Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@Pauluc: I am sorry for taking so long to respond. I had forgotten that I posted these comments last month. Pauluc, here is my response to your numbered questions:
1) I believe that Christianity can certainly be supported by logic and empirical evidence. However, another factor enters in here – human depravity – which makes people hate God and exercise blind prejudice against Him. This is why the Bible insists that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As He works faith in us, the Spirit breaks down the prejudice of the sinful heart, but He uses logic and empirical evidence to accomplish this end. So apologetics does play a part in the Spirit’s converting work.
2) As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I believe that the Bible is infallible, but not inerrant. There is a distinction between these two terms. “Inerrant” means without the slightest error of any kind. “Infallibile” means that the Bible won’t fail you. It is a sure guide in all matters that pertain to salvation. Unlike fundamentalists, Seventh-day Adventists usually affirm the infallibility of scripture, but not strict inerrancy. Look at the first fundamental belief. It mentions infallibility, but not inerrancy.
3) I believe that ID can be devoid of religion. For example, one leader in the ID movement is Michael Denton, who wrote the book, “Evolution: A theory In Crisis.” Dr. Denton is an agnostic. However, I believe that ID fits very nicely with Christian faith.
4) I will simply answer “yes” to this question.
5) I think that when faced with natural phenomena, we should certainly seek natural causes first. However, I am not totally comfortable with the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural.” For me, a miracle is simply an unexplained event that strengthens my faith in God. It seems to me that God often performs miracles by working through nature in unusual ways. For example, the Genesis Flood made have been a very unusual natural event that God used for His purposes. The destruction of Sodom may have been a tectonic eruption that rained burning sulfur and other compounds down on the city. I believe Ellen White suggests as much. Admitting these things does not exclude God; it simply means that God was using nature to His end. However, I also believe that God designed and created natural laws, so He can bypass them if He wishes. But even in such cases, God does not work magic, nor is He capricious. His work is always logical, even if we are too lacking in intelligence to understand it. For these reasons, I am not sure that a strict definition of methodological naturalism is viable. With regard to peer reviewed literature, I think it is quite valuable, but I also think it sometimes excludes genuine scientific data that conflict with reigning scientific paradigms, as they were defined by Thomas Kuhn in his book, “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.” Furthermore, as scientific research is increasingly published on the internet, traditional peer reviewed journals will probably become obsolete. So no, I do not believe that peer reviewed literature, as it currently exists, constitutes the canon of scientific knowledge, but I do respect for the peer reviewed literature.
6) That Christ was Yahweh in human flesh must be accepted on faith. But even with regard to this point, there is strong evidence that Christ was an extraordinary individual, including evidence that He rose bodily from the dead. So while a confession of Christ’s Deity does require a leap of faith, it is not a blind leap of faith because it rests on certain logical inferences.
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.
