Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Nic Samojluk.
@Kent: “And what did he say he would do if there was not harmony? He has made crystal clear that he would go with the science and his reason on numerous occasions. Would you do the same?”
Here is what Pitman allegedly stated:
“I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well” (http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-18717
This statement seems to indicate that Pitman’s faith in the biblical record and biblical chronology is so strong that he is willing to defy the odds of being wrong.
I agree with him on the belief that millions of years of pain, suffering and death is not the way God created human life. Such theory contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Darwinian evolution destroys the most fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: the belief that God created humans in a perfect state, there was a moral fall, which moved God to implement a Plan of Salvation.
If Darwin is right, then we have no need for a plan of salvation. We have done quite well thanks—not to Jesus Christ—but rather to natural selection and genetic mutation. We started as an insignificant cell, progressed through apes to Homo Sapiens. This is what Pitman rejects, and I do as well. Pitman sees no chance that empirical science will ever produce credible evidence matching this wild scenario.
I see his statement as confirming his unswerving reliance on the biblical story. I do agree with him with this view with the following minor observation:
In the unlikely event that science would be able some day to empirically demonstrate that the theory of evolution is right, then I would opt for Dr. Jack Provonsha’s golden parachute:
Instead of abandoning the Bible and Christianity, I would consider the possibility that the pre-Adamic animal life was the result of the activity of Satan following his expulsion from heaven. The suffering, pain and death of animals for millions of years would be the result—not of Adam’s sin—but the rebellion of Lucifer in heaven.
Now regarding the story of creation recorded in the book of Genesis, I believe that it represents a reliable record of the creation of the human race. My view is that the information found in Genesis 1 & 2 was not the result of a dictation Moses received from heaven.
The record does not make any reference to a vision. I conclude, therefore, that Moses most probably inherited said information from his ancestors going back all the way to Adam and Eve
Nic Samojluk Also Commented
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Pauluc: “Faith not science is for miracles and prophecy.”
Fine, then stay away from non-scientific things like the Big Bang, Singularity, and the emergence of everything from nothing!
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Allen Mind: “Specifically what evidence are you speaking of, and how would evolutionism and creationism differ in this regard? … If I may ask, how old are you? Are you a college student?”
The fine tuning of the universe is evidence of intelligent design. Yet, popular scientists tell me that a big explosion did this and that the Big Bang was preceded by a Singularity.
A singularity is not based on science, but rather science fiction. It cannot be verified, tested, nor duplicated. Such an explanation requires more faith than accepting what the Bible teaches: that an Almighty God created a universe fit for life.
Popular scientists try to convince me that a non-entity, a Singularity followed by a big explosion, without any need for intelligence of any kind, is responsible for everything that exists . Common sense and logic, which is required for true scientific reasoning, tells me that such an argument is based on a fallacy and philosophical speculation that is not worth a dime!
I am 80 years old and I hold a Ph. D. in religion. My doctoral dissertation was on abortion as it relates to the Adventist Church.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Kent: “Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one.”
Thank you for admitting that the evidence for Intelligent Design makes scientific sense.
If you push this reasoning all the way back, you will be faced with the following option:
Either said intelligent designer is the God of the Bible or else it was the result of Natural Selection. If you choose the latter, you have made NS into your God.
Recent Comments by Nic Samojluk
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Henry C Hills: Paul prohibits women from speaking in public (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) as well as stating that a man is to be a bishop and the husband of one wife. Is it rightly dividing the word to allow women to speak in Church against Paul’s counsel and to be dogmatic about adhering to his counsel regarding the bishop having to be a man? That lack of consistency is confusion, it is not of God.
Excellent quote!
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
S. Heisey: To create a doctrine where there is no direct instruction appears to be ADDING to the Holy Scriptures.
This reminds me of the following incident. John and James complained that someone who was not a disciple was performing miracles in Jesus’ name. Notice how Jesus responded to this departure from accepted policy:
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us. But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.” [Mark 9:38-39]
Some unions have slightly departed from the traditional manner in carrying the Gospel forward, and the church has reacted by producing a plethora of documents and wasted millions of dollars in order to forbid what is nowhere forbidden in Scripture. We would be wise, I believe, in stopping this nonsense.
Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Thanks, Sean, for your excellent response!
Describing emergence as a creative force is an attempt at crediting nature for what God does or has done in the past. Trying to negate the evidence of design in nature is the epitome of foolishness. This is the result of insisting in the use of the so called methodological naturalism, which precludes any credit to a Creator.
I can understand why those who prefer to ignore a Creator would resort to such extreme lack of common sense, but I can’t figure out why those who by their membership in a Christian organization would waste their time with such nonsense.
Why would a believer in a Creator invest so much time in pretending that nature and the laws of nature could be explained without the intervention of a Creator or a Designer?
Christian scientists already have the answer to the question of intelligent design. Why pretending that they don’t?
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
@Sean: “She writes, “I would not advise that anyone should make a practice of gathering up tithe money.” …”
—I am not gathering up tithe money. I am diverting them to ministries that teach the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, including the Good News that the unborn are entitled to life as you and me are, and that the fundamental doctrine of creation is the only credible explanation for origins.
I don’t want my tithes to be used for the support of the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for origins nor the honoring of men like Edward Allred, the most infamous abortionists in California.
@Sean: “We do not have such a prophet among us at the present time.”
—True! But we have what is described in Joel 1:28. Young and old men and women having dreams from heaven—which includes you and me.
@Sean: “Again, I submit to you that if one wishes to call himself part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that it would be wrong of one to withhold tithes and/or offerings from the organized church.”
—I have no doubt that, if Ellen were alive today, she would do what I am doing. [edit].
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Sean,
I am following Ellen White example on this. My reason is double: The teaching of evolution as fact at LSU, and the violation of the Sixth Commandment in our Adventist hospitals. Read the following:
“And where I see workers in this cause that have been true and loyal to the work, who are left to suffer, it is my duty to speak in their behalf. If this does not move the brethren to help them, then I must help them, even if I am obliged to use a portion of my tithe in doing so.’ …
“In many instances her requests have been responded to, and the needed help given. But in some cases the lack of funds and the absence of appreciation of the worthiness and the necessities have left the needy workers without help, and have left her to face the burden. Then she has said to me or to the bookkeeper, ‘Send help as soon as you can, and if necessary take it from my tithe.’ In many cases we found it possible to respond to her requests by gifts from her personal funds, and in some cases a portion of her tithe has been used. …
“Some cases have been kept before me for years, and I have supplied their needs from the tithe, as God has instructed me to do. And if any person shall say to me, Sister White, will you appropriate my tithe where you know it is most needed, I shall say Yes, I will; and I have done so.
“But for years there have now and then been persons who have lost confidence in the appropriation of the tithe, who have placed their tithe in my hands and said that if I did not take it they would themselves appropriate it to the families of the most needy ministers they could find. I have taken the money, given a receipt for it, and told them how it was appropriated.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Tithe-H&U.html#Ellen G. White and the Tithe
