Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.
I find this statement extremely strange because the process of life and death DID NOT give us the physical substance of the universe. You write as if stars and nebulae are alive, but that is absurd! Hydrogen gas is not alive! And comparing the simplest and lightest element – hydrogen – with the DNA code is also very strange. Statements like this are one reason I do not find your arguments very convincing.
Also, no one has called you an “animal hating sadistic psychopath.” But I do find your belief in a loving God and natural selection as God’s instrument of creation to be incongruent. So did Charles Darwin in his final years, and so do Quentin Smith and Richard Dawkins, among others. In fact, Quentin Smith bases his atheism precisely on this point!
I really cannot understand you Sean.Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.
Since my name is mentioned here, I feel I need to respond. I did NOT develop my views from reading Dr. Sean Pitman! My views are the result of my own study, including taking some college geology courses to supplement my training in theology. However, I am happy that Sean and I agree on the major points, but that doesn’t mean we are in collusion. Sean and I actually differ on a few things: 1) He wants to end the flood at the K/T boundary, whereas I tend to think the flood/post flood boundary is in the upper Cenozoic. 2) On the other hand, my view of radiometric dating is a little more positive than his, although I still recognize problems. 3) You have stated that Sean considers angels to be material beings, whereas I believe they are spirits (Heb 1:14).
What you call the “twilight zone” is actually the mainstream Adventist position. I never saw evolution articulated in any Adventist publication until the mid 1990s when “Spectrum” published a pro-evolution article based on the argument that humans and apes share certain pseudo-genes – which has been emptied of substance since the publication of the Encode Project data.
Grace
Paul, I am glad you ended your post with this powerful word. If you have put your faith in the grace of Christ and received Him as your personal Lord and Savior, then, despite our differences, I regard you as my brother in Christ. . . because we are not saved by perfect knowledge or correct views on every issue. We are saved by Jesus Christ, in spite of our flaws, mistakes, and sins. . . and I have plenty of them!
With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.
PEACE!
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Randolph Belsky: I am not necessarily convinced that “Yam Suph” refers to the Gulf of Suez (it could not have been the Gulf of Aqaba), but it was a significant body of water. It was certainly not a salt marsh! As the Designer of natural law, God could have suspended the laws of physics to cause the water to part and pile up into walls, but the wording of the account suggests to me that He probably accomplished this through an unusual use of wind. However, regardless of whether He used wind or suspended physical laws, this was a genuine miracle (a very striking event that strengthened faith).As far as the creation and establishment of the expanse (or atmosphere) on the 2nd day of creation week is concerned, this was direct action on the part of the Creator, and no natural law can account for it. God clearly transcended natural law in this case. He spoke, and it was accomplished!
I don’t know how much water fell from the sky during the flood. It was a significant amount, but probably quite secondary to what came from the fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11-12). I suspect that the flood was a very unusual natural event that God utilized to accomplish His purpose of cleansing the earth from evil and violence. If that was the case, perhaps it was initiated when a series of asteroid impacts caused runaway subduction of the sea floor and the consequent splitting of an antediluvian super continent. This theory is called “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” (CPT), and as a theory, it could certainly be wrong. But it does provide a possible scientific mechanism for understanding the entire flood scenario. However, the suggestion that the flood was a natural event that can be studied by science in no way minimizes God’s use of this event. God is the Lord of science, and He often uses nature to accomplish His purposes.
In conclusion, I believe that God’s intervention in the world/universe can transcend natural law, but it can also utilize natural law, and I suspect that both of these factors came into play in the instances you have mentioned.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
“After the knowledge, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork. It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintanceship with the mind of God therein expressed.” (James Prescott Joule)Paul, the physicist James Joule held the exact philosophy of science that I am proposing. Would you like to pose that same question to him: “Why should you be interested in any science? It seems a bit messy to worry about facts!” Unfortunately, he’s not here to defend himself because he died at the end of the 19th century!
Joule’s perspective was very common before methodological naturalism gained its stranglehold over science. For some strange reason, you are willing to tolerate his likes, but if a modern researcher expresses this same opinion, you want to kick him/her out of the scientific community and ask the rather insulting question, “Why should you be interested in any science?” I honestly don’t understand your mindset. It baffles me!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.
Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.
