Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Sean Pitman.
1] Do you believe that the earth was created when the rest of the universe was created ie the beginning of all matter?
It is certainly possible, and I believe likely, that the basic matter of the Earth was created along with the basic matter of the rest of the universe “in the beginning”.
2] Do you think the scientific model of the big bang of 13 billion years ago is valid and was the beginning of the universe?
Yes… as far as I can tell it is reasonable to assume that the universe is quite old indeed.
3] Do you think that it took 7-8 billion years for the earth to form from the material distributed by the big bang?
It is not unreasonable to conclude that it could have taken quite a long time for the material of the Earth to assemble itself into a planet.
4] Do you think these other inhabited worlds like our earth were created after this big bang by condensation of matter into stars and planets?
Could be…
5] Do think life on these other unfallen worlds was created after condensation of the matter into habitable worlds fulfilling the Goldilocks criteria billions of year ago.
Could be…
6] Do you think heaven as the physical dwelling place of God is a particular location within this material universe
Yes. I think there is a physical place, a physical “throne” where God especially reveals Himself in physical terms for the benefit of physical intelligences that He has created.
7] If so would it have been inhabited by God and Angels only after the condensation of matter into habitable planets perhaps fulfulling different Goldilocks criteria
Probably.
8] Do you believe that angels are material beings and produced from the matter of the big bang just as man was made from the dust of the plant earth
Yes, angels are material beings and are dependent upon God, just like we are, for life. Both the Bible and Ellen White describe Satan and his angels as being physically destroyed by real fire and turned into ashes upon the ground.
9] Do you believe that the big bang hypothesis is the scientific explanation of the Gods creation of the universe
Yes. I believe that the Bible and Ellen White describe the universe as having a clear beginning with a clear direction to time.
10] Do you believe that God can create ex nihilo at any time after the initial creation of the universe.
Of course.
11] Do you believe God could create a planet at any time
12] Do you believe God could create a moon that could orbit that planet
13] Do you believe that God could create a sun and a solar system at any time
Yes, yes, yes.
14] Do you believe that God could create ex nihilo to increase the universe by 50% without at all affecting the universe that already exists.
Yes.
Tell me again why God is constrained to making only life on this planet and why the substance of our planet must be billions of years old. That view seems to come from being a slave of the scientific process of material evolution that is the big bang theory.
No one is saying that the planet “must be billions of years old”. The repeated argument is that the basic material of the planet could be very old, even billions of years old. The argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that requires otherwise. Could God have made our entire Earth and solar system ex nihilo with a snap of His fingers? Of course! Is this option the required option? from the reading of text? No. It isn’t. What is required from a straightforward reading of the text as a description of literal events by a human witness observing from a limited perspective is that life on Earth was entirely created during one literal week. That’s it.
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
