Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.
So if the story of the floating axehead is effectively proven impossible (and you KNOW that it is), then the question becomes, “which other stories might be fiction as well?” Let’s see: the vigin birth? The resurrection of Lazarus? The resurrection of Jesus? Again, these fail the test of science. Badly.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say something is beyond science and then say that science has falsified it. If something is actually testable in a falsifiable manner, that means that it is within the realm of scientific investigation.
As I’ve explained many many times now, to you in particular, there are many stories in the Bible that are not directly testable in a falsifiable manner, or even reproducible – to include the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus, or many of the other by-design miracles described in the Bible.
While the floating axehead story is not directly testable in a falsifiable manner (no historical account of a unique event is), it is at least reproducible in that metal can be made to appear to float by human-level intelligent design. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. But, many of the other miracles described in the Bible do indeed go well beyond modern human level intelligence and creative power.
Their credibility, therefore, is based on the credibility of the storyteller regarding those things that are actually subject to testing and potential falsification.
So where do we put our faith: in what science tells us is possible, or what God tells us happened?
Science doesn’t tell us that these things are impossible – given the existence of high enough levels of intelligence and creative power. All science tells us is that some of these miracles of intelligent design were obviously well beyond human-level intelligence and intelligent design of the day. That is why we know it required a God or God-like power to produce these miracles of design.
It is also for this reason that we also know that a God or God-like intelligence was responsible for many features of the universe and for living things. Science does not falsify the existence of a living cell just because modern humans cannot produce living things. Science also does not falsify the need to invoke higher levels of intelligence design to explain such things. Science actually points toward a God or God-like creative power to explain such things…
Out of curiousity, would a book with 99% empirically verifiable claims be rubbish if just one single claim–like North American indians were derived from Jews–was proven to be empirically wrong? After all, you’ve basically said that the Book of Mormon is all rubbish because this one claim alone fails your holy grail of truth–science.
There are many falsifiable claims in the Book of Mormon that have been falsified. However, yes, if someone who claims to be speaking for God, to have been shown a specific feature by God, can be shown to be wrong in that claim, even once, then it can be concluded that he/she does not speak for God. God is never wrong – by definition.
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. – Deuteronomy 18:22
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
The Bible makes claims about the future. It does not cause the future. It therefore is not “self-validating”. It’s just a book after all. It can be read, but it cannot itself act to perform any tasks. Therefore, it’s claims, if they are to be rationally understood to be “true” must obviously be supported by external evidence based on the historical sciences. In other words, its own claims regarding history are validated by external sources – based on independent evidence that comes from outside of itself. How is this concept not self-evident?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Professor Kent:
Let’s get a few things straight. I have not attacked the claims of scripture regarding the “the recent origin of all life on this planet, created within just six literal days, and the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood.” All I did was point out that the physical evidence supporting flood geology has serious problems.
That is an attack on Scripture. When you attempt to undermine the empirical claims of Scripture as being contrary to the weight of empirical evidence, you are in fact undermining the rational basis for Scriptural credibility.
Don’t you recognize that in claiming that the weight of scientific evidence clearly favors the neo-Darwinian perspective, a perspective which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical perspective, you do in fact undermine the credibility of the Biblical account? Your faith-only approach, regardless of the evidence, simply doesn’t do it for many people. For many many people such arguments as you are presenting do in fact undermine the rational basis for their faith despite your own ability to be able to have faith despite the weight evidence. Many people see this as irrational – and for good reason.
Faith, without a need for a basis in the weight of evidence, is irrational by definition. It is blind-faith in that it cannot be rationally distinguished from a form of wishful thinking.
And you were the one, not me, who has asserted that the flood did not create all of the layers of the geological column.
Of course. I fail to see why this might be a problem?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Eddie:
By implication Nebuchadnezzar won the battle with Egypt – just as Ezekiel prophesied. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the Babylonians would have recorded the event…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
