Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.
Dont be daft Sean. Of course I think that my position is superior to other positions I might hold but as to their superiority to positions anyone else may hold I lack to necessary arrogance to assert that. I have no issue with using evidence we all do that but very few believe and proclaim that scientific or empirical evidence leads inexorably to the Adventist position as you seem to do.
So, you do believe your position to be superior, that the evidence is on your side, but you’re too polite and humble to say so? No wonder I was so confused! What then are your arguments in favor of Christianity vs. other competing options? – or would these be too arrogant of you to mention? And, are these personal arguments for the superiority of your position required as a basis for your faith? If these arguments could be shown to be in error, would you give up your faith? If not, are you a Christian, rather than a Latter-day Saint, based primarily on your internally-derived “gestalt” feelings of truth which are never in error? – rather than any kind of empirical “weight of evidence”?
To do that you must and do corrupt the usual definition and accepted process of science, vilify those that practice science in conventional ways and proclaim your genius as the arbitrator of what is true in science. I think this evidences a certain lack insight and self-awareness.
I fail to see how explaining my disagreements with mainstream scientist is equivalent to “vilification”? I’ve never said that those who disagree with me are evil or vile. I’ve specifically said that I believe most who disagree with me, like you, are honest and sincere – however ignorant they may be 😉
I also fail to see how my definitions of “science” or “scientific processes” are “corrupt”? After all, I’m the one suggesting that even if science is limited to that which can be “measured, quantified and studied methodically” in a manner open to testing with at least the potential for falsification (which I believe is a generally accepted definition of science) that such limitations can be used to demonstrate the need for intelligent design to reasonably explain various phenomena. You’ve even agreed that my “highly symmetrical polished granite cube” is “blindingly obvious artifact” of deliberate design – even if found on an alien planet like Mars. You just don’t agree with my conclusion that the weight of empirical evidence for design in nature goes well beyond some vague “gestalt” feeling for Divine design (despite the fact that the Bible makes the same claims that I do regarding the meaning of the empirical evidence for very high-level design in nature and in the written Word). The same is true for the majority of physicists who also see the signature of some God-like intelligence and creative power behind the extraordinarily precise fundamental constants of the universe – for the very same empirical reasons.
What then have I said about science that is so “corrupt”?
My contention is that all come to God by virtue of his revelation. As I recall your story of crisis of faith in the army lead you to take on a highly conservative and fundamentalist position on origins and Christianity. Is that so? Did you through understanding science come to that position or did you take on that position after you accept Christianity? My contention is that all and I suspect you as well as Craig first felt the calling of God and then from that experience a certain world view was constructed that included for largely cultural and historical reasons highly conservative views of science and religion.
That’s not how it happened for me. I was willing to leave Christianity behind if I saw that the weight of evidence favored Neo-Darwinism. I had no overwhelming need to remain in the Christian faith. I’d rather know the truth than remain in a nice fairy tale.
Not everyone is like that, I understand. There are those who would prefer to believe a lovely lie than to live with an ugly truth. Not me.
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…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
