@george: George, it is Dr. Peter Woit who calls it …

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

@george: George, it is Dr. Peter Woit who calls it rubbish, not me. I honestly don’t know. Furthermore, God is utterly incomprehensible to us humans, except as He reveals Himself to us. And He stepped into space-time and was incarnated in Jesus Christ. Jesus was God’s supreme revelation to us, and because of that revelation, we can know His mind – IT IS LOVE!

Please understand – I have never claimed that nature can reveal the Christian gospel. The best evidence from nature can do is reveal an intelligent designer, which is close to Deism. But as I said, God has given us further revelation than this.

I am not worried about evidence for other universes. Perhaps they do exist, but I fail to understand why you seem so certain they exist on the basis of such meager evidence. I’m not calling that evidence rubbish, but so far, it is meager. But I am not worried about them. However, I will state again – invoking hypothetical other universes to explain away design is a cop out. That is not scientific.

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.