Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@george:
George,
The resistance that Darwin encountered has been greatly overplayed. The fact is that much of the scientific community and also many theologians quickly embraced Darwin’s theory. What is more, it was embraced with very little evidence, and then people went out looking for evidence – and, of course, they found what they were looking for! Unfortunately, this endeavor turns the scientific method on its head.
Eugene Dubois is a classic example of this. His mentor, Ernst Haeckel, was an ardent Darwinist, and he insisted that there was once an ape-man, which he dubbed “Pithecanthropus.” So Dubois traveled to Java in search of this new genus, and after finding a portion of a cranium and a femur, he loudly proclaimed that Pithecanthropus had been discovered. Well today, it is recognized that Dubois’ discovery was not a separate genus; he had discovered some skeletal remains of what is usually called Homo erectus – much like a Neandertal, but with a somewhat smaller brain – though still within the size range of modern human brains.
Clearly, Dubois convinced himself that he had found what he was looking for. And this scenario has been repeated over and over again. Sadly, it is plainly contrary to the scientific method, and it is what Louis Agassiz was talking about when he stated that Darwin and his disciples were chasing a phantom. And even though Agassiz and Darwin have both been in their graves for well over a century, the chase continues.
Yes, you are correct that Darwin’s system has stood the test of time, but not like Pasteur. Darwin has stood the test of time like Ptolemy’s geocentrism stood the test of time for many centuries – by constant ad hoc changes and manipulation to prop it up. Isn’t 154 years a long time for all this? Why not break out of the box and subvert the dominant paradigm?
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.
