Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Sean Pitman.
My reading of the article is that he is arguing if you take process and science as the basis for an Old universe and accept big bang cosmology with the ages it entails logically you really have no argument with process and science in terms of life’s creation. They are one and same process. If you accept young universe and divine fiat then logically young life follows. Having accepted divine fiat for life’s origin what is the compunction for accepting any science for process for the creation of the physical material universe. He is arguing the logical consistency. YEC-YUC is the most consistent position if you argue either the divine fiat creation of life or of the Cosmos.
That’s exactly what Rogers is arguing. He leaves no room for the possibility that God would create anything after His original creative act of bringing the universe into existence. That’s a non sequitur argument. It doesn’t follow that God would be limited in His creativity to only one point in time. It does not follow that just because God creates a “process” that therefore this “process” can explain everything else in the universe all by itself without requiring any additional special creative acts of God. Even you argue that God is able to create a small subset of stars within a pre-existent universe. Also, it would be very interesting for the created intelligences who already exist within the universe to see first-hand God’s creative power in action in the creation of another world.
Beyond this, the very notion that God would deliberately create life on any world through a “process” that requires pain, suffering, and death of sentient creatures of any kind is downright evil. It is not reflective of the Christian-style God described throughout the Bible – a God who is actually concerned when even a little sparrow falls to the ground. It also doesn’t explain the many miraculous acts of God listed throughout the Bible that simply cannot be explained by “process” arguments – such as instantly turning water into wine, healing the blind, curing leprosy, parting the Red Sea, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the burning bush that didn’t burn, the resurrection, and on and on and on.
So, you see, the argument that there can only be creation by either “process alone” or “Divine fiat alone” is nonsense – especially for a Bible-believing Christian.
He is not trying to cover every contingency
Rogers is trying to cover pretty much every contingency in his argument – trying to leave one with an “all-or-nothing” choice.
and certainly none of this may apply to you who does not accept the Big Bang cosmology or its time frame ( or do you?)
As I’ve already explained, I do believe in the evidence for a beginning for the universe many billions of years ago.
but advocate old age for the universe and young age for life on earth but perhaps you do invoke indeterminant age for life on other planets but perhaps more recent than 7-8 billion years when the cosmos settled enough to allow God to settle in heaven’s throne room at the centre of the spinning universe, create angels and populate other planets. I am still curious what is the evidence that EG White thought that these populated worlds predated our creation? I cant see it was clear from the descriptions of the 1846 visions I have seen.
Many times Ellen White speaks of populated worlds that pre-existed our own world and even had their own trees of “Life” and the “Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Consider this passage again:
All the treasures of the universe will be open to the study of God’s redeemed. Unfettered by mortality, they wing their tireless flight to worlds afar,—worlds that thrilled with sorrow at the spectacle of human woe, and rang with songs of gladness at the tidings of a ransomed soul. With unutterable delight the children of earth enter into the joy and the wisdom of unfallen beings. They share the treasures of knowledge and understanding gained through ages upon ages in contemplation of God’s handiwork. With undimmed vision they gaze upon the glory of creation,—suns and stars and systems, all in their appointed order circling the throne of Deity. Upon all things, from the least to the greatest, the Creator’s name is written, and in all are the riches of his power displayed. (EGW, GC, p. 677-678)
I asked one of them [on one of these other unfallen worlds] why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, “We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth.” Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, “None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall.”
Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated… I asked him if this was the place he was taken to from the earth. He said, “It is not; the city is my home, and I have come to visit this place.” He moved about the place as if perfectly at home. (EGW, EW, p. 290).
Here she is clearly describing these worlds as witnessing all the struggles our world went through in our rebellion against God… and even having to resist the very same temptation to which Adam and Eve were subjected with the same access of Satan to a “forbidden tree”.
I really have trouble following how much of big bang cosmology you accept and how much you do not.It seems to vary with the day and the argument. I dont know from what you have written how much you accept as process and how much you accept as supernatural by divine fiat. Most people have a more consistent acceptance of process.
Where have I been inconsistent? I’ve already told you that I believe that the universe had a beginning, likely billions of years ago as far as I can tell, and that it functions by the natural laws created during its formation. I’ve already made it clear that these laws cannot explain the origin of various other things that exist within this universe – such as the origin and diversity of life on this planet or the fine-tuned features of this particular world and solar system needed to support that life. How is this unclear to you?
I am sure Rogers has, as a science lecturer at an Adventist institution, encountered a lot of ideas on origins but such a syncretic view may indeed be unique. He seems to have elected to tackle this from a more mainstream perspective.
The YLC perspective is and always has been mainstream within Adventism. There is nothing I’m presenting here that’s unique or outside of standard Adventist thinking.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
I think she was most likely trying to address the idea that God couldn’t make something out of absolutely nothing… that God had to start with something. I don’t think she was addressing Wilcox’s ideas at all. I think she was simply explaining that God doesn’t have to start with anything – that He can and did in fact ultimately make everything out of absolutely nothing – by the speaking things into existence.
The entire universe seems to be, ultimately, based on information from the Mind of God – i.e., “The Word”. What we see, feel, touch, smell, and taste really has no independent existence outside of the Mind of God and His constant care so that everything exists and moves and has its being “in Him.” – like a mental projection.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea:
It matters to me too, and I wish you all the best in your own efforts along these lines…
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Because, “as they read” must be interpreted by all that the Bible has to say about creation week. It is never wise to take any Biblical statement out of context. And, in this case, I think the context clearly supports a pre-existing universe (despite the “stars” not being mentioned until Day 4 of creation) and does not clearly exclude the possibility of pre-existing basic material for the Earth. Even Peter appears to argue that water pre-existed the creation week since he says that the Earth was made or brought “out of water” (2 Peter 3:5). Taking everything into account, I just don’t think it possible to be dogmatic against the possibility of pre-exiting basic material prior to the creation week.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
