Comment on Emory University “Welcomes” Commencement Speaker Dr. Ben Carson by Sean Pitman.
It is a grave mistake to question evolutionists’ ethics.
Dr. Carson wasn’t questioning anyone’s morality/ethics – i.e., he wasn’t questioning the fact that even atheists can achieve a very high level of ethical and moral behavior (to the point of shaming most Christians on occasion). In fact, Dr. Carson specifically pointed out that many atheistic evolutionists are very ethical and morally upright.
What Dr. Carson questions is the rational basis for ethics/morality. What is the basis of morality if there is no God? no ultimate source of Authority who defines what is right and wrong? who defines absolute moral truth? Without such a reference point, morality is relative… relative to one’s own personal frame of reference and ideals.
What Dr. Carson is indirectly suggesting is that atheistic evolutionists unwittingly derive their morality, their ethical values, from the very God that they deny exists – that there is a universal morality that is known within each one (as if Someone wrote a common moral code on within every person). Otherwise, morality would be entirely relative. No one could really say that the actions of anyone else where truly “bad” or “evil” – only relatively so from their own personal perspective and not from some fixed external point of reference.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Carson wasn’t invited to speak at Emory University on the topic of origins. He was invited to give a motivational commencement address. It seems strange, then, that his position on origins became an issue.
Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that an institution that has taken a stand on neo-Darwinism wouldn’t want anyone coming along to undermine that position. Certainly such a university would not hire a Creationist to promote creationism in its biology classes. That’s perfectly reasonable from the mainstream position.
Never mind that neo-Darwinism is supposed to have the support of so much “overwhelming” empirical evidence that it hardly needs defending. It seems strange, therefore, that neo-Darwinists are so concerned over the possibility that their students might become confused by those who support the creationist position with empirical arguments of their own.
As far as teachers in our schools are concerned, they have been specifically asked, by the Adventist Church, to actively promote the Adventist position on origins – something that hasn’t been done at LSU for a very long time. Obviously, it is counterproductive to actually hire someone to attack and actively undermine that which you’ve hired him/her to do.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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…