Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@george: George, faith that is not based on evidence is not “fine.” Blind faith in anything is silly! However, you need to go back and read my last post, because, at least for me, my belief in ETs is not simply based on that one vision from EGW. I mean, hey, Brigham Young stated that God gave him a vision of beings who live on the sun, and I don’t believe that for one minute! So no, EGW’s vision is not scientific because it cannot be falsified – at least not yet. Perhaps some day – either before or after the second advent of Christ – evidence for ETs will turn up, but that hasn’t happened yet. However, I do see evidence of real honesty in Ellen White’s writings, and I also see evidence that she learned certain things that she could not have known apart from her visions. So these factors lead me to conclude that she was a genuine Christian woman who was gifted by the Holy Spirit with a particular spiritual gift, namely prophecy. This isn’t blind faith; it is faith that is informed by evidence. And because Ellen has proven trustworthy in other areas, I suspect that she was telling the truth about her vision of other worlds. With that said, my belief in ETs is not simply based on EGW. As Sean has pointed out, the Bible does speak vaguely of certain beings that seem distinct from angels – like the sons of God. And to me, this suggests that there are other beings out there. Furthermore, it seems quite anthropocentric to suggest that human beings are God’s special pets and that He designed this entire universe without creating life elsewhere. Honestly, I very much dislike anthropocentrism because it is a form of pride, and in the past, it has steered science in the wrong direction. Is my belief in ETs a doctrine that is derived from EGW? No! Absolutely not! EGW is not my rule of faith, and she did not claim infallibility. So if someone else doesn’t believe in them, I have no bone to pick. Is my belief in ETs empirical – in the sense that it is falsifiable? No again – because science is not advanced enough to determine empirically if ETs exist. Remember – I simply see evidence for them in certain writings that, on the weight of evidence, I consider reliable, and I also believe that anthropocentrism is usually a dead-end street. So yes, I believe in ETs, but I am not dogmatic about their existence.
However, you did not respond at all to the main question I posed. Why do you believe in abiogenesis when it has never been observed and when there is no evidence whatsoever for it?
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I will be out of town for a while. I may or may not have computer service. If not, I’ll pick up on this discussion when I return.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
George, why do liberal critics of the Bible almost always assume that the Hebrews borrowed the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians? Why couldn’t the copying have been from the Hebrew original, as Sean has suggested above. Or maybe there was an earlier account (perhaps oral) from which the Babylonians and Moses both borrowed. I fail to understand the logic of assuming that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonians because there is no evidence for it. To me, it comes across as an unwarranted and ad hoc attempt to undermine the authority of scripture.
Furthermore, the Babylonian stories are not the only ones that resemble Genesis. Even North American and Polynesian cultures have their own native flood accounts that are remarkably similar to the one in Genesis. There is also a Chinese symbol for a ship that depicts a boat with 8 mouths in it (Remember – Noah’s family had 8 members on the ark). How do you explain all this? Why assume that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians when the flood tradition is worldwide? And how did such a story become known all over the globe. . . unless it represents a collective memory of a real and extremely ancient event?
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@george: “Why should the word of God have any redactions whatsoever?”
George, if someone believes that God dictated the words of scripture and that the actual words are inspired, that is a legitimate question. Muslims make such clams about the Koran, which is why they frown on even translating it. But please bear in mind that I am not a fundamentalist (at least in the sense that the term is commonly used today). I believe that the ideas in scripture are inspired, but not the words. As time passes, names of locations, etc. change, and sometimes editing is needed for effective communication. You seem to attribute a higher view of scripture to me than I actually hold. Yes, I have a conservative view of scripture, but not a fundamentalist one.
You also asked about embellishing different accounts to make them agree. But before I can comment on that, I first need to pose the same question I have asked you twice before. Where do you have any clear evidence of different accounts coming from different hands?
I realize that you directed your questions to Dr. Pitman, but they really concerned material that I had posted to you, so I decided to reply. Dr. Pitman can also have a stab at 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.
