Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@pauluc: Paul, I want to assure you that I do not know everything. I am sure I am mistaken about certain things, and I have changed my mind on over the years, when I have seen good reason to do so. However, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water either, and I truly see what I consider very good evidence for an ID/creationist position. However, you are correct – our positions are often determined by our presuppositions. And yet I can honestly say that I have tried to develop my presuppositions on the basis of valid evidence. I honestly believe that Jesus Christ was and is who He said He was, and I believe that all reality in the universe finds its focus in Him.
I didn’t mean to show hubris in the statement I made about intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if I came across that way! Actually, that thought did not originate with me. It originated with Richard Dawkins! Richard Dawkins has real disdain for theistic evolutionists because he believes that evolution logically requires atheism, and therefore, theistic evolutionists are being dishonest.
I am not condemning you in what I am about to say, but with Clifford Goldstein, I must say that I have a hard time understanding a desire to embrace both Seventh-day Adventism and Darwinian evolution, because I consider them completely antithetical. Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have held that they were raised up by the Holy Spirit to combat Darwinism. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists believe they have a divine mandate to combat Darwinism. I guess I fail to understand the desire to be a part of a denomination that champions creationism so strongly when there are other denominations out there that are open to Darwinism. Please understand, I’m not telling you what to do with your church membership, and I am not judging you. If you truly love Jesus as your Savior and Lord, you are my brother in Christ, despite our differences! But trying to embrace both Darwinism and Adventism sort of strikes me like a Jew wanting to be a member of the Nazi Party. It doesn’t make sense to me. Furthermore, I left a liberal, Darwinian denomination to become an Adventist because I wanted to get away from it. And there are many other Adventists who feel the same way. We don’t want to be driven out of our church again!
You ask me, “how many fundamentalists pursuing graduate studies do you know who have remained fundamentalists in the face of data?” Well as I already told you, as an Adventist, I prefer to call myself evangelical rather than fundamentalist, because I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. But I have two masters degrees myself – one from an Adventist institution and another from a non-Adventist institution, and I have remained a conservative, Bible-believing Christian. Furthermore, I know many others who have done the same. There are many highly educated Seventh-day Adventist Christians who are convinced creationists, and that includes those who are educated in the sciences. For example, consider Dr. Ben Carson. He went through undergraduate studies at Yale and also through medical school, and he is a convinced creationist. The same holds true for Dr. Ariel Roth. And outside of Adventism, there is Dr. John Sanford, who for many years was a renowned biology professor at Cornell University. He is a convinced creationist. Paul, a lot of us have gone through graduate school, and our faith (which is based on evidence) has grown stronger, not weaker. That was certainly my experience. And there are more highly educated creationists out there than you seem to realize.
Table of Contents
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.
