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
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Dear Professor Kent,
Two thoughts – although it appears in the NIV, your pluperfect – “the water had gone down” – is really unwarranted, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Gen 8:3 in the NASB simply states: “At the end of the one hundred and fifty days, the water decreased.” There is no reason to make it any more complicated than that, and this statement accords perfectly with the idea that the flood crested on the 150th day. By the way, this is not “Bob Helm’s suggestion,” as many expositors hold this position.
Secondly, where in the world did you get the idea that every bird species was on the ark and that those ancient birds had identical diets to modern birds? Please don’t fall for the hoary falsehood that creationists believe in a fixity of species. Modern creationists agree with Darwin that new species emerge via natural selection. We do not equate baramins or “created kinds” with species, and we believe that micro-evolution occurs within the baramins.
An apology to PUC
This was a good move on the part of Educate Truth. Their posting of the video was wrong, but it also takes courage to admit to doing wrong, and I commend them for that.
