He is an Adventist and is actually supportive of hiring …

Comment on Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.

He is an Adventist and is actually supportive of hiring only those who believe in the church’s position on origins to teach in our schools.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La Sierra University
From a post by Ron Osborn on Spectrum:

Accepting the entire theory of Darwinism, however, makes death and suffering God’s means of creating, rather than the result of sin and a reversal of creation; and it makes humans on a gradual continuum with the animals rather than especially made in the image of God. Theistic evolution in some ways could be said to have worse implications for ethics than naturalistic evolution; with naturalistic evolution one can argue that “is” does not equal “ought,” but with theistic evolution, the evolutionary method is the means of a benevolent God creating what He called good and thus cannot be easily dismissed as an arbitrary and capricious way of doing things. You seem to think the only theological problem is departing from strict literalism of Inspired writing, in which case a departure is a departure. If that were the case than Ford’s departure might be comparable to Pitman’s. However, there are much, much, bigger problems than contradicting fundamentalist hermeneutics on this issue – there is God’s benevolence in creation, God’s ability to conquer death by reversing sin, and thus the hope of the Earth made new. Pitman’s acceptance of micro-evolution and Ford’s acceptance “progressive creation,” are not even in the same world of ideas when it comes to those problems.

I have nothing against people who come to this position, and they may very well feel forced to do so for reasons of intellectual honesty. However, I wish you would all be honest that you have become, according to common usage, evolutionists. If you want to term yourself an “progressive creationist” or an “evolutionary creationist” then fine, but do not be offended by other people calling you evolutionist, because you are what is meant by the term. Everyone knows what’s being debated and it’s not whether Richard Dawkin’s form of naturalism is spreading through Adventism, it is whether theistic evolution is spreading through the church. If you want educate people on the various forms of theistic evolution, then that’s all well and good, but don’t call them liars because they don’t correctly guess whatever label you happen to prefer. As long as you believe God created man through death and suffering, you’re not on what is called the “creationist” side of this debate and it seems like obfuscation to not get that.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2013/01/27/la-sierra-university-responds-recent-attacks#disqus_thread


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com