On that logic you should not have any issue with …

Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Sean Pitman.

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

Indeed. I have no problem with working on the Sabbath as a policeman or a firefighter, etc. I work as a doctor on the Sabbath as well. Some jobs simply have to be done by somebody – even on the Sabbath. Jesus himself commented on this situation noting, “Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? (Matthew 12:5). The Sabbath command is not against doing necessary work for the service of others, but doing purely personal work or otherwise unnecessary work that could wait for another day.

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

You’re the one trying to have it both ways! – not me. I think that those who claim that some jobs are necessary in this world, but who aren’t willing to do these jobs themselves, are being inconsistent. I for one would not ask anyone else to do what I’m not personally willing to do.

2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets.


This is where it gets really strange. 3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.

Intelligent design is no more “magic” for God from his perspective than it is for you from your perspective. The fact is that the Bible is very very clear that God does in fact step in and act, on occasion, above and beyond what the mindless natural laws themselves can explain. You do the same thing. You can create using your own powers of intelligent design to produce artifacts which cannot be explained by any mindless natural mechanism. There is no “magic” here – unless you want to call your own abilities to create beyond what natural law can explain “magical” – which in a sense it is.

The fact of the mater is that the universe does contain artifactual features – to include the precisely balanced fundamental constants of the universe as well as the machines of living things that function at a very very high level of informational complexity. Such machines cannot be explained by mindless natural processes at all – period. They do in fact require intelligent input to explain their origin – intelligent input that occurred well after the origin of the universe.

This is a very Biblical concept and not at all “strange” from a truly Christian perspective.

4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.

Again, the science in hand strongly supports the contention that life could have have either arisen according to the mindless laws of nature nor could it have evolved any diversity beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity – without the additional input of very high-level intelligent design (or “creative intelligence” if you prefer). Those are the facts in hand.

Beyond this, I really can’t believe that either you or Rogers would deliberately equate a “process” involving inanimate materials with a process that requires suffering and death for sentient creatures. Morally speaking, these are not remotely in the same ballpark! Only a true sociopath wouldn’t be able to see the difference…

5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.

Oh please. The entire medical science of forensic pathology takes into account both natural laws and processes as well as the very real potential for deliberate and intelligent manipulation of those laws in a very artifactual manner. There is no “incongruity” here at all. The notion that the detection of true artifacts of deliberate design is beyond the realm of science is absolute nonsense. Such concepts are used everyday in medical science as well as many other mainstream sciences. The only difference when such concepts are applied to the origin of living things or the origin of the fundamental constants of the universe is that it is known that humans weren’t involved. Otherwise, the scientific arguments are identical.

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 think you do actually recognize that there’s a problem with the suffering and death of sentient animals. You don’t like it. A true sociopath would either get pleasure out of animals suffering or be completely indifferent to it. And, it sounds to me like you are painting God as a sociopath – someone who deliberately creates a painful world from the very beginning in order to highlight His own goodness. To me, that would be something only an evil monster would do. I could never love or respect a God like that. And, you yourself are not comfortable with the problem of suffering. You don’t like it. You just think it is somehow a necessary evil that is unrelated to any moral fall of mankind. You think that it is somehow necessary to teach us to appreciate the good – and therefore God had to create an evil world to teach us this lesson. Again, that’s a very Mormon way of thinking.

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.

Let’s see here, you’re the one claiming a title of “Christian” while arguing that God is the one who deliberately created an evil world in order to teach us to appreciate the good. You’re the one claiming that there was no moral fall of mankind that explains the evil in this world – that it was all God’s doing from the very beginning. You’re the one equating a process involving only mindless matter, like a bunch of rocks rolling down a mountainside, with a painful process involving the suffering and death of sentient creatures – like there’s no moral difference or that such a comparison isn’t any big deal. You’re the one suggesting that mindless natural processes can actually explain the origin of machines that function at an extremely high level of informational complexity – despite the complete lack of demonstration or logically tenable evidence along these lines outside of intelligent design. You’re the one who claims that if God did act above and beyond the mindless natural laws that He originally created that this would be equivalent to an appeal to “magic” – despite your own abilities to create beyond the powers of these very same natural laws and despite your own claim that God does in fact exist and was likely responsible for the origin of the universe and its fine-tuned features (but somehow can’t do anything else? not even what you yourself can do?).

Talk about living in the twilight zone! I think you’re seriously confused and very inconsistent in your thinking. I don’t think you really understand the implications of much of what you’re saying here…

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
I think she was most likely trying to address the idea that God couldn’t make something out of absolutely nothing… that God had to start with something. I don’t think she was addressing Wilcox’s ideas at all. I think she was simply explaining that God doesn’t have to start with anything – that He can and did in fact ultimately make everything out of absolutely nothing – by the speaking things into existence.

The entire universe seems to be, ultimately, based on information from the Mind of God – i.e., “The Word”. What we see, feel, touch, smell, and taste really has no independent existence outside of the Mind of God and His constant care so that everything exists and moves and has its being “in Him.” – like a mental projection.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea:

It matters to me too, and I wish you all the best in your own efforts along these lines…

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Because, “as they read” must be interpreted by all that the Bible has to say about creation week. It is never wise to take any Biblical statement out of context. And, in this case, I think the context clearly supports a pre-existing universe (despite the “stars” not being mentioned until Day 4 of creation) and does not clearly exclude the possibility of pre-existing basic material for the Earth. Even Peter appears to argue that water pre-existed the creation week since he says that the Earth was made or brought “out of water” (2 Peter 3:5). Taking everything into account, I just don’t think it possible to be dogmatic against the possibility of pre-exiting basic material prior to the creation week.

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

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

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

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

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

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