Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
The issue is that she did not try to place her visions of heaven and unfallen worlds into a scientific paradigm of a big bang,an expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate and creating space as it expands into nothingness.I am not supposing she was stupid but she was a product or her times not the late 20th century where the Adventist church is facing a secularism based on science as the basis of philosophical naturalism.
I gladly affirm that Ellen White was a product of her times – the 19th and early 20th centuries. So unless God showed her something of the things you describe, I would not expect her to know anything about them, and I see no evidence that God did reveal these things to her. I believe that Ellen White received genuine visions and dreams from God, but their purpose was not to make her an astro-physicist. Their purpose was spiritual – to be a lesser light to lead people back to the greater light of scripture and Christ – which is the one legitimate purpose of new covenant prophecy after the close of the canon. But in her lifetime, it was common knowledge that moons revolve around planets, and planets revolve around stars. So when she described seeing beings on other planets who love and serve God, and she stated that these inhabited worlds existed before the angelic rebellion in heaven, I have to conclude that Ellen believed in the existence of an intact universe that existed before creation week. This isn’t hard to understand; it is simple and straightforward logic. But why are you telling me that she didn’t know anything about an expanding universe or the Big Bang? I never remotely suggested that she did. However, that is irrelevant to what we are discussing. Ellen White could have easily believed that the universe existed before creation week without having a knowledge of these esoteric scientific issues, and I submit to you that if her words mean anything, that was her position.
Do you suppose she even thought about where these planets were relative to the reach of the naked eye the Hubble telescope or radiotelescopes?Do you?Are the inhabited worlds within our solar system, within our galaxy or even within the expanding universe that we attempt to understand.Is Gods throne-room even a place within our physical universe?If we sent a space probe through to Orion would we be able to eventually end up where God dwells and the place from which the heavenly city will descend. That cube of 2,330 Km in each dimension that when present on our earth would extend well beyond our atmosphere.
Paul please – Ellen White died in 1915, and neither the Hubble telescope nor radio telescopes existed at that time. In fact, Edwin Hubble himself was just beginning his work about that time. I see no evidence of inhabited worlds in our solar system, and I have no idea where they are located, although some earth-sized planets have been discovered recently that seem to be the right distances from their stars to support life. But when Ellen White spoke about inhabited worlds, I have to assume that she understood them as existing within our universe because that was the only universe she knew about and the only one we know about today. I take heaven to be a real place; however the apostle Paul’s description of three heavens – the atmosphere, the realm of the stars, and the dwelling place of God – leads me to suspect that the third heaven (God’s dwelling place) is outside the confines of our universe. In saying that. I am not questioning heaven’s reality or that we will exist there as physical beings, but I suspect that it is extra-cosmic. I’m doubtful that it is on a planet revolving around a star called Kolob, as Jopeph Smith claimed, or anything similar to that – because stars and planets are located in the second heaven, not the third. As far as the new Jerusalem is concerned some of its aspoects may be literal and other symbolic.
The essential question is how do we reconcile what we understand physically through empirical science with our understanding of God and revelation.You know by now how I do that by considered that spiritual claims are understood spiritually by an act of faith.And our physical universe can be understood by a process of explanation by natural law and process.Science and religion differ in both objective and method.As Sacks would say religion is about understanding the meaning and why science about understanding the how. Haught models it as layers of understanding and meaning.We can understand why things happen by natural process but that does not give us the ultimate significance.Even if an event can be understood mechanistically as occurring by natural law that does not detract from understanding it as an act of God done to His Glory and to His good purpose. From this perspective the creation is an act of God even if there is a process involved.I would see process in the creation of life and the universe over long periods of time. That there was process does not detract from its attribution to God.You iike Sean seem to see some process only in the creation of the physical universe up to the point of the crucible for life.
I agree with much of what you have written here. However, there are some things that are too complex to arise through processes. Sean and I both believe that life is one of these things. Things that have come into existence via direct intelligent design rather than through processes give evidence of their intelligent design through certain tell-tale markers, as Sean has repeatedly pointed out. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence for abiogenesis. So again, I am quite content to admit that God has used processes, but in the creation of the universe itself and in the creation of life, I see Him taking a more direct role because that is what His word claims and where the scientific evidence points.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Randolph Belsky: I am not necessarily convinced that “Yam Suph” refers to the Gulf of Suez (it could not have been the Gulf of Aqaba), but it was a significant body of water. It was certainly not a salt marsh! As the Designer of natural law, God could have suspended the laws of physics to cause the water to part and pile up into walls, but the wording of the account suggests to me that He probably accomplished this through an unusual use of wind. However, regardless of whether He used wind or suspended physical laws, this was a genuine miracle (a very striking event that strengthened faith).As far as the creation and establishment of the expanse (or atmosphere) on the 2nd day of creation week is concerned, this was direct action on the part of the Creator, and no natural law can account for it. God clearly transcended natural law in this case. He spoke, and it was accomplished!
I don’t know how much water fell from the sky during the flood. It was a significant amount, but probably quite secondary to what came from the fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11-12). I suspect that the flood was a very unusual natural event that God utilized to accomplish His purpose of cleansing the earth from evil and violence. If that was the case, perhaps it was initiated when a series of asteroid impacts caused runaway subduction of the sea floor and the consequent splitting of an antediluvian super continent. This theory is called “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” (CPT), and as a theory, it could certainly be wrong. But it does provide a possible scientific mechanism for understanding the entire flood scenario. However, the suggestion that the flood was a natural event that can be studied by science in no way minimizes God’s use of this event. God is the Lord of science, and He often uses nature to accomplish His purposes.
In conclusion, I believe that God’s intervention in the world/universe can transcend natural law, but it can also utilize natural law, and I suspect that both of these factors came into play in the instances you have mentioned.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
“After the knowledge, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork. It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintanceship with the mind of God therein expressed.” (James Prescott Joule)Paul, the physicist James Joule held the exact philosophy of science that I am proposing. Would you like to pose that same question to him: “Why should you be interested in any science? It seems a bit messy to worry about facts!” Unfortunately, he’s not here to defend himself because he died at the end of the 19th century!
Joule’s perspective was very common before methodological naturalism gained its stranglehold over science. For some strange reason, you are willing to tolerate his likes, but if a modern researcher expresses this same opinion, you want to kick him/her out of the scientific community and ask the rather insulting question, “Why should you be interested in any science?” I honestly don’t understand your mindset. It baffles me!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.
Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.
