You seem to confuse observations with science. Science is

Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.

You seem to confuse observations with science. Science is more than observations or “facts”. Science is all about making predictions about what will happen in the future with the use of hypotheses or theories that hope to explain the few observations and facts that are currently in hand. Now, some hypotheses and theories are very well established, supported by a great deal of evidence. They can therefore be used, with a great deal of confidence to predict what will happen in the future. Does this mean, therefore, that these hypotheses and theories have been “absolutely proven”? that they are no longer open to even the potential for additional testing and falsification? Absolutely not. All scientific hypotheses and theories, no matter how well established, are open to additional testing with the very real potential for falsification – for being wrong.

We don’t send people to the moon based on some probability of how the elements of the universe works. We are absolutely sure, and wouldn’t speculate with human life based on some obscure probability.

You’re mistaken. We most certainly have sent people to the moon based on the known probabilities of various scientific hypotheses and theories. There was no 100% guarantee of success. While it is possible to reasonably believe that the success of a hypothesis will be very high, it is impossible to know with absolute assurance that the hypothesis being used is actually true and that its success rate in predicting the future will always be 100%. That’s just not possible in science.

So the evidence we use for scientific functions are by way of “infallible evidence” and not probabilities. This is precisely because they can be proven by experiment. And then repeated again and again.

It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat an experiment, and get the same result. This still does not equate to “absolute proof” of the hypothesis. It is still possible that future experiments will falsify your hypothesis. That your experiment will not always hold true as predicted.

To claim we use this same method to affirm biblical declarations when God states that He created the world in 6 days is a real stretch of the imagination.

I never said that this particular biblical claim is empirically testable. It isn’t. However, there are many other claims in the Bible that are in fact open to empirical testing with the very real potential for falsification. And, such empirical scientific tests do in fact have an effect on overall biblical credibility.

No can “prove” the first cause and science generally doesn’t even try to do it.

Again, science cannot absolutely “prove” any hypothesis or theory. However, it is most certainly possible to establish the weight of evidence in favor or against a given hypothesis or theory – to include the nature of the “first cause”. It is most certainly a scientific question to ask, “Is there any empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that the ‘First Cause’ was intelligent?” This question is not at all outside of the realm of scientific investigation or empirical support. It is not just a “metaphysical” question…

At this point, Sean, I am not sure you really understand what the real issue is in the creation vs. evolution discussion is. The issue is “first cause”. Period. Other points are simply side issues about the first cause. You have gone out of your way to claim the bible does not claim self affirmation. Or, self validation. And apparently you think you can use science to determine the “first cause” and thus there is no need for “self affirmation” by scriptures.

The Bible can claim anything it wants. That doesn’t, in and of itself, make it true. After all, a lot of religious books claim a great many things. Why should anyone believe the claims of the Bible? Again, the Bible does not “swing the hammer of history”. Historical events are independent of the claims of the Bible. They can therefore be used to test the claims of the Bible, to see if the Bible is or is not accurate in its claims regarding historical events that can in fact be investigated. This is external evidence based on scientific-style investigation.

Apparently you don’t understand that even the Bible itself appeals to external empirical evidence to support its claims to the intelligence and nature of the “First Cause”. David claims that the heavens declare the glory of God; that there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard (Psalms 19:1-3). Paul says that God’s invisible qualities, to include his eternal power and divine nature, are clearly seen by what has been made, by the actual work of God’s hands, so that all are without excuse; even those who’ve never read the Bible (Romans 1:20).

Do you believe what the Bible says along these lines or not?

All you are doing is creating more and more confusion about the basic issue of first cause. The bible reveals the first cause. Science doesn’t deal with it. Simply because it can not do so.

Not true – as the Bible itself explains regarding the strong evidence of divine design in the works of nature.

Science may work endlessly to negate the biblical revelation of the first cause. But it has no alternative statement that can be verified.

What science can show us is which direction the turtles are going. If you’re looking for absolute proof, no, science cannot deliver some kind of absolute demonstration. However, science can deliver the weight of evidence for a God or, at the very least, a God-like designer behind what we see in nature.

What you seem to be arguing, on other hand, is that the work of God’s own hands is not detectable as requiring an intelligent mind at all. Given your belief that God does actually exist and that He is the Creator of all things in nature, this is quite an amazing argument you’re presenting. You seem to be suggesting that it is impossible to tell, by looking at the works of God’s own hands, that they were in fact deliberately created by an amazingly intelligent mind. How can you possibly suggest such a thing?

As bible Christians, as I have clearly stated, we use bible prophecy to validate the biblical claims.

That’s true. I think biblical prophecy is very good evidence, empirically evidence, of its divine origin.

The bible presents its own evidence for its validity.

No, it doesn’t. What the Bible does is make a claim – that’s it. The evidence for the truth of this claim is external to the Bible in the form of historical evidence.

You can oppose this reality from now on, but it won’t change the facts of the matter. The miracle of creation by the word of God is beyond scientific testing or validation.

What is not testable is how God did it. However, even the Bible explains that the works of God’s hands speak of their divine authorship through empirically-testable evidences. The “weight of evidence” clearly supports the Bible’s claim that God created the universe and everything in it.

