@Pauluc: I am sorry for taking so long to respond. …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.

@Pauluc: I am sorry for taking so long to respond. I had forgotten that I posted these comments last month. Pauluc, here is my response to your numbered questions:

1) I believe that Christianity can certainly be supported by logic and empirical evidence. However, another factor enters in here – human depravity – which makes people hate God and exercise blind prejudice against Him. This is why the Bible insists that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As He works faith in us, the Spirit breaks down the prejudice of the sinful heart, but He uses logic and empirical evidence to accomplish this end. So apologetics does play a part in the Spirit’s converting work.

2) As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I believe that the Bible is infallible, but not inerrant. There is a distinction between these two terms. “Inerrant” means without the slightest error of any kind. “Infallibile” means that the Bible won’t fail you. It is a sure guide in all matters that pertain to salvation. Unlike fundamentalists, Seventh-day Adventists usually affirm the infallibility of scripture, but not strict inerrancy. Look at the first fundamental belief. It mentions infallibility, but not inerrancy.

3) I believe that ID can be devoid of religion. For example, one leader in the ID movement is Michael Denton, who wrote the book, “Evolution: A theory In Crisis.” Dr. Denton is an agnostic. However, I believe that ID fits very nicely with Christian faith.

4) I will simply answer “yes” to this question.

5) I think that when faced with natural phenomena, we should certainly seek natural causes first. However, I am not totally comfortable with the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural.” For me, a miracle is simply an unexplained event that strengthens my faith in God. It seems to me that God often performs miracles by working through nature in unusual ways. For example, the Genesis Flood made have been a very unusual natural event that God used for His purposes. The destruction of Sodom may have been a tectonic eruption that rained burning sulfur and other compounds down on the city. I believe Ellen White suggests as much. Admitting these things does not exclude God; it simply means that God was using nature to His end. However, I also believe that God designed and created natural laws, so He can bypass them if He wishes. But even in such cases, God does not work magic, nor is He capricious. His work is always logical, even if we are too lacking in intelligence to understand it. For these reasons, I am not sure that a strict definition of methodological naturalism is viable. With regard to peer reviewed literature, I think it is quite valuable, but I also think it sometimes excludes genuine scientific data that conflict with reigning scientific paradigms, as they were defined by Thomas Kuhn in his book, “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.” Furthermore, as scientific research is increasingly published on the internet, traditional peer reviewed journals will probably become obsolete. So no, I do not believe that peer reviewed literature, as it currently exists, constitutes the canon of scientific knowledge, but I do respect for the peer reviewed literature.

6) That Christ was Yahweh in human flesh must be accepted on faith. But even with regard to this point, there is strong evidence that Christ was an extraordinary individual, including evidence that He rose bodily from the dead. So while a confession of Christ’s Deity does require a leap of faith, it is not a blind leap of faith because it rests on certain logical inferences.

Bob Helm Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I will be out of town for a while. I may or may not have computer service. If not, I’ll pick up on this discussion when I return.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
George, why do liberal critics of the Bible almost always assume that the Hebrews borrowed the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians? Why couldn’t the copying have been from the Hebrew original, as Sean has suggested above. Or maybe there was an earlier account (perhaps oral) from which the Babylonians and Moses both borrowed. I fail to understand the logic of assuming that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonians because there is no evidence for it. To me, it comes across as an unwarranted and ad hoc attempt to undermine the authority of scripture.

Furthermore, the Babylonian stories are not the only ones that resemble Genesis. Even North American and Polynesian cultures have their own native flood accounts that are remarkably similar to the one in Genesis. There is also a Chinese symbol for a ship that depicts a boat with 8 mouths in it (Remember – Noah’s family had 8 members on the ark). How do you explain all this? Why assume that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians when the flood tradition is worldwide? And how did such a story become known all over the globe. . . unless it represents a collective memory of a real and extremely ancient event?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@george: “Why should the word of God have any redactions whatsoever?”

George, if someone believes that God dictated the words of scripture and that the actual words are inspired, that is a legitimate question. Muslims make such clams about the Koran, which is why they frown on even translating it. But please bear in mind that I am not a fundamentalist (at least in the sense that the term is commonly used today). I believe that the ideas in scripture are inspired, but not the words. As time passes, names of locations, etc. change, and sometimes editing is needed for effective communication. You seem to attribute a higher view of scripture to me than I actually hold. Yes, I have a conservative view of scripture, but not a fundamentalist one.

You also asked about embellishing different accounts to make them agree. But before I can comment on that, I first need to pose the same question I have asked you twice before. Where do you have any clear evidence of different accounts coming from different hands?

I realize that you directed your questions to Dr. Pitman, but they really concerned material that I had posted to you, so I decided to reply. Dr. Pitman can also have a stab at it.


Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.


Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.