Comment on Adventists are virtually silent by Bravus.
So, you can clearly explain how and why the chips in the computer you used to type your post work? At the quantum mechanical level? I suspect not: yet you’re happy to use the computer… For some forms of knowledge, expertise is required: it doesn’t make the expert any morally better or a better person, it just makes them a person who knows more. I tend to follow the experts’ recommendations about things like making sure computer chips have coolers on them before operating them, for example: because I know ignoring their recommendations doesn’t work very well.
In terms of origins, I’m not at all saying that one must be an expert on all the relevant science to have an opinion. I was simply saying that there are people who do know a lot about the science. Their opinions are not absolutely definitive, but part of what we see in this discussion – and your post exemplifies it to some extent – is the rather crazy view that people should be disqualified from having an opinion on the issues because they know something about them. We see people’s opinions and views dismissed on the basis that they are scientists.
I agree that empowering the lay people to make their own decisions through Bible study and faith is crucial. Empowering the laity through better education has also been a long-standing Adventist commitment: which now seems to be under threat in some quarters. (Not on the part of the Educate Truth staff, I hasten to add, just some commentators here and in other places.)
As I said above, the views of Adventist scientists are not delivered from Mount Sinai on tables of stone. They are up for discussion and debate. But it’s just craziness for people to suggest that the views of Adventist scientists, on a(n at least partially) scientific issue ought to be ignored precisely because they have been given intellectual gifts and opportunities and have devoted their lives to studying the issues.
Table of Contents
Bravus Also Commented
Adventists are virtually silent
@Denver Fletcher: (reposted because it got stuck in the moderation queue for a while and the discussion passed it by):
Newton was a Christian, of sorts, though he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, but also an occultist and alchemist…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
And, you’re saying that science can be used to, for example, explain the merit of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Denver? Or to prove that my wife loves me? Of course there are massive domains of life in which science is not the appropriate tool! As I posted above, it is scientism to believe otherwise.
A complete caricature of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ – and the response to it – is not doing your valorisation of science a lot of good, either.
Adventists are virtually silent
Newton was a Christian, of sorts, though he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, but also an occultist and alchemist…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
And, you’re saying that science can be used to, for example, explain the merit of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Denver? Or to prove that my wife loves me? Of course there are massive domains of life in which science is not the appropriate tool! As I posted above, it is scientism to believe otherwise.
A complete caricature of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ – and the response to it – is not doing your valorisation of science a lot of good, either.
Adventists are virtually silent
@Bravus: Essential atheism is potentially scientific since it can be tested and potentially falsified. In short, if anyone could produce any evidence that necessitated a God or a God-like entity that could not readily be distinguished from a real God, then essential atheism would be falsified. This is in fact the reason why Richard Dawkins has often said that:
“…although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.â€
– Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker,†[1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.6
By implication then, if Darwinism is falsifiable, and it is (i.e., it is a potentially valid scientific theory), then so is intellectually tenable atheism… Think about it…
If that’s the case, intellectually tenable theism must be falsifiable too, yes?
Recent Comments by Bravus
Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.
Just my interpretation.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.
Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.