We prove it by bible prophecy.

Biblical prophecy, while very good evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, is not the only evidence for the Divine origin of the universe and everything in it – not by a long shot. Again, you don’t need the Bible or biblical prophecy to know that God-level intelligence and creative power was required to bring the universe, and living things, into existence.

And this method is more than adequate to convince any individual seeking truth with an open and willing mind, as the Holy Spirit (God) validates the truth of it.

Since when has the Holy Spirit directly told you the truth of the Bible? – or the truth of the creation story? Has God sent you an angel to explain it to you, or told you Himself in vision? Or perhaps, like my Latter-day Saints friends, you just have a warm fuzzy feeling deep down inside whenever you hear the “truth”?

Well, I have to tell you that I don’t believe that God generally works this way. God expects us to use the minds and intelligence that He has given us to search out the Bible as it compares to the supporting empirical evidence that He has also provided. While the Holy Spirit may in fact guide the sincerely searching mind, God doesn’t just spoon feed us the answers to these questions by some sort of direct revelation through the Holy Spirit. We are not born with this knowledge. It takes some work and study, on our part, to acquire it – at least for those like me who do not claim to be a prophet of God who speaks with Him in such a privileged manner.

Sean Pitman

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
As I’ve pointed out before, there are a lot of books claiming to be “The Word of God”. How do you know that the Bible’s claim, among so many competing options, is true? – based on a feeling? That’s how you know? Did an angel show up and tell you that the Bible’s claims are true? – or how to interpret it? Were you born with this knowledge? or did you have to learn it? If you had to learn that the Bible’s claims are true, upon what did you base your learning? – and how did this basis of your learning help you distinguish the true from the false?

At first approximation, the Bible is just a book making a bunch of claims. How can you tell the difference between the origin of the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? In order to determine that God had anything to do with its creation, you have to read it and make judgments about it. If you base your judgments on some kind of deep feeling or gestalt sensation of truth, I say that this isn’t a reliable basis for a leap of faith. However, if you base your acceptance of the claims of the Bible on rational arguments that make sense given what you already think you know to be true, then you have yourself a much more useful and helpful basis for faith… as the Bible itself recommends.

God does not expect us to believe or have faith without sufficient evidence to establish a rational and logical faith in the claims of the Bible. Have you not read where the Bible challenges the honest seeker for truth to “test” even the claims of God? (Judges 6:39; Malachi 3:10; John 14:11; etc…). We are not called to blindly accept anything as true, not even the Bible. The claims of the Bible must be tested to see if they truly are what they claim to be – i.e., the Words of God.

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
I haven’t changed my mind. I still see atheism as the most logical alternative to Christianity and any other view of God if such views of God are only based on a wishful-thinking type of fideistic faith. Why should one be a Christian or believe that the Bible is anything more than a good moral fable? – or believe that God exists any more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? For me, it’s because I see real empirical evidence for God’s existence as well as His Signature within the pages of the Bible and within the universe and the world in which I find myself.

You see, we are called to have an “intelligent trust” in God’s Word – a trust that is based on something more than a deep feeling or internal gestalt. Otherwise, you’re really in the same boat as my LDS friends with their “burning in the bosom” argument for faith in what is or isn’t true.

Now, it is possible to doubt the Divine origin of the Bible while still recognizing the Divine origin of the universe – based on the weight of empirical evidence. This is where quite a number of modern physicists are in their view of God. And, it is a reasonable position given the honest conviction that life and its diversity can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection over long periods of time to produce what we have today on this planet.

So, there are different “levels” of recognition when it comes to seeing God’s hand behind various phenomena. And, once His Signature is recognized at a different level, the implications and responsibilities change for us. It’s a “first step” toward God to recognize a Divine Signature behind the origin of the universe and the natural laws that govern it. However, once one recognizes the Divine Hand behind the origin of the Bible and the credibility of the Bible’s empirical claims, one is called to experience different responsibilities and privileges in a higher level walk with God – “in Spirit and in truth”.

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
Again, there are somethings that, if seen in vision, cannot be easily misinterpreted. If you see that “there was light” then “there was darkness” and that this pattern of was used to mark off a series of seven days, that’s pretty hard to get wrong or misinterpret. Mrs. White also confirms these biblical claims by arguing that God specifically showed her that the creation week was a literal week “like any other”.

So, what needs to happen now is see which claims among competing claims are most likely true. Where does the “weight of evidence lie”? If the claims of neo-Darwinism are true, then the claims of the Bible aren’t just a matter of honest misinterpretations – they are either completely made up fabrications or they are outright lies – from God.

I will say, however, the Darwins observations did help to shed light on the Bible. For example, there were those who believed in the absolute fixity of the species – that nothing could change and that no new species of any kind could be produced by natural mechanisms. Darwin showed, quite clearly, that this interpretation of the Bible was false. So, Darwin’s discoveries did shed light on the Bible’s comments about reproduction “after their kind”. However, the Bible sheds light on Darwin’s claims by showing the clear limitations of Darwinian-type evolution – to very low levels of functional complexity over a short period of time (i.e., not hundreds of millions of years of evolution).

Again, we have science and Scripture shedding light on each other…