Do you really think that supernova and the big bang …

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

Do you really think that supernova and the big bang were peaceful gentle and loving. That there was no violent or wasteful events in the 13 billion years of the creation of the universe?

What is non-loving or wasteful about a “big bang” where no sentient creature is hurt or killed? You, like Rogers, mistakenly equate an event where only non-living matter is involved with “violence” that does actually involve sentient living creatures. That’s a ridiculous comparison on its face! You and Rogers should know better than to try to float such nonsense. Think about what you’re saying here! No one cares if a bunch of rocks are blown up. However, everyone would care if a bunch of human babies or even dogs were tortured and killed or blown up “just because”. Surely you can tell the different?!

The natural is always self seeking and selfish with little regard for anything beyond our survival.

Mindless nature is not self-seeking. It’s just mindless is all. It functions according to set laws and cannot do otherwise. That’s it. If you cross these laws, you’re going to get hurt and even killed. That’s a fact.

However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death. Nothing can life forever separated from God. Only God is eternal and only God has life within Himself. Everything else borrows its existence, its life, from God.

That is the essence of sin and the natural man. The nature of carbon based live as the progeny of a process of creation is not peaceful or non-violent.

Oh please. Mankind was originally made, in a sinless state, from the very dust of the ground as carbon-based life forms. Yet, there is absolutely no mention of suffering or death before the moral Fall of mankind when man chose to step away from the constant regenerative power of God. Your argument that God originally created man in a “violent and non-peaceful” world is absolutely nonsense from the Christian perspective. Such an argument is inherently anti-Christian.

That is the message that the incarnate God seeks to convey. That the transcendent way is the way of the Cross. Of love unto the point of death as Philipians 2 would have it. God ask us to rise above the tooth for a tooth that is the way of the world. To transcend evil just as He did with generous Grace and Love. By never repaying evil with evil. Without that Adventism and Christianity is worthless.

While it is true that God does call us to be loving and to not follow the results that selfishness that rebellion against His laws produces, it is not true that God originally created this world as a violent non-peaceful place before the moral Fall of mankind! You’re completely confusing these points… blaming God for coming up with the idea of violence and selfishness affecting sentient creatures to begin with! You’re the one crediting God with the very origin of all of this evils suffering – rather than putting the blame on Satan and the deliberate rebellion of Adam and Eve (whom you don’t believe ever literally existed)! You simply have no concept of the reality of a moral Fall of mankind and the changes that resulted in this world as a consequence of that Fall or Rebellion of mankind against the governance of God. That is why your view of God and of Christianity is so twisted…

I may be wrong but I certainly will not take as any value the word of a man who though he may well worry about the death of a swallow and may well shed a tear as he puts a bullet in an man’s brain for the sake of following orders or because of his republic.

Oh please. Even you appreciate the need for a police force to uphold law and order. Beyond this, who are you to accuse me of blindly following orders? You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Just so you know, I was put up for court martial in the army, not once, but twice for refusing to follow what I thought were immoral orders. Admiral Black, the highest ranking chaplain in the services at that time, was actually going to testify at one of my trials. But, when they found out he was coming, they dropped the charges – unfortunately. I would have liked to have seen what would have happened when he showed up.

In any case, I do answer to God first, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see the need for governments with military and police forces to maintain ethical laws and civil order whenever and wherever these are threatened.

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