Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
You now accept that there are inspired portions of EG White? Whatever happened to picking and choosing as the Devils work?
Mrs. White herself argues that not everything she says or wrote was inspired by God. She advises people that they must make a distinction between what is Divine and what is common. For example, she once said that there were X number of rooms in the Sanitarium when there were in fact Y number of rooms. Some people used this as an example of how she wasn’t really Divinely inspired or she wouldn’t have made such a mistake. She pointed out to these people that she simply overheard someone say that there were X number of rooms – not that she got this information from God. In other words, she claimed to be human like the rest of us – prone to mistakes and errors as with any other prophet living during Biblical times.
What you can’t do is accept a prophet as Divinely inspired and then reject certain claims that he/she said came directly from God. This is what is rationally inconsistent.
It is very clear that you live in a very confused world where you clearly feel compelled to accept literal interpretation with attendant functional innerrancy for the biblical text and yet are drawn to an empiricism that places personal understanding and “science” above belief and faith.
I see no confusion at all. Ellen White herself speaks for the necessity of a rational, empirical, testable basis for faith/belief – that God always supplies sufficient evidence upon which to base one’s faith if one is searching for truth with all of one’s heart. She also notes that all true science will be in harmony with Scripture since both have the same author. Because of this faith and true science can and must walk hand-in-hand, “shedding light on each other.”
“The truthfulness of God’s Word is established by testimony that appeals to our reason, and God has given ample evidence for faith in His Word. The evidence God gives us must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit; and all should decide from the weight of evidence.” – Ellen White, MR Vol. 9, No. 724
You seem compelled to accept long ages for the earth such that you need to read back into scripture and EG White a passive gap creationist perspective. But unlike other gap creationist that place fossils at near conventional ages into this gap you have nothingness for billions of years until the creation week. Why do you even need to depart from conventional YEC that says everything was created during week 1? You depart from literal creationism for what gain? To pay token homage to conventional geological ages? I can understand you as a physician trained in evidence based medicine are reluctant to invoke miracles to explain events for which there can be a naturalistic explanation but you invoke miracle for the creation week and for the flood including the deposition of all the fossil record why be reticent to invoke miracles for the creation of the heavens and the earth as modern supporters of YEC do.
Which is exactly my point. I gain nothing to garner the favor of the neo-Darwinists with my gap interpretation for Genesis 1 – nothing at all. I therefore do not hold this position because I feel compelled to do so by the “science” of mainstream geologists. That’s not the basis for my position at all. I hold to my position because I think it is the most reasonable Biblically-based interpretation of the available texts. That’s it. I think it is the most internally consistent view.
At least they are completely consistent with a literal reading of the text rather than the weaselly worded support
“..it is unlikely, though not impossible…”
“Ellen White never presents a clear endorsement of…”
Do you really hang your hope on loopholes in the Bible and EG White that allow the coulda, maybe says, gap creation is true.
Not at all. This is not a fundamental issue for me or for Adventism – which is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. The point is that the Bible does not definitively say that the universe, the stars, or even the material of the Earth was created during creation week – that there was nothing pre-existing this week. In fact, various other passages within the Bible suggest otherwise. Compare this to the Bible’s very difinitive claims on the existence of life and the origin of suffering and death on this planet. For this concept there is no “weasel room” given by the Bible or by Mrs. White.
I think you are very optimistic if you think the lay members of the church are impressed by an appeal to academics and church leadership:
“..the YEC position is not and has not been favored over the YLC position in the Adventist Church – either by the church leadership or by conservative academics.”
Particularly when people like you and David Read spend a fair bit of time trashing them.
It’s not my goal to impress anyone – only to point out what seem to me to be inconsistencies in certain claims about the positions of the church leadership, to include those whom most would label as “conservative” leaders within the church.
The clear clarion call of YEC support sites drown out any nuanced discussion you may like to have. Their simple and clear opposition to ID also works against you with their clear appeal to a thus saith the Lord.
Many use the “thus saith the Lord” comment to support all kinds of positions that are not clearly Biblical given the entire context of the available statements or texts on the topic or which are not at all clearly supported as far as I can tell, in an unambiguous manner, by the Bible taken as a whole. Of course, different honest people and denominations disagree over what is and isn’t clearly stated or supported by the Bible. That is why there are different religious groups, churches, and denominations. If one doesn’t agree with the Adventist interpretation, that’s fine, go and join another church group or form your own. Just don’t call yourself something you’re not.
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.
