Comment on LSU Board news release and actions by Sean Pitman.
Carl: We seem to be arguing about two different things. I realize that the issue at LSU has been painted almost entirely as question about teaching evolution, but I am not talking directly about evolution.
What I am talking about is using a literal historical interpretation of Genesis to claim that life was created roughly as it now exists not more than about ten thousand years ago. That interpretation of Genesis leads to so many contradictions of the evidence that it leaves one no better off than believing that God does whatever He pleases whenever He pleases and then provides evidence to make everything look very old. It forces you to believe that there is no rational way to understand the earth and its life.
For many years, Adventists have been avoiding a clear examination of the evidence. For example, where in the Adventist system would a student go to get a BS in geology? There isn’t one simply because we haven’t had the courage to face the facts that exist all around us. The result is that most Adventists can’t have an informed discussion of the earth sciences because we have been biased to believe that the Devil, in the form of “infidel scientists,†is waiting to deceive us. Our fear of being deceived has sometimes left us behaving like a superstitious cult.
To me, the tragedy of Adventism is that we can’t have a rational discussion of the problem because it isn’t safe to do so. As soon as anyone challenges our traditional beliefs, a cry goes up to get them dismissed. That’s the purpose of this Website, and, as long as it’s effective, we will stay locked in our established traditions no matter how irrational our position becomes. By doing so we become completely irrelevant to the educated world, nothing more than another tourist attraction in the history of religions.
You can get a BS in geology at SAU. Arthur Chadwick is there and does a lot of good field research in geology – and is a fundamentalist SDA (in that he actually believes that life on Earth is young).
There is in fact a lot of evidence in support of the author of Genesis and his intent to write a literal narriative about real historical events. However, if you don’t recognize this evidence, why not simply leave the SDA Church and join another organization that is more in line with what you think is so obvious? Why try to be something you’re obviously not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
LSU Board news release and actions
@Erik:
Then do you also agree with Dr. Lawrence McCloskey that the earth must necessarily be at least 12,000 years old? You see, the sea corals are his specialty, and they add a layer each year, dating back 12,000 years. They have done core drillings on the corals to determine this. If God did not create a mature coral colony, what did God create? or do you agree with Dr. McCloskey that life on earth must be at least 12,000 years old?
I don’t agree with McCloskey’s assumption regarding the age of living coral reefs – to include his notion that corals can only add one growth layer each year. This notion simply isn’t true.
Beyond this, living coral reefs did not survive the flood. Corals reefs are very delicate and would not have survived the world-wide flood intact. While fossil corals do also exist, the fossil “reefs” that supposedly took hundreds of thousands of years to form, really aren’t reefs at all…
For further information on this topic see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/DesmondFord.html#coral
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU Board news release and actions
@Erik:
Was God “deceptive†because He created a full-grown Adam and Eve, who had the appearance of age, while not being more than a day old? Should God have created just a sperm and an egg for each of them instead, in order to avoid charges of being “deceptive?â€
Hi Erik. I have to agree with Carl here that you can take this argument too far. It can basically be used to argue that anything that clearly appears to be one way could actually be completely different “because God made it that way”. That basically removes any logical basis for belief in God or in the Bible beyond the pretty useless concept of blind faith.
However, Carl is also mistaken in his suggestion that no credible, well-trained scientists have any sort of viable model or basis for interpreting the data as supporting the theory of young-life on Earth and a rapid catastrophic model for the formation of the geologic and fossil records. There are many such scientists – both within and without the SDA Church. It is just that much of Carl’s thinking and understanding of the relevant data is outdated or simply mistaken…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU Board news release and actions
@Carl:
You’ve made the above point several times. If I were employed by a secular enterprise and found myself at odds with its declared values and purpose, I would leave. However, Adventism claims a special quality that I value highly, a value that secular organizations do not espouse. That is, traditional beliefs are not to be accepted without close examination. Searching for truth must involve reexamination of fundamental beliefs. Therefore, I believe that science must be taught with complete honesty whether or not it supports SDA traditional beliefs. This is not being dishonest against ones employer because the employer has claimed that integrity with the scientific data is vitally important.
Everything, not just science, should be taught with complete honesty within the SDA Church organization. However, if your honesty leads you to take a fundamentally different view than that taken by the Church, the Church simply cannot maintain your services. Just because the Church holds that integrity is of prime importance does not mean that the Church can maintain all those who have fundamentally opposing views just because they do so with integrity. The Church, as an organization, would quickly fragment into chaos if this were the case.
As I explained to you before, if your view were in force within Church government, the Church would have to pay everyone who honestly disagreed – to include those who honestly decided that the Virgin Mary really is alive and well in Heaven and is deserving of our worship, or that there really is a purgatory and we should pray for the souls of our dead loved ones, or that perhaps Sunday is really the day God has made holy because of the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday… and on and on. Why wouldn’t these opposing views count as worthy of financial support within the SDA Church according to your argument? – if held with integrity? Why only support honest divergent “scientific” opinions?
You see, your argument simply isn’t consistent or tenable. If you want to get paid for your ideas, you need to find an organization that is fundamentally in line with your ideas and is willing to pay you to present them. Presenting ideas that go directly counter to the stated goals of your employer, and expecting to be paid by that employer at the same time, is complete nonsense – the very definition of anarchy. No organization could long remain viable given your system…
Beyond this, the SDA Church, as an organization, does not support your argument. The organized SDA Church leadership has said that paid representatives who do not support the Church’s stated fundamental positions should resign. In light of this request, it is dishonest for anyone to continue in opposition to this request as a paid representative. At the very least, you should respect your employer’s wishes. Your employer does in fact have a right to hire only those who accurately represent the employer on issues the employer considers to be important.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I think that there can be a reasonable combination of the best of modern medicine as well as the best of healthful living and natural remedies such as exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, “forest bathing”, good sleep, vegan or at least a vegetarian diet, etc…
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
You opted not to get vaccinated during the pandemic, for whatever reason, but did not advise others to do the same. That’s fine. I think you probably increased your own risk a bit, but that’s far better than giving medical advice to others when you don’t know for sure that you’re right – especially for those who were at higher risk than you. It’s also good that you supported others who did choose to get vaccinated.
As far as SDA hospitals and organizations, I agree that there has been some drift from the ideal. I’m not happy that so many non-SDAs are hired to work in and to be leaders. I’m also disappointed that there isn’t a lot more emphasis, direction, and teaching with regard to healthful living. There are some who are doing this, like Dr. Roger Seheult. However, there does seem to be a lack of an organized or official emphasis on how to living healthful so as to avoid having to use so many medications for chronic conditions that are largely self-inflicted. Now, I do sympathize that quick fixed and pills are what most patients want. Most doesn’t want to give up their back health habits, so doctors often just give up and give their patients what they want. Still, this does not excuse the lack of effort along these lines in our hospitals and medical schools. Also, more should be done to spread the Gospel Message in our hospitals as well…
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Thank you for your kind words and support. I really appreciate it very much!
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I’m fine with open dialogue, but that includes presenting and at least understanding things from the GC’s perspective and why the significant majority of SDAs and GC delegates believe that the GC did the right thing during the pandemic and with the original 2015 statement on vaccines.
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
So, it’s impossible to be a doctor who promotes the best of modern medicine as well as the best natural remedies and still be a follower of Jesus? Really? Not even Ellen White could be saved then…
