their faith in the Bible. So why offend them by insisting over and over and over again that it is the “worst form of infidelity”? It doesn’t seem like a Christ-like thing to do.
For some reason you have repeatedly avoided my question in two different threads about whether you accept Ellen White’s statement that the rocks (not just life) of the Earth are only about 6,000 years old. Is it not inconsistent to (1) accept Ellen White’s statement that theistic evolution is the “worst form of infidelity” and (2) reject her unambiguous statement in the same passage that the “earth itself” is only about 6,000 years old? You are eager to criticize Professor Kent for not believing statement #1 but you have yet to affirm your belief in statement #2.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentSorry, Madeline; should have moved your name out of the cue.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIf you would pay attention to detail, 3SG 90-91 says that theistic evolution “strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”
Where, pray tell, does it say that TE destroys faith in the Bible? You’re making quite the leap. Rejection of the 7th-day Sabbath hardly equates to rejection of the remainder of scripture.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote. Such a rejection completely changes the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective. The Bible means something very different if it is viewed as a allegory vs. if it is viewed as literally true on those topics where the author(s) clearly intended to be taken as describing real historical events.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThose who believe in the veracity of scripture, including you and me, recognize that some portions are allegory (to include Jesus’ parables, e.g., Lazarus and the Rich Man) and others are real historical facts. Of course, many individuals are prone to disagree on exactly which passages are literal or non-literal.
To disagree on one relatively minute section of the overall Bible does not necessarily “completely [change] the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective.” You’re engaging hyperbole.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYes, very true indeed. I never remotely suggested as much. How did you imagine this?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThat is the part everyone agrees with —
I find it odd that this is such a bit of news.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou say that as if you have either not taken the time to actually read 3SG 90-91 or as if you do not believe it says what I “insist it say” – to quote you.
So lets “look”.
Thus your point 1 is addressed “in the text itself”.
And if you read the text with some attention to detail you see that your point two is addressed “in the text” as well.
Where is the difficulty here??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThank you, Eddie. There are two basic facts:
1. Bob Ryan insists that 3SG 90-91 claims that theistic evolution destroys faith in the Bible.
2. Millions of theistic evolutionists have a strong faith in the Bible.
I’m afraid that an immovable force has met an immovable object. Unfortunately, the author of 3SG 90-91 is not available to clarify her opinion on the matter. Fortunately, there are more important things to move on to…like dinner.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
There are many different ways to “believe in the Bible” that are completely opposed to the type of belief or faith that Mrs. White was trying to promote. Many believe that the Bible is a book of good moral instruction, but has nothing of any real value to say about the physical world. Many believe that the Bible is a collection of man’s best wisdom over the centuries, but is not actually the Word of God.
What Mrs. White was talking about is that a belief in mainstream evolutionary theories destroys a belief in the Bible as the clear Word of God on every topic it touches upon – to include the topic of origins. The evolutionary perspective undermines faith in the character of God that Ellen White understood and which the SDA Church is trying to promote. It undermines faith in the reasonableness and rationality of God – suggesting that God is willing to “command men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThis is Bob Ryan’s usual tactic: mischaracterize someone’s position (known as a red herring fallacy) and label it a fallacy.
I didn’t say that theistic evolution “must make sense” because so many people “sign up for it.” I simply said that many people subscribe to it and still have faith in the Bible.
I know this must irk you greatly.
Madeline Langmire(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent: There is no need for sarcasm. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent’s quote
(From David Read)
“Do you really think those 120 million people sat down and objectively weighed the scientific evidence in an unbiased manner, and concluded that the evidence leaned toward God specially creating humanity? ”
Dear Prof Kent and David
They should.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentTim Clement (a Catholic poster who should not be held accountable to SDA doctrine) said this –
Clement is not using the H-G model to interpret scripture but rather the “pick-and-choose” model.
He “chooses” Genesis as fiction since it does not fit with by-faith-alone belief in evolutionism.
He “chooses” parts of the gospel as “real” since they do fit his beliefs.
Certainly this method allows for us to “choose” anything we like when tossing out this or that part of the Bible. I wonder if he would accept the idea that we choose that a God-Man incarntion via “the virgin birth” is fiction or parable since it is not “observed today in nature”. He is opening a flood gate for apostacy when he endorses the “every man just pick and choose what you wish” model of objectivity.
Hence our focus on exegesis and the H-G hermeneutic, rather than just arbitrarily selecting this or that portion as “parable” when ever belief in evolutionism dictates that we eisegete the text of the Bible in just that way.
Since Tim has suggested more direct dialogue – I welcome his comments here.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAt Spectrum, David Read wrote, in reply to Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentArguments that are of the form “be a loon or else reject the authority of the Bible” are exactly the kind of argument that atheists, like Dawkins, falsely accuse Christians of making.
The “be a loon” form is the part that says “well yes based on our observations in nature birds actually do come from reptiles over 100’s of millions of years of time – and that is fact. But I like the Bible so I believe God exists no matter the fact that the Bible is so factually wrong when it comes to what actually happened in nature”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIf not for the Bible, what external empirical evidence would lead an impartial person to conclude that life was created in 6 literal days, that life was only 6000 years old, and that every piece of land was covered by water about 4000 years ago?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentKent proposes this gross misrepresentation in his supposedly “open letter” to EducateTruth –
In that twist Sean is accused of taking the H-C position simply because he argues in favor of the 3SG 90-91 point stating that faith in evolutionism destroys faith in God and acceptance of the Bible.
It is interesting to see how many Kents readers on that specific forum accept that accusation uncritically.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment1. Not all Christians agree to use the H-G (Historical-Grammatical) method and that results in a lot of differences between denominations.
But those that DO use the H-G model all agree that Gen 1 is not advocating evolution.
2. Very often our Catholic friends observe the same issue as you have described it above and claim that the only solution is for all Christians to defer to their magesterium. (Pope if you are Catholic).
But that does not solve anything because each group has its own magesterium. (Church leadership).
Better to use the H-G model and be objective about it. 😉
3. Even atheists like Dawkins easily master the use of the H-G model and conclude that the bible demands a seven day creation week – the same 7 day sequence we see mentioned in Ex 20:11 that is equated to the 7 day week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-9.
Pretty hard to miss if you are not coming to the text with an agenda to try and “get it to say” something that fits evolution.
The issue is less about our observations in nature validating the Bible and more about our observations in nature not being in direct contradition to scripture.
Before viewing the detailed evidence in micro biology ( “Life of the Cell” for an easy reference) – one may suppose that Intelligent Design is valid and that God is the designer. After viewing the evidence in a single cell we have that much more evidence to highlight in that regard.
However go back 500 years – we would still have no argument for saying that God is not the Creator, or that I.D. is not valid simply because we did not yet have the evidence of microbiology.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI agree. The Bible does and can appeal to a persons reason and that many scientific findsing confirm the Bible; however, approaching the validity of the Bible solely human terms elavates man to a position he is not meant to be or capable of handling.
Faith is not created by man, it is a gift of God and grows as a result of it being exercised.
I’m not against the use of science to confirm the Bible. It’s just not what the authority of the Bible rests on.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentEvidence is never decisive because you always need a worldview to tell you what to make of that evidence.
Somehow we (Christians) need to show that our standard (Bible) is the correct standard. So how are we going to get anywhere–secular person has their presuppositions and the Christian has his presuppositions.
The temptation for many Christians is to meet the evolutionist on “neutral” ground. It’s argued that there must be some presuppositions that can can be agreed upon. They both agree science is useful, so they agree to talk in terms of science.
However, the Bible says there is no such thing as neutral, the claim of neutrality is unbiblical (Matthew 12:30; Romans 8:7; James 4:4).
You can’t defend biblical authority by abandoning it. By accepting the terms of the evolutionist, you’ve agreed to start the debate by doubting the Bible’s authority. You’ve already lost the argument.
No one can approach the evidence without presuppositions and if they think they can, that’s a presupposition.
We’re to stand on the Word while defending it (Titus 1:9).
There are those (including Christians) who will object to this because it’s circular reasoning; however, this isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy.
For example, when someone tells me they had a dream, and I ask them for proof, is it logical for them to respond, “Because I said so”? That would be circular reasoning, right?
Why then does God use this same method for proving that Scripture is, in fact, His Word? The reason this isn’t a logical fallacy is because the person who had the dream is the authority on the subject of his own dream—not some other arbitrarily chosen person (then it would be a viscous circular argument, which is a fallacy).
An ultimate standard is necessary in order to interpret the evidence properly. Evidence alone does nothing to change a persons worldview.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentHere is a good example of the “tiny bible” argument Pauluc offerred recently –
In Pauluc’s argument the “tiny bible” includes no statements (accurate or otherwise) on the subject of complex life coming into existence on planet earth apart from some kind of much-to-be-discarded “Santa Clause” story.
1. In that view all the Bible has to offer of substance is “Love your neighbor” and “Love God” – so that it can now be married to blind-faith-belief in evolutionism.
2. The reason that BobRyan keeps arguing the same point as Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers when it comes to the glaringly obvious fact that the Bible account cannot be married to evolutionism and that denying the Bible is in fact to embrace atheism can best be defined here – 3SG 90-91. And also in Rom 1:18-20. As we see in Rom 1:20 they are only without excuse to the extent that nature reveals “things that have been made” – and the Bible delcares that even for non-Christian pagans it is incredibly obvious.
