You do not seem to accept that the peer reviewed …

Comment on The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop by Sean Pitman.

You do not seem to accept that the peer reviewed literature is the canonical literature of science.

Science isn’t based on the published opinions of scientists. Science is based on the scientific method(s). All kinds of nonsense gets published all the time. Just because it’s published doesn’t make it science. What makes a hypothesis “scientific” is if it’s testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. Can it gain or lose predictive value? That’s it.

Although you seem to be coy about acknowledging it you do not accept methodological naturalism as the basis for science and seem to think that science can legitimately invoke a magical cause. I do not.

Since when is the detection of intelligent manipulation equivalent to the invocation of “magic”? By your logic many mainstream sciences would be guilty invoking magic – like forensic science, anthropology, and even SETI science. The fact of the matter is that the ability to detect intelligently produce artifacts is not outside of the realm of real scientific investigation.

Your criteria for claiming that I am only a limited follower of Jesus seems to be because I do not accept a cultic paradigm of a scriptural hermeneutics that accepts the fundamentalist perspective of inerrancy and a canonical view of EGW.

You’re a limited follower of Jesus, not because you reject the claims of Ellen White, but because you reject many of the claims of Jesus Himself – as quoted directly from the Bible.

In this I do not think I differ from most educated scientists and theologians in Adventism. We accept the Adventist understanding that scripture was written by men inspired by God not written verbatim by the hand of God.

Jesus was directly described by His own disciples who wrote of what He said and did – as “verbatim” as it gets when it comes to the testimony of witnesses who are willing to put their very lives on the line for validity of their testimony. This is not some vague mystical experience that they’re describing. They’re describing real events and real statements that they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears and validated with their own blood.

We are all asked to make decisions based on incomplete information to weigh and evaluate and make a leap of faith in acknowledging God as creator and us as his creation.

That’s right. However, a rational “leap of faith” requires a rational basis in empirical evidence. Making up your own religion out of thin air isn’t any more rational than wishful thinking or making your own God out of wood or stone.

As I have said many times before I have a consistent hermeneutic between Matt 17:14-21 and Genesis 1-2. Yours I do not think is so. As far as I can tell you see me as denying Gods power in accepting that the evidence in the canonical literature of science vastly favours a natural mechanism for the origin of species. You claim a miracle. I see my work as a physician to involve understanding and treating disease as a natural process. I suspect you, like me, interpret Matt 17 less than literally and do not see the miraculous as the only way of healing despite the clear unequivocal statement of that scripture. In the same way as I interpret Matt 17 for my vocation as a physician as a scientist I interpret Gen 1-2 and see it as a monotheistic restatement of understanding origins that was not uniquely Jewish and had no understanding of any alternative.

There you go. Jesus is recorded as performing a miracle in very literal terms and you reject this testimony because it does not fit with your view of science. You reject the possibility of God acting in a miraculous way to heal outside of mindless naturalistic mechanisms if He so chooses. Everything must only be explained via mindless naturalistic mechanisms with you. Yet, for some strange reason, you have no problem using your own intelligence and creative power to assist in the healing of patients who are sick and who would, without your assistance, not do as well if left entirely to the mindless natural processes alone. Why do you give yourself greater ability to act in a creative and intelligent manner than God?

You seem to want a miracle working God for the creation but deny his power when it comes to responding to prayer for personal healing. Why the inconsistency?

What? I’ve never denied the miraculous power of prayer for personal healing. I’ve seen miracles happen before my very eyes in response to the earnest prayers of doctors and patients, friends, and pastors… to include my own prayers. I pray on a daily basis for my patients, and I know that God hears me and answers me. Often the answer is “No”, or somehow different than what I requested. However, sometimes the answer is “Yes”, and He again performs a miracle of intelligent design that is clearly detectable as such.

I’m sorry, but if you yourself had witnessed the event described in Matthew 17:21 with your own eyes, and it happened exactly as described, you would no doubt also recognize God’s signature in such a demonstration of Divine power – as would any sane person.

Like the vast majority of educated Christians I see the bible as being about God and salvation not about science. For that I make no apology and believe that above all we must with authenticity acknowledge the basis of our faith.

There is no “salvation” without the miracle of Divine power. There is no rational hope of salvation without the historical reality of the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead – a guarantee of the future physical resurrection of all the righteous from the dead.

“if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” – 1 Corinthians 15:17

But, of course, you don’t believe in a physical resurrection from the dead… because that would violate natural law as you understand it. What kind of “Good News” is that?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
When I talk about the concept of science, I’m talking about how any new information is learned in a useful manner that is superior to wishful thinking (aka blind faith). One’s understanding of the Bible as the Word of God can be and I believe should be based on the weight of evidence that is currently in hand. Coming to the conclusion that the Bible is God’s Word requires work. It is not inherent knowledge, but must be learned based on evidence, not direct revelation.

“God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.” – Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 115

“In the days of Noah, men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood–the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.” – Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 115

“God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith . . .” Steps to Christ, p. 105;

Consider also that, “perfect assurance . . . is not compatible with faith. Faith rests not on certainty, but upon evidence.” Letter 19d, 1892, cited in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 1029, 1030.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20 NIV

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” – Psalms 19:1 NIV

God does not desire blind faith or blind obedience without the input of rational thought and understanding (which is also God-given by the way). Our faith in the Bible should be based on something more than some kind of internal warm fuzzy feeling or personal desire. Our faith in the Bible as the Word of God should be a rational faith that is based on the weight of evidence and its established predictive power – i.e., a form of scientific reasoning and understanding which forms the basis for a logical, rational leap of faith. It is in this manner that faith and science can, and I think must, walk hand-in-hand.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
God (and Truth) never changes. However, our understanding of Truth does change over time.

We learn and grow in our understanding of truth – to include our understanding of Biblical truth. One is not automatically born with the knowledge that the Bible is the real Word of God or how, exactly, to interpret it and all of its statements and passages. On the contrary, this requires effort and careful investigation and rational thought on our part.

Again, there’s nothing to fear from subjecting the Bible to careful investigation against the weight of evidence. God is the author of the Bible and true science…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
Hi Phil,

I appreciate your desire to uphold the Bible regardless of what the external evidence might say about it. However, I think this is a mistake. The Bible has nothing to fear from true science (vs. “science falsely so called”) or from a truly rational investigation into its claims. The Biblical authors always provide empirical evidence and rational arguments as a basis for faith (as does Mrs. White). We should not be like my LDS friends who believe in the Book of Mormon regardless of the weight of evidence against it. The Bible is to be believed because of the weight of evidence in its favor – because it is the most rational choice that the intelligent candid mind can conclude. Our faith need not be blind to the weight of evidence. Rather, faith and evidence can and should walk hand-in-hand.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.