Comment on LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued by Professor Kent.
Nic Samojluk: The Sean Pitman and Educate Truth you describe are stranger than fiction to me. You either have never taken the time to comprehend what Sean and Shane are teaching or else are purposely disfiguring their true views.
Oh please. Read for yourself the huge volume of denigrating remarks on faith, not just from Pitman (especially) and Hilde, but also from Ryan, Kime, Constantinescu, and others here. And now you have simply added to them. And, concerning priority of human reason and science ahead of God’s word, Sean has said repeatedly, and I quote one instance, “I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well.” [http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/]
Nic Samojluk: Both Sean and Shane believe in the Virgin birth, that the iron ax did float and that Jesus and Lazarus did come back to life after their bodies were decomposing in the tomb for several days. This has nothing to do with their rejection of blind faith in other areas of faith. They believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence favoring the story of the Bible regarding origins.
Blind faith is dangerous. Without evidence, we should perhaps accept the claims of charlatans and the believers in so many false religions like Mormonism and Islam. Our faith needs to be based on solid ground and not on quick sand.
So Nic, if I understand correctly, you have graciously drawn a line in the sand. Here is the dichotomy we need to establish valid “faith”:
———-
BIBLICAL CLAIMS OKAY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE…AND EVEN WITH CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
– Iron axe head floated in water
– Jesus was born of a virgin woman
– Jesus and Lazarus came back to life after bodily decomposition several days
Nic Samojluk apparently accepts these Biblical claims, and insists that Pitman and Hilde do as well. Ironically, the available physical evidence ABSOLUTELY REFUTES these possibilities, yet these gentlemen believe it’s okay to accept these Biblical claims purely on faith, even to the point of setting human reason and science aside. (Okay, to clarify, Sean Pitman has stated that he has seen an axe head “appear” to float on water, which he therefore qualifies as empirical evidence. And I’m not making this stuff up.)
———-
BIBLICAL CLAIMS APPARENTLY NOT OKAY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE “BLIND FAITH IS DANGEROUS”
– God created all life forms in a mere six days
– God created all life forms approximately 6000 years ago
– A flock of sheep can appear instantaneously on a verdant mountain pasture
– God created a living breathing human from a pile of dirt
– All or a large portion of the earth was engulfed by a vast and violent flood
The New Testament authors and early SDA Church leaders had no knowledge or understanding of the geological column, radiometric dating, sedimentation rates, mutation rates, molecular systematics, and other “overwhelming” evidences of a recent fiat creation. None of these individuals are considered dangerous, but those, like me, who accept these Biblical claims today on faith are now deemed dangerous. How ludicrous! We are so dangerous, in fact, that Sean Pitman publically ridiculed and called repeatedly for the firing of a Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) scientist who did nothing more than declare that he accepted these claims on faith. Now THIS is, without question, the basis for the “lunatic fringe” in our Church. And by the way, NONE of these scriptural claims are backed by “overwhelming” physical evidence. And, ironically, the first set of claims that are okay to accept on faith are on shakier ground empirically than the second set of claims. Abundant science shows that iron axe heads cannot be made to float by throwing a stick in the water; that women never impregnated by sperm cannot give birth; and that humans dead for several days can never, ever come back to life. So how dangerous, really, is YOUR “blind faith?”
———-
Maybe this dichotomy is not what you meant to imply, Nic. Perhaps you think Sean Pitman actually WAS out of line for publicly ridiculing the GRI scientist for upholding our faith, elevating God’s word above the science and reason of men, and exercising the SDA hermeneutic of Sola Sciptura. But I don’t think you are honest enough, courageous enough, or man enough to speak out in defense of those who are singled out for public character assassination.
Professor Kent Also Commented
LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
I am sorry, Bob, that my wording was not clear enough to avoid your misunderstanding. I now understanding your reasoning better. You’re a good soul.
LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Bob Pickle: And the argument as you originally framed it was whether God could resurrect a decomposed corpse.
I never intended this; there’s no question in my mind that God not only could do so, but He did so. I don’t believe my wording so much as hinted of this.
LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
Nic Samojluk: Adam and Eve did not understand the full extent of disobedience. They should have trusted on God’s word implicitly, but the faith the Lord required from them was not Blind, but rather solidly based on what God had done for them.
He had given them life, a perfect environment and supplied all their needs. Trusting in God’s warning would not have been blind faith.
I do not think that we are elevating our faith above that of others. If our faith is genuine, it is a gift of God, which should preclude us from being arrogant about what we have received; and if it is false, then there is no basis for being proud about it.
Only God can judge the genuineness of anybody’s faith. The faith of everyone is measured against the backdrop of the light a person has received.
The faith of a pagan who has been deprived of spiritual knowledge might be greater than that of a believer who has received great light but is not living according to his great knowledge.
Well stated, Brother Nic. I heartily agree. Blessings to you, my friend.
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.