To sink below that level is to unwittingly make a distinctively atheist argument.
The fact that Pauluc is not coming here to ask me that question – is more than a little interesting. There perhaps a sense that on Spectrum an anti-Bible anti-Creation argument will get more background applause.
But surely an argument worth its salt is worth making – with or without the background applause. (At least that was my thinking when I was posting on Spectrum’s so-called “big tent”).
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe origins debate is a worldview conflict. Creationists and evolutionists have been throwing evidence at each other for a long time now. The answer is not necessarily more evidence, but which worldview (way of interpreting) is the correct way to understand the evidence. I suggest is the biblical worldview alone that makes science and reasoning possible.
I think a bit presumptuous to think the critics of the Bible just need more evidence. According to Romans 1:18-20, everyone has an innate knowledge of the God of creation. The problem is not the lack of evidence, but that some people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Evidence can be used to help them understand this, but it should not be relied on as the sole source of knowledge. Otherwise this is rationalism, which is clearly anti-biblical. Not to be confused with using reason.
Appealing to someone’s reason is not the same as relying on empirical evidence to prove something. Assuming your reasoning is reliable is a presupposition, one which only can be explained through the biblical worldview. Thus you would use the Bible to show how their worldview is self-refuting and ultimately not consistent.
You can rationally come to false interpretations of the evidence. There are many examples of creationists and evolutionists looking at the same bit of evidence but drawing different conclusions based on their worldview (their collection of presuppositions).
There is no such thing as neutrality for anyone. To suggest there is, is unbiblical.
Keep in mind I’m not boo-pooing the use of empirical evidence. Use empirical evidence to confirm the Bible, but not to prove it. When you use it to prove it, you’ve elevated empiricism above God’s Word.
If our God given powers of reason are not submitted to His Word, then there is no way for us to properly interpret the natural world.
Any appeal to an ultimate standard is circular reasoning. You make an appeal to empirical evidence, but has that been shown to be empirically true? What’s the empirical evidence that it works and is even applicable to all truth claims? I would agree that there are some truth claims that can be verified through empirical methods, but not all, and is limited when it comes to the Bible.
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious. Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary. Here is an example:
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary. Consider the evolutionist who argues:
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“I too believe in an unseen world, a hidden reality, but not without empirical evidence for this belief or faith. Just as physicists believe in many things that can’t be directly seen, empirical reality itself points to the existence of underlying realities that cannot be directly seen.”
Precisely. Hence the need for an objective, empirical method to test it-science. Neither biblical creation or evolution over billions of years has been ‘seen’ by man. But science can try its best to explore origins. What science cannot do, and still be objective, is be the biased tool of faith or non faith.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentI would refer to you my May 11 statement
The issue is not “faith OR evidence in nature”. The issue is that evidence in nature is being seen by all – even non-Christians — because we do not all live in a dark cave prior to coming to the Bible. There is no such thing as the context where we know nothing about nature “and then” are introduced to the Bible in a kind of faith + nothing scenario.
As Romans 1 points out – prior to even coming to the Bible we are all exposed to the evidence in nature that reveals to each of us what Paul calls the invisible attributes of God.
Observations:
1. The “I never knew about nature before I accepted the Bible as God’s Word” scenario — does not exist.
2. We are not saying that you must choose to accept observations in nature and reject the Bible to have true faith.
3. The Bible clearly defines a much finer granularity in detail about the origins of all complex life than you can observe by staring at a field of plants and animals today. However faith in largely un-verifiable details is based on confirmed faith in much more mundane foundational facts that dictate a supernatural creation by an Intelligent Allpowerful God.
Take for example the war in heaven. We do not observe in nature – Angels at war. But we do observe good vs evil on earth and then when we read about Satan in Rev 12 or in 1Pet 5:8 or James 4 we have a way to relate to it.
By contrast – Adam and Eve saw in nature a perfectly peaceful environment nothing like the story about war in heaven. For them belief would have to have been made based on observations about God “in person” and the angels that were relating the account.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe Romans 1 and Romans 10 argument is missing from the statement above.
We are not in a situation where people living in a dark cave – simply “dream up creation” all on their own without any evidence being observed in nature.
Prior to Darwin’s success in popularizing the evolutionism’s storytelling, our atheist friends were subject to a great deal of the “giggle factor” each time they suggested that life just managed to “show up” all on its own no matter the fact that you don’t see such things happen in real life.
Most atheists today will gladly agree that the stories found in evolutionism allow them to finally live as intellectually fulfilled atheists supposing that “there is no god”.
Thus the atheist’s solution is actually “not” apparent when viewing nature – one must carefully craft a Darwin-esk story line to get to such conclusions.
The bottom line is that WITHOUT all that evolutionist storytelling clanging in their ears – those 120 million people likely observed that “bird come from birds – not reptiles or plants”.
Having said that – I will admit that most of them were probably raised in or near Christian homes and had some idea about the Bible view of origins even before they were old enough to notice confirming or disconfirming evidence in nature.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Shane Hilde:
Evidence, for the honest candid mind, is what creates one’s worldview to begin with. One is not simply born with a “worldview”. A worldview is developed and learned. Also, a woldview does not help you overcome the problem of subjectivity, of being potentially wrong in your beliefs.
Your argument for choosing a “correct” worldview outside of the weight of empirical evidence that appeals to the honest rationally-candid mind, is arbitrary, circular and unfair.
According to your arguments, such a feat would truly be impossible. How are the “presuppositions” of an honest person changed without appealing to some God-given ability that is shared between you outside of your own “presuppositions”?
Rational thought based on generally available empirical evidence must have general appeal between honest intelligent candid minds or there really is no hope of changing the “worldview” of those who have not already accepted Christianity and the authority of the Bible.
You mean there is no such neutrality for minds that are not open to truth – who are in deliberate rebellion against what they already know to be true; against God. This is not the case when you’re talking about honest seekers for truth.
Not if the person you’re talking to is an honest seeker for truth. You’ve won the argument if you can actually present something that will appeal to the honest intelligent mind in front of you in favor of the Bible’s credibility as the Word of God. I’ve seen it happen many times.
No one can approach the evidence without using their God-given intelligence and perceptive powers. Now, one can reject convictions of truth that are brought to the mind by these powers once the evidence is considered. But, such a rejection of what one’s mind has grasped as “true” is dishonest, a form of rebellion against God, against His gift of intelligence and rational thought.
This is the mystery of sin. Sin is irrational by definition. There is no rational reason for sin, for the rejection of what one knows to be true.
That’s circular reasoning my friend. We are to stand on our God-given powers of reasoning to move away from the logical inconsistency of circular reasoning to evidence-based reasoning to establish faith in the Word of God among those who have yet to grasp the reality of the Bible, and the SDA interpretation of it in particular, as the Word of God.
Circular reasoning is always a logical fallacy. No one who understands the rules of logic, of presenting a logical argument, will be convinced by an argument that is so obviously circular.
There’s a difference between internally derived truths and externally derived truths. I like vanilla ice-cream. That’s an internally derived fact. No one can argue with me about the “truth” of this statement. The same is true about your description of your own internal world. The only thing someone else would have to go on to believe you when you’re talking about your internal world is based on how they percieve your overall character – i.e., are you generally trustworthy?
Beyond this, the “truth” of your internal world need have nothing to do with external reality that affects those beyond yourself. The Bible talks about general reality, not just your own internal world. Therefore, in order to defend the Bible’s “truth” regarding general reality, you must support this notion by appealing to generally-available experiential/empirical evidence.
God isn’t simply talking about His own internal reality. He’s talking about a generally shared reality. Therefore, in order to convince someone else that the reality he’s talking about really affects them as well, he must present evidence that is available to them as well in support of his argument. So, that is exactly what He does. God never expects anyone to believe Him based only on His Word without any appeal to generally-available evidence.
The ultimate standard must be a commonly shared standard if it is to appeal to anyone beyond yourself. That common standard is generally-shared empirical reality and generally-shared intelligence and reasoning capabilities…
Step out of the trap of circular reasoning my friend. The enemies of faith having nothing to fear from obviously circular arguments. Those who are the most ardent enemies of our Church, who are the most viscious in attacking God and anything to do with God, are very happy to point to Christians who make such circular arguments and say, “You see, religion and science are rationally different. Religion is based on faith alone with science is based on reason and rational thought. You may have your religion, just don’t call it rational – don’t call it ‘science'”. These individuals are most upset when someone dares to suggest that a religion, like the SDA form of Christianity, can be both rational and scientific… that it can actually appeal to rational intelligent minds outside of circular arguments…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read,
You wrote:
What I’m against is not the idea of taking a leap of faith beyond that which can be absolutely known or proven. After all, this is what science itself is all about. What I’m against is taking a leap of faith with regard to any particular view of the world in which we live, without any basis, whatsoever, in empirical evidence.
I too believe in an unseen world, a hidden reality, but not without empirical evidence for this belief or faith. Just as physicists believe in many things that can’t be directly seen, empirical reality itself points to the existence of underlying realities that cannot be directly seen.
