Yes and as you have repeatedly suggested the majority is …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.

Yes and as you have repeatedly suggested the majority is no measure of truth.

That’s true. However, I didn’t say that I believed anything because it was the majority opinion. I’m just showing that your statement that historical Adventists did not support the passive gap theory is mistaken. Many of them did support the idea that the Bible strongly suggests that the universe pre-existed creation week – and likely the raw material of the Earth as well. This is historical fact.

The question however remains what did the first readers of the text understand and what was the intention of the writers. I am confident that EG White understood the world was created on day 1 of the creation week. That you can say she did not exclude the possibility that it was actually pre-prepared billions of years earlier says only that you think we as modern readers should second guess her commentary and vision according to what we think is reasonable.

It has nothing to do with second-guessing her or what her personal opinions might or might not have been. The fact remains that nothing she wrote “under Divine Inspiration” or otherwise, is in clear conflict with the passive gap theory.

Unfortunately this does mean that you are seen by the likes of Bill Sorensen as eroding the authority and inerrancy of EG White and the bible.

One can find people on both sides of pretty much any question. The fact remains that many very conservative Adventists have always believed, throughout the history of the Adventist Church, that the Bible allows for and even promotes the idea that the universe pre-existed the creation week. Even the writings of Ellen White (where she describes the conflict in Heaven and Lucifer’s jealousy over not being included in the Divine counsels regarding the creation of this planet, or the existence of other created worlds) support this position.

I make no secret of the fact that I think the neo-orthodox position has a much more consistent view of biblical authority and is consistent with a properly defined science based on methodological naturalism.

The problem is that you go far far beyond the current and historical Adventist perspective so as to make the Bible little more than a collection of moral fables – that the Bible isn’t to be trusted as far as literal historical narratives are concerned. That’s fine and all if you want to do this. People should be free to believe in and promote any religious idea. However, it isn’t fine to misrepresent yourself as a “Seventh-day Adventist”. That’s a misrepresentation – especially for anyone who wishes to promoted views similar to yours as a paid representative of the Adventist Church. That would be a moral wrong – i.e., stealing from the Church.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.

What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.

Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).

In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.