@Professor Kent: “The details” that all …

Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.

@Professor Kent:

“The details” that all life appeared in 6 days and God rested on the Seventh — nd the “details” that the earth is only about 6000 years old — and not 7000 or 8000 come from the Bible. – Bob Ryan

Agreed. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support this.

The vast majority of mainstream scientists think that there is overwhelming evidence against this statement. They think it is impossible that life on this planet could have only existed for only a few thousand years or that the geologic and fossil records could have been produced by a very rapid series of shortly-spaced watery catastrophes within recent history.

Given this understanding of mainstream science, that the geologic and fossil records actually represent hundreds of millions of years of time with life evolving over this time, the Genesis account is overwhelmingly falsified in the minds of many thinking people.

In this light your statement that, “There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support this…” misses the entire boat. If there were evidence against the mainstream position that the Genesis account is untenable, that would remove the falsification problem. If the available evidence actually favored the recent formation of all life on this planet, with a worldwide watery catastrophe in recent history forming much of the geologic column and fossil records, that evidence would not falsify the Genesis account of origins. It would, rather, be right in line with this account.

Proving a literal 6-day creation week is not necessary in order to remove the arguments that claim to falsify this account and thereby undermine its scientific credibility.

The Genesis account of origins is, after all, a theoretically falsifiable statement. This means that it can be treated as a valid scientific hypothesis which is in fact subject to potential falsification. If it is falsified, as many think that it has clearly been, it looses its scientific credibility and predictive power. In line with this loss, everything in the Bible associated with this account, to include those associated metaphysical statements, looses credibility as well.

Where did the GRI appeal to “blind faith?” They appealed to the sensible faith that essentially all Christians abide in, not a “blind” faith.

The GRI was not set up by the SDA Church with the purpose of appealing to “faith” alone despite “the weight of scientific evidence to the contrary.” The intended purpose of GRI is not to go around telling everyone that, “There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence to support the SDA position on origins – the best we have is ‘faith’ in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.” (i.e., a form of blind faith by most people’s definition of the term – blind to the obvious meaning and significance of the scientific data).

Quite the opposite. The intended purpose of the GRI was to increase people’s faith in the Inspiration of the Bible through the presentation of supporting scientific evidence in the field of geology in particular. Those at the GRI who cannot support this intended purpose of the SDA Church for the GRI should be asked to resign…

This isn’t personal. Not everyone would be qualified to work at the GRI – certainly not the vast majority of mainstream geologists. The only ones who would be qualified to work at the GRI would be SDA geologists who actually see ways to reasonably interpret the available data in line with the SDA position on origins. If you cannot honestly do that, the GRI is simply not the right place for you.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:

And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise? – Sean Pitman

I’ve already done so. – Prof. Kent

What you’ve done is given some empirical reasons for your own faith, such as your own appeal to the evidence of fulfilled prophecy (a use of abductive reasoning by the way).

What you haven’t done is explain your argument that such appeals to empirical evidence are really not needed for faith to be valid. You’ve argued that even if all scientific and other forms of evidence where completely against your faith, that you would still believe as you do regardless of any and all opposing evidence.

You’ve not explained how, if “all” evidence is against you, you can make a meaningful leap of faith and pick one among many competing options as true using “faith” alone? – since, according to you, “faith trumps science and evidence.”

How is that done in a meaningful way? How is this type of faith reasonable? – more reasonable than believing or having faith in the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, or even garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Again, this is a serious question which I do not see that you’ve serious discussed much less answered…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:

I’m all for abductive reasoning. I just don’t think it’s always science. But I’ll admit this: it can be fun to read and think and write about…

I suppose then that the mainstream evolutionary theory really isn’t “scientific” when it comes to its historical statements? – and neither is any other hypothesis about the nature of history? – such as anthropology or forensics? After all, you can’t make conclusions about the true nature of the past origin of anything without abductive reasoning – right?

Remember now, not all abductive reasoning is valid – just as not all inductive or deductive reasoning is valid. This does not, however, make all such reasoning non-scientific. You simply can’t do science without such reasoning…

Here is an interesting summary of the concept of abductive reasoning as it applies to various uses in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Why Share Your Faith? – If you don’t have something better to offer?

@Professor Kent:

Is it not arrogant of you to simply assert that your faith in the Bible is superior to all other faiths? – even in a situation where all other evidence, besides your faith, is admittedly against you? – Sean Pitman

Here is my sincere answer. I have not claimed that my faith in the Bible is superior to the faith of anyone else. Others may have done so; I think you basically have. – Prof. Kent

You believe, via faith, that the Bible is superior to other claimed sources of authority. How can you make this determination without believing that your position is in fact the better decision? – compared to that of someone else who has chosen to believe in the superiority of the Book of Mormon?

I know you don’t actually like to say so, and I know it may not sound politically correct to you, but if you didn’t actually believe that you had something better to offer to someone else, why would you even want to share your “faith”? – if you didn’t really think you had something better than they already had?

I personally believe the Bible has more credibility than the Book of Mormon, which I have browsed extensively.

Indeed. So, how is this not a statement that your faith or belief in the Bible is somehow better than faith or belief in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon? Do you or do you not think that you have something important to share with your LDS friends which would be of some benefit to them beyond what they already have? – if they were to accept what you have to offer?

It isn’t arrogant to think that you have something worthwhile to share that someone else doesn’t have. What would be arrogant is if you kept something good to yourself and were unwilling to share it.

I think history supports the Bible much better than the Book of Mormon, and I have read extensively from Joseph Smith’s Doctrines and Covenants and I see lots of problems there. Most people do not consider history to be “science,” but if you want to make it that, go right ahead. Still, I don’t compare my faith to those who believe in the Book of Mormon.

Most scientists do in fact consider history to be based on a form of “science”. After all, the Theory of Evolution is a theory of history… as is anthropology and forensic science. Such historical sciences are based on various forms of scientific reasoning, such as abductive reasoning.

Using such reasoning, you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is in fact more credible than the Book of Mormon. In other words, you really do think that your LDS friends are mistaken in their beliefs or faith in the greater credibility of the Book of Mormon. You can say that you don’t compare your beliefs or faith with theirs, but I don’t see how you can really believe this when you say, in the same breath, that you consider the Book of Mormon to be clearly untrustworthy. Tell that to your LDS friends and see if they don’t understand such statements as a claimed superiority of your beliefs vs. theirs…

What is also interesting here is that you claim that even if you did not have the favorable historical evidence that “faith would still trump all contrary evidence” – historical or otherwise. In otherwords, it sounds like you are arguing for faith even if there were no evidence to support that faith at all (i.e., blind faith). If faith does in fact trump both science and other forms of evidence as you say, how does one determine the reasonableness of one’s own faith if faith trumps everything else?

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.