For example, Jesus himself explained how one could determine the existence of the Holy Spirit, who cannot be directly seen, by noting the empirical effects of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit works in the empirical world – as the wind moves the leaves of the trees. – John 3:8 NIV
Faith is even more frustrating when it is completely devoid of empirical evidence of any kind. We’re not talking about absolute “proof” here. I’ve made this point so clear so many times that I’m mystified as to why you keep suggesting that I’m asking for absolute empirical proof when I’m only asking for at least some basis in empirical evidence – the weight of evidence from the individual perspective with at least the potential for falsification.
Not even science can be performed without making leaps of “faith”, or “logic” if you prefer, into areas of understanding that cannot be perfectly known and are not perfectly knowable. Yet, these leaps are not uneducated or without useful predictive value which can be used to gauge the likelihood of success. While never reaching 100% perfection, educated leaps of faith or logic need not be completely blind to empirical reality if they are to be useful in what they are saying about empirical reality.
The same thing is true, or at least can be true, of religious faith. There is no need for one’s science to be independent of one’s religion. They can be, and I think should be, one in the same thing.
And, as surprising as it may sound to you, I’m not alone in my views on the science of faith – a very important and relevant topic…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentShane,
You wrote:
The answer is more evidence when you’re talking about people who are honest seekers for truth. Simply telling someone, who is an honest seeker, that they have the wrong world view “by definition” is not a rational argument.
This passage is not talking about an “innate” knowledge of God at all. It is talking about knowledge that is based on empirical evidence – “being understood from what has been made.”
There is no “unrighteousness” or “sin” is honest error. If one is not deliberately suppressing known truth, there is no unrighteousness. There is simply error without sin.
If one is deliberately suppressing known truth, the evidence itself isn’t the problem. The evidence may be plentiful and its meaning clear, but if the individual doesn’t like what the evidence is saying, God can’t remedy that situation with more evidence…
Using one’s God-given reasoning abilties to discover God is not anti-biblical. It is about as biblical as you can get. Nowhere does the Bible even suggest that God expects belief without a basis in the weight of empirical evidence that is first understood by the God-given mind.
Yes, it is. Because, without an appeal to empirical evidence, what you have left is circular reasoning which is not reasonable by definition.
Come on now. What did people do before there was a Bible? Or, what do people do who don’t have the Bible now? Is it impossible for such people to rationally consider the natural world, detect the Signature of a God or God-like intelligence, and come to a rational appreciation of God in this manner? – and then use the same rational God-given mind to determine that the Bible is also raationally credible in its claims to be The Word of God?
That’s right. That’s why there is always a risk of being wrong from a rational perspective. The only way you can avoid all risk of being wrong is to define your position as “true by definition”. That’s the attraction of empirically-blind faith. There is no risk to being wrong and no possibility of change.
This is the very reason why my LDS friends, who use the very same arguments you use, will not change their minds regarding the Book of Mormon – since their faith in the Book of Mormon is “true by definition”.
Right – and there are many examples of Christians looking at the same passage of Scripture and coming to different conclusions on what it’s saying. Honest errors cannot be avoided when you’re a subjective human being. It doesn’t help to simply declare your position true by definition.
There is such a thing as shared reality and a common origin and basis for rational thought – which is very biblical.
There is no such thing as absolute “proof” in science or in any form of a rational defense of any view of the empirical world that exists outside of the mind. One can use rational thought and tests of theories regarding the meaning of the empirical evidence to approach truth, but never to fully realize truth.
Not true. The Bible is simply not needed to properly interpret the natural world to a very useful degree. Again, what do people do who do not have access to the Bible? According to your argument, it would be impossible for them to recognize anything about God from the study of the empirical evidence available to them. This is not a biblical concept.
Not if that standard is a shared standard between all parties involved in a discussion. If certain of the parties involved have not grown up automatically appreciating authority of the Bible, the Bible cannot be used as your default source of authority to prove itself. That’s circular reasoning that doesn’t appeal to anyone but those who already subscribe to this position. In order to attract honest seekers for truth toward a new position, you must appeal to a common sourse of authority – i.e., the generally-available empirical evidence and reasoning capabilities of rational intelligent God-given minds.
With a very useful degree of predictive value, yes, it has.
Without any appeal to empirical evidence, your form of reasoning has no predictive value that will appeal to any mind other than those who have already accepted your same point of reference.
Empirical evidence and rational thought is always limited. It is never perfect short of access to all information and all knowledge. Yet, just because the empirical evidence is incomplete and our reasoning ablities subject to the potential for error, doesn’t mean that they are not useful or that we have access to any better means of identifying truth from error…
By this argument one would be unable to detect if any particular biblical interpretation were right or wrong. What if the Bible said that the American Indians were decendants of the lost tribes of Isreal? – while DNA evidence showed them to be from an Asian background? You’d argue, in a ciruclar manner, that the DNA evidence must be wrong since the Bible, and your interpretation of it, is true by definition.
While we must assume, without absolute proof, that we are rational before we can have a rational discussion, this assumption is based on a shared reality within which this assumption produces a useful level of predictive value when applied to empirical evidence within that shared reality…
If your views about that shared reality are “true by definition” you are making a non-testable non-falsifiable claim about that shared reality which is irrational from that particular perspective. In other words, there is no predictive power to your argument because your argument is not subject to testing or the outcome of any test…
We cannot approach the Bible as more than we are – i.e., human. We must investigate and interpret the claims of the Bible from the human perspective using our God-given human abilities. Again, we cannot be more than we have been given.
Intelligence is not created by man either. None of our inherent abilities were created by us. This does not mean, therefore, that we can be more than what we are and what we have been given. Faith is not some magical method by which we can obtain useful information about the world in which we live beyond what our God-given abilities to think and reason from the empirical evidence are telling us. Faith is simply a process of accepting as true what are minds tell us is most likely true without obtaining absolute proof.
If one uses science to “confirm” the Bible, one is indeed affecting one’s faith via such confirmation. If there is no such support or “confirmation”, what then is left as a rational basis to support the authority of the Bible? Faith that is entirely devoid of empirical support is not useful to even the honest seeker for truth. God does not expect us to blindly believe in anything about the world in which we live for which there is no real empirical support.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Step out of the trap of circular reasoning my friend. The enemies of faith having nothing to fear from obviously circular arguments. Those who are the most ardent enemies of our Church, who are the most viscious in attacking God and anything to do with God, are very happy to point to Christians who make such circular arguments and say, “You see, religion and science are rationally different. Religion is based on faith alone with science is based on reason and rational thought. You may have your religion, just don’t call it rational – don’t call it ‘science'”. These individuals are most upset when someone dares to suggest that a religion, like the SDA form of Christianity, can be both rational and scientific… that it can actually appeal to rational intelligent minds outside of circular arguments…”
Dear Adventist friends
Here lies reason, the kind of reason that has always advanced the knowledge of mankind out of the realm of myth.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Shane’s Quote
“Faith is not created by man, it is a gift of God and grows as a result of it being exercised.”
Hi Shane
Let’s test your proposition. Think of humans that had or have faith in polytheistic gods. Did or does that faith come from God or themselves?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentDavid, it’s very easy to demonstrate that genes regulate the behaviors, including social behaviors, of animals, and that the frequencies of genes change over time. It’s just as easy to demonstrate that genes regulate the behaviors of humans, and that the frequencies of these genes change as well. There is thousands-fold more evidence to support this very basic tenet of sociobiology than a flood that covered every single scrap of land. You can disagree with me, but I can show you tons of papers to prove your ignorance on the matter. Tons. At Spectrum, you defended your position on sociobiology by citing decades-old material, and conceded that you have no desire to engage the contemporary literature.
There is NOTHING anti-SDA in acknowledging the basic tenets of Sociobiology.
I’m continually amused by your smug judgments regarding my beliefs. You have declared repeatedly that I am a liar about my faith and views; that I am a Darwinist (which is as vague a term as any that exists); that I’m not a man of the Adventist faith; and God only knows what is coming next. Who do you seriously think you are to know my heart, David? I am astonished at your self-proclaimed ability to judge me. Does this ability on your part demonstrate that you are a faithful and exemplary Adventist?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI think there are two reasons why many Christians are suspicious if not hostile toward sociobiology.
First, sociobiology assumes that human behaviors evolve because they maximize fitness and are thus adaptive, and that our behaviors can be traced back to our animal ancestors.
Second, sociobiology has been used by some to justify human behavior as an excuse for immorality and for maintaining social injustice and inequality. For example, male dominance, sexual infidelity, homosexuality, and xenophobia toward other groups occur naturally in other animal species, therefore it is okay in humans.
The first objection is understandably offensive to Christians who view humans as being created in the image of God, separate and above the rest of the animal kingdom, rather than evolving from more primitive animals. The second objection is simply an abusive misapplication of sociobiology, which is intended to EXPLAIN rather than justify both animal and human behavior.
As for the first objection, the question arises from either an evolutionist or creationist perspective whether (1) human behavior is purely a cultural artifact, which some claim, or if (2) human behavior has a biological basis subjected to natural selection, as sociobiology claims.
Humans clearly engage in certain behaviors that no YEC would consider to be created, such as thievery, dishonesty, adultery, sodomy, rape, and murder. If these behaviors were not created, could they have “evolved” (if I’m allowed to use the term)? I realize some object to the term “evolution,” but the “evolution” of a behavior does not necessarily require the evolution of morphological structures; in the case of created humans, we’re talking about micro-microevolution.
