Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
pauluc:
@Bob Pickle:Whether it is scientifically wrong or not you have to honestly admit that the position of EG White and Genesis was of sun moon and stars created along with our earth in the creation week.
Bob, our final authority must always be scripture, not Ellen White. But I do believe that God used Ellen White as His messenger, and we need to represent her accurately. The first chapter of her book, “Patriarchs and Prophets,” is entitled “Why Was Sin Permitted?”. This chapter describes Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven, which I think even you will agree took place before creation week on earth. In that chapter, she makes the following statement:
“God’s government included not only the inhabitants of heaven, but of all the worlds that He had created, and Lucifer had concluded that if he could carry the angels of heaven with him in his rebellion, he could also carry all the worlds.”
Here Ellen White claims that inhabited worlds existed even before Lucifer began his rebellion. In other words, Ellen White believed that sinless alien beings were living on other planets before the fall of Lucifer. Bob, Ellen White was not stupid. If she believed that inhabited planets existed before the fall of Lucifer, then she must have believed that those planets were orbiting stars that existed before the fall of Lucifer. So how can you honestly state that Ellen White believed that the stars were created during creation week? In light of what she says in “Patriarchs and Prophets,” your statement makes no sense.
Now you are welcome to disagree with Ellen White if you want to, and I think she would grant you that privilege. But please don’t try to make her say something that she never said. I have never read anything from Ellen White suggesting that the stars were created during creation week. She clearly believed in an old universe!
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
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.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
