Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.
What we are interested in doing is affirming the “first cause”. This is the issue between creation vs. evolution. Evolution denies how a Christian views the “first cause” and they also deny miracles. And our only sustainable evidence for our view of the “first cause ” is the bible. Just because you don’t like to admit that prophecy is the ultimate evidence to sustain the bible, does not mean it is not so.
I’m a big fan of biblical prophecy. I think its very good evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible – as I’ve said many times before. What I don’t agree with is your claim that biblical prophecy is “self-validating”. It isn’t. Prophecy is validated by the historical sciences – an external form of validation based on empirical evidence that exists outside of the Bible itself. Real historical evidence outside of the Bible confirms the truth of biblical prophecies and supports the rational conclusion that they are therefore of Divine origin.
Prophecy has always been the evidence that all bible believing Christians use to “hang our hat on” to affirm the absolute validity of the bible. As you have stated “faith is not blind faith”. Of course not. But bible faith is based primarily on bible prophecy.
Biblical prophecy is indeed important, but the evidence supporting the Bible’s credibility is not at all limited to its prophecies alone. You sell the Bible significantly short when you suggest that only the prophecies can be shown to be credible and of Divine origin – that the rest must be accepted based on blind faith alone. That’s simply not true.
“He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast.” There is no “science” that can verify this biblical affirmation. Science is “out the window” on this aspect of bible truth.
What can be supported by the empirical evidence is that a very powerful creative mind was in fact responsible for the fine-tuned features of our universe and for life on this planet. You don’t need to know the precise methodologies used before you can know, with a very high degree of confidence, that however it was done, it was done via intelligent design.
You seem to ignore and circumvent the real issue by avoiding this reality. Believers don’t despise science. We use it continually to accomplish many goals. But we never use it as a tool to affirm who God is, or how He can create. As long as you ignore this reality, you miss the basic point of the creation vs. evolution debate and discussion.
I’ve never said that science can determine how God did it. What I’ve said is that science, or empirical evidence, can be used to support the concept that God did in fact do it. The Bible itself sites the empirical world as evidence that God is the creator. Have you not read, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” – Psalms 19:1-3
Was David mistaken here to point to the heavens as evident work of God’s creative power? I think not…
The question is not whether any thing is here or how it functions and its complexity. The question is “How did it get here and who or what was responsible?” Even if people will admit the possibility of ID, they still have not accepted the biblical account and may never do so. We would hope they would consider the biblical explanation, but even then, they must conclude there is no science that can affirm or confirm the “first cause.”
You contradict the authors of the Bible who claim that nature herself testifies to her Divine authorship. Knowledge of the Bible is not required before one can know that amazing intelligence and creative power was in fact behind the fine-tuned features of our universe and behind the origin of life on this planet.
Mrs. White also points out:
“The voice of nature testifies of God, but nature is not God. As his created work, it simply bears a testimony to God’s power.”
“Nature speaks to their senses, declaring that there is a living God, the Creator, the Supreme Ruler of all. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge’ (Psalm 19:1, 2). The beauty that clothes the earth is a token of God’s love. We may behold it in the everlasting hills, in the lofty trees, in the opening buds and the delicate flowers. All speak to us of God. The Sabbath, ever pointing to Him who made them all, bids men and women open the great book of nature and trace therein the wisdom, the power, and the love of the Creator.”
— Patriarchs and Prophets, 47, 48. and R&H, Nov. 8, 1898
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
As I’ve pointed out before, there are a lot of books claiming to be “The Word of God”. How do you know that the Bible’s claim, among so many competing options, is true? – based on a feeling? That’s how you know? Did an angel show up and tell you that the Bible’s claims are true? – or how to interpret it? Were you born with this knowledge? or did you have to learn it? If you had to learn that the Bible’s claims are true, upon what did you base your learning? – and how did this basis of your learning help you distinguish the true from the false?
At first approximation, the Bible is just a book making a bunch of claims. How can you tell the difference between the origin of the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? In order to determine that God had anything to do with its creation, you have to read it and make judgments about it. If you base your judgments on some kind of deep feeling or gestalt sensation of truth, I say that this isn’t a reliable basis for a leap of faith. However, if you base your acceptance of the claims of the Bible on rational arguments that make sense given what you already think you know to be true, then you have yourself a much more useful and helpful basis for faith… as the Bible itself recommends.
God does not expect us to believe or have faith without sufficient evidence to establish a rational and logical faith in the claims of the Bible. Have you not read where the Bible challenges the honest seeker for truth to “test” even the claims of God? (Judges 6:39; Malachi 3:10; John 14:11; etc…). We are not called to blindly accept anything as true, not even the Bible. The claims of the Bible must be tested to see if they truly are what they claim to be – i.e., the Words of God.
Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
I haven’t changed my mind. I still see atheism as the most logical alternative to Christianity and any other view of God if such views of God are only based on a wishful-thinking type of fideistic faith. Why should one be a Christian or believe that the Bible is anything more than a good moral fable? – or believe that God exists any more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? For me, it’s because I see real empirical evidence for God’s existence as well as His Signature within the pages of the Bible and within the universe and the world in which I find myself.
You see, we are called to have an “intelligent trust” in God’s Word – a trust that is based on something more than a deep feeling or internal gestalt. Otherwise, you’re really in the same boat as my LDS friends with their “burning in the bosom” argument for faith in what is or isn’t true.
Now, it is possible to doubt the Divine origin of the Bible while still recognizing the Divine origin of the universe – based on the weight of empirical evidence. This is where quite a number of modern physicists are in their view of God. And, it is a reasonable position given the honest conviction that life and its diversity can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection over long periods of time to produce what we have today on this planet.
So, there are different “levels” of recognition when it comes to seeing God’s hand behind various phenomena. And, once His Signature is recognized at a different level, the implications and responsibilities change for us. It’s a “first step” toward God to recognize a Divine Signature behind the origin of the universe and the natural laws that govern it. However, once one recognizes the Divine Hand behind the origin of the Bible and the credibility of the Bible’s empirical claims, one is called to experience different responsibilities and privileges in a higher level walk with God – “in Spirit and in truth”.
Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
Again, there are somethings that, if seen in vision, cannot be easily misinterpreted. If you see that “there was light” then “there was darkness” and that this pattern of was used to mark off a series of seven days, that’s pretty hard to get wrong or misinterpret. Mrs. White also confirms these biblical claims by arguing that God specifically showed her that the creation week was a literal week “like any other”.
So, what needs to happen now is see which claims among competing claims are most likely true. Where does the “weight of evidence lie”? If the claims of neo-Darwinism are true, then the claims of the Bible aren’t just a matter of honest misinterpretations – they are either completely made up fabrications or they are outright lies – from God.
I will say, however, the Darwins observations did help to shed light on the Bible. For example, there were those who believed in the absolute fixity of the species – that nothing could change and that no new species of any kind could be produced by natural mechanisms. Darwin showed, quite clearly, that this interpretation of the Bible was false. So, Darwin’s discoveries did shed light on the Bible’s comments about reproduction “after their kind”. However, the Bible sheds light on Darwin’s claims by showing the clear limitations of Darwinian-type evolution – to very low levels of functional complexity over a short period of time (i.e., not hundreds of millions of years of evolution).
Again, we have science and Scripture shedding light on each other…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