Rather than stating my own opinion, consider for yourself whether the following human behaviors can be explained by (1) a biological basis subject to natural selection, or (2) arbitrary cultural artifacts with no underlying biological basis:
1. Most humans are attracted to the opposite sex.
2. Most human cultures are polygynous.
3. Women prefer older and wealthier men in all societies.
4. Men prefer younger and attractive women in all societies.
5. Men compete more with each other for women than women compete among each other for men.
6. Women are more choosy in selecting a mate than men.
7. Men are more willing to engage in extramarital sex than women.
8. Parents guard their daughters more than their sons.
9. Adultery is punished more severely for women than for men.
10. Rape victims are almost always female and tend to be younger, poorer and more attractive than the average female population.
11. Single women are more likely to have an abortion than married women.
12. Humans favor their own biological children over stepchildren.
13. Bridewealth payments to a bride’s family are more common in polygynous socities.
14. Dowry payments are more likely to occur in a socially stratified, monogamous society than in a non-stratified, polygynous society.
15. Inheritance decisions favor sons more than daughters in most societies, especially those which are polygynous.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentSociobiology does not address origins of life; does not address “birds to reptiles;” and does not address processes of phylogenetic change. The vast majority of sociobiological research engages microevolution and tests hypotheses at the microevolutionary level–within species. To suggest anything differently is a gross distortion based on ignorance. I could easily prove my point by surveying the tables of contents of the many journals on behavioral ecology and sociobiology. The null hypothesis for sociobiological studies is generally: behavioral traits A and B exhibited by species X have similar net benefits. The alternative hypothesis is generallly: behavioral traits A and B have different net benefits. This is no different than testing why one strain of bacteria succumbs to an antibiotic, and another strain survives. What’s so difficult to accept about this type of hypothesis testing? What’s so unGodly or non-SDA about it?
So what’s left in sociobiology, Bob asks? I supplied a representative list of 17 examples from many thousands of behaviors that sociobiology can inform us about. If Bob or David can explain all of those behaviors without any kind of empirical study–thereby avoiding doing actual sociobiology themselves–I would be very impressed. Neither the Bible nor Ellen White offer an explanation for this list of behaviors.
If Adventists embrace the study of genetics, microbiology, parasitology, physiology, anatomy, immunology, and ecology, all of which rely on evolutionary inferences to some extent and are taught in our SDA universities (I just looked up several university catalogues to confirm this), why would it be inappropriate to study and learn about sociobiology? Is there no course on sociobiology anywhere within the SDA system (I didn’t find anything with a cursory look)?
Okay, let’s talk about “free will.” Sociobiology does NOT dismiss “free will.” Never has, never will. To suggest that it does is ludicrous and a gross mischaracterization. If anything, sociobiology champions free will: it shows that sentient animals, including humans, are FREE to make decisions unless coercion, illness, or other conditions interfere with their cognitive abilities. The vast majority of studies and inferences are predicated on the simple fact that behavioral decisions differ among individuals and can be readily measured. Of course, there are despots widely distributed in the animal kingdom–including human populations–that suppress free will. And this brings me to several questions.
Question – Who suppresses free will more: a group of sociobiologists studying baboons in an African forest, or a group of religious devotees in Iraq?
Question – Which has greater potential to suppress free will: a discipline that seeks to understand why humans behave as they do, or a religion that seeks to understand God’s (Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, whomever’s) plan for humans to behave?
Personally, I don’t reject religion for all the harm that certain despots, fueled by religious ideology, have inflicted on society in the past and present. By comparison, sociobiology is as benign as mayonaisse.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentTHE EVILS OF SOCIOBIOLOGY?
Brother David,
After my angry kneejerk response to your post last night, I spent some time in prayerful contemplation of how best to respond to you. I don’t know whether I am capable of eliciting from you a more conciliatory tone.
I believe that your attitude toward Sociobiology stems from a complete lack of understanding of what sociobiology is all about. Sociobiology is a very simple, straightforward discipline: the study of the biological basis of social behavior. To take the position that such study is illegimate or anti-Adventist presupposes that there is something wrong for us to study social behavior. Is this the position you really want to take?
There have been many stereotypes about sociobiology, and I suspect you have fallen into accepting these without taking the time to learn what the discipline actually examines. Sociobiology, through the testing of alternative hypotheses, offers very elegant explanations for the following:
– When and why male primates, lions, and mice kill the infants of others and not their own
– Why vampire bats share blood meals with cooperating individuals, but not those who defect (take from others and never give)
– Why the haplo-diploid genetic system and high levels of inbreeding predispose the worker caste of eusocial insects to give up their own personal reproduction
– Why tit-for-tat is a superior strategy for iteractive interactions that involve a decision to either cooperate or defect
– Why some reef fishes change sex from female to male as they grow, and others change from male to female (the reverse sequence), and how local population density of fishes can influence the production of “supermales”
– Why the live-and-let-live system of World War I trench warfar emerged in some situations and not others
– Why females of many animal species enter “false” estrous to protect their existing offspring
– Why some sea lions on a beach acquire virtually all of the matings and others are left with essentially none
– Why children are at statistically far greater risk of suffering violence from step-parents compared to biological parents
– Why female toads prefer to mate with the largest males, who give the lowest-pitched calls
– Why male peacocks and widowbirds have exceptionally lengthy tails despite the fact such tails predispose them to higher rates of predation
– Why expropriative crime can increase the number of offspring an animal (non-human or human) leaves in the next generation
– Why forced copulation is directed primarily toward the most fertile females
– Why some bird flock sizes are more stable and optimal than other bird flock sizes
– Why your Uncle Ted should be willing to give his life for a minimum of 2 brothers or 8 cousins
– Why a small “runt” deer is more likely to produce a female fawn, whereas a female deer in good condition is more likely to produce a male fawn
– Why male dolphins and male primates form coalitions to accompany, defend, and allow just one individual to mate with a selected female
To state the obvious, David, you simply cannot produce a single statement from the Bible, from Ellen White, or from official Church writings that informs us that any such explanations are incorrect, or that God or the SDA Church disapproves of studying social behavior in animals and humans. I suspect that you object to some of the evolutionary explanations that have been reached regarding human behavior (a narrower discipline within Sociobiology known as Evolutionary Psychology). I personally do not accept all of those explanations as well, because, like you, I think many attributes of human behavior are created rather than evolved (an exception being why someone would repeatedly make a spectacle of himself by declaring that I am lying about my beliefs). Nevertheless, to concede that human skin color has changed in different populations over time (surely you accept this), while denying that human behavior has similarly changed over time (is this really what you think?), reflects nothing but uninformed prejudice against the straightforward attempt of sociobiology to understand why animals, including humans, behave as they do.
Please do not make prejudicial accusations toward others based on an inadequate understanding of what sociobiology is all about. It’s a BIG discipline with PLENTY of legitimate questions that can be answered using elegant experimental and comparative studies. If you don’t believe I am characterizing sociobiology fairly, then you need to pick up a few books on the discipline and get yourself informed. I just happen to teach a class on the topic at a private Christian institution that condones and appreciates my approach to the discipline. Through the course, I am able to point out to students how we have inherent sinful tendencies that starkly reveal our utter dependence on Jesus–because in and of ourselves, we cannot escape the downfall of human nature since Adam and the disease of sin. Is it inconceivable, David, that I could be a brother in Christ who provides a credible Christian witness to the younger generation?
“But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.” – Job 12:7-8
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe: Prof Kent’s quote:
“Who do you seriously think you are to know my heart, David? I am astonished at your self-proclaimed ability to judge me. Does this ability on your part demonstrate that you are a faithful and exemplary Adventist?”
Dear Prof. Kent
Or Sean for that matter?
As the worst apostate on this forum, I am constantly amazed at the vehement attacks that are propagated by Adventists upon Adventists. Bring them down on my head instead of each other, I likely deserve it!
Whose doctrinally right? I don’t know but is it really justification for such kind of invective?
I, of all people am the least informed as to how any God would judge such behaviour. But even at a cyber distance it causes me distress and physical pain.
Gentleman, can we work for a better loving future together no matter what we believe?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentEddie, I’m impressed by your understanding of the questions sociobiology adresses. You’ve hit the nail on the head for why many object to it. Do you, per chance, teach a course on the topic?
The list of human behaviors you provided can readily be explored by sociobiology–and have been to a considerable extent. You and I would probably both agree that the evidence is going to be mixed for a number of these behaviors, with support for both cultural and genetic bases. The reality is that there will be a continuum of “nature” and “nurture” (genetic and environmental) for most social behaviors, rather than a strict all-one-or-the-other dichotomy.
What the reader should recognize is that sociobiology embraces both explanations (nature and nurture). Moreover, both nature (with its underlying genetic basis) and nurture (often with an underlying cultural, or memetic, basis) can lead to changes in social behavior through the exact same mechanism–natural selection–that leads to changes in antibiotic resistance of bacteria. Sure, some take the “big picture” view much farther than you and I might be comfortable with, but many do the same with changes in bacteria. This, of course, no more invalidates (or renders anti-SDA) sociobiology than microbiology.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentDr Provine states in an on camera interview that once he was convinced that evolutionism’s fairytales were the right ones to believe in – he instantly realized that this means there is absolutely no free will.
Here is a facinating description of Sociobiology that might explain how Provine came to his conclusion.
Question – without belief in evolutionism – what is left in sociobiology?
