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
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.
