@pauluc: Thank you for your kindly worded and thoughtful post.

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

@pauluc: Thank you for your kindly worded and thoughtful post. Thanks also for reading what I have written and trying to understand it. I’m not one talk a lot about my education, but I have two master’s degrees and have completed most of the class work for the Ph.D. I never finished it because my wife was very much wanting to settle down and start raising a family. But honestly, gaining knowledge counts a lot more with me than having letters behind my name.

Regarding the controversy at La Sierra University, I believe that its sciences classes should ground students in an understanding of Neo-Darwinian evolution and the arguments for it. However, I believe that the arguments for ID/creationism should also be presented, and that the students should be taught how data can fit into this paradigm. Traditionally, this is how natural science, especially biology, has been treated in Adventist institutions of higher learning. It is a serious concern to me that certain professors at LSU have refused to present both sides of this issue and have strictly advocated evolution. I hope changing the department head for biology is a first step toward a more balanced position on origins. I understand that the new department head is a creationist.

With regard to neo-orthodoxy, I like its grace-centered approach, at least as it was formulated by Barth. However, I believe that neo-orthodoxy has a deficient view of scripture. In accepting the modernistic view of scripture, it pulls the rug out from under biblical inspiration and evidence for Christianity, especially as it is revealed in the prophecies. Consequently, neo-orthodoxy posits a blind leap of faith. I’m glad Barth and his disciples were willing to make this leap of faith, but once again, neo-orthodoxy brings us back to the problem of blind faith and fideism, which is not the New Testament position. With that said, I am willing to make a very cautious use of the techniques of higher criticism, while rejecting its naturalistic presuppositions. For example, discussion of the synoptic problem certainly involves source criticism. Regarding the Pentateuch, I believe the bulk of it was written by Moses, but I also believe that it was subsequently redacted. I hope you notice what I have just written, because my cautious use of higher criticism is another indicator that I am not a fundamentalist. In summary, my view of scripture is more conservative than neo-orthodoxy, but not as conservative as fundamentalism.

You asked me about my take on Sean’s statement that he would completely leave Christianity if he became convinced that life had been on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Were I to come to that conclusion, I’m not sure what direction I would take because I find Bible prophecy, especially messianic prophecy, to be an extremely powerful argument in favor of Christianity. About 23 years ago, I embarked on a serious study of scientific evidence, particularly geological evidence,to try to determine where I stood on issues related to origins. This included taking a number of college geology courses, quite a bit of independent reading, and actually getting out in nature and looking at the evidence, as Louis Agassiz suggested when he said, “Study nature, not books.” My study of field evidence has taken me to the Grand Canyon, to Petrified Forest National Park, to the Grand Coulee, to the Two Creeks Formation on the shore of Lake Michigan, and to a number of other North American geological sites. Early on, I actually gave some consideration to affirming progressive creationism if I felt the data pointed strongly to long ages for life on earth. However, as I read progressive creationist authors, I concluded that their paradigm was not carefully thought through. For example, progressive creationism has no real explanation for the the order in the fossil record from invertebrates up to mammals and birds. Also, I was not very attracted to a strict young earth form of creationism (YEC) because there does seem to be considerable evidence for an ancient universe and solar system. Eventually, I settled on young life creationism (YLC) because it does a good job of explaining the scientific data and also because it dovetails nicely with careful exegesis of Genesis 1 and other pertinent scriptures. Unlike the YEC position, YLC does not require a complete rewrite of science. It merely questions Lyellian uniformitarianism and Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution, and I honestly see good scientific reasons to question those theories. YLC also affirms some value in the radiometric dating of the rocks. In summary, I find it an attractive position that provides a good explanation of data and that can provide many questions for further research.

Table of Contents

1 Bob Helm Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Bob Helm
2 Related

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.