Question – how many people know that the SDA doctrinal position is on the side of free will?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWow, David; I thought you’d come up with something more profound, like what you declared at Spectrum: “Professor Kent wants to teach Sadism as science, as the only well supported scientific model, to Adventist students in Adventist colleges.” That was quite imaginative.
You’re certainly welcome to believe that ants, frogs, and hippopotamuses have no genes that regulate their behavior whatsoever, and that you lack any such genes as well. If you can back up your conviction with facts rather than rhetoric, all the more power to you. I have no quarrel. And if you want to try and impose your own definition of “free will” on all free-thinking minds, be my guest. I really don’t care.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSome four decades ago, sociobiologists were shocked to discover pseudohermaphrodites in an isolated Dominican Republic village who were born “female,” raised and socialized as female, and then mysteriously grew a penis and acquired most secondary sexual characteristics of men when puberty set in. Approximately 2% of live births in the village were these guevedoces (“penis at 12”), who were genetically normal males (46 chromosomes, XY karyotype). Researchers eventually learned that they had defective genes for the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme, which failed to convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. Thus, the latter enzyme failed to masculinize the fetus during embryonic development, but the testosterone kicked in at puberty.
So what became of the poor lads believed to be female and thoroughly socialized as female throughout their childhood? If ever there was a case for boys to made into homosexuals, this would be it. Remarkably, all but a small percentage transitioned to a male role as adults. Which was decisive in determining sex role in this case: genes or the environment? Something to think about.
Ironically, the chief legacy of the guevedoces is a class of drugs known as 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs), the first of the “prostate pills.” With the approval of Finasteride in 1992, and other drugs that followed, the treatment approach to prostatic obstruction dramatically changed. We can thank sociobiology for giving David Read and Bob Ryan hope for the relief of future prostate problems, if they have not developed problems already.
Praise God for what we can learn from investigating the social behaviors of humans!
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWill Provine has his issues with “free will,” as did Darwin in his time, but many scientists disagree with Provine’s view and nobody regards him as the appointed spokesman for the discipline of sociobiology.
In a questionnaire returned by 149 prominent scientists, the majority of which reported themselves as pure naturalists devoid of theism, 79% expressed belief that humans still possess free will (with 14 percent choosing no free will, and 7 percent not answering the question). This report, which Provine himself coauthored, acknowledged the biggest problem with “free will:” the lack of consensus on what it means. To many, “free will” means the capacity to make choices, but for some, it means there are underlying constraints to our ability to make decisions. One example of a constraint would be sexual preference: do genes exist that predispose the majority of men to choose heterosexual behavior? The obvious answer is “yes”–testosterone exerts well-established effects on the brain (and one does not have to be an evolutionist to acknowledge this). Whether one wishes to take a stand on such a constraint constituting “free will” is little more than semantics.
As Alfre Mele wrote in the book, MORAL PSYCHOLOGY: HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY READINGS (published 2010): “I believe that scientists embarking on free will ought to ask themselves why they think “free will” means whatever it means. Once they find an answer (or find themselves stumped), they should ask another question: Why do people with a different conception of free will conceive of it as they do? The next step would be to reflect on the relative merits of one’s own conception of free will and the various alternative conceptions one encounters.”
Any discussion of “free will” at this thread lacks merit, far as I’m concerned, because of semantics surrounding the term. I’m not going to engage it further. To each his/her own; believe as you wish.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentHmmm…so do you attribute all the evil and ugly phenomenon on this planet to God-only? Surely you accept that attributes of this planet have been shaped by Satan and his agencies, or by random processes. The deeper you get into your science-is-much-bigger-than-scripture-and-God’s-word theology, the more dumbfounding your statements become.
I think you’re stuck in a potentially empirically testable falsifiable rationally candid fsaar side reality called Sean’s gray matter. Like a broken record player, you’re stuck in a groove, strepeating the same things over and over, only they are becoming increasingly more jumbled and incoherent. I think it’s time to nudge the needle so that it jumps into another sulcus of your gray matter.
Maybe you can tell us why you think Jesus spoke in parables, or why he sweated blood in the garden, or why he chose to plead with his father to forgive those who were about to pierce his side. Surely you have more positive vibes to share with the Church. Obviously, your “faith is useless” diatribes are convincing to no one (other than Bob, perhaps).
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSays Professor Kent: “it’s very easy to demonstrate that genes regulate the behaviors, including social behaviors, of animals, … It’s just as easy to demonstrate that genes regulate the behaviors of humans,…”
Then Professor Kent says: “Sociobiology does NOT dismiss ‘free will.’ Never has, never will. To suggest that it does is ludicrous and a gross mischaracterization.”
Either genes determine behaviors in humans, in which case there is no free will, or genes do not determine behaviors in humans, in which case sociobiology is a crock of nonsense.
Then Professor Kent, hiding in obscurantism, says, “well, scientists don’t really know what free will means.” Yes, I’ve noticed that.
Then Professor Kent, realizing that he’s losing an argument with himself, says: “Any discussion of ‘free will’ at this thread lacks merit, far as I’m concerned, because of semantics surrounding the term. I’m not going to engage it further. To each his/her own; believe as you wish.”
Prof. Kent, I see that I’ve provoked you into thinking through some of the issues, which is good. But I don’t think you can just brush aside the unpleasant implications of sociobiology by saying, “we don’t know what words mean, so everyone believe as you wish.”
David Read(Quote)
View CommentOuch!
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentWith these words:
Feel free to clarify.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
How is my statement confusing?
Just because science does in fact make leaps of logic or “faith” beyond what can be absolutely know to be true (as is the case for all scientific hypotheses/theories) does not mean that these leaps of logic/faith are not based on evidence. They are based on evidence – on the weight of evidence. The weight of empirical evidence is precisely the basis for these leaps of logic.
I’m not quite sure how you can remotely interpret such statements to mean that I’m really claiming that science can ever rationally ask anyone to believe anything without presenting the weight of currently known empirical evidence in support of a given hypothesis/theory? That’s just not true. You’re misrepresenting what I’ve been saying in no uncertain terms for some strange reason…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentAs has already been stated – when you find in 3SG 90-91 the fact that T.E. is the worst form of infidelity because it destroys faith in the Bible – it is not a compelling form of response to then argue “yes but TE’s exist”.
The whole point is that everyone amdits they “exist” – which is why the warning is given in the first place.
I fail to see how this is such a struggle with some of our posters here.
Surely we all see the point whether you choose to rally to the TE cause or not – the debate is not that “TEs don’t exist”.
I just don’t see how this is the difficult part of the discussion.
As much as Kent believes he is on to something in this regard – there are no posts here by anyone saying that “TEs do not exist”.
(I guess I can post this a few more times – but I thought the point was obvious even before I posted it the last time.)
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentJesus died for Richard Dawkins, and he loves Richard Dawkins no less than he loves Ted Wilson.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs if the “Worst form of infidelity” does not actually destroy “faith in the Bible” the way Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and even Ellen White declare?
Your argument is that T.E. is not all that bad because in your mind it does not destroy faith in the Bible.
What part of that were we supposed to miss?
In the 3SG model Ellen White addresses someone who claims to “believe the Bible” not someone who does not claim to “believe”.
Details details.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe assumption that you can destroy the book of Genesis – with God as creator and “it really does not matter” is so glaringly flawed that Darwin himself finally saw the problem.
Should we then be that surprised when God Himself confirms that the problem with such nonsense is “real” in 3SG 9-91??
Hopefully people have a better grasp of logic, reason and scripture than to go down such a rabbit trail in earnest.
Of course in an “every man is his own Bible slicer” kind of model – one man’s slice and dice of the bible is supposed to be every bit as good as another.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment“worst form of infidelity” has far more implication than “infidelity to Sabbath”.
The “believing infidel” option Kent is proposing is shaky ground indeed.
The 3SG 90-94 section points to the infidel fables designed to attack the Law of God – as a special work of Satan himself.
Shall we “meet it” with the less than decisive position “the worst form of infidelity is not all that bad”??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHmm, it appears that “human sociobiology” is covered in a course at Southern Adventist University. I wonder what they have to say about the subject and whether they would agree with David Read that it’s “a crock of nonsense”? Here is the catalog description:
BIOL 387. Animal Behavior 3 hours. This course is cross-listed with PSYC 387. A student may receive credit for this course from only one program. Prerequisites: BIOL 161-162 or PSYC 122 and 128. The behavior of animals is studied with a focus on both proximate causes (mechanisms) and ultimate causes (survival strategies) of behavior. Special importance is placed on understanding techniques of experimental study and hypothesis testing. Topics covered include: genetic, developmental, and physiological bases of behavior; instinct and learning; communication; habitat selection; feeding, antipredatory, reproductive, and parenting strategies; mating systems, social behavior and human sociobiology. Three lectures each week.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentI seriously doubt any psychologists or behaviorists believe in such an all-or-none dichotomy (reminiscent of the false evidence-vs-faith dichotomy that nobody will admit they believe in). Most behaviors are influenced by both heredity and the environment. Your genes, not your free will, program your body to begin producing testosterone at a certain age and to continue producing testosterone throughout adulthood (unless it’s turned off by other factors). Do you seriously think that testosterone has NO EFFECT on your behavior? Of course it does, but you still can FREELY CHOOSE to ignore or respond to stimuli. You’re not biologically determined to respond to any stimuli.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentSociobiology is covered to a limited extent in courses in animal behavior and in psychology, which are offered by most SDA institutions. I might be wrong but I’m quite certain that Walla Walla University is the only SDA institution offering an undergraduate course in sociobiology. As for me, I may or may not teach the subject.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent quoting David Read
“It is not possible to approach the facts of nature in a neutral and unbiased manner, and allow the facts to inform us whether we were created or evolved.”
