@george: George, faith that is not based on evidence is …

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?

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.