Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.
You’re wrong [about the “value” of blind-faith]. Give it up.
If so, what is the value of evidence when it comes to faith? Do you actually believe that evidence is required for faith? That it has a necessary part to play in establishing faith?
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. You and I agree that God exists, so there’s no point arguing that or why.
There is a point to understanding why you believe that God exists. For me it has to do with the weight of evidence for His existence – vs. the “evidence” for Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is faith in God’s existence and personal interest in us just a form of wishful thinking or not?
This question is key to this entire discussion. Why do you think I’m constantly asking you why you actually believe in God’s existence and the Bible as the true Word of God? How do you know that you’re not praying to a figment of your own imagination? – without using evidence to support your faith as a basic requirement of your faith?
Where we appear to disagree the most is (1) why we accept Young Life Creationism (YLC);
You, because of your faith in the Bible as the Word of God despite any and all evidence that might be presented to the contrary. That is why I ask you, over and over again, why do you believe the Bible is in fact the true Word of God among so many competing claims? Why choose the Bible? – without some basis in empirical evidence?
You do not like to respond to this question for some reason…
(2) what our differing approaches mean regarding our belief in God; (3) how the evidence stacks up;
You, along with the vast majority of mainstream scientists, have been taken in by the claims of neo-Darwinism. You actually believe that there is a huge mountain of evidence in opposition to the claims of the Bible. You are in very good company here. But, for many people, such a position rationally undermines the credibility of the Bible’s claim to be the true Word of God…
I would agree with this logic if I actually saw that the weight of evidence really did oppose the claims of the Bible. Rationally, the Bible could not be the true Word of God if many of its key statements regarding historical realities could be effectively falsified…
(4) which of our approaches SDAs officially subscribe to;
The SDA Church, as an organization, expects and has requested that all science teachers in our schools actively support and promote the empirical evidence favoring the SDA position on origins. They have taken this stand, obviously, because they see the evidentiary basis for faith…
and (5) how authoritative Ellen White is on matters of science.
So, now you can pick and choose what was and what was not inspired in the writings of someone you admit was a prophet of God based on empirical evidence? Why not do the same thing with the writings of the Biblical prophets? After all, that’s all that those like Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, and many at La Sierra University are suggesting…
Your problem is that you lump all of Mrs. White’s statements together. You do not make a distinction between statements of her own opinion and those where she claims she was either shown something directly in a vision from God or told something directly by God. When it comes to origins, she claims to have been directly shown certain key elements regarding the origin of life on this Earth and the nature of the Noachian Flood. These are key elements in this discussion. Likewise, if these key elements can be shown to be effectively falsified by the empirical evidence, the credibility of her claim to have been directly inspired by God in such a privileged manner is effectively undermined.
So, what you’re doing in your constantly bringing up supposed challenged to the Biblical view of creation, without highlighting the many many features of the planet that support the Biblical perspective, is undermining people’s faith in the credibility of both the Bible as the true Word of God and in the writings of Mrs. White where she claims to have been directly inspired by God with privileged information.
I know you are sincere in your efforts and beliefs. However, regardless of your own personal sincerity, your efforts are misguided and will result in harm to others and even to yourself. Your sincerity will save you in the end, but your influence may influence others to reject God and His Word.
I accept YLC (or most elements of it) largely because I believe the Genesis account is what God communicated to us, and I find Exodus 20:11 especially compelling. The fossils and modern day biogeography are irrelevant to me. In essence, I accept YLC on God’s word.
Which is fine as long as you have some other rational basis in empirical evidence to accept the claims of the Bible to truly be from God. What is your “weight of evidence”?
Beyond this, consider carefully that your own personal “weight of evidence” may not do it for someone else. Others, who do not have your experience and background, will often be strongly influenced by claims for the supposed weight of empirical evidence against the claims of the Bible… since most do not have a sufficient background to understand that the weight of evidence strongly supports the Biblical perspective.
It is wise, at this point, to ask yourself if the disciples of Christ had more or less faith in Him as the Son of God before or after the empirical evidence of His Resurrection from the dead was given to them? Consider that the entire theme of the New Testament hinges on the clearly understood reality of the witness of the Resurrection…
The same is true for us today. Arguably, we have far more empirical evidence for the Bible, through fulfilled prophecy and archeological discoveries and the evidence of the amazing irreducible complexities of the universe and of living things, and other such evidence, than the disciples of Christ had. Such evidences are vital to supporting a rational faith in the Bible as the true Word of God – just as vital as the empirical evidence given to the disciples of Christ were to establishing their faith in Him.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
The Bible makes claims about the future. It does not cause the future. It therefore is not “self-validating”. It’s just a book after all. It can be read, but it cannot itself act to perform any tasks. Therefore, it’s claims, if they are to be rationally understood to be “true” must obviously be supported by external evidence based on the historical sciences. In other words, its own claims regarding history are validated by external sources – based on independent evidence that comes from outside of itself. How is this concept not self-evident?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Professor Kent:
Let’s get a few things straight. I have not attacked the claims of scripture regarding the “the recent origin of all life on this planet, created within just six literal days, and the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood.” All I did was point out that the physical evidence supporting flood geology has serious problems.
That is an attack on Scripture. When you attempt to undermine the empirical claims of Scripture as being contrary to the weight of empirical evidence, you are in fact undermining the rational basis for Scriptural credibility.
Don’t you recognize that in claiming that the weight of scientific evidence clearly favors the neo-Darwinian perspective, a perspective which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical perspective, you do in fact undermine the credibility of the Biblical account? Your faith-only approach, regardless of the evidence, simply doesn’t do it for many people. For many many people such arguments as you are presenting do in fact undermine the rational basis for their faith despite your own ability to be able to have faith despite the weight evidence. Many people see this as irrational – and for good reason.
Faith, without a need for a basis in the weight of evidence, is irrational by definition. It is blind-faith in that it cannot be rationally distinguished from a form of wishful thinking.
And you were the one, not me, who has asserted that the flood did not create all of the layers of the geological column.
Of course. I fail to see why this might be a problem?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Eddie:
By implication Nebuchadnezzar won the battle with Egypt – just as Ezekiel prophesied. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the Babylonians would have recorded the event…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
