Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@pauluc: Paul, I want to assure you that I do not know everything. I am sure I am mistaken about certain things, and I have changed my mind on over the years, when I have seen good reason to do so. However, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water either, and I truly see what I consider very good evidence for an ID/creationist position. However, you are correct – our positions are often determined by our presuppositions. And yet I can honestly say that I have tried to develop my presuppositions on the basis of valid evidence. I honestly believe that Jesus Christ was and is who He said He was, and I believe that all reality in the universe finds its focus in Him.
I didn’t mean to show hubris in the statement I made about intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if I came across that way! Actually, that thought did not originate with me. It originated with Richard Dawkins! Richard Dawkins has real disdain for theistic evolutionists because he believes that evolution logically requires atheism, and therefore, theistic evolutionists are being dishonest.
I am not condemning you in what I am about to say, but with Clifford Goldstein, I must say that I have a hard time understanding a desire to embrace both Seventh-day Adventism and Darwinian evolution, because I consider them completely antithetical. Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have held that they were raised up by the Holy Spirit to combat Darwinism. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists believe they have a divine mandate to combat Darwinism. I guess I fail to understand the desire to be a part of a denomination that champions creationism so strongly when there are other denominations out there that are open to Darwinism. Please understand, I’m not telling you what to do with your church membership, and I am not judging you. If you truly love Jesus as your Savior and Lord, you are my brother in Christ, despite our differences! But trying to embrace both Darwinism and Adventism sort of strikes me like a Jew wanting to be a member of the Nazi Party. It doesn’t make sense to me. Furthermore, I left a liberal, Darwinian denomination to become an Adventist because I wanted to get away from it. And there are many other Adventists who feel the same way. We don’t want to be driven out of our church again!
You ask me, “how many fundamentalists pursuing graduate studies do you know who have remained fundamentalists in the face of data?” Well as I already told you, as an Adventist, I prefer to call myself evangelical rather than fundamentalist, because I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. But I have two masters degrees myself – one from an Adventist institution and another from a non-Adventist institution, and I have remained a conservative, Bible-believing Christian. Furthermore, I know many others who have done the same. There are many highly educated Seventh-day Adventist Christians who are convinced creationists, and that includes those who are educated in the sciences. For example, consider Dr. Ben Carson. He went through undergraduate studies at Yale and also through medical school, and he is a convinced creationist. The same holds true for Dr. Ariel Roth. And outside of Adventism, there is Dr. John Sanford, who for many years was a renowned biology professor at Cornell University. He is a convinced creationist. Paul, a lot of us have gone through graduate school, and our faith (which is based on evidence) has grown stronger, not weaker. That was certainly my experience. And there are more highly educated creationists out there than you seem to realize.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
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.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Dear Professor Kent,
Two thoughts – although it appears in the NIV, your pluperfect – “the water had gone down” – is really unwarranted, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Gen 8:3 in the NASB simply states: “At the end of the one hundred and fifty days, the water decreased.” There is no reason to make it any more complicated than that, and this statement accords perfectly with the idea that the flood crested on the 150th day. By the way, this is not “Bob Helm’s suggestion,” as many expositors hold this position.
Secondly, where in the world did you get the idea that every bird species was on the ark and that those ancient birds had identical diets to modern birds? Please don’t fall for the hoary falsehood that creationists believe in a fixity of species. Modern creationists agree with Darwin that new species emerge via natural selection. We do not equate baramins or “created kinds” with species, and we believe that micro-evolution occurs within the baramins.
An apology to PUC
This was a good move on the part of Educate Truth. Their posting of the video was wrong, but it also takes courage to admit to doing wrong, and I commend them for that.
