“The weight of evidence favoring the Biblical model can be …

Comment on Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps by george.

“The weight of evidence favoring the Biblical model can be found in numerous observations…”

Is that evidence supported by a majority of objective scientific opinion?

Ask Dr. Ben Clausen, an Adventist, a nuclear physicist, a member of the GRI about the age of the earth? Do you really think the weight of the scientific evidence is for a young earth and young life, or do you just ignore experts like Dr. Clausen and his expertise in nuclear physics you obviously don’t possess?

Ask youreslf if extant adult platyypusses in Australia have teeth? If not why do you refer to the finding of a platypus tooth in Argentina.

Do you really think the total scientific weight of the evidence supports kinds ( species) of land animals coming off the Ark four to five thousand years ago, spresding out over the world and differentiating in differnt environments to the degree of modern extant biodiversity!!!!! Really Dr. Pitman! In light of the previous Babylonian Epic of Gilamesh story?

Pard, nobody faults you for belief, its when you claim that the weight of the scientific evidence supports your very specific YLC position that incerdulity results.

Absolutely nothing wrong with questioning and examining evolution. It could be worng but there is no other scientific theory yet to cahllenge it. And fiat creation is certainly not a scientific theory. It is religious belief pure and simple. And Darwinian evolution does not negate the concept of God, just the notion ofthe biblical God you believe in.

The motivation for you to bend your subjective views of science to justify a good biblical God are apparent and not wrong from a moral stance. I know the notion of Darwinian evolution would be psychologically devastating for you. You must be right in your own mind or else your world will crumble. However for us other lesser mortals who know that we have to evaluate the real weight of the scientific evidence, we know we do not possess all the answers, but that the majority to scientific opinion represents that the best evidence to date. So if the majority of scientific opinion in time refutes Darwinian evolution and supports ID, far enough.

george Also Commented

Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
Dr. Pitman

Do you appeal to authority when you accept the Bible as the word of God? Do you appeal to authority of EGW when you accept her as a prophet of God? Or do you place yourself above those sources when determining what is the truth?

So come on now,,, you accept the absolute authority of a God that cannot be proven by Science. Yet you chastise us for relying on experts in their fields whose claims can be tested. And you place yourself above them. That’s the point that so many, including Adventist humble scientists try make to you, but you just keep digging a bigger hubristic hole. The great virtue of Pauluc, Dr, Ben Clausen, is that they can acknowledge the objective weight of the evidence, notwithstanding their faith. And I don’t begrudge their faith one iota, because methodological naturalism is not meant to detect God, and the prospect of God always
a possibility.

Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
“What if some rock hound happened to do a lot of research into some area of pathology”


Would you let that rock hand work at your clinic, or would you require him to have proper credentials? Would let him teach pathology at Loma Linda?

Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
“Do you need “expert opinion” before you’d understand the designed nature of a highly symmetrical polished granite cube?”


Those are designed by Man, right? You don’t have evidence of any such cubes that aren’t man made, right? And like you said Science deals with what we know, right? So what do your hypothetical, non observed, extra terrestrial cubes have to do with the origins of life on earth or the origins of the universe? Nothing at all.

Recent Comments by george

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.

I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.


The Creator of Time
To Sean

“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”

And back to you

The Creator of Time
To Sean

“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”

How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”

So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?

You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?

Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?

You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.

You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.


The Creator of Time
Hi Sean

Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.

Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.

You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.

You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.

Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.