Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.
I find this statement extremely strange because the process of life and death DID NOT give us the physical substance of the universe. You write as if stars and nebulae are alive, but that is absurd! Hydrogen gas is not alive! And comparing the simplest and lightest element – hydrogen – with the DNA code is also very strange. Statements like this are one reason I do not find your arguments very convincing.
Also, no one has called you an “animal hating sadistic psychopath.” But I do find your belief in a loving God and natural selection as God’s instrument of creation to be incongruent. So did Charles Darwin in his final years, and so do Quentin Smith and Richard Dawkins, among others. In fact, Quentin Smith bases his atheism precisely on this point!
I really cannot understand you Sean.Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.
Since my name is mentioned here, I feel I need to respond. I did NOT develop my views from reading Dr. Sean Pitman! My views are the result of my own study, including taking some college geology courses to supplement my training in theology. However, I am happy that Sean and I agree on the major points, but that doesn’t mean we are in collusion. Sean and I actually differ on a few things: 1) He wants to end the flood at the K/T boundary, whereas I tend to think the flood/post flood boundary is in the upper Cenozoic. 2) On the other hand, my view of radiometric dating is a little more positive than his, although I still recognize problems. 3) You have stated that Sean considers angels to be material beings, whereas I believe they are spirits (Heb 1:14).
What you call the “twilight zone” is actually the mainstream Adventist position. I never saw evolution articulated in any Adventist publication until the mid 1990s when “Spectrum” published a pro-evolution article based on the argument that humans and apes share certain pseudo-genes – which has been emptied of substance since the publication of the Encode Project data.
Grace
Paul, I am glad you ended your post with this powerful word. If you have put your faith in the grace of Christ and received Him as your personal Lord and Savior, then, despite our differences, I regard you as my brother in Christ. . . because we are not saved by perfect knowledge or correct views on every issue. We are saved by Jesus Christ, in spite of our flaws, mistakes, and sins. . . and I have plenty of them!
With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.
PEACE!
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.”
