Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.
All I’ve said is that certain GRI scientists, like Ben Clausen, do in fact believe and publicly promote the idea that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against the SDA position on origins and that the only thing left to SDAs as a basis for continued belief in a literal 6-day creation week and worldwide Noachian flood is “faith†in the Bible. I don’t think that is an overstatement of Clausen’s position – do you?
Sean Pitman
I think this is a pretty fair summary, Sean. Sadly, there is nothing in this statement that indicts Clausen or any other GRI scientists. SDAs should feel free and safe to excercise their faith without investigating and proclaiming belief in every tiny piece of evidence supporting YEC (which you admit is very meager) and denouncing the large bulk of evidence against YEC.
All should feel free and safe to believe and say whatever they want on their own dime. However, no one should feel free to take money from the SDA Church while doing contrary to what they were hired to do…
The GRI was not set up to proclaim that, “The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against us.” and that, “All we have left is ‘faith’ that this overwhelming scientific evidence is somehow mistaken; that the Earth really is flat after all…”
By the way, where did I “admit” that the evidence supporting young life on this planet is “meager”? As you very well know, I think that the significant weight of evidence is very clearly in favor of the SDA position on origins. So, why misrepresent my views like this?
But the issue here is your petty demand that all Church-employed scientists interpret the evidence exactly as YOU do–as overwhelming evidence for a 6-day 6000-year ago Creation.
This isn’t about my interpretation. It’s about the Church’s interpretation and purpose for creating organizations like the GRI. And, the overwhelming evidence isn’t specifically for a six-day creation week, but against the notion that life has existed and evolved on this planet over vast eons of time. The available evidence is clearly in favor of a recent arrival of life on this planet and very limited evolutionary potential. This weight of evidence is consistent with the Genesis account as interpreted by the SDA Church. The evidence is not inconsistent with this interpretation despite the claims of mainstream scientists to the contrary…
Of course, if one does not recognize the validity of such a position, one is free to go and find employment elsewhere. The SDA Church did not set up the GRI to support popular mainstream opinions on this topic and to appeal to “faith” against what many claim is “overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary”.
For anyone who disagrees with YOUR position, they must be summarily fired. This is your personal vendetta against those who disagree with you. Your views are extreme and you are getting out of control.
Again, we are talking about the clearly stated views of the SDA Church as an organization – not my views. Just because my views happen to be in line with that of the SDA Church body, does not mean that this discussion is about my views – it isn’t.
Also, I have nothing personal against Ben Clausen. I think he is a very nice, honest, and sincere man who is devoted to the truth as he sees it. My only problem is that he is not effectively representing the Church’s intended purpose for the GRI.
I will bet you big bucks that 98% of Seventh-day Adventists believe it is perfectly acceptable to believe in creation because of faith. I don’t understand your intolerance (bordering on hatred) toward those who believe faith is vital one’s personal experience with Jesus Christ. You insist repeatedly that the faith of others is “blind.†Your derision of the ordinary person’s faith is rude and uncharitable.
I don’t know why you think I’m apposed to faith. I’m not. I just have a different definition of faith than you do. I’m very much in favor of intelligent faith since I don’t think it is possible to believe anything about the world that exists outside of the mind without at least some kind of leap of faith. Even scientists must exercise various degrees of faith in order to believe in and act on their theories.
What I am apposed to is the idea that faith can have value without the backing of the weight of empirical evidence. This is what I call “blind faith”. Such faith that can resist the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence and is not open to testing or even the potential of falsification, is worthless in my personal opinion when it comes to establishing a solid basis of hope in the future or in reliably distinguishing one perspective or claim for truth as superior to another.
Now, I have nothing personal against those who do appeal to such notions of faith. Just because I personally don’t appreciate the value of this particular kind of “faith” doesn’t mean that I “hate” those who do. I have a lot of friends who do appeal to this very kind of faith – especially LDS friends who say that their faith is based, not on empirical evidence that can be tested and potentially falsified, but on a warm feeling that they feel deep inside whenever they hear the truth.
While I think this sort of faith is misguided, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like my LDS friends – I do like them very much. I just wouldn’t hire them to represent the SDA Church is all – nothing personal. I also don’t think that they are lost because they don’t believe like I do in regard to the nature of useful faith or any other doctrinal issue. Such knowledge is important when it comes to establishing a solid hope in the future, but it does not form the basis for salvation.
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?
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.
