Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@Jared: Jared, I was not intending to be unkind in my language, and believe me, I truly love theistic evolutionists and even atheistic evolutionists. Furthermore, some people have faulted me for saying that theistic evolutionists can be saved. However, we are not saved by perfect knowledge or faultless theology. We are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. So I stand my ground on that. However, I really do find theistic evolution to be a farce, and I do believe that intelligent people can see through it. Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and he has expressed great disdain for theistic evolution. Why? Because of its incongruence. Think carefully about what theistic evolution postulates: 1) God had the power to design human beings in an instant, but instead He used millions of years of monstrous suffering and death to create us. 2) God was incarnated and came to earth as a Savior, to save us from the very process that He used to create us? If God used death to create us, why does He describe it as an enemy? Why would He want to save us from something that He used as His agent of creation? And what kind of God are we serving anyway: a loving God who helps the downtrodden and weak, or a God Who delights in carnage and the dominance of the strong over the weak? Jared, intelligent people can see the contradiction here, and that is why I said that theistic evolution is a farce. I really don’t know a better word to describe something that is so utterly contradictory. If people want to believe something that is contradictory and love Jesus at the same time, I surely must love them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, but their logic mystifies me!
I am sure that Christians (not Christianity) has sometimes harmed the practice of medicine, but I fail to see how this relates to the issue of methodological naturalism. I was asked how MN had hurt medicine, and I pointed out some clear instances when it had. Furthermore, I was raised in a medical family. My mother was an R.N. and my father an M.D., so I know something about the field, and I fail to see how MN has benefited medicine in any way. Medical research would actually be benefited by the Newtonian philosophy of science, rather than MN.
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.
