Comment on La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article by Sean Pitman M.D..

Re: Pittman and Asscherick Appear on 3ABN to Address …

http://www.atoday.com/content/pittman-and-asscherick-appear-3abn-address-evolution-teaching-sda-campuses

On December 4th, 2009 Seanpit says:

Before I respond to Burdette’s most interersting insights, here’s a link to the entire two hour 3ABN program (for those who are interested):

http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Science

On December 2nd, 2009 mattburdette says:

The irony in this cannot be overemphasized. Asscherick and Pittman are correct in saying that employees of Adventist institutions are ethically responsible to do what they are paid to do; they forget, for some peculiar reason, that scientists are paid to do science (and not theology). Science, by its very nature, cannot and must not begin with any cosmological presuppositions (whether evolution or creation). To expect scientists to teach what the church teaches is to ask them to have a conclusion before doing science. Any scientist who is willing to affirm a religious dogma as a starting point of scientific inquiry is not a scientist, and does not deserve a paycheck from anyone.

You forget that the SDA Church has in fact directly asked all teachers and school boards to actively support the stated SDA position on origins.

“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.”

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

So, at the very least, any school that decides to go against this request by their employer, the SDA Church in this case, should be open and honest about the fact that its science teachers are openly undermining the stated SDA position on origins in their classrooms, calling the idea of a literal 6-day creation week “ludicrous” given the enormous weight of the scientific evidence, as they see it anyway, to the contrary.

Beyond this, your argument here highlights a common yet fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually works and operates. You argue that science cannot begin with presuppositions. Yet, it is impossible to do science without beginning with presuppositions and basic beliefs about what certain kinds of data or experiences are most likely to mean. Science is not purely and objective practice because of this. There is a great deal of subjectivity in science. This is why different scientists looking at the very same data can come the very different conclusions on how to interpret the data. This is also why some people are better at producing more accurate/reliable predictions than are other people. This is also why, ultimately, everyone must come to their own “scientific” conclusions. The notion that mainstream scientists are most likely to be correct in their interpretations of the data is itself a prediction of the future based on past experience – on the individual level.

In short, there is a great deal of potential for bias in science, as has been recently illustrated by the whole global warming E-mail scandal where it was shown that certain groups of scientists were suppressing other groups of scientists and even fraudulently manipulating the data itself.

One more thing on this particular point: It is erroneous, in my opinion, to suggest that science and religion are inherently separate enterprises. The conclusions of science do in fact have religious implications and religion, if it is based on anything more than wishful thinking and blind faith, can be very scientific. Certainly the Bible advises us to test all things and hold even religious ideas up for potential falsification under reasonable analysis.

Second, Asscherick and Pittman are ignoring a rich history of Adventist anti-creedalism. When a person is baptized in an Adventist church, and welcomed in as a member of our community, they take a baptismal vow. This is what Adventists are held to theologically. Nowhere in that vow is the doctrine of creation (any interpretation of it). They have no right in this community to deny anyone’s Adventist identity based on a belief that no one is asked to affirm as a test of fellowship.

The baptismal vow asks one if they believe in and uphold the stated SDA fundamental beliefs. Beyond this, you don’t seem to be well informed on early SDA history. While it is true that the early SDA Church tried to avoid creedal statements, as the church grew bigger, a statement of faith became unavoidable. The same thing is true of a basis of paid representation.

Although originally opposed to such constraints, it was John Loughborough, together with James White, who first started to realize the need for some sort of enforcement of Church order and discipline – i.e., a Church government.

Consider the following comments and quotes by JN Loughborough in his The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline (1907):

“When those who back in the “sixties” [1860s] witnessed the battle of establishing church order now hear persons, as conscientious no doubt as those back there, utter almost the identical words that were then used by those opposing order, it need not be wondered that they fear the result of such statements as the following: “Perfect unity means absolute independence, – each one knowing for himself. Why, we could not have outward disorganization if we all believed in the Lord. . . . This question of organization is a simple thing. All there is to it is for each individual to give himself to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just what he wants to, and that all the time. . . . Our only safety, under God, is to go back to the place where God is able to take a multitude of people and make them one, without parliamentary rules, without committee work, without legislation of any kind.” – General Conference Bulletin of 1899.

God Requires Rules:

“Superficially considered, this might seem to be a blessed state, a heaven indeed; but, as already noted on a preceding page, we read of heaven itself and its leadings that “the god of heaven is a god of order, and he requires all his followers to have rules and regulations to preserve order.”

“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.”
– Testimonies for the Church,” No. 32, page 30.

As it turns out, the leaders of the early SDA Church at first thought that no enforcement of any kind was needed to keep the Church from fragmenting. This was true as long as the Church was small and made up of originally like-minded people. However, as the Church grew larger, this view soon became obviously untenable. Loughborough was one of the main proponents of this sort of church order and discipline – along with James White. Very quickly all of the early Church leaders changed their minds regarding Church order and discipline when they saw that their original ideas of completely hands-off freedom of Church representatives were quickly failing to do what they thought they would do. So, the leadership started issuing cards of commendation signed by James White or John Loughborough.

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the Church did not receive these cards of commendation. And what was the attitude of such persons? – according to Loughborough?:

“Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: “Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.” – “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. I, page 650.

Burdette:

They want people who “carry the company card” to say the “company line.” The Adventist company line is not dogma about a specific interpretation of the Bible; our company line is that Jesus is coming, and that all people are called to the obedience of the faith of Jesus. Perhaps Asscherick and Pittman have forgotten our other fundamental beliefs, such as Unity in the Body. Yes, that must be the one that they forgot. They forgot that unity assumes diversity, and never homogeneity.

If our company line were in fact limited to these basic statements, which are very good indeed by the way, there would be no point in having a unique SDA Church. We could all simply join any old group that had nothing more to say than these basic points. But, the fact of the matter is, the SDA Church thinks more truths have been discovered beyond these two you’ve mentioned here – which are also important to spread as part of the Gospel’s Good News…

Burdette:

Asscherick laments critique from within the church. He said that truth can withstand scrutiny, but apparently doesn’t think it can do so from within the religious community. Strange indeed. We as a church have affirmed our belief in a growing understanding of truth, and said that we expect to refine our belief statements as we grow in understanding. Where else should we think critically about our own beliefs if not in our academic institutions? Critique from the academy is a service to the church, not a detriment.

Asscherick and I simply think that it is pointless to be extremely schizophrenic as an organization that wishes to remain viable. Employees cannot be allowed to advance significantly faster or slower than the organization as a whole if the organization itself is to remain vaible and effective. If you have truth that goes fundamentally beyond the organization, perhaps you need to leave the organization in order to best present your truth.

Certainly you shouldn’t expect the organization to pay you to go around telling everyone that the stated ideals of the organization are “ludicrous” – right? – Especially if that organization has specifically asked you not to do what you are in fact doing. Continuing to do what your employer has specifically asked you not to do, on the employers dime, is robbery of your employer’s time and money. How is this not patently obviously?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman M.D. Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman M.D.

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print