Hello Prof Kent
I respectfully disagree.
Science and the application thereof can be neutral and rational if we choose them to be. Where facts point in a number of directions the question is probability versus certainty. As Sean has often said one can never know anything with absolute certainty. Even Stephen Hawkings talks about model dependent reality. But observation and testing have an empirical way of firming up models and laws of nature. Does anyone doubt laws of gravity anymore?
If we choose we can approach issues with an open mind of discovery instead of presupposition. Ask any child who has not yet been taught religion or evolution.
I’ve been exposed to both and approach both rationally and analytically. My intellectual jury remains out on many topics including intelligent design which just may end up rocking the boat of mindless evolution.
Cheers
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentHere is the achillies heel Brantley and Kent have been so anxious to avoid when they try to conflate H-G hermeneutics with Epistemology.
And of course the “reason” that they need to conflate those two concepts as one – is that the argument from “internal evidence” in hermeneutics can then be used to obliterate epistemology in circular argument after circular argument.
Observations in nature that confirm the Bible as a trusted and accurate source – (as must be employed in epistemology), are negated in Brantley’s conflation of epitemology with hermeneutics.
When this is pointed out to him on Spectrum – he seems to argue that we should not remind him of the point.
And it is just then that Spectrum would kindly request that I not respond to Brantley’s position on Spectrum.
How “unnexpected”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAt this point Kent is free to say he is in 100% agreement with that statement or to join some other SDAs who have come to this board claiming that Ellen White is wrong in her statemetns in 3SG 90-91.
Surely a direct answer one way or the other should not be that difficult.
Or would a direct answer to the question be too transparent?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
It is certainly apparent that a few posters on this board think the 3SG 90-91 statement is accurate. I don’t think that should surprise anyone.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI agree. In regards to interpretation, the Bible is its own interpretor.
There is a difference between how we interpret Scripture and whether our faith can rest on evidence. Many of the biology professors discount the biblical account due to their interpretation of nature. Rightly understood, science will never contradict the Bible because they are from the same author.
It is impossible to validate the Bible’s historicity internally. It’s spiritual claims are necessarily connected to the validity of its factual claims. If there is absolutely no way to verify any of the factual claims of the Bible, on what basis do we believe the spiritual truth claims are reliable.
There is a bounty of evidence that confirms the Bible is true. My problem with the LSU biology professors is that they don’t believe there is any evidence, thus they don’t teach it, and instead promote interpretations that undermine our beliefs.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAgreed. Evolution has little to do with becoming a doctor, or pretty much any discipline that would utilize biology. Unless of course your dealing with a history oriented class dealing with origins.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentBob, do you personally accept Ellen White’s statement here that “the world is now only about six thousand years old”?
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
If the Bible didn’t present information that we couldn’t get from nature alone, the Bible would be irrelevant. This does not mean, however, that the credibility of the Bible is not dependent upon empirical evidence. Without the support of empirical evidence, there would be no useful predictive value behind anything that the Bible says – about either the physical or metaphysical worlds.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentKent quotes Beth as saying –
Can’t remember if Beth claimed to be SDA. From the quote above – the answer is apparently “no”. Because that is not what SDAs claim.
Oh well…
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHowever I do appreciate the fact that Kent is willing to tell Educate Truth about some of the arguments being offerred to EducateTruth over at Spectrum.
One wonders if any of the other Spectrum posters are as bold and direct so as to actually “post” here without all the Spectrum applause and clapping to accompany each post in favor of belief in evolution.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe evolutionist argues that the precambrian explosion was “a miracle”.
The evolutionist argues that the first living cell was “a miracle”.
The evolutionist argues that the lack of a complete geologic column with all layers present out to the 100+ miles or so that a 3 billion years-of-life theory must account for – is a “miracle”.
The informed atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson argues that you cannot simply “make up stories from the fossil record” about how one thing came from another — because such stories are not science – though they are easy enough to tell.
The evolutionist argues for a miracle when asked to give an example of new genetic information added to a genome — something that can actually be seen in real life. (See Dawkins 11 seconds of flummoxed silence in answer to that evolution 101 softball question).
By contrast – the Christian argues for things like sorting during a flood where slow moving animals are at the bottom and fast moving competitors are at the top as well as the argument that turbidity currents will sort into layers.
All in all – the evolutionist has a lot of “don’t expect to see what I am talking about in real nature” to “explain”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSean seems to be at war with the idea of faith, which is believing something that one cannot possibly know or prove. By faith we believe that there is an unseen world, a hidden reality that is even more important than empirical reality. Admittedly, faith is a very frustrating thing; we’d all prefer to know, and not to have to exercise faith. But God asks us to exercise faith, and Jesus calls us “blessed” if we can have faith that is not based upon empirical proof. John 20:29
Faith is the essence of Christianity (and every other religion). Believers do not like to see faith belittled simply because it is faith, not provable fact. So it doesn’t surprise me that Sean now finds himself virtually alone in insisting upon the illegitimacy of faith.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentTrue enough.
In fact there is not a single science experiment that can be done in the lab that requires the one doing the experiment to imagine “birds come from reptiles” or “birds come from plants” as they do the experiement – in order for it to work.
No not one.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYes – because when Ellen White refers to “World” and to “other Worlds” she is always talking about a planet with life on it.
But when she talks about “planets” the context determines whether or not she means a planet with life on it or a planet that does not have life on it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI’m speaking to evidence that arises solely from scripture and the influence it has on one’s mind through the Holy Spirit. I’ll make it simple with an example.
Imagine Sir Franklin Facetious, a stalwart atheist and the lone survivor of an 18th century shipwreck who managed to find his way to solid ground on an isolated island. In some of the luggage that washed ashore, the atheist found a single book: the Bible.
Sir Franklin, with an abundance of time on his hand, devoured the book. Over the next few years, before he passed away from scurvy, he learned the great truths of Christ’s death and salvation, and took to heart God’s word–at face value. He believed merely because the Bible said so.
And how might we characterize this sincere (albeit facetious) man’s beliefs? Would you agree with Sean Pitman that the man’s beliefs were “blind” and “circular” because they lacked external verification from “potentially falsifiable empirical data?” That his beliefs were based on knowledge that cannot convict the “candid, rational, intelligent mind?” That his beliefs were “as useless as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentJeff,
First, I need to understand whay you mean by “evidence within Scripture.” The Bible makes plenty of truth claims that can be verified in reality. If nothing the Bible claims can be verified in reality, on what basis can we trust it?
I agree with this 100%, but every book has knowledge. If I buy a book that teaches me how to build a house, but once I actually start following the directions and things don’t turn out, it’s safe to assume the knowledge committed within the pages necessary for building a house is faulty. The statement of belief you refer to is regarding our view of Scripture, not how we arrived at that view.
I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. The Bible claims to be God breathed. That’s quite the claim. If we can’t test that by any means, then how do we know the claim is true? We can test many of the Bible’s historical claims, scientific claims, impact on human character claims, God’s promises, etc. Those are all things that can be verified in reality.
I’m really not understanding what you’re arguing. You attempt to rebutt me but then use the very thing you tell me I shouldn’t be using. God appeals to our reason. It’s the only way he can communicates to us.
We can believe anything we want. I didn’t say we weren’t capable of doing that, but do we have any reason or evidence for what we believe?
In order to trust the Bible, one has to have a reason to trust the Bible–able to produce some tangable evidence. This will vary from person to person. One person may not need all the scientific evidence to support their belief in a recent creation, but that doesn’t mean God hasn’t provided it.
Neither can I. How do I decide who is God though? The god of Mormonism, the Koran, or any other Holy text?
I think the weight of evidence is in favor of the God of the Bible. No other book is prophetic and can take the scrutiny and still come out on top as being trustworthy in all its claims.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentEvolution has absolutely nothing to do with becoming a physician or practicing medicine. I’ve never,ever been asked any question about evolution in any exam, either in medical school, during residency, or on the Internal Medicine Board exam.
How about you Sean? Is Pathology based on evolution?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentRe Eddie’s Quote
“Ken, there is a LOT of biology to be learned that doesn’t really deal with the evolution-creation controversy, which is why on most if not all campuses (both SDA and non-SDA) the subject of evolution is covered briefly in only a few biology courses and more extensively in one required course on evolution (secular campuses) or origins (religious campuses). Some SDA campuses also have a course on origins designed for non-science students.”
Hi Eddie
I obviously was commenting from a point of ignorance and I appreciate your better understanding of the situation.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentBob, she specifically referred to “geologists”–not biologists. And then she specifically referred to “evidences from the earth itself”–not “evidences for life on earth.” It seems clear to me from the context of her language that Ellen White was a young earth creationist (YEC), not a young life creationist (YLC).
I’m trying to understand how you, Sean and others here at Educate Truth accept Ellen White’s literal interpretation of Genesis 1 but disagree with her on the age of the planet’s rocks. Seems a bit inconsistent.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentShane, I completely agree that a changed life is the type of evidence that Ellen White often (nearly always) speaks of, if that is what you are saying. I like your quote from Ellen White and your statement, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.”
