Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by george.
“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. ”
Exactly, historically which accounts came first? Did Babylonian writing predate the Bible? Was the Epic of Gilamesh recorded before the Noachian flood. Did Moses redact from the Epic of Gilamesh? Do later cultures borrow and adapt stories from earlier ones? Of course they do.
So when one sees these sort of parallells, redactions, borrowings between cultures what should one conclude? That one and only one account is infallibly correct? That takes faith my friends rather than reason that the word(s) of god(s) and prophet(s) are relative to the cultures and times in which they are recorded.
And each time someone with charisma or power comes along and forms new beliefs and gains followers, a new schism is formed in the religious order. YLC vs YEC for example. ID is another new religious movement bacause it presumes a creator by default. This is why Science must be divorced from any form of religion and atheism to remain an objective tool of human inquiry.
Also it is really important to respect all faiths but see them all as subjective belief systems. It is arrogance and hubris that are the problems rather than faith itself. Might I be wrong in my world view? Of course!!!!! And it is precisely this self understanding that keeps me examining all forms of faith and empirical reasoning.
I find it very interesting to compare Bill’s and Sean’s basis of faith for example. Both of them are highly intelligent, literate and wise – yet quite different in approach. But both are steeped in Adventism that is certain. And that is not a bad thing just an observation of two strong minded individuals who are approaching built in belief from different angles. Compare that to Ervin Taylor and Elaine Nelson, both highly intelligent, who see faith from an anthropological viewpoint. Compare that to Ted Wilson who uses political means to try to maintain arch conservatism.
In the evolution of a religion these disparate positions will arise and usually result in a schism and new iterations of the sect. This is predictable and inevitable because power will find a way to lead or control. Interesting stuff.
Table of Contents
george Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman
How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?
Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”
Who said I did?
History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.
However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob
Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.
Recent Comments by george
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Strange that you agree that the RMNS mechanism works at the micro evolution level. In other words you agree that mindless natural selection works in nature. But then you appeal to math and probabilities to indicate it won’t work at the macro level. Well then you need to provide your actually mathematical formulae to demonstrate or counter the extant papers. I don’t turn to mathematicians to give me expert advice on pathology pard, but I would certainly seek your advice on that topic 🙂
The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
“I fail to see how randomness or chaos theories (both concepts are based on information that is too limited to precisely predict the future, which makes the future significantly less and less knowable over time) can explain the origin of qualitatively novel biological systems beyond very low levels of functional complexity – systems that require a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid parts.”
But Pard you do concede that randomness in nature can explain the appearance of biological change. In fact you would argue that all the biodiversity that occurred after the Ark landed was due to such change, but such change is not functionally complex! That’s a lot of non novel critters that mutated from a boat ride in about 4000 years.
Compare that to the odds of a bacterial flagellum evolving slowly over millions or billions of years from simpler component parts such as the TTSS.
Now how about the rest of you rational, fine folks weighing in a bit and tell us which one seems more like the fairy tale?
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
By the way pard, thanks for your kind Christian wish for my welfare. I hope for your sake you are right as my view of reality is certainly less rosy. I’m afraid Science and Religion are two different disciplines which don’t mix. I don’t begrudge anyone a belief in God, power to them. However I think the Hebrew God depicted in the Bible is a human creation and not supported by evidence. Time and time again, Man through the arduous application of scientific principles has been able to root out the cause and effect nature of phenomena in our universe. I believe that trend will continue notwithstanding the wide variety of religious beliefs as to ours and the universe’s origins. Dr. Pitman’s approach, including the use of ID to wedge open the door connecting the rooms of Science and Theology is quite impressive and rhetorically persuasive, especially with the added subtle sweetener of eternal salvation 🙂 It’s a lovely sentiment. But apart from man made artifacts he has not demonstrated what artifacts or how organic life was intelligently designed. Nor has he demonstrated why or how God like design would be comparable to human design. Like mixing apples and oranges.
The great value of this forum is that it is not merely limited to the narrow examination of what is taught at LSU. That is the tip of the larger ontological iceberg. But Dr. Pitman has an agenda, to marry Science to biblical creation and that needs to be critically examined. Most interesting.
Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]
Howdy all
Well that is good ole debate you got going here.
I was just wonderin’ , if God created or designed all the original critters to be perfect why would He ever design adaptability through mutation into DNA? Was He hedgin’ his bet? Doesn’t make sense to this ole cowpoke.
Seems to me that since we see mutation and critters adaptin’ to their environment now, that would have been the case from the start, unless someone can prove that to the contrary. Now Dr Pitman seems to be a right smart feller, perhaps he could present us with any facts or scientific theory that supports that contrary notion.
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
“The problem is with the odds of realizing the beneficial mutation to begin with – anywhere within the population. These odds get exponentially less and less likely with each step up the ladder of functional complexity”
So if the problem is with the “odds” it is a math problem isn’t it?
