Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Ron.
Sean Pitman: So, in suggesting that the SDA Church not put so much stock in a literal reading of the Genesis narrative, you are suggesting that the Church back off of its position that the Bible was in fact inspired by God to give us privileged information about God and about the world in which we live.
Well, maybe that isn’t such a bad idea. I am sure the blue birds and other elements in the story of Snow White were considered by the story tellers to be literal. And yet, the fact that we all take the story of Snow White to be a fairy tale, allows us to see the spiritual truth that the fairy tale is teaching. It is the spiritual truth within the fairy tale that is important. The story is only the vehicle through which the message is transmitted.
It is entirely possible, in fact quite probable that Moses wrote down a legend that had been passed down verbally for generations. The story survived all those generations because it taught something valuable. Even if Moses thought it was literal, but it wasn’t, the spiritual truth taught by the story is still true and is still valuable.
If the Adventist church were to hold it’s claim that the story is literal in limbo, and focus on teaching the spiritual truth in the story, it is quite probable that the credibility of the church would be enhanced. It is quite probable that by focusing on the spiritual message, which is the Word of God, instead of arguing over the words of man through which the message is conveyed, that the message would be clearer, and the benefit to believers would be even greater. We could be focusing on the message God is trying to convey rather than bickering over the language used by the messenger.
Table of Contents
Ron Also Commented
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan:
How much post creation evoltion is allowed?
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan</
I never even implied a proto life or anything other than a six day creation. I am talking about what happens after creation.
Sean thinks that at least some Darwinian evolution takes place now. How does that happen?. Did god create the mechanisms originally, and they now happen atheistically, or does He continue to be active in the process?
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, So I think I am hearing from you that a Biblical creation model would allow for basically any kind Is htof evolution there is, or which we might discover as long as it is destructive in nature, or is not too complex. is that right? You don’t believe that it is possible to believe that significant improvements are possible and still be a creationist.
Are you able to define that bounday between significant and minor theologically?
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