As you might expect from my position, a sample of N = 1 (my personal life) is more than compelling for me. As empirical evidence, a datum of one would not allow a hypothesis to be statistically falsifiable, so I don’t think Sean Pitman would be happy with such “evidence” at a personal decision-making level. Nevertheless, I have believed all my life that the greatest evidence that God is real and the Bible can be trusted is what results from the personal relationship with God that develops from time spent reading scripture and in prayer. I think this is so convincing, especially given the capacity of the Holy Spirit to convict one of truth, that no external reference from historical, geological, or biological sources is necessary to confirm the validity or usefulness of one’s faith.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentIf I understand you correctly, I don’t see how one could confirm the truth of the Bible unless it made claims that were testable. Listen, I’m not arguing that someone can’t come to believe in the Bible in the situation you described.
All I’ve been saying is that God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. This evidence can come from a number of sources: archeology, history, testimony, prophecy, fruition of God’s promises, a changed life, etc.
Ellen White said:
A well-ordered, well-disciplined family is something we can see for ourselves. It confirms the claims and promises of the Bible. If I asked you why you believed the Bible was trustworthy and the Word of God, and all you said was because it says so, that means nothing to the person who does not know God.
If we can show nothing for our faith in God’s words, then our faith is nothing and useless. We essentially deny the power we claim it has. A changed life is empirical data. If a particular physical or mental exercise leads to a manifest change that is consistent and lasting, we can look at that and say, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.” Even that kind of evidence is external.
I think we’re more in agreement than you may think.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAccording to this view, we have following percentages of religious devotees who accept theistic evolution and therefore are “pretending to actually believe the Bible.”
Jews – 77%
Catholics – 58%
Orthodox – 54%
Mainline protestant – 51%
Hist. Black Protestant – 38%
Evangelical Protestants – 24%
Mormons – 22%
I don’t think we should be making use of 3SG 90-91 to belittle fellow believers by declaring their faith in God is based on “pretending” to believe in the Bible–whether in person or behind their backs, or whether they are SDA or non-SDA. The vast majority of these millions of brethren in Christ take the Bible very seriously. I don’t think Ellen White would condone such inflammatory use of her words.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment“‘Believing infidel’ option”??!!! Funny how anything I write gets mutated to something I don’t recognize.
This conversation just gets more and more bizarre. Some people take exception to anything I write.
Jesus died for Charles Darwin.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI believe we should be using the origin of Sin to challenge Evolution.
If it’s Evolution specifically that the Adventist Church is currently trying to oust, we should use the fact that death is an abnormal addition to our experience. Death is introduced to Adam and Eve as a new concept -along with working the land for food, and pain in childbirth- as part of the curse. Evolution relies on death as a selector, but sin relies on choice. If Sin did not exist until the pair in the garden choose something outside God’s plan, and death is a result of sin, then we’d need humans before death, which doesn’t fit with evolution. The debate about:
-how long a “day” is
-if adding up a chronology is a cogent dating technique
-interpretation of observed geology etc.
seem to be much murkier arguments than this. Sin is decidedly the purview of the church, yet we’re not using it to make this argument. Is there a reason why? (honest question)
Am I mistaken, and we do believe in pre-sin death of non-human life?
Do Adventists who believe in Evolution have a different view of the origin of sin?
to get noticed: @SeanPittman
Sean Pittman
J. Knight(Quote)
View CommentLydian, I greatly appreciate your perspective, and could not agree more. And I love the message you ended with: “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Amen to that.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentLet’s not forget that sin started in heaven long before mankind came into existence. So far as we know, death came into existence as a consequence of mankind’s sin.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent’s Quotes
“Nevertheless, I have believed all my life that the greatest evidence that God is real and the Bible can be trusted is what results from the personal relationship with God that develops from time spent reading scripture and in prayer. I think this is so convincing, especially given the capacity of the Holy Spirit to convict one of truth, that no external reference from historical, geological, or biological sources is necessary to confirm the validity or usefulness of one’s faith.”
Hello Prof Kent
Thanks for your comments.
I have no problem with your point of view, insofar as it applies to your personal experience of God. The problem happens when we try to prescribe for others what is we subjectively experience ourselves. Then there is a need for external evidence to corroborate and compare individuals’ subjective experiences of faith to test its objective merit. Otherwise faith becomes whatever one experiences. I’m actually fine with that experiential concept.
“There are many things that destroy acceptance of the Bible; I’m not convinced that theistic evolution is the single biggest concern we need to address.”
Even though I am not a theistic evolutionist, I agree with you on this point. I don’t think any one individual, or any one method holds or can hold a franchise and how to interpret a complex text. Thus Christian tolerance should prevail, notwithstanding the diverse Christian experience. Good for you for seeing that.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentThis item from Phil Brantley was insightful, as it matched the views of David Read:
And then Sean Pitman, persistent with his heterodox theology, had this to say about David Read’s position:
I think the problem with Sean’s and Bob’s theology is a lack of appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit, which they demote to little more than a “blind,” “circular” appeal to “emotion.” I do admire their conviction, but I detest their deriding the faith of others (which, ahem, reminds me of certain faculty at LSU).
Perhaps we should all read once again STEPS TO CHRIST. What does Sister White have to say about how we come to know Jesus?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
An Intelligent Faith:
It is hardly heterodox to suggest that the mind should lead the heart in matters of faith. Even Mrs. White noted that God desires an “intelligent faith” or trust in His Word.
Here we have Jesus pointing to the empirical evidence of his own life and its match to the prophecies of the Bible as a basis for a solid faith and confidence in the written Word as the true Word of God.
The same is true today. God points us to the Bible through the medium of our God-given reasoning abilities to reason from cause to effect as a basis for determining the Divine origin and authority of His written Word.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
“In fact God says that these non-Bible aware, non-Christians are “without excuse” when they make the claim that they do not see the invisible attributes of God in the “things that have been made”.”
Or evolved?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Now you’re getting exegetical! Me, when I look at that particular text, rereading it again and again, my eyes always see “made.” Right there, in B&W, regardless of version, in Times New Roman or some totally legible sans serif font, on paper or Kindle, wherever you want to look. He that hath eyes… (need I?) You’re seeing “evolved”? How’d you do that! Better yet, why? Better yet, sigh…
Meanwhile back to faith vs. evidence, Bible vs. mind — my eyes always see BOTH, not one or the other. Like love & marriage, efferent & afferent, autonomic and voluntary nervous systems. Sympathetic and parasympathetic. Eccrine & apocrine. Like male and female at the altar (not…need I?). He made them (no, not evolved them) both, separate but equal, equally crucial.
Mercifully, people seem quick enough to see the difference as well as the connection between male & female than faith & evidence, or used to. But nowadays … (need I?). Well, that’s what it’s come to, in this cheery, whimsical, channel-gender-switching postmodern age. Have a good agnoevolution!
wesley kime(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes’s and Bob’s quotes
(Wes)”Now you’re getting exigetical! Me, when I look at that particular text, rereading it again and again, my eyes always see “made.”
(Bob) “If you find that the correct exegesis of Romans 1:18-22 is that mankind should see the “invisible attributes of God in the things that have evolved”
Dear Wes and Bob
Gentleman, I must confess when it comes to exegesis I have no education or training whatsoever. But if you would kindly indulge an ignorant agnostic perhaps I can still make a case.
Let us start with the conjugation of the verb make:
“Conjugations of the English verb make can be found below.
Past Pluperfect
I made
you made
he made
we made
they made”
Gentleman, as you can see “made” is the past pluperfect tense of make.
Now let us look at synonyms for evolve, from freethesaurus.net:
“Main Entry: evolve
Synonyms:
advance, alter into, amplify, assemble, avulse, be converted into, bear fruit, beautify, become, beget, bloom, blossom, breed, bring forth, bring into being, build, call into being, cast, change into, coin, come round to, compose, compound, conceive, concoct, construct, contrive, cook up, create, cultivate, cut out, deracinate, descant, design, detail, develop, devise, dig out, dig up, dilate, discover, disentangle, draw, draw out, dream up, dredge, dredge up, educe, elaborate, embellish, engender, enlarge, enlarge upon, eradicate, erect, evolute, evolve into, evulse, excavate, excise, excogitate, expand, expatiate, explicate, exsect, extract, extricate, extrude, fabricate, fall into, fashion, finish, flower, form, formulate, frame, fudge together, generate, get at, get out, get up, give being to, give rise to, gouge out, grow, grub up, hatch, improvise, indite, invent, lapse into, make, make do with, make up, manufacture, maturate, mature, mellow, melt into, mine, mint, mold, obtain, open into, open up, originate, particularize, pass into, patch together, perfect, pick out, piece together, plan, pluck out, pluck up, polish, prefabricate, prepare, procreate, produce, progress, pull, pull out, pull up, put together, put up, quarry, raise, rake out, rear, refine, rehearse in extenso, relate at large, remove, rip out, ripen, ripen into, root out, root up, run into, run up, season, set up, settle into, shape, shift into, spawn, strike out, take out, tear out, think out, think up, turn into, turn to, unearth, unfold, unravel, uproot, wax, weed out, whomp up, withdraw, work out, wrest out, write”
As you can see: ‘make’ is a synonym for ‘evolve’.
