Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by Professor Kent.
@ Sean Pitman
In other words, the SDA Church should be fine with scientists teaching modern evolutionary theories as the most likely story of origins to our young people?
No.
“according to it factual validity to the degree warranted by the natural evidence”?
Yes.
In short, haven’t you just argued that because faith and science are separate enterprises, the promotion of The Theory of Evolution, in SDA schools, by professors of science, shouldn’t really be a big deal at all?
No.
After all, the SDA faith shouldn’t be at all affected by empirical/scientific evidence, modern or otherwise… right?
Right.
Since rational faith can withstand the weight of empirical evidence, the more contrary empirical evidence the better! – right?
Wrong.
Why does the Church even bother with trying to support is position with the use of any kind of empirical evidence whatsoever?
Some people think it’s important. And that’s okay. I have no problem with someone saying, “here is something consistent with our beliefs” so long as the facts are correct.” But I object when you say, “this is consistent with our beliefs and if you don’t teach it, I’m going to call you a thief on the world wide web.”
If the Bible is its own basis for authority, if it cannot be wrong, even in theory, why subject it to any kind of empirical test at all?
Why don’t you ask the SDA Biblical Research Institute this question. Or Elder Ted Wilson. I didn’t invent “sola scriptura.”
Again, you seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth. You appeal to the modern sciences of archeology and history as a basis for the validity of Biblical prophecy and its Divine origin (i.e., with the use of modern empirical evidence), but then claim that such empirical evidence really isn’t needed as a basis of faith nor is the weight of empirical evidence, as often referenced by Mrs. White, a basis faith in the Divine origin of the Bible?
Okay.
Why do you also challenge nearly every single empirical basis brought forward in support of the SDA view on creation and the Noachian Flood? – if you’re such a big supporter of the actual historical truth of such positions?
Most of the “evidence” is cherry-picked, exaggerated, and/or factually incorrect. One’s faith will falter when it is built on sand. Why not spend time building it on the rock instead? Rather than devote countless hours studying modern science, why not get on your knees and read the Bible instead?
Professor Kent Also Commented
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Hello out there!!! Are there ANY readers who actually agree with SDA Fundamental Belief #10–besides me?
“This faith which receives salvation COMES THROUGH THE DIVINE POWER OF THE WORD and IS THE GIFT OF GOD’S GRACE”
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
@ Inge Anderson,
Dr Zinke makes very clear below that he was unconsciously using the Catholic approach:
“Without realizing it, I was using a method that came from the major theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas. For him, theology rested upon the Bible AND nature, the Bible AND reason, and the Bible AND church tradition.”
Ahem…this is actually the very approach that Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias is pushing, which happens to be EXACTLY what Sean Pitman and Bob Ryan are pushing. What have you been reading? I suggest you go to the article above and see what Pitman actually says about this approach. Catholic? That’s an interesting observation.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
And you think you and those of like mind are doing the Church a service by telling everyone that the great weight of scientific evidence is in clear opposition to the beliefs of the SDA Church? -but that this doesn’t matter to those who have true “faith”?
There is considerable evidence against a short-term chronology, and most SDA scientists concur with this. I sorely wish things were otherwise. However, if Satan was able to manipulate the evidence, and more and more evidence accumulates to suggest that life is ancient, where have YOU lead your disciples? You really think that modern science is more trustworthy than God’s own words?
This is what you want our science teachers to teach in our schools?
Our science teachers need to teach modern science and its limitations. They need to teach where it disagrees with SDA interpretations of the Bible–and with respect. They need to teach that we have some support, but without inventing “just so” stories to reassure students that modern science confirms scripture.
At one time creationists taught that the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is false (I was taught this). When we learn that certain “facts” we were taught were wrong, many give up on their faith altogether. Those who developed a personal relationship with God are much less likely to become derailed when well-meaning apologists, with all their “evidence,” prove to have some of their “facts” wrong.
What does the SDA Church really want for it’s young people?
I think the Church wants to develop a scripture- and experience-based faith in its youth. Evidence and interpretations from modern science will change, but God never does.
Do you really think that the SDA President, Elder Ted Wilson, supports your view?
My view aligns with FB #10: that faith is a gift from God and formed from the power of his word. I would be surprised if he disagrees. But I think you should personally inquire what he thinks. I suspect he would be VERY interested to learn your position.
How about the organized SDA Church at large?
FB #10.
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Nic Samojluk: No wonder most creationist writers do not even try to submit their papers to such organizations.
Who wants to waste his/her time trying to enter through a door that is closed to him/her a priori?
You have no idea what you’re writing about, Nic. As it turns out, there are in fact many of us Adventists who “waste” our time publishing articles through doors that open to us a priori. Even Leonard Brand at Loma Linda, a widely recognized creationist, has published in the top geology journals. I mean the top journals in the discipline.
The myth that creationists cannot publish in mainstream science is perpetuated by people who simply do not understand the culture of science–and will remain clueless that they do not understand it even when confronted with their misunderstandings. Such is human nature.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Pauluc,
Your questions about conservation genetics are very insightful. I don’t understand how all these life forms were able to greatly increase in genetic diversity while simultaneously winding down and losing genetic information to mutations. Sean seems to insist that both processes happen simultaneously. I had the impression he has insisted all along that the former cannot overcome the latter. But I think you must be right: God had to intervene to alter the course of nature. However, we can probably test this empirically because there must be a signature of evidence available in the DNA. I’ll bet Sean can find the evidence for this.
I’m also glad the predators (just 2 of most such species) in the ark had enough clean animals (14 of each such species) to eat during the deluge and in the months and years after they emerged from the ark that they didn’t wipe out the vast majority of animal species through predation. Maybe they all consumed manna while in the ark and during the first few months or years afterward. Perhaps Sean can find in the literature a gene for a single digestive enzyme that is common to all predatory animals, from the lowest invertebrate to the highest vertebrate. Now that would be amazing.
Wait a minute–I remember once being told that SDA biologists like Art Chadwick believe that some animals survived on floating vegetation outside the ark. Now that would solve some of these very real problems! I wonder whether readers here would allow for this possibility. Multiple arks without walls, roof, and human caretakers.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Ellen White said, “In the days of Noah, men…many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians [presumably referring to humans] perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history…”
Sean Pitman said, “All human fossils discovered so far are Tertiary or post-Flood fossils. There are no known antediluvian human fossils.”
Ellen White tells us that humans and dinosaurs (presumably referred to in the statement, “a class of very large animals which perished at the flood… mammoth animals”) lived together before the flood. Evolutionary biologists tell us that dinosaurs and humans never lived together. You’re telling us, Sean, that the fossil record supports the conclusion of evolutionists rather than that of Ellen White and the SDA Church. Many of the “very large animals which perished at the flood” are found only in fossil deposits prior to or attributed to the flood, whereas hunans occur in fossil deposits only after the flood (when their numbers were most scarce).
Should the SDA biologists, who are supposed to teach “creation science,” be fired if they teach what you have just conceded?
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
For those aghast about the LSU situation and wondering what other SDA institutions have taken out bonds, hold on to your britches. You’ll be stunned when you learn (soon) how many of our other schools, and which ones in particular, have taken out these bonds. You will be amazed to learn just how many other administrators have deliberately secularized their institutions besides Randal Wisbey, presumably because they too hate the SDA Church (as David Read has put it so tactfully).
Be sure to protest equally loudly.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Sean Pitman:
So clearly you believe that science can explain supernatural events. Congratulations on that.
