@OTNT_Believer: Science isn’t about providing ‘proof’. …

Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Sean Pitman.

@OTNT_Believer:

Science isn’t about providing ‘proof’. Science is about providing consistency and predictive value while remembering that there is always the potential for effective falsification… – Sean Pitman

Fine, but you still have not answered my questions.

1) What would constitute a falsification of the literal 6-day creation model?

2) If falsified, would you then throw out the literal 6-day creation model?

A convincing demonstration of the clear weight of empirical evidence being most consistent with the theory of millions of years of life existing and evolving on this planet would effectively falsify, scientifically, the theory of a literal 6-day creation week.

If such evidence were presented to me such that I became convinced of its superior weight vs. what I currently understand as the weight of evidence, I would not only leave the literal 6-day creation model behind, but the SDA Church as well…

As an interesting aside, Clifford Goldstein has told me that he would do the same thing. Like me, he isn’t in the Church for social reasons. He is in the Church because he became convinced of the rational truth of the doctrinal positions of the SDA Church as superior to anything else he had ever heard. The same is true for me till this point in time…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
@Professor Kent:

Here is my position on how our faith should be formed, and how it relates to a simple “Thus saith the Lord:”

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Romans 10:17 (NIV) – note the absence of any reference to empirical evidence from DNA, from fossils, from the enterprise we know as “science”

He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” Luke 16:31 (NIV) – note the priority of God’s word versus empirical facts detected by our senses

Prophecy is based on known history professor – i.e., empirical evidence. Comparing a prophetic statement with known history to find fulfillment is a form of science – of determining the “predictive power” of the prophet’s prophecies. That’s what scientists do. They determine the predictive power of their hypotheses/theories.

In short, if you have absolutely no empirical basis for your faith in the Bible as “God Word”, you really have no rational basis for your belief in the Bible vs. the belief of someone else in some other “good book” as the true “Word of God”.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— Ephesians 2:8 (NIV) – note that faith is a gift from God, and not acquired through the study of empirical evidence, of science

I appreciate your arguments for the value of empirically-blind faith, but the ability to reason scientifically or rationally is also a gift from God. Everything we have the power to do is a gift of God. This doesn’t mean that faith in the credibility of the Bible vs. any other book or person who claims to speak the “Words of God” is something that is automatically given to us humans. It isn’t. We are actually told, in the Bible, to “test the Spirits” to the point of testing the claims of God himself against empirical reality to see if what he says, or what the Bible claims he said, really does come true. (Malachi 3:10 NIV)

Before faith in the Bible, in particular, can be gained as the true Word of God, it must offer some kind of empirical evidence that has general appeal to the God-given intelligence of candid minds that are otherwise open to truth as they are able to comprehend it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
@OTNT_Believer:

Religious belief has never been entirely rational, and there is no reason to expect it to be. Not all truth is accessible by rational means.

The well-known Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, tells a story of a lady standing up during one of his lectures and explaining to him that religion is not rational and is not supposed to be rational. In response, Ravi said, “Would you like a rational or an irrational response?” – to which the lady stood silent for a moment before sitting down without further comment…

To argue that important truths are completely irrational is itself an irrational statement that is essentially nonsensical. The God of the Bible constantly strives to appeal to the rational candid mind as well as the heart. He is quoted as saying, “Come, let us reason together.” – Isaiah 1:18 NIV.

The Christian God is not a God of confusion, but of order and reason. He has given us rational minds for a reason. As Galileo once opined, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
@Professor Kent:

More from Richard M. Davidson, Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics

The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.

Does anyone here disagree with one of the leading SDA theologians, representing the Adventist Biblical Research Institute, on these points? You can read more here: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf

There is a difference between being able to interpret what the Scriptures are saying vs. being able to determine if the Bible is or is not really the “Word of God”. Coming up with a correct interpretation of a text, of what the authors were trying to say, is not the same thing as a demonstration of the Divine origin fo the text. Such a demonstration needs additional evidence beyond the text itself in order to be able to rationally pick the Bible over all other competing texts/options as the true Word of God.

Please, for Christ’s sake, do NOT base your beliefs in God and His word based on what the fossils say!

Or on any other empirical evidence for that matter- right? Why take on the potential for possibly being wrong? Why take on any risk?

Well, upon what then do you base your choice of the Bible over other self-proclaimed mouthpieces for God?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com