Dear Professor Kent, I have no doubt that Darwinists will attempt …

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Bob Helm.

Dear Professor Kent,

I have no doubt that Darwinists will attempt to incorporate the new information regarding pseudogenes into their paradigm, although the hardliners in the Darwinian camp are currently busy trying to debunk or explain away the fine work of the ENCODE project. Louis Agassiz was right. Because evolution has a strange hold on the human mind, Darwinists fail to see that they have been chasing a phantom for 150 years.

I am glad that you personally affirm Biblical creation, but your wholesale rejection of Christian apologetics disappoints me. Seventh-day Adventism and New Testament Christianity have always rejected the concept of “blind faith.” Consider how the authors of the Gospels repeatedly appeal to prophecy as evidence for Jesus’ Messianic claims. And Paul told King Agrippa that the Christ Event did not occur in a corner. Your concept of “blind faith” and your desire to confine theology and natural science to totally separate, airtight compartments stem, not from the New Testament or from Adventism, but from the 18th century Enlightenment.

Bob Helm Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?

I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I never called anyone angry. I affirm you as my brother in Christ, even if we don’t always agree! Certainly, the church should affirm sola scriptura. But why do we have confidence in the principle of sola scriptura? Again – here is where apologetics and the weight of evidence play an
essential role.@Professor Kent:

Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, I apologise for not responding sooner. I was very busy and forgot. I have now posted my response.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.