Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
And along with him, we could all ask, “Where is your ‘scientific evidence’ you have been touting as the basis of your conclusions, Sean? Have you now abandon your ‘scientific evidence’ for scriptural continuity as you see and understand it?
The credibility of Scripture is based on the “weight of evidence” that can be tested and evaluated. Does this mean that every statement of the Bible can be empirically tested? Of course not. If it could, we wouldn’t need the Bible. Again, you also appeal to empirical evidence, to historical science, as a basis for Biblical credibility.
I would hope you will stay with this scenario if it is really your real basis of faith instead of ‘scientific evidence’. If you do this, you will eventually see there is no “gap theory” possible if you simply adhere to scripture. There can only be one final authority. Either natural law science, or, the bible.
Science and Scripture shed light on each other. God is the author of nature, scientific reasoning and rational thought in general, and the Bible through inspiration. That is why they can all be in agreement. God does not desire blind faith without a basis in evidence and rational thought and understanding.
Neither does the bible teach that the whole universe was created on day one. But this world was. As in “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is…..”
This is in conflict with the standard YEC interpretation of Genesis – a position which does in fact argue that the entire universe was created during creation week. From Wiki:
“Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.”
This is the standard YEC position. This is also the position promoted by J.N. Andrews, one of the founders of Adventism. The notion that the universe pre-existed creation week assumes a gap between the first two verses of Genesis. This concept did not become generally prevalent until the 1800s.
There is no “wiggle room” nor ambiguity in this statement. There is no possible “gap theory” that can be supported in light of this clear declaration which is in harmony with all the bible says concerning creation.
That’s not true for many conservative thinkers who have honestly considered all the texts available on this topic. The Bible seems to me to leave open the possibility and even seems to suggest the likelihood that the basic raw materials of the Earth and the solar system could have already been here prior to creation week.
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.
