Dear Charles Wonderful to hear from you again. I hope you …

Comment on The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity? by ken.

Dear Charles

Wonderful to hear from you again. I hope you are enjoying some ‘veranda’ time this summer.

In answer to your question, I think if EGW remained physically on the spot she would not have been ‘present’ at the events she saw in her mind. We all dream, but when we wake we do not think we have physically visited the place of our dreams do we? Same logic applies to those on drugs or schizophrenics. Could God have created the vision in her mind? Could God be creating all our dreams or the experiences of schizophrenics? That’s a possibility but we know that we such types of experiences can be created with the stimulus of electrodes as well.

My point was not disparage EGW but talk about the reliability of various forms of evidence, especially heresay which is not very reliable.

Charles, most respectfully, I must disagree with your gentle admonition: “just don’t ask the question”. As free thinking individuals we should all ask lots of questions instead of just accepting the thoughts or words of others.

Your thoughts on God’s omniscience are quite interesting. If God knows exactly what we are going to do, do we really have free will or is everything preordained? If preordained why worry about salvation or work towards it? If it is going to happen it will just happen independent of free will or choice. Kind of a rigged game don’t you think?

Yes, we have a limited understanding of reality, but do we have a progressively better one than two thousand years ago before the advances of science? As we better understand the physics behind the beginning of the universe do we thus have a better understanding of the nature of creation? I’m optimistic that each generation is understanding reality a bit better through scientific advances.

As for faith, I begrudge no one there own but think all should be tolerant of others. Maybe there are many paths to God, including that of the agnostic 🙂

Take care
Your agnostic friend
Ken

ken Also Commented

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
Re Wendell’s Quote

“Circumstantial evidence can be misleading for many scientific reasons, but these would be reasons that science has failed to either understand or account for. Scientists do not know everything that has happened in this universe and even they are beginning to admit that there likely is a lot of physics that they do not at present know. Some physicists even say that we may never be able to actually know what reality is. There are just so many bizarre things that go on in our universe everyday that scientists cannot explain, even if we have mathematics that can quantify it. They cannot know all. That is the bottom line. They have no eyewitnesses to their proposed events of the long ago past. We have an eyewitness. Therein lies the difference.”

Hello Wendel

I’ve been enjoying your posts.

I liked your comments regarding the risks of circumstantial evidence I presume you would agree that creation science is subject to those risks as well?

There is another type of evidence that is even more prone to error: hearsay, as opposed to direct evidence. Let’s assume for argument sake that Moses, or his redactors, wrote Genesis. Can we agree that they never witnessed creation? If so the biblical account of creation falls into the category of heresay, not direct evidence by an eyewitness.

Now the counter to that argument is that God gave Moses, the author(s)?, of Genesis a direct, eyewitness account. But how do we know that is the case? For example how do you know this is really Ken writing this, instead of a precocious child? – probably is because the child would have far more intelligence:)

Similarily, regarding the Noachian flood, do we have a second hand versus an eyewitness account of the event?

In a court of law, hearsay evidence, with some rare exceptions, is not admissible due to its inherent unreliability. That is because the truth of the eyewitness, cannot be tested. Circumstantial evidence, however, is admissible because it may be the only evidence available.

I hope this helps the discussion.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
Re Ron’s Quote

“It all boils down to whether or not we accept the Word of God as foundational and our only rule of faith; and that all other thoughts and ideas must be judged by the sentiments of the Written Word, not the other way round as do evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.”

Hello my good friend Ron

This is honest, sincere but unfortunately circular reasoning. It makes empirical methods, such as science and pure reason fit into a pre – cast mold of faith that cannot be honestly questioned. It means any objective observation of reality is biased by pre supposition of a particular world view. Atheism does the same thing.

This is the exact type of reasoning that Dr. Pitman is fighting against because he understands it does not stand up to rational scrutiny.

Hope you are doing well

Your agnostic friend
Ken


The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
Re Wendell’s Quotes

Dear Wendell

Wow, you pose some doozies! Good questions.

In deference to this being an Adventist site I’ll try not to do a full polemic on agnosticism but give brief answers.

1. Re unexplained phenomenology. If 200 years ago you had talked on a cell phone, more than likely someone would have thought you were a) an alien b) a God c)the devil d) or a combination of the three. Who knows, maybe telepathic communication, intuition, clairvoyance, etc., may turn out to be just a very sophisticated mechanism of brain waves to convey non verbal information. Why does it necessarily have to be attributed to God?

2. Predictions of the Bible: What literally was predicted that, without a shadow of a doubt, has come true? How many prophecies were self fulfilling with text written after the fact? With respect, when I read Daniel and Revelations, it appears as if a whole pile of interpretation was required to bend symbolic language into current or historical events. And if these predictions are absolutely true, why don’t all Christians agree so? If Christians themselves can’t agree, how can an agnostic treat such predictive claims as reliable?

3. Test for Biblical God. I like what Dr. Pitman and Dr. Kime are trying to do: marrying science to faith to see if the Biblical God is credible. If they can satisfy my reason, I’d say I’d accept the biblical God. However, like Prof Kent and Erv Taylor, I think the vast weight of the scientific evidence favours evolution and old life. Pretty hard to convince an agnostic of a biblical God, when Adventists themselves can’t agree what the scientific evidence indicates. But I remain open to persuasion if Dr. Pitman can liberate himself from any faith bias and prove things on an objective, empirical basis. But to be fair, I think theistic evolution is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

Well Wendell, I hope that helps to explain my position a bit better.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Recent Comments by ken

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob

I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?

Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. 🙂

Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,

I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken


A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote

“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”

Hi Bob

Thanks for your comments.

This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?

The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?

Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.

Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?

I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?

Hope that helps

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken