What kind evidence was Ellen White speaking of? Polonium halos? …

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

What kind evidence was Ellen White speaking of? Polonium halos? Radiometric dating? Fossil layers? Phylograms? Or…pray tell…was it experiential evidence? Evidence from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

As I’ve already explained to you at least a dozen times now, both the Bible and Ellen White reference the weight of empirical evidence as a basis for faith. The New Testament writers cite the physical resurrection of Jesus, and the evidence for it, as the linchpin of their faith. Biblical prophecy is also constantly cited as a basis for faith throughout the Bible. The Biblical authors also cite various features of the natural world as evidence of God’s signature and claim to Authorship.

“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

The same is true for the writings of Mrs. White. And, as you well know, she also cites evidence in geology as well to support a rational faith in the Biblical account of origins.

“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

Of course, in the past, you’ve scoffed at such comments arguing that Mrs. White is clearly mistaken here. The problem, of course, is that she does is fact cite the fossil record as evidence of the Noachian Flood and as a basis for faith in the Biblical account of origins.

The fact is that God does not trump our God-given ability to think and reason by overwhelming us with some metaphysical “personal experience” when it comes to understanding the Biblical account as credible and worthy of faith and trust. A personal experience with God, all by itself, will certain establish faith in God’s existence, but when it comes to establishing faith in the credibility of the Bible, God generally lets us work a bit for that one. It doesn’t come automatically. God lets rational people read through the book and weigh the evidence for and against its claims and authenticity. God usually doesn’t rush this process either. He lets different people progress at different rates as they are able to grasp this or that concept.

You need to face some fact, Sean. The Church rejects your heterodox theology. People like David Read and Art Chadwick do not come to your defense of “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence” and human reason because they are embarrassed by your views.

If the Adventist Church did in fact reject my “heterodox” theology on origins and the importance of empirical evidence as a basis for rational faith, the leadership wouldn’t have any problem with what has been going on at La Sierra University. They wouldn’t have any problem with science professors promoting neo-Darwinism as the “best empirically-based theory of the day”. Of course, you know this isn’t true. The Church, as an organization, has specifically asked all professors in all of its schools to promote the Adventist perspective on origins and the evidence for it. In line with this sentiment, the Executive Committee of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church issued the following mandate to all boards and educators working for the Church:

We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

As a response to the “An Affirmation of Creation–Report”, this document was accepted and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Church Executive Committee at the Annual Council in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 13, 2004.

Also, David Read is no Fideist and Art Chadwick is a good friend of mine, constantly writing me notes and letters of encouragement as I post articles and discuss this particular topic. He’s never once said that he’s “embarrassed by my views”.

The top people in the GC are well aware of your views and reject them outright. You’ve got your disciples hear who believe every word you right, but there are many who cringe at your arguments. If you want to change the way the Church views science, scripture, and faith, you need to influence the Church’s leadership and set them straight. Your bottom-up approach using turtles-all-the-way-down reasoning ain’t cutting it. I know this must frustrate you.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about on this one. Many of the top leaders of the church have written me personal letters of support. If you have some specific statements from the leadership to the contrary, why not present them here? The fact is, as you well know, most of our leaders do not support your strong fideistic position. They understand the influence of empirical evidence with regard to a solid faith in the credibility of the Biblical account.

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.