Evolved is of course the past tense of evolve.
Gentleman, I trust it is not too much a s grammatical stretch to conclude that ‘evolved’ is a synonym for ‘made’.
What is interesting of course is that Adventists sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes figuratively. (i.e. 6 days vs. 2300 days.) Perhaps you can extend me the latitude to interpret ‘made’ synonymically as ‘evolved'(at the risk of ‘creating’ a new adverb!).
I rest my agnostic, exegetic case.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read, recognizing the limits to evidence, wisely wrote on the last page of his 600 page book, “Dinosaurs–An Adventist View”:
I say “amen” to this.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentKen –
Could point. If you find that the correct exegesis of Romans 1:18-22 is that mankind should see the “invisible attributes of God in the things that have evolved” – then that goes a long way to making the case that the Bible can be married to belief in evolutionism.
Let me know how that goes.
In the mean time – Dawkins’ argument is pretty good when he states that adding any kind of “god” to evolutionism so as to explain or claim “creation” for the existence of all complex life on earth — is pointless.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKen thank you for that post. As you can probably imagine the text of the Bible was not written in english but in Hebrew and Greek thus it is not simply a case of taking english words and finding alternate words to insert in their place.
The “reason” that we even look at the concept of exegesis in pursuing reliable hermeneutics is that an objective model for Bible interpretation is needed rather than “spin the text any way you like”.
The whole point is to find a more objective “less plastic” methodology for rendering the text. Hence all the debating you see on this board about the H-G hermeneutic.
In the dark ages a great many people lost their lives over the issue of “What does the Bible actually say”. This is more than just a trivial topic.
So while you make a good case for the idea that without using exegesis we can always come up with some kind of story for bending the text one way or the other… (And I fully agree with you on that point), the entire reason we keep talking about more objective methods such as the Historical-Grammatical method of hermeneutics is to avoid the “every man bent the text to his own liking” problem.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI prefer the quote we find in Romans 11 –
“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”.
You have to first know what is(epistemology) the Word of God — and accept what it says (hermeutics). Rom 10:8-11.
Notice that in Rom 10:16-18 it is our observations in nature that is declared as the Word of God going forth and being heard.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
“So while you make a good case for the idea that without using exegesis we can always come up with some kind of story for bending the text one way or the other… (And I fully agree with you on that point), the entire reason we keep talking about more objective methods such as the Historical-Grammatical method of hermeneutics is to avoid the “every man bent the text to his own liking” problem.”
Dear Bob
As always I am indebted to you for your biblical scholarship and knowledge. I acknowledge that I am an intellectual pauper in this regard. But my learning is evolving with help from my Adventist friends as time goes on!
I agree with the general thrust of your quote but it does make the issue problematic doesn’t it? If all Christians interpreted the Bible the same way, objectively, then no Christian faction could bend the text to meet its own doctrinal needs, correct? And what about non – Christians interpretation? Are they barred from objectivity because they don’t agree to a particular method of interpretation? Does this make the Word of God truly imponderable or subject only to consensus? And who determines consensus for Christians? Is consensus in the eye of the biblical beholder?
Perhaps that is why Science and empirical evidence to verify any particular interpretation of the Bible becomes so important. I think that is what our good Dr. Pitman is trying to advocate.
I hope my outside view can provide a bit of perspective to the great Adventist debate.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentThere is an evidence that is open to all,–the most highly educated, and the most illiterate,–the evidence of experience. God invites us to prove for ourselves the reality of His word, the truth of His promises. He bids us “taste and see that the Lord is good.” Psalm 34:8. Instead of depending upon the word of another, we are to taste for ourselves. – Steps to Christ, p. 111-112
Sorry, Sean, but Ellen White’s words (which you posted) speak to the evidence of personal experience and conviction that come only from a close walk with Jesus–a personal, dynamic relationship nurtured by the Holy Spirit. This evidence she speaks of effectively diminishes the word of another that you insist we rely on–the empirical evidence brought to us by scientists, historians, Sean Pitmans, and others. You just don’t get it. While you are busy trying to convince others of what scientific evidence has to offer, you are denying the single most important source of evidence: a prayerful communion with God. And you are furious that we choose God’s word over yours.
Note that this “evidence” to which Ellen White speaks of and highly commends is available to “the most illiterate,” and contrasts sharply with Sean Pitman’s demand that we prioritize empirical evidence and human reason. Call it “blind,” call it “circular,” call it “irrational,” call it “useless,” but no evidence is more powerful than knowing God.
Prove me wrong.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You can’t “know God” through His written Word unless you have some rational basis by which you are able to determine that the words you’re reading are actually God’s Words and not some “cunningly devised fable”. The only rational way to do that is to test the Words to see if what they’re claiming about reality is actually true. If the claims prove false when tested against empirical reality, how can they rationally be trusted as the Words of God?
Testing the Bible against personal experience is an empirical test that is open to all who have rational intelligent candid minds… regardless of the level of formal education. This is the reason why the Bible can have an attractive appeal to anyone of at least human-level intelligence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentI was pleased to see Shane Hilde spell out his own personal convictions at Spectrum:
Apparently, Educate Truth is closer to the Adventist Truth than I had believed.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Shane also said:
Shane is still struggling with the concept of the “weight of evidence” as well as the need for empirical evidence as a basis for rational faith.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentA simple test.
Let’s go to Richard Dawkins and suggest that we no longer use the term evolve or evolution – but from now on just use the term “God made” because we think if that as a good reliable synonym.
Then lets take the text of Ex 20:10-11 and “For in in Six days” and suggest that all life on earth “Evolve” in six days by “God making it” which as you point out is another way to say evolved in six days by God supernaturally causing it to happen (making it happen) in such a short period of time.
I am doubtful that this will resolve the gap.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSean, the reality is that the corporate Church rejects your reliance on external evidence to validate scripture, and most SDAs take deep offense in your position that scripture is subservient to science.
If you truly wish to change the Church’s views, you need to publish an article in the Church’s foremost journal. Until that happens, you’ll continue to convince a subset of your disciples that you have it all figured out, and you’ll also completely turn off another subset of your followers, who are dumbfounded by your unrelenting attacks on faith.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Contrary to your claims, most intelligent people, to include most SDA’s, and even the SDA Church as an organization, recognize the effect that empirical evidence, or the lack thereof, has on faith.
It is for this reason that the SDA Church, as an organization, considers the presentation of empirical evidence, in line with the SDA position on origins in particular, to be an important part of the education that is offered by the Church to its youth.
This is in direct conflict with Phil Brantley’s argument that the promotion of mainstream Darwinism in SDA classrooms is no big deal since real biblical faith should not be at all affected by empirical evidence whatsoever. It is for this reason that Phil has been so supportive of the rights of LSU’s science professors to teach whatever they want on the theory of evolution, on the Church’s dime, since empirical science should have no effect on “faith” in SDA doctrines.
That is in fact Phil’s position you know – – and yours as well if you are honest with the implications of your basic argument.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentElucidate, please.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentApparently, I’ve been wrong all along. SDAs need to be encouraged to read books and articles written by evolutionists (the heroes of Sean Pitman and Bob Ryan) because they need to learn for their rational selves where the evidence is and the choices they need to make. The more time devoted to secular reading, the better. Our young people need to learn all they can about the evidence for both an old earth and a young earth so that they can make a rational, informed decision based on their own thinking rather than the distillation of others (apologeticists); otherwise, they are prone to walk away from the Church.
Reading the Bible alone would be an irrational mistake, as useless as reading novels and fairy tales. Our young people must not invest too much time in the study of scripture, as it would preclude learning the evidence required to judge whether it is true. As Sean Pitman points out incessantly, faith based on God’s word alone is blind, circular, insufficient, and irrational. Whatever we do, we cannot allow our young people to make such a mistake, and we must not allow our teachers to instill such a practice, which clearly undermines our fundamental beliefs.
And everyone said, “Amen.”
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Are you suggesting that SDA schools shouldn’t use any other textbook besides the Bible? – that the study of anything outside of the Bible, such as the scientific investigation of nature, should actually be discouraged in our schools? – that any effort to support the Bible’s credibility by appeals to empirical evidence in its support is too risky since there is the possibility of falsifying empirical evidence?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentYes, Sean, nice quote from Ellen White. Ironically, Jesus did exactly what you chastized Phil Brantley, myself, David Read, Shane Hilde, and the official denomination for proposing: using scripture itself to validate God’s word. In Ms. White’s own words: “He wished the truth to take firm root in their minds, not because it was supported by His personal testimony, but because the typical law, and the prophets of the Old Testament, agreeing with the facts of His life and death, presented unquestionable evidence of that truth.
And today, you belittle us all for accepting scriptural truths on the very same basis Jesus himself taught from. Are you going to now declare Jesus guilty of circular reasoning?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You’re forgetting the part where Jesus referred to the empirical evidence of real events as the fulfillment of prophecy, thereby providing the rational basis for the credibility of the prophets… i.e., what the prophets predicted really did come true in real life. If the predictions had not matched empirical reality, the prophets would have lost all credibility.
So, you see, the basis of a rational belief in the credibility of the Scriptures is based on the fidelity of their match to the actual reality that they describe. Their credibility, according to Jesus himself, is not entirely self-referencing or internally derived as you and Phil and others claim…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment