Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
“Of Course you are right gap theory as you indicate was developed as a solution of a particular problem that old age of rocks and their contained fossils presented. Jack Provonsha is probably the only adventist that has espoused this traditional view of gap creationism.It seems to me YLC differing only from YEC-YEC by its advocacy of an old earth is a solution for which no problem exists.All problems that Gap creationists responded to can be accounted for by the combination of YEC and Flood Geology.I know Sean is an iconoclast and could be expected to argues against the YUC that no Adventist beyond the accolytes of CMI and AIG has seriously entertained to arrive at passive gap creationism but why do you have to distort the literalist interpretation of Genesis to advocate an old earth?”
You are probably correct. Jack Provonsha was the only well-known Adventist I am aware of who advocated what is usually understood as the gap theory. Now let’s get down to the nitty gritty. I am not really interested in “literalist interpretations.” I am interested in good exegesis that arrives at what the text is actually saying, not what is imposed on the text. Again I make the plea that you tell me where I am distorting the text of Gen 1 to suit my fancy. Simply making a bald assertion without providing evidence will not convince me. I require evidence for everything I believe. So please provide the evidence that I am distorting Gen 1!
“What does it explain if all problems of age of the earth are solved by divine intervention in the YEC and Global Flood models?You do not seem to be accepting process as the mechanism for creation of the Universe or if you are you are carving off earth geology and a fiat creation of life as not subject to process. Why do you feel compelled to argue against the YEC -YEC position that says the earth sun moon and at least some part of the stars were created in the recent creation.Occam would have a field day with YLC when it was definition included recent creation of all life.”
Why do I feel compelled to argue against the YEC position that says the earth, sun, moon, and at least part of the stars were created in the recent creation? I’ll be blunt with you Paul. My first and foremost reason is that this position is based on a superficial reading of the text in an English Bible. It ignores the meaning of the Hebrew, and it pays scant attention to the very carefully crafted structure of Gen 1. Good exegesis does not yield the YEC position! Let me tell you something. Once, for a period of time, I held to the YEC position, but after learning Hebrew and carefully studying Gen 1, I realized that this was not representative of the message of the text. I did not change my mind because of scientific data; I changed my mind because of what the text really says.
“As you can see Sean with his “possibly” and “could have been” responses to my question there is only flimsiest base for rejection of the earth sun moon and visible stars as products of the creation of 4004BC according to the Masoretic text.”
Paul, have you paid attention to anything I have posted about these issues? If you have, why do you refuse to interact with me about them? Again – simply making these bald assertions without backing them up is not convincing. Pray tell, where did you get the date 4004 BC? You will not find any statement in scripture that creation week was in 4004 BC. That came from Ussher. Do you plan to go a step further and assert that Adam was created at 9 AM on October 23, 4004 BC, that he sinned at noon, and that he found God’s forgiveness at 3PM? None of that is in scripture either; it all came from Lightfoot. You need to stop reading the opinions of these 17th century Englishmen into scripture, because the Bible doesn’t say any of this!
“Help me I am lost here.What is the gain of advocacy of YLC logically or scientifically.it is a completely redundant hypothesis completely dependent on a particular reading of EG White and some unjustified assumption that stars are universal and indivisable and could only ever be created at one time. YLC does not explain age except of the precambrian rocks, all beyond that including all fossils date from a global flood 4000 years ago. Are you now accepting radiometric dating for the precambrian? If you are then fine but even that is subject to the apparent age argument of a YEC-YEC.”
1) What do you mean by completely redundant, and why is this true of YLC?
2) Ellen White advocated an old universe, but I am not sure whether she believed that the material of the earth pre-dated creation week. My take on Ellen White’s comments is that they can be taken either way. I respect Ellen White as one who had a new covenant prophetic gift, but since she repeatedly stated that the Bible is our only rule of faith, I am more concerned with what it says. I am happy that Ellen White affirmed an old universe, and I also affirm her warnings about the errors of Lyell and Darwin (though she did not mention them by name), but she is not my final authority!
3) I repeat. My foremost reason for accepting YLC is exegesis of scripture. However, I am happy to note that it also fits the scientific evidence much better. It is overwhelmingly clear that the universe is very old. Recent measurements of the Hubble constant indicate that it is about 13.7 billion years old. The solar system also looks old to me. For example, I cannot possibly account for all the impact craters on the moon and other bodies in a few thousand years. The proportion of hydrogen and helium in the sun suggests that hydrogen fusion has been occurring on the sun for a very long time. Also, while I agree that there are problems with radiometric dating, I do not discount it as much as Sean does. I believe that the deep time radiometric dates that are obtained represent the genuine ages of certain very old minerals in igneous rock. I see no reason to discount this, although I also suspect that parent daughter isotope ratios were not completely reset to zero at the time of the flood. I also see real value in C14 dating. On the other hand, the Grand Canyon and many other features of geomorphology and stratigraphy do not look old to me. They look catastrophic!“You like Sean may question why I am even interested in this.Don’t I believe that God used process for inanimate and animate objects.I may accept that as the most logical and consistent position as a scientist but I am also a Christian and an Adventist and accept that to understand what the Bible actually says is important even if I may think that a non-literal interpretation is better than a literalist interpretation.As with all neo-orthodox I believe the text is inspired and matters profoundly as it is through the text God is revealed.To play fast and loose with its intent because of some supposed scientific presuppositions is poor scholarship and undermines that respect.You must at least divine what the text says before you start any attempt at reconciliation with other fields of learning or with empirical fact.”
I agree with your last sentence completely. Butchering the text will never do, and if you think I am doing this, I implore you to clarify how you think I am doing it.
I am glad to affirm you as a fellow Christian, although I am genuinely puzzled as to why you are a Christian. Believing something without evidence doesn’t make any sense to me. I say that cautiously because I don’t want to be a stumbling block to your faith in Christ. I very much want you to cling to Christ in faith, and I genuinely hope to meet you in the Lord’s kingdom someday. I just wish you would open your mind to evidence for Christianity because it is real and plentiful.
I have a harder time accepting your Adventist credentials because I was taught that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit raised up the Advent movement was to counteract Darwin’s views. And in fact, Rev 14:7 contains a call to worship the Creator. I rather think that “Adventist evolutionist” is an oxymoron. Once macro-evolution is accepted, the incarnation, the atonement, justification by faith alone, the second advent, and the Sabbath all cease to make sense. As one of Madelyn O’Hair’s sons commented in “The American Atheist”: “Tear down the creation account, and you will find the dead body of the Son of God in the rubble.” I hope I’m not offending you in saying these things because I wish to be kind, but I feel I must kindly state what I perceive to be the truth. I find the YLC model for understanding natural history to be something very beautiful, and I wish you could share my enthusiasm for it. Accepting YLC might bring some scorn down on you, but I really think it would make you a more consistent Adventist Christian and a better scientist. I’ll leave it at that!